342 replies to this topic

[MeOmYo]

Why do public sector workers need civil service and collective bargaining? shouldn't the laws be enough to protect the workers? Why do they need to push for more? If you let them keep pushing, pretty soon there'll be HS dropouts making $90,000 a year screwing lugnuts on cars? Oh wait, unions already bankrupted the auto industry in America. (Yes, their executives also can take 50% of the blame on that one, but 50% go to the unions)

Labor unions for GM negotiatied DOWN to $55/hour......... to watch a machine screw on lug bolts.

[bigtoddy]

When done right (cooperation) union shops have far better productivity stats.

When done right, unions aren't needed to do this. "When done right" is the key here, but everybody's out to grab as much of the pie as possible and to hell with everybody else.

[vic]

A business owner should be able to fire whoever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want.

word...a female worker turns down sex with her boss, she should be fired...the boss's nephew needs a job, one of the workers has to go...a worker gets injured, don't wanna pay a dead salary, just fire him/her...you see where i'm going

btw i love the stereotype in here that every union worker is lazy and unproductive:clapping:

[Dr. Freakynutz]

the happy medium here seems like union reform. I think, though it is hard to prove hypothetical situations, that this country would have much worse labor conditions without the history of unions and the possibility of organization (which in itself may keep companies from abusing their employees). however I think that many agree that there are unions abusing their power. There is a cost benefit analysis that could be done to the existence of unions. To say "I don't get/need the benefits of unions so neither should anyone else" is an unconvincing argument to me.

[TakeAStepBack]

btw i love the stereotype in here that every union worker is lazy and unproductive:clapping:

Actually, i think the point is to show that unions do little other than protect the lazy workers. In my experience, that is exactly what was happening. Being in the union, performance based praise didnt exist. Everything was done on merit. So, even if you were a terrible worker, the union would protect you and make sure you got your raise. If you were an outstanding worker, you were protected by the union and got your raise. So, for what reason should I be a an outstanding worker under those conditions??

[deadheadskier]

I can only speak for the Union workers at Hotels in Boston as they are who I have had exposure with.

A. Senior staff members are guaranteed hours over skill/work ethic. How is that good for business? The person who works the hardest should be given the hours.

B. If someone calls out sick, the most senior members of the staff must be called in succession to be offered the hours even if it puts that staff member inot OT. If the hours are given to a low ranking employee over the senior staff member, they have to pay the senior staff member for those hours anyway. How is that an efficient way to run a business? Any normal business would offer that shift to someone working less than a full time week.

There's a whole host of other crap.

[vic]

the happy medium here seems like union reform. I think, though it is hard to prove hypothetical situations, that this country would have much worse labor conditions without the history of unions and the possibility of organization (which in itself may keep companies from abusing their employees). however I think that many agree that there are unions abusing their power. There is a cost benefit analysis that could be done to the existence of unions. To say "I don't get/need the benefits of unions so neither should anyone else" is an unconvincing argument to me.

you're just better with words than i am

[halfstar]

word...a female worker turns down sex with her boss, she should be fired...the boss's nephew needs a job, one of the workers has to go...a worker gets injured, don't wanna pay a dead salary, just fire him/her...you see where i'm going

btw i love the stereotype in here that every union worker is lazy and unproductive:clapping:

So unions are in place so if a female worker turns down sex from her boss and gets fired, they can get her job back?

If the owners nephew needs a job, the owner should be able to hire him. He can also fire whoever he wants whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants. It is his company.

There are worker's compensation laws in effect.

btw I love the stereotype in here that every business owner wants to kick injured employees to the street, have sex with all of the women in the building and fire everyone and hire their family. You must run a good business.

No one said union workers are lazy. I said unions only serve the board and shit employees.

[halfstar]

the happy medium here seems like union reform. I think, though it is hard to prove hypothetical situations, that this country would have much worse labor conditions without the history of unions and the possibility of organization (which in itself may keep companies from abusing their employees). however I think that many agree that there are unions abusing their power. There is a cost benefit analysis that could be done to the existence of unions. To say "I don't get/need the benefits of unions so neither should anyone else" is an unconvincing argument to me.

I understand your point and don't disagree but we don't use steam power anymore.

[Goose]

word...a female worker turns down sex with her boss, she should be fired...the boss's nephew needs a job, one of the workers has to go...a worker gets injured, don't wanna pay a dead salary, just fire him/her...you see where i'm going

btw i love the stereotype in here that every union worker is lazy and unproductive:clapping:

I was picturing Halfstar getting a great new job, relocating to a swanky place near the great job then getting fired because the new boss thinks all Phish Phans are on Dope, stereotype'd. He'd be

[vic]

So unions are in place so if a female worker turns down sex from her boss and gets fired, they can get her job back?

If the owners nephew needs a job, the owner should be able to hire him. He can also fire whoever he wants whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants. It is his company.

