Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wilson... I reluctantly have to agree with you. Any public sector which is a monopoly should not have collective bargaining rights. Collective bargaining is only valid when there is an alternative to select. Of course this is now being mentioned due to the election next Tuesday. I can just say vote your conscience if you have one. The majority will vote their prejudice.
Maybe my belief that nobody gets rich serving the public (unless you're elected...) forms my thinking, but I have no problems with public unions. I also have a problem with people that believe: "If you work in the public sector you should accept the absolute rock bottom wages we can get away with paying you". FWIW, when we fist moved to Ohio, our trash was collected by the local municipality. At a decent monthly fee, I might add. When we bought a home and moved to the adjoining township, we were given a choice of three private contractors. We chose the official NASCAR sponsor. We've endured several hefty increases, the last which put us $101/quarterly. We've just moved to the contractor based in Colerain Twp. But there's no guarantee that their rates won't be raised to reach the rates that our previous contractor charges... I'm sorry, but those that think that privatization costs less and provides better service don't realize that it's just not true in many cases. I don't engage in the envy nonsense that the Conservative media and others engage in. I have no problems paying public workers decent money. I'd prefer that to some of the other things governments spend money on. I'd like to see welfare & other entitlement programs' fraud reduced. Throwing tax money at private business to steal them from some other city/stste is just wrong. In fact, why spend ANY tax money on private enterprise? If it's not sustainable, it should fail... Right?
Maybe my belief that nobody gets rich serving the public (unless you're elected...) forms my thinking, but I have no problems with public unions. I also have a problem with people that believe: "If you work in the public sector you should accept the absolute rock bottom wages we can get away with paying you". FWIW, when we fist moved to Ohio, our trash was collected by the local municipality. At a decent monthly fee, I might add. When we bought a home and moved to the adjoining township, we were given a choice of three private contractors. We chose the official NASCAR sponsor. We've endured several hefty increases, the last which put us $101/quarterly. We've just moved to the contractor based in Colerain Twp. But there's no guarantee that their rates won't be raised to reach the rates that our previous contractor charges... I'm sorry, but those that think that privatization costs less and provides better service don't realize that it's just not true in many cases. I don't engage in the envy nonsense that the Conservative media and others engage in. I have no problems paying public workers decent money. I'd prefer that to some of the other things governments spend money on. I'd like to see welfare & other entitlement programs' fraud reduced. Throwing tax money at private business to steal them from some other city/stste is just wrong. In fact, why spend ANY tax money on private enterprise? If it's not sustainable, it should fail... Right?
The reason this is now on the ballot is the average public sector job now eclipses the average private sector job, and that is largely due to the monopoly they enjoy. Noone wants to pay them starvation wages, but we would like some restraints placed on how they call hold all of the taxpayers up who are paying for this.
and that is largely due to the monopoly they enjoy.
This is a general problem that to some degree threatens a democracy. It is the single issue group. They mobilize and lobby on a single issue on which they are rabidly invested. The general public might be lukewarm on it. So if politicians are mobbed by the single issue voters, they set policy that the majority might actually oppose, but aren't going to go protest in the streets about it.
Pensions are one classic example. If the city council (in Anywhere USA) says they have to cut pensions (because, lets say, the city is 35 million in deficit) to city employees and retirees, they have a public meeting and 400 enraged public employees show up and maybe 1 or 2 citizens.
The outcome is pretty predictable.
However, I am pretty certain none of this is related to the incredible increase in Cincinnati's childhood poverty rate. Where is the outrage about that?
The reason this is now on the ballot is the average public sector job now eclipses the average private sector job, and that is largely due to the monopoly they enjoy. Noone wants to pay them starvation wages, but we would like some restraints placed on how they call hold all of the taxpayers up who are paying for this.
For years, public employees made low wages and had dismal working conditions. over time, things improved. it was still a better deal to work in the private sector than to work for the government. Now that that people in the private sector are making less money and have had to endure other economic hardships, the envy factor is kicking in. Instead of saying "Why doesn't the boss contribute to MY 401K. (Or why don't I have any retirement plan at all...) Or fighting for fair pay and benefits, they listen to the conservative media who tells them that all those government workers are overpaid, have Cadillac benefits and yada, yada.
Well, public employees are ponying up more every day for their own benefits, forgoing raises and other such concessions to help their employer to meet the budget. I get SO tired of the media hacks on WLW trying to convince me that teachers shouldn't make much more than what I make. NONSENSE! I drive a truck. A teacher should make a LOT more than I make. My employer stopped contributing to my 401K (which is really just a way to weasel out of giving your employees a defined pension benefit) Many public sector jobs have no private sector equivelent.
We've let the fat cats buy politicians who'll pass whatever laws they need to skew things in their favor. And we keep trying to steal from each other instead of raising the B.S. flag to make our politicians do the right thing.
No, I have no problems with the 1%-ers being rich. I just think the rest of us are getting cheated out of an honest share of the riches of our efforts. Unions aren't the perfect answer. But right now, they're a better answer than the alternative; decimating the middle class.
My employer stopped contributing to my 401K (which is really just a way to weasel out of giving your employees a defined pension benefit)
.
I agree. First they dismantled the pensions and said, "don't worry, we will give you 401k and you can make a lot more money!"
But that was just releasing little fish into the big Wall Street pond, where they could be eaten alive by the sharks who rig the game. The Wall street traders took the profits and converted them into fat bonuses.
About 70% of trading on the stock market is now done by high frequency trading algorithms--computers. Why? They contribute zero to society. They make and break thousands of trades in milliseconds...all for the purpose of skimming a fraction of a dollar of profit thousands of times to eke out more money for the Firm. It is socially useless like most of the financial "innovations" established to make money in the Casino.
Then they stop the 401k contributions altogether, but give no pension. How do they expect people to save for retirement? They don't-- they don't give a crap. People are expendable.
The middle class is a deeply threatened species. Many jobs were outsourced-- why? Because that maximizes corporate profits. Why pay someone $15 dollars an hour, plus benefits, to make a shirt-- when you can pay a "dolla an hour" and sell it for the same amount?? Again, the emphasis on corporate profits, not our society.
I must admit that I am not middle class. I have (so far) both a pension plan and 401k. The only way I've been affected by all the turmoil in the last 3 years is that my portfolio really hasn't done too well. However, I still think that what has happened in the country in the last 30 years is disastrous and deeply unfair to hard working people who just want to live reasonably comfortably and retire without fear.
I am concerned that we wont just be seeing an increase in poor children, but poor elderly in the years to come.
I must admit that I am not middle class. I have (so far) both a pension plan and 401k. The only way I've been affected by all the turmoil in the last 3 years is that my portfolio really hasn't done too well. However, I still think that what has happened in the country in the last 30 years is disastrous and deeply unfair to hard working people who just want to live reasonably comfortably and retire without fear.
I am concerned that we wont just be seeing an increase in poor children, but poor elderly in the years to come.
For a number of years I was also confident, having both a pension and a 401K. Then the 401K was devastated back in the last recession because I failed to act quickly enough to freeze it in a fixed interest account.
When I retired I of course converted the 401K into an IRA. It was doing pretty well until this last economic disaster. Thankfully the pension is hanging in there. While not huge it sure beats a blank. About 4 years ago I was fortunate to inherit a nice sum from my very frugal parents. My brother and I remarked they put us to shame when it came to saving for a rainy day. 3 years ago, at the first sign of what I considered serious economic decline I sold out every account I had based in stocks and managed to limit my losses to about 12%. Now, when I consider how a health condition can wipe everything out in a flash, I tell the wife we need to spend it before the healthcare industries take it all away.
I totally agree that in the future we will see a significant increase in poor elderly. Our corporations sold us out by transferring jobs overseas to gain another buck. In my opinion a corporation was granted the rights to act like an individual specifically to enhance the lives of their employees and no other reason. To me they should be held liable for any actions which are not in the best interest of their employees.
. . . .In my opinion a corporation was granted the rights to act like an individual specifically to enhance the lives of their employees and no other reason. To me they should be held liable for any actions which are not in the best interest of their employees.
This would be a good statement regarding corporations in a communist country. But, here in America, we have prosperity only because of the formation of capital and protection of shareholder by corporations. It has worked pretty well for 200 years or so and I for one do not need to try the Euro/Soviet socialist experiment out on our economic system. If you think workers have it better in a socialist country with equivalent demographics (don't waste our time by pointing to Norway) you are sadly mistaken. Liberals have made the words "capitalist" and "free enterprise" into political slurs. And, many of the American sheeple have fallen for this tripe. Too bad.
This would be a good statement regarding corporations in a communist country. But, here in America, we have prosperity only because of the formation of capital and protection of shareholder by corporations. It has worked pretty well for 200 years or so and I for one do not need to try the Euro/Soviet socialist experiment out on our economic system. If you think workers have it better in a socialist country with equivalent demographics (don't waste our time by pointing to Norway) you are sadly mistaken. Liberals have made the words "capitalist" and "free enterprise" into political slurs. And, many of the American sheeple have fallen for this tripe. Too bad.
Wilson... I know better than to argue with you because you never give up. But look at the definition and meaning of a Corporation here in the US. The ones I have seen do not state it is for the benefit of the investors in the Corporation, but the reason they are granted rights of an individual is for the protection of the employees. I do not see anything communistic about that at all, but a simple statement we will give you some collaborative rights providing you apply them accordingly. If you have some declarative statements that a Corporation only exists for the benefits of its shareholders, please direct me to that that source. Frankly, I to do not think the framers of our Constitution had any idea what we would be facing today.
Wilson... I know better than to argue with you because you never give up. But look at the definition and meaning of a Corporation here in the US. The ones I have seen do not state it is for the benefit of the investors in the Corporation, but the reason they are granted rights of an individual is for the protection of the employees. I do not see anything communistic about that at all, but a simple statement we will give you some collaborative rights providing you apply them accordingly. If you have some declarative statements that a Corporation only exists for the benefits of its shareholders, please direct me to that that source. Frankly, I to do not think the framers of our Constitution had any idea what we would be facing today.
No it isn't. Corporations exist for the benefit of the shareholders. The employees rightly have no more standing than any other vendor. They sell their jabor and get paid exactly what it is worth.
Article XIII of the Ohio Constitution deals with corporations and private corporations are created to permit stockholders to join together without becoming personally liable for the corporation's debts. Nothing is even close to creating any rights in employees.
A corporation is a "person" for purposes of various state laws so that it can sue and be sued, assert property rights, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with employees.
The elevation of employees as a protected class to share in the profits of entreprenureship is purely a Marxist concept. Poor employees, they get no dividends like the lazy rich shareholders do, boo hoo. Another 50 years of this and we are a failed socialist state.
How about if a person doesn't want to sell his services to a business owner, he starts his own business instead of trying to steal someone else's?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
