Is there one good reason why there should be unions in the public sector?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Your Idol, Feb 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    Why do we allow these shills for the democrats to continually abuse tax payers?

    1. Allow unions in government
    2. Unions form
    3. Unions collect forced dues which are used for political donations to democratic candidates
    4. Democrats elected with the help of unions dues negotiate contracts that are in the best interest of the unions, not the taxpayers they are elected to represent
    5. Union collects larger dues which are used for political donations to Dems
    6. Repeat step 4


    80% of public sector jobs pay higher salaries than their private sector counterparts and most of them have their retirement plans and health care paid for by tax payers.


    This shit going on in Wisconsin is laughable. We have teachers calling in sick to protest (which is illegal) and physicians handing out fake sick notes at the protests so the teachers who brought their students to the rallies can take another day off. I wouldn't feel sorry if each one of them who are caught is fired.
    test
  2. Noncentz

    Noncentz Sieg Heil, M'fer!

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,044
    I heard that the Governor is the reincarnation of Hitler. I've heard that 5 times this week alone. So it must be true.


    [​IMG]

    Oh my, he's even Sieg Heiling!

    It's all over folks!!!
    test
  3. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    By the way the protesting is not illegal, it's that they are calling sick in order to protest that makes it illegal. Just clearing that up.
    test
  4. MyKe SeaN

    MyKe SeaN Paula Deen is my hero.

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    23,175
    Contrary to popular belief, unions don't have that much power anymore. Sure they have corruption like everthing else but without the past contributions of the Unions, we would all be screwed by the Man.

    These dumb ass republicans are going to make it so easy for Obama to get elected. Can't wait until they start feasting on eachother during the primaries.
    test
  5. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    LMAO @ unions not having any power. Should I type out my laughter?
    test
  6. MyKe SeaN

    MyKe SeaN Paula Deen is my hero.

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    23,175
    When did I say they dont have ANY power moron? I know you conservatives are anti-education but damn!!!! Try to re-read my post again. They have far less power than they had 30 years ago. Unless you own a business and have control of what you make you should be thanking Unions. Unions are good in some ways believe it or not and I'm sure you, your friends and family members have benefited from them even though you hate them. You sound like Rush Limbaugh with your talking points.

    I bet you think that the NFL owners association are in the right and you support them..lol

    You poor white conservatives trip me out...Complain about state and local governments spending money but send your kids to public schools and complain about class sizes...lmfao!

    You're all going to hell!
    test
  7. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    well, can you give a good reason why government employees should not be allowed to unionize? i'd be more open to the idea that unions shouldnt be allowed to make political contributions than i would want to actually restrict labor rights to non-government employees. i think that these are rights that apply across the board to all citizens.

    however if we stop unions from making political contributions, then corporations and lobbying groups should be held to the same standard, as far as i'm concerned. until then unions have just as much right to a political agenda as any other group.
    test
  8. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    1. OSHA
    2. Child Labor Laws
    3. Minimum Wage
    test
  9. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    Changed the topic. I win.

    I'll bite though, I can thank unions for having a measurable effect on moving jobs overseas and into red (right to work) states.
    test
  10. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    care to elaborate or am i actually meant to give a response to this?
    test
  11. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    On principle I can't agree with a group being forced not to be able to give their money to a group they support. Part of the problem is even if you don't support a union you're forced to be a part of it. It's all part of the infrastructure and basic gangster politics that come with a union.

    "Labor rights or workers' rights are a group of legal rights and claimed human rights having to do with labor relations between workers and their employers, usually obtained under labor and employment law. In general, these rights' debates have to do with negotiating workers' pay, benefits, and safe working conditions."

    It all seems fair in text, but what it doesn't say is that even an incompetent worker will receive a higher salary and far more benefits than a counterpart who is highly skilled and works their ass off. Not only do they receive higher pay and more benefits for their typically unskilled field they are incredibly hard to fire for being incompetent.

    We have laws in place that I previously mentioned that keep workers from being abused (the right to a reasonable pay and the right to a safe environment). The main issue for me is why should a small group receive higher pay and more benefits without improvement in their profession? I don't think it's crazy that fire fighters, police, and teachers should actually have to pay for their own health care and contribute to their own pensions especially when their sweetheart deals are a measurable part of the reason why their state is broke.

    Why can't we let the market decide their value?
    test
  12. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i disagree with the premise that unionization disallows the market to decide their value. the market not only consists of companies and consumers, but also workers. just as companies and consumers have a right to organize and a right to a political agenda, so do workers. all of these factors play an active role in dictating value.

    when companies themselves dictate 'value,' the value of any given worker is basically the least amount of money u can get them to work for. maybe workers have their own ideas about how much their job should be worth. this type of negotiating is not inherently contrary to the capitalist system.

    we have seen historically that unionization was a healthy concept that helped establish a firm middle class in the united states. it generally helped secure these rights that you refer to as the reasons we don't need unions or workers organizations. these rights had to be earned, they were not simply 'granted' by the benevolent government or the always well intentioned ruling class.

    granted in some cases environmental regulations and workers rights do make operating a business more expensive in the united states than it would be somewhere like china, which helps lead to globalization. but then the question should be is the answer to lower the standards of united states companies or to put pressure/provide incentives for companies to operate within the us economy. i wonder if they actually 'couldn't afford it' or if it would simply take a chunk out of their profit margin. if it is the latter, then if we applied the same standard across the board this would effect all companies equally and there's no real dilemma.
    test
  13. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    Profit margin is the bottom line, not paying workers as much as possible. The worker's bottom line is making as much money as possible and they do this through proving their value in a meritocracy. Even though the company itself dictates a worker's value, that worker can go somewhere else if there is another company who is willing to pay them more money. When the equilibrium is manipulated chaos ensues and this is essentially what we're dealing with.

    Personally I think there was a time and a place for unions but these days they are outdated and I can't back a system where tax payers fund union dues.

    Also, on top of environmental laws there is also the matter fighting the environmentalists in court. These are the top 2 obstacles for a permit to build a nuclear power plant which is kind of ironic considering nuclear energy is the most efficient green energy there is.
    test
  14. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    profit margin is the bottom line for companies. livable wages is the bottom line for workers. my assertion is that workers have the right to a unified will and a political agenda every bit as much as companies.
    test
  15. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    They get to vote don't they? Why should they have more power through special interests than the guy who lives next door?
    test
  16. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    test
  17. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    because the guy who lives next door has the same exact rights whether he chooses to express them or not? because the companies the workers are employed at have these same rights and arguably even more political influence?
    test
  18. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    Same exact rights without the same amount of political influence. Pay is not based on performance, it's settled by lawyers which is a big contributor to incompetence and laziness by union workers.

    I still haven't seen one good reason for unions in the public sector.
    test
  19. Noncentz

    Noncentz Sieg Heil, M'fer!

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,044
    He said 'Public sector' Unions.

    That's not the same thing. Public sector Unions should be fucking banned.

    Why? Cause they are working for the public. They should have no right to unionize let alone demand more from the public purse.

    Public employees should have a fair wage and a wage increase to match inflation, nothing more.

    Especially in a nation that is bankrupt and in trillions of dollars in debt already.
    test
  20. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    Scott Walker Gets Punked By Journalist Pretending To Be David Koch

    i've given you my reason. i think government employees are still citizens themselves and thus entitled to all of the same workers rights as any other legally employed worker in the united states.

    you still haven't given a single reason for why we should restrict public sector employees from the right to unionize. you've given some general rhetoric for why you don't think unions are necessary anymore but what makes government employees any less deserving of the right to organize than private sector employees?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)