There are worker's compensation laws in effect.

btw I love the stereotype in here that every business owner wants to kick injured employees to the street, have sex with all of the women in the building and fire everyone and hire their family. You must run a good business.

No one said union workers are lazy. I said unions only serve the board and shit employees.

noone said every business is like this...unions are there to make sure people who would otherwise get this treatment are protected from it

as far as "boss can fire whoever he wants, it's his company", well, i can't argue with you there if that's your view because you obviously don't give 2 shits about worker's rights

[vic]

I was picturing Halfstar getting a great new job, relocating to a swanky place near the great job then getting fired because the new boss thinks all Phish Phans are on Dope, stereotype'd. He'd be

[halfstar]

I guess I am going to get fired from every job for no reason because I'll never have a union job. I am sure it is to happen any moment now. Any moment now. Any moment. Any moment.

[TakeAStepBack]

Bottom line there is the boss wouldnt fire his best guy to give his nephew the gnueb the job. if the boss did, the boss sucks at business.

[TakeAStepBack]

the boss would liekly pick the worker that is late, slow, nonproductive or the chick who refused the beejer.

[halfstar]

Workers have the right to be employed so the extent that management decides they are valuable.

[TakeAStepBack]

I was picturing Halfstar getting a great new job, relocating to a swanky place near the great job then getting fired because the new boss thinks all Phish Phans are on Dope, stereotype'd. He'd be

[halfstar]

Any moment. Any moment.

[vic]

the boss would liekly pick the worker that is late, slow, nonproductive or the chick who refused the beejer.

which would be wrong

if you're in a union, you can be fired if you get written up enough...if you truly do suck at your job, arbitration can't help you because the file is there and the proof is there that you suck, are a slow producer, are late constantly, etc.

if your boss just has it in for you bc he doesn't like your personality, the way you dress, what you do outside work, what your religion is, etc...well then the union can help you keep your job and deservedly so

with no union you can be fired without a reason, which is wrong no matter how you look at it, esp at times like this when unemployment is as high as it is and you have being fired on your resume no matter what the reasoning behind it is

[vic]

Any moment. Any moment.

companies usually don't fire yes-men like you seem to be:coffee:

[TakeAStepBack]

Thanks, vic. I was making a jokeski. I understand the implications of what a union is SUPPOSE to do.

[halfstar]

vic, youre cute bro. Youre cute.

[TakeAStepBack]

Hmm.. trying for a new bromance, heh ?

[vic]

Thanks, vic. I was making a jokeski. I understand the implications of what a union is SUPPOSE to do.

and like i said, it needs reform

i don't believe union status should dictate salary or that presidents and vps should make extra loot for their said status...i believe everone on the board should be voluntary so everyone CAN be "in it together" to protect one another

people who say unions aren't neccessary? that i just don't understand

[vic]

vic, youre cute bro. Youre cute.

and i'm a great guy:wink:

[TakeAStepBack]

and like i said, it needs reform

i don't believe union status should dictate salary or that presidents and vps should make extra loot for their said status...i believe everone on the board should be voluntary so everyone CAN be "in it together" to protect one another

people who say unions aren't neccessary? that i just don't understand

Good luck with that. If we can make that happen, maybe we can dismantle the entire greed system. Until then, it's all broken because everyone is trying to snatch up as much as possible and not give a fuck about the next guy.

This problem is littered everywhere.

[vic]

Good luck with that. If we can make that happen, maybe we can dismantle the entire greed system. Until then, it's all broken because everyone is trying to snatch up as much as possible and not give a fuck about the next guy.

This problem is littered everywhere.

even so...better with than without

[halfstar]

Unions are a thing of the past and hold no value in today's economy.

/thread

[Dr. Lostreality]

Sources?

If employers didn't have to pay too much for shitty employees, they would pay more for good ones.

no my friend, if employees didn't have to pay for "shitty workers" (although why do you assume they are shitty?) they would just keep the money for themselves.

[TakeAStepBack]

Wait...what?

[halfstar]

no my friend, if employees didn't have to pay for "shitty workers" (although why do you assume they are shitty?) they would just keep the money for themselves.

Somewhere along the way you lost touch with yourself.

[Joker]

Unions are a thing of the past and hold no value in today's economy.

/thread

What about civil service jobs, city/state workers? Does the mayor/gov get to fire everyone and bring in his people every time there's an election?

Unions DO have their place.

[bigtoddy]

2 points:
First, there are laws protecting basic rights as workers. Government has stepped in to be the referee, where they did not in the past. You think you need a union to protect the 40 hour work week? Probably not as its law at this point in the game.

