FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22265
Good points, amigo. What about something like a utility?OL FU wrote:I admit that I have mixed emotions about the issue, but exactly who are public sector unions bargaining against (or with depending on the definition you want to use). It's easy with private sector unions, they are bargaining for a larger share of the profits of the equity holders. But public sector unions bargain with politicians that have received their political contributions and the attempt is to get a larger share of tax dollars. If a business gives up too much of its profits, it may go out of business or file bankruptcy to renegotiate union contracts and the equity and debt holders lose also. If a government promises too much to unions, it raises taxes or passes laws to change the agreements potentially risking the political contributions that put them in office.
You know it is just not the same thing and it just isn't as simple as saying I believe in the right of collective bargaining which I do (at least for private sector unions).
As I said, I have mixed emotions about it. Absolutely no issue with it in a most private businesses. The car companies for example got what they deserved. Utilities are interesting. Certainly some of the same issues exist as with government unions. Obiously, some limitation is required in collective bargaining for utilties. Can't have workers going on strike and shutting down service. Can't have excessive compensation packages that would drive up utilities costs On the other hand most people I have know in the past that were non-union but still blue collar employees of Duke Engery seemed ok with their compensation. So I am not sure what to make of the utility companies. What do you think?houndawg wrote:Good points, amigo. What about something like a utility?OL FU wrote:I admit that I have mixed emotions about the issue, but exactly who are public sector unions bargaining against (or with depending on the definition you want to use). It's easy with private sector unions, they are bargaining for a larger share of the profits of the equity holders. But public sector unions bargain with politicians that have received their political contributions and the attempt is to get a larger share of tax dollars. If a business gives up too much of its profits, it may go out of business or file bankruptcy to renegotiate union contracts and the equity and debt holders lose also. If a government promises too much to unions, it raises taxes or passes laws to change the agreements potentially risking the political contributions that put them in office.
You know it is just not the same thing and it just isn't as simple as saying I believe in the right of collective bargaining which I do (at least for private sector unions).
Nice work there. I'm with ya on all that.OL FU wrote:I admit that I have mixed emotions about the issue, but exactly who are public sector unions bargaining against (or with depending on the definition you want to use). It's easy with private sector unions, they are bargaining for a larger share of the profits of the equity holders. But public sector unions bargain with politicians that have received their political contributions and the attempt is to get a larger share of tax dollars. If a business gives up too much of its profits, it may go out of business or file bankruptcy to renegotiate union contracts and the equity and debt holders lose also. If a government promises too much to unions, it raises taxes or passes laws to change the agreements potentially risking the political contributions that put them in office.
You know it is just not the same thing and it just isn't as simple as saying I believe in the right of collective bargaining which I do (at least for private sector unions).
Obviously things are different all over but in the government office I work in, which is union btw, if we get a raise through negotiations they don't raise taxes to make that money up. They just cut our budget so we have to layoff people.OL FU wrote:I admit that I have mixed emotions about the issue, but exactly who are public sector unions bargaining against (or with depending on the definition you want to use). It's easy with private sector unions, they are bargaining for a larger share of the profits of the equity holders. But public sector unions bargain with politicians that have received their political contributions and the attempt is to get a larger share of tax dollars. If a business gives up too much of its profits, it may go out of business or file bankruptcy to renegotiate union contracts and the equity and debt holders lose also. If a government promises too much to unions, it raises taxes or passes laws to change the agreements potentially risking the political contributions that put them in office.
You know it is just not the same thing and it just isn't as simple as saying I believe in the right of collective bargaining which I do (at least for private sector unions).
I see collective bargaining as right, however I can see cases, like utilities, or air traffic control, where there could be a built in no strike law. Which is usually the first deal cut in negotiations anyway, in exchange for deducting dues automatically.OL FU wrote:As I said, I have mixed emotions about it. Absolutely no issue with it in a most private businesses. The car companies for example got what they deserved. Utilities are interesting. Certainly some of the same issues exist as with government unions. Obiously, some limitation is required in collective bargaining for utilties. Can't have workers going on strike and shutting down service. Can't have excessive compensation packages that would drive up utilities costs On the other hand most people I have know in the past that were non-union but still blue collar employees of Duke Engery seemed ok with their compensation. So I am not sure what to make of the utility companies. What do you think?houndawg wrote:
Good points, amigo. What about something like a utility?
OL FU wrote:As I said, I have mixed emotions about it. Absolutely no issue with it in a most private businesses. The car companies for example got what they deserved. Utilities are interesting. Certainly some of the same issues exist as with government unions. Obiously, some limitation is required in collective bargaining for utilties. Can't have workers going on strike and shutting down service. Can't have excessive compensation packages that would drive up utilities costs On the other hand most people I have know in the past that were non-union but still blue collar employees of Duke Engery seemed ok with their compensation. So I am not sure what to make of the utility companies. What do you think?houndawg wrote:
Good points, amigo. What about something like a utility?
Sounds like a good way to handle it. Be careful what you wish for bitches!Vidav wrote: Obviously things are different all over but in the government office I work in, which is union btw, if we get a raise through negotiations they don't raise taxes to make that money up. They just cut our budget so we have to layoff people.
You don't even have a "right" to a job, let a lone the "right" to collectively bargain. I saw some union stiff on the television this a.m. talking about how (and I quote) "this bill is attempting to take away our right to DICTATE OUR SALARIES AND BENEFITS."houndawg wrote:I see collective bargaining as right, however I can see cases, like utilities, or air traffic control, where there could be a built in no strike law. Which is usually the first deal cut in negotiations anyway, in exchange for deducting dues automatically.OL FU wrote:
As I said, I have mixed emotions about it. Absolutely no issue with it in a most private businesses. The car companies for example got what they deserved. Utilities are interesting. Certainly some of the same issues exist as with government unions. Obiously, some limitation is required in collective bargaining for utilties. Can't have workers going on strike and shutting down service. Can't have excessive compensation packages that would drive up utilities costs On the other hand most people I have know in the past that were non-union but still blue collar employees of Duke Engery seemed ok with their compensation. So I am not sure what to make of the utility companies. What do you think?
Everyone has a right to dictate. And management has a right to not listen.AZGrizFan wrote:You don't even have a "right" to a job, let a lone the "right" to collectively bargain. I saw some union stiff on the television this a.m. talking about how (and I quote) "this bill is attempting to take away our right to DICTATE OUR SALARIES AND BENEFITS."houndawg wrote:
I see collective bargaining as right, however I can see cases, like utilities, or air traffic control, where there could be a built in no strike law. Which is usually the first deal cut in negotiations anyway, in exchange for deducting dues automatically.
Only in the topsy, turvy world of US unions do EMPLOYEES have (in their fucked up minds) a RIGHT to DICTATE salary and benefits.
And we wonder why we're broke as a country.
I said promises too much to the unions the states couldn't afford. I didn't say gives raises. If you want to nit the language be my guest. You will find lots of nits in what I write on a message board.Vidav wrote:Obviously things are different all over but in the government office I work in, which is union btw, if we get a raise through negotiations they don't raise taxes to make that money up. They just cut our budget so we have to layoff people.OL FU wrote:I admit that I have mixed emotions about the issue, but exactly who are public sector unions bargaining against (or with depending on the definition you want to use). It's easy with private sector unions, they are bargaining for a larger share of the profits of the equity holders. But public sector unions bargain with politicians that have received their political contributions and the attempt is to get a larger share of tax dollars. If a business gives up too much of its profits, it may go out of business or file bankruptcy to renegotiate union contracts and the equity and debt holders lose also. If a government promises too much to unions, it raises taxes or passes laws to change the agreements potentially risking the political contributions that put them in office.
You know it is just not the same thing and it just isn't as simple as saying I believe in the right of collective bargaining which I do (at least for private sector unions).
However, the point was who you are negotiating against and as I said, I have mixed views on the subject. I understand the need for collective bargaining, however, the negotiator for the tax payer can be confused about the purpose of the negotiations. I don't see it as a right but certainly a privilege that shouldn't be dismissed lightly. However, there needs to be some recogition that the the pot that is being divided up is different than with most businesses. We aren't talking about less profits for Donald Trump. We are talking about potential default of states on their bonds, We are talking about governing bodies that force higher taxes without worry of competition (some states do have to worry). It is simply an entirely different set of circumstances complicated by the fact that in some cases corrupt politicians handle the negotiations.houndawg wrote:I see collective bargaining as right, however I can see cases, like utilities, or air traffic control, where there could be a built in no strike law. Which is usually the first deal cut in negotiations anyway, in exchange for deducting dues automatically.OL FU wrote:
As I said, I have mixed emotions about it. Absolutely no issue with it in a most private businesses. The car companies for example got what they deserved. Utilities are interesting. Certainly some of the same issues exist as with government unions. Obiously, some limitation is required in collective bargaining for utilties. Can't have workers going on strike and shutting down service. Can't have excessive compensation packages that would drive up utilities costs On the other hand most people I have know in the past that were non-union but still blue collar employees of Duke Engery seemed ok with their compensation. So I am not sure what to make of the utility companies. What do you think?
Did the propoganda piece you lifted this from quote the audio that went along with the graphic, because if the anchor/reporter gave said the results correctly while the graphic was incorrect that would be a mistake on the part of the graphics dept, not a lie.UNHWildCats wrote:
MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... nsin_N.htm#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I didn't listen to it but the first thing I thought was it was probably just a mistake and trying to make some big fucking deal out of nothing.blueballs wrote:Did the propoganda piece you lifted this from quote the audio that went along with the graphic, because if the anchor/reporter gave said the results correctly while the graphic was incorrect that would be a mistake on the part of the graphics dept, not a lie.UNHWildCats wrote:
MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... nsin_N.htm#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No, Brian Kilmeade made the same mistake in the dialogue. So they clearly misread the poll. But I'm not getting a case of the vapors over it, and I'm sure Fox will correct the mistake on page 17.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I didn't listen to it but the first thing I thought was it was probably just a mistake and trying to make some big fucking deal out of nothing.blueballs wrote:
Did the propoganda piece you lifted this from quote the audio that went along with the graphic, because if the anchor/reporter gave said the results correctly while the graphic was incorrect that would be a mistake on the part of the graphics dept, not a lie.
Hark, a voice of reason emanates from the forest primevil...thank you TTBF..TwinTownBisonFan wrote:when it comes to Dems and Fox - throw rationality out the window... this was one of those Hanlon's Razor moments... "don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity"
some poor schmuck who works in the graphics department transposes two numbers and a whole lotta lefty's shit the bed about how it "proves" a bias that was long ago established...