+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Discussions, Opinions & Debate (https://mockforums.net/forum-11.html)
+--- Thread: Funding public pensions (/thread-4972.html)
Funding public pensions - Maggot - 02-26-2011
J.F.K. started this mess by allowing government workers to be unionized. It was a great move as it all but guaranteed a large block of votes for the democratic party.
Now that this is basically etched in stone what is wrong with making the new government employees save for their own pensions and pay at least 50% of their medical. I understand that the ones that have it now have been promised this perk and I would not want it taken from them. but why not have the new ones pay their way. The private sector does their own AND theirs now. It is only right.
Liberals are so happy to hand over cash as long as it is not their cash. What a bunch of smucks. I say flat tax across the board. And get rid of the union chains.
RE: Funding public pensions - IMaDick - 02-26-2011
as soon as the government whittles its way back down to 1964 levels and the dollar has the value it had in 1964 then we can talk about pensions and medical, until then the bloated pig we call government needs to lose.
RE: Funding public pensions - Maggot - 02-26-2011
A great commentary by Ashton Ellis:
Prior to 1962, federal workers were not unionized. That changed with a JFK executive order. Many states soon followed suit.
Looking back, the change in policy continued the Democrats’ long association with unions, but for the first time there were substantial numbers of union members that worked in jobs uncoupled from business realities like profit and loss. Instead, their budgets were the product of taxing and spending.
The results, as we all know, have been catastrophic for government budget writers at all levels. Public sector unions claim members from the ranks of teachers, cops, fire fighters, DMV personnel, and a myriad of other support workers. As membership increases, so do demands for higher wages, bigger pensions, and greater emphasis on seniority rather than performance. Since governments themselves aren’t measured on the taxpayers’ return on investment, it’s been easy for Democrats to champion public employee unions, trading money for votes, and vice versa.
That may be coming to an end. Henninger notes that Republicans have a unique – and short – window to align themselves as the party of spending restraint by vowing to take on the public employee unions and their entitlements. It won’t be easy because taking on these groups can actually be worse than attacking another politician. Organized labor is the Democratic Party’s grassroots, so challenging them is a request to have millions raised in opposition while thousands of government employees work phone banks, neighborhoods, and break rooms lobbying for support. As California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger learned in 2005, all it takes to create a union’s war chest is a few dollars increase in each member’s dues.
But it’s worth it, especially in a campaign year when most of the people out of work are from the private sector. Because of the stimulus money, most state and local governments were able to “create or save” jobs. Of course, the federal government has been on a hiring spree to keep pace with President Obama’s rapid expansion of the public sector. If this is truly the year when fiscal conservatives taste victory in coastal bastions of liberalism, it will be because GOP nominees take the time to educate and persuade voters that public employee unions are some of the greatest threats to our economic recovery.
RE: Funding public pensions - aussiefriend - 02-26-2011
The reason that unions exist is to ensure the rights of workers. That they receive fair and equitable pay for a hard days work. Some of those people work very hard for their money, unions help protect their rights. You can't do away with unions, thats ridiculous.
Believe me, the higher up the food chain you go the less they work for their money.
RE: Funding public pensions - IMaDick - 02-26-2011
(02-26-2011, 07:32 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: The reason that unions exist is to ensure the rights of workers. That they receive fair and equitable pay for a hard days work. Some of those people work very hard for their money, unions help protect their rights. You can't do away with unions, thats ridiculous.
Believe me, the higher up the food chain you go the less they work for their money.
who protects me from the unions? especially unions in the public sector?
shut the fuck up newbie.
RE: Funding public pensions - Maggot - 02-26-2011
(02-26-2011, 07:32 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: The reason that unions exist is to ensure the rights of workers. That they receive fair and equitable pay for a hard days work. Some of those people work very hard for their money, unions help protect their rights. You can't do away with unions, thats ridiculous.
Believe me, the higher up the food chain you go the less they work for their money.
Yes I agree the higher up the union food chain the less they work. What is wrong with public sector employees paying at least 50% of their pensions and insurance? That is better than private sector workers still.
Unions today are not there for the workers, they are there for themselves do not be fooled. There are laws protecting workers today that do the same thing. Public funded workers going on strike is tantamount to extortion and they should be fired. Their paycheck is funded by our taxes. Think about it.
RE: Funding public pensions - IMaDick - 02-26-2011
Look at it this way shitbird, every tax payer is a stockholder in the company that these workers work for, let the fucking unions negotiate with us not the fucking government, that's pretty much the biggest conflict of interest I have ever seen, the public secotor workers negotiatiing with themselves seems kinda stupid doen't it? and in the end and as a result of the bullshit the stockholders have been silenced not only wrong but illegal as hell, this is what many people have gone to prison for, stealing from the stockholders of a company.
come and negotiate with the tax payers, I dare you.
RE: Funding public pensions - aussiefriend - 02-26-2011
(02-26-2011, 07:34 PM)IMaDick Wrote:The unions arent doing anything to you. They are essential in the public sector to negotiate better deals for their members.(02-26-2011, 07:32 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: The reason that unions exist is to ensure the rights of workers. That they receive fair and equitable pay for a hard days work. Some of those people work very hard for their money, unions help protect their rights. You can't do away with unions, thats ridiculous.
Believe me, the higher up the food chain you go the less they work for their money.
who protects me from the unions? especially unions in the public sector?
shut the fuck up newbie.
I am not a newbie and you shut the fuck up! bitch
RE: Funding public pensions - aussiefriend - 02-26-2011
(02-26-2011, 07:41 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Look at it this way shitbird, every tax payer is a stockholder in the company that these workers work for, let the fucking unions negotiate with us not the fucking government, that's pretty much the biggest conflict of interest I have ever seen, the public secotor workers negotiatiing with themselves seems kinda stupid doen't it? and in the end and as a result of the bullshit the stockholders have been silenced not only wrong but illegal as hell, this is what many people have gone to prison for, stealing from the stockholders of a company.
come and negotiate with the tax payers, I dare you.
Dear Shitforbrains, the nurses union in this country is strong and powerful and the government knows not to mess with some of those old dragons. If we didn't have it, we would be working under terrible conditions.
Maybe you would be better suited to working in India or China, why do you think they are sending all the jobs over there.
Like no offence, but your so stupid.
RE: Funding public pensions - aussiefriend - 02-26-2011
By the way here in Australia we have 6 weeks annual leave a year and double time on the weekends time and half for overtime. Better conditions than US. It is well known that you guys do not look after your workers.
Most people in management do not work hard. At university one lecturer said that research shows that "executive stress" was a myth. It dosent and never has existed.
You take unions away from the workers they will become the new working poor.
RE: Funding public pensions - Cracker - 02-26-2011
Government workers are already hard to fire, they have every protection built in to their contracts. No union needed.
State workers, OTH, are getting their asses handed to them. At least in my state...
RE: Funding public pensions - Cracker - 02-26-2011
(02-26-2011, 11:19 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: By the way here in Australia we have 6 weeks annual leave a year and double time on the weekends time and half for overtime. Better conditions than US. It is well known that you guys do not look after your workers.
Most people in management do not work hard. At university one lecturer said that research shows that "executive stress" was a myth. It dosent and never has existed.
You take unions away from the workers they will become the new working poor.
State and federal workers make decent money. The working poor work at McDonalds. Fast food workers need a union, not contract employees or already protected employees.
Australians see things upside down. You can't help it. Geography...
RE: Funding public pensions - IMaDick - 02-26-2011
(02-26-2011, 11:14 PM)aussiefriend Wrote:(02-26-2011, 07:34 PM)IMaDick Wrote:The unions arent doing anything to you. They are essential in the public sector to negotiate better deals for their members.(02-26-2011, 07:32 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: The reason that unions exist is to ensure the rights of workers. That they receive fair and equitable pay for a hard days work. Some of those people work very hard for their money, unions help protect their rights. You can't do away with unions, thats ridiculous.
Believe me, the higher up the food chain you go the less they work for their money.
who protects me from the unions? especially unions in the public sector?
shut the fuck up newbie.
I am not a newbie and you shut the fuck up! bitch
Unions cost me an arm and a leg. the reason the companies move is because they can't make a profit paying union workers.
you do what you want in Aussieland, and leave what we do here to the citizens of this country.
public sector unions are screwing me and every other tax payer in this country.
one of the worst unions are the ones in the medical field, fucking frankesteins I tell you.
RE: Funding public pensions - aussiefriend - 02-27-2011
(02-26-2011, 11:29 PM)IMaDick Wrote:(02-26-2011, 11:14 PM)aussiefriend Wrote:(02-26-2011, 07:34 PM)IMaDick Wrote:The unions arent doing anything to you. They are essential in the public sector to negotiate better deals for their members.(02-26-2011, 07:32 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: The reason that unions exist is to ensure the rights of workers. That they receive fair and equitable pay for a hard days work. Some of those people work very hard for their money, unions help protect their rights. You can't do away with unions, thats ridiculous.
Believe me, the higher up the food chain you go the less they work for their money.
who protects me from the unions? especially unions in the public sector?
shut the fuck up newbie.
I am not a newbie and you shut the fuck up! bitch
Unions cost me an arm and a leg. the reason the companies move is because they can't make a profit paying union workers.
you do what you want in Aussieland, and leave what we do here to the citizens of this country.
public sector unions are screwing me and every other tax payer in this country.
one of the worst unions are the ones in the medical field, fucking frankesteins I tell you.
its called job security and they work damn hard for it. if the worst or you mean most powerful are in the medical field its because they are important and contribute to saving peoples lives. they have spent years working to get there and they deserve a good deal.
you remind me of "Joe the Plumber" his name is not really Joe, he is not really a registered plumber, and he is backing the team that will give him the worst deal. It would be funny if it wasnt so sad and pathetic.
RE: Funding public pensions - BlueTiki - 02-27-2011
(02-26-2011, 11:16 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: Maybe you would be better suited to working in India or China, why do you think they are sending all the jobs over there.
Like no offence, but your so stupid.
"Why do you think they are sending all the jobs over there?"
Capitalism, maybe? Trade agreements? Lower material costs? A demand for cheaper goods by consumers?
Less stringent environmental laws and regulation? Lower taxes? An abundance of unskilled labor? Better bottom line for investors?
That's enough for now. Get the picture.
It's too simplistic declaring the reason is entirely anti-union motivation.
And note . . . these "job exporters" are mostly private or public corporations. Not governmental entities.
Why do you think these countries welcome these jobs?
"Like no offence, but your so stupid."
Might wanna recheck that one.
RE: Funding public pensions - aussiefriend - 02-27-2011
(02-27-2011, 05:05 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:If these people have been employed under certain conditions then they are entitled to keep them. I bet these government workers are hardly living the high life. You get a few perks in government jobs and thats part of what attracts people to want to work in the public sector.(02-26-2011, 11:16 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: Maybe you would be better suited to working in India or China, why do you think they are sending all the jobs over there.
Like no offence, but your so stupid.
"Why do you think they are sending all the jobs over there?"
Capitalism, maybe? Trade agreements? Lower material costs? A demand for cheaper goods by consumers?
Less stringent environmental laws and regulation? Lower taxes? An abundance of unskilled labor? Better bottom line for investors?
That's enough for now. Get the picture.
It's too simplistic declaring the reason is entirely anti-union motivation.
And note . . . these "job exporters" are mostly private or public corporations. Not governmental entities.
Why do you think these countries welcome these jobs?
"Like no offence, but your so stupid."
Might wanna recheck that one.
I don't think its right that these jobs are going overseas to cheap labour. And those jobs going overseas have a ripple effect on your whole community and government jobs. Isnt Michael Moore's hometown a ghost town now because of all the working class jobs shutting down. That would also effect infrastructure and the public sector jobs because of services need per population.
Thank you so much for picking me up on "your". I am writing quickly because I am busy too. The point of this is to express your opinion not spell check.
I love the way you guys are ganging up on me in a typical right wing way. Like a pack of bullies.
RE: Funding public pensions - aussiefriend - 02-27-2011
(02-27-2011, 05:05 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:(02-26-2011, 11:16 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: Maybe you would be better suited to working in India or China, why do you think they are sending all the jobs over there.
Like no offence, but your so stupid.
"Like no offence, but your so stupid."
Might wanna recheck that one.
I was responding to him insulting me. I am not used to being insulted like that. So it is not normal for me to address others in that manner. Why don't you mind your own business?
RE: Funding public pensions - Duchess - 02-27-2011
(02-26-2011, 07:34 PM)IMaDick Wrote: shut the fuck up newbie.
Shut the fuck up, crybaby bitch.
RE: Funding public pensions - IMaDick - 02-27-2011
(02-27-2011, 08:46 AM)Duchess Wrote:(02-26-2011, 07:34 PM)IMaDick Wrote: shut the fuck up newbie.
Shut the fuck up, crybaby bitch.
stop crying in all the threads Duchess, do you know how stupid it is for you to tell me I complain all the time while you complain all the time?
RE: Funding public pensions - Duchess - 02-27-2011
I'm mocking you, you dumbass girly man. I'm mocking your sissy, crybaby ways.