Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (23652)	1/9/2004 5:38:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794399

The big fight on the new "Homeland" Department was to exempt them from the normal civil service rules. The civil service rules and the unions are not the same issue. There has been an enormous amount of reform in the civil service rules over the last ten years or so. If we had no unions, IMO, the rules would take care of themselves. I think that target is a waste of energy, not at all the real problem. You can fire people, for example, under the rules without unreasonable process as long as the union doesn't get into the act. I don't think they have to directly "break" the unions. All they have to do is establish some right-to-work-type conditions. Give employees choice about whether or not to be in the bargaining unit. Most Feds aren't union members and don't want to be. The problem is that the unions represent the employees whether they want that or not and employees are not free to negotiate for themselves. All Congress would have to do is to let folks remove themselves from the bargaining units and the unions would topple like the Soviet Union. Let me give you an example. When there's a reorganization and people get moved around, most will set up a committee to figure out who gets which office space, who gets the windows, who gets the walls, etc. Management is happy to support this natural process. But unions have legal rights to negotiate with management on office space and they may insist on exercising those rights to the detriment of the employees. The union comes in, disallows the committee that management sanctioned, and makes enemies of both, all to protect the rights of the union. It wouldn't take much action from Congress and the WH to solve this problem, IMO. Just a small push in the right direction.

To: LindyBill who wrote (23652)	1/9/2004 6:21:12 PM
From: Bris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794399

What happens if you don't Quit? Stub it out, Kim tells Koreans "The harm of cigarettes"- TV slogan North Korea has launched a nationwide anti-smoking campaign after its leader Kim Jong-il reportedly quit the habit and called on his people to follow suit. Reports in the South Korean media said Kim recently singled out smokers as one of the "three main fools of the 21st century", along with those who are ignorant about computers and music. North Korean television has carried slogans and programmes telling people how harmful cigarette smoking can be to their health. "Let's quit smoking and contribute in good health to the building of a powerful nation," Choe Ong-ju, the North's chief public hygiene inspector, urged viewers. "Let's quit! Smoking endangers our health!" South Korean TV quoted experts on the North as saying that although there are no accurate statistics, an estimated 40 per cent of the North's 22 million people smoke cigarettes, one of the highest rates in the world. Unconfirmed reports have circulated in the Japanese press that Kim suffered a prolonged bout of ill health in late 2003. The North Korean media gave no coverage to his activities for several weeks between October and December.