FreddiesGhettoTrench 02.11.2005 13:51 |
Okay, what is this? Here in Philly, SEPTA (public transport) has gone on strike because they want to pay less for their healthcare. Where do these people get the right to disturb an entire city just to throw a tantrum? Can't the governor just step in and say, "You're all fired"? |
Yuri 02.11.2005 14:01 |
ah septa.... were having the same issue with faculty health care at my college... cept theyre not all walking out. And I think the deal is that if they fired them all itd be a bigger hassle to hire a whole new set of workers. |
bohemian 11513 02.11.2005 14:03 |
Shoot them all... young or old!!! Go NRA... go Ghetto and fire/shoot your government! ... and kill them NOW... but don´t forget to buy a ticket that is valid to get there...:-))) |
Mr.Jingles 02.11.2005 14:13 |
BARNEY THE DINOSAUR EXPLAINS: Kids, this is how a strike works: A single worker could feel like his rights are being violated for motives of being under paid, lack of benefits, or put under extreme pressure by his employers. Then the employee could say: FUCK IT, I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT!. Quit his job, and easily be replaced by someone else. Does resigning to one single position of company or corportation hurt the employers? Possibly not. What really hurts a company is when workers unite to go on strike, and claim for their rights all at once. The employer could perhaps say: YOU'RE ALL FUCKIN' FIRED!... but then, how is the employer going to find a work force of hundreds or thousands to fill out every single position right away? Employees and employers are then forced to work a deal so employers don't lose any more money for not having an active work force, and employees can have their jobs back while receiving the rights that motivated them to go on strike. Don't forget kids! Brush your teeth 3 times a day, and eat fruit and veggies. |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 02.11.2005 15:24 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: BARNEY THE DINOSAUR EXPLAINS: Does resigning to one single position of company or corportation hurt the employers? Possibly not. What really hurts a company is when workers unite to go on strike, and claim for their rights all at once.It's also hurting innocent people that need to get to work and school, but obviously SEPTA doesn't care. Seriously, they get paid $10 an hour to do such CHALLENGING TASKS as giving people transfers!!! SO DIFFICULT!!! And they don't even do it well. The last time a SEPTA bus was actually on time... The employer could perhaps say: YOU'RE ALL FUCKIN' FIRED!... but then, how is the employer going to find a work force of hundreds or thousands to fill out every single position right away? Hey, I'll take one of those jobs. Stand in a booth and give people transfers for $10 an hour and benefits? That's nearly twice what I was making at my summer job, and I wouldn't have to touch anyone's gross food trays. Hire me now! Employees and employers are then forced to work a deal so employers don't lose any more money for not having an active work force, and employees can have their jobs back while receiving the rights that motivated them to go on strike.But the workers are just being selfish. They just want to barely have to pay anything for their healthcare. If they don't like it, they should quit. I seriously doubt, however, that many easier jobs are out there than the ones SEPTA provides. However, now people who have to go to REAL jobs can't get there because no bus, trolley, or subway lines are running. The only thing running is the railroad. THANKS A WHOLE LOT, SEPTA. Some of my friends can't even get to college, and kids in Philly can't get to school. All so a bunch of jerks can sock it to their employers. |
Music Man 02.11.2005 15:28 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: BARNEY THE DINOSAUR EXPLAINS: Kids, this is how a strike works: A single worker could feel like his rights are being violated for motives of being under paid, lack of benefits, or put under extreme pressure by his employers. Then the employee could say: FUCK IT, I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT!. Quit his job, and easily be replaced by someone else. Does resigning to one single position of company or corportation hurt the employers? Possibly not. What really hurts a company is when workers unite to go on strike, and claim for their rights all at once. The employer could perhaps say: YOU'RE ALL FUCKIN' FIRED!... but then, how is the employer going to find a work force of hundreds or thousands to fill out every single position right away? Employees and employers are then forced to work a deal so employers don't lose any more money for not having an active work force, and employees can have their jobs back while receiving the rights that motivated them to go on strike. Don't forget kids! Brush your teeth 3 times a day, and eat fruit and veggies.However, Mr. Jingles, you fail to realize that FGT does have a point. It would be different if it was an isolated situation, such as a case of factory workers going on strike. In this case, all that happens is the factory does not go back into action until there is some manner of agreement or compromise. This is doubtless the type of strike you are referring to. However, there come certain professions as to where the benefits of compromise which result from a strike are severely outweighed by the consequences of the strike. A perfect example of this is the profession of teaching, by which going on strike is illegal and punishable under the law. One could imagine the severe disbenefit to our nation's youth if teachers were able to do so. So, Mr. Jingles, the question at hand is not "What is a strike?" which you have obviously misconstrued it to be. The question is "Does this strike do such a disservice to the public good that it should be restricted?" Please feel free to answer that question, but preferably in a non-condescending manner. Thank you. |
Music Man 02.11.2005 15:37 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: A) Hey, I'll take one of those jobs. Stand in a booth and give people transfers for $10 an hour and benefits? That's nearly twice what I was making at my summer job, and I wouldn't have to touch anyone's gross food trays. Hire me now! B) But the workers are just being selfish. They just want to barely have to pay anything for their healthcare. If they don't like it, they should quit. I seriously doubt, however, that many easier jobs are out there than the ones SEPTA provides.A) That doesn't solve the problem. Jingles is right, there is no way that SEPTA could fully restaff without existing SEPTA employees returning to their posts. B) Perhaps they are. Then when negotiations come around it would be much more difficult for them to gain what they desire. And eventually, they may be forced to quit...that or return to their jobs. It will all settle in the end. The main point, however, is made in my previous post. |
yamaha 02.11.2005 17:57 |
Septa employees have been working without a contract for a few years now. Every year, there are a few weeks of talks which end with a short term deal. Now the doodie has hit the fan and the employees have walked out. Who's to blame? That depends on your bias. Unions have been using their power for the past 130 years. The idea is to create a unified entity that weilds as much power as managment. When companies and industries are deadlocked like septa is now, the government is supposed to step in and act as a disinterested third party. There are laws that outline the roles of managment, unions, and government involvment. Anyone can argue that any one of those groups has too much or too little power. The role of unions is changing, in my opinion. The days of unions arguing for improved working conditions, and sustaining wages are over. These days, laws and regulations establish safe working conditions, and accountability keeps payment at a reasonable level. |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 02.11.2005 18:31 |
Well, every moment they're on strike, people die and businesses lose money. So Rendell needs to lay down the law - they come back or they're fired. |
Lester Burnham 02.11.2005 18:48 |
People die? That's a bit melodramatic and absurd. You have to realize that it's affecting the workers as much, because they're not getting paid to go on strike. It's the unions that want the cheaper healthcare, not exactly the individuals. |
yamaha 02.11.2005 19:16 |
Lester Burnham wrote: It's the unions that want the cheaper healthcare, not exactly the individuals.Are you suggesting that the union might get sick and need to go to the doctor? The union is supposed to act in the interest of the individuals. |
Mr.Jingles 02.11.2005 19:39 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Well, every moment they're on strike, people die and businesses lose money.See guys, I told you she was an extremist. |
Mr.Jingles 02.11.2005 19:57 |
Obviously Sarajane only sees one side of the story. Employees who are part of the union are claiming for their right to receive better health care benefits because they don't get enough coverage to afford expensive medicines and medical services. It doesn't surprise me because the health care system in this country is an absolute disaster compared to the health care from other developed nations. It's absurd that people who have to support families while making less than $25.000 a year can't even be given the right to receive complete medical coverage. I don't know how the whole deal works, but obviously a stall on the whole transportation system of a major city affects everyone. Sadly the workers are in a position where a whole city moves day by day depending on them, but then should we just tell the SEPTA workers to stop fuckin' whinning and deal with having no money to afford medicine? These people are not asking for a promotion, or a raise so they can buy a new plasma TV screen. When they get sick or need medical assistance of any kind, they have the exact same needs than any one of us. |
