[QUOTE=Lancastermom;1674440]
Au contraire...didn't the tax cap pass.....apparently you have been drinking to much of the tinfoil kool-ade. I know your arguement is flawed when you have to change the subject....I liken Ruffino's comments to the statements by trump about "those people" when he refers to minorities. You need to see the forest for the trees...
[QUOTE=gorja;1674448]
Gorja Gorja Gorga.....have read most of your posts in the past. Some I agreed with some I did'nt...but I hope you will consider sticking to the topic in the future...One can be critical of an opinion without lowering oneself to the bottom of the barrel...By the way....do you have access to my medical records?
Don't quite understand your reasoning...are you saying that union members are tax exempt? Are you saying that public sector workers are not entitled to sick pay, vacations, 8 hour day, minimum wage, 40 hour work week...what is this competition you mention... maybe for a living wage....If you look up the history of public sector work you will find that pay scales were significantly lower for years.....as the public sector unions began to organize, wage and benefits approached private sector wages and benefits, achieving parity, thanks to the UAW, CWA,USW,Teamsters the CSEA and many other trade union...to deny these workers a living wage comparable to what the worker seated right next to receives is UNION BUSTING....divide and conquer is the mantra of ALL union busting!!
[QUOTE=Wehner;1674518]Although I said I wouldn't comment with you anymore here is one last post. That's called a dig. I stated from the beginning that I was not in favor of the tax levy cap when you asked me and you kept going on the topic of unions and fair pay for employees. I am not in favor of taxes going up solely in the hands of five people and a supervisor who is doing this so she can pay back her campaign promises. At least Matt and Ron had the balls to do what was right by the taxpayers. Don't come on here whining when our taxes go up and up. If this is what a good portion of Lancaster wants I have to question their thinking on wanting more taken from their wallets.
[QUOTE=Wehner;1674529]Don't quite understand your reasoning...are you saying that union members are tax exempt? Are you saying that public sector workers are not entitled to sick pay, vacations, 8 hour day, minimum wage, 40 hour work week...what is this competition you mention... maybe for a living wage....If you look up the history of public sector work you will find that pay scales were significantly lower for years.....as the public sector unions began to organize, wage and benefits approached private sector wages and benefits, achieving parity, thanks to the UAW, CWA,USW,Teamsters the CSEA and many other trade union...to deny these workers a living wage comparable to what the worker seated right next to receives is UNION BUSTING....divide and conquer is the mantra of ALL union busting!![/QUOTe
I am not denying anyone anything and actually agree that non union workers should "not" benefit from union negotiated benefits. Non union workers should have their own private contracts. After all, they do not pay union dues. That being said, there is a HUGE difference between public vs. private sector unions. My husband is a teamster and works for the food industry. Plenty of competition between food companies. Where is the competition where government is concerned?
When it comes to the taxpayer paying the bills, "public" unions should not be part of the equation. You are trying to lump in Teamsters and UAW etc. with public unions like CSEA etc.
totally different......
Last edited by DebLemaster; October 27th, 2016 at 01:45 PM.
[QUOTE=DebLemaster;1674589]just because you say it doesn't make it so...are you aware that the teamsters and UAW among other labor organizations have organized and represent public college professors, municipal clerks and other workers in the public sector. So tell me, how are they different?
[QUOTE=Wehner;1674666]Do I really have to explain "competition"??
The rise of government-worker unionism has produce a sharp divergence between public- and private-sector employment. In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone including truck drivers, janitors, etc. In the private economy, meanwhile, cutthroat competition, increased income inequality, and layoffs squeeze the middle class. This discrepancy indicates how poorly the middle class has fared in recent decades in the private economy, which is home to 80% of American jobs. But it also highlights the increased benefits of government work, and shines a spotlight on the gains public-sector unions have secured for their members. Perhaps this success helps explain why, on average, 39% of state- and local-government employees belong to unions. New York tops the chart with roughly 70% of state employees in unions and the taxpayer pays the price.
I don't think the non-union staff should be penalized because they don't pay union dues. If the union workers would vote to get rid of the union, they wouldn't have to pay the dues. They would receive fair wages and benefits as was shown by the non-union employees a few years ago. It would be like the private sector. The employer would provide wages and benefitsOriginally posted by DebLemaster:
I am not denying anyone anything and actually agree that non union workers should "not" benefit from union negotiated benefits. Non union workers should have their own private contracts. After all, they do not pay union dues.
that it could afford to provide.
I am in favor of union busting unlike Ruffino who inferred nothing about union busting, just my opinion
Georgia L Schlager
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)