Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 just take look at the mugs of the top dogs (no offense meant to our canine friends) of all the major unions, and tell me just one who does not scare the bejeesus out of any decent person. This is childish and silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 NO, absolute TRUTH is not "nonsense" it's "sense" and FACT... Look it up... I have, and it's complete nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Pinko, picture a new wave of immigrants to Canada, late fifties, early sixties, those of us who know more than your ancestors and obviously more than you will ever know. pinko, I stayed with the company of my choice, but I moved in to the non-union side. It was my choice and I took it. No regrets, no sorry, in fact glory alleluyah!! My 37 years with the same company was REAL, not a figment of my imagination. If there is any story to be relegated to the world of fantasy it is that unions ever helped anyone except their own executives. Pity that lowly members fell for the crap that they were ever represented by the fat cat union executives. I DID move to a non-union shop. It was called the Company, who signed my pay-cheque. I am 66 years old and I would suspect you are of a similar age. If that is the case your knowledge of your former residence is suspect. You should be thankful you were allowed to come here and partake of the opportunities provided to you. While you may have been out of scope you still benefited from the gains made as a result of collective bargaining. Your disdain for the union at your workplace and your coworker has been duly noted. Edited February 20, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Jack Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 This is childish and silly. At least no Hitler moustache was put on Trumka and/or Girard, like there was on GWB. When one finds "childish and silly" one responds in kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 As someone who escaped from the Communist paradise, I can say with authority, that under the Communist rule, unions enjoyed the same privileges as they do under our decreasingly free so-called capitalistic system: If you had escaped from a Communist paradise you would have been aware there were no free unions permitted there, only government fronted 'unions' which were not unions in any real sense at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) If you had escaped from a Communist paradise you would have been aware there were no free unions permitted there, only government fronted 'unions' which were not unions in any real sense at all. My awareness of the conditions in that part of the world has been devloped through reading. The paradise offered by those adovcating the dissolution of collective bargaining rights is one I can do without. Edited February 20, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I agree, but the Wisconsin government you refer to are the ones from previous years and decades. Offering, or more accurately, pandering to public unions. Offering pay, benefits and pension that weren't affordable. Kicking the can down the road. Well, we're at the end of the road. It's not ideology. It's math. I have yet to see any math on this. Do you have some ? (I'm catching up from yesterday, maybe some math comes further down on the thread, let's see...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Definitely. And it's odd to watch people argue against their own self-interest, and against the interest of society as a whole, simply because they have bought into infantile propaganda. It's the Joe The Plumber mentality. Joe the plumber was disturbed at Obama's plan to increase taxes for those making more than $300,000 per year because he was thinking maybe he'd buy out the plumbing firm he worked for and maybe he'd be making more than that... only it emerged the most he'd ever made in his life was something like 40,000, working for a plumbing contractor and wasn't even licensed as a plumber. Edited February 20, 2011 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 By the way what expertise do you bring to the discussion when it comes to pension plans? The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.That's the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University's public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago. LA Times NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- States' debt loads are high enough, but when you combine them with their pension obligations, the numbers are really eye-popping.Hawaii's debt, for instance, is $5.2 billion. But so is its pension obligation. Combined, the dual obligations make up 16.2% of the state's economy, according to a report released Thursday by Moody's Investors Service. That's the nation's highest total liability as a share of the state's gross domestic product. CNN The scale of the problem is unprecedented. The New York State Common Retirement Fund held about $125 billion as of June 30, 2010, but recent estimates suggest this is $30 billion to $80 billion less than it needs to meet its commitments to retired workers.NDN These problems are effecting every state. Because for too long, public sector unions have been given a free ride. Especially related to their pyramid scheme of defined benefit pension programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I've already told you. They're being asked to pay half as much as everyone else does for their health care and pensions. What does that even mean ? If they accepted lower salary increases in order to keep their pensions (as has been pointed out) then it's perfectly reasonable that they would have a better pension package than average. And who is 'everybody else' ? Still working my way through this thread from yesterday ... no numbers yet ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Who cares if they agree to this, legislate it. The unions have been holding the public ransom for far too long and they're sick of it. The principle behind your attitude is the exact same one as "tax the rich just because..." - except it is the flip side. These things need to be discussed, with the rationales made clear, and ultimately negotiated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 These problems are effecting every state. Because for too long, public sector unions have been given a free ride. Especially related to their pyramid scheme of defined benefit pension programs. I had hoped you could demonstrate some original thought. What state do you live in? Maybe once you establish that you can then proceed to describe the law in the state you live in and the history of these pension plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Jack Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I am 66 years old and I would suspect you are of a similar age. If that is the case your knowldege of your former residence is suspect. You should be thankful you were allowed to come here and partake of the opportunities provided to you. While you may have been out of scope you still benefited from the gains made as a result of collective bargaining. Your disdain for the union at your workplace and your coworker has been duly noted. pinko, why the antagonism? When I came to Canada it was accepted that people from different parts of the world provide a different prospective of life. Surely as a born citizen of this country, you will not deny that. When I came to Canada no one ever told me that I had to kow-tow to any political persuation. So, I did NOT!! I have my own views, my own opinions whether you like them or not. Yes, I am thankful to Canada for giving me a home. But it is not the same as being thankful to unions who have done absolutely NOTHING for me. Sorry! Collective bargaining? It is for the mentally challenged incompetents. I can and always have spoken for myself, thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Complete nonsense. Have you ever been to Europe? Even to some of the "poorer" countries like Portugal and Spain and Italy? Life is slow and pleasant there, and it's not all about work, work, work. It's about living life, and family. There are lots of holidays, lots of vacation days, time to relax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) I'm willing to bet just about anything that the benefits for public sector workers in Wisconsin are worse than the public sector workers get in virtually the entire free world. Americans seem to think if they get three weeks holidays that's a shockingly good benefit, clueless that Europeans tend to get 6-8 weeks. I remember once reading a remark by Thomas Friedman about the "coddled" European workers. ("Coddled" is a direct quote, I remember it clearly.) Which made me recognize the distinction between these coddled European layabouts, compared to the suffering, hard-working writer-of-weekly-articles millionaire from the New York Times. Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 The unsustainable pension and benefits were already a big problem. The recession just fastracked it. Have people forgotten that before the Bush tax cuts the US government had a budgetary surplus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I had hoped you could demonstrate some original thought. I had hoped you would address the central issue. Pubic sector defined benefit pension plans, and public sector comprehensive benefit packages they pay little to zero into. And rely on the taxpayers to foot the bill for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Pinko, picture a new wave of immigrants to Canada, late fifties, early sixties, those of us who know more than your ancestors and obviously more than you will ever know. pinko, I stayed with the company of my choice, but I moved in to the non-union side. It was my choice and I took it. No regrets, no sorry, in fact glory alleluyah!! My 37 years with the same company was REAL, not a figment of my imagination. If there is any story to be relegated to the world of fantasy it is that unions ever helped anyone except their own executives. Pity that lowly members fell for the crap that they were ever represented by the fat cat union executives. The very protections and benefits you enjoyed at your company are a direct result of unions, of labour organizing. Chew on that one for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I have, and it's complete nonsense. You did? What did you look up? Could you cite it so we could read too and become convinced of the error of our thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Have people forgotten that before the Bush tax cuts the US government had a budgetary surplus? Once again, this issue isn't about the federal government, or any President. These are states issues that need to be delt with by the states. State pension plans and benefit plans have nothing to do with the federal government or the federal budget. Stop trying to deflect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Agreed...spending and recurring entitlement costs are the real issue, not revenue. So called "rich people" already pay most of the taxes, but there are only so many rich folks to go around. Imagine that. Those with most income pay more. It's really astonishing to see how the goalposts for fair taxation have changed since the days of that great Republican Eisenhower. My opinion is that it would be fair to fix income tax rates back to where that great Republican Reagan had them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 At least no Hitler moustache was put on Trumka and/or Girard, like there was on GWB. When one finds "childish and silly" one responds in kind. If someone here had called anyone Hitler you'd have more of a point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 You did? What did you look up? Could you cite it so we could read too and become convinced of the error of our thinking? I looked up and cited in the same manner as the poster who made the original assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) pinko, why the antagonism? When I came to Canada it was accepted that people from different parts of the world provide a different prospective of life. Surely as a born citizen of this country, you will not deny that. When I came to Canada no one ever told me that I had to kow-tow to any political persuation. So, I did NOT!! I have my own views, my own opinions whether you like them or not. Yes, I am thankful to Canada for giving me a home. But it is not the same as being thankful to unions who have done absolutely NOTHING for me. Sorry! Collective bargaining? It is for the mentally challenged incompetents. I can and always have spoken for myself, thank you! I haven't asked you to kow tow to any political persuasion. It should be obvious to you that we have freedom of speech. That you and I differ on the place of unions is a reflection of that. You certainly have an inflated opinion of your place in society. By the way I really enjoy my defined benefit pension plan. Edited February 20, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 If you had escaped from a Communist paradise you would have been aware there were no free unions permitted there, only government fronted 'unions' which were not unions in any real sense at all. Exactly. The communists, many of whom were corrupted former idealists, would often keep "unions" in place; first as a residual nod to ideology, but later as yet another means of power. They're quite unrelated to the North American and Western European variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.