6 ms·

Good for them. Bad for the taxpayer.

EliRivers 11y ago
Strong unions are symptoms, not causes. Blaming unions because rich/powerful people have a tendency to fuck over the powerless is exactly what the rich/powerful want you to do. The rich and powerful benefit far more from low taxes than the stereotypical "tax payer". Addendum: for God's sake, your precious karma score is a number on a website. If it matters to you so much that you create new accounts to say something people might not like, you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  Reply to addendum: Pseudonymity is not anonymity - a lot of people post here under a handle known to friends and/or coworkers (or generally prefer to post without hiding their identities.) They may be posting under throwaways in order not to be judged for their opinions IRL (or fired for them.) So it's not all magic internet points.
JulianMorrison 11y ago
The taxpayer ought to be ashamed of short changing people. They also ought to have the common sense that it's better to pay a living wage, than pick up the bill in welfare.
- sbank 11y ago
  Fire service could be privatized and government provided welfare does not have to exist to begin with.
  - JulianMorrison 11y ago
    Result, slums, city destroying fires, people dying in the street. You do realize also, that chronically sick malnourished sweatshop serfs do awful work? It's a dystopian hell only a libertarian could love.
    - jschwartzi 11y ago
      It's not a libertarian ideal. It's more of an Anarcho-syndicalist ideal.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I'm always shocked when such terrible ideas are put forth for consideration in a public forum. Privatize essential life safety services? Because that has worked oh so well for healthcare.
    - Shivetya 11y ago
      healthcare is the state it is in because of government interference in the insurance markets at Federal and State levels. When you cannot cross state lines to offer competing insurance how can anyone expect a good system. Before anyone points to government run healthcare in the US being good please explain away the VA The standard line always is, "we will do it better than X" - well fix current government run healthcare first
      - delazeur 11y ago
        Arguably, U.S. government interference in healthcare markets has been heavily influenced by insurance lobbyists for the purpose of increasing insurance profits. Although there is often a trade-off between availability and quality, other countries have managed to provide decent healthcare without exorbitant cost.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - eru 11y ago
        If you don't just to want beat up a strawman, the US interference in health care is not a good argument against government interference in health care in general. The NHS in the UK has its problems, but they are not nearly as bad. (I don't know which country's system is the best to look at as a good example of private health care. Perhaps the best parts of India? (India ostensibly has government healthcare, but it's so bad that everyone who can afford it gets private health care. I don't know how bad the interference is.)))
  - erroneousfunk 11y ago
    You realize that firefighting is a job that requires a great deal of training and education, and it's a job that's very easy to do badly? Not only that, but fires spread, they need to be caught early, and they're preventable. It's not just a matter of performing a service for one home at a time if they catch on fire, it's a matter of performing a public service to reduce the risk of fire, enforce building codes, minimize damage caused by fires, and save lives. This is something that requires a community effort, and needs to cover the entire community uniformly.
    - todd8 11y ago
      Most jobs provide some important service. The person that bags groceries at the supermarket is part of the system that feeds all of us. Firefighting is a job; one that is widely respected. However, the workers on farms and ranches and fishing boats work under riskier conditions and are paid less. Firefighting isn't a particularly dangerous job (although several times riskier than programming). With respect to training, I'm not a firefighter and I'm sure it varies by department, but I believe firefighting requires a highschool degree, EMS training and a few weeks of training on firefighting methods. Before being concerned about firefighters, it seems to me that we should be more concerned with improving the conditions for loggers and garbage collectors which have much greater work related risks.
      - erroneousfunk 11y ago
        I wasn't expressing concern about the position, I was explaining why it would be a bad decision to privatize it. None of the things I listed mention anything about it being "dangerous" or "risky" One of the biggest arguments against privatization, I think, is that they're responsible for enforcing building fire codes, and that's a very non-dangerous task. I have no idea what your response is supposed to mean.
- ethbro 11y ago
  This. I've never understood the convoluted logical gyrations required to get through "unions are bad" -> "free market should be allowed to set wages (without workers having freedom to collectively bargain)" -> "non-livable wages spread for workers without capital" -> "griping about welfare and lazy people who should just work more". Yes, unions can metastasize and block their own effectiveness. But a properly bounded union isn't a terrible thing.
  - Sammi 11y ago
    Christ. Just look at all of western europe to see unions working well for the most part.
  - padobson 11y ago
    There's a major difference between a public employee union and a private sector union. In the private sector, a union organizes to put leverage on management, who represents ownership (i.e. the stockholders, the partners, etc). Ownership made a choice to invest in the company, and was able to weigh factors like labor rates and work environment before they invested. But in a public employee union, labor is organizing for leverage against ownership, which in a democracy is everyone under the government's jurisdiction. In this case, ownership is investing in the union without the same choice. If we live under a government that is of, by, and for the people, collective bargaining via unions is oppressive. Labor negotiations should take place at the ballot box, and public employees should live with what's decided there.
    - jazzyk 11y ago
      Thank you. It is astonishing how few people understand the distinction (public/private).
      - tamana 11y ago
        Can you explain the relevance of the distinction?
    - ethbro 11y ago
- rayiner 11y ago
  There is a big difference between paying a "living wage" to government workers, and paying them far above the market salary for people with similar credentials.
  - Snackchez 11y ago
    Who are these people you speak of that have similar credentials to a fire fighter?
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Loggers and fisherman?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - bryondowd 11y ago
        Interesting. I was wondering how accurate this was, and in terms of the risk of the job, it more than checks out according to my first result. http://www.cultureofsafety.com/2013/01/your-odds-of-dying-at-work/ http://www.cultureofsafety.com/2013/01/your-odds-of-dying-at... Of course that doesn't cover medical risk like cancer. Skill-wise, I would expect they are comparable in skill level if not skill set.
- kyllo 11y ago
  Yes, and also the economy is in big trouble when people with full time gainful employment (yes even with the government, which is a major employer) have no money to buy things.
mathgeek 11y ago
Always remember that public employees are taxpayers, too.

Strong unions are symptoms, not causes. Blaming unions because rich/powerful people have a tendency to fuck over the powerless is exactly what the rich/powerful want you to do. The rich and powerful benefit far more from low taxes than the stereotypical "tax payer". Addendum: for God's sake, your precious karma score is a number on a website. If it matters to you so much that you create new accounts to say something people might not like, you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

pessimizer 11y ago
Reply to addendum: Pseudonymity is not anonymity - a lot of people post here under a handle known to friends and/or coworkers (or generally prefer to post without hiding their identities.) They may be posting under throwaways in order not to be judged for their opinions IRL (or fired for them.) So it's not all magic internet points.

JulianMorrison 11y ago

The taxpayer ought to be ashamed of short changing people. They also ought to have the common sense that it's better to pay a living wage, than pick up the bill in welfare.

sbank 11y ago
Fire service could be privatized and government provided welfare does not have to exist to begin with.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  Result, slums, city destroying fires, people dying in the street. You do realize also, that chronically sick malnourished sweatshop serfs do awful work? It's a dystopian hell only a libertarian could love.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    It's not a libertarian ideal. It's more of an Anarcho-syndicalist ideal.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I'm always shocked when such terrible ideas are put forth for consideration in a public forum. Privatize essential life safety services? Because that has worked oh so well for healthcare.
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    healthcare is the state it is in because of government interference in the insurance markets at Federal and State levels. When you cannot cross state lines to offer competing insurance how can anyone expect a good system. Before anyone points to government run healthcare in the US being good please explain away the VA The standard line always is, "we will do it better than X" - well fix current government run healthcare first
    - delazeur 11y ago
      Arguably, U.S. government interference in healthcare markets has been heavily influenced by insurance lobbyists for the purpose of increasing insurance profits. Although there is often a trade-off between availability and quality, other countries have managed to provide decent healthcare without exorbitant cost.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - eru 11y ago
      If you don't just to want beat up a strawman, the US interference in health care is not a good argument against government interference in health care in general. The NHS in the UK has its problems, but they are not nearly as bad. (I don't know which country's system is the best to look at as a good example of private health care. Perhaps the best parts of India? (India ostensibly has government healthcare, but it's so bad that everyone who can afford it gets private health care. I don't know how bad the interference is.)))
- erroneousfunk 11y ago
  You realize that firefighting is a job that requires a great deal of training and education, and it's a job that's very easy to do badly? Not only that, but fires spread, they need to be caught early, and they're preventable. It's not just a matter of performing a service for one home at a time if they catch on fire, it's a matter of performing a public service to reduce the risk of fire, enforce building codes, minimize damage caused by fires, and save lives. This is something that requires a community effort, and needs to cover the entire community uniformly.
  - todd8 11y ago
    Most jobs provide some important service. The person that bags groceries at the supermarket is part of the system that feeds all of us. Firefighting is a job; one that is widely respected. However, the workers on farms and ranches and fishing boats work under riskier conditions and are paid less. Firefighting isn't a particularly dangerous job (although several times riskier than programming). With respect to training, I'm not a firefighter and I'm sure it varies by department, but I believe firefighting requires a highschool degree, EMS training and a few weeks of training on firefighting methods. Before being concerned about firefighters, it seems to me that we should be more concerned with improving the conditions for loggers and garbage collectors which have much greater work related risks.
    - erroneousfunk 11y ago
      I wasn't expressing concern about the position, I was explaining why it would be a bad decision to privatize it. None of the things I listed mention anything about it being "dangerous" or "risky" One of the biggest arguments against privatization, I think, is that they're responsible for enforcing building fire codes, and that's a very non-dangerous task. I have no idea what your response is supposed to mean.
ethbro 11y ago
This. I've never understood the convoluted logical gyrations required to get through "unions are bad" -> "free market should be allowed to set wages (without workers having freedom to collectively bargain)" -> "non-livable wages spread for workers without capital" -> "griping about welfare and lazy people who should just work more". Yes, unions can metastasize and block their own effectiveness. But a properly bounded union isn't a terrible thing.
- Sammi 11y ago
  Christ. Just look at all of western europe to see unions working well for the most part.
- padobson 11y ago
  There's a major difference between a public employee union and a private sector union. In the private sector, a union organizes to put leverage on management, who represents ownership (i.e. the stockholders, the partners, etc). Ownership made a choice to invest in the company, and was able to weigh factors like labor rates and work environment before they invested. But in a public employee union, labor is organizing for leverage against ownership, which in a democracy is everyone under the government's jurisdiction. In this case, ownership is investing in the union without the same choice. If we live under a government that is of, by, and for the people, collective bargaining via unions is oppressive. Labor negotiations should take place at the ballot box, and public employees should live with what's decided there.
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    Thank you. It is astonishing how few people understand the distinction (public/private).
    - tamana 11y ago
      Can you explain the relevance of the distinction?
  - ethbro 11y ago
rayiner 11y ago
There is a big difference between paying a "living wage" to government workers, and paying them far above the market salary for people with similar credentials.
- Snackchez 11y ago
  Who are these people you speak of that have similar credentials to a fire fighter?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Loggers and fisherman?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - bryondowd 11y ago
      Interesting. I was wondering how accurate this was, and in terms of the risk of the job, it more than checks out according to my first result. http://www.cultureofsafety.com/2013/01/your-odds-of-dying-at-work/ http://www.cultureofsafety.com/2013/01/your-odds-of-dying-at... Of course that doesn't cover medical risk like cancer. Skill-wise, I would expect they are comparable in skill level if not skill set.
kyllo 11y ago
Yes, and also the economy is in big trouble when people with full time gainful employment (yes even with the government, which is a major employer) have no money to buy things.

mathgeek 11y ago

Always remember that public employees are taxpayers, too.