Music Man 02.11.2005 20:16 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I admit what she said was really stupid, but that doesn't make her an extremist.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Well, every moment they're on strike, people die and businesses lose money.See guys, I told you she was an extremist. |
Mr.Jingles 02.11.2005 20:22 |
When you make up wrong facts and start saying all sorts of lies to support your arguments that makes you an extremist. It's not the first time Sarajane has done it, and people are certainly not going to die because SEPTA goes on strike. It's not as if all paramedics, nurses, and physicians in Philly go on strike. |
Music Man 02.11.2005 20:45 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: When you make up wrong facts and start saying all sorts of lies to support your arguments that makes you an extremist.No, that makes you uninformed, or ignorant. Extremism is completely different. Judging from the conditions you have stated, I could confidently say you are an extremist. |
Saint Jiub 02.11.2005 22:41 |
Where I work, I pay for 25 % of my employers costs for medical insurance, which I believe is fairly typical for private industry. However, cushy government workers do not want to pay their fair share of medical insurance. The cushy government workers would rather blackmail the taxpayers in order to squeeze for a panic deal to pay virtually nothing on medical insurance, a deal that they are not reasonably entitled to. Amazing how all right wingers are extremist, but all left wingers are rational and moderate. |
Music Man 02.11.2005 23:24 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: Amazing how all right wingers are extremist, but all left wingers are rational and moderate.*sigh* The sinister will always view the dexter as extreme, and vice versa. It's just how bias works. The difference is just that the sinister is much more vocal in its views. I mean, how often is a protest instigated to keep things as they stand? |
great king rat 1138 03.11.2005 04:16 |
Music Man wrote: A perfect example of this is the profession of teaching, by which going on strike is illegal and punishable under the law.Not over here it's not! Here in Britain, everyone (except the police - downer for them!) has a right to strike, which is only fair. If there is a problem, either with pay or conditions, which employers refuse to acknowledge, sometimes it's the only way to get them to sit up and pay attention. One major advantage over here is of course the fact that we have free and fair healthcare for everyone in the country, not just for those who can pay for it. Everyone has the right to health, and sometimes I wonder if the american healthcare system can see that behind the $$$$ |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.11.2005 07:10 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: When you make up wrong facts and start saying all sorts of lies to support your arguments that makes you an extremist. It's not the first time Sarajane has done it, and people are certainly not going to die because SEPTA goes on strike. It's not as if all paramedics, nurses, and physicians in Philly go on strike.Yes, people WILL die because SEPTA goes on strike. More traffic means more traffic accidents, which means more traffic fatalities, which also means ambulances get to hospitals later. |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.11.2005 07:14 |
Lester Burnham wrote: People die? That's a bit melodramatic and absurd. You have to realize that it's affecting the workers as much, because they're not getting paid to go on strike. It's the unions that want the cheaper healthcare, not exactly the individuals.Being against the SEPTA strike, FYI, should be a LIBERAL cause: 1. More traffic, more traffic accidents, more traffic fatalities. 2. You know the only people benefitting? Big oil companies, because now people are forced to use cars. 3. More pollution. 4. Less education, because people can't get to school. Especially lower-income students in bad neighborhoods. You want them to walk through a warzone to get to school? Again, more fatalities. 5. Ambulances get to hospitals later. 6. People without cars can lose their jobs if they can't get to work. Guess what? It's not the wealthy that are going to lose their jobs, it's people with no cars. Low-income people. So, let's see, who's benefitting? SEPTA unions, throwing a tantrum, and big oil. Hmm, fun time had by all, eh? |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.11.2005 07:20 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Employees who are part of the union are claiming for their right to receive better health care benefits because they don't get enough coverage to afford expensive medicines and medical services. It doesn't surprise me because the health care system in this country is an absolute disaster compared to the health care from other developed nations. It's absurd that people who have to support families while making less than $25.000 a year can't even be given the right to receive complete medical coverage.Everyone else has to pay for health care, why shouldn't SEPTA? It's a pain in the ass, but everyone has to do it. Every profession. SEPTA wants SEPTA workers to pay FIVE PERCENT of their healthcare. FIVE PERCENT. I don't know how the whole deal works, but obviously a stall on the whole transportation system of a major city affects everyone. Sadly the workers are in a position where a whole city moves day by day depending on them, but then should we just tell the SEPTA workers to stop fuckin' whinning and deal with having no money to afford medicine?FIVE PERCENT. And, yes, they should stop whining. They're throwing an entire city into disarray with their little tantrum, and it's hurting low-income, lower-middle class and some of the middle-class, mainly. Governor Rendell is not the one using SEPTA, we are. If I still had the job I had last summer, I would be screwed. These people are not asking for a promotion, or a raise so they can buy a new plasma TV screen. When they get sick or need medical assistance of any kind, they have the exact same needs than any one of us.FIVE PERCENT!!!! And SEPTA worker make a hell of a lot more money than other entry-level jobs. They need to stop their tantrum so the rest of us can get back to our lives. |
Ms. Bea Haven 03.11.2005 09:22 |
The guy up the street from me works for SEPTA. His job...well...it's a kinda stupid one if you ask me - he works WITH the mechanics - he isn't a mechanic. The mechanic says, "gimme a wrench" and my neighbor is the guy who hands the mechanic the wrench!! Let the mechanic get his own fucking wrench!!! If they'd cut out all the worthless jobs within the SEPTA organization, they'd have plenty of money to run their operation, and plenty of money to pacify the workers and pay the medical costs. I don't believe that SEPTA employees should be exempt from contributing to the cost for their healthcare - everybody else does that. I also think that Rendell (I love fast Eddie - don't get me wrong) should stop allowing so much money from the PA budget to subsidize (sp?) SEPTA. The service is poor, it keeps getting worse, and Philadelphian's (and others locally) pay the highest fares for public transportation in the country. I personally think that someone (Greyhound/Peter Pan, or some other big bus/transit company) should step in and create another bus company in southeastern PA - give SEPTA some competition, provide better service at a lower cost (it CAN be done), and bust up that monopoly once and for all. (I din't know there were that many Philly/suburbs people here. Cool!) |
Music Man 03.11.2005 12:57 |
great king rat 1138 wrote:Then take your police, for instance. Same situation as I was explaining. However, I must say that the best way to resolve an issue is third party mediation, which is often stipulated in union-employer contracts. This is particularly important for jobs that can disrupt and inconvenience the community.Music Man wrote: A perfect example of this is the profession of teaching, by which going on strike is illegal and punishable under the law.Not over here it's not! Here in Britain, everyone (except the police - downer for them!) has a right to strike, which is only fair. If there is a problem, either with pay or conditions, which employers refuse to acknowledge, sometimes it's the only way to get them to sit up and pay attention. One major advantage over here is of course the fact that we have free and fair healthcare for everyone in the country, not just for those who can pay for it. Everyone has the right to health, and sometimes I wonder if the american healthcare system can see that behind the $$$$ |
Music Man 03.11.2005 13:02 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Do you know what your problem is? You don't debate. I'm not even sure if you know how. Your ad hominem cynicism and bias is ridiculously ineffective. When other people, or even FGT, make a series of effective points, you find the weakest point in the argument and exploit it, rather than confronting the more rational points that will ultimately win the argument.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Okay, what is this? Here in Philly, SEPTA (public transport) has gone on strike because they want to pay less for their healthcare. Where do these people get the right to disturb an entire city just to throw a tantrum? Can't the governor just step in and say, "You're all fired"?It's clear that democracy and rights mean nothing to you. Of course, we all knew THAT. If there is no option of going on strike, employers can do whatever they please, and we would get an early Industrial Revolution-scenario. Of course, YOU wouldn't mind. Why? Because you are a far-right, ignorant, neo-fascist swine. Both rational and irrational points are best abated by intelligent rebuttals, not sarcastic attacks. Your strategy: ignore the rational points and make sarcastic attacks on the irrational points. Come on, man. |
Mr.Jingles 03.11.2005 13:44 |
Music Man wrote:I agree with most of your post except with the fact that Sarajane makes effective posts. She defends her arguments with things that are not even true, or just simply appears to be in denial of. Just to point this out, she believes that Mark Fuhrman is not racist even though he's used the word "nigger" many times to express personal opinions, and commited perjury motivated by his racist views. She believes Michael Schiavo is a murderer, and when she couldn't convince anyone that the man was evil, she came up with the story that he was racist and he wouldn't allow anyone but white nurses to take care of his wife. If that was true, the right wing media would have used it to bring Michael Schiavo down. That, just to mention a few.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:Do you know what your problem is? You don't debate. I'm not even sure if you know how. Your ad hominem cynicism and bias is ridiculously ineffective. When other people, or even FGT, make a series of effective points, you find the weakest point in the argument and exploit it, rather than confronting the more rational points that will ultimately win the argument. Both rational and irrational points are best abated by intelligent rebuttals, not sarcastic attacks. Your strategy: ignore the rational points and make sarcastic attacks on the irrational points. Come on, man.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Okay, what is this? Here in Philly, SEPTA (public transport) has gone on strike because they want to pay less for their healthcare. Where do these people get the right to disturb an entire city just to throw a tantrum? Can't the governor just step in and say, "You're all fired"?It's clear that democracy and rights mean nothing to you. Of course, we all knew THAT. If there is no option of going on strike, employers can do whatever they please, and we would get an early Industrial Revolution-scenario. Of course, YOU wouldn't mind. Why? Because you are a far-right, ignorant, neo-fascist swine. Now back to the original subject. I'm not taking SEPTA's side, nor the side of the unions, of radical liberals for that matter. I think there might be a good reason for them to go to strike. Claiming for medical benefits is not whinning, it's just claiming for a right everyone should have. I'd only blame SEPTA if they went on strike without pushing as much as they could for negotiations, or calling for a third party that stands completely neutral to resolve the matter. I notice a lot of times that both Caspar and Sarajane are blinded by their own political sides because they go too far to the point that they end up becoming victims of their own spin. Personally (although all of you might now this alread) I tend to lean more towards the liberal side although I try to remain moderate in every possible way. There are many moderate conservatives that bring excellent arguments, some of them with which I slightly agree or disagree. I have to tell you that it's a pleasure to discuss matters with a moderate of either side becuase you know that politcally incorrect conversation won't be turning into a soap opera catfight. |
Music Man 03.11.2005 15:53 |
Okay...I admit...maybe I should have stressed the "other people" part of my point. But I'm sure you know that you could easily look like the better person in the argument by not resorting to such attacks. Your opponents will still look as stupid when they cannot refute anything you say, if you are indeed correct on the matter. But she did, although in a quite ridiculous and ineffective manner, present an appealing argument concerning the vast negative consequences of such a strike. |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.11.2005 16:02 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. Children should not have to be deprived of schooling, people should not be seperated from their jobs simply because SEPTA doesn't feel like paying five percent for health care. You know who's affected by this the most? Low-income minorities. I suppose in this case you'd rather side against the innocent low-income minorities? Where's your righteous outrage for them?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Okay, what is this? Here in Philly, SEPTA (public transport) has gone on strike because they want to pay less for their healthcare. Where do these people get the right to disturb an entire city just to throw a tantrum? Can't the governor just step in and say, "You're all fired"?It's clear that democracy and rights mean nothing to you. Of course, we all knew THAT. If there is no option of going on strike, employers can do whatever they please, and we would get an early Industrial Revolution-scenario. Of course, YOU wouldn't mind. Why? Because you are a far-right, ignorant, neo-fascist swine. |
Music Man 03.11.2005 16:14 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You know...your arguments begin so well...and then you introduce something like "low-income minorities" and formulate your argument around that...<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. Children should not have to be deprived of schooling, people should not be seperated from their jobs simply because SEPTA doesn't feel like paying five percent for health care. You know who's affected by this the most? Low-income minorities. I suppose in this case you'd rather side against the innocent low-income minorities? Where's your righteous outrage for them?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Okay, what is this? Here in Philly, SEPTA (public transport) has gone on strike because they want to pay less for their healthcare. Where do these people get the right to disturb an entire city just to throw a tantrum? Can't the governor just step in and say, "You're all fired"?It's clear that democracy and rights mean nothing to you. Of course, we all knew THAT. If there is no option of going on strike, employers can do whatever they please, and we would get an early Industrial Revolution-scenario. Of course, YOU wouldn't mind. Why? Because you are a far-right, ignorant, neo-fascist swine. The best argument lies here: is this strike worth the unbelievable inconvenience to society caused by it? 500,000 SEPTA riders say no, and they are backed by thousands more in Philadelphia businesses. |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 03.11.2005 17:19 |
Music Man wrote:I mentioned people with low-income b/c I'm the one always being accused of being the "far-right-winger who only cares about the wealthy."FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You know...your arguments begin so well...and then you introduce something like "low-income minorities" and formulate your argument around that... The best argument lies here: is this strike worth the unbelievable inconvenience to society caused by it? 500,000 SEPTA riders say no, and they are backed by thousands more in Philadelphia businesses.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. Children should not have to be deprived of schooling, people should not be seperated from their jobs simply because SEPTA doesn't feel like paying five percent for health care. You know who's affected by this the most? Low-income minorities. I suppose in this case you'd rather side against the innocent low-income minorities? Where's your righteous outrage for them?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Okay, what is this? Here in Philly, SEPTA (public transport) has gone on strike because they want to pay less for their healthcare. Where do these people get the right to disturb an entire city just to throw a tantrum? Can't the governor just step in and say, "You're all fired"?It's clear that democracy and rights mean nothing to you. Of course, we all knew THAT. If there is no option of going on strike, employers can do whatever they please, and we would get an early Industrial Revolution-scenario. Of course, YOU wouldn't mind. Why? Because you are a far-right, ignorant, neo-fascist swine. |
Music Man 03.11.2005 21:53 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:That is because you respond to the ad hominem attacks of others. Your main focus should be on the argument at hand. They are trying to distract you; it's up to you to not let them succeed.Music Man wrote:I mentioned people with low-income b/c I'm the one always being accused of being the "far-right-winger who only cares about the wealthy."FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:You know...your arguments begin so well...and then you introduce something like "low-income minorities" and formulate your argument around that... The best argument lies here: is this strike worth the unbelievable inconvenience to society caused by it? 500,000 SEPTA riders say no, and they are backed by thousands more in Philadelphia businesses.<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. Children should not have to be deprived of schooling, people should not be seperated from their jobs simply because SEPTA doesn't feel like paying five percent for health care. You know who's affected by this the most? Low-income minorities. I suppose in this case you'd rather side against the innocent low-income minorities? Where's your righteous outrage for them?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Okay, what is this? Here in Philly, SEPTA (public transport) has gone on strike because they want to pay less for their healthcare. Where do these people get the right to disturb an entire city just to throw a tantrum? Can't the governor just step in and say, "You're all fired"?It's clear that democracy and rights mean nothing to you. Of course, we all knew THAT. If there is no option of going on strike, employers can do whatever they please, and we would get an early Industrial Revolution-scenario. Of course, YOU wouldn't mind. Why? Because you are a far-right, ignorant, neo-fascist swine. |
Saint Jiub 04.11.2005 20:11 |
For Americans: What portion do you pay for your employment sponsored health insurance? Please also indicate whether you are from employed in the private or public sector. I bet most pay at least 25% for health insurance or have no health inusurance. The Phily public transportation employees deserve to be fired. I am sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to have their jobs. |
Rockyuk 04.11.2005 20:32 |
great king rat 1138 wrote:The only way the Government could stop the police from striking would be calling in the army to arrest them (and that still wouldnt stop the strike, the police would all end up in milatry prisions, whilst the army take over policing, until the government could strike a deal with the police to return back to work), the strike would be a sucess. It really would be a bad situation if it got that far though.Music Man wrote: A perfect example of this is the profession of teaching, by which going on strike is illegal and punishable under the law.Not over here it's not! Here in Britain, everyone (except the police - downer for them!) has a right to strike, which is only fair. If there is a problem, either with pay or conditions, which employers refuse to acknowledge, sometimes it's the only way to get them to sit up and pay attention. One major advantage over here is of course the fact that we have free and fair healthcare for everyone in the country, not just for those who can pay for it. Everyone has the right to health, and sometimes I wonder if the american healthcare system can see that behind the $$$$ The british health service may be free but it sure sucks. Better than having to take a loan out or something everytime you get injured though. Also, if Septia agree to giving their employee's fair rights, everything will go back to normal. If septia gave their employee's fair rights and all that in the first place, no one would have been inconvieiced, if anyone is too blame its septia. The septia employee's are doing whats right. |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 05.11.2005 14:41 |
Rockyuk wrote:First of all, it's SEPTA = Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. They HAVE fair rights. They just don't want to have to pay ANYTHING for health insurance. And, no, what they're doing is NOT right. It's NOT right that people can't get to work. It's NOT right kids can't get to school. It's also going to destroy a lot of small business that depended on SEPTA to supply transportation for their customers. Places like the ones in The Gallery, the subway mall.great king rat 1138 wrote:The only way the Government could stop the police from striking would be calling in the army to arrest them (and that still wouldnt stop the strike, the police would all end up in milatry prisions, whilst the army take over policing, until the government could strike a deal with the police to return back to work), the strike would be a sucess. It really would be a bad situation if it got that far though. The british health service may be free but it sure sucks. Better than having to take a loan out or something everytime you get injured though. Also, if Septia agree to giving their employee's fair rights, everything will go back to normal. If septia gave their employee's fair rights and all that in the first place, no one would have been inconvieiced, if anyone is too blame its septia. The septia employee's are doing whats right.Music Man wrote: A perfect example of this is the profession of teaching, by which going on strike is illegal and punishable under the law.Not over here it's not! Here in Britain, everyone (except the police - downer for them!) has a right to strike, which is only fair. If there is a problem, either with pay or conditions, which employers refuse to acknowledge, sometimes it's the only way to get them to sit up and pay attention. One major advantage over here is of course the fact that we have free and fair healthcare for everyone in the country, not just for those who can pay for it. Everyone has the right to health, and sometimes I wonder if the american healthcare system can see that behind the $$$$ |
Rockyuk 05.11.2005 17:17 |
I really dont give a shit what the company is called. It is right, im not going to go over why, lots of people have already proved you wrong, if your too fucking stupid not to listen to them, theres no reason you will listen to me. Also I hope you get fired for notbeing able to get to work :D |
FreddiesGhettoTrench 05.11.2005 21:22 |
Rockyuk wrote: I really dont give a shit what the company is called. It is right, im not going to go over why, lots of people have already proved you wrong, if your too fucking stupid not to listen to them, theres no reason you will listen to me. Also I hope you get fired for notbeing able to get to work :DFYI, no one in my family has been severely inconvienced by the strike, it's just a minor annoyance. However, going "I hope you get fired" shows how little you care about the common man. Why don't you tell that to the single mother in North Philadelphia who now has now money for their child's education because SEPTA threw a hissy fit? |
Music Man 05.11.2005 22:15 |
Rockyuk wrote: I really dont give a shit what the company is called. It is right, im not going to go over why, lots of people have already proved you wrong, if your too fucking stupid not to listen to them, theres no reason you will listen to me. Also I hope you get fired for notbeing able to get to work :DHmmm...no one has proved anything wrong. And no, it's not necessarily right. You are simply proving your ignorance of the situation. Would it be right for me to take away your car because I want more allowance from my mother? |