queencitybuckeye;888743 wrote:Trade shows in Chicago are always fun as we can't plug in our laptops, projectors, etc. We have to wait for the union electrician to do it.

believer;889374 wrote:That's no lie. I've experienced similar nonsense in trade shows I've done at McCormick in Chicago myself. THUGS plain and simple. PLUS they actually expected me to tip them for setting up an 8 foot display table once. I told the moron to get the hell out of my booth.

ts1227;886738 wrote:Jesus, even a thread where everyone agrees for the most part still has to derail into an off topic, partisan retard extravaganza.

queencitybuckeye;889414 wrote:This is the environment the president grew up in, and we're supposed to support a jobs program he comes up with?

I Wear Pants;889462 wrote:+1

Writerbuckeye;889859 wrote:Yeah, because telling union horror stories has nothing to do with the ills at the post office. :rolleyes:

I Wear Pants;892843 wrote:Who forces a company to agree to a union contract?

believer;892859 wrote:The gubmint maybe? :rolleyes:

The point? To imply that postal unions had nothing to do with the demise of the USPS is absurd. Of course it did. Are unions entirely to blame? No. But they are, in fact, a huge player in the mix.

believer;892859 wrote:The gubmint maybe? :rolleyes:

The point? To imply that postal unions had nothing to do with the demise of the USPS is absurd. Of course it did. Are unions entirely to blame? No. But they are, in fact, a huge player in the mix.

I Wear Pants;893245 wrote:What I'm saying is that if a company thought that a union contract was bad for them couldn't they just, you know, not sign it?

And "Who the hell okays a union contract that says you can't lay off any employees?" is my point as well. That's not a problem with the union (though there are plenty with that particular one) but rather a problem with the people approving contracts and shit.

Glory Days;893597 wrote:because union thugs make them sign it.

believer;894052 wrote:....or binding gubmint arbitration. Basically the same thing.

Manhattan Buckeye;894127 wrote:Public unions should be illegal.

vball10set;901357 wrote:I%20guess%20anything%27s%20possible...highly%20unlikely,%20but%20not%20impossible

The American Postal Workers Union blasted the move.

“The Postal Service should be urging Congress to address the cause of its problems – not slashing service and demolishing its network," union president Cliff Guffey said.

believer;901370 wrote:http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/181819-postal-service-faces-grim-new-reality

So unionism has nothing to do with the demise of the USPS?



Let me translate the union-speak: "The Postal Service should be urging Congress for bailout money. - not slashing union membership and demolishing our union," union president Cliff Guffey really said.

I Wear Pants;901688 wrote:I'd still attribute that to this ****ty union rather than unions as a whole. Unions don't have to be as ****ty as the ones we usually think of (this one, Teamsters, UAW, etc).

But yes, there should obviously not be a "you can't cut employees" rule.

Writerbuckeye;902440 wrote:Face it: there isn't really a need for unions these days, and most of them do nothing but screw up things for exceptional workers and make life easier for deadbeats.

BGFalcons82;911672 wrote:Unions at their finest hour!! - http://www.businessinsider.com/sioux-city-postal-wokers-to-get-paid-172-million-for-not-working-2011-9

What a relief that these Sioux City postal workers will get paid for 4 more years hoping...praying...agonizing...over finding a new job. :rolleyes:

Where else in the world can one get a paid 4-year vacation? Oh wait...laid off UAW members in Detroit get similar benefits. What a great country!!