Until the union doesn’t get what they want and strike. Then the airports have to scramble to bring in untrained personnel to manage the security, yeah that sounds like a great idea and safe too. I’ve belonged to the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO, so it’s not that I hate unions. It’s just that too many bad apples spoil the whole bunch, there are a lotta bitches that work for the union and that’s all they do, bitch, bitch, bitch.
The TSA is incompetent enough without union rules.
Unionizing them would make it much more difficult to liquidate the whole agency as should be done.
On second thought, letting them unionize and go on strike would go a long way toward exposing them once and for all as the useless bunch of tards they are.
Remember back under Reagan when the union for the air traffic controllers decided to strike? Yea… that was all about safety.
Give me a f’ing break. Union or no union – it doesn’t have anything to do with safety. If you think taking the same group of employees and unionizing them will suddently improve how they do their jobs or will improve safety, you must be blind to reality.
Yeah, because the TSA does such a fine job now.
Unfotunately, the useless tards have bought the best Administration & Congress that Pension Fund money can buy. The less we’ve Unionized the more productive our Economy has become, yet they want you to think the two are in no way correlated.
Unions are nothing more than a tax we all pay to a bunch of bastards who have greased the system to reward the incompetent and lazy. The only answer they ever have is: We need more money and management is evil.
“The less we’ve Unionized the more productive our Economy has become”
Gee, I wonder why? Because the working man isn’t making shit.
And, BTW, that is the argument I have never understood. If we pay people more, they spend more. Isn’t that good for the economy?
L3wis:
“Gee, I wonder why? Because the working man isn’t making shit.”
Not true, many of the “working man” types are doing much better here than their counterparts around the world.
And I’m talking about Productivity: how much of _____ a worker can produce for one hours pay. The wage itself is irrelevant when talking about Productivity. I can tell you from firsthand experience that employees who are non-Union are more productive at the same task than those who are Union. Especially so if you cut them in with performance based bonuses and/or profit sharing.
More companies or Govt. Agencies should do what we did, kill the Union and put that money that used to go into a black hole back in their own worker’s pockets.
As to your second question, sure more money in worker’s pockets is a good thing, but not at the expense of inflation or the laws of Supply and Demand. You can pay an autoworker $50 an hour and that person will be happy until he loses his job to a Foreign company who pays 1/10th that amount. The Market decides whether or not a car is worth a premium just to have Union made products and it has already made that call quite clearly.
The question is whether or not we will chose to accept that at a National level or try to manipulate our Markets via Govt. mandate, which fails EVERY time it’s tried.
The problem with your logic l3wis is you are assuming unions result in the employee simply being paid more with no other effects.
The problem is, you cannot simply pay employees more with no impact to the company. If the end result in the same products being produced at the same rate, the end result forces that company to either raise prices for that product (which means they might be uncompetitive), or simply make less profit.
Less profit means that company is less likley to grow or innovate and will be less likely to compete in the marketplace. Eventually they might even close… so how does that help the economy?
I realize GM had a lot more problems than simply overpaid union employees, but when you compare them to their peers it seems obvious they were unable to be competitive on price due in part to their bloated labor costs. How did their bankruptcy and downsizing impact the economy?
The bottom line is you cannot simply pay people more and assume that will solve all the problems. It has been shown time and time again that humans won’t actually always work harder just because you pay them more – there is a lot more to the equation, and as such the economy really only thrives when productivity increases. Since productivity is not directly tied to pay alone, you cannot make a blanket statement like “unionizing employees will improve the economy”.
There are any benefits to unions, but I don’t think helping the economy is one of them. A true free market will always prevail over a controlled market, and a union is simply a form of control.
Unions are an antidote to lousy management.
We don’t have a free market. We haven’t had a free market in over fifty years. We have a corporatist, fascist market. Unions are merely one attempt to level a badly tilted market.
Management enters agreements with workers, unionized or not. If the agreement is a problem then management owns at least one-half the responsibility.
If non-union is nirvana then the economy should be wonderful – since union membership is at a historic all time low.
Unfotunately, the useless tards have bought the best Administration & Congress that Pension Fund money can buy.
By “useless tards” I meant TSA goons, not union workers.
Those folks are just regular Joe’s who too often get hosed from every angle – employer, union, and government policy.
Like I have said in the past, not all Unions are bad. Any improvement in the TSA would be a good one.
I don’t disagree with you when you say not all unions are bad, and I would hope that nobody would disagree that any improvement in the TSA would be a good thing, but the question is… would unionization of the TSA actually be an improvement?
I dare say we can’t even begin to guess. Historically speaking, unionized government workers have been anything but productive, so I’d say the chances are slim, but one thing is for sure – we simply cannot make the assumption that unionization would lead to improvement when the opposite is just as likely (if no more so).
Historically speaking, unionized government workers have been anything but productive
Fixed.
As far as work quality goes, it would probably be a wash. The concern I have is that it would be much harder to get rid of the entire agency if it were unionized.
Not true, many of the “working man†types are doing much better here than their counterparts around the world.
Much better than what Sy? Are you really comparing the American worker toiling on poverty level wages to third world nation workers? Ask the 60,000 plus workers in this town working for less than $13 an hour about how they live from paycheck to paycheck. That’s a wakeup call.
I spent an entire career in a union atmosphere. Some of that time I was union. Some of that time I chose not to belong. BOTH management and the workers in a union atmosphere have issues. Overall tho? I’d say unless you want to toil for the man from cradle to grave on poverty wages…a union is not so bad.
Poly become a business owner then come back and comment. Otherwise, as they say here on this blog, STFU. Until you own a business and what it takes to pay workers you have no idea. It’s soooo easy to say, pay the worker $40/hr because I worked in a union job and that’s what they paid me, well go start that business and again let me know how it works for you after you pay half the social security and other taxes that come along with having employees. Especially if you are a small business owner, good luck. Talk is cheap, so keep talkin’ or go start that business and give us that report of how you pay your employees’ living wages and remain a sustainable business, oh yeah, and pay yourself.
I know we already went over this but it looks like it didn’t take since you didn’t respond to my last post on this matter. Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. If you haven’t owned your own business then you’ve only seen one side of how it works.
Or better yet, go work in one of the other world work systems such as China, Mexico, Russia, South America, anywhere in Africa or the Middle East, even Europe and let me know how that goes for you as well, as a worker.
Until the union doesn’t get what they want and strike. Then the airports have to scramble to bring in untrained personnel to manage the security, yeah that sounds like a great idea and safe too. I’ve belonged to the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO, so it’s not that I hate unions. It’s just that too many bad apples spoil the whole bunch, there are a lotta bitches that work for the union and that’s all they do, bitch, bitch, bitch.
The TSA is incompetent enough without union rules.
Unionizing them would make it much more difficult to liquidate the whole agency as should be done.
On second thought, letting them unionize and go on strike would go a long way toward exposing them once and for all as the useless bunch of tards they are.
Remember back under Reagan when the union for the air traffic controllers decided to strike? Yea… that was all about safety.
Give me a f’ing break. Union or no union – it doesn’t have anything to do with safety. If you think taking the same group of employees and unionizing them will suddently improve how they do their jobs or will improve safety, you must be blind to reality.
Yeah, because the TSA does such a fine job now.
Unfotunately, the useless tards have bought the best Administration & Congress that Pension Fund money can buy. The less we’ve Unionized the more productive our Economy has become, yet they want you to think the two are in no way correlated.
Unions are nothing more than a tax we all pay to a bunch of bastards who have greased the system to reward the incompetent and lazy. The only answer they ever have is: We need more money and management is evil.
“The less we’ve Unionized the more productive our Economy has become”
Gee, I wonder why? Because the working man isn’t making shit.
And, BTW, that is the argument I have never understood. If we pay people more, they spend more. Isn’t that good for the economy?
L3wis:
“Gee, I wonder why? Because the working man isn’t making shit.”
Not true, many of the “working man” types are doing much better here than their counterparts around the world.
And I’m talking about Productivity: how much of _____ a worker can produce for one hours pay. The wage itself is irrelevant when talking about Productivity. I can tell you from firsthand experience that employees who are non-Union are more productive at the same task than those who are Union. Especially so if you cut them in with performance based bonuses and/or profit sharing.
More companies or Govt. Agencies should do what we did, kill the Union and put that money that used to go into a black hole back in their own worker’s pockets.
As to your second question, sure more money in worker’s pockets is a good thing, but not at the expense of inflation or the laws of Supply and Demand. You can pay an autoworker $50 an hour and that person will be happy until he loses his job to a Foreign company who pays 1/10th that amount. The Market decides whether or not a car is worth a premium just to have Union made products and it has already made that call quite clearly.
The question is whether or not we will chose to accept that at a National level or try to manipulate our Markets via Govt. mandate, which fails EVERY time it’s tried.
The problem with your logic l3wis is you are assuming unions result in the employee simply being paid more with no other effects.
The problem is, you cannot simply pay employees more with no impact to the company. If the end result in the same products being produced at the same rate, the end result forces that company to either raise prices for that product (which means they might be uncompetitive), or simply make less profit.
Less profit means that company is less likley to grow or innovate and will be less likely to compete in the marketplace. Eventually they might even close… so how does that help the economy?
I realize GM had a lot more problems than simply overpaid union employees, but when you compare them to their peers it seems obvious they were unable to be competitive on price due in part to their bloated labor costs. How did their bankruptcy and downsizing impact the economy?
The bottom line is you cannot simply pay people more and assume that will solve all the problems. It has been shown time and time again that humans won’t actually always work harder just because you pay them more – there is a lot more to the equation, and as such the economy really only thrives when productivity increases. Since productivity is not directly tied to pay alone, you cannot make a blanket statement like “unionizing employees will improve the economy”.
There are any benefits to unions, but I don’t think helping the economy is one of them. A true free market will always prevail over a controlled market, and a union is simply a form of control.
Unions are an antidote to lousy management.
We don’t have a free market. We haven’t had a free market in over fifty years. We have a corporatist, fascist market. Unions are merely one attempt to level a badly tilted market.
Management enters agreements with workers, unionized or not. If the agreement is a problem then management owns at least one-half the responsibility.
If non-union is nirvana then the economy should be wonderful – since union membership is at a historic all time low.
Unfotunately, the useless tards have bought the best Administration & Congress that Pension Fund money can buy.
By “useless tards” I meant TSA goons, not union workers.
Those folks are just regular Joe’s who too often get hosed from every angle – employer, union, and government policy.
Like I have said in the past, not all Unions are bad. Any improvement in the TSA would be a good one.
I don’t disagree with you when you say not all unions are bad, and I would hope that nobody would disagree that any improvement in the TSA would be a good thing, but the question is… would unionization of the TSA actually be an improvement?
I dare say we can’t even begin to guess. Historically speaking, unionized government workers have been anything but productive, so I’d say the chances are slim, but one thing is for sure – we simply cannot make the assumption that unionization would lead to improvement when the opposite is just as likely (if no more so).
Historically speaking,
unionizedgovernment workers have been anything but productiveFixed.
As far as work quality goes, it would probably be a wash. The concern I have is that it would be much harder to get rid of the entire agency if it were unionized.
Not true, many of the “working man†types are doing much better here than their counterparts around the world.
Much better than what Sy? Are you really comparing the American worker toiling on poverty level wages to third world nation workers? Ask the 60,000 plus workers in this town working for less than $13 an hour about how they live from paycheck to paycheck. That’s a wakeup call.
I spent an entire career in a union atmosphere. Some of that time I was union. Some of that time I chose not to belong. BOTH management and the workers in a union atmosphere have issues. Overall tho? I’d say unless you want to toil for the man from cradle to grave on poverty wages…a union is not so bad.
Poly become a business owner then come back and comment. Otherwise, as they say here on this blog, STFU. Until you own a business and what it takes to pay workers you have no idea. It’s soooo easy to say, pay the worker $40/hr because I worked in a union job and that’s what they paid me, well go start that business and again let me know how it works for you after you pay half the social security and other taxes that come along with having employees. Especially if you are a small business owner, good luck. Talk is cheap, so keep talkin’ or go start that business and give us that report of how you pay your employees’ living wages and remain a sustainable business, oh yeah, and pay yourself.
I know we already went over this but it looks like it didn’t take since you didn’t respond to my last post on this matter. Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. If you haven’t owned your own business then you’ve only seen one side of how it works.
Or better yet, go work in one of the other world work systems such as China, Mexico, Russia, South America, anywhere in Africa or the Middle East, even Europe and let me know how that goes for you as well, as a worker.