M
Maxirad
Guest
[No message]
Maybe you need a Union? The last time my employer did a workforce reduction, they fired all the non Union employees. The Union saved many people from unemployment. It’s also the only reason I have good healthcare and competitive wages.At any rate, i have some discomfort with my current job, but I am very grateful to have one.
I think your position is extremely fair. I have no issues with people freely banding together to form private sector unions, and having those unions represent their best interests. (key words: “freely” and “private sector”)fin:
Maybe you need a Union? The last time my employer did a workforce reduction, they fired all the non Union employees. The Union saved many people from unemployment. It’s also the only reason I have good healthcare and competitive wages.At any rate, i have some discomfort with my current job, but I am very grateful to have one.
Unions aren’t perfect and neither are employers. There’s nothing wrong with locking horns with management and getting a good deal. It’s a game of give and take.
Public sector unions are very problemsome to me, particularly when they are involved in partisan politics.I have no issues with people freely banding together to form private sector unions, and having those unions represent their best interests. (key words: “freely” and “private sector”)
Public sector unions can get their candidate in, who then holds the union’s desires above fairly representing the taxpayer. This is one of the reasons Illinois or Detroit or a number of other state or municipalities are in a financial mess.KMC:
Public sector unions are very problemsome to me, particularly when they are involved in partisan politics.I have no issues with people freely banding together to form private sector unions, and having those unions represent their best interests. (key words: “freely” and “private sector”)
Either the union supports the governor and provides support to the governor’s political campaigns- or they number among the governor’s political adversaries.
In the first case, why would the workers even need a union? They have governor who is presumably pro-worker and will do them right without a union’s advocacy.
In the 2nd case, why would the government pay the union any respect whatsoever. After all, they got in without the union’s assistance, the union can offer them nothing.
A pro-union governor is unlikely to be keen on adopting new technologies and processes designed to decrease the number of dues paying members.Public sector unions can get their candidate in, who then holds the union’s desires above fairly representing the taxpayer.
What do you disagree with about the bishop’s statement here?Every time I hear of something from Bishop Paprocki, I’m surprised the Springfield diocese has anyone left. He seems very good at doing the opposite of what’s most needed.
Illinois was, in part, the result of endless punting of its pension plan (which must be funded per the state Constitution) obligations for its public sector employees; not exactly union friendly. The other was a multi-year fight between the Democratic Speaker of the House and the Republican Governor in which no one would back down from a budget stalemate. The result was the state would have been in a better financial had one given in or at least compromised. Both need to go.This is one of the reasons Illinois or Detroit or a number of other state or municipalities are in a financial mess.