This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First Bolded: But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. Here was your comment earlier:

I stated just a few posts ago that especially police cannot violate a persons rights for whatever the reason, including racism.

So you say you don't think police should violate people's rights for any reason but then for Stop and Frisk you're "well I disagree with them violating people's rights, but I'm OK with it because it's a means to an end".

That is the exact opposite belief from the sentiment you expressed earlier. And it's definitely not some SJW special where I'm arguing some point you aren't making, because you just affirmed exactly what I claimed you said...

Second Bolded: I'm saying people who hate someone because of their race shouldn't be able to be cops. You seem to be arguing they should be so long as they don't treat people differently, which is functionally impossible if you're truly racist.

Third Bolded: First, I never said I don't want that type of society. I just don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, nor do I know why getting rid of all public sector Unions must be a prerequisite to getting rid of police unions (or functionally gutting/altering them). The very fact you demand I give up something (all other public sector Unions) means you don't want to get rid of Police Unions absent some other benefit. If we're both against Police Unions... why don't we just get rid of Police Unions?

That being said. Then answer this question based on your response to how your society would handle this.

Do you think the cop in my scenario should be reprimanded or fired for pulling over 100 black men in a row and not the white guy? Yes or no and why or why not?

---

The difference here with stop and frisk is me differentiating between my thoughts from a civil standpoint (against 5th amendment rights) and my feeling that something has to change in the inner city (a means to an end). Furthermore, I never stated that the tactic should be applied in a racist fashion.

Second, no. I’m arguing that the current system (the union) inhibits poor police (including racists) from being properly reprimanded and fired if need be. The difference is, my solution is actually attainable. I don’t know if you’ve even offered a solution. Racist cops shouldn’t be allowed to be cops is not a solution. It’s a hope for a utopian society.

Third, my interest is improving inner cities. While I understand this thread is about police brutality, I’m extending my thoughts to the overall improvement, specifically in policing and education. Two of the main issues facing inner cities. Can we not agree that these two issues policing/crime and education are not the biggest issues in the inner cities? That being said, for the purpose of this thread, just ban police unions. It’s the problem.

If it can be proven that a cop pulled someone over because of their race then of course they should be fired. The difference is with police unions, they can’t be fired. Racist and poor officers cannot be fired in the current system for the most part. Racist and poor teachers can definitely not be fired either but I know you want to protect your political property.

https://i.redd.it/4z6du1y3tzk51.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

https://i.redd.it/4z6du1y3tzk51.jpg

---

Sweet ranchero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

The reason you always have to repeat yourself is because you can't actually do it and provide evidence when I ask but don't want to admit it. There are no clear examples like police over and over is the reason you aren't using them and everyone knows/can see it.

The USPS is struggling, you haven't connected it to unions in any way in reality though and can you go in depth on how salaries/benefits/pensions of employees are the biggest issue? You can reference something struggling and not tie it to the unions in reality, great. You don't think there might be any bigger reasons it is struggling than that?

The idea that they don't fear losing money is ridiculous, you are using "struggling" in that manner above and tying it to unions being bad loosely. As was addressed by Valade as well this point on the who's money it is that is often true in the public sector as well. You just use as many loose associations and ignore common sense like that government still cares about $. We agree there are differences like I said from the start but you have yet to make any real connections here besides that there are differences and you will use your bias to associate the worst. Politicians are also under demands of people to balance the budget and not waste money ("we can't afford this" is so common). You just look at everything through only one lens as I keep pointing out there is more context than what you give and ignore this to keep pushing the same points. So to be clear we agree there are many differences, we disagree you have in any way made a clear connection to it being bad/destructive as a whole.

I think they have problems but are not necessarily problems in and of themselves the way you are making it out to be. There is corruption all over this country and I think given your focus and my opinion of them the police forces are a huge aspect/example. They definitely have issues but you are making broad claims without any real connections outside your opinions on the topic (and previously questioning me what unions do until I answered). They have many of the same reasons/benefits for existing as normal unions but also have a few more issues/complications involved too is my point. I haven't been denying some of the problems I just am not associating it to the whole without real reasoning/evidence to do so.

