Hey look! WaPo criticizing public service unions

[CID1990]

Police unions, at least

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... ce3b1dcdc9

I've been saying this for years-

public service unions only negotiate with politicians who are spending other people's money-

what we get is financially crippling pension programs, the unreasonable protection of the worst employees, and dues going to unions that in turn financially support the politicians that are friendly to them

this goes for all PS unions but police and teachers' unions are the most heinous of the bunch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jjoey52]

As a retired federal employee, I have been saying there should be no unions allowed in government service. These jobs are paid for by the taxpayer and that money should be used for the purpose of government function only. People need to sign statements agreeing to no unions and or striking.

The agencies should set up with the employees an arbitration system to deal with legitimate concerns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

As a retired federal employee, I have been saying there should be no unions allowed in government service. These jobs are paid for by the taxpayer and that money should be used for the purpose of government function only. People need to sign statements agreeing to no unions and or striking.

The agencies should set up with the employees an arbitration system to deal with legitimate concerns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

PSUs are the devil. Behind every borderline bankrupt city and county in this country there are strong, unopposed PSUs (among other things... they arent the only reason)

You can also find them in most places that have crooked coos and sh1t teachers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

[Jjoey52]

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

Right, at the least a non strike clause should be mandatory for state and local employees. This applies also to teachers, as kids education is more important than what some union hack wants.

The only thing the federal unions accomplished in my 33 years was the ability to protect incompetent, malcontent and/or litigious employees, and obstruct constructive changes to improve processes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

As a retired federal employee, I have been saying there should be no unions allowed in government service. These jobs are paid for by the taxpayer and that money should be used for the purpose of government function only. People need to sign statements agreeing to no unions and or striking.

The agencies should set up with the employees an arbitration system to deal with legitimate concerns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

PSUs are the devil. Behind every borderline bankrupt city and county in this country there are strong, unopposed PSUs (among other things... they arent the only reason)

You can also find them in most places that have crooked coos and sh1t teachers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And typically in cities historically run by a donk.

[kalm]

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

(Shakes his head and comes to)

"That's how you do it! That's how you debate!"

[kalm]

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

Right, at the least a non strike clause should be mandatory for state and local employees. This applies also to teachers, as kids education is more important than what some union hack wants.

The only thing the federal unions accomplished in my 33 years was the ability to protect incompetent, malcontent and/or litigious employees, and obstruct constructive changes to improve processes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So corporations are people but unions are not?

[UNI88]

Right, at the least a non strike clause should be mandatory for state and local employees. This applies also to teachers, as kids education is more important than what some union hack wants.

The only thing the federal unions accomplished in my 33 years was the ability to protect incompetent, malcontent and/or litigious employees, and obstruct constructive changes to improve processes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So corporations are people but unions are not?

I was going to comment that PSUs are to Conks kind of what Citizen's United is to Donks.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

(Shakes his head and comes to)

"That's how you do it! That's how you debate!"

So no counterpoint to the debate?

[kalm]

(Shakes his head and comes to)

"That's how you do it! That's how you debate!"

So no counterpoint to the debate?

This was an "Old School" reference (in case you missed that). I think it was a nice screed you laid down there.

I did provide a counterpoint in my response to Joey.

I personally think your ideas should apply to private corporations too. The state endorses corporate charters to benefit the state. Some of these corporations and industries are also vital to the functions of government but through disruptive tactics, manipulations, and malfeasance can cause great harm to the people as well. Why would the state approve articles of incorporation unless it benefits the people of the state to do so?

If you want to restrict the rights of public employees due to the integral nature of their role to the public, why shouldn't the same be expected of corporations?

Here's a short article on the interconnectedness....

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... cy/390822/

[Baldy]

So no counterpoint to the debate?

This was an "Old School" reference (in case you missed that). I think it was a nice screed you laid down there.

I did provide a counterpoint in my response to Joey.

I personally think your ideas should apply to private corporations too. The state endorses corporate charters to benefit the state. Some of these corporations and industries are also vital to the functions of government but through disruptive tactics, manipulations, and malfeasance can cause great harm to the people as well. Why would the state approve articles of incorporation unless it benefits the people of the state to do so?

If you want to restrict the rights of public employees due to the integral nature of their role to the public, why shouldn't the same be expected of corporations?

Here's a short article on the interconnectedness....

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... cy/390822/

Look! Squirrel!!

When unions quit requiring membership as a condition of employment, come talk to me.

[kalm]

This was an "Old School" reference (in case you missed that). I think it was a nice screed you laid down there.

I did provide a counterpoint in my response to Joey.

I personally think your ideas should apply to private corporations too. The state endorses corporate charters to benefit the state. Some of these corporations and industries are also vital to the functions of government but through disruptive tactics, manipulations, and malfeasance can cause great harm to the people as well. Why would the state approve articles of incorporation unless it benefits the people of the state to do so?

If you want to restrict the rights of public employees due to the integral nature of their role to the public, why shouldn't the same be expected of corporations?

Here's a short article on the interconnectedness....

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... cy/390822/

Look! Squirrel!!

When unions quit requiring membership as a condition of employment, come talk to me.

Why?

[Baldy]

Look! Squirrel!!

When unions quit requiring membership as a condition of employment, come talk to me.

Why?

Because I say so.