Public Sector Unions = Tax-Hiking Monsters...

[LibocalypseNow]

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.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

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.

 

[Polk]

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.

 

[kyzr]

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.

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.

 

[Polk]

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.

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.

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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[AquaAthena]

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

 

[Polk]

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.

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.

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

That argument makes sense is certain contexts (national defense is the most obvious one), but doesn't really hold up in other sectors.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then why are almost all of my taxes lower?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

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

Do you reject the possibility that FDR could have simply been wrong about something?

 

[NYcarbineer]

More taxpayers vote in any state than do public sector employees. The taxpayers have more than enough power to elect anyone they want as far as policy towards public sector unions go.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's certainly no coincidence Public Unions spend so much cash on lobbying Government to raise taxes. It's always the Taxpayers who get screwed in the end. I'm not as opposed to Private Sector Unions. But Public Unions only serve themselves and Democrats. They just don't care about Taxpayers. They should be banned from Government.

 

[Polk]

It's certainly no coincidence Public Unions spend so much cash on lobbying Government to raise taxes. It's always the Taxpayers who get screwed in the end. I'm not as opposed to Private Sector Unions. But Public Unions only serve themselves and Democrats. They just don't care about Taxpayers. They should be banned from Government.

No, they lobby the government to protect their interest, just as businesses do. Odd you have a problem with workers doing it, but have no problem with corporations doing so.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's certainly no coincidence Public Unions spend so much cash on lobbying Government to raise taxes. It's always the Taxpayers who get screwed in the end. I'm not as opposed to Private Sector Unions. But Public Unions only serve themselves and Democrats. They just don't care about Taxpayers. They should be banned from Government.

No, they lobby the government to protect their interest, just as businesses do. Odd you have a problem with workers doing it, but have no problem with corporations doing so.

When or if Businesses push for Tax-Hikes,i rip them too. Public Unions constantly lobby Government to raise Taxes. Obviously that cash goes right into Public Union & Democratic Party coffers. There is no longer a place for Unions in our Government. The Taxpayers always get screwed in the end. Public Sector Unions need to be abolished.

 

[martybegan]

More taxpayers vote in any state than do public sector employees. The taxpayers have more than enough power to elect anyone they want as far as policy towards public sector unions go.

Public sector unions have far more political power, especially at a local level, then thier numbers would indicate. Look at a state like New York, where public sector unions have almost unprecedented political clout.

To me the issue hasnt been the unions. They just do what they are supposed to do. the issue is that wimpy politicians have basically made a political decsion to give the unions what they want, and rely on the future taxpayers to pay for it all.

It goes beyond just salary and benefits. Work rules are to me a far serious problem, as well as grievence procedures that are so complicated that just ignoring an issue is far superior in managements view then fighting it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just one more reason i cannot support Public Sector Unions. Teacher Unions especially,have forced Governments to raise Taxes on Citizens for several decades.

Yeah.....that's who's doin' it.......

....again......

Ronald Reagan's Record$

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I always support Tax Cuts for everyone. I don't play the Class Warfare Game. I'll leave that to the Socialist/Progressive Wingers. Public Unions have raped the Taxpayers for far too long. It's all just a corrupt racket now. Legislation should be presented which abolishes Unions in Government. Their time has passed.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is already a class warfare going and you support it.

it is choking caplitalism.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/157301-the-pareto-efficiency.html

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Public Union support will continue to dry up. More & more American Taxpayers are waking up and realizing that they've been screwed by these Unions for too many years. A quiet Revolution is taking place. Obviously the Liberal Press wont be televising this Revolution though. These are last gasps coming from Public Sector Unions. They're going extinct for sure. Most people understand these Unions could give a rat's ass about Taxpayers. It's all about enriching themselves and Democrats. I would like to see a bold Government move towards actually abolishing Unions in Government. It's time for bold solutions. The time is now.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Public Union support will continue to dry up. More & more American Taxpayers are waking up and realizing that they've been screwed by these Unions for too many years. A quiet Revolution is taking place.