F*O*A*D wrote:
On 12/5/14 11:40 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:17:23 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 12/5/14 10:35 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:15:31 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Johnny perseverates on this sort of crap, hoping to wear you out
so you
will play his game. Really. He's a little like Greg, but not
nearly as
clever.

===

And you are a little like yourself, obnoxious as ever, and not clever
at all. I'd be interested in hearing your side of the discussion
about unions protecting bad cops, bad teachers, etc.


Sure, Wayne, as soon as you stop being an asshole here.

===

OK, I just stopped.

The ball is in your court.


Okay, I'll play...for the moment...until you revert back.

Labor unions exist to protect and improve the wages, hours, working
conditions, and medical coverage and retirement options of their
members. They also represent their members in grievances with employers.

If by "bad cops" et cetera, you are referring to union members accused
of serious crimes related to their jobs, then, yes, most unions will
support their members by providing and paying for the services of a
good-quality lawyer to mount a defense on the members' behalf. Doing
so ensures the member has the benefit of due process.

My "side" on this is that it is an important and proper benefit of
union membership.




So these individuals are not capable or willing to think for themselves
and resort to paying dues to a bunch of left-wing scumbags to defend
them when they are inept or lazy?