What Gov. Walker has done should be the model for ALL America... even here in the Commonwealth of Niagara. Take careful notes, Gov. Paladino!
Those who have the talent and skill to work in certain jobs should NOT have to join a union as part of their employment. That choice should be theirs alone, to be in a union... or not.
Also: those whose employment depends on the taxpayer must live by the same realities that affect the taxpayers.
Those 14 Dems who ran away from their duties, in an attempt to thwart the democratic process, should only receive scorn and contempt, plus a one-way ticket out of office.
Getting a Grip
Unionize Everybody!
by Michael I. Niman
A new meme for union summer
I’ve been listening to the litany of anti-union complaints echoing throughout the chatter that passes for news in this country. Foremost, it seems, is the complaint that union members, particularly in the public sector, enjoy “Cadillac” health insurance plans. And their copays for these plans, the complaints go, aren’t as crippling as those paid by non-unionized workers who are lucky enough to have healthcare. As is the norm for propaganda, there’s a lot of misinformation in these reports. Many union members working in the private sector, such as members of Teamsters locals, enjoy better healthcare plans than many public employees—who are the current target-de-jour for the feudalist movement. And there are unionized workers, public and private, who have yet to win the right to healthcare. But there is a basic truth in this media chatter: Unionized workers are more likely to have health insurance, and it’s more likely to be better health insurance than most working Americans enjoy. It’s not better, however, than the universal healthcare that workers in every other industrialized Western democracy take for granted as a birthright.
Whose side are you on?
So my question, which should be painfully obvious, is why are we vilifying union members for successfully defending a right we should all enjoy? Rather than adopting the feudalist argument that none of us should have healthcare, why not insist that we all have healthcare? Why don’t we all fight to have the same healthcare as Teamsters have? The same can be said for all other rights that unions have successfully defended. Shouldn’t we all have the right to some modicum of job security—perhaps a mandate that we be fired for a reason, as union contracts often provide, rather than be fired on a political or ageist whim? Shouldn’t we all have a right to be protected as whistleblowers when we see our bosses acting immorally or illegally? Shouldn’t we all have a right to contribute to a guaranteed pension system that won’t be looted by our employers? Shouldn’t we all have the right to work in a safe environment? Shouldn’t we all have the ability to negotiate a living wage? Is this really a radical notion?
I can go on and on here, but my point is simple. Why side with our oppressors as they try to expand their reach and oppress everyone? Why not side with those who are standing up and fighting back. Toward that end, instead of fighting against unions, why not fight to have one of your own? Why not fight to unionize everybody? And like all revolutions, it doesn’t stop there. Unionize everybody! And fight to keep our unions from being corrupted.
Thank a union
Unions fought for and won fundamental rights that we all now take for granted—things ranging from child labor and minimum wage laws to lunch breaks and the 40 hour week. And as union wages increased, so did non-union wages, since union contracts raised the wage floor in our free market for labor. As long as union jobs offered better pay and benefits, they would attract better workers, which worked out well for unionized businesses. In order to compete to hire qualified workers, non-union businesses had to match union wages and benefits. Some of us paid union dues, but all of us reaped the benefits those dues bought. The union effect balances the profit-wage equation. Take it away, and the equation tips back toward the radical social inequity of the 19th century and the period right before the Great Depression.
And this is what is happening. As the wage floor increased, the need for individuals to join unions decreased. Ultimately, the minority of workers who remained unionized carried the responsibility of maintaining competitive wage and benefit levels for everyone. With the deindustrialization brought on by the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-era, corporate-authored free trade pacts came a collapse of the unionized sector, as corporations relocated production overseas to take advantage of non-unionized sweatshop labor working under unregulated conditions with little or no worker safety, child labor, or overtime rules. The result was the drop in the domestic wage floor that unions are desperately fighting against.
With the rise of corporate-owned media monopolies and the 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to poison the political system with unlimited bribes in the form of political contributions, corporations are now ratcheting up their fight to bring the sweatshop economy home, essentially erasing the social gains of the 20th century. Unions, decimated as they are, are the last remaining organized social force that is standing up against this new feudalism.
