On 3/18/17 12:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:23:31 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
I just got an urgent Email telling me to call my senators and tell
them to vote against H.R. 1364, a bill that would cut taxpayer funding
for the union that is only there to make sure our taxes are higher and
that federal employees can never be fired, no matter how incompetent
or corrupt they are.


A wonderful display of your ignorance.

What part is wrong?
It is absolutely true that the government pays people while they are
working for the union.
A quote from the Email (one thing they are bitching about)
"Eliminate the use of official time through the use of arbitrary
restrictions"
It is also true that a federal employee is pretty much fireproof.
We just had a guy here working for SSA who was caught using SS records
to stalk women. He did not lose his job. I knew a guy at one of my
federal customers in DC who was dealing drugs from the bottom drawer
of his desk. He wasn't fired either and they covered it up. Caught by
his boss but not reported to the cops.



Unions exist to define rights and and to protect their members from
arbitrary and capricious actions of their employer and in some cases to
negotiate for wages, hours, working conditions, and benefits. As for
firing federal employees, it happens all the time, despite the claim of
your anecdotes.

I know you righties hate labor unions, because they interfere with
management's desire to marginalize workers.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:35:18 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 3/17/17 4:31 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:18:58 -0400, wrote:

I just got an urgent Email telling me to call my senators and tell
them to vote against H.R. 1364, a bill that would cut taxpayer funding
for the union that is only there to make sure our taxes are higher and
that federal employees can never be fired, no matter how incompetent
or corrupt they are.

The AFGE should be microwaved.

(That was satire Krause!)


I could be wrong, but wasn't you wife in an AFGE-covered job?

She was at the supervisory level. Prior to that she didn't need the union. She was quite competent.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:20:34 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:



Unions exist to define rights and and to protect their members from
arbitrary and capricious actions of their employer and in some cases to
negotiate for wages, hours, working conditions, and benefits. As for
firing federal employees, it happens all the time, despite the claim of
your anecdotes.

I know you righties hate labor unions, because they interfere with
management's desire to marginalize workers.

So now you are calling the government an abusive employer that
employees need protection from? What planet do you live on?
The troubling part of government unions is they get to negotiate from
both sides of the table and they force unreasonable terms on the
taxpayers. You only need to look at the number of bankrupt cities to
see that.

On 3/18/17 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:20:34 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:



Unions exist to define rights and and to protect their members from
arbitrary and capricious actions of their employer and in some cases to
negotiate for wages, hours, working conditions, and benefits. As for
firing federal employees, it happens all the time, despite the claim of
your anecdotes.

I know you righties hate labor unions, because they interfere with
management's desire to marginalize workers.

So now you are calling the government an abusive employer that
employees need protection from? What planet do you live on?
The troubling part of government unions is they get to negotiate from
both sides of the table and they force unreasonable terms on the
taxpayers. You only need to look at the number of bankrupt cities to
see that.


I've worked with government employee unions that represent workers at
the federal, state, and local levels, and I've read through hundreds of
grievances filed, arbitration cases, and even lawsuits and, yes,
governments can be and are sometimes abusive employers. In that regard,
they are no different than many corporate employers. OF course, the
negotiations are never between equals, because the government entity can
refuse to negotiate in good faith and the employees have little
recourse, because they usually are forbidden by law from striking.

I was part of the postal labor negotiating team on the labor side for
two contracts, the largest labor contracts in the United States. We were
on one side of the table and postal management was on the other. That's
mostly true for all government employee negotiations. After the second
contract was settled, my principal and I were offered top labor
management jobs with the USPS, offers to switch sides, as it were. We
both turned down the offers twice during the Reagan Administrations.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:52:19 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

my principal and I were offered top labor
management jobs with the USPS, offers to switch sides, as it were.

Like I said, negotiating from both sides of the table.
The revolving door in DC is still spinning.

On 3/18/17 12:20 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:52:19 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

my principal and I were offered top labor
management jobs with the USPS, offers to switch sides, as it were.

Like I said, negotiating from both sides of the table.
The revolving door in DC is still spinning.


How would it be negotiating from both sides if we turned down the jobs?
I guess the Assistant/Deputy PMGs thought the two of us were just like
the corporate pukes they had working for them, that we'd switch
sides/positions/beliefs on a whim.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:41:57 -0400, wrote:

I know you righties hate labor unions, because they interfere with
management's desire to marginalize workers.

So now you are calling the government an abusive employer that
employees need protection from? What planet do you live on?
The troubling part of government unions is they get to negotiate from
both sides of the table and they force unreasonable terms on the
taxpayers. You only need to look at the number of bankrupt cities to
see that.

===

There will be more. Bankrupt states will be next as demographics
change, and the generous pension and benefits catch up with them.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:28:03 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/18/17 12:20 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:52:19 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

my principal and I were offered top labor
management jobs with the USPS, offers to switch sides, as it were.

Like I said, negotiating from both sides of the table.
The revolving door in DC is still spinning.


How would it be negotiating from both sides if we turned down the jobs?

You act like you are the only one they made that offer to. The idea of
hiring regulators as union workers or contractors and vice versa is
the way things are done in DC.

I guess the Assistant/Deputy PMGs thought the two of us were just like
the corporate pukes they had working for them, that we'd switch
sides/positions/beliefs on a whim.

They are right more often than not when they make those offers. It is
why the government process is so corrupt. You do not have to look any
farther than the Goldman Sachs/US treasury cabal to see that. We have
had a treasury department that was dominated by Goldman people for 3
decades or more. That has been a bi-partisan policy.