This is a proactive approach to making sure the problems that have happened elsewhere don’t happen here. You’re right, it is a good idea and i hope they do it every year.

9:17:

I have no problem with reaffirmation of an oath (or a vow for that matter) but you stated the following…..”This is a proactive approach to making sure the problems that have happened elsewhere don’t happen here”. Making sure?? Really??

Sorry but this I simply cannot buy. Give me one example of a problem that has occurred elsewhere that would have been prevented by taking the oath again. If a particular officer had a lack of focus on their oath (or did not take it seriously) the first time and that was the cause of an issue, to somehow think that their focus the second time would somehow be better is a bit of a stretch.

I must say I find it interesting that you are surprised the union steward reported no negative reactions to the idea of reaffirming the oath. Really? I know you are one of those who works hard at painting union employees as the evil Other, not a real American, etc., but c’mon. What makes you think because a police officer wants the same thing you do — a decent paycheck and benefits — that he or she is likely to repudiate the oath he or she took to serve and protect? A bit disconcerting.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Our anti-union criticism extends only to public-sector unions who, unlike private-sector unions that improved the overall conditions of the working man/woman, have done nothing but make collusion with politicians a preferred means of self-enrichment.

But we’ll gladly re-visit that position when any group of public employees, as a condition of getting the better “paycheck and benefits” they seek with every new contract, actually demonstrate in objectively quantifiable terms what NEW OR ADDITIONAL VALUE they provided during the term of the previous contract – like most private-sector employees need to do as a condition for getting their raise, bonus or increased benefits.

And that’s working so well for our economy, right? The big dogs are pulling out their hair plugs trying to figure out why nobody’s spending enough money in their establishments. Couldn’t possibly be because, unlike the destructive ubermensches who are too big to be held accountable, the smaller and mid-sized fry are expected to be better and cheaper and faster just to stay even. And when they can’t and don’t, what better reason to pocket the extra and buy the honey du jour another summer home? Why aren’t the people spending like they should be? Or as they should be? Take another mega-seminar (tax deductible, of course) and get yet another opinion, as long as it’s not the obvious. And please, don’t insult everyone with the utter nonsense that public sector unions are all about self-enriching via political clout. Even you must see that the Croch Brothers et all are the ones enriching themselves with political influence. The public sector employees aren’t even in the running when it comes to that.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Whoa, don’t bring the class war home with you on holiday leave.

The “smaller and mid-sized fry” have always had to be “better and cheaper and faster” than the “ubermensches” [sic], and that’s the way it should be – otherwise you have stagnation instead of progress as BOTH the top dogs AND the littler dogs sit on their haunches rather than become better/cheaper/faster.

The top 1% already pay nearly 47% of all federal income taxes, up from 40% in 2012, while the bottom 80% pay roughly 15% – with the bottom 60% paying less than 2%, due primarily to the increase in the number and scope of refundable and standard tax credits.

Combine that with local government employees being 41.9 percent unionized (compared to 29.8 percent at the state level and 27.5 percent at the federal level) and union campaign contributions and boots-on-the-ground for local elections have a disproportionately larger effect, especially given the customary lower turnout for local elections.

Finally, if you look at the State Board of Elections reports for the 2013 mayoral election, you won’t find a contribution by the “Croch Brothers” [sic], but you will see a $1,000 one – to Larry Ryles – from Local 150. Go figure.

Well, ole Lar was in the service, so he probably seemed a likelier prospect for believing in the power of gubmint employees working together. Or so Local 150 musta thought. And given that the top 1% is taking home 99% of the revenues, it’s not so painful to think of them paying 47% of the taxes, if that’s even true. Did you include the gazillions in uncollected and offshored and hidden revenues, btw? I’d expect that the 47% you cite is what their income indicates they should be paying, not what they are paying. And your croc tears about the nice unions in the private sector are equally iffy — it’s a safe position to take now that the 1% and their ilk has given so much to right-wing pols in their anti-union legislating that a mere 6% of private sector employees enjoy union protection today. Not very impactful on wages overall. The kind of odds you and yours like, eh?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Or he believes in early retirement and a sweet government pension that serves as his economic basis while he embarks on second and third careers.

Depending on whose stats you believe, the Top 1% accounts for around 20% of the country’s Adjusted Gross Income, so they pay far more in taxes than their earnings would suggest. And their effective tax rate is the highest, notwithstanding all the tax loopholes class warfare types like yourself suggest they utilize.

You’re being disingenuous again.Of course their tax rate, effective or otherwise, is the highest. We still have a nominally progressive income tax in which those who make the most pay the largest percentage of their income. But even you must understand that 20%, say of $40K is a hell of a lot bigger bite in your daily existence than 30% is of $400K. Nobody is paying the big taxes they were when you and I were young, Maggie. Nobody. And while novelty items, fashions and electronics are cheap because they’re made by even more benighted workers elsewhere, the stuff that really matters is well nigh unaffordable. I’m talking about housing (rent or own), college (as most high school level jobs don’t pay living wages anymore) and health care (better under the ACA, still lousy for those in red states. Many Park Ridge redwingers (like it?) are standing on the shoulders of their union-employee granddads and dads. But of course, “things were different then.” They certainly were!

EDITOR’S NOTE: More class warfare.

But let’s cut to the chase: the reason “[m]any Park Ridgians” of ALL political stripes “are standing on the shoulders of their union-employee granddads and dads” is because those granddads and dads wanted, and even demanded, that their kids rise above those difficult, dirty, dangerous, often dead-end jobs by going to college and getting the degree that was viewed as the ticket to a “better life.”

But unlike you whiny and bitter class warriors today, most of those same granddads and dads – who didn’t like taxes any more than their children and grandchildren – didn’t spend all their waking hours resenting those who already achieved that “better life.”

Oh, yeah? It’s one thing to revise history; you’re rewriting it all together, as befits your overall allegiance to all things Faux. And I say that as someone who’s worked white collar always, never in a union; no, not even ever on a timecard, nor did any of my forebears. Nevertheless, I leave you in the grace and favor of the Lord.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Then, Mr/Ms. multi-generational white collar, you should leave the discussion about unions – the real PRIVATE-SECTOR, BLUE-COLLAR UNIONS, not those public-sector white-collar frauds you seem to favor – to those who actually have held a union card (or two or three), and who know far more about the history and reality of the trade union movement than what you may have learned in one or two undergrad history courses.

Um, some of us don’t have to have personal experience with a situation to be able to understand and appreciate it. For a kollich-educated guy, you don’t have much faith in the value of learning by reading, observation, discussion, interviewing, yada, yada. Or is that distain only useful when you’re grasping at straws? Battening on my personal creds ignores the really, really big elephant in the living room. So throw another tea cozy on top of it. I don’t blame you for not defending the indefensible. And it’s not the schmoe who fixes your sink. It’s the guy who makes your house lose 40% of its value in one year while he hies himself off to the Caribbean bordellos.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes you do, as demonstrated by your apparent cluelessness on these union issues, “schmoe[s]” and “Caribbean bordellos” notwithstanding.

And if I’d said I come from a long line of proud union workers, you’d have used that statement to try to discredit my view — “of course you’d say that!”
I do love the ” whiny and bitter class warrior” line, however. And here I thought “bitter” only applied to “bra-burners,” and “whiny” only applied to “welfare queens.” I’m sure your attempts at insult scare some people away from fact-based discussions, so lay on, MacDuff!

EDITOR’S NOTE: The problem is that so long as you remain anonymous, things like your alleged personal “background” are unverifiable.

We’ve never called “bra-burners” anything, much less “bitter”; and we don’t believe we’ve ever characterized “welfare queens” as “whiny.”

But anybody who comments anonymously but then gets scared away by insults is probably also scared by their own shadows.