cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cotman03
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions cost lives?

So if I'm reading you right, you think that each incident involving an air traffic controller should be treated individually and not as a pattern?  Is that what you are saying?  Shouldn't the history of the controller count for something?  This particular person did this not so long ago, was punished, and now has done it again.  Forget the past, you say?  Would you do it on your farm if someone made a life threatening mistake with one of your family members, then made the same mistake again less than a year later?  I would hope not.  This idiot should be fired as incompetent.  One chance, yes.  No more than that in this position in that short of a time span.

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?

Yes, the law is the law.  I think it is a very BAD law, which is why I spotlighted this whole thing in the first place.  Shining a light where  bad things happen, often will cause less bad things to happen.  I accept that it is the law, I am just utilizing my right to free speech, to voice my opinion, that I think such things are wrong.

 

 

Punishment at a stand still?

The woman is in jail, serving a 10-year-to-life sentance, she has been found guilty.  Her lawyer is appealing, to try to get her sentance reduced or reversed, which is the idea behind an appeal, but she already had a full jury trial, and was found guilty.

Why does she continue to be paid?

(You still haven't answered my original question if you are for or against convicted criminals still drawing paychecks)

If she is found innocent, I have no problem with them giving her back pay, but why is a teacher, still on payroll, with benefits, while actually sitting in prison?  Plus, she already was fired, it is just that they cannot stop paying her, even though she was fired, until after 'arbitration'. 

Can you name any profession, that does not have a public-sector union, that does that?

 

I'm all for private sector unionization, but don't think public sector unions are the way to go, for more or less the same reasons FDR was against them.

 

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?


@gough whitlam wrote:

Dag - You do not have to bat for both sides on this one.  Your conservative politics has the inbred hatred for unions so to insult us by thinking you have a solf spot is absurd.   By suggesting unions cost lives is ridiculous.  The case in question has nothing to do with unions and you know so you are simply drawing a long bow to further the cause.  The flight controller would have firstly undergone an extensive examination to get the position, obviously.  He is now stood down, and rightly so, until an investigation into his problems is had.  For all we know he might have problems at home, have a drug problem or just simply made two mistakes.  But to blame the unions for the possible loss of life in the future is totally ridiculous.  Have a think about such things before you rush to jam the unions.

 

How's the treatment going mate?

 

 

Gough, that is a well thought-out reply.  I fully agree with the highlighted part.  I am willing to wait to see the results of the investigation, as to why the mistakes were made.  It is within the realm of possiblities that he just was putting in too long of hours, due to heavy airline traffic, and maybe shorter hours, or a short vacation would do the trick.
On the other hand, he may be an addict, or just plain incompetent, and if that is the findings, he should not be allowed to be an ATC.  I'm willing to wait this particular case out, and see the results before I pass final judgement on this one.

The teacher getting paid, while serving a jail sentance after being convicted of having sex with a minor student, I still can find no valid argument for, other than the law says they have to, and think that law needs changing.


 

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?

Do you know that, or are you just guessing?  Remember, she is well into her 50s.

There are all sorts of public assistance, for her dependants at home, so they don't starve, if need be. 

 

She has already been found guilty, why does the school district still need to be paying her?  This has been going on since her conviction in 2008.  At $50K plus a year (and benefits), that is over $200,000 she has gotten.  If her conviction stands, she should not get to keep it.  She was not fulfilling her part of the labor contract, and she defaulted when she committed a crime.


Again, if found innocent, I would have no problem with her getting back-pay, but she is getting paid for a service she is not rendering, due to a criminal conviction.

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions cost lives?

First off let me say that I'm disappointed to see Don and Gough resort to using the overly abused Dem party union hate card yet again.  You obviously don't know me.  I have many friends and family members that work in unions and not only don't hate unions or uion employees but actually have very few strong disagreements with unions in general.  However I do think that some unions have gotten to much in concessions.  Auto workers being guaranteed no layoffs and drawing a paycheck and benefits to simply sit in a room and do nothing when lack of demand for their product requires layoffs is simply crazy and leads to trouble for all eventually.  Teachers and evidently air traffic controllers now have near immunity from ever being fired no matter how inept.

 

I'm curious Don if back when you were farming if you had had a full time hired man that was convicted of the same crime as the school teacher mentioned.  After you had to go out and hire a new hired man to replace him would then continue to pay full wages to the first hired man now serving time in prison?

 

Bruce, I'm all for their being a fair process where employees have a right to some type of investigation/trial and even an appeal if the employee is fired.  However it should not take years to be able to fire a bad teacher or allow numerous screws by a air controller and wait for an accident resulting in deaths before terminating them.

 

Gough, I choose the title of my post "Unions cost lives?" tongue in cheek to get old Don's blood pressure going.  I wanted to hear Don's opinon on the story as he has always been a very strong backer of union and employee rights.

However if you read the AP news reporter raises the question in the second sentence, " The case raises questions about whether employee rights are trumping safety at the Federal Aviation Administration."   

 

Gough like Don ask all kinds of questions as you loyally defend the working class man.  I someone poised the possibility that the air traffic controller made the error because he was tired and over worked.  If you read the news report it says  one instance took place shortly after the controller had started his shift.  I'm also under the impression that the hours they work are closely regulated and limited to avoid being over worked like some pilots have been on smaller carriers.

None of us were there and know the particulars of the two errors made by the air controller so I think you have to place a lot of attention to what people involved have to say.  The man's supervisor said "he tried repeatedly last year to get the controller fired"

 

"It's typical of trying to get rid of problem employees" at FAA, said Humphrey, who was the air traffic manager in Gulfport until he retired in January. "It is **bleep** difficult to get rid of an employee for cause."

 

As I pointed out the reporter who investigated this story questions whether employee rights are now trumping safety at the Federal Aviation Administration."   

I'm going on what those close to the story say while you guys appear to not even read the news report or reseach the story and are now grasping at straws and offering up all kinds of possible excuses.

 

Like it or not there are certain jobs that require and demand a much stricter behavior, ethics, lifestyle or however you want to say it.  Police and teachers used to fall into this category but now days it is much harder to fire bad teachers and even cops after reading the recent story of the Keokuk county sheriff who was buested for his second OWI but was able to talk the Highway Patrol man into giving him special treatment and was later given a get out jail free card by the county attorney (from another county) who decided to drop the charges because the sheriff had won the last election by comfortable margin and he did not think he could get a jury to convict him even though the evidence was very strong.

 

I believe truckers, bus drivers, pilots and several other occupations have stricter rules against being convicted of OWI drug use or even speeding tickets.  Certain jobs simply have little room for error or could easily put the lives of others in danger and therefore demand more from their employees.  I'm thinking the job of air traffic controller does or should fall into this category. 

 

I can only assume two things.  One that this air controller's supervisor has it out for this guy and wants to get him fired and not simply based on job performance and that it is just a coincidence that this guy made two big mistakes over an eighth months period.   Or two that the supervisor who works with the guy truly thinks he is inept and should no longer be working as an air traffic controller and is frustrated with how difficult it has become to replace bad employees. 

 

I'm assuming as it appears the reporter does as well that the employees rights via their union have made it so difficult to replace poor workers who's mistakes endanger the lives of others.  It would be interesting to learn more about the particulars of the union / employee rights of the FAA employees if that is what is making so hard to get rid of poor employees.

Maybe it not so much the unions to blame but a good old boys system within the FAA where they protect each other similar to what the Des Moines Register reported in their lenghty story on the Keukuk sheriff story how cops will often give fellow cops a break or free pass.  Maybe the government workers inside the FAA are the ones making it so "bleeping difficult" to get rid of an FAA worker.

  

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?

My brother in law drives a truck, and when he was hired, they showed him, right in his contract, that a DUI was cause for termination.  Not just while driving his truck, but a DUI conviction of any kind, even in his private viechle.

 

The guy who drives the bus for my Kindergardener says that he is allowed no more than two speeding tickets in his private viechle per year, and no speeding tickets while driving the bus.  When first hired, he was on a 90 day probationary period, where any moving violation, of any kind, was reason for termination.

 

 

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?

No but I had a hired girl that molested me but I let her off with a warning that if she ever did it again I would give her a raise.

 

Seriously Dag, the mindset on these pages is anti union. Not just from you but from several individuals. I am the lone defender of working people. I don't beleive people should be fired unless there is compelling evidence. Not just suspicion or gossip or the word of mouth but actual wrongdoing. And they do deserve a hearing. Unions purpose is to represent their members. Evidently, you want them to abandon their members simply because you have predetermined that should be the right decision. Can we not afford one protector of unions on these pages?

 

How many individuals have made the case that union workers have too much power and that wages and benefits should be less. I don't think your income should be lower. I don't think you should get less for what you do or what you sell. What is the obsession  that creates such farmer animosity directed to unions? Perhaps they don't want labor to have negotiating rights. The same rights you use every day in negotiating with businesses and landlords etc.

 

Hard bargaining? Is their any restriction on your ability to be a tough negotiator. Is there anything that says you and 20 other farmers cannot pool your orders and buy supplies together? Are they called co-ops? Is that any better or worse than a union? The strength of bargaining power is used all the time in real world business.

 

You have to do more than that to get my blood pressure up. In fact you probably suffer blood pressure problems more than I. I know you are exasperated because I challenge you on this issue, but it would be productive if you would rethink the antiunion philosophy that permeates this forum.

 

IN a sentence, conservatives don't like unions. They have the gall to interfere in the profit model and conservatives always favor business over labor. Conservatives always blame labor costs fro the high prices of goods. When in fact consumer demand has more impact on prices than does cost of production. Case in point $12 beans do not reflect cost of production but demand for the beans. And your bean buyer wouldn't care if you spent $20 an hour for labor or $10 per hour.

 

As far as firing people, I don't think you and I should be deciding. If the FAA did the investigating, maybe they should decide. I don't think the FAA wants to expose travelers to unwarranted risk.

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?


@kraft-t wrote:

No but I had a hired girl that molested me but I let her off with a warning that if she ever did it again I would give her a raise.

 

Seriously Dag, the mindset on these pages is anti union. Not just from you but from several individuals. I am the lone defender of working people.

 

I guess I see it differently.  I see some people pointing out a couple of examples of union abuses or potential abuses of power, and one guy defending any and all things, as long as it is on their 'side'.

 

I don't beleive people should be fired unless there is compelling evidence. Not just suspicion or gossip or the word of mouth but actual wrongdoing. And they do deserve a hearing.

 

And yet, when there is an example put right in front of you, of someone who was in a position of power over school students, had sex with one of those 14 year old students, was charged, and convicted by jury, you still won't acknowledge that perhaps the rule that says she should still be getting paid some 4 odd years later, is a bad rule.

Did you ever actually read one of the links yet?  She has had hearings, and appeals, and in the appeal, I can find no evidence that she is denying that she had sex with a 14 year old student, but her appeal is whether she was the one who actually sent the predatory e-mails, or had someone else do it.  I'm guessing here, but I think there is a stiffer penalty for internet predators who prey on minors, which is why she is appealing that part.  I have read nothing about her having any valid claim that the sex with the student did not happen.  You are free to search the web and prove me wrong, if you want to, but until then, how do you defend her still drawing pay? 

 

 Unions purpose is to represent their members. Evidently, you want them to abandon their members simply because you have predetermined that should be the right decision. Can we not afford one protector of unions on these pages?

 

Sure, but remember, you are also very vocally defending someone who has a conviction for a sex offense against a minor already, with similar State charges pending.  You have the right to defend her until your bones fall apart, but I just can't fanthom why you want to.

 

 

How many individuals have made the case that union workers have too much power and that wages and benefits should be less.

 

I believe Dag made a very serious case against a few over-reaching rules, that are simply un-sustainable.  There is nothing wrong with union organization in general, and a good part of the problem lies with the employers signing the other line of a contract, that had un-sustainable rules within it. 

Nothing wrong with worker's rights, but what about some common sense?

 

 I don't think your income should be lower. I don't think you should get less for what you do or what you sell. What is the obsession  that creates such farmer animosity directed to unions?

 

I'll bet you a six pack of Mountain Dew, you can't find one instance of anyone on this thread, saying that people's incomes should be lower, just for the sake of them being lower.  There may be instances where there is no other viable alternative, than cut business costs, or instances of individuals who are not earning their pay, but I can't remember anyone saying that wages should be lowered, just for the sake of lower wages. 

 

Perhaps they don't want labor to have negotiating rights. The same rights you use every day in negotiating with businesses and landlords etc.

