Is now the time to start to end Unions?

Yes. Unions are a joke.

Depends

I'm in agreeance with others when talking about this subject; and that is to bust up unions in the public sector.

As far as all the other unions: I think we're past the point of worrying about fair wages, so a stop needs to be put to that crap. Also, there shouldn't be a focus on job security anymore, as that's pretty much a catch-22. Let them go on and focus on worker safety.

ernest_t_bass;545360 wrote:Depends

Are you saying that unions need to cover their ass?

Put an end to public-sector/ government unions. Huge, parasitic conflict of interest.

Belly35;545439 wrote:Are you say that unions need to cover their ass?

Yes, hunid pucent zactly what I'm sayin.

Not as simple as just "lets get rid of unions."

While i am, generally, pro-union, they are broken at this point here in the states, in many areas, and wouldn't mind seeing them start to go away, heavily restricted, etc., in some public-sector areas.

cbus4life;545497 wrote:While i am, generally, pro-union, they are broken at this point here in the states, in many areas, and wouldn't mind seeing them start to go away, heavily restricted, etc., in some public-sector areas.

You don't think they need to be eliminated in the public sector totally? If not, why?

If I misread, nevermind lol

Being in the public sector, I both agree and disagree with unions. Cost too much, however, I've seen them be beneficial. I've had past bosses who would get rid of you just b/c they don't like you, were it not for union protection. My past boss is at another school (thank goodness). I kid you not, there would be a lot less people here right now if there were no union, only b/c he didn't like them. He was a tyrant who flat out told a few good teachers that they weren't wanted here, and they should leave, mainly b/c he did not like them. I say that with as little bias as I can have.

I would do the same thing if I had an employee I didn't like. Long-term it's not good.

Yes and no.

I'd like to see them change that's for sure.

Con_Alma;545695 wrote:I would do the same thing if I had an employee I didn't like. Long-term it's not good.

The facts show (no, I don't have a citation) that Supers and Admins don't stay as long as teachers do. Supers and Admins are (on average) there for about 5 years. Teachers, a lot longer. Just b/c someone has a difference of opinion as you, even if they are an excellent teacher, doesn't mean you just let them go. I disagree with your comment here.

Just public worker unions, the moral hazard is evident. You have people living off of taxes, that obviously have a stake in keeping up the taxes - after all they are living off of them. And thus have a stake in electing those that agree with continuing the downward spiral (apologies to Nine Inch Nails).

ernest_t_bass;545738 wrote:... Just b/c someone has a difference of opinion as you, even if they are an excellent teacher, doesn't mean you just let them go. I disagree with your comment here.

That was not my opinion at all nor did I state as much.

You may disagree with my comment but I am not certain you understand what the comment was based on your portrayal of it.

Con_Alma;545747 wrote:That was not my opinion at all nor did I state as much.

You may disagree with my comment but I am not certain you understand what the comment was based on your portrayal of it.

My interpretation... you would fire an employee you didn't like.

I would, yes and it's not the same as, "...Just b/c someone has a difference of opinion as you, even if they are an excellent teacher, doesn't mean you just let them go."

ernest_t_bass;545650 wrote:I've had past bosses who would get rid of you just b/c they don't like you, were it not for union protection. My past boss is at another school (thank goodness). I kid you not, there would be a lot less people here right now if there were no union, only b/c he didn't like them. He was a tyrant who flat out told a few good teachers that they weren't wanted here, and they should leave, mainly b/c he did not like them. I say that with as little bias as I can have.

If a boss is firing lots of otherwise-qualified people solely because he doesn't like them, his place of employment will perform worse than some other place that doesn't fire otherwise-qualified people, both because of the added cost of hiring/firing, the reduction in morale and efficiency, and the fact that he'll have a lower-qualified workforce if he's firing lots of qualified people. That's the sort of problem that will sort itself out in the end, even without a union.

For a concrete example, back in the day, major law firms wouldn't hire Jews. Rather than complaining and requesting that they be integrated, many Jewish lawyers started their own firms. Because they were just as talented but were denied the big money opportunities elsewhere, they managed to out-compete their old employers. Now many of the top firms are descendants of the Jewish firms, which in many cases have overtaken the old white-shoe WASPy places.

In a competitive market, companies that operate with some sort of bias will be at a disadvantage.

"Rather than complaining and requesting that they be integrated, many Jewish lawyers started their own firms."

Skadden? Back in the days when we had rolo-dexes, Joe Flom was on my rolo-dex. Now we have EVO's and IPhones, and I probably spend more time dealing with birds attacking pigs, and not contributing to the GDP.

Manhattan Buckeye;545763 wrote:"Rather than complaining and requesting that they be integrated, many Jewish lawyers started their own firms."

Skadden? Back in the days when we had rolo-dexes, Joe Flom was on my rolo-dex. Now we have EVO's and IPhones, and I probably spend more time dealing with birds attacking pigs, and not contributing to the GDP.

I was thinking of Skadden and WLRK, and to a lesser extent, places like Cleary, Paul Weiss, Weil, Kaye Scholar, Fried Frank, Proskaur, Stroock, etc. I believe there was an article on this a few years ago that made headlines--I'll see if I can track it down.

EDIT: Article here (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+rise+and+fall+of+the+WASP+and+Jewish+law+firms-a0181895892)

The article also notes that Cahill Gordon did the same thing for Catholics.

fan_from_texas;545762 wrote:If a boss is firing lots of otherwise-qualified people solely because he doesn't like them, his place of employment will perform worse than some other place that doesn't fire otherwise-qualified people, both because of the added cost of hiring/firing, the reduction in morale and efficiency, and the fact that he'll have a lower-qualified workforce if he's firing lots of qualified people. ....

It's my position that production is negatively impacted by reduced morale and efficiency when employees are kept that do not get along well with upper management and other workers.

It's also my position that more scrutiny is added to the hiring process to avoid these ppotential personality types so that turnover is minimized and less expensive. To work for us you have to be more than qualified and you can't simply get along with everyone. We don't simply hire people off the street that may or may not be capable. I would rather delay growth than bring in a potential candidate that doesn't "fit" our culture.

That's not always an option at a much larger place of business but the practice has served me well for more than a decade now and I would trust my life to my employees....and I do.

Con_Alma;545754 wrote:I would, yes and it's not the same as, "...Just b/c someone has a difference of opinion as you, even if they are an excellent teacher, doesn't mean you just let them go."

Then would you please, if you could be so kind, clarify what you mean?

Sure. I'd be happy to.

Firstly, I think it's important to know that I get along all the time with people that have different opinions from me. I get along all the time with people that are excellent at their craft. Just because someone differs in opinion and are excellent at their vocation does not equate to not getting along as read in your post.

Now, to directly answer your request, I think that getting along is managing or coping in such a manner that healthy production towards a common goal can exists. Having a smooth or cooperative relationship is also a* sign of "getting along".

Not "getting along" is often times indicative of people that just don't like each other and tends to lend to a culture of divisiveness as opposed to cooperation. Such an environment is just not good for a career minded employee....nor is it good for the overall productiveness of the company...long term.

I just wish I could better explain (without typing a book) what my old boss (Super) was like. An absolute tyrant... who made 6 figures and asked employees to take a pay freeze... Sorry, had to throw that in there

He was an absolute tyrant that did things the wrong way. He dealt with people the wrong way. He belongs in a firm, not the public sector.

Did you dislike him?

Is it better now with him gone?