Archive US Postal Service Going Broke.

believer

Posts: 8,153

Sep 9, 2011 7:53pm

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.

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.

Q

queencitybuckeye

Posts: 7,117

Sep 9, 2011 8:22pm

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.

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

I

I Wear Pants

Posts: 16,223

Sep 9, 2011 9:35pm

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.

+1

believer

Posts: 8,153

Sep 10, 2011 7:00am

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?

Only as long as it's done with union labor.

Writerbuckeye

Posts: 4,745

Sep 10, 2011 11:05am

I Wear Pants;889462 wrote:+1

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

I

I Wear Pants

Posts: 16,223

Sep 12, 2011 2:36am

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

Who forces a company to agree to a union contract?

believer

Posts: 8,153

Sep 12, 2011 5:24am

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

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.

M

Manhattan Buckeye

Posts: 7,566

Sep 12, 2011 6:53am

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.

l

Public sector unions should be illegal. Period. There is no arms-length negotiation when one political party is in the panties of the unions. At least in the private sector we have shareholders that have a stake in labor matters. In the public sector we have payola with everyone's money (those that pay taxes, that is) handing it out with no recourse.

Writerbuckeye

Posts: 4,745

Sep 12, 2011 12:49pm

Who the hell okays a union contract that says you can't lay off any employees?

The federal government, as they did with the latest Post Office contract just approved by the Obama administration earlier this year.

I don't care if it's been part of their contract since they started the union, in this economy it's almost criminal that taxpayers are being forced to pay for labor that's so obviously unnecessary.

There's going to be one hell of a legal fight take place when the Congress is forced to basically null that contract so it can revamp the system. It's that or let it go bankrupt and throw every postal service employee out of a job and not have services at all.

I

I Wear Pants

Posts: 16,223

Sep 12, 2011 1:44pm

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.

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

Posts: 7,809

Sep 12, 2011 7:59pm

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.

because union thugs make them sign it. havent you learned anything from the union threads?

believer

Posts: 8,153

Sep 13, 2011 5:12am

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

....or binding gubmint arbitration. Basically the same thing.

I

I Wear Pants

Posts: 16,223

Sep 13, 2011 9:12am

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

No one forces anyone to sign a contract.

M

Manhattan Buckeye

Posts: 7,566

Sep 13, 2011 9:19am

^^

Indeed, just elected officials that get paid on the one hand and pay out on the other.

Public unions should be illegal.

believer

Posts: 8,153

Sep 14, 2011 5:09am

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

Succinct yet profoundly true.

believer

Posts: 8,153

Sep 18, 2011 10:08am

[URL="http://

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

"][/URL]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?

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.

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.

M

Manhattan Buckeye

Posts: 7,566

Sep 18, 2011 12:03pm

"“The Postal Service should be urging Congress to address the cause of its problems

What should Congress do, tax or ban e-mail? On-line billing? The fact is there is not as much demand for the postal service as there was 15 years ago due to developing technologies, yet their inane contract doesn't allow them to adjust. I know its this guy's "job" to defend his union but he sounds like a moron. When there is less demand for your product, you have to shrink to survive or adjust in other ways.

Writerbuckeye

Posts: 4,745

Sep 18, 2011 12:39pm

Congress needs to override this contract via whatever legal means are available, and force the Postal Service to downsize according to its budget. If the union wants to keep more employees on the payroll, they'd be wise to begin negotiating pay cuts for its top earners, and a pay freeze elsewhere. I know this won't happen, because a postal worker I know just got a 47 cents per hour "cost of living" increase.

G

gut

Posts: 15,058

Sep 18, 2011 1:22pm

The "no layoff" rule could have been a concession for other things, like a lower raise (should have been a cut) or a reduction in benefits. I doubt either of those things happened.

I

I Wear Pants

Posts: 16,223

Sep 18, 2011 1:58pm

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'd still attribute that to this shitty union rather than unions as a whole. Unions don't have to be as shitty 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

Posts: 4,745

Sep 18, 2011 9:21pm

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.

I'd love to know what isn't a shitty union. The ones you named plus SEIU and AFSCME are all pretty bad. Thuggery abounds, especially in the SEIU; AFSCME is only a bit behind.

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.

Hamler Bulldogs

Posts: 96

Sep 25, 2011 10:53am

I say do away with all unions.

believer

Posts: 8,153

Sep 25, 2011 11:27am

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.

You just defined socialism.

BGFalcons82

Posts: 2,173

Sep 26, 2011 11:05am

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!!

LJ

Posts: 16,351

Sep 26, 2011 11:21am

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!!

$10,750 per worker per year. Or $206 per week. Less than they would get on unemployment.