The public sector unions have threatend mass stike action over pensions, do you think that this is the right thing to do? Is it fair that in the present climate for a group of people to inflict the threat of misery for personal gain?
Yes, I do think they have a right the right to strike. They're striking because they're having their pensions looted. Tis the bankers, politicians and the corporations that have inflicted misery for personal gain.
"The public sector unions have threatend mass stike action over pensions, do you think that this is the right thing to do? "
Well, in the past, public employees negotiating with their employers (states/municipalities) in good faith, agreed to compensation concessions now in exchange for a favorable pension and retirement healthcare package in the future. That is, they agreed to do their jobs for deferred compensation.
Now, years later, the state wants to renege on that agreement: the states want to have their cake (lower pay for their employees) and eat it too (take away the retirement benefits promised in exchange for pay concessions). This situation is especially embarrassing, given that many of the states only have pension problems because they moved money from the pension fund to other areas of the budget, thus creating the very crisis they want to solve by screwing retirees.
The question you ought to be asking is this:
How is it okay for the states to renege on contracts simply because they (claim to) have less money than they expected?
Now consider that the employees/retirees have already done the work; they can't take the work back. But the states won't give them the payment they were promised. So since the employees can't undo the work they did, how do they get the compensation they were promised?
If public sector unions strike, they should be fired and replaced. There's no reason for unions to exist in the public sector.
Um, how about the bosses stole the money in their pension account? Not a good reason?
We're talking about the public sector, in other words government jobs. In this country workers don't need protection from the government, taxpayers do!
When a union can shut down a city or state because it is mad about something... then that Union has way too much power and needs to go.
That is the reason they should have never been allowed.
Have you never considered what your position might have been without the unions?
What is wrong with the people who do the work having power over their position in life?
When a union can shut down a city or state because it is mad about something.
Evidence of just how important they are to a state or city, how needed they are. Salary, benefits and pensions should therefore, reflect their value.
They dont! Everything they get they took from taxpayers to begin with.
Are public sector workers not taxpayers then?
I believe employees should have the right to strike. They make the money for the company and if their pensions are decreased then they have a legitimate reason to go on strike. The workforce is being hurt by companies thinking we re slaves to them because they have all the money. Without employees the company will go nowhere
Unions have served their purpose 60+ years ago and now they're more of a problem than a solution. Get rid of them.
We do, because whatever rights it is no one can stop us.
It is not the unions or the workers that caused the problems. Corporations don't pay taxes and get millions in tax refunds, politicians get wealthy while in office, CEO's make more than 300 times the average worker, lobbyist write our laws, wall street gets bailed out with tax dollars while tax payers stand in unemployment lines, we use tax dollars to fund private school while claiming that public schools are broke, we pass medicare part D law and require the federal government to pay full price for perscription drugs and claim the system is broke. Not to mention two wars that no one can explain. None of the actions that got us into this mess were caused by unions or workers.
We live in America! They have a right to express their disapproval by strike.
Women do it all the time!
They have the right to strike. They also have the right to be fired and replaced.
Yes they have a right to strike, as long as it does not degrade the health and safety of the population.
Just as the government has the right to then hire replacement workers that will accept the going wage and benefits programs that are being offered.
If a work force is being exploited (e.g. someone stole their pension money and spent it on something else) they have the fundamental right to take industrial action to get that fixed.
How is our right to control their labor more basic that *their* right to *their own* labor? If the cause is just, withholding labor is fundamentally valid as a protest.
They should be terminated and the unions disolved.
Simple as that.
Matter of fact... the Unions should be disolved right now... period!
So the government should be allowed to steal their pension money, and when they complain they should be fired?
"They should be terminated and the unions disolved.
Simple as that.
Matter of fact... the Unions should be disolved right now... period!"
Wow, that's very statist of you....I'd have thought that you'd be in favor of individuals working together to help each other out.
Nothing statist at all about it.
I am in favor of free market capitalism.
unions and the govt should both get out the way.
But without the government and unions you would be no better than a third world country.
It is not the Govt, nor the Unions, which made America what it is... it was the American People.
Stop trying to give the credit away to those who do not deserve it.
And who exactly are the government and the unions?
No John, you've missed the point. They're obviously leant, beant lefists progressives. Or Islamists of course.
They do not represent the People as you want them to.
The Unions are not the majority in this country, John. Less people, way way less, are in Unions than are not. So they do not represent the people at all.
And the govt represents us in a limited way.
But they are still "the people" they aren't from another planet.
12% Union, hardly a representation of the American worker.
And it is absurd that a fanatical 12% like them could asssist so much in ruining our economy, and then refuse to help to regain a good footing and get back up again.
They are strangle-holding this nation with their lakeys in congress and the White House.
They gotta go... crush em all.
But you just said that the unions should be dissolved. The only way to dissolve existing unions and keep new unions from forming would be to outlaw them, which requires government action--government telling people how to conduct their affairs. I thought you were against that. Further, such a law would violate our right to free association. I thought you liked the Constitution?
Sorry, to outlaw unions is to infringe on individuals' rights, no matter how you slice it.
So now you have a choice: embrace the hypocrisy or reformulate the anti-union position.
One of the problems with unions is if they are in a company that wants to hire you then you have to join the union. The only thing that unions are good for now a days is to protect the lazy and the person that under normal circumstance would be or should be fired At one time they served a purpose. By making a safe work place not having to work 60 hour a week with no over time. But now and i hate to say this with the government regulations and laws that exist they are only an expense that people are made to pay if you want to work for place with unions. i the government sector they should of never been allowed.
And I believed that you were a christian. Valued and loved your fellow man.
What would make you think that because I do not agree with Unions, I am not a Christian.
Please... are you for real?
So you think, like her, that because I do not support the Unions, I am not a Christian?
You all are so very lost.
Not because you do not support the unions, but because you think that when workers are troubled by a particular problem,so much so they feel they only have the power to strike, they should be sacked, thrown on the dole and to hell with the consequences .Hardly a christian response, and by the way, who's 'her'. My name is Hollie.
Sorry Hollie, no dis-respect intended.
Let's see. A group of employees is "troubled" (they want more money, or less work, or maybe free lunches) and voluntarily refuse to work. They throw themselves on the dole and to hell with the consequences.
Then, yes, if they won't work they should be sacked. Not thrown on the dole though; they already did that themselves.
Govt. may find, by doing that, that it has shot itself in the foot and can no longer get good help for what they pay. Or they may find that they have been overpaying all along and can easily find qualified help for even less money from the limitless fund of govt. money.
If they simply cave in to any and all demands, though, they will inevitably be drawing far more than necessary or desirable from that bottomless pit of greenbacks they have taken from us.
And I think they could find perfectly acceptable canidates to fill all those positions for half the cost.
Rubbish, you clearly do not know what is happening in England. It's not about free lunches, less work. We never received free lunches. It's about the contributions they've made over time. Don't know about the US but in England public sector workers make heavy contributions towards their pensions. They're contracted to work a number of hours, usually forty.
I know from experience, having worked for the Home Office that your average working week is normally about 55 hours. No overtime paid. But, you have a pension. Despite what our un elected prime minster has to say, public sector workers do not have a gold plated pension. If you're really fortunate, you'll receive around fifty quid a week, approx one hundred dollars. Now they want to take a portion of that and make people work longer. Wilderness, you really should do your homework on this issue, particularly with regards to the UK.
Oh wow! TMMason and I actually agree on something. I totall agree! Dissolve unions!
Public workers have the right to strike, but everyone else has the right to get their jobs if they choose to strike.
In reality, though, public workers shouldn't exist.
Strikes by public employees are illegal in nearly all states. Instead, mediation and compulsory arbitration are required.
Contracts already in place cannot be altered without consent from both parties entered in to the contract.
Anyone can strike, employers also have the opportunity to rescind their employment and replace them with more a more eager workforce.
Another question is, is it right for legislatures and/or governors' executive orders to wipe out or cut state workers promised benefits and collective bargaining rights with a stroke of the pen?
No, and while mediation for workers is great when you can get it. What about workers who only meet with employers who refuse to give any ground at all? No negotiation or compromise. Should those workers rights be outlawed?
Absolutely not. They are not slaves. They shall always have the right to quit and work for someone that will pay more.
Good luck with that one when you're talking government employees.
Funny, I remember TM decrying democracies because they give the many the power over the few and yet here he is demanding the rights of the many over the few.
Seems like you're singing off the same hymn sheet.
I don't see it that way. Both the many and the few have exactly the same right - to either come to a mutual agreement on the value of the work or look elsewhere.
On the other hand you seem to argue that the few should be able to, via shutting down society, get just about whatever they want from the public coffers.
Pardon, are you suggesting that govt employees are lazy? At the age of 44 yrs I can honestly say that the majority of my working life was in the private sector, not easy, but neither was working for the government. Both hard. Maybe in the US you have employers that will not only pay more, but are willing to recruit. Not so here. But, that's maybe what occurs when you implement Adam Smiths, tired, worn out and useless economic principles.
From knowing govt employees and working side by side with them it is my impression that they don't typically have the workload of private employees and are compensated, counting paid time off, insurance and other bennies, better than most private companies pay.
Govt jobs can be difficult to get, but are often considered plum jobs and there are good reasons for that. One acquaintance with a business degree used to run a small store as the only manager; he now sits at a desk in a VA hospital checking in patients at a goodly raise in pay plus the typical huge benefit program. From my (limited) experience it doesn't seem unusual.
I think it is especially if it is introduced into the State legislatures and voted on. Remember the politicians represent people and would only do what the citizens wanted. I know, I made myself laugh.
They should be able to strike and they should be able to be fired for striking. I'm their boss and I say YOU'RE FIRED, Donald Trumpesque.
Unions have destroyed their own origional advancements, you cannot justify the unions modern day antics by saying " we have come so far because of them". Mega Unions now are the insurance policy of these very entitlements , political action groups have taken a direction away from the individual powers. Socialism and political action commities are the new plan for Unions. Teachers , air traffic controllers, government workers , transportation workers should not be allowed to strike. If so , then scabbers should have their jobs ! Period!
In the UK it was once the case that key workers, such as nurses, never stuck, but other workers would strike on their behalf.
Then, in a move to dis-empower the unions this was made illegal and now we have nurses willing to take strike action to protect their patients and their jobs.
Good thinking of their part. Strike, and walk off the job, so that patients do not have the nursing care they need. This will protect them.
At the same time, refusing to work will protect their job.
I guess it's how unions reason - to h*** with everyone else; give me more!
Sorry, didn't I make myself clear? The nurses always had a no-strike policy but were supported by other unions not so restricted.
By making such support illegal the conservative government left them with no choice but to consider action on their own behalf.
Yes, I understood that. And their considered action is to walk off the job and leave their patients without the care they need. By doing this you indicate they protect the patients by not providing care and protect their jobs by not doing them.
Pretty much what I said: to h*** with the patients that depend on them for their very lives - I want more money!
Of course, there is an ethical solution albeit one you deny. Give the hospital 2 weeks notice - time enough to replace them and maintain patient care - and go look for another job that pays what they want.
You're assuming that strike action is only about money!
You couldn't be more wrong. Take the nurses, they aren't considering action because of their pay, they are considering action because the government plans to have fewer nurses doing more work,in short, the government wish to jeopardise the patients care. The nurses are opposed to this. As far as I know most nurses in the UK are not motivated by pay and are quite happy with pay as it is. It is the proposed level of care that they are unhappy with.
You're right - I assumed they are striking for more compensation.
If they are instead walking off and leaving their patients with no care in order to either 1)emphasize that the nurses are the ones responsible for determining the level of care that the patients get, or 2)demanding that their work load remain static instead of becoming something reasonable then...well that doesn't make much sense either.
