The State of the Unions
Posted by Ercille Christmas at 3/11/2011 4:06 PM 
Categories: Political
Tags: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker President Obama Middle East Michael Moore
Categories: Political
Tags: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker President Obama Middle East Michael Moore
Unions – cannot live with them, but cannot do without them? The events of the past few weeks, including in the Middle East, where apparently union affiliates from the US, traveled to "lend a hand," to Wisconsin, have placed unions in the spotlight, not always in a positive light. Prior to recent times, I already knew about the evolution of some unions from their idealistic roots to a sometimes sordid reputation. But I think that like most folks, I have always felt that unions are necessary to protect the rights of their members. My feelings have been shaken up – by the actions I have seen and read about – on the part of some members of some unions.
I am not claiming the brilliance or satirical wit of one of my favorite writers, Mark Steyn, but I found out that we appear to be on the same wavelength, including having an almost similar article title. The title of his article, States of the Unions made me wonder if I have finally begun channeling my inner Steyn. He sums up for me the dilemma in which countries, states and counties find themselves. "Big Unions fund Big Government," says it all, as far as I am concerned. "Big government" is not compatible with the usual state of our Union.
I do not take any joy in "coming out" against some of the current practices of some unions. I have never joined a union. When I first immigrated to the US, I had a job in a medical office as a clerk, having decided not to pursue the bilingual teaching job that I had originally thought I would perform. The union requirement of the teaching job scared me off. Four weeks into the medical office job, I was approached by a coworker who informed me that it was time to join the union. Nowhere in the conversation was there the word "choice." It was straightforward "time to join." Ironically, she must not have read "how to win friends and influence people." She did not even have to carry a big stick. I was properly intimidated. I was out of there in about a week, working temporary jobs until I could find another permanent job.
Maybe I was channeling my inner Patrick Henry in thinking "give me liberty, or give me death." He meant physical death. I mean psychical death. I was already becoming acquainted with the IRS and its duty to help itself to my paycheck before I saw said paycheck. I did not want another such "arrangement." I also did not want to be told that I was on strike, when I did not want to be on strike. Something about falling in lockstep with a stance, policy, or position, with which I did not personally agree, is anathema to the Patrick Henry streak in me. If America moves from its, as of now, flirtation with socialism, to full fledged Communism, I may be one of the first in line to be "reeducated, but the "reeducation" will not take.
In addition to the coercion to join up, I am becoming appalled at the feeding at the trough mentality that is being demonstrated by certain unions. I keep hearing that the country is not broke. Maybe it is not technically broke, but it is certainly overextended. Mr. Ben Bernanke has issued a stern warning. When about half of the population legally pays no taxes, anywhere from five percent to perhaps fifteen percent pays no taxes because although that percentage is not legally here, it lives here, the burden of ever increasing public sector salary and benefits cannot be maintained. Which part of that is not understandable? This brings me to another question. Why is there a need for unionization of employees who work for taxpayers? I think that I may have found an answer. According to this article, the Wisconsin protests are about union politics, power and money. Instead of the nobility of representing the downtrodden, is this a political switch to, "you scratch my back, I scratch yours," with dollar bills?
The unions do have some really heavyweight supporters. Even Mr. Michael Moore showed up to support the unions in Wisconsin. I have to hand it to Mr. Moore. His approach to perspicacity and honesty left me breathless... with his declaration:
"The rich divert America's wealth into their own pockets...America's wealth has been transferred to the "uber rich."
How many "uber rich" men would "out" themselves like that? None! Bravo, Mr. Moore! Those Wisconsin public union workers "slept on the floor" for three weeks? They should talk to me about sleeping arrangements. My story will beat theirs any day. Where I cannot compete is in chutzpah as demonstrated by Mr. Moore in the following paragraph:
America ain't broke! The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on. Never forget, as long as that Constitution of ours still stands, it's one person, one vote, and it's the thing the rich hate most about America — because even though they seem to hold all the money and all the cards, they begrudgingly know this one unshakeable basic fact: There are more of us than there are of them!
Although I am not worthy to wear or purchase Mr. Moore's sandals, I will gingerly try to walk through his speech. Steering ships is not in my repertoire. I do not hold money or cards. I could be confused, but I begrudgingly have to point out that the one unshakeable fact in that paragraph, is that Mr. Moore appears to be confused as to the placement and use of the pronouns "us" and "them." His status as a "rich" person makes him one of "them" – not one of "us" – doesn't it? I am just trying to get this all straight...
This could get even more confusing as the role of another heavyweight, actually he is more of a lightweight, is weighed. I think I have just managed to mangle the previous sentence. I meant to use "heavyweight" in terms of influence and got all confused! In any case, another heavyweight, no less a person than the president, did add his weight to the debate. According to the Daily Caller, some four years ago or so, the president, during his presidential campaign, made his intention clear to walk the picket line "as president if collective bargaining rights threatened." Is he going to follow through? Are there more pressing items on the presidential agenda, such as a game of golf? He did after all declare:
"I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself — I'll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America."
I would take those shoes to the bank! This president follows through with his promises, right? So, I will wait for his appearance In Wisconsin, complete with those "comfortable shoes."
However, if the president cannot make it, the unions should be thrilled that the Labor Secretary is putting on her union shoes, I mean is showing her undaunted support with her rallying cry, "the fight is on!" She is at the ready to be there for "our brothers and sisters in public employee unions." Is she having an Attorney General Eric Holder "my people" moment? Isn't she supposed to be custodian of the interests of all citizens of the United States? All of that American history that I studied, about separation of state and union, is being rewritten faster than I can keep up! So I did not study separation of state and union. It is just as well. Integration of politicians and unions is now the norm. Oops. I almost forget another heavyweight, in the person of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, of the Church of Reverend Jesse Jackson? Mea culpa. He was there showing his support. Gov. Scott Walker and the other leaders do not stand a chance against the Reverend. He will have them paying, not in a literal sense of course, for their perceived sins!
I am really trying to understand the state of the unions. What type of salaries and benefits do union members generally receive? This USA Today article provides an extensive look at the state of the public workers unions. The Los Angeles Times brought those of us who live in California, the latest round up by State Controller John Chiang, of compensation amounts for workers in the public sector, including a hospital executive with a salary of $875,000. Folks want to be president of the US, when they can make about three times the presidential salary administering a hospital? I really was not thinking clearly when I ran from that position because I did not want to join a union. I could have been in the money! I am glad that I came across this article from Pundit League. It gives a good rundown of the difficulties in which many states and municipalities find themselves because of their commitments to public workers. "Bankruptcy status within 5 years" is not a future to which these states and cities should want to aspire. Bluster is the summation of the fight between the unions and their employers. The unions bluster and the employers cave?
How have the unions been trying to convince the rest of us to support them? This union supporter in his encounter with a cameraman needs to bone up on that "winning friends and influencing people" approach. Threatening a backdoor exit into a person's body is not a good strategy. A "fundamental right" to Viagra is not it either. However, dropping the suit to the fundamental right to Viagra is one small step, if not for mankind, at least for negotiations. One suit dropped another one fitted/filed? "How stupid unions are" describes another suit that was filed – in Wisconsin. This time it is for "hiring outside contractors to help with snowplowing during the early February blizzard." Why were outside contractors needed? The city of Racine needed extra help because of the severity of the blizzard. The crux of the matter appears to be that the city "deprived" the union members of work, even when those union members did not show up for work – because of the blizzard. How dare the city in an emergency situation look beyond the needs of the union members, and look out for the interests of all of the residents of the city? It is enough to make a union file suit! It did.
This video shows that some union members in Wisconsin know at least two words, a four letter one and a five letter one. If I had any sympathy for the position of these union members, they did a great job in scrubbing away that sympathy. I have two five letter words for them. The first word is – m-o-n-e-y – there is none. The other is, b-r-o-k-e, the state, the country. The rest of us who do not have those union jobs, cannot afford to pay any more. It is going to have to be sayonara, adios, ciao, goodbye to excessive compensation. Now if the US economy does not sink to the level of a third world country, then we can talk about increasing compensation, based on the merit of the job performance. "Merit" is anathema to "collective bargaining" and "job protection," you say? Maybe it is time to try job protection based on the merit of the job performed by the individual – the "what have you done for me lately," job performance evaluation, used in the real world.
So maybe the unions slipped up in being so bold-faced with their demands, but at least one big time union leader has thought through the lack of employment plaguing the US. Mr. Richard Trumpka is of the opinion that the federal gas tax should be raised, with the creation of more jobs being the ultimate result of such a tax. He has even shared his vision with the president! I hate to trample on Mr. Trumpka's vision, but my taxes have already been raised. Last week, I put half a tank of gas in my car, $20 at $3.79 per gallon. The premium was $3.99. I figured that I may as well save the twenty cents per gallon and settle for the lowest price, as I was not planning to compete in the Indy 500. Flash forward to this week, and I understand that the $3.99 was a bargain, as every few days another few cents are being added on. Maybe I can persuade my car that its need for gas is really overrated. Scratch that idea. A strike will be its response and I will lose, unaccustomed as I am to union negotiating tactics!
My conclusion about the state of the unions is that I do not like the state of the unions. I hate to disagree with such influential persons as the president, Mr. Michael Moore, Sec. Solis and all of the other assorted luminaries, but we cannot afford the current union structure and demands. I know that unions members are my fellow Americans and we are supposed to be "all in this together." That is the problem. Either the unions are doing a bad job of putting forth their positions, or the positions are crystal clear and most of us do not like what we see and hear. From the reports that I have read, I am coming away with the impression of a pampered bunch of folks who have more than ordinary Joe and Josephine, but keep demanding more. The municipality, the state and eventually the federal government could crumble, but fully meet the demands of my union or else, is the attitude? The fight is on in Wisconsin and elsewhere for the right to maintain "collective bargaining." If the "collective" i.e., the country is bargained away, where will you turn? This is not the answer, so condemn it. Supporters of your cause should know that you are peaceful citizens and you do not tolerate threats on your behalf, right?
I extend a hand of friendship. Leave the signs pitting you against me and all of the other citizens who, in effect, are on the hook for your salary and benefits – at home. Let us agree that we are pluribus unum. Try to understand, as I already do, that our common country is sinking under debt, and I and other non union citizens, won't be the only ones having to sacrifice. Since the president is supposedly opening or has opened a microbrewery at the White House, maybe he can invite everyone to meet and greet! I do not drink beer, but I will take some grape or apple juice. My offer is on the table. Call me.
I am not claiming the brilliance or satirical wit of one of my favorite writers, Mark Steyn, but I found out that we appear to be on the same wavelength, including having an almost similar article title. The title of his article, States of the Unions made me wonder if I have finally begun channeling my inner Steyn. He sums up for me the dilemma in which countries, states and counties find themselves. "Big Unions fund Big Government," says it all, as far as I am concerned. "Big government" is not compatible with the usual state of our Union.
I do not take any joy in "coming out" against some of the current practices of some unions. I have never joined a union. When I first immigrated to the US, I had a job in a medical office as a clerk, having decided not to pursue the bilingual teaching job that I had originally thought I would perform. The union requirement of the teaching job scared me off. Four weeks into the medical office job, I was approached by a coworker who informed me that it was time to join the union. Nowhere in the conversation was there the word "choice." It was straightforward "time to join." Ironically, she must not have read "how to win friends and influence people." She did not even have to carry a big stick. I was properly intimidated. I was out of there in about a week, working temporary jobs until I could find another permanent job.
Maybe I was channeling my inner Patrick Henry in thinking "give me liberty, or give me death." He meant physical death. I mean psychical death. I was already becoming acquainted with the IRS and its duty to help itself to my paycheck before I saw said paycheck. I did not want another such "arrangement." I also did not want to be told that I was on strike, when I did not want to be on strike. Something about falling in lockstep with a stance, policy, or position, with which I did not personally agree, is anathema to the Patrick Henry streak in me. If America moves from its, as of now, flirtation with socialism, to full fledged Communism, I may be one of the first in line to be "reeducated, but the "reeducation" will not take.
In addition to the coercion to join up, I am becoming appalled at the feeding at the trough mentality that is being demonstrated by certain unions. I keep hearing that the country is not broke. Maybe it is not technically broke, but it is certainly overextended. Mr. Ben Bernanke has issued a stern warning. When about half of the population legally pays no taxes, anywhere from five percent to perhaps fifteen percent pays no taxes because although that percentage is not legally here, it lives here, the burden of ever increasing public sector salary and benefits cannot be maintained. Which part of that is not understandable? This brings me to another question. Why is there a need for unionization of employees who work for taxpayers? I think that I may have found an answer. According to this article, the Wisconsin protests are about union politics, power and money. Instead of the nobility of representing the downtrodden, is this a political switch to, "you scratch my back, I scratch yours," with dollar bills?
The unions do have some really heavyweight supporters. Even Mr. Michael Moore showed up to support the unions in Wisconsin. I have to hand it to Mr. Moore. His approach to perspicacity and honesty left me breathless... with his declaration:
"The rich divert America's wealth into their own pockets...America's wealth has been transferred to the "uber rich."
How many "uber rich" men would "out" themselves like that? None! Bravo, Mr. Moore! Those Wisconsin public union workers "slept on the floor" for three weeks? They should talk to me about sleeping arrangements. My story will beat theirs any day. Where I cannot compete is in chutzpah as demonstrated by Mr. Moore in the following paragraph:
America ain't broke! The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on. Never forget, as long as that Constitution of ours still stands, it's one person, one vote, and it's the thing the rich hate most about America — because even though they seem to hold all the money and all the cards, they begrudgingly know this one unshakeable basic fact: There are more of us than there are of them!
Although I am not worthy to wear or purchase Mr. Moore's sandals, I will gingerly try to walk through his speech. Steering ships is not in my repertoire. I do not hold money or cards. I could be confused, but I begrudgingly have to point out that the one unshakeable fact in that paragraph, is that Mr. Moore appears to be confused as to the placement and use of the pronouns "us" and "them." His status as a "rich" person makes him one of "them" – not one of "us" – doesn't it? I am just trying to get this all straight...
This could get even more confusing as the role of another heavyweight, actually he is more of a lightweight, is weighed. I think I have just managed to mangle the previous sentence. I meant to use "heavyweight" in terms of influence and got all confused! In any case, another heavyweight, no less a person than the president, did add his weight to the debate. According to the Daily Caller, some four years ago or so, the president, during his presidential campaign, made his intention clear to walk the picket line "as president if collective bargaining rights threatened." Is he going to follow through? Are there more pressing items on the presidential agenda, such as a game of golf? He did after all declare:
"I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself — I'll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America."
I would take those shoes to the bank! This president follows through with his promises, right? So, I will wait for his appearance In Wisconsin, complete with those "comfortable shoes."
However, if the president cannot make it, the unions should be thrilled that the Labor Secretary is putting on her union shoes, I mean is showing her undaunted support with her rallying cry, "the fight is on!" She is at the ready to be there for "our brothers and sisters in public employee unions." Is she having an Attorney General Eric Holder "my people" moment? Isn't she supposed to be custodian of the interests of all citizens of the United States? All of that American history that I studied, about separation of state and union, is being rewritten faster than I can keep up! So I did not study separation of state and union. It is just as well. Integration of politicians and unions is now the norm. Oops. I almost forget another heavyweight, in the person of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, of the Church of Reverend Jesse Jackson? Mea culpa. He was there showing his support. Gov. Scott Walker and the other leaders do not stand a chance against the Reverend. He will have them paying, not in a literal sense of course, for their perceived sins!
I am really trying to understand the state of the unions. What type of salaries and benefits do union members generally receive? This USA Today article provides an extensive look at the state of the public workers unions. The Los Angeles Times brought those of us who live in California, the latest round up by State Controller John Chiang, of compensation amounts for workers in the public sector, including a hospital executive with a salary of $875,000. Folks want to be president of the US, when they can make about three times the presidential salary administering a hospital? I really was not thinking clearly when I ran from that position because I did not want to join a union. I could have been in the money! I am glad that I came across this article from Pundit League. It gives a good rundown of the difficulties in which many states and municipalities find themselves because of their commitments to public workers. "Bankruptcy status within 5 years" is not a future to which these states and cities should want to aspire. Bluster is the summation of the fight between the unions and their employers. The unions bluster and the employers cave?
How have the unions been trying to convince the rest of us to support them? This union supporter in his encounter with a cameraman needs to bone up on that "winning friends and influencing people" approach. Threatening a backdoor exit into a person's body is not a good strategy. A "fundamental right" to Viagra is not it either. However, dropping the suit to the fundamental right to Viagra is one small step, if not for mankind, at least for negotiations. One suit dropped another one fitted/filed? "How stupid unions are" describes another suit that was filed – in Wisconsin. This time it is for "hiring outside contractors to help with snowplowing during the early February blizzard." Why were outside contractors needed? The city of Racine needed extra help because of the severity of the blizzard. The crux of the matter appears to be that the city "deprived" the union members of work, even when those union members did not show up for work – because of the blizzard. How dare the city in an emergency situation look beyond the needs of the union members, and look out for the interests of all of the residents of the city? It is enough to make a union file suit! It did.
This video shows that some union members in Wisconsin know at least two words, a four letter one and a five letter one. If I had any sympathy for the position of these union members, they did a great job in scrubbing away that sympathy. I have two five letter words for them. The first word is – m-o-n-e-y – there is none. The other is, b-r-o-k-e, the state, the country. The rest of us who do not have those union jobs, cannot afford to pay any more. It is going to have to be sayonara, adios, ciao, goodbye to excessive compensation. Now if the US economy does not sink to the level of a third world country, then we can talk about increasing compensation, based on the merit of the job performance. "Merit" is anathema to "collective bargaining" and "job protection," you say? Maybe it is time to try job protection based on the merit of the job performed by the individual – the "what have you done for me lately," job performance evaluation, used in the real world.
So maybe the unions slipped up in being so bold-faced with their demands, but at least one big time union leader has thought through the lack of employment plaguing the US. Mr. Richard Trumpka is of the opinion that the federal gas tax should be raised, with the creation of more jobs being the ultimate result of such a tax. He has even shared his vision with the president! I hate to trample on Mr. Trumpka's vision, but my taxes have already been raised. Last week, I put half a tank of gas in my car, $20 at $3.79 per gallon. The premium was $3.99. I figured that I may as well save the twenty cents per gallon and settle for the lowest price, as I was not planning to compete in the Indy 500. Flash forward to this week, and I understand that the $3.99 was a bargain, as every few days another few cents are being added on. Maybe I can persuade my car that its need for gas is really overrated. Scratch that idea. A strike will be its response and I will lose, unaccustomed as I am to union negotiating tactics!
My conclusion about the state of the unions is that I do not like the state of the unions. I hate to disagree with such influential persons as the president, Mr. Michael Moore, Sec. Solis and all of the other assorted luminaries, but we cannot afford the current union structure and demands. I know that unions members are my fellow Americans and we are supposed to be "all in this together." That is the problem. Either the unions are doing a bad job of putting forth their positions, or the positions are crystal clear and most of us do not like what we see and hear. From the reports that I have read, I am coming away with the impression of a pampered bunch of folks who have more than ordinary Joe and Josephine, but keep demanding more. The municipality, the state and eventually the federal government could crumble, but fully meet the demands of my union or else, is the attitude? The fight is on in Wisconsin and elsewhere for the right to maintain "collective bargaining." If the "collective" i.e., the country is bargained away, where will you turn? This is not the answer, so condemn it. Supporters of your cause should know that you are peaceful citizens and you do not tolerate threats on your behalf, right?
I extend a hand of friendship. Leave the signs pitting you against me and all of the other citizens who, in effect, are on the hook for your salary and benefits – at home. Let us agree that we are pluribus unum. Try to understand, as I already do, that our common country is sinking under debt, and I and other non union citizens, won't be the only ones having to sacrifice. Since the president is supposedly opening or has opened a microbrewery at the White House, maybe he can invite everyone to meet and greet! I do not drink beer, but I will take some grape or apple juice. My offer is on the table. Call me.
Comments