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.
The union is made up of its workers so they do produce something. They produce cars, airplanes, steel, they provide the labor for building buildings, ships and other products that contribute a substantial amount to the manufacturing output of this country.
Your "unions produce nothing" is not but an insult and a slap in the face to many hard working Americans who are union members that produce many of this nations goods and services.
Wrong. The UNION entity produces NOTHING. The union workers, those that work for private sector companies produce something.
Union members working for the government produce NOTHING, because the government produces NOTHING.
See, the difference is, these union fat cats and their golden pay and benefits come from the taxpayers. See, the union doesn't PRODUCE anything, does it?
All they do is protect the power the unions have over states and the fleecing of the taxpayer.
Actually, "these union fat cats" get their pay and benefits from union members, don't they? Union members who believe they are getting a service from the union.
The teachers union Wisconsin made wage concessions and agreed to higher co-payments for healthcare. They agreed to ALL the financial concessions asked for by Governor Scott Walker. Can you explain how they are "raping" the people of Wisconsin by wanting to keep their right to collectively bargain?
The purpose of unions is to collectively bargain. Unions are supposed to be groups of employees who are using their power together to negotiate a safer workplace and better pay and benefits. The reason collective bargaining works is that there is an inherent threat to owners that the employees will strike, or stage a slow-down, or have a "blue flu" and call in sick all at once. Collective bargaining works because the employees offer skills and services to employers, and when they feel that those skills and services are not sufficiently appreciated, they can withhold those skills and services to remind the employer of the value of those skills and services. If one person doesn't show up to work, someone else will step in and the work goes on. If the entire shift doesn't show up to work, the work stops.
However, in the case of public services, taxpayers have an agreement with the government that certain services are deemed so basic and so necessary, that taxes are paid to the government to guarantee those services. Public service unions aren't just depriving the business of their services, they are depriving the public, all of us, of those services. They are, essentially, holding the public hostage. And that's problematic for the public. On the one hand, we want public service workers to be paid a fair wage, to receive benefits. But on the other hand, what's a fair wage, what's decent benefits? The governments in most states are looking at serious budget shortfalls, the money isn't there, and they have to cut back. But public service unions protect their members from these cut-backs. And something's got to give.
Governor Walker campaigned that he would fight the unions, not just to achieve the necessary cut-backs the budget requires, but also to prevent the unions from holding the public hostage. I think his combative style was the result of his over-estimating his political capital, and under-estimating how strenuously the unions would fight him. Compromise, from both sides, would be more productive. Unions DO have a place in our economy, just as much a place in our economy right now which I believe to be a transitional economy, as they once had in a manufacturing economy. And the main function of unions is collective bargaining. But I believe that unions are going to have to adapt to the changing economy, probably in innovative and unexpected ways. I think instead of the employee v employer paradigm, we need to think of promoting an American economy in a global environment, and the role workers have in that sort of new paradigm.
Actually, "these union fat cats" get their pay and benefits from union members, don't they? Union members who believe they are getting a service from the union.
From union dues and who funds those union dues? The taxpayer.
From union dues and who funds those union dues? The taxpayer.
I'm sorry. I understand that you are trying to say that since public union members are paid via tax dollars that when they choose to pay their union dues that they are using tax dollars to do so. However, by your argument, they are using tax dollars to pay their mortgages, to buy their groceries, to pay their utility bills. It's their paycheck. Just because they are public employess doesn't mean that the money is still the taxpayer's. They earned it, and if they want to buy cigarettes or liquor with it, it's no one's business. If they want to donate it to the Red Cross or to the Ku Klux Klan, it's no one's business. And if they want to pay union dues with it, it's no one's business. That money stopped being taxpayers' money the minute it was assigned to a paycheck payable to someone who earned that money.
I'm sorry. I understand that you are trying to say that since public union members are paid via tax dollars that when they choose to pay their union dues that they are using tax dollars to do so. However, by your argument, they are using tax dollars to pay their mortgages, to buy their groceries, to pay their utility bills. It's their paycheck. Just because they are public employess doesn't mean that the money is still the taxpayer's. They earned it, and if they want to buy cigarettes or liquor with it, it's no one's business. If they want to donate it to the Red Cross or to the Ku Klux Klan, it's no one's business. And if they want to pay union dues with it, it's no one's business. That money stopped being taxpayers' money the minute it was assigned to a paycheck payable to someone who earned that money.
Oh but you see, they don't have a CHOICE of whether or not to pay those dues, do they?
They are FORCED to pay, just like they are FORCED to join the union.
Why, just look what happened in Indiana after Gov Daniels rescinded CB - union membership DROPPED by 90%.
THAT is what the democrats are afraid.
FORCED membership, FORCED dues seems to go against everything the Left and democrats are all about.
Yes, just like the leaders of any large Corporation does, yet the righties have NO problems with that. So who cares, just more fake outrage from the loony righties.
Casper
Oh but you see, they don't have a CHOICE of whether or not to pay those dues, do they?
They are FORCED to pay, just like they are FORCED to join the union.
Why, just look what happened in Indiana after Gov Daniels rescinded CB - union membership DROPPED by 90%.
THAT is what the democrats are afraid.
FORCED membership, FORCED dues seems to go against everything the Left and democrats are all about.
How do they reconcile the double standard?
But those forced dues have restrictions, don't they?
Supreme Court decision-enforced restrictions that FORCED dues can only be used toward certain specific union activities, such as collective bargaining, and not for political purposes.
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.
