Public Sector Unions = Tax-Hiking Monsters...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LibocalypseNow, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    Just one more reason i cannot support Public Sector Unions. Teacher Unions especially,have forced Governments to raise Taxes on Citizens for several decades. Public Sector Unions are very well funded by the Democrats and are very powerful. They have used their abundant political resources to coerce Governments all across the Nation to raise Taxes which only benefit themselves and the Democratic Party. Basically they've been screwing Taxpayers over for far too many years. I just don't see an up-side to having Unions in Government. I would fully support Legislation removing them completely from the Public Sector. That's how i feel but i'm interested in hearing what you all think. Thanks.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2011
  2. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    It really is shocking & appalling once you realize how many $Billions Public Unions have spent over the years lobbying Government to raise Taxes. They should probably be prosecuted for Rape. It's very sad.
     
  3. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    You guys really think people in positions of power are absolutely helpless. Governments are "forced" to raise taxes by unions, just like the auto companies were "forced" to sign absurd contracts with unions in 1970s.
     
  4. kyzr
    Offline

    kyzr Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,447
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +630
    You miss the point. If the dem governators are negotiating FOR THE TAXPAYERS, and the unions get "defined benefit plans" that is a conflict of interest. Even FDR acknowledged that public employees should be protected by civil service, not unions.

    All public employees should not be allowed to unionize.
     
  5. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    How, exactly, is that conflict of interest?

    As for saying noted that "even FDR" was opposed, it's both a fallacious (appeal to authority) argument and one which rests on a misunderstanding of the role of government in negotiations.
     
  6. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,834
    Thanks Received:
    12,786
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,858

    You are partially right, but I doubt you understand why you are partially wrong. FDR opposed collective bargaining for public employees. In his own words:

    My dear Mr. Steward:

    As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

    Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

    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.
    It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

    I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.


    Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
     
  7. AquaAthena
    Offline

    AquaAthena INTJ/ INFJ

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    15,453
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,265
    Location:
    ♥ TEXAS ♥ in Spirit
    Ratings:
    +12,342
    Snip:

    "In total, unions spent in excess of $400 million electing Barack Obama in 2008. If the Obama campaign wants to raise $1 billion for the 2012 campaign, they're going to have to do everything they can to get unions on board."

    Weekly Standard: Obama's War On The States : NPR
     
  8. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    That argument makes sense is certain contexts (national defense is the most obvious one), but doesn't really hold up in other sectors.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2011
  9. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,213
    Thanks Received:
    11,272
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,300
    Then why are almost all of my taxes lower?
     
  10. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,213
    Thanks Received:
    11,272
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,300
    Do you reject the possibility that FDR could have simply been wrong about something?
     

Share This Page