Second, do any of the pro union people in here have any experience in management of employees? Specifically, low skill employees? There's 2 sides to every story, and I've seen the BS that shitty workers cause and the havoc they wreak on an otherwise healthy organization. They can literally bring companies down. (like they have with government)

[Dr. Lostreality]

I personally think unions would be unnecessary if the government did it's job in protecting worker's rights. Unfortunately they usually don't, making unions still necessary.

And the only government employees "bringing government down" is the elected politicians who make the rules. Most government employees I know are just regular hard workers trying to do their job. Heck, I'm a (state) government employee and I'm hard at work right now

I think it's a straw man to say union= shitty workers. Yes, there may be a problem with shitty workers. Ok, but why does that mean unions are unnecessary? If they are protecting workers at all costs, then maybe. So don't protect workers at all costs. But most unions I've been a part of do things like negotiate overall salaries, make sure we have benefits, provide a place to go for workers who might be unfairly treated, etc . I've been fired from a unionized job when I was a shitty worker, and the union didn't intervene in any way, so where does all this stuff about unions protecting shitty workers come from?

The other argument is "everyone else has a crappy job, why should union jobs get better wages and benefits?" I think the answer to that is that we need more unionization, not less. Yeah in a 'free market' you can find people who will work for lower and lower wages. But what does that mean for our society as a whole? It means fewer and fewer jobs that pay at the level in which the workers can support their family, and lots of people working for minimum wage- which is not enough to live on. Yeah "get a better job" ok, but someone needs to do all the crappy jobs in society- it's not like we can have a society in which EVERYONE has the better paying jobs requiring a college degree, or else our buildings wouldn't be clean, we wouldn't be able to order our crappy mcdonalds breakfast, we wouldn't have people to wipe our asses in the hospital, etc. So yeah, some people can get better jobs, but our society as a whole needs people to do the crap work in order for society to run. So why not appreciate those people by paying them a wage that they can actually afford to live on? If the government would step in and say "yeah, let's do that" we wouldn't have a problem. But they're not doing that. Hence the need for unions.

[Spidergawd]

What I learned in this thread today:

will soon be cheating on TASB with vic. Two-timing bastard.

[Joker]

Run away, run away!!!


Where are the Dems? Wisconsin Lawmakers Hiding in Place They Hope Is 'Hard for Them to Find'


Where are the Dems? Wisconsin Lawmakers Hiding in Place They Hope Is 'Hard for Them to Find'The top Senate Democrat in Wisconsin said today that he and the other state lawmakers who participated in a mass exodus to avoid a contentious Senate vote on slashing union rights "hope we are in a place that is hard for them to find."

After Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, called the Democrats' departure "disrespectful," Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, a Democrat, told ABC News that "it's the governor that has been disrespectful to the workers for trying to pass this so quickly.

"This kind of major legislation needs to have the proper consideration and not [be] railroaded through," he said.

His colleague, Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach, would only say that all 14 legislators were together and in "a very cold place."

Erpenbach told ABC News that Walker left them "no option" and that the group left around 9 a.m. today.

"I went home, kissed my wife and kids and got in my car drove off," he said.

Cont...
http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=12932013

[Joker]

You're wrong if you think any Democratic governor would do this.

From the above article

John Kasich, the new Republican governor of Ohio, is proposing to deny 14,000 state child care and home care workers the right to unionize. Democratic governors including Jerry Brown of California and Andrew Cuomo of New York are attempting their own public union changes.

[Deadshow Dan]

From the above article

John Kasich, the new Republican governor of Ohio, is proposing to deny 14,000 state child care and home care workers the right to unionize. Democratic governors including Jerry Brown of California and Andrew Cuomo of New York are attempting their own public union changes.

As far as I know, neither have any plans to end collective bargaining rights for public employees.

Do not confuse tough negotiation stand with ending collective bargaining for public employees

If you have any specific information that is contrary to that and specific to stripping the right of public employees to collective bargaining....and not some general 'attempting changes' sort of thing.... I'd be eager to see it.

[Joker]

I haven't seen anything definite as far as what they will or won't do.

So where exactly did you get your information from that no Democratic governor would ever do it...I'm eager to see it.

[Deadshow Dan]

I haven't seen anything definite as far as what they will or won't do.

OK, so there's nothing to contradict my assertion.
Thanks for researching that.

[Joker]

OK, so there's nothing to back up my assertion.
Thanks for researching that.

[Deadshow Dan]

As I learn more about the details and minutae of the legislation, I'm not sure that denying most public sector employees collective bargaining rights is technically correct.

Probably it's better said as 'effectively denying most public sector employees collective bargaining rights' is better.

Pretty much the same thing.

[Deadshow Dan]

Why do public sector workers need civil service and collective bargaining? shouldn't the laws be enough to protect the workers? Why do they need to push for more? If you let them keep pushing, pretty soon there'll be HS dropouts making $90,000 a year screwing lugnuts on cars? Oh wait, unions already bankrupted the auto industry in America. (Yes, their executives also can take 50% of the blame on that one, but 50% go to the unions)

First of all, it's not unions that bankrupted the auto industry. The unions made concession after concession after concession, and get less than they used to.

