When teachers are getting between $50,000 to $175,000 for eight months of work and
when auto workers are making between $35 to $95 per hour (That's $280/DAY to $760/DAY) and
when city workers are getting $40,000 to $300,000 and more per year for basically part-time jobs
where do we draw the line???
Enough is enough. With a mixture of deflation and Congress imposed inflation, there is zero reason
for anyone to get a raise in this economy. ZERO REASONS EXCEPT PURE GREED AND SELFISHNESS.
UNION WORKERS SHOULD BE THANKFUL THEY EVEN HAVE A JOB - LET ALONE ASKING FOR MORE AND MORE WHEN
SO MANY CITIZENS --TENS OF MILLIONS -- DO NOT HAVE A JOB.
And who pays for these high wages??? You and me pay for these high wages in the high cost of food and products as well as high taxes in all their forms.
Some forms of taxes are: Federal - State - City - County - Sales - Gasoline - Electric Utilities - Gas Utilities - Phone utilities - Subsidized Ethynol - Subsidized College Tuition - Subsidized Food Stamps - Subsidized Welfare -
to name only a few.
It's time for unions to stop pushing for higher wages and higher benefits. Union workers have it too good and now the pendulum must swing the other way.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Have unions outlived their usefulness
Do we need unions telling our government entities how much pay, pension and health care they should be giving the government workers??? No Way. It is out tax dollars we are taking about. Why should I pay taxes to have a government work in the same job as me but in private industry and who will get a better pension and better health care plan. That is completely unfair. They have a "job for life" at ridiculous earnings and benefits and I work under the gun of being fired for a variety of reasons brought on by the economy.
Unions have outgrown their usefulness.
and that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Unions have outgrown their usefulness.
and that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Unions and the government
Would you put a fox to guard the hen house? Of course not.
Would you put a sex offender to teach a class of young children. Of course not
Would you put a thief in charge of protecting valuable assets. Of course not
Would you put a child into an adult's job. of course not - except in China & the Philippines
So why would you allow a union in charge of raising wages for its members to pay money to a congressperson's
campaign fund (a bribe in other words) who would vote to increase taxes so a minority of union members
can live at a higher standard than 90 plus percent of all the tax payers???
Why should unions be allowed to force a negotiation
to raise their members' wages at the expense of 90 plus percent of all tax payers???
That is wrong in ever sense of the meaning and intentions.
IT IS MY OPINION THAT:
Unions can have collective bargaining when negotiating with businesses. Businesses brought that
upon themselves by their collective mis-treatment and low wages of their employees over the years.
Unions representing government employees should not have collective bargaining rights.
And in an additional opinion, no employee should be required to join a union. There should
always be a secret ballot whether a company's work force might accept a union to represent the employees.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Would you put a sex offender to teach a class of young children. Of course not
Would you put a thief in charge of protecting valuable assets. Of course not
Would you put a child into an adult's job. of course not - except in China & the Philippines
So why would you allow a union in charge of raising wages for its members to pay money to a congressperson's
campaign fund (a bribe in other words) who would vote to increase taxes so a minority of union members
can live at a higher standard than 90 plus percent of all the tax payers???
Why should unions be allowed to force a negotiation
to raise their members' wages at the expense of 90 plus percent of all tax payers???
That is wrong in ever sense of the meaning and intentions.
IT IS MY OPINION THAT:
Unions can have collective bargaining when negotiating with businesses. Businesses brought that
upon themselves by their collective mis-treatment and low wages of their employees over the years.
Unions representing government employees should not have collective bargaining rights.
And in an additional opinion, no employee should be required to join a union. There should
always be a secret ballot whether a company's work force might accept a union to represent the employees.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Union Teacher's Pay VS results
The Madison, WI union event is all but over. The courts are trying to make legislative laws from the bench.
The rules stand. The vote was cast and the 14 Democrats who fled instead of holding true to the people who voted for them did nothing but piss-off people and show the world that WIsconsin politics is just like 3rd world politics.
What did the 14 Democrats expect when they said in effect - If I can't win the game, I quit my job???
They acted like grammar school children.
And has anyone looked at the pay for Wisconsin teachers??? It's between 36,000 and approaches 108,000 per
8 months of work. And the results: Well, If you measure the results by the ability of the students they
are teaching, you come up with an overall failing grade.
Come on people. The SAT test had to be dumbed down just so the majority of high school graduates could get
into state colleges. Why is that??? Because students are not learning. There is zero correlation between
a teacher's salary and student's learning.
