brett636
Well-Known Member
Then the state has the obligation to its taxpayers to lower tax rates and or eliminate certain taxes to keep those economic woes at bay in the future.
Is anyone following Wisconsin?
- Thread starter hubrat
- Start date
Then the state has the obligation to its taxpayers to lower tax rates and or eliminate certain taxes to keep those economic woes at bay in the future.
Then it truly is "union busting" at it's finest. Pay attention Teamsters. If you thing republicans are any more sympathetic to you than they are to public unions, you are sorely mistaken. Get ready for at least a "two-tiered" pay system in 2013. You are soon to be recognized as your greatest nightmare: Fedex Ground wannabe's!
Brett,
I know you believe you are "informed" on many things, but with respect to the post office, you are wrong.
Answer this question, what department of the goverment runs the post office? Who in the goverment is in charge of the post office?
Again, you watch FOX news and also supplement that viewing with a dose of right wing rhetoric and you come up with your post. Lets see if this helps you clear your misunderstanding:
The "Post Office," or the United States Postal Service, is owned by the United States Federal Government. It is classified as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States" and operates independently of government control, run by its own non-political directors.Structure
- Although it is owned entirely by the United States Government, the USPS functions as if it were a private corporation. It is run by an 11-member Board of Governors appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, with one member -- the Postmaster General -- acting as the Chief Executive Officer. The Postal Service is the third-largest employer in the United States, behind the Department of Defense and Wal-Mart.Operation
[*]The USPS is not paid for or supported by tax money. It is an independent operation that generates its own income from stamps and delivery services. Since its reorganization in 1971, the cost of a stamp has increased considerably from 8 cents, to 44 cents in 2009. Postal revenue of $75 billion in 2008 would have made it the 26th largest corporation on the Forbes 500 list if it were privately owned and operated.History
[*]The idea of a United States Post Office was suggested by Benjamin Franklin, who was named the first Postmaster General by the Continental Congress in 1775. The U.S. Constitution requires the government to establish "post offices and post roads," and originally led to a tax-supported Post Office. In 1971, in order to improve its efficiency, President Nixon reorganized the Post Office into the United States Postal Service, making it more independent and giving it a structure more like a private corporation.
Read more: Who Owns the Post Office? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5079063_owns-post-office.html#ixzz1EbfXjHb9
Now that you have a little history on the post office, lets look at what you said:
"The post office is hemoraging money, and is preparing to close 2,000 offices. Again not a good example of a well run government agency."
This is a rediculous claim. Once again, a mis-informed judgement merely repeated.
The postal service isnt "hemoraging" money, its losing REVENUE. The postal services first class revenue base is shrinking every year by over 35%. The internet is changing the way the postal service does business.
The business model for the postal service cannot continue to exist with the internet stealing its revenue base. With online pay and online billing, the first class stamp sales are shrinking. Every person in america has a limit to what they will pay for a stamp. Congress knows that the Eboard of the postal service can only raise the price of a stamp only so far before it becomes obsolete. Unlike UPS, where the internet is GROWING our business, at the Post Office, its killing it.
The other segments of the postal service revenue (parcels and third class advo) have been revenue losers for decades and have always been subsidized by the first class stamp revenue. Now that first class revenue is shrinking, it can no longer subsidize these losses and the postal service can no longer afford to do business as usual.
The cost of doing business (employees, pensions, offices, vehicles) is rising and the revenue base is going in the opposite direction.
The cost of doing business (employees, pensions, offices, vehicles) is rising and the revenue base is going in the opposite direction.
So, in summary, they are NOT hemmoraging money, they are Losing revenue.
The EBOARD runs the postal service and takes whatever moves they want to make to congress for approval. The EBOARD never took the internet seriously over the decades and in todays business climate will continue to shrink as customers reduce their dependancy on the postal service.
As in the 60's and 70's when robots hurt the auto industry and cost jobs, in the 2000's, the internet is killing a ton of businesses. From Newpapers, to CD's, to DVD's to Books, to greeting cards, the internet is reducing revenues in each to a point where these industries will disappear in less than a decade.
As in the 60's and 70's when robots hurt the auto industry and cost jobs, in the 2000's, the internet is killing a ton of businesses. From Newpapers, to CD's, to DVD's to Books, to greeting cards, the internet is reducing revenues in each to a point where these industries will disappear in less than a decade.
