Yet Another Reason I'm Not Fond of Unions

Oh... so public sector employees' wages are not our own that we can do with what we choose? So even after we work and earn those wages, they are still the taxpayers? Is that shit you're trying to pass off here? If so, go fuck yourself.
People in the public sector should NEVER be allowed to join the union because it is with Tax dollars they are paid. I am sorry but if you are being paid with tax dollars and are police officers, fire chief, teachers ect you should not be allowed to strike because it will not be in the best interest of the community which is paying your wages.

I believe they are NOT allowed to strike.

There are usually wildcat strikes that take place instead...

I may be wrong though.

All I can truly speak of is Commonwealth employees in PA, but we are allowed to strike if we vote for it. However, it can only be during a contract impasse. It can't be done after a contract is signed. Furthermore, because so many Commonwealth employees are essential in the operation of the Commonwealth, they are automatically court ordered back to work in three days. So the longest a general strike will last is three days.

Teachers, however... are a different breed. They are not striking against the Commonwealth, but against their school district. That involves local government, so there are different rules that I am not sure of... but suffice it to say that teachers have a different set than State Employees.
 
In Wisconsin it is against the law for public employees to strike, that is to say, to participate in organized work stoppages. But they would do it anyway with sickouts and slowdowns and refusals to do any "extras" where "extras" included things like writing letters of recommendation for students going to college. Stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
I want you to prove what I put in bold. I know that my Union, AFSCME does not use our dues money for election donations...at least in the state of PA. We have a Voluntary PAC that we CAN pay into... but it is strictly voluntary. It's called AFSCME VIP. I looked it up and SEIU also has one called COPE. Here is the information on that.

https://action.seiu.org/page/share/ftscope


You are correct, and I believe in COPE you have a select number of choices geared towards how much you desire to contribute. The problem is when it's taxpayer dollars that pays for their salaries and filters its way to election contributions (as is the case with Wisconsin). I'm sure if taxpayer dollars were being used in efforts to push laws or legislation that makes it harder for clinics to support or perform Abortions, the left would be outraged!! The issue is the use of taxpayer dollars for politics that benefits funding a specific party.

Oh... so public sector employees' wages are not our own that we can do with what we choose? So even after we work and earn those wages, they are still the taxpayers? Is that shit you're trying to pass off here? If so, go fuck yourself.


Would you support taxpayer dollars that are used for "political" purposes like restricting Abortions? Yes or no? It's a simple question if you are willing to confront the question and answer it. I'm only looking towards addressing the broader issue here, as the opposite could always be true in another state. For example, I'm sure if a portion of your taxes went to Republican candidates or issues that support and favor conservatives you'd have no concern with it? Is your response simply that we are "union" so your own self interest prevails and screw everybody else? It's quite interesting how that same self interest and politics can turn on a dime, like the case of Gov Walker of Wisconsin. Now all of a sudden it's wrong for Gov. Walker to play politics, but perfectly ok when Democrats and unions desire to do the same. If that's the case and your attitude towards this, then I guess it's too bad for you that Walker (who is also supported by paying taxpayers, those who put him in office) is looking to Republican self interest while unions are no longer able to do the same.
 
Last edited:
sure they do....but in the PO if it wasnt for the Union, workers would get treated like shit....... the only ones standing between the worker and the Assholes ....is the Union.....

Does that also hold true for the rest of the Government workers' unions?

i have no idea T......like i said earlier,i can only speak for where i work.....

The only concern I have with unions, deals with the issues of when I had worked with fellow union employees who didn't care so much for the quality of work they performed. There only concern was how much they are making, and what they could expect for the next bargaining agreement that benefits them. I'm not speaking of everyone, yet you can usually tell what is most important to them: bringing a good quality product for their customer, or only looking towards opportunities to make as much as they can in one week. It's too bad really. If union employees were focused on achieving the best skills to produce the best quality of work, so their contractor can be more successful and earn a greater profit, then they wouldn't be viewed so much in a negative light. It seems when people hear "union" they often think of an unproductive worker who only looks to complain, always seeks more pay while not caring for how their task is performed, all while having no concern for the CONTRACTOR'S needs. A contractor who happens to be the reason they even HAVE a paycheck. It boils down to having a strong personal work ethic. The fact that a good number of unproductive union employees can be found still working for the union, doesn't speak well for its image as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Does that also hold true for the rest of the Government workers' unions?

i have no idea T......like i said earlier,i can only speak for where i work.....

The only concern I have with unions, deals with the issues of when I had worked with fellow union employees who didn't care so much for the quality of work they performed. There only concern was how much they are making, and what they could expect for the next bargaining agreement that benefits them. I'm not speaking of everyone, yet you can usually tell what is most important to them: bringing a good quality product for their customer, or only looking towards opportunities to make as much as they can in one week. It's too bad really. If union employees were focused on achieving the best skills to produce the best quality of work, so their contractor can be more successful and earn a greater profit, then they wouldn't be viewed so much in a negative light. It seems when people hear "union" they often think of an unproductive worker who only looks to complain, always seeks more pay while not caring for how their task is performed, all while having no concern for the CONTRACTOR'S needs. A contractor who happens to be the reason they even HAVE a paycheck. It boils down to having a strong personal work ethic. The fact that a good number of unproductive union employees can be found still working for the union, doesn't speak well for its image as a whole.

:clap2:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top