Keep hoping. Won't happen in 10 years. Hate to burst your bubble. Someday? Sure. Anytime soon? Doubtful.

GoChiefs;775865 wrote:Keep hoping. Won't happen in 10 years. Hate to burst your bubble. Someday? Sure. Anytime soon? Doubtful.

It's already happening. I don't buy American because its too expensive when compared to other products, and many others are starting to switch as well.

Ummm, I agreed with you. I just said it's not going to happen within the next 10 years like you hope.

You don't like the Unions? Do your hirstory NONE of us would be making the money we make today or have the benefits that we have if not for the people who helped form the Union so long ago. Just like any other job it is the people who are in charge and the people who work that make it either a good place or a bad place to work.

You say that the Union tells you who to vote for, well I've been in two Unions now and even though they suggest to us who to do vote for you can still vote for who ever you want. I think most people do not want to have their police officers/firefighter/teachers making 8.00 dollars an hour. I know I don't and if you take away their right to collective bargaining that is what is going to happen. We are going to have the poorest people protecting us and I know most of them will not be willing to die for anyone if they are not going to be able to support their family.


And to the op I loved working midnights. I just bid on a new postion working mornings M-F and I miss my midnights. My advice is learn how to spread out your work so that you stay busy throughout the night.

MANAZE;776212 wrote:I know I don't and if you take away their right to collective bargaining that is what is going to happen. We are going to have the poorest people protecting us and I know most of them will not be willing to die for anyone if they are not going to be able to support their family.

Do you actually believe this?

We live in a time when you have to pay for quality, and if you don't pay, you can be sure you're not getting quality. You can bet your ass that the people who can afford it are going to pay their law enforcement VERY well, because they WANT that kind of security.

If you actually think law enforcement, fire & rescue, and the like are going to be making near minimum wage, you've not been paying attention. Why is it, do you think, that non-Union entities pay even their non-revenue-driven positions respectable salaries? After all, those positions are not directly affecting any bottom line.

With the end of collective bargaining will come ... well ... the world that the rest of the work force is able to not only survive on, but thrive on.

I've heard legitimate concerns with the end of collective bargaining (ETB and a couple others raised some good points on another thread), but the very utterance that non-Union public sector jobs are going to be paid near minimum wage borders on hilarity.

So are you saying only the rich then should have a good police force? I'm sorry are the people who can't afford to have good securtiy should have to go with out and just be left like it is the wild west? The only ones who will not be affected if CB is done for good are those that can afford private police, firefighters and teachers.

And by the way there are cops in America right now making 11 dollars and hour or less. So if CB is gone do you think these small villages/towns/cities will not cut their pay? If you think they won't your the one of his mind.

MANAZE;776252 wrote:So are you saying only the rich then should have a good police force?

First, who said anything about rich? It doesn't take rich constituents to afford a "good" police force. A working class constituency can afford a good police force.

Also, are we to assume that a police force is going to protect less if they aren't paid what they want, just like a protection gang does? I should hope not. I believe that most who enter the force are people who do so because they desire to make their area safer, and not for the paycheck. Naturally, I don't believe them to be so altruistic that they would do so past what they can afford, but I also don't believe they get into it because of the pay. As such, I don't think someone who believes their calling to be that of a protector of the people is going to suddenly change their mind because they take a still-livable pay hit.

MANAZE;776252 wrote:I'm sorry are the people who can't afford to have good securtiy should have to go with out and just be left like it is the wild west?

Easy. You're talking about my own community. 100% of our kindergarteners this year qualified for free or reduced lunches, so I know a thing or two about living in a community that cannot afford much.

I also know that if one cannot afford something, then forcing them to pay for it hurts them. If we're speaking of a poor jurisdiction, then paying the police beyond what the constituents can afford doesn't magically pull money from other people. Those same poor constituents are still having that additional financial burden added to THEIR plate, and THEIRS alone. If the people cannot afford to pay their officers more, then forcing them to do so is hardly a service to them.

MANAZE;776252 wrote:The only ones who will not be affected if CB is done for good are those that can afford private police, firefighters and teachers.

First, it's becoming clear that your view on this is basically bumper sticker and propaganda material. This statement is absurd, because downgrading law enforcement salaries will have consequences, and that will be apparent.

So, without collective bargaining, what is keeping cops from making no more than minimum wage? Simple. Law enforcement is a perceived need, and rightfully so. As such, it is important to most/all communities to have quality law enforcement. So, if a constituent base tries to pay its law enforcement minimum wage, the existing law enforcement will leave for other jobs, and nobody will come in to take their places. As such, that perceived need will not be met, and the reality will be recognized that you get what you pay for, and that they need to pay the law enforcement at a level that is consistent with the law enforcement quality they desire.

Same applies with ANY public job. If you don't pay well enough, they'll go elsewhere, and you'll be forced to either do without or redo your budget to include a pay structure that fits the quality you expect.

Which ... wait for it ... is exactly how it works everywhere else. An employer (the one who pays the paychecks) determines salary based on the quality he desires. If he wants more quality, he writes bigger checks. If he cannot afford to write bigger checks as it is, he either makes cuts to other elements of his budget so he can allocate the necessary funds, or he does without in that area.

This is how "living within your means" and "not spending money you don't have" works, and is why I said that the constituency should be deciding what public servants get paid. Because:

(A) they are the ones paying the paychecks,
(B) they can best communicate the perceived value they desire and what they can afford, and
(C) they are the ones who stand to gain or lose the most depending on the quality they get from the public servants.

It makes no sense for anyone else to determine the budget allocation to each segment of public service.

MANAZE;776252 wrote:And by the way there are cops in America right now making 11 dollars and hour or less. So if CB is gone do you think these small villages/towns/cities will not cut their pay? If you think they won't your the one of his mind.

If they cut it to $8, the cops will find other jobs, and nobody will come in to take their place, or if they do, the quality will be greatly diminished. The local constituency will then need to up it again in order to get that quality law enforcement back. This is assuming, of course, that they won't have what little foresight it takes to think through the process I just summed up in those two sentences.

If the constituency wants Bentley-level quality from their law enforcement (ex-specops, etc.), they're going to have to pay accordingly. If they just want "used-Pinto" level quality, then what they pay can reflect that as well. Those who might bring quality higher than that will look elsewhere for a job.

O-Trap;776471 wrote:Also, are we to assume that a police force is going to protect less if they aren't paid what they want, just like a protection gang does? I should hope not. I believe that most who enter the force are people who do so because they desire to make their area safer, and not for the paycheck. Naturally, I don't believe them to be so altruistic that they would do so past what they can afford, but I also don't believe they get into it because of the pay. As such, I don't think someone who believes their calling to be that of a protector of the people is going to suddenly change their mind because they take a still-livable pay hit.


If they cut it to $8, the cops will find other jobs, and nobody will come in to take their place, or if they do, the quality will be greatly diminished. The local constituency will then need to up it again in order to get that quality law enforcement back. This is assuming, of course, that they won't have what little foresight it takes to think through the process I just summed up in those two sentences.

Contradict yourself much?

I see no contradiction. I said that they were NOT so altruistic as to work for a less than livable wage in the paragraph you quoted. I was going off the notion that $8 per hour was below that level. Maybe that assumption is incorrect, but as such, I don't see a contradiction.

I'm gonna stop trying to argue with O-Trap he does a better job of that himself then I ever could.

MANAZE;776772 wrote:I'm gonna stop trying to argue with O-Trap he does a better job of that himself then I ever could.

In a sense, you're correct, as I recognize the LEGITIMATE part of your side of the coin, and you apparently don't.

Just because you cannot follow it, or you don't recognize a clause that allows for exception, hardly means anything other than just that: you're not following it.

lol whatever makes you happy.

Thanks. Same to you. Never thought someone could enjoy their head in the sand like that, but hey, whatever makes you happy.

MANAZE;776772 wrote:I'm gonna stop trying to argue with O-Trap he does a better job of that himself then I ever could.

AKA "i'm gonna stop trying to argue with O-Trap because he made me look like Eric from Billy Madison when asked about Business Ethics."

If you want to know he is wrong all you have to do is look at a town like Mingo Junction, Ohio. You can aruge ethics all you want but when it comes down to real life and what happens ethics have nothing to do with it.

O-Trap;776803 wrote:Thanks. Same to you. Never thought someone could enjoy their head in the sand like that, but hey, whatever makes you happy.

