Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?

Good post, Dag.


I agree with everything you said here.

I also am not aginst unions, just certain union policis, or certain rules that they have gotten so lopsided to their favor, that common sense goes out the window.

What really gets under my skin, are the big hypocrites, and it seems that too often, unions fall under that umbrella.  Not the average Joe union worker, but some union policies and management.  I also find it amusing, that people who would never put up with some of the more oddball rules are also some of the most blind defenders of them.

Some of the most blantant examples would be:

Teacher's unions claimed to be 'for the children', yet teachers with criminal convictions continue to teach (when I first looked into this, I thought maybe it was just an occasional instance of it here, and there that grabbed headlines, but when I looked into it, there are WAY more instances of it, than I thought.  How is that 'for the children'?)

Labor unions complaining that some corporations give low wages and benefits, to the point of having a formal protest, and then using hired protesters, that are paid LESS in wages/benefits than the business they are protesting.  If the unions think the wages/benefits the business is providing are so unfair, why are they paying less?

Or rules that say your wages are X, but having the rules set up in such a way, that certain union employees can triple that salary (or more), just by exploiting the rules, often at the expense of the normal rank and file worker.

Now, most unions are there for worker's rights, fair wages, etc, and that is a good thing.

I am just saying there needs to be some common sense involved, and when common sense is thrown out the window, the trend that I see tends to lean towards public sector unions as being the worst offenders.  FDR was against public workers unionizing, and I think that is the reason why.  When unions can vote in politicians who cave in to union demands, the possiblities for abuse increase greatly.


Senior Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?

It has nothing to do with them being  dems. All union workers are not dems btw. It has to do with justice and fair treatment under the law.


For example , if my tenant would have an altercation with the law. I could fire him but not until the term of the lease had expired.


If i had an employee that retired and collected his pension, I would hire him back in an instant if he was qualified and a good employee. I would assume that he had earned his pension and that is was already his whether I hired him or somebody else. I would prefer to hire a known quantity rather than someone I didn't know.

This is where we differ dag. You only think of the worker as the winner when infact the employer is the winner if he can hire back that exceptional employee. If the pensioner is hired at another firm the present employer would have gained nothing  and the pensioner may well improve his status.


The problem is that you are fearful that a working class slug just might get a good deal. In the first place it does not impact you at all and lord only knows why you are concerned about it. It simply isn't rational.


Condioer that John walter retires and collects his pension from meridith publishing. He is soprely missed by the company and they wish to hire him back as a consultant part time or full time at his old wage. What skin is it off of your nose or my nose if Meridith chooses to do that? John would be getting apension he has earned and a paycheck he has earned. How does anyone lose by that?

Senior Contributor

Re: Unions cost lives?

"The problem is that you are fearful that a working class slug just might get a good deal."


Once again you fall back on the hate card no matter how inaccurate it may be.


I have no problem with a person retiring from a job, start drawing their pension and then go to work at another job.  What I have a problem with is mainly with public employees being allowed to double dip.  Some time ago while this topic was discussed I found a news story of a fireman that retired and stared drawing his tax payer funded pension.  He then got a friend in the department to hire him back in a different job in the fire department and was paid more then a new employee would get.  He double dipped like this for years making some very good money.  I've also seen news stories where police and sheriff department officers have double dipped as well.


My question Don was not if you would hire a man who had retired from another job and was drawing a pension from it.  My question is would you provide a retirement pension for your employees and if so would you allow an employee to retire and begin collecting his pension from you and then come back and have you hire him back so you would be paying him his normal wages and his retirement pension at the same time? 

Senior Advisor

Re: Unions cost lives?

Usually Dag, an employer does not pay the pension. Pensions funds are earned by the employee and invested in accounts that will produce those benefits at a later date. Sometimes there is aproblem with that concept in that the employers have not properly funded the fund.


If my employee retired and received his earned pension, that would not preclude him from working for me. That is if he is a good employee and worth the money. If he was not a good and capable employee I would not hire him back. Nor would I hire him back if I was concerned about his double dipping. However, I am not concerned about it because I would rejoice at his  good fortune rather than have petty jealousy about it.


I don't care if you make too much or Red or BA, bruce, noxy or anyone else. It's not my concern. Why would you worry about such things?