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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (108378)	2/16/2010 8:13:07 PM
From: Lee	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Just to help clarify. When union at at private company and management agree to bad decisions (e.g. non market wages and benefits) the company goes bankrupt. When public unions and their elected official agree to bad decisions (e.g. non market wages and benefits) the public goes bankrupt. That is why Mish keeps harping on the public unions. The public unions harm the public. The self-limiting factor present in the private sector is not there in the public sector (at least not until the public has been looted). When you join public service that is what is should be, serving the public. Union leaders "doing their job" by getting every last cent from their taxpayer providers are acting contrary to the public - private contract inherent in public service.

To: mishedlo who wrote (108378)	2/17/2010 12:30:28 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

Got a question for you Mish.. Back in Dec I was in NYC and witnessed an SEIU demonstration against BofA on behalf of their security guards. Apparently the demonstrations are still going on: seiu.org charlotteobserver.com bioportfolio.com Now.. the primary issue seemed to be that BofA replaced the existing Guard contractor, who was providing health care benefits, with another that was not. Apparently this would certainly reduce the cost of guard service. But what it also does it add the rolls of the uninsured, who would likely be forced into using Emergency Rooms (where care cannot be refused) and ultimately indigent where the states must pay. Now.. I know from having previously having been a Program Manager for a security firm with over 1000 employees that government contracts required physicals, and we provided a group insurance program. We thought it was important, not only because the government required it (as I recall), but because it maintained a healthy workforce and loyalty. So.. my question is.. Is it unreasonable for a union to protest their members being fired merely to be replaced by other non-union members who will work for no health benefits? If you think "yes", then where are we going to draw the line and who's going to pick up the tab for the consequences of union busting and rolling back worker's rights back to the era of "sweat shops"? I'm right there with you when benefits dramatically exceed the private market. But we all know that security guards are not highly paid in the first place and they can't afford health insurance on the wages they make. Hawk

To: mishedlo who wrote (108378)	2/17/2010 1:57:10 AM
From: axial	10 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

READ IT: DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION en.wikipedia.org Union leaders are obliged BY LAW to negotiate in favor of their members. They can not vacate that responsibility. Despite that, many unions are making concessions - and will continue to do so. --- You are opposing the law, you're opposing the responsibility, and mostly, you're opposing unions and the working people they represent. You want the equivalent to lawyers who walk into court and say *"My client's guilty. Throw the book at him!"* You want the equivalent of agents who say *"I won't bargain with you - we'll take whatever you say."* You want unions and working people who fold to globalist wage pressure. You don't understand the law, and you misrepresent the tactics of negotiation. Of course unions take a hard line, publicly. Of course they resist change. Why should they be any different than Wall Street Fat Cats? Do you think working people are stupid? Negotiators always draw "a line in the sand" before they start bargaining. In commerce, in sports, in Hollywood. Why not in labor negotiations? Because Mish says so? People died for the right to negotiate. They, their wives and children were killed, burned out, starved, jailed and beaten. They won that right IN LAW. Whatsamatter Mish? Don't think working people should have any rights? Don't like the law? Can't handle pre-bargaining tactics? Who are you speaking for? Jim