well that was quick.....

[waka]

I suppose that is one way to look at it. However the fact the unions spent $35M to ensure the issue would be defeated, is an other way to look at it. The left leaning FDR and F. Lagardia both said public employees should not be unionized for there is no incentive on the political side to control costs.

Are you kidding? 35M is paltry compared to money spent by corporate lobbyists. Besides, their statement about controlling costs were in a time that executives weren't paid the exorbitant money that they're paid now. Do you actually think that they're concerned with cost control in regard to their salary bonuses? Think again.

 

[waka]

Well

You just proved what an uninformed SHEEP you are. There is a huge difference between a public sector union and a private sector union.

"Well", no, there isn't.

Instead of just MINDLESSLY regurgitating what you're told and talking out of your ass, show your work and enumerate in labor law such a distinction. I can save you some time. There is exactly zero difference in labor unions representing private and public sector employees regarding labor law. The right wing spin machine has tried to sell the idea that collective bargaining for the public sector is what ails society economically so as to obfuscate the real issues and you are one of the buyers (loose with your money are ya?).

again you need to get the facts. Taxpayers are picking up these giant pensions because GOVCO cannot afford them. In the private sector these companies go bankrupt. Get a clue

Facts check sonny. When it comes to labor law (except when knee-jerk reactionary Republicans, say, in Wisconsin, that are trying to change it), it doesn't matter whether unions are representing the public or private sector. Worker's rights are worker's rights, period. i.e. So, when your house is on fire, the fire fighters shouldn't be able to bargain for their QOL??

You are galactically ignorant......apparently, by choice. I advise you to look beyond your nose.

 

[waka]

[/B]


So you agree that someone making 50G a year and has to work well into his or her 60's in a private sector job with only a 401k to live on should have to pay taxes so that a public sector employee can retire at 55 and collect a pension thats well over 50G a year for the rest of his life.

A. Quit making up straw man numbers and arguments. That said, I would prefer that taxes are raised on those making well over 50K. In that sense, those that benefit most should pay their share and if that means that paying taxes so a public sector employee can retire at whatever age for which their union can bargain, so be it.

Ohio is already broke >> and is going to be much deeper in debt in the very near future

Blame it on giving public sector workers their right to collectively bargain. Yeah right, they're the source of Ohio's budget woes, but don't consider the tax breaks for the wealthy.

I can see you having your opinion if you're wealthy. The funny thing is (unless you're signing bonus checks to executives and sports superstars) you're just another mindless sucker.

 

[G4dude]

I am sure you believe that is true. There are other's who believe that is not true. There is long history of companies with great union contracts that are no longer in business or used BK to break the contract to ensure the companies survival. BTW With all your insights into management practices, you should move into management and make the company a better place to work; you owe it to your fellow pilots,

Here is my favorite story: A couple of years ago, a Democratic congressman was campaigning, and talking about how he enjoyed his union job when he was younger, how good a deal the union got him and his coworkers. I checked, and discovered that company is now out of business, and has been for quite some time. Pretty funny.

 

[G4dude]

Well

You just proved what an uninformed SHEEP you are. There is a huge difference between a public sector union and a private sector union.

again you need to get the facts. Taxpayers are picking up these giant pensions because GOVCO cannot afford them. In the private sector these companies go bankrupt. Get a clue

Raj, I agree with you, but you might want to dial down the vitriol. Easy does it!

 

[G4dude]

"Well", no, there isn't.

Instead of just MINDLESSLY regurgitating what you're told and talking out of your ass, show your work and enumerate in labor law such a distinction. I can save you some time. There is exactly zero difference in labor unions representing private and public sector employees regarding labor law. The right wing spin machine has tried to sell the idea that collective bargaining for the public sector is what ails society economically so as to obfuscate the real issues and you are one of the buyers (loose with your money are ya?).



Facts check sonny. When it comes to labor law (except when knee-jerk reactionary Republicans, say, in Wisconsin, that are trying to change it), it doesn't matter whether unions are representing the public or private sector. Worker's rights are worker's rights, period. i.e. So, when your house is on fire, the fire fighters shouldn't be able to bargain for their QOL??

You are galactically ignorant......apparently, by choice. I advise you to look beyond your nose.

I have always been curious about this issue. I understand the argument of those who say we need unions to protect workers from the supposed predations of the marketplace, but what protections do GOVERNMENT workers need? They have always had job security, low productivity requirements, and never had to worry about layoffs and economic cycles. BTW, JFK started the government union rule; the political benefit was the ability to expand the federal workforce with people whose union would make massive donations to his Party.

 

[G4dude]

A. Quit making up straw man numbers and arguments. That said, I would prefer that taxes are raised on those making well over 50K. In that sense, those that benefit most should pay their share and if that means that paying taxes so a public sector employee can retire at whatever age for which their union can bargain, so be it.



Blame it on giving public sector workers their right to collectively bargain. Yeah right, they're the source of Ohio's budget woes, but don't consider the tax breaks for the wealthy.

I can see you having your opinion if you're wealthy. The funny thing is (unless you're signing bonus checks to executives and sports superstars) you're just another mindless sucker.

If you took ALL the money from the wealthy, Ohio (and the US) would still be broke because of the union pensions and medical benefits at retirement.

 

[pilotyip]

"You are galactically ignorant......apparently, by choice. I advise you to look beyond your nose.

Ah! the classic liberal, name calling it fits so well on FI. Little story of public employee unions, City of Detroit, Retiree compensation and benefits are now 25% of the total budget for Detroit. Contract written in the 60's and 70's when the city had 1.7M people is now a city of under 500K taxpayers. The city may have to go BK to break the contracts. In the mean time currently employed cops and Firefighters are laid off to save. The murder rate goes up and houses burn down because of no response. Funny thing about these dedicated public employees, the retirees have all moved out of the city because the taxes are too high, so the City of Detroit money it doesn't have flows out of the city.

 

[OPECJet]

I have always been curious about this issue. I understand the argument of those who say we need unions to protect workers from the supposed predations of the marketplace, but what protections do GOVERNMENT workers need? They have always had job security, low productivity requirements, and never had to worry about layoffs and economic cycles. BTW, JFK started the government union rule; the political benefit was the ability to expand the federal workforce with people whose union would make massive donations to his Party.

Job security is a thing of the past in gov't work. Agreed about the low productivity requirements.

 

[waka]

Ah! the classic liberal, name calling it fits so well on FI.

Ah! The classic conservative hypocrite, selectively ignores the name-calling from the right (from rajflyboy in this case) to which I was responding. Yet, you're quick to preach about name-calling to those whom disagree with you.

Little story of public employee unions, City of Detroit, Retiree compensation and benefits are now 25% of the total budget for Detroit. Contract written in the 60's and 70's when the city had 1.7M people is now a city of under 500K taxpayers. The city may have to go BK to break the contracts. In the mean time currently employed cops and Firefighters are laid off to save. The murder rate goes up and houses burn down because of no response. Funny thing about these dedicated public employees, the retirees have all moved out of the city because the taxes are too high, so the City of Detroit money it doesn't have flows out of the city.

That's just sucks. However, is it the fault of the retirees? No. Most conservatives like you like to blame problems with intricate and complex causes to simple ones that fit into the type of catchy one-liners that are abused by right wing radio spinmeisters. This makes it such that the target audience can feel good about their refusal or inability to think.