• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut Town Ordered to Pay for Union Workers’ Coffee

DiAnna said:
The main thing that hamstrings the public sector with unions is being forced to lay off based on seniority rather than merit. That's the biggie. That's it. When unions agree to accept lay offs based upon merit, the war will be over. Unfortunately, that means that seniority teachers (and others) who would not even be able to pass the teachers' exams that the current teachers must pass, who have records of performance mediocrity and ineffectiveness, must be kept.

In California, every budget cutting effort that tried to avoid lay offs has been taken to court by the unions, and in many cases overturned by judges who have no choice because of the tightly-locked union contracts that give unions the right to force lay offs (based on seniority) rather than allow budget cutting by furloughs, wage freeze or other methods.

The contracts have draconean clauses that make it impossible to make any cuts to union costs without the union's permission. Who ratified these draconean union contracts, with California public sector employees making more than their counterparts around the country? The overwhelmingly democratic legislature that depends upon union votes and union campaign contributions to keep their cushy jobs.

This is totally backward, tail-wagging-dog fiscal strategy based upon partisian politics and greed. It's got to stop sometime. Maybe this finally is the time.
Click to expand...

The reason for any seniority system is so that, when someone is close to being vested for pension, they cannot be laid off in order to kill his or her pension benefits. Without seniority, you see that kind of tactic employed every day. When I was let go by Texas Instruments, back in 1985, I was only 2 weeks away from being vested for pension. In spite of that, I still value my time with Texas Instruments more than I value the time I spent at my previous job with Lear-Siegler, where I was in the UAW, and where I hated every moment that I worked there.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
Another great reason to dump Unions, just add this ridiculous ruling to the list, that includes helping to put most States and the Federal Government in the economic dumpster.

As I see it State and Federal Wage and Hour laws, Minimum Wage Laws and OSHA cover all the real important issues.

If you don't like your job, work hard and get promoted or look for one you can live with.

Unions as I see it use Coercion to gain compliance with often unreasonable demands then defend lazy useless workers as we see in most DMV offices.
Click to expand...

Ah, spoken like a person who views people as fungible. Just another cog in the machinery (except these cogs are replaceable and not worth the maintenance that we give to capitol equipment).
 
DiAnna said:
Free coffee? Really? Wow. I became self-employed about 20 years ago, but when I worked in both the private and public sectors, employees had to contribute to a coffee fund to purchase coffee/tea supplies. Damn. No wonder every place is going broke nowadays. Do y'all know how much coffee costs now???
Click to expand...

I've worked at about 9 different companies over my career and the only one where I had to pay for coffee was NCR, and it was a union shop.
 
jamesrage said:
Its crap like this why people are starting to despise unions. The only thing an employer owes an employee is wages for the work they do and compensation for any on the job injury or job related injury.

Connecticut Town Ordered to Pay for Union Workers

A Connecticut town must provide their union workers free coffee and milk, according to a ruling from the State Board of Labor Relations.

The board also ordered town leaders to reinstate “Dress Down Fridays” for the union clerical and custodial workers.
Click to expand...

i'm so happy we spend money on a national relations labor board to make the critical, time-sensitive decisions like this.

:roll: and just the other day Haymarket was telling me what an important and helpful role the NRLB played.
 
The Barbarian said:
The by the same sense, the conservatives, are for less restrictive taxes on everyone, so there is no conspiracy or corruption, when we defend tax cuts ….. because according to your own assertion it is perfectly acceptable to defend something that is or may be wrong as long as it goes along with the general principles which you stand for.

The sad part is our government has taken this same stance, and because if it, is it any wonder why things are the way they are ?
Click to expand...

I have never claimed conspiracy for republicans defending tax cuts. Do you have any more failed arguments?
 
MrVicchio said:
Of course you will.

Because you cannot defend public sector unions.
Click to expand...

Yes I can. In fact, that's what I've been doing this entire thread. Go back and look at page one. I was the first to chime in defending unions. So tell me what FDR's take on unions has to do with my opinion or this thread. Oh you can't? That's what I thought. Thanks for playing.
 
danarhea said:
Here is the way I see it - The town should not be forced to purchase coffee for it's union employees, but they were already doing it under an existing contract, and that is the key. The town had AGREED to purchase the coffee. They were not forced to do so. A contract is enforceable by law. If the town does not like it, then they should renegotiate it in their next contract talks. However, they cannot arbitrarily take away what was already negotiated in a previous contract. That is illegal, and that is how the Labor Board ruled. As for the dress down Fridays, this is something that was not in the contract, but which by tradition had been done for quite some time.

What FOX News does NOT report is the actual motivation behind the actions of First Selectman James Zeloi, who is the one who ordered ending the free coffee and dress down Fridays. Someone disagreed with him during a public meeting, so he decided to retaliate. This story is all about the petulance of a man who went off the deep end, after someone disagreed with him in a polite way.

From the New Haven (Connecticut) Register:



But leave it to FOX News to conveniently ignore this fact, in order to promote it's own political agenda. This is just another of the many examples of why FOX News is not a real news organization at all, but a propaganda mouthpiece for the Republican Party. After all, if they were a real news organization, then they would truly report all the facts, and let us decide. That's their motto, right? Physician, heal thyself.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that the right to receive free coffee and milk, as well as dress like bums on Fridays was part of the union contract. Nothing in this story says this is the case. It appears that this was a perk provided for the eleven employees out of the goodness of the town's heart.

Now... what were you saying about Fox News and facts ???
 
Redress said:
Doesn't work either, since I am a liberal.
Click to expand...


:lol: Sorry for that....:2wave:


Let me offer you a more rational reason why liberals and democrats are standing up for the teachers union.
Click to expand...

K

We feel we are the party of the working class of America. Teachers are part of that working class, and unions represent a fair portion of that working class.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Do you have any idea how much of the American workforce is Union organized?

In 2010, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union--was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier

Union Members Summary
Click to expand...

12% that's it. Yet you claim that you represent ALL American working class?

I am part of that "working class" middle America you claim to represent, yet I wouldn't be a part of a union if it were free.

Explain that one.

Therefore we stand up for those we are supposed to represent. See, this makes sense, and there is no conspiracy or corruption.
Click to expand...

Oh there is plenty of corruption in Unions. Don't fool yourself. Public Sector unions have a direct hand in giving money to campaigns of the politicians that they will someday sit across the bargaining table from. That is the textbook definition of corrupt.


j-mac
 
Gill said:
You are assuming that the right to receive free coffee and milk, as well as dress like bums on Fridays was part of the union contract. Nothing in this story says this is the case. It appears that this was a perk provided for the eleven employees out of the goodness of the town's heart.

Now... what were you saying about Fox News and facts ???
Click to expand...

Unless you can back up your claim that coffee was not in the contract, it appears that you're making assumptions.
 
j-mac said:
Oh really? Do you have any idea how much of the American workforce is Union organized?



12% that's it. Yet you claim that you represent ALL American working class?

I am part of that "working class" middle America you claim to represent, yet I wouldn't be a part of a union if it were free.

Explain that one.
Click to expand...

Straw man. Never said that. 12 % is a fairly large portion of the working class however.

I chose to vote against being in a union myself. Explain that. It's about having choices.


Oh there is plenty of corruption in Unions. Don't fool yourself. Public Sector unions have a direct hand in giving money to campaigns of the politicians that they will someday sit across the bargaining table from. That is the textbook definition of corrupt.


j-mac
Click to expand...

You could say the same for any one or any organization that contributes to political campaigns of causes.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Unless you can back up your claim that coffee was not in the contract, it appears that you're making assumptions.
Click to expand...


Are you making the claim that it was in the contract? And if it was, what a bunch of BS.


j-mac
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
Unless you can back up your claim that coffee was not in the contract, it appears that you're making assumptions.
Click to expand...

Since I'm not the one that claimed it was in the contract, I will await proof of the allegation. I'm not in the habit of attempting to prove negatives.

The news story certainly didn't make the claim, which would be an important item to include it seems to me.
 
Redress said:
Straw man. Never said that.
Click to expand...


Wait, what? You mean you never said:

We feel we are the party of the working class of America.
Click to expand...


You most certainly did say that....What are you trying to pull here?

12 % is a fairly large portion of the working class however.
Click to expand...


:lamo In what world? It is slightly over 1 out of every 10 workers. That is damned near non existent. Hint: 1/10th of something is rather small.

I chose to vote against being in a union myself. Explain that.
Click to expand...

Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist.

It's about having choices.
Click to expand...

Then you should be for what Gov. Walker is doing.

You could say the same for any one or any organization that contributes to political campaigns of causes.
Click to expand...

Not quite. No business interest that I know of has a majority of workers in government sectors that could force a shutdown of government business like what has happened with the illegal strike in WI. What unions have here is purely corrupt and they should be forced to give that up.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Are you making the claim that it was in the contract? And if it was, what a bunch of BS.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm saying that any claim that coffee was not in the contract, unless backed up with proof, is an assumption. You seem to be certain that it was not in the contract. Well then, prove it. Otherwise I'll have to call bull**** on your own claim.
 
Who cares if it was in the contract or not, business should never be allowed to retaliate in this manner.
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
I'm saying that any claim that coffee was not in the contract, unless backed up with proof, is an assumption. You seem to be certain that it was not in the contract. Well then, prove it. Otherwise I'll have to call bull**** on your own claim.
Click to expand...


