Author Topic: and the unions squeeeeell... (Read 1858 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #15 on:** October 10, 2005, 12:52:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
But they use their money.

Unions force members to contribute from their own paychecks.

A fundamental difference.

These are good reasons for living in a "right to work" state.

oboe · « **Reply #16 on:** October 10, 2005, 12:56:22 PM »

To Mietla and Gunslinger, yes, you are right. Point conceded that the source of the money is different. I was thinking in principle only, but your point is well-taken.

To Funked, Yes, I think it is quite possible for people to build water plants without socialism. I think it probably makes more economic sense for the government to do it, however. And that is probably why we would find the overwhelming majority of water treatment plants are publicly-owned and operated. You misunderstand, I do not blame Laz for this situation at all.

I do think it is interesting that a person who participates in and benefits from socialism would rail so loudly against it though. Hearing him denigrate socialists as commies, idiots or women you might think he was a self-made capitalist, rather than a public servant who collects his salary and benefits at the expense of the taxpayers.

The other evils of Socialism notwithstanding-- if they are efficient and well-run, public utilities are an example of socialism that just makes sense. Laz himself has proved the point when he successfully competed against several privatization proposals, IIRC. I consider him to be a knowledgeable and first-rate water treatment plant manager.

~~Now, what about the Ford Ranchero vs Chevy El Camino?~~

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 10, 2005, 01:27:52 PM »

Quote

Not in the USA. Maybe you understand why so many of us dislike unions?

People DO have the choice to join a union or not. It's just that not many people know this.

Plus the unions have the things stacked their way so much that it's hard to get by if you're not in.

Btw, if you choose not to join a union (you're automatically in), you still pay a base "Fee" to the union. Roughly around 25-20 percent of what you would be paying.

Yeager · « **Reply #18 on:** October 10, 2005, 01:50:32 PM »

The union I belong to has the option for me to be a beck objector but the fees required of me to pay under objector status are appx 85% of regular union dues and plus I would have send in a check every two weeks or I would lose my job. Its union extortion as far as Im concerned.

airguard · « **Reply #19 on:** October 10, 2005, 01:54:34 PM »

give them this :

http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Aug05/240805perspective.htm

ant they stop whining.

mora · « **Reply #20 on:** October 10, 2005, 01:59:31 PM »

I don't really understand how the unions work over there... How is it possible to lose your job if you don't join the union? Do the other union people kick your bellybutton or go on strike or something?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #21 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:04:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
To Mietla and Gunslinger, yes, you are right. Point conceded that the source of the money is different. I was thinking in principle only, but your point is well-taken.

To Funked, Yes, I think it is quite possible for people to build water plants without socialism. I think it probably makes more economic sense for the government to do it, however. And that is probably why we would find the overwhelming majority of water treatment plants are publicly-owned and operated. You misunderstand, I do not blame Laz for this situation at all.

I do think it is interesting that a person who participates in and benefits from socialism would rail so loudly against it though. Hearing him denigrate socialists as commies, idiots or women you might think he was a self-made capitalist, rather than a public servant who collects his salary and benefits at the expense of the taxpayers.

The other evils of Socialism notwithstanding-- if they are efficient and well-run, public utilities are an example of socialism that just makes sense. Laz himself has proved the point when he successfully competed against several privatization proposals, IIRC. I consider him to be a knowledgeable and first-rate water treatment plant manager.

~~Now, what about the Ford Ranchero vs Chevy El Camino?~~

~~working as a public servent is not a socialist concept. Neither is a "company vehicle" for that matter.~~

Yeager · « **Reply #22 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:07:02 PM »

I dont pay alot of attention to it myself mora.....

It seems a union can get together with itself and decide to be a "closed shop" which means you have to belong to the union or you cant work at that job at that location....or something. But then some court overruled that concept at least to a point ......thats the Beck dude that objected....I guess.

I just pay my dues and pretend to read the stupid monthly newsletter and they leave me alone.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:17:11 PM »

Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #24 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:21:54 PM »

There are states which have laws which require you to be part of a union in order to work there (New York is one I know for sure).

There are states which have a "Right to work" law. Basically, this means you do not have to be part of a union to work, and you cannot be denied work if you chose to not join a union. Texas has such a law.

There may be states which have neither law in place. Not sure about this category.

It is pretty much up to the states.

I have never been, nor never will be, part of a union, so I am really unqualified to state how they work, once you are part of one.

oboe · « **Reply #25 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:25:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
working as a public servent is not a socialist concept. Neither is a "company vehicle" for that matter.

GS, Socialism is a political theory which espouses state ownership of industry. So, public utilities (water treatment, power generation, etc) are aspects or examples of socialism.

If the "company vehicle" is publicly owned, that is, paid for by the taxpayers ("state owned"), then I think it is, by extension an example of socialism.

lazs2 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:32:28 PM »

"Two points, really. One, is every time you get on your high horse about the evils of socialism I feel the need to point out that you are biting the hand that feeds you. Some people may view it as hypocrisy on your part. How did you swing a gas allowance/reimbursement bene? What a nice deal that is for you! What if the county proposes an increase in taxes to help defray the recent, drastic increased cost in gas? Would you favor such an increase?

Second, the '69 El Camino is one of the most beautiful vehicles ever made, IMO. The lines just look so...right."

first... you are right on your last point... the 69 just looks right..

Socialism is pure evil. Water and wastewater plants are about 50/50 prvate and public owned... in most cases the private plants are WAY more cost effective but...

There is more to it than that. It is impossible for private entities to remove all liability from the city sooooo... most cities run the plants themselves in order to better control their liability

In my case it makes not much difference... I would be paid as much either way. I would have a job either way... there aren't enough qualified people at this time.

now... as for my "gas allowance"... do you think I should pay for gas to do the work of the city? should UPS drivers for instance... pay for fuel for their deliveries? If you do deliveries for a company most companies will figure fuel into the pay...

as for raising taxes for fuel costs.... any item that raises the cost of doing the job will affect the budget the next year... Again... what is your point?

and... as for the union thing... it is merely choice... If you wish to continue to contribute to the candidates the union selects you would not be prevented from doing so under prop 75. The key is that union dues are your money that is being spent to contribute to candidates that you may or may not agree to. Hell.... I don't care to pay less.... let the money go to other union benifiets... widows and orphans.... whatever.

It is simply a matter of choice and fairness.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:34:36 PM »

and... not everyone pays the tax on water or wastewater.... some people are on a septic tank and have a well... they pay no users fees at all... this is of course fair.

lazs

Yeager · « **Reply #28 on:** October 10, 2005, 02:34:39 PM »

I pick my fights well and the union fight is one not currently worth the energy. Especially putting up with the moronic union zealots. I just take a pass on the whole thing.

We thought Texas was where the company in which I work was going to move simply because of the right to work laws. Makes sense. The unions have made it harder and harder for the company in which I work to compete, hence all the offshoring.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #29 on:** October 10, 2005, 03:06:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
People DO have the choice to join a union or not. It's just that not many people know this.

Plus the unions have the things stacked their way so much that it's hard to get by if you're not in.

Btw, if you choose not to join a union (you're automatically in), you still pay a base "Fee" to the union. Roughly around 25-20 percent of what you would be paying.

In my workplace you pay the full fee whether you join the union or not. There's no choice at all - it's confiscated from your paycheck just like witholding taxes.