Romney against Police, Fire, EMS, Teachers

Discussion in 'Law Enforcement & Military' started by LT2108, Jun 10, 2012.

  1. LT2108

    LT2108 Administrator Staff Member Admin Moderator Lifetime Supporting Member

    52,749
    1,336
    Ohio
    Found this rather interesting !

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoSmWK_-x4g&sns=em[/ame]
     
  2. jonm61

    jonm61 New Member

    1,348
    5
    I'm not going to take a 15 second clip, out of a ?? how long statement/speech and indicte him for what it says. Show me the rest, unedited, and we'll see. Somehow, I doubt he truly believes that we need fewer public safety professionals or teachers. If that's not, specifically, about public sector unions or Obama's desire to hire more without a means of paying for the jobs, I'd be very surprised.

    Besides, considering the amount of hiring going on, at least in certain states like OH, in law enforcement, I'd say we're getting back on track. As it happens, Gwinnett County, where I am, and the City of Atlanta are both hiring more police officers now. I'm sure some of our other local depts are hiring as well, though certainly not on that scale.

    Meanwhile, back in D.C. "the private sector's doing fine" and we just need to increase the size of gov't. :rolleyes:
     

  3. LT2108

    LT2108 Administrator Staff Member Admin Moderator Lifetime Supporting Member

    52,749
    1,336
    Ohio
    I am from Ohio, and it has been stated and said, Romney is against Union Workers, and as an OHIO LEO, I say NO WAY
     
  4. sgtcowboyusmc

    sgtcowboyusmc New Member

    1,329
    0
    No where did he say he was against Police, Firefighters etc. He just plainly said there isn't the Money to support MORE! I am a Retired State Union Worker. I tried to tell my State worker Brother and Sisters that this was coming. AS an AMERICAN I say No Way to the Socialist in Chief that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave!:mad:
     
  5. Argyle64

    Argyle64 New Member

    Three of our largest cities in Oklahoma are hiring more officers right now. Oklahoma has been very recession resistant and the college towns here are growing. I can't see any politician (left or right) claiming we need fewer public safety workers and teachers.

    HOWEVER, as LEO I am a union member. So.....
     
  6. jonm61

    jonm61 New Member

    1,348
    5
    He and the majority of voters, including the particularly important Independents, are against unions. Even cities in California are voting against their public sector unions.

    My problem with unions is that, in general, they don't truly represent their membership; they're more about the power of the leadership. They also don't give a damn about what's going on around them that is affecting their contracts.

    If you have the choice between bankrupting your town, potentially costing jobs across the board, or accepting a contract modification, what do you do? The union will tell you to bankrupt your town, because they're about their own power.

    The FOP and the PBA were great over the years, and I guess still are, at providing representation for officers when they need it. We were on State retirement, so there was nothing to negotiate there; it was set by state law. All we ever saw out of the constant back & forth BS during contract negotiations was the same 1.5-3% that we would've gotten anyway. So what was the point? :rolleyes:

    Depts that aren't represented by the FOP or PBA really need to look at the motivation of their union. I saw a small dept in FL that's organized with the Teamsters! Talk about poor choices and incompatibility...

    I can tell you from much personal experience that the Teamsters, from the national level on down, are a bunch of thugs who like to go on strike and who like to get violent when they're on strike. They like to do property damage and they like to commit battery on anyone who they even think might oppose them.

    The only ones who are worse is the UAW. They will actually shoot at you during a strike.


    After 17 years of unions, I've long since had enough. I'd had enough 17 years ago, in fact. I have family and friends who are still in various unions and most of them agree that unions have lost track of their real purpose. Why else would you think that, when contributions go from mandatory to voluntary, 2/3 of the workers STOP contributing?

    Once upon a time, they had their purpose. They lost it long ago and with it they lost their usefulness and are continuing to lose the battle of public opinion. Unions have been declining for years now and personally, I'll be happy to see them all fold.


    The labor market, whether public or private sector, if we ever get the economy back on track, will regulate itself without the need of union input. In a normal economy, with unemployment down under 6% where it should be, people have options; if they don't like the pay or benefits, they can ask for more or they can leave.

    Companies and gov't agencies these days are smart enough to know that if you don't want to lose your best employees, you have to pay them and provide good benefits. If you don't, they'll go somewhere else. Turnover is expensive; it's cheaper to pay better than to deal with a high turnover rate.

    As gov't employees, we've always been at the mercy of the taxpayer. It's the nature of the job and we all signed up for it, whether we like it or not. If the city/county/state doesn't have the money, they don't have the money. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. There are always depts that pay better, in bigger jurisdictions usually, where your danger level is correspondingly (or, often, not...the danger level isn't worth the pay bump) higher, as is the cost of living.

    Union contracts, because the unions have been focused too much on their own power, while ignoring the obvious, have and continue to bankrupt gov'ts. If a city actually files bankruptcy, your contract is invalidated anyway. Look at California, since they're among the worst offenders.

    Once upon a time, we not only had take home cars, but we could drive them anywhere in the county, on our days off, to run personal errands. Guys had their take home cars and their wives had the POV. They only needed one.

    And then gas prices went up and a small recession hit. 20? years ago now, when gas was still under $1 and that was getting to be too expensive. So the policy was changed and you could only drive your take home car to, during, and home from work; to run work related errands such as picking up dry cleaning, going to the gym, to court, the car wash, etc. (naturally, the dry cleaner often happened to be next to the grocery store...).

    People complained, the union screeched and a choice was given: accept the policy or pass on your COLA increase. There were no merit increases, for years, because there was no money. If you didn't like it, you could leave for another dept, almost all of them were in the same boat though, or you could go to the private sector...were you would find that you also didn't get raises, you paid more for your benefits and you lost your take home car.


    I find that most public sector union workers who complain about their salary and benefits, or who vehemently support the union, haven't spent any time in the private sector, especially in a non-union environment. It's completely different and union or not, you pay (more) for benefits, you work the same or longer hours, often without getting paid overtime (because you're salaried, and "exempt") and you often do it for similar pay. But, by not having the idiocy of the union on your back, you can actually do your job, the right way, and turn out quality work, rather than having to meet some set of standards that were created by people who don't understand your job.


    I've spent time in both worlds. Enough time to know that if I had to choose between a union environment and a non-union environment, I would free all workers by disbanding all unions. Then we could pay people what they're worth; more to those who perform, for instance, rather than paying the same for laziness as we do for productivity. Don't tell me you don't know people who do the bare minimum all day long, ***** about it, and then at the end of the day get the same pay, raises and benefits as those who bust their butts all day. In a lot of environments, public and private, unions breed laziness and complacency. I've seen that first hand many times, in many places.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2012
  7. sgtcowboyusmc

    sgtcowboyusmc New Member

    1,329
    0
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o&feature=related[/ame]

    "And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

    When he was a Candidate he promised to walk the picket lines if Collective Bargaining was threatened. But when push came to shove the union workers in Wisconsin found out what the Russians Know about Obama! He is WEAK!