On the other hand most RN's in the US are badly overworked, to the point that patients don't get good care because the nurse can't provide it. If that is the case then nurses unions ought to get together and make a huge smear campaign to get it stopped. Or anything else that doesn't harm their patients. What they don't do is walk away from patients that need them to protect that patient.
No public employee involved with public safety should ever strike.
And again you're assuming that they are walking off the job leaving patients uncared for!!
No nurse taking such action would, quite rightly, be allowed to practice.
Industrial action can take many forms, all covered broadly by the term "strike" but can include work to rule, no overtime (unpaid) withdrawal of none essential services.
And you go on to assume that if nurses are unhappy with the level of care that the can give --- what did you say "demanding that their work load remain static instead of becoming something reasonable then"
They aren't talking about their work load remaining static instead of something reasonable! They are talking about their work load remaining static instead of something unreasonable! You know, making one nurse do the work of two,as one nurse is working to the max already there is nothing reasonable about increasing work load.
No public employee involved in public safety should ever be put upon to the extent where they even consider strike action.
Shouldn't there be a similar restriction put on employers?
Hmmm. A little difference in the language used here. In the USA to go on strike means to refuse to work and probably includes picketing the job site. It often means an attempt to prevent replacement workers from working as well.
You can then understand why I say it should never happen and appear to have the same opinion.
Making one nurse do the work of two is quite resonable IF it is taking the work of two nurses to do what one can easily do. In my experience that is the norm for govt workers; the ones I'm familiar with are the antitheses of overworked.
Jails here are often run by private enterprise and no the company should never be allowed to simply open the doors and shut the place down over a wage dispute. Nor should a private hospital be allowed to move patients onto the street and shut the doors over the same thing. Should nurses in a private (or public) hospital refuse to work without a 100% increase in salary that hospital must remain at least partially open (depending on other care in the area) until replacement workers can be found. Neither the employer or employee should be able to hold a gun to the others head in the public safety arena as neither really has a choice about providing services.
That does not mean, however, that nurses should set their own salary. If a compromise is unreachable the nurse must give reasonable notice (to prevent a large number of quitters at once thus shutting down the hospital) and find other work. If a hospital cannot pay the going rate they will face insolvency whether public or private. Many people do not realize this, but even govt pockets are not limitless - governments that spend more than they take in will eventually fail. Many governments are facing this reality now as it has gone on too long - people scream about it as if it isn't happening, but it is.
But making one nurse do the work of two is not reasonable if she/he is already doing unpaid overtime to do their own work.
As I said, nurses in the UK are generally happy with their wages but extremely dissatisfied with working conditions.
Get over your fixation with workers pay, that isn't the problem. The problem is with employers changing workers contracts without any agreement with the workers and private or public, that is just not on.
I accept that worker pay isn't the problem for British nurses. It doesn't change strike results, though.
I don't see how an employer can change a contract without agreement. If a contract has a year to run, then it has a year and can't be modified without both parties agreeing.
On the other hand, when that contract is over, it is over. It certainly can't be changed at that point as it is no longer in affect. Most unions then negotiate a new contract for another period of time; neither employer or union is often satisfied with the old one. It is thus expected and accepted that a new contract will be made with different requirements for both employer and employee so what is this "changing workers contracts" that you speak of?
Was the contract written giving the employer unilateral authority to change it as they see fit? Or is the new contract being negotiated and the nurses are claiming that the contract is being changed without ever having been accepted?
One would seem to be stupid negotiating on the part of the union and the other nothing more than posturing to get a contract more in their favor. Or, if the employer actually is changing an existing contract then it should be a matter for the courts.
Once more, if a contract that is acceptable to both parties cannot be found then it is time to find a new job and a new employee.
It's easy, especially without unions to support the contract. The employer unilaterally changes the contract and tells the workers to take it or leave it. A union has the strength and more importantly the finance to challenge it in a court of law, the workers don't.
Without a union to ratify and sign the contract for the employee, who signs it? Each individual employee? Only top management here does such a thing.
