• 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!

Do you support ending all Public Sector Unions?

Do you support ending all Public Sector Unions?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 40.9%

  • No

    Votes: 38 57.6%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    66
liblady said:
seriously, are you having a stroke?
Click to expand...

seriousliy public asector younions are a threat to democracya . that's vor serious, youdindn't see eruope? when they did the austerity measures/? thos peopel are a threat that need to be gd3ealt with wbefore theyb ecoem real threat here.
 
Badmutha said:
Note to self: A Service Based Country is a state of Bankruptcy........
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

A forgotten factor is fairness..
The legislatures and executive branches of government are highly paid and have a pension that is many-fold more than mine..
Yet, I have not heard word one on these people sacrificing one thing..
We could take a chance and trust those in power, providing they sacrifice 20%, then we could give up our unions...for a set time frame of twenty years.
Fairness and some economic common sense must rule the day..Taxes must be increased if they have become too low, if in the past, there have been ill-advised tax cuts.
 
Hatuey said:
Add to that: police officers, garbagemen, mailmen.

These people produce nadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I say we ban those guys too and see how long any of them stick around.
Click to expand...
If we are going to ban anyone, its should be the law-makers themselves...What have they done to merit their high pay and pension and benefits?
20% of them should be cut, and the citizens will have to learn to be more self-reliant.
 
earthworm said:
If we are going to ban anyone, its should be the law-makers themselves...What have they done to merit their high pay and pension and benefits?
20% of them should be cut, and the citizens will have to learn to be more self-reliant.
Click to expand...

true....they have the union of ALL unions.
 
earthworm said:
A forgotten factor is fairness..[/qutoe

yeahal.ike maybe the afairness of not being publicly threatnee d with death, or having public empllyee union s threaten fyour family?

The legislatures and executive branches of government are highly paid and have a pension that is many-fold more than mine..[/qtuoe]

andtheat should becout next. not likel theyv'e earned it.

Fairness and some economic common sense must rule the day..Taxes must be increased if they have become too low, if in the past, there have been ill-advised tax cuts.
Click to expand...

increaseingtaxes doesnot do any good as far sas increased revenue is conderdd. you gottta cut spending at athis point.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Badmutha said:
Where exactly do you think they are going to go?............Canada?

As we all know.....Policing, Sanitation, and Delivery never existed before Unions were created.....
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Regress a century or two
The police were goons hired to protect the power/money elite.
Sanitation did not exist
Delivery ?
Teachers worked for little or no pay, they were women, before their rights even existed.
Is this what you want ?
 
cpwill said:
seriousliy public asector younions are a threat to democracya . that's vor serious, youdindn't see eruope? when they did the austerity measures/? thos peopel are a threat that need to be gd3ealt with wbefore theyb ecoem real threat here.
Click to expand...

Seriously, are you ok?
 
Cephus said:
Drinking and posting do not mix.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever drunk texted that badly even when I was completely trashed, lol.
 
Baralis said:
There is one fundamental difference between the private sector and the public. The public sector does not have the same check and balance that the private sector has, meaning the private sector cannot continue to pay inflated wages while continuing to increase debt year after year. No business can remain in the red decade after decade and stay afloat. They either make adjustments or go under. The public sector on the other hand can continue to borrow money to cover expenditures. This allows Unions to continuously raise demands beyond a reasonable level. Consider what we are seeing right now. I believe the only reason we are finally seeing some sort of resistance to the unions is because of political opposition. If Dems had remained in power in those particular states things would have continues down the same old destructive path.
Click to expand...
I couldn't applaud this post anymore


As it's been mentioned before, I think cops, firefighters, etc, all employees of the government shouldn't be allowed to strike, as it would be quite detrimental to society. They're striking demanding more taxpayer money, unlike if a private union strikes, it's demanding more of the company's profit, not someone elses money, it's always easy to demand that, you learn that the first day in liberal shoes.
 
Badmutha said:
Do you support ending all Public Sector Unions?
Click to expand...


No. But at the same time there should be some things-

1.No one should be forced to join a union as a condition of employment

2.No one should be forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.

3.Employers should be free to fire workers who go on strike.

4.An employee should be free to join or start a union of their choosing if they want to.In other words there can be more than one teachers union, more than one firemans union and etc.


By the looks of the poll results you should have made votes public because it looks like the poll has been tampered with.
 
Public sector unions will be the last to go but they will eventually go. Unions no longer serve any useful purpose due to the rampant criminality.
 
No, I don't support ending public unions. However I would support denying them the right to negotiate with any politician that they spent money towards getting elected.
 
I have trouble justifying public sector unions but I imagine they do keep up the private sector wages.
 
Yes. They have outlived their usefulness.
 
jamesrage said:
No. But at the same time there should be some things-

1.No one should be forced to join a union as a condition of employment

2.No one should be forced to pay dues as a condition of employment.

3.Employers should be free to fire workers who go on strike.

4.An employee should be free to join or start a union of their choosing if they want to.In other words there can be more than one teachers union, more than one firemans union and etc.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt those conditions effectively end Public Sector Unions?

If they cant go on strike....the Union bark has no bite.

By the looks of the poll results you should have made votes public because it looks like the poll has been tampered with.
Click to expand...

It was public when I first created it......

......anyways..... 64% support ending Public Sector Unions....even if it was tampered with......WINNING.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, I don't support ending public unions. However I would support denying them the right to negotiate with any politician that they spent money towards getting elected.
Click to expand...

Its a "Public Union"......the only people they negotiate with are liberal politicians.

Of course by negotiate....I mean prostituting themselves for whichever Democrat promises to steal them the most taxpayer money.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
Wouldnt those conditions effectively end Public Sector Unions?
Click to expand...

No because they can still form a union. I would also like to add a number 5 to that list "Unions votes would be private". Many of these people say they believe it is a right to form a union and that its about freedom. If they really believe that then teachers and other employees should not be obligated to join a union, pay union dues and they should be free to join or form a union of their own choosing. A right implies that its voluntary. Just like we have freedom of religion or the right to keep and bear arms.If we want to go to a church we can if we do not not want to then we do not have to because freedom of religion is a right in this country not mandated. If we want to buy guns and carry them somewhere or on us we can, if we do not want to have a gun then we do not have to have one because its a right not mandated.


If they cant go on strike....the Union bark has no bite.
Click to expand...

They can still go on strike. Its that employers would not be obligated to let them keep their jobs if an employer can and is willing to find replacements.

It was public when I first created it......

......anyways..... 64% support ending Public Sector Unions....even if it was tampered with......WINNING.....
.
Click to expand...
91 members plus generally do not participate in the same poll and with out being able to see who voted there is no sure way of seeing how many members voted verses how many so called anonymous votes happened.
 
Last edited:
I just heard on Tom Sullivan's show today that 26 states do not have public sector employee unions. What those states have are very thorough and complete civil service rules that protect all public employees from abuse.

My problem with public sector unions is that they are closed-shop, and force individuals to join whether the individuals wish to or not. In Wisc., the ability of unions to force people to join has been removed. The unions still exist; people can still pay dues and belong to unions if they want to... however, if they don't want to they don't have to. This is just a reversible band-aid. The first time democrats get a majority in the legislature, they'll simply reverse it back to forcing employees to join, and it doesn't address the issue permanently as an all-encompassing civil service law would do.
 
Actually Wisconsin has the same laws in place.


They just ALSO have a union structure on topof that.

Because unions are very necessary.... for the purpose of accomplishing.... uniony things.... you know, public awareness campaigns, 'speaking out on behalf of workers', making the necessary PAC donations, serving as money launderers for Democrats to funnel themselves tax revenues.... that kind of stuff :)
 
Hatuey said:
Actually they really didn't with the exception of mail delivery and even that was sub par. Sanitation was only a concern for people living in major American cities for most of the 19th century. Nobody wanted to do it because there was no benefit to picking up other people's crap. The majority of Americans in major cities lived in complete squalor prior to the creation of unions and sanitation services. Policing? Haha. Don't make me laugh. US cities were as bad as the wild west before the creation of unions unions. Not sure about the rural landscape but I doubt it was much better. Seriously, the biggest things the US handled in the 19th century was the post office and the military. In terms of hygiene, this country was a horrible place to live during the early years of the 20th century. The creation of unions provided a big change to that. They created an incentive for people to do the jobs that were dangerous, disgusting and base.
Click to expand...

It's cute the way you tie things to unions. Historically incorrect and totally dishonest but cute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom