Union to Oregon Foster Parents: You’re next
As if helping kids weren’t hard enough, Oregon foster parents may one day be forced to join the powerful public-sector unions. A bill in Washington State already has been introduced to treat foster parents like state employees.
Nationwide, union membership is at historic lows. Today 92 percent of workers in the private sector do not belong to a union. The one area where union influence is growing is the public sector. The reason is simple – government cannot be put out of business, so there are no market forces to limit union demands.
As if unions didn't display their hatred for children enough with the government school system, now they want to punish the orphans?
And how broad can this definition of "state employee" go? Someone receiving unemployment insurance gets a check from the state, should they be union members?
Government creep is a slow but steady process and us frogs seem too stupid to jump out of the water.
8 comments:
Remember, unions have done such an excellent job scaring the bejesus out of employers that most offer their employees better wages and benifits than they historically would have. At my workplace, we have a quasi-collective bargaining system. We actually negotaite with our employer and they usually meet what we want, or come damn near close. We know that that know that we could vote a union in at any time and they would be up a creek. This is all due to the fear that AFL has place in employers nationwide. So don't be too cock sure that they don't have influence when they really do.
One final thing, I actually am a paying member of Working America as are some of my collegues. We pay into their system already supporting what they do. If you don't know Working America, look it up.
Brilliant observation, Miglavs. Brilliant!
Given that you're so concerned with government creep, I'm sure you'll be horrified to learn of the grossest example of big government in our time: The Iraq War.
That's right. You may have seen it on the news recently. Respected economists from Columbia and Harvard have estimated the total cost of the war in Iraq at...
....you ready....?
THREE TRILLION DOLLARS!
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/
Three trillion straight out of the pockets of tax payers to the tune of $30,000 per household! Unless it's to go toward my daughter's college education, I sure as hell don't have $30-large laying around to spend so that we can referee a civil war in Iraq, for what, gas at $4/gallon?
Miglavs, you're horrified, right?
Right?
Wake up.
Hahahhaha this is our coutry too lil cracker!
"The quality of any product or service varies in inverse proportion to the political power wielded by those unions to which the producers or service providers belong." This was written by John Derbyshire, a writer for the National Review and others.
This is especially true where the teachers' unions and other state-employees unions are involved. And it doesn't matter in which State you may be talking about.
"Unions display hatred toward children..." Daniel, please explain this statement. Thank you.
Once again, Miglavs has no grasp on reality.
According to unionstats.com, union density in the United States is at an all-time low. In 1977 26.5% of all wage and salary workers (public and private sectors) were covered by a union contract. By 2007, the percentage had been cut in half (13.3%).
Welcome to Miglavia, where we make it up as we go.
According to unionstats.com, union density in the United States is at an all-time low.
That's erroneous; union density is always high. That's why the exist: to "fight" for the dumbasses.
For those of us who actually know something about unionism --- why we have unions, how they started, how they evolved, the challenges they've faced and still face, and their overall state today --- the ignorance about unionism evident on this page is ... how can I put this? Spectacular? Breath-taking?
Post a Comment