As with "strike" I wonder if you and I just aren't understanding and agreeing on how several things work. A broken contract is pretty easy to beat in court, and in fact a simple letter the the labor board with a copy would probably do the trick.
You have to equate public union powers to congress giving itself autmatic raises in the night!
By the way, this myth about the unions being of the left is no more than that,a myth.
We have right wing unions, union leaders and union members in this country as I'm sure you do in yours.
I have been a member of two unions and the only political posters I ever saw were of democrats. They did everything they could do to persuade us to vote for democrats.
Did you expect them to persuade turkeys to vote for Christmas?
No, I fully expect leftist organizations to push leftist politicians. I guess that's your way of conceding that point.
Two Unions? What two please? Mr. Repair.We hear that at work all of the time."I used to do that" well ,What happened?
IBEW and the IPUAT. What happened? I joined the IBEW because I had to to work on a particular project, Its funny because at the end of the job the union guys were laid off first and Rats as they were called finished up the work. So much for strength of the union. The IPAUT was just a joke of a union, they organized a bunch of painters and conned them with health insurance and high pay. In the end the local was discovered to have absconded with the dues and the only union shop in town closed because they were terrible business men, go figure.
Now I see why you have that opinion,Thanks.Your bad experience was 2 thirds the contractors fault and the union taking off with the money was the other third. We battle this all of the time where I live. Contractors have no problem with bidding commercial work at Union price levels then want to sneak in day laborers,that is defined as greed. This is not the unions or the men's fault
Really? You don't think its the unions fault that union labor was laid off and non union help was kept? What's the union for if not to fight for its members? Unions are corrupt leftist organizations who exist for the sole purpose of laundering money for democrat politicians.
Hate to dissagree John , But , take a look at political donations from organized labor in America, There is soo much organized labor money going to liberal candidates and incumbants ! One would think it often influencing political actions pretty strongly! Oh yeaa.......It does!
You're right, it probably does but ask yourself, is a union more likely to support those who will support the unions,or, those more likely to oppose them?
And so ? It's all in or nothing ,............ No, I will stay out of the union and my "own" perforance will dictate my rewards on the job! Unions do not allow for the individual advancement . hence stifling good performance!
And now they have priced themselves right out of the job market or they will very soon.
The problem with the public sector is that historically public sector workers were paid slightly less than those who worked in the private sector. Under Labour that trend was reversed and now public sector workers are paid more and get much better pensions to boot.
The problem lies with the increase in average age and the impending dramatic rise in the amount of people claiming pensions.
As someone who has a private pension, the promises made to me when I took it on have already been broken, but then I was always aware that the return on a private pension is not guaranteed. In the public sector, the pension forcasted is guaranteed, and these guarantees cannot be met so something has to change whether we like it or not.
Why this urge to drag everybody down to the lowest level?
Why not argue that instead of public sector jobs being pulled down to the level of private sector jobs, private sector jobs should be raised to the level of public sector?
Why this urge to raise a select few (union members) to an unsustainable level far above everyone else?
Because the only thing that accomplishes is to raise prices on everything (it's called inflation) and the cycle starts all over again.
Who says it a few and who says it's unsustainable?
Remember the old adage, "pay peanuts, get monkeys"
I can't speak for the British, but the union population in the US has very low. It has outlived its usefulness in nearly all cases and now does far more harm than good.
I don't know if you've ever seen double digit inflation but I have (around 12% as I recall). I assure you it is not sustainable Should you doubt it, ask the germans how it was after WWII.
It always amazes me that people seem to think that employees can get unlimited raises without harming the company, the surrounding citizenry or the country they are in while keeping the price of the products they make low enough for everyone to buy. If the price remains static the company fails and the job is lost. If it does go up either the surrounding wages go up as well (to be able to afford it) or no sales will be made and once more the job is lost. If prices go up so must the union wage as the whole point of a union is to make more money than the surrounding citizenry and inflation soon damages the whole country.
