More quiet back stabbing from the orange turd.

[Jackie]

[HappySkeptic]

[Jackie]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, federal employees could be fired for being part of a union.

But now they can also be fired at will (read Donald Trump).  Everyone has to swear allegiance to the Dear Leader, or they can get fired.  I can't understand how this executive order is constitutional.

Bloody banana republic.  This should be a huge election issue.

All this shit started with Reagan when he successfully busted the air traffic control unions.

For 40 years the GOP has dismantled the post WW2 policies that created the post war boom.

If the GOP had their way there would be no government programs and plutocrats would simply make us slaves. And they are too fucking stupid to see that that is what Communist China does to its population. They have no rights. You do what they say and you do it for the state and you don't question the state.

Union busting started in 1874 in the US. If you want to blame Reagan for firing the air traffic controllers, you have to blame Kennedy as well.

Boru

[Jackie]

All this shit started with Reagan when he successfully busted the air traffic control unions.

For 40 years the GOP has dismantled the post WW2 policies that created the post war boom.

If the GOP had their way there would be no government programs and plutocrats would simply make us slaves. And they are too fucking stupid to see that that is what Communist China does to its population. They have no rights. You do what they say and you do it for the state and you don't question the state.

Union busting started in 1874 in the US. If you want to blame Reagan for firing the air traffic controllers, you have to blame Kennedy as well.

Boru

Kennedy may have. But what kind of makeup was congress at the time? Presidents often sign bills they don't like because that is the way the process works. A bill goes through the House and Senate then lands on the Presidents desk. They can veto it, but if they see it will pass again, either way, the Constitution forces the President to sign the bill the second time it lands on their desk. Many times they sign it the first time because they know a veto wont stop it.

---

And as far as business vs workers, America has always had a long history of businesses always trying to crush labor to keep costs down.

---

But in this case, this wasn't a congressional law Trump signed, this was an executive order. This is undermining, not only the First Amendment and the right to peaceably assemble, it is a clear affront to the idea of separation of powers.

[awty]

Simply being a federal or state employee you are granted protections that others don't have. It nearly takes an act of congress to get someone removed from one of those jobs after they have a certain number of years in. Some of the most inept and lazy workers I have ever had to deal with fall into under the umbrella of government employee - protected well beyond what's reasonable. Not all of them make a bunch of money but they have excellent benefits and retirement that isn't something your average Joe has access to. They are also protected no matter how poorly they perform.

I have thought for years that there should be more of a merit system applied to gov't jobs.

My dipshit brother will be able to retire quite young after his time as a state employed prison guard. His salary is public record and he's not pulling in the big bucks but he will have a nice retirement package and has had excellent health care benefits. His wife is the one who pulled in the cash.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Union busting started in 1874 in the US. If you want to blame Reagan for firing the air traffic controllers, you have to blame Kennedy as well.

Boru

Kennedy may have. But what kind of makeup was congress at the time? Presidents often sign bills they don't like because that is the way the process works. A bill goes through the House and Senate then lands on the Presidents desk. They can veto it, but if they see it will pass again, either way, the Constitution forces the President to sign the bill the second time it lands on their desk. Many times they sign it the first time because they know a veto wont stop it.

---

And as far as business vs workers, America has always had a long history of businesses always trying to crush labor to keep costs down.

---

But in this case, this wasn't a congressional law Trump signed, this was an executive order. This is undermining, not only the First Amendment and the right to peaceably assemble, it is a clear affront to the idea of separation of powers.

Kennedy signed an executive order which made it illegal for federal employees to strike. Congress had nothing to do with it.

And, no - the president is NOT required to sign a bill the second time it lands on his desk. If Congress overrides a presidential veto, the bill becomes law without his signature.

Boru

[Jackie]

Simply being a federal or state employee you are granted protections that others don't have.  It nearly takes an act of congress to get someone removed from one of those jobs after they have a certain number of years in.  Some of the most inept and lazy workers I have ever had to deal with fall into under the umbrella of government employee - protected well beyond what's reasonable.  Not all of them make a bunch of money but they have excellent benefits and retirement that isn't something your average Joe has access to.  They are also protected no matter how poorly they perform.

I have thought for years that there should be more of a merit system applied to gov't jobs.

My dipshit brother will be able to retire quite young after his time as a state employed prison guard.  His salary is public record and he's not pulling in the big bucks but he will have a nice retirement package and has had excellent health care benefits.  His wife is the one who pulled in the cash.

