Republican Tax Cuts For The Rich And The Debt Crisis

Government employees can always rat out the employer. No government in their right minds attack their employees.

 

actually they are parasites. Even FDR opposed public sector unions. Here is why. in private sector unions-the management bargains for the stock holders. the union bargains for the employees. In public sector environments, the politicians often are beholden to the unions and not the tax payers

 

Here I thought it was the heist of the century, backstopped by the US Gov't

There are plenty of ways to SAFELY increase home ownership rates, weird Dubya didn't try them and ignored reglator warnings and forced F/F into BK

 

BZZZ RIGHT WING BS. HE OPPOSED STRIKES AGAINST THE GOV'T

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...ral-employees-against-strikes-federal-service

 

His commitment to helping Americans was more radical than your cautious outlook allows.

 

public sector labor unions are parasites. they don't teach a trade-all they do is protect bad workers.

 

LMAOROG, If you mean to bankrupt Gov't to limit it's size, the rights goal for 80+ years

 

I don't think the right does either, but that is a different topic for a different thread for a different day

 

Your opinion on that doesn't matter, YOU were wrong, again that FDR opposed unions for Govt

 

you have no idea what the hell you are saying. The problem is documentation. You have to have documentation to fire a government worker. And I have seen plenty of government workers fired, suspended, or even quit because of that documentation. There is a process and that process requires documentation. This is true whether the employee works for the federal government or is a police officer in which the police union sues the city to get the police officer who was fired for violating policy their job back. And there have been a few of those, haven't there?

Now there was a case when CERS was in force, but since FERS has been in force, and with certain laws, government workers have all the protections and responsibilities to perform their jobs whatever that may be. It is a cross of being in the military and in a closed work environment.

 

Sorry, but that's a mere rant.

 

Look at the picture and try and imagen Democrats and Republicans workers, together, suppling the Government with taxed revenue to BACK any loan.. The Government doesn't earn a wage, it confiscates a percentage of American disposable income and then takes credit for what U.S workers supply them with

 

I don' know what you are talking about. I was an assistant US attorney for 24 years. Since I have a masters in industrial and Labor relations with a specialization in labor law, I handled most of the complex labor issues of various governmental agencies that our office had to deal with-including the Postal service that has several public sector unions including the APWU and the NALC, I suspect I have forgotten more about this subject than most of the readers will ever know. And I know what a problem the unions are. The postal service is a prime example. years ago, the postal service started using LSMs=Loader sorter machines to speed up the distribution of mail in distribution centers. The original ones required three workers. one person dumped mail into the machine. The second person keyed the letters-every second or so a letter would appear in a window, the worker would hit a key that would distribute the letter to a specific "gaylord" (a container) based on the zip code. The third worker would "sweep" the machines which essentially means emptying the various "gaylords" as they collected specific zip code based letters. the introduction of those machines eliminated the need for many workers. Then newer LSMs appeared that didn't need someone to do the keying. Because of the unions, the USPS couldn't reduce its employee numbers. It was carrying lots of employees who no longer had any use in the system. IN a case I personally litigated, a worker with MS (disabled) was known to be a problem. He "dry humped" a female worker who suggested he "couldn't get it up" when he told her she'd look good in a costume that was on a Victoria's secret catalog they found on the line. A temporary supervisor (known as a 204B) reduced the several week suspension to a warning. This caused the woman to sue-and we ended having to settle the case. The plaintiff noted that if the discipline had remained she wouldn't have sued. But due to the union contract, once the 205B reduced his suspension after he filed a grievance, management couldn't override that. I told the district head to fire the guy and they could blame the DOJ but they wouldn't. six months later, this same clown assaulted a female supervisor with his cane. This time we told the postal attorney and the district manager to fire the guy and he was arrested by the postal inspectors. But the union was responsible for that scumbag remaining employed to harass and assault another employee

 

Actually, you're wrong.
Did FDR oppose collective bargaining for government ...

PolitiFact
https://www.politifact.com › aug › scott-walker › Did-...


Aug 13, 2013 — Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFE's bylaws rejected ...

 

Most of the terminations never make it to the US Attorney's office in whatever district they may be in. There are cases in which it does. But I have seen UNAX violations in which the employee was terminated and prosecuted per the law. But I have seen lack of performance that is consent over a long period of time in which the termination never goes to the District Attorney's office. But it is there. Even with you, you had a PD in which you had certain criteria to meet per that PD. Your boss, the actual District Attorney, is the one who signs off on your performance reviews. If you fail or do not "meet" the standard for three or more years in a row, then that office can fire you. But what you are talking about is not the criminal side, such as UNAX violations, which do happen in the Treasury and other agencies. And that has to be prosecuted. But for other disciplinary issues, it never rises to the AG side. But the point is that federal employees can and do get fired. It is not based on a whim like at Fox for instance, and it is per the contract law.

 

Government back loans have nothing to do with which political affiliation the government employee is. Government employees do the job they are assigned to do per the PD. But government back loans is what the government by law does. Sometimes they are called "subsidized" loans in which a fix predetermined rate regardless of the FICO scores of the person obtaining the loan.

 

Unions make it much tougher to get rid of problem employees in the federal system,. We didn't have a union. We had a group called the AAUSA's but it didn't have bargaining power etc

 

Good schooling there. I knew I was correct.

 

Tougher yes, but not impossible. But the question is how do you define "a problem employee?" Even you, under certain circumstances, can be defined as a "problem employee."

 

well it never happened with me. But the fellow I mentioned was a serial offender.

 

Fact checks not wrong often, but clearly are here from reading his letter i linked too

 

And where does ye ol Grubmint get all the monies they back loans with

 

You are attempting to replace the factual record with your personal wish. No one else will find that persuasive.

 

Which effectively took the power away from government unions. Maybe you remember the ATC strike during Reagan's presidency? That didn't work out well for them.

 

I'm sure every right winger here agrees with you, after all they continually misread the second, not understanding or more rightly, ignoring ‘rules of comma use’

...Because the clauses separated by commas in the Second Amendment are not joined by any of the coordinating conjunctions, they are then not independent clauses and, as a result, the whole sentence refers to “Militia.”

With militia as the subject it follows that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is not an independent clause or specified individual right carved out by this amendment and does not refer to individual people as separate from the militia. It refers to ‘people’ with respect to having a well-regulated militia.

https://www.thepress.net/opinion/le...cle_732e35e2-e80b-11ec-a937-7f3e101d6153.html