Post Office + unions = millions for idleness

[Johnv]

My posts imply nothing. just because you chose to read into my words does not mean "I" implied anything.

Boy, you'll do anything to dodge a question.

Again, are you saying that, if a gossip magazine prints something, then we should accept it as truth. Yes, or no?

Just because a gossip magazine says it does not mean it is always automatically gossip.

That's true. If a valid source says it, then it's not gossip. Please cite a valid source.

And again the Cato institute was quoted take time to actually read the op before speaking.

You might want to read the OP yourself. The Cato Institute never once validates the Federal Times claim. In fact, it you go to the Cato institute website, you cannot find anything remotely hinting to a verification of what the Federal Times is reporting.

 

[Revmitchell]

Boy, you'll do anything to dodge a question.

havent doen that yet.

Again, are you saying that, if a gossip magazine prints something, then we should accept it as truth. Yes, or no?

Again for the umpteenth time it may or may not eb true the source is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.

That's true. If a valid source says it, then it's not gossip. Please cite a valid source.

I did the cato institute is the source for the majority of the article. The one paragraph you are focusing on adds very little and you are not credible as to whether or not it is a gossip source. I had never heard of it.

You might want to read the OP yourself. The Cato Institute never once validates the Federal Times claim.

The cato institute is the source for the majority of the article in the op. Read it.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is what you liberal do and it has been a practice on BB for quite some time now. When you don't like the info you derail with an adhominem at the source.

 

[Johnv]

I did the cato institute is the source for the majority of the article.

Now you're dancing. First you try the "ad hominem" claim, and when you can't make that stick, you try the "liberal" claim, and when you can't make that stick, now you're trying the "oh, uh, Cato was mentioned, yeah that it, they're the source" dance.

The one paragraph you are focusing on adds very little and you are not credible as to whether or not it is a gossip source.

The "one paragraph" in question is the one place that makes the claim of paid idleness, which you yourself saw fit to include in the OP title.

The cato institute is the source for the majority of the article in the op. Read it.

The De Haven from Cato Institute does not make any claim of "paid idleness". He only reports on the financial and union woes of the Postal Service. Given that he's a financial analyst, that's all he'd be commenting on.

The OP is a typical yellow journalism trick. It takes a sensationalised or fabricated claim, and wraps it in supportable facts to give the story a ring of validity.

This is what you liberal do and it has been a practice on BB for quite some time now.

Nice try, but unrighteous witch hunting won't work. Everyone on the BB knows that you call people liberals whenever you can't defend yourself or are backed into a corner. When you're done whining about them liberals, you're welcome to continue engaging in an adult converstion.

 

[Revmitchell]

Now you're dancing. First you try the "ad hominem" claim, and when you can't make that stick, you try the "liberal" claim, and when you can't make that stick, now you're trying the "oh, uh, Cato was mentioned, yeah that it, they're the source" dance.

Cato was covered in 5 paragraphs and the other one. It sticks as does the ad hominem.

The "one paragraph" in question is the one place that makes the claim of paid idleness, which you yourself saw fit to include in the OP title.

That is right i took the title form the article itself. There is more to it than just the one paragraph although it has yet to be established that the source for the one paragraph is as you say it is.

The De Haven from Cato Institute does not make any claim of "paid idleness". He only reports on the financial and union woes of the Postal Service. Given that he's a financial analyst, that's all he'd be commenting on.

Great I never said otherwise.

The OP is a typical yellow journalism trick. It takes a sensationalised[sic] or fabricated claim, and wraps it in supportable facts to give the story a ring of validity.

So says you. You have yet to prove the claim is fabricated. You are to busy relying on your fallacy.

 

[Revmitchell]

And by the way "DeHaven" from the cato institute does support the assertion form the other source:


"DeHaven says what is "doubly insulting" is that idle Postal employees are earning a paycheck from hard-working citizens who are struggling through the current recession.

 

[Johnv]

Cato was covered in 5 paragraphs and the other one. It sticks as does the ad hominem.

Nothing Cato's De Haven says valdidates what the Federal Times says. And just because you keep calling it an ad hominem doesn't make it true. Likewise, just because you deny that you use ad hominems frequently doesn't mean you don't use them.

So says you. You have yet to prove the claim is fabricated.

So, according to you, if the National Enquirer has a report that says "Bigfoot is a Space Alien", we shoudl believe it unless we can prove it's not true. The fact that they're a gossip rag doesn't mean anything.

Clearly, you don't who what gossip is. If a gossiper said it, and you can't verify it, it's gossip. The OP claim can be found no where else except the Federal Times. That makes it gossip.

 

[Revmitchell]

Deal with post #26 What idle employees do you think DeHaven is referring to other than the idle employees in the title. You go on and continue your little game. Most likely you did not read the op only saw the one source you think you know about and reacted from there. You need to just fess up and move on.

 

[Revmitchell]

And by the way the "Enquirer" a gossip paper is the one who broke the story about John Edwards. Personally I dont care about him one way or the other nor do I care for the Enquirer but the story was true and correct.

 

[Johnv]

Deal with post #26 What idle employees do you think DeHaven is referring to other than the idle employees in the title.

Read it again. None of DeHaven's quotes address it. The author of the story waeves DeHaven's qquotes with the Federal Times story to give the reader the impression.

You need to just fess up and move on.

You really should practice what you require of others.

And by the way the "Enquirer" a gossip paper is the one who broke the story about John Edwards.

Even a broken clock will tell the right time twice a day. That doesn't change the fact that it's a broken clock.

 

[Revmitchell]

Read it again. None of DeHaven's quotes address it. The author of the story waeves DeHaven's qquotes with the Federal Times story to give the reader the impression.

Address the info in post 26

 

[Johnv]

So who are the idle DHaven refers to?

See prior post. You can stop ruffling your feathers now. None of DeHaven's quotes refer to "idle" persons.

 

[Revmitchell]

See prior post. You can stop ruffling your feathers now.

Exactly you cannot refute it so you avoid it. again who are the idle employees DeHaven refers to?

 

[Johnv]

DeHaven isn't referring to any idle emyployees. The author of the story is weaving his quotes around the Federal Times source story.

 

[Revmitchell]

DeHaven isn't referring to any idle emyployees.

I will provide the quote from DeHaven one more time this is the last sentence in the article it is just above the video.

DeHaven says what is "doubly insulting" is that idle Postal employees are earning a paycheck from hard-working citizens who are struggling through the current recession.

Who are the idle employees DeHaven refers to which is underlined in the quote?

 

[Johnv]

I will provide the quote from DeHaven one more time

Uh, you need to learn what a quote is. That's not a quote.

 

[Revmitchell]

Uh, you need to learn what a quote is. That's not a quote.

 

[Johnv]

Very funny, considering your'e the one who's dancing.

 

[targus]

I have done a little looking around on the internet and what I gather is that when there are no customers lined up in the post office one or more of the counter employees leaves the counter and goes to the "standby room" and is logged in the records as being on "standby time".

When a line of customers starts to grow an employee comes from the standby room to the front counter to wait on customers.

The post office is recording "standby time" for purposes of projections for downsizing the workforce.

The postal employees don't like being reported as on standby time because they are worried about the union workforce being reduced at the next contract date.

I find the above to be credible based on my own experience at the post office. When I walk into our local post office if the one person working at the counter is busy with a customer another worker instanly shows up.

When I am being waited on at the counter if another customer leaves and there are no other customers in line the other worker instantly leaves the counter area.

I personally doubt that there are postal workers that are paid to simply sit all day in a standby room while other employees are working and customers are waiting.

 

[Revmitchell]

The point that DeHaven makes is that regular companies make changes to their business model when needed. They change their plans and get rid of employees to assist with the needed changes in the company. However, with union organizations such as the Post office they are held back from making changes to do away with idle employees when necessary because of unions. That is the entire point of this article.