Public Employee Unions Must Be Crushed !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

9 simply lacks the experience to view issues through different frameworks.

---

Nearly everything he posts is almost verbatim of any generic talk radio host or blogger on any given day. I don't have an issue with that, but he does often lack the ability or will to explain the thinking behind his statements.
I still haven't made up my mind about him. Is he what we see or is he a parody? :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

As the truism says, "Republicans believe that government is bad and they get elected so they can prove it".

---

I always thought that line was downright clever, however stale and - I mean, once everyone's heard it...ten times...in a day...

Kev, it bears repeating because it's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Is he what we see or is he a parody?

---

I often think he's a parody. Which works out nicely for the board, since J2 seldom has anyone else to side with him. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I often think he's a parody. Which works out nicely for the board, since J2 seldom has anyone else to side with him. :D

---

It's unclear if j2 is "on his side" or not.
In fact, it's hard to tell what side Kev is on lately...he's been unusually vague of late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

9 simply lacks the experience to view issues through different frameworks.
For instance:
-The right would prefer that a Wisconsin worker look at his union peers and say, "Heath insurance? Benefits and pension? I don't have that, why should they?"

Yes, I admit that I do feel this way.


-The left would have them ask, "Heath insurance? Benefits and pension? I want that too, how can I get them?"

Why can't people be expected to pay for their own health insurance and save for their own retirement? Go back to the 1800s and when people got sick, they either paid for a doctor to see them or did without healthcare alltogether. And that gave them an incentive to take care of their own health-- eat right, stay in shape, or die. Fast forward to today and we got all these fucking lardasses who are too lazy to exercise, and they eat like pigs, and then get fat and then get sick, and then want everyone to pay for their illnesses. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for what they did and I refuse to pay for their mistakes. If they knew there was no safety net, maybe they would take better care of themselves. And they used to have to save up for their latter years or face starvation or move in with their kids. That gave them an incentive to save back some money.


The right's obsession with deficits (which is a problem they created...the national debt grew greatest under Republican rule) is presented as a totally black>white, cut-n-dried proposition...we spend more than we take in, therefore we can only respond by cutting services to save money.
Somehow the obvious second option- we spend more than we take in, so let's take in more- is never proposed.

Do you want to pay more taxes? I don't.

For all the Chicken Little histrionics over taxes, the fact is that we are paying the lowest effective tax rate since the 1950's.
The problem is that the taxes we pay don't result in tangible benefits for the average American (and that Republicans don't believe that corporations should pay taxes at all).
We used to get nice things like the Interstate Highway System and Hoover Dam and libraries and water treatment plants...stuff you could see and that enhanced the quality of your life.

Republicans prefer to spend taxes on projecting our military into the world.
Remove Iraq and Afghanistan from our spending and the "deficit problem" disappears.

I agree with you. I would like to cut military spending down to a merely defensive posture. Close all the foreign bases, and just protect the United States.

Another Republican tactic relies on insulating their core supporters from the effects of their stated beliefs.
Note that every Republican warns of the horrible drain on the budget by "entitlements"- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid- and how we must "tighten our belts" and "make sacrifices".

I would make those cuts and eliminate all of these entitlements-- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid-- imagine all of them gone! We could balance the budget easily.

Yeah, everybody has to chip in...except those already receiving the largess, mostly older, white folks, the very core of the Republican base.
They get to keep theirs, which makes it a lot easier to say "fuck you" to everyone else.
Be interesting to confront the typical Tea Party rabble and say, "Yup, SS, Medicare and Medicaid are killing us financially so we're all going to lose 15% of our benefits immediately, we're going to restrict access to health providers and we're going to phase the whole system down.
Starting NOW.
For EVERYBODY".

<crickets>

As the truism says, "Republicans believe that government is bad and they get elected so they can prove it".

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

9 simply lacks the experience to view issues through different frameworks.

---

Nearly everything he posts is almost verbatim of any generic talk radio host or blogger on any given day. I don't have an issue with that, but he does often lack the ability or will to explain the thinking behind his statements.
I still haven't made up my mind about him. Is he what we see or is he a parody? :shifty:

---

You just can't imagine someone having a different opinion than you, can you?

I would say that some of my opinions are quite different from those of talk radio--

1. I don't like military spending. I hate all wars. I think most of the wars we've been in since the Civil War was a mistake. I wish we had never gotten involved in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and all of the various Persian Gulf Wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Think how much money we have wasted and how many lives we have lost on all of these wars? I should start a new thread about how stupid it was to ever get involved in any of these wars.

