It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The hypocrisy from the rightwing against union workers

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Starred you, but you didnt quite finish the scenario. AFTER they fund the political campaigns (and if their guy wins) they are then negotiating their contract with the very guy they put into office.




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I'm addressing Wisconsin here- if I'm getting paid 90k a year of taxpayer money to teach children and 66% of those children can't even read properly-you should probably be back in the classroom honing your skills and do what the people are paying you to do and not out whining in the street.....
Also,when Obama was campaigning he said he was proud to wear the “union label” and that if workers were denied rights to organize or collectively bargain when he was elected, “I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America.”

Has anyone seen him out there holding a sign?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by croweboy
 


Thanks, been drinking a bit tonight



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Competition is overrated.

Cooperation works much, much better.

Attach the money how? It is already "attached", schools are funded on a per pupil basis.

If you just pin the money to a kid's sleeve, a lot of people, mostly right-wing, will "home school" for a couple of hours a day and use the money for other purposes.

I'm not a big fan of "home-schooling" because for the most part, it's the ignorant teaching the confused.

But your answer, such as it is, doesn't address a single one of the difficulties with merit pay.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Police DO NOT HAVE a dangerous job, merely a highly stressful job.

Before you make a blanket statement like that, go to the BLS and look up the statistics: freaking groundskeepers have both more dead per year and a higher mortality rate.

Police are government employees with a cush job, huge powers with high abuse potential, and a fat pension.

So why should they be exempted from losing their rights?

Firefighters, on the other hand, are genuinely in danger while doing their job, although it, too, is safer than most other occupations because they constantly train.

The reason most corporate types don't complain too much about police and firefighter unions is because they use those services to a disproportionate degree compared to common citizens and can't risk losing their support. Imagine pissing off firefighters and them deciding to let your warehouse burn in response. Or the police leaving aa arrogant rich guy to his own devices after he pissed off a crowd of his "inferiors".

Ultimately unions aren't about the money, although that's important: unions are about redressing power imbalances. Before unions, unscrupulous bosses could and did rape their female employees with relative impunity and frequency: it is rape when an employer holds a job over the head of a woman with the choice of submit, starve, or watch her kids go without. It was/is rape become it was/is an expression of power, not eros.

That is just one of the power issues that unions helped correct, and one that will return when they are broken.
edit on 26-2-2011 by apacheman because: sp



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Not all of them are thugs but many are.

In my line of work I go to many different plants, refineries, papermills, oil rigs etc. I've had several instances of union buffoons trying to interrogate me. They'll notice that you don't shuffle off to take breaks with the rest of the union guys, and come ask if you're union. I told them no once, and they get huffy "We're proud to be union."

This is not the plant I am working at saying this, it's another sub-contractor, just like me. As if they have the right to question me about anything.

These days I just tell them to mind their own *ucking business, but I still don't see why they would be pissed. You want to be union? Fine. Leave the non-union people alone with their #ing questions.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Not all of them are thugs but many are.

In my line of work I go to many different plants, refineries, papermills, oil rigs etc. I've had several instances of union buffoons trying to interrogate me.


You had Union workers interrogate you? did you call the cops? The nature of the Union in defense of the interests of the employee to counter the employer is necessary in my opinion, otherwise we are just left with an individual against and entire corporation or business, which in my opinion does not hold many cards for the employee.

You talk of bad union members or practices? If I gave you an example of corruption in private business, would that justify law to ban or attack the rights of private businesses? I'd assume it'd be a no. You cannot use a personal negative encounter to argue against the concept and nature of the Union. If you are to do so, we can apply the same to businesses and to political organizations.

and hey, if you are confident enough to deal with your employer by yourself, by all means. This doesnt work out for most folks, though.
edit on 26-2-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I didn't say they were all thugs, but there are quite a few who take offense to people not being in a union, as if you're somehow 'taking' work from them.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I didn't say they were all thugs, but there are quite a few who take offense to people not being in a union, as if you're somehow 'taking' work from them.


I did not accuse you of refering to them as thugs, and I agree with you, there are extreme Union members who use force to pressure people to join them, this is not about whether there are bad Unions and Union members.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugsmasher
To the OP - Ok, well, you've got it wrong, in my humble opinion. What the Unions want is health care for which they pay much less than the national average. Further, they also don't want to contribute to their OWN retirement plans. The Senators in WI were elected to do a job, they should return to it, end of story. As far as them being in the minority, in the words of our "Dear Leader", they won, again end of story. Public sector unions should never have been allowed int he first place. An argument can be made that PRIVATE sector unions had a purpose and indeed did fix many labor problems. Public sector unions however are a different story. Perhaps we should take a lesson from Ronald Reagan. Remember the Air Traffic Control Strike? Worked out really well for them. They were all fired, oops, no job at all. Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Bugsmasher because: Correction


I don't think that is the case here. The teachers' position is that they are more than willing to discuss bearing more of the burden of their health care costs and and pensions, but they are not being given the opportunity to do so. The "higher" pensions and health care coverage are the trade off for accepting low wages relative to opportunities in the private sector. The average pension for a public teacher works out to about $26k (not the kind of money that lands anyone in the lap of luxury in their golden years).

The move to strip these public servants of their collective bargaining rights is purely political. States that already have no collective bargaining for teachers have equally dismal projected budget shortfalls. The unions are associated with political activism that often doesn't fare well for republicans, thus the need for expedience in reducing their influence.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join