Yes, we had double digit inflation under the conservative government of the 80s. Wasn't anything to do with the unions though.
Have you never considered that higher wages mean more people to afford the goods made?
I'm not talking about unlimited raises just a fair days pay for a fair days work.
No, higher wages means a higher price and fewer people that can afford to buy it. That's what I mean - it's amazing that people seem to think inflation won't happen when average wages rise. Certainly, the wages of a few union workers can go up without inflation but not the average national wage. It's how the unions remain attractive to the greedy workers that can't accept they aren't worth what they demand.
No - you're talking about what the workers demand for a fair days work as opposed to what they are worth. Few people think they are worth only what they are paid - that's human nature.
But increased demand generally means lower prices and higher profits.
Increased demand doesn't do much good when the net profit is 0 or negative from increased wage costs.
However, increased demand usually results in higher prices along with higher profits. At least until the unions figure out that their purchasing power has now gone down from those increased prices caused by their very own raise in wages and demand another wage increase.
It's called the inflationary circle. What is the justification for increasing wages? Usually that purchasing power has eroded and to maintain the same standard of living requires more money. As soon as that money is granted by the employer his profit goes down so he raises prices even more to cover increased profit (just as the employee did) and it starts all over.
You assume that any increase in pay automatically wipes out any profit!
History is littered with objects that have come down dramatically in price with increased demand, take auto spark plugs for example, their price remained the same for about 100 years as demand and technology made them cheaper to produce.
Interesting analysis, however, the Conservative government in the UK applied the same principle when opposing the introduction of the minimum wage. The minimum wage was rolled out nationally, every low paid worker in the UK, and that's a significant portion of working age adults, received a pay rise. Inflation did not rocket, nor, as the Conservatives would have has us believe, did small and medium size business go to the wall. In fact, just as in living standards, the economy grew.Unemployment on the other hand, fell as did poverty among working families. Recent history therefore suggests, that your argument is deeply flawed.
"every low paid worker in the UK, and that's a significant portion of working age adults, received a pay rise"
No they didn't. The minimum wage was a huge disappointment to low paid workers and unions, rolled out originally at £3.60 ph. Unions and other supporters were expecting at least £5 ph.
Very few low paid workers benefited from its introduction.
Apart from the many earning less than £3.60 an hour.
Some companies were still paying less than £2 an hour!
One of the famous judges who approved of the minimum wage asked why it was being set at only £5 an hour. "Surely nobody in this county earns as little as that!"
That's not strictly true John. When Thatcher won the 1979 election inflation was in double digits - the Conservatives inherited high interest from the previous Labour years, and I'm pretty sure you know it!
From 1979 to the mid-eighties inflation decreased to an average of 4%.
Why can't you get it into your head that bringing private sector pensions up to the level of public pensions will effectively (relatively) cut the value of the public sector pensions you are trying to protect???
And in 1980 inflation was at 18%. Interest rates were similar. Taxes had gone through the roof.
Effectively and relatively, your final statement doesn't make much sense.
"Effectively and relatively, your final statement doesn't make much sense."
No, to a person like you it wouldn't because you don't know how to interpret statistics or know what drives high inflation.
There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics. Who is your source?
The same source as John's. He is right that in 1980 it was 18%.
"Why can't you get it into your head that bringing private sector pensions up to the level of public pensions will effectively (relatively) cut the value of the public sector pensions you are trying to protect???"
I don't get any meaning out of that other than pensions would be equalised! And what's wrong with everybody having similar amounts? Public sector workers are not a more worthy cause than private.
You cannot level out public and private pensions because private pensions are based on investments and rise and fall in value. If private pensions were made equal to public pensions in today's economic climate, there is a very good chance private pensions would become more lucrative in the future leaving public sector workers disadvantaged.
If you actually thought about things for a nanosecond you might have come to this conclusion yourself!
Public sector and private sector pensions cannot be brought into line with each other because they work differently. Even after the public sector pension cuts the benefits will still be generous and this is why there are many public sector workers who are embarassed by all of this (my partner works in the public sector).
Private pensions have themselves been subject to lowered forecasted returns because of the state of the economy and the fact people are living longer. But it could be that in the future private pensions will do better and will catch up with public sector pensions, but it isn't looking very likely.
"Is it fair that in the present climate for a group of people to inflict the threat of misery for personal gain?" The Republicans in the House of Representatives seem to think it is OK...
Your point is quite true it would seem that a lot of people are for thier own gain. How many of publisc sector workers could say " actually I am still better of even if the package wasn't what was promised" so are the union bosses trying to gain more power beacuse it is a good time to?
Crikey this question has polerised a lot of people.
I would like to make a point that the question was not do they have the right to strike but at this difficult time is it right for a gruop of people to strike for personal gain and possible setting other people back with health and finaces.
In England there is no automatic right to strike, it no longer exists as JH says this changed when the torries set out to di-empower the unions in the 80's. If you are not in a union you do not have the right to remove your services under 'strike action' if you do this could be deamed as walking out and could incure a charge of gross misconduct.
This week here in England certain union bosses set a war cry to take on the goverment over cuts to jobs and pensions now is this a real threat or just talk. Where I am looking from it seems that a road of strike action may lead to a negative postion for said public emploies and not gain anything. On the other hand is a good time for the goverment to push through programs that in an other time would have had even more resitance.
Personal gain? Don't make me laugh. You shouldn't have to ask the rich people nicely for the right to live.
Commies, Mobsters, Govt, who is the more crooked Union?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/nyreg … shore.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/16/wa … o-protest/
And lets not forget the indoctrination of WI students into the role of useful idiot to be stooges for the unions.
Unions suck and should be crushed with extreme prejudice.
Along with all the miserable people who rely on them.
Just the Unions themselves, the people are just mis-guided, blind lil usefuls, wanting what they want because they have been convinced they are entitled.
SPOILED, sums it up in a word.
If not the unions what is to replace them?
Unlike the bosses who are convinced of their entitlement! Entitlement to live off the work of others.
You are right those Union bosses are real scum.
The jimmy hoffas et all.. scum from the bottom of the bucket... and Leftists to boot.
Actually if you pulled all the laws supprting the unions off the books and gave the Cos a fair voice in saying, no I do not want a union in my Co, then the unions would dissolve over-nite.
The only reason they, unions, exist today are the laws which force them into Cos and make people join them.
Without the force of the govt behind them, unions would be gone already.
Good Point ! Lets face it , its the fault of unions right now ! All across America , teachers , local ,state , federal employess are so far up the a** of promised entitlements we will never see daylight! If the law didnt protect them the would fall! And fall they should.
All of you that are anti- union have something going on besides just working for a living.Possibly a business owner that want's to keep it all or jealousy that you aren't being paid that well.If you aren't being paid that well that's your own fault.There are problems with some public sector unions but blame the putzes on your side for ratifying the contracts.Maybe I can pull a Scott Walker (R) on my mortgage,you know Reneg. Real earnings adjusted for inflation have remained almost flat since 1970,did the business owner not raise their prices to adjust for inflation plus profit since 1970? Your upset that your taxes are going up? It's the union,blame your states and wall st. for screwing up the pension funds.Health care,ever see a poor insurance rep or doctor? As for the private sector,I have yet to meet a poor business owner.No,they weren't hatched that way,their union business got them there.As for unions,if a group of workers with a specific set of skills (skillset, college term)want to band together to get a certain compensation package it's a free country .Owners want to fire them fine,sooner or later those low pay workers are going to say "Screw this guy" maybe at the worst possible time.Do they have right to strike? It depends,they don't do it for no reason and they aren't getting paid so you do the math.
"As for the private sector,I have yet to meet a poor business owner."
Your envy of money is hypocritical and typical of those who despise other people's success. Do you know the percentage of 'business owners' who go bankrupt before they even make a success of their business? It's well over 80%! Successful business owners have been brave enough to invest their life savings into something which isn't guaranteed to work. Would you take that risk?
The reason unions are disliked so much is because of their political agendas and anti-capitalist views.
As far as an envy of others success and money that is very far from the truth.Money is a function in my life ,I don't live for it or worship it .What are you a psychologist.? You don't know me so don't try and label me.I started my own business and it did fail,why? because I couldn't sell jobs and do the work at the same time. I actually helped my old boss build his company up for 19 years until his death in 2006. It started with a wheel barrow and a dream. I have witnessed more crying by contractors crying "I'm losing money" than I care to remember.Why? because they feel if they tell you things are going well you will slow down. You are right they hung it all out on the line,but does that mean that $7.25 is all that the workers are worth? Political agenda? What support of the Democrats? Anti Capitalist? a living wage, pension after possibly destroying your body or dying and the ability to go to the doctor?Do you own a business and how are your workers compensated if so? I will admit that my only experience is in the construction industry.I work for a union contractor but if you ask him he would prefer to pay us $5.00 .There's only one problem It's his business but he's selling our quality workmanship.
I was self-employed as a web designer but was forced out of business by the sheer mass of competition about 5 years ago. I took it on the chin and took full-time employment for a large company here in Nottingham as an order picker in a warehouse and worked my way up to management level within the space of 2 years. It was there that I learned the true nature of unions and the kind of people who sign up to be representatives - basically work-shy.
I now work for a large US company and stand as an employee representative alongside many union reps. The approach is the same - "we need more!"
Most jobs that pay a low wage are not positions of responsibility. You go to work, do your job, and then go home again. Higher paid jobs require higher levels of responsibilities and more stress. It's quite simple really.
I do not know of anyone on the minimum wage who is starving or cannot afford to buy a TV or mobile phone. Our quality of life is excellent compared to the times when unions were campaigning for improved working conditions. They have done a good job, but these days they seem to have lost their way. These days they just do things to make themselves look as if they are doing something.
See, now I can agree with you on some points. There are bad points I can not defend but all of us can not be lumped together. Times are better for the working individual but, should we slide backwards?
No, we shouldn't.
This isn't about sliding backwards. This is about balancing the books.
I live in a small town (population 15000) on the outskirts of a medium sized city in Britain which had a huge medical centre (one of the biggest in europe) built on the site of a Harley Davidson outlet. It's so big it would put many multiplex cinemas to shame!
We had a 24hr dentist, walk-in centre, pharmacy, blood tests on-demand, and all the trimmings.
The walk-in centre reduced hours to basically 9-5.
The blood tests on-demand were withdrawn.
The dental practice has been shut down.
They close my surgery on Thursday afternoons.
I cannot get a repeat prescription the next day. It takes 2 days now.
And before you suggest that the Conservatives have done this, it has been like this since 2008!
Whenever I see that building my blood boils because Labour spent so much money on things we didn't need. They just wanted to make us feel happy in the only way they could - by spending money on things that would satiate us knowing that we wouldn't have an ounce of sense to think that it was a waste of money.
But I always did.
They do not have the right to strike. They have the right to quit and find other employment if they do not like the wages, benefits, or working conditions.
by karl3 years ago
There has been another round of public sector strikes here in the UK with Firefighters, local government workers and teachers (depending on which Union they belong to) amongst the 500,000 - 1,000,000 workers ( depending...
by Onusonus4 years ago
Just thought you'd like to know.
by weholdthesetruths6 years ago
The equivalent of a wolf and a bear negotiating on how many of the farmer's sheep to eat. Collective bargaining is a sham in terms of public employees. It's a manager and a mob, negotiating how spending...
by pisean2823117 years ago
for me it is hollow talks , corruption and dividing people..
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/0 … ector.htmlWhat a great piece! This clearly shows the evil and selfishness of the left! It shows how democrats created a system designed to keep them in power all financed...
by JON EWALL6 years ago
Just recently a report came out regarding employment.The report stated that the average pay in the private market was $40.00/hr. and the average pay in the public sector was $70/hr.In the public sector the fringe...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.