If one wants to argue undue protection, I'd say police getting undue immunity when they kill someone unarmed is unreasonable.

But I would not falsely assume most government employees are lazy. Most are not lazy.

I wouldn't make this an either or issue. I think government employees should have unions just like the private sector does. The only thing to be argued is how to tweak the bargaining to be fair to all sides. But to blanketly scrap it is nuts.

But if we are going to argue benefits for government employees, most members of congress not to mention the president, get tax payer funded health care, and already make enough to pay for themselves even if they had never been elected. I'd go after that before I would go after a post office worker. 

Your average clerk, national park worker, fish and game warden, animal control, post office worker, ect ect ect, are not lazy.

If you are getting bad service being in a public office, that to me is no different than getting bad service in a private business. Most of the time when you get bad service or a bad attitude, it isn't the fault of the employee, it is the fault of management in lack of resources and staff.

Private or public, if you don't give a worker an incentive to care, they wont.

FYI, my late mother was a government employee. Public school teachers are government employees. And I can tell you she busted her ass. She deserved all the benefits she got and her pension.

[awty]

Simply being a federal or state employee you are granted protections that others don't have.  It nearly takes an act of congress to get someone removed from one of those jobs after they have a certain number of years in.  Some of the most inept and lazy workers I have ever had to deal with fall into under the umbrella of government employee - protected well beyond what's reasonable.  Not all of them make a bunch of money but they have excellent benefits and retirement that isn't something your average Joe has access to.  They are also protected no matter how poorly they perform.

I have thought for years that there should be more of a merit system applied to gov't jobs.

My dipshit brother will be able to retire quite young after his time as a state employed prison guard.  His salary is public record and he's not pulling in the big bucks but he will have a nice retirement package and has had excellent health care benefits.  His wife is the one who pulled in the cash.

If one wants to argue undue protection, I'd say police getting undue immunity when they kill someone unarmed is unreasonable.

But I would not falsely assume most government employees are lazy. Most are not lazy.

I wouldn't make this an either or issue. I think government employees should have unions just like the private sector does. The only thing to be argued is how to tweak the bargaining to be fair to all sides. But to blanketly scrap it is nuts.

But if we are going to argue benefits for government employees, most members of congress not to mention the president, get tax payer funded health care, and already make enough to pay for themselves even if they had never been elected. I'd go after that before I would go after a post office worker. 

Your average clerk, national park worker, fish and game warden, animal control, post office worker, ect ect ect, are not lazy.

If you are getting bad service being in a public office, that to me is no different than getting bad service in a private business. Most of the time when you get bad service or a bad attitude, it isn't the fault of the employee, it is the fault of management in lack of resources and staff.

Private or public, if you don't give a worker an incentive to care, they wont.

FYI, my late mother was a government employee. Public school teachers are government employees. And I can tell you she busted her ass. She deserved all the benefits she got and her pension.

Most teachers are teachers because that's what they are drawn to do...it's their passion.  They know it's not where the money is.  I am sure your mother worked hard.  

I worked for ten years for a company that made loans that were backed by the Small Business Administration.  That meant there was a fair amount of contact with federal staff, when they weren't on one of their 30 holidays or 6 weeks of vacation.  It was not a pleasurable experience and there was a huge disparity in who knew their stuff and worked to help you and who was keeping a chair warm because they landed a gov't gig.  There's a reason parents used to push their kids to land a government job...it's because you really have to screw up to get fired, you get lots of time off, and you get benefits way above and beyond most non-government jobs.

While I worked there, we were one floor up from an office that had something to do with publications for the state community college system.  I was never able to get a good explanation as to what they did and why there were so many of them.  I did often hear employees griping about other employees who didn't do their work or wouldn't do their work and how pissed they were that there wasn't a damn thing that could be done about it.  Once hired and past the probation period, many government workers have their place for years...till they retire.  And many get on because of who they know and not what they know.

[HappySkeptic]

Most teachers are teachers because that's what they are drawn to do...it's their passion.  They know it's not where the money is.  I am sure your mother worked hard.  

Where I live, teachers make out like bandits.  They complain about how difficult it is, but their salary and benefits far outclass all but the highest paid professionals.  It is almost impossible to get a permanent job as a teacher, because it so highly sought-after.

Part of me says it's worth it to have good education, and another part of me gets pissed at hearing every day how bad teachers have it, when they get summers off, and retire after 30 years (often at age 55) with full guaranteed pension.