Friday December 6, 2013
Jump to content
All you people who are against unions because they are CROOKED should sure look at what polititions do.
Union members have to negotiate for their wages and benefits but the polititions give themselves a raise whenever they see fit.They also have a LIFETIME pension for a short time of service.Also they have great medical benefits. All this they give themselves.
You may think unions are crooked but they don't even compare to the political system.
Mom & pop businesses don't need unions but companies with a larger work force sure do.The workers need representation to see that they get a FAIR share of their production.
The workers need to get afair share of the profiteering that is going on.
Why should politics pretend to be representing the common public when they are actually doing just the opposite!!
While you may be against unions that are actually helping the working class you should be working to change a government that is trying to rid our system of middle class AMERICA!!
Unions are why we are buying everything from foreign countries.
No problem with labor unions, per se, Jack, although I would be glad to criticize many of the actions of their leadership at some other time. I do take issue, however, with the need for unionization of public employees... always have.
It irks me to watch a representative get on TV and say that they have the "right" to union protection. Just once I'd like the reporter to ask, "protection from whom... or what?"
I suspect that, since they work for the government, e.g., me, and I'm a pretty nice guy to work for, the protection they want is from a merit-based system, or more simply, competition in the work place.
Inarguably, they took the idea of unionization from the private sector, leaving behind the dynamics that brought about the need for unions in the first place! Now, it is we who need the protection, and since they work for me, I say that public employee unions should be banned.
My main point is that unions are an ally for the common people in spite of some questionable leadership in the past.Our government is an enemy of the people and these lifetime polititions know nothing of the workforce that most of them have never been a part of.How can they say that they are working for the people when they don't even know what it's like to eke out a living.
They are so busy padding their own nest and listening to LOBBYISTS they don't even have time to understand the real problems of the working class lives.
So how can they cope with needs of the real PEOPLE.?
The people must wake up too make changes in the way VOTE!
Jack, I have a hard time supporting unions and I'll tell you why. When I grew up in the fifties I had no idea what a union was. I was aware of the Korean War, of the communists, and my family. That was about it. I knew about the Korean War because my dad's younger brothers joined the Navy and went to fight. They had some problems however. My Paternal Grandfather was a communist. He was registered and believed in the rights of workers as controlled by the government. His son's and daughters did not agree, but because he was a registered communist, my uncles were almost thrown out of the Navy. They were not.
My father, a WWII Paratrooper with the 101st Airborne, became a carpenter after the war. Because of his father and of the Unions (he saw the communist influence) he had a hard time finding work. He eventually did, earned his respect, started his own company and resisted the 'union influence'.
Jack, this is the way I see unions.
As a worker I have a choice, join the union, do what the union tells me and pay them a part of my wage. OR...as a freeman, go to work for employer who says, give me a days work and I'll pay you
$___ show me more, and I'll give you more. I know where I will go because that's where I've chosen to go. The bottom line is simple. If It Is To Be, It Is Up To Me.
It is a pity that you don't really know more about unions.
They are a representative of the working man against the demanding employer that doesn't want to share increasing profits with those who produce them.
Labor negotiations with management can work these out FAIRLY.When done properly it's a FAIR deal.
Government doesn't work this way for the common people!
I think Dan Haapala and I know enough and understand the unions very well.
I remember when a grocery stores employees went on strike between Globe and Miami. A union steward came out on the road construction job where my husband was working. My husband was in the laborers union at the time. All the workers on the construction job were told not to buy groceries at that store.
My answer was when he pays for my groceries I will buy them at what ever store he wants but until then I am still shopping at Pete's grocery.
The strike didn't last long.
Marly, I agree with you. As far as I can tell, the only benefit that the "average" government employees receive from their union is to get paid roughly twice the wage that non-government employees get. The "average" non-union employee earns about $70,000 a year (I assume this includes the owners and supervisors, etc.), while the "average" government employee earns about $150,000. Nice work if you can get it. Gives some clue to the dire straits the country is in with respect to the budget. Multiply the total government work force by $150,000 - I don't know what it is, but it's got to be humungous.
I would sure like to know any one "working ' FOR THE GOVERNMENT thats getting paid 150,ooo dollars a year! And IF they were why aren't the private work force able to get the same.
The government does all the bad things that you say unions do but they they still seem to get uninformed peoples support.
I haven't seen anyone post true information about how much good the unions have done for working class america.
All I have seen is separate incidents that people have run accross.
Our government sure isn't helping the common people!!
Jack, you need to read the thread postings under schools and education.
Titled> "Wisconsin teachers and their Union Protest"
I belonged to a large union for 25 years. Early on, it was led by a sincere small group individuals who worked hard to represent the interests and employment contracts of the work force. It has morphed into a major labor union with top heavy administration and their own employees. (paid out of union dues) They are more lobyist for themselves and self promotion for future political municipal and state government positions and appointments. They spend a great deal of time promoting various local and state political candidates and current office holders. Of course the rank and file have no real say in this process and no actual control. Wage and working conditions seem to have taken a lesser role in the leadership efforts. It's more about power, control, feathering their individual nest, and keeping special interest membership factions happy. Media drama is also paramount so as to make the rank and file think they are actualy doing something for their benefit. It has all become a very expensive phony dog and pony show.
It sure is amazing how people can downgrade unions to this extent while our government is trying to eliminate the middle class
Why don't you all wonder why we have such huge number of BILLIONAIRES who never worked a day in their life and they still want more.And what are they doing for the american people?
Ok...I'll weigh in. Years ago, when I was too young and stupid to know better, as a state employee I succumbed to extreme pressure and joined a public employees union. Upon joining, I was then privy to the "hinky" goings on, and political chicanery in which the union administration engaged. My membership lasted a few verrrry long months. (because there were only certain times of the year that one could "quit" the union. One could join at any time, but quitting was much more complicated! Go figure!)
I decided to quit for a couple of reasons; first and foremost, because I didn't care for the tactics that the union employed. The second reason was that I realized exactly what Mr. Haapala pointed out, that so long as I did the job for which I was hired, and to the best of my ability, I didn't need "protection" from my employer. The employer offered me a position and a salary. It was my option to accept or refuse; and so long as each of us met our end of the agreement, all was copacetic. My choice. They didn't "owe" me a job and I didn't "owe" them my services. We engaged in a mutually agreed upon trade. End of story.
I am extremely curious as to the source of Mr. Kerns' information:
"As far as I can tell, the only benefit that the “average” government employees receive from their union is to get paid roughly twice the wage that non-government employees get. The “average” non-union employee earns about $70,000 a year (I assume this includes the owners and supervisors, etc.), while the “average” government employee earns about $150,000."
Really??? Seriously??? The “average” government employee??? Please Mr. Kerns I am very interested in from whence you derived your information and to what position and/or job you are referring.
The best benefit that the government employees I am acquainted with have is decent schedules and time off. However, even that is something that is only accumulated after years of service. As for exorbitant salaries for the "average" government employee; please Mr. Kerns, check your facts: The "average government employee" could make approximately 3 times his government salary were he to take a position in the private sector doing the same job.
If the average govt. employee could make approximately 3 times his govt. salary were he to take a position in the private sector doing the same job he is really stupid.
There is something keeping him in govt. maybe he knows he can't be fired as easy?
Or how about, he knows that he can make a larger impact on a greater number of people by doing the job for the government than in the private sector.
Believe it or not, not everybody is motivated by the almighty dollar. And not everybody is looking for the easy way out.
And some people have nearly had their lives ruined by unions and their strong-arm tactics
I am completely against unions.
Everyone works for thier own benefit. Not for making a better impact on a greater number of people unless it benefits them too. If you know anyone that does please let me know.
I am not talking about charities.
First of all, I am a "ms", not a "mr". Secondly, I take my figures from the internet news sites (both MSNBC and Fox). The problem I have with unions is that, sure, there are employees who are really hard workers, and for that they get a very good wage. But there are other employees who only file their fingernails or drink coffee all day, and get the same very good wage as the hard workers, because wages are controlled by the unions and getting rid of "dead wood" is almost impossible, because of their union membership.
I believe all workers should be paid on their job performance, rather than on their union membership.
I should NOT have stated in my post of 2/22 at 12:18 that the average government worker earns $150,000 a year. That number is the average for ALL government employees. The various department heads (and congressmen) obviously earn much more than the lower echelon of government workers, who also earn way more than their counterparts in the civilian sector. And because they belong to a union, they can't be fired for substandard work.
Ok, First off, I should have been more clear. I HaTE unions. And the government employees that I know do not belong to the union. As a point of fact, one person had their tires slashed in the (secured) parking lot at their office, by union hacks, ticked off by the employees refusal to join the union. One person, 20 years after the fact, is still on a "scab" list for crossing picket lines and refusing to abide by a union strike.
Ms. Kerns, First, I apologize for the gender mistake, sorry! As for your figures and your statement that you derived your figures from MSNBC and Fox, please, in future, be personally certain of your information, rather than relying on biased journalists and putting information on here disguised as "fact". Thank you for your clarification of the "average government employee" earns $150,000.00. The media puts that type of "information" out there, but doesn't clarify that they included Senatorial and Congressional salaries in the mix, along with Secretarial and Janitorial salaries. Taking the President, Congress and Senator salaries out of the mix would SERiOUSLY impact that average.
Furthermore, the government employees who are there to do the job (and then some) for which they are paid are not any happier with the "slackers" who rely on the union for protection than anybody else, because it means that they are picking up the slack of the employees who are too busy "filing their nails and drinking coffee all day to do their job"; a job which still must be done.
To answer your question Pat, I do know someone who does the job he does (for the government)because he truly wishes to make an impact in his chosen field. As a matter of fact, right off the top of my head I can think of several "someone's" of whom that can be said.
I will add the caveat that the main attraction of working for the government, as I mentioned previously, is decent schedules and time off. In the field which the people with whom I am acquainted work, the job in the private sector requires a great deal of time on the road and away from home. My acquaintances choose to have better quality of life and family, which means substantially fewer dollars. A trade off, but one they gladly make. If that makes them "stupid" in your eyes, I am very sorry that you feel that way.
I cannot, nor will I try to, change anybody's opinion on this. Suffice it to say that I vehemently dislike and disapprove of unions. However, I also try not to make the mistake of making or believing generalizations about anybody, government employee, stupid, or not.
I have heard and read all you peoples dislikes of unions but have yet to read anyones complete understanding of how a union is supposed to work.
I was in a union for about forty years ,part of the time as a steward.I helped negotiate several contracts with several multi-million dollar employers.We cussed and discussed and argued all our points.In the end we both got some of what we wanted.WE ended up with a contract we both could live with.The employees with a package they could like and the employers with satisfaction.
Now we have government agencies going broke.This is not because of unions but because of political actions.Unions groups should have collective bargaining with any employer no matter who they are.
Our forefathers would turn over in their graves if they knew what has happened to their subscription for a government of,by and for the people!
QUOTE: "...unions are an ally for the common people."
Come on, now! We're talking about the way things ARE, not the way we WISH things were.
QUOTE: "...I have yet to read anyones complete understanding of how a union is supposed to work."
Jeez! I'll bet that, decades ago, you were really, REALLY impressed with that insipid bit of college freshman propaganda that proclaims "Communism is really the best system when it's properly implemented."
Once again, let's talk about the way things ARE, not the way we WISH things were.
Like my Grandpa once told me "If unions are so great, why do they have to force you to join them?"
Thank you Mr. Varnes! You took the words right out of my keyboard!
Mr. Jasper, in a utopian world, all unions are as wonderful and benevolent and altruistic as the one with which you were affiliated. However, in the real world, most unions echo with shades of Jimmy Hoffa, and "scab" lists, and retaliation for not being a member.
It seems to me that this discussion has derailed and gotten "muddied". Are we discussing government employee unions, private sector employee unions or unions in general? I confess that I am partly responsible as I entered the discussion about government employee unions and elaborated on that. But I do believe that the discussion Mr. Jasper initiated was comparing unions to politicians. Which, to me is a bit like comparing apples to...bicycles.
Our government[yours and mine] is not at all what it should be,but it seems that there's satisfaction without concern by many.
As long as money is the root of all evil we will have no government like our forefathers prescribed!!!!!
Most informed adults know how unions and liberal politicians work together, against the best wishes of average Americans. Like clockwork, they take union dues from workers, then recycle those dues back to their favored, pro-union, liberal politicians. This has only been going on for 40 years or so.
Are we to believe that you didn't know this, Mr. Jasper?
And the proper phrase is "The LOVE of money is the root of most evil."
Money, at it's most basic, equates to potential or power. It's all how you use it.
Dear Jack, in your defense, most of us would not have weekends off, if it weren't for unions. Children working for a pitence may still be happening if it weren't for unions. Holidays? unions!
Increased wages? Unions!
Someone telling us that today, that we have to leave our jobs and go protest because fellow workers were being 'vilified' is total B.S.! And it is because the Unions management and Their high paid executives that have come to believe that they, not the Business owners, not the corporations, not the mom and pop shop, NOT the GoveRNment, and not the people, are in control.
My Paternal Grandfather raised his right fist in solidarity in 1920 and professed that workers should Unite. He was from Finland. He was a Communist. He believed in Unions. I do not.
Perhaps we could start a new string on what a Union should be. Left to me I would say that a union would be a voluntary and committed number of employees that want to have better working conditions and pay based on their ability to contribute to the success of the company. They would be willing to pay a premium based on their wages to have someone negotiate in good faith so that the worker AND the company could both survive and profit by the UNION.
The arrangement would not be one of combatant against combatant but rather of both groups working for mutual success. Utopia? Maybe. Why doesn't it work? Lack of trust.
Give me an example of one company that doesn't want to earn a profit.
Name me one group of employees that wouldn't like to keep their jobs because they contribute to that profit and expect to profit as well.
The problem as I see it is that greed and jealousy get in the way and that leads to conflict,which leads to discourse, which leads to polarization which stops progress.
In a perfect world without greed, Employers would seek employees that would help them make profits, and they would handsomely reward employees from those profits, recognizing that the profits wouldn't have come without their efforts. Helping the other to succeed......is my success.
It has been said that unions and communism are somewhat the same.I remember the time when communism acusations were used as a tool against many things.Unions fought against this as it wasn't true about them as it wasn't about some other groups.
What's amazing to me is that so many of you can't see the benefits of a PROPRTLY run union for the average worker.Any group of people that has leaders where there's money involved has to have watchdogs.There has been quite a bit of bad leadership now and in the past.
It should be easy for at least some of you to see that the political system has long ago established a CLOSED UNION.They give themselves a raise whenever they see fit.,they have an outstanding
retirement system and great medical benefits,none of which are available to the general public.
They should have no perks that are not available to all people.AMEN
QUOTE: "...the political system has long ago established a closed union.They give themselves a raise whenever they see fit.,they have an outstanding retirement system and great medical benefits,none of which are available to the general public."
Yes. Agreed. That's why my vehicle has a bumper sticker on it that says "VOTE 'EM OUT!"
Posting comments requires a free account