How collective bargaining saved capitalism
But the fight isn’t just about saving the middle class. When Congress enacted the Wagner Act in 1935, it acknowledged how the drop in wages during a similar corporate push against workers in the 1920s led to a drop in consumer power, which ultimately led to the great depression. The Wagner Act was designed to protect workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively. The Wagner Act wasn’t just about protecting of workers’ rights. It was about protecting the economy against another depression by leveling the bargaining power of labor and corporations, and in turn, keeping the wage floor at a sustainable level.
I’m a union member. We’re carrying the fight not just for ourselves and our own jobs and contracts but for all workers. And if the authors of the Wagner Act are correct, we’re also fighting to save the US economy from destruction brought on by an out of control pathological greed. But we are too few in number and the fight that corporations and Wall Street are waging against American workers is overwhelming. Please don’t leave us standing here alone. And don’t be duped into thinking that we are your enemies.
Union summer!
We are in for a historically unprecedented fight as a small powerful elite are rolling back a century of social and democratic gains. Join us, and we won’t leave you behind. Rather than being duped into vilifying those of us who are still holding on to the American dream, join us. Rather than being tricked into organizing against us, organize with us. We are you. Unionize everybody!
This is my new two-word meme. Unionize everybody! You can shout it or tweet it. It fits in a seven-second “news” soundbite. It’s a good answer even when nobody’s asking a question. You can write it on a placard or spray it on a wall. But make yourself heard: Unionize everybody!
Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Buffalo State College. His previous columns are at artvoice.com, archived at www.mediastudy.com, and available globally through syndication.
Reader Comments (posting new comments is closed!)
|
Lloyd Marshall, Jr. 17 Mar 2011, 06:46
Ken Meyer 17 Mar 2011, 07:06
Regarding the author's comment of... "any union members working in the private sector, such as members of Teamsters locals, enjoy better healthcare plans than many public employees" ..one might note that MOST of the "Teamsters" of the past few decades lost their sources of employment and thus had NO employer-sponsored "healthcare plans" - or wages - available to them at. And note how many of the Teamster pension plans are in the red "critical" zone. If the union public employees are willing to go the same route as private sector(outside of UPS, which brings up a whole new can of worms) union brothers and sisters in the Teamster (i.e. - lose their jobs and end up with nothing), then more power to them. However, I question as to whether or not that is what they would really want to do.
Fred 17 Mar 2011, 07:07
Yeah you are right about child labor and a fair work week, now it is about taking every day off you can, calling in sick because you don’t want to miss a sick day and fighting for an antiquated business model. By the way who did more to grow globalization than Bill Clinton? Did you forget how much he pushed for outsourcing, ie NAFTA, etc? As far as unions doing all the work to keep up salaries, what about for example all the financial workers at banks? Now keep in mind most people who work at these jobs do not make millions in bonuses but basic decent take home wages, clerical, operations, front line workers. No unions, just people in demand with certain skills or the ability to learn these skills. Maybe they are pushing up the union wages, well I will not say maybe I will just say they are and it is fact, in print now so it is fact. You bore the crud out of me "professor". Get a little balance and maybe you could be taken seriously.
Bill Covington 17 Mar 2011, 09:21
Excellen article, Michael. I wish it could be read by everybody. I feel bad for people that are apparently struggling so hard with day to day challenges that they can't see the big picture. Like the proverbial crabs in a barrel, they would drag those who are crawling out back into the mire. It would be so much better if they could see that all of us in the barrel are headed to the boiling pot unless we wake up and stop blaming other working people for problems created by the wealthy and powerful. That they have us fighting among ourselves testifies to their brilliance and the fact that they control most sources of information. But things can change, and they will, if history is any indicator. It was darkest just before the dawn in the 30's as well.
Frederika McClary 17 Mar 2011, 13:11
The sad thing is that people don't really get things until it directly affects them. They don't agree with taxes going to pay for unemployment until they are on it. As Mr. Covington wrote history has a way of repeating itself and we are in the midst of dejavu. The 'haves' have been trying and for the most part have been successful in widening the space between them and the 'have nots'.
