Hello:

If the teachers union forces the city to keep bad teachers on the payroll, doesn't the police union force the city to keep bad cops on the payroll? They DO, of course.

Are the unions EQUIVALENT?? Lemme see.. If a BAD teacher is on the payroll, somebody's kid winds up STUPID.. But, if a BAD cop is on the payroll, somebody's kid winds up DEAD.

excon

When you holler get rid of the bad anything there is always some idiot thinking you mean the good ones too! Ever wonder why good cops/teachers never squeal on the bad actors of their professions?

I am a union guy and I never squealed on my union brothers, or sisters either. Guess I'm part of the problem!

Observe, identify, and retrain. And maybe reassign.

I'm part liberal. I don't like most of the unions. The big old fat cats sitting on billions in assets, the ones too greedy and nearsighted to see jobs leaving the country during the last 40 years, while they fought for the next bloated wage increase.
If anyone wants to rant about all the good unions have done, I just say 'that was then.' And yes, thanks to them, we have a lot of good labor laws. Doesn't justify their existence any more.

And yes, thanks to [unions] , we have a lot of good labor laws. Doesn't justify their existence any more.


More than ever is their existence justified. No other organizations speak so effectively for the ordinary, common citizen. Yes, being in the middle of the rough and tumble of life, they are susceptible to corruption. It's a constant fight to keep them clean.

But so are the lace curtain pinky-in-the-air plutocrats who are just as susceptible to corruption - only they carry it out with a bit of panache, sprinkling their parlors with greenbacks.

"Bloated" wages are not that at all. Wages represent the fair share due to labor as an equal partner with capital and its owners. As the unions have lost influence, the corresponding effect has been the increasing wealth gap between rich and poor. Coincidence? Hardly. And I'd never call minimum wage "bloated".

Without unions, the citizen, alone, is powerless. He or she must rely on the largesse that falls from the groaning table of the rich. Like Lazarus.

Unions are needed but also to be in a union requires an educated work force to achieve the proper outcome when addressing wages. Another thing that many union workers neglected to do was buy into the products and services they were working for. Instead they went to Walmart and bought cheap thinking their jobs were forever safe. Economics doesn't work that way.

Unions are needed but also to be in a union requires an educated work force to achieve the proper outcome when addressing wages. Another thing that many union workers neglected to do was buy into the products and services they were working for. Instead they went to Walmart and bought cheap thinking their jobs were forever safe. Economics doesn't work that way.

Unions aren't all good, or all bad... I've been in one, the most well known one... and I can rattle off bad stuff they have done or tried that I've seen first hand.. and in one case tried to do... but that was the local, and they backed down when I cornered them with support of some corporate big wheels they could do NOTHING without (remember my comment elsewhere about making all the friends you can) (they tried to screw some senior guys in another area to benefit some junior friends at the same location as them, all union members) and they knew I'd have gone to National about it and they would have lost...

Police and Teachers' unions are very different from the unions that have historically done all the 'good' things. They are government (of whatever level) employee groups. Who do they argue and negotiate with? Where do their wages and benefits come from? The taxpayers. In essence, they're trying to get a better deal from themselves. How can that better anyone?

Police and Teachers' unions are very different from the unions that have historically done all the 'good' things. They are government (of whatever level) employee groups. Who do they argue and negotiate with? Where do their wages and benefits come from? The taxpayers. In essence, they're trying to get a better deal from themselves. How can that better anyone?



yup and who do they negotiate with for their benefits ? The very people their unions support with campaign funds .Even FDR saw that as a conflict of interests .

Ever wonder why good cops/teachers never squeal on the bad actors of their professions?

I am a union guy and I never squealed on my union brothers, or sisters either. Guess I'm part of the problem!


If your union brother raped your daughter, would you "squeal" on him? I'm sure you would. My point, of course with that horrid example, is where do you draw the line? When does "squealing" become "whistle blowing?'

And what is the answer to the question you posed? "Ever wonder why the good ones never squeal on the bad ones."

