To Democrats, governing is someone else’s problem

[Counselor706]

Today’s Democrats treat governance as if it is somebody else’s job. In Chicago, successive mayors have failed to do anything to stop the murders of black youth on the city’s south and west sides. Instead, under pressure from Black Lives Matter activists, they have pulled the police back. They back more gun control laws, deflecting blame and hoping that somehow making some 300 million guns disappear nationwide will prove to be easier than keeping children in their own cities away from stray bullets.

In Minneapolis, the Democrat-dominated city council voted to defund the police. The mayor, to his credit, opposes the idea, but he faces a veto-proof majority. The city council failed to explain what would replace the police force. In Los Angeles, where Mayor Eric Garcetti is cutting $150 million from the police budget, the city council voted last week to approve a plan to replace armed police with unarmed “crisis response” teams for non-violent calls. Rather than fighting crime, L.A. will fight “systemic racism.”

The failure of schools in these cities — the real “systemic racism,” if such a thing exists — is not blamed on the teachers unions who oppose any progress, but is blamed on white flight to the suburbs two generations ago. The unions and Democrats claim that money is the problem, even though the decrepit schools of Baltimore rank third in the U.S. for per-capita spending. Rather than confront the unions, Democrats intend to annex the suburbs — and their tax base — to the cities. More failure will inevitably result.

When Democrats are in charge, they are not expected to do anything. Joe Biden represents the culmination of that idea: he is barely even running his own campaign.

Source

 

[sundries]

it's amazing how y'all are keen on dismembering workers' unions

but when it comes to cops who kill Blacks
you want them to have all the representation they could get

 

[phrodeau]

Trump has no interest or competence to govern, so of course we have to hear someone saying it’s the Democrats who have that problem.

 

[OneFineYoungCannibal]

Let the Democrat run places burn. The retarded voters their deserve what they get, they voted for these loons.

 

[FlowersForFun]

it's amazing how y'all are keen on dismembering workers' unions

but when it comes to cops who kill Blacks
you want them to have all the representation they could get

This is tops for retarded statement of the day.

You can support due process AND not support unions protecting bad cop, like (D)'s love doing....thus their bad cop problems.

 

[schism666]

This is tops for retarded statement of the day.

don't fret, you won't be upstaged..

 

[FlowersForFun]

don't fret, you won't be upstaged..

Just was.

 

[schism666]

Just was.

by your own post.

 

[FlowersForFun]

by your own post.

LOL that was fucking pathetic....even for your sorry ass.

Thanks for playing Tiger now sit down before you hurt yourself......

 

[bellisarius]

it's amazing how y'all are keen on dismembering workers' unions

but when it comes to cops who kill Blacks
you want them to have all the representation they could get

Once more you are generalizing. What I, and others, want to do away with is public employee unions. They are vote buying schemes at the best. There is no natural tension as there is between union and management in the private sector.

As can be plainly seen in the current event cycle the police unions have become "enemies of the people." The unions protect the bad apples, be that the police or the teachers to name just two. This turn of events was predicted in the 1930's by George Meany, the union leader that brought the AFL and CIO together and served as the first president. FDR wanted to allow federal employee's unions and Meany cautioned him not to for the very reasons I previously stated.

 

[sundries]

They are vote buying schemes at the best. There is no natural tension as there is between union and management in the private sector.

could you elaborate on that? I don't quite understand.

What I, and others, want to do away with is public employee unions.

They are vote buying schemes at the best. There is no natural tension as there is between union and management in the private sector.

As can be plainly seen in the current event cycle the police unions have become "enemies of the people." The unions protect the bad apples, be that the police or the teachers to name just two.].

icanhelp and one other poster tried to explain it to me too.
But while many of their points made sense, I grew inpatient.
Because no matter how many times I tried, none of them addressed my specific questions and concerns.


WHAT WE ALL AGREE ON:

We all agree that we want to get rid of "bad apples":
-- incompetent employees
-- those who undermine the institution through diverting or dumbing down training
(those who introduced Caitlyn Jenner into Cali's school curriculum, or the Israeli combat neck chokehold into Policemen's training curriculum)
--psychopaths
(from cop killers to workplace bullies)

We all want to get rid of them, and I agree, too that Unions make that process harder.


ON WHAT WE DON'T:

I have a suspicion that you and icanhelp worked in jobs where top managers were competent and functional, thus with a healthy organizational culture.
-Well, in those places, dismantling Unions might help.

But as to myself - a few places (mainly subsectors within large institutions) I worked in were dysfunctional as.
-- Dismantling Unions in the latter would do more harm than good.

1. Firstly, because the fish often stinks from the head.
The manager or another power-holder operated through gas-lighting, so most people ended up either behaving dysfunctionally themselves, becoming demoralized and underperforming or pulling endless sick leaves.

It seemed obvious to most: instead of just going after low-level employees one by one, get rid of the incompetent or/and psychopathic manager, and both team performance and morale will improve
--But nobody wants to go after the incompetent or psychopaths at the top, and if they do, the Institution ALWAYS sides with those at the top. To protect their reputation.

2. Secondly: Don't you roll your eyes whenever you hear stories like this:
"We, the X Industries, are deeply disturbed by your Twitter complaint.
We can assure you that our customers' well-being is our priority, so we've fired some low employee, and we will look into our policies."
But why not fire the person who created the policy in the first place?

Then the Parkland school shooting.
The sheriff went on TV to rage and rant against low-level employees' incompetence - when the lack of coordination and chaos was due to HIS lack of fore-planning and training.

 

[sundries]

The US teaching sector:

Just saw Ramone's thread:


I don't fully relate or understand why you guys have such negative views (teachers? curriculum?) because I had different life experiences:

In my school, teachers in most disciplines were VERY interested and involved++.
--Their reputation (or finances, for those who engaged in private tutoring on the side to prepare kids for Uni entrance exams) depended on how well YOU performed.
--And they were held in high esteem, almost like doctors or lawyers. Not the semi-underclass that Westerners see them as.

But it was a good school, I don't know about others.

 

[bellisarius]

Vote buying scheme;

In industry there is a natural tension between management and labor. Labor wants the best of the employee's while management has to compete in the marketplace. If management negotiates poorly with labor the business is at risk of going under (see GM). Any increase in pay and/or benefits for the employee is reflected in the price to the consumer/customer and at some price point the consumer/customer will look elsewhere.

Not so in the public sector. If the politicians occupying an office negotiate poorly with the unions they just raise taxes to make up for the shortfall. The taxpayer has no alternative save picking up the tent stakes and moving elsewhere. That can happen, California for example, but the process has to seriously exceed tolerance for that to happen, in the meantime the taxpayer is stuck with the consequences of all of those bad decisions. And it's actually to the benefit of the politician to cave in to excessive union demands in that those union workers are voters as well. A captive voting block as it were. Any politician running on a platform of "hey, we have to rein in these out of control wages and benefits" is going to have a serious problem getting elected. Not only are the workers going to be worried/pissed off, but the unions are going to provide tons of money to his/her opponent.

 

[FlowersForFun]

Vote buying scheme;

In industry there is a natural tension between management and labor. Labor wants the best of the employee's while management has to compete in the marketplace. If management negotiates poorly with labor the business is at risk of going under (see GM). Any increase in pay and/or benefits for the employee is reflected in the price to the consumer/customer and at some price point the consumer/customer will look elsewhere.

Not so in the public sector. If the politicians occupying an office negotiate poorly with the unions they just raise taxes to make up for the shortfall. The taxpayer has no alternative save picking up the tent stakes and moving elsewhere. That can happen, California for example, but the process has to seriously exceed tolerance for that to happen, in the meantime the taxpayer is stuck with the consequences of all of those bad decisions. And it's actually to the benefit of the politician to cave in to excessive union demands in that those union workers are voters as well. A captive voting block as it were. Any politician running on a platform of "hey, we have to rein in these out of control wages and benefits" is going to have a serious problem getting elected. Not only are the workers going to be worried/pissed off, but the unions are going to provide tons of money to his/her opponent.

You're talking to hastag......like most Democrats she's pro union and thus supports protecting bad, racist, murderous cops.

 

[SpeareChucker]

it's amazing how y'all are keen on dismembering workers' unions

but when it comes to cops who kill Blacks
you want them to have all the representation they could get

Where do you get this shit?


ThrobDownSouth?

 

[icanhelp1]

it's amazing how y'all are keen on dismembering workers' unions

but when it comes to cops who kill Blacks
you want them to have all the representation they could get

Cops killing anyone requires citizens to act responsibly as well as cops showing restraint. Reducing police presence and defunding police assets to include funding for additional training is a political stunt promoted by ignorant Marxist progressives succumbing to mob rule. They are cowards and lack the moral courage to lead. Unfortunately the people who accept this tyranny and who repeatedly vote these morons into office deserve what get. Repeating the same action over and over expecting a different result is what’s called insanity.

 

[Ziggins]

"Someone else's problem" is universally human and nonpartisan. Moving to the suburbs was an easy step for decades, but now the energy and insurance costs of driving, infrastructure maintenance, and long distance utilities are crapifying the suburbs.