On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 8:21:20 AM UTC-5, Kurt Ullman wrote:
When you try to make cases that make no sense, that's all you can
do, avoid the question. I'd also note that even if one accepted his
case, what does it say about unions? In essence, he's saying that unions
need endless unemployment to survive? Great case. Good grief!
geez, you guys are dense. Rand says that these skilled workers are
essentially unemployable, and there may be a certain amount of truth to
that, but why would any company, when the good times happen again and
with the DOW hitting 16000 how far away can that be, hire back the more
experienced but somewhat out of date employee when they can hire a
cheaper non-unionized worker?
sort of like why would they keep pension plans when they can gut them
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:29:30 AM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
Economics 101 says that companies would hire the experienced workers
because, well they are experienced. That's why Haiti, where you could
pay people a few bucks a day, isn't a manufacturing power house. They
have no skilled workers. And economics 101 says those same companies
will pay experienced workers more, for the jobs that require those
skills. But they aren't going to pay some buffoon $100K just because
he's a union member, if they can avoid it.
Problem is, you libs have no experience in the real world. I've seen
union rules, the stupidity, the loss of productivity, the increased
costs they bring. Some examples:
At Bell Labs/Lucent Technology, they had "porters" who were part of
a union. If I went into the building with a piece of eqpt on a small
hand cart like you'd roll through an airport, I wasn't allowed to
move it through the building to where I was going. The Bell Labs
employee that I was visiting had to call a porter and we had to wait
however long it took for one to show up, because it was part of
their union contract that only they could move anything. We all
know what finally happened when Lucent caved in to ruin, because
they couldn't compete in the real world.
At Hughes Aircraft, I was working nights on radar modules. The work
would occasionally require a change of a small component to make an adjustment,
after I did a hour or two of testing.
Per the union contract, only a union member could do the soldering
that required a pencil soldering iron. So, I'd be working nights and
I'd have a union member sitting there reading the paper all night,
probably earning overtime, on the chance that I might need one thing
soldered. Many nights I didn't need anything soldered at all.
Does any of that sound productive to you?
They keep pension plans to attract and keep skilled employees. Good grief.
There vast majority of significant private companies have 401K plans.
The difference is that in the public sector, the politicians have handed
out pension plans to their union buddies that were future liabilities.
For the politicians at the time, it was great. Buy votes today and leave
the mounting liabilities for someone else to deal with decades later.
That strategy is now coming home to roost in states like CA and NJ.
A similar strategy is being executed at the national level, with the
politicians handing out all kinds of benefits, not funding them, and
passing on the $17tril in debt to future generations. And that $17tril
is just the on budget portion of the problem.
On 1/2/2014 9:13 AM, email@example.com wrote:
Huge reason I am against public sector unions. The unions are organized
against the employers or us the tax payers yet the politicians pander to
them to get votes.
Private sector is generally OK. If they bankrupt the company another
company will take their business, whereas if public sector unions
bankrupt the government, there is no government to take their place.
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:21:26 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
True enough. And how much money do you think the major public
workers unions have? Good grief. That's the problem. The politicians
hand out generous salaries and especially benefits to those unions
in return for votes. They can buy votes today with benefits that
don't hit the budget for decades. And when they do, you have the state
or city in deep trouble or even bankrupt.
Example of this, a police chief still in his 40's qualifies for
retirement. So, he retires, collecting his generous retirement
pay, calculated mostly on his pay of the last few years, which of
course they make sure they max out on. The next day he starts
his new job as head of a public law enforcement training facility,
DMV, whatever, starting the process all over again. Future taxpayers
will wind up paying him two pensions now. Plus with high unemployment,
why should anyone be getting a pension from govt and then still be
working for govt?
Yet we pay for it anyway and you libs want more of it.
How much money does the NRA have? I don't see anyone here dumping on
them and the influence they have on Politics. Ask the same question
about the oil companies, the coal companies, the natural gas companies,
the farmers lobby, and plenty more.
Good grief. That's the problem. The politicians
I wasn't aware that there are unions that the Police Chief could be a
part of. But it's strange that one of the tenets of fundie-mentalists is
that CEO's deserve as much money as they can get...don't see why a
Police Chief shouldn't be given the same courtesy.
And then there's the military retiree collecting his/her pension who
goes out and get's another gov't job at the age of 38, are you against
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.