Jim 17 Mar 2011, 14:01
Not too much bias, there, eh professor of 'journalism'? No doubt you instruct your unfortunate students to be just as unbiased. So much for media objectivity.
John 17 Mar 2011, 14:09
Excellent post Mr Covington. My only disagreement with your post would be "That they have us fighting amongs ourselves testifies to their brilliance". Is it really their brilliance, or in all reality isnt it really the fact that the majority of middle class Americans are just plain stupid people who cannot think for themselves beyond the contents of a 3 second sound bite.....
Paul - Voice For Men 17 Mar 2011, 15:15
Where was all of this love for unionizing and for your fellow American before the capitalists finally got around to dealing with your end of the piggy union trough? Now you say that we're all in it together? The current backlash that we are witnessing is a part of the "defund the left" movement, but in your analysis you left out one very important component of your "feudal" union-busting movement: Its ideological component. Do you even begin to understand - let alone to acknowledge - how boiling, pent up, fucking angry a lot of us - out of your "everybody" group - are about other things, like Affirmative Action? Payday is finally here, Jr. Any commments to make about that side of it, Mr. Government Union? Maybe NOW would be a good time to write off a lot of us as racists and angry white males, or to throw women's supposed historical oppression in our faces. For twenty years now we've been living in a country that has been ideologically dominated by women and blacks who have been flaunting their true bullying colors, since they first began coming into their true political power. (Remember the comments by Nasty Pelosi when she took up the speaker's gavel for the first time? Remember when the Gangsta movement first got started? Why is it that reported community drug houses must be carefully and painstakingly researched for years, allowing them a long window of opportunity to continue destroying the neighborhoods around them, insisting that we get that PERFECT bust, but any lying, vindictive homewrecker can commit violence against her partner, pick up a phone and call for about four police cars to show up and arrest HIM within minutes?) You pukey Demoncraps have long forfeited the moral authority to claim to be "everyone's" party. Everyone knows that unions grab for themselves and for their own and then mock those left still standing when the music stops. Where was all of this wage security consciousness up until 2011? We're not going back to that. You union kids are on your own now, and it's time to pay the piper. Go to hell, in a free-falling elevator.
Ryan 17 Mar 2011, 19:43
"Why are we vilifying union members for successfully defending a right we should all enjoy?" This would be a great question, if it wasn't based on a false assumption. The assumption is that we should all have a right to health insurance **under the current model.** You know, the one where insured Americans and their employers pony up for double-digit inflation annually, not to insure themselves against medical crisis, but to "ensure" access to health benefits. And, of course, be denied coverage if they have an expensive claim and some paperwork doesn't line up just right. No. We should be fighting in my opinion, as *citizens,* for national health care. You know, like the rest of the civilized world, which we subsidize with our overpriced prescription drugs just to leave 50 million of our own uninsured. But that fight was waged publicly, and lets face it: the citizenry failed. Blame the lack of leadership, blame Republicans, blame the President, but the bottom line is that we didn't get the critical mass in this country to gain a single payer system. Lets get something straight. Health *insurance* should be about mitigating risk. Every single one of us has a different level of risk to mitigate. No one insurance plan is a good fit for any large group of people. A healthy 20 year old likely has different needs than a 45 yr old overweight diabetic on blood pressure meds. But unions fight for the same insurance for their entire membership. Private companies typically make the same mistake. It is a fundamental error that has massive repercussions. Because, to "do right" by any group of employees, they end of lobbying to cover *everyone* in a way that doesn't screw over *anyone.