As I understand the issue that has the public employees unions' collective panties wadded up their crack is that they are being asked to shoulder some of their health care and pension benefits and that the union could no longer collectively bargain for benefits. I have posted some dooshbaggery by some of the teacher protesters, including their using their students as props. Now, we have dem state senators hiding out in another state in order to prevent a vote on the bill at issue (remember Texas officials hiding out in Oklahoma a few years back to avoid a vote on redistricting?).
I posted no links since there are numerous out there. If anyone is interested, Drudge is all over this.
Here is a vid of one of these runaway/obstructionist senators being questioned by a tea partier:
He refuses to negotiate with any public employee unions...any negotiation. He instead has press conferences where he demand they give up their collective bargaing rights.
Then he has said if he doesn't get his way, he will take away Medicaid benefits to 200,000 children.
Then he said if people protest him, he will call out the National Guard.
He is a bully, a creep, and threatens those who oppose him.
Of course he is your hero.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 17, 2011, 09:04:08 PM
He refuses to negotiate with any public employee unions...any negotiation. He instead has press conferences where he demand they give up their collective bargaing rights.
Then he has said if he doesn't get his way, he will take away Medicaid benefits to 200,000 children.
Then he said if people protest him, he will call out the National Guard.
He is a bully, a creep, and threatens those who oppose him.
Of course he is your hero.
I saw him eating baby brains.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 17, 2011, 09:04:08 PM
He refuses to negotiate with any public employee unions...any negotiation. He instead has press conferences where he demand they give up their collective bargaing rights.
Then he has said if he doesn't get his way, he will take away Medicaid benefits to 200,000 children.
Then he said if people protest him, he will call out the National Guard.
He is a bully, a creep, and threatens those who oppose him.
Of course he is your hero.
What is the National Guard supposed to do if they are mobilized? Shoot the protesters? Please explain. As for being a bully, the fact that he is trying to cover billion plus shortfall by not raising taxes makes him such?
RM, you are a big education guy. What do you think about these teachers calling in "sick", thus depriving Wisconsin's children from learning, and then dragging their students to join their little protest? Knowing of course that teachers are your heroes.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 17, 2011, 09:04:08 PM
He refuses to negotiate with any public employee unions...any negotiation.
Save me some time. Have the public employee unions agreed to negotiate or are they only willing to re-state their demands?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 17, 2011, 09:13:18 PM
I saw him eating baby brains.
And shooting kittens.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/satisfaction-production/s3_images/371/kitten-gun_inline.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on February 17, 2011, 09:14:25 PM
What is the National Guard supposed to do if they are mobilized? Shoot the protesters? Please explain. As for being a bully, the fact that he is trying to cover billion plus shortfall by not raising taxes makes him such?
RM, you are a big education guy. What do you think about these teachers calling in "sick", thus depriving Wisconsin's children from learning, and then dragging their students to join their little protest? Knowing of course that teachers are your heroes.
It did disturb me that teachers all called in sick.
"Dragging" their students is a little over the top. Those students wanted any excuse to skip class.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 17, 2011, 09:17:39 PM
It did disturb me that teachers all called in sick.
"Dragging" their students is a little over the top. Those students wanted any excuse to skip class.
And listening to the sound bites, sounds like a lot of the kids had no idea what or why they were protesting. They were just glad to be out of school.
It is Wisconsin.
He just told the unions to smell his dairy air.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 17, 2011, 09:19:45 PM
And listening to the sound bites, sounds like a lot of the kids had no idea what or why they were protesting. They were just glad to be out of school.
Here's the video of the teachers using their students.
What scumbags.
Good to see the shock doctrine is alive and well. (and so is guido's lack of critical thinking)
It's a $137 million deficit, bud. Moreover, until the governor and his cronies took over and decided to spend some more money to make up a crisis, there was a budget surplus. [1] (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html)
Let's not let the facts get in the way of union bashing, though. That would be communist or something.
Edited to add more facts:
Quote
Based upon the November/December reports, the administration's general fund condition
statement for 2010-11 reflects a gross ending balance (June 30, 2011) of $67.4 million and a net
balance (after consideration of the $65.0 million required statutory balance) of $2.4 million.
Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of
$56.4 million. This is $54.0 million above that of the administration's reports. The 2010-11
general fund condition statement is shown in Table 1.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf
Edited again to add: Even with the excess spending, there's still about a $100,000 surplus over and above the $65 million surplus required by state law. I hate liars, and I hate idiots who try to use the shock doctrine and don't cover their tracks. I pity the fools who fall for this smile.
Quote from: nathanm on February 17, 2011, 11:04:53 PM
Good to see the shock doctrine is alive and well. (and so is guido's lack of critical thinking)
It's a $137 million deficit, bud. Moreover, until the governor and his cronies took over and decided to spend some more money to make up a crisis, there was a budget surplus. [1] (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html)
Let's not let the facts get in the way of union bashing, though. That would be communist or something.
Edited to add more facts:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf
Edited again to add: Even with the excess spending, there's still about a $100,000 surplus over and above the $65 million surplus required by state law. I hate liars, and I hate idiots who try to use the shock doctrine and don't cover their tracks. I pity the fools who fall for this smile.
Aww. Poor unions. These dooshes are at war with the taxpayers of WI and Obama is siding with them. And give me a freakin break with this "shock doctrine" crap. I heard enough of that when stimulus and health care was at issue. BTW, I have a $3.6B figure for Wisconsin's deficit "bud".
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-on-wisconsin-budget-protests-an-assault-on-workers.html
Nice try. That's a projected future figure that isn't germane to the budget bill under discussion. As in, the fix being considered only applies to the present budget that hasn't been passed yet and isn't even under consideration.
Also, you should understand what exactly the shock doctrine is before invoking the term. Hint: The stimulus fails the test, not being a change in policy, much less a radical one.
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 09:41:51 AM
Nice try. That's a projected future figure that isn't germane to the budget bill under discussion. As in, the fix being considered only applies to the present budget that hasn't been passed yet and isn't even under consideration.
Also, you should understand what exactly the shock doctrine is before invoking the term. Hint: The stimulus fails the test, not being a change in policy, much less a radical one.
By all means genius, explain how the "shock doctrine" was not in play when Obama was telling us that if we didn't pass stimulus the world would essentially come to an end. And don't give me this "disaster capitalism" crap, unless you are of the opinion that stimulus and health care was "disaster socialism". As for my "future figure", it seems that is sure as smile germane to Walker's decision to have these public employees chip in less than their private sector employees equivalents for their health care and pensions.
I already explained it. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you choose not to understand things that conflict with your ideology.
And no, your future figure is irrelevant, as the budget bill under consideration isn't making changes to future periods, only this one. And eliminating collective bargaining rights, which is such a drastic interference with the free market, I can't comprehend how you support it. Funny how you're all for the free market when it comes to the buy side, but when it comes to the sell side you want the government to intervene and force the sellers of labor to negotiate under terms other than those they have chosen.
Robert Reich: I got yer class warfare right here, pally. (http://robertreich.org/post/3353591266)
Quote"The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class – pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don't believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class. . . .
. . .They pit average working Americans against one another, distract attention from the almost unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the top, and conceal Republican plans to further enlarge and entrench that wealth and power."
Quote from: we vs us on February 18, 2011, 11:42:37 AM
Robert Reich: I got yer class warfare right here, pally. (http://robertreich.org/post/3353591266)
From the link above:
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley.
No bias in his opinions. :)
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 18, 2011, 12:07:43 PM
No bias in his opinions.
Have you ever heard someone give an opinion with zero bias?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 18, 2011, 12:07:43 PM
From the link above:
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley.
No bias in his opinions. :)
The point really isn't to give an unbiased opinion but he's an educated academic who's served in a recent presidential administration, so he's speaking from a place of experience and knowledge. You can agree or disagree with his thesis, but the thought is interesting and not without merit.
Quote from: we vs us on February 18, 2011, 12:28:09 PM
The point really isn't to give an unbiased opinion but he's an educated academic who's served in a recent presidential administration, so he's speaking from a place of experience and knowledge. You can agree or disagree with his thesis, but the thought is interesting and not without merit.
I didn't remember his name so I followed the link and was not surprised. I would not have expected you to post something from a former member of anything Republican. I'll leave the merit option open to opinion.
Quote from: Townsend on February 18, 2011, 12:23:52 PM
Have you ever heard someone give an opinion with zero bias?
Some have more than others.
Edit:
Perhaps I should have said presentation rather than opinion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 18, 2011, 12:38:16 PM
I didn't remember his name so I followed the link and was not surprised. I would not have expected you to post something from a former member of anything Republican. I'll leave the merit option open to opinion.
What did you think of what he said?
Quote from: we vs us on February 18, 2011, 01:01:54 PM
What did you think of what he said?
I'll re-read it again at home (I scanned it briefly) and mostly what I saw were left side talking points.
Given that Wisconsin had a modest surplus when Walker became governor, and he handed out tax breaks that amounted almost exactly to the projected budget deficit, this is no more than a naked exercise in power. He wants to destroy public employee unions, but not all of them. He exempted the police, fire fighters, and highway patrol. Guess which three endorsed him during the campaign.
Regardless, a labor agreement is a contract, and it's not right that a governor can unilaterally abrogate it. I'm surprised that some here would condone such behavior, particularly since we have so many who claim to support lawful behavior. What the governor is doing is no different from a bank demanding that you pay a higher interest rate on your mortgage or face foreclosure. The terms of any labor contract are mutually agreed upon, and it's simply wrong for one party to disregard them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 18, 2011, 01:13:59 PM
I'll re-read it again at home (I scanned it briefly) and mostly what I saw were left side talking points.
Interesting. So it doesn't square with anything you know about how our politics have been playing out lately?
Quote from: Ed W on February 18, 2011, 04:33:31 PM
Given that Wisconsin had a modest surplus when Walker became governor, and he handed out tax breaks that amounted almost exactly to the projected budget deficit, this is no more than a naked exercise in power. He wants to destroy public employee unions, but not all of them. He exempted the police, fire fighters, and highway patrol. Guess which three endorsed him during the campaign.
Regardless, a labor agreement is a contract, and it's not right that a governor can unilaterally abrogate it. I'm surprised that some here would condone such behavior, particularly since we have so many who claim to support lawful behavior. What the governor is doing is no different from a bank demanding that you pay a higher interest rate on your mortgage or face foreclosure. The terms of any labor contract are mutually agreed upon, and it's simply wrong for one party to disregard them.
So are the teachers that called in sick or the fact that their conduct has resulted in school closings in breach of contract? How do the taxpayers recover damages for that conduct?
I m not sure what you are getting at overall. Walker wants the public sector unions to pony up more money for their benefits. You I gather are against that and instead want the taxpayers to eat it. As for labor contracts in general, renegotiation takes place all the time. Only now, if nothing is done, I understand Walker will have to fire 6000 of these people.
Quote from: guido911 on February 18, 2011, 04:48:05 PM
So are the teachers that called in sick or the fact that their conduct has resulted in school closings in breach of contract? How do the taxpayers recover damages for that conduct?
I m not sure what you are getting at overall. Walker wants the public sector unions to pony up more money for their benefits. You I gather are against that and instead want the taxpayers to eat it. As for labor contracts in general, renegotiation takes place all the time. Only now, if nothing is done, I understand Walker will have to fire 6000 of these people.
Correction. He wants them to contribute to 12% of their medical insurance (they currently only pay for 6% of their total medical insureance), and 5.8% of their retirement (they currently pay nothing into retirement). Wish I could get that deal!
He still wants them to be able to collectively bargain on wages, he just wants to end the constant benefit vacuum.
Quote from: Ed W on February 18, 2011, 04:33:31 PM
He exempted the police, fire fighters, and highway patrol. Guess which three endorsed him during the campaign.
Whoopsie!
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqG6USUaG
Quote from: we vs us on February 18, 2011, 04:38:12 PM
Interesting. So it doesn't square with anything you know about how our politics have been playing out lately?
I would call him the left's equivalent to either Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. Start with a factoid and expand on it in a manner especially annoying to someone not of your persuasion.
Quote from: guido911 on February 18, 2011, 04:48:05 PM
So are the teachers that called in sick or the fact that their conduct has resulted in school closings in breach of contract? How do the taxpayers recover damages for that conduct?
I m not sure what you are getting at overall. Walker wants the public sector unions to pony up more money for their benefits. You I gather are against that and instead want the taxpayers to eat it. As for labor contracts in general, renegotiation takes place all the time. Only now, if nothing is done, I understand Walker will have to fire 6000 of these people.
Walker doesn't have to do any such thing. He could, for example, implore the legislature to stop passing tax breaks the state can't presently afford. Alternatively, he could ask them to raise taxes by a mere $45 on each Wisconsin taxpayer and make up
future budget shortfall which the bill under consideration does nothing to address. Once again, the present biennium's budget is balanced.
He's not just asking them to pay a larger share of benefits, he's asking them to give up the right to collectively bargain at all.
P.S. I gather that teachers get personal days in their contract. ;)
In the first week of Walker being Governor of Wisconsin, he submitted eight tax breaks that will add $80 million to the state's debt.
The first Walker bill was to eliminate income taxes on private Health Savings Accounts, which would cost about $47 million over the next two years. Then he asked for income and franchise tax credits for businesses with less than $500,000 a year in gross receipts.
Next he proposed to exempt from companies paying income or franchise taxes for two years that relocate to Wisconsin from out of state.
These are probably good examples of trying to stimulate job growth in Wisconsin. But they are what caused this new "budget crisis" of a shortfall of $130 million.
He created the crisis, then claims they only way to solve the problem is to take away collective bargaining rights from state employees.
This is a union busting strategy, nothing more.
Quote from: guido911 on February 18, 2011, 04:48:05 PM
So are the teachers that called in sick or the fact that their conduct has resulted in school closings in breach of contract? How do the taxpayers recover damages for that conduct?
I m not sure what you are getting at overall. Walker wants the public sector unions to pony up more money for their benefits. You I gather are against that and instead want the taxpayers to eat it. As for labor contracts in general, renegotiation takes place all the time. Only now, if nothing is done, I understand Walker will have to fire 6000 of these people.
I don't have a problem with re-negotiating a contract, Guido. As you've noted, it happens frequently. But I do oppose unilateral abrogation of those agreements. The governor handed out tax breaks that will nearly total the projected budget shortfall. That strikes me as irresponsible, particularly when he allegedly was a Tea Party guy. I thought they were in favor of fiscal responsibility. But it's reprehensible to insist that the state's unionized employees lose wages and benefits to pay for those tax cuts. It's even more reprehensible when those employees are already retired and living on fixed incomes.
Sears did something like that to their retirees some years ago. The retired employees brought a class action suit against the company and won. Sears, of course, could not call out the National Guard. Walker implies that he can use the Guard to break up the protests. That's not democracy in action. It's a means of suppressing free speech and free association. And it's un-American in the lowest way possible.
Tomorrow should be an interesting day. There's supposed to be a Tea Party rally and I expect the union protesters will still be in the streets. I sincerely hope it's loud and raucous, but it stays non-violent.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 18, 2011, 07:45:14 PM
In the first week of Walker being Governor of Wisconsin, he submitted eight tax breaks that will add $80 million to the state's debt.
The first Walker bill was to eliminate income taxes on private Health Savings Accounts, which would cost about $47 million over the next two years. Then he asked for income and franchise tax credits for businesses with less than $500,000 a year in gross receipts.
Next he proposed to exempt from companies paying income or franchise taxes for two years that relocate to Wisconsin from out of state.
These are probably good examples of trying to stimulate job growth in Wisconsin. But they are what caused this new "budget crisis" of a shortfall of $130 million.
He created the crisis, then claims they only way to solve the problem is to take away collective bargaining rights from state employees.
This is a union busting strategy, nothing more.
Washington Post's Ezra Klein discusses this issue (from your point of view).
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html
Thanks for the link.
Unions and their civility.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/02/top-15-photos-from-wisconsin-hate.html
The unions agree to all of Walker's demands, (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a05349be-3be1-11e0-b0a1-001cc4c002e0.html) but won't give up their right to collectively bargain. They maintain that's been their position all along.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 18, 2011, 06:38:27 PM
I would call him the left's equivalent to either Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. Start with a factoid and expand on it in a manner especially annoying to someone not of your persuasion.
Fair enough, I suppose.
I like the sign that says "Why Do Republicans" then has a pasted on banner that says "Hate People".
I wonder what the sign said before the edit?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 19, 2011, 09:43:22 AM
I like the sign that says "Why Do Republicans" then has a pasted on banner that says "Hate People".
I wonder what the sign said before the edit?
It was actually a very well done cover over of:
"Why Do Democrats Hate People" ;D
Here's a take on this issue from left leaning doofus Joe Klein (Hint: It's not what you think)
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/18/wisconsin-the-hemlock-revolution/#ixzz1EQGxXQpP
First you lie about calling in sick and now this. Ah, the life of a union member. Oh, and what a helluv an example they are setting for their students.
Here's an interview with one of these doctors.
While guido was working up his moral outrage courtesy of an O'Keefe wannabe, the union agreed to concede to all of Walker's demands, save one: The elimination of collective bargaining rights for public employees. Walker told them to go love themselves.
Edited to add: And it's nice to see some of our own Oklahoma Tea Partiers are running their own Twitter disinformation campaign, trying to claim that "liberal protesters" were arrested by police today, which the Madison PD says is false. In other words, don't believe everything you see/read on this today.
Quote from: nathanm on February 19, 2011, 09:41:46 PM
While guido was working up his moral outrage courtesy of an O'Keefe wannabe, the union agreed to concede to all of Walker's demands, save one: The elimination of collective bargaining rights for public employees. Walker told them to go love themselves.
Edited to add: And it's nice to see some of our own Oklahoma Tea Partiers are running their own Twitter disinformation campaign, trying to claim that "liberal protesters" were arrested by police today, which the Madison PD says is false. In other words, don't believe everything you see/read on this today.
Oh I'm sorry. I guess that doctor didn't say that she was part of this lying and fraud on behalf of these union punks. Jeez, the lengths you go to defend the indefensible. Well, so much for the lone O'Keefe wannabe:
Funny that you're more hung up on doctors writing notes than a state attempting to remove collective bargaining rights for all but a few public employees. Pure genius on the part of the union to give the Governor what he wants in exchange for dropping the wholesale attack on collective bargaining, and rank stupidity on the Governor's part in not accepting the offer.
Apparently calling in sick when you're not really sick is worse than abusing the public trust by lying about the state of the budget and refusing to accept a solution to your made up problem because it doesn't meet an ideological purity test. Only in bizzaro-world. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 04:05:24 AM
Funny that you're more hung up on doctors writing notes than a state attempting to remove collective bargaining rights for all but a few public employees. Pure genius on the part of the union to give the Governor what he wants in exchange for dropping the wholesale attack on collective bargaining, and rank stupidity on the Governor's part in not accepting the offer.
Apparently calling in sick when you're not really sick is worse than abusing the public trust by lying about the state of the budget and refusing to accept a solution to your made up problem because it doesn't meet an ideological purity test. Only in bizzaro-world. ::)
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2CbqzI7-NxYKmtRdXP1crC5BZ5YPiiA-PL72MdYXfUQ602w-oYA)
(http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/094/216/original/lrg1621.jpg?1295492691)
Caption Time:
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20110218/i/r1073881869.jpg?x=346&y=345&q=85&sig=ARD.N8mDB178yIoSPUHM6g--)
I'm sorry, I don't know your meme.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 02:33:43 PM
Caption Time:
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20110218/i/r1073881869.jpg?x=346&y=345&q=85&sig=ARD.N8mDB178yIoSPUHM6g--)
I totally agree! Righteous anger is SO unsightly!
Quote from: we vs us on February 20, 2011, 03:12:42 PM
I totally agree! SELF-Righteousness anger is SO unsightly!
There. Fixed that.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 03:23:07 PM
There. Fixed that.
Yeah, it's self-righteous to want to keep the right to collectively bargain. It's OK for management, but if labor does it, it's automatically wrong.
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 03:29:43 PM
Yeah, it's self-righteous to want to keep the right to collectively bargain. It's OK for management, but if labor does it, it's automatically wrong.
There is a BIG difference between "management" at a private company and "management" in the public sector. The latter of course being that "management" are those cheap and miserly taxpayers. Incidentally, the unions are not losing the right to collectively bargain on everything--only as to benefits.
I was raised in a very pro-union environment and have, er had, great respect for unions. It sickens me to see how these public servants, many that spend appreciable time with our children, are willing to carry vile and despicable signs, lie, and cheat and masquerade it as "free speech". Those scum are being exposed for what they are.
Here's hoping Oklahoma is next.
EDITED: I am walking back my last comment. I don't think Oklahomans would practice the degree of dooshbaggery exhibited in Wisconsin.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 03:47:30 PM
There is a BIG difference between "management" at a private company and "management" in the public sector. The latter of course being that "management" are those cheap and miserly taxpayers. Incidentally, the unions are not losing the right to collectively bargain on everything--only as to benefits.
What I'm hearing you say is that because this group of people works for "you", they should not only be underpaid about 5% (in Wisconsin) relative to the public sector but they shouldn't have the right to negotiate as a group. One of the more annoying parts about freedom is that people get it even when it's inconvenient to the rest of us.
Incidentally, the same argument you use to attack public employees' unions could be used to attack unions in the private sector. After all, those unions could be driving up the price of your air conditioner or whatever.
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 04:01:07 PM
What I'm hearing you say is that because this group of people works for "you", they should not only be underpaid about 5% (in Wisconsin) relative to the public sector but they shouldn't have the right to negotiate as a group. One of the more annoying parts about freedom is that people get it even when it's inconvenient to the rest of us.
Incidentally, the same argument you use to attack public employees' unions could be used to attack unions in the private sector. After all, those unions could be driving up the price of your air conditioner or whatever.
That's not even remotely close to my point. And please, link me to a source that when all benefits and wages are factored in that Wisconsin public sector employees are being underpaid.
As for comparing private to public, sorry. That a non-starter. I don't have to buy an air conditioner or any other product made in the private sector. Could my life be miserable? Probably. But it's nothing compared to having a tax collector with the power to fine and imprison forcing me to pay taxes so we can give unions benefits that many in this forum could only dream of getting.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 04:09:21 PM
That's not even remotely close to my point. And please, link me to a source that when all benefits and wages are factored in that Wisconsin public sector employees are being underpaid.
Here's a nice starting place (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/02/analogy_watch_c.html).
(http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/02/wisc2.gif)
Red is total compensation for public employees by education; blue is total comp for private employees by education. On every comparative level, aside from employees with less than a HS diploma, the private sector edges out the public.
EDIT: all info in that post comes from this report (http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf) (warning: pdf).
Read some of the comments in wevsus link. The sane posters raise interesting points on both sides of the issue.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 04:09:21 PM
That's not even remotely close to my point. And please, link me to a source that when all benefits and wages are factored in that Wisconsin public sector employees are being underpaid.
The link we vs us posted is essentially the same as what I had read (same organization, different paper). Basically, Wisconsin public sector employees are already compensated similarly to their private sector counterparts (although with less wage and more benefits) and the Governor is attempting to cut their total compensation by 10% and eliminate collective bargaining. pancakes?
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 05:30:22 PM
The link we vs us posted is essentially the same as what I had read (same organization, different paper). Basically, Wisconsin public sector employees are already compensated similarly to their private sector counterparts (although with less wage and more benefits) and the Governor is attempting to cut their total compensation by 10% and eliminate collective bargaining. pancakes?
There apparently is no money. So what do you want, raise taxes to pay these union members? And before you get into the Governor's tax cuts causing the budget crisis, take a look at this take down of that position pushed by Maddow (from the insipid Politifact).
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddows-wisconsin-budget-claim-deemed-false-by-politifact/
Looks like the Wis. Senate is going to move forward without the AWOL dems.
QuoteGov. Scott Walker said the 14 minority Democrats who left Madison on Thursday were failing to do their jobs by "hiding out" in another state. And Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said his chamber would meet Tuesday to act on non-spending bills and confirm some of the governor's appointees even if the Democrats don't show up — a scenario that should outrage their constituents.
Senate Democrats acknowledged that the 19 Republicans could pass any item that doesn't spend state money in their absence. The budget-repair bill they have been blocking requires a quorum of 20 senators to pass, while other measures require only a simple majority of the chamber's 33 members.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110220/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions;_ylt=AlEampEMBu4Ot3xx8N7xYB6b.HQA;_ylu=X3oDMTNlbmhsb2o2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjIwL3VzX3dpc2NvbnNpbl9idWRnZXRfdW5pb25zBGNjb2RlA21wX2VjXzhfMTAEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3Rvcmllc
As expected, here come the Gov. Walker death threats/wishes:
You have resorted to posting tweets by school children?
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 06:43:30 PM
There apparently is no money. So what do you want, raise taxes to pay these union members? And before you get into the Governor's tax cuts causing the budget crisis, take a look at this take down of that position pushed by Maddow (from the insipid Politifact).
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddows-wisconsin-budget-claim-deemed-false-by-politifact/
The Wisconsin equivalent of the CBO claims there is no budget crisis. Odd, that.
Also odd that you equate the rantings of random people on Twitter with the rantings of high profile political figures.
And yes, if a government can't meet its obligations and its employees are already underpaid I expect it to either raise taxes to meet the shortfall, borrow, or downsize.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 20, 2011, 07:57:04 PM
You have resorted to posting tweets by school children?
Resorted? School children? This is the same sorta crap that happened after the Tucson shooting and political/public figures. You okay with that?
(http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/094/274/original/Screen%20shot%202011-01-20%20at%201.57.51%20AM.png?1295506728)
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 08:07:46 PM
And yes, if a government can't meet its obligations and its employees are already underpaid I expect it to either raise taxes to meet the shortfall, borrow, or downsize.
You would rather downsize than offer the option of reduced wages/benefits?
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 08:07:46 PM
I expect it to either raise taxes to meet the shortfall, borrow, or downsize.
Raise taxes on whom? Oh I know, everyone but you.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 20, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
You would rather downsize than offer the option of reduced wages/benefits?
I'd rather downsize than unilaterally force the employees to become even more underpaid, yes.
Edited to add: negotiating a lower wage is fine, too. People can work for whatever they want, obviously. Let's keep in mind that the union offered Walker the cuts he was looking for but he refused because it's not about the money, it's about busting the union.
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 08:20:39 PM
I'd rather downsize than unilaterally force the employees to become even more underpaid, yes.
And downsizing is what will happen if Walker's changes are not implemented. Many many thousands hit the streets just so those that have worked longer get to collectively bargain.
Quote from: guido911 on February 20, 2011, 08:21:56 PM
And downsizing is what will happen if Walker's changes are not implemented. Many many thousands hit the streets just so those that have worked longer get to collectively bargain.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_t_xlGGymR7U/S9dM4468jWI/AAAAAAAABPQ/h45nSO_06yo/s800/Baby+Face+Palm.jpg)
How about you come back when you have command of the facts, eh?
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 08:20:39 PM
I'd rather downsize than unilaterally force the employees to become even more underpaid, yes.
Edited to add: negotiating a lower wage is fine, too. People can work for whatever they want, obviously. Let's keep in mind that the union offered Walker the cuts he was looking for but he refused because it's not about the money, it's about busting the union.
You got your edit in before I could respond. I'll agree, for now, that Walker should accept the concessions and move on.
Have
you ever been in the position of taking a cut or losing your job? I have. I took the cut to try to save the company. Ultimately the company went under but not for the lack of the will of the employees.
As a sidebar, I don't see much difference conceptually between busting a union and forcing a union on a group that doesn't really want one by the "usual tactics". It only depends on which side you are on.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 20, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
As a sidebar, I don't see much difference conceptually between busting a union and forcing a union on a group that doesn't really want one by the "usual tactics". It only depends on which side you are on.
I was under the impression that, in general, the employees get to vote on whether or not to unionize..
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 08:39:20 PM
I was under the impression that, in general, the employees get to vote on whether or not to unionize..
I have no problem with a secret ballot. I forget the term for the not secret ballot that the unions generally push for. Leaves a lot of opportunity for "peer pressure".
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 20, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
You got your edit in before I could respond. I'll agree, for now, that Walker should accept the concessions and move on.
Have you ever been in the position of taking a cut or losing your job? I have. I took the cut to try to save the company. Ultimately the company went under but not for the lack of the will of the employees.
As a sidebar, I don't see much difference conceptually between busting a union and forcing a union on a group that doesn't really want one by the "usual tactics". It only depends on which side you are on.
Just wanted to underscore here that the unions have agreed to all of Walker's cuts. They ONLY thing they're protesting is his attempt to take away their ability to collectively bargain.
This very specifically about union busting.
Also: Ohio's next.
Quote from: we vs us on February 20, 2011, 08:43:59 PM
This very specifically about union busting.
Do you want to turn this thread into one about union busting? I think it's been done on TNF before but we can revive it if you want.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 20, 2011, 08:50:26 PM
Do you want to turn this thread into one about union busting? I think it's been done on TNF before but we can revive it if you want.
I'm up for whatever discussion you want to have, but I think when you know some even basic facts about what's happening in Wisconsin, it's pretty hard to see it as anything else other than a concerted effort by Walker to bust the public service unions.
Quote from: we vs us on February 20, 2011, 09:04:28 PM
I'm up for whatever discussion you want to have, but I think when you know some even basic facts about what's happening in Wisconsin, it's pretty hard to see it as anything else other than a concerted effort by Walker to bust the public service unions.
I agree that the concessions accepted by the union are separable from the "union busting". I have already said that Walker should accept the concessions and move on.
Busting the Union may be an issue that Walker wishes to pursue but he needs to accept what has been offered so far. It's probably not something that a resident of Oklahoma really needs to be involved in.
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 08:39:20 PM
I was under the impression that, in general, the employees get to vote on whether or not to unionize..
Do you have any problem with an employer that says the heck with it, I don't want to put up with a union and then goes out of business?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 20, 2011, 09:55:53 PM
Do you have any problem with an employer that says the heck with it, I don't want to put up with a union and then goes out of business?
Of course not, when there's not an imbalance of power being exploited with that decision. A person is free to be in business for themselves or not as they please. What I do have a problem with are chains closing stores to prevent unionization. This is because they're clearly desire to continue in their line of business, but they don't feel like negotiating a single contract for some reason.
I have less of a problem with a single-owner small business doing pretty much whatever they like (barring discrimination, among a few other things I think we all agree are beyond the pale) because the power imbalance is smaller in that case. When it comes to larger companies and/or governments, I think the increased imbalance of power between employer and employee justifies some interference in that relationship to keep things on the level. Personally, I'd rather have unions negotiating wages rather than government setting wages in situations where the power imbalance is too great for individual employees to negotiate a fair deal on their own.
Even fervent proponents of the invisible hand like Milton Friedman agree with that concept.
It's ironic, to be sure, but the free market can't really be free without some regulation to ensure the freedom of its participants.
Quote from: nathanm on February 20, 2011, 10:58:41 PM
Of course not, when there's not an imbalance of power being exploited with that decision. A person is free to be in business for themselves or not as they please. What I do have a problem with are chains closing stores to prevent unionization. This is because they're clearly desire to continue in their line of business, but they don't feel like negotiating a single contract for some reason.
That reason probably has less to do with a single contract than it does with the work place rules and hassles that go with dealing with a union that would go with it. If a chain would rather not do business in a community, they should have the right to close down. If the chain is a bad enough place to work, it will find itself unionized all over or out of business entirely. Unions targeting a few stores in a chain to get a foot in just to have a union there is not acceptable to me. Remember that Unions are nothing more than big business themselves.
Fair's fair, my friend. Unions help to rebalance the imbalance of power. And the rules don't work such that they can unionize the entire company at once, so it's gotta start in one store somewhere.
Again, if you run a business for yourself and hire a few people, there is little to no imbalance of power to be cured.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 09:03:40 AM
Fair's fair, my friend. Unions help to rebalance the imbalance of power. And the rules don't work such that they can unionize the entire company at once, so it's gotta start in one store somewhere.
Again, if you run a business for yourself and hire a few people, there is little to no imbalance of power to be cured.
You either missed or chose to ignore my point of having a union just to have a union regardless of working condtions.
Fair's fair is correct. If a company doesn't feel like dealing with something, they have the option of closing down. Sometimes the patient doesn't have to die, just the offending portions need to be removed. If a union is needed, it will fester in more than one store of a chain.
I guess I'm confused about this "Power Imbalance" term.
"Work for" implies that you are providing labor or expertise to someone else. They are paying for that. "Ballence" is dictated by the market. If you are earning less money for your labor or expertise, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
As an employee, you have the power to seek a better job. As an employer you have the power to seek a better employee.
Demand dictates the number of employees and the amount of product produced. Profit belongs to the employer.
Monopoly and subsidy corrupt the process through artificial profit, lack of competition, or inflated demand.
Regulation introduces limitations, and can lead to monopoly (through impediment) or decrease in quality (through increase in operating expense, and decrease in innovation).
People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran
Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 21, 2011, 09:22:49 AM
You either missed or chose to ignore my point of having a union just to have a union regardless of working condtions.
Fair's fair is correct. If a company doesn't feel like dealing with something, they have the option of closing down. Sometimes the patient doesn't have to die, just the offending portions need to be removed. If a union is needed, it will fester in more than one store of a chain.
Since the impact of the repeal of prohibition, and a law enforcement system capable of tracing most large transactions, unions have become the only refuge left for the old organized crime groups.
Organization is not just for the sake of organization, it is a business. A big business dealing in hundreds of billions of dollars transfered from the workforce to these groups. It is the ultimate evolution of protection money.
This protection money is still used to pay for politicians, and there is still a great deal of fear and consequence in resisting it.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 09:27:04 AM
I guess I'm confused about this "Power Imbalance" term.
Then you aren't much of a libertarian.
Rather than make you go read the copious writing on the subject, I'll write about it myself: In a free market, the correct price can only be arrived at by a willing buyer and willing seller of similar power agreeing on a price. If one of the seller or buyer are in a position of power over the other, they can unilaterally dictate the price, thus distorting the market.
For example, at one time Wal-Mart induced Rubbermaid to sell them product at below cost. Why? Because Rubbermaid posited that it was in their best interest to sell a lot of product at a small loss rather than sell much less product and have to fire most of their workforce. They hoped to make it up by increasing prices to other purchasers. A purchaser with less control of the market could never have made that demand and certainly never had that demand honored. Purchasing something at below cost is not economically efficient, so is bad for the market.
Similarly, an individual seeking to be hired at Wal-Mart has no leverage for negotiation unless perhaps they are already C level. There is a significant imbalance of power in that relationship, so an efficient free market is unlikely to be seen. Throw collective bargaining in the mix and there is a more equal relationship, so the willing buyer and willing seller can arrive at the best price, economically speaking.
Unions may have their problems. Some may even be corrupt, I don't know. (I won't concede the point, but I won't dispute it, either) That in no way implicates the entire
concept as being somehow a bad thing. There's ample proof that the management at many companies fears unionization, primarily because it upsets what they see as an imbalance of power in their favor. Nobody likes having to negotiate from a position of equality, but that is precisely what is required for the free market to function at its best.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 09:27:04 AM
"Work for" implies that you are providing labor or expertise to someone else. They are paying for that. "Ballence" is dictated by the market. If you are earning less money for your labor or expertise, then you are free to seek employment elsewhere.
As an employee, you have the power to seek a better job. As an employer you have the power to seek a better employee.
You're leaving out a major option for both sides: negotiation.
It's a big hit to both management and labor to have an employee pool whose only option is to stay or go. If negotiation is an option, that opening for discussion can help set a much better price and eliminate the need to constantly hire and train new workers. At the same time, negotiation helps labor show their value to management.
EDIT: I promise I didn't read your post, nate.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 10:06:30 AM
Then you aren't much of a libertarian.
Rather than make you go read the copious writing on the subject, I'll write about it myself: In a free market, the correct price can only be arrived at by a willing buyer and willing seller of similar power agreeing on a price. If one of the seller or buyer are in a position of power over the other, they can unilaterally dictate the price, thus distorting the market.
For example, at one time Wal-Mart induced Rubbermaid to sell them product at below cost. Why? Because Rubbermaid posited that it was in their best interest to sell a lot of product at a small loss rather than sell much less product and have to fire most of their workforce. They hoped to make it up by increasing prices to other purchasers. A purchaser with less control of the market could never have made that demand and certainly never had that demand honored. Purchasing something at below cost is not economically efficient, so is bad for the market.
Similarly, an individual seeking to be hired at Wal-Mart has no leverage for negotiation unless perhaps they are already C level. There is a significant imbalance of power in that relationship, so an efficient free market is unlikely to be seen. Throw collective bargaining in the mix and there is a more equal relationship, so the willing buyer and willing seller can arrive at the best price, economically speaking.
Unions may have their problems. Some may even be corrupt, I don't know. (I won't concede the point, but I won't dispute it, either) That in no way implicates the entire concept as being somehow a bad thing. There's ample proof that the management at many companies fears unionization, primarily because it upsets what they see as an imbalance of power in their favor. Nobody likes having to negotiate from a position of equality, but that is precisely what is required for the free market to function at its best.
LOL! You seem to build your own definitions, but that's ok.
Negotiation is positive, and it's part of the complex relationship between an employee and an employer. Each holds an equal barganing chip. The employee holds his skills and labor, and the employer holds his investment in that labor or those skills.
When the employee comes to the table with a third party, or as a collective with other employees, the process is corrupted.
Lets say I'm the lazyist person in the company and I want a raise and 4 weeks of vacation time. I go to my boss and he laugh's at me and says, "NO. Your performance is not worthy of such investment." At that point, If I value my skills above my current pay and benefits, I have the option to seek employment elsewhere.
Now, same scenario, except I am a union member. I meet with my union rep and we discuss, not my performance, but the performance of all of the employees at my pay grade doing my same or similar jobs. We march as a collective into the bosses office and demand a pay raise and increase in benefits. The negotiations begin. Because there are several employees that actually do their jobs efficiently, the boss makes a concession to increase benefits and possibly avoid a strike. The investment was cheaper than the alternative. Now you have the worst performing employees being rewarded at the same level as the best performing. You have removed the performance incentive from the workplace.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 10:06:30 AM
Similarly, an individual seeking to be hired at Wal-Mart has no leverage for negotiation unless perhaps they are already C level. There is a significant imbalance of power in that relationship, so an efficient free market is unlikely to be seen. Throw collective bargaining in the mix and there is a more equal relationship, so the willing buyer and willing seller can arrive at the best price, economically speaking.
With a Union, you are trading one entity (company) for another (union). Go to a Union shop and try to negotiate as an individual to get something better than the Union contract offers.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 12:24:59 PM
When the employee comes to the table with a third party, or as a collective with other employees, the process is corrupted.
If the workers want to hire someone to represent them to speak on their behalf, they should be allowed to. Think of it as the working man's attorney. In one part of their life, their job, they have somebody looking out for them.
That is all a union is. Workers hiring a spokesman.
This is no different than my homeowners agreeing to collectively hire an attorney to represent them in a zoning case to protect one part of their life, their home.
Because I believe they should be allowed to hire a representative, I am pro-union.
Because their boss may change every two years with an election, I am for government employee unions.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 21, 2011, 12:33:28 PM
That is all a union is. Workers hiring a spokesman.
I believe you are wearing selective blinders. (Kind of like selective hearing.)
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 12:24:59 PM
When the employee comes to the table with a third party, or as a collective with other employees, the process is corrupted.
If you own a business with one employee, sure. If you are Wal-Mart, not so much. The process was already corrupted by the imbalance of power.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that all union contracts necessarily lack merit pay provisions. That is simply not the case.
Also, you might read some economics texts and some books by some of your libertarian fellow travelers. They might help you with definitions. Basically, if there is a distortion of the market due to the size of the participants, there are two main options for dealing with those distortions: First, government interference. Second, collective bargaining.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 12:56:30 PM
If you own a business with one employee, sure. If you are Wal-Mart, not so much. The process was already corrupted by the imbalance of power.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that all union contracts necessarily lack merit pay provisions. That is simply not the case.
Also, you might read some economics texts and some books by some of your libertarian fellow travelers. They might help you with definitions. Basically, if there is a distortion of the market due to the size of the participants, there are two main options for dealing with those distortions: First, government interference. Second, collective bargaining.
Nate appears to be channeling Paul Krugman's NYT piece from yesterday. Take a moment and read the inevitable take down (sounds a little familiar to me),
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/02/21/paul-krugman-wants-to-balance-out-the-power-of-big-taxpayer/
Great minds think alike, I guess. I haven't read Krugman lately. (bugmenot hasn't been working for me :()
Nonetheless, this is all basic libertarian and conservative economic theory. Exactly what the Tea Party claims to support, except when they don't.
Quote from: guido911 on February 21, 2011, 12:58:40 PM
Nate appears to be channeling Paul Krugman's NYT piece from yesterday. Take a moment and read the inevitable take down (sounds a little familiar to me),
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/02/21/paul-krugman-wants-to-balance-out-the-power-of-big-taxpayer/
Public unions are protecting themselves against election cycles and the inevitability of them becoming political targets (ha! irony!). If you've read much about the patronage system of the late 1800's it wasn't a small concern -- and obviously isn't now.
For those who have been on TulsaNow for many years, you will know that I have been very critical of union activities. I believe in the right to collective bargain, but do not support many of the ways the bargaining (or even the tactics) of unions.
I was very critical of the Carpenter's Union for the picketing of a private developer who chose to remodel the Mayo Hotel without union members. That caused me an incident with Carpenter Union members shouting at me downtown and at a democratic social function.
I was very critical of the Tulsa Police union for the bargaining during the last three different Mayors. I was told (probably untrue) by a friend officer that he had heard officers say they were following me hoping that I would roll through a stop sign or fail to use a turn signal so they could confront me.
You would think I would be against unions. I have never been a member of one, but still just simply believe they should be allowed in the workplace.
Quote from: we vs us on February 21, 2011, 01:16:56 PM
Public unions are protecting themselves against election cycles and the inevitability of them becoming political targets (ha! irony!). If you've read much about the patronage system of the late 1800's it wasn't a small concern -- and obviously isn't now.
Well who is protecting the taxpayer? I know, the
taxpayers when they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing.
Quote from: guido911 on February 21, 2011, 01:22:30 PM
Well who is protecting the taxpayer? I know, the taxpayers when they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing.
Show me when candidate for Governor Walker said that he was going to take away the collective bargaining right of state employees.
Prove he ran on that comment.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 21, 2011, 01:22:18 PM
For those who have been on TulsaNow for many years, you will know that I have been very critical of union activities. I believe in the right to collective bargain, but do not support many of the ways the bargaining (or even the tactics) of unions.
I was so critical of the Carpenter's Union for the picketing of a private developer who chose to remodel the Mayo Hotel without union members. That caused me an incident with Carpenter Union members shouting at me downtown and at a democratic social function.
I was very critical of the Tulsa Police union for the bargaining during the last three different Mayors. I was told (probably untrue) by a friend officer that he had heard officers say they were following me hoping that I would roll through a stop sign or fail to use a turn signal so they could confront me.
You would think I would be against unions. I have never been a member of one, but still just simply believe they should be allowed in the workplace.
I too was critical of the Carpenter's Union and certain unions hiring non-union people to strike for them. However, I wasn't really an "anti-union" guy until what I saw over the past week.
Quote from: guido911 on February 21, 2011, 01:22:30 PM
Well who is protecting the taxpayer? I know, the taxpayers when they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing.
Why is he trying to protect the taxpayers from getting the concessions he wanted for them?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 21, 2011, 01:25:01 PM
Show me when candidate for Governor Walker said that he was going to take away the collective bargaining right of state employees.
Prove he ran on that comment.
Where there's this.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/20/graham-unions-lost-the-wi-referendum-in-november/
And this:
QuoteGOP politicians across the country, such as Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, actually campaigned on issues such as reining in public sector unions, which have long impeded necessary government reforms. What's more, after campaigning on the need for public sector union reform — and Walker was explicit about it — the Republican Party had the biggest electoral landslide seen by either party in over 60 years.
The public is well aware that unions have leveraged those bargaining rights to generate outrageous benefits, salaries, privileges, and job security to the point where states are bankrupt. California owes more in unfunded public pension liabilities than the gross national product of Saudi Arabia.
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/18/133874808/weekly-standard-obamas-war-on-the-states
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 01:27:27 PM
Why is he trying to protect the taxpayers from getting the concessions he wanted for them?
I think I understand what you wrote. Are you honestly equating the interests of union taxpayers to an ordinary taxpayer?
Quote from: guido911 on February 21, 2011, 01:44:58 PM
I think I understand what you wrote. Are you honestly equating the interests of union taxpayers to an ordinary taxpayer?
Um, you're running toward the wrong end zone. The union agreed to the concessions with the exception of the removal of collective bargaining rights. Thus, the taxpayer gets all the savings that Walker asked for. So why has he not accepted that and moved on? Oh, right, it's about ideology, not money. It's about his desire for national office, not about saving the taxpayers diddly squat.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 01:46:47 PM
Oh, right, it's about ideology, not money.
Gee, I've never seen that before.
;D
Guido:
I am impressed that you referenced NPR. Your random blogger, not so much.
But these are third parties saying months after the campaign that they thought he was going to go after unions. Neither of these sources ever say he actually said he was going to take away collective bargaining.
He went after the unions and they have agreed to many concessions. He won. But now he wants to kill them completely, something he never said until after the election.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 01:46:47 PM
Um, you're running toward the wrong end zone. The union agreed to the concessions with the exception of the removal of collective bargaining rights. Thus, the taxpayer gets all the savings that Walker asked for. So why has he not accepted that and moved on? Oh, right, it's about ideology, not money. It's about his desire for national office, not about saving the taxpayers diddly squat.
Towards the end of this (evil, right wing) video might explain it.
How about you tell it in your own words so I don't have to watch some insipid youtube video. Explain why it is that elimination of collective bargaining rights for some (but not all, mind you!) public employees is required to save the money Walker wants to save, when the employees have already agreed to his pay and benefit cuts.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 21, 2011, 01:58:02 PM
Guido:
I am impressed that you referenced NPR. Your random blogger, not so much.
But these are third parties saying months after the campaign that they thought he was going to go after unions. Neither of these sources ever say he actually said he was going to take away collective bargaining.
He went after the unions and they have agreed to many concessions. He won. But now he wants to kill them completely, something he never said until after the election.
According to Graham, the unions sure knew something like this was going to happen. Something put that notion in their collective heads. Now, if Graham is mistaken, please prove it.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 02:02:41 PM
How about you tell it in your own words so I don't have to watch some insipid youtube video. Explain why it is that elimination of collective bargaining rights for some (but not all, mind you!) public employees is required to save the money Walker wants to save, when the employees have already agreed to his pay and benefit cuts.
According to the governor, he exempted public safety union employees because he did not want to risk "public safety" if those folks went on strike over benefits.
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/article_dbfe5872-3665-11e0-94e7-001cc4c002e0.html
Sounds reasonable to me. As for agreeing to the proposed benefit cuts, not enough in my opinion. Public sector employees for too long have had the upper hand in negotiating new contracts.
Quote from: guido911 on February 21, 2011, 02:19:43 PM
Sounds reasonable to me. As for agreeing to the proposed benefit cuts, not enough in my opinion. Public sector employees for too long have had the upper hand in negotiating new contracts.
I'm confused. If you said to me "sell me this widget for $5" and I said "OK," you'd figure you were getting a raw deal and demand I also fellate you?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 21, 2011, 12:33:28 PM
If the workers want to hire someone to represent them to speak on their behalf, they should be allowed to. Think of it as the working man's attorney. In one part of their life, their job, they have somebody looking out for them.
That is all a union is. Workers hiring a spokesman.
This is no different than my homeowners agreeing to collectively hire an attorney to represent them in a zoning case to protect one part of their life, their home.
Because I believe they should be allowed to hire a representative, I am pro-union.
Because their boss may change every two years with an election, I am for government employee unions.
The "representative" argument is old and inconsistent with the purpose unions serve. If an employee feels that they need representation when speaking with an employer, that is within their rights.
It's the collective nature of it that is corrupting. I don't need to explain this again. I know that you understand it. The minimum standard of work becomes the primary measure in a union situation. Seniority takes precedence over performance. Innovation is fought and typically defeated.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 02:24:43 PM
I'm confused. If you said to me "sell me this widget for $5" and I said "OK," you'd figure you were getting a raw deal and demand I also fellate you?
Never fails. I always walk in at these awkward moments. 'Scuse me fellas.
Gov. Walker defending against allegation of union busting and the new meme that the public sector unions are willing to concede on benefits.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-denies-union-busting-on-gma/
Incidentally, Mediaite in my opinion is one of the more fairer media websites out there. Give them a shot.
Quote from: guido911 on February 21, 2011, 02:37:19 PM
Gov. Walker defending against allegation of union busting and the new meme that the public sector unions are willing to concede on benefits.
So what you're saying is that one of them is lying. ;D
Gaspar, why is collective bargaining a corrupting influence. Most businesses are collective entities. Very few businesses employing more than a few people are owned solely by one person. There's usually at the very least a silent partner involved. Moreover, the business itself operates through the collective action of its employees. Without collective action, you've got what I've got, which is me working for some clients and not employing anybody.
What you're basically saying is that what's fair for one side of a negotiation is not fair for the other side.
The only two unions whose members I have known well enough to discuss the details of their contracts both had merit pay. (One was manufacturing, the other service)
Edited to add: Oh, wait, that article didn't say what guido said it did. Walker called the concessions "a red herring." Hmm, I think Walker needs a dictionary.
Edited again to add: And for those who are interested in guilt by association: http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/disgraced-ex-tea-party-leader-mark-will
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 03:57:36 PM
So what you're saying is that one of them is lying. ;D
Gaspar, why is collective bargaining a corrupting influence. Most businesses are collective entities.
That's a flawed thought process. Companies are not collective. Even companies as large as Wal-Mart. They do not use collective bargaining techniques. Wal-Mart does not threaten to withhold paychecks or benefits to encourage extra work. Collective bargaining is one sided. It is soft blackmail. "We will threaten your business if you do not deliver your profits to us."
In the real world, each boss, manager, supervisor has performance standards for his/her employees. Employee performance is evaluated individually. If you are responsible for production and you identify 3 employees on your line that consistently slow down production or cause problems, it is your duty to counsel or replace them.
Each employee has an opportunity to excel, innovate and advance based on their individual performance or lack thereof. This is not true under the collective system. Again, minimum performance standards are the standard. Employees and management are treated as equal and that's not right (insert liberal outrage). Companies are forced to evaluate the performance of a group rather than an individual. Advancement comes with seniority because it's the only fair way to reward when performance is outlawed.
LOL! Makes me think back to when Daimler Benz decided to introduce the German performance system into the Chrysler plant in St. Louis. I was living there at the time and it was hilarious.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 04:27:41 PM
Each employee has an opportunity to excel, innovate and advance based on their individual performance or lack thereof. This is not true under the collective system. Again, minimum performance standards are the standard. Employees and management are treated as equal and that's not right (insert liberal outrage). Companies are forced to evaluate the performance of a group rather than an individual. Advancement comes with seniority because it's the only fair way to reward when performance is outlawed.
Once again you ignore the fact that not all union contracts are based solely on seniority. Understandable, given how inconvenient that fact is to your world view, however.
The point is and remains that there is a significant power imbalance in the employer/employee relationship, especially in larger companies. It's not at all infrequent that employees are fired because of a personal vendetta on the part of a supervisor, rather than any performance issues. Unions help to make things like that less likely.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 04:37:02 PM
It's not at all infrequent that employees are fired because of a personal vendetta on the part of a supervisor, rather than any performance issues. Unions help to make things like that less likely.
I don't guess a Union Grievance would ever be filed because of a personal vendetta on the part of a union worker. They can make a supervisor's life very uncomfortable.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 21, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
I don't guess a Union Grievance would ever be filed because of a personal vendetta on the part of a union worker. They can make a supervisor's life very uncomfortable.
That some abuse a process does not lessen the need for such a process.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 04:37:02 PM
Once again you ignore the fact that not all union contracts are based solely on seniority. Understandable, given how inconvenient that fact is to your world view, however.
The point is and remains that there is a significant power imbalance in the employer/employee relationship, especially in larger companies. It's not at all infrequent that employees are fired because of a personal vendetta on the part of a supervisor, rather than any performance issues. Unions help to make things like that less likely.
So unions exist because of vindictive firing?
I thought is was unhealthy working conditions, unequal pay, and lack of benefits?
I had the whole thing wrong. Forgive me. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 04:43:32 PM
That some abuse a process does not lessen the need for such a process.
Flip side is try to get rid of a union employee for anything less than criminal behavior.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 04:44:09 PM
So unions exist because of vindictive firing?
I thought is was unhealthy working conditions, unequal pay, and lack of benefits?
I had the whole thing wrong. Forgive me. ;)
Your are just 100 years behind the times. Try to catch up.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 21, 2011, 06:27:03 PM
Flip side is try to get rid of a union employee for anything less than criminal behavior.
I've done it. Granted it took a LOT of doing, and was just this side of criminal behavior, but it can be done.
I think firing an employee, union or not, should be among the last choices. Everyone should be given a chance to improve. Losing the investment a company has in training etc by firing an employee on a whim is foolish. Someone who will not try to improve is another story.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 21, 2011, 04:44:09 PM
So unions exist because of vindictive firing?
I'm glad you have better sense than to read the Constitution the way you read my post. To paraphrase the Ninth: "The enumeration in my post of certain reasons shall not be construed to deny or disparage any others that may exist." Or put another way, a single example does not define the limit of one's position.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2011, 07:37:44 PM
I'm glad you have better sense than to read the Constitution the way you read my post. To paraphrase the Ninth: "The enumeration in my post of certain reasons shall not be construed to deny or disparage any others that may exist." Or put another way, a single example does not define the limit of one's position.
Krap! I thought we just shot down all the other examples.
Perhaps I can find an easier to understand analogy from Spongebob.
LOL!
On yesterday's CBS early show. . .
Chris Wragge of CBS is calling the Union Protests in Wisconson "The Tea Party of The Left" and political analyst John Dickerson agrees, "...this is the energizing moment on the Left, progressives and unions have always been together....It's about the threat to their benefits."
I just heard it mentioned again in the office.
Do they really want this to be the liberal mantra going into the elections?
Quote from: guido911 on February 21, 2011, 02:03:07 PM
According to Graham, the unions sure knew something like this was going to happen. Something put that notion in their collective heads. Now, if Graham is mistaken, please prove it.
Don't trip while backpedaling so fast.
You said, "...they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing."
When I asked you to prove your statement, you said someone else claimed he meant that.
Does that strategy work for you? Make wrong statements, then when called to tell the truth, claim someone else said it and then ask the challenger to disprove the third party statements?
Remind me not to hire you as my attorney.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 22, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
LOL!
On yesterday's CBS early show. . .
Chris Wragge of CBS is calling the Union Protests in Wisconson "The Tea Party of The Left" and political analyst John Dickerson agrees, "...this is the energizing moment on the Left, progressives and unions have always been together....It's about the threat to their benefits."
I just heard it mentioned again in the office.
Do they really want this to be the liberal mantra going into the elections?
Now THAT'S an excellent question. Pros of a lefty Tea Party-style movement: activism, voter turnout, engagement, constant primarying of longtime Democrats. Cons: radicalism, inability to control the fringe, whackadoodle policy prescriptions, constant primarying of longtime Democrats.
There's no doubt that the left (or really, anyone left of the Tea Party) has a major enthusiasm gap right now. The results of the midterms bear that out. Finding some sort of animating cause would really change 2012's dynamics.
Quote from: we vs us on February 22, 2011, 12:04:07 PM
Now THAT'S an excellent question. Pros of a lefty Tea Party-style movement: activism, voter turnout, engagement, constant primarying of longtime Democrats. Cons: radicalism, inability to control the fringe, whackadoodle policy prescriptions, constant primarying of longtime Democrats.
There's no doubt that the left (or really, anyone left of the Tea Party) has a major enthusiasm gap right now. The results of the midterms bear that out. Finding some sort of animating cause would really change 2012's dynamics.
I don't disagree that they need motivation, and a new cause to rally around, but do they really want to turn to the Unions?
As we saw in the last election, the public is fed up with spending and is pushing back against regulation and dependence systems.
Granted, this is the polar opposite, so it sounds attractive for contrarians , but is the union mentality where the liberal/progressive movement sees their future?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 22, 2011, 11:52:23 AM
Don't trip while backpedaling so fast.
You said, "...they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing."
When I asked you to prove your statement, you said someone else claimed he meant that.
Does that strategy work for you? Make wrong statements, then when called to tell the truth, claim someone else said it and then ask the challenger to disprove the third party statements?
Remind me not to hire you as my attorney.
First, it was your damned question I was trying to answer. I gave you two sources that you apparently take issue with and suddenly I'm somehow being misleading. Did you even bother listening to Graham? I did. Now, I asked you to disprove what Graham said. Crickets. Must be nice living in the bleachers with the others who cannot play the game or are simply losers.
Jeez. Spare me your self-righteous BS in the last sentence of your pathetic rant.
Quote from: guido911 on February 22, 2011, 01:33:52 PM
First, it was your damned question I was trying to answer. I gave you two sources that you apparently take issue with and suddenly I'm somehow being misleading. Did you even bother listening to Graham? I did. Now, I asked you to disprove what Graham said. Crickets. Must be nice living in the bleachers with the others who cannot play the game or are simply losers.
Jeez. Spare me your self-righteous BS in the last sentence of your pathetic rant.
He is quite the hypocrite.....
Indiana Democrats getting in on the act. (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110222/NEWS/110222004/House-Democrats-flee-Indiana-stop-votes?odyssey=mod%7Cbreaking%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)
Looks like I was only a state away. I thought Ohio would be next.
Quote from: we vs us on February 22, 2011, 01:48:05 PM
Indiana Democrats getting in on the act. (http://www.indystar.com/article/20110222/NEWS/110222004/House-Democrats-flee-Indiana-stop-votes?odyssey=mod%7Cbreaking%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com)
Looks like I was only a state away. I thought Ohio would be next.
I saw that. I read where one blogger is calling these representatives of the people "fleebaggers". Heh, kinda funny. I'll stick with cowards. In other news, it appears the Wisconsin cowards' underground bunker has been located.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116672439.html?page=1
What is your take on this strategy of a party shutting down government when a special interest group that supports it throws a temper tantrum?
Quote from: Breadburner on February 22, 2011, 01:38:59 PM
He is quite the hypocrite.....
I would go there, but I am afraid someone might cry to the mods.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 22, 2011, 11:01:34 AM
LOL!
On yesterday's CBS early show. . .
Chris Wragge of CBS is calling the Union Protests in Wisconson "The Tea Party of The Left" and political analyst John Dickerson agrees, "...this is the energizing moment on the Left, progressives and unions have always been together....It's about the threat to their benefits."
I just heard it mentioned again in the office.
Do they really want this to be the liberal mantra going into the elections?
Wruh Wroe Wragge, now we have left baggers!
Quote from: guido911 on February 22, 2011, 02:01:33 PM
I would go there, but I am afraid someone might cry to the mods.
That happen to you often?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2011, 02:14:20 PM
Wruh Wroe Wragge, now we have left baggers!
Left Partiers you mean?
Quote from: Townsend on February 22, 2011, 02:16:50 PM
That happen to you often?
All the damned time. :D
O/T: Florida is debating a "Wisconsin-lite" union bill.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/wisconsin-style-bill-hits-florida.html
Not sure which state the party aggrieved by this bill would cower in.
Georgia is closest to Tallahassee but Alabama isn't very far either.
Please guido... save your outrage.
You clearly wrote, You said, "...they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing."
Walker didn't run on this. Before the election he never said he was going to eliminate collective bargaining. You said he did. You can't prove it. You lose.
Sometimes when you repeat assumptions you hear on Fox News, they turn out to be false. You should admit it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 22, 2011, 03:26:15 PM
Please guido... save your outrage.
You clearly wrote, You said, "...they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing."
Walker didn't run on this. Before the election he never said he was going to eliminate collective bargaining. You said he did. You can't prove it. You lose.
Sometimes when you repeat assumptions you hear on Fox News, they turn out to be false. You should admit it.
I heard it on NBC Meet the Press.
Quote from: Townsend on February 22, 2011, 02:17:16 PM
Left Partiers you mean?
Actually I think they are calling themselves Wisconsin Steamers.
Triple Baggers:
(http://www.therightperspective.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Helen_Thomas.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2011, 04:34:30 PM
Triple Baggers:
(http://www.therightperspective.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Helen_Thomas.jpg)
LMFAO!!
Triple baggers it is!
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000222209/polls_LADY_UGLY_BAG_1011_463494_answer_4_xlarge.jpeg)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2011, 04:34:30 PM
Triple Baggers:
(http://www.therightperspective.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Helen_Thomas.jpg)
Ehh! I guess she just puts lipstick on so that people know where the food goes.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 22, 2011, 04:56:58 PM
Ehh! I guess she just puts lipstick on so that people know where the food goes.
Let's hope that's all. Ghack!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2011, 06:03:34 PM
Let's hope that's all. Ghack!
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgjIpoRtELHE1AR0IEcBlWc3LEHH064hPEltw3hHlGFhnke2z9_Q)
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4gXVDkHTIALh39pUD02nF_8Y_sA1HSmn2-CIJo13Y5SxO6Tgt)
Wisconsin Governor Pranked by Reporter Posing as Billionaire Conservative Activist
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-scott-walker-pranked-reporter-posing-david-koch/story?id=12980381 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-scott-walker-pranked-reporter-posing-david-koch/story?id=12980381)
QuoteAn alt-news reporter posing as billionaire conservative activist David Koch recorded a 20-minute phone conversation with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker during which Walker reveals his strategy for breaking Democratic and union opposition to his budget
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions)
Koch family sounds like Jim Taylor.
(http://ijpc.org/uploads/images/number_22.jpg)
Wisconsin Assembly passes budget repair bill.
Quote from: guido911 on February 25, 2011, 11:45:23 AM
Wisconsin Assembly passes budget repair bill.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wisconsin-assembly-approves-bill-stripping-union-rights/story?id=12996879 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wisconsin-assembly-approves-bill-stripping-union-rights/story?id=12996879)
Quote from: Townsend on February 23, 2011, 03:04:12 PM
Wisconsin Governor Pranked by Reporter Posing as Billionaire Conservative Activist
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-scott-walker-pranked-reporter-posing-david-koch/story?id=12980381 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-scott-walker-pranked-reporter-posing-david-koch/story?id=12980381)
It really bothers me that the Governor said that he stated that he'd considered using provocateurs to create problems amongst the demonstrators in order to discredit the public service unions and their supporters.
He admitted he actually discussed this.
This would have been the beginning of violence and crowd problems into a peaceful protest. His paid troublemakers could have led to serious violence.
How do you respect a public offficial who considers this kind of behavior?
He should resign now.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 25, 2011, 05:59:16 PM
It really bothers me that the Governor said that he stated that he'd considered using provocateurs to create problems amongst the demonstrators in order to discredit the public service unions and their supporters.
He admitted he actually discussed this.
This would have been the beginning of violence and crowd problems into a peaceful protest. His paid troublemakers could have led to serious violence.
How do you respect a public offficial who considers this kind of behavior?
He should resign now.
Oh get over yourself. I notice you are not demanding Congressman Michael Capuano to resign after this little call to arms:
And don't give me this bullcrap about peaceful protesting. I have been watching union jack@sses all over the country pushing those they disagree with around. Malkin has numerous examples of how non-peaceful those upset at what Walker is doing here.
http://michellemalkin.com/
Here's a vid of one buffoon threatening one of the most bizarre acts of violence I have ever heard (7:30).
Now feel free to bury your head back in the sand.
Saying that protesters may need to get violent is unacceptable.
But discussing a strategy with your team to put fake protestors in the crowd to cause problems is worse.
Do you not see the difference?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 25, 2011, 07:05:37 PM
Do you not see the difference?
He did when it was some lefties toying with the idea of infiltrating Tea Party rallies..
Quote from: nathanm on February 25, 2011, 09:08:52 PM
He did when it was some lefties toying with the idea of infiltrating Tea Party rallies..
Zing...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 25, 2011, 07:05:37 PM
Saying that protesters may need to get violent is unacceptable.
But discussing a strategy with your team to put fake protestors in the crowd to cause problems is worse.
Do you not see the difference?
Sad, but expected, you didn't call for the dem to resign. Infiltrating protests and calling for the bloodying of people are different. The latter being far, far worse--especially since we have union punks carrying out violent acts. Have we spotted a Walker-inspired infiltration yet?
And see Nate's post below yours on this. There was a seven page thread on the Tea Party Crashers, in which you posted, and I do not recall you demanding resignations there. Help me find where you objected to those people infiltrating was worse than calls for violence.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=15375.0
Classy leftist children here:
A really great interview with Andy Stern, retired leader of the SEIU, on where unions are headed. Actually very levelheaded, reform minded, and pragmatic. He's not a firebreather. Yes, I'd even suggest the righty members of the forum read it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/andy_stern_it_may_not_end_beau.html
Mission Accomplished Capuano--you freakin dooshbag of a congressman.
Where is the outrage that existed when the Tea Party protests were taking place? I have officially had it with unions.
Quote from: guido911 on February 27, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
I have officially had it with unions.
Well...now that it is official...
I have an idea. Don't join a union. They won't become lawyers. Fair deal.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 27, 2011, 09:08:04 PM
Well...now that it is official...
I have an idea. Don't join a union. They won't become lawyers. Fair deal.
You may think threatening to break the neck of a news man is fine--not me. And please, knock my profession, although given the collective brain power of the union members I have seen recently they couldn't get through undergrad. I'd be surprised if they graduated high school.
Edited.
Quote from: guido911 on February 27, 2011, 09:13:10 PM
You may think threatening to break the neck of a news man is fine--not me. And please, knock my profession, although given the collective brain power of the union members I have seen recently they couldn't get through undergrad. I'd be surprised if they graduated high school.
Edited.
That's rich.
How about this?:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50180.html
Although it took Rep Broun 2 days to denounce this, he did. He should have stomped that out the instance it left the old man's mouth. I don't care if you don't like the President's politics or ideology, to ask that question shows the intelligence of the common Tea Partier now. It almost sounds like they're advocating this by their silence.
This is the same guy who called Obama a 'Marxist', because he thought having a security committee that reported directly to him felt like it. He's also the one that during the SOTU he tweeted "Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution, you believe in socialism."
Quote from: guido911 on February 27, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
Where is the outrage that existed when the Tea Party protests were taking place?
Seen anyone bringing their AR-15 to these gatherings? Any talk of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of yaddayaddayadda? Nope. Just good ole fashioned marching, protesting, drum circling, etc.
Quote from: we vs us on February 27, 2011, 09:48:45 PM
Seen anyone bringing their AR-15 to these gatherings? Any talk of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of yaddayaddayadda? Nope. Just good ole fashioned marching, protesting, drum circling, etc.
Whatever. Did anyone in the tea party threaten to break a newsman's neck? How about pushing around young women? How about one man threatening to rape another man? Just keep apologizing for these union bozos or trying to draw some sort of an equivalence. Soon it will get worse.
Quote from: guido911 on February 27, 2011, 10:19:46 PM
Whatever. Did anyone in the tea party threaten to break a newsman's neck? How about pushing around young women? How about one man threatening to rape another man? Just keep apologizing for these union bozos or trying to draw some sort of an equivalence. Soon it will get worse.
How about someone asking 'when is someone going to shoot Obama?'. Someone off his meds?
I am going to wait until all the apparent supporters of violence against women and rape have checked in before I compare and contrast incivilities.
Quote from: guido911 on February 27, 2011, 10:40:14 PM
I am going to wait until all the apparent supporters of violence against women and rape have checked in before I compare and contrast incivilities.
Just like I'm waiting for all the apparent supporters who advocate shooting our sitting President check in. Wow. You're a drama queen, Tony.
This is delicious! There couldn't have been a more fitting group than labor unions to be the new guard of the Democrat party. They are now organizing in almost every state to protest everything from education to pipe-bending.
In a nation fed-up with entitlement, I can't wait to see how this turns out.
I'm surprised no one has thrown the Hitler/Nazi card yet.
Oh wait, there it is.
Quote from: we vs us on February 27, 2011, 09:48:45 PM
Seen anyone bringing their AR-15 to these gatherings? Any talk of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of yaddayaddayadda? Nope. Just good ole fashioned marching, protesting, drum circling, etc.
I am so glad to know that there can be no violence at a demonstration without an AK-47.
This country has had plenty of examples of violence on both sides when Unions and Companies clash, even without an AK-47.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 28, 2011, 10:05:53 AM
I am so glad to know that there can be no violence at a demonstration without an AK-47.
This country has had plenty of examples of violence on both sides when Unions and Companies clash, even without an AK-47.
Sure, absolutely. I definitely remember those kee-razy anarchists back in the 1880's. I used to work near the Haymarket, incidentally, when I lived in Chicago, so sure, I definitely know.
But to this group's credit, they've been in the capitol for a week, in numbers slowly increasing to nearly 100k this weekend, and there's been no reports of violence.
And trust me, if there were, Fox'd be allll over it.
Quote from: we vs us on February 28, 2011, 10:37:17 AM
I definitely remember those kee-razy anarchists back in the 1880's.
Wow! You're even older than I am. ;D
Quote from: we vs us on February 28, 2011, 10:37:17 AM
Sure, absolutely. I definitely remember those kee-razy anarchists back in the 1880's. I used to work near the Haymarket, incidentally, when I lived in Chicago, so sure, I definitely know.
But to this group's credit, they've been in the capitol for a week, in numbers slowly increasing to nearly 100k this weekend, and there's been no reports of violence.
And trust me, if there were, Fox'd be allll over it.
I think they've been doing a great job of getting their message out. They've been very clear. They are providing a good lesson for the American people. I think this type of public action, on the part of labor unions, needs to spread, and it looks like it will.
So often unions use soft bargaining behind closed doors to achieve their goals. The public never gets to see them with their masks off. Now we do.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 28, 2011, 12:22:19 PM
So often unions use soft bargaining behind closed doors to achieve their goals. The public never gets to see them with their masks off. Now we do.
Perhaps that is one of Walker's goals.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 27, 2011, 09:08:04 PM
I have an idea. Don't join a union. They won't become lawyers. Fair deal.
Does a lawyer not have to be a Union member to work for a Union? (Not necessarily the same Union.) That sounds a lot like when the Carpententer's Union hired non-union protesters in down town Tulsa.
And the hits just keep on coming.
QuoteLast Friday.... after the Assembly voted to engross the Budget Repair Bill, Hintz turned to a female colleague, Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: "You are F***king dead!"
New tone, indeed. Will he be held accountable?
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117064153.html?blog=y
But...but...but...the tea party. ::)
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 28, 2011, 12:27:22 PM
Does a lawyer not have to be a Union member to work for a Union? (Not necessarily the same Union.) That sounds a lot like when the Carpententer's Union hired non-union protesters in down town Tulsa.
They still have protesters at 71st and Sheridan (Montereau). See em every day sleeping in their lawn chairs next to the sign (leaning on the barbed wire fence).
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 28, 2011, 12:24:21 PM
Perhaps that is one of Walker's goals.
I don't think Walker came up with that on his own. I think he's just tough enough to see it through. As this grease-fire spreads across the country, we will see more governors/senators/candidates stand up to these groups.
Currently labor unions are having a tough time staying afloat. They have diminishing membership, and in this economy companies are justified in reducing their organized labor costs. Technology, and smart reorganization practices have also made it easier for companies to use fewer employees, reducing the attraction to organization.
This is the death-throw of the organized labor movement. The end of organized labor was inevitable, but I expected more of a slow fade as technology made it increasingly less justifiable. Now perhaps it will be more like ripping off a Band-aid. They will simply implode under their own weight without the support of the public.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 28, 2011, 12:54:21 PM
This is the death-throw of the organized labor movement. The end of organized labor was inevitable, but I expected more of a slow fade as technology made it increasingly less justifiable. Now perhaps it will be more like ripping off a Band-aid. They will simply implode under their own weight without the support of the public.
Here's hoping your right.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 28, 2011, 12:54:21 PM
This is the death-throw of the organized labor movement. The end of organized labor was inevitable, but I expected more of a slow fade as technology made it increasingly less justifiable. Now perhaps it will be more like ripping off a Band-aid. They will simply implode under their own weight without the support of the public.
Don't hold your breath waiting just yet. I believe the Unions will continue but they will realize the goose that lays the golden egg is no good dead. Workers that cannot stand out above others in a positive manner due to the nature of their work will probably still need some kind of organization to help them.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 28, 2011, 12:54:21 PM
This is the death-throw of the organized labor movement. The end of organized labor was inevitable, but I expected more of a slow fade as technology made it increasingly less justifiable. Now perhaps it will be more like ripping off a Band-aid. They will simply implode under their own weight without the support of the public.
It appears to have done the opposite. This issue has solidified unions and helped energize an apathetic democratic party.
It has become very clear which party cares for the working man.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 28, 2011, 01:25:06 PM
Don't hold your breath waiting just yet. I believe the Unions will continue but they will realize the goose that lays the golden egg is no good dead. Workers that cannot stand out above others in a positive manner due to the nature of their work will probably still need some kind of organization to help them.
The pressure on them is not just coming from the private sector employers now. It's coming from the public sector, and from the workers themselves.
Union members are seeing it less and less valuable to pay large portions of their income to a group that no longer has the power to represent them successfully. As in the case of a local company I am working with, all of the employees got together and opted to dump their union, because they saw no advantage to it.
It's no longer just the union v.s. employers, it's the union v.s. everyone.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 28, 2011, 01:35:53 PM
It appears to have done the opposite. This issue has solidified unions and helped energize an apathetic democratic party.
It has become very clear which party cares for the working man.
It has also become very clear which party cares for the taxpayer.
And enough with the pathetic and tired "working man" crap. I work, but I guess I am not a working man. My wife has personally saved more lives than I can count, perhaps even those lives of your idea of "working men", but I guess in your robotic mind she doesn't work either. These people are freakin "employees" like everyone else that works for another, and their employer are the taxpayers. Period.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 28, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
Union members are seeing it less and less valuable to pay large portions of their income to a group that no longer has the power to represent them successfully. As in the case of a local company I am working with, all of the employees got together and opted to dump their union, because they saw no advantage to it.
My grandfather (retired in 1962) was a tool and die maker. He said the only thing the Union could guarantee him was a strike.
If an employer is smart, they will take care of their employees and a union will not be needed or wanted by the workers.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 28, 2011, 01:35:53 PM
It has become very clear which party puts on a good show pretending to care cares for the working man.
Quote from: guido911 on February 28, 2011, 01:58:59 PM
And enough with the pathetic and tired "working man" crap. I work, but I guess I am not a working man. My wife has personally saved more lives than I can count, perhaps even those lives of your idea of "working men", but I guess in your robotic mind she doesn't work either. These people are freakin "employees" like everyone else that works for another, and their employer are the taxpayers. Period.
I must have touched a nerve.
If you have a job and consider yourself a working man, I will too.
I am not a robot. I am not a robot. I am not a robot.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 28, 2011, 02:12:56 PM
I must have touched a nerve.
If you have a job and consider yourself a working man, I will too.
No. I'm just tired of hearing about who is considered a "working man" or who is a member of the "working class". Just another way to pit the "haves" against the "have-nots".
Quote from: guido911 on February 28, 2011, 02:15:20 PM
Just another way to pit the "haves" against the "have-nots".
More of a symptom than a cause. The haves and have nots haven't been this pitted against one another since the Great Depression. And you only really have to compare the Dow to the unemployment rate to see why.
Dirty old man vs. 17 year old.
Quote from: guido911 on February 28, 2011, 06:34:44 PM
Dirty old man vs. 17 year old.
So not interested in home movies.
Quote from: Townsend on February 28, 2011, 10:06:38 PM
So not interested in home movies.
Of course you are not. It is counter to your interests.
Quote from: guido911 on February 28, 2011, 10:24:52 PM
Of course you are not. It is counter to your interests.
Ah, missed the joke I see. Keep trying.
Quote from: guido911 on February 28, 2011, 10:24:52 PM
Of course you are not. It is counter to your interests.
And yes, crazy and ill-informed is counter to my interests.
Quote from: guido911 on February 28, 2011, 01:58:59 PM
These people are freakin "employees" like everyone else that works for another, and their employer are the taxpayers. Period.
And we're apparently a pretty crappy employer, at least at the state level where people get compensated less than average for their positions and are still getting crap from wingers about getting paid too much.
Quote from: nathanm on March 01, 2011, 03:35:30 PM
And we're apparently a pretty crappy employer, at least at the state level where people get compensated less than average for their positions and are still getting crap from wingers about getting paid too much.
Well if they don't like it, they can QUIT! I don't like having whiny employees around anyway.
Quote from: nathanm on March 01, 2011, 03:35:30 PM
And we're apparently a pretty crappy employer, at least at the state level where people get compensated less than average for their positions and are still getting crap from wingers about getting paid too much.
I don't know about that? I think the gubment is a fine employer. If we just look at the City of Tulsa and make comparisons we get this:
Our lowest level unskilled labor pool is paid at $8.85 an hour.
I would bet that's more than the equivalent private sector position. I wonder what McDonald's pays?
{edit} according to McDonald's website it is $7.35 - $7.56.
Basic Maintenance Workers $14.36 - $19.65/Hr.
I wonder what the private sector pays a facilities maintenance worker?
{edit} Jim, in our building just told me he gets $14.25. He does building/landscape/HVAC/Plumbing/Construction.
Trash Workers start at $13.04/Hr.
I wonder what the private contractors pay trash technicians?
City of Tulsa employees get family healthcare plans covered for $135.94/per month with a 750 deductible.
Mine costs me over $300, with a $1,000 deductible, and it's the same brand!
They get a $0 prescription drug benefit (generic).
$10 for me.
They get free employee dental ($53.66) for the family.
$68 for me.
They get a 10.3%/yr paid to retirement.(4% "deferred" and 6.3% match).
Nothing paid into my retirement.
They get 2 - 4 weeks of vacation a year depending on tenure. 12 sick days a year.
I get 2 weeks vacation and an additional week of sick time for total of 15 days.
It doesn't seem, at least on the local level, that the gubment is a crappy employer or that workers make less, or have fewer benefits.
The basic refuse workers at the city start at $10.30 per hour. The water plant maintenance workers start at $10.00 per hour.
There are 1,322 workers in the Public Works department and 178 of them make less than $11.00 an hour.
Most of them are in the union.
Oh please, please, let this be true for humor's sake. Bwahahahaha:
http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/01/wisc-public-employees-invest-koch-owned-company
Especially after seeing these signs:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5467157425_901ca38600.jpg)
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTA-X09MOsRD-_ofl2giJX0t6NFnl8GlkCppncZhZRw_UVadWCi)
Props to this dem rep in Wisconsin rescuing a repub rep from the goonioun in Wisconsin just trying to do his job.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/01/video-wisconsin-dem-intervenes-to-protect-gop-senator-threatened-by-mob/
Countdown to condemnation from RM, T, and any other pro-goonioun dooshbag supporter 3...2...1
Quote from: guido911 on March 01, 2011, 09:26:46 PM
Props to this dem rep in Wisconsin rescuing a repub rep from the goonioun in Wisconsin just trying to do his job.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/01/video-wisconsin-dem-intervenes-to-protect-gop-senator-threatened-by-mob/
Countdown to condemnation from RM, T, and any other pro-goonioun dooshbag supporter 3...2...1
Ah yes, the drama queen is at it again!
Quote from: Hoss on March 01, 2011, 10:07:08 PM
Ah yes, the drama queen is at it again!
Something has really messed him up.
Quote from: Townsend on March 01, 2011, 10:08:36 PM
Something has really messed him up.
You can literally see the steam coming out of his ears.
AWOL senators will now apparently face a $100 per day fine for missing 2 or more days of work without leave.
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/117248828.html
Looks like mommy and daddy will have to kick in more money to help with this whiny kid.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/261111/parents-footing-bill-wisconsin-state-senator-chicago
I think we're almost to an endgame in regards to the Wisconsin protests. That is: at some point, and probably soon, the Dems will come back, they will vote and be overridden and Walker's budget will take effect. That will include the abolition of collective bargaining rights.
(There's no way now that Walker's budget doesn't include abolition of those rights; it's now not only the centerpiece of his budget solution but now the centerpiece of his political career.)
So the question now is, what does it do for organized labor nationwide, what does it do for Democrats, and Republicans, and what does it do for 2012.
My opinion is that it's been an unqualified win for labor -- regardless of the final result in WI -- simply because it's energized the unions. This has put into very stark relief the stakes, and IMO they will now see this wave of state questions as existential threats. So the unions will be much more involved in not only funding politicians but in striking, protesting, and actively pushing back. Conservatives will predictably hate this, progressives will predictably love it.
Conservatives are already energized for 2012 and have been since the midterms, but I think progressives are starting to finally get their mojo in gear, too. Tellingly, it's not around Obama and his accomplishments, but around defending labor, whose accomplishments can be traced back (in the popular liberal mind, if not in point of fact) to Roosevelt, the New Deal, and Depression-era politics.
Roosevelt has always been the place that modern American liberals wanted to go -- in tone, in policy, etc -- but Obama has been actively resisting a lot of that push. Obama's been conciliatory, hands off, and just hasn't wanted to lead the wave that his campaign generated. There's been a lot of momentum lost.
Anyway, it's given a boost to progressives by showing just how far some of the GOP folks will go to dismantle not just traditionally liberal voting blocs but traditionally liberal values (unions don't vote Democratic just because they want to; there's some ideological affinity there). I think the jury's still out on how the GOP will fare.
Quote from: we vs us on March 02, 2011, 02:37:24 PM
So the question now is, what does it do for organized labor nationwide, what does it do for Democrats, and Republicans, and what does it do for 2012.
I think it will depend a lot on what the rank and file union members believe that the unions can do for them. There have certainly been a lot of vocal union supporters at protests. I see a bit of a difference between Union Leadership and the R&F members in that the Leadership is fighting to keep their power whereas the R&F members may see it as powerless to keep certain privileges and benefits. We'll see.
Quote from: we vs us on March 02, 2011, 02:37:24 PM
I think we're almost to an endgame in regards to the Wisconsin protests. That is: at some point, and probably soon, the Dems will come back, they will vote and be overridden and Walker's budget will take effect. That will include the abolition of collective bargaining rights.
(There's no way now that Walker's budget doesn't include abolition of those rights; it's now not only the centerpiece of his budget solution but now the centerpiece of his political career.)
So the question now is, what does it do for organized labor nationwide, what does it do for Democrats, and Republicans, and what does it do for 2012.
My opinion is that it's been an unqualified win for labor -- regardless of the final result in WI -- simply because it's energized the unions. This has put into very stark relief the stakes, and IMO they will now see this wave of state questions as existential threats. So the unions will be much more involved in not only funding politicians but in striking, protesting, and actively pushing back. Conservatives will predictably hate this, progressives will predictably love it.
Conservatives are already energized for 2012 and have been since the midterms, but I think progressives are starting to finally get their mojo in gear, too. Tellingly, it's not around Obama and his accomplishments, but around defending labor, whose accomplishments can be traced back (in the popular liberal mind, if not in point of fact) to Roosevelt, the New Deal, and Depression-era politics.
Roosevelt has always been the place that modern American liberals wanted to go -- in tone, in policy, etc -- but Obama has been actively resisting a lot of that push. Obama's been conciliatory, hands off, and just hasn't wanted to lead the wave that his campaign generated. There's been a lot of momentum lost.
Anyway, it's given a boost to progressives by showing just how far some of the GOP folks will go to dismantle not just traditionally liberal voting blocs but traditionally liberal values (unions don't vote Democratic just because they want to; there's some ideological affinity there). I think the jury's still out on how the GOP will fare.
There are over a dozen reasons why I love your post, but this is by far the most important. Progressives and Liberals have taken this Union battle to heart, and for good reason. Today, the percentage of union laborers is far greater on the public side than the private side. According to WSJ
In 1960 31.9% of private sector workers and 10.8% of government workers were members of unions. In 2010 the numbers are reversed. 36.6% of government workers are union members while only 6.9% of private workers are. The very survival of unions is linked to government. The private sector has moved on and the unions have made their way into the last corner of the labor market. There was some speculation that President Obama would grant collective bargaining rights to federal union employees once elected, however after this very public incident in Wisconsin, that will never happen.
We are watching the death of an antiquated system that valued the group over the individual. Technology has brought us past this, but technology moves slower in government, that's why it became an attractive shelter for the union mentality.
The fact that progressives and liberals are still following the pipers of the unions delights me, because it proves something I have suspected for a long time. ;)
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 02, 2011, 02:54:17 PM
I think it will depend a lot on what the rank and file union members believe that the unions can do for them. There have certainly been a lot of vocal union supporters at protests. I see a bit of a difference between Union Leadership and the R&F members in that the Leadership is fighting to keep their power whereas the R&F members may see it as powerless to keep certain privileges and benefits. We'll see.
On one level I agree . . . whatever lesson that comes out of Wisconsin is going to be based in the perceived effectiveness of the unions. But I also think that the effectiveness of the unions won't be measured in how well they preserve their benefit, per se, but in how strongly they fight to keep them.
I think that the unions have to understand that in WI at least they are going to lose. They don't have any real levers of power. But they've been marching in Madison for two weeks now, and that's a pretty strong show of force.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134203177/why-unions-matter-to-democrats-its-not-just-money?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134203177/why-unions-matter-to-democrats-its-not-just-money?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Why Unions Matter To Democrats: It's Not Just Money
QuoteThe fight over public employee unions has exploded into a high-stakes partisan war. In Wisconsin and several other states, Republicans want to strip government unions of many collective bargaining rights. Two favorite proposals would disrupt the ability of unions to build their political funds. And that would deal a major blow to the Democratic Party.
In a fireside chat last month on television, Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker said his proposal is all about fiscal policy.
"It certainly isn't a battle with unions," he said. "If it was, we would have eliminated collective bargaining entirely, or we would have gone after the private-sector unions."
But on Wednesday, the Republican National Committee threw that argument out the window with a television ad airing in Wisconsin. According to the ad, "Obama and the union bosses are standing in the way of economic reform."
At the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group, Peter Flaherty takes it even further. "To be blunt," he says, "we can either bust the unions, or we can bust the country."
QuoteJohn Wilson, director of the National Education Association, says Republicans have oversimplified and misread the facts of his union.
"What they don't see is the fact that the NEA has 1 million Republican members."
That's nearly one-third of all NEA members. And Wilson says he's been hearing from them.
"Many of our Republican members basically have said, 'I'm not voting for Republican officeholders who take away my collective bargaining rights.' So I think [Republicans] should be very careful about what they're trying to do," says Wilson. "They actually might create a situation where they're losing votes."
Quote from: Townsend on March 02, 2011, 03:56:20 PM
That's nearly one-third of all NEA members. And Wilson says he's been hearing from them.
"Many of our Republican members basically have said, 'I'm not voting for Republican officeholders who take away my collective bargaining rights.' So I think [Republicans] should be very careful about what they're trying to do," says Wilson. "They actually might create a situation where they're losing votes."
So the
director of the NEA says that one third of its members are republican. So, I guess that 1/3 of the NEA political contributions go to republicans and republican causes then?
Quote...In all, over 3.2 million teachers are currently dues-paying members of the NEA. With annual dues generally exceeding $500 (about 1 percent of the average teacher salary), teachers should know how their dollars are being spent. Many will probably be surprised by the causes they are unintentionally supporting.
******
Of course, that the National Education Association supports liberal policies and organizations shouldn't be news to anyone now. According to OpenSecrets.org, since 1990, the NEA has given 93 percent of its political contributions to Democrats.
*****
The report shows that the NEA spent $32 million on political activities and lobbying and made $80 million in contributions and gifts to various organizations. Included in the list of groups receiving funding is a roster of left-wing organizations: People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ACORN, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Campaign for America's Future, Rainbow Push Coalition, the NAACP, and the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.
http://www.heritage.org/research/education-notebook/nea-doesnt-represent-all-teachers
So 1M repub members of the NEA may go off the reservation over collective bargaining rights yet stay members of the NEA despite its support of issues in large measure are inconsistent with republican views? Whatever.
Quote from: guido911 on March 02, 2011, 04:29:31 PM
So the director of the NEA says that one third of its members are republican. So, I guess that 1/3 of the NEA political contributions go to republicans and republican causes then?
http://www.heritage.org/research/education-notebook/nea-doesnt-represent-all-teachers
So 1M repub members of the NEA may go off the reservation over collective bargaining rights yet stay members of the NEA despite its support of issues in large measure are inconsistent with republican views? Whatever.
Awesome. More purity! Big tents = teh sux!
Quote from: we vs us on March 02, 2011, 04:51:04 PM
Awesome. More purity! Big tents = teh sux!
What, you disagree that those groups supported by the NEA are likewise supported by the repubs? Believe it or not, political parties do have issues unique to them. I know, shocking as that is. And speaking of "big tent", I didn't read where the NEA supports pro-life or 2nd Amendment rights. I guess they just never heard of those.
Will we soon need a "Kasich v. Public Employees Union" thread?
Quotehe Ohio state Senate passed a bill Wednesday that would curb the collective bargaining rights of public workers and strip away their power to strike.
Lawmakers approved the measure by a count of 17 to 16, with six Republicans voting in opposition.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/02/ohio.budget/index.html?section=cnn_latest