LJ;688242 wrote:Doctors have a hippocratic oath they have to obide by. It is very realistic to expect the same service.

O-Trap;688256 wrote:"Won't be able to" is taking skill alone into account. Effort is what's being evaluated. If someone is doing pro bono work, they ought to give as much EFFORT as if they were being paid. That was the point he was trying to make, I think.

wkfan;688260 wrote:While I happen to agree with you that the time for Unions has long passed....may of the benefits that you and I enjoy are as a result of them. Those laws regarding minimum wage, working conditions, etc are a direct result of what those workers fought for.

The simple reason that the time for unions have passed....is because they were here!

wkfan;688258 wrote:Pleast tell me how a point of history is 'not relevant anymore'.

Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 irrelevant? How about the Emancipation Proclimation? Are they irrelevant?

lhslep134;688261 wrote:I'm talking about that the very best doctors in the world are not working free clinics just like the best lawyers in the world aren't working pro bono. I'm saying that you can't expect high level service for free, but you can expect the same service level from the same professional working for money or free.

lhslep134;688263 wrote:Ah yes the effort point I agree upon. The same effort should be made.

My point is about the skill differential.

O-Trap;688275 wrote:Hardly the same. Keeping unions around because of what they put in place would be like keeping the Continental Congress around because they scripted the U. S. Declaration of Independence.

Their contribution is valuable, and we benefit from it, but their existence is no longer necessary.

wkfan;688283 wrote:please show me where I advocated keeping unions around?

wkfan;688283 wrote:Please show me where I advocated keeping unions around?

Con_Alma;688285 wrote:Why? No one stated that you did.

Con_Alma;688288 wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't read that anywhere.

O-Trap;688275 wrote:Hardly the same. Keeping unions around because of what they put in place would be like keeping the Continental Congress around because they scripted the U. S. Declaration of Independence.

Their contribution is valuable, and we benefit from it, but their existence is no longer necessary.

wkfan;688218 wrote:Well...I'm going to weigh in on this topic. Some thoughts that have been brewing for a couple of days and a new one this morning....

Apparently, our government places much more value on producing cars than it does educating the children of this country and protecting the citizens of this country......

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/companies/gm_bailout/index.htm

a 'Sweetheart' deal for GM that will allow them to make millions after we, the taxpayers, bailed them out with billions of our dollars.

This, coupled with what is going on around the country with the states union-busting of the police, firefighters, teachers and state employees....states trying to balance their budgets on the backs of public workers.

Interesting priorities.

I have an idea...instead of using public workers to balance budgets, why not share the burden? Effective immediately, I think that the states should pass a resolution that calls for a 10% cut in each and every contract that they have entered into for goods and services, employment, etc. Then, those companies whose contracts have been cut can pass those cuts on to their workers in the form of a 10% pay cut.

For instance, if the State of Ohio is contracted to pay $100,000 for new office furniture....the bill is now $90,000. When the State pays the office furniture company the $90,000...then the workers who built the office furniture have their salary cut by that 10% to make up for the lesser amount that the office furniture company was paid. Then, when the office furniture company payes their corporate income taxes, their revenues are down 10%, so their tax payment to the State and Federal Government is lessed...there by forcing cuts in things like entitlement programs by 10%.

That way, everyone plays in the 'let's balance the budget' game.

jmog;688302 wrote:You do realize that in nearly every private sector employee has already gone through layoffs and pay cuts like 10% or more right?

wkfan;688246 wrote:First, let me say that I have never been a union member or worked in an industry that had any sort of union representation......

However, if you think that many of the good things that you enjoy about your job...the 40 hour work week, paid sick time, vacation, partially paid for benefits...are not the result of collective bargaining that has happened in the past, you need to review your history lessons.

Those organized collective bargaining agreements forged early in this century have spilled over into our non-union workplace to make it a better place.

WebFire;688309 wrote:So that is reason to keep CBA/unions even if it may not be needed?

WebFire;688309 wrote:So that is reason to keep CBA/unions even if it may not be needed?

wkfan;688283 wrote:Please show me where I advocated keeping unions around?

wkfan;688260 wrote:While I happen to agree with you that the time for Unions has long passed....may of the benefits that you and I enjoy are as a result of them. Those laws regarding minimum wage, working conditions, etc are a direct result of what those workers fought for.

The simple reason that the time for unions have passed....is because they were here!

jmog;688302 wrote:You do realize that in nearly every private sector employee has already gone through layoffs and pay cuts like 10% or more right?

WebFire;688309 wrote:So that is reason to keep CBA/unions even if it may not be needed?

O-Trap;688307 wrote:10? I (and the rest of my department) went through an 18% pay cut less than three months into the job.

jmog;688314 wrote:I'm confused then, you say the time for unions have passed, but at the same time say you are for unions and against SB5?


I agree, like anyone, for decades unions were needed, but we are at a point in history when they are not anymore and unions now aren't making progress (as they did in the past), they are hindering it.