* Imagine if homes were insured that way, and everyone in Buffalo automatically got flood insurance and earthquake insurance!!! Those near Cazenovia creek would be loving it, and the rest of us would be OVERINSURED. Buying more insurance than you need is bad, but its even worse when that insurance goes up 15-25% ANNUALLY! Your car insurance doesn't pay for your tune-up or oil change, it covers you if you have an accident. It mitigates risk. So lets be straight. Public unions don't represent all of us. Taxpayers represent all of us. We all pay for these public union benefits, out of our own paychecks, that keep getting squeezed by our own personal rising health insurance costs. That is how you get "proletarian vs. proletarian" here. Unfortunate, but very reasonable given the circumstances. I'm not making an anti-union argument. Imagine if, instead of insisting on Cadillac plans for all, the unions lobbied for a sizable DOLLAR AMOUNT that would become a defined CONTRIBUTION to their health insurance costs. It could follow annual inflation, not this unsustainable model that would result in benefits costing more than wages in a decade. I wonder what that contribution would end up being monthly? Do you know how much your employer pays towards your health insurance? Ask them, they probably hate the fact you have no idea. There is actually an incredibly innovative company right here in Buffalo that has built what may be the very solution to delivering on this change. They're called Liazon, on the 700 block of Main St downtown. CNN covered them here: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/smallbusiness/0901/gallery.health_care_entrepreneurs.smb/2.html . With their technology and a common-sense approach, each member could choose exactly what coverage was right for them, and we wouldn't be facing (as taxpayers as well as individual employees!) this exponential, unsustainable cost increase. The diabetic chooses the rich co-pay plan. The young teacher gets a high-deductible and puts $500 a month in an interest-bearing HSA, or gets great dental insurance, or even spends the balance on pet insurance for her cat (you can do that with Liazon's program, I did!) Our country needs a national fix. In the meantime, lets work with dollars and make insurance work the way it is supposed to. You can't buy "health," you can only insure against the cost of care when health fails. Save the sound bites and have real conversations with your neighbors and employers. "Drill Baby Drill" and "Unionize Everybody" sound like invitations to stop thinking when they hit these ears.
Francisco D'anconia 17 Mar 2011, 20:46 "There is actually an incredibly innovative company right here in Buffalo that has built what may be the very solution to delivering on this change. They're called Liazon, on the 700 block of Main St downtown. CNN covered them here: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/smallbusiness/0901/gallery.health_care_ entrepreneurs.smb/2.html." Same old niche market gimmick, in the name of diversity: Tailor the service to the individual. What sort of efficiency are you going to sell us when market costs catch back up with the marvelous savings? A software program that works with Fidelis and JPMorganChase to track your co-pays along with your foodstamps? Maybe, you've got a nice government contract position lined up, already, to become a "liazon" with social services. Moron.
Ryan 17 Mar 2011, 21:31
Francisco D'anconia, you are suggesting that over-insuring 70-80% of employee groups (while under-insuring 10%) is preferable to giving people dollars with which to make choices based on their own needs? Because that is what happens today when employers offer 1 or 2 (maybe 3) plans to their workforce. Sounds like you are either a traditional broker defending a broken status quo which makes you rich, or perhaps more aligned with a communist philosophy, thinking only big brother can determine the right insurance for every citizen. I'm not sure if you failed to understand the book "Atlas Shrugged," but your assumptions on how my personal health coverage works show you (at the very least) make lousy assumptions on topics you lack information on. Ayn Rand supported a capitalist free market. Perhaps you should consider what that would look like. The savings come from people making rational decisions when their own money is at stake. Most people don't know the list cost of their drugs, how much procedures cost, what their total insurance rate is, or even how much in being withheld from their weekly paycheck. Does that sound like free market capitalism? People need to make decisions with their dollars so they have skin in the game. If you get blanket coverage, it only rewards you for going out and getting that plastic surgery you're covered for. Your position is untenable and betrays the "objectivism" (archaic as it may be) suggested by your handle. Also, I should mention I'm not employed by Liazon. I'm a benefactor of better insurance because my employer broke a long-time relationship with his broker to give me and my co-workers better choices. I'm not a Dem or Repub either, just keeping it real.
Francisco D'anconia 17 Mar 2011, 22:08
No, Señor Madoff. I am stating what I have said. Your failed dustbin schemes are an inroad for you to begin doing business with the government once your failed mixed economy falls to bottom, once again. But, there is no more money. You do not have a basic understanding of the blurb terms which you bandy about, except in the childish way that you use them. You are ignorantly presenting mixed economy ideas here from only the private standpoint. Nor can you failed old looters present objectivism as an archaic ideology in the sense which you imply, until it is actually tried, any more than your own ideas can be presented as new. Today, is our time. Not, yours. You lost two years, ago. Perhaps, some day you will have both the heart and the mind to see how foolish you look in the 80s mullet that you try to bring back, today.
Ryan 17 Mar 2011, 22:29
Dude, Rush (the band) was writing lyrics about Ayn Rand's irrelevance in the 70s. You are off on so many bases. I'm not in the health care industry, I'm just more well read than you. Chew on this and see if you can digest its meaning, hot off the presses! http://www.iscebs.org/Resources/BQ/Documents/bq111g.pdf I work in the private industry, for the private sector. Ironically, unions and governments will be the last to adopt the defined contribution model, because unions will (incorrectly) perceive it as a loss for their members. They'd rather fight for the richest plan for all, than consider a defined contribution that offers dollars and responsible choice. I sold a transportation software to school districts for a year about 15 years ago, that was quite enough interaction with the public sector for me thank you. What is it you do comrade? Did I hit a nerve with the broker assertion? I've shared what I cared to share here, feel free to reply behind whatever handle makes you look sillier. Don't address the info in that PDF though, you'd have to come to grips with an ego shattered by reality! Now is the time for integral thinkers, not those who only speak for the comfort of their own voice.
Francisco D'anconia 17 Mar 2011, 23:05
You are obviously a silly aging looter and pretender who know nothing of which he speaks - including what Atlas Shrugged was about; except, to sling around "no nonsense" business phrases that lend you some of what you call "dollar sense", and except that you do not know the value of the dollar which pays for your copy of that fine book. A capitalist could care less what songs a fantasy pop band wrote about the real world for the dirty union children whose parents voted for LBJ. A capitalist is certainly is not a comrade unless your tired out mindset is having a Freudian slip as to how you do business. "Integral" thinking was what gave us such creative instruments that we saw the results of two years ago, and is what betrays your willingless to deal with government money, Mr. Mullet. If there is any ego here for reality to shatter then I suggest that you will discover it once Wisconsin's legislation spreads across this country and leaves you without the clients, who are paid without government money, who can afford enough of your "integral" policies for you to buy one, yourself. Also, I suggest that you learn to read financial information written for adults and not by looter industry newletters. Apparently, someone gave you a job.
Joe 17 Mar 2011, 23:18
Sounds like the Psych ward let the paranoid schitzos out for a walk in the nice weather today. Put down the Charlie Sheen you're smokin there Frank!
Generation X 17 Mar 2011, 23:38
Sounds like the unemployed, paranoid schitzo, drug rehab counselors are trolling from the midwest again. Nothing the shock therapy of a broken jaw couldn't fix though. ;)
Ayn 18 Mar 2011, 10:26
LOL Francisco, i loved it! Very clever an' intelligent :)
Megan 18 Mar 2011, 10:51
Wow, someone actually posted relevant information, and got shelled for it. That's depressing. Thanks for sharing Ryan, what you're talking about makes perfect sense to this capitalist. Don't mind the bible thumper (Atlas thumper?). Its like telling a born-again about being good to their neighbor, and having them tell you that being good to your neighbor is a scam and the Bible says you're going to hell. The ironing is delicious!
Francisco D'anconia 18 Mar 2011, 12:55
Thank you, Señora Ayn. The old looter was really just a troll who could not hold a discussion on the subject that he was faking his knowledge. He is really what Señor Generation X suggested: an old drug rehabilitation counselor who has lost his license for dealing in drugs with patients after there was a death. He is trolling a person here as well as in other groups where he stalks him. He is a blood sucking social worker of misery who knows only to live off of people's taxes. He could not be honest that they wish for government money to subsidize their counterfeit enterprises. They wish to call it shopping in the private market but the people who will "shop" will use government money. This is assuredly what Señor Niman expects it to be. It will assuredly be the Señor Nimans who cause it to come about unless we stop this madness. BTW, Señora Ayn, I very much enjoyed your book. It is a book whose time has come.
