Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0500, "P Fritz"
wrote: You are asking Keivn to THINK? ;-) Our NG has become a chatroom. No other way to define what has happened, when 90% or more of the content is OT and 50% or more of the OT posts devolve into political name calling and flame fests. Boats are probably mentioned more often in a general chatroom, by accident, than they are here on rec.boats on purpose. I propose a 5 day challenge to the entire chatroom. For five days, let's pretend we're a boating newsgroup. That would be the remainder of today, the 20th, through Saturday the 24th. During this period of time, I propose that the group of worst offenders, self included, take the lead in this challenge by doing the following things. 1. Refrain from launching any sort of political or religious thread. 2. Resist name calling and put personal feuds aside. 3. Resist the temptation to respond to any political threads trolled through the NG 4. Launch a minimum of two boating-related threads (not required of non-boaters) 5. Evaluate the effectiveness of this 5 day challenge on December 25 For this to work at all, I believe we need Harry, Basskisser, JimH, John H, Doug Kanter, Skipper, NOYB, P.Fritz, and Smithers (under all of his 1000 names), to sign on. The occasional offenders, not mentioned above, would need to participate as well. For this to work, anybody who elects to participate would have to be adult enough to ignore violations by others rather than use those violations as a justification or an excuse to resume OT trolling, flaming and chatting. Participants would need to assume responsibility for their own behavior, and not allow it to be dictated by the bad actions of others. So the gauntlet is thrown. I'm in for the five days. Anybody else willing to experiment to see whether the overall tone of the chatroom/NG would change if a group of the worst offenders modified their behavior here? If not, things will be at least slightly better for five days while I personally follow the 5 guidelines. It's solstice. The world is taking a new slant and the sun is coming back (to the north). Wouldn't this be an appropriate time to stop the decline of the NG and bring a bit of boating sunshine back? It would be a holiday or Christmas gift to the group, from the group, and for the group. :-) Well, what do *you* think of Chuck's Challenge? -- John H **** May your Christmas be Spectacular!**** *****...and your New Year even Better!***** |
#12
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0500, "P Fritz" wrote: You are asking Keivn to THINK? ;-) Our NG has become a chatroom. No other way to define what has happened, when 90% or more of the content is OT and 50% or more of the OT posts devolve into political name calling and flame fests. Boats are probably mentioned more often in a general chatroom, by accident, than they are here on rec.boats on purpose. I propose a 5 day challenge to the entire chatroom. For five days, let's pretend we're a boating newsgroup. That would be the remainder of today, the 20th, through Saturday the 24th. During this period of time, I propose that the group of worst offenders, self included, take the lead in this challenge by doing the following things. 1. Refrain from launching any sort of political or religious thread. 2. Resist name calling and put personal feuds aside. 3. Resist the temptation to respond to any political threads trolled through the NG 4. Launch a minimum of two boating-related threads (not required of non-boaters) 5. Evaluate the effectiveness of this 5 day challenge on December 25 For this to work at all, I believe we need Harry, Basskisser, JimH, John H, Doug Kanter, Skipper, NOYB, P.Fritz, and Smithers (under all of his 1000 names), to sign on. The occasional offenders, not mentioned above, would need to participate as well. For this to work, anybody who elects to participate would have to be adult enough to ignore violations by others rather than use those violations as a justification or an excuse to resume OT trolling, flaming and chatting. Participants would need to assume responsibility for their own behavior, and not allow it to be dictated by the bad actions of others. So the gauntlet is thrown. I'm in for the five days. Anybody else willing to experiment to see whether the overall tone of the chatroom/NG would change if a group of the worst offenders modified their behavior here? If not, things will be at least slightly better for five days while I personally follow the 5 guidelines. It's solstice. The world is taking a new slant and the sun is coming back (to the north). Wouldn't this be an appropriate time to stop the decline of the NG and bring a bit of boating sunshine back? It would be a holiday or Christmas gift to the group, from the group, and for the group. :-) Well, what do *you* think of Chuck's Challenge? Not much, but then again I have not responded to any of the liebrals for as long as I can remember......since they have long ago taken up residence in my killfile.....I just don't find the need to "announce" it every other day like harry. :-) -- John H **** May your Christmas be Spectacular!**** *****...and your New Year even Better!***** |
#13
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#14
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#15
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:42:03 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: New York public employers have been hiding behind the Taylor Law for generations, using it as an excuse to avoid negotiating in good faith. ======================================== And New York public employee union members have some of the best retirement and medical benefits that you have ever seen. These jobs are so popular that there are something like 100 applicants for every position that opens up. It is costing the state and local government a fortune, to the point that people and businesses are leaving because of the high taxes. Businesses are also tired of being held hostage every time one of these contracts comes up for negotiation. |
#16
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:42:03 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: New York public employers have been hiding behind the Taylor Law for generations, using it as an excuse to avoid negotiating in good faith. ======================================== And New York public employee union members have some of the best retirement and medical benefits that you have ever seen. These jobs are so popular that there are something like 100 applicants for every position that opens up. It is costing the state and local government a fortune, to the point that people and businesses are leaving because of the high taxes. Businesses are also tired of being held hostage every time one of these contracts comes up for negotiation. I'm familiar with the fringe package of some New York municipal and state employees. It's decent, but no more than any worker should have for offering up his or her labors over a lifetime of employment. I had a delightful time with the Taylor Law in NYS some 30+ years ago, since it was part of my job at the time to provide technical assistance (not legal assistance) to local teachers' unions during labor negotiations. One summer we had more than 50 local strikes set to go right after Labor Day, all based on the refusal, despite the provisions of the Taylor Law, of school boards to negotiate in good faith. I forgot how many of the strikes actually happened, but the number was large enough to teach the school boards that classroom teachers outside of New York City finally found their cojones. Yours truly got fined $50,000 for criminal contempt of court as a result of activities connected with a teachers' strike. The union bailed me out later that day, and in the end the judge rescinded his order and returned the fine money. The problems of that era remain. The law requires good-faith bargaining, but there is no penalty if the employer refuses to negotiate in good faith. There's a 2-for-1 penalty if the workers strike. Thus, there is no balance. At that time, some of us were recommending manadatory binding arbitration as a peaceful way to settle negotiating deadlocks. Here's an interesting tidbit of info: As you were typing this, I was treating a patient who I just found out is one of the current Executive Council Members of the AFL-CIO. In fact, he's the current President of a national union that has more than a million members. I recognized his face and name, but couldn't quite place it. A quick google search made me realize who he was. He has a home in Naples, but lists his primary home in one of the "blue states" not far from you. If I had recognized him when he was in here, we could have had a very interesting discussion on the current NYC transit strike, since I had a 30 minute gap in my schedule at the end of his appointment. Oh well. A missed opportunity. :-( |
#17
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:42:03 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: New York public employers have been hiding behind the Taylor Law for generations, using it as an excuse to avoid negotiating in good faith. ======================================== And New York public employee union members have some of the best retirement and medical benefits that you have ever seen. These jobs are so popular that there are something like 100 applicants for every position that opens up. It is costing the state and local government a fortune, to the point that people and businesses are leaving because of the high taxes. Businesses are also tired of being held hostage every time one of these contracts comes up for negotiation. I'm familiar with the fringe package of some New York municipal and state employees. It's decent, but no more than any worker should have for offering up his or her labors over a lifetime of employment. I had a delightful time with the Taylor Law in NYS some 30+ years ago, since it was part of my job at the time to provide technical assistance (not legal assistance) to local teachers' unions during labor negotiations. One summer we had more than 50 local strikes set to go right after Labor Day, all based on the refusal, despite the provisions of the Taylor Law, of school boards to negotiate in good faith. I forgot how many of the strikes actually happened, but the number was large enough to teach the school boards that classroom teachers outside of New York City finally found their cojones. Yours truly got fined $50,000 for criminal contempt of court as a result of activities connected with a teachers' strike. The union bailed me out later that day, and in the end the judge rescinded his order and returned the fine money. The problems of that era remain. The law requires good-faith bargaining, but there is no penalty if the employer refuses to negotiate in good faith. There's a 2-for-1 penalty if the workers strike. Thus, there is no balance. At that time, some of us were recommending manadatory binding arbitration as a peaceful way to settle negotiating deadlocks. Here's an interesting tidbit of info: As you were typing this, I was treating a patient who I just found out is one of the current Executive Council Members of the AFL-CIO. In fact, he's the current President of a national union that has more than a million members. I recognized his face and name, but couldn't quite place it. A quick search made me realize who he was. He has a home in Naples, but lists his primary home in one of the "blue states" not far from you. If I had recognized him when he was in here, we could have had a very interesting discussion on the current NYC transit strike, since I had a 30 minute gap in my schedule at the end of his appointment. Oh well. A missed opportunity. :-( I see Harry's narcissim is still in full bloom. |
#18
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:42:03 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: New York public employers have been hiding behind the Taylor Law for generations, using it as an excuse to avoid negotiating in good faith. ======================================== And New York public employee union members have some of the best retirement and medical benefits that you have ever seen. These jobs are so popular that there are something like 100 applicants for every position that opens up. It is costing the state and local government a fortune, to the point that people and businesses are leaving because of the high taxes. Businesses are also tired of being held hostage every time one of these contracts comes up for negotiation. I'm familiar with the fringe package of some New York municipal and state employees. It's decent, but no more than any worker should have for offering up his or her labors over a lifetime of employment. I had a delightful time with the Taylor Law in NYS some 30+ years ago, since it was part of my job at the time to provide technical assistance (not legal assistance) to local teachers' unions during labor negotiations. One summer we had more than 50 local strikes set to go right after Labor Day, all based on the refusal, despite the provisions of the Taylor Law, of school boards to negotiate in good faith. I forgot how many of the strikes actually happened, but the number was large enough to teach the school boards that classroom teachers outside of New York City finally found their cojones. Yours truly got fined $50,000 for criminal contempt of court as a result of activities connected with a teachers' strike. The union bailed me out later that day, and in the end the judge rescinded his order and returned the fine money. The problems of that era remain. The law requires good-faith bargaining, but there is no penalty if the employer refuses to negotiate in good faith. There's a 2-for-1 penalty if the workers strike. Thus, there is no balance. At that time, some of us were recommending manadatory binding arbitration as a peaceful way to settle negotiating deadlocks. Here's an interesting tidbit of info: As you were typing this, I was treating a patient who I just found out is one of the current Executive Council Members of the AFL-CIO. In fact, he's the current President of a national union that has more than a million members. I recognized his face and name, but couldn't quite place it. A quick google search made me realize who he was. He has a home in Naples, but lists his primary home in one of the "blue states" not far from you. If I had recognized him when he was in here, we could have had a very interesting discussion on the current NYC transit strike, since I had a 30 minute gap in my schedule at the end of his appointment. Oh well. A missed opportunity. :-( I wonder if he realized how much danger he was in... grin He was just a google away from it. As they say...timing is everything. |
#19
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:26:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: I'm familiar with the fringe package of some New York municipal and state employees. It's decent, but no more than any worker should have for offering up his or her labors over a lifetime of employment. ================================== The benefit packages far exceed anything available in private industry, and so does the job security. Fringe benefits were popular settlement options politically because they ended debilitating strikes immediately but pushed the costs way out into the future, same sort of financial issue that GM and others are now facing, and for much the same reasons. I have no problem with fair pay and fair benefits, but it should be commensurate with skills, education, supply and demand. When workers in sensitive occupations get the whip hand in crowded metropolitan areas it leads to a very unhealthy collective bargaining environment, and the general public ends up as the loser. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Corrupt liberal media fails to cover the news | General | |||
not boating at Christmas? | General | |||
Christmas Cheer! | ASA | |||
OT The Truth About Anti-Christmas | General |