-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|83|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-

about a political problem which could not occur

Afr0 Whether or not the national guard is involved is kinda besides the point.

Businesses struggle to survive sometimes and then you have a bully union where it's all about me me me and how much I can make. Employees don't care about the business, they just want to line their pockets. I wouldn't cooperate much with them either.

I'm just saying that this is a non-story.

If you can't handle running a business responsibly, then you shouldn't do it.

If the business was publicly owned, it wouldn't be taxed!

No, the government doesn't need to get involved. People just need to take more responsibility by voting with their money and where they choose to work. If everyone quit a company and everyone refused to work there, the company would be forced to give in to demands.

Unions are there to make sure that workers are paid at least minimum hourly wage, overtime, get a minimum amount of paid sick-leave

You're forgetting the part where people can't always choose where they want to work.

Unions do not need to do this in the United States. These things are federally mandated.

Minimum hourly wage is federally mandated here as well, but businessowners still see fit to break those rules, and bully employers into not going public about it.
How's that for childish behaviour?

Maybe Norway could benefit from tougher laws. If that's why you're so pro-union, then it makes sense. Unions don't really have the same purpose here. They are mainly used to try and squeeze more benefits and money from the employer.

There are a lot of uneducated people that get elected in to office. Just because he threatened to call in the national guard doesn't mean that they wont tell him to go fuck himself. The national guards purpose is to protect Americans.

First Amendment of the United States Constitution Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

C) Unions are so wonderful that they actively lie to their members to whip them into a frenzy and get them to stage utterly stupid protests like this. Unions only care about money and power for Unions.

And if attempting to remove protesters by force is a common thing in the US, then thank goodness that these people were joined by the people that were supposed to remove them!

They will, however, gladly take your money to allow you the privilege of having a job, and tell you what to believe and how to vote. While your representatives spend 3/4 of the year on vacation in the Caribbean.

I dunno about where you live, but more money and power for unions means more money and power for the people RUNNING the unions, who are NOT the people REPRESENTED by the unions. They only care about the people they represent to the minimum extent that keeps them in power.

Kind of like the government.

Regardless of if it's right or wrong to sack that teacher, the whole process should be resolved over a couple of weeks (at most).

I almost missed my grandmothers funeral due to a train strike last year that never materialised. Unions should not be able to use scare-mungering in such a way.

Third as much as people have a right to strike, people also have a right not to strike. Many union members often victimize fellow employees who do not agree with their agenda. Again, this is a bad thing.

Your performance did not matter because every sector could endlessly eat more and more money.

You need to make money to survive. Privatization does not work in all cases, but because of their bottom line it requires them to be more sensible and efficient then the public sector.

Afr0 Why?
The culprit was suspended on pay!

Afr0 If you almost missed a funeral because of a strike that didn't happen, then that's your fault, not unions'! If you think there's going to be a strike and you're afraid to order a train ticket, then order a plane ticket instead! Or take the bus.

Afr0 You know why the private sector can afford to be more 'sensible and efficient' than the public sector? Because turnovers are much higher. That's the bottom line. If people can't stay 100% effective 100% of the time, they're replaced.

I actually booked the ticket before the strike. I shouldn't have to buy extra tickets. Instead my plans should not be messed up.

Then maybe we need higher turnovers in the public sector.

That is the main problem with privatization and New Public Management. Politicians tend to think it is a Good Thing (TM) because it forces people to compete amongst themselves more and thus become more effective. In the short-term it might work, but in the long-term it wears down efficiency, sends health-issues spiking, kills initiative and is generally a Bad Thing (TM).

He should not be suspended on pay for over a year! That's a complete waste of both time and money