College basketball is already underway, and if you haven't seen one of the pre-season tournament games you may be unaware that the three point line has been moved back this season. The three is now a 20-foot-9-inch shot--and probably should be moved back another foot or two. I hope the WIAA will follow suit and move back the line at the high school level as well--because the distance now is bad for the game.
People who have seen me play ball would be surprised by this opinion, because the three is a big part of my game. I drained four of them last night in our rec league. But the 19-foot-9-inch three pointer has been as responsible for the decline in the quality of American basketball as Michael Jordan and the "And 1 Streetball Tour". The glorification of Jordan in the 1990's brought on the age of the one-on-one game--where it was all about breaking down your man and trying to dunk over the top of him. The And 1 Tour's television popularity has led to the worst ballhandling habits in the history of the game. Kids copying the "Killer Crossover" and around the back dribbles look at you like you are from another planet when you call them for palming the ball or double dribble.
The too-short three has also changed the game significantly--but not for the positive. I was ecstatic when the three came into the game when I was in high school--because it gave us guards more value on the floor. Too bad our coach hated it and stuck with his offensive philosophy of pounding it into the post and shooting from 15 feet and in. Unfortunately, the three has completely taken over at the lower ranks of basketball--as even the big kids want to step out and drain it from long range.
I was at the dedication of the new basketball courts at the 20th Avenue YMCA last month. As soon as the ribbon was cut and the other festivities were done the kids stormed the floor to start using the baskets. Nearly every one of them stopped at the arc and started launching 'em. Even the little kids that could barely get it halfway there. They would just grab the ball and run back to the line and come up way short again. When I ref grade school tournaments on weekends you see entire teams running their offense around the three point shot--and these kids are ten or eleven years old.
I play ball with a couple of guys who went through high school before the 3-point shot was adopted--and they have beautiful mid-range games. They are deadly from 15 to 19-feet because they were never tempted to step back another couple of feet and launch a three. You hardly see anyone with that kind of game at the high school or even college level anymore--got to get that extra point from a few feet farther back.
That's why the NCAA should back the three-point shot out to 22-feet-9-inches and why the WIAA should move the arc out to about 21-feet. I doubt many coaches would encourage a lot of kids to launch it from that distance--and would reward those who can still stroke it from back there. And for the little kids--lie and tell them that free throws are worth three--we need more players who can make free throws.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The WIAA cannot mandate that schools move the 3 point arc back, on account of the teacher's union and public employees. You see, they demand so much money in their wages and health care benefits that there just isn't enough money for fresh paint.
ReplyDeleteWow, see how bad it's getting. I never knew that! That's why I read this blog, you learn so much!
ReplyDeleteYep, if it wasn't for the greedy teachers union sucking dry us pour taxpayers, the Packers would win the super boll for sure.
ReplyDeleteDid you know they were behind Lindbergh baby kidnapping???? The JFK assassination, too.
It's actually George Bush's fault.
ReplyDeleteOh, by the way, it's the Super Bowl not the super boll.
Yeah, guess that L. Oser who hates teachers' unions so much should have paid more attention in school ...
ReplyDeleteIt's poor not pour taxpayers also.
ReplyDeleteThose darn unions.
The Hoffa legacy is still alive and well in Oshkosh. Turning the screws on the taxpayers and sheltering the brotherhood from life in the real world.
Yes, indeed! Curse those unions! Why, back in the old days, you could get slack-jawed yokels to work for you for a dollar a week! You could beat them, too, and no one said a word! And if they croaked for lack of health care, plenty more to replace them! No shortage of labor with all those 8 and 9 year old kids working in my sweatshops! The very idea of letting the little slackers sit in school dawdling all day, when they could be turning a profit for me! Yes, indeed, life was good for us real Americans before those unions came along and started giving the great unwashed masses all sorts of loonie ideas about self respect and personal dignity!
ReplyDeleteHas anyone seen my solid gold back scratcher?
8:32 you're message refers to the time when greedy land owners or business owners kept all the profits for themselves and didn't share with the workers.
ReplyDeleteUnions were needed in those days, they did serve a purpose.
Now turn the page to 2008.