 

Hard bargaining? Is their any restriction on your ability to be a tough negotiator. Is there anything that says you and 20 other farmers cannot pool your orders and buy supplies together? Are they called co-ops? Is that any better or worse than a union? The strength of bargaining power is used all the time in real world business.

 

A co-op that gives certain board members an extra $1.50 a bushel for their corn, than they do anyone else in the co-op, would be just as in need of straightening out, as a union that sets up rules, that allows someone to get triple their actual salary, due to special perks that the average worker can not get.

 

You have to do more than that to get my blood pressure up. In fact you probably suffer blood pressure problems more than I. I know you are exasperated because I challenge you on this issue, but it would be productive if you would rethink the antiunion philosophy that permeates this forum.

 

Actually, I need something to get my blood pumping, as I have low blood pressure...runs in the family.

 

IN a sentence, conservatives don't like unions.

 

To me, that sounds like a predjudiced statement, just as much as 'the Irish drink too much' or 'the Polish aren't too bright'.

 

 They have the gall to interfere in the profit model and conservatives always favor business over labor. Conservatives always blame labor costs fro the high prices of goods. When in fact consumer demand has more impact on prices than does cost of production. Case in point $12 beans do not reflect cost of production but demand for the beans. And your bean buyer wouldn't care if you spent $20 an hour for labor or $10 per hour.

 

But, if it costs you $20 a bushel to raise your $12 bushel beans, eventually reality should hit, that perhaps something is going to have to give.

 

As far as firing people, I don't think you and I should be deciding. If the FAA did the investigating, maybe they should decide. I don't think the FAA wants to expose travelers to unwarranted risk.


 

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions cost lives?

You accuse me of being anti-union, hating unions and their members and wanting to lower the wages of union employees.  Once again their is no truth to your accusations.

 

As I pointed out there are only a few things that I disagree with on union policies.  Allowing public employees to retire and start drawing a pension only to get hired back in another public sector job and often with the same department.  Auto workers getting concessions that makes it impossible for their employers to lay them off when a decline in sales dictates layoffs are needed. Instead the workers get a wage and benefits to sit in a room and do nothing.  Teachers having near immunity from being fired no matter how bad they are often requiring years for schools to get rid of them.

 

When I point out these few disagreements I have with some unions I get branded by Don and Gough as a hater of unions and their workers.  In fact I would suggest it is you guys that are doing more harm to workers by supporting certain union concessions and rights that have financially broken companies resulting in bankruptcies and and companies going under resulting in a loss of all jobs.  You can try to spin it all you want but one of the biggest financial problems with our the big three auto makers is the enormous cost of benefits they pay their employees and past employees. 

 

Just today I read an article by Matt Podgorski a professor of political science at Northeast Illinois University where Podorski claims that Hostess Brands, the maker of Twinkies & Wonder Bread is going broke because of many reasons but the main one is the cost of employee benefits and and pensions.  Hostess is filing Chapter 11 for the second time in three years.  I did a little research and found an investment site that also talked about Hostess and they seem to agree with Podorski as they listed three main reasons for Hostess's financial problems with the top two being,  1. Pension obligations from retired workers. 2. Health-care costs for both retired and current employees.

 

I willing to bet any amount of money that if Don or Gough was an employer that they would never continue to pay an employee convicted of a crime and serving time in prison while also paying a wage to the worker they had to hire to replace the one in prison.  I'll also bet they would never continue to pay wages and benefits to an employee they no longer needed.  I'll bet you guys would never allow an employee to retire and start paying them a pension and them hire them back again and pay them both a pension and a salary.  I'll bet you guys would not be happy if it took you over a year to get rid of bad employees while you continued to pay their salaries.  Yet you guys see no problem with it as long as it is someone else footing the bill because you see all union workers as fellow Dems.

 

gough whitlam
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions cost lives?

Dag - "I have friends who support unions, good friends of mine do this and that blah blah blah   "   -  that is no justification and a poor attempt to hide what you were originally trying to insinuate.   It is well documented on here where your loyalties lye and I don't have a problem with that but to make the statement and then imply there was virtually nothing meant by it   -   come one comrade, pull the other one.  Even if some right wing nutter who access your news stream, it still means the same.  There is no evidence to that effect and never will be.