Why argue you? It is clear that you either have never had to work for anything or are so poor you really could care less what happens. You have close to 4,000 posts on this website so my guess is that you really just never leave your house to know what goes on in the real world anyway.

MANAZE;776823 wrote:If you want to know he is wrong all you have to do is look at a town like Mingo Junction, Ohio. You can aruge ethics all you want but when it comes down to real life and what happens ethics have nothing to do with it.

I'm curious, as I'm not from near there. What is going on in Mingo Junction?

However, if you want to see what I'm talking about at work, feel free to look at every non-Union private company and non-profit.

MANAZE;776825 wrote:It is clear that you either have never had to work for anything or are so poor you really could care less what happens.

Incorrect. I just care more about business being accurate and correct than anything.

Fact is, I make a decent living because I work two jobs, as does my wife. One of hers is a Union job, no less (much to both of our chagrin). So I'm VERY familiar with both sides of this antiquated coin. I make good money at both my jobs, but that is only because in both cases I'm constantly PROVING that I ... as in myself alone ... have something valuable to offer. I don't have someone leveraging negotiations on my behalf. Instead, I work 60-70 hours a week (some from home, to be fair) making sure that my wife and I are happy and able to pay our bills and enjoy life.

I'm just more concerned about the general public paying for only what they can afford. Hardly a silver spoon, I would think.

MANAZE;776825 wrote:You have close to 4,000 posts on this website so my guess is that you really just never leave your house to know what goes on in the real world anyway.

A rather inaccurate (and weak, I might add) attempt at an ad hominem. I simply balance my time. I type VERY quickly thanks to my job, and I think things out. As I said, I have two jobs, and I spend time with my wife. I have several hobbies as well, and one of my jobs involves me being acutely aware of national news.

But as I said, feel free to plug your ears and recite the stereotypical propaganda. There are several on here who have raised legitimate problems with doing away with Unions as a whole, and who logically and agreeable discuss this topic. To date, you are not one of them.

SportsAndLady;776810 wrote:AKA "i'm gonna stop trying to argue with O-Trap because he made me look like Eric from Billy Madison when asked about Business Ethics."

Haha pwned

Yup I got pwned by the communists that want to take away our American rights. We'll see who gets pwned in the end when people like O-trap who doesn't really know what a hard days work truley is and dosen't know how to live with out a computer ends up when our country finally falls because of people like you guys.

MANAZE;777307 wrote:Yup I got pwned by the communists that want to take away our American rights. We'll see who gets pwned in the end when people like O-trap who doesn't really know what a hard days work truley is and dosen't know how to live with out a computer ends up when our country finally falls because of people like you guys.

i dont know if members of labor unions truly know what a hard days work is..lol

GoChiefs;775733 wrote:Must not be too harmful, considering the company I work for is a multi-million dollar company. Sure doesn't seem to be hurting them too bad.

Over 4 billion in sales and over 1 billion in profit last year.... not million.

But out of ~30,000 employees in the company, only ~3,000 are union.

MANAZE;777307 wrote:Yup I got pwned by the communists that want to take away our American rights. We'll see who gets pwned in the end when people like O-trap who doesn't really know what a hard days work truley is and dosen't know how to live with out a computer ends up when our country finally falls because of people like you guys.

Communist? No. Democratic.

The people deciding what they're going to pay their public officials is HARDLY Communism. Hell, it's not even in the ballpark.

But I assume you're just inserting a word that people dislike. More propaganda.

As for hard work, I work harder every day of my life than you ever will, unless you're consistently pulling 16-hour work days.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;777315 wrote:Over 4 billion in sales and over 1 billion in profit last year.... not million.

But out of ~30,000 employees in the company, only ~3,000 are union.

Shhhhhhh! Truth and accuracy are not welcome here!

Pick6;777309 wrote:i dont know if members of labor unions truly know what a hard days work is..lol

Some do. That altruism I was referring to before carries over. There are people who genuinely work hard, even if/when they don't have to all the time. These are the people who do more than the bare minimum.

But these people would be sought, and compensated well, in a non-Collective Bargaining system.

O-Trap;777340 wrote:Shhhhhhh! Truth and accuracy are not welcome here!

Whoops...my bad. That's a multi BILLION dollar company..not million. Sorry for giving the false info. :rolleyes: