Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Some Additional Words About Unions

Recs

7

February 25, 2011 – Comments (19)

I Have Two Words for the Teachers' Union

February 17, 2011 – Comments (19)

Khan Academy

You are now obselete, a dinosaur. I'm sure that people with your skills should have no trouble finding gainful employment in either the food service or hospitality industries.

Have a nice day.

David in Qatar

 

Tomorrow is a big day for you. Remember, you outnumber them. Etienne de la Boetie would be proud.

State power 0
Internet Gods 2 

Who's next? 

David in Qatar 

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 25, 2011 at 9:56 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Unions are great until they gain all the power that they covet.

At that point, they become self-defeating and as evil as the power that they were fighting in the first place. 

The power that they were fighting in the first place became self defeating when they forced labor to have to organize to become respected.

Walk into a Costco today and ask an employee there if they need a union. Try Google after that.

Those 2 companies don't need to exploit labor to succeed and therefore don't have to worry about a powerful union running them into the ground like the UAW did to GM and Chrysler and the government employees are doing to the States. 

As far as the teachers go, they are making an average of $66K a year. They pay hardly anything for their benefits, and they work 9 months out of the year.

They deserve to tighten their belts when they people paying their paychecks don't have jobs.

That being said, what do the governor of WI and the state legislators make? What do they pay for their benefits? Are they eating their own cooking, so to speak?

Cuts in a government should be the same as they are in an efficient corporation. They need to start from the top down.

The people without jobs are paying the salaries of the poiticians as well. 

 

Report this comment
#2) On February 25, 2011 at 10:08 PM, alstry (36.32) wrote:

What most don't realize is that taxes DON'T pay teachers or government workers....

since the bank bailouts.....DEFICITS DO......

and most tax receipts are now a derivative of deficits.....

IF WE CUT THE DEFICITS, WE MUST RAISE TAXES SUBSTANTIALLY......

If it wasn't for the government borrowing $1.6 trillion and paying teachers and doctors and government contractors.....tax receipts would evaporate.

why do you think it is an udderworld

Report this comment
#3) On February 25, 2011 at 10:12 PM, alstry (36.32) wrote:

HERE IS SOME MORE DEFICIT SPENDING GENERATING A BUNCH OF TAX RECEIPTS....

Lawmakers celebrate Kansas benefits of Boeing win

Boeing has started hiring engineers to work on its $35 billion contract to build a new fleet of air refueling tankers for the Air Force, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback said Friday. Brownback and the state's congressional delegation were at the plant one day after the Pentagon selected the company to build nearly 200 airborne refueling tankers based on its 767 jetliner. Boeing was chosen over European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.

ALL WE NEED TO DO IS INCREASE THE DEFICT AND WE CAN GIVE THE WORLD A RAISE....HECK WE ARE GIVING BANKERS BILLIONS IN BONUSES

Report this comment
#4) On February 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM, ETFsRule (99.92) wrote:

ChrisGraley (99.79) wrote:

"As far as the teachers go, they are making an average of $66K a year"

Can you provide a source for that please? I know plenty of teachers and none of them make anywhere near that much.

Payscale also gives much lower numbers.

From what I've seen, the average starting salary for a teacher is around 32-35K, and towards the end of their career they might make around 65K. So I think an average salary in the low 40's sounds pretty accurate.

If you're talking about college professors, that's a whole different story.

Report this comment
#5) On February 26, 2011 at 12:13 AM, truthisntstupid (94.31) wrote:

Free market anti-goverment types, conservatives, econochondriacs, and goldbugs don't like me.  I should love unions, but I don't. 

I've watched them sit on a picket line on strike in a community that had lost thousands of industrial jobs in the last 10 years.  My home town.   There is no way of knowing how many hundreds of people drove by that picket line every day, outside what was one of the last surviving industrial plants there. 

Many if not most of those people driving by would have been mighty happy to be making half the money those union members were already making, even without the benefits.

Only a few years earlier, many of the folks driving by had also been high-paid machinists, welders, and assembly-line workers pulling down some pretty good paychecks every week.   I myself was once a pretty skilled MIG welder before all the factories started closing up. 

All those jobs were long gone when I left the military in 1989 and went back home.   Except for a great big ALCOA plant and they were on strike for months.  Hundreds of people that had lost their jobs, their homes, and any hope of finding a job that paid half what they used to make drove by every day.  Heck, it may have been a couple thousand or more driving by every day.

 Where'd the jobs go?   We all know where they went.  Anywhere they didn't have to employ union workers that expected to make $60K a year even though all they did was finish high school.  Anyone can learn to drive a forklift and have one of the guys teach him to be a good welder just practicing during breaks. 

Heck, when I left to go back in the service in 1980, the janitor at the John Deere plant was said to be making around $40K a year!  Folks, in 1980 that was mighty good money for pushing a broom.

So most liberals don't like me, either.  I just won't behave and buy 100% of any particular party line.  

I do imagine the people in Egypt need unions.  At one time we did too (I think).   But I also think unions in America today are doing more damage than good.   Remember GM.

 

Report this comment
#6) On February 26, 2011 at 12:45 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

ETF'srule, I believe it was CNN, but don't remember for sure.

I believe that your link lists just salary, where I was referring to total compensation.

 I did find a link that actually put the number at $75,587 on average.

 It says that it obtained the data from the WI dept of instruction here.

Report this comment
#7) On February 26, 2011 at 1:33 AM, fmahnke (87.74) wrote:

Devo,

What I find most objectionable about the union movement is how they claim to be for worker rights,  Yeah, lets lobby so that every employee of this state must pay union dues regardless of whether you choose to join the union. BTW, we are going to spend a big portion of these dues on political causes, never mind that a large percentage of our membership doesn't support these candidates or the causes., you must pay the dues whether you like us or not.

So Devo, is this really supporting worker's rights, or are progressives hypocritical for supporting these laws ??

Report this comment
#8) On February 26, 2011 at 9:17 AM, devoish (96.39) wrote:

fmahnke,

you mean "political causes" like an eight hour day, paid holidays, retirement benefits and GOOD healthcare plans?

Or "political causes" like parkland preservation, clean water, clean air, or superfund cleanup?

Or "political causes" like tax cuts for those whose income comes from "investment" which in essence is profiting off of someone elses effort. 

ETF's rule,

Be very careful with the numbers Chris or any "conservative" gives you. During the 2008 massacre of the UAW, GM's union workers were repeatedly accused -as if earning money was a bad thing for them - of making $70.00/hour for being a simpleton on an assembly line. In order to achieve that figure the cost of every engineer, every accountant and every retired employee was divided by the number of employees working for GM at that time, as if 2008 employees were getting the money going to retired employees. A very dishonest number that certainly helped diffuse support for "unions that were once needed in America". And the "mainstream media" did not correct it.

One year prior to GM's bankruptcy the UAW contracted with GM to remove the "legacy costs" of union retirees from GM's books. For a one time payout of GM stock - not even cash - the UAW took on repsonsibility of managing GM's retirement plan which would have, and did, remove the "legacy costs" from GM's books 12 months later.

And then for 12 months, GM was relentlessly bashed in the financial news media for its "legacy costs" driving its share price down to nothing. A marketing campaign behind only "housing always goes up", "weapons of mass destruction" and "government is the problem".

It was a beautiful thing to watch, this "destruction of value" based upon a problem that no longer existed. It was right that the USA stepped in and stopped this theft of a company by the financial industry.

And how did the Grand High Exalted Mystic devoish figure this out from the safety of his kitchen? Did I pour over pages of financial documents? NO. I visited the UAW website and read post after post of the rank and file voicing displeasure that the amount of the union got from GM was so much less than they were owed.

Chrisgraley wants to celebrate the great opportunitys at Costco for NON union workers, and it is nice to hold up such a seemingly great example so we can all say "yeah, non union can work" and maybe a few can earn as much as $40k.

For those who would like to follow that train of  thought, lets visit this link and see if "non union" opportunitys really measure up to the lofty standards Chris expects. And then we can also see where the "financial industry" wants to take that idea. Can I predict a financial news stock bashing of costco because of comparatively high employee pay coming? Yes. Can I time it? I don't know, could I also have predicted a "financial news" attack on supposedly high teacher pay?

As far as the teachers go, they are making an average of $66K a year. They pay hardly anything for their benefits, and they work 9 months out of the year.

They deserve to tighten their belts when they people paying their paychecks don't have jobs.

That being said, what do the governor of WI and the state legislators make? What do they pay for their benefits? Are they eating their own cooking, so to speak?

