Wisconsin Union Protests Thread

[aREDSKIN]

Actually thats incorrect.

The average public school teacher in Wisconsin makes around 49,000 dollars in salary.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/04/rand-paul/us-sen-rand-paul-says-average-public-school-teache/

The latest figures available are for 2009-2010, according to a state Department of Public Instruction spokesman. Public school teachers in Wisconsin earned an average of $49,093 in salary plus $25,750 in benefits for a total of $74,843.[COLOR="Gold"]

.


See post #740

[JimboDaMan]

union sympathisers did what 7.1 million in damage to the state capitol building?

---------- Post added March-7th-2011 at 04:48 AM ----------



Not all taxpayers belong to unions so that wasnt a moot pointAnother right wing lie has entered conservative lore as accepted fact.

[jpyaks3]

See post #740

Sorry I thought that number was for the average Public school teacher in the state. Why do I care about just the ones in Milwaulkee wouldn't the entire states teachers pay be more relevant?

[Nerm]

Sen. Miller's comments are taken out of context in the Wall Street Journal article just released. Dems will return when collective bargaining is off the table. That could be soon based on the growing public opposition to the bill and the recall efforts against Republicans. Unfortunately, the WSJ fished for the quote they wanted, skipping this key step in logic: we won't come back until worker's rights are preserved.

I read that in the politico piece, but I dont think we can know what was said unless we were in on the conversation.

[aREDSKIN]

Another right wing lie has entered conservative lore as accepted fact.






Madison - Officials charged with overseeing the state Capitol Friday backpedaled sharply from their estimate - delivered in a high-profile court case only the day before - that demonstrators did more than $7 million in damage to the building and grounds during the tumultuous yet peaceful protests that erupted Feb. 15.

Touring the building on Friday morning with state architect Dan Stephans, who oversaw the Capitol's restoration that concluded in 2001, Jeff Plale said he had not immediately observed any damage from demonstrations over Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill. Plale is a former Democratic state senator and now the state facilities administrator.

Plale said that the state had not yet received any quote from an experienced contractor on the full cost of assessing and repairing any damages - something that outside experts said would be needed to legitimately estimate expenses.

"No one knows what the true number is going to be. There's going to have to be a thorough assessment of the Capitol. Any number that's given now is going to be someone's best guesstimate," said Jim Draeger, the deputy state historic preservation officer.

Draeger said he had no part in calculating the damage figure provided Thursday by Walker's administration.

It was Cari Anne Renlund, chief legal counsel for the Department of Administration, who said in court Thursday that costs for a full cleanup and restoration at the Capitol could reach $7.5 million.

"It's important to note that the $7.5 million described yesterday (Thursday) in court was the information I had available to me based upon estimates provided me by the Division of State Facilities," said Michael Huebsch, secretary of the Department of Administration, during a news conference.

That would be Plale's division.




http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117409458.html

[JimboDaMan]

So we see it's false, and we see right-wingers still repeating it. That about sum it up?

[DieselPwr44]

Can someone here please explain why it's ok to strip the Federal Employees Union of it's collective bargaining rights but not ok for the states to do the same?

[Wrong Direction]

Can someone here please explain why it's ok to strip the Federal Employees Union of it's collective bargaining rights but not ok for the states to do the same?

I hope someone gives it a shot. Should be interesting.

[Madison Redskin]

Can someone here please explain why it's ok to strip the Federal Employees Union of it's collective bargaining rights but not ok for the states to do the same?

Most federal employees have the right to collectively bargain. There are some exceptions for employees working in fields relating to national defense. Walker's bill is different - it strips the state's workers' right to collectively bargain on all matters except salary increases capped at CPI. Moreover, the people exempted from the bill are first responders (i.e., the state equivalent of people working on matters of defense).

[DieselPwr44]

Most federal employees have the right to collectively bargain. There are some exceptions for employees working in fields relating to national defense. Walker's bill is different - it strips the state's workers' right to collectively bargain on all matters except salary increases capped at CPI. Moreover, the people exempted from the bill are first responders (i.e., the state equivalent of people working on matters of defense).

Thank you.

[sacase]

Most federal employees have the right to collectively bargain. There are some exceptions for employees working in fields relating to national defense. Walker's bill is different - it strips the state's workers' right to collectively bargain on all matters except salary increases capped at CPI. Moreover, the people exempted from the bill are first responders (i.e., the state equivalent of people working on matters of defense).

If collective bargining is a "right" then why is it ok to strip anyone, reguardless of job of that right? I am sorry but unions in this day and age are worthless. This is just another example of the liberals and their everyone gets an "A" attitude. I don't want to collectively bargin, I can do it by myself and my performance will prove that. I don't want others dragging me down so they can benifit off of my hard work. Collective bargining is for people who underperform and want to be recognized for that under performance. Unions played an important role for workers rights in the past, the time has come to dismantle all of them. Everything they stood for is covered by federal law.

[deejaydana]

If collective bargining is a "right" then why is it ok to strip anyone, reguardless of job of that right? I am sorry but unions in this day and age are worthless. This is just another example of the liberals and their everyone gets an "A" attitude. I don't want to collectively bargin, I can do it by myself and my performance will prove that. I don't want others dragging me down so they can benifit off of my hard work. Collective bargining is for people who underperform and want to be recognized for that under performance. Unions played an important role for workers rights in the past, the time has come to dismantle all of them. Everything they stood for is covered by federal law.


This is exactly right. Great post.

Downward pressure of cities and states to balance their budgets is going to put incredible pressure on Unions and the deal making they did in the past. This story isn't going to go away any time soon.

[Madison Redskin]

If collective bargining is a "right" then why is it ok to strip anyone, reguardless of job of that right? I am sorry but unions in this day and age are worthless. This is just another example of the liberals and their everyone gets an "A" attitude. I don't want to collectively bargin, I can do it by myself and my performance will prove that. I don't want others dragging me down so they can benifit off of my hard work. Collective bargining is for people who underperform and want to be recognized for that under performance. Unions played an important role for workers rights in the past, the time has come to dismantle all of them. Everything they stood for is covered by federal law.

I agree that federal laws protect workers from the worst abuses and, as a result, have lowered the value of unions to society. However, I suspect that many people who argue that federal laws have rendered unions extraneous are the same people who would love to see OSHA, the EEOC, etc. go the way of the dinosaur.

[twa]

Suspicious devil ain't ya?...or is it paranoia? :paranoid:

[sacase]

I agree that federal laws protect workers from the worst abuses and, as a result, have lowered the value of unions to society. However, I suspect that many people who argue that federal laws have rendered unions extraneous are the same people who would love to see OSHA, the EEOC, etc. go the way of the dinosaur.

Actually not, OSHA and EEOC play important roles in protecting workers.

[Nerm]

Can someone here please explain why it's ok to strip the Federal Employees Union of it's collective bargaining rights but not ok for the states to do the same?

Here is a fairly unbiased look at the issue

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/02/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-most-federal-emplo/

[JimboDaMan]

If collective bargining is a "right" then why is it ok to strip anyone, reguardless of job of that right?Same reason that one size rarely fits all.

I am sorry but unions in this day and age are worthless.An obviously untrue statement, otherwise no union member would like their union.

This is just another example of the liberals and their everyone gets an "A" attitude. Actually, its another example of conservatives in management regarding the labor force as just another resource and not as people to be dealt with honestly and justly.

I don't want to collectively bargin, I can do it by myself and my performance will prove that. I don't want others dragging me down so they can benifit off of my hard work. Collective bargining is for people who underperform and want to be recognized for that under performance.That is your opinion. I don't agree that it is true in all circumstances, but it is a reasonable opinion. Don't take a unionized job, that way others won't be dragging you down.

Unions played an important role for workers rights in the past, the time has come to dismantle all of them.You don't want to join one so it's time to outlaw them?

Everything they stood for is covered by federal law.An obviously untrue statement. Federal law determines wage and benefit scales?

[sacase]

Same reason that one size rarely fits all. If it is a right, then it should apply to everyone. Obviously it is not.


An obviously untrue statement, otherwise no union member would like their union. Union drive up the prices of products, especially when it is unskilled labor.


Actually, its another example of conservatives in management regarding the labor force as just another resource and not as people to be dealt with honestly and justly.
People are resources for business, simple as that. Successful business realize that employees are the greatest resource they have an treat them fairly and pay them accordingly for their work. Businesses understand that if you want to obtain and keep quality people who will make quality products, you compensate them fairly. Many companies who do not have a unionized workforce do this all of the time. They pay benifits according to what they can afford.


That is your opinion. I don't agree that it is true in all circumstances, but it is a reasonable opinion. Don't take a unionized job, that way others won't be dragging you down. Don't worry, I never will. I know my worth as an employee and I know what I expect as fair compensation. I am not a mindless drone who feels that I need others to tell me what I am worth and what I am "entitled" to.


You don't want to join one so it's time to outlaw them?
No, it is time to stop hamstringing business by forcing them to comply with unions. If employees want to unionize and walk off the job, then I fully endorse businesses who fire all of the employees who strike and hire new employees who want to work hard for a fair price.


An obviously untrue statement. Federal law determines wage and benefit scales? Since when are benifits a right? If a company can afford to pay benifits, then they do so. Federal law does determine minimum pay as well as how much you can work someone and how you have to compensate them for that work. You can negotiate benifits. I have a friend that negotiated out of all benifits in favor of a significantly higher salary. It all comes down to personal responsibility, know your worth as worker, obtain skills that are in demand.

[JimboDaMan]

Whether benefits are a right is irrelevant It's my right to try to get what I want. How I do it is my business, how you do it is yours.

