Public Unions Vs. The Unorganized Taxpayer

This is getting tiresome to have to explain over and over and over again to those too thick-headed to understand. But alas, I will take one final stab at it.

Anyone who knows anything of history will understand that the formation of unions was to ensure that workers received their fair share of corporate profits in the form of wages and benefits. This was due by and large the fact that they were relentlessly exploited to enrich their corporate masters. Once organized, they were able to face the tyranny head on and end the exploitation. The corporate masters quickly recognized the futility of resisting the unions and balance was struck. Fast forward to "Public" employees and unionization. Let us begin by first addressing the elephant in the room; THERE ARE NO CORPORATE PROFITS TO SHARE!!! The notion of the public employee as "Victim" is falsehood as evidenced by the term "public servent". Never was it considered to be an enriching venture to engage in public servitude, but rather a moral choice to serve in a capacity to one's community as a sense of community.

Enter "Progressivism" which is nothing more than socialism in disguise and out pops the "Where's mine!" attitude that pervades the attitudes of public employees. No longer do they feel beholden to a community. No longer do they perform their tasks out of love for their neighbors. No, they are in it for themselves - at YOUR expense! And the attitude is that it is their right to make YOU pay more while they provide less. And to add insult to injury, they are not striking for their fair share of the profit... NOPE! They are striking because they DEMAND more of your hard earned pay for benefits that already make your earnings seem like a meager pittance.

I am thrilled to FINALLY see some brave politicians standing up to the onerous crybabies. Here in my home state of Ohio, the whiners have gotten enough signatures to put SB5 up for a vote in the general election - and they think they'll win. I wonder if they'll finally shut up and start working for a living like the rest of us when their dreams go down in flames?

At what point do lazy, under-skilled workers finally recognize that they are not entitled to $100K a year jobs, full medical/dental for life and a full pension? I'm hopeful the answer to that question comes now!

Originally posted by kozmo
This is getting tiresome to have to explain over and over and over again to those too thick-headed to understand. But alas, I will take one final stab at it.

Perhaps if you mastered a less condescending tone more people would make it past the opening lines of your explanations? Just a thought.
That said. True. There is a difference between the private and the public sector. However:
Why oh why did corporate masters get to take billions in bonuses in the same year that they nearly destroyed the economy of this country? Why because it was in their contracts. Legally binding contracts. And, "no" their pet politicians told us, "we couldn't ask them to not follow their contract, that would be down right UnAmerican!"

Fast forward a year or two and they can ask everyone else with a contract to open it up. Renegotiate what has already been negotiated. Suddenly it's not UnAmerican anymore? Or it's just that they are asking different people to do it this time. Wallstreeters are still taking home pick percentages on deals that the rest of the country and the world has had to absorb. I know, I saw a friends hot new sport car this past weekend. It's sweet and I suppose I am happy for him. But it isn't right. Not if the same people who are going to protect them are going to try and crush the little guy.

Oh, and as far as the lack of corporations being the elephant in the room while discussing the Public Sector.
You might want to look into how often top ranking individuals jump back and forth from government to private industry. Goldman's and the Treasury and Monsanto and the FDA are good places to start if you really don't know.

The right to assemble. The right to free speech. Two plus two equals collective bargaining.

reply to post by watcher3339


Ahh so what do you make of the bail out of GM giving the control of the company to the UAW? Kind of hard to represent the people when you are "the man" Why do public employee unions need a huge staff to man large faculties? Or better yet why was it when the workers at the UFT office tried to unionize they stopped it? NYpost

reply to post by watcher3339


If you have read my previous explainations and understood then this was not directed at you.

I'm not interested in clouding the issue with a two-wrongs-making a right argument; obfuscation supreme. Clearly there are enumerable problems with corporations, government and their collusion at our expense. However, this thread is about banning public unions from collective bargaining, which I happen to support.

If you would like to have such dialogue regarding corporations, wall-street, government etc., I suggest perhaps a new thread. I'd be happy to participate.

reply to post by hangedman13


I think it is totally messd up that the guy lost his job! I also think that it SHOULD be easier to fire the bad workers in any kind of union environment. Their protections should save them from political back lash, not from having to put in a full day of real work. I would vote for or sign anything that would allow education administrators or corporate managers to get rid of a worker who doesn't work. There should be a process, but it should not be so full of hoops that it keeps the unworthy in a spot that should go to another. I didn't know about that UFT and it's so twisted that it just gave me brain freeze!
Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by kozmo


I am having an easily annoyed day. I appreciate the magnanimous nature of your response. I like smart people with whom I disagree. They stretch me.