- ChrisGraley

So instead of screaming about the advances public employee and other unions have made to preserve health care, job security and economic justice, angry voters should be asking what or who have been keeping them from obtaining the same. Nor does Wall Street’s pillaging of private 401 (k) retirement plans justify t*t-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye acts of covetous revenge against union pensions. As Erlich writes, "A generation ago, non-union workers often welcomed news of improved wages and benefits for unionized employees, recognizing that a rising tide lifts all boats. But... at a time of sacrifice and insecurity, many would prefer to sink their neighbor’s slightly bigger boat while wistfully hoping for a glance at a yacht in a gated marina."

- Michael Winship

Realise that right now, at this time in America's history, 70% of America's income goes to just 10% of her population. And half of that goes to just 30,000.

And those "earnings" of the productive .01% are supported by 401k's and pensions buying the stock options that paid the 30,000.

And thats why US treasurys and SSI are bad news. On the "financial" news networks.

I cannot wait to come back, and hear someone reply about how undeserving HS Grads are for working all day, what a crappy attitude Walmart employees have and so they deserve their lower pay, and how minimum wage laws lower employment opportunitys as opposed to fewer customers with enough money to buy stuff.

I recently red a reply by Russian who observed that America was in trouble because we have spent and borrowed aginst the wealth our parents accumulated. Parents who lived in the time when unions helped represented 34% of us.

Best wishes,

Steven

Who is now off to defy capitalism by volunteering his time so someone else does not have to borrow.

The profanity filter made me mispell t*t-for-tat.

Report this comment
#9) On February 26, 2011 at 10:04 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Since this post was directed to me, I'll add a comment.

As far as the events in Wisconsin are concerned, it's like watching two drunks fight over the last half-attractive woman in the bar. Amusing, but kinda sad. Therefore, I have paid little attention to it.

Banning people from bargaining collectively is a violation of Freedom of Association. It's not the unions fault that sleazy politicains in Wisconsin spent decades giving out handouts and making promises that today's generation can't keep.

Unions also violate Freedom of Association every time they use state power to prevent a business or government from firing them.

Freedom of Association means that both parties in the association have to voluntarily agree to the relationship. It doesn't mean that one party can do whatever it wants.

So neither the unions in America nor the State governments actually want Freedom of Association.

So watching the two of them take turns humping the football is going to be fun. And it should be repeated in States across America. Coming soon to a theater near you: Illinois.

In respect to teacher's unions, like I said, they are obselete. They just don't know it yet. They'll hang around for decades thanks to the power and privilege they carved out for themselves, but for no reason. You can get an education for free with a few clicks of a mouse. Sure, there is still a need for tutoring, day care, and special needs children. Again, we're talking about a fraction of the resources that public teacher unions currently consume. They are obselete.

Unions are needed to fight corporate power. I get that. I really do. But it's a con game. Corporations are a government entity. They are created through a political act. So all unions are doing is using government injustice to rectify another government injustice. That's one way to do it I suppose, but it's not the way I would.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On February 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM, ETFsRule (99.92) wrote:

Here's the breakdown, from Chris' link:

$49,580 in wages plus $26,005 worth of benefits

I think Devoish is right and this number is probably being manipulated. I really don't think the average worker is recieving that level of benefits, it's just not realistic. They are probably including retiree pensions in this figure, and just dividing the dollar figure by the number of teachers currently working. I could be wrong... but unless someone can prove me wrong, this seems to be the most likely explanation.

If you scroll down to table #11 at this link, they list "State Cents Spent on Benefits For Every Dollar of Salary". For Wisconsin the numer is 33.3.

This is very similar to the percentage of 34.5% for benefits shown here for public workers nationwide.

So in Wisconsin I would guess that the average salary for teachers is probably $49,580, and the average benefits paid are probably around $16,527, for a total of $66,107.

This may sound high, but it's much lower than the average private-sector worker with a similar education level. Here are the average US salaries (not including benefits) for all workers by education level (source):

Bachelor's Degree: $59,240

Advanced Degree: $72,824

Compare that with the average salaries of teachers by education level (source):

Bachelor's Degree: $40,003

Advanced Degree: $47,333

Plus they have to stand all day without using the bathroom! Teachers are very underpaid if you ask me.

Report this comment
#11) On February 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, wolfman225 (64.17) wrote:

 @ETFsRule--

"So in Wisconsin I would guess that the average salary for teachers is probably $49,580, and the average benefits paid are probably around $16,527, for a total of $66,107.

