Public Sector Unions = Tax-Hiking Monsters...

[Truthmatters]

he doesnt have any idea what hes talking about he just spews right wing talking points as if they are truths

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Taxpayers aint takin shit no mo. A quiet Revolution really is taking place. And Public Sector Unions better figure that out. Their days of unfettered rape of Taxpayers is over. They better just hope & pray Governments don't start abolishing Unions in Government all together. They're hanging by a thread at this point. The more Americans become informed about them,the more they despise them. They may be over-playing their hand this time.

 

[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.

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.

Your big problem is that you can't get beyond rhetoric. Call it a "tax hike" and you think it's evil. Frame it as a special tax break for that industry or as a subsidy, and then it's perfectly valid.

 

[Polk]

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.

Emphasis mine and my response: YES, YES, YES. Someone who gets it. I don't agree with your take on the issue, but at least you see where the problem is. There are tons of issues where people look for some group to scapegoat when the real troublemakers are obvious: government officials, of both parties, who are simply unwilling to say no to their clients.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

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.

Your big problem is that you can't get beyond rhetoric. Call it a "tax hike" and you think it's evil. Frame it as a special tax break for that industry or as a subsidy, and then it's perfectly valid.

I don't support Corporate Welfare so i'm not sure where you're going. If a Business lobbies for Tax Hikes,i'll rip them too. Public Unions constantly lobby Government for Tax Hikes,so i constantly rip them. They don't care about the Taxpayers. It is what it is.

 

[Polk]

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.

Your big problem is that you can't get beyond rhetoric. Call it a "tax hike" and you think it's evil. Frame it as a special tax break for that industry or as a subsidy, and then it's perfectly valid.

I don't support Corporate Welfare so i'm not sure where you're going. If a Business lobbies for Tax Hikes,i'll rip them too. Public Unions constantly lobby Government for Tax Hikes,so i constantly rip them. They don't care about the Taxpayers. It is what it is.

No, they don't care about other taxpayers. And guess what? That's true of businesses as well. It's true of individuals who aren't in unions as well.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Your big problem is that you can't get beyond rhetoric. Call it a "tax hike" and you think it's evil. Frame it as a special tax break for that industry or as a subsidy, and then it's perfectly valid.

I don't support Corporate Welfare so i'm not sure where you're going. If a Business lobbies for Tax Hikes,i'll rip them too. Public Unions constantly lobby Government for Tax Hikes,so i constantly rip them. They don't care about the Taxpayers. It is what it is.

No, they don't care about other taxpayers. And guess what? That's true of businesses as well. It's true of individuals who aren't in unions as well.

Yes but Public Workers work for the Taxpayers. Others may not. That's where the Public Unions went wrong. They forgot that they worked for the Taxpayers. The Taxpayers don't work for them. And they don't just work for the Democratic Party either. They have lost their way.

 

[Polk]

Everyone works for someone. That doesn't mean they should subjugate their interest to that of their employer. It's the employer's role to make sure they are getting the best deal. In the case of public workers, that's the duty of the people's duly elected representatives.

 

[shintao]

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

How have Unions forced governments to raise taxes?

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.

Hmm, I am not aware of Democrats funding Unions to be powerful. And there you again with saying they raise taxes. How they do that?

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.

How are they screwing taxpayers. Upside? How about organization? How about training? How about replacement workers? How about low wages? Geeze dude, you don't have to look very hard. LOL!

............

 

[rdean]

Isn't it true there wasn't much of a "crisis" until the new "tax cuts" for millionaires was "figured in"? Where are all those new jobs feeding the rich was supposed to bring?

 

[jeffrockit]

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.

Here is how:
The unions need the politicians to acquire pay and benefits exceeding what they could get in the private sector, plus job security; and the politicians need the unions for financial campaign support and votes on election day. They give each other what they want - and the taxpayers - who are NOT at the bargaining table, by the way - get screwed.

 

[jeffrockit]

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.

Big difference between corps and public sector jobs. Corporations employee's are not paid by taxpayer dollars. The unions are allowed to collective bargain pensions, healthcare and etc with taxpayer money.

 

[shintao]

Taxpayers aint takin shit no mo. A quiet Revolution really is taking place. And Public Sector Unions better figure that out. Their days of unfettered rape of Taxpayers is over. They better just hope & pray Governments don't start abolishing Unions in Government all together. They're hanging by a thread at this point. The more Americans become informed about them,the more they despise them. They may be over-playing their hand this time.

LMAO! You mean you better hope that government doesn't do away with public Union workers. LMAO!! I can just see you down at DMV trying to explain to an illegal alien what it is the hell you want. hahahahaa! And then they outsource your data to India for the world to see. You will really be pissing and moaning then.

 

[MikeK]

A unionized public employee, a Tea Partier and a CEO are seated at a meeting. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. When no one is watching the CEO reaches across, takes 11 cookies and slips them in a pocket. A bit later he looks at the tea partier and whispers, "Watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

 

[Polk]

Isn't it true there wasn't much of a "crisis" until the new "tax cuts" for millionaires was "figured in"? Where are all those new jobs feeding the rich was supposed to bring?

Some reports have made claims that would lead one to believe that, but it's not accurate. Wisconsin would run a deficit without those cuts. However, pushing for those cuts in the middle of a supposed crisis does not the deficit is being used as an excuse to take an ax to workers.

 

[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.

Here is how:
The unions need the politicians to acquire pay and benefits exceeding what they could get in the private sector, plus job security; and the politicians need the unions for financial campaign support and votes on election day. They give each other what they want - and the taxpayers - who are NOT at the bargaining table, by the way - get screwed.

Several problems with that argument:

1. If what you're saying was true, public sector workers would be paid more than private sector workers. The reality is that, except for the people at the lowest end, public sector workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts.

2. Union contributions to candidates who they believe will provide them with higher compensation is no different that corporate contributions to candidates who they believe will reduce taxes or regulations. The argument you're making is an anti-union one, but it's also an anti-corporate one as well.

3. Your argument makes the assumption that elected officials are somehow a separate population from the people who elect them.

 

[Trajan]

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?

uhm maybe, its nice to see though a someone from that side of the number line admit that may possible, lets take someone else as an example say La Guardia? or George Meany?

 

[Trajan]

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?

which taxes, how about your state taxes? you live in NY yes? have your property taxes gone up or that is do you own property and have your prop taxes gone up? I suspect they have, and I can show you proof that say the UT of NY ( United Teachers union) spent $750,000 advocating against a cap on property taxes in NY. Unions have done it in other states too ala tax hikes etc...

 

[martybegan]

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.

Here is how:
The unions need the politicians to acquire pay and benefits exceeding what they could get in the private sector, plus job security; and the politicians need the unions for financial campaign support and votes on election day. They give each other what they want - and the taxpayers - who are NOT at the bargaining table, by the way - get screwed.

Several problems with that argument:

1. If what you're saying was true, public sector workers would be paid more than private sector workers. The reality is that, except for the people at the lowest end, public sector workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts.

2. Union contributions to candidates who they believe will provide them with higher compensation is no different that corporate contributions to candidates who they believe will reduce taxes or regulations. The argument you're making is an anti-union one, but it's also an anti-corporate one as well.

3. Your argument makes the assumption that elected officials are somehow a separate population from the people who elect them.

You are ignoring that corporations are seperate entities, that even if they are able to influence politicians for favorable legislation, they still need to sell SOMETHING to someone to make any money. In fact, I do believe that compaines that doe business directly with government agencies DO have limits on how they can donate campaign money to various candidates.

The issue you are ignoring is that politicians can create legislation that DIRECTLY benefits the unions, are the ones who negotiate the contract with the unions, and in the end, at least in some localities, are pretty much dependent upon thier support for winning elections. Removed from the corporate analogy you use above is the need to sell anything. Government's product and revenue stream are pretty mandatory if you want to live in a certain area. Add in the belief that all you need to do is keep raising taxes as well as the concept of a constantly increasing budget and you have the disaster we hae today.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

The absolute certainty is that people are forced to pay taxes, and the people paying taxes don't have a seat at the union/democrat "negotiating" table. Now that's a fact jack. So you fail. Give the American Taxpayer a Seat at the table. Let the American worker CHOOSE if he wants to belong to a union and pay union dues and finally let him decide which condidate he wants his money spent on electing. Do you want to play fair or don't you. Let the rubber meet the road jackson.