Post a commentPaul, maybe you haven't heard the news, but we've been using drones in Afghanistan for a few years now.
It would be a great world....workers would work....they would do there jobs and be happy to have them......and the free loaders and the drones and those with the "I exist and I am entittled" attttude would go away........and a whole generation of bullies (called union management) would go straight to hell......
These union morons will never get it. The unions benefit only union members and their hierarchy. They do absolutely no favors for those whom pay their freight, the taxpayers.
nuggett for Mayor...
Unions suck...all those who think unions are ruining our nation...rise up and contact your officials...no EFCA...
Only self-employed workers have no worries about the whims of management. The letter writer is correct. Without a contract for working conditions and wages, businesses will do whatever they can to avoid paying their workers, including not offering them benefits or regular wage increases. If not for the Fair Labor acts, the situation would be intolerable. There will be no such thing as loyalty between management and labor. It will always be a cut throat world. Taxpayers already subsidize big business in too many ways to list here.
Everyone deserves fair wages, benefits and a safe work place.
Imagine: $50K to drive a SEPTA bus or trolley which a trained monkey could do is more than fair.
We should send all the drones in Washington over there, they would probably kill them with idiocy and boredom.
$50K to drive a SEPTA bus or trolley is insanity and at its root it has ruined the standards and proportionality we enjoyed, as a once prosperous nation.
Paul, perhaps some union members will read your well thought out comments. Perhaps they will start to act responsibly. Well, it's a nice thought, anyway.
Letter writer Karpinski assumes that without unions, we'd all be part-workers because it's cheaper for employers. This is a specious argument espoused by dependent-riddled liberals. How could SEPTA possibly operate its trains, buses, etal., with part-time workers? When the Pennsylvania legistlature cancelled Act 165 and empowered a commission to rule the school district in place of a school board, did teachers and non-professional employees lose jobs and benefits? The district used part-time employees for years. The PFT contract, which expired in August, is still in place, yet the union is only a figment of what it once was. Kids still have to be educated. The point is that most businesses outside the public realm are union free. Profit, market share and global competition are the compass which determine staffing and pay.
"When business says unions are bad, it's because they don't want you to join us in standing up for your rights." --- The people are the ones saying the unions are bad. The TWU is a shining example.
The Karpinski letter assumes that businesses would turn to part-time employees without unionization. This is a presumptuous and specious statement. How could the transit systems of any city operate buses and trains without hiring trained operators that gain experience because they're full-time employees? At some point, even part-time would ultimately become full-time. In the public sector, you may recall that the Philadelphia Fed of Teachers lost the Commonwealth of PA's right to strike under the old Act 165(??)legistlation that had been on the books until the early 1990's. Since then contracts have expired and been extended with no loss of pay or benefits. Currently, the union is again working without a new contract- with pay and benefits intact. Today, the PFT is only a figment of what it was prior to the State's change of heart; but the all powerful commission that replaced the school board recognizes that even though it could unilaterally punish the union, it wouldn't be in its best interests to do so. Why?? Because the NEEDS of the employer demand that proper staffing is otherwise unattainable. For the most part,private industry is no different. In today's strained economy, employers need qualified, full-time workers in order to produce competitive products. Does that insure against layoffs? No,it does not. Can service-related businesses get away with using more temps and part-timers? Probably so, but the latter is more a product of how our country's manufacturing/ industrial base has dramatically changed. As for Magistra's "...whims of management" comment, there are governmental agencies that protect "rights to work." Outside of replacing an employee with the boss's in-law and a lousy economy, why would management seek regressive action against a productive employee? The Japanese government, industries and employee groups base much of their productivity on COOPERATION and SHARED duties. Unfotunately, in the USA, it isn't as simple.
The Karpinski letter assumes that businesses would turn to part-time employees without unionization. This is a presumptuous and specious statement. How could the transit systems of any city operate buses and trains without hiring trained operators that gain experience because they're full-time employees? At some point, even part-time would ultimately become full-time. In the public sector, you may recall that the Philadelphia Fed of Teachers lost the Commonwealth of PA's right to strike under the old Act 165(??)legistlation that had been on the books until the early 1990's. Since then contracts have expired and been extended with no loss of pay or benefits. Currently, the union is again working without a new contract- with pay and benefits intact. Today, the PFT is only a figment of what it was prior to the State's change of heart; but the all powerful commission that replaced the school board recognizes that even though it could unilaterally punish the union, it wouldn't be in its best interests to do so. Why?? Because the NEEDS of the employer demand that proper staffing is otherwise unattainable. For the most part,private industry is no different. In today's strained economy, employers need qualified, full-time workers in order to produce competitive products. Does that insure against layoffs? No,it does not. Can service-related businesses get away with using more temps and part-timers? Probably so, but the latter is more a product of how our country's manufacturing/ industrial base has dramatically changed. As for Magistra's "...whims of management" comment, there are governmental agencies that protect "rights to work." Outside of replacing an employee with the boss's in-law and a lousy economy, why would management seek regressive action against a productive employee? The Japanese government, industries and employee groups base much of their productivity on COOPERATION and SHARED duties. Unfortunately,in the USA,it isn't as simple.
14 comments