This may sound high, but it's much lower than the average private-sector worker with a similar education level. Here are the average US salaries (not including benefits) for all workers by education level (source):

Bachelor's Degree: $59,240

Advanced Degree: $72,824 

 Teachers are very underpaid if you ask me."

Actually, if you factor in the amount of time on the job for teachers during the avg school year @ 9 months and extrapolate to the 12 months of the year the rest of us work, you come up with an annualized income (base salary, no bene's) of $66,107.  ( see Chris's earlier post) Applying the 33.3% rate to account for benefits, you get $22,014 (again, pretty close to what Chris has posted earlier); total compensation:  $88,121. That's pretty close to the $90K figure I've been seeing reported.

I will agree that GOOD teachers are largely underpaid.  That's not the real issue as far as collective bargaining goes.  The real issue is that the poor teachers (time servers) are being paid just as well and are nearly impossible to get rid of, thanks to unworkable "job security" rules (tenure) imposed by the unions.

Report this comment
#12) On February 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, ETFsRule (99.92) wrote:

"Actually, if you factor in the amount of time on the job for teachers during the avg school year @ 9 months and extrapolate to the 12 months of the year the rest of us work, you come up with an annualized income (base salary, no bene's) of $66,107. "

But you can't really extrapolate, because teachers don't have the option of working at that salary for the other 3 months of the year. You can't put food on the table with "extrapolated" money.

Also, teachers work longer hours than the average worker because they have to do lesson planning and grading during evenings and weekends (and summers). On average they probably work at least 50 hours per week. Plus they are responsible for all classroom supplies: pens, pencils, chalk, etc (they aren't reimbursed for any of this stuff).

Lastly, summers are usually around 10 weeks, not 3 months. And teachers have to put in some work during that time to finish grading, and then set up their classroom and attend training classes.

All things considered, I think it's best to just stick to the actual numbers.

"Applying the 33.3% rate to account for benefits, you get $22,014"

This makes even less sense, because the 33% for benefits refers to what they are actually paid, not an annualized number.

I agree with you about tenure, and I've always been against it. But to get rid of tenure you would also have to remove the rule that says teachers need to start over at the designated entry-level salary if they move from one job to another. Otherwise, if you just got rid of tenure, every school in the country would lay off all their experienced teachers and force them to start over, making around $35k per year.

Report this comment
#13) On February 26, 2011 at 2:38 PM, wolfman225 (64.17) wrote:

But you can't really extrapolate, because teachers don't have the option of working at that salary for the other 3 months of the year

If you don't extrapolate, then comparing salaries is apples to oranges (unless you prorate the) salaries of other workers and compare salary/month, which makes the comparison about the same).

Lastly, summers are usually around 10 weeks, not 3 months

Where I live, most of the schools let out at the end of May (or the first week of June) and resume around Labor Day. (June,July,August)

Also, teachers work longer hours than the average worker because they have to do lesson planning and grading during evenings and weekends (and summers). On average they probably work at least 50 hours per week. Plus they are responsible for all classroom supplies: pens, pencils, chalk, etc (they aren't reimbursed for any of this stuff).

Really?  I'm a professional truck driver (coast to coast).  I'm on the road 4-6 weeks at a time.  During an average week I will put in anywhere from 60 to as much as 90 hrs on the job.  Much of this time is also uncompensated.

I agree with you about tenure, and I've always been against it. But to get rid of tenure you would also have to remove the rule that says teachers need to start over at the designated entry-level salary if they move from one job to another. Otherwise, if you just got rid of tenure, every school in the country would lay off all their experienced teachers and force them to start over, making around $35k per year.

I'm glad we agree about something.  But where is the rule written that teachers need to "start over" when they change jobs?  Collective bargaining by the unions, maybe?  I can guarantee you that schools would not attempt to force their good teachers to accept that kind of a deal.  If you get rid of tenure, the value of good teachers goes way up, not down.

I still believe that if you are going to have public sector unions, the only it will be workable is if the unions have to bargain directly with the taxpayers.  If they aren't willing to do that, they can take their chances in the private sector.  As tutors, maybe.

Report this comment
#14) On February 26, 2011 at 3:06 PM, ETFsRule (99.92) wrote:

How about this: since you're so intent on adjusting their salaries, then for the sake of consistancy shouldn't we also adjust the private-sector base salaries? There are plenty of things the private sector recieves on top of their base salary, which teachers don't get: annual bonuses, stock options, incentive plans, commisions, signing bonuses, company discounts, etc.

