My opinionated opinion of the garbage strike

[Rockslinger]

Great story and I agree.

Anybody who has ever driven on a highway, crossed a river on a bridge or been inside an office building has seen the fruits of their labour.

On the subject of moneychangers, let's be fair. Almost all projects require financial capital. In many cases, the providers of this capital are "little old ladies", pension funds, venture capitalists, etc. It is impossible to build an office building without financial capital. In almost all cases, the banks are simply conduits of money. They take money from "little old ladies" in the form of deposits and lend them out to people who build things, create wealth and employ people (including unionized people).

 

[blackrock13]

Great story and I agree. Did they make their bread doing something socially useless like money changers?

We build great monumental towers to the money changers so they can sit in them and exchange money through derivatives, going short on margin, foreign exchange etc How does this do anything but cause recessions? How does gambling on the flow of tomorrows market put moola in the hands of entrepreneurs so they can start a business and employ Rockslingers?

They just pass the loot around and everyone grabs some when it is their turn

The rich getting richer because, and only because, they can sit around on their yacht and watch their money make more money until they own everything ?

I do not pretend to understand economics but common sense screams that this is wrong

But that's what capitalism is all about; He with the most in the end WINS!!

 

[oldjones]

Thats 80K you did not earn
Yet in your world everyone would be entitled to rip off society like this
In the end who pays?
All of us

Thanks so much for your contribution to our society
Parasite

If his employer contracted to pay that amount and he met the required conditions, how was it not earned? Or are employers to lose their right to bargain and contract with their employees as they see fit?

 

[blackrock13]

I'm hoping this doesn't morph into bash the banks thread. Most posters here don't grasp or don't want to know how banks work. Rockslinger has explained it well. It's only when a-holes like Madoff and Stanford get a hold of your money with their take on the pyramid/ponzi that things collapse and take 1,000's of people with them. I hope both live a long life and rot slowly in jail.

 

[JohnLarue]

Great story and I agree. Did they make their bread doing something socially useless like money changers?

We build great monumental towers to the money changers so they can sit in them and exchange money through derivatives, going short on margin, foreign exchange etc How does this do anything but cause recessions? How does gambling on the flow of tomorrows market put moola in the hands of entrepreneurs so they can start a business and employ Rockslingers?

They just pass the loot around and everyone grabs some when it is their turn

The rich getting richer because, and only because, they can sit around on their yacht and watch their money make more money until they own everything ?

I do not pretend to understand economics but common sense screams that this is wrong

That is all part of the capital markets.
Nobody would invest dime one in any new venture unless they had an expectation being able to take out more money in the future.
If there is not a daily exchange of the ownership of these companies then there is no possibility of cashing out in the future.

Without the capital markets there is no no investment to create the job for rockslinger.

The other head shaker about most left wing views is the role the governments should take in an economy
It might surprise you to learn that Governments are one of the most active participants in Capital markets.
Every day these markets supply Billions of capital to Federal, Provincial, State and municipal governments in loans.

The debt capital markets are much larger than the equity capital markets

All the government services that the left values so much (IE our sacred "social safety net") would come to a grinding halt without these "Money Changers"

Is it a perfect system?
Maybe not
But it is better than any alternative proposed thus far & it works

As you say you do not pretend to understand economics, however I would suggest you educate yourself more before labeling a vital group with a derogatory term like "Money Changers"

You run the risk of forming an (incorrect) opinion without understanding all the facts.
If thats what you want fine. Sign up for for WoodPeker 101, read all his left wing nut-job posts, join a union, be pissed off at the way the world works and make a non-exsistant contribution to society.
However do not expect to be taken seriously

 

[oldjones]

Where did I go wrong. Did BM not get his $80,000 or won't it buy as much as I thought. Please help me here.

Geez, here we go again. 1) Go to your own post, not the quoted version here. 2) Read the quote you pretend you're replying to. 3) Ask yourself where you went wrong? Clue: Find where I mentioned any of the points in your reply, Clue 2: Find your response to what I did mention.

 

[JohnLarue]

If his employer contracted to pay that amount and he met the required conditions, how was it not earned? Or are employers to lose their right to bargain and contract with their employees as they see fit?

You point is always the same
A contract is a contract is a contract.
No mention of how these contracts are arrived at (ie blackmail I mean strikes)
No consideration that a contract may be a bad contract
No consideration for the fact that economic circumstance may change and make that contract inappropriate (ie the city is broke & can not afford such abuses)
No consideration for the fact that a benefit in one contract is up for discussion in the next contract. Not a chance in a union guys eyes. They fought for that sick day banking & will not give it up

Bottom line: He did not work for that 80K & if it was a public sector contract I paid for it


Have you ever been on the wrong side of a bad contract?
Any chance you tried to get out of it?

