Unions

mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
edited February 2011 in A Moving Train
How is what is happening in wisconsin against the worker? Isn't it an attempt to avoid layoffs? Isn't it an attempt to get people to actually contribute to their retirements? Isn't it an attempt to make it so that I don't have to pay into a union? Personally I find it actually is for workers like me who are forced to pay into a union that pays out 87 million dollars to get politicians elected that I happen to disagree with 80% of the time.

87 million dollars was spent by Afscme alone in the 2010 election. That is money that was forcefully collected by public employees to fund campaigns of democrats that will in turn give unsustainable benefits to those unions. Basically Tax Payer money is being used in political contributions to democrats. So doing all these things to keep the union powerful is in the best interest of democrats, they could care less about the people, they just want the money...
It isn't about being against the workers, here is a list of things the union does to prop up terrible workers and punish workers who are good at their job
--Makes it almost impossible for me to discipline employees.
--Once an employee is through probation it is extremely hard to get rid of them if they are terrible at their job. What that means is I AM STUCK WITH TERRIBLE EMPLOYEES of which I had little say in who was actually hired...
--Raises are capped. They come in step increases with no merit raises available. That means even though I work hard and am really good at my job, once I am at the top of my class I can no longer get any raises...and I will be making the same amount of money as someone who does their job half-assed as long as we have been their the same amount of time.
--I get 36 days a year off paid. I will say that again so it sinks in...I get 36 days off a year paid.
The thing about unions is simple, they want to seem useful, and yes they served a purpose in protecting workers wages, and the wisconsin proposal isn't taking that away from them, but they were so diligent in getting gains for the workers, they now are protecting people that do not deserve their jobs.

I would love a discussion on this, not party rhetoric from either side, this is being written as an unhappy union member...nothing else...any happy union members out there?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    so so.....
    I have been in unions for the last 20 years or so and so far the only benefit to being in a union is good pay and seniority ...and I have noticed here where I work it's almost impossible to fire a lazy ass.
    another thing I have come to understand is that a union any union is a business so the more members in a union the more monthly income that union gets,if a company threatens to go non union just watch how fast you B.A will throw you under the bus just to lower the head count to keep that company a union company, and another thing, a union only has the power that a company will allow it to have,if anyone believes different they are not paying attention, why would a very larg corp. allow a small group to control their future and profits...it will never happen.

    Godfather.
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    --Raises are capped. They come in step increases with no merit raises available. That means even though I work hard and am really good at my job, once I am at the top of my class I can no longer get any raises...and I will be making the same amount of money as someone who does their job half-assed as long as we have been their the same amount of time.

    I was in a union once and I noticed the exact same thing. I was way really good at my job and it was super frustrating to know that I was in the same pay grade at people who were really bad at their job.
  • CH156378CH156378 Posts: 1,539
    i understand your point on paying for elections with union money. as for the rest of you post i work for non-union company and i deal with and see the same problems. i'll trade ya.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    CH156378 wrote:
    i understand your point on paying for elections with union money. as for the rest of you post i work for non-union company and i deal with and see the same problems. i'll trade ya.


    deal
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Unions have outlived their purpose and have become a detriment to their members and this country.

    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    know1 wrote:
    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.

    i completely disagree. are you a teacher?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    know1 wrote:
    Unions have outlived their purpose and have become a detriment to their members and this country.

    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.

    You gotta ask your self who started the unions and why, but that aside a union worker will eaen more
    than a non union worker in most cases, I've been both union and non union and there was a pretty big gap in pay by the non union companys.

    Godfather.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    know1 wrote:
    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.

    i completely disagree. are you a teacher?

    I have my teaching degree, but am currently not employed as one. Several family members are or were teachers as well.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Godfather. wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Unions have outlived their purpose and have become a detriment to their members and this country.

    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.

    You gotta ask your self who started the unions and why, but that aside a union worker will eaen more
    than a non union worker in most cases, I've been both union and non union and there was a pretty big gap in pay by the non union companys.

    Godfather.

    They may make more than the non union worker until the company moves the work overseas due to high employment costs that the market can't support.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • LizardLizard So Cal Posts: 12,091
    know1 wrote:
    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.

    i completely disagree. are you a teacher?

    Me too.

    My husband works in a school district where there are 10 high schools. He works at the oldest one which happens to be where he graduated. Now....this is a low performing school for several reasons such as a lower income area, a huge % of ESL speakers, and the fact that there are 40% special ed students whose test scores are used in the NCLB testing. Obviously they are not going to meet their standards with that many special ed students' scores being added in. But my point is, just because he chose to stay at this under-performing school instead of going to a school that would really be easier to teach in, why should he be punished? The seniority he has with the union protects that; otherwise, who in their right mind would want to teach at a failing school if their job was at risk for the school under-performing (and possibly closing) at no fault of his/her own? (his dept's scores always improve).

    Before he taught, though, he worked at a mine with a union and yes, it was frustrating to him how it was nearly impossible to get rid of a crappy employee.
    So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream
    Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
  • I don't care whether one is a teacher or an automaker, or a papermill worker. What concerns me with the union is that it has pitted government employees against the tax payer. As can be seen across this country, no gov employee produces anything or provides a service that earns profit. Whereas a corp, that produces a product or a barbers union that gives a service and earns a profit, from those profits pay the dues for the union and have then stand up for rights and benefits, but as far a gov employees, they work for the tax payer and to have all this handed to them for doing absolutely nothing... is wrong. As taxpayers, do I really need to pay union dues for a gov employee? As far a private business, I have no say in the unions interest or what happens, but as a gov employee, damn right I have a say and their ass isn't deserving of all the union ben-es that they receive. I think the Wis issue is a starting point for non productive gov to step back and re-examine what is in the best interest of the tax payers. Not just the wealthy, but he dying middle class. It is just a start, with a whole lot more to come, which is a good thing in my opinion.
  • know1 wrote:
    Unions have outlived their purpose and have become a detriment to their members and this country.

    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.


    I've long felt that unions have past their use-by date, but I'm actually starting to wonder if what we need are stronger unions in developing economies. The world would be a different place if factory workers in the far east had bargaining power. I have mixed feelings about teachers unions though, despite being in one (walking a picket-line in a Canadian January is just delightful). Many are more of a political voice than an actual labour body, and seem spend plenty of time arguing for status quo on everything but wages/benefits. Ours is a barrier to academic changes that the place needs, but yet manages to avoid layoffs and gets us a better pay packet, despite the all-too-true money problems we have as a publicly-funded institution. I'd rather be speaking for myself, but I cannot deny the advantages.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JS81606 wrote:
    I don't care whether one is a teacher or an automaker, or a papermill worker. What concerns me with the union is that it has pitted government employees against the tax payer. As can be seen across this country, no gov employee produces anything or provides a service that earns profit. Whereas a corp, that produces a product or a barbers union that gives a service and earns a profit, from those profits pay the dues for the union and have then stand up for rights and benefits, but as far a gov employees, they work for the tax payer and to have all this handed to them for doing absolutely nothing... is wrong. As taxpayers, do I really need to pay union dues for a gov employee? As far a private business, I have no say in the unions interest or what happens, but as a gov employee, damn right I have a say and their ass isn't deserving of all the union ben-es that they receive. I think the Wis issue is a starting point for non productive gov to step back and re-examine what is in the best interest of the tax payers. Not just the wealthy, but he dying middle class. It is just a start, with a whole lot more to come, which is a good thing in my opinion.


    government workers pay taxes. Do doctor's do nothing? I work for a government run clinic that treats TB as well as STD/HIV prevention, do we do nothing? we provide a service like anyone else. And no we are not run for profit, but we definitely maximize our revenue.
    The point wasn't to say that government workers don't deserve their jobs, it is that the unions have overreached in the public sector and when the ax falls it should definitely fall on to us as public employees. Our salaries are negotiated by the union, but our benefits should definitely reflect what is available to in the private sector. I am all for taking away the collective bargaining rights of myself and other union workers if it means that the state will be able to pay its bills...I would much rather still have a job than lose it based on seniority because the union wouldn't play ball
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    know1 wrote:
    Godfather. wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Unions have outlived their purpose and have become a detriment to their members and this country.

    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.

    You gotta ask your self who started the unions and why, but that aside a union worker will eaen more
    than a non union worker in most cases, I've been both union and non union and there was a pretty big gap in pay by the non union companys.

    Godfather.

    They may make more than the non union worker until the company moves the work overseas due to high employment costs that the market can't support.

    YOU GOT THAT RIGHT ! , look up a article on Boeing and how outsourcing messed them up but there is very little a union can do if a company closes the doors and moves to Poland china or anywhere else...it sucks !

    Godfather.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    bytterman wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Unions have outlived their purpose and have become a detriment to their members and this country.

    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.


    I've long felt that unions have past their use-by date, but I'm actually starting to wonder if what we need are stronger unions in developing economies. The world would be a different place if factory workers in the far east had bargaining power. I have mixed feelings about teachers unions though, despite being in one (walking a picket-line in a Canadian January is just delightful). Many are more of a political voice than an actual labour body, and seem spend plenty of time arguing for status quo on everything but wages/benefits. Ours is a barrier to academic changes that the place needs, but yet manages to avoid layoffs and gets us a better pay packet, despite the all-too-true money problems we have as a publicly-funded institution. I'd rather be speaking for myself, but I cannot deny the advantages.

    I absolutely believe that unions have their place in developing countries. Just not in the USA and certainly not for non-physical labor career such as teaching.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • mikepegg44 wrote:
    JS81606 wrote:
    I don't care whether one is a teacher or an automaker, or a papermill worker. What concerns me with the union is that it has pitted government employees against the tax payer. As can be seen across this country, no gov employee produces anything or provides a service that earns profit. Whereas a corp, that produces a product or a barbers union that gives a service and earns a profit, from those profits pay the dues for the union and have then stand up for rights and benefits, but as far a gov employees, they work for the tax payer and to have all this handed to them for doing absolutely nothing... is wrong. As taxpayers, do I really need to pay union dues for a gov employee? As far a private business, I have no say in the unions interest or what happens, but as a gov employee, damn right I have a say and their ass isn't deserving of all the union ben-es that they receive. I think the Wis issue is a starting point for non productive gov to step back and re-examine what is in the best interest of the tax payers. Not just the wealthy, but he dying middle class. It is just a start, with a whole lot more to come, which is a good thing in my opinion.


    government workers pay taxes. Do doctor's do nothing? I work for a government run clinic that treats TB as well as STD/HIV prevention, do we do nothing? we provide a service like anyone else. And no we are not run for profit, but we definitely maximize our revenue.
    The point wasn't to say that government workers don't deserve their jobs, it is that the unions have overreached in the public sector and when the ax falls it should definitely fall on to us as public employees. Our salaries are negotiated by the union, but our benefits should definitely reflect what is available to in the private sector. I am all for taking away the collective bargaining rights of myself and other union workers if it means that the state will be able to pay its bills...I would much rather still have a job than lose it based on seniority because the union wouldn't play ball

    A government run clinic is not a profit generating machine. Private sector jobs/ businesses are, and if they aren't, they cease to exist. Not Gov. Government employees and unions are not good. Yes they pay taxes, but what are they really generating towards the GNP of the US. Nothing! I see where the unions sent jobs overseas due to greed, just as the private sector has sent jobs there as well to preserve profits, but that is a choice they make and a choice the employee makes to work there. Gov employees are paid by tax payers, not a private entity. Do we move our gov to India because of no unions, cheaper wages. It is silly to think so. That is where I have issues. Teachers can earn a good/ decent wage and not be in a union, but they are forced to do so. Private sector jobs, they are not forced. Choice again. Work here, join or not join based on whether a union is representing the work force or not. I would hate to see seniority pitched, but taxpayers have a say. Are we not a gov run by the people for the people? I just feel this is a good start of getting things back on track.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JS81606 wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    JS81606 wrote:
    I don't care whether one is a teacher or an automaker, or a papermill worker. What concerns me with the union is that it has pitted government employees against the tax payer. As can be seen across this country, no gov employee produces anything or provides a service that earns profit. Whereas a corp, that produces a product or a barbers union that gives a service and earns a profit, from those profits pay the dues for the union and have then stand up for rights and benefits, but as far a gov employees, they work for the tax payer and to have all this handed to them for doing absolutely nothing... is wrong. As taxpayers, do I really need to pay union dues for a gov employee? As far a private business, I have no say in the unions interest or what happens, but as a gov employee, damn right I have a say and their ass isn't deserving of all the union ben-es that they receive. I think the Wis issue is a starting point for non productive gov to step back and re-examine what is in the best interest of the tax payers. Not just the wealthy, but he dying middle class. It is just a start, with a whole lot more to come, which is a good thing in my opinion.


    government workers pay taxes. Do doctor's do nothing? I work for a government run clinic that treats TB as well as STD/HIV prevention, do we do nothing? we provide a service like anyone else. And no we are not run for profit, but we definitely maximize our revenue.
    The point wasn't to say that government workers don't deserve their jobs, it is that the unions have overreached in the public sector and when the ax falls it should definitely fall on to us as public employees. Our salaries are negotiated by the union, but our benefits should definitely reflect what is available to in the private sector. I am all for taking away the collective bargaining rights of myself and other union workers if it means that the state will be able to pay its bills...I would much rather still have a job than lose it based on seniority because the union wouldn't play ball

    A government run clinic is not a profit generating machine. Private sector jobs/ businesses are, and if they aren't, they cease to exist. Not Gov. Government employees and unions are not good. Yes they pay taxes, but what are they really generating towards the GNP of the US. Nothing! I see where the unions sent jobs overseas due to greed, just as the private sector has sent jobs there as well to preserve profits, but that is a choice they make and a choice the employee makes to work there. Gov employees are paid by tax payers, not a private entity. Do we move our gov to India because of no unions, cheaper wages. It is silly to think so. That is where I have issues. Teachers can earn a good/ decent wage and not be in a union, but they are forced to do so. Private sector jobs, they are not forced. Choice again. Work here, join or not join based on whether a union is representing the work force or not. I would hate to see seniority pitched, but taxpayers have a say. Are we not a gov run by the people for the people? I just feel this is a good start of getting things back on track.

    I agree... which is why I said I would be happy if my union was going through the same thing...but for different reasons. The fact that I am FORCED to be in my union is really my only objection to them. That my dues for forcefully collected and used to do things I am against is outrageous to me. It will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out in wisconsin and what it will actually mean...
    But I take huge exception to your thoughts on government clinics. most hospitals are private not for profit hospitals, for instance Minnesota is a not for profit healthcare state...would you say doctors produce nothing? You cannot grab on to them, but I promise you your life has been more affected by the CDC mandates than you think. This seems to be a different argument all together, but it is rather short-sided to think that clinics produce nothing even though they do not make profits. I suppose if you want TB to spread again, HIV to get out of control and kids getting all sorts of wonderful diseases we thought we had beaten we could just eliminate the Health departments all together. I would love to do my job for a private clinic...I would get paid a lot more than I do now I can promise you that
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • know1 wrote:
    bytterman wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Unions have outlived their purpose and have become a detriment to their members and this country.

    Teachers - in particular - do not need a union.


    I've long felt that unions have past their use-by date, but I'm actually starting to wonder if what we need are stronger unions in developing economies. The world would be a different place if factory workers in the far east had bargaining power. I have mixed feelings about teachers unions though, despite being in one (walking a picket-line in a Canadian January is just delightful). Many are more of a political voice than an actual labour body, and seem spend plenty of time arguing for status quo on everything but wages/benefits. Ours is a barrier to academic changes that the place needs, but yet manages to avoid layoffs and gets us a better pay packet, despite the all-too-true money problems we have as a publicly-funded institution. I'd rather be speaking for myself, but I cannot deny the advantages.

    I absolutely believe that unions have their place in developing countries. Just not in the USA and certainly not for non-physical labor career such as teaching.

    Why the distinction about non-physical? Is assembly line work all that physical anymore? Is nursing a physical job? White-collar unions seem bizarre to me too, but I can't see how it follows that only folks who swing hammer can organize.
Sign In or Register to comment.