Private sector unions still must be mindful of profits. They take too much and risk making the company uncompetitive. That is really what has happened to New Page and GM to name just two.
That differs from public sector unions such as the one our friend FirePlug belongs to.
If you refer to the ones who pay for labor as "bosses", then the taxpayer is the boss.
The taxpayer isn't greedy here, he doesn't want to keep all the wealth for himself, heck some of the "bosses" in Oshkosh are elderly people scratching out a living on monthly welfare checks. Thats a whole lot less than a firemans $55,000.00 a year wage or a teachers $60,000.00 a year wage.
See the table has turned and the workers are cheating the "bosses" in the public sector union area.
I would like to see that changed. And hopefully in my lifetime I will.
Many of those living in Oshkosh simply can not afford to keep paying the expanding cost of labor borne by union entitlement mentality.
What do you suggest we pay teachers? Remember, teachers do have college degrees and can chose any profession they want. Do you feel we need quality people teaching our children?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you suggest we pay teachers?
ReplyDeleteWell I do suggest that the retirement plan is out of step with reality.
Teachers are able to retire as early as 55. Many public sector employees have a similar plan.
That type of retirement schedule is simply out of line with reality. Many in the private sector are working into their 70's.
The sick leave plan is far too excessive and costly for taxpayers.
The healthcare match (95 taxpayer 5 employees) is also completely out of line with healthcare in the private sector today.
Couple that with a liberal summer's off, Christmas week off and Spring break week off not to mention all the other days in the year off...along with those sick days and teachers are actually working very few days (compared to the private sector) for the money they are provided.
Its about the entire compensation package, not just cash.
All these costs are borne by the taxpayer, many who have lost their jobs, or haven't had a raise in years.
This is why you can easily make a case that the unions don't care how they treat their community neighbors who are paying their wages and benefits through property taxes.
Blahblahblah. Copy and Pasters have no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and pasters make me wanna puke.
ReplyDeleteUnions are actually hurting the economy. (Published in 2005)
ReplyDeleteGeneral Motors, the world's largest automaker, announced recently that it will be cutting 30,000 jobs and closing about a dozen facilities in an effort to save $7 billion a year and return the company to profitability. Those 30,000 jobs that will be cut represent about 22% of General Motors' hourly workforce.
But the United Auto Workers union may make things difficult for GM. They of course have blasted the move as unfair:
Not surprisingly, the leadership of the United Auto Workers union blasted the move as unfair.
"We have said consistently that General Motors cannot shrink itself to prosperity. In fact, shrinking General Motors only exacerbates its problems," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and Vice President Richard Shoemaker said in a joint statement. "Unfortunately, it is workers, their families and our communities that are being forced to suffer because of the failures of others," they added.
The company's contract with the United Auto Workers union essentially prevents layoffs before it expires in September 2007, AS THE COMPANY NEEDS TO PAY UNION MEMBERS WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A JOB FOR THEM.
To a small degree, the UAW is right: you can't simply shrink a company into prosperity. But what you can do is manage a company into prosperity. And some of that management involves cutting excess capacity, which is a big, costly problem for GM right now. And given the fact that the UAW contract guarantees pay for these 30,000 employees through 2007, it looks like GM has its hands tied. GM will be facing many difficulties in adjusting their payroll and excess production capacity in order to keep the company thriving.
What is the UAW doing essentially? They are telling GM what to do. They are restricting GM's ability to manage itself as a company, and contract and expand as the market demands. Of course, UAW would never have any problem with GM expanding its workforce, because that would mean more union members, more union dues, and more clout for the union itself. But whenever GM tries to cut back, the UAW fights tooth and nail. The UAW serves as the greatest impediment to GM's attempts to become profitable again. Ironically, the longer it takes GM to turn a profit, the more financial hot water the company gets in, and the hourly union jobs currently in force become even more at risk.
In my opinion, GM (and all automakers in North America) should refuse to hire union members. The UAW doesn't make cars: GM does. The UAW doesn't make its own jobs: it takes money from those who have jobs, and the UAW itself has only a small payroll for the union administrators. But if it weren’t for automakers like GM, Ford, and others, the UAW wouldn't even be able to pay its own administrators or collect union dues. The UAW's entire existence is dependent upon auto giants like GM to employ its members. And yet here we have the UAW telling GM how to run itself. Maybe GM should tell the UAW how to operate, and tell it to shut the hell up.
What does a union like the UAW do? It fights for "decent pay," for one thing, which amounts to an artificial minimum wage within a niche industry (in this case, automotive jobs), and we all know how minimum wage situations hurt society and the economy. They also fight for as many jobs as possible, which restricts the employer’s ability to turn a profit, and in the long run only endangers the job security of everyone that works for the company. Indeed, it puts a greater risk on the mere existence of the company. And to top it off, the pay raises that the UAW fights for are either nullified or reduced in effectiveness for the union members because of the mandatory monthly union dues.
A union can do some good in a monopoly job market. But this is a capitalist economy, where over a dozen different automakers have huge operations in America, and the UAW is obsolete and superfluous. There is a literal automotive job market, where auto manufacturers naturally and necessarily have to compete with each other to offer the best jobs to attract the most capable workers. The unions don't need to exist to protect anybody's wages or job security. The nature of the free and competitive job market does that automatically.
But let's look at the heart of this particular issue: the 30,000 employees that will be laid off. It will be unfortunate for these 30,000 people to receive pink slips. But why artificially protect their jobs through coercion or restrictive, long-term contracts? These 30,000 people will have plenty of options once they get laid off. They can find other jobs at other automobile manufacturers. For example, if GM is laying them off due to lower sales, yet the car market is expanding (which it is), then that means that other companies like Toyota or Honda are increasing their sales. Those other companies will need to hire more people to produce the extra cars that are being sold. These 30,000 people can get jobs at the other companies (yes, Toyota and Honda have many large facilities operating locally in North America). Or the 30,000 people could get jobs in other fields. Or they could start their own car company!
If the UAW is right, and they think they know how to operate a car company better than the people who run GM, then why don’t they organize and start their own car company? It’s a free market and nobody is going to stop them from starting up a competing automobile company. They already have a 30,000 person strong workforce to tap into, after all. I already know what a UAW representative would answer to that question: they would say that the auto making industry is fierce and that they would be squeezed out of the market before they got a chance to sell a car. In other words, they would be admitting that they wouldn't be able to run the company efficiently and competitively enough to survive. So who the hell do they think they are telling GM how to sail its own ship?
The UAW has the attitude that their members have a right to a job. That’s bullshit. Nobody has a right to a job, ever. What all those union members do have a right to, is the freedom to seek a job and be evaluated fairly for the job based on their own merits. This concept is totally foreign to the UAW, and the message is lost in the minds of its members if it ever reaches them at all. They would rather have an organization represent them and coerce a company into keeping them on the payroll rather than face the risk of market forces and merit-based employment. What a bunch of pussies.
Unions do not belong in a capitalist society. They do not belong in a competitive job market. They definitely should not be telling their members' employer how to run itself. But GM is also partly to blame for this problem, because they enable the UAW's evil behavior by agreeing to hire its members and by signing restrictive contracts. GM should stand up for itself and refuse to hire any more union members or sign any more contracts with the UAW.
Looking at the situation from a bird’s eye view, we see a competitive job market and a variety of employers. Then we see a monopoly of sorts, and that monopoly is the UAW. Is it any surprise that the UAW is the entity in the puzzle that's screwing everything up? I hate unions and want them all to disappear, but for sheer smart-ass irony value, I'd love to see a competing union sprout up and drive the UAW out of business. Wouldn't that be something!
What was written in 2005 is certainly applies to what has happened to GM, stock in now valued at zero.
Good to read Rohloff's comment in the Northwestern today-
ReplyDelete"Rohloff said the city would look at whether some positions should be eliminated if single stream were adopted."
Reduce ongoing labor costs through adoption of new technology. Good plan.
Someone said: "Blahblahblah. Copy and Pasters have no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and pasters make me wanna puke."
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with these comments. This asshole will take anything and turn in ito a platform for his own agenda. If nothing else, his continual bashing of unions and public sector workers has only made me feel that much stronger about them. If people like he had his way, these people would be paid next to nothing. Long live unions.
csmmkl wrote:
ReplyDeleteI must give you an "A" for effort at being a good conservative. However your paragraph that starts with "Now, my heart goes out to the blue-collar workers" disqualifies you from being a "true" conservative, if even for one day.
Your entire post up until that point was spot-on. But to not put any of the blame on the UAW union really let's your true colors shine through. I believe the white-color workers as well as the union are equally at fault. When unions argue for higher wages, they leave it up to white-collar workers to figure out how to pay those higher wages and still turn a profit in a very competitive business.
So the UAW took a gamble that Ford, GM, Chrysler could make a profit paying these exhorbinant salaries to blue-collar workers and it didn't pay off. I say let them fail. The laws of supply and demand will dictate who the global players should be. Shame on ALL OF THEM.
Gummer wrote:
I heard yesterday that a GM worker's salary and benefits averages out to 89.00 an hour. Toyota's is thirty something an hour and they don't have more pensioners than employees. They simply cannot compete under their current obligations. The only thing that can save them is bankruptcy.
titan2000 wrote:
There is no question that at almost $90/hour fully loaded, the union has killed its golden goose. It's retirement and future work is likely gon g to die. The members can sleep in goose sh*t rather than goose down from now on and they can blame the union bosses. I can drive a Toyota or a BMW; no need to build a Cadillac for me.
Why do these unions feel that they are entitled to have us taxpayers pay 95% of there heathcare costs?
ReplyDeleteWhy do these unions feel that they are entitled to have us taxpayers pay so they can retire at 55?
Why do these unions feel that they are entitled to have us taxpayers pay so they get a gazillion paid sick days every year?
Why do these unions feel that they are entitled to have us taxpayers pay more to them then we do to our families?
Why do these unions feel that they are entitled to make life hard for us, so its good for them?
Why do these unions feel that they are better than I am and I pay there wages?
Someone said: "Blahblahblah. Copy and Pasters have no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and pasters make me wanna puke."
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with these comments. This asshole will take anything and turn in ito a platform for his own agenda. If nothing else, his continual bashing of unions and public sector workers has only made me feel that much stronger about them. If people like he had his way, these people would be paid next to nothing. Long live unions.
Cuts to the school budget.
ReplyDeleteStory said teachers wages and benefits make-up 80% of the budget.
It's time to start there.
I suggest that the teachers retirement plan is out of step with reality.
Teachers are able to retire as early as 55. Many public sector employees have a similar plan.
That type of retirement schedule is simply out of line with reality. Many in the private sector are working into their 70's.
The sick leave plan is far too excessive and costly for taxpayers.
The healthcare match (95 taxpayer 5 employees) is also completely out of line with healthcare in the private sector today.
Couple that with a liberal summer's off, Christmas week off and Spring break week off not to mention all the other days in the year off...along with those sick days and teachers are actually working very few days (compared to the private sector) for the money they are provided.
Its about the entire compensation package, not just cash.
All these costs are borne by the taxpayer, many who have lost their jobs, or haven't had a raise in years.
This is why you can easily make a case that the unions don't care how they treat their community neighbors who are paying their wages and benefits through property taxes.
Better yet, let's cut the comments from the resident union basher who chimes in on any blog where comments are unmoderated.
ReplyDeleteHis blahblahblah is old and needs to be retired. Copy and Paste DUDe has no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and Paste DUDe makes me wanna puke.
This asshole will take anything and turn in ito a platform for his own agenda. If nothing else, his continual bashing of unions and public sector workers has only made me feel that much stronger about them. If people like he had his way, these people would be paid next to nothing. Long live unions.
How many times do I have to tell you that the city portion for health insurance is NOT 95%?
ReplyDeleteFirePlug
Fireplug, don't waste your time. This C&P numbnuts likes to spin things his/her way and will never understand or accept anything else. His mind is closed to reality and everything else, so he'll never be successful at anything; which explains his resentment toward those of us who are.
ReplyDeleteA GM worker makes $90 an hour?
ReplyDeleteA New Page millworker makes $30 an hour?
No wonder the plants are closing!!!!
I'm going to check into what city and teachers make on the Daily Northwestern webpage.
No wonder the economy is going to hell!
Oh come now anonymous. You already know what they make. You're just being glib. Whatever they make they're underpaid for doing their job and that of what many parents can't or won't do.
ReplyDeleteOh and BTW, there's no way I believe a GM worker makes $90 an hour. It's even doubtful that a New Page millworker makes $30 an hour. A certain someone on these blogs has been known to stretch the truth when it comes to union employees.
Thank heavens for the unions protecting the workers and helping ensure a living wage. With so many people making less than that can you imagine how horrible the economy would be if more people were in that boat? Yikes.
ReplyDeleteThe secret problem with America - Union Labor.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who has ever studied free market economics, or even simply heard the term “collective bargaining”, it should come as no surprise that the industries dominated by unions are dying a slow and painful death.
Just this month for example, GM announced that it had hemorrhaged more than $2.5 billion (WITH A “B”) in losses last quarter. That same loss over 4 quarters would equal $10B, or close to the total GDP of the Republic of Congo, a country with over 4,000,000 inhabitants. To put this loss in perspective, it means that each of the roughly 266,000 employees of GM would have “added” a net negative value to the company of roughly $36,000 per person! Let’s ponder that for a moment. Essentially, what that means is that each employee of General Motors costs the company $36,000 and returns ZERO value on that investment. Yet, they have the audacity (of hope as it were) to request a taxpayer bailout to line the pockets of executives who mismanage, union workers who fail to produce a competitive product at a competitive rate, and shareholders who were dumb enough to buy into this garbage. How anyone can make the argument that the American public needs to be on the hook for one more penny to support these failures is beyond me.
Let’s imagine ourselves for a moment as a huge venture capital group, Uncle Sam Ventures Inc. We control a pool of money that can be used on any number of investments, but that pool is limited, and we must choose where we invest those funds wisely. Our goal is to ensure that those resources we choose to allocate are used to fund ventures that are financially sound, and ultimately will generate enough revenue to justify the initial investment, and eventually, reward us for our prudent investment by delivering profits.
General Motor’s value proposition to us in this case is as follows. What they are trying to sell here, is the idea that the $36,000 spent per employee per year to yield a $0 return, will improve if we just give them $50 billion dollars to turn things around. At the same rate of efficiency as they currently display, that $50,000,000,000 would yield a result of a loss of $186,000 per year per employee. No VC firm in the world would even let these guys in the door.
The next logical question to ask our-selves is why is GM so inefficient? The simple answer is that they pay too much for labor that is not necessarily differentiated in efficiency, ingenuity, creativity or effectiveness. However, the bigger problem over time is that the union’s workers first loyalty is to the union, and the union bosses, not the overall health and well-being of their employer. That adversarial stance has finally broken the back of a once great company, and here is how it happened.
For decades, if the UAW didn’t get the new retirement package they wanted, they would strike. If they didn’t get the mandatory raises for dead-weight clock punching employees, they would strike. If they didn’t get higher overtime benefits, they would strike. This went on and on and resulted in over inflated wages and benefits for the labor forces at the big 3.
From the perspective of the union, this should be seen as a win for labor. However, what these union workers and bosses don’t seem willing or able to understand is that they have no long-term BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Now, their policies and shakedowns have resulted in bloated organizations that cannot sustain themselves through their own efforts due to the unrealistic compensation expectations of their workforces.
They cannot make enough money on a Chevy Malibu, for example, to offset the costs associated with producing said car. In the end, the irony may be that the best thing that could happen to the US auto industry would be for the big three to go out of business. In a sense, it would be like the strike in Ayn Rand’s ode to capitalism, Atlas Shrugged, when the productive class of society finally refused to support the altruistic efforts of the left, and unplugs from society.
Perhaps through the destruction of a fat and unhealthy system, a newer, more efficient model will emerge, resulting in profits, new jobs and tax revenue. This seems like a much better long-term outcome for the consumers and the taxpayers.
Better yet, let's cut the comments from the resident union basher who chimes in on any blog where comments are unmoderated.
ReplyDeleteHis blahblahblah is old and needs to be retired. Copy and Paste DUDe has no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and Paste DUDe makes me wanna puke.
This asshole will take anything and turn in ito a platform for his own agenda. If nothing else, his continual bashing of unions and public sector workers has only made me feel that much stronger about them. If people like he had his way, these people would be paid next to nothing. Long live unions.
Better yet, let's cut the comments from the resident union basher who chimes in on any blog where comments are unmoderated.
ReplyDeleteHis blahblahblah is old and needs to be retired. Copy and Paste DUDe has no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and Paste DUDe makes me wanna puke.
This asshole will take anything and turn in ito a platform for his own agenda. If nothing else, his continual bashing of unions and public sector workers has only made me feel that much stronger about them. If people like he had his way, these people would be paid next to nothing. Long live unions.
Better yet, let's cut the comments from the resident union basher who chimes in on any blog where comments are unmoderated.
ReplyDeleteHis blahblahblah is old and needs to be retired. Copy and Paste DUDe has no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and Paste DUDe makes me wanna puke.
This asshole will take anything and turn in ito a platform for his own agenda. If nothing else, his continual bashing of unions and public sector workers has only made me feel that much stronger about them. If people like he had his way, these people would be paid next to nothing. Long live unions.
Better yet, let's cut the comments from the resident union basher who chimes in on any blog where comments are unmoderated.
ReplyDeleteHis blahblahblah is old and needs to be retired. Copy and Paste DUDe has no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and Paste DUDe makes me wanna puke.
This asshole will take anything and turn in ito a platform for his own agenda. If nothing else, his continual bashing of unions and public sector workers has only made me feel that much stronger about them. If people like he had his way, these people would be paid next to nothing. Long live unions.
Better yet, let's cut the comments from the resident union basher who chimes in on any blog where comments are unmoderated.
ReplyDeleteHis blahblahblah is old and needs to be retired. Copy and Paste DUDe has no originality. No guts to show up at meetings where they might be able to make a difference. Not enough intelligence to know if they really want to make a difference they need to talk to Madison lawmakers. Not enough brains to know the public sector is and always will be different from the private sector -- and for good reasons (their cheap ass "I want things but don't want to pay much for them" attitude being one good reason). No good job themselves so begrudge those who have one. No spelling skills (maybe a clue as to why they can't get a decent job). No life. Copy and Paste DUDe makes me wanna puke.
This asshole will take anything and turn in ito a platform for his own agenda. If nothing else, his continual bashing of unions and public sector workers has only made me feel that much stronger about them. If people like he had his way, these people would be paid next to nothing. Long live unions.
This statement pretty well sums up the unions problems:
ReplyDelete"The next logical question to ask our-selves is why is GM so inefficient? The simple answer is that they pay too much for labor that is not necessarily differentiated in efficiency, ingenuity, creativity or effectiveness. However, the bigger problem over time is that the union’s workers first loyalty is to the union, and the union bosses, not the overall health and well-being of their employer. That adversarial stance has finally broken the back of a once great company"
The whole point of unions is to protect the worker and thank god someone does. The greedy employers certainly don't care. That's why unions were formed in the first place.
ReplyDelete"That's why unions were formed in the first place."
ReplyDeleteAnd in their day, unions were important, now they have become a detriment to the economy.
"the union’s workers first loyalty is to the union, and the union bosses, not the overall health and well-being of their employer"
Now we the taxpayers may be faced with bailing out the company because the unions didnt care about their own employer.
The government doesn't have to bail them out. There are many businesses that fail each year that the government doesn't bail out. It should be no different here. Don't blame poor management decisions on unions. Were it not for unions even today, the CEOs would still be the fat cats while the ones making them fat would be scraping by to make a living wage.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. No govenment bailouts for poor business desisions or management/labor errors.
ReplyDeleteAs I read the article in the Oshkosh paper today titled:
ReplyDelete"Stakes high in auto bailout"
A comment made by Senator Richard Shelby said "The Big Threes financial straights are the legacy of the uncompetitive structure of their manufacturing and labor force"