 

[blackrock13]

This sick days thing is a laugh, these days have been in these contracts for decades nenewed over and over by management. I'm sure they don't even intend to roll them back in this round, just a bargaining position to start the union in a hole and make it work to get back to even + 3%. BTW, I cashed in my sick days for a cool $80 000. Niiiiice.

His words?
___________________


Maybe my reference to MB as BM was a real faux pas. Could be I'm borderline Dyslexic or it was a Freudian slip. Some people might see him as a Big Mouth, not me, but someone might. Most everyone here knew who I was referring to and what I was talking about..

Other than that, You got me stumped. Anyone know what 'nenewed' means.

 

[blackrock13]

No one has given me an answer about the point of law that contracts can be nullified if it is clearly one sided. It would be of some interest here. I'll bet that why cooling off periods have become part of most contracts.

JL you make really good points.

Just because things have been done for years doesn't means it's right today; slavery, cutting off a thieves hand, keel hauling, debtors jails, and many more things. Many things have been have been amended to suit the feelings of the time. Even the USA amended it's beloved Constitution how many times?

 

[Yoga Face]

That is all part of the capital markets.
Nobody would invest dime one in any new venture unless they had an expectation being able to take out more money in the future.
If there is not a daily exchange of the ownership of these companies then there is no possibility of cashing out in the future.

Without the capital markets there is no no investment to create the job for rockslinger.

The other head shaker about most left wing views is the role the governments should take in an economy
It might surprise you to learn that Governments are one of the most active participants in Capital markets.
Every day these markets supply Billions of capital to Federal, Provincial, State and municipal governments in loans.

The debt capital markets are much larger than the equity capital markets

All the government services that the left values so much (IE our sacred "social safety net") would come to a grinding halt without these "Money Changers"

Is it a perfect system?
Maybe not
But it is better than any alternative proposed thus far & it works

As you say you do not pretend to understand economics, however I would suggest you educate yourself more before labeling a vital group with a derogatory term like "Money Changers"

You run the risk of forming an (incorrect) opinion without understanding all the facts.
If thats what you want fine. Sign up for for WoodPeker 101, read all his left wing nut-job posts, join a union, be pissed off at the way the world works and make a non-existent contribution to society.
However do not expect to be taken seriously

Appreciate your effort to inform me as you seem erudite.

- Unfettered capitalism is the Mafia in action. They will kill if it is "good for business" which was the underlying theme of "The Godfather" I suspect

- Getting rich does not encourage hard work other than the kind that makes you want to learn the skills of a money changer and that these greed-is-good people run the chaos of an economic system guided by an "invisible hand" is scary ie the present collapse, the great depression, WW2 etc

- people should be rewarded by what they put into a society not what they take out

I agree with giving people the incentive to invest so I can borrow and start a business but there needs to be limits on money making more money until only a few have it all and we need the unions to slow down this systematic cycle and I am blind as to how my common sense ideals , as uneducated as they are, will cause the end of capitalism and freedom

The one who started todays collapse was Cowboy Reagan with his belief in an unfettered market

I remember he got behind a podium and waved a paperback (the only book he had ever read?) and declared it the gospel of economics and said his goal was to make all Americans rich

A great idealist but how can everyone be rich? Who is gonna do the labor if we are all money changers? Not exactly a subtle point

 

[oldjones]

You point is always the same
A contract is a contract is a contract.
No mention of how these contracts are arrived at (ie blackmail I mean strikes)
No consideration that a contract may be a bad contract
No consideration for the fact that economic circumstance may change and make that contract inappropriate (ie the city is broke & can not afford such abuses)
No consideration for the fact that a benefit in one contract is up for discussion in the next contract. Not a chance in a union guys eyes. They fought for that sick day banking & will not give it up

Bottom line: He did not work for that 80K & if it was a public sector contract I paid for it


Have you ever been on the wrong side of a bad contract?
Any chance you tried to get out of it?

And yours is also the same. A contract is only OK if it costs you, or your buds nothing, but must be changed the moment it does. It's never 'extortion' or 'blackmail' when the government guns are used to force the employers' views, but always extortion if workers refuse to work under a deal they haven't agreed to. And somehow, although you've posted reams about 'fixing' bad deals by forcing new ones on workers, i can't recall you ver admitting that those who sat across from the unions at the bargaining table ever had the slightest responsibility for the 'bad' deals they negociated and signed. John LaRue for Irresponsible Management.

