Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Jefferson's going down
Hey guys
Has anyone heard about this?
Jefferson County, Alabama is on the verge of running out of cash.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15668788
Thoughts?
Wont be the last.
Way to many municpals have issues with pension plans. Many make cuts in police, fire, etc., soley cause of pension issues.
Some cities are barely getting by thanks to State aid. In one case a State took over governing a city rather than let it declare bankruptcy.
Our unfunded pensions in the United States makes the Federal debt look weak and pathetic.
Next time you see a public union worker thank them for bankrupting everything for their greed.
> Einstein wrote:
>
> Wont be the last. Way to many municpals have issues with pension plans. Many make cuts in
>police, fire, etc., soley cause of pension issues. Some cities are barely getting by thanks to
>State aid. In one case a State took over governing a city rather than let it declare bankruptcy.
>Our unfunded pensions in the United States makes the Federal debt look weak and pathetic.
>Next time you see a public union worker thank them for bankrupting everything for their greed.
But that's not what happened here. The county government was outrageously corrupt and ran the county bankrupt paying off their cronies. Some 21 county officials have been convicted of felony crimes for what happened there. It's a shame that the county is bankrupt but don't go pinning the blame on working public servants who did their jobs well and didn't cause the problems that wrecked the county's coffers. The blame rests squarely and solely on the crooks breathing the rarified air.
Well I did not know the specifics, been a lil sick, but I was expecting some since Republicans wont pass a phoney stimulus to back those cities debt up til after election.
Italians and hicks make the economy sick
Jews too
Savings is right. Southern states are overall more corrupt.
But, we still need to terminate pensions and outlaw unions.
...and then watch the U.S. decline at an even greater rate.
> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:
> ...and then watch the U.S. decline at an even greater rate.>
Pensions and Unions provide no national benefit.
It depends on what you think is good for the nation and who or what you define the nation as being.
> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:
> It depends on what you think is good for the nation and who or what you define the nation as being.>
Lets put it this way. Unions protect their members, at the cost of shareholders, consumers, and other laborers. Even Marx shared this sentiment.
I don't see how unions protecting their members disadvantages other workers. And if that is true, then the other workers should join the union and more fool them if they don't. In fact I would say that as a non-trade union member my working conditions are massively enhanced by the actions of trade unions. In fact, the reason I am not in a trade union is because I am quite satisfied with my employment conditions and the protection I get in employment law, which are all a direct result of trade unions.
I also don't share the view that unions harm consumers. Most consumers are working people who are highly likely to be in a union and working under better conditions as a result of all the work of the trade union movement over the last 100 or 200 years. And if like me they are not in a trade union, well they are probably still reaping the rewards of trade union existence and action protecting the rights of workers.
The point that unions protect their members at the expense of shareholders is exactly the point I was making initially. If it is not for its mass of people a nation is just a lump of mud and rock. A nation is its people and anything that benefits the people is therefore of "national benefit". Trade unions protect the rights of the mass of people against exploitation by an elite few, and therefore benefit the nation.
Pensions are also an important national benefit, helping us all avoid starvation when we are beyond working age. Additionally how much do pension funds invest every year in businesses, government bonds etc?
,I take umbrage at your ignorance.
I must change that.
Pensions == Shareholder Funds
Insurance == Shareholder Funds
Take a look of how much a percentage of the market (I think you said you are from there) Englands market is of those two segments.
I assure you they represent the majority of the market there.
When the Unions hurt shareholders they affect the whole nation for their greed... Nay, I am wrong, they affect the whole world with how integrated the world is.
There was a time when Unions were a neccesity, when they fought for basic rights and when they were honorable (mostly).
Now there is no need, they do not improve the human condition, they do not create new jobs, they do not stop out of control industry.
They started in the agd of monopolies, of belief that labor can be trapped, that deaths in the workplace happen and is not an important issue, of the age of no laws protecting the worker.
Times have changed... if I trip on a wire I can file an OSHA report (Which no Consefvative seeks to defund or close), I am guaranteed a minimum wage (and competition of who will employ me), if I am ill I qualify for the Family Medical Leave Act (I have used this protection myself), if I am laid off I get unemployment, if wrongfully fired I can seek a lawyer (yes ofc if I can afford one), I cannot (supposedly, it currently happens to be that I am discriminated against by policies of Obama admin, but that is a seperate issue) be discriminated against based on sex, religion, age, or disability, I am afforded dozens of other protections.
Those rights exist now.
Todays Unions are damaging others severely. For instance I myself may be dramatically affected by these Unions. I frequently drive a Portland to Phoenix to California to Portland route or a 0ortland to Los Angelas route. To Phoenix is 21 hours drive time which gives me 1 hour spare for severe traffic issues. To California and up to Portland typically is a three day venture with the final run being approx (on average) 1000 to 1050 miles (this is roughly 19-21 hours mattering what time of day I am driving)
Current DOT rules are for 11 hours drive time in a 14 hour maximum window followed by a 10 hour rest period.
Now currently when you account for multiple load and unload points in Phoenix and California my routing currently takes 6 days to comlete. I make almost 4k gross a month cirrently (dropped from my peak of 4.5k). Oh and I get an additional 34 hours off on average every 60 hours I work... This means roughly 60 hours work in 7 days, give or take a bit.
The Teamsters believe they can get more drivers hired into companies that employ them if they get the drive time dropped to 10 hours. This would mean higher union rolls for them and more total dues.
But this makes my routes break, I need no less than two additional rest breaks to complete them (sometimes a third, let's average this to 24 hours)
This means that instead of an average of 4.35 runs a month I am now at 3.8 runs a month. This change will cost me, if it happens, $500 a month. It will also reuire an increase of trucks, truck drivers (and cost) by near 10%.
Truck drivers are heavily against this, but the Union leadership wants more money. How greedy is that?
"When the Unions hurt shareholders they affect the whole nation for their greed"
And when shareholders hurt unions/workers, they affect the whole world for their greed, as we've seen.
Ok. Let me get this straight:
Recap:
Corporations suffered tremendous losses because of some stupid people running things who decided to outsource America's manufacturing base, and this caused corporations to lay-off people, people who then couldn't afford to pay their sub-prime mortgages, which then caused the banks to collapse, which caused further loses to corporations, corporations which then laid-off more people again and again and so on and so on, until governments stepped in and gave corporations lots of money that they didn't have so that corporations would hire people again, governments which then lost their credit ratings / went bankrupt and now can't sell the bonds anymore to prop-up the value of their currencies, and this is where we're at now, right?
Flint, your post is entirely contradictory. I take umbrage at your lack of sense and misplaced logic.
Yes, pension schemes are large investors in low risk stocks, government bonds etc. I said that, and I pointed out that the investments made by pension funds were important for the whole economy, therefore pension schemes are for the national benefit.
You seem to be arguing that unions making demands on pay, safety or working conditions hurt shareholders, therefore hurt pension schemes which therefore hurts everybody. The main reason this doesn't make sense is that the cohort of people in (especially work based) pension schemes is going to have a large cross-over with trade union membership. If a trade union demands a pay rise for its members this would obviously cost the company money, what I think you are saying is this is money which would otherwise belong to the pension scheme. This is incorrect firstly because pension schemes are not sole shareholders of any companies so any pay rise given to the workers is also funded by non-pension scheme shareholders. It also doesn't make sense because pension schemes were sole investors the workers would effectively be damaging their pension pots to buy themselves things now. That's analogous to me taking some money out of my bank account and instead of keeping the money spending it on things I need, maybe to improve my own safety - I might buy a smoke alarm for my house and a helmet for my bike. I might have less money than I did before but I am not worse off.
You then say that unions aren't needed because working conditions are a lot better than they used to be - better work safety, fairer pay, protection from unfair dismissal, medical leave. All things brought about because of trade unions!
I don't know (and don't really care) about your personal situation, how much you get paid or how many hours you work, what your trade union is up to or what their motives are. What I do know is that if you are unhappy with the leadership or strategy of your trade union you should elect new leaders or join (or start!) a different union. I don't want to get into an argument about truck driving but it is also clear that tired drivers are more likely to have accidents, so not having sufficient rest while long distance driving jeopardises the safety of the driver and other road users. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing a truck drivers' union should be arguing about to me.
I am not in that God forsaken union, what they propose is to affect ALL drivers for their personal gain. Not their union members, but the union leadership.
At a cost to all of society and especially to all truckers (including their own members)
That is union abuse, and to ignore it, or to white wash it is as bad as saying Heil Hitler in my opinion.
Good old Godwin's law.
According to tjat logic, how dare they put driver and fellow road travelers safety ahead of your profit......
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> Ok. Let me get this straight:
Recap:
Corporations suffered tremendous losses because of some stupid people running things who decided to outsource America's manufacturing base, and this caused corporations to lay-off people, people who then couldn't afford to pay their sub-prime mortgages, which then caused the banks to collapse, which caused further loses to corporations, corporations which then laid-off more people again and again and so on and so on, until governments stepped in and gave corporations lots of money that they didn't have so that corporations would hire people again, governments which then lost their credit ratings / went bankrupt and now can't sell the bonds anymore to prop-up the value of their currencies, and this is where we're at now, right?
And to continue, now that the governments' currencies are dropping due to the collapse of their bonds' values, all the money they had given to the banks and corporations is virtually useless, because the markets are falling anyway due to the collapse of governments' currencies / credit ratings?
The kicker is, apparently, (I mean please correct me if I am wrong in any of this) the money wasn't really enough in the first place because the people stupid people running things (those who had decided to outsource America's manufacturing base in the first place) used a lot of that money to give themselves bonuses and save their own @rses first and foremost.
Will someone tell me whether or not my take on this is correct?
Flint?
Sitting Duck?
Justinian?
Morbo?
Please tell me I'm wrong. Please...
If not, then I will assume that it is in this context in which republicans like Flint are calling for unions to be dismantled, the very organizations who have been stolen from most by this greatest bank heist in human history? All so they can give more tax breaks to the stupid people running things who had caused the problem in the first placE? Are you kidding me? Seriously?
Imperial Forum → Politics → Jefferson's going down
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.