Yes, I wonder. Why?

Hello:

If the teachers union forces the city to keep bad teachers on the payroll, doesn't the police union force the city to keep bad cops on the payroll? They DO, of course.

Are the unions EQUIVALENT?? Lemme see.. If a BAD teacher is on the payroll, somebody's kid winds up STUPID.. But, if a BAD cop is on the payroll, somebody's kid winds up DEAD.

excon



Yes, the right wing dislikes the police unions also. They like the cops, but not the union. The right wing dislikes all unions (except the one they belong to) because unions are seen as "collectivism" - i.e., socialism.

Teachers and cops are not equivalent. The one is composed of well-educated college graduates, the other is the top rung of the blue-collar jobs, generally requiring only a high-school diploma.

Police work, however, is much more complicated than teaching. We can argue which is more important in the long run for the society, but not which has the immediate greater power. Ultimate street authority is vested in the policeman. He gets a shiny new uniform, a badge, and a gun. The opportunities for corruption are endless. Only a judge has greater power, and that comes much later.

I agree with you that cops need special attention. That's why Civilian Review Boards are necessary for dealing with bad cops when the PBA won't.

yup and who do they negotiate with for their benefits ? The very people their unions support with campaign funds .Even FDR saw that as a conflict of interests .

Sometimes conflicts of interest can't be avoided. See the current president of the United States. He stands to make a fortune ignoring them.

Teachers and cops are not equivalent. The one is composed of well-educated college graduates, the other is the top rung of the blue-collar jobs, generally requiring only a high-school diploma.



Most Police Departments these days require an Associate Degree/Certificate to hire. A Bachelor's is a requirement for most Sergeants, at least in Right to Work States.

Most Police Departments these days require an Associate Degree/Certificate to hire. A Bachelor's is a requirement for most Sergeants, at least in Right to Work States.


No. Some police departments want applicants to have a degree or some college, but most require only a high school diploma or an equivalent GED.

No. Some police departments want applicants to have a degree or some college, but most require only a high school diploma or an equivalent GED.

To enter their Academy, you're correct.

Sometimes conflicts of interest can't be avoided. See the current president of the United States. He stands to make a fortune ignoring them.

That is an assumption that if irrelevant to the discussion. Trump is an elected official . I'm sure there will be conflicts of interests . It is the job of the opposition to bring them up and demand remedy .In this case striking public service workers ,who are hired to do essential services ,holds the taxpayers hostage with every job action .Their unions throw tons of $$ towards candidates and then once their preferred elected official is in they then negotiate the terms of their contracts . Do you not see what that has done to the budgets of states and local government across the country that don't have the ability to print money to get themselves out of impossible long term liabilities ? Several states are seriously talking about bankruptcy . (most of them are the blue states that are most sympathetic to these public unions ) . Cities across the country like Detroit are already done.

Do you not see Tom that on the other side of the coin, cabals of rich super pacs buy elected officials to get what they want, and bankrupt local and state economies? Indiana just paid 7 million bucks to keep 800 jobs... do the math! Walmart won't build a super store without tax breaks that affect local economies while taxpayers have to subsides the wages of it's employees!

You have the narrative backwards . Walmart would love to open up in NYC .But the local elite progressive politicians have a hate against Walmart so bad that they'd rather the inner city folks buy over priced goods at bodegas than to shop at a store that offers them affordable goods. Your hate spew against corporate cronyism has nothing to do with public unions who routinely fleece the public .

You mean NYC won't give a multi billion dollar corporation a tax break? We know that those cheap prices come from cheap labor don't we? And a fair living wage fleeces the public?

wrong again NY City Council repeatedly votes to keep them out . The majority of the people want a Walmart store . It is a place to purchase affordable goods ;and a place to get a job. But Sandinista Bill and the city council will not permit it . Walmart isn't looking for special tax breaks .They open where their clientele are . It is the entrenched special interests in the city ,who pull the city council's strings. They provide jobs where none exists ;so as the former emperor said ...get off your high horse .

De Blasio: Walmart unwelcome in New York City | Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/de-blasio-walmart-unwelcome-in-new-york-city-1.8351414)


De Blasio, who has previously denounced the company as a killer of good jobs that ultimately cost the government money to subsidize a low-paid workforce, took no position on whether the charities should accept the philanthropy.

Show me your link where they didn't want a tax break and paid a wage that takes employees off the government dole. Why do you keep shilling for the rich guys and their slave labor?

If you are going to call yourself a job creator then can't you create a GOOD job?

If you are going to call yourself a job creator then can't you create a GOOD job?

What a great question !!

The plutocratic oligarchs (yeah, a mouthful, but it fits) don't get together in some mountain fastness and devise all sorts of schemes to keep the masses down. There's no need to. They possess a de facto mutual understanding that the preferable employment picture always has subsistence at the base. Naturally, workers fear falling into that morass so, in a pinch, any job will do that keeps the wolf from the door.

The primary weapon of workers is a de jure approach to the problem. For a start, legislated minimum wage increases are necessary to avoid what DeBlasio correctly sees as government (taxpayers) indirectly subsidizing Walmart because of its refusal to enter the 21st century and pay a living wage.

Walmart and others are beginning to see this, and beginning to understand that the success of their enterprises depends on ALL earning a living wage.

Main point is, not all jobs are destined for career status... many really are nothing more than entry level which is meant as a way-point to other better jobs with more pay as more work skills are learned.

I don't care how many years a persons works washing pots and pans... its never going to be worth what a cook, cashier or Waiter/waitress earns. And except in some certain rare cases... THe only career level jobs in the restaurant business are Manager and Owner, Chef in the higher end places and even a cook in most of the others, but not all.

If you can train someone of the street in an afternoon or less with everything they need to know... the job just isn't worth much money.

If the person isn't motivated to periodically look for something better and be willing to move to it...they really don't deserve the right to whine about it.

My first two part time jobs were in a restaurant..when I was in college, then worked in an auto auction as a driver before I gradated with my degree and got my first REAL job. I've had to stay on the ball, look around and make a number of career moves, and several relocation's (Two were international moves)..even some maneuvering and horsetrading in the one I'm in now to get a better position when no actual opening existed.

You can't sit back on your butt and expect everything to be handed to you....good things come to those willing to make the effort and put in the work...and take the risks that go with it. Overnight success is rare..its going to take years of work to bear any fruit most times.


And as you all are well aware of....nobody with no work experience and no specialized skills are worth $40k a year (or more)...anyplace. Not even the Army. You have to work up to those.

Main point is, not all jobs are destined for career status... many really are nothing more than entry level which is meant as a way-point to other better jobs with more pay as more work skills are learned.

<snip>

If you can train someone of the street in an afternoon or less with everything they need to know... the job just isn't worth much money.

There used to be muscle jobs - construction work learned in an afternoon and well-paying. But jobs for the 16-year-old living at home who wants some pocket change or savings for college or something else are a problem. I don't say these should be living wage jobs, but the society needs to figure something out about these. An obvious solution is to pass laws making exceptions, but that creates a whole set of other problems.

There are men and women, who, through no fault of their own and sometimes with children, can only get the lowest paying jobs. Some adults are challenged mentally, some are language-deficient (immigrants), some are victims of the periodic economic downturns so common in capitalism. - yet all may be responsible for families. Better they get a living wage, than be forced to abandon their families so government assistance can apply - in the long run, rarely a good solution.

I don't claim to have a perfect answer, but I DO say the society should put the discussion on the table. We're smart enough and rich enough and, if we can get past our crippling ideologies, I'm sure all concerned will profit.

Better they get a living wage, than be forced to abandon their families so government assistance can apply -

I don't claim to have a perfect answer, but I DO say the society should put the discussion on the table. We're smart enough and rich enough and, if we can get past our crippling ideologies, I'm sure all concerned will profit.

The serious issue here is what is a living wage as opposed to a minimum wage? A minimum wage exists to prevent workers from being exploited, it is not intended to meet all needs. What you are suggesting is that welfare is the responsibility of the employers not the government. Such ideas are highly socialist, just as maternity and paternity leave is socialistic. It is forgotten that this cost must be passed on, but more usually it results in automation and less jobs. The jobs didn't go overseas because of the wage rate it went overseas because of all the added costs demanded by unions. those unions whose jobs can't yet be outsourced, ie teachers and police still seek to use union muscle but their day will come too

The thing is only the employers are rich enough to pay a living wage and they haven't shown any intention of sharing

I worked minimum wage when I had no skill set. If an employee doesn't make the effort to improve then they will forever be stuck at the bottom of the wage ladder .Everyone knows that this minimum wage is a canard designed to drive up the wages for the skilled workers above the lowest rungs .So stop all these pretentions that the concern is for the low wage worker .They will lose out if the business owners are compelled to pay them more than their value to the employer . The biggest losers will be the unskilled youth who are trying to enter the job market . But the advocates don't give a flying focker about them .

You talk of the unskilled youth, but what of unskilled workers who have families? What of the middle age guys who worked 20 years and lost everything when the rich guy closed his only livelihood? This is no canard you can just dismiss!

Time to bail out main street, and bolster the social safety net would be the logical conclusion given the events of the last few decades.

I worked minimum wage when I had no skill set. If an employee doesn't make the effort to improve then they will forever be stuck at the bottom of the wage ladder .Everyone knows that this minimum wage is a canard designed to drive up the wages for the skilled workers above the lowest rungs .So stop all these pretentions that the concern is for the low wage worker .They will lose out if the business owners are compelled to pay them more than their value to the employer . The biggest losers will be the unskilled youth who are trying to enter the job market . But the advocates don't give a flying focker about them .

Tom unions only care about their members they have no charter to be concerned for those who are not their members

You talk of the unskilled youth, but what of unskilled workers who have families? What of the middle age guys who worked 20 years and lost everything when the rich guy closed his only livelihood? This is no canard you can just dismiss!

Time to bail out main street, and bolster the social safety net would be the logical conclusion given the events of the last few decades.

Tal the only way to do what you suggest is to follow Finland and pay everyone in the economy a minimum income, irrespective of employment. This does away with welfare and may destroy incentive. It's only money after all, you just print it, how does this differ from what the Fed has been doing? I'll tell you the money doesn't flow into the stock market making rich people richer although they will find a way to get more than their fair share so for a time walmart will be saved. I know this isn't the american way but a drowning man doesn't care who threw him the rope

What you are suggesting is that welfare is the responsibility of the employers not the government. Such ideas are highly socialist, just as maternity and paternity leave is socialistic.

[/QUOTE]It is forgotten that this cost must be passed on, but more usually it results in automation and less jobs. The jobs didn't go overseas because of the wage rate it went overseas because of all the added costs demanded by unions.

The thing is only the employers are rich enough to pay a living wage and they haven't shown any intention of sharing[/QUOTE]


Ah, a discussion. Good.

Your read that I'm suggesting welfare is the responsibility of the employer, not the government, is interesting. I hadn't looked at it that way. I see it as more a responsibility of the society which is composed of both - employee and employer.

"Highly socialist" ideas include maternity (and paternity) leave. Should mother have the baby in the office, at the factory?

You complain about automation causing less jobs. In almost the same breath, it's wage rates caused by unions causing less jobs. Which is it?

True that employers haven't shown any intention of sharing. Let's move this one from the legal arena and start again with four thousand years of an emerging Judeo-Christian MORALITY.


Some "socialistic" ideas already incorporated in our (USA) modified socialist-capitalist society. Which ones do you want to go back on?

The 40-hour week
The 8-hour work day
The end to child labor
Workmen's Compensation
Food and drug safety laws
OSHA
Voting rights for women
Civil rights for minorities
Direct election of US Senators
Social Security
Medicare/medicaid

That's the short list. And they were often a joint effort. Even capitalists recognized their value.