The right wings desperate attempt to blame the goverment is just another weak attempt on making the "big goverment" claim. It works on the uninformed, but for the rest of americans who stay "informed", they know the realities of the postal service.
Hope this helps you out Brett.
Peace.
Hope this helps you out Brett.
Peace.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Babagounj
Strength through joy
we already have a two-tiered pay system in place, ask any 22.3 employee.Then it truly is "union busting" at it's finest. Pay attention Teamsters. If you thing republicans are any more sympathetic to you than they are to public unions, you are sorely mistaken. Get ready for at least a "two-tiered" pay system in 2013. You are soon to be recognized as your greatest nightmare: Fedex Ground wannabe's!
Also included is the requirement on certain days that air drivers are to be forced to work at regular pay while everyone else gets ot.
packageguy
Well-Known Member
This is something all unions should watch closely. Unions should be
educating us on what's going on there. ALL because there are
so many news outlets, we don't want to hear 13 thousand stories. JUST THE TRUTH
educating us on what's going on there. ALL because there are
so many news outlets, we don't want to hear 13 thousand stories. JUST THE TRUTH
island1fox
Well-Known Member
And thats where you believe the truth lies ???That made me laugh --a true play on words !!!
705red
Browncafe Steward
Wow, I didnt read all the pages here in this topic but I will say im shocked to see some of my union Brothers against the public sector union employees. Union is union private, public whatever, they were there for us in 97 with food, support etc.
I find it hard to believe that people would rather see the Teachers who teach our kids, we trust our kids with daily and help mold them into the people they will grow up to be pay the price.
The Police that are there to protect us in case of an emergency and pay with their lives in many cases pay the price.
The Fireman that run into your burning house to pull you out alive and in doing so risk their lives to pay the price.
But no one has asked the politicains or even this Governor to gice up his pension plan, medical benefits, the free housing he enjoys etc. Im sure that would be equal to the 10% that is being discussed.
When the economy hit the tanks corporations got bailed out by us the tax payers, here we are now and many of those companies are now seeing raises and bonuses while we are still paying higher taxes. And now the working class of America has to pay an even bigger price?
friend* that!!!!!
Wisconsin stand tall and fight the good fight, I only wish I could be there to suppost you! Screw Egypt and the middle east, you want to see a revolution lets do it here in our own back yards!!!!!
Power to the people!!!
I find it hard to believe that people would rather see the Teachers who teach our kids, we trust our kids with daily and help mold them into the people they will grow up to be pay the price.
The Police that are there to protect us in case of an emergency and pay with their lives in many cases pay the price.
The Fireman that run into your burning house to pull you out alive and in doing so risk their lives to pay the price.
But no one has asked the politicains or even this Governor to gice up his pension plan, medical benefits, the free housing he enjoys etc. Im sure that would be equal to the 10% that is being discussed.
When the economy hit the tanks corporations got bailed out by us the tax payers, here we are now and many of those companies are now seeing raises and bonuses while we are still paying higher taxes. And now the working class of America has to pay an even bigger price?
friend* that!!!!!
Wisconsin stand tall and fight the good fight, I only wish I could be there to suppost you! Screw Egypt and the middle east, you want to see a revolution lets do it here in our own back yards!!!!!
Power to the people!!!
Babaganoush,
Dont your own words suggest that the unions can compromise with the company and NOT always seek "their" way? This sort of defeats your position of unions only want whats best for them, doesnt it?
The UAW took major cuts for its employees (wages, benefits, health care, pensions) in order to save the domestic auto industry, doesnt this demonstrate the efforts of collective bargaining to compromise?
I laugh at "posters" who work in a blue collar industry and then support or verbally show support for attacks on the middle class union workers as if they will never be affected in the future. Somehow, its a mystery how teamsters at UPS believe that somehow without a Nationwide collective bargaining agreement in place, they would earn the benefit package they currently enjoy.
As if the company would pay anything close to what we are all earning presently or provide the health care packages that total close to 28K a year each to every employee.
Every job would be 9.50 an hour if there were no collective bargaining agreements in place.
Poster moreluck clearly buys the political right wing rhetoric when she posts a poster showing the democrats in wisconsin with the words WANTED on it.
As if thats the right thing to do to its citizens. When the democrats had the majority in the congress, posters like moreluck complained about the heavy hand of partisanship, yet, in wisconsin, the republican majority wants to attack its middle class citizens with a majority and, shes "all in" with them.
The point is simple, if you are a UPS teamster, you should pay a watchfull eye on this situation, it may be us in 2013.
Peace.
rod
Retired 22 years
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to get suckered into using a "like" button. I will tell you straight out------I like this. From what I understand the people fighting the fight in Madison have agreed to an 8% wage cut and to pay more toward their pensions. What they refuse to give up is their right to collective barganing. Lose your right to collective barganing at UPS and see what happens. I guarantee you won't like it.
Last edited by a moderator:
So would things get better with the Union having no negotiating power?
brett636
Well-Known Member
Then it truly is "union busting" at it's finest. Pay attention Teamsters. If you thing republicans are any more sympathetic to you than they are to public unions, you are sorely mistaken. Get ready for at least a "two-tiered" pay system in 2013. You are soon to be recognized as your greatest nightmare: Fedex Ground wannabe's!
Wow, I have never equated lowering taxes to union busting. That is quite a stretch there and I have to say the logic just does not compute.
brett636
Well-Known Member
You never cease to amaze me how you can write such long winded responses and be factually incorrect on nearly all your points. You want some evidence the Post office is losing money? Here are some articles to prove my case.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/02/post_service_had_329_million_l.html
There is a bailout already in the making for the post service courtesy of Obummer.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/02/postal_service_on_tap_for_11_b.html
2000 offices up for closure.
http://www.bigbeargrizzly.net/news/article_9b3e404e-14ba-59b6-be36-a1ecafc4db78.html
See, there was no need to write a long winded response when the truth is on your side. Just a little research could earn you a clue yet.
Well the logic flows. Ya gotta keep up with it. You stated that you didn't see a problem with public unions not being able to negotiate their contract because of the financial woes of the state. So I said well what about when the state is back on it's feeg? and you replied that it would then be time for tax cuts. Therefore, the union is effectively busted. QED.
brett636
Well-Known Member
If a government is interested in maintaining freedom and liberty of its people it has an obligation to keep its burden on its people as low as possible. This simply cannot be achieved when the employees of said government demand greater pay and benefits than the people who pay the taxes to it. Note I did not say the workers of said government should be impoverished, but until recently it has been accepted that you would make less money in the public sector with the promise of more job security. Now they not only have greater job security since their employer cant go out of business, but they enjoy greater pay and benefits too. Not a situation I would deem fair in any sense of the word.
BRETT,
do you actually read the stuff you link??
You say they are losing money? Yet, your own link factually sustains what I said in my post. To conclude, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.
Here is what is sez in your link in part:
Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe said he's seeking changes to postal laws "to enable a more flexible and sustainable business model. We are eager to work with Congress and the administration to resolve these issues prior to the end of the fiscal year."
Lawmakers have yet to consider three postal reform bills that would address the mail agency's financial condition.
Total mail volume increased last quarter by 1.5 percent to 707 million pieces delivered. But related revenues dropped 3.3 percent, or $520 million, as mailers opted for less expensive advertising mail instead of the costlier First Class option.
All you read was the part where the costs of healthcare and such increased leaving a shortfall, but leave out the reasoning for the shortfall.....AKA loss of revenue.
Where are you failing to understand this??
In the second link you posted, it begins with yet another sustained point of mine and furthers it by explaining how obama is CUTTING costs of the postal service by a couple of BILLION of dollars. Here it is:
With mail volume and revenues plummeting, the Postal Service is on course to lose about $7 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September. The losses are due in part to hefty personnel costs not borne by other federal agencies. One is a requirement, imposed by a 2006 law, that it set aside money each year to cover the costs of future health insurance benefits for its retired workers.
In the Obama administration's first substantive attempt to address the mail agency's woes, the budget would allow it to pay $4 billion less in those costs in 2011 than what is required by the law. If enacted, the mail agency would have to pay about $1.5 billion of those costs in fiscal 2012 and make up the difference in future years.
Again, I ask you to explain how you read the word "hemmoraging" into your argument? Your own sources clearly say "LOSS OF REVENUE"....aka MY POINT.
The closing of post offices is not in dispute as the postal service attempts to close the projected 16 billion dollar loss it expects this year alone.
I am still waiting for you to explain how the government runs the postal service and what branch of the government is in charge of it like you represented??????
hOLdiNG mY BrEAtH
Peace.
do you actually read the stuff you link??
You say they are losing money? Yet, your own link factually sustains what I said in my post. To conclude, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.
Here is what is sez in your link in part:
Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe said he's seeking changes to postal laws "to enable a more flexible and sustainable business model. We are eager to work with Congress and the administration to resolve these issues prior to the end of the fiscal year."
Lawmakers have yet to consider three postal reform bills that would address the mail agency's financial condition.
Total mail volume increased last quarter by 1.5 percent to 707 million pieces delivered. But related revenues dropped 3.3 percent, or $520 million, as mailers opted for less expensive advertising mail instead of the costlier First Class option.
All you read was the part where the costs of healthcare and such increased leaving a shortfall, but leave out the reasoning for the shortfall.....AKA loss of revenue.
Where are you failing to understand this??
In the second link you posted, it begins with yet another sustained point of mine and furthers it by explaining how obama is CUTTING costs of the postal service by a couple of BILLION of dollars. Here it is:
With mail volume and revenues plummeting, the Postal Service is on course to lose about $7 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September. The losses are due in part to hefty personnel costs not borne by other federal agencies. One is a requirement, imposed by a 2006 law, that it set aside money each year to cover the costs of future health insurance benefits for its retired workers.
In the Obama administration's first substantive attempt to address the mail agency's woes, the budget would allow it to pay $4 billion less in those costs in 2011 than what is required by the law. If enacted, the mail agency would have to pay about $1.5 billion of those costs in fiscal 2012 and make up the difference in future years.
Again, I ask you to explain how you read the word "hemmoraging" into your argument? Your own sources clearly say "LOSS OF REVENUE"....aka MY POINT.
The closing of post offices is not in dispute as the postal service attempts to close the projected 16 billion dollar loss it expects this year alone.
I am still waiting for you to explain how the government runs the postal service and what branch of the government is in charge of it like you represented??????
hOLdiNG mY BrEAtH
Peace.
Brett,
again, the logic of the right wing rhetoric machine takes hold of another mind.
What you fail to understand Brett is WHY the private sector is making less than the government worker.
Was it always like that?? Answer: No.
Since Ronald Reagan began the process of shipping good jobs out of this country, and both Bush's did the same, the only jobs in the private sector left are low paying "service industry" types of jobs.
There are no career industry jobs left in this country.
How about a little stat Brett:
Prior to Reagan taking office, the manufacturing sector represented approximately 43% of GDP in this country. After Reagan and Bush 1, that number dropped to approximately 26% of GDP, after a small rise during the 8 years of Clinton, and heading into the 8 years of GW Bush, that number now sits at approximately 9%of GDP!!!!
What happened? Those good factory jobs where we made stuff just seemed to disappear into thin air.
Starting with Reagan and ending with Bush2 and interupted by Clinton for 8 years, the top 1% of the richest americans recieved the largest tax breaks in the history of this country. The theory was, cut the tax rate on the rich and they will provide the jobs. But if you look at the stat I just gave you, even after the largest tax breaks in history, all the richest people in this country did was take the extra money and INVEST it in foreign countries employing foreigners and not americans.
They didnt build new factories, they didnt provide millions of jobs, they didnt rebuild our infrastructure, they just took the money and ran....all the way to the bank.
Now, you want to compare a constant working person with the government to a service industry career and say the government is making too much when you should know that service industry jobs dont pay squat.
Unless you know of a McDonalds that is paying 70K a year with full bennies, then I think you are misguided and misinformed.
You need to look beyond the political rhetoric and garbage you are being spoon fed and try looking outside the box to understand the working class of this country before you make a judgement on it.
President Obama is trying to put americans to work, not the chinese, the koreans, the vietnamese, the brazillians, the peruvians, the salvadorians etc etc etc and you call him a SOCIALIST.
Three republican presidents took 13.5 million jobs and placed them overseas and you call them heroes.
You better understand what country this is and how you support a political party that is working against you and not for you.
Peace.
hubrat
Squeaky Wheel
Originally Posted by hubrat
"According to the just-released Bureau of Labor Statistics annual report for 2010, the overall union membership rate in America continued its slide, dropping from 12.3 percent to 11.9 percent. But perhaps most striking is the way unionization is skewed when comparing private sector workers, who are just 6.9 percent unionized, and public sector workers, 36.2 percent of whom belong to unions. The public sector, in other words, is labor’s last stronghold."
Organization will always be preferable to disorganization.
Last edited:
Similar threads
