Unions

[Canyon]

I've often wondered how this country tolerates Union extortion of its forced membership. In most states you have no right to refuse membership, (in some cases you are allowed to but have to pay a "fair share fee" which is only microscopically smaller than the dues. The vary nature of this is antagonistic to the values of most hard working Americans. Yet, having studied the industrial revolution i wonder if we want to do without unions.

I think it would be better if union members got to choose thier own dues. Union money should be paid to an outside organization, then the amount selected by the members should be given to the union, the rest returned to the member. this would essencially put the unions in the market places where they would have to earn the money.

All union leadlers, down to the lowest steward, should have their finances (all of them, reguardless of source) transparent to the membership, media, and public. As no one assumes these roles involuntarily, this should be simply a price to pay for leadership. That way the members could see the $50,000.00 month incomes of some of these leaders (California prison guard union president estimated earnings, not possible to confirm, as it is hidden in so many sources, so its probably only close, but certainly far more than the rank and file earn) while their own paychecks are hurt by the economy.

Union money to political candidates should be selected by each member contributing. You select the candidates you contribute to. I think most of this money would still go to the Democrats, but the hold of the extreme left on that party would be broken and the "blue dogs" could really be blue dogs, not "lap dogs." It would also put the Republican party in competition for this money, making them listen to the membership more.

Union money itself (not the individual contributions selected above, but the leaders contributions from general funds) should be no more than the cntribution of one single private citizen, and they should not be allowed to buy adds, unless with voluntary contrubutions, unless they buy add time for all candidates.

Public Employee's unoins should not be allowed to contribute to political candidates and elected officials, unless there contrats are ratified by a vote of the people. This would eliminate the control of both sides of a negotiating table. A few thousand dollars can buy millioins of dollars in contracts taxpayers cannot afford, but no union can afford to buy the votes of all the voters, especially in a large state.

There is nothing more American than orginizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Rifle Association, where individuals, and organizations contribute money voluntarily to caused they support, and nothing less American than stealing money from others (by vote, if not force, as union corruption has ran rampant in America since they were founded). McCain had it wrong. Organizations like the NRA and ACLU should be unlimited, as no one is forced into them, and if you do not like them you do not contrubute. If you do not like corporations contributing to these organizations, do not buy the products of that corporation. When Mr. Moneybags loses money he finds out why and reacts. If enough people do not buy from a car company which contributs to the ACLU (example) or a firearms company who contributes to the NRA (example to be fair) these companies react. If the market place does not support your own actions you are probable the one out of step with America.

This is a Center/Right country, and those people should have more say in politics than the extremists of either side. The national media insures that not to many truely far right politicians can be elected, but there is no such balance on the left. Just think of the extreme campaign against Sarah Palin, while commenting on Obama's pretty eyes (not to mention the cute giggles of the interviewers). We have never had a better example of bias in our history.

[denuseri]

I've often wondered how this country tolerates Union extortion of its forced membership. In most states you have no right to refuse membership, (in some cases you are allowed to but have to pay a "fair share fee" which is only microscopically smaller than the dues. The vary nature of this is antagonistic to the values of most hard working Americans. Yet, having studied the industrial revolution i wonder if we want to do without unions.

In a word...no.

Who else is going to stand up to the greedy eliteists and corperate bastards who cuased the need for unions to begin with then, if not the workers themselves organizing?

The government has repeatabley shown itself to be in the pockets of the rich.

I think it would be better if union members got to choose thier own dues. Union money should be paid to an outside organization, then the amount selected by the members should be given to the union, the rest returned to the member. this would essencially put the unions in the market places where they would have to earn the money.

Wow I think workers should get to choose their own wages in similar fashion instead and then we can strip the real assholes of their ill gotten "profit".

All union leadlers, down to the lowest steward, should have their finances (all of them, reguardless of source) transparent to the membership, media, and public. As no one assumes these roles involuntarily, this should be simply a price to pay for leadership. That way the members could see the $50,000.00 month incomes of some of these leaders (California prison guard union president estimated earnings, not possible to confirm, as it is hidden in so many sources, so its probably only close, but certainly far more than the rank and file earn) while their own paychecks are hurt by the economy.

I think such transparency should first be brought from the top down. Starting with the corperate lap dog government. Complete utter transparency.

Union money to political candidates should be selected by each member contributing. You select the candidates you contribute to. I think most of this money would still go to the Democrats, but the hold of the extreme left on that party would be broken and the "blue dogs" could really be blue dogs, not "lap dogs." It would also put the Republican party in competition for this money, making them listen to the membership more.

Union money itself (not the individual contributions selected above, but the leaders contributions from general funds) should be no more than the cntribution of one single private citizen, and they should not be allowed to buy adds, unless with voluntary contrubutions, unless they buy add time for all candidates.

The same rules should then apply to corperations...to bad the corperate lap dogs in the surpreme court disagree (I wonder why $$$) and made it where corperations could anomonyously donate as much as they pleased.

Public Employee's unoins should not be allowed to contribute to political candidates and elected officials, unless there contrats are ratified by a vote of the people. This would eliminate the control of both sides of a negotiating table. A few thousand dollars can buy millioins of dollars in contracts taxpayers cannot afford, but no union can afford to buy the votes of all the voters, especially in a large state.

Again...I believe all this regulation your talking about should first be applied to the corperations.

There is nothing more American than orginizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Rifle Association, where individuals, and organizations contribute money voluntarily to caused they support, and nothing less American than stealing money from others (by vote, if not force, as union corruption has ran rampant in America since they were founded). McCain had it wrong. Organizations like the NRA and ACLU should be unlimited, as no one is forced into them, and if you do not like them you do not contrubute. If you do not like corporations contributing to these organizations, do not buy the products of that corporation. When Mr. Moneybags loses money he finds out why and reacts. If enough people do not buy from a car company which contributs to the ACLU (example) or a firearms company who contributes to the NRA (example to be fair) these companies react. If the market place does not support your own actions you are probable the one out of step with America.

This is a Center/Right country, and those people should have more say in politics than the extremists of either side. The national media insures that not to many truely far right politicians can be elected, but there is no such balance on the left. Just think of the extreme campaign against Sarah Palin, while commenting on Obama's pretty eyes (not to mention the cute giggles of the interviewers). We have never had a better example of bias in our history.

Just tune into fox news and you can get all the bias you want. Sarah Palin wouldn't get cooked so bad if she didnt open her mouth so often and show people directly just how dumb she really is.

[steelish]

Huh?

Back to Unions:
Unions are ruining America. Period.

Case in point - As a postal worker I cannot help a fellow worker out, even if I am finished with my own work and he/she is floundering and falling behind. (Union Rules). As a postal worker IF I do help out the floundering co-worker that same co-worker (and all other co-workers trained for that position) can file a grievance, thereby earning DOUBLE TIME for every moment I spent helping him/her catch up in their work. Postal workers cannot cross train.

The Union, in it's infinite wisdom, has made it so that the USPS has to spend an exorbitant amount of money just to maintain the flow of mail.

There are highly paid people on the payroll who simply drive from office to office, staying long enough to power up a laptop and enter a miniscule amount of information regarding what any one specific employee they were sent to report on is doing at that given moment.

Letters and flat envelopes run through machinery which counts and sorts it, yet people are paid to "take count" of mail at each office.

The Union decided it is unfair to have a pay based upon job position. Instead, the rate you get paid depends upon the volume of mail you handle. If you are a Distribution Clerk (which is typically a 50,000/year job), you are paid based upon the volume of mail through that specific post office. Know what a distribution clerk does? Matches numbers. That's it. 50k/year to match numbers. If you are a carrier...your pay is determined the same way. You might think that sounds great, but it hinders the amount of workers any given post office can have. Just because a post office has a higher volume of mail doesn't necessarily mean they have more workers. It just means that those workers get stressed more.

Know what else is crazy? If a clerk, for example, gets voted into a position as a Union Steward or Union Rep., his/her clerk job is saved (not replaced by a new worker) so that IF they ever decide to come back to clerk work, their job awaits them. The office I work in has FIVE clerks on the payroll who are not physically working there. One has been gone for over 10 years, yet the office cannot fill that position. In the meantime, the skeleton crew that works there stresses daily over the amount of work that needs to be done.

Yes, I think the Unions have outlived their usefulness.

[denuseri]

So what...we go back to having the greedy assholes that created the need for unions in the first place by being evil fucktards come back in with a free hand and totally crush the workers again and treat us all like peasents?

The thing that made unions a nessecity is still there.

Fix them first and then there will be no need for the unions.

[IAN 2411]

So what...we go back to having the greedy assholes that created the need for unions in the first place by being evil fucktards come back in with a free hand and totally crush the workers again and treat us all like peasents?

The thing that made unions a nessecity is still there.

Fix them first and then there will be no need for the unions.

It might be there in the States, but in the UK it is here but nowhere near as powerful. Margret Thatcher pulled them to their knees and pressed ahead with new legislation, it has not been changed by the Labour party, and it is the Unions that is still the banker for them....so that says a lot for the Unions.

The last three strikes that have been in the UK have been passed on block voting that is outlawed and 6%, so that means the 44% that voted against it were shit on. Give me a break denuseri, when I was a driver on the haulage I had to become a member of a Union just to get on the Docs in the UK, and you call that democratic...its membership by stealth. The Unions are still being paid large sums of money by the people that are striking that are getting damn all for weeks on end, and the irony is that while they are on strike they still have to pay their dues.

All the time that the USA has presidents are always looking for self preservation and senators with no balls. Added to the sleaze factor that every country has, and your Unions are not a lot better than racketeers. Thank God the UK got it all sorted out and the Unions brought down to a manageable size. They still have a hell of a lot of power but they have to be within the law and abide by Government guidelines.

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[denuseri]

Which the government, a good government anyway..like any dominat partner, should do. There needs to be a balance between the unions and the companies and the government should step in to regulate at times that balance. Coruption is always something that should be purged imho. All three of the above Corperation, Government and Union are rife with it. Arguments based upon the Union needing to fix itself dont hold merit unless they also address the coruption of the others if one if promoting one group regulating the other. What can Workers do to correct the coruption within the upper ranks of their bretheran? Within their own house? Outside regulation can be viewed as one corupt faction trying exert control over another.

And just to clairify...I am not speaking of Unions from any paticular perspective of nationality, but in general, with a focus on the overall picture of what they represent.

[Stealth694]

Here is a symbol on how powerful Unions are: In Wisconsin the New Govenor decided that all Negotiations with Unions would be stopped and he was going to cut budget costs by cutting Salaries of Union employee's. Today on local news the State Capitol was mobbed (peacefully) by Union botherhoods, state workers, policemen, firemen, students (both College and High School) protesting this move. In the state assembly room people were allowed to talk for 2 minutes to the committe that was going to pass/fail the bill. There were over several hundred people who were going to protest this bill. The commitee was very nervous ( they too are elected). I think Gov Walker is going to face either a recall or impeachment via union memberships.

[denuseri]

Good its about time someone other than a greedy corperation decided who was going to be in charge for a change.

[Sauurman]

Public Unions are bad. Private Unions are OK since there are two sides of the bargaining table. Public unions elect the people negotiating their pay! Conflict of interest!

[Stealth694]

Well it looks like Walker is going to get that budget through the senate, Here is an opinion I sent to the wisconsin state journal tell me what you think..


While Scott Walker and the state GOP are doing a Happy Dance because they got the Budget through, what about the consequences of this act? The layoff of teachers has begun, what will Scott Walkers answer be to parents asking why their kids are in 40 person classes? What will his answer to University of Wisconsin students be when they ask why tuition has jumped over 10%? What will Scott Walker do when students decide college is too expensive for the return? How many senior state employee’s will decide to take early retirement to make sure they get their pensions? Who will replace them? While he has removed negotiating with unions Scott Walker will have to deal with unions, how can he deal with someone who considers him a cheat, a liar, a hypocrite and a thief? What about the Democrats? Will they work with Walker? Finally what about the people who voted Walker into office? Can they trust him to support them or some special interest groups? These are just a few of the issues Scott Walker and the state GOP will have to deal with not to mention the potential for a Recall Election. Scott Walker won one battle, but has destroyed his entire term as Governor. Let the consequences begin.

[DuncanONeil]

Probably from past experiences, including getting a union in the shop, but I think unions suck!

[Snark]

How many jobs (other than non productive management) have unions produced? Are unions any less corrupt than either government or "greedy corperations"? Such organizations as the Teamsters, Auto Workers and SEIU are all just as pure as the driven snow, right? And the IRS, the TSA and the ATF are just humble public servants patiently waiting to respectfully help us in our lives? The most feared words I can think of are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Some corporations have ruthless people in them. Just like unions and government agencies. Unfortunately in all such groups some shit will float to the top. And all of it stinks. The founder of the ACLU was a communist whose sole goal was to convert the US into a communist state, not to help the downtrodden. (Communists LOVE the downtrodden. That's why they created so many of them!) Any company that treats their employees so badly that a union is necessary should be driven from the market BY THE MARKET! Many (if not most) of the worst cases of corporate employee abuse were enabled by government regulation that restricted competition in the first place. The problem with unrestrained capitalism is that it leads to fewer capitalists - the smart ones will use the power of government to establish either monopolies or restrict the entry into the market to protect those who are already there. With limited competition the remainders can plunder both the market and the source of whatever specific talent that can't go elsewhere. Profits aren't spoils of illegal gain. They are the rewards of hard, smart work. Profits are responsible for the gains in the retirement accounts of the unions that invest in those companies that are profitable (other than the money stolen by the union leadership for their own use.) Profits pay for the investment in new research and manufacturing capacity. Profits pay for the medical, education and other benefits that all employees, union and non-union alike, enjoy. There are industries that are able to enjoy high profits without producing anything of true worth. Credit Default Swaps, for example, were a contrived leverage of debt. But they wouldn't have been possible without the government encouraging (and requiring) the issuing of of loans to people who had no ability nor inclination to repay them. Government is a necessary evil. That's the conundrum. It is both necessary and without the limits of law, will become evil. Companies that make no profit are like employees who work for free. Both will stop what they are doing and find other activities to do. But government is the exercise of raw power. It will only stop when forced to.

[IAN 2411]

And the IRS, the TSA and the ATF are just humble public servants patiently waiting to respectfully help us in our lives? The most feared words I can think of are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Snark.... with all due respect to America, you always come over as an untrusting nation. In some ways that is not a bad thing but it is also a thorn in your side because mistrust breeds more mistrust so on so forth.

I had a business that I closed in 2006, and my books for the final year were at my accountants. The UK Inland Revenue wanted my books yesterday, my accountant was ill and I collected the books from six years back. I walked into the tax office with all my books including the final year that had not been calculated. I gave my name and address and handed them the books saying “You want them so damn fast ...then you sort them out,” I then walked out of the office. Three weeks later I had a letter from the through the post, I had been over taxed for six years and there was a cheque for over £8000. I have heard many cases like this since so it is not an isolated case.

The only people that have need to fear Government Institutions in the UK are those that break the law. I don’t know how it is in America but here in the UK all Government Offices are accountable to the people.

Back to unions, I worked for a firm in the UK and a ballet was going to be held for strike action, it was for the most trivial of things. The ballet papers were loaded and as far as I could see there was not a hope in hell of avoiding a strike....this was 1966. I walked out of the factory and down the street without signing the ballot paper, walked into an Army Recruitment shop and took the Queens shilling. That was showing my respect for bent unions.

No company will start big production factories in the Northeast UK, Tyneside, Liverpool and Manchester. The reason being is that the unions killed the work for the workers, and the workers brought it on themselves through blind loyalty to the greedy unions.

I rest my case.

Be well IAN 2411

[Snark]

Ian2411:

The problem with government is people. And not just in the US. Power is the biggest addiction there is. Government IS power. There is a built-in distrust of government power in this country. Something to so with an altercation that started in the 1770's. I don't want to re-hash an old thread, nor do I cast stones at anyone. But those times instilled in us (at least those of us who study history, the constitution and freedom. The history of William Wallace is also enlightening) a great fear and respect of governmental power. Those of us who live in the Southern states (as I do) still live with the impacts of the iron fist of the Federal government. One can look in this country to see the effects that the unions have produced. I present Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo...there are many formerly great cities that are now ravaged by urban decay because the unions destroyed the very livelihood that they had enjoyed. The idea that the corporation is "evil" because they use profits to create jobs and reward those who took the risk (and who typically work far longer hours than the employees) is typical of this mentality. I do not trust large government. The entire basis of this nation's constitution is that the Federal government should have greatly limited powers. That concept began eroding in the early 1900's. Today it is crumbling like a sand castle at high tide.

[denuseri]

Add to that all the mistrust fostered by the south through ignorant racsim against the many people of color who were for over a century after the war which freed them oppressed sometimes in a state of complete peonage, and the mistrust created when the big monopolys and business of the those like found in the Tweed ring showed their true colors in keeping the workers of many industries underpaid and ill treated and you have a well proven track record of a real reason to mistrust people in power.

If you loook at the history of labor in general in several countries, you see a imilar trackrecord where the unions and peoples workers groups however corrupt they may have became over time was only a natural and quite nessesary responce to tyranical and oppressive regimes of unfairly privelaged capitalists and monarchies.

Like Snark said...this kind of thing was no secret to students of history in every era.

Including the history of corperations themselves, which at one time, were temporary arrangments between individuals for the express purposes of building a public water works, or a park or transportation system evolving rapidly over time into facelss, unacountable, oppressvie mutil national monstrosities who can directly control entire governments and are now moving to get rid of the only remaining opposition to their outright rule (the unions).

People of money and power have always been getting one over on the hard working backs of their fellow man ever since recorded history, perhaps even before that if you study anthroplogy you can see a tendency in primates to do the same thing.

Just look at GE...they say they go outside our country becuase taxes are too high here for them, yet when the facts come out its shown that not only did they pay no tax what so ever...they recieved taxpayer money as an incentive 3 some billion dollars above and beyound their profit margin which was allready counted in the double digets in billions of dollars.

Then turn around and raise the price of our power bills claiming they have to to cover costs due to taxes...smh.

Heck they even bought our own Surpreme Court off to increase their own rights at the expence of indivual citizens...if your american and you thought your vote had little meaning before, guess what..now corperations can spend as much money as they wish with ZERO transparency and full anominity on any canidate they wish at any time. What do you think thats going to result in huh?

Oh thats right, we have seen what it rsulted in, people like Scott Walker being elected and now striking directy at the unions in an attempt to start the ball rolling for their complete destruction.

Riddle me who is more corupt and needs to be refomed
now Batman.

[Snark]

GE? General Electric is a manufacturing company. They are not an electric utility. They have no authority over electric rates. The state utility boards set electric rates, not electric utilities. Yes, companies use the power of government to restrict competition and lobbyists to influence government to give them favorable taxing conditions. Unions want to force people to join unions without the right of private voting. So, you want to refuse to sign a union check off card with a union goon (or three) standing over you? Oh, they know where your spouse and family live, too. By the way, unions got government to pass legislation describing "union activities" as outside the laws of assault, mayhem and even murder. That's why in the 30's dynamite was the instrument of choice for union "organizing" (just like community organizing, but on a narrower scale.) The most flagrant racism continuing in this country is in the North, not the South. Yes, there was a racial inequality in the south. But just as much occurred in the north. But that was too close to home for many "progressives". So they ignored it. Where was the Tweed ring? Oh, yes. Boss Tweed was a Democrat New York City politician. BUT he was NOT a businessman. He was elected to several boards of directors...but was not in management. He was granted a license to practice law...but didn't go to law school. He bought a printing company in order to fulfill government printing contracts, not to run a competitive business. He was the model of corruption in government, a staunch Democrat, a ruthless example of unrestrained politics. So why shouldn't we trust government?

[denuseri]

Oh I agree we shouldnt trust the government especially since it basically works directly for the corperate intrest over that of the voting massess, since its the corperations who really put them in power. The Surpreme Court proved that quite blatently.

The only reason I brought up the racsim of the south was to point out how you had just quite unfairly tried to place the blame for the civil war soley on the shoulders of the north by implication.

