Is Gwen, Kaylee Or Real Woman?

[Anonymous]

The obvious fact that labor unions should be illegal in the public sector is not only recognized by millions today and conveyed in writing in the "Wagner Act" of 1935, it was also clearly communicated by the patron saint of the American labor movement 79 years ago. Although he had a lock on labor's vote, he expressed warning about public sector unions. In a letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:



“… 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 … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …"



In his letter Roosevelt goes on to say, “"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 … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … government. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

[Obvious Li]

There is no difference between union-government bargaining and a scenario where two hungry vultures (one union business agent, plus one government bargaining representative) and one bunny rabbit (uninformed taxpayer) are voting on what to have for dinner.

very accurate description..........to the point as usual.... :geek:

[Obvious Li]

So you think it is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society to limit the Charter right of freedom of association as it pertains to public sector workers?

not only justified ....it should be a criminal offense for public workers to organize and automatic jail time if they strike.......ALL public sector workers should have their wages and benefits scaled back between 25% and 50% effective immediately......thereafter any increases should be tied to inflation.  Firstly we need to take that fucking charter and use it to lite a major bonfire.....hopefully with the 9 supremes tied to a stake above it........... :ugeek:

Okay, you've stated it should be a criminal offense for public workers to organize but you have yet to state the grounds for such a restriction to a public sector worker's Charter freedoms.  So why should it be criminal?



So you think public workers are overpaid.  Why?  How much do they make that you find out of line?  What benefits do they have that are excessive?



Wage increases are generally tied to inflation rates as is.  



I have to ask, are you aware of the economic benefit to people having money to spend as a means of supporting an economy?

it seems i have run out of steam for today....will respond in full later.... :geek:

[RW]

There is no difference between union-government bargaining and a scenario where two hungry vultures (one union business agent, plus one government bargaining representative) and one bunny rabbit (uninformed taxpayer) are voting on what to have for dinner.

And the problem is....?

[RW]

The obvious fact that labor unions should be illegal in the public sector is not only recognized by millions today and conveyed in writing in the "Wagner Act" of 1935, it was also clearly communicated by the patron saint of the American labor movement 79 years ago. Although he had a lock on labor's vote, he expressed warning about public sector unions. In a letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:



“… 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 … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …"



In his letter Roosevelt goes on to say, “"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 … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … government. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

seoul, I would love to tackle this but I am not up on my US history or labor movement.  Sorry. :/

[Anonymous]

There is no difference between union-government bargaining and a scenario where two hungry vultures (one union business agent, plus one government bargaining representative) and one bunny rabbit (uninformed taxpayer) are voting on what to have for dinner.

And the problem is....?

If you are unionized snivel serpent like Fash, no problem. If you are a slimebag politician looking for an endorsement, no problem......anyone else......

[RW]

Finish your sentence please.

[Anonymous]

Finish your sentence please.

Fash, Stephen Harper, your premier and our human bloodclot Allison Redford are the taxpayer's enemy.

[RW]

Oookay...



So how do you feel about the hundreds of billions of dollars union pension plans have invested in the country?

[Anonymous]

Oookay...



So how do you feel about the hundreds of billions of dollars union pension plans have invested in the country?

Oookay, how do you feel about the hundreds of billions of $$$ in unfunded d fucking b pension liabilities my baby has to pay for? Save for your own fucking retirement like I do, or don't come whining to me.

[RW]

Well I'm miffed about that because the markets are so terrible right now.  Returns on investment aren't great and that's no fault of unions.  



What do you think poor retired people will do to and for this country?  Do you think we won't pay for them one way or another?

[Anonymous]

Well I'm miffed about that because the markets are so terrible right now.  Returns on investment aren't great and that's no fault of unions.  



What do you think poor retired people will do to and for this country?  Do you think we won't pay for them one way or another?

The markets ARE doing fucking great. You can thank the country of my birth for that.



You can tell that old fat glutinous white slob YVRman to go pound salt. I hate that assholes and he hates Chinese,  but expects us to pay for the fact he NEVER fucking saved!!

[RW]

That doesn't negate the fact that interest rates are still extremely low and pension plans have taken a pounding in the markets.  That also doesn't change what billions of dollars of unionized workers' money has given back to our country.  



There's union pension money in them there oil sands cowgirl.

[Renee]

There is no difference between union-government bargaining and a scenario where two hungry vultures (one union business agent, plus one government bargaining representative) and one bunny rabbit (uninformed taxpayer) are voting on what to have for dinner.

And the problem is....?

I think the problem is that the bunny rabbit (the uninformed taxpayer) ends up becoming dinner or at very least gets stuck with the check.



Nice to see you back but I can't believe you asked that question. :?

[RW]

Oh believe it woman!



The trouble is, what people call "unions" are a collective of working people who pay taxes.  It also works out that the more money people make, the more income tax they pay (as a general rule) and the more money they spend (which also means they pay more in taxes) which has economic drive.



There needs to be a shift in attitude when it comes to people making decent money or having decent money.  There also needs to be some follow through in thought when it comes to the alternatives.  What does it cost tax payers to have people who don't make much or enough money?