• 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

If one does not feel that people are important, it allows one to not feel responsible for society.

It's not acidic, it's REALITY.

Why is that so hard for people to accept? Let's say you own Tashah's Manufacturing. Now, you had to get money to start this Co. Those people are called investor's. They now have entrusted you with their money not out of CHARITY but because they expect a profit. If you don't provide that, they'll cut their losses and you'll go out of business.

So, ten years go by, you've grown into a big company with multiple factories in many places. Life is good! But there is some economic turmoil, maybe a big contract you had went under, you got out bid for another. Profits are falling, investors are getting worried, the board fears big losses...

You are faced with laying off 10% of your workforce maybe closing a plant...

Or losing the company.

Now, who is expendable? The workers. Welcome to reality Tashah. I'm not cold hearted, I just don't DENY THE TRUTH.

I think that explains my point, and why you... are so wrong in your commentary.
 
I think that explains my point, and why you... are so wrong in your commentary.

If faced with cutting my own salary/benefits or laying people off, I'd cut my own salary and benefits.

The issue that many have isn't that those above them are making more than them, it's the insane amount more that they are making, enough money for mansions and a full staff at home. But give the employees coffee? Pffft, that'd mean not buying a house for their dogs, so those people who make them so much money? They can go screw themselves.

You seem to forget the company could not function without employees. It's not a dominant relationship, it's a symbiotic one.
 
If faced with cutting my own salary/benefits or laying people off, I'd cut my own salary and benefits.

The issue that many have isn't that those above them are making more than them, it's the insane amount more that they are making, enough money for mansions and a full staff at home. But give the employees coffee? Pffft, that'd mean not buying a house for their dogs, so those people who make them so much money? They can go screw themselves.

You seem to forget the company could not function without employees. It's not a dominant relationship, it's a symbiotic one.


Class warfare at it's best. You make that claim, but that's because you aren't making the decisions. It's easy to SAY you'd cut your own salary to keep from laying off people, but that's naive populism speaking.

THE INVESTORS want the cuts, to keep their money safe. Because those workers/portion of the company are not profitable.

(yes I know this kinda went off target a bit but I had to defend against the silly commentary of Tashah calling my statement acidic.)
 
Least it's supposed to work that way, but sadly we've got a large number of folks that think business are greedy horrible institutions that should be forced to pay workers huge salaries and great benefits because it's unfair the investors and upper management are rich...
We also have a few knucklehead conservatives here with a notion that it is not a union's raison d'entre to get the best contract possible for their client. They also conveniently ignore the fact that *both management and labor* agree to the terms of a signed contract. They also somehow imagine that union negotiators wish upon a star and click their heels three times and presto... the utopian union contract drops out of the sky and falls into their arms like a baby dove. Poor management simply has to buck up and accept the union coup dé grace.

Malarkey. In labor negotiations, both sides agree to sign on the dotted line.
 
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.

The dispute involved the town of Orange and the local chapter of the United Public Service Employees Union.

The board determined the town retaliated against the union members for comments they made at a finance meeting in 2009.

The day after that meeting, First Selectman James Zeloi eliminated the free coffee and milk and the following day ended “Dress Down Friday.” Zeoli told The New Haven Register that he pulled the plug on the coffee to save money and stopped casual Fridays because some employees were abusing the privilege.

“It shows you how crazy state government has become,” Connecticut Republican Party Chairman Chris Healy told Fox News Radio. “You’d almost laugh at it, if it wasn’t so serious in tone.

This is just another black eye on state government.”

Aww... they got coffee...

The bankers got hundreds of billions in tax payer money for screwing over the tax payer... and still get billions in bonuses despite not even remotely paying back the bail-outs they got...

A bit of fake rage to deflect attention away from the bigger scandal that no one on the right dare talk about?
 
We also have a few knucklehead conservatives here with a notion that it is not a union's raison d'entre to get the best contract possible for their client. They also conveniently ignore the fact that *both management and labor* agree to the terms of a signed contract. They also somehow imagine that union negotiators wish upon a star and click their heels three times and presto... the utopian union contract drops out of the sky and falls into their arms like a baby dove. Poor management simply has to buck up and accept the union coup dé grace.

Malarkey. In labor negotiations, both sides agree to sign on the dotted line.

You showed me how you think, I'm not impressed at all. Tashah, your hypothetical company I used in my previous reply to you? Let's say the workers are unionized. They come to you and say they want X, Y and Z changes. You know this will hurt your bottom line... but they threaten to strike and lock out the company. What are you gonna do?