Just as your trying to infairly place the blame for economic decay on the backs of the unions.

Speaking of which, the massess often had to resort to violence to get their points accross to their opressors who would often show up at picket lines with out of town hired thugs to beat the workers into submission.

Like I said earlier, all three factions in this have their problems, but if it were not for the workers being allowed to organize themselves we the people would have had no defence against our corperate plantation masters to begin with.

Not that it matters...they wont be around all that much longer, the government overseer corperate lackies will soon get rid of any protection the working class ever had...it has allready begun increasing its grip by going after the teachers, police and firemen, while letting the rich, get even richer....

...and the poor will become even poorer...until eventually the tree of liberty will once again need to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[IAN 2411]

Look I might be putting myself over as Anti Union, but that is not the case. I think that there is a need for certain Unions more so than ever before as certain parts of the work force are getting shafted at the expense of white collar workers. An example; nurses in the UK in all hospitals are outnumbered by white collar workers that earn twice as much money than they, and for very little work. I personally am with the nurses union every time they vote for action on wages, I never saw any white collar worker looking after my Mistress/Wife while she was in hospital.

We have Unions tied down in the UK like I told you in an earlier post, but they still wield the same power as they had 60 years ago. The only difference is that they have laws to make sure that things are done correct, and the votes now are on fair and no block votes. Each individual has a vote and must vote and their membership is not so strict. During the British Airways strikes most of the people that voted against the strikes still worked during the strikes. Years ago they would have been black listed and thrown out of thier jobs, because all Union jobs were in closed shops, and thank god that is a thing of the past. Now it is a slap on the hand and being told, “Don’t do it again,” because the Unions cannot afford to lose the money in membership.

Yes big Companies make Governments and Unions topple them, and it’s the same the whole world over. Does that mean that the Government is corrupt, I think not? Does this mean that big business runs the Government, once again I think not and the reason is that man is greedy and politicians are only loyal to themselves? They might get one or two that they can sway but that is not a house full, and all political parties need the funds of big business to survive.

Unions in the UK in the 60s controlled the Labour Government because they were so strong and financed them. Those days are gone and although the Unions still finance the Labour Party, they now have to beg for bones just like the big company dogs.

The leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour Party [RED Ed Miliband] is a Union man. He stabbed his brother in the back [who I might add is a lot better politician] to get that job, on the back of Union money, so what is he like?

This marriage between Big Companies, the Union and Government will never end, because they all need each other to survive.

Be well IAN 2411

[Snark]

Actually, I was not referring to the War of Northern Aggression (or do they teach that it started when a non-existent Southern Army invaded the north now?) I was referring to the occupation of reconstruction. You have to live your life down here to understand the effects. All the history books (history is written by the winners, by the way) that try to describe it from an outside perspective are a joke. Not all economic decay is the fault of the unions. Just that of the auto, steel, several airlines... Our government is the result of elections. Not the Supreme Court. Corporations do not vote. People do. Unions also spend millions of dollars to influence voters. They get it from the mandatory dues the members are forced to pay. The union bosses spend it on whichever candidate they think will help them to increase their own power. The membership has no input on where the money they earned is spent. In many cases the union bosses spend money on themselves rather than funding the benefits that they are supposed to provide...then get the government (in collusion) to force the very industries that the unions are strangling to fund it again. Corporations do not pay taxes. Their customers do. Taxes are an expense, like utilities, insurance, raw materials or labor. When expenses go up, prices go up. If the prices are too high then the customers stop buying. Or they buy from a company that can produce it for less. Which these days means a company (or at least the manufacturing facility) located in China. Or Vietnam or some other place that actually encourages business to manufacture there. When the cost of labor, taxes, utilities and the like get too high they either leave the country or leave the business. That means the jobs that all employees enjoy - union and non-union alike- go away. When companies are left to the rigors of the marketplace, are not protected by government from competition nor protected from their own irresponsibility (too big to fail? Only when protected by government!) , when unions and companies both are held responsible for their actions against citizens, the market forces can actually work. Complaining about "greedy corporations" without accepting the fact that unions are every bit as greedy, every bit as ruthless and every bit as willing (if not more so) to destroy anything in their way of power is to display either a remarkable ignorance or naivety. Just ask Jimmy Hoffa. If you can find him.

[denuseri]

Like I said earlier before someone started trying to re-write the history of the Civil War (which btw the South did indeed start and start predominately over the issue of slavery) and I will gladly talk about until all parties are blue in the face in a seperate thread at your liesure:


There needs to be a balance between the unions and the companies and the government

Coruption is always something that should be purged imho.

All three of the above Corperation, Government and Union are rife with it.

Arguments based upon the Union needing to fix itself dont hold merit unless they also address the coruption of the others

[IAN 2411]

Is this a muti national debate about Unions, or an American Civil war, between the North and South? "Again"....I loved those films of battles between the Blues and Greys, Allan Ladd, Burt Lancaster, Audy Murphy, Snark, denuseri....whoops!!!!

Be well IAN 2411

[denuseri]

lol sorry about that ya all...I made a whole new thread where we can discuss anything we want to about the civil war and perhaps stay focused on this threads topic in here.

[DuncanONeil]

"I had been over taxed for six years and there was a cheque for over £8000. I have heard many cases like this since so it is not an isolated case.

The only people that have need to fear Government Institutions in the UK are those that break the law. I don’t know how it is in America but here in the UK all Government Offices are accountable to the people. "

Prior owner of my house had a day care operation in the house. We thought nothing of that until after 7 years we found our assessment for the new alley was higher than everyone else. When we questioned it we found out that it was because the taxes were raised because of the day care. The only concession from the taxing body was sorry & they lowered our taxes to what they should be but they kept all the extra money they were not entitled to!

[DuncanONeil]

"I was referring to the occupation of reconstruction."

Reconstruction was a success! As long as the Republicans were involved. The Democrats were the ones that worked to destroy reconstruction. The successes of the former slave went to heck in a handbasket when the Republicans got worn out fighting the Democrats.

[Snark]

I have to agree that the Democrat's handling of the time of Southern occupation was a disaster, but in any case I can hardly agree that reconstruction was a success. We still see lingering effects. It takes a long time to overcome that kind of damage.

[DuncanONeil]

"Oh thats right, we have seen what it rsulted in, people like Scott Walker being elected and now striking directy at the unions in an attempt to start the ball rolling for their complete destruction."

Where do you get the idea that Walker is corrupt?
The man ran one of the biggest counties for 8 years and did not raise taxes, nor take the positions full salary. He is a man of his word!

[DuncanONeil]

I have to agree that the Democrat's handling of the time of Southern occupation was a disaster, but in any case I can hardly agree that reconstruction was a success. We still see lingering effects. It takes a long time to overcome that kind of damage.

Except the damage was wrought by the Democrats in order to avoid having to deal with all the new citizens. Who had made significant inroads into the halls of government during "reconstruction".

[nassim]

Testify! Worked in a number of union shops for the better part of a decade. Unions are the REAL enemy of the working man!

[DuncanONeil]

But that damage was damage inflicted by the Democrats!

[IAN 2411]

Testify! Worked in a number of union shops for the better part of a decade. Unions are the REAL enemy of the working man!

That is a very wide statement and very untrue. In the UK without the unions help today the British nurses would be walked over by big money men in Hospital trusts. Their wages are on a comparison basis to garbage collectors very low. Their wages are kept low because of the employment of cheaper care workers that quite honestly apart from a few, they are bloody useless and in some cases incompetent and unfit for the job. I spent 12 years in one Hospital watching my wife slowly die, and over the years the fully trained nurse was decreasing until three years ago when she died. Then there were maybe three real nurses to a ward and about 8 care workers. The nurses union will always get my vote of approval, and I believe that some, not all unions are needed as much today as they were in the 1950s. All the time the government in the UK sell off government held stocks to the greedy under the name of privatisation, then there will always be needed someone to bring the new owners to account. The reason these stocks are sold is not to make the government rich over night but to make them richer over time as it is one less wage to worry about.

Be well IAN 2411

[Snark]

In the US we have an independent oversight body called the Joint Commission that sets standards for medical facilities and inspects facilities for compliance. They can be extremely hard nosed when it comes to complying with their standards of care, sanitation and performance. Unions aren't the answer for this. Over here union garbage workers can make 6 figures. So the comparison seems backwards! I, too have seen overworked nurses, but usually due to a shortage of trained talent. If some people in this country think that the answer to better health care is to turn it all over to the government, they're going to be in for a shock when it does come about.

[denuseri]

Yes a shortage driven by the hospital administration and its corperate intrests itself by reducing the number of nurses to the bare mininum required by law on the floor at any given time. Work on a hospital floor anywhere where big money is involved and you will see when the ratio falls bellow the standard the Rn's are floated to another floor or sent home so as to avoid having to pay them.

This is the old 8 patients to one nurse ratio which was determined by the insurance companies working in collussion with corperate intrests as the best way to make sure the staff is constantly running its ass off with an "aceptable" number of mishapes it produces to be solved through minimal pay out to the agrieved patients families under the table if possible when litigation occurs is considered to be "profitable".

Of course the thin white legal hospital administrative line composed of a mixture of lawers and other specialists makes for pursuit of redress to be allmost as hard to discover in the first place let alone pursue as a lawsuit against a cop or judge.

In states where the Union was able to scrap together enough backing the ratio was finally set to 4 patients per nurse, so we could maby do some actual patient care while at work instead of running from patient to patient pushing meds and charting all day ...

( a day thats supposed to only be composed of 12 hours per shift and never back to back, which allmost allways ends up being closer to 15, and only supposed to consist of no more than 3 consecutive 12 hr shifts in a row, and never a double, which ussually turns out to be at least 4 shifts with at least one of them being a double)

... in a dangerous rush to keep up, but its hardely strictly enforced by any of the government authorities since they never get to observe the actual ratios since the hospitals are allways warned of their arivals and allowed to touch up things before they get there and they are placed in office by the very people who dont want them to strictly enforce anything.

Allowing greedy bastards who dont give a hoot about actual patient care so much as their profit margins to run things is hardely the answer there.

Unfortuntately that is the "American" Health Care System in a nut shell.

[IAN 2411]

Unions aren't the answer for this. Over here union garbage workers can make 6 figures. So the comparison seems backwards!
If it was not for the union there would be no nurses over here in the UK....before a hospital would employ a nurse on contract they would rather have agency nurses that know damn all about the patient and are paid three times as much.
Now let me think, I am in hospital getting half my guts cut out, who do I need a Garbage collector on six figures or a nurse on four figures to look after me and change the dressing? Yes Snark that was the comparison. You don’t need four years of training to stand on the back of a dust cart. You don’t have to live on next to no money while you are being trained as a garbage collector. I would also like to point out that there is no shortage of nurses in the UK it is just that the hospitals will not employ them. For every three nurses employed there is one made redundant.


Yes a shortage driven by the hospital administration and its corperate intrests itself by reducing the number of nurses to the bare mininum required by law on the floor at any given time. Work on a hospital floor anywhere where big money is involved and you will see when the ratio falls bellow the standard the Rn's are floated to another floor or sent home so as to avoid having to pay them.

This is the old 8 patients to one nurse ratio which was determined by the insurance companies working in collussion with corperate intrests as the best way to make sure the staff is constantly running its ass off with an "aceptable" number of mishapes it produces to be solved through minimal pay out to the agrieved patients families under the table if possible when litigation occurs is considered to be "profitable".


( a day thats supposed to only be composed of 12 hours per shift and never back to back, which allmost allways ends up being closer to 15, and only supposed to consist of no more than 3 consecutive 12 hr shifts in a row, and never a double, which ussually turns out to be at least 4 shifts with at least one of them being a double)

... in a dangerous rush to keep up, but its hardely strictly enforced by any of the government authorities since they never get to observe the actual ratios since the hospitals are allways warned of their arivals and allowed to touch up things before they get there and they are placed in office by the very people who dont want them to strictly enforce anything.

[B]Allowing greedy bastards who dont give a hoot about actual patient care so much as their profit margins to run things is hardely the answer there.

No different from the UK and I am with you all the way denu.

Be well IAN 2411