As to the current city contract: At least you acknowledge that the strike is not to get this contentious new benefit, but to keep the existing benefit. But in your view, anything in the old contract the employer wants to reduce or eliminate, the employees should just tug their forelocks and mumble, "Thank'ee, guv".

Perhaps you could go on to explain how the city could afford not to take it back from police or fire services or any of the other contracts it settled earlier this year. And as always you ignore the duty management has to manage and budget for easily predictable expense. And banked sick days are a lot easier to predict than actual sick days taken. If they equal the banked days in a year—and your earlier example said they would—where's the saving?

Tough times face each and everyone of us, but so far there's no evidence of the city trying to economize on anyone's wages but the workers on strike.

And as for me and bad contracts: I've signed a few to my disadvantage, and lived up to my side of everyone of them. As I would expect anyone to do.

Bottom line about the $80K you resent: Explain how fulfilling your contract and being duly paid as it provides is somehow 'not earning' the money. Get specific please, and not about irrelevant stuff like being a taxpayer. Every single one of us pays taxes, it's silly to keep pinning it on like your special badge. Especially when there's zero indication it was a tax-paid situation.

Have you ever signed an over-generous contract, that paid better than the usual rate? What did you do with the money you didn't earn?

 

[JohnLarue]

Get specific please, and not about irrelevant stuff like being a taxpayer. Every single one of us pays taxes, it's silly to keep pinning it on like your special badge. Especially when there's zero indication it was a tax-paid situation.
QUOTE]

Hey, I have told you once already
How I view my taxes is my right & not yours to question, so please leave that alone.

If you do not care how your tax dollars are wasted thats your right
But do not discount some else's right to be concerned about how 1/3 or 1/2 of what they make is spent.

I have never questioned your right (special badge)to organize and join a union.
I do not like unions & the tactics they use, however I do question a persons right to join one.

One poster here says its all about jealousy & envy for not having the same benefits.
I say no, it about the cost to me
You say thats not relevant
WTF. It is the only thing that is relevant.

OK then, lets just pay for the excess over the private sector with levy on all union dues & you will have me out of the argument.

Not such a great thing when you have to pay for it and can not spread the pain around to the general public, is it?

 

[JohnLarue]

Have you ever signed an over-generous contract, that paid better than the usual rate? What did you do with the money you didn't earn?

I have received bonuses for a job well done, however.
Since that was completely at the discretion of others , I will assume it was earned.

There was a contract in which I was unable to deliver the expected result (issues with another party not delivering what I needed to fill the contract to me)
I openly renegotiated compensation based upon what I was able to deliver. (ie I discounted the initial contract)
The customer was pleased with the approach & rewarded me with additional work.

It does not always have to be adversarial

 

[oldjones]

I have received bonuses for a job well done, however.
Since that was completely at the discretion of others , I will assume it was earned.

There was a contract in which I was unable to deliver the expected result (issues with another party not delivering what I needed to fill the contract to me)
I openly renegotiated compensation based upon what I was able to deliver. (ie I discounted the initial contract)
The customer was pleased with the approach & rewarded me with additional work.

It does not always have to be adversarial

So by your standards an ex gratia payment coming out of the blue was earned, but a contractual obligation, defined, agreed to and fulfilled is not. Very odd.

Commendable to renegociate when both parties were non-compliant, but what else could either of you do? You couldn't and wouldn't deliver without their agreed-on input—sorta like a strike in a way, no? And you negociate to settle. Of course your deal might well have been for full payment on delivery of your part with or without their part. Would you then have returned the 'unearned' part?

'Adverserial' is the crux, isn't it? Right from the time employers looked at unions as criminal conspiracies to the present when whatever the problem it's the union's fault,they should gratefully take whatever crumbs the employer says are all they can now afford, despite what they solemnly promised, and if they should inconvenience the Holy Taxpayer they should be punished. Nothing much has changed.

Can you point to any examples in your past posts where you have been anything other than adverserial, and urging the same on others?

 

[blackrock13]

OJ;

Apples and oranges.

JL got the bonus for at least doing a good job, at best going above and beyond expectation.

You're trying to draw a parallel with something given for just showing up to work.

No contest.

 

[oldjones]

Get specific please, and not about irrelevant stuff like being a taxpayer. Every single one of us pays taxes, it's silly to keep pinning it on like your special badge. Especially when there's zero indication it was a tax-paid situation.

Hey, I have told you once already
How I view my taxes is my right & not yours to question, so please leave that alone.

If you do not care how your tax dollars are wasted thats your right
But do not discount some else's right to be concerned about how 1/3 or 1/2 of what they make is spent.

I have never questioned your right (special badge)to organize and join a union.
I do not like unions & the tactics they use, however I do question a persons right to join one.

One poster here says its all about jealousy & envy for not having the same benefits.
I say no, it about the cost to me
You say thats not relevant
WTF. It is the only thing that is relevant.

OK then, lets just pay for the excess over the private sector with levy on all union dues & you will have me out of the argument.

Not such a great thing when you have to pay for it and can not spread the pain around to the general public, is it?

Hey, you're forgetting you dragged your taxes into an attack on Mrbig's famous $80K with no indication anywhere that he was ever even in the public sector. Your taxes aren't so special they belong in every post. We all pay 'em.

They are relevant to the TO strike, but stay focussed, city taxes are property taxes, and if that's a third to a half what you make you're on welfare and tax-supported.

I don't know how to respond to a guy who says stuff like this next:

I have never questioned your right (special badge)to organize and join a union.
I do not like unions & the tactics they use, however I do question a persons right to join one.

It's my job to contradict you, not yours. Please don't. And what's a "special badge"?

Now that last point "…that it's all about the cost to [you]" I really like and agree with. IF you'd stayed off all the bigotted union-bashing and dealt with costs and what they should be you would have been way more effective.

But that's real work—you've been paying the guys on the city's side of the table to not do it for years (but they're not union and so are without sin)—as you'll see if you try to honestly research and come up with those private sector wage and sickday numbers you so blithely said the union should be forced to accept. Still, it would actually be a useful contribution.

 

[blackrock13]

OJ;

You posts are getting very complex, convoluted, and really really wordy. Ever thought of running for political office? If not maybe writing a union training manual.

 

[oldjones]

OJ;

Apples and oranges.

JL got the bonus for at least doing a good job, at best going above and beyond expectation.

You're trying to draw a parallel with something given for just showing up to work.

No contest.

Apples and oranges for sure. He got a gift for his great work and has no beef if he didn't get it. You don't earn a gift, no matter how much you deserved it. And let me say I'm sure that he did.

He did earn what his contract said, if he did what his contract said. He has a really big beef if the client/employer then says, "Oooh, that's an unfunded obligation we can't actually come up with the money for". If all the contract required—and many do, like a ballplayer who warms the bench for $500k a game—was that he show up, then he earned that money. It must be paid.

What you're really on about is a semantic concern about the 'true' meaning of 'to earn', which is all well and good, but if it ain't in the contract it ain't relevant to being paid according to the contract.

As for the TO strike: the workers have a right to be paid for the days in the contract that's ending. They fulfilled their side of the deal. Management has a right to say that won't be in the new contract, and the two sides hafta somehow hash—sadly that included a strike—all that out and do a deal. But management saying they neglected to do the math and put aside the money to pay what they'd promised to try to get out of paying it sure poisons the well.

 

[JohnLarue]

In English please or at least something that is comprehensible

Again, hopefully for the the last time
It is not up to you to decide if I am allowed to express my concerned with how my taxes are wasted.
So I am going to be polite one last time & ask you to respect my right as tax payer

Just as I respect some of the rights you exercise , however I do not agree with

In MrBigs 80K extortion, I indicated that if it was public then I got ripped off,through my taxes, if it was private I probably paid through higher prices & we have all seen how a private union contract concern can become a public liability (GM Chrysler) and again a burden on my taxes

I noticed you stayed clear of the levy on union dues to pay for excesses on union contracts, as I thought you would

Your all for making the general public pay for union excess, however thoses same redicoulous demand would soon go away if the group consuming them woulld have to pay for them

 

[blackrock13]

OJ;

I'll be the first to say the management pulled some boners and I'll applaud the first city councillor who offers his 3% back to the city coffers. Remember GM and the pension payments.

Hopefully JL accounted for that bonus on his taxes. Gone are the days of boxes of booze at Xmas, but it was nice.

That baseball player is one of the 750 best people in his field. Does he earn that half mil. I'm not that good to answer that, but when his contract is done he'd better have done more than sit on the bench or he'll be doing something else somewhere else. His managers and agents aren't forced to negotiate as it appears the city unions and management are. If there's dissatisfaction on either side the contract is optioned out or allowed to lapse and tenders issued for a new contract with whomever. Apparently that can't happen. Why not?