So if we adjust the private-sector salaries by 20%, we get figures of: $71,088 for a bachelor's degree and $87,388.8 for advanced degrees. Adding 33% for benefits gives us $94,547.04 and $116,227.10, respectively.

Isn't it crazy how overpaid everyone seems after you adjust their income?

And again, I agree about the union. It seems that the people at the top are setting the rules, which is why experienced teachers have all the benefits of high salaries, tenure, etc... but the new teachers are vastly underpaid.

Trust me, new teachers don't like the union. My wife was a teacher and she quit after a couple years because of the stress and the low pay. The union took $100 out of each paycheck and she has absolutely nothing to show for that money: no retirement plan, no pension, nothing.

Report this comment
#15) On February 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM, devoish (96.39) wrote:

David,

The post was not directed at you, you were just the easy go-to source for anger filled quotes.

Etf'srule and wolfman,

Good civil discussion

On another blog I read the statement that union dues go to support politicians, I would like to suggest that is not true. Unions use dues for member benefits and use seperate voluntary contributions for campaign support. It is possible to say that "the union says it does not use dues to support candidates but we here at unionbusters.org don't believe them".

AFT dues and political candidates

Members’ dues are not used to fund the AFT’s political education program or support political candidates. AFT has a separate political action fund that we encourage members to contribute to voluntarily so that we can have a voice in the political arena.

All voting members of the union have a say in deciding if the union will support any candidate in an election and to whom the union will give that support. The AFT requires that 60 percent of the voting members—a "super majority"—is necessary to endorse a candidate at the national level. AFT locals are advised to follow this rule in making local political endorsements, but a majority vote is legal.

I would also like to adress this statement by wolfman;

Really?  I'm a professional truck driver (coast to coast).  I'm on the road 4-6 weeks at a time.  During an average week I will put in anywhere from 60 to as much as 90 hrs on the job.  Much of this time is also uncompensated.

 Overworked, underpaid, and non union I suppose?

Go back to the Michael Winship quote and ask yourself if it really is better to knock the unions down, or step up and have the courage to demand better pay for yourself, and let you restrict your hours, so you don't come crashing that truck into me when you get tired. I am pretty sure 90 hours a week is a long stretch of road.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#16) On February 27, 2011 at 6:44 AM, wolfman225 (64.17) wrote:

I would also like to adress this statement by wolfman;

Really?  I'm a professional truck driver (coast to coast).  I'm on the road 4-6 weeks at a time.  During an average week I will put in anywhere from 60 to as much as 90 hrs on the job.  Much of this time is also uncompensated.

 Overworked, underpaid, and non union I suppose?

Not exactly.  Actually, for where I live I make a fairly good living.  By NYC standards, not so much.  As for the uncompensated work time?  I was well aware of that going in, just as the teachers are aware that they aren't going to make a lot of money in their chosen profession.  If ever I feel that I am overworked/underpaid I still have the freedom to choose another line of work or another employer; I can even move to a different part of the country where the pay scale is higher.

As for being non-union, it's my choice.  I don't agree with the politics of most unions and I seriously disagree with mandatory dues taken out of my pay.  Despite your (and the unions') claims that dues aren't used to support political candidates and/or causes it's a fact that all money raised by unions from the membership goes into the same pot.  The claim that "dues" aren't used for politicking is  simply an accounting gimmick ("Oh, no.  THAT money goes into a different pile and we never touch it.  We promise.")  Besides, I don't see where the Teamsters did that much to help the drivers at Roadway, Yellow, and Consolidated Freightways.  Even after decimating the workforce numbers, shedding a large number of facilities/equipment and consolidating the 3 companies into one, YRC is still on the edge financially; all those drivers who took big paycuts to help preserve the companies are still at risk of losing their jobs. Hmmmmm, I wonder how the salaries/benefits of the management and union leaders compare?  Just a thought.

Report this comment
#17) On February 27, 2011 at 9:38 AM, devoish (96.39) wrote:

Hmmmmm, I wonder how the salaries/benefits of the management and union leaders compare? 

I don't know. But if you have asked that question more than twice and you still don't know, then you aren't thinking.

I know the CEO of YRC took home 2.5mil in compensation plus excersising another 100,000 options for an additional 2.5mil. I know he has been compensated with 8.5mil in additional shares of yrc stock he cannot excersise yet.

