The Almighty Unions

[Coito ergo sum]

President Franklin Roosevelt wrote:

A Roosevelt admirer, huh?

In many ways, yes. I fail to say what my admiration of him has to do with it, though? Can you explain that? What possible difference does it make whether I "admire" him?

[Pappa]

If there were no unions, companies would have a fucker of a time when they wanted to change company policy or otherwise change employees contracts. They would need to renegotiate with every employee individually, and potentially end up with unique contractual terms for each.

[Warren Dew]

Also, most unions recognise that excessively greedy wage demands will halt the growth of the companies that employ them.

Of course, that's hardly applicable when the union members work for the government rather than for a company.

[Seth]

If there were no unions, companies would have a fucker of a time when they wanted to change company policy or otherwise change employees contracts. They would need to renegotiate with every employee individually, and potentially end up with unique contractual terms for each.

Nobody said life was easy.

Why should my wage package be the same as your wage package? Perhaps I'm a better, more qualified and skilled employee than you are, and deserve to make more than you do.

[Seth]

Also, most unions recognise that excessively greedy wage demands will halt the growth of the companies that employ them.

Of course, that's hardly applicable when the union members work for the government rather than for a company.

Which is exactly why His Progressive Majesty Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself said that the idea of public sector unions is a ridiculous one.

[egbert]

Also, most unions recognise that excessively greedy wage demands will halt the growth of the companies that employ them.

Of course, that's hardly applicable when the union members work for the government rather than for a company.

Which is exactly why His Progressive Majesty Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself said that the idea of public sector unions is a ridiculous one.

Feck yeah, next thing those uppity Union Nigger's will want the same pay and promotional opportunities as us white folks, AND they'll want us to stop lynching them!

[MrJonno]

Unions have to negotiate with governments with rely on the irrational public who generally want good public services and lower taxes, negotiating with the private sector bosses is relatively a lot easier when both sides at least want the same thing more money

[Coito ergo sum]

Also, most unions recognise that excessively greedy wage demands will halt the growth of the companies that employ them.

Of course, that's hardly applicable when the union members work for the government rather than for a company.

Which is exactly why His Progressive Majesty Franklin Delano Roosevelt himself said that the idea of public sector unions is a ridiculous one.

Feck yeah, next thing those uppity Union Nigger's will want the same pay and promotional opportunities as us white folks, AND they'll want us to stop lynching them!

No hyperbole there at all!

If you oppose anything union-related, you are in favor of racism and lynching. Right.

[Coito ergo sum]

Unions have to negotiate with governments with rely on the irrational public who generally want good public services and lower taxes, negotiating with the private sector bosses is relatively a lot easier when both sides at least want the same thing more money

The problem with unions in the public sector is that they are generally striking against public interest, and their interests are diametrically opposed to the taxpayer's interest. Moreover, there isn't a board of directors that management has to be accountable to, so management in government doesn't have the incentive to drive as hard a bargain as management in the private sector.

[MrJonno]

The problem with unions in the public sector is that they are generally striking against public interest, and their interests are diametrically opposed to the taxpayer's interest. Moreover, there isn't a board of directors that management has to be accountable to, so management in government doesn't have the incentive to drive as hard a bargain as management in the private sector.

Well as the public sector is 25-50% of the country depending on where you live they are a large % of taxpayers. Public sector management is ultimately the government which is obviously accountable to everyone.

Public sector strikes may or may not be against the public interest , if the state wanted to increase the hours than train drivers work that obviously isnt in the train drivers interest but it might not be in the passenger either

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem with unions in the public sector is that they are generally striking against public interest, and their interests are diametrically opposed to the taxpayer's interest. Moreover, there isn't a board of directors that management has to be accountable to, so management in government doesn't have the incentive to drive as hard a bargain as management in the private sector.

Well as the public sector is 25-50% of the country depending on where you live they are a large % of taxpayers. Public sector management is ultimately the government which is obviously accountable to everyone.

Being accountable to everyone is equivalent of being accountable to no one. I know that department heads in government don't give a shit what you and I say, so obviously they aren't accountable to us.

[Pappa]

If there were no unions, companies would have a fucker of a time when they wanted to change company policy or otherwise change employees contracts. They would need to renegotiate with every employee individually, and potentially end up with unique contractual terms for each.

Nobody said life was easy.

Why should my wage package be the same as your wage package? Perhaps I'm a better, more qualified and skilled employee than you are, and deserve to make more than you do.

Unions != Communism

Companies have pay scales and ranks. Unions don't mean everyone gets the same money no matter what their skills and experience. They are of benefit to companies because the company need only negotiate a deal once with the union representitives, not individually with each employee. Without that important benefit, companies could be quickly bogged down and unable to change some company practices. For example, if they wanted to change working times from 9-5 to 8-4, but 1/3 of the employees refused, without union representation, the company would be stuck, unable to change working times even though a majority of employees agreed.

[Seth]

Unions have to negotiate with governments with rely on the irrational public who generally want good public services and lower taxes, negotiating with the private sector bosses is relatively a lot easier when both sides at least want the same thing more money

The problem with unions in the public sector is that they are generally striking against public interest, and their interests are diametrically opposed to the taxpayer's interest. Moreover, there isn't a board of directors that management has to be accountable to, so management in government doesn't have the incentive to drive as hard a bargain as management in the private sector.

Worse, in general, management in government has exactly the opposite motive from any business owner. Government bureaucrats do not secure their position and emoluments in life by cutting their budgets or managing fewer subordinates. Take City Managers, for example. There is a reason why the City Manager form of government always costs the taxpayers more than a strong Mayor form of government. This is because City Managers, in their own vested self-interest, must at all times make it appear to the City Council and the public that their job is much more difficult and complex than it really is, in order to justify their continued employment. Therefore, it is never in the personal interest of a City Manager to tell the Council that the city could get by with fewer pot-hole fillers or paperwork-shufflers. To do so is to stupidity for a City Manager. Instead, the City Manager must always, by nature of the position, try to convince the Council that more employees are needed, larger salaries are required to recruit the "most qualified" employees, that bigger compensation and pension packages are needed to "retain valued employees," and more money is needed to do the incredibly difficult, complex work that only a professional, degreed, highly skilled City Manger could possibly do because administrating a city is simply beyond the capabilities of your average elected representative or Mayor.

Thus, when the City Manager negotiates with a public employee union (let's say the police union) the City Manager has a motive to grant higher pay rates and better retirement packages to the city employees who will be her reason for existence. If she scratches their back, they will scratch hers, and they will all wallow in their sinecures.

Without the direct profit motive that drives a true balance of power between the private employer and a private union, which is the case with ALL government agencies, there is nothing to protect the public from being raped by the collusion between the unions and the bureaucrats, who have more owing to the unions than they do to the taxpayers, and because, after all, it's not THEIR money they are spending.

Now, if we were to inversely tie the salary of every bureaucrat involved in negotiations with public sector unions to the amount of money and benefits they grant to the union workers, that might prevent the problem. That way, the more the bureaucrats, elected representatives and negotiators give away to the unions, the less they themselves actually get in terms of a paycheck or benefits, the greater the motivation for them to negotiate hard in favor of their employer; the People.

[egbert]

“Pity the poor billionair­e for his burdens, Mr. Six-Pack.
All Americans have tacitly agreed that the poor must be forgotten, including the poor themselves­, who have been encouraged to keep it constantly in mind that they are only a single lottery win away from becoming billionair­es who face an onerous, socialisti­c income tax rate that does not, in fact, exist.
So the American political establishm­ent is only officially concerned with "the middle class," but really and unofficial­ly only listens to the upper class.
Which is just as well, because thanks to what the upper class tells the political establishm­ent to do, there isn't going to be any American middle class. Just a few hundred million poor people no one will remember.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Pr ... 18876.html

[egbert]

The Poor Billionaires, Chip in to Help Them Out They Really Are Suffering
By
admin
– April 17, 2011Posted in: Google News, Googlers, Who Google Impacts

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes submitted on an annual basis and they produce a special report covering the financials of this high earning group. Supposedly, the list changes from year to year, but you can be sure none of these folks suddenly find themselves poor and living under a bridge.

The IRS reports seem to be lagging three years behind for public disclosure. Is the IRS covering up the fact that the ultra wealthy have been making a killing while the rest of the country has been drowning in debt, dried up credit lines and despair? It's very likely.
How Rich Are the Ultra Rich in the United States

The average income the top 400 income earners in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, had an "adjusted gross income" of a poverty inducing $344,759,000 or nearly $345 million EACH. Their average federal income tax rate was a mere 17 percent, down from a high of 26 percent in 1992.

The complete report, 13-pages worth, is very hard to read and poorly labeled, perhaps intentionally. Or perhaps it's only sufficient for accountants and finance folks to be in on the joke.

http://www.googlemonopoly.eu/index.php/ ... suffering/