Wisconsin Dems fail again!
- Thread starter brett636
- Start date
moreluck
golden ticket member
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between public sector and private company unions.
UPSers should be following the Verizon work stoppage as there are a lot of similarities between the two companies. Both companies had record or near record profits. These profits were generated by divisions within the company other than the "main player" (landline/ground). The unionized hourly employees at Verizon were asked to accept 100 or so contract concessions, refused to and are now on strike. Management are being trained to perform basic technician tasks. I think Mother Nature may actually have the best shot at settling this contract dispute as the company is ill-equipped to deal with an extended outage due to a major storm using mgt to make repairs.
I will be following this to see what effect, if any, this may have on us in 2013.
Buddybrown
Well-Known Member
how about tax payer.......................geee, typical dem!
For the person who goes to work every day and gets paid by the hour, there is no difference. It's a false distinction created by anti-union types as part of a divide and conquer strategy. A worker is a worker regardless of who his/her employer is, and it is a universal right of all workers to organize and bargain collectively for their labor whether they work for the government or whether they work for a private company.
Do I have to do the thinking for you? Politicians don't play to the tax payer, they play to the voter. Why does every politician play to the elderly? Is it because they are tax payers? No. It is because they vote. Same with stockholders. They hold the keys to how the company negotiates with the union the same way the voter determines the stump speach.
You'd have to ask him, but he didn't create the false distinction. An awful lot of people who really should know better have bought into the whole public sector union/private sector union stuff, which is a testament to how effective the propaganda has been.
Then if you don't mind my asking, do you think UPS and it's stockholders will attempt to take strides to weaken if not break the union (moreso than their obvious trampling on contractual oblibations)?
If they think they have a good shot at it? Absolutely.
brett636
Well-Known Member
You'd have to ask him, but he didn't create the false distinction. An awful lot of people who really should know better have bought into the whole public sector union/private sector union stuff, which is a testament to how effective the propaganda has been.[/QUOTE]
There is an absolute distinction between a private sector union employee, and a public union employee. First off a private union employee has to abide by the rules of the marketplace in which he or she works. If they ask for too much they can put themselves out of work by pricing themselves and their company outside what people would reasonably pay for their product or service. A public sector union employee has no such constraint and their leaders know they have the advantage of the police power of government to get what ever it is they desire come contract time. Not to mention the fact that lots of public sector union dues (courtesy of the taxpayer) ends up in the pockets of the politicians who promise them the most. It's a problem when politicians use money they get at the point of a gun to buy votes to keep themselves in power which is why even FDR himself spoke out against public sector unions. The only propaganda here is the notion that public sector unions and private sector unions are one in the same.
I would also like to clarify something mentioned earlier. This is not just a victory of the people over a public sector union. This is a victory of the people over uncontrolled government spending. Our future depends heavily on more victories just like these all over this nation and most importantly in Washington.
All of that stuff is immaterial to the right of any group of workers to bargain collectively for their labor. A worker is a worker and a union is a union, regardless of who the employer might be. If the government doesn't want to bargain with workers the answer is not to strip workers of their rights. It should contract the work out or find some other solution. If the government chooses to hire workers directly, then those workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively with their employer.
brett636
Well-Known Member
All of that stuff is immaterial to the right of any group of workers to bargain collectively for their labor. A worker is a worker is a worker and a union is a union. regardless of who the employer might be. If the government doesn't want to bargain with workers the answer is not to strip workers of their rights. It should contract the work out or find some other solution. If the government chooses to hire workers directly, then those workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. When someone's paycheck is derived from the voluntary contributions of others by offering products and services people want and or desire is one thing. To enrich yourself at the point of a gun is completely different and morally reprehensible.
A worker's paycheck is earned in exchange for their labor, not from "voluntary contributions". How the employer earns their money is their business. If you choose to hire a group of workers, then those workers have the right to bargain for the price of their labor.
trplnkl
555
Very ideological, but hardly totally true or relevant in wisconsin, nor does it tell the whole story. As far as simple employment is concerned yeah there is not a lot of difference between union and non-union workers. However the Wisconsin Supreme Court disagrees with you on collective bargaining. Where in the constitution does it say organizing and CB is a right? Where does this universal right you speak of come from?
When the Teamsters ask for pay raises or more benefits for the workers it is usually based on the profits of the company. Higher profits usually equates to higher pay increases and more benefits. When the public sector union asks for wage and benefit increases there are no profits to work off of so they just go for more and more with little to no justification. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not there is a difference between public and private sector unions.
I would argue that it's a natural right of any free person or persons and that it doesn't need to "come" from anywhere, but it is specifically set down in Article 23 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Unites States is a signatory.
trplnkl
555
Ahhh, now you want to bring in the opinions of the United Nothings, a scam organization with with a singular agenda attempted to be cloaked with a false good heart for the planet.
Nice ad hominem attack which avoids the issue. The UDOHR was written by Eleanor Roosevelt, and was approved by every member nation (including the Unites States) with the exception of the Soviet Bloc countries. Are you saying that people don't have the right to form and join unions?
trplnkl
555
Yea, in a way I am saying just that. There is no right granted in the Constitution of the Untied States of America. I'm not ,despite how it comes across, anti-union but on the other hand I'm not pro-union either. I don't have a problem with unions that use common sense and what is actually best for the members they are supposed to be protecting from dishonest and greedy companies. I shutter at the thought of working for UPS without a union, not so much to do with pay scale as with employee abuse(like the teamsters are helping with that much). The workers are not the only element in the equation nor are the unions or the employers. Actually I'm in favor of collective bargaining as long as there is real bargaining involved using a common sense approach. The employer should have as many rights as the employees in regards to pay and benefits. Do you think it is a good idea to demand higher wages and benefits when a company is operating in the red? Is that common sense? Does that properly address the issues at hand?
side note:
Actually Mrs. Roosevelt was one of 9 people that drafted the document, not exactly the author. But that is really unimportant.
As far as the ad hominem attack, you are the one that brought forth the UDOHR as if it was relevant to the discussion .
Last edited:
Similar threads
