-
Posts
32416 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by David Dennison
-
-
3 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:
No, there's not. The elected officials OWN THE BUDGET.
Like it's so hard for non-elected officials to negotiate within the parameters of a budget.
-
6 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:
Are you really simple enough to believe that the people sitting at the bargaining table actually make the decisions? That the elected officials are completely hands-off in the process? That the political appointees, whose very jobs are dependent upon the re-election of their boss, are not doing what they can to insure his/her re-election?
Do you also believe in unicorns?
Are you really simple enough to believe that the politicians and appointees could not be taken out of the collective bargaining equation if need be? There are any number of ways for the government to collectively bargain with employees without including elected officials.
-
3 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:
Who directly report to those who do and can often be either terminated, have their career growth shunted or be warehoused if they don't acquiesce. This isn't a hard concept and there are lots of other arguments against this ruling, why go for the bad one?
I don't necessarily oppose the ruling.
I'm opposed to the idea that public sector unions shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain with management.
-
3 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:
Be smarter than that. It's the politician's appointees and the people who work for the politicians.
Right. People who don't take contributions.
-
2 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:
How can it be adversarial when the guys on the other side of the bargaining table have contributed to your political campaigns?
It's a joke.
Name one elected politician who sits down at the bargaining table.
-
3 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:
Bullshit. Collective bargaining only works as an adversarial system. Collective bargaining with public sector unions is the absolute definition of the fox guarding the henhouse. It should be 100% illegal for public entities to enter into CBAs.
Public employees are adversaries of the federal government when it comes to the employee/employer relationship.
So, we'll just disagree on that.
-
3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:
No problem with arguments related to what union fees are used for. Or how can can limit political contributions.
The idea that you don't understand why public sector folks can unionize seems kind of silly.
Agreed.
But employees of all stripes should be allowed to unionize as a matter of right.
-
So Johnny Sack opposes the police union.
Interesting.
-
3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:
Public sector collective bargaining, no. I do not understand why it is legal. It is a union representing government workers who negotiate with the very politicians they bought. The taxpayer gets fucked. And there is no market check like there is with private sector unions. We did not even have public sector unions until 1959. And they have been a disaster to the financial health of state and local governments.
Here is what FDR said about them:
Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”
FDR was wrong.
Collective bargaining should exist wherever there are employees in every industry. Full stop.
-
You don't understand why collective bargaining is legal?
Really?
-
3 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:
This kind of says more about you, and the Democrat party in general than it does her. I would call wanting to abolish ICE a fairly radical proposition.
Calling for the elimination of a hastily planned and redundant law enforcement agency that was established out of fear in 2003 is hardly radical.
-
30 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:
that's a lot of olds. They have to be scared shitless by the handfull of black folks standing there laughing at them.
Wait til the W&L students start heckling them.
-
1 hour ago, Js1 said:
Insert algorithm
[Fake polls] because [Donald J. Trump] is doing [bigly] support in America and will win bigly in November [2020] with [100% electoral college victory]
35% say Trump deserves re-election in Arizona (underwater by 6 points in approval)
37% say Trump deserves re-election in Florida (underwater by 1 point in approval)
34% say Trump deserves re-election in Ohio (underwater by 14 points in approval)
Ouch.
-
3 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:
I'm leaning about 60/40 towards you already know this but in case you don't. Your reaction to this is why he does this.
It's also why he's completely ineffectual as a leader.
-
2 hours ago, ousuxndallas said:
Someone doesn't follow politics.
-
4 minutes ago, Bill Clinton said:
The Laws
At issue are four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.
In short:
The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
Donald Trump has been breaking the law.
Shocking.
- 1
- 1
-
29 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:
ITT we pretend deleting emails actually deletes them from existence.
That's how you know the accusations against her were never serious.
-
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Snowflake.
-
3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:
Well you have been fucking torpedoed by BO and the Dems during the last administration. The “eat the rich” narrative is crap. They put the cost right in your lap.
Yeah, I bet a guy pulling down $100k did really shitty during the Obama years. I bet it was a struggle.
Do you hear yourself?
-
I wonder if the Trumpkins know what the yield curve is.
They might want to look it up and start paying attention.
Buckle up.
-
-
2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:
Of course you won’t. Failure.
And you aren't? You're a middle class schlub like everyone else.
-
Voting is the most powerful weapon in the arsenal. I wish more people realized it.
-
3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:
You are the same rotting flesh as the rest of us. This moment isn’t special. America will be here tomorrow and the next day. You aren’t special. There are a myriad of opportunities in this country waiting to be taken. Wake up and do your fucking job.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
- 3
SCOTUS Rules in Janus - No More Involuntary Public Unions Dues For Political Contributions
in Cloak Room
Posted
That's almost as likely as c-suite executives actually working for labor instead of being a fundraising arm of the Republican Party.
So you see, we're in a bit of a pickle.