What hurt the auto industry was the decision to stick with gas guzzlers, high executive compensation (somehow that's not a problem, but the average person getting a decent wage is), health insurance costs (because we don't have single payer) and a bad economy due to the wall street attack on america.

Now why do public sector workers need collective bargaining? Pretty simple, laws are not enough to protect workers, ESPECIALLY since governments exempt themselves from laws. Adequate compensation would never happen. And a hundred reasons more.

[staggerlee024]

I'm all for the people, peoples rights, and the power of us collectively. This is a misguided temper tantrum being thrown by public sector unions because the faucet to their trough has finally been cut off. We're all in this together, unless you're in a union, then its me me me.

I support Walker on this issue. Seriously, they're crying because they have to *gasp* pay for half of their retirement and *gasp* 12% of their health insurance. Go out and get a job that doesn't suck at the teet of the American taxpayers and see how it is and then see what they have to say about their 12% contribution.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO


Absolutely Not.


The issue here is not the increase in health care costs. Sure, the members would probably oppose that on its own. As would any employee. But no way that starts these kinds of protests.

The issue here is the second part of the bill. The one that completely strips public sector employees of the right to collectively bargain.

That is anti-democratic. That is Draconic. And it is an assault on all working people in this country.

[George]

I am a PROUD member of the Ironworkers Union! Union wages allow me to support my family and keep a roof over my head. My union goes to bat for me all the time ,tracking down and getting my money from deadbeat employers who bounce paychecks and refuse to pay benefits on time! ANYBODY who tries to break my union is in for a world of PAIN!

[staggerlee024]

All things considered, I (and most people who work hard and are reasonably intelligent) would fare better without than with a union.

:rotf::lol::funny1::lmao::rotf::lol:




Wait....


Are you serious?

[staggerlee024]

shit pay..check, boss that doesn't give a shit...check, corporation making bank bc of my work...check, working tons of hours with no over time (salary'd)... check, fired whenever.... most definitely check and considering that half the people I know are now "independent contractors" w 1099s no benefits... check!

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH SOME OF YOU?



This is EXACTLY the reason that we need a union.


Some of you have been brainwashed by the corporate media.






And that is sad...

[staggerlee024]

Why do public sector workers need civil service and collective bargaining? shouldn't the laws be enough to protect the workers?

even a remotely cursory glance at labor laws in this country prove this not to be the case...

[seany]

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH SOME OF YOU?

This is EXACTLY the reason that we need a union.

So, let me get this straight: collective bargaining to benefit the state worker is fine (on the backs of the taxpayer), but collective responsibility - i.e., everybody has to pay a fair price for health insurance is bad? Right? Because wasn't that was one of the reasons you left MA? And you didn't even want to have to pay car insurance there.

Congrats on getting a job in a very liberal company in a very liberal city. Hold on to that as hard as you can. Because the reality that 90% of the private sector faces is pretty stark compared to what you're getting. And it comes as no surprise that people are starting to question the benefits of the public sector when their taxes are paying for it.

That's not to say I don't support the public sector and think society should subsidize (to an extent) those who work for government, education, emergency services. I have a friend in Madison who works for govt services and is wrapped up in this right now. She's obviously fighting for herself, but there also isn't a day that goes by that she doesn't also rail against the gross inefficiencies and incompetence in her own office/agency. She'd be the first to tell you that her social services department would fail as a private sector business.

[staggerlee024]

So, let me get this straight: collective bargaining to benefit the state worker is fine (on the backs of the taxpayer), but collective responsibility - i.e., everybody has to pay a fair price for health insurance is bad? Right? Because wasn't that was one of the reasons you left MA? And you didn't even want to have to pay car insurance there.

Congrats on getting a job in a very liberal company in a very liberal city. Hold on to that as hard as you can. Because the reality that 90% of the private sector faces is pretty stark compared to what you're getting. And it comes as no surprise that people are starting to question the benefits of the public sector when their taxes are paying for it.

That's not to say I don't support the public sector and think society should subsidize (to an extent) those who work for government, education, emergency services. I have a friend in Madison who works for govt services and is wrapped up in this right now. She's obviously fighting for herself, but there also isn't a day that goes by that she doesn't also rail against the gross inefficiencies and incompetence in her own office/agency. She'd be the first to tell you that her social services department would fail as a private sector business.

You misunderstand my position on health insurance. The issue in Massachusetts was that individuals were being forced to purchase the product from a private corporation. Same issue with the federal plan. No public option.

Still do not think i should be required to purchase car insurance if i don't own a car.

I also have a good friend that is a member of the teacher's union in Wisconsin. Been a Music teacher out there for about 4 years now. She is out protesting every day.