robert9712000
02-26-2011, 08:22 PM
I had a interesting conversation with my friends wife today and i kinda agree with her,so i was curious what you all thought.
We started talking about the protest over the collective bargaining and she said parts of what there doing wasnt right.
So i told her about the ponzi scam of how the purpose of removing it was to break the cycle of the union wages going to the unions ,who then donate it to politicians who will then seek the unions interests and not the people there supposed to represent.
The part she disagreed with ,Which i can see her point is that the increase of the commitment towards there pensions and other benefits would reduce there weekly income by a noticeable amount and that she felt it was penalizing people who had already prior commitments towards bills,Of which alot even at higher wages live pay check to pay check.
She didnt have a problem with doing away with collective bargaining.She felt it would be better to make new employees pay the amount they decided and that existing employees would be more fairly dealt with to have a pay freeze and have future raises goto there pensions and benefits till they reach the percent they had established for the new employees.That way they could continue to meet any financial commitments that they've already established.
The point i see from her side is that it can and should be dealt with but not with a sudden unfair burden on the employees.
So do you feel the union members deserve to suffer like everyone else or that they should be seen as people who are trying to pay there bills too and that its the system that needs dealt with and not the people employed by it?
We started talking about the protest over the collective bargaining and she said parts of what there doing wasnt right.
So i told her about the ponzi scam of how the purpose of removing it was to break the cycle of the union wages going to the unions ,who then donate it to politicians who will then seek the unions interests and not the people there supposed to represent.
The part she disagreed with ,Which i can see her point is that the increase of the commitment towards there pensions and other benefits would reduce there weekly income by a noticeable amount and that she felt it was penalizing people who had already prior commitments towards bills,Of which alot even at higher wages live pay check to pay check.
She didnt have a problem with doing away with collective bargaining.She felt it would be better to make new employees pay the amount they decided and that existing employees would be more fairly dealt with to have a pay freeze and have future raises goto there pensions and benefits till they reach the percent they had established for the new employees.That way they could continue to meet any financial commitments that they've already established.
The point i see from her side is that it can and should be dealt with but not with a sudden unfair burden on the employees.
So do you feel the union members deserve to suffer like everyone else or that they should be seen as people who are trying to pay there bills too and that its the system that needs dealt with and not the people employed by it?