Lets finally get rid of all unions!

haha nice try, but that isn't true. Insurance companies and pharmacies run up the prices, Pharma companies discount both and even help offset costs. and Not everyone makes a ton, the people at the top do. And not all pharma companies manufacture in the US, many do overseas. When a drug goes generic that is when the cheapest bidder comes to vision.

WE make a lot because we work harder than the rubber room people, the union people who can slack off because they have "union protection", who don't have to shovel the snow because they are union, instead they will let a 60 year old man out there do it for 15 hours...taking 10 years to fix a bridge to use up and get more budget money. Im sorry but there is NO WAY possible a union construction worker with overtime should make more than a Doctor.

Pharmaceutical companies suck off the government teat. They slash R&D to the barebones and then use the government to do all of their research and early drug development.

Shanene123 wrote:

A pay for performance culture should be considered---I work in Pharmaceuticals and if anyoe wonders why we make so much $$$, this is why. It is a great motivator, and quite honestly theres no room for slacking---the better you perform the more you make, its very simple BUT very effective. Rubber rooms should be eliminated, were paying for multiple offenders to sit in a dunce cap room with full pay as if thats supposed to teach them a lesson. Who's gonna complain about full pay and not working? NONE of them!!

good one Aghast, but not true. Pharma companies are required to have R/D to manufacture drugs. It seems to be everyone is trying to come up with any kind of excuse for why the Government and Economy are the way they are except for the FACT, the Republicans destoyed it all. They have no regard for middle class, only their pockets and keeping the wealthy actually wealthy since they are the ones that fund their own campaigns, etc.

Who in their right mind would vote for Bush again if he could run except for the Republicans and hillbillys with guns? Who would actually vote for Palin except for these same people? Beck--same thing...

they need the money, and will fight tooth and nail to keep unions, prevent pharma companies from keeping profits that they MADE and not stole from others, and do anything to try and stay in power...those days are coming to a close

1. Construction workers aren't making more than doctors

2. Teachers aren't highly paid because this country doesn't value education very much. If it did, they would be paid more. There's a big difference between being a sales rep, where you're paid on commission, and a teacher, where

1. Construction workers aren't making more than doctors

2. Teachers aren't highly paid because this country doesn't value education very much. If it did, they would be paid more. There's a big difference between being a sales rep, where you're paid on commission, and a teacher, where incentive-based pay doesn't work.

I would just like to say I'm a nurse and don't have any union affiliation.

I live in st.Louis and I know of people that belong to unions not public but private unions . I do believe that unions have there place, if we were to go right to work I believe that we would be killing jobs not creating them let's be honest it would only be a matter of time before all the company's got rid of the middle class workers to hire in expensive cheap labor primarily with construction based jobs . Probably illegal aliens that dont pay taxes like all the other rite to work states do. I know a union electrical and asked what he made per hr he said 25.75 hr plus pension , now in my opinion he is not going to get rich off that income rather live modestly and retire with some income. I believe that that is fare for a person that works a job that is not located in the most favorable conditions hottest of hot coldest of cold breathing substances that cause health problems and labor jobs are hard on the body.

So the point of a union is to get the best shake possible, at the expense of the party accross the table. Granted, they supposedly help increase communication, moral, etc., but by and large, that's the goal. Winning more of the pie in a zero-sum game. In a corporation, the other party is shareholders. The goal is to capture more of the profit.

For public service unions, the other party is the public, i.e. voters, us.

The point of a public service union is to benefit members at the expense of the public.

Why should we, the public, support a group whose sole purpose is to screw us over?

Beats me!

You do know that the states with the strongest teachers unions on average have the highest achieving students. Not necessarily saying its because of the Unions but it is an interesting figure. Look at the states that have no teachers unions and they are usually in the bottom half in achievement.

But hey lets just keep blaming all of our problems on teachers unions.

Please.

Actually it is true. Just look at Pfizer, they are cutting R&D to the bone. At the same time the NIH is starting a new drug discovery program to bring drugs through phase I. Pharma companies benefit from the basic research the government does that they won't or can't do. Now they are starting to rely on the government for drug discovery too.

e.g. -http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110209/full/470154a.htmlWith key patents about to expire, Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company in terms of sales, unveiled plans to slash its research and development (R&D) spending by billions and cut thousands of jobs.The latest parade of annual results shows that although profits are buoyant for now, companies are increasingly reluctant to sink money into R&D pipelines, which have been slow to yield new drugs. Instead, share buy-backs — which boost share prices and please investors — and outsourcing R&D are in vogue."The pharma industry is deciding its core capabilities are marketing and dealing with regulatory bodies," says Judy Slinn, a business historian at Oxford Brookes University, UK. "Pharma companies will still do development work. They won't do discovery."

The reason pharma won't do research is because the FDA approval process is too burdensome. The FDA has always been the biggest impediment to medical progress in the USA.

Get the government out of the way and watch biotechnology thrive, and also watch big pharma lose its iron grip on medical knowledge.

This must be a joke. It is important that the companies demonstrate that their products are:1) Non-toxic / Safe (at least in the short term)2) Effective at treating the disease it targets3) Using large clinical trials that it is better then a placebo.If you didn't have the FDA then drug companies would only do the first phase. If the drug was not overtly toxic then they would put it on the market, caveat emptor.

a bioengineer wrote:

The reason pharma won't do research is because the FDA approval process is too burdensome. The FDA has always been the biggest impediment to medical progress in the USA.

Get the government out of the way and watch biotechnology thrive, and also watch big pharma lose its iron grip on medical knowledge.

youguysshould wrote:

So the point of a union is to get the best shake possible, at the expense of the party accross the table. Granted, they supposedly help increase communication, moral, etc., but by and large, that's the goal. Winning more of the pie in a zero-sum game. In a corporation, the other party is shareholders. The goal is to capture more of the profit.

For public service unions, the other party is the public, i.e. voters, us.

The point of a public service union is to benefit members at the expense of the public.

Why should we, the public, support a group whose sole purpose is to screw us over?

Beats me!

Screw us over? Public employees aren't paid crazy salaries. The average cop makes about $50,000/year, teachers are about the same or lower. Nobody's getting rich off these jobs. No one.

youguysshould wrote:

So the point of a union is to get the best shake possible, at the expense of the party accross the table. Granted, they supposedly help increase communication, moral, etc., but by and large, that's the goal. Winning more of the pie in a zero-sum game. In a corporation, the other party is shareholders. The goal is to capture more of the profit.

For public service unions, the other party is the public, i.e. voters, us.

The point of a public service union is to benefit members at the expense of the public.

Why should we, the public, support a group whose sole purpose is to screw us over?

Beats me!

This is a great question and a great post. I think this post is great because it expresses, in a very forthright manner, the unvarnished truth about how many people feel.

The zero-sum conceptualization, although common, is of course wrong on many different levels. It is wrong on a basic moral level (which the poster would never understand)and is wrong for the financial health of the business or the operating efficiency of the school or government.

More on this later.

Getting rid of all the unions will also drive down gasoline prices!!!!

don't bring out your monopsony argument, econ guy. lots of employers around

I have never been more proud of the Tea Party. I really didn't think they would be this effective. We need to reduce public spending by 80% and give more control back to private industry. First continue totake the legs out from the public unions then do the same to all unions.

Then start privatising of sorts of inefficiently run public services: schools, road maintenance, social security, prisons, mental health, welfare.....everything.

Get rid all all the sufficating business regulations. Unleash the creative power of private enterprise. Cut the funding of the IRS Gestapo.

This country can be great again, but only if we get government out of our lives. I just heard about a large school district in Rhode Island I think, that fired every teacher. They will hire some back based on who they want. Good bye tenure!!

I am so excited about this political change. We have a new breed of leadership. Go Walker, you can do it!

Why I loved the GOP. (and its from a liberal writer)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&hp