So where does the money go? First of all it comes from you and me in the form of increased real estate taxes.
The money ends up in administration salary increases - bigger vacations for teachers - with the increase
in teacher's salaries, the UNION DUES GOES UP. AH HA!!! This is why the unions always want to increase the
pay of their union members - IT'S ALL ABOUT UNION DUES!!! And it has nothing to do about teaching.
If it did then all students would be graduating with all "A"s and the "A" would again mean something. And they would need to make the SAT tests more difficult to separate the brilliant from the very smart. But of course,
In many high schools, they are praying for maybe at least 40% to 50% will go on to college. WHOOPS!!!
Can't say "praying" when talking about schools.
Back to the average high school graduate. Not only is it important for our students to learn the basics so they
can move through life with some ability to evaluate life, business and politics BUT without graduating high school
students, the colleges with their over-priced tuitions would not have enough students to fill their classes.
So what does a union do for the students - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
The rules stand. The vote was cast and the 14 Democrats who fled instead of holding true to the people who voted for them did nothing but piss-off people and show the world that WIsconsin politics is just like 3rd world politics.
What did the 14 Democrats expect when they said in effect - If I can't win the game, I quit my job???
They acted like grammar school children.
And has anyone looked at the pay for Wisconsin teachers??? It's between 36,000 and approaches 108,000 per
8 months of work. And the results: Well, If you measure the results by the ability of the students they
are teaching, you come up with an overall failing grade.
Come on people. The SAT test had to be dumbed down just so the majority of high school graduates could get
into state colleges. Why is that??? Because students are not learning. There is zero correlation between
a teacher's salary and student's learning.
So where does the money go? First of all it comes from you and me in the form of increased real estate taxes.
The money ends up in administration salary increases - bigger vacations for teachers - with the increase
in teacher's salaries, the UNION DUES GOES UP. AH HA!!! This is why the unions always want to increase the
pay of their union members - IT'S ALL ABOUT UNION DUES!!! And it has nothing to do about teaching.
If it did then all students would be graduating with all "A"s and the "A" would again mean something. And they would need to make the SAT tests more difficult to separate the brilliant from the very smart. But of course,
In many high schools, they are praying for maybe at least 40% to 50% will go on to college. WHOOPS!!!
Can't say "praying" when talking about schools.
Back to the average high school graduate. Not only is it important for our students to learn the basics so they
can move through life with some ability to evaluate life, business and politics BUT without graduating high school
students, the colleges with their over-priced tuitions would not have enough students to fill their classes.
So what does a union do for the students - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Unions - What good are they?
Unions play a role in the business world. WHY? Because the business world is interested in providing "a return" to it's stockholders. The stockholders put up money and expect a return. When someone puts up money, they have choices of where to "invest that money." So it stands to reason that anyone investing wants to get the best return on their money.
That flies right in the face of providing the best salaries and benefits for the people that do the work in a company.
There is a 'built-in' conflict. If the investors did not want to get a return - if the company did not want to make a profit - If the management did not want to earn a living - than and only then could all the workers in most companies get paid more. The workers want to be paid - Yes they do. And they deserve to be paid.
Now comes the union - whose job it is to negotiate on behalf of the workers to help the workers get more money while the management - every mindful of the need to keep the investors happy - try to get the most productivity out of the workforce. In almost most cases, a corporation will try to keep wages as low as possible. And in most cases, a union will try to get the most wages for its members.
If this was all that happened, then the process would be clean and agreements could be reached easily. However, in the real world, there are many complications. If the profits drop because the wages increase, then the dividend paid to the investors could drop or the stock value could drop. This would cause the investors to sell their investment in that company and then the company's stock value would eventually fall to levels that would cause harm or worse to the company. If the stock levels dropped too much, then that company could become a "takeover" business. That would mean many people would loss their jobs or the company could go out of bankrupt.
Or if the company could not sell its product in the competitive markets, then that company could go out of business; again with the loss of many jobs.
So the wages a company pays has a "balance" factor in the profit & longevity of a company.
Now consider the salaries of the management team. Usually they are much higher than any of the wage earners on the assumption that it's their knowledge and business acumen that makes the company profitable and therefore provides jobs for wage earners. And that can be demonstrated both positively and negatively. Then we have to consider that the management personal have choices of where to work. They can go to a better job with more wages just like a sports figure moves from one team to another team. In order to keep the best "talent" of management, higher and higher salaries have to be paid with terrific benefits, bonuses and parachutes clauses.
This puts the union in a tough place to negotiate. Many times the union will push too much and the wage earners will go out on strike. This is a lose- lose scenario. The workers lose earnings. The company loses sales and possible customers which they will never get back.
The reason for a union was supposed to get better wages for workers at a company. BUT Today, the role the union takes on is more political than negotiator for higher wages and benefits. Many of the union workers have reached a middle class status with a salary or hourly wage to be able to provide for their families.
But with a world-wide marketplace and manufacturing shifting to the lowest wage countries, the American unions are faced with deep declines in membership and that means a huge drop in union dues. AAHHH the union dues. That is what the union is now about in most unions. With lower memberships, the unions have less to spend on their politicians. And those beautiful buildings the unions built have mortgages to be paid and the union management has to be competitively paid or management will get another job. Faced with less memberships union dues has to go up. And if dues goes up, the workers then begin to think like investors and want more for the increased dues they are paying.
We have reached an apex in union effectiveness. In my opinion, it would have been idealistic and hopefully achievable to have managements and workers come to an agreement that management could be paid LESS and workers could be paid more. The stock prices would not be effected therefore the investors would be happy. AND with more workers earning more money, consumerism would help fuel the economy. That would be a win-win scenario.
It would be easy for workers to deal with a raise in their earnings. BUT getting management to give up their huge and mostly unwarranted salaries and perks is the tough factor to get in place. After all, who would ever want to make less - workers or management alike. And that's the rub that requires unions to force management to increase pay and benefits for workers.
Why unions? Because they are somewhat of an equalizer; even though they are not always doing what is in the best interests of their members. It's the need for workers to have a voice that causes unions to be.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
That flies right in the face of providing the best salaries and benefits for the people that do the work in a company.
There is a 'built-in' conflict. If the investors did not want to get a return - if the company did not want to make a profit - If the management did not want to earn a living - than and only then could all the workers in most companies get paid more. The workers want to be paid - Yes they do. And they deserve to be paid.
Now comes the union - whose job it is to negotiate on behalf of the workers to help the workers get more money while the management - every mindful of the need to keep the investors happy - try to get the most productivity out of the workforce. In almost most cases, a corporation will try to keep wages as low as possible. And in most cases, a union will try to get the most wages for its members.
If this was all that happened, then the process would be clean and agreements could be reached easily. However, in the real world, there are many complications. If the profits drop because the wages increase, then the dividend paid to the investors could drop or the stock value could drop. This would cause the investors to sell their investment in that company and then the company's stock value would eventually fall to levels that would cause harm or worse to the company. If the stock levels dropped too much, then that company could become a "takeover" business. That would mean many people would loss their jobs or the company could go out of bankrupt.
Or if the company could not sell its product in the competitive markets, then that company could go out of business; again with the loss of many jobs.
So the wages a company pays has a "balance" factor in the profit & longevity of a company.
Now consider the salaries of the management team. Usually they are much higher than any of the wage earners on the assumption that it's their knowledge and business acumen that makes the company profitable and therefore provides jobs for wage earners. And that can be demonstrated both positively and negatively. Then we have to consider that the management personal have choices of where to work. They can go to a better job with more wages just like a sports figure moves from one team to another team. In order to keep the best "talent" of management, higher and higher salaries have to be paid with terrific benefits, bonuses and parachutes clauses.
This puts the union in a tough place to negotiate. Many times the union will push too much and the wage earners will go out on strike. This is a lose- lose scenario. The workers lose earnings. The company loses sales and possible customers which they will never get back.
The reason for a union was supposed to get better wages for workers at a company. BUT Today, the role the union takes on is more political than negotiator for higher wages and benefits. Many of the union workers have reached a middle class status with a salary or hourly wage to be able to provide for their families.
But with a world-wide marketplace and manufacturing shifting to the lowest wage countries, the American unions are faced with deep declines in membership and that means a huge drop in union dues. AAHHH the union dues. That is what the union is now about in most unions. With lower memberships, the unions have less to spend on their politicians. And those beautiful buildings the unions built have mortgages to be paid and the union management has to be competitively paid or management will get another job. Faced with less memberships union dues has to go up. And if dues goes up, the workers then begin to think like investors and want more for the increased dues they are paying.
We have reached an apex in union effectiveness. In my opinion, it would have been idealistic and hopefully achievable to have managements and workers come to an agreement that management could be paid LESS and workers could be paid more. The stock prices would not be effected therefore the investors would be happy. AND with more workers earning more money, consumerism would help fuel the economy. That would be a win-win scenario.
