Third Party & Independents Archives

But waitaminit ... you just said ...

Can’t escape the irony that the same members of Congress, state governors and pundits who are vilifying teachers, cops and firefighters for having way too much money owed to them in their pensions after 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years (or more) of dedicated public service, are the same members of Congress, state governors and pundits who continue to fight tooth and nail to protect corporate executives being able to score an 8-figure bonus for one year’s shoddy work.

"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America,"
- Senator Jon Kyl, R-Arizona
"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives,"
~ Senator Mel Martinez, R-Florida
"I am one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
~ Senator James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma
"The objection to the government intervention in salaries is rooted in the Republican belief that government is inherently ineffective. If Congress can run a financial institution, it belies everything I've seen in this body. Government does not do a good job running private institutions, so we have no business telling companies how much they can pay or reward their employees. This is a bad bill and I won't support it."
~ Senator Kit Bond, R-Missouri
"If we do such a good job of running the federal government, what business do we have telling them how to run the banks? This is a bad bill and I won't support it."
~ Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma
"Unlike Democrats, Republicans are concerned that setting compensation limits could put the country on the road to serfdom. This is just a symptom of what happens when the government intervenes and we start controlling all aspects of the economy. This is just the first piece. If you accept the fact that the government should be setting pay scales in America, then it's hard not to go after these exorbitant salaries and bonuses. But I think it's a sad day in America when the government starts setting pay, no matter how outlandish they are."
~ Senator Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina
Posted by Gary St. Lawrence at March 3, 2011 3:03 PM
Comments
Comment #319507

Gary, please talk to Obama about changing the rules for federal employees and their unions. Some fail to recognize a difference between working for the private sector and working for the taxpayer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2011 4:53 PM
Comment #319514

“Some fail to recognize a difference between working for the private sector and working for the taxpayer.”

SO what is the difference. Does working for the government mean less pay and no benefits Royal? What is wrong with the government paying a wage that is equivalent to the private sector for the same work? Do you think that government employees are not entitled to a decent wage?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 3, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #319517

Gary

The difference is who pays. I would prefer that entertainers, athletes & CEOs make less money. But they are not paid directly with our tax money and not managed by our politicians or civil service rules.

I have not heard anybody threatening the pensions already earned. The idea is to ask current workers to pay more into their retirement. This would make Walkers workers more like those President Obama controls.


As Royal mentions, Federal workers were brought into a more contributory system way back in 1986. With 30 years service, a Federal worker will receive about 40% of his salary. This is still a good deal, but it is significantly lower than most State’s offer. The calculations also cannot take into account overtime or special pay. A big part of Federal pensions is now contained in a type of 401K plan (TSP) into which Federal workers can contribute up to $16,000 a year. All Federal workers pay part of their insurance already. I am not sure of the % the G covers, but the worker contribution comes to around $400/mo. Federal workers also pay fully into Social Security and NO Federal worker enjoys the right of collective bargaining and ALL Federal workers have a right NOT to join unions.

I am not sure president Obama really understood this when he made his comments at first. He found out now, which may be why he is quieter now. If the Wisconsin workers got the same deal as the Federal workers get, it would be very very similar to what Walker has proposed.

The problem with unions, however, is NOT the money paid to workers. It is restrictive work rules. I believe that most unions workers are worth the higher salaries they receive. But the union rules are not worth having, since ALL state and Federal workers are already protected by civil service rules, which are already very restrictive.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2011 6:18 PM
Comment #319520

Royal, I’ll talk to Obama about federal employees and their unions as soon as you talk to Boehner about the protection he and his cohorts give to corporate executive bonuses given for work that drove the company into bankruptcy.

Bonuses are supposed to be EARNED and MERIT BASED.

You know … like a worker’s pension after X-number of years.

Bonuses aren’t ENTITLEMENTS.

Seems to me that you and your clan would be fighting to your dying breath against sustaining more ENTITLEMENTS.

Or is it only specific KINDS of entitlements that you’re against, and for specific recipients?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at March 3, 2011 6:24 PM
Comment #319522

Does working for the government mean less pay and no benefits Royal? What is wrong with the government paying a wage that is equivalent to the private sector for the same work? Do you think that government employees are not entitled to a decent wage?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 3, 2011 06:10 PM

j2t2 asked 3 questions and my answer is NO, NOTHING, AND NO.

And, I challenge j2t2 to document any government worker who is making less in pay and benefits than their private worker equivalent. Numerous posts have documented just the opposite. May we see your source to back up your comment? A non-documented reply is anticipated.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #319524
I have not heard anybody threatening the pensions already earned.


Then you’re not listening very carefully.

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/15/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-alternative-state-/

The idea is to ask current workers to pay more into their retirement.

Which the Wisconsion employees and union officials had ALREADY AGREED TO before Walker dropped his bomb. The unions had ALREADY AGREED to a salary freeze and an increase in worker contribution to pension/retirement accounts before any of the protests in Wisconsin started.

But, as seems to be the case with all Republican issues these days, that’s not enough. They want total and complete capitulation to their demands and will accept nothing less.

It’s “My Way or the Highway” 101, and it’s literally eating this country away like a cancer.

Can’t help but also notice how the public employee benefits “news” is still front page. But the reports on hundreds of billions of tax dollars identified BY SOURCE that is being wasted and defrauded by duplication and redundancy seem to have fallen completely by the wayside.

If *ANYONE* in Washington was actually concerned with cutting spending, they would start there. But cutting waste doesn’t garner votes, and *THAT* is the driving force behind all this “worker union costs versus the taxpayer” claptrap.

None of this is a tax/finance issue. It’s nothing more than one party trying to depower a significant vote source that tends to favor it’s opposition.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at March 3, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #319526

Gary writes; “Royal, I’ll talk to Obama about federal employees and their unions as soon as you talk to Boehner about the protection he and his cohorts give to corporate executive bonuses given for work that drove the company into bankruptcy.”

OK…done. Boehner said it is none of the government’s business to determine what private business pays in bonus’s. Of course, if government bails out a business and becomes an owner then it is its business because it is an owner.

He said those decisions you hate so much were made in the last congress and that you should talk to pelosi and reed about that.

YOUR TURN…LET US KNOW WHAT OBAMA SAYS.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2011 6:44 PM
Comment #319527

Royal

There are various studies that indicate that government workers receive lower pay for similar skills. I could find you some and I presume our colleagues can too. Personally, I do not believe the studies for one very important reason. It is very hard to get a job in the government. Obviously, people are choosing to work there because they feel the overall compensation and conditions are better than they could get at a private firm.

Government has some problem retaining people at the high end, so presumably the highest paid government workers may be paid too little in comparison to private sector workers, but I doubt that most of those complaining feel very much sympathy for someone making “only” around $170,000 a year.

At the lower end of the pay scale, hardly anybody ever quits (except kids who move after graduating college)to get higher paying jobs in the private sector. IF we believe the government workers are seriously underpaid, we have to ask why they stick around instead of seeking better pay.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2011 6:44 PM
Comment #319528

Gary

From your note:

“Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has rocked the state Capitol with a host of proposals that would affect state employees, including requiring them to pay more toward their pensions and health care.”

This is not taking away pensions. If you have that 40 years you are talking about and retire tomorrow, you still get the same thing.

Federal workers were asked to pay more of their own pensions in the 1980s and today most of the labor force is covered by the new system.

I also understand that the workers ostensibly agreed. Then why do you bring it up? I have to respond to what you write.

re the talk about waste not being covers - maybe it is not covered on MSNBC but Fox is all over it. Another reason to watch Fox, as a growing number of people do.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #319529

Gary writes; “It’s nothing more than one party trying to depower a significant vote source that tends to favor it’s opposition.”

Great point Gary. In Wisconsin union dues are part of payroll deduction with no employee choice in the matter. The dues are used for political purposes to elect more politicians who will grant more pay and benefits to the union members. All of this is funded by taxpayers.

Apparently Gary is admitting that the Teachers Union in Wisconsin can not survive without mandatory membership. Why is that Gary?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2011 6:53 PM
Comment #319549

I’m going to take a shot in the dark and ask Gary St. Lawrence a question: you stated:

“Can’t escape the irony that the same members of Congress, state governors and pundits who are vilifying teachers, cops and firefighters for having way too much money owed to them in their pensions”

In fact your whole post is based upon the premise that members of Congress, State Governors, and pundits are vilifying teachers, cops, and firefighters.

“Definition of VILIFY
transitive verb

1: to lower in estimation or importance
2: to utter slanderous and abusive statements against :”

I noticed you offered quotes of politicians concerning corporation pay; perhaps you could offer quotes of your baseless accusations about members of Congress and Governors? If you can’t, then your post is nothing more than liberal BS.

Posted by: 1776 at March 3, 2011 10:00 PM
Comment #319553

“Great point Gary. In Wisconsin union dues are part of payroll deduction with no employee choice in the matter.”

Employees have no choice in may things Royal, this being one of them. It allows the union to gain strength when bargaining with the employer. It wouldn’t be right if the union did the work for all but only some had to bear the cost, which is what the federal employees unions are stuck with.

“The dues are used for political purposes to elect more politicians who will grant more pay and benefits to the union members. All of this is funded by taxpayers.”

No it is not funded by the taxpayer that is a conservative myth. The wages and benefits are negotiated with non elected members of the state government not directly with the Senators and the Governor.Those that are in elected office either vote for or against the terms. The taxpayer pays for a service whether it be teachers or police or firemen. The person receiving this money has earned it. The tax payer has a service rendered for the money. Just like you can’t opt out of this because if you did you would not be shouldering your fair share, a union has each employee pay his/hers fair share for the services rendered. It includes lobbying as well as other services.

Apparently Gary is admitting that the Teachers Union in Wisconsin can not survive without mandatory membership. Why is that Gary?

Mandatory membership makes the union stronger. It allows the workers a level playing field when it comes to things that directly affect them. You make it sound like a bad thing Royal.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 3, 2011 10:48 PM
Comment #319555

“And, I challenge j2t2 to document any government worker who is making less in pay and benefits than their private worker equivalent.”
I have done this is the past on a general level Royal, here on WB. If you didn’t believe it then why would you believe it now?

” Numerous posts have documented just the opposite.”

Numerous post from the far right have used “average wages” to make the same false assumption you have made. They compare McDonald’s workers wages and other lower paying service jobs in the private sector with the higher end technology and professional wages in the government sector. Look up my previous post that showed these numbers and you will see that in some cases wages and benefits are higher and in other cases lower than in the private sector.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 3, 2011 10:58 PM
Comment #319557

I was a union member for 36 years in a closed shop. Meaning union membership was a condition of my employment. If I had had a choice, I would certainly not have been part of the union or paid them dues. I disagreed with almost everything the union stood for, and it was disgusting to know my dues were going to support baby killing, gun controlling, and wealth distributing liberals. My prayer is that this is just the beginning of a union busting movement. Union membership is advantageous to politicians and union bosses, but not anyone else.

Posted by: 1776 at March 3, 2011 11:00 PM
Comment #319558


How can you possibly be more of a hypocrite than that.

Everyone has a choice, there are plenty of jobs in this country that aren’t union and don’t provide funds for baby killers, baby killer.

Posted by: jlw at March 3, 2011 11:11 PM
Comment #319559

j2t2

Of course they like mandatory membership. Who wouldn’t like captive customers.

We have civil service rules that protect government employees. They do not need unions too and certainly not mandatory unions.

Union rules are the problem. It is not the pay or benefits as much as rules that create inefficiencies.

You also make a good point about mandatory, but don’t take it far enough. Unions can force all workers to be members. Government can force all people to pay for union services, whether they want them or not. Is there any room left for freedom?

If you have kid in Wisconsin schools, you can opt out of sending them to public school, but you still have to pay for them and in addition pay for private schools. If we insist on having teachers unions, at least we should have full vouchers so that there is a little freedom left and a little discipline. If it really about the kids, make their experience better.

Any product that you have to take no matter what will tend to get worse. We spend a lot more on education than we used to. Has it gotten so much better?

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2011 11:11 PM
Comment #319560

j2t2

I agree with you re the studies of comparable pay, but as I wrote above, I think the studies are bogus for one simple reason. People want government jobs. There are more applicants than positions. And people tend never to quit. Whatever it is they are getting as a total package is more desirable to them than private sector jobs.

Please read more details of what I wrote above.

IMO - government workers are neither overpaid nor underpaid. they are getting more or less what they deserve. The problem is not the pay. It is the restrictive work rules. It is nearly impossible to fire anybody and closing down or moving a facility is often too costly and difficult to even try. Union rules often call for union members to be given preference in hiring and promotions and seniority tends to rule.

Sometimes, IMO, they forget that individuals are hired to do a job, not to exercise of their collective rights. The purpose of the organization is to accomplish a task; it provides employment as a means to that end, a win-win. But we cannot keep workers working if they are not preforming the task well enough.

Posted by: C&J at March 3, 2011 11:22 PM
Comment #319561

So jlw does not believe I have the right to choose my own career without bowing the knee to the union bosses? Is it hypocritical to say I was a member for 36 years and yet have absolutely no use for unions? I believe that is my right and you can stick the hypocritical remark where the sun doesn’t shine.

For 36 years I watched unions protect useless workers, who depended on everyone else to cover for them. I watched as useless employees were given supervisor positions, not because they were worthy, but because the unions protected them and the only way the company could get anything out of them was to make them supervisors. I watched as union members were guilty of drug and alcohol abuse on the job, and within months were given their jobs with back pay. The unions are failing in the private sector and given the choice, millions of public workers would tell the unions to take a hike. It is organized labor’s last chance to hold on to workers and they are losing. Thank God for the Patriots in Ohio who have not asked “by your leave” of the liberals and unions. I say, let the fat cat bosses of the unions get out and get a real job, instead of being parasites on the working man.


I hope this revolt against unions is only the beginning of a purging in America.

Posted by: 1776 at March 3, 2011 11:32 PM
Comment #319563

“Is there any room left for freedom?”

Economic freedom C&J, has indeed been turned into a memory for many millions of Americans who work these jobs. But that is why it is important to keep these unions strong, the last bastion of economic freedom for the middle class not the wealthy.

“If you have kid in Wisconsin schools, you can opt out of sending them to public school, but you still have to pay for them and in addition pay for private schools. If we insist on having teachers unions, at least we should have full vouchers so that there is a little freedom left and a little discipline.”

Freedom for you, your children and for others that can afford this freedom of choice. But why does this freedom have to come at the expense of others C&J. Most people do not pay enough in property taxes to pay for the voucher they would receive to send their children to private schools. It would be financially irresponsible to suggest that I should pay for your children’s private school education when mu children go to public school wouldn’t it. Why would you think vouchers buy freedom?

“How can you possibly be more of a hypocrite than that.”

If ever there was a more hypocritical statement than that one jlw I have not seen it.

“We spend a lot more on education than we used to. Has it gotten so much better?”

We spend more on wars now than we used to seems they haven’t got much better either, C&J. Sometimes the costs to upgrade our schools and to build new schools for the population growth doesn’t have a pay off in improved education.


Posted by: j2t2 at March 4, 2011 12:01 AM
Comment #319577

j2t2

I believe in public education. I think we both do. BUT public education does not need to be delivered by a public bureaucracy. Let money follow the student. If it costs the state $5000 to educate a student for a year, let the students and their parents decide where that money should go. Many would still opt for the local public school, but others might choose other options. If the public schools are delivering a good product at a fair price, presumably they would have no trouble attracting and keeping students.

All my kids went to public schools and so did Chrissy and I. The schools were good enough. But we did have a choice. I would just give that same choice to the poor citizens. None of my kids are in school anymore. I still pay high property taxes. I wouldn’t mind if some of that money went to vouchers for the kids of others. Don’t confuse the issue of who pays with who gets paid.

Vouchers would help the poor much more than they would help the rich. The rich can already afford what vouchers would give to the poor.

A little freedom would upgrade schools more than throwing more money into the pit. There are excellent public schools. They are usually NOT the most expensive ones. The highest cost schools (spending per pupil) are in places like Washington DC and NYC, which are also among the worst performing.

Posted by: C&J at March 4, 2011 8:33 AM
Comment #319581

C&J,

We don’t have a problem with public education in general. The vast majority of school districts are doing just fine.

However, we do have a problem with inner city urban school districts whose pupils are almost exclusively minority and from the lower socioeconomic status. The flight of the middle and upper classes from our cities has had a predictable effect on urban school district performance. It is not a mystery.

Vouchers will not solve the de facto segregation of our school districts. However, they may assist some within the urban areas escape a failing system. I, personally, would not be opposed to voucher alternatives for those caught within a demonstrably failing system. However, it will not solve the principal problem. General voucher programs make little sense and would certainly drain resources from performing districts.

Posted by: Rich at March 4, 2011 9:29 AM
Comment #319583

There was a time and a place for unions and maybe that still exists in some places today. But there is no way public sector workers need a union. Public workers in states that have no unions are not being abused. They are welcome to go work somewhere else but as C&J said, government workers almost never quit. The Wisconson workers need to suck it up and pay for more of their own benefits.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 4, 2011 10:38 AM
Comment #319587

Gary writes;

Statement 1) “No it is not funded by the taxpayer that is a conservative myth.”

Statement 2) “The taxpayer pays for a service whether it be teachers or police or firemen.”

Gary, we all like to have our cake, and eat it too…but which is it?

Mandatory membership makes the union stronger. It allows the workers a level playing field when it comes to things that directly affect them. You make it sound like a bad thing Royal.

It is a bad thing Gary. Forcing one to pay, as a condition for their employment, is wrong whether it is a private or public union. I understand your thinking that if union membership was optional, only some would be paying for the benefits that all enjoy. Is the answer to that quandary coercion or persuasion?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 4, 2011 11:38 AM
Comment #319588

J2T2 writes; “Numerous post from the far right have used “average wages” to make the same false assumption you have made.”

I have linked to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in previous post proving my point. The BLS is hardly a far right source.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 4, 2011 11:42 AM
Comment #319602

Royal Flush wrote:

“Gary writes;

Statement 1) “No it is not funded by the taxpayer that is a conservative myth.”

Statement 2) “The taxpayer pays for a service whether it be teachers or police or firemen.””


Kindly show exactly where I wrote any such thing.

How my words filter through your (for lack of a better word) brain does NOT change what my words actually are.

I can play that game, too.

Royal Flush writes: “I beleive that every single word out of Glenn Beck’s mouth is abject gospel and anyone who does not agree and heed the prophet Beck must be killed.”

… there. Happy?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at March 4, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #319603

Sorry Gary, the quote should have been ascribed to j2t2. My apologies.

“No it is not funded by the taxpayer that is a conservative myth. The wages and benefits are negotiated with non elected members of the state government not directly with the Senators and the Governor.Those that are in elected office either vote for or against the terms. The taxpayer pays for a service whether it be teachers or police or firemen. The person receiving this money has earned it. The tax payer has a service rendered for the money. Just like you can’t opt out of this because if you did you would not be shouldering your fair share, a union has each employee pay his/hers fair share for the services rendered. It includes lobbying as well as other services.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 4, 2011 3:58 PM
Comment #319624

Rich

The poor black kids benefit the most from vouchers, since their schools are often the worst.

We KNOW that spending more money on the inner city schools is not the solution. Maybe we should let them try something better.

Re draining money from performing districts - this is unlikely. We bought our house BECAUSE of the good schools. We had no desire to get into private schools. Most parents just want a functioning local option.

We all know that the bad schools staffed by the worst teachers are the ones that will lose students. Teachers unions know this very well. They detest the whole idea of merit and want to treat the good, the bad and the ugly as if they were all equally good. This is wrong. Nothing can be improved with an attitude that doesn’t let you make reasonable distinctions.

The kids’ future is more important than the teacher union prerogatives and their desire to keep their monopoly status. Free people to make good decision and we will be better off.

Posted by: C&J at March 4, 2011 6:34 PM
Comment #319650

C&J,

Blaming teachers’ unions for the state of inner city schools is simply not justified. You could take the faculty of Harvard and put it into most inner city schools without an appreciable difference. In fact, I think that they would quit in short order. The truth of the matter is that inner city school performance is not correlated with whether or not the teachers are unionized. Indeed, the majority of the lowest performing states are non-union states.

Cultural and socioeconomic factors are the over whelming factors accounting for the dismal inner city school performance. Address those factors and you will be on the way to improving academic performance of inner city schools. Blaming the teachers, or their unions etc., is a convenient scapegoat for the results of a de facto segregated educational system.

Posted by: Rich at March 4, 2011 9:16 PM
Comment #319651

Rich

Agree there are social problems and the soft bigotry of low expectations. The teachers unions are not the main culprit, but they do fight improvements and experiments, as the DC experience shows.

re the Harvard faculty - you are right that they would not last a minute.

Our public schools used to do a good job of creating citizens. They gave up that role during the problems of the 1960s, when too many embraced multiculturalism. The inner cities are plagued by bad habits and dysfunctional culture. That has to change, but the first step is knowing we have to change it.

Posted by: C&J at March 4, 2011 9:28 PM
Comment #319654

C&J,

Good. We basically agree.

Posted by: Rich at March 4, 2011 9:43 PM
Comment #319675

Royal Flush wrote in #319553:

Apparently Gary is admitting that the Teachers Union in Wisconsin can not survive without mandatory membership. Why is that Gary?

Please show us where I “admitted,” or even hinted at any such thing.

You certainly do like to put words in other people’s mouths that they never said and then take them as a personal offense, don’t you?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at March 5, 2011 2:47 AM
Comment #319687

Gary

Not to put words in your mouth, but just to make things consistent, if you believe the teachers unions in Wisconsin can survive w/o being mandatory, why would you oppose making them completely voluntary? Do you advocate allowing teachers the freedom to choose to be union members or not?

Posted by: C&J at March 5, 2011 10:51 AM
Comment #319692

Royal Flush wrote in #319553:


Apparently Gary is admitting that the Teachers Union in Wisconsin can not survive without mandatory membership. Why is that Gary?

Please show us where I “admitted,” or even hinted at any such thing.

You certainly do like to put words in other people’s mouths that they never said and then take them as a personal offense, don’t you?

Good Grief Gary…can’t you read. Comment #319603. “Sorry Gary, the quote should have been ascribed to j2t2. My apologies.”

Is the smoke coming from constantly having your hair on fire clouding your vision?


Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at March 5, 2011

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 5, 2011 12:37 PM
Comment #319723

The left believes it is a woman’s choice to have an abortion, but do not believe it is a teacher’s right to choose to be in a union.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at March 5, 2011 8:08 PM
Comment #319727

Not to mention the same politicians who protect their own public office pensions, salary, and other benefits. What’s good for the goose should be good for the Wi. Gander. But, I don’t hear the Gov. volunteering up his salary or fringe benefits in the name of deficits, do you? His service deserves a serious wage and benefit cut. Political leadership is supposed to pave the way for prosperity, not austerity.

Its supposed to provide quality public services by quality public service employees, not drive quality public servants into the private sector due to lack of competitive wages and benefits. I read the average Wi. teacher makes something in the $43,000 range. I know of trainers in the private sector who make double that, easy.

Posted by: BritBob at March 5, 2011 9:11 PM
Comment #319738

Royal Flush wrote:

Good Grief Gary…can’t you read. Comment #319603. “Sorry Gary, the quote should have been ascribed to j2t2. My apologies.”

Oh, I see. So you “mistakenly” attributed j2t2’s words to me, three times, in two different posts (#319602 and #319553), on two different days.


Is the smoke coming from constantly having your hair on fire clouding your vision?

I don’t know. Is the tension coming from constantly having your panties in such a twist causing your inability to keep track of who you’re arbitrarily opposing or why.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at March 6, 2011 9:10 AM
Comment #319743


Gary, they could care less if unions are voluntary or mandatory. Non existent is their goal.

Posted by: jlw at March 6, 2011 2:08 PM
Comment #319759

jlw

I believe in freedom of unions and freedom from unions. Employees should have the right to organize, but it should never be mandatory. If firms and unions choose to write a contract, fine too.Public workers, however, are already protected by civil service rules. They work for the democratically elected government and are paid by taxpayers. Government, unlike a private firm, has the ability to use coercive force and is a monopoly organization. Therefore, public employee unions should not have the ability to use collective bargaining to against the taxpayers.

Posted by: C&J at March 6, 2011 8:55 PM
Post a comment