BC Teachers have voted 87% to escalate the strike...

[markw]

Is PROFIT the measure of everything? It's absurd to imply that public education is valueless because it doesn't earn profit.

I love how you try to put words in my mouth. Please point out where I implied that education is valueless.

So, what are you saying in these following snippits? I don't see anything that really supports unions in them, do you?

But I'll agree to the extent that public service unions are often greedy. They have often "won" wages, benefits, and protections much higher than people of comparable skills in private business. This comes from the monopoly situation of there employers, i.e. governments. It's worth noting that were private firms enjoy a monopoly or minimum competition, unions "win" similar excessive remuneration -- this was the situation in the US auto industry for decades.

As was pointed out in the article, once laws are passed that made unions a vital part of the bargaining process by forcing them to be dealt with, all good-conscience negotiations died and extortion takes it's place. Once a company is "forced" by law to use union labor forevermore, the company, and eventually the surrounding area, automatically loses. Look at Boeing. Look at your own problems with Caterpillar in London, Ontario. Are you familiar with that area and whats going on there?

On the other hand I agree that there are problems public service employees' collective bargaining, (as already discussed). Of course, (as also already discussed), the same problem can arise in case of private industries under conditions of constrained competition, viz. the auto industry in the '50s.

So, you see where unions sounded the death knell for the host by demanding more from them than they can give, What else is there to say? And,yes, it's just lovely that the government bailed out two major auto makers who were forced to sign contracts that guaranteed benefits decades after their financial viability diminished to virtually nil. So, now the tax payers are on the hook for them.

But, on the bright side, many foreign auto makers, and other companies, are opening plants in right-to-work states and turning out quality products made by many happily employed people who enjoy a good standard of living..

So, I guess, yes, in a profit-driven company, profit IS everything, or at least breaking even is of utmost importance to it''s shareholders. They can raise prices to what the market will support or will cut corners to make do with what they can afford as long as they satisfy their shareholders. Public unions simply think taxes can be raised with no limits which iscontradictiory since te taxpayinfg public ARE it's shareholders.

.Now, while the greying of the work force is an issue from which few are immune, might I suggest that a lot of your problems were more than likely self-created by your undeniable sense of superiority and entitlement? If your contributions were really that great, I'm sure they would have found a way to preserve your services. The fact that they stopped putting money in your education or giving you raises for the ten years prior should have given you a clue that maybe, just maybe, you ain't really all that after all. That, and they could get more work for less money from a more recent college graduate who already has an education ready for today's challenges, which is the responsibility of a company to it's shareholders.

[Feanor]

...
.Now, while the greying of the work force is an issue from which few are immune, might I suggest that a lot of your problems were more than likely self-created by your undeniable sense of superiority and entitlement? If your contributions were really that great, I'm sure they would have found a way to preserve your services. The fact that they stopped putting money in your education or giving you raises for the ten years prior should have given you a clue that maybe, just maybe, you ain't really all that after all. That, and they could get more work for less money from a more recent college graduate who already has an education ready for today's challenges, which is the responsibility of a company to it's shareholders.

Gracious as ever, Mark. As Bobsticks would say, "Thank you, thank you very little!"

I don't have to justify my value to the company to you. Nevertheless I'll mention that I survived several major and quite a few minor downsizing and corporate reorganizations; if they hadn't valued my contributions, they had lots of opportunity to get rid of me. The treatment I received wasn't specifically directed at me, but at older workers in general.

[markw]

Gracious as ever, Mark. As Bobsticks would say, "Thank you, thank you very little!"

I don't have to justify my value to the company to you. Nevertheless I'll mention that I survived several major and quite a few minor downsizing and corporate reorganizations; if they hadn't valued my contributions, they had lots of opportunity to get rid of me. The treatment I received wasn't specifically directed at me, but at older workers in general.

Hey, you're the one that called me out to play by putting words in my mouth.

No, you don't have to justify your work to me. Remember, unions are known for holding back production to meet the lowest common denominator and keeping the most useless employed long after their usefulness has gone. That's where we are now.

But, since it seems that you feel that you needed a union to protect you like a factory worker, perhaps you should have justified it to your company when you saw it coming. Apparantly, your company couldn't see it in your work and didn't share your opinion on your invaluable contributions. Remember, they are profit-driven and if they felt you added to that, you most likely would still be there. This isn't Logan's Run and there was no law saying they HAD to let you go.

[Feanor]

Hey, you're the one that called me out to play by putting words in my mouth.
...

Oh sorry, it was just my crazy, wild interpretation of what you said.

...
Remember, unions are known for holding back production to meet the lowest common denominator and keeping the most useless employed long after their usefulness has gone. That's where we are now.
...

Yes it's true, unions have had that effect too often.

...
No, you don't have to justify your work to me. ...
But, since it seems that you feel that you needed a union to protect you like a factory worker, perhaps you should have justified it to your company when you saw it coming. Apparantly, your company couldn't see it in your work and didn't share your opinion on your invaluable contributions. Remember, they are profit-driven and if they felt you added to that, you most likely would still be there. This isn't Logan's Run and there was no law saying they HAD to let you go.

What's true is that companies are exist to make a profit, and to that extent I don't actually "blame" the company I worked for -- they were only doing what they believed was to that end. And I think I think it was a policy that worked -- the policy was to exploit older workers.

Apparently you prefer to believe that their treatment of me was a personal matter, not a general policy. You are wrong. And apparently you prefer to believe that abuse of bargaining is all on the side of unions and that companies don't systematically exploit vulnerable workers -- You're wrong about that too.

Exploitation of vulnerable workers is exactly why unions came into being in the first place. It is no coincidence that the decline of unions in North American last 40 years has seen the decline of middle class incomes in the same time period. It is acknowledged that higher union wage raised the wages & salaries of non-unionized workers too.

Many years ago, J.K. Galbraith wrote the book, The New Industrial State, in which he discussed, (among other things), a three-way balance between private business, government, and unions: this balance had been lost with the power shifting relentlessly to private business. The consequence has been the decline of the middle class in American -- this trend will continue because there is no political insight or will to check it.

[markw]

Oh sorry, it was just my crazy, wild interpretation of what you said.

Yeah, you're nutz as bridge mix. So, you don't like what George Meany says, so you put words in my mouth and pick a fight with me. Not once, but twice from the same post. Poor baby. How could I not think otherwise?

Or, perhaps you were just simply itching for a fight to begin with. Congratulations, you got it.

Yes it's true, unions have had that effect too often.

And yet, we have only your word that you were a contributinfg member of the team. Maybe it's like I said in my first post that you simply over-value your contrubutions. From your confrontational attitude in this forum, I gotta say, I wouldn't be too inclined to keep you on if the opportunity arose to dump you, or even work with you in the first place. Perhaps others that worked with you share my opinion. You might want to investigate that.

What's true is that companies are exist to make a profit, and to that extent I don't actually "blame" the company I worked for -- they were only doing what they believed was to that end. And I think I think it was a policy that worked -- the policy was to exploit older workers.

Apparently you prefer to believe that their treatment of me was a personal matter, not a general policy. You are wrong. And apparently you prefer to believe that abuse of bargaining is all on the side of unions and that companies don't systematically exploit vulnerable workers -- You're wrong about that too.

Exploitation of vulnerable workers is exactly why unions came into being in the first place. It is no coincidence that the decline of unions in North American last 40 years has seen the decline of middle class incomes in the same time period. It is acknowledged that higher union wage raised the wages & salaries of non-unionized workers too.

Many years ago, J.K. Galbraith wrote the book, The New Industrial State, in which he discussed, (among other things), a three-way balance between private business, government, and unions: this balance had been lost with the power shifting relentlessly to private business. The consequence has been the decline of the middle class in American -- this trend will continue because there is no political insight or will to check it.

All the books in the world notwithstanding, nobody forced you into your profession. It didn't have union protection when you entered it and it didn't get it while you were there. If you really felt you needed the protection of a union then perhaps you should have taken haven in one of those protected jobs.

...but you didn't. You chose to go for the big bucks of a non-union job and all the risks that implied. So, buck up, put on your big girl panties, and accept the fact that you've got to live with the consequences of your choices and quitcher*****in, old man.

[Feanor]

What a charmer you are, Mark. Talk about my confrontational attitude: what a hypocrite!

[markw]

What a charmer you are, Mark. Talk about my confrontational attitude: what a hypocrite!

You got it.

Life is comprised of choices and we must all live with the consequences of those we make It's too bad you can't accept yours like a man.

Now, had you just kept yer trap shut when you had nothing of value to say, this would have not been necessary.

[ForeverAutumn]

And yet, we have only your word that you were a contributinfg member of the team.

So why not take him at his word since you can't prove otherwise?

[markw]

So why not take him at his word since you can't prove otherwise?

Normally I wouldn't give a hoot except he started this crap by putting his words in my mouth. If that's any indication of the way he conducted business, I have my doubts about his veracity.

happy now sweetie?

[Feanor]

So why not take him at his word since you can't prove otherwise?

It seems MarkW's favourite mode is personal attack. It's an old strategy: if you can't refute the other person's idea, then you attack them personally. It's call the "Ad Hominem" fallacy.

MarkW says I "put words in his mouth"; he posted ...

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money.

To this I responded ...

Is PROFIT the measure of everything? It's absurd to imply that public education is valueless because it doesn't earn profit.
...

Maybe I drew a different implication from the Meaney quote than he did, but that's not the same as "putting words in his mouth".