Post Office + unions = millions for idleness

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Oct 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    Many Americans may be outraged to find out that while the United States Postal Service is facing a $7 billion deficit this year and receiving a $4 billion bailout from Congress, the government agency is spending more than a million dollars each week to pay thousands of employees to sit in empty rooms and do nothing.



    The Federal Times reports the Postal Service is paying out 45,000 hours of "standby time" every week -- the equivalent of having 1,125 full-time employees sitting idle, at a cost of more than $50 million a year. Postal union officials estimate that 15,000 employees have spent time this year holed up in so-called "resource rooms" where they read books, do word puzzles, or sleep -- and get paid for it.

    Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute, says the Postal Service is experiencing serious financial woes in large part because 80 percent of its cost is tied up in labor.

    Tad DeHaven (Cato Institute)"The Postal Service labor force is heavily unionized," he points out, "and the fact that they can't set aside these people or fire people, or reduce wages or time, or furlough [them] or anything, is all a function of the union contracts that they operate under."

    More Here
     
  2. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    This quote tell the story,
    "Now in the private sector, businesses have to adapt. They have to change their model; they have to unfortunately get rid of workers sometimes and rebuild their business model and adapt to the times," he explains. "Well, the Post Office is hamstrung -- and I almost feel bad for the management. They know what they need to do, to some degree, but they can't do it because of collective bargaining and unionism."

    I've been in business for my self most of my working life, except for the years as a pastor. Being in business is a moving target, one is always having to change, due to business and the government. It is much harder with union labor.

    I don't blame it all on the unions, there has been much bad management to go along with it. An owner of a business run it much better in my eyes than hired help, when it is your money one could lose one sees it differently.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    When was the contract signed and when does it expire?
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not disputing the story particulars, but I'm disputing the source. The OP is citing OneNewsNow. OneNewsNow is quoting the Federal Times, but the Federal Times is a political gossip tabloid. Regardless of the story, should we really be getting information from tabloids? Scripturally, that's akin to engaging in gossip and rumor.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    Nice adhominem


    Nothing hear is "akin" to gossip. But such an idea does support your adhominem well. :thumbs: And could not be more off topic.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's your definition of ad hominem? I think you should stick to the real definition. But you're right, it's not akin to gossip. If something comes from a gossip magazine, it IS gossip, and since Christians are forbidden from gossiping, they should refrain.

    As for being off topic, as you're so fond of saying: listen bub, you don't get to decide what's off topic.
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    Actually i do since I started the thread. But the truth is it is obvious that it is off topic and an adhominem. When you attack the source rather than address the info the source provided it is an adhominem. The source does not make it gossip the information can be or may not be regardless of the source. And really your derail is immature.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, as the author of the opening post, you can request that the thread be closed by a moderator. That's pretty much it.
    That's just it. The information can't be verified. The only place it's coming from is a gossip rag. And FYI, that's not the definition of an ad hominem.
    If a gossiper gossips to you, and you repeat the information, how is it that you are not gossiping?
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    umm no that is not it.

    It is

    Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
    3. Therefore A's claim is false.

    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
    Example of Ad Hominem

    1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
    Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
    Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
    Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

    No gossip has been repeated and you continue to derail this thread. Grow up
     
    #9 Revmitchell, Oct 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2009
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ummm, yeah it is.
    Emphasis on IRRELEVANT fact. The fact that the OP source is from a gossip rag is not irrelevant.

    I find it interesting that you would condemn ad hominems, though, because you use ad hominems against liberal politicians all the time: A liberal politician makes a claim; you attach the liberal politician; therefore, the liberal politician's claims are false.
    The OP story is gossip, because it originates from a gossip rag. That makes it gossip, and unless you get get the information from a non-gossiping source, that makes you a gossiper.

    And just so we're clear, the source is NOT Cato. Cato is the source for the USPS budgetary woes. The Federal times is the source for the claim on "standy time".
     
    #10 Johnv, Oct 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2009
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    Again adhominem and false to boot. The source of information does not determine validity of truth. And your derail continues. And thanks for proving my point.
     
    #11 Revmitchell, Oct 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2009
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's clear that you don't know what an ad hominem is, and even clearer that you'll do anything to avoid that you might be in error.
    So, what you're saying is that, if a gossip magazine prints something, then we should accept it as truth?
     
    #12 Johnv, Oct 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2009
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    What is clear is you projecting your own behavior on me. And it may or may not be true. Neither is automatic but attacking the info because of the source is an adhominem as I have given the definition.
     
  14. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not taking anybody's side here, but it's not clear that anybody is projecting anything on anybody. It does, however, look like you're trying to avoid Johnv's reasonable question.

     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice try. Anyone looking at the bulk of your posts, and then at the bulk of mine, will see for themselves you frequently engage in ad hominems, and they will see that ad hominems are generally absent from my posts.

    Actually, I didn't attack the info. Doesn't matter what the info is. If it comes from a gossiping source, it's gossip. If it comes from a nongossiping source, then it's not gossip. This info comes from a gossiping source. Hence, it's gossip.

    Again, what you're saying is that, if a gossip magazine prints something, then we should accept it as truth. Yes, or no?
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    First it is not reasonable. It is not reasonable to come to that conclusion based on anything I have said. And i am not going to run around defending every liberal accusation or I would run in circles.

    Having said that the question was answered quite well in post #13
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    uh yea


    You just did in this thread. You called the info gossip...duh that is an attack on the info. Then you dismiss the info due to the source...that is an ad hominem. Of course you cannot deal with that so you work to make this about me. Deal with the info.

    It does matter the source does not determine whether or not it is gossip. Even the Enquirer gets it right from time to time.

    That is the most ridiculous assumption I have ever heard. Who ever comes to that conclusion and why? Its absurd

    And by the way the source is the Cato institute or did your read the op
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice dodge with the "liberal accusation". In reality, since scripture strictly admonishes engaging in gossip and rumor, it is a staunchly conservative Christian value to refrain from repeating stories that come from gossipping persons or publications.

    And you did not answer anything in post 13. Again, your posts so far imply that it's okay to accept something that a gossip magazine prints as truth. That's inconsistent with scripture. According to you, if the National Enquirer prints a story that says Bigfoot is a space alien, it can be believed as truth.
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    My posts imply nothing. just because you chose to read into my words does not mean "I" implied anything. Post 13 clearly answers it when I said the source does not determine truth one way or the other. That is your personal twist without reason. Who but you thinks like that? Just because a gossip magazine says it does not mean it is always automatically gossip. And again the Cato institute was quoted take time to actually read the op before speaking.
     
    #19 Revmitchell, Oct 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2009
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    All that childishness aside the source is the cato institutie not a gossip source. You actually have to read the op.

    From the op:

    Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute, says the Postal Service is experiencing serious financial woes in large part because 80 percent of its cost is tied up in labor.

    Tad DeHaven (Cato Institute)"The Postal Service labor force is heavily unionized," he points out, "and the fact that they can't set aside these people or fire people, or reduce wages or time, or furlough [them] or anything, is all a function of the union contracts that they operate under."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...