2. I no longer support Israel. We should cut them loose, and cut our losses, and maybe it would make the Islamic world a little bit less likely to continue attacking us.

3. I don't support any entitlement programs. They should all come to an end.

4. I don't support free trade. It should come to an end. We should use tariffs to stop China and various other nations from dumping their cheaply made, crappy products onto our markets and destroying our manufacturing base.

5. I am not religious.

And there are other issues, but those are just a few positions that you are unlikely to hear on talk radio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Why can't people be expected to pay for their own health insurance and save for their own retirement?

---

They do/did pay for their own health insurance and retirement benefits.
The union members accepted lower pay in exchange for these payoffs.
You want people to pay out of pocket for these things, fine.
Pay enough wages so they can afford to.
Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Go back to the 1800s and when people got sick, they either paid for a doctor to see them or did without healthcare alltogether. And that gave them an incentive to take care of their own health-- eat right, stay in shape, or die.

---

There is no direct "apples to apples" comparison between today and the 1800's.
Even if there were, I guarantee that YOU wouldn't want to live like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Fast forward to today and we got all these fucking lardasses who are too lazy to exercise, and they eat like pigs, and then get fat and then get sick, and then want everyone to pay for their illnesses. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for what they did and I refuse to pay for their mistakes. If they knew there was no safety net, maybe they would take better care of themselves. And they used to have to save up for their latter years or face starvation or move in with their kids. That gave them an incentive to save back some money.

---

For someone who does not have to fend for himself, you certainly are a self-righteous little snot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

They do/did pay for their own health insurance and retirement benefits.
The union members accepted lower pay in exchange for these payoffs.
You want people to pay out of pocket for these things, fine.
Pay enough wages so they can afford to.
Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Go back to the 1800s and when people got sick, they either paid for a doctor to see them or did without healthcare alltogether. And that gave them an incentive to take care of their own health-- eat right, stay in shape, or die.

---

There is no direct "apples to apples" comparison between today and the 1800's.
Even if there were, I guarantee that YOU wouldn't want to live like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Fast forward to today and we got all these fucking lardasses who are too lazy to exercise, and they eat like pigs, and then get fat and then get sick, and then want everyone to pay for their illnesses. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for what they did and I refuse to pay for their mistakes. If they knew there was no safety net, maybe they would take better care of themselves. And they used to have to save up for their latter years or face starvation or move in with their kids. That gave them an incentive to save back some money.

---

For someone who does not have to fend for himself, you certainly are a self-righteous little snot.

---

Okay, but you have to admit that what I said is the truth. What else explains how fat America is becoming?

I admit no such thing.
How many Whole Foods stores do you see in poor neighborhoods?
How many bodegas carry fresh vegetables instead of Hostess Twinkies?
How much of our food is larded with HFCS and how much does the government subsidize it's production?

If all these "lardasses" are making such poor choices, how do you educate them to do better?
Nevermind, you don't believe in paying for education and it's much simpler to associate these problems with moral weakness than situation/ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Nearly everything he posts is almost verbatim of any generic talk radio host or blogger on any given day. I don't have an issue with that, but he does often lack the ability or will to explain the thinking behind his statements.
I still haven't made up my mind about him. Is he what we see or is he a parody? :shifty:

---

You just can't imagine someone having a different opinion than you, can you?

I would say that some of my opinions are quite different from those of talk radio--

1. I don't like military spending. I hate all wars. I think most of the wars we've been in since the Civil War was a mistake. I wish we had never gotten involved in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and all of the various Persian Gulf Wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Think how much money we have wasted and how many lives we have lost on all of these wars? I should start a new thread about how stupid it was to ever get involved in any of these wars.

2. I no longer support Israel. We should cut them loose, and cut our losses, and maybe it would make the Islamic world a little bit less likely to continue attacking us.

3. I don't support any entitlement programs. They should all come to an end.

4. I don't support free trade. It should come to an end. We should use tariffs to stop China and various other nations from dumping their cheaply made, crappy products onto our markets and destroying our manufacturing base.

5. I am not religious.

And there are other issues, but those are just a few positions that you are unlikely to hear on talk radio.

---

I have no problem with differing views, you and I share more common views than you realize. I can explain my viewpoints.

BTW. I didn't say you have no different opinions from talk radio.


