Union troubled by Eagle Scout project

Why don't you two go and clear and make bike paths for free in your city.

We would but some union or another would probably try and stop us. Didn't you read the article?

The city is not playing fair I pay taxes for this kind of work.

I pay taxes for this kind of work.

So you object to someone doing it gratis? How does that hurt you, the taxpayer? The money normally used for that could be spent elsewhere, could it not?

NO this sort of free work is wrong. If this kid was to get hurt who do you think will pay for that?

Next this kid being a Boy Scout will want to put up some religious sign thanking his GOD.

NO THANKS.

You can volunteer all you want I think that is great but, if you or any of your scouts get hurt you pay for it do not go whining back to the city/county to pay for all of the medical costs.

NO this sort of free work is wrong.

You can volunteer all you want I think that is great

You need to make up your mind.

, if you or any of your scouts get hurt you pay for it do not go whining back to the city/county

It's called a waiver and people sign them every day.

Volunteer all you want just not on public work projects.

it's called a waiver and people sign them every day.

Sure that will really work. snark

Sure that will really work. snark

Of course they do; that's why they're used.

Are you just pretending to be stupid?

Are you just pretending to be stupid?

Just as much as you are.

If this kid was to get hurt who do you think will pay for that?

The city will, but it would still be cheaper than union extortion.

The city will, but it would still be cheaper than union extortion.

Wrong. The tax payers.

That said, I still would rather pay for any injury the Eagle Scout could incur than paying the union extortion fees!

The Union workers are on set salaries so give it a break.

And you don't think that the union has them making more than they should for doing that job?

Do you make more on your job than you should?

Do you make more on your job than you should?

He likely makes what the market determines, without the aid of union extortion of his employer.

He likely makes what the market determines, without the aid of union extortion of his employer.

That is a BS answer. If the were the case all those hedge fund employees would not be getting millions of dollars.

It's none of your business what they get. That is between them and their employers and is determined by the contract(s) they sign.

So it is OK to layoff workers and let a private citizen to the job for free. No that is one Hell of a form of capitalism.

It's none of your business what they get.

Just like those Union workers if they are getting taxpayer monies I get say so.

Wrong. The tax payers.

I stand corrected Jack. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility to provide employment to citizens.

And if I might add a little economics lesson. The lower taxes are, the more jobs there are for everyone.

The lower taxes are, the more jobs there are for everyone

That is a Reagan BS line and has NO merit.

And Jack continues to show why unions are no longer necessary or wanted and the blind inept who continue to support them.

And Jack continues to show why unions are no longer necessary or wanted and the blind inept who continue to support the

It is good to see those who have NO idea what the Republikans have done to support class warfare.

That is a Reagan BS line and has NO merit.

Only if one is ignorant of history. Worked for Kennedy, Reagan, even Clinton, I believe. I'll throw you a bone though. Document where it doesn't work. We can talk then.

Another bone for Jack. What is your rational for believing it is the government's job to employ people? If you believe it, you must know why.

Only if one is ignorant of history. Worked for Kennedy, Reagan, even Clinton, I believe

Just for starters.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-as-a-Percent-of-GDP--1940.htm

Nice graphic. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with it. Give me an angle to see it the way you do.

Well what part of deficient spending that Republikans love to to do is not clear.

PS: look at all of the graphs please.

The real growth in taxation in the last half-century has been at the state and local level. State and local receipts have doubled from about 8 percent of GDP in the mid 1950s to a peak of 17 percent in 2000 and 2005.

I didn't realize we were discussing the National deficit. I'd like to point out that much of our tax burden comes from the state and local level. Deficit spending is wrong. It is a tax on the future. What they should have done was cut spending. I'm no bigger a fan of Republican spending than I am of Democratic. To get back to the point. I fail to see how the government spending too much money justifies the government being responsible for the employment of its' citizens.

I didn't realize we were discussing the National deficit.

It's funny how that point always comes up in this context; it's as if they expect us not to know one side of the ledger from the other.

Good point Waynester. I do believe that the Union might have at least one argument in their favor. Ironically, since it is more or less a capitalist argument none of the union apologists seem to have thought of it.

Halfway down the first page and no one has blamed Bush for this yet? What's going on?

It's Bush's fault for going so easy on the unions.

It is not the city government's responsibility to provide employment for citizens.

demo scout

Oh, that's O.K. Let the kids do our work for free

I don't think kids were engaging in the activities many union workers employed in outside jobs typically do during work hours - sit around drinking coffee or leaning on shovels while watching the sun go across the sky. I don't recall ever seeing a group of union workers in the past 10 years that are actually all actively working - every single group I've seen has at least a few standing/sitting around doing nothing, while getting paid lots of money. I don't think I'm the only person who has often noticed in groups of 4 union workers, only 1 is actually working - but it is such a frequent occurrence that it no longer shocks us (we now consider it normal).

I'd bet if they actually did the work they were being paid to do there would not be much of a mess for kids to clean up.

I'd bet if they actually did the work they were being paid to do there would not be much of a mess for kids to clean up.

That sounds like the house Republikans.

I'd bet if they actually did the work they were being paid to do there would not be much of a mess for kids to clean up.

That sounds like the house Republikans.

An attempt to change the subject is in fact a de facto surrender.

An attempt to change the subject is in fact a de facto surrender.

If that were the case the Republikans would have nothing to do.

Currently half of all union members work in government. While their representation in the workforce generally is at an all time low, the trend is on the increase in the public sector. Not good.

Good observation, Waynester.

The SEIU evidently sees the City as a Jobs Program. Maybe we should all just work for our respective cities.