In the case of the NYC teachers, I simply provided a current example to refute your own assertion that the state’s economic difficulties result in raises for state workers. Clearly, NYS workers will suffer the effects of the state’s economic difficulties along with everyone else.
You’ve missed my entire point, ENY. In fact if the teachers union would agree to some small pay cuts, NONE of those teachers would need to be fired. But in fact, LIKE THE NEWARK POLICE UNION, they will not.
Pete…I don’t use unions as the scapegoat for everything. Like I said above, what’s totally unacceptable is that employees lose jobs because the union management won’t acquiesce to small wage cutsor OT cuts for everyone and then the few actually lose big time.
Tell me that you think this is right.
Additionally, while the private sector has cut so many jobs, unions are still looking for their yearly 2-4% pay raises. When thet’s municipal, the taxpayer is paying for it. And the few that actually get axed pay for it dearly and then they become a burden to the taxpayer.
DeLepp, perhaps you can understand this where Dave has failed: I haven’t said anything that was necessarily pro or anti union. I said it was foolish to base a viewpoint of the Newark situation on one newspaper article, which it is.
In the case of the NYC teachers, I simply provided a current example to refute your own assertion that the state’s economic difficulties result in raises for state workers. Clearly, NYS workers will suffer the effects of the state’s economic difficulties along with everyone else.
We relish your word play but this one has been marinating long enough since the last harvest.
By East New York on November 23, 2010 4:32 PM
In the case of the NYC teachers, I simply provided a current example to refute your own assertion that the state’s economic difficulties result in raises for state workers. Clearly, NYS workers will suffer the effects of the state’s economic difficulties along with everyone else.
You’ve missed my entire point, ENY. In fact if the teachers union would agree to some small pay cuts, NONE of those teachers would need to be fired. But in fact, LIKE THE NEWARK POLICE UNION, they will not.
Tell me you understand this.
This is a Vlasic case of Slopey and me annoying people with our puns.
They are more than dire. They’re dirussional.
Pete…I don’t use unions as the scapegoat for everything. Like I said above, what’s totally unacceptable is that employees lose jobs because the union management won’t acquiesce to small wage cutsor OT cuts for everyone and then the few actually lose big time.
Tell me that you think this is right.
Additionally, while the private sector has cut so many jobs, unions are still looking for their yearly 2-4% pay raises. When thet’s municipal, the taxpayer is paying for it. And the few that actually get axed pay for it dearly and then they become a burden to the taxpayer.
Tell me that you think this is right.
Enough talk about pickles. This is a brownstone real estate blog.
Should we be talking about how to preserve things?
“Delepp, not arguing about the dire straights”
Two gay guys agreeing about dire straights?
Sour puns, indeed. Really kirby’d my enthusiasm.
DeLepp, perhaps you can understand this where Dave has failed: I haven’t said anything that was necessarily pro or anti union. I said it was foolish to base a viewpoint of the Newark situation on one newspaper article, which it is.
In the case of the NYC teachers, I simply provided a current example to refute your own assertion that the state’s economic difficulties result in raises for state workers. Clearly, NYS workers will suffer the effects of the state’s economic difficulties along with everyone else.