BTW. 2 I notice your lack of condemnation about the tea party hecklers, I'll help you out

Quote:

---

For conservatives, freedom of speech and freedom of the press only apply to the right wing media. They don't want any other views expressed. They really should stop using the "constitutionalists" (yes this is a ridiculous use of the word) label.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

1. I don't like military spending. I hate all wars.We're doing well so far... I think most of the wars we've been in since the Civil War was a mistake. I wish we had never gotten involved in World War I, World War II,...and now we go off the rails.How do avoid getting into war after being attacked at Pearl Harbor? We stand by as our allies are overrun by a lunatic? Korea, Vietnam, and all of the various Persian Gulf Wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Think how much money we have wasted and how many lives we have lost on all of these wars? I should start a new thread about how stupid it was to ever get involved in any of these wars.
If you'd care to discuss the two World Wars, please do.[/color]

2. I no longer support Israel. Really? When you did support Israel, exactly what did you do for them? Is Israel likely to notice that you've withdrawn your patronage? We should cut them loose, and cut our losses, and maybe it would make the Islamic world a little bit less likely to continue attacking us.Haven't really noticed a whole lot of "continuous attacking" going on. In fact, since 9/11, I'd guess there are more dead of gun violence than any terrorist act within our borders.

3. I don't support any entitlement programs. They should all come to an end.
Any particular reason or are you just trying to Galt-trip us?

4. I don't support free trade. It should come to an end. We should use tariffs to stop China and various other nations from dumping their cheaply made, crappy products onto our markets and destroying our manufacturing base.
Well, now see, you've run into a problem. If you want to reestablish American manufacturing, you're going to need an educated workforce and according to your Third Commandment: "I don't support any entitlement programs", you don't support educating them either. Pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about having to attend school, does it?
Your workforce is going to be pretty unhealthy as well, expect productivity to be a bitch.

5. I am not religious.

---

You should at least have an altar for the people who bought you a car and are putting you through college.
Both of which are "entitlements", BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

1. I don't like military spending. I hate all wars.We're doing well so far... Agreed I think most of the wars we've been in since the Civil War was a mistake. I wish we had never gotten involved in World War I, World War II,...and now we go off the rails.How do avoid getting into war after being attacked at Pearl Harbor?

One of my history teachers had some rather controversial ideas, and he said that if you just stand back and think about it, why would Japan-- a tiny island nation-- attack a huge country like the United States? It just doesn't make sense. There was no way they could win a war against us. They weren't trying to take over Hawaii. They were provoked into that attack to try to get the general public in the U.S. to get angry enough to go to war. If we hadn't provoked them, they probably would have never attacked Pearl Harbor. What do you think about that?

We stand by as our allies are overrun by a lunatic?

I throw this question out to any Europeans who might be reading this thread... Did you really need our help to win the war against Germany? Wouldn't you have won the war on your own eventually?

And now back to Clocker, think of the American lives we could have saved by not getting involved in that war! And think of how much better our country would have been if we had never become involved in world politics, and just kept to ourselves. We wouldn't have military bases all over the world, making people hate us. 9-11 would have never happened.

Korea, Vietnam, and all of the various Persian Gulf Wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Think how much money we have wasted and how many lives we have lost on all of these wars? I should start a new thread about how stupid it was to ever get involved in any of these wars.
If you'd care to discuss the two World Wars, please do.[/color]

2. I no longer support Israel. Really? When you did support Israel, exactly what did you do for them? Is Israel likely to notice that you've withdrawn your patronage?

A poor choice of words on my part. I meant that I wish the United States would stop giving financial aid and military aid to Israel, and wash our hands of the situation over there. It was a mistake and it should be reversed. It one of the things that terrorists often use as a reason to attack us. That and our military presence in the middle east, which should also come to an end.

We should cut them loose, and cut our losses, and maybe it would make the Islamic world a little bit less likely to continue attacking us.Haven't really noticed a whole lot of "continuous attacking" going on. In fact, since 9/11, I'd guess there are more dead of gun violence than any terrorist act within our borders.

True, but there have been some, such as the attack at Fort Hood.

3. I don't support any entitlement programs. They should all come to an end.
Any particular reason or are you just trying to Galt-trip us?

I don't know what that means.

4. I don't support free trade. It should come to an end. We should use tariffs to stop China and various other nations from dumping their cheaply made, crappy products onto our markets and destroying our manufacturing base.
Well, now see, you've run into a problem. If you want to reestablish American manufacturing, you're going to need an educated workforce and according to your Third Commandment: "I don't support any entitlement programs", you don't support educating them either. Pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about having to attend school, does it?
Your workforce is going to be pretty unhealthy as well, expect productivity to be a bitch.

I think education should be privatized as much as possible through vouchers, so that public schools would have to compete with private schools. I think that would make us more competitive in the long run.

As for health care, one of the reasons we are not as competitive in the workforce anymore is because of companies having to provide health care for their employees. There are things that could be done to make health insurance more affordable-- such has having a $5000 deductible per year, so people aren't running to the doctor when they get the sniffles, and eventually it might drive the cost of health care back down to reasonable levels.


5. I am not religious.

---

You should at least have an altar for the people who bought you a car and are putting you through college.
Both of which are "entitlements", BTW.

---

It's amazing how you think it is so odd for a wealthy family to pay for grandchildren's educations, cars, etc. I am not asking you or taxpayers to pay for it-- such as getting financial aid from the U.S. Dept. of Education. In fact, I didn't even ask them to pay for it. I had no intention of even going to college, but they are insisting on it. They did the same thing for my older brothers and sisters, and now they're doing it for me. And like my Dad said, I would be fool to turn it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

It's amazing how you think it is so odd for a wealthy family to pay for grandchildren's educations, cars, etc. I am not asking you or taxpayers to pay for it-- such as getting financial aid from the U.S. Dept. of Education. In fact, I didn't even ask them to pay for it. I had no intention of even going to college, but they are insisting on it. They did the same thing for my older brothers and sisters, and now they're doing it for me. And like my Dad said, I would be fool to turn it down.

---

Are they holding a gun to your head?

You are missing the point. It's not that anyone objects to your fortunate circumstances, it's that you enjoy them while labeling everyone else basically as welfare queens.
This isn't your only option. You could say thanks, but no thanks and figure out a way to pay for it yourself. At least you'd be putting your money where your mouth is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I think education should be privatized as much as possible through vouchers, so that public schools would have to compete with private schools. I think that would make us more competitive in the long run.

Is part of your theory a rule that private schools have to accept pupils by the same rules as public schools? Part of the reason private schools appear to have better results is that they get to pick which students they accept.

As for health care, one of the reasons we are not as competitive in the workforce anymore is because of companies having to provide health care for their employees. There are things that could be done to make health insurance more affordable-- such has having a $5000 deductible per year, so people aren't running to the doctor when they get the sniffles, and eventually it might drive the cost of health care back down to reasonable levels..

---

What do you think the employer cost in , let's say the UK, that has zero patient co-pay?

BTW How much do you think insurance premiums costs to begin with? How many insurance plans have free doctor visits? Do you think people "with the sniffles" Don't have to pay anything? Would a single payer system Take that burden off employers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

It's amazing how you think it is so odd for a wealthy family to pay for grandchildren's educations, cars, etc. I am not asking you or taxpayers to pay for it-- such as getting financial aid from the U.S. Dept. of Education. In fact, I didn't even ask them to pay for it. I had no intention of even going to college, but they are insisting on it. They did the same thing for my older brothers and sisters, and now they're doing it for me. And like my Dad said, I would be fool to turn it down.

---

Are they holding a gun to your head?

My point exactly. It is voluntary on their part and on mine. It's not like I am asking taxpayers-- who must pay their taxes involuntarily or face severe consequences-- to pay for my education (such as Pell Grants, etc.) and transportation, etc.

I know you are a big fan of taxes, but if you knew your taxes were going to support me, would you like them as much as you do now? Well, imagine how I feel having to pay taxes for your Social Security and Medicare? Those programs will be long gone by the time I get old enough to benefit from them.


You are missing the point. It's not that anyone objects to your fortunate circumstances, it's that you enjoy them while labeling everyone else basically as welfare queens.

What a family decides to do with its money is up to them to decide. Taxpayers don't get to decide where their tax money goes after they pay it. There is a difference between the two situations. And you should see these people at the D.E.S. office-- pregnant women with 6 stairstep children pushing a baby carriage with an infant! It's unsustainable!

This isn't your only option. You could say thanks, but no thanks and figure out a way to pay for it yourself.

Who would do something like that? Not only would it be insulting to my grandparents, but it would be a stupid thing to do. My family is too wealthy for me to qualify for most financial aid programs from the government. My grades and scores are just a bit too low for me to qualify for private scholarships (what can I say? I didn't take high school as seriously as I should have). And there is no way I would even consider taking out a loan to pay for education. So my only other choice would be to work a full time job just to pay for my classes and then I wouldn't have enough time to study and end up failing all of my classes. So of course I'm going to let them pay for it. It does come with a few strings attached-- I have to attend the University of Oregon because they live in Eugene, Oregon, and they want me to live in the guest house, so they get to see me on a regular basis. Oh and they also want to major in something useful-- Accounting. As for the free car, who would turn down a free car? This will be my second car, one for when I'm in Eagar, and one for when I'm in Oregon. That way they don't have to drive me anywhere.


At least you'd be putting your money where your mouth is.

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

I think education should be privatized as much as possible through vouchers, so that public schools would have to compete with private schools. I think that would make us more competitive in the long run.

Is part of your theory a rule that private schools have to accept pupils by the same rules as public schools? Part of the reason private schools appear to have better results is that they get to pick which students they accept.

As for health care, one of the reasons we are not as competitive in the workforce anymore is because of companies having to provide health care for their employees. There are things that could be done to make health insurance more affordable-- such has having a $5000 deductible per year, so people aren't running to the doctor when they get the sniffles, and eventually it might drive the cost of health care back down to reasonable levels..

---

What do you think the employer cost in , let's say the UK, that has zero patient co-pay?

I've heard it's not working too well for them.

BTW How much do you think insurance premiums costs to begin with?

It depends on age, health conditions, and location.


How many insurance plans have free doctor visits?

None, except some of the government ones like Medicaid.

Do you think people "with the sniffles" Don't have to pay anything?

They still might have a relatively small co-pay, but if they had to pay the full cost of the doctor's visit, I'll bet they wouldn't run to the doctor every time they caught a cold.


Would a single payer system Take that burden off employers?

---

It put the burden on everyone, just like Medicare, which is almost bankrupt.

It looks like the artful dodging Democrats may have been outsmarted by the Republicans afterall, and the vote is moving forward to crush the public employee unions in Wisconsin.

If this works, the union control over the public sector will eventually come crashing down.

One I noticed in this thread is that no one wanted to deal with the fact that when it comes down to CHOICE-- the freedom to choose whether to belong to organized crime, er I mean a union, or not to belong to a union, liberals are against CHOICE.

The new law will let people decide whether to belong to a union or not, and whether or not to pay their union dues rather than having the union dues come out of their paychecks. CHOICE! What an evil thing!

Are you happy with the way the republicans behaved? I don't see the will of the people being carried out here, I see dictatorship.

Your original post was all about this being a fiscal necessity, Seems it had nothing to do with balancing the budget.

It never had anything to do with budget balancing. The budget thing was a political face, as is common with all sly deals. Basically republicans will be able to take a big hit against democratic campaigning, while leaving theirs intact. It's a direct party assault to push elections their way in the future since $$ = elected.

The 969 guy has basically admitted he's an idiot, and his entire conversation is based on unsubstantiated talking points. Why's everyone still entertaining the notion that he even has a point to debate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

It looks like the artful dodging Democrats may have been outsmarted by the Republicans afterall, and the vote is moving forward to crush the public employee unions in Wisconsin.

If this works, the union control over the public sector will eventually come crashing down.

One I noticed in this thread is that no one wanted to deal with the fact that when it comes down to CHOICE-- the freedom to choose whether to belong to organized crime, er I mean a union, or not to belong to a union, liberals are against CHOICE.

The new law will let people decide whether to belong to a union or not, and whether or not to pay their union dues rather than having the union dues come out of their paychecks. CHOICE! What an evil thing!

---

What would you do if you found out that someone where you worked was getting double the pay for doing the same job a you? You go to the employer and he/she says take it or leave it. If there is a lot of unemployment, then you take it but your heart is not in the job anymore. A good union ensures equality in pay and conditions. When unions create beTter pay and conditions for employees there is no outcry from non union members asking the employer not to apply these better condition to them.

What about employers unions\federations where ground rules for treament of employees are laid down. Not much choice for the employees there either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

What would you do if you found out that someone where you worked was getting double the pay for doing the same job a you? You go to the employer and he/she says take it or leave it. If there is a lot of unemployment, then you take it but your heart is not in the job anymore. A good union ensures equality in pay and conditions. When unions create beTter pay and conditions for employees there is no outcry from non union members asking the employer not to apply these better condition to them.

---

How about those employees that work their butts off, only to be paid the same as some slack-ass union "brother"?

I've worked at a company for the past 12 years that has a strong union presence. The Teamsters to be specific. I could sit here and 'talk' for hours about how the union inhibits the progress of the company. One of the largest ways is by making it nearly impossible to terminate an employee as long as they just show up everyday; it's beyond ridiculous.

I was completely indifferent about unions prior to my current place of employ as I'd never dealt with them before, but it didn't take me long to learn that I didn't like them, as I was one of those employees that was enthusiastic and worked his butt off.

Unions enable the lazy guy.

There are reasonable and unreasonable union operators, just as there are reasonable and unreasonable legislators or employers.

I've never been a union member, I would probably disagree with a lot of their "demands", but in the land of the free I absolutely think that workers should have the freedom to pool together as a bargaining force without the kind government regulation that we would think unreasonable to place on business.

@skizo

What kind of healthcare do you get, would you say it's good or bad? If it's good, do you think it would so great if not for your union? What about pay? Is it better or worse than wages in comparable non union jobs? Is your company struggling to compete against non union companies? Would you say your company would employ more or less people if it weren't for the union (has the union suppressed downsizing?). How much vacation time do you get compared to non union companies? Do you get sick pay? Does your company train you or are you expected to train yourself in order to get a promotion to a different dept?

Overall do you think your employment from your own personal benefit would be better with or without union involvement in your company?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

There are reasonable and unreasonable union operators, just as there are reasonable and unreasonable legislators or employers.

I've never been a union member, I would probably disagree with a lot of their "demands", but in the land of the free I absolutely think that workers should have the freedom to pool together as a bargaining force without the kind government regulation that we would think unreasonable to place on business.

---

In this case the business was the government and I assure you your opinion of unions would be altered if you were required to base your business decisions around them each and every day. It's beyond frustrating to be handcuffed by unions regulations around every corner when you're trying to operate a successful business. Decisions that are simple and would otherwise be considered no-brainers become conflicted with seniority issues, stewards, and contractual obligations. It's horrible.

Are you managing union employees, but not a union member, skiz? If so, that is a VERY common frustration/tension. In such a situation, how does your pay and benefits compare to the union employees'?

Correct. I am supervisor (management, non-union) who oversees hourly (union) employees.

In short, they don't compare.

Management employees pay for their health/dental/vision benefits much like the rest of the country does, but union employees get them free. 100%, absolutely free. Doesn't cost them even one cent a year, and they have no deductible.

Their pay is a set rate depending on the job and hire date. Those union employees often times get raises that outweigh that of their supervisors. For example, I have one employee that used to make about half of what I made, but his contractual raises over the past decade now has us earning approximately the same amount, meaning the employee will soon out-earn his boss. This isn't to say that I'm a slouch and haven't deserved a raise, it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

---

Do you think that would be the case if you were in a union?

As a supervisor what do you actually generate by way of profit for the company?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

---

Do you think that would be the case if you were in a union?

As a supervisor what do you actually generate by way of profit for the company?

---

Yeah, Skiz-

If you don't drive the truck, you're a drain on cash.

A Teamster's efficiency typically rises when working unsupervised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Correct. I am supervisor (management, non-union) who oversees hourly (union) employees.

In short, they don't compare.

Management employees pay for their health/dental/vision benefits much like the rest of the country does, but union employees get them free. 100%, absolutely free. Doesn't cost them even one cent a year, and they have no deductible.

Their pay is a set rate depending on the job and hire date. Those union employees often times get raises that outweigh that of their supervisors. For example, I have one employee that used to make about half of what I made, but his contractual raises over the past decade now has us earning approximately the same amount, meaning the employee will soon out-earn his boss. This isn't to say that I'm a slouch and haven't deserved a raise, it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

---

I'm of the view that your pay should have increased at the same rate as your employees. The fact that it did not, and you are paying for your own health care is actually an argument why unions should exist. It isn't that they are getting such a good deal that the company cannot afford to offer better pay and benefits- you are not protected, so the company takes advantage of you.

I am torn between both sides of this argument. I would say 80% of people want something done about public service pay and pensions. The other 20% are public servants. It now seems to be the practise in this country for public servants who do something wrong to be 'sacked'. their severance to include a massive 'payoff' plus a pension that the normal working person does not get for a wage. Something has to be done. It is our taxes that are paying for this. Refuse to pay those taxes and you go to jail(unlike big business).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

It never had anything to do with budget balancing. The budget thing was a political face, as is common with all sly deals. Basically republicans will be able to take a big hit against democratic campaigning, while leaving theirs intact. It's a direct party assault to push elections their way in the future since $$ = elected.

Ah, perfect. Public employee unions use taxpayer money to pay their union dues to the union who then turns around and bargains for higher wages, higher salaries, more expensive benefits from government officials who then just turn around and ask for more money from the taxpayers to meet the organized crime, er I mean union demands. It's not that government official's money, it's not his company's profits that he's bargaining with, it's the taxpayers' money, so what does he care. He can just raise taxes or other fees to raise the money. It is NOT coming directly out of his pocket. So, the unions have figured out that voting for Democrats is the same thing as voting for a raise for themselves.


The 969 guy has basically admitted he's an idiot, and his entire conversation is based on unsubstantiated talking points. Why's everyone still entertaining the notion that he even has a point to debate?

---

That's right. Shut down any dissent. You wouldn't want to hear any other opinions out there, because you're an open minded liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Are you happy with the way the republicans behaved?

Are you serious?! The yellow dog Democrats run away like chickens to avoid a vote that they will most certainly lose, and you see no problem with that. But when the Republicans, after waiting 3 weeks for the frightened Democrats to come back, decide to move forward without them, you cry foul?! The whole purpose of the quorum rule was to keep one side from having a sneaky vote without any warning to the other side. It wasn't like the Democrats didn't know about the vote. They had plenty of notice to show up for it and do their duty to vote, but because they didn't like the obvious outcome of the vote, they ran away to another state.




I don't see the will of the people being carried out here, I see dictatorship.


It was the will of the people. They voted in a Republican majority. It's called representative government. Elections do have consequences, even if you don't like the results of the election. I'm sorry your side lost the election. No wait. I'm not sorry. I'm glad your side lost the election. You need to accept it and stop whining about it.

And really, is it any worse than what your side did to us with Obamacare? The way they rammed that down our throats through the seldom used "reconciliation" method? Talk about dictatorship. Now, we're going to have to wait until Trump gets elected in 2012 to undo that horrible law.


Your original post was all about this being a fiscal necessity, Seems it had nothing to do with balancing the budget.

---

Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

I am torn between both sides of this argument. I would say 80% of people want something done about public service pay and pensions. The other 20% are public servants.

Exactly!


It now seems to be the practise in this country for public servants who do something wrong to be 'sacked'. their severance to include a massive 'payoff' plus a pension that the normal working person does not get for a wage. Something has to be done. It is our taxes that are paying for this. Refuse to pay those taxes and you go to jail(unlike big business).

I agree!

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Are you serious?! The yellow dog Democrats run away like chickens to avoid a vote that they will most certainly lose, and you see no problem with that. But when the Republicans, after waiting 3 weeks for the frightened Democrats to come back, decide to move forward without them, you cry foul?! The whole purpose of the quorum rule was to keep one side from having a sneaky vote without any warning to the other side. It wasn't like the Democrats didn't know about the vote. They had plenty of notice to show up for it and do their duty to vote, but because they didn't like the obvious outcome of the vote, they ran away to another state.

---

This was sold as a fiscal need. If it wasn't fiscal why was it put in the budget and why wasn't it removed and placed in a separate bill before the democrats left? The budget would have been voted on and passed. If it is a fiscal need then it shouldn't have been voted on without the needed quorum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

It was the will of the people. They voted in a Republican majority. It's called representative government. Elections do have consequences, even if you don't like the results of the election. I'm sorry your side lost the election. No wait. I'm not sorry. I'm glad your side lost the election. You need to accept it and stop whining about it.

---

Show me where any republican campaigned to remove collective bargaining. Show me any WI poll where more than 50% said they wanted to remove collective bargaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

And really, is it any worse than what your side did to us with Obamacare? The way they rammed that down our throats through the seldom used "reconciliation" method? Talk about dictatorship. Now, we're going to have to wait until Trump gets elected in 2012 to undo that horrible law.

---

"My side"?

You really need to be consistent, If electing Republicans means everything they do, even if they didn't mention it when they ran, is "the will of the people", then the affordable care act must be "the will of the people". Democrats did run on health reform, I mean that was one of the biggies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced.

---

The only reason they want to reduce public worker pay (which is actually on average 4.8% LESS than comparable private sector jobs with comparable educational achievement) is to cover the cost of the corporate tax cuts they are giving. If they hadn't given the tax breaks they wouldn't have had to make extra cuts elsewhere.
The only fiscal reason is to try to limit the only substantial donors of the democratic party election funds. This is using government to suppress their competition.

It's not just financial undercutting of their opponents they are using government positions to achieve. Across the country they are trying to make it harder for typical democratic voters to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced.

---

That is not entirely correct. The WI workers have not been entirely stripped of their collective bargaining rights, just some of them. They still have the right to bargain for things like salary, just not pension, dues, and benefits that are unpredictable costs for the future and difficult to budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

---

Do you think that would be the case if you were in a union?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I'm of the view that your pay should have increased at the same rate as your employees. The fact that it did not, and you are paying for your own health care is actually an argument why unions should exist. It isn't that they are getting such a good deal that the company cannot afford to offer better pay and benefits- you are not protected, so the company takes advantage of you.

---

More union is not the answer. :wacko:

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place. Call me crazy but having ALL employees paying a relatively equal percentage of their health benefits in order for ALL employees to receive raises based on a balanced scorecard consisting of performance, effectiveness, etc. seems mighty fair to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

As a supervisor what do you actually generate by way of profit for the company?

---

Everyone pulls their own weight. A company does not successfully operate with mere rank and file.

But more directly, I generate a lot of money. I supervise (depending on current staffing) +/- 40 employees in a function known as Revenue Recovery. Our sole job is to capture lost revenue, and my district alone recovers millions of dollars every year, so yes, I'd say I generate quite a lot of profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place.

---

What pickle and how was it the unions fault, are you talking about the company you work for or the topic subject?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Everyone pulls their own weight. A company does not successfully operate with mere rank and file.

---

That's not what I'm talking about. A mechanic fixes the car. The customer is paying to have his car fixed, not the person watching over the mechanic. The mechanic is the one generating money for the company. The other staff may be a needed part of a team, but they are not generating money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

But more directly, I generate a lot of money. I supervise (depending on current staffing) +/- 40 employees in a function known as Revenue Recovery. Our sole job is to capture lost revenue, and my district alone recovers millions of dollars every year, so yes, I'd say I generate quite a lot of profit.

---

You are going to have to clear this up. Are you in a debt recovery dept. or do you bring old customers back?

If it's the latter then you can claim your dept. (if not you specifically in your role as supervisor) generates revenue. If it's the first then that loss prevention not revenue generating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

That's right. Shut down any dissent. You wouldn't want to hear any other opinions out there, because you're an open minded liberal.

---

Wasn't my intention to shut down dissent, just putting perspective into play. "Open-minded liberal", I'm stuck between whether you think it's an insult or are being sarcastic, either way you're wrong. I'm an objective anarchist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

What pickle and how was it the unions fault, are you talking about the company you work for or the topic subject?

---

Take your pick; it applies to both. :whistling:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

That's not what I'm talking about. A mechanic fixes the car. The customer is paying to have his car fixed, not the person watching over the mechanic. The mechanic is the one generating money for the company. The other staff may be a needed part of a team, but they are not generating money.

---

That's just silly. I won't even entertain that logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

You are going to have to clear this up. Are you in a debt recovery dept. or do you bring old customers back?

If it's the latter then you can claim your dept. (if not you specifically in your role as supervisor) generates revenue. If it's the first then that loss prevention not revenue generating.

---

Are you actually trying to tell me what my job is? You're incorrect on both assumptions.

My job is very intricate and not really something I want to get into in this thread or any other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I'm of the view that your pay should have increased at the same rate as your employees. The fact that it did not, and you are paying for your own health care is actually an argument why unions should exist. It isn't that they are getting such a good deal that the company cannot afford to offer better pay and benefits- you are not protected, so the company takes advantage of you.

---

More union is not the answer. :wacko:

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place. Call me crazy but having ALL employees paying a relatively equal percentage of their health benefits in order for ALL employees to receive raises based on a balanced scorecard consisting of performance, effectiveness, etc. seems mighty fair to me.

---

Your company is not paying you, or the union employees, based on profits. Without the unions, your company would be abusing you AND them. Union membership does not guarantee poor performance from employees, but non-union employees almost universally equates to abuses by companies. The fact that union members are working for the same company as you, and have received better treatment than you, indicates that your company will never be any more fair than it is forced to be.

If union members were required to pay for their benefits, it would not mean a reduction in your dues, nor an increase in your pay- simply an increase in company profits. Would this make you any happier? You may think you are on the same side as the company, but when it comes to profits, you are NOT on their side- you are simply a salary to pay (a cost who would be replaced if a cheaper/more efficient alternative became available). If you think you are on their side, ask for a bigger cut of those profits, then tell me which side you are on...