It would be easy for workers to deal with a raise in their earnings. BUT getting management to give up their huge and mostly unwarranted salaries and perks is the tough factor to get in place. After all, who would ever want to make less - workers or management alike. And that's the rub that requires unions to force management to increase pay and benefits for workers.
Why unions? Because they are somewhat of an equalizer; even though they are not always doing what is in the best interests of their members. It's the need for workers to have a voice that causes unions to be.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Monday, February 28, 2011
Unions and the World War II
Little known FACTS that union workers burned down ships being built for the World War II efforts and staged a walkout. The union boss was mad that Lucky Grazzianno was going to go or was in jail. So the union bosses met with President Roosevelt and agreed that Lucky would be set free if the the unions would work three shifts to build all the boats needed for the war efforts. The deal was struck. Look it up. When Kennedy made his 'push' against the unions - well he was killed by a sniper, wasn't he? But I digress.
So who are the unions working for? The unions, that's who !!! They take union dues to "fund" congress people for their election campaigns. When these congresspersons are elected, they are pressured by the unions to vote for union favorable bills. (A step in the process of an act becoming a law).
And who pays for these benefits that become law voted on by these "purchased" congress persons??? OPM For those who do not know what OPM means. OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. That is what our taxes go for.
Look at your real estate tax bill. Add up all the items that go towards your schools. I'll bet that total ranges from 60% to 85% of your total real estate tax bill. Thank you Mr Union. Thank you for raising the teacher's pay and benefits while forgetting to put a clause in there to help the student become smarter. Oh No! You do not want to help the students. The teachers want smaller classes. WHY??? Because smaller classes mean more classrooms and more classrooms mean more teachers. And more teachers mean more union dues. AAHHHH !!! That's the reason for smaller classrooms - MORE UNION DUES. You see the congress persons need more money to get elected and the union lobbyists need more money to treat the congress persons to vacations and under the table "purchases."
I vote 'no' when the teacher's pay raise comes up. They always say it's about helping the students. BUT that's not true. It's about more classrooms, more teachers, more union dues, more under the table "purchases' and damn the students. Who cares if they do not learn. Who cares if they drop out. Who cares if they can not read. WHO CARES ABOUT THE STUDENTS ???
AND THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
So who are the unions working for? The unions, that's who !!! They take union dues to "fund" congress people for their election campaigns. When these congresspersons are elected, they are pressured by the unions to vote for union favorable bills. (A step in the process of an act becoming a law).
And who pays for these benefits that become law voted on by these "purchased" congress persons??? OPM For those who do not know what OPM means. OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. That is what our taxes go for.
Look at your real estate tax bill. Add up all the items that go towards your schools. I'll bet that total ranges from 60% to 85% of your total real estate tax bill. Thank you Mr Union. Thank you for raising the teacher's pay and benefits while forgetting to put a clause in there to help the student become smarter. Oh No! You do not want to help the students. The teachers want smaller classes. WHY??? Because smaller classes mean more classrooms and more classrooms mean more teachers. And more teachers mean more union dues. AAHHHH !!! That's the reason for smaller classrooms - MORE UNION DUES. You see the congress persons need more money to get elected and the union lobbyists need more money to treat the congress persons to vacations and under the table "purchases."
I vote 'no' when the teacher's pay raise comes up. They always say it's about helping the students. BUT that's not true. It's about more classrooms, more teachers, more union dues, more under the table "purchases' and damn the students. Who cares if they do not learn. Who cares if they drop out. Who cares if they can not read. WHO CARES ABOUT THE STUDENTS ???
AND THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Why Unions
Simply put unions started when companies took advantage of their workers much like the kings did of the people that lived in the king's territory. They working conditions were not considered. Heck, the working process was not even thought out. The owners knew they could make a profit if they did 'this and that' And the rule of "do not fix it if it's not broken" was in play. Only through major incidents like fires that killed over a hundred women and children did the people in general begin to think of organizing into a union. And that is true of most of today's major changes; something terrible has to happen to force change.
But where did the concept of union come from? Mostly from the people who provided protection to store owners. And they were of low moral reputation. Even today, it's the concept of taking union worker's money (call dues or protection) and using it for the benefit of the union (and in many cases the union's bosses.)
Sure the protectors get higher wages and benefits for their members. But they constantly reach for higher wages and more benefits; plus enforcing the "do not fire under almost any circumstances" rule. And soon the higher wages and benefits are not enough. What is missing in this scenario is the affect these higher wages and pensions have on the tax payers or corporations.
