I’m guessing Weirddave wasn’t paying attention to the overtime issues going on over the past couple of years. Neurotik’s reference isn’t a hypothetical.
I’ve been paying plenty of attention to it. It’s much ado about not much.
My brother worked for UPS a long time ago, and IIRC, part-time was the only kind of work they offered. (The drivers may have been full-time, but not the other workers - I don’t remember for sure). Anyway, it seems disingenous to argue that they should be denied benefits for being part-time if the company is forcing them to be part-time. That would be a legitimate issue, not just PR.
I’m in a union, and I have a very low opinion of that union. I believe it exists only for the benefit of a select few who do a certain type of specialized work, but have somehow managed to gain a political stronghold on the whole system, so that those of us who are struggling to get by are subsidizing this select group who are getting rich. I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say that unions are inherently evil, though. I believe some unions have helped people. The organization is only as good as the people who are running it. It’s sad that so frequently, the people in charge forget why they have a union in the first place - to support workers. Instead, they often develop an attitude that the union exists only to further itself.
But on the other hand, it bothers me when people read stories in the paper about labor disputes, and simply reject the workers’ side of the story out-of-hand.
By the way, I have a funny union story: I got a bill for something like 12 cents for “work dues”, which of course is less than the cost of the stamp to mail it. I thought it would be ridiculous to mail a check for 12 cents, so I decided I’d just wait until the next bill I got for membership dues, and pay everything together. Shortly thereafter, I got another bill for 12 cents, plus a 50 cent late fee. So I had to mail them a check for 52 cents.
Looks like pretty damn good news, actually. Really, the case illustrated on the front page, spending almost a dozen years and God knows how many millions of dollars to force “hospitals and homeless shelters, prisons and drug treatment centers” to take measures that would save-maybe-135 lives a year? And who gets to foot the bill for this? Considering that homeless shelters, prisons and drug treatment centers are usually (not always) run by the state, I guess the answer would be us! I am so happy to pay more taxes to cover the costs of a massive federal mandate with a negligible return! Really, I am!
From the article:
They spent 10 years and God know how much money without even one single case to show there was a problem. And you think eliminating this is a bad idea?
Thanks for the link, it’s not often that people post stuff about the positive stuff that George W’s administration is accomplishing. Refreshing to see.
I think the idea that 135 lives a year is “negligable” is pretty repellant. What the hell?
That aside, it’s not just “135 lives a year” – the estimation is 135 lives and 25,000 infections. It costs about $20,000 to treat a case of TB in the U.S.
Who gets to foot the bill for these preventable infections? How does the cost compare to preventative measures?
Hmmm, maybe someone who knows something about health insurance in the U.S. will be able to tell us.
After reading the rest of your post, and looking closer at the article, I think perhaps it’ll be more efficient if I just slap myself. slap
Thank you.
Miller and New Guy, yes I was generalizing. Being the pit, I figured there was a little more leeway for that. Yes, I’m sure there are a decent, honest union or three out there, but in all that I know of them (including the people I know working in union shops) it appears to me for the most part unions continue to exist for the benefit of those in power.
For instance, whenver there are large layoffs, the union bosses lament the money the senior management of a corporation are making. They never mention they are also making often 6 figure salaries. Are the union bosses donating thousands each to a pool to be distributed to the ones laid-off? Hell no. They want their big salaries just as much as management. That’s probably not the best analogy, nor the most honest, but there’s a nugget of truth in it, from how I see it.
Living in a right-to-work state, the only benefit of unions is higher prices for a lot of the stuff I buy. The largest union shop in my city (outside government, don’t get me started on that!) pays a starting wage of $1.43 less than my company. Also, their insurance premiums are higher for a lower level of coverage than mine. Add to that I can buy stock from our largest customer at cost (no brokerage fees or anything like that. The mascot is one you all know. His name rhymes with Donald) Meanwhile the unions guys also have to pay the dues.
Oh yeah. They also strike every year or two. I think they’re up to 5 in the 11 years I’ve lived here. And of course, they’re talking about another strike next spring. Sorry, but from personal observation, I just don’t see the benefit. YMMV.