Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Henrin · Jun 11, 2012

jet57 said:
Yeah, that's why we shouldn't have sexual harrassment or labor laws or fair practices and standards. Hey; when you're rght you're right, you're right: you're just right.

Sexual harassment laws have so much to do with my point its unbearable. If you want to know what I think of them, then I think they are cry baby bull**** 99.9% of the time.

Henrin · Jun 11, 2012

jet57 said:
Which is why we have unions to begin with; thanks for helping to make a case in point.

So we have unions so people can assume loyalty has a meaning and instead of being involved in to better themselves they can instead demand and force the owners to do their bidding. Did I get it right? Or is it perhaps that has to do with their effectiveness and no so much why associations of workers exist. Hmmm..

Well, the rumor is that the "free market" world isn't doing to well these days because the "free market" world had no protections (even for themselves) in place to keep anything bad froma happening: deregulation is God send - ain't it??

Its appears to be working fine. What exactly isn't working? The only problem is that we aren't competitive and right now we just floating a bit on the fact of having more freedoms than china.

Catawba · Jun 11, 2012

Henrin said:
*Yawn* The fact is that if they are paying you they can fire you if you cost too much and no amount of twenty-five years loyalty changes it either.

If people are fine with getting paid $20 bucks a day for their work and living in poverty, then I am sure they will vote for those that wish to get rid of collective bargaining.

Catawba · Jun 11, 2012

Henrin said:
Sexual harassment laws have so much to do with my point its unbearable. If you want to know what I think of them, then I think they are cry baby bull**** 99.9% of the time.

This does help explain why your party consistently gets less than 1% of the vote in presidential elections. Thanks for the reminder!

Henrin · Jun 11, 2012

Catawba said:
If people are fine with getting paid $20 bucks a day for their work and living in poverty, then I am sure they will vote for those that wish to get rid of collective bargaining.

I think its funny watching liberals like yourself go on and on about UHC but then at same time think the government will only pay them $20 a day.

Catawba · Jun 11, 2012

Henrin said:
I think its funny watching liberals like yourself go on and on about UHC but then at same time think the government will only pay them $20 a day.

We don't have UHC do we? No, we have an insurance mandate that was proposed by the GOP as an alternative to UHC. And if you had read American history before we had unions, it wouldn't be quite as funny to you.

Dickieboy · Jun 11, 2012

jet57 said:
So, I would say, apply my definition and then answer Haymarket's post and see what you get.

I guess I fail to understand your ‘definition’ but maybe your overlooked the fact that I DID answer his post. Here is what I got:

haymarket said:
Thank you for a thoughtful answer. It is appreciated.

Thanks for playing…

Henrin · Jun 11, 2012

Catawba said:
This does help explain why your party consistently gets less than 1% of the vote in presidential elections. Thanks for the reminder!

Does it now? I like how you ran to voting numbers like that is worth anything to what we were talking about though.

Henrin · Jun 11, 2012

Catawba said:
We don't have UHC do we? No, we have an insurance mandate that was proposed by the GOP as an alternative to UHC.

And that has to do with my point how exactly?

And if you had read American history before we had unions, it wouldn't be quite as funny to you.

No, it would still be funny since that doesn't have to do with point either.

jet57 · Jun 11, 2012

Henrin said:
Sexual harassment laws have so much to do with my point its unbearable. If you want to know what I think of them, then I think they are cry baby bull**** 99.9% of the time.

That was an example of current laws in place to protect employees against uscrupulous emploerys: it was an exterme, but it made the point quite well. Collective bargaining protects employees against unscrupulous employers as well, ad said contracts tend to minimize an cheating employers desire to violate any of teh laws . . .

Funny thing: I don't know why coservatives and Libertaians (yourself notwithstanding) think that "open carry" is good, but collective bargaining is bad . . .

I just don't get that.

jet57 · Jun 11, 2012

Dickieboy said:
I guess I fail to understand your ‘definition’ but maybe your overlooked the fact that I DID answer his post. Here is what I got:

Thanks for playing…

Well, your answer didn't make much sense to me; so . . . And I can see here that you don't play very well.

jet57 · Jun 11, 2012

Henrin said:
So we have unions so people can assume loyalty has a meaning and instead of being involved in to better themselves they can instead demand and force the owners to do their bidding. Did I get it right? Or is it perhaps that has to do with their effectiveness and no so much why associations of workers exist. Hmmm..

Its appears to be working fine. What exactly isn't working? The only problem is that we aren't competitive and right now we just floating a bit on the fact of having more freedoms than china.

I have to go right now, so I'll be back in a couple of hours: this post is so rediculous it's actuall funny; so I'm going to think about my response for while.

Centinel · Jun 11, 2012

jet57 said:
That was an example of current laws in place to protect employees against uscrupulous emploerys: it was an exterme, but it made the point quite well. Collective bargaining protects employees against unscrupulous employers as well, ad said contracts tend to minimize an cheating employers desire to violate any of teh laws . . .

Funny thing: I don't know why coservatives and Libertaians (yourself notwithstanding) think that "open carry" is good, but collective bargaining is bad . . .

I just don't get that.

Collective bargaining isn't bad. Any group of people ought to be free to bargain collectively with an employer and negotiate a contract that applies to them only.

What is bad, however, is the government telling an employer that he must negotiate with this group, and that he may negotiate with this group and no other.

Dickieboy · Jun 11, 2012

jet57 said:
Well, your answer didn't make much sense to me; so . . . And I can see here that you don't play very well.

What specifically was ambiguous? And appearantly he seemed to have no problem understanding...wonder why?

Henrin · Jun 11, 2012

jet57 said:
That was an example of current laws in place to protect employees against uscrupulous emploerys: it was an exterme, but it made the point quite well.

Try other people from bothering them 99.9% of the time.

Collective bargaining protects employees against unscrupulous employers as well, ad said contracts tend to minimize an cheating employers desire to violate any of teh laws . . .

If you say so.

Funny thing: I don't know why coservatives and Libertaians (yourself notwithstanding) think that "open carry" is good, but collective bargaining is bad . . .

How in the **** are the two topics connected?

I just don't get that.

Do you get how the two topics are connected? I sure as hell don't.

haymarket · Jun 11, 2012

MaggieD said:
Contracts will be honored. Contracts are, generally, two or three years long. You seem to think that when a teacher (or other public employee) is hired, the contract that's in place for that 2- or 3-year period should be in place for thirty years. Think about it, Haymarket. That's not the way it works. I think you know that, though.

Hypothetical: Teacher is hired under a contract promises "X $$" for their pension when they've fulfilled such-and-such. THAT promise is funded yearly. Let's say that same promise is in effect over two or three contracts -- and then changed. The law says that employee is entitled to the funding that was put aside for them during that initial contract. It in NO WAY guarantees that pension amount. Every contract negotiation is a new deal.

Baloney. If somebody works under contract which renews and continues over a thirty or forty year period equating to a pension - then that pension is a sacred contract.

haymarket · Jun 11, 2012

Henrin said:
So we have unions so people can assume loyalty has a meaning and instead of being involved in to better themselves they can instead demand and force the owners to do their bidding. Did I get it right? Or is it perhaps that has to do with their effectiveness and no so much why associations of workers exist. Hmmm..

that does not even make sense.

haymarket · Jun 11, 2012

Dickieboy said:
Given your proximity to ‘ground zero’ and your occupation I presume you are involved somewhat in this subject directly. What is the desired/proposed solution to this situation in Detroit? Given the reduction in population where will the funds come from to solidify the ‘contracts that have been in place between the legally constituted representatives…having fulfilled and met their obligations over thirty or forty years of employment’? Should the citizens of Michigan or the US be required to finance these locally promoted obligations?

Ps. Not looking for an argument but rather further insight.

You ask a good question. In the end, I believe what this comes down to is a simple question: are we a people of our word in which we honor our word, our promises and our commitments or are we not?

How we answer that says as much about America as anything we have ever done as a people and as a nation.

haymarket · Jun 11, 2012

Henrin said:
*Yawn* The fact is that if they are paying you they can fire you if you cost too much and no amount of twenty-five years loyalty changes it either.

Oh and btw check how the world market works again. You appear to missing the point of it.

EVERYONE: Please read this post from Henrin. Then read it again. Then read it again. Pay attention to every word he wrote.

The next time anybody identifies themselves or their ideas as LIBERTARIAN - remember this post. Remember what is behind it. Remember the type of society that this sort of ideological madness would produce.

Ask yourself is that the type of society I want to both live in and work in? Is that the sort of society you want your children and grandchildren to live in and work in?

Do we want a libertarian based society where you have a pension after thirty years but hardly anyone ever gets the thirty years in a job because they can get fired at 29 years, 11 months and 29 days because there is no loyalty and no union and no contract rights and no low to support you?

Remember that post. Remember what ideology is behind it.

Recognize the enemy. Deal with them accordingly repudiating their ideas and their ersatz ideology.

Captain America · Jun 11, 2012

Yo' Henrin! You got any fun plans for next weekend?

If so, thank the union.

LOL!

MaggieD · Jun 11, 2012

haymarket said:
Baloney. If somebody works under contract which renews and continues over a thirty or forty year period equating to a pension - then that pension is a sacred contract.

We agree! I never said otherwise. Read more carefully, Haymarket. If the contract is changed after five years, so be it. The amount that was actuarily needed to fund that pension each of the five years accrues to the employee. And the new deal is then in place. Pension contract law. Read it.

iliveonramen · Jun 11, 2012

I'd like to say differently but unions are getting crushed.

For people that think "Unions have lived past their usefulness"....you'll be able to test that theory. It's interesting this idea that all those laws that people bled and died for can't be rolled back...

cpwill · Jun 11, 2012

haymarket said:
EVERYONE: Please read this post from Henrin. Then read it again. Then read it again. Pay attention to every word he wrote.

The next time anybody identifies themselves or their ideas as LIBERTARIAN - remember this post. Remember what is behind it. Remember the type of society that this sort of ideological madness would produce.

Ask yourself is that the type of society I want to both live in and work in? Is that the sort of society you want your children and grandchildren to live in and work in?

one in which no one has the right to someone else's stuff? Yeah, I'll take that.

Do we want a libertarian based society where you have a pension after thirty years but hardly anyone ever gets the thirty years in a job because they can get fired at 29 years, 11 months and 29 days because there is no loyalty and no union and no contract rights and no low to support you?

It doesn't matter. We live in a world where the average length of time spent at a job is about 3 years. Unions failure to adapt to the changes in the workplace is one of the many reasons why they are dying. We also live in a world where defined-benefits plans have proven too unwieldy and expensive to maintain, and so we are switching to defined-contribution plans; which means for your employer, having an employee that has been with them for 29 years and 6 months is no different than an employee that has been with them for 30 years and 6 months, creating no fiscal demand for firing one or the other except their job performance.

Recognize the enemy.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I've got him about marked. It's a pretty easy test, you see. We are headed straight towards a fiscal cliff. States, Localities, even our Federal government face very real threats to our solvency. Anyone with their foot on the gas? That's the enemy

. Fortunately (see OP), one of them appears to be getting cut back down to size. Let us hope we are still in time.

Catawba · Jun 11, 2012

Only 11% of the US population are in unions (public and private), so it only makes sense to make them the scapegoats for the bad economy caused by deregulation of the banking industry. It makes perfect sense.................to the GOP.

Its known as sleight of hand. Some fall for it and some don't.

cpwill · Jun 11, 2012

haymarket said:
Could you please answer the question: do you support the honoring of the contracts that have been in place between the legally constituted representatives of the American people and the people contracted to work for them - having fulfilled and met their obligations over thirty or forty years of employment?

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Government is under no obligation to wreck the citizenry for the good of itself. And given that public unions were sitting at both ends of the table, and negotiating benefits of which we never had any chance of paying, I don't terribly see that they were negotiated in good faith to begin with
.

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

Unions will respond and their power will grow.

It depends on November.

More options

Henrin

Henrin

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Henrin

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Dickieboy

Henrin

Henrin

jet57

jet57

jet57

Centinel

Dickieboy

Henrin

haymarket

haymarket

haymarket

haymarket

Captain America

Jedi Master

MaggieD

iliveonramen

Pontificator

cpwill

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

cpwill