Let's look at a blaring example. Teacher's pay has almost tripled in the last thirty years from 1981 to 2011. Yet, students are poorer readers, poorer at math, are unable to write. are unable to understand how the USA government works than the 1981 students. So the amount of money paid to teachers and the huge pensions they get after only 20 to 30 years is out of balance with the teacher's ability to provide a better product - i.e. a student who can read, write, do math, knows about civics and has some understanding of basis science. We are producing a graduating class of more ignorant students as evident by the world ranking of student's. The USA placed 23rd this year behind every major industrial nation in student knowledge. But the unions want more money for these students' teachers. Can anyone see the conflict here. The teacher want more money while doing a poorer job.
MOST of these teachers would be fired IF they worked in a corporate world for their lack of productivity. That is the way it works in the corporate world. You work without a contract of job protection. And that seems to work well for the business world as evidenced by the profits and productivity of USA business. Compare that to the protectionist world of teachers with low student productivity and you begin to see a large gap between teacher's pay in general and student knowledge.
Then there are the benefits of teacher. They work 8 or 9 months a year and get paid for a full year. Out of those 8 or 9 months they get off about 22 days over and above weekends for "holidays" and "class breaks." And they can retire after 20 to 30 years at a large percentage of their last few year's salary. WOW! And they want more. Plus when they reach social security age, they will want that money as well.
Now who pays for all these salaries and benefits and pensions? The taxpayer - that's who!!! Are the taxpayers getting their money's worth? I do not think so. Not when one-third to one-half of all students graduating high school can not read at more than a third grade level. And that does not include the 20% up to 50% drop out rate.
In a corporate world, most teachers would be fired and their pensions would be absolved. They would have to work 50 weeks a year to get 2 weeks vacation. Unlike their current work year of only 32 weeks a year and on vacation 20 weeks a year. Wouldn't you Mr or MS taxpayer like that work schedule.???
There are other stories that I will bring to you. You intelligent comments backed by facts are encourage. Rants and ravings can best be served when you are on the picket lines.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
But where did the concept of union come from? Mostly from the people who provided protection to store owners. And they were of low moral reputation. Even today, it's the concept of taking union worker's money (call dues or protection) and using it for the benefit of the union (and in many cases the union's bosses.)
Sure the protectors get higher wages and benefits for their members. But they constantly reach for higher wages and more benefits; plus enforcing the "do not fire under almost any circumstances" rule. And soon the higher wages and benefits are not enough. What is missing in this scenario is the affect these higher wages and pensions have on the tax payers or corporations.
Let's look at a blaring example. Teacher's pay has almost tripled in the last thirty years from 1981 to 2011. Yet, students are poorer readers, poorer at math, are unable to write. are unable to understand how the USA government works than the 1981 students. So the amount of money paid to teachers and the huge pensions they get after only 20 to 30 years is out of balance with the teacher's ability to provide a better product - i.e. a student who can read, write, do math, knows about civics and has some understanding of basis science. We are producing a graduating class of more ignorant students as evident by the world ranking of student's. The USA placed 23rd this year behind every major industrial nation in student knowledge. But the unions want more money for these students' teachers. Can anyone see the conflict here. The teacher want more money while doing a poorer job.
MOST of these teachers would be fired IF they worked in a corporate world for their lack of productivity. That is the way it works in the corporate world. You work without a contract of job protection. And that seems to work well for the business world as evidenced by the profits and productivity of USA business. Compare that to the protectionist world of teachers with low student productivity and you begin to see a large gap between teacher's pay in general and student knowledge.
Then there are the benefits of teacher. They work 8 or 9 months a year and get paid for a full year. Out of those 8 or 9 months they get off about 22 days over and above weekends for "holidays" and "class breaks." And they can retire after 20 to 30 years at a large percentage of their last few year's salary. WOW! And they want more. Plus when they reach social security age, they will want that money as well.
Now who pays for all these salaries and benefits and pensions? The taxpayer - that's who!!! Are the taxpayers getting their money's worth? I do not think so. Not when one-third to one-half of all students graduating high school can not read at more than a third grade level. And that does not include the 20% up to 50% drop out rate.
In a corporate world, most teachers would be fired and their pensions would be absolved. They would have to work 50 weeks a year to get 2 weeks vacation. Unlike their current work year of only 32 weeks a year and on vacation 20 weeks a year. Wouldn't you Mr or MS taxpayer like that work schedule.???
There are other stories that I will bring to you. You intelligent comments backed by facts are encourage. Rants and ravings can best be served when you are on the picket lines.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)