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 liberals chickens coming home to roost........again. 80 grand just aint enough. Pay up liberals.
OAKLAND, Calif. — Two San Francisco Bay Area transit unions are set to go on strike and shut down one of the region’s major train systems if they don’t reach agreement on a new contract.
Bay Area Rapid Transit’s two largest unions issued a 72-hour strike notice Thursday evening. That means train service that serves more than 400,000 commuters each weekday could be shut down during the Monday morning commute if a deal isn’t reached over the weekend.
Career politicians AKA elected officials representing the needs of the public???
This is dishonest. People vote and elect their political representatives. Fact. Aliens are not running for office, those elected officals who negoiate contracts with public unions are Americans who live in the same town or district as their constiuents.
Those elected officials represent them in negoiatations with public unions. It is a flat out lie to say otherwise.
"Whenever there is a story about a union or workers striking or workers wanting higher wages"
IF you had read the article you wouldn't be making such ignorant statements.
"The transit agency has said union train operators and station agents average about $71,000 in base salary and $11,000 in overtime annually. The workers pay nothing toward their pensions. BART says it needs to save money on benefits to help pay for system improvements.
I read the article. First off there is a website that lists their base salary, none of their base salaries are $71,000. Top rate is either a $66,000 or $63,000.
I don't care about their incomes without knowing how much value their work earns for BART. How much value their work helps the communities in which BART operates.
Heck, based on those calculations they might deserve more pay.
My point stands whenever their is a contract dispute between labor and management the conservative position is workers should get less. This is repeated over and over.
The Hostess union folks are now out of a job..they just shut the company down.
The Bay area folks will never be out of a job..SF will not just shut down their mass transit.
Lol, hey let's look at hostess, were the conservatives on here saying hey a private union is different, I won't bad mouth them for not agreeing to whatever the issue was with management. Heck no, the same attacks that greet public unions greeted that private union. conservatives are liars.
The conservative position is always workers should get less money whenever there is a dispute between labor and management.
Your comparison only represents the relative favorable position of one union versus another.
The longshormen are not a public union but they are in a position of power and they are able to command high incomes because of that position.
That is why you DON'T understand how public unions attribute a large part of the COL.
No, you don't understand that public unions are not responsible for the cost of living of any place.
There will be far more workers in any given area who don't work for the government than those who do. It is the combined incomes of the majority of residents also housing policy that impacts whether an area is high COL.
Private sector unions striking/work stoppages only impact the private business whereas the public unions that strike impact public services which WE, the taxpayer, foots the bill for and they have NO RIGHTS to disrupt government services.
This is a flat out lie. Private sector union strikes can impact the public. Imagine if all of the power plant operators, electricians, etc went on strike that potentially could have a huge impact on the public.
I don't think the police or fire departments can strike
I read the article. First off there is a website that lists their base salary, none of their base salaries are $71,000. Top rate is either a $66,000 or $63,000.
I don't care about their incomes without knowing how much value their work earns for BART. How much value their work helps the communities in which BART operates.
Heck, based on those calculations they might deserve more pay.
My point stands whenever their is a contract dispute between labor and management the conservative position is workers should get less. This is repeated over and over.
That is simply not true.
Unions....especially unions that have political power behind them....skew the wage scale.
Your value to the business that you work for is defined by how many people are qualified to do that job. Sometimes that does relate with how much value you bring to the table.
Lol, hey let's look at hostess, were the conservatives on here saying hey a private union is different, I won't bad mouth them for not agreeing to whatever the issue was with management. Heck no, the same attacks that greet public unions greeted that private union. conservatives are liars.
The conservative position is always workers should get less money whenever there is a dispute between labor and management.
Your comparison only represents the relative favorable position of one union versus another.
The longshormen are not a public union but they are in a position of power and they are able to command high incomes because of that position.
The union destroyed the American automobile industry, the steel industry and many others.
The demands that they placed on employers drove businesses into closing or moving. (note GM)
The American unionized auto worker is fully responsible for the crap product that Americans had to put up with until the Japanese introduced a better, more fuel efficient more reliable car.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
This is dishonest. People vote and elect their political representatives. Fact. Aliens are not running for office, those elected officals who negoiate contracts with public unions are Americans who live in the same town or district as their constiuents.
Those elected officials represent them in negoiatations with public unions. It is a flat out lie to say otherwise.
They supposedly are "representing" us, the taxpayers but when it comes to spending the money of others, they have no issues giving into union pressure ... Screw the taxpayers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
This is a flat out lie. Private sector union strikes can impact the public. Imagine if all of the power plant operators, electricians, etc went on strike that potentially could have a huge impact on the public.
I don't think the police or fire departments can strike
Ok ... You have a point BUT why is it ok to allow unions to disrupt essential public services such as transit and trash collections if the unions decide to strike? Why are unionized members allowed that sort of power? I think it's disgusting and I've been on the end of a transit strike as a passenger and strongly think it's morally wrong for transit workers to be allowed to disrupt transit and affect the lives of millions just because they can't get the raise they are seeking. If you ain't happy with the job/pay/benefits you have, look for something better.
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.