Tiger Blood 18 Mar 2011, 13:24
Odds Francisco, GenX and Ayn are the same person? I'd say 99%. You got it wrong Joe, its multiple personality disorder!
Chris 18 Mar 2011, 13:32
The odds sure are that for Ryan, Joe, Megan and TB. Go away trolls and leave our forums in peace. Interesting points, Francisco.
Fred 19 Mar 2011, 17:17
Good point about where were the unions when every other job was going down the crapper? Kept awful quite didn't they, now we are all suppose to believe they will save us all with their fight for what is right. It is simply exhausting.
Cortney 21 Mar 2011, 09:22
Hey Dr. Niman, There's a great historical 3 word meme that I'm a little more fond of. "One Big Union!" Unionize sounds like an action that is taken to alter something from the outside. Organization starts with the individual and ripples outward. Union building must be something we do, and not something done to us. Trade unions are divisional and crippled by corrupted management, which is what you get when you allow yourself to be "unionized" with the same mentality you'd put toward having your teeth cleaned or your car washed. It can't be done for you or to you and remain yours. Thank-you for your article and your efforts. Keep saying it, no matter how you say it. One Big Union.
Marc 21 Mar 2011, 11:41
@Francisco: For a long time there has been a series of strange commentators trolling the Artvoice who suddenly appeared and didn't seem to belong here. Their pointless comments are always sophisticated, perpicuous but maddeningly vapid. I never see any specific point or ideological position that they are trying to share with us or promote. Their offbeat commentary is philosophical, sophisticated and smacks strongly of a manipulator who is fishing for ideas that he can use to control others. Back in the day I and some close friends from that field used to prank each other a lot and a couple of things that I learned from them was how to spot when someone was pulling some psychotherapy on another and when they are doing it to hide behind a fortress of insecurity.
Kate 21 Mar 2011, 13:50
You guys who are trashing him for lack of objectivity do know the difference between an opinion piece and straight news reporting, right? This column has never pretended to be anything but one person's opinion. I don't want to get into the mudwrestling match about whether he's right, wrong, or missing another side of the argument (although I really needed the laugh provided by the commentor who pointed out how oppressed white males are in today's society, thanks!). But these are merely Niman's views. Someone's views are, by definition, not objective.
Turin 21 Mar 2011, 17:11
For the benefit of others ...within the Men's Movement, Paul "the Shill" Elam is a huge asshole and a known feminist counter-insurgent. ("Kate", could probably tell you...). His brand of noise is patriarchal reconstructionism for feminism. He makes some nice speeches for the MM, that have true merit, but, he has absolutely nothing to do with any genuine Men's Activism or the movement. Elam is one of the loudest attention grabbing media circus clowns you'll find impersonating a Men's Rights Activist. He spends massive amounts of his time and energy stalking and trolling legitimate MRAs, and using wedge tactics to divide any forum, whatsoever, that he can Google up any of their activity ...That is why the Artvoice forums have been disrupted ...as Marc - astutely - pointed out.... and, there be your culprit, as well, Marc.
Union Supporter 22 Mar 2011, 08:15
To Voice of Men,if you didn't have discrimination,you wouldn't need affirmitive action now would you? I wouldn't write you off totally as racist,actually more ignorant than anything else.
Paul - Voice For Men 22 Mar 2011, 09:22
To Union Supporter, if you didn't have affirmative action, you wouldn't need discrimination now would you? I wouldn't write you off totally as ignorant, actually more racist than anything else. Go read some Helen Thomas, boy.
Ryan 22 Mar 2011, 09:36
Anyone want to drop the ad hominem attacks and talk about health care again? Who here thinks that double digit inflation can be sustained over the next 5 to 10 years? Should we write a blank check to cover it, or try to fix it? Here's a comparison: the cost of college. Our education system is failing in a similar way to our health care. But we are so *committed* to giving our kids that holy grail of a college education, that we are willing to suggest to them they mortgage their futures to get that degree. Which is, in so many (not all!) cases, utterly worthless. But based on this blind commitment to higher education, the price can skyrocket year after year. So long as people will pay without question, the market will allow for astronomical cost increases. We saw this in housing too. The only person that can correct this is the informed consumer. All future savings in healthcare will be consumer driven, because this is the only side where it is possible. Until people know: what their insurance costs their employer, what their medical bills really are (not just their co-pays), and start making personal choices based on personal cost, we will continue to spiral out of control. Said another way: if the user/consumer doesn't have skin in the game, they won't do their part to control costs. We need patients asking their doctors what things cost. If they can keep that money in their HSA earning interest, and not pay for an MRI that likely isn't necessary, they should be making those type of consumer decisions. I'm not sure why this idea is controversial, but I'd suggest an honest, courteous discussion about it. There are real savings when you allow people to make choices. They aren't simply shifting cost when they choose to opt-out of a broken system and save their health funds for true emergencies. My apologies for fueling the back-and-forth above. Anyone can see my name and email, it is my real name and I live in the city. This was the first time I decided to write something on this discussion board. Regardless of responses, I'll refrain from any personal retaliations in hopes that people actually discuss the issues and not their agendas.
Francisco D'anconia 22 Mar 2011, 09:49
Same old niche market gimmick, in the name of diversity: Tailor the service to the individual. What sort of efficiency are you going to sell us when market costs catch back up with the marvelous savings? A software program that works with Fidelis and JPMorganChase to track your co-pays along with your foodstamps? Maybe, you've got a nice government contract position lined up, already, to become a "liazon" with social services. You're shilling was already discussed. If you want to write monologues, here, then at least don't insult us by pretending that you want feedback. There's the door.
Ryan 22 Mar 2011, 10:17
When you suggest there are market costs that will catch up to savings, that makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't pay $1000 for an MRI they don't need, that someone else will pay $2000 for it? And you completely lost me on tracking co-pays and foodstamps. My HSA is at Keybank, I pay my medical expenses out of it that aren't covered by my insurance.
Francisco D'anconia 22 Mar 2011, 10:53
I doubt that the world, in general, makes any sense to you...
Ryan 22 Mar 2011, 10:58
Please answer as to whether you believe prices go up when consumption goes down.
Francisco D'anconia 22 Mar 2011, 11:04
Oh, I'll deign to answer troll-questions, when you have responded to those inconvenient points that have already been made ...which, you have been side-stepping.
Don 22 Mar 2011, 11:12
Sandy Beach & Rush Limbauh < What an example of two of the biggest blow hards in north America. They never let any one who calls in disagree with them. they cut them off . They used to let people talk . Limbaugh is nothing more than a drug user & Beach nothing more than blow hard . BEACH WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE HE DOESNT HAVE PAID HEALTH INSURANCE .Some day people will see you two for what you are,till them good luck with your ratings . Ied like everyone to turn you off. Im sure youll pick this apart . That what you do . You do it well . Try talking reality . Thanks for trying to kill unions ! Its not going to work we will put you out of work first.
Marc 22 Mar 2011, 11:21
LOL. Told you, Francisco.
Ryan 22 Mar 2011, 11:33
So now that we've established that there are no "market costs catching back up with the savings," what else should I address?
Francisco D'anconia 22 Mar 2011, 11:46
Yes, I see what you mean, Marc. Oh look, now the troll does understand the topic ...but, still refuses to address it.
normal small guy 21 May 2011, 00:14
What ever happened to working hard for a living and NOT getting paid FOR SOMETHING YOU DIDNT WORK FOR! You want something you DIDNT work for? Join a "modern day union" Work less and get paid more! Thanks president O, just spreading the wealth, and you dont even have TO WORK FOR IT!!!! You DA MAN!
|
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v10n11 (Week of Thursday, March 17th) > Unionize Everybody! This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Artvoice TV • Events Calendar • Classifieds |