---

The USPS use to have value. The reason it’s struggling is because technology and the private sector (Amazon, FedEx, UPS, etc) have diminished that value beyond the worth of the salaries negotiated by the postal union. The union only cares about its members, as it should. Unlike a private sector company, the USPS can continue to lose money. You keep asking for proof of this. Some of this is common knowledge and I’m not going to go out of my way to help you with that.

I’ll pose the same question to you as I did to Val, what is your solution to poor and racist police officers? The current system does not allow for them to be properly reprimanded and fired if need be, until they kill someone, then we have riots. The same applies to poor teachers as well. If you need proof that union reps protect police officers or teachers who are being reprimanded, I don’t know how to help you. I’m not sure if you’re purposely being dense or not. Do we agree that it’s difficult for commanding officers or school officials to reprimand or fire poor police officers or poor teachers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

Sweet ranchero.

---

I like the classic bunny ears ultimate photo bomb

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First, yes some are better than others. But those better ones... get better jobs or more responsibility. Which is exactly how you explained private businesses without Unions pay their employees more. So, what's the difference?

Perhaps the reason Union Members show more loyalty to the Union is that if the Union goes away, their pay goes down. So who is really ensuring they get paid, the company that's itching to pay them less, or the Union ensuring they get paid the amount they're currently getting paid?

But the bolded is really your end goal: you want employees dependent on employers to the point where they'r so grateful no matter how little they get. You want all employees to shut up, accept the meager pay you deign to dole out, and thank them so much for their generosity.

---

The bolded portion (the least paragraph) tells me you know nothing, nada, zilch about employer - employee relationships.

Any decent employer (and that is the vast majority of them) see employees as their company (or their department if you are a supervisor) as their greatest asset. This isn't just my opinion. This view is prevalent in any management textbook, any seminar, any focus group, any "meeting of the minds." any website discussion, or anytime management people get togerther. No employer sees their employees the way you describe.

Since the Covid mess began in March, I have been in touch dozens of time with other business owners to discuss numerous topics. It's pretty much …"How are you handling such and such etc." On every call, the plight of the employees has come up and discussions about how to mitigate the pain as best we can. Negotiating lease extensions, searching for better vendors, postponing equipment purchases, setting up lines of credit, negoriating loans etc. Numerous employers are getting by on less income (or savings) so that they can offset poor sales and still keep as many employees as possible. I am one of those.

I've had to let employees go. It just had to be done due to a tremendous fall off of business. I could have let the higher wages go (for a better savings) but it was the newer employees were the first to go. The longer term employees had more loyalty. Of the employees I've kept on (longer term people) none of them have seen their workload increase (they are actually doing much less) and have not a care in the world caused by the virus. I could easily let another one go but I don't because they have been with me for a long time.

For you to make such a stupid statement as you did is, frankly, amazing. I don't know any business owner (and I know hundreds through national contacts and associations) that fel that way.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

The bolded portion (the least paragraph) tells me you know nothing, nada, zilch about employer - employee relationships.

Any decent employer (and that is the vast majority of them) see employees as their company (or their department if you are a supervisor) as their greatest asset. This isn't just my opinion. This view is prevalent in any management textbook, any seminar, any focus group, any "meeting of the minds." any website discussion, or anytime management people get togerther. No employer sees their employees the way you describe.

Since the Covid mess began in March, I have been in touch dozens of time with other business owners to discuss numerous topics. It's pretty much …"How are you handling such and such etc." On every call, the plight of the employees has come up and discussions about how to mitigate the pain as best we can. Negotiating lease extensions, searching for better vendors, postponing equipment purchases, setting up lines of credit, negoriating loans etc. Numerous employers are getting by on less income (or savings) so that they can offset poor sales and still keep as many employees as possible. I am one of those.

I've had to let employees go. It just had to be done due to a tremendous fall off of business. I could have let the higher wages go (for a better savings) but it was the newer employees were the first to go. The longer term employees had more loyalty. Of the employees I've kept on (longer term people) none of them have seen their workload increase (they are actually doing much less) and have not a care in the world caused by the virus. I could easily let another one go but I don't because they have been with me for a long time.

For you to make such a stupid statement as you did is, frankly, amazing. I don't know any business owner (and I know hundreds through national contacts and associations) that fel that way.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

---

I believe this is view is the more dominant view among small business owners but a significantly minority view among big business where employees are numbers on a spreadsheet and a line item at a board meeting. This is in part why we need better anti-trust enforcement and a better working alliance between workers and small business owners against oversized influence of big business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

More comedy gold.

---

more editing my quote.

you know this is against the rules, right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

The USPS use to have value. The reason it’s struggling is because technology and the private sector (Amazon, FedEx, UPS, etc) have diminished that value beyond the worth of the salaries negotiated by the postal union. The union only cares about its members, as it should. Unlike a private sector company, the USPS can continue to lose money. You keep asking for proof of this. Some of this is common knowledge and I’m not going to go out of my way to help you with that.

I’ll pose the same question to you as I did to Val, what is your solution to poor and racist police officers? The current system does not allow for them to be properly reprimanded and fired if need be, until they kill someone, then we have riots. The same applies to poor teachers as well. If you need proof that union reps protect police officers or teachers who are being reprimanded, I don’t know how to help you. I’m not sure if you’re purposely being dense or not. Do we agree that it’s difficult for commanding officers or school officials to reprimand or fire poor police officers or poor teachers?

---

You're aware the Post Office isn't a business. Right? It's a service. Tell me how much money does the fire department make? How about your precious police? Or the military?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

You're aware the Post Office isn't a business. Right? It's a service. Tell me how much money does the fire department make? How about your precious police? Or the military?

---

If all of the US was made fire proof and there were no more fires would we keep the same number of firemen employed? Have the same amount of equipment? The same number of stations?

The USPS is a service and it should not be run to make a profit, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't change with the times. And the times have made it FAR less relevant than it used to be. Add to that that we all know that "work vehicles" and airplanes are a major cause of green house gasses in the US, having fewer trucks and planes operating closer to capacity is good for the environment, but the only way to do that is to make some changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

If all of the US was made fire proof and there were no more fires would we keep the same number of firemen employed? Have the same amount of equipment? The same number of stations?

The USPS is a service and it should not be run to make a profit, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't change with the times. And the times have made it FAR less relevant than it used to be. Add to that that we all know that "work vehicles" and airplanes are a major cause of green house gasses in the US, having fewer trucks and planes operating closer to capacity is good for the environment, but the only way to do that is to make some changes.

---

I dont know the back story if this convo, but hell no we cant lose usps, amazon will be one step closer to merging with the govt.

Amazon is scary.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

The bolded portion (the least paragraph) tells me you know nothing, nada, zilch about employer - employee relationships.

Any decent employer (and that is the vast majority of them) see employees as their company (or their department if you are a supervisor) as their greatest asset. This isn't just my opinion. This view is prevalent in any management textbook, any seminar, any focus group, any "meeting of the minds." any website discussion, or anytime management people get togerther. No employer sees their employees the way you describe.

Since the Covid mess began in March, I have been in touch dozens of time with other business owners to discuss numerous topics. It's pretty much …"How are you handling such and such etc." On every call, the plight of the employees has come up and discussions about how to mitigate the pain as best we can. Negotiating lease extensions, searching for better vendors, postponing equipment purchases, setting up lines of credit, negoriating loans etc. Numerous employers are getting by on less income (or savings) so that they can offset poor sales and still keep as many employees as possible. I am one of those.

I've had to let employees go. It just had to be done due to a tremendous fall off of business. I could have let the higher wages go (for a better savings) but it was the newer employees were the first to go. The longer term employees had more loyalty. Of the employees I've kept on (longer term people) none of them have seen their workload increase (they are actually doing much less) and have not a care in the world caused by the virus. I could easily let another one go but I don't because they have been with me for a long time.

For you to make such a stupid statement as you did is, frankly, amazing. I don't know any business owner (and I know hundreds through national contacts and associations) that fel that way.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

---

Absolutely correct. How many questionable employees have you kept on hoping they could pull it together? How much personal agony have you suffered knowing you had to fire someone for cause?

That said, I do think that the huge corporations don't do much to consider the needs of the bottom rung of the ladder. They are cheap to pay, cheap to train, and therefore cheap to replace, so giving them the least benefits (even if those benefits are a convenient place and opportunity to use the bathroom) is a natural outcome. I worked for UPS in college and they absolutely use people up and spit them out much like Amazon does now. Of course part of the key there for employees is an avenue to advance out of the pit of despair that is the bottom rung, and I think even that isn't available in a lot of companies now ... Amazon warehouse human robots have essentially no way up, but Amazon knows that and is working feverishly on getting actual robots to do the job and the robots will replace the humans once the expense is even close for the performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I dont know the back story if this convo, but hell no we cant lose usps, amazon will be one step closer to merging with the govt.

Amazon is scary.

---

I didn't say anything about getting rid of the USPS, but people are fighting ANY change even though the world has changed dramatically.

And yes, Amazon is scary. If for nothing else than what I just mentioned in my previous post ... Amazon is spending tens of millions developing warehouse robots that can directly replace humans. When a robot can work 24x7x365 and will never organize a union, doesn't take bathroom breaks, doesn't take lunch, doesn't take a smoke, doesn't drink coffee, is never sick ... when that bot costs $300k each there will be a wave of unemployed warehouse workers, and that's just the tip of the spear.

Amazon is working on rail car mounted package lockers, so they can robotically load a train car, a train can take it to the nearest place to you, then gig works for pennies on the dollar can go and pick up and deliver the package to your doorstep with the package being monitored every step of the way. No need for UPS, not need for Fed-Ex, no need for USPS, just super cheap uber drivers. Of course they are also pouring money into self driving trucks and into drone delivery. The trucking industry is 5 million people in the US and Amazon wants them all unemployed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GasMan

I believe this is view is the more dominant view among small business owners but a significantly minority view among big business where employees are numbers on a spreadsheet and a line item at a board meeting. This is in part why we need better anti-trust enforcement and a better working alliance between workers and small business owners against oversized influence of big business.

---

More baloney.

I've been part of a good sized company (700+ employees, Over 1200 inllcuding part timers) and part of senior management for about five years. Employee welfare, feelings, improvement, development is always a concern. It was discussed at every corp[orate policy meeting. Always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

I didn't say anything about getting rid of the USPS, but people are fighting ANY change even though the world has changed dramatically.

And yes, Amazon is scary. If for nothing else than what I just mentioned in my previous post ... Amazon is spending tens of millions developing warehouse robots that can directly replace humans. When a robot can work 24x7x365 and will never organize a union, doesn't take bathroom breaks, doesn't take lunch, doesn't take a smoke, doesn't drink coffee, is never sick ... when that bot costs $300k each there will be a wave of unemployed warehouse workers, and that's just the tip of the spear.

Amazon is working on rail car mounted package lockers, so they can robotically load a train car, a train can take it to the nearest place to you, then gig works for pennies on the dollar can go and pick up and deliver the package to your doorstep with the package being monitored every step of the way. No need for UPS, not need for Fed-Ex, no need for USPS, just super cheap uber drivers. Of course they are also pouring money into self driving trucks and into drone delivery. The trucking industry is 5 million people in the US and Amazon wants them all unemployed.

---

it's happening!
https://truedemocracyparty.net/wp-co...ds/IROBOT2.jpg