Why Aren't We Talking About Union Busting?

[quote name='Javery']

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How is it not rational to think that:

An employee (i) should have to pay at least something for full coverage healthcare that they get for their entire family for LIFE; (ii) should not be guaranteed their job no matter the quality of work; (iii) should not be able to receive money to spend during retirement above and beyond what is contributed over the course of their career; and (iv) should not be guaranteed a raise every year no matter what is going on with the economy/rest of the world? There is no other job I can think of with these insanely awesome benefits - especially one paid for by the public! This is irrational thinking? It may not be a popular viewpoint (especially in this thread!) but irrational?
[/QUOTE]

you just dont get it man!
 
[quote name='Javery']How about making teachers contribute just a little tiny bit to their healthcare?[/QUOTE]

I'll tell you why this hasn't happened. Private sector unions have made concessions on contributing to healthcare and without fail, union member rates of contribution skyrocket after a few contracts.

If it were possible to lock a percentage I'd be for it but it's just too tempting to shave points at every contract negotiation. Slippery slope, I know, but that's the general sentiment at every union meeting I've ever been to.
 
[quote name='Javery']Here's a crazy idea - why not change the rules? How about making teachers contribute just a little tiny bit to their healthcare? The state could use the extra money to hire the teachers they desperately need - if every teacher contributed just 1.5% per year (still, insanely low) to their healthcare do you have any idea how much more money there would be to hire new teachers and make improvements? We could also do away with (or just modify - lets not get crazy here) the pension plan or maybe just do a salary freeze for one year - either of those would save a ton of money! Sadly, the union will never let it happen.[/QUOTE]

Hell, if 1.5% towards healthcare will get you to stop shitting on teachers (I think we pay something like 1%), I'd take that deal.

Although somehow once they concede 1.5% I don't think the complaining will end there...
 
Javery... why not look to raising the standards for pitiful private sector workers (of which I am one) rather than knocking down the public sector?

I don't understand why anyone would want another full-time worker to do worse.
 
I don't know that it's so much wanting other's too do worse as it is that state budgets are wrecked, teachers are getting laid off etc., so it seems some things like moving to 401k type plans instead of pensions, upping employee contribution toward health insurance plans etc. could help some and maybe keep more teachers and other state employees in work.

Not sure that's Javery's angle, but that's my view on those two things as a state employee.
 
Well the states' budgets could be propped up by the federal government if it wasn't so busy appeasing rich people. This would be a great time to fund public works programs and other public initiatives that might reinvigorate the states.

I realize that keeping the money up top while the peasants stab each other in the back is more entertaining though.
 
Oh I'm with you there. The easiest way to solve problems with budget shortfalls in things like education is getting rid of the Bush tax cuts, closing corporate tax loopholes, bringing back the estate tax, etc.

Just not possible in the current political environment unfortunately.
 
Well you can't have it both ways.

Pay teachers a fair wage and make them pay for their benefits, or pay them dirt wages with a sweet benefits package.
 
[quote name='Javery']Here's a crazy idea - why not change the rules? How about making teachers contribute just a little tiny bit to their healthcare? The state could use the extra money to hire the teachers they desperately need - if every teacher contributed just 1.5% per year (still, insanely low) to their healthcare do you have any idea how much more money there would be to hire new teachers and make improvements? We could also do away with (or just modify - lets not get crazy here) the pension plan or maybe just do a salary freeze for one year - either of those would save a ton of money! Sadly, the union will never let it happen.
[/QUOTE]

And you want to know why?

Because those cuts to teachers will not go to hire new teachers, make improvements, or pay down any budget deficit.

It will go into the general fund, where it will evaporate. And next year, they'll ask what else teachers can give up. This year it's 1.5 percent. Next year it's more. And more the year after that. Until it's like where I am now: if you want anything, you contribute. Because no one is doing it for you.

I'll say it again: where you are is not the same everywhere. I got no pension. I got no retirement. Not even matching 401K. Only what I pay out of my own paycheck. I also had to pay for healthcare for myself, and pay through the nose if I wanted to cover anyone but me.

I got jack, in other words.

And in the state I lived in, in the district I lived in, the question was never what I got for that. It's what else I could give up. Make do with less. Do more with less. Be glad you even have a job. Because next year, we'll be cutting teachers again.

This is why the unions are hardasses, why they don't want to make concessions. Because they're never final. You gave at the office last year. What are you going to give this year? You gotta give us something.

As a resident of a state and district where things pale in contrast to where you are, I don't harbor any ill will to the teachers there. If they can get something better, more power to them. Because if they give anything up, it's all up for grabs.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']And you want to know why?

Because those cuts to teachers will not go to hire new teachers, make improvements, or pay down any budget deficit.

It will go into the general fund, where it will evaporate. And next year, they'll ask what else teachers can give up. This year it's 1.5 percent. Next year it's more. And more the year after that. Until it's like where I am now: if you want anything, you contribute. Because no one is doing it for you.

I'll say it again: where you are is not the same everywhere. I got no pension. I got no retirement. Not even matching 401K. Only what I pay out of my own paycheck. I also had to pay for healthcare for myself, and pay through the nose if I wanted to cover anyone but me.

I got jack, in other words.

And in the state I lived in, in the district I lived in, the question was never what I got for that. It's what else I could give up. Make do with less. Do more with less. Be glad you even have a job. Because next year, we'll be cutting teachers again.

This is why the unions are hardasses, why they don't want to make concessions. Because they're never final. You gave at the office last year. What are you going to give this year? You gotta give us something.

As a resident of a state and district where things pale in contrast to where you are, I don't harbor any ill will to the teachers there. If they can get something better, more power to them. Because if they give anything up, it's all up for grabs.[/QUOTE]

Right on. Enough is enough.

The day I take advice about lowering teacher compensation from a fatcat lawyer is the day I ask Madoff to invest my life savings.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']Because those cuts to teachers will not go to hire new teachers, make improvements, or pay down any budget deficit.

It will go into the general fund, where it will evaporate. And next year, they'll ask what else teachers can give up. This year it's 1.5 percent. Next year it's more. And more the year after that.[/QUOTE]

Sounds about like the major argument against raising taxes. Our government "needs" more and more money that doesn't go towards the proper improvements or paying down any particular debts... and next thing you know, they're talking about another tax increase here or there.

And then our wonderful leaders in Washington get in a giant hissy fit and threaten to shut down the country because they can't find room to cut a measly two percent out of a nearly $4 Trillion Budget.

Then you get the idiots that cry in their beers because they extended the "Bush" tax cuts to the wealthy - which accounts for about $82 Billion over two years... that's less than five percent of this year's deficit alone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right bob, the only problem we have with tax cuts for the rich is that it adds to the deficit.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well you can't have it both ways.

Pay teachers a fair wage and make them pay for their benefits, or pay them dirt wages with a sweet benefits package.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Of course his response will be biased as he's in an area in Jersey near NYC where teachers apparently do get paid both a decent wage and good benefits.

But of those options I say pay a fair wage, give them a private 401k plan with a good match instead of a pension (still great benefits, but less long-term risk to the school system), and make them pay some % of their health insurance as any little bit helps the state with costs and insurance premiums keep rising.
 
[quote name='Clak']You're right bob, the only problem we have with tax cuts for the rich is that it adds to the deficit.[/QUOTE]

Please, go on...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']and next thing you know, they're talking about another tax increase here or there.[/quote]
Cause if there's anything the last 10 years have been all about, it's raise raise raise taxes.

Hey bob, why didn't Republicans make the tax cuts permanent? They didn't need a single D vote at the time. What was it they were afraid of again?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Then you get the idiots that cry in their beers because they extended the "Bush" tax cuts to the wealthy - which accounts for about $82 Billion over two years... that's less than five percent of this year's deficit alone.[/QUOTE]

A billion here, a billion there - it enentually adds up to real money.
 
[quote name='camoor']A billion here, a billion there - it enentually adds up to real money.[/QUOTE]

You are correct - which is why I do appreciate the cuts made in the budget. However, if you're in a sinking ship, I think it's a little distracting from the main issue to worry about the guy who spilled his bottled water.

[quote name='speedracer']Cause if there's anything the last 10 years have been all about, it's raise raise raise taxes.[/QUOTE]

My state income tax just went up like 60%. Local sales tax goes up later this year. Yup.
 
UB - While I'm usually at least somewhat on your side, I need to facepalm on that last one.

You're drawing the wrong conclusion about taxes going up locally. The reason this is happening is because taxes are low at the federal level. Federal taxes come back to the states to use for spending as the states see fit. Call it a redistribution of wealth if you must, but Wyoming has the same needs of keeping buildings/roads/FDA/etc... going on the local scale as California does. It just has 1/10th the population (did not fact check) with the same basic needs.
So, local taxes have to go up to cover the tracks of reducing taxes federally. Stuff costs money and certain stuff needs to get done. It's just that simple. It's not evil.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Then you get the idiots that cry in their beers because they extended the "Bush" tax cuts to the wealthy - which accounts for about $82 Billion over two years... that's less than five percent of this year's deficit alone.[/QUOTE]

You idiots cried over a fraction of that illegals send back to Mexico.

Hey mods - I have a +3 against trolls sword. When do you guys want to use it? Never? Ok.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']My state income tax just went up like 60%. Local sales tax goes up later this year. Yup.[/QUOTE]
...
[quote name='speedracer']Hey bob, why didn't Republicans make the tax cuts permanent? They didn't need a single D vote at the time. What was it they were afraid of again?[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sounds about like the major argument against raising taxes. Our government "needs" more and more money that doesn't go towards the proper improvements or paying down any particular debts... and next thing you know, they're talking about another tax increase here or there.[/QUOTE]

Can anyone point out where I specified anything regarding one particular part of government increasing taxes? Because I seem to be missing that.

Hey bob, why didn't Republicans make the tax cuts permanent? They didn't need a single D vote at the time. What was it they were afraid of again?
Click to expand...

Didn't you read the liberal blogs? It was so obvious, the rich, white, Christan, Republican old men knew that some black liberal Muslim was going to be in office, so they set the tax cuts to expire during his term so that they could make it a political issue to get more rich, white, Christian, Republican men into office.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Didn't you read the liberal blogs? It was so obvious, the rich, white, Christan, Republican old men knew that some black liberal Muslim was going to be in office, so they set the tax cuts to expire during his term so that they could make it a political issue to get more rich, white, Christian, Republican men into office.[/QUOTE]

C'mon Bob, I know you've got an actual defense of your bros not making those things permanent. Let's hear it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Who here thought it was anything but an attempt to de-power unions?[/QUOTE]

Is removing excess political influence from large, powerful organizations a bad thing?
 
[quote name='Clak']Who here thought it was anything but an attempt to de-power unions?[/QUOTE]

I once heard some moron say it was perfectly alright because after all "things can be about more than one thing at once".

Because lying about your actions because your actual motive is mean spirited and unpopular bullshit is ok.
 
I have to say, I'm not sure how freely allowing employees to re-certify Union status each year or freely allowing employees to pay their union dues each paycheck gives employers a tighter grip on the souls of their employees...

Besides the government (through taxes or wage garnishment), can anyone think of any other case where a third party is allowed to take money from someone's paycheck before they get it and where the employee has no real ability to put a stop to it, short of quitting?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, so you're just trolling. I see then. I thought you were bringing something to the table.*

*Just teasing... I didn't really think that.
 
I can't wait till they chop Firefighters, police and emergency responders.

That'll happen right after nov elections....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Is removing excess political influence from large, powerful organizations a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
Get back to me when the same thing is done to every company in this country.
 
[quote name='Clak']Get back to me when the same thing is done to every company in this country.[/QUOTE]

Sounds good to me. Now, who do we elect to do that?
 
Yeah if you're going to have rules, enforce them equally. Even if they're shitty rules (firing people for their personal opinions).
 
lol, hell yeah brah I knew you'd say Ron Paul (blessings and peace be upon him).

Fukc yeah brah Enron was the government's fault!! The 2008 financial crisis was only because the gummint forced banks to lend to poor people!!
 
[quote name='IRHari']lol, hell yeah brah I knew you'd say Ron Paul (blessings and peace be upon him).

Fukc yeah brah Enron was the government's fault!! The 2008 financial crisis was only because the gummint forced banks to lend to poor people!![/QUOTE]

I'm open to your suggestions... Obama, perhaps? *gigglegigglesnortgiggle*.
 
I'm fine with unions when they're working for safe working conditions 8-10 hour days and things like that. But when they're defending the right to not pay for their healthcare, healthcare after they retire, and a nice fat pension. A pension that continues after you retire and go to work somewhere else, even.

At that point I start to question their motives. Then it's a little more self serving rather than looking out for the 'common working family'.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']I'm fine with unions when they're working for safe working conditions 8-10 hour days and things like that. But when they're defending the right to not pay for their healthcare, healthcare after they retire, and a nice fat pension. A pension that continues after you retire and go to work somewhere else, even.

At that point I start to question their motives. Then it's a little more self serving rather than looking out for the 'common working family'.[/QUOTE]

Are you fine with American CEO compensation?
 
My question is thus: why is it ok for the dems to ram through Obamacare, but it's hella bad for republicans to ram this through?

Seems like a BIT of a double standard.

And, no, I don't support unions one bit after what the SEIU flunkies did down in Columbus. (causing a public disturbance in a restraunt by swearing up and down at some Ohio congressmen that were eating there. The police had to be called to remove them iirc)
 
[quote name='dabamus']My question is thus: why is it ok for the dems to ram through Obamacare, but it's hella bad for republicans to ram this through?[/QUOTE]

simple thought is simple.
 
If you're going to make that analogy, then concede that Obama & Democrats campaigned on healthcare reform. Walker campaigned on making public employees pay more for their benefits, he did so; collective bargaining wasn't a campaign issue.

If you're going to make that analogy, think about how long we debated 'obamacare', compared to how long we debated the union busting bill.
 
They didn't "ram" shit through, if they had we might have ended up with something that would have real impact. By the time it was said and done "Obamacare" was a shell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top