 
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 11917
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 2:08 pm: |    |
PS - I strongly encourage the citizens of the city to identify which services this union provides and lodge as many complaints as humanly possible whenever their work is done subpar.
If they want to be vindictive little assholes I suggest that we all follow their lead. The more citize complaints lodged against this union the more leverage the city will have in future negotiations. |
Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 2:10 pm: | |
The unions of today are vastly different than the unions of the 30s. The unions of the 30s were necessary and fought for very needed reform in the workplace.
That is the more tired cliche that you spout. Right, Walter Reuther would be on your side.
It's not the job of AFSCME to manage the city, that's what the city is supposed to do. They are supposed to specifically, look out for the rights of their members. Anything else would be over-reaching. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 11918
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 2:16 pm: | |
So what rights are being looked out for here?
As a resident I am looking out for the best interests of the city which this garbage union does not do so I will oppose them in their worthless efforts like this.
quote:That is the more tired cliche that you spout. Right, Walter Reuther would be on your side.
He may not be on my side but I doubt that he would support these efforts.
quote:It's not the job of AFSCME to manage the city, that's what the city is supposed to do.
The union employees are employees of the city and are expected to provide specific services which they are failing at. Much of the blame lies with the city but there is a lack of accountability with these 'employees' that are more dedicated to their union than to the city that pays them.
quote:They are supposed to specifically, look out for the rights of their members.
If only that was all they looked out for. |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 13553
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 2:32 pm: | |
quote:(which, by the way, I'm finding lots of negative talk from people I know who work with them)
Oldredfordette, are you specifically saying the Greening people are negative on the union action or on the negative reaction to the union's action? |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5079
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 2:49 pm: | |
People who work for Greening and people who have worked WITH Greening (not the workers but as an organization). Non-profits are not always a paradise. |
Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 2:51 pm: | |
I bet they'll sell it for a dollar, and this whole controversy ends. |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 13554
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 3:12 pm: | |
I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question.
Are they against the UNION action?
Are they against our REACTION to the union action?
Or is it both, or none of the above.
I cannot tell from your language descriptors.
Or is it the UNION people are negative on the Greening people?
I'm just trying to clear up the confusion...sorry if I'm not getting it...
...I at least know that all committees are never paradise. Sometimes I go against my rule to avoid absolute statements, but so far I've not met a committee that doesn't devolve into the basest and least useful of mere human nature, habits and tendencies.
I'm involved with one NOW where I'm trying to get them to guard against them before we start moving along, trying to get them to see how patterns of early behavior will plague the group for its eternity...good and/or bad, with or without intent or design.
Cheers, I know I just wrote a mobius, but I'm on fucking fire today with other HUGE projects that I'm amazed to be a portion of...this is a great diversion to the intangible theory I'm putting down. |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5081
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 3:19 pm: | |
None of the above. I believe I was clear but you seem to be looking for something that isn't there. |
Gnome
Member
Username: Gnome
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 3:35 pm: | |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =HLNhPMQnWu4
ORD, you seriously need to watch this as I am confident it was produced with you in mind. I believe the final sentence is most telling. |
Buyamerican
Member
Username: Buyamerican
Post Number: 651
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 3:49 pm: | |
Gencin...union workers HAVE lost their jobs in that department.
As long as it is a City Department, City workers should staff it. If it is closed, then, in my opinion, the City should sell it, lease it, whatever...and let others utilize it. If it reopens while still owned by the City then City workers should staff it. |
Gencinjay
Member
Username: Gencinjay
Post Number: 21
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 12:23 pm: | |
Yes they did. Three years ago and the city can not man it at this time. Why give up an asset that may be able to be utilized at a later date?
You aren't arguing for saving union jobs. There aren't any there. You're arguing to stop any job that isn't union from existing. If this was a for profit organization I might be able to see your bias against it, but it's just trying to do something good for the city and it's citizens.
You're basically saying "if we don't get anything out of it nobody will" |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 13571
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 1:49 pm: | |
Oldredfordette,
IF it was clear, do you think I'd waste energy and time asking for a clarification?
Amazing...you ARE a conservative.
It would've been easy enough to restate with better words than make your lame argument that you 'made your point'.
Whatever, cheers anyways... |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5087
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:02 pm: | |
Stop picking fights, Gannon. |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 13572
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:06 pm: | |
I was asking you to clarify what you said to avoid a fight, are you being daft, dense, or difficult? |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5088
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:08 pm: | |
It was answered a day ago. Let it go, Gannon. Don't you have something else to gush about? |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 13575
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:23 pm: | |
What a joy it must be to be married to you... |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5090
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:33 pm: | |
He would tell you it is!
You really really hate to be called on stuff, don't you? Let it go, Gannon. |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 13577
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:48 pm: | |
I asked you a simple question, you really hate to just reply to a request...whatever.
I can see how you rose to Union management...heh. |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5092
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:55 pm: | |
*sigh*. You really can't, can you? It explains an awful lot.
Not management. Rank and file. |
Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon
Post Number: 13579
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 3:17 pm: | |
You know that NEITHER of us can, and this is only fun for the two of us...from the sound of it previously I thought you were higher in the ranks, and since we were talking about the blunders of the unions...I took advantage of this little e-spat to dig at the inaccuracies of communication, the pride that comes with thinking you made your point when obviously you hadn't...and then went the whole way with referring to both as part of the troubles with mere human interaction as amplified in this silly-ass seemingly-eternal management/labor divide and debate.
It is always funny when emotions get involved...people are so funny...if we weren't so tragic.
Cheers! |
Strathcona
Member
Username: Strathcona
Post Number: 43
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 3:27 pm: | |
This is the DYes we all remember and love! |
Plymouthres
Member
Username: Plymouthres
Post Number: 760
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 3:31 pm: | |
Only if you want it that way........ |
Hamtramike
Member
Username: Hamtramike
Post Number: 506
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 4:10 pm: | |
Thank goodness even the supreme court can see through union BS as well... Clearly, safety and fire are not “inextricably intertwined"
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20080723/NEW S01/80723044 |
Buyamerican
Member
Username: Buyamerican
Post Number: 660
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 5:56 pm: | |
Thank goodness??? Wait until the thug mayor KK lays off more firefighters, eliminates more equipment, closes more firehouses, then say "thank goodness". Of course, your thief in charge has to pay all his legal bills, and the settlement paid to the fine officers that he tried to ruin.
Detroit will be ashes, but, hey...who cares, it's only union employees that protect the citizens by fighting those arson fires and fire bombs, and fires that kill. Who cares, it's only union employees who come to your aid via EMS to help your mom or dad when they have a heart attack or scrap your sister or brother off the street after a drive-by. Oh, I almost forgot, it's only the union employees who put the uniform on daily and try to protect and serve YOU! |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2350
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 9:46 am: | |
It also only union employees eating large sums of tax dollars which then require a drawback of services due to lack of funds.
They lay off firefighters and police officers to get you to approve a tax increase because you would never vote for a raise in you taxes to keep Betty in Accounting. |
Hamtramike
Member
Username: Hamtramike
Post Number: 507
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 11:17 am: | |
Actually, I was being sarcastic... I was surprised that the MI-supreme court knew what was best regarding fire safety and even setting federal standards aside. Apparently they know more than the PFD and DFD. |
Buyamerican
Member
Username: Buyamerican
Post Number: 661
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 11:32 am: | |
_sj_ pardon me???
City employees, other than thugs appointees haven't received a raise in years. They have given more back to the City than they've received just to keep jobs and keep Fire protection and Police protection at levels required by law.
It costs the City more in lawsuits against Detroit because of lack of services, accidental deaths, frivolous litigation by residents than unions do.
Ham...I didn't read sarcasm into your post, now I see it, sorry for the reply, this is a very touchy subject with me.
(Message edited by Buyamerican on July 24, 2008) |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2355
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 11:51 am: | |
Buyamerican, I think you missed my point.
I was saying that they target police officers and firefighters for layoffs to get a reaction from the population. Usually in the form of a tax increase to keep said police and fire. A tax increase to keep Betty in Accounting would not fair so well.
There are a lot places they can cut but they always start with the Police and Fire.
(Message edited by _sj_ on July 24, 2008) |
Buyamerican
Member
Username: Buyamerican
Post Number: 663
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 1:21 pm: | |
_sj_, thanks for the clarification. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2857
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 5:40 pm: | |
quote:Unless the City of Detroit sells the Nursery (the object of this entire thread), AFSME will continue to block NON-CITY workers from working there, as they should. That's what unions do, protect the jobs of it's members.
How do you protect a job that doesn't exist and aren't going to exist?
I suppose we can expect to see AFSCME file a lawsuit soon to protect unicorns and the Easter Bunny.
Meanwhile, the Greening of Detroit is blocked from creating new jobs in this city and the taxpayers of this city have to pay legal expenses to defend themselves against a frivolous lawsuit.
My grandfather was a union organizer. If he were alive today, AFSCME's headquarters would've had a truck load of dynamite delivered to it by now.
I'm not advocating that type of behavior. I'm just mentioning how organized labor used to put up with this nonsense. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2858
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 5:46 pm: | |
quote:It's not the job of AFSCME to manage the city, that's what the city is supposed to do. They are supposed to specifically, look out for the rights of their members.
And precisely which members are they looking out for?
Are you arguing that the trees have an AFSCME card?
Nonsense. Pure nonsense. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.