Why should something like coffee be in any contract to begin with? Unless ofcourse your unions see the taxpayer that pays their salaries as someone to soak endlessly with even the smallest of perks. Nice. This is why the public is turning against unions, and membership as a whole across the country is 12%.

j-mac
 
Gill said:
Since I'm not the one that claimed it was in the contract, I will await proof of the allegation. I'm not in the habit of attempting to prove negatives.

The news story certainly didn't make the claim, which would be an important item to include it seems to me.
Click to expand...

So because it wasn't in the story, you assume that it wasn't in the contract, and then put the burden of proof on your opposition when you can't back up your own claim. Is that about right?

Now, having said that, I think it's safe to assume that the board who ruled in the union's favor didn't just decide out of the blue that union members are entitled to free coffee that was never negotiated in talks between the town and the union.
 
megaprogman said:
Ok. The better word there is employer.
Click to expand...


No, the correct word here is taxpayer. This is the problem with PS Unions. And why FDR said that allowing them was "Unconscionable"...


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Why should something like coffee be in any contract to begin with? Unless ofcourse your unions see the taxpayer that pays their salaries as someone to soak endlessly with even the smallest of perks. Nice. This is why the public is turning against unions, and membership as a whole across the country is 12%.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Why should coffee be in a contract? You'll have to ask the union or town. But I don't think it's unheard of for such stipulatiuons to be negotiated. That's why they're called negotiations. Unions and city/town/state officials come to an agreement. You may not like it, but that's how it works.

By the way, poll after poll after poll shows that a clear majority of Americans stand behind unions. 60 - 70 % depending on the poll. Those are real numbers that can't be discounted. So, what were you saying about unions losing support? Your message got kind of lost in the numbers that prove your bogus claim wrong.
 
j-mac said:
No, the correct word here is taxpayer. This is the problem with PS Unions. And why FDR said that allowing them was "Unconscionable"...


j-mac
Click to expand...

The principal has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with retaliatory behavior. Unless taking away coffee is in the HR discipline policy, it should never be used for discipline.
 
j-mac said:
Wait, what? You mean you never said:




You most certainly did say that....What are you trying to pull here?
Click to expand...

You are trying to put things together in ways not intended by me. Being for the working class does not mean being only for unions.


:lamo In what world? It is slightly over 1 out of every 10 workers. That is damned near non existent. Hint: 1/10th of something is rather small.
Click to expand...

14.7 million is "rather small"? Really?


Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist.[/quote[

Oh yay, it's the "socialism" claim. Can't be a good right winger without bringing that one up every chance you get, no matter how irrelevant.

Then you should be for what Gov. Walker is doing.
Click to expand...

Taking away from working people? No, I don't think so.



Not quite. No business interest that I know of has a majority of workers in government sectors that could force a shutdown of government business like what has happened with the illegal strike in WI. What unions have here is purely corrupt and they should be forced to give that up.


j-mac
Click to expand...

This is pure exaggeration.
Click to expand...
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
So because it wasn't in the story, you assume that it wasn't in the contract, and then put the burden of proof on your opposition when you can't back up your own claim. Is that about right?
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I'm not the one that made the claim that it WAS in the contract with no proof offered. You see, the way it works is that if you make a claim that was not mentioned in the OP's news link, it's up to the person making the claim to prove it, NOT the one challenging the original claim.

Now, having said that, I think it's safe to assume that the board who ruled in the union's favor didn't just decide out of the blue that union members are entitled to free coffee that was never negotiated in talks between the town and the union.
Click to expand...

Now, what were you saying about ASSumptions ????
 
Redress said:
You are trying to put things together in ways not intended by me. Being for the working class does not mean being only for unions.
Click to expand...


What? :lamo I used your own words, not edited, not broken up, just as you typed them....And if you think that demo's speak for me you are sadly mistaken.


14.7 million is "rather small"? Really?
Click to expand...


Yep. BLS puts the size of the American workforce at about 138.5 million. You on the other hand boast 12 million as large. However, when you look at the entirety of the workforce it is 1/10th. If you want to believe that 1/10th is a huge number, then suppose you work for 1/10th your current salary and tell me how big it is.


Oh yay, it's the "socialism" claim. Can't be a good right winger without bringing that one up every chance you get, no matter how irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Break the argument then. So far all you have are veiled insults and a whole lot of nothing.

Taking away from working people? No, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

He's not taking anything away. in fact, he is making possible that competent teachers be paid more. Also, asking that they contribute half of what normal working people have to contribute for similar benefits. Wow, that's tough. You're just mad that he wants to end the ability for those people to welch on their word in the future and take back tomorrow what they supposedly concede today.

This is pure exaggeration.
Click to expand...

I understand, you have no reasonable retort. Come on back when you have an argument. Otherwise, I accept your concession in the debate.


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom