More union bailouts

[Minister of Truth]

Maybe all you folks bitching about how great union members have it ought to form one.

Sounds cool, dude.

 

[tinfoil]

Maybe all you folks bitching about how great union members have it ought to form one.

idiot
I've been in unions. they suck. People with no talent stick with unions because they reward slugs with no drive.

You might want to get a real job before you comment on the real world.
You sound like a teenager

What a fucking idiot you are

 

[Bonestorm]

idiot
I've been in unions. they suck. People with no talent stick with unions because they reward slugs with no drive.

You might want to get a real job before you comment on the real world.
You sound like a teenager

What a fucking idiot you are

It's fine to not like unions but I don't understand why all the union haters consistently bitch about how awesome unionized employees have it. It seems to all boil down to "they have something I don't, so I'm mad." Like little children.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Somehow I think that the government giving money to the private sector wouldn't quite silence the fucktards that call Obama a socialist. Just guessing, though.

And look, I understand that you and SF want to pretend that the government is writing checks to unions but that's not the case at all. If you want to make the case that lots of public sector employees should be terminated make the case, but this bullshit about stimulus "going to public sector unions" is laughable. It's going to state and local governments.

ROFLMAO.... you are such a hack.

$10 Billion of it HAS to go to education, with the caveat that the state NOT use the money as a replacement for funds already supposed to go to education, but rather used as a SUPPLEMENT. In other words, that $10 Billion does NOTHING to help the states budget problems. In addition, the states are REQUIRED to spend at a minimum the same percentage of the states budget on education next year. They are not allowed to make cuts.

If you want to pretend that it isn't a direct payoff to the teachers union, then you are either a complete fool or a total party hack. We will let you tell us which one is correct.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Schools aren't special interests. I understand that you want to pretend that the government just wrote a check to the NEA, but it just isn't so. If you want to make the case that schools should have let go of thousands of teachers across the country and made deeps cuts to their budgets, go right ahead.

Good luck.

UNIONS ARE SPECIAL INTERESTS YOU FUCKING MORON.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So the federal government shouldn't do anything to prevent states from firing tens or hundreds of thousands of teachers because teachers are unionized?

Look, maybe the money isn't a good idea, but screaming "union" doesn't make that case. Maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of teachers should lose their jobs, I don't know. Apparently you think so. Why?

No, the federal government should force the states to live within their means and quit bailing them out.

The pathetic cry of 'why do you want to fire teachers' doesn't cut it with most of society. If you bothered to pay attention, in many cases cuts to the insane pension or health benefits (or requiring the teachers/firefighters etc... to actually pay for some of it on their own) would resolve the crisis. The states could also streamline all the bureaucratic administrative staff as well (meaning they don't have to fire 'hundreds of thousands of teachers')

Side note: there are only about 6-7 million teachers in the US... NO ONE is suggesting that we cut 'hundreds of thousands of teachers jobs' so quit being such a drama queen.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The problem is when union wages are lowered or unions make other concessions during times of "crisis" they have to scratch and claw their way back after the company/economy bounces back.

If a company requires a union to lower wages, fine. However, stipulate in the contract that wages increase automatically as the company profits increase. Let's see how many companies go for that.

As to your first paragraph, it goes both ways. Companies know business cycles occur. They are reluctant to provide bump ups in wages and benes during the good times because they know they will have to fight and claw to get any concessions from unions during the down times.

Your second paragraph is exactly what I would do and I think you will find more companies in favor of such a plan than you would unions. By having total compensation tied to company performance, everyone is on the same page. Unions typically are not in favor of that type of uncertainty.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Maybe all you folks bitching about how great union members have it ought to form one.

hey moron.... it is NOT great when such wages/benefits destroy a company (see GM) or a state (see CA). If they are not economically viable, then they are a severe DETRIMENT to society as a whole.

As for your other comment about 'whining because they have something I want' blah blah blah....

1) I don't want what they have as I know it would end up costing jobs at my firm

2) It is quite funny for you to state that given your parties non stop attempts to tax the wealthy more and more and more all the while calling it 'their fair share'