And I know he sold those shares to pensions and 401k's so we helped fund that paycheck with our retirement dreams.

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile?symbol=YRCW.O&officerId=90116 

I hope you start to expect your information sources to get you accurate answers rather than suggestive questions. And make sure you check their answers, because that is "due diligence".

I would like to suggest that if you are driving a 90 hour week to achieve that fairly good living, you aren't achieving a fairly good living.

Please understand you are talking to someone who has been so tired that he has considered resting his eyes for a second at 60mph and 20 minutes from home. So close to home I did not pull over and you won't either. I made it home.

Think about how many times you have finished a haul and just wound down and slept. Pay attention to how many hours you drive before your mind starts drifting off and you can repeat that union pay question without wanting the answer and it makes sense to keep asking but not answering.

Consider the accident causes in the following link and think about how many are not "driver fatigue" but maybe being a little tired might have contributed. Consider that maybe at the scene of an accident the number of hours driven might be underreported?

Consider how much personal risk you are really taking to achieve a fairly good living, and how much you are risking the driver next to you.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/analysis/fmcsa-rra-07-017.htm 

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#18) On February 27, 2011 at 5:09 PM, wolfman225 (64.17) wrote:

I would like to suggest that if you are driving a 90 hour week to achieve that fairly good living, you aren't achieving a fairly good living.

I never claimed that I drove 90 hrs in a weeks time.  That would be ridiculous.  The law limits me to no more than 70 "on-duty" hrs in any 8 day period.  Actual drive time is between 60-65 hrs (max) in any one work week.  The other hours come from time spent waiting in line at a customer for them to unload their "hot" freight or waiting for my next assignment to come in.  I am also restricted to taking a mandatory 10hr break in each 24hr period.

I am a very well experienced professional with more than 20yrs and over 1.5M miles; experience gained in all 50 states in all weather conditions (including the tail end of hurrican Rita hauling reconstruction supplies in Louisiana).  In my opinion, "driver fatigue" is more a problem of the casual car driver than it is drivers of trucks.  Think about it.  Some poor working stiff puts in his usual 70hr week at the whse or factory and decides to reward his family with a weekend away.  So they load up the minivan/station wagon and head for the campground/amusement park/NASCAR race/etc.  Remember, I am not allowed to drive my truck after 70hrs of work.  This guy is under no such restriction.  Who is the greater danger to the rest on the road?

In fact, AAA did a study on accidents between cars and big trucks a few years ago (I don't have the link handy right now, I need to get to work, but I could look it up if you don't want to believe me) that showed conclusively that the driver of the car was primarily at fault in over 77% of car-truck crashes.  BTW, this study was quashed for a number of months because it came out at a politically embarassing time, just as the congress was holding hearing on rewriting the Hours Of Service regulations. So called "safety advocates" who have little or no interest in true safety and almost zero experience in the industry were clammoring for "change"; despite the fact that since the current rules were introduced incidences of truck crashes and fatalities have shown a steady decline and have, in fact, reached the lowest levels (per million miles driven) since the ICC/FMCSA began tracking the data.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the subject of the worthiness of unions.  It's obvioius neither of us is going to persuade the other.  I'll just leave saying that it's a matter of personal preference and pride that my continued employment is determined by the value of the service I provide my employer and that I have the ability to increase my income by excelling at what I do, rather than being restricted in what I can earn by some bargain that limits me to no more than the least productive, in the name of "fairness".

I wish you the best.  Watch out for those RV's in the summertime!

Report this comment
#19) On February 28, 2011 at 1:54 AM, devoish (96.39) wrote:

Wolfman,

I do not doubt you can drive. I also agree that the safety regulations you drive under help keep many truck drivers from going beyond what they can safely do, and I don't doubt that in many cases it is not the truck driver who is more fatigued.

I cannot agree with thinking that safety advocates have little or no interest in "true safety". Especially since safety advocates helped get you the current rules which in turn helped cause the steady decline in accidents you mention.

And while all improvement is good, having achieved a .300  batting average is no reason not try for .310.

While you remain unconvinced by my arguments, I hope I offered some food for thought, especially about getting the answers to suggestive questions.

As someone who spent decades as a mechanic I also know that as any company goes out of business, one of the easier things to begin neglecting is the truck maintenance. I wont be the one cutting you, or an RV off. 

Best wishes to you too,

Steven,

Who will still flash you his lights when you put on your right turn signal.

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement