paraphrased from across the hall - doesn't matter WHO said it --
::: WHY do you fail to mention that the police and fire unions gave MANY CONCESSIONS to the City when they first went into distress in 1992? It seems everyone FORGOT that, including the monopolistic paper in this City. I didn't forget. ... This Mayor put us taxpayers in DEBT to the tune of aprox $300,000,000 for the next 28 years plus. ... Even if the Recovery Plan was put in place and $2,000,000 was saved for the 28 years that it will take for that $300,000,000 to be paid back, it would be $56,000,000. Where is the other $244,000,000 going to come from, 25% tax increases for the next 28 years? Don't forget that this Mayor gave out raises and created new positions for his favored people to the tune of $6,000,000 and that does not include 2007. :::
The police and fire departments deserve as many perks as can be afforded by our city. Every day they go out on a call they risk their lives for us. However, the 'clerical' union??- please - papercuts and running the risk of stapling their skirts to the desk. Why the hell does any company need a clerical union? One confidential secretary, one financial secretary and a pool of men and/or women who can do the job, not a handful of bitching, finger-pointing krakepots (I'm sorry, crackpots - silly typo). In this day and age, when everyone can use a computer, fax, teletype, abacus (and their fingers to count) - there is no need for a clerical union anywhere. For those who I have offended - I sincerely apologize - but fifty years ago, when the miners needed someone to control the working conditions and make a safer working environment - they were a necessary evil -- NOW, UNIONS SIMPLY BREED CRYBABIES and please do not try to tell me otherwise. I've worked for them, I've worked with them and I have been the 'Company' on the receiving end of their incessant whining.
The years mentioned and the Mayor mentioned make no freaking sense to me. The first sentence reads "... concessions to the City when they first went into distress in 1992." Now, just how is Mayor Doherty responsible for anything that happened in this city in 1992? Sure we are in debt in the year 2006. And the dollar figure is probably just about equal to the monies that were owed "way back when". Who the hell is NOT in debt? Do you know anyone who is living free and clear today? Anyone here NOT paying a mortgage or a car loan or a student loan?
Sure the mayor has made a few unpopular decisions and some of us have actually told him so. Others need to shoot him down in an anonymous blaze of glory across the hall. It is impossible to please everyone - somewhere, somehow, some ONE is going to be bitching and moaning that they've been done wrong. There are actually some of us who care enough about this city to NOT drag it through the muck and mud while trying to make it a better place to live and a better place to raise our children.
-- Edited by His Girl Thursday at 17:18, 2006-12-28
__________________
Stupid people piss me off !
Anonymous
Date:
RE: UNIONS - a necessary evil - FIFTY YEARS AGO !!
The city's long term debt when Doherty took over was something like 26 million, now it's somewhere near 100 million. That's one of the the negative parts of Doherty. There are also the asset selling, and the sewer authority debacle with the cacelled contract that will cost the city over 6 million dollars. Not to be a negative complainer, but thought you should know these things before you apologize for him. The unions and the administration should share blame. Scranton's problems are rooted in it's ugly politics, every politician we have has a selfish motive rather then the good of all of us. Sad isn't it?
I think unions can serve a very valid purpose in certain occupations and certain industries, especially those private-sector jobs where the work involves a lot of hazards. I also think they can serve society at large...case in point is the current union activism against Wal-Mart (my own opinion is that Wal-Mart is a pox upon this land).
I part ways with unions in two areas:
1. Unions for Professionals...again, my opinion, but someone who is a professional doesn't need somene else to speak for them...as a professional they should be able to speak for themselves.
2. Unions that resort to 'Anything Goes' tactics...simply this (and note to Scranton's union presidents Gervasi, Stulgis & Krake)...THE ENDS DON'T ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. The idea that at least three of the city's union presidents most likely are DD posters/supporters makes me cringe. The FACT that Nancy Krake has worn a LoD tee-shirt to council meetings makes me want to vomit. Nancy...the ends don't justify the means...not for for Mayor Doherty but certainly not for you either. Union presidents should elevate the level of debate, not lower it.
Lastly, by way of disclosure, I have never been in a union. My wife is an elementary grade teacher in Scranton and as such is a member of the SFT. Needless to say she keeps we away from most union social events. She also gets mad when I call her school's union rep a 'Shop Stewart'.
-- Edited by Agamemnon at 08:22, 2006-12-29
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
My grandfather was a miner and my father was child labor in the mines when he was quite young. Yes, miners from seventy years ago needed safer working conditions. The miners TODAY need to be assured of safe working conditions. Many, many things have changed over these past seventy years.
There is so much talk about civil liberties and free speech. If someone speaks out against their boss, it's free speech and it's their God given right to do so. If the boss speaks out about an employee whose quality of work is sub-standard, he/she is infringing upon the employees civil rights to be a slacker - the boss can THINK anything he/she wants, but to actually TELL the employee they are a sub-standard employee is infringement. Pardon me folks, but that is a h - u - g - e load of horse$hit.
I have worked with Teamster, Mechanic, Laborer and Carpenter unions - all at once. I have had to deal with the individual employees and their stewards. The stewards are bossy - "I want THIS and I want it NOW - Get IT". And the employees can be THE MOST (I love my caps) incessant whiners about the smallest things.
Case in point - one teamster started on our job Monday morning - young guy - big, strong, healthy - it was his specific job to drive a full euk from one end of the job, and back again empty. Sat on his ass all day long waiting for his truck to fill and his truck to empty - the most exercise being when he got down from this loader to "take my break" and to "take a leak". Wednesday he doesn't show up for work - no call from him or the union house. Thursday he doesn't show up again - we call the union house - they haven't heard from him. Friday, same thing - we tell the union house we need a replacement for him, which they send over almost immediately. This guy looks as old as dirt and hobbles around on bowed legs the likes of which I have never seen. Monday morning, the first Teamster shows up at my office - I call the steward. I told him he's been replaced and he kicks up a stink - he tells me that he has a freaking HANGNAIL and had to take time off because his foot hurt too much when he double clutched. And he needs the paperwork so he can sign up for comp. Needless to say, we sent this guy packing - and the old guy that replaced him??? well, he stayed with us for the remainder of the job and was one of the most productive employees we had on-site. Seems to me, the older guy has a :::gasp::: work ethic. You get paid for eight hours - you WORK for eight hours.
So don't tell me that secretaries who can take their boss to court for harrassment just for saying "Nice haircut (insert your name here), is it new?" need a union. If you do your job and do it correctly, you get paid for it. If you put in eight hours you get paid for it. If you spend four of those eight hours talking about your kids, or trying to get 'dirt' on your boss (while people wait in line at the counter), well, then you should find another job and let someone in who actually NEEDS the job and the salary that goes along with it.
(Jesus H - talk about rambling ...)
-- Edited by His Girl Thursday at 08:43, 2006-12-29
