Unions need to go?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Unions need to go?

Post by T on Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:00 am

Unions need to go
By Bert Laplante

At one time there was a need for unions, but the time has come to say goodbye. Businesses cannot compete in the world economy when the unions demand outrageous pay and benefits for people who are no smarter, work no harder and have no more skills than nonunion workers. (I worked for a union for five years; what a joke.)

Union members are making money on taxpayers' backs, and are not about to let that drop, no matter what they claim.

There are enough labor laws on the books to protect any situation that may come up in the work force today.

How can U.S. businesses compete with businesses in other countries that pay their workers $4 per hour or less and offer few, if any, benefits when some union workers are getting many times that amount and benefits that most people only dream about.

Enough — it's time for America to say that unions need to go, and for the American people to come together as one and show what they really can do.

Why don't union workers understand there is no money left in the pot? If people have no money in their personal budgets to buy something for themselves or family members, they don't. Why would anyone think the government would?

Oh, wait — more taxes.

Bert Laplante, Lewiston

SJ Letter to the Editor

T

Number of posts : 2328
Registration date : 2008-06-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Unions need to go?

Post by T on Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:56 am

So, is it the anti-union crowd's goal to lower our standard of living to match that of third world countries so that Corporate America can compete?

It would seem that the anti-union crowd's solution is to reduce everyone's wage to $4/hr or less and eliminate benefits so that Corporate America can continue to earn ever increasing profits on the backs of the American worker.

In the United States today, 1% (the wealthy) control 50% of American income. The effective tax rate for the wealthy has NEVER BEEN LOWER, and yet our economy struggles. This fact flies in the face of the myth that lower tax rates on the wealthy (the so-called job creators) stimulate the economy. The gap between the wealthy and the working man/woman has never been so great and continues to widen. If this gap continues to grow, capitalism cannot survive. Keep in mind, according to the Wall Street Journal (hardly a liberal organization) 81% of Americans support a tax on millionaires to fix the federal deficit.

I don't understand the schism between the union and the non-union worker and why they are at each others' throats. They should be working together to raise everyone's standard of living rather than tearing each other down.

As they divide and conquer the American worker, Corporate America and the wealthy are laughing all the way to the bank.


T

Number of posts : 2328
Registration date : 2008-06-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Unions need to go?

Post by 911Dispatcher on Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:29 pm

It comes from people who believe everything they read and see on TV. I can tell from 5 years doing union work, including grivenances, that his statement "There are enough labor laws on the books to protect any situation that may come up in the work force today" is far from the truth. As with anything companies are constantly finding loop holes in the laws. Loop holes that help them save a penny or two while screwing over the employee.

I believe its truly a stance on protecting capitalism that we are seeing the attack on Unions today. Capitalism is basically like a primaid scheme, in the end the person on the bottom gets screwed. Unfortunately the persons getting the short end of the stick are being told a fairy tale called "The American Dream" and they are buying into with every dime they have.
avatar
911Dispatcher

Number of posts : 469
Registration date : 2008-10-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Unions need to go?

Post by T on Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:06 pm

Recently, it has been argued that the relationship between public unions and with those they negotiate is more a partnership rather than adversarial due to the fact that those they negotiate with are often elected officials in which unions have had hand in electing. The anti-union crowd argues that this gives the public sector unions an unfair advantage.

In Maine, this so-called “advantage” is tempered in two major ways.

1. Unlike Wisconsin, in Maine it is illegal for public employees to “strike“. The ability to “strike” is the single most powerful tool available to unions in the private sector, and for some unions in some states in the public sector.

2. Unlike Wisconsin, in Maine, should the negotiations process lead to arbitration, only contract language is “binding”. All matters of money (salary and benefits) are nonbinding. Salary and benefits, whatever the state and local school boards deem appropriate, can simply be imposed upon public sector unions.

Two of the most powerful tools available to private sector unions have been stripped from public sector unions in Maine. The playing field has been leveled.

Maine is not Wisconsin.

T

Number of posts : 2328
Registration date : 2008-06-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Unions need to go?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum