Wisconsin governor to end ALL collective bargaining rights for state workers.

[SpineyNorman]

Unpleasant?????? You say that & then throw an insult. I guess your definition of unpleasant is when someone disagrees.

I'm still confused by the question. It's apples & oranges. A union is democratically accountable to it's members but not very much to the public. An olligarchy is not very accountable to the public either. And I disagree with lumping gov & private sector unions into the same category of trade unions.

In the US, cutting gov unions wages or benefits or working conditions would have very little impact on those things in the private sector since I think less than 5% of workers are in gov unions. It would probably benefit private sector workers in other ways since it would allow for lower taxes that would help the economy & lower unemployment, especially now during a severe recession.

Do you think raising taxes on businesses during a recession to protect gov unions from taking any cuts helps or hurts private sector workers & consumers?

Where's the insult? I'll take that as a yes though, it appears you really are. You just appear to want to get around answering the question. So by cutting public sector wages, thus placing downward pressure on private sector wages and increasing the pool of skilled unemployed labour, reducing job stability and inevitably harming working conditions, you're helping private sector workers?

How to get ahead in the race to the bottom.

Do you think cutting the public sector, reducing demand in the private sector and shrinking the economy in order to keep taxes down for the rich helps or hurts private sector workers and consumers?

 

[audiotech]

Regular updates of events in Wisconsin:

http://www.progressive.org/

 

[audiotech]

 

[TomUS]

This is an argument for private sector workers also getting these benefits, isn't it?

Yes, that would be great.

 

[TomUS]

Where's the insult? I'll take that as a yes though, it appears you really are. You just appear to want to get around answering the question. So by cutting public sector wages, thus placing downward pressure on private sector wages and increasing the pool of skilled unemployed labour, reducing job stability and inevitably harming working conditions, you're helping private sector workers?

How to get ahead in the race to the bottom.

Do you think cutting the public sector, reducing demand in the private sector and shrinking the economy in order to keep taxes down for the rich helps or hurts private sector workers and consumers?

But shouldn't you answer my question first?

 

[TomUS]

Are millionaires and corporations more democratically accountable than unions, Tom?

I'd say in general........no.

 

[TomUS]

ok, well, do you believe overtime pay is unfair? I just don't think you're getting the point at all.

No I wouldn't make a blanket statement to that effect.

please explain why it has to be one or the other group that gets decent pay, working conditions, job security and benefits?

I don't think it has to be one or the other. But as to job security, we all want it but too much can lead to a don't give a shit attitude & laziness.

 

[DotCommunist]

A constant sense of dread at the consequence of inefficiency should haunt all of us, stalked by the specter of welfare stamps should we ever look up from the loom to catch a glimpse of blue sky. You're a stooge Tom.

 

[TomUS]

A constant sense of dread at the consequence of inefficiency should haunt all of us, stalked by the specter of welfare stamps should we ever look up from the loom to catch a glimpse of blue sky. You're a stooge Tom.

You think nobody should ever be allowed to be fired no matter what their job performance? This does not seem to be fair to the vast majority who do their work well. It also doesn't seem fair to those that depend on the job they are doing.

 

[Random]

You think nobody should ever be allowed to be fired no matter what their job performance? This does not seem to be fair to the vast majority who do their work well. It also doesn't seem fair to those that depend on the job they are doing.

Like you say, the vast majority of people work well - so it's better to err on the side of protecting people's jobs. Considering that management very very often fire people for thing other than 'not working well.'

 

[spring-peeper]

I've been on training for a week, and this is still going on...and I can't seem to find a thread about the US government shutting down and throwing all their employees into a layoff position. So much for job security...

 

[spring-peeper]

Like you say, the vast majority of people work well - so it's better to err on the side of protecting people's jobs. Considering that management very very often fire people for thing other than 'not working well.'

A union firing over poor workmanship????

What a frigging hoot!!!!!

In a nutshell -> I've never heard of that one over here.

 

[Random]

Not sure what you're talking about at all.

 

[spring-peeper]

Not sure what you're talking about at all.

Are you referring to my posts?

If so - which part is confusing you - the part about the US government shutting down or the fact that I can give examples of unions protecting workers that would be fired in a non-union position but none of a union firing someone for theft, sleeping on the job, drinking on the job...?

 

[Random]

When has firing people ever been part of a union's responsibility? Don't know how you got that impression from my post, sorry. Had nothing to say on the US government shutting down, but wasn't there some kind of last minute interim agreement reached?

 

[spring-peeper]

When has firing people ever been part of a union's responsibility? Don't know how you got that impression from my post, sorry. Had nothing to say on the US government shutting down, but wasn't there some kind of last minute interim agreement reached?

It was clumsily worded, and I just woke up.

While I was away and was watching the nonsense from the other side of the border, I "assumed" there would be something about the crisis on here. I was looking forward to reading the U75 analysis.

No, the union don't fire people. But they do protect those who would have been fired if they were not in the union. The quality of work has no bearing in whether or not someone keeps the job. I can, and in the past-have, given examples of jobs being saved when the person should have been fired.

It's possible that many feel that backing a lorry up to a fence and loads cans of the company paint into it should not be a firing offense. My husband works with a guy who actually sleeps for five out of the ten hours, and plays solitaire for the balance of his shift. There is naught anyone can do, he is unionized with over 35 years in the company.

 

[butchersapron]

Astonishing - we now learn that the unions don't fire people but they don't fire people as well.

 

[spring-peeper]

Astonishing - we now learn that the unions don't fire people but they don't fire people as well.

twit!!!

 

[Random]

While I was away and was watching the nonsense from the other side of the border, I "assumed" there would be something about the crisis on here. I was looking forward to reading the U75 analysis.

There's not many US-based u75ers. If you want a thread you're probably one of the half-dozen or so people who might be interested enough to start it.

 

[Random]

No, the union don't fire people. But they do protect those who would have been fired if they were not in the union.

This is what unions do. This is why they are a good thing, and why everyone should join a union.

 

[spring-peeper]

There's not many US-based u75ers. If you want a thread you're probably one of the half-dozen or so people who might be interested enough to start it.

erm - this board has a reputation of damning anything american and promoting anything union. I've seen threads on this board going on about the US without any input from a US citizen.

 

[spring-peeper]

This is what unions do. This is why they are a good thing, and why everyone should join a union.

and then, once everyone has joined, hard work will have nothing to do with keeping your job or getting a promotion. It will be about how long you have worked there.

In the case of layoffs and promotions, I think it should be based on performance not seniority.

 

[Random]

erm - this board has a reputation of damning anything american and promoting anything union. I've seen threads on this board going on about the US without any input from a US citizen.

Get off your arse and start a thread, instead of wanting others to do it for you. What are you? A union member or something?

 

[Random]

In the case of layoffs and promotions, I think it should be based on performance not seniority.

Performance, as justdged by management? That's a recipe for a scared workforce, constantly under threat. I'd rather put up with a few people playing solitarie thanks.

 

[spring-peeper]

Performance, as justdged by management? That's a recipe for a scared workforce, constantly under threat. I'd rather put up with a few people playing solitarie thanks.

Performance, as in putting in more than 2 hours work in a ten hour shift. Sleeping and playing solitaire isn't working. I suppose that actually doing some of the work that is required is a bit too much to ask for.....

 

[Random]

Performance, as in putting in more than 2 hours work in a ten hour shift.

And this means you think protection should be taken away from everyone? People skiving might make you annoyed, but taking away protection would cause misery for millions, and probably make you and your family worse off.

 

[spring-peeper]

And this means you think protection should be taken away from everyone? People skiving might make you annoyed, but taking away protection would cause misery for millions, and probably make you and your family worse off.

My husbands company is about to do layoffs and it will be on seniority. It's a shame that the lazy f*cker who sleeps and plays solitaire will keep his job, but the younger ones who work hard and put in an eight hours work in a ten hour shift will loose their jobs.

eta: no one wins in a layoff - all those effected will make it worse for their families.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You think nobody should ever be allowed to be fired no matter what their job performance? This does not seem to be fair to the vast majority who do their work well. It also doesn't seem fair to those that depend on the job they are doing.

He's saying that whether you do your job well or not, the spectre is always there.

He hasn't said anything about people being fired or not, although it's fairly simple to understand that your mind would immediately go there: You're so beaten down that you don't even realise that the spectre haunts you.

 

[Random]

My husbands company is about to do layoffs and it will be on seniority. It's a shame that the lazy f*cker who sleeps and plays solitaire will keep his job, but the younger ones who work hard and put in an eight hours work in a ten hour shift will loose their jobs.

eta: no one wins in a layoff - all those effected will make it worse for their families.

Sounds like it's the people doing the layoffs you should be blaming, rather than the union.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Like you say, the vast majority of people work well - so it's better to err on the side of protecting people's jobs. Considering that management very very often fire people for thing other than 'not working well.'

Like being too good at your job. Can't have the wanker in the suit feeling threatened by someone else's superior performance, can we?