Bonanza123d Posted February 18, 2011 Share #1 Posted February 18, 2011 Anyone know about the protest in WI? well the DNC and Obama are encouraging illegal activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messino Posted February 18, 2011 Share #2 Posted February 18, 2011 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/16/public-workers-protest-in-wisconsin/ http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html during his campaign, the only 3 unions to support him were the cops, state troopers, and firefighters. now the firefighters joined the protest More union blaming going on here. Trying to make the unions look bad when its the other way around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTARegional Bus Posted February 19, 2011 Share #3 Posted February 19, 2011 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/16/public-workers-protest-in-wisconsin/ http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html during his campaign, the only 3 unions to support him were the cops, state troopers, and firefighters. now the firefighters joined the protest More union blaming going on here. Trying to make the unions look bad when its the other way around Yea I bet the Big corporation are happy about this.If they don't want heath benefits and better pay but want to work like a slave with minimum wage with no overtime pay let them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe C Posted February 19, 2011 Share #4 Posted February 19, 2011 This is all about taking apart the unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted February 19, 2011 Share #5 Posted February 19, 2011 the DNC and Obama are encouraging illegal activities. Such as???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted February 19, 2011 Share #6 Posted February 19, 2011 If anyone cares, Wisc. Governor Walker has recived millions in political/campaign help from tea party backers including the Koch family (Not related to the former NYC Mayor)one of America's richest families. This is a huge problem IMO. While Wisc. and most other states nationwide have a huge fiscal crisis, what I don't like about these new 'tea party' elected officals both in Washington and State Captials, early on in their carrers, they refuse to being able to compromise with unions and other who may disagree with them. From what I read Walker has offered no form of compromises in trying to solve the fiscal crisis. This is an example of why America is so divided along economic lines. Here article link. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/02/18/2011-02-18_wisconsin_protests_kill_the_bill_angry_public_workers_chant_at_state_capitol.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted February 21, 2011 Share #7 Posted February 21, 2011 well if anyone wants to join, i have created a pro public sector union group on facebook. this is the digital age and this is now how our voices get heard. not to many people protest in the streets anymore, unfortunately SAVE THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS!!! http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_200870376591082 maybe this should be moved to the career discussions forum? i would have vreated my own thread there but since there's one here i didnt want to create controversy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted February 21, 2011 Share #8 Posted February 21, 2011 well if anyone wants to join, i have created a pro public sector union group on facebook. this is the digital age and this is now how our voices get heard. not to many people protest in the streets anymore, unfortunately SAVE THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS!!! http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_200870376591082 maybe this should be moved to the career discussions forum? i would have vreated my own thread there but since there's one here i didnt want to create controversy This isn't a transit specific discussion, so it doesn't need to be in the career forum. I still would like to know how Obama and the DNC are encouraging illegal activities....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOB2RTO Posted February 21, 2011 Share #9 Posted February 21, 2011 If the cost of living was lowered by our government, no one would cry for more money, or higher wages. But in a capitalistic society, businesses and corporations do have influence on what we pay, and politicians won't say, "you are going to price people out", as long as they get their "contributions"....... Unions understand living wages in America, and cause it is a union, they have resources (such as large numbers of people), to demand to be compensated as such. Private sector workers can have a voice to, to demand the same, but as always, the boss demands you clear your sh!t out............ For example, if the state feels cops shouldn't be paid say $25hr, and should only get $20hr, then at the same token, a 3 bedroom apartment shouldn't be $1600-$1700, and only should be $1200-$1300. Insurance can't be $1,200yr. It has to go down to $900yr, etc........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted February 21, 2011 Share #10 Posted February 21, 2011 Read this. All Walker is doing here is saving these people's jobs. You get nothing free in life. Pay for your own health care and pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted February 22, 2011 Share #11 Posted February 22, 2011 Read this. All Walker is doing here is saving these people's jobs. You get nothing free in life. Pay for your own health care and pensions. R68 according to most media accounts I read the unions were now to 'concede' to pay for health care/pensions in last few days. The issue that caused this uproar to continue is that Walker also wants to 'end all collective bargaining' for all state workers in Wisc. That why the Democratic state lawmakers have still not returned to Madison. Andrew were not your parents in unions? This is a form of union busting IMO. While i have voiced my disagreements in past such as the NY area unions, without them you would have 'very low wages.' Reactions R68 or anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 22, 2011 Share #12 Posted February 22, 2011 R68 according to most media accounts I read the unions were now to 'concede' to pay for health care/pensions in last few days. The issue that caused this uproar to continue is that Walker also wants to 'end all collective bargaining' for all state workers in Wisc. That why the Democratic state lawmakers have still not returned to Madison. Andrew were not your parents in unions? This is a form of union busting IMO. While i have voiced my disagreements in past such as the NY area unions, without them you would have 'very low wages.' Reactions R68 or anyone else? I think unions can be good in some cases and are important, but at the same time folks can abuse the unions and make things bad for others so I don't know. One thing is certain... States around the country are in deep w/the rising costs of pensions, etc., so I think some sort of compromise has to be made otherwise, states will become bankrupt. I know that the unions in Wisconsin have made concessions, but this is short term. More concessions will be needed across the country long term should states come out of the huge debts that they're currently in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilbluefoxie Posted February 22, 2011 Share #13 Posted February 22, 2011 Read this. All Walker is doing here is saving these people's jobs. You get nothing free in life. Pay for your own health care and pensions. from what Ive read they just wanted to cut some of the benefits which are already excessive compared to what people get in other industries, as an alternative to laying off people. Whats better a job with slightly less goodies or no job at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted February 22, 2011 Share #14 Posted February 22, 2011 I think unions can be good in some cases and are important, but at the same time folks can abuse the unions and make things bad for others so I don't know. One thing is certain... States around the country are in deep w/the rising costs of pensions, etc., so I think some sort of compromise has to be made otherwise, states will become bankrupt. I know that the unions in Wisconsin have made concessions, but this is short term. More concessions will be needed across the country long term should states come out of the huge debts that they're currently in. Agreed. I am sure Gov. Cuomo here in NY will have no choice but to propose a similar set of cuts. However unions like the TWU will likely go nuts again and cause another NYC Transit strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 22, 2011 Share #15 Posted February 22, 2011 Agreed. I am sure Gov. Cuomo here in NY will have no choice but to propose a similar set of cuts. However unions like the TWU will likely go nuts again and cause another NYC Transit strike. I understand the mentality that costs are rising, etc., but if you look at the wages of non-union folks across the country, you'll see that their wages are stagnant, assuming that they're even employed. Heck I haven't had a raise since 2009 and I'm not complaining. I'm grateful to have a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted February 23, 2011 Share #16 Posted February 23, 2011 Walker is planning to allow collective bargaining for wages. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wisconsin-budget-would-allow-collective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #17 Posted February 23, 2011 Read this. All Walker is doing here is saving these people's jobs. You get nothing free in life. Pay for your own health care and pensions. Except they agreed to do that. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the collective bargaining, and collective bargaining has nothing to do with the pensions and health care. I think unions can be good in some cases and are important, but at the same time folks can abuse the unions and make things bad for others so I don't know. One thing is certain... States around the country are in deep w/the rising costs of pensions, etc., so I think some sort of compromise has to be made otherwise, states will become bankrupt. I know that the unions in Wisconsin have made concessions, but this is short term. More concessions will be needed across the country long term should states come out of the huge debts that they're currently in. The collective bargaining is a long term issue also, one that shouldn't be taken away to depower public employees. Though yes, the next few years will be extremely painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #18 Posted February 23, 2011 The collective bargaining is a long term issue also, one that shouldn't be taken away to depower public employees. Though yes, the next few years will be extremely painful. Just to be clear, I NEVER said anything about doing away w/unions or collective bargaining, so please don't imply anything of the sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #19 Posted February 23, 2011 Just to be clear, I NEVER said anything about doing away w/unions or collective bargaining, so please don't imply anything of the sort. That was more to the governor of WI and those that support him, and I'm sorry it came off that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #20 Posted February 23, 2011 I understand the mentality that costs are rising, etc., but if you look at the wages of non-union folks across the country, you'll see that their wages are stagnant, assuming that they're even employed. Heck I haven't had a raise since 2009 and I'm not complaining. I'm grateful to have a job. Although it's true in a way your last sentence really bothers me. That's the big hammer employers hold over union and non-union workers alike. Now that the big recession ( depression) has taken hold that mentality has led to the present anti-union bashing, IMO. Why should I, a taxpayer, pay for someone to get what I don't get seems to be the mantra of today. Never mind that the public employee is also a taxpayer who, if overpaid, pays more taxes than some others do. While the financial situation of the country is in the pits TODAY, why didn't the total workforce push for better benefits and not just wages when times were good? Why would one worker deny another worker benefits that were negotiated ? Envy? Or is there something else at work here? I can see stopping the rate of increase of pay and benefits in these hard times but to say the unions are irrelevant, not you Via, but in general, and that we really have no power to negotiate anything anymore, sounds like a slippery slope to all workers. Take what I give you, in good or bad times, and be happy you have a job. I thought that mentality went out the door last century, at least in a democracy. Are we heading backwards to join the Third World in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted February 23, 2011 Share #21 Posted February 23, 2011 Although it's true in a way your last sentence really bothers me. That's the big hammer employers hold over union and non-union workers alike. Now that the big recession ( depression) has taken hold that mentality has led to the present anti-union bashing, IMO. Why should I, a taxpayer, pay for someone to get what I don't get seems to be the mantra of today. Never mind that the public employee is also a taxpayer who, if overpaid, pays more taxes than some others do. While the financial situation of the country is in the pits TODAY, why didn't the total workforce push for better benefits and not just wages when times were good? Why would one worker deny another worker benefits that were negotiated ? Envy? Or is there something else at work here? I can see stopping the rate of increase of pay and benefits in these hard times but to say the unions are irrelevant, not you Via, but in general, and that we really have no power to negotiate anything anymore, sounds like a slippery slope to all workers. Take what I give you, in good or bad times, and be happy you have a job. I thought that mentality went out the door last century, at least in a democracy. Are we heading backwards to join the Third World in this country? And that is why unions are necessary. Without a union - which is yourself joined by other workers, you are one person against a large nameless, faceless corporation that can easily replace you. Collective bargaining puts rules on the books that prevents wrongful termination and wins you compensation in a court of law if wrongfully terminated. Without the union and those rules it's your word against the lawyers and executives of a corporation and you will lose or be bought out for pennies on the dollar every time so that they get you to shut up and go away. Unions may not be the world's greatest thing, but a world without them is far darker than a world with them. The problem is no one seems to understand the concept of a union anymore. The infighting within unions cripples them. Anyone here - I dare you to read up on TWU history. What allowed the TWU to form and grow was a series of incidents during the 1920's and 1930's where workers stood up to the different operators (largely the private IRT and BMT which treated their workers the worst). The reason you have non operating and operating personnel in the same union was because it meant the union had control of the entire system. Piss off the station agents, and the power guys won't turn on the juice, and the train crews won't work. Piss off the train crews, they won't run trains, and the tower operators won't show up to give lineups which prevents the supervisors from filling in. However that model only works when everyone stands together. A union works on the principle of "we are all workers, management is greedy, and since you are not being treated fair I will stand up for you because if I wasn't being treated fair I would want you to do it for me also." However today that has shifted to "well that's your problem not mine." Without solidarity in the membership any union will fail. And when the unions fail, the corporations rule. To anyone here I would recommend do not take shit from corporations lying down. Know your rights and stand up for them, you have more than you think. And never be grateful to "just have a job" - find one you like and be happy with it, don't just take what you can get. If you are employed, your employer sucks, LOOK for work just don't tell anyone. Then bail and join the new place if you can. But TM5 is right there's this anti union mentality mostly stemming from "it's wasteful and I don't need no stinkin' union to negotiate wages." You know why? Most people don't negotiate their wage. They just take what the corp offers. Good for corp, bad for you. But if the corps were so good and honest, then where was the increase in REAL wages during the 1990s and mid 2000s during the boom years for the working class? Why did real wages decline for this group during that time? And why did executive salaries skyrocket by every measure? You need unions to stand up to that profiteering with strikes, suits in courts of law, and so on. Because without that solidarity, individuals don't have the time, or the resources to do much of anything to stem the tide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 23, 2011 Share #22 Posted February 23, 2011 Although it's true in a way your last sentence really bothers me. That's the big hammer employers hold over union and non-union workers alike. Now that the big recession ( depression) has taken hold that mentality has led to the present anti-union bashing, IMO. Why should I, a taxpayer, pay for someone to get what I don't get seems to be the mantra of today. Never mind that the public employee is also a taxpayer who, if overpaid, pays more taxes than some others do. While the financial situation of the country is in the pits TODAY, why didn't the total workforce push for better benefits and not just wages when times were good? Why would one worker deny another worker benefits that were negotiated ? Envy? Or is there something else at work here? I can see stopping the rate of increase of pay and benefits in these hard times but to say the unions are irrelevant, not you Via, but in general, and that we really have no power to negotiate anything anymore, sounds like a slippery slope to all workers. Take what I give you, in good or bad times, and be happy you have a job. I thought that mentality went out the door last century, at least in a democracy. Are we heading backwards to join the Third World in this country? I just think they should be a bit more understanding of the times that we're in. If we want to talk about why so many jobs have gone overseas, the wage and benefits factor is a big reason why. The consensus is that the cost of living is going up so we must ask for more concessions, regardless of the situation, but at some point you have to think, okay even you're getting what you're asking for, there is some sort of price for that in that someone, somewhere is paying for the concessions you received. That's all I'm saying. If the company is doing well, then sure, you should be getting more as well within reason of course. For all of the greedy multinationals, there are some companies left with morals that want to give Americans jobs with good wages and benefits but some of them just can't compete with the competition from overseas. I totally believe that unions are necessary, but sometimes I wonder if they think about what I said in the last paragraph. At some point you become so expensive that you price yourself out of competition and you wind up shooting yourself in the foot. It's the same thing that's happening in my industry. Prices became so high that translators here in the U.S. in some cases are making almost triple or four times what translators overseas are making and now they're feeling the effects of that and adjusting their prices to more reasonable rates. Just for the record... I look to employ translators based here in the U.S. and I don't have a problem paying good wages, but if I come upon a translator that's charging more than I am for a project then something is wrong and that's what I'm saying. Sure, many CEOs are greedy and such, but I try to work on a philosophy that I take care of the folks who work for me and I try not to price gouge my clients at the same time. I mean has my cost of living gone up? It sure as hell has. My express bus went up $9.00 in the past few years or so, but I can't expect my employer to just give me a raise everytime the MTA raises the express bus, knowing that like most companies the profit margins are slimmer than what they used to be with the recession and all. Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that unions are greedy or anything like that. I just wonder if at some point they outprice themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #23 Posted February 24, 2011 I just think they should be a bit more understanding of the times that we're in. If we want to talk about why so many jobs have gone overseas, the wage and benefits factor is a big reason why. The consensus is that the cost of living is going up so we must ask for more concessions, regardless of the situation, but at some point you have to think, okay even you're getting what you're asking for, there is some sort of price for that in that someone, somewhere is paying for the concessions you received. That's all I'm saying. If the company is doing well, then sure, you should be getting more as well within reason of course. For all of the greedy multinationals, there are some companies left with morals that want to give Americans jobs with good wages and benefits but some of them just can't compete with the competition from overseas. I totally believe that unions are necessary, but sometimes I wonder if they think about what I said in the last paragraph. At some point you become so expensive that you price yourself out of competition and you wind up shooting yourself in the foot. It's the same thing that's happening in my industry. Prices became so high that translators here in the U.S. in some cases are making almost triple or four times what translators overseas are making and now they're feeling the effects of that and adjusting their prices to more reasonable rates. Just for the record... I look to employ translators based here in the U.S. and I don't have a problem paying good wages, but if I come upon a translator that's charging more than I am for a project then something is wrong and that's what I'm saying. Sure, many CEOs are greedy and such, but I try to work on a philosophy that I take care of the folks who work for me and I try not to price gouge my clients at the same time. I mean has my cost of living gone up? It sure as hell has. My express bus went up $9.00 in the past few years or so, but I can't expect my employer to just give me a raise everytime the MTA raises the express bus, knowing that like most companies the profit margins are slimmer than what they used to be with the recession and all. Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that unions are greedy or anything like that. I just wonder if at some point they outprice themselves. I don't think "outprice" is the proper term here, although I think I know what you mean. A union may ask for pie in the sky but everyone knows that the first presentations from both sides are essentially bogus. The company asks for givebacks or a slowdown in the growth of the payscale or health benefits. IF DONE INTELLIGENTLY the two sides can come to some sort of compromise fair to both. I believe the UAW, for example, was aware of the financial position of GM worldwide the last time they negotiated a contract and used that as a basis for negotiations. Whatever happened after that happened, GM going essentially bankrupt, probably never entered anybody's mind. No union or corporation would knowingly sign a contract that would destroy everything.What bothered me most about that particular situation was that as the bailout was debated there were average Americans saying screw the retirees, cut them off ,etc. As a recent retiree from the public sector that scared and angered me. I'm old school so my word is my bond. If I promise something I feel I am morally bound to honor it. Likewise I feel that GM, the UAW, and if bound to it, the US Pension Guarantee Board or whatever it's called, were obligated to those retirees. As far as public sector, civil service, work goes I feel that the city, county, or states, as well as the unions, have an obligation to honor their contracts and obligations. I realize that there is a New York State law prohibiting reducing a retirees benefits but the recent clamor from certain politicians across the country is troubling none the less. In certain instances it has been suggested that "greedy public unions" have brought state budgets to the brink of collapse and therefore cuts in essential services are needed. In my personal instance TWU Local 100 is subject to the Taylor Law prohibiting strikes by workers. This time a contract was negotiated in good faith but now the says that they can't and won't honor the 3rd year of a contract they signed. We have a mayor around here and a governor and county exec who are basically saying screw the public unions and contracts and they will decide pay and benefits. In summation Via Garibaldi 8 and others, it takes 2 to negotiate and sign a contract, union and management, but when 1 party can unilaterally abrogate that contract and feel no qualms about it it doesn't appear to me that the unions are the ones to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #24 Posted February 24, 2011 I don't think "outprice" is the proper term here, although I think I know what you mean. A union may ask for pie in the sky but everyone knows that the first presentations from both sides are essentially bogus. The company asks for givebacks or a slowdown in the growth of the payscale or health benefits. IF DONE INTELLIGENTLY the two sides can come to some sort of compromise fair to both. I believe the UAW, for example, was aware of the financial position of GM worldwide the last time they negotiated a contract and used that as a basis for negotiations. Whatever happened after that happened, GM going essentially bankrupt, probably never entered anybody's mind. No union or corporation would knowingly sign a contract that would destroy everything.What bothered me most about that particular situation was that as the bailout was debated there were average Americans saying screw the retirees, cut them off ,etc. As a recent retiree from the public sector that scared and angered me. I'm old school so my word is my bond. If I promise something I feel I am morally bound to honor it. Likewise I feel that GM, the UAW, and if bound to it, the US Pension Guarantee Board or whatever it's called, were obligated to those retirees. As far as public sector, civil service, work goes I feel that the city, county, or states, as well as the unions, have an obligation to honor their contracts and obligations. I realize that there is a New York State law prohibiting reducing a retirees benefits but the recent clamor from certain politicians across the country is troubling none the less. In certain instances it has been suggested that "greedy public unions" have brought state budgets to the brink of collapse and therefore cuts in essential services are needed. In my personal instance TWU Local 100 is subject to the Taylor Law prohibiting strikes by workers. This time a contract was negotiated in good faith but now the says that they can't and won't honor the 3rd year of a contract they signed. We have a mayor around here and a governor and county exec who are basically saying screw the public unions and contracts and they will decide pay and benefits. In summation Via Garibaldi 8 and others, it takes 2 to negotiate and sign a contract, union and management, but when 1 party can unilaterally abrogate that contract and feel no qualms about it it doesn't appear to me that the unions are the ones to blame. But I think you can understand why some people would feel that unions are part of the problem with so many states having such fiscal problems. I think the real question is, what sort of concessions will unions be willing to make going forward with most states being in such bad shape financially? It's hard not to dispute that as more baby boomers retire, pension costs will continue to spiral naturally, even if unions give back more, but how much will be enough? The way I see it, if states are wallopping in debt and can't get themselves out, the only answer they'll have is to raise taxes and on that end, yes, if taxes are raised and more services are cut like school programs, medicare, etc., you may see people becoming anti-union. I'm not saying it's right or anything, but you can see how that can happen. I still think back to the MTA strike back in 2005. I had landed my first real job earlier that year since finishing college and returning back to the states from Europe and then the strike hit. That was a very tough time for me. While I understood what my uncle was fighting for, a part of was pissed because I felt it was a bit selfish, esp. as it dragged on. During that time period, my commute consisted of walking about 40 minutes or so to get the Ferry if I couldn't get a cab and then walking from the ferry to 18th & 5th where I worked at the time, also assuming that no cab was available and then doing that whole walk going back home, so by day 3, I was quite cranky to say the least. My uncle and I, we sort of avoided each other during that time period. Later at some point we did discuss the whole thing and to my surprise he was still rather passionate about it all and actually angry at times because he felt that some guys weren't involved enough in what was happening and just sort of went with the flow, so in sum it can really be a tough situation. I think at the end of the day, the unions have to fight for what is due to them, but also be prepared for any consequences that may come about as a result. I also agree w/you that companies should honor the agreements that make w/unions and the employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted February 24, 2011 Share #25 Posted February 24, 2011 But I think you can understand why some people would feel that unions are part of the problem with so many states having such fiscal problems. I think the real question is, what sort of concessions will unions be willing to make going forward with most states being in such bad shape financially? It's hard not to dispute that as more baby boomers retire, pension costs will continue to spiral naturally, even if unions give back more, but how much will be enough? The way I see it, if states are wallopping in debt and can't get themselves out, the only answer they'll have is to raise taxes and on that end, yes, if taxes are raised and more services are cut like school programs, medicare, etc., you may see people becoming anti-union. I'm not saying it's right or anything, but you can see how that can happen. I still think back to the MTA strike back in 2005. I had landed my first real job earlier that year since finishing college and returning back to the states from Europe and then the strike hit. That was a very tough time for me. While I understood what my uncle was fighting for, a part of was pissed because I felt it was a bit selfish, esp. as it dragged on. During that time period, my commute consisted of walking about 40 minutes or so to get the Ferry if I couldn't get a cab and then walking from the ferry to 18th & 5th where I worked at the time, also assuming that no cab was available and then doing that whole walk going back home, so by day 3, I was quite cranky to say the least. My uncle and I, we sort of avoided each other during that time period. Later at some point we did discuss the whole thing and to my surprise he was still rather passionate about it all and actually angry at times because he felt that some guys weren't involved enough in what was happening and just sort of went with the flow, so in sum it can really be a tough situation. I think at the end of the day, the unions have to fight for what is due to them, but also be prepared for any consequences that may come about as a result. I also agree w/you that companies should honor the agreements that make w/unions and the employees. The problem with the current model is the following general timeline: 1-Things go well 2-Union negotiates and wins a fair raise to keep pace with inflation 3-As things continue to go well, politicians and executives reward themselves with hefty raises 4-Things start to go not so well. The politicians and executives maintain their high pay 5-The budget for the corporation or municipal government gets bad 6-The politicians and executives go public crying about how cuts need to be made, and demand the workers give up their pay while executives and politicians maintain their pay 7-The public is stupid, and blames the union for the current state of affairs instead of the executives and politicians who made many decisions related to expenditures other than increased pay to unions, and it was those decisions which caused the budget issues 8-The public, being stupid, demands that the union give up significant rights and significant pay so that the budget is made better. 9-Rinse, repeat. That's why real working wages haven't gone up in a generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.