what not one of the union demonizing, canard quoting people can tell me is why would a union want to protect the poor performers?

Do you know who runs the local union? The folks from the same employer elected by local union members - not some nebulous union-boss bogey men in fedoras. Why would the folks that do their job and do it well want to protect people that aren't? Poor performers make more work for the people that actually do their jobs or make the whole group look bad - They'll resent the poor performers, not want them protected.

What a union will VIGOROUSLY do is protect the contract by making sure that the contract is followed - particularly language in the contract regarding discipline and dismissal. I guess to those with an anti-worker agenda this could look like protecting a bad worker, but it is making sure the rules are followed regardless of who is in the hot seat.

When I was chief steward there was an awful worker we all would rather have seen gone, they were a constant source of stress for everyone else with the poor attitude and performance that poisoned what ever office s/he was placed in. Why did s/he last for years? Because of union protection? No, it was because the so-called supervisors didn't want to follow the steps outlined to get ride of a poor worker - it was easier to transfer that loser around to different departments. S/he stayed not because of union protection, but because management refused to exercise the "management rights" they had enshrined in the contract.

Good to know that private enterprise is taking such good care of their infrastructure - so much better than anything the government might operate *snort*.

I am sure they will ask for a rate increase to perform the maintenance that they should have been doing all along - can't take that kind of money from the shareholders (owners.)

Keep the profits private and the losses public - that's the ticket.

I figure they'd not make money if people were not habitually running red lights. Don't want a ticket? Don't run the damn light.

My support for such cameras is conditional that the light timing NOT not be fscked with in order to maximize the potential of someone getting a ticket - I just want those that run the normally timed lights to feel a little pain for being is such a hurry or not leaving early enough for where they want to be.

Getting rear-ended is bad, getting T-boned is generally worse.

As a long time Sun Microsystems customer I find that shocking!

Quoting that because too many people think "exchanges" = The Affordable Care Act.

people that could not buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions now can. People that fall ill cannot have their insurance cancelled just because now they really need it. these problems have existed for DECADES and finally something has been done about it. Do I think it is the best possible plan? Hell no! But it is a better than what we had before, and better than anything that was brought up since Clinton's health care reforms went down in flames.

My current car (2005 Pontiac Bonneville GXP) and prior car (1999 Bonneville SSE) both have/had HUDs - Love 'em. My mom's 2011 Camaro also has a HUD. Speed (and engine RPM in the Camaro) are shown constantly. High beam and turn indicators illuminated when active. A "Check gauges" Warning when idiot light on or gauge amiss. The two newer cars also show limited radio/song information but only when user is changing settings.

I have really grown use to being able to seeing my speed without having to drop my eyes from the road. Shame these devices are not available in more cars. My 78 year old mom is so used to having a HUD in the car that she didn't want to buy a new car without one.

Shhh, you'll ruin the story.

oh man, I'd need a new monitor had I had a cup of coffee when I read that. That statement is just too funny for words.

always cracks me up when people whine about the ACA and "rationing" health care and "death panels" - look around, we already have them and have had them for decades - controlled by corporations out to maximize profit.

No, if they think you might have lied....or more often just because your treatments were going to cost them some money. The history of health insurance rescission is rife with cases of folks getting dropped due to the diagnosis of an expensive to treat ailment, not the discovery of some undisclosed pre-existing condition.

My last vacation I took the train (Amtrak Autotrain, Lorton VA to Sanford FL) it was a wonderful experience. Excellent service and food on the southbound trip. Northbound was...okay - I would say very good, except that the southbound trip crew was awesome.

That said, even the "okay" service on the northbound trip was FAR better than any airline experience I have ever had- even when I've flown first class.

The location I live in has "choice" for natural gas and electricity - want to guess on how much we consumers are saving because we have that "choice"?

On the other hand we do reap the benefits have having far less reliable electric service that takes far longer to recover from an outage

I love those feel-good bullshit stories about line crews from other areas going into a storm hit location to help repair the outages....the electric companies have to do this because they have laid-off so many line crews that they can't keep up with maintenance (for companies that still bother with preventative maintenance) let alone storm damage repair.

You'd think the British people would have noticed by now.