Yeah, exactly. You are forced to make the changes or go out of business. The extreme cases end up like GM and Chrysler, driven into the ground by Union demands.
 
Last edited:
You showed me how you think, I'm not impressed at all.
Ditto. You also ignore the fact that the teachers union here has agreed to accept cutbacks. Walker rejected it. This isn't about budget management. It's nothing less than union busting on the part of Walker and state Republicans. Wal-Martconsin.
 
Class warfare at it's best. You make that claim, but that's because you aren't making the decisions. It's easy to SAY you'd cut your own salary to keep from laying off people, but that's naive populism speaking.

THE INVESTORS want the cuts, to keep their money safe. Because those workers/portion of the company are not profitable.

(yes I know this kinda went off target a bit but I had to defend against the silly commentary of Tashah calling my statement acidic.)

The point being made is that a company is nothing without its workforce. It sucks for the people in charge, but that's simply how a company works.

So, what, because I'm not greedy enough, I'm therefore naive? That's a pretty weak argument.
 
I'm not a rabid Hannity of Beck fan and I'm not really all that fond of Unions. I think they once served a very valid purpose, but they've grown bloated and corrupt, and the purpose they once served is now served by a lot of other factors. In short, I see them as archaic and no longer necessary.

If that's what you really believe, then you are terribly misinformed about the important role unions play in protecting American workers from corporate greed. You call yourself 'slightly liberal'? The liberal side of you should be ashamed of your remarks.
 
The polls are bull**** and polls aren't news.

Ladies and gentlemen, the above is an example of a person who has no argument. Like a 5 yr old sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "I can't hear you, lalalalalalala". That's all you have? Poll after poll after poll shows a clear majority of Americans support unions. And all you can say is that polls are bull****? I'll be sure to use your own words against you next time I see you boasting about a poll that supports your view.
 
Ditto. You also ignore the fact that the teachers union here has agreed to accept cutbacks. Walker rejected it. This isn't about budget management. It's nothing less than union busting on the part of Walker and state Republicans. Wal-Martconsin.

He rejected it because the CB powers, are PART of the problem. Something you ignore. He's trying to keep the Teachers Union from using that power to regain what they are about to lose and bust the budget again. Public Sector Unions should be BANNED. Don't ask me why, talk to FDR, talk to George Meany.

“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.
The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.
F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

So keep up the populist talking points Tashah. It's amusing to watch you flounder.
 
The point being made is that a company is nothing without its workforce. It sucks for the people in charge, but that's simply how a company works.

So, what, because I'm not greedy enough, I'm therefore naive? That's a pretty weak argument.

You're Naive in believing it's an issue of greed.
 
Name the head of any Union in the United States that is not a MARXIST....just ONE.

Somebody seriously needs to put down the Glenn Beck pills.

images
 
Last edited:
Supporting the existence of unions and hating them for becoming too greedy are two different things. I support the existence of unions., I however think many have gotten too damn greedy for their own good.

That's what negotiations are for. Business, towns, states, etc are also part of the negotiating process. Unions don't just get what they demand. If the town doesn't want to pay for coffee, then they should deal with that issue when contracts are negotiated.

Whether or not the town provides coffee should only be up to the town.Employees are not not owed coffee.

Apparently, the board that made the ruling disagrees with you. I guess the town should have negotiated that issue before they signed the contracts.
 
Last edited:
That's what negotiations are for. Business, towns, states, etc are also part of the negotiating process. Unions don't just get what they demand. If the town doesn't want to pay for coffee, then they should deal with that issue when contracts are negotiated.



Apparently, the board that made the ruling disagrees with you. I guess the town should have negotiated that issue before they signed the contracts.

FDR called public sector unions unthinkable. For a reason. Do you know the reason?
 
Negotiation is a process where both parties dance around each other until they can agree a compromise acceptable to both parties. The union goes in with an aspirational upfront demand, and a bottom line for which they will settle, and the management who insist they have no money, but will eventually "find" some amount. So long as both bottom lines overlap, then honour can be satisfied on both sides, and agreement can be amicably reached. Whiners without access to the full facts should be ignored.
 
Comrade, you are so wrong.

You don't get it do you? Business, and for that matter GOVERNMENT.... do not exist to give people kooshy jobs with great benefits. They exist to provide profit to the people who have a vested interest in the company. Or to the PEOPLE.

Least it's supposed to work that way, but sadly we've got a large number of folks that think business are greedy horrible institutions that should be forced to pay workers huge salaries and great benefits because it's unfair the investors and upper management are rich (that's what class warfare does, makes people stupid) and when it comes to public sector jobs that the Government should be a high pay/benefit job creator.

That's not true anymore. Businesses used to have to live by the profit motive only, but after too many scandals where company employees said "it is what made the shareholders the most money", that has now been changed. Businesses are supposed to be ethical entities like any person.

FDR called public sector unions unthinkable. For a reason. Do you know the reason?

How do you feel about the New Deal?
 
Last edited:
Employees have no legal right to have coffee provided by their employers.
I am not sure that anyone has tried to make this case. But, you have defeated it quite soundly. gj

Here's a link to a .pdf of the decision of the court for anyone who is interested

http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/4490.pdf

The actual allegation is that the "...Town of Orange the Town had violated Section 7-740 of the Municipal Employee Relations Act MERA or the Act..."


ETA:
I think that court doc has typo and means section 7-470 and not 7-740.
 
Last edited:
That's not true anymore. Businesses used to have to live by the profit motive only, but after too many scandals where company employees said "it is what made the shareholders the most money", that has now been changed. Businesses are supposed to be ethical entities like any person.
What worthless gibberish is this? How is it unethical to lay people off to make a profit??

How do you feel about the New Deal?

What does that matter? If I don't agree with someone 100% of the time it doesn't count? Hmm?

You once again prove why, you just can't be taken seriously.
 
What worthless gibberish is this? How is it unethical to lay people off to make a profit??

You said that businesses and government exist for one sole purpose:

To make profits.

I said that you are incorrect. There was a time when that was true. There was a time when businesses could be sued because they acted in a manner that was a not to the benefit of the shareholder. This is not true anymore, as it is as much a job of a business to act ethically as it is to maximize profits. I am not sure how often this happens, but it is the case.

What does that matter? If I don't agree with someone 100% of the time it doesn't count? Hmm?

You once again prove why, you just can't be taken seriously.

You once again prove you can't have a discussion without attacking. Here is why I ask:

Every conservative in the world lately has been trying to rewrite FDR as some socialist who ruined the country, whose plans did nothing to help, and I have even seen him listed by conservatives as one of the worst presidents of all time.

I happen to think FDR was a great, though I do not agree with him on this issue. That is quite different from thinking he is the worst president ever and then quoting him when I find something that matches my ideals.
 
Let me prove my point further:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/70681-worst-presidents-all-time.html
Erod (Conservative) - FDR worst president
cpwill (Conservative) - FDR worst president
Silver Eagle (Conservative) - Appears to like FDR - good for him
The Prof (Conservative) - FDR worst president
Southern Man (Conservative) - FDR worse than Carter?
TurtleDude (Neo-Conservative) - FDR in list of the worst
Zimmer (Conservative) - FDR the worst
masonkiller (?) - FDR worst
OxymoronP (Conservative) - FDR the worst
cpgrad08 (Conservative) - Carter and FDR are the worst

I hope you can see why I am a bit weary of any conservative quoting FDR.
 
You said that businesses and government exist for one sole purpose:

To make profits.

I said that you are incorrect. There was a time when that was true. There was a time when businesses could be sued because they acted in a manner that was a not to the benefit of the shareholder. This is not true anymore, as it is as much a job of a business to act ethically as it is to maximize profits. I am not sure how often this happens, but it is the case.



You once again prove you can't have a discussion without attacking. Here is why I ask:

Every conservative in the world lately has been trying to rewrite FDR as some socialist who ruined the country, whose plans did nothing to help, and I have even seen him listed by conservatives as one of the worst presidents of all time.

I happen to think FDR was a great, though I do not agree with him on this issue. That is quite different from thinking he is the worst president ever and then quoting him when I find something that matches my ideals.

You asked that last question to try and play a stupid verbal trap game, and I ain't playin it. FDR had a really good point about Unions and the public sector. Whatever other tangent or crusade you are on is immaterial.
 
He rejected it because the CB powers, are PART of the problem. Something you ignore. He's trying to keep the Teachers Union from using that power to regain what they are about to lose and bust the budget again. Public Sector Unions should be BANNED. Don't ask me why, talk to FDR, talk to George Meany.

SO, with CB the teachers agree to concessions, but CB is the problem. Something there does not connect...

The reality is this has little to do with problems with unions, and everything to do with unions tend to represent and support democrats. So in the simplistic word of many conservatives, they are the enemy.
 
Back
Top Bottom