The rest of that is your personal belief, which is fine. Others have other beliefs, which is also fine. Personally I think you have a naive view of how many businesses operate and an almost childlike faith in the marketplace. If it's been as good to you as it has to me then I'm glad for you. But that doesn't work everywhere, for everybody.

[sacase]

Whether benefits are a right is irrelevant It's my right to try to get what I want. How I do it is my business, how you do it is yours.

The rest of that is your personal belief, which is fine. Others have other beliefs, which is also fine. Personally I think you have a naive view of how many businesses operate and an almost childlike faith in the marketplace. If it's been as good to you as it has to me then I'm glad for you. But that doesn't work everywhere, for everybody.

It is your right to try and get what you want just like it is the companies right to terminate your employment for whatever reason they choose.

I am very well compensated and well taken care of, all via non-union companies. If a company doesn't want to take care of me, then I am more than happy to take my skills somewhere else where they are appriciated. Fact of the matter is, there are far more businesses who take care of their employees who are non union than there are union employees.

[Larry]

I am sorry but unions in this day and age are worthless.

If they were worthless, it wouldn't be a matter of religious ferfor for the Party of Big Business to get rid of them. :)

The Republicans want to get rid of unions because unions are having an effect. (They're holding wages up.)

---------- Post added March-7th-2011 at 04:01 PM ----------


Suspicious devil ain't ya?...or is it paranoia? :paranoid:

Or is it the fact that he's neither stupid nor blind?

[Wrong Direction]

If they were worthless, it wouldn't be a matter of religious ferfor for the Party of Big Business to get rid of them. :)

The Republicans want to get rid of unions because unions are having an effect. (They're holding wages up.)

Just public unions. R's aren't trying to "get rid of" unions in general.

[Larry]

Just public unions. R's aren't trying to "get rid of" unions in general.

Right.

[sacase]

Just public unions. R's aren't trying to "get rid of" unions in general.

I will be honest. I want them all gone. I think they are leeches.

[Wrong Direction]

I will be honest. I want them all gone. I think they are leeches.

Understood.

No R politician anywhere though is proposing the end to all collective bargaining, as far as I've heard. They're simply proposing roll backs for government employees and an end to compulsory unionism in the private world. I think R's also want to end campaign contributions from unions but don't push for it because they don't want to lose contributions from big business. That's shady...though I'm a proponent of taking the money out of campaigning altogether. My biggest socialist issue actually. Perhaps if the money was out, both R's and D's would be able to have a sober conversation about unions.

[Thiebear]

So we see it's false, and we see right-wingers still repeating it. That about sum it up?

Your going to have to narrow that down Considerably for me to figure out which topic. That is an infinite loop statement.

I wouldn't mind fixing the Union to get them into almost every field in each state.. The problem is.
The Unions are too corrupt at the very top to fix themselves (kinda like Congress).
And the Repubs are too gungho to slow down enough to see reason.

[Predicto]

Ugz7W17GQOs

[twa]

Can't manufacture enough Angel Soft to clean up this :ols:

I love those...even the libtard ones

[Predicto]

Can't manufacture enough Angel Soft to clean up this :ols:

I love those...even the libtard ones

Yeah, I kind of thought that meme was played out, but that was a very good one.

[twa]

:ols:

March 7, 2011

Sen. Mark Miller
Parts Unknown, IL

Dear Senator Miller,

Thank you for your hand-delivered letter with an offer to meet, in Illinois, about the business and future direction of Wisconsin.

Let's set aside how bizarre that is for a moment.

As you know, this legislation is designed to finally balance the state budget, prevent layoffs and create jobs in the real world. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed Wisconsinites, and at least 1,500 more whose jobs are in the balance because of your media stunt. We all deserve better than this.

In the meantime, members of your caucus have been meeting with the governor's staff, talking to the media, trying to find a way back to Madison, and contradicting your message in public. In case you don't remember, you were present yourself at one of those meetings with the governor's staff. Your grasp of reality, and control of your caucus as minority leader, continues to amaze me.

As you know, your opportunity to compromise and amend the bill was on the floor of the state Senate. As you know, you forfeited that right and opportunity when you decided to flee the state instead of doing your job.

Your stubbornness in trying to ignore the last election and protect the broken status quo is truly shameful. While we wait for you and your colleagues to finally show up, Senate Republicans continue to stand ready to do the job we were elected to do, here in Wisconsin. I hope you are enjoying your vacation, and your vacation from reality.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Scott Fitzgerald
Senate Majority Leader
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wisconsin-gop-senate-leader-responds-dem-leaders-request-meet-illinois-border_553056.html

[aREDSKIN]

Ponder away or if you're a union shill go punch a wall. :pfft:




The biggest myth about labor unions is that unions are for the workers. Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are for politicians.

Nothing shows the utter cynicism of the unions and the politicians who do their bidding like the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" that the Obama administration tried to push through Congress. Employees' free choice as to whether or not to join a union is precisely what that legislation would destroy.

Workers already have a free choice in secret-ballot elections conducted under existing laws. As more and more workers in the private sector have voted to reject having a union represent them, the unions' answer has been to take away secret-ballot elections.

Under the "Employee Free Choice Act," unions would not have to win in secret-ballot elections in order to represent the workers. Instead, union representatives could simply collect signatures from the workers until they had a majority.

Why do we have secret ballots in the first place, whether in elections for unions or elections for government officials? To prevent intimidation and allow people to vote how they want to, without fear of retaliation.

This is a crucial right that unions want to take away from workers. The actions of union mobs in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere give us a free home demonstration of how little they respect the rights of those who disagree with them and how much they rely on harassment and threats to get what they want.

It takes world-class chutzpah to call circumventing secret ballots the "Employee Free Choice Act." To unions, workers are just the raw material used to create union power, just as iron ore is the raw material used by U.S. Steel and bauxite is the raw material used by the Aluminum Company of America.

The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers.


Continues.......http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell0307811.php3?printer_friendly

[Burgold]

I will be honest. I want them all gone. I think they are leeches.

The big problem with this is that history repeats. We see it all the time. Many of the unions are corrupt and broken and so I can understand people wanting to ax them, but unfortunately busting the unions often is like deregulation. Every so often one gets away with deregulation and we're better off for it, but three quarters of the time, the polluters start polluting again or the banks start sketchy lending practices again. There are reasons laws came into existance and those reasons haven't gone away. Likewise, there are reasons unions have come into existance and they haven't gone away. Look at the safety of the West Virginia mines if you want an easy example. There are people out there who value profit above everything including lives. So, unions still have value. Heck, the United States is a union of states. Would you prefer if we went back to being all autonomous states? Do you think Arizona's got it figured out?

[DRSmith]

Just public unions. R's aren't trying to "get rid of" unions in general.

What do you think right to work legislation is all about?

It says just because the majority of your workmates have voted to join and union and the company and the union agree to be recognized in a contract you do not have to abide it and can opt out of the union, it basically says democracy does not matter if you do not like the results, and this is done to try and weaken unions.

[twa]

Right to work is just what it says...that your right to employment is not dependent on some groups approval or membership in that group.
Nor is your job subject to their confiscatory acts and protection payments effecting your pay.

I live in a right to work state and plenty of unions exist....they just don't control employment.opportunity

[deejaydana]

The big problem with this is that history repeats. We see it all the time. Many of the unions are corrupt and broken and so I can understand people wanting to ax them, but unfortunately busting the unions often is like deregulation. Every so often one gets away with deregulation and we're better off for it, but three quarters of the time, the polluters start polluting again or the banks start sketchy lending practices again. There are reasons laws came into existance and those reasons haven't gone away. Likewise, there are reasons unions have come into existance and they haven't gone away. Look at the safety of the West Virginia mines if you want an easy example. There are people out there who value profit above everything including lives. So, unions still have value. Heck, the United States is a union of states. Would you prefer if we went back to being all autonomous states? Do you think Arizona's got it figured out?

This is an incredibly flimsy post to argue for the benefits of Unions. Labor laws alone have obviated much of the reason why Unions were brought about in the first place. Unfortunately the value that they offer, in my mind, is outweighed by all the many perversions and distortions that they now represent. They quite literally, where K-12 education is considered, represent a "race to the bottom" where standards are concerned. I want them all blown to bits as that earlier poster mentioned. I truly think it would help us all collectively if this happens.

[Madison Redskin]

Unfortunately the value that they offer, in my mind, is outweighed by all the many perversions and distortions that they now represent. They quite literally, where K-12 education is considered, represent a "race to the bottom" where standards are concerned. I want them all blown to bits as that earlier poster mentioned. I truly think it would help us all collectively if this happens.

How so? I certainly agree that teachers' unions are problematic in that they often insist on CBA provisions that severely limit the circumstances under which a school district may terminate underperforming teachers. However, I fail to see how their demands for good benefits, salaries, student-teacher ratios, etc. represent a "race to the bottom." Does anyone actually want to argue, with a straight face, that lowering teacher benefits and salaries and increase student-teacher ratios is a good thing?

Apparently, some people do. :)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---for-richer-and-poorer

[aREDSKIN]

Does anyone actually want to argue, with a straight face, that lowering teacher benefits and salaries and increase student-teacher ratios is a good thing?

Apparently, some people do. :)

[/url]

IMO many people outside of the Union cocoon would agree that as taxpayers we certainly are not getting a fair value for what we as taxpayers pay teachers "collectively". Student performance has been lacking and under performing for what 50 years or so now? At some point the Unions and the "professional educators" need to look hard at their own job performance and interject a change agent ASAP because what they are doing now is CLEARLY not working effectively for all.

[Predicto]

IMO many people outside of the Union cocoon would agree that as taxpayers we certainly are not getting a fair value for what we as taxpayers pay teachers "collectively". Student performance has been lacking and under performing for what 50 years or so now? At some point the Unions and the "professional educators" need to look hard at their own job performance and interject a change agent ASAP because what they are doing now is CLEARLY not working effectively for all.

You are right.

And what we are doing is grossly underpaying teachers so that the best and the brightest do not choose to go into that profession.

[jpyaks3]

IMO many people outside of the Union cocoon would agree that as taxpayers we certainly are not getting a fair value for what we as taxpayers pay teachers "collectively". Student performance has been lacking and under performing for what 50 years or so now? At some point the Unions and the "professional educators" need to look hard at their own job performance and interject a change agent ASAP because what they are doing now is CLEARLY not working effectively for all.

Except that Wisconsin has some of the best schools in the nation while schools that aren't unionized have some of the worst. I understand that there are other factors but I believe even if you normalize everything Wisconsin schools still come out ahead of non or weakly unionized teacher union states.

http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/20/sat-act-unions/

http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/21/teachers-unions-actsat-and-student-performance-is-wisconsin-out-ranking-the-non-union-states/

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 12:45 PM ----------


You are right.

And what we are doing is grossly underpaying teachers so that the best and the brightest do not choose to go into that profession.

Absolutely agree. But then again the Republican party has been attacking education at all levels for quite some time.

[Madison Redskin]

IMO many people outside of the Union cocoon would agree that as taxpayers we certainly are not getting a fair value for what we as taxpayers pay teachers "collectively". Student performance has been lacking and under performing for what 50 years or so now? At some point the Unions and the "professional educators" need to look hard at their own job performance and interject a change agent ASAP because what they are doing now is CLEARLY not working effectively for all.

And the solution to our ills is to lower teacher compensation? Does that really make sense? Of course it doesn't. As I previously noted, government authorities should be targeting underperforming teachers and insisting on CBA provisions that permit those teachers to go buh-bye. I fail to see how lowering compensation accomplishes that goal.

[JimboDaMan]

And the solution to our ills is to lower teacher compensation? Does that really make sense? Of course it doesn't. As I previously noted, government authorities should be targeting underperforming teachers and insisting on CBA provisions that permit those teachers to go buh-bye. I fail to see how lowering compensation accomplishes that goal.Well, the hope is that without unions and tenure it will be easier to get rid of underperforming teachers. Which is pretty much true. But with salaries unchanged, and less job security, replacing those fired teachers with better ones is a pipe dream. It's not like there's a long waiting list of highly qualified young teachers just begging to crack the ranks of working teachers if those old nonperformers would just get out of the way.

[aREDSKIN]

Except that Wisconsin has some of the best schools in the nation while schools that aren't unionized have some of the worst. I understand that there are other factors but I believe even if you normalize everything Wisconsin schools still come out ahead of non or weakly unionized teacher union states.

http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/20/sat-act-unions/

http://studentactivism.net/2011/02/21/teachers-unions-actsat-and-student-performance-is-wisconsin-out-ranking-the-non-union-states/[COLOR="Gold"]




Even if one buys this person's analysis, inferences & conclusions correlation does not prove causation. Interesting anyways.

[deejaydana]

How so? I certainly agree that teachers' unions are problematic in that they often insist on CBA provisions that severely limit the circumstances under which a school district may terminate underperforming teachers. However, I fail to see how their demands for good benefits, salaries, student-teacher ratios, etc. represent a "race to the bottom." Does anyone actually want to argue, with a straight face, that lowering teacher benefits and salaries and increase student-teacher ratios is a good thing?

Apparently, some people do. :)



I love the leaps made regularly here in the Tailgate. Say one thing and it's a sign that you're implying, explicitly, a dozen other statements never made.

Blowing up the unions does not mean that you have to destroy or diminish salaries. Benefits most assuredly need to be reformed however, they are completely unsustainable and need to conform to 'defined contributions' and not 'defined benefits.' This is just one thing that needs to change among many. The sad reality, in the very near term, is that with states so saddled in debt, much larger classrooms will be coming soon. I look at California K-12 where just a gigantic amount of taxpayer money goes, and all you find is ever diminishing returns. Pouring more money into that is not the answer. As I said, blow up the Unions and do it soon. We quite literally couldn't do any worse then we're doing now.

[Madison Redskin]

I love the leaps made regularly here in the Tailgate. Say one thing and it's a sign that you're implying, explicitly, a dozen other statements never made.

Blowing up the unions does not mean that you have to destroy or diminish salaries. Benefits most assuredly need to be reformed however, they are completely unsustainable and need to conform to 'defined contributions' and not 'defined benefits.' The sad reality in the very near term, is that with states so saddled in debt, much larger classrooms will be coming soon.

So, in other words, I wrongly assumed that you want to decrease salaries and benefits. You only want to decrease benefits. Gotcha.

[deejaydana]

So, in other words, I wrongly assumed that you want to decrease salaries and benefits. You only want to decrease benefits. Gotcha.

So, let me ask you this, is it equitable (on any level) for teachers to not contribute to their own health care a single dime? Am I foolish to want them to pay their own way, or even come somewhat closer to what others pay in the private sector ?

[Madison Redskin]

So, let me ask you this, is it equitable (on any level) for teachers to not contribute to their own health care a single dime? Am I foolish to want them to pay their own way, or even come somewhat closer to what others pay in the private sector ?

Wisconsin public workers are generally paid less, but get better fringe benefits, than their peers in private sector. When you review total compensation for workers in private and public, private sector workers earn about 10% more than their peers in the public sector. I'm sure most of them would gladly take more salary in exchange for fewer fringe benefits, although I don't think the taxpayers would like that arrangement.

Fox News frequently compares compensation for workers in the public sector to workers in the private sector; nevermind the fact that comparison is total BS because public sector employees are better educated than their peers in the private sector.

[aREDSKIN]

Fox News frequently compares compensation for workers in the public sector to workers in the private sector; nevermind the fact that comparison is total BS because public sector employees are better educated than their peers in the private sector.


But here's the rub with that argument even if it's accurate or germain to the job at hand.


"Even on an hour-for-hour basis, one would expect private sector workers to be more productive due to the lack of competitive forces in government. Private sector businesses face constant pressures of competition to innovate and improve their goods and services, lest they lose business to their competitors. Government agencies, by contrast, are typically monopolies protected by law, and thus are not subject to such competitive incentives and pressures. (There is a reason for all those jokes and complaints about the efficiency of post office and DMV workers.)"

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary


Add to that the failure of the "educational system" to teach little Johnny to read, write & count.

[Wrong Direction]

There's clearly an issue with the states's fiscal solvency here. Their cost drivers these days are education and health care. When people see states giving away very generous benefits at little or no cost, it's obviously a place to want to cut. With high unemployment and downward pressure on wages for so many, it's obvious that the people will push back when the government wants to take more from them to pay for superior benefits.

...

But there's a larger philosophical debate here about teachers unions. Solvency matters, but they've lobbied for a system that does promote failure. By this I mean a few things.

First, they support social promotion to the point that it's ruinous for the promising children in failing schools. Classes are routinely filled with a lot of students who slow things down because they're not prepared for their grade.

Second, they have very little accountability. This is bad in any workplace, but union workplaces make it a little worse. Despite some on the right who correctly point to this being a problem, I don't think it's a huge problem. I think it's secondary to the first and third point here.

Third, they support a VERY inflexible top-down management paradigm where what's best for one is best for all. This management paradigm punishes innovation at the teacher and principal level. This is perhaps most obviously seen with the discipline problems in our failing schools. Bad kids are regularly returned to class to disrupt the rest. In fairness, this is a failure of politicians as well, but the lack of an ability for principals to manage these kids, and staff teachers VERY differently to deal with them is an albatross. This is also one reason why rising teacher compensation hasn't resulted in improved performance. In a nutshell, you have to go outside of the public school system to operationalize any real change. For background on one model that's seeming to work, read about KIPP. Instead, public school teachers have local, state and federal rules to follow, strongly regimenting their day and sapping the creativity of teachers. This "system" is a product of the teachers unions. It doesn't exist despite them, it exists because of them and it diminishes any impact any teacher can make within the system..

[kramdizzle]

I am in a union. I am a site supervisor for a security company and I am extremely overpaid for the amount of work I do. I took my job when I was unemployed and needed a job, but with the economy the way it is I'll probably stay where I am for a min. The union that I belong to is good for two things: 1) getting us overpaid for the work we do, I made $70,000 for nothing last year! 2) Making sure useless people have a job. There are worthless turds where I work and we cant get rid of them until they F up 10 times or something like that.

[Madison Redskin]

I am in a union. I am a site supervisor for a security company and I am extremely overpaid for the amount of work I do. I took my job when I was unemployed and needed a job, but with the economy the way it is I'll probably stay where I am for a min. The union that I belong to is good for two things: 1) getting us overpaid for the work we do, I made $70,000 for nothing last year! 2) Making sure useless people have a job. There are worthless turds where I work and we cant get rid of them until they F up 10 times or something like that.

So your view of unions generally is based on your personal experience with one union, one employer, and one industry?

Instead of turning this thread into a general referendum on the popularity of unions and a forum in which people spew platitudes, why don't we discuss the merits of particular CBAs, unions, and legislation using facts, data, etc.?

[aREDSKIN]

So your view of unions generally is based on your personal experience with one union, one employer, and one industry?

Instead of turning this thread into a general referendum on the popularity of unions and a forum in which people spew platitudes, why don't we discuss the merits of particular CBAs, unions, and legislation using facts, data, etc.?


KD's take on what exactly he thinks of his union is right on point. Here's someone who's actually in a union and sees first hand what a union does etc. It's very pertinent to the discussion. It may not be typical of all unions, but if were a betting man I'd bet the house on it, that it is.

[deejaydana]

KD's take on what exactly he thinks of his union is right on point. Here's someone who's actually in a union and sees first hand what a union does etc. It's very pertinent to the discussion. It may not be typical of all unions, but if were a betting man I'd bet the house on it, that it is.


That post may or may not be serious, I couldn't tell from the tone actually. What I do know from first hand experience thru friends and family is the gross inefficiencies (and just outright waste) that is a regular, almost expected, part of their daily existence. I'm not actually sure we can pare it down easily because once gov't programs are in place they are seemingly indestructable (for good or ill, mostly ill from a taxpayer perspective).

One thing that hasn't been brought up yet in this thread, from what I can remember, is how disprotionately the gov't has grown the past 10 years. We have so much bloat it's absurd.

[jpyaks3]

But here's the rub with that argument even if it's accurate or germain to the job at hand.


"Even on an hour-for-hour basis, one would expect private sector workers to be more productive due to the lack of competitive forces in government. Private sector businesses face constant pressures of competition to innovate and improve their goods and services, lest they lose business to their competitors. Government agencies, by contrast, are typically monopolies protected by law, and thus are not subject to such competitive incentives and pressures. (There is a reason for all those jokes and complaints about the efficiency of post office and DMV workers.)"

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary


Add to that the failure of the "educational system" to teach little Johnny to read, write & count.

This is all just fluff and bull****. There is no empirical data put forth just a weak free market solves all argument. There is no hard facts or data just an assumption that really has no actual data or basis to build off of, he is just assuming things based on generalities.

[aREDSKIN]

This is all just fluff and bull****. There is no empirical data put forth just a weak free market solves all argument. There is no hard facts or data just an assumption that really has no actual data or basis to build off of, he is just assuming things based on generalities.

LOL You must be a Gov't employee.

[Madison Redskin]

KD's take on what exactly he thinks of his union is right on point. Here's someone who's actually in a union and sees first hand what a union does etc. It's very pertinent to the discussion. It may not be typical of all unions, but if were a betting man I'd bet the house on it, that it is.

And what do you point to in support of your opinion about unions? I'm seeing the anti-union crowd throwing around a lot of platitudes and changing the subject when confronted with arguments that rely on data and, ya know, facts. ;)

[jpyaks3]

LOL You must be a Gov't employee.

Nope don't work from the government, but it would be nice if you could support your argument with more than worthless platitudes about how the government employees must be doing less work because *gasp* its not the free market so it must be inefficient.

[deejaydana]

People believe what they want to believe. I'm not saying folks in the public sector don't work for their money but, on average, they simply can't be fired very easily, the collect benefits far exceeding those in the private sector and yes, on average they receive pay which exceeds people in the productive part of the workforce, and, well, I'll stop at just that. If you want anecdotal evidence to back this I can provide that too.

[jpyaks3]

People believe what they want to believe. I'm not saying folks in the public sector don't work for their money but, on average, they simply can't be fired very easily, the collect benefits far exceeding those in the private sector and yes, on average they receive pay which exceeds people in the productive part of the workforce, and, well, I'll stop at just that. If you want anecdotal evidence to back this I can provide that too.

Actually every study I have seen shows that public employees receive pay that is significantly less (around 8-10%) than people in the private sector with the same education level. But don't let that get in the way of your talking points.

http://washingtonpolicywatch.org/2011/03/02/public-employees-earn-less-than-their-private-sector-counterparts/

Wages of public employees are typically lower than those of people working in private companies with similar levels of education and work experience. Nonetheless, critics frequently point to better benefits in the public sector, and advocate cutting public employee pension, health, and other benefits.

However, even with better benefits calculated into the equation, a number of analyses have found that public employees receive less total compensation than their private sector peers.

Nationally, state and local governments spent $26.25 per hour per employee in 2010, with 34% of total compensation represented by benefits. Private industry employers spent $27.88 per hour, with 29.4% for benefits.

A study of national data controlling for education, work experience, annual hours worked, organizational size and other factors found that total compensation was 1.8% less for local government employees and 7.6% less for state government employees than for comparable private sector workers.

A separate study found that state government employees across the country earned 6.8% less in total compensation than comparable private sector peers between 2000 and 2008, and local government employees earned 7.4% less.

According to an analysis by the Seattle Times, median wages for the same type of work was lower for Washington state government workers than in the private sector in the majority of nearly 200 occupational categories examined. State government workers tended to earn higher wages in lower paying jobs.

[mboyd784]

Watched "Waiting for Superman" today. Very informative and perhaps a bit one-sided, but all-around I would recommend it without reservation to those of us who posted in this thread.

[Madison Redskin]

Actually every study I have seen shows that public employees receive pay that is significantly less (around 8-10%) than people in the private sector with the same education level. But don't let that get in the way of your talking points.

Earlier in the thread, people were complaining about the ridiculous fringe benefits that public employees receive. I then noted that public employees earn less total compensation than their private sector counterparts. After I noted as much, the conversation shifted from a discussion about compensation for public employees to one about unions more generally. I suppose that, if the facts aren't on your side, just ignore them and change the subject.

[Toe Jam]

Power to the people! Victory is in sight!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41979185/ns/politics-more_politics/

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has offered to keep certain collective bargaining rights in place for state workers in a proposed compromise aimed at ending a nearly three-week standoff with absent Senate Democrats, according to e-mails released Tuesday by his office.

[aREDSKIN]

A good article on public vs private compensations etc.


Snip.......


"It's the government sector worker who's the new elite, the highest-paid worker on the block," said David Gregory, who teaches labor and employment law at New York's St. John's University.

For instance, most non-uniformed public employees who have worked in New Jersey for 30 years with an ending salary of $85,000 can look forward to retiring at 55 with an annual pension of about $46,000. Working until age 60 and a salary of $90,000 can bring a pension of $57,000. And many of the New Jersey's public-sector retirees have no or low premiums for their health insurance.


continues.....http://www.cnbc.com/id/41965569

[Burgold]

I think that's interesting, aREDSKIN. It says something about wealth disparity. It used to be the government job was more stable, but you would get paid relatively less. These days, at a time when many corporations are making the greatest profits they ever have and there are more billionaires in the country than in the fifties we had millionaires... the private sector worker is being paid less than the government worker. That speaks to something wrong in the free market. It shows how very, very little ever trickles down.

There's something wrong in Denmark and Detroit.

[kramdizzle]

............

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 08:11 AM ----------


So your view of unions generally is based on your personal experience with one union, one employer, and one industry?

Instead of turning this thread into a general referendum on the popularity of unions and a forum in which people spew platitudes, why don't we discuss the merits of particular CBAs, unions, and legislation using facts, data, etc.?

Well, that is MY opinion on MY union and my sister is a teacher who is in a teachers union and says that the worst teachers are the ones that cant be fired. I also work a government building where the employees spend most of the day walking around talking to me and their fellow government employees. My first day here a guy (gov employee) told me a joke: Q: what do government employees and lesbians have in common? A: the both don’t do D ick. When I worked in the private sector and cant remember stopping work for more than 10-15 min a day, but government employees do that every hour.

[Burgold]

I think it depends. Tenure certainly makes it tougher to be fired, but not impossible. I go back and forth on tenure. It's probably a good thing considering how some thin skinned and ridiculous parents can be. Teachers would get fired left and right for the most trifling of nonoffenses just to shut up a number of these parents. On the other hand, while most teachers I know worked incredibly hard and deligently and really gave a damn there were some who deserved to be sent backing. I think the balance to tenure is the fact that teaching (esp. spec ed teaching) has one of the highest burnout rates of any occupation in the country. It is a far tougher gig than most ever imagine.

As for government workers, I think it depends on the office and the floor and the Dept. Some work their arses off and a 16 hour day is short. I know several in State like that. They are always scrambling, working and are just non-stop. There are others who loaf and see how much they can get away with. In other words, government workers match any population of workers. Some are great while others are bums. Some work really hard and are understaffed while others twiddle their thumbs and play solitaire all day.

[Madison Redskin]

Well, that is MY opinion on MY union and my sister is a teacher who is in a teachers union and says that the worst teachers are the ones that cant be fired. I also work a government building where the employees spend most of the day walking around talking to me and their fellow government employees. My first day here a guy (gov employee) told me a joke: Q: what do government employees and lesbians have in common? A: the both don’t do Dick. When I worked in the private sector and cant remember stopping work for more than 10-15 min a day, but government employees do that every hour.

As I previously mentioned, my biggest problem with teachers' unions is they tend to fight tooth and nail to prevent underperforming teachers from being fired. They also tend to fight tooth and nail to prevent government authorities from measuring their performance, by, for example, requiring students to take statewide tests. That's why I supported No Child Left Behind and take issue with the NEA when it tries to fight legislation related to teacher performance.

However, teacher pay/benefits and teacher tenure are two separate issues. Don't assume that I side with the teachers union on issues related to tenure, just because I side with them on the issue of Walker's budget repair bill. I stick with "one side" as long as they make sense.

[jpyaks3]

A good article on public vs private compensations etc.


Snip.......


"It's the government sector worker who's the new elite, the highest-paid worker on the block," said David Gregory, who teaches labor and employment law at New York's St. John's University.

For instance, most non-uniformed public employees who have worked in New Jersey for 30 years with an ending salary of $85,000 can look forward to retiring at 55 with an annual pension of about $46,000. Working until age 60 and a salary of $90,000 can bring a pension of $57,000. And many of the New Jersey's public-sector retirees have no or low premiums for their health insurance.


continues.....http://www.cnbc.com/id/41965569

Forgot to add this part in for the same article


Olivia Mitchell, a professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says the data isn't perfect. It doesn't compare workers with the same education or experience levels, and it covers a broad range of jobs. Also, she said, it doesn't take into account that about one-fourth of public workers aren't covered by Social Security.

There's one clear downside for the public employees: "We also know that the public-sector pensions are in deep trouble financially," Mitchell said, pointing to studies that suggest that they're underfunded by a total of $3 trillion, largely because governments have skipped payments. "Exactly what will be done about that, nobody knows."

[jpyaks3]

Looks like it wasn't budgetary after all, slimy **** going down in Wisconsin.


In a brief meeting that lasted barely five minutes, Wisconsin Republicans appear to have jammed through the union-busting, anti-collective-bargaining provision that has been the focus of the protests and political turmoil in the state for the past month.

Here, as best we understand it, is what just happened:

The Republican leadership convened a special conference committee late in the day to take up the collective bargaining provision only, separate and apart from the budget bill it was a part of. By a vote of 4-2, the conference committee just approved sending that solo provision by itself to the floor of each chamber.

And here's the key part: Because it's no longer part of a budget bill, the collective bargaining provision can now get a final vote in the Senate with or without the Senate Democrats who fled the state to deny Republicans a quorum. It renders their protest-by-absence moot.

It also throws gas on the political fire Gov. Walker has set. Much more on this tomorrow and as developments warrant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41996994/ns/politics-more_politics/

MADISON, Wis. — Republicans pushed a provision stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights through the state Senate Wednesday evening by separating it from Gov. Scott Walker's controversial budget bill.

....

By separating the anti-union measure from the budget bill, Republicans did not need 20 senators for a quorum.
Before the Senate floor vote, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald read the bill to a hastily created joint conference committee. Rep. Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, objected, saying the committee's meeting was in violation of the state's open meetings law. But Fitzgerald went ahead with the vote, which was seen live on WisconsinEye, and the measure was approved.

EDIT: Can't imagine there won't be strikes, massive strikes hopefully.

[nonniey]

Looks like it wasn't budgetary after all, slimy **** going down in Wisconsin.


In a brief meeting that lasted barely five minutes, Wisconsin Republicans appear to have jammed through the union-busting, anti-collective-bargaining provision that has been the focus of the protests and political turmoil in the state for the past month.

Here, as best we understand it, is what just happened:

The Republican leadership convened a special conference committee late in the day to take up the collective bargaining provision only, separate and apart from the budget bill it was a part of. By a vote of 4-2, the conference committee just approved sending that solo provision by itself to the floor of each chamber.

And here's the key part: Because it's no longer part of a budget bill, the collective bargaining provision can now get a final vote in the Senate with or without the Senate Democrats who fled the state to deny Republicans a quorum. It renders their protest-by-absence moot.

It also throws gas on the political fire Gov. Walker has set. Much more on this tomorrow and as developments warrant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41996994/ns/politics-more_politics/

MADISON, Wis. — Republicans pushed a provision stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights through the state Senate Wednesday evening by separating it from Gov. Scott Walker's controversial budget bill.

....

By separating the anti-union measure from the budget bill, Republicans did not need 20 senators for a quorum.
Before the Senate floor vote, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald read the bill to a hastily created joint conference committee. Rep. Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, objected, saying the committee's meeting was in violation of the state's open meetings law. But Fitzgerald went ahead with the vote, which was seen live on WisconsinEye, and the measure was approved.

EDIT: Can't imagine there won't be strikes, massive strikes hopefully.

Was wondering how long it would take the Senate to realize they could pass the collective bargaining restriction seperately without the Democrats present. They should have done this seperately in the first place.

[twa]

Was wondering how long it would take the Senate to realize they could pass the collective bargaining restriction seperately without the Democrats present. They should have done this seperately in the first place.

They knew it before,yet preferred to do it as a package deal.....maybe this will bring the fleebaggers back for a vote

[JimboDaMan]

They knew it before,yet preferred to do it as a package deal.....maybe this will bring the fleebaggers back for a voteIt's good to see right wingers use the term fleebagger. The term "teabagger" had been pretty much stamped out of polite society but now it's acceptable again.

[twa]

It's good to see right wingers use the term fleebagger. The term "teabagger" had been pretty much stamped out of polite society but now it's acceptable again.

Whatever floats ya boat,I ain't your daddy

http://i965.photobucket.com/albums/ae140/sigcarlfred/inothernews.jpg

http://www.comicallyincorrect.com/fleebaggers%202%20sm.jpg

[jpyaks3]

If there was any question about motives Fitzgerald clears it up right quick.

http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/3754476734/wisconsin-scott-fitzgerald-response

In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly moments ago, State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), one of Walker’s closest allies in the legislature, confirmed the true political motive of Walker’s anti-union push. Fitzgerald explained that “this battle” is about eliminating unions so that “the money is not there” for the labor movement. Specifically, he said that the destruction of unions will make it “much more difficult” for President Obama to win reelection in Wisconsin…

[Madison Redskin]

If there was any question about motives Fitzgerald clears it up right quick.

http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/3754476734/wisconsin-scott-fitzgerald-response

In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly moments ago, State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), one of Walker’s closest allies in the legislature, confirmed the true political motive of Walker’s anti-union push. Fitzgerald explained that “this battle” is about eliminating unions so that “the money is not there” for the labor movement. Specifically, he said that the destruction of unions will make it “much more difficult” for President Obama to win reelection in Wisconsin…

I have enjoyed listening to people who bought the BS that Walker was serving up (i.e., "this is not a ploy to use power to defund the 'enemy'; it's all about the budget"). I think I will enjoy hearing them address this story even more.

[twa]

I have enjoyed listening to people who bought the BS that Walker was serving up (i.e., "this is not a ploy to use power to defund the 'enemy'; it's all about the budget"). I think I will enjoy hearing them address this story even more.

Interesting use of quotations inserted into commentary :ols:...Wonder if the actual interview is remotely the same ?

[Madison Redskin]

Interesting use of quotations inserted into commentary :ols:...Wonder if the actual interview is remotely the same ?

Wow, that was totally taken out of context. :ols:

eLJdijPEBJE

[Larry]

I'm shocked.

You mean the state just passed legislation designed to eliminate unions that donate to Democrats, while excluding unions that donate to Republicans, for political reasons?

[Madison Redskin]

I'm shocked.

You mean the state just passed legislation designed to eliminate unions that donate to Democrats, while excluding unions that donate to Republicans, for political reasons?

Well, you're not the only person who is shocked. ;) There are a number of fellow ESers who have been lapping up the BS that Walker has been dishing out and denying that the bill is motivated by politics.

[twa]

Seems a strange start..."If they flip the Senate"....sorry but Think Progress editing does not inspire confidence

There is no doubt cutting union influence hurts the Dems,but I would prefer a full clip before accepting that as the ""true political motive "" as asserted.

I'm for it either way regardless ...sounds like a win-win to save money and cut the Dems lemmings off at the knees :D

[Madison Redskin]

Seems a strange start..."If they flip the Senate"....sorry but Think Progress editing does not inspire confidence

There is no doubt cutting union influence hurts the Dems,but I would prefer a full clip before accepting that as the ""true political motive "" as asserted.

I'm for it either way regardless ...sounds like a win-win to save money and cut the Dems lemmings off at the knees :D

I linked the relevant part of the video. If you want to see the entire clip, go to this (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wisconsin-state-senator-on-recall-effort-this-is-about-the-presidential-election-in-2012/) site, scroll down to the video, and start watching around the 1:00 mark. Then, please let me know if it is being taken out of context.

[sacase]

sweet, love it. Now let's see if the dems come slinking back home. I have to applaud them for sticking to their guns.

[PeterMP]

Wow, that was totally taken out of context. :ols:

eLJdijPEBJE
By morning, there will be some statement about how he misspoke or for some reason everybody misunderstood his words.

Its so disappointing to see how at even at the state level, even in a place like WI, it has become essentially all about national politics.

[jpyaks3]

sweet, love it. Now let's see if the dems come slinking back home. I have to applaud them for sticking to their guns.

Think the Republican Senators have more to worry about, recall efforts are underway and with up to 70% of the population supporting collective bargain rights they may be in for a problem. Also long term Walker is done.

[twa]

I linked the relevant part of the video. If you want to see the entire clip, go to this (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wisconsin-state-senator-on-recall-effort-this-is-about-the-presidential-election-in-2012/) site, scroll down to the video, and start watching around the 1:00 mark. Then, please let me know if it is being taken out of context.

Why skip?....this is precisely why I hate video and distrust editing...it certainly is a different context than presented in the earlier post

[jpyaks3]

Why skip?....this is precisely why I hate video and distrust editing...it certainly is a different context than presented in the earlier post

Well explain you point of view. What is the context. Why do you feel it was out of context. Put some substance forward.

[Madison Redskin]

Why skip?....this is precisely why I hate video and distrust editing...it certainly is a different context than presented in the earlier post

Watch the whole thing if you like. I was trying to be helpful, not to conceal the context.

The GOP understands that the bill will cripple unions in Wisconsin and, by extension, hurt Obama and other Democrats running for office. Senator Fitzgerald said as much, no matter how you spin the video. Walker's supporters will argue that the impact on Democrats' fundraising efforts was not a driving force behind the bill, notwithstanding the video and the fact that the bill applies to unions that tend to support Democrats and exempts unions that tend to support Republicans.

[twa]

Think the Republican Senators have more to worry about, recall efforts are underway and with up to 70% of the population supporting collective bargain rights they may be in for a problem. Also long term Walker is done.

:ols:...I think the Dem party is screwing up

I can see the ads now

Buying politicians didn't work
Padding the polls didn't work
Fleeing the state didn't work

Hey if ya can't win the elections and would rather run than vote give recalls a shot :silly:

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 09:46 PM ----------


Well explain you point of view. What is the context. Why do you feel it was out of context. Put some substance forward.

Why when simply making **** up works?

What was the subject of the interview?...you want substance start from the beginning

[Madison Redskin]

Hey if ya can't win the elections and would rather run than vote give recalls a shot :silly:

You do realize that the Republicans Senators won't be kicked out of office unless they lose a recall election, right?

[jpyaks3]

:ols:...I think the Dem party is screwing up

I can see the ads now

Buying politicians didn't work
Padding the polls didn't work
Fleeing the state didn't work

Hey if ya can't win the elections and would rather run than vote give recalls a shot :silly:

I think you vastly underestimate how pissed people are about this in Wisconsin. The majority of the Wisconsin public is against what just got forced through (by questionable means) and the unions and the left are finally organizing and energized. No one knew Walker was going to **** them over like this and he can't hide behind the financial aspects of it so I think the Democratic Party is doing exactly what it needs to right now.

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 10:49 PM ----------


:ols:...I think the Dem party is screwing up

I can see the ads now

Buying politicians didn't work
Padding the polls didn't work
Fleeing the state didn't work

Hey if ya can't win the elections and would rather run than vote give recalls a shot :silly:

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 09:46 PM ----------



Why when simply making **** up works?

What was the subject of the interview?...you want substance start from the beginning

So why was the summery I posted wrong or out of context or anything, you haven't even formed an argument its pathetic really.

EDIT: I fully expect some more political cartoons are coming from twa in response to this.

[Fergasun]

Dear GOP Wisconsin,
Thanks for your support in helping me carry the White House for another 4 years.

Sincerely,
President Obama

[Buford]

On vacation now and have been working through Theodore Rex (which I recommend to folks who love reading about former Presidents). Just finished an interesting section covering the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902, and while its not the same situation. You had 3 parties then. Business, Unions and General Public. Here you have Business, Unions and General Public. Except this time is seems so different.

I've got to wonder what TR would do from his gritting teeth and unwavering confidence in what he felt was right.

http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/a_teddy_roosevelt.jpg

I do imagine if TR had a sitdown with Walker......the Governor might come away from that meeting in tears.

[twa]

I'll ask again...what was the subject the interview was on?....or if you prefer what was he responding too.

Your posted summary was based on a fallacy""" of the true political motive of Walker’s anti-union push""" which the vid does not support.

The video interview was his response to the Democratic party starting a recall and possible WH involvement.

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 10:03 PM ----------

Fergasun...it ain't like Reps had Union support anyway

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/19/unions-fuel-democratic-party-financially/
Most unions gave a negligible amount, if anything at all, to the Republican Party over the past two election cycles.

[Madison Redskin]

I'll ask again...what was the subject the interview was on?....or if you prefer what was he responding too.

Your posted summary was based on a fallacy""" of the true political motive of Walker’s anti-union push""" which the vid does not support.

The video interview was his response to the Democratic party starting a recall and possible WH involvement.

The interview was largely about the prospect of recall elections. However, when Fitzgerald spoke about winning the battle and the money not being "there under the auspices of the unions," he was referring to the potential impact of the bill on union funding for Obama's re-election campaign in Wisconsin. Are you claiming otherwise? If so, what do you think he was talking about?

[jpyaks3]

I'll ask again...what was the subject the interview was on?....or if you prefer what was he responding too.

Your posted summary was based on a fallacy""" of the true political motive of Walker’s anti-union push""" which the vid does not support.

The video interview was his response to the Democratic party starting a recall and possible WH involvement.

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 10:03 PM ----------

Fergasun...it ain't like Reps had Union support anyway

Yes he was talking about the recall vote, but the bill was rammed through after those started so they are connected to why they decided to push through the bill.

If you think this wasn't politically motivated why did they split it off of the budget/financial bill?

[Fergasun]

Something that really irks me is the comparison to public workers. Walker made a statement saying something like, "My brother works in a dept. store, and his wife works for a hotel. They would love the deal we are cutting with the Wisconsin labor unions." I've heard local hosts on our right-wing radio say, "Do we have a union? Do we get those benefits?" This is simply divisive politics and BS. If you think the public workers are getting such a better deal, you can go and join the ranks of the public workers! You don't have to complain and re-negotiate the deals they were given. Or something like, "Gee, we used to have jobs that could support these high benefits for public workers. Why have our jobs and benefits been lowered?"

[twa]

Largely about??? :pfft:
That does nothing to support that as the""true motive""

weak

http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fleebaggers.jpg?w=402&h=373

[Madison Redskin]

Largely about??? :pfft:
That does nothing to support that as the""true motive""

weak

Instead of dodging questions and posting cartoons, why don't you actually tell us how we're taking Fitzgerald's quote out of context? I contend Fitzgerald was talking about the implications for Obama and the Democrats if the unions are effectively defunded. Apparently, you believe otherwise. Please elaborate ... unless you would prefer to cut and run. :pfft:

[twa]

Instead of dodging questions and posting cartoons, why don't you actually tell us how we're taking Fitzgerald's quote out of context? I contend Fitzgerald was talking about the implications for Obama and the Democrats if the unions are effectively defunded. Apparently, you believe otherwise. Please elaborate ... unless you would prefer to cut and run. :pfft:

THAT would be a different assertion than saying that was the 'true motive' now wouldn't it? ...Which WAS the assertion.

I ain't dodged ,nor changed...can you say the same?

[jpyaks3]

Head of the firefighters union calling for general strike. It will get very interesting if that happens.

[sacase]

Head of the firefighters union calling for general strike. It will get very interesting if that happens.

Which further proves the point of why you keep Unions out of the Government. Period.

[jpyaks3]

Which further proves the point of why you keep Unions out of the Government. Period.

How does that prove anything? If anything it would prove you shouldn't ram through legislation using questionable tactics and against the wishes of the majority of the people in your state.

[Madison Redskin]

THAT would be a different assertion than saying that was the 'true motive' now wouldn't it? ...Which WAS the assertion.

I ain't dodged ,nor changed...can you say the same?

Did Fitzgerald expressly say, "our sole intention is to defund the unions so they can't help the Democrats?" Of course not. However, Fitzgerald noted that the net effect will be that unions will have far less money to help out the Democrats in upcoming elections. So, at the very least, Fitzgerald is well aware that the GOP will reap huge political benefits by killing the unions' right to engage in collective bargaining. Moreover, when you view that statement in light of the fact that the measure will affect pro-Democrat unions and exclude pro-GOP unions, I think it's quite apparent what was the driving force behind the bill.

[Fergasun]

twa,
Are you worried about the recall election? Just asking, were I a GOP supporter in Wisconsin I would be. The key to winning elections is to energize the people who don't normally vote... the Democrats did a great job at the national level by passing Obamacare. The GOP in Wisconsin may have done the same with their over-reach.
I'm not talking about the decreasing wages and benefits, I'm talking about the collective bargaining busting.

[twa]

How does that prove anything? If anything it would prove you shouldn't ram through legislation using questionable tactics and against the wishes of the majority of the people in your state.

Running out of state to prevent votes is OK...calling a vote on short notice is not?

Don't get too much confidence in your polls....the wording alone influences much.

[Fergasun]

Which further proves the point of why you keep Unions out of the Government. Period.So should you also keep corporations and corporate interests out of government too?

[twa]

twa,
Are you worried about the recall election? .


Nope.....,ya might check out the restrictions on recalls

Besides which I believe in ideas not parties.(strange as it may seem I am not a GOPer)

[jpyaks3]

Running out of state to prevent votes is OK...calling a vote on short notice is not?

Don't get too much confidence in your polls....the wording alone influences much.

Avoiding a quorum isn't breaking the law but what went on tonight may have, there were quite a few dirty procedures used throughout this by the Republican party.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:09 AM ----------


Nope.....,ya might check out the restrictions on recalls

Besides which I believe in ideas not parties.(strange as it may seem I am not a GOPer)

Which restriction do you think is going to prevent at least a few of those 8 senators from getting recalled. Its pretty clear the public opinion is against them, hell even Rasmussen a poll that consistently trends heavy Republican couldn't conjure up numbers that support it.

[twa]

Did Fitzgerald expressly say, "our sole intention is to defund the unions so they can't help the Democrats?" Of course not. However, Fitzgerald noted that the net effect will be that unions will have far less money to help out the Democrats in upcoming elections. So, at the very least, Fitzgerald is well aware that the GOP will reap huge political benefits by killing the unions' right to engage in collective bargaining. Moreover, when you view that statement in light of the fact that the measure will affect pro-Democrat unions and exclude pro-GOP unions, I think it's quite apparent what was the driving force behind the bill.


Will it """reap huge political benefits""?

The jpyaks3 post and polls have a different assertion....are you saying I'm right on the recall being nothing to worry about???:evilg:

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 11:17 PM ----------


Rasmussen a poll that consistently trends heavy Republican couldn't conjure up numbers that support it.

You would have to link the poll for me to comment on it

The public supporting the "right" to collective bargaining is a bit different than supporting a recall, not to mention a recall simply means a opportunity for another Rep as well

[Fergasun]

Nope.....,ya might check out the restrictions on recalls

Besides which I believe in ideas not parties.(strange as it may seem I am not a GOPer)Okay, peace.
It's a big issue politically but I'm not quite sure if it can transform energy nationwide.
Personally I think its over-reach to go after the collective bargaining rights... I think a rationale compromise would be to pass the bill without it.
If the Democrats are not in good faith willing to compromise, or the GOP; might as well do what they are going to do and reap the political benefits.
I have no idea if this move will reap benefits for either party.

They both look childish, but that's the political parties.
I see the flee-bag move as some form of "non-violent political protest". It seemed like it may have worked to energize opposition to the bill, which would only matter politically.

[jpyaks3]

Will it """reap huge political benefits""?

The jpyaks3 post and polls have a different assertion....are you saying I'm right on the recall being nothing to worry about???:evilg:

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 11:17 PM ----------



You would have to link the poll for me to comment on it

The public supporting the "right" to collective bargaining is a bit different than supporting a recall, not to mention a recall simply means a opportunity for another Rep as well

Still be some time before district by district but I think looking at Walkers approval rates shows at least a part of the public opinion. Also not 100% on how exactly reliable strategictelemetry is but I haven't seen anything to discredit them.

http://www.strategictelemetry.com/docs/Walker_Budget_Survey_022811.pdf

A new poll shows that an estimate 1.1 million Wisconsin voters are willing to sign his recall petition, and that of eight Republican state senators.

[Passepartout]

Well for someone that has been in office for two months. The Governor has a lot on his plate. As the Dems are being targetted by the authorities. Also it is anti-union vs union workers.

[twa]

...Walker cannot be recalled yet ,,,details matter :)

add
as does the fact the district voters must vote for recall for those that are even eligible...which changes your numbers greatly

[jpyaks3]

...Walker cannot be recalled yet ,,,details matter :)

add
as does the fact the district voters must vote for recall for those that are even eligible...which changes your numbers greatly

I understand that, however in absence of better data I think thats the best way to look at the mobilization of voters. Also there were I believe 2 Senators that were elected by really thin margins that are definitely in danger especially with a voting base that is absolutely fired up. Smaller elections rely on mobilization and ability to get people to the polls and I think the latest push by the Republicans and Walker ensures that there will be quite a few pissed off people voting.

[deejaydana]

I can only hope that this spreads to other states:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629104576191003890014010.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

[twa]

I understand that, however in absence of better data I think thats the best way to look at the mobilization of voters. Also there were I believe 2 Senators that were elected by really thin margins that are definitely in danger especially with a voting base that is absolutely fired up. Smaller elections rely on mobilization and ability to get people to the polls and I think the latest push by the Republicans and Walker ensures that there will be quite a few pissed off people voting.

none elected in this past election can be recalled,,only half are even eligible..of those how many won with union votes?

you might even find more losses from recalls on the dem side

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:19 AM ----------


none elected in this past election can be recalled,,only half are even eligible..of those how many won with union votes?

you might even find more losses from recalls on the dem side

In other good news there is a National Right to Work bill being submitted

[jpyaks3]

none elected in this past election can be recalled,,only half are even eligible..of those how many won with union votes?

you might even find more losses from recalls on the dem side

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:19 AM ----------



In other good news there is a National Right to Work bill being submitted

There are 8 Senators with 2 in serious danger based on votes from their last election as I put in my post. Also it certainly isn't just unions most of the state is not happy with whats going on as has been shown by numerous polls across the board.

[twa]

Hmm...seems the bill passed contained nearly all the original bill's items,simply minus appropriation items...Hope the Fleebaggers enjoyed the time off

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/breaking-wisconsin-senate-voting-largely-intact-budget-repair-bill_553936.html

The legislation being voted on tonight has few changes from the bill as initially proposed. The bill removes a refinancing provision and doesn't count savings during this fiscal year accrued by requiring public employees to pay more for their pensions and health insurance.* But it would still save the state $300 million over the next two years by requiring state employees to contribute about 5% of income toward their pensions and by requiring state workers to pay for about 12% of their health insurance premiums. It would also save $1.44 billion by requiring public employees in school districts and municipalities to pay 5% of their salaries toward their pensions and by removing collective bargaining for benefits, thus giving school districts and municipalities the option of requiring their employees to pay about 12% for their health insurance premiums.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:46 AM ----------

a word about polls

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/wisconsin_voters_oppose_weakening_collective_barga ining_rights_in_general_but_strongly_support_speci fic_changes

Wisconsin Voters Oppose Weakening Collective Bargaining Rights in General But Strongly Support Specific Changes

..
It’s also worth noting that 36% of households with a public employee union member support the idea of requiring voter approval for such contracts. Half (52%) of that group are opposed to the requirement for voter approval. :)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/48_of_wisconsin_voters_want_public_employee_pensio n_increases_approved_by_voters
48% of Wisconsin Voters Want Public Employee Pension Increases Approved by Voters


What You Can Learn About Wisconsin Dispute from Differences in Poll Questions
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/what_you_can_learn_about_wisconsin_dispute_from_di fferences_in_poll_questions

[Larry]

There is no doubt cutting union influence hurts the Dems,but I would prefer a full clip before accepting that as the ""true political motive "" as asserted.

Especially since you've already decided to ignore the glaring fact that what they're doing is eliminating collective bargaining for every union except the ones that donate to the Republicans.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 08:59 AM ----------


By morning, there will be some statement about how he misspoke or for some reason everybody misunderstood his words.

Its so disappointing to see how at even at the state level, even in a place like WI, it has become essentially all about national politics.

Oh, no. I'm certain it's about local politics, too. :)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, that is probably Walker's political career now.

The reason this is so devastating is that this started as a complaint that they needed to get rid of collective bargaining to balance the budget. Now, its not even a budget bill? Let's call it what it is, an attempt to get rid of a political rival.

And he's gonna get hammered at his next election.

Oh, and ancillary to that, Obama just won Wisconsion in 2012.

[twa]

Especially since you've already decided to ignore the glaring fact that what they're doing is eliminating collective bargaining for every union except the ones that donate to the Republicans.[COLOR="Gold"]


If the Dems want to flee the state to protect every Union that donates to the Dems...Why Not?
Do you deny there is a budget impact?

TSF ...it appears to remain a budget related bill addressing a number of issues,just w/o appropriations(which require a quorum)

[Burgold]

If the Dems want to flee the state to protect every Union that donates to the Dems...Why Not?
Do you deny there is a budget impact?

TSF ...it appears to remain a budget related bill addressing a number of issues,just w/o appropriations(which require a quorum)

I grudgingly agree with twa, I think. I really dislike the dem's tactics in this issue. They were subverting the democratic process by trying to take their ball and hide it so no one could play. I would rather an honest vote happen and then the courts take their turn at the pinata or at the worst when the pendulum swings and the Dems return to power or saner minds win power the law be repealed.

Elections have results. If the Dems didn't like it they should fight it in the media, through fillibuster, and every means available... with a few exceptions and the Dems chose one of the exceptions.

That said, I think the Repubs got it very wrong.

[sacase]

Well, that is probably Walker's political career now.

The reason this is so devastating is that this started as a complaint that they needed to get rid of collective bargaining to balance the budget. Now, its not even a budget bill? Let's call it what it is, an attempt to get rid of a political rival.

And he's gonna get hammered at his next election.

Oh, and ancillary to that, Obama just won Wisconsion in 2012.

Where have you been, this is America, we forget stuff after 3 months. This will have little to no impact on the presidential election

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I remember being young when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and one of my friend's dad ranting about how every union member in the US should have walked out that very day. This is the end result of cowardice that began 30 years ago.

What blows me away is that we have raised a generation of people who feel like they don't deserve any economic power. I know people working in non-union jobs for low wages and no benefit who viscerally hate unions. Somehow, these $12/hour drones think that they are going to rise to great wealth through their own skill. It's madness.

You can debate all day about the details of CBAs, but this has turned into an attempt to destroy unions period. Which is madness.

[Popeman38]

I remember being young when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and one of my friend's dad ranting about how every union member in the US should have walked out that very day. This is the end result of cowardice that began 30 years ago.

What blows me away is that we have raised a generation of people who feel like they don't deserve any economic power. I know people working in non-union jobs for low wages and no benefit who viscerally hate unions. Somehow, these $12/hour drones think that they are going to rise to great wealth through their own skill. It's madness.

You can debate all day about the details of CBAs, but this has turned into an attempt to destroy unions period. Which is madness.PUBLIC unions. No private unions will be affected. Locals won't be affected. Only PUBLIC unions are affected. Why do people insist they are killing unions? This bill only impacts STATE workers. And of course the teachers union is the one raising the biggest stink.

[deejaydana]

I remember being young when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and one of my friend's dad ranting about how every union member in the US should have walked out that very day. This is the end result of cowardice that began 30 years ago.

What blows me away is that we have raised a generation of people who feel like they don't deserve any economic power. I know people working in non-union jobs for low wages and no benefit who viscerally hate unions. Somehow, these $12/hour drones think that they are going to rise to great wealth through their own skill. It's madness.

You can debate all day about the details of CBAs, but this has turned into an attempt to destroy unions period. Which is madness.

And yet I don't view it that way at all. It's an attempt to balance a state budget and also reform Unions that have gotten too much for too long. The taxpayer can only be soaked so long, so far. More than this, and it stretches beyond WI, is the fact that many of these deals handed out by Unions are proving financially unsustainable.

[Riggo#44]

I remember being young when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and one of my friend's dad ranting about how every union member in the US should have walked out that very day. This is the end result of cowardice that began 30 years ago.

What blows me away is that we have raised a generation of people who feel like they don't deserve any economic power. I know people working in non-union jobs for low wages and no benefit who viscerally hate unions. Somehow, these $12/hour drones think that they are going to rise to great wealth through their own skill. It's madness.

You can debate all day about the details of CBAs, but this has turned into an attempt to destroy unions period. Which is madness.

I loathe unions with a passion and I say good riddance. They have overstepped their bounds and their demands far outweigh their fair wages. Not to mention, they're about as communist as you get. That's right I called them communist. Forced participation with no freedom of association. You HAVE to pay them, if your workplace is part of a union.

They are outdated and a hindrance on the economy. Look at GM. The unions demands were a major factor in their crippling. Not to mention, since it is such a PIA to fire a union worker, they just stay on and do shotty work. I watched a friend of mine in a Union go into work 3-4 days a week for 6+ months before he was FINALLY removed from his project. It's easier to fire a government worker now!

And yes, it should be your SKILLS and EFFORT that get you ahead, not some strong-arming from a leftist group that wants more for less, more for less until there isn't any more to give. F- Unions.

[Burgold]

PUBLIC unions. No private unions will be affected. Locals won't be affected. Only PUBLIC unions are affected. Why do people insist they are killing unions? This bill only impacts STATE workers. And of course the teachers union is the one raising the biggest stink.

And since when did govermnent workers suddenly lose their humanity, citizens or rights? What makes a teacher less deserving of protection than a fireman or an autoworker? I do agree that the teacher's unions by and large are unwieldy monsters and often corrupt, but this isn't a good solution. I'm not sure what is, but I do know that the Union seemed willing to give a lot and they were treated as property. Seems wrong on almost every level.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I loathe unions with a passion and I say good riddance. They have overstepped their bounds and their demands far outweigh their fair wages. Not to mention, they're about as communist as you get. That's right I called them communist. Forced participation with no freedom of association. You HAVE to pay them, if your workplace is part of a union.

They are outdated and a hindrance on the economy. Look at GM. The unions demands were a major factor in their crippling. Not to mention, since it is such a PIA to fire a union worker, they just stay on and do shotty work. I watched a friend of mine in a Union go into work 3-4 days a week for 6+ months before he was FINALLY removed from his project. It's easier to fire a government worker now!

And yes, it should be your SKILLS and EFFORT that get you ahead, not some strong-arming from a leftist group that wants more for less, more for less until there isn't any more to give. F- Unions.

That's a good rant, but fairly meaningless. This myth that the auto unions destroyed Detroit needs to stop. The Unions and GM management agreed on nearly everything for 70 years. There were no strikes at GM from 1970 to 2007. GM was overly generous with benefits in flush times and overly panicked stricken in down times and let it's quality and design go to hell. Unions are fantastic in industry because they allow you predictable - if slightly inflated - labor costs.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:53 PM ----------


And since when did govermnent workers suddenly lose their humanity, citizens or rights? What makes a teacher less deserving of protection than a fireman or an autoworker? I do agree that the teacher's unions by and large are unwieldy monsters and often corrupt, but this isn't a good solution. I'm not sure what is, but I do know that the Union seemed willing to give a lot and they were treated as property. Seems wrong on almost every level.

Firemen and police are next. They are public unions too.

[jpyaks3]

I loathe unions with a passion and I say good riddance. They have overstepped their bounds and their demands far outweigh their fair wages. Not to mention, they're about as communist as you get. That's right I called them communist. Forced participation with no freedom of association. You HAVE to pay them, if your workplace is part of a union.

They are outdated and a hindrance on the economy. Look at GM. The unions demands were a major factor in their crippling. Not to mention, since it is such a PIA to fire a union worker, they just stay on and do shotty work. I watched a friend of mine in a Union go into work 3-4 days a week for 6+ months before he was FINALLY removed from his project. It's easier to fire a government worker now!

And yes, it should be your SKILLS and EFFORT that get you ahead, not some strong-arming from a leftist group that wants more for less, more for less until there isn't any more to give. F- Unions.
You are so incredibly wrong about unions being communist it isn't even funny. Unions are free market 101, its workers banding together to up their value. Restricting unions was one of the first things the communists did once they gained power.

Hell heres what Reagan had to say
These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland ... They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 11:57 AM ----------


And yet I don't view it that way at all. It's an attempt to balance a state budget and also reform Unions that have gotten too much for too long. The taxpayer can only be soaked so long, so far. More than this, and it stretches beyond WI, is the fact that many of these deals handed out by Unions are proving financially unsustainable.

Hey another way to balance the state budget would be not giving massive tax cuts to the rich which slashing funding and breaking unions that **** over the middle and lower classes, but then again that wouldn't be the Republican way now would it. This is a clear attempt to simply bust unions something Republicans have been after for a while, its a shame its just the continued war on the middle class in favor of the wealthy business as usual for one party.

[Riggo#44]

[QUOTE=Lombardi's_kid_brother;8195030]That's a good rant, but fairly meaningless. This myth that the auto unions destroyed Detroit needs to stop. The Unions and GM management agreed on nearly everything for 70 years. There were no strikes at GM from 1970 to 2007. GM was overly generous with benefits in flush times and overly panicked stricken in down times and let it's quality and design go to hell. Unions are fantastic in industry because they allow you predictable - if grossly inflated - labor costs.[COLOR="Gold"]

Fixed, b/c I am willing to bet dollars to donuts you're part of a union...

I didn't say they were the SOLE reason, but they were a big part of it. The AFL-CIO is such a legitimate organization that they pay homeless people to fill out their ranks. Classy move. I have several teacher friends, including my mother, that hate their union. Why? B/c they're forced to pay dues and they don't do ****.

I will say unions were very needed a long time ago. However, in their current construction, they are outdated and unnecessary.

[Popeman38]

And since when did govermnent workers suddenly lose their humanity, citizens or rights? What makes a teacher less deserving of protection than a fireman or an autoworker? I do agree that the teacher's unions by and large are unwieldy monsters and often corrupt, but this isn't a good solution. I'm not sure what is, but I do know that the Union seemed willing to give a lot and they were treated as property. Seems wrong on almost every level.All they lose is their right to CB. They can still unionize, they still get a hell of a pension (they just have to contribute 5%), they still get kick ass health insurance (they just have to pay a %). What is so terrible about only getting a raise if you earn it? Why should every union member get a 4.5% raise every year? What that results in is an employee that has a bloated salary. Work in a job for 20 years, and your salary more than doubles (start out at 60k in year 1, end at 138.5k in year 20, assuming you stay in same job at same rate with no promotions), and you get a 100% pension until the day you die. Meaning the state pays you 100% of the highest 3 year average for salary for most likely 40+ years. And that should be encouraged? It bankrupts the state.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

[QUOTE=Lombardi's_kid_brother;8195030]That's a good rant, but fairly meaningless. This myth that the auto unions destroyed Detroit needs to stop. The Unions and GM management agreed on nearly everything for 70 years. There were no strikes at GM from 1970 to 2007. GM was overly generous with benefits in flush times and overly panicked stricken in down times and let it's quality and design go to hell. Unions are fantastic in industry because they allow you predictable - if grossly inflated - labor costs.[COLOR="Gold"]

Fixed, b/c I am willing to bet dollars to donuts you're part of a union...

I didn't say they were the SOLE reason, but they were a big part of it. The AFL-CIO is such a legitimate organization that they pay homeless people to fill out their ranks. Classy move. I have several teacher friends, including my mother, that hate their union. Why? B/c they're forced to pay dues and they don't do ****.

I will say unions were very needed a long time ago. However, in their current construction, they are outdated and unnecessary.

I'm an attorney. There is no union for me.

The effectiveness of unions versus the necessity of unions is a different debate.

I would also be curious to know what your mother's wages and benefits would be without a union. It looks like she is about to find out in Wisconsin. Is she willing to take a pay cut, a decrease in benefits, and the loss of her pension to balance the state's budget?

[Burgold]

I will say unions were very needed a long time ago. However, in their current construction, they are outdated and unnecessary.

The problem is that if the unions go away the reasons for them will return and pretty quickly. If you don't believe me look at safety conditions in the West Virginia mines or look at the wealth disparity between the rich and the middle class/poor. How can the gap be getting so much wider when companies are making more than ever before and are more profitable than before. Clearly, there's very little voluntarily trickling down.

[deejaydana]

Hey another way to balance the state budget would be not giving massive tax cuts to the rich which slashing funding and breaking unions that **** over the middle and lower classes, but then again that wouldn't be the Republican way now would it. This is a clear attempt to simply bust unions something Republicans have been after for a while, its a shame its just the continued war on the middle class in favor of the wealthy business as usual for one party.

So what happens when "big business" IS the Union? I don't try to view this from a Dem v Rep stance (though the media doesn't help in this regard), though I could see why it's easy to fall into that line of thinking.

[jpyaks3]

The problem is that if the unions go away the reasons for them will return and pretty quickly. If you don't believe me look at safety conditions in the West Virginia mines or look at the wealth disparity between the rich and the middle class/poor. How can the gap be getting so much wider when companies are making more than ever before and are more profitable than before. Clearly, there's very little voluntarily trickling down.

Exactly that is why unions are needed it is one of the few things holding up a massive backslide by corporations into ****ing over the worker once again.

[Burgold]

All they lose is their right to CB. They can still unionize, they still get a hell of a pension (they just have to contribute 5%), they still get kick ass health insurance (they just have to pay a %). What is so terrible about only getting a raise if you earn it? Why should every union member get a 4.5% raise every year? What that results in is an employee that has a bloated salary. Work in a job for 20 years, and your salary more than doubles (start out at 60k in year 1, end at 138.5k in year 20), and you get a 100% pension until the day you die. Meaning the state pays you 100% of the highest 3 year average for salary for most likely 40+ years. And that should be encouraged? It bankrupts the state.

I think what's terrible about it is the loss of voice. The loss of collective bargaining is stealing one's voice. It's child's play for an institution to impose its will if it's only dealing with a single employee. However, when you are facing a group of them then each side has some power in the negotiation.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Exactly that is why unions are needed it is one of the few things holding up a massive backslide by corporations into ****ing over the worker once again.

Massey takes care of its workers. It actually tried to remove the dead bodies from its mine.

Riggo, I'm curious. By what percentage is your mother grossly overpaid? Should she take a 40 percent pay cut? 30 percent?

[jpyaks3]

So what happens when "big business" IS the Union. I don't try to view this from a Dem v Rep stance, though I could see why it's easy to fall into that line of thinking.

Hey I am against corporations or unions making donations in political races it is sickening that the Supreme Court finds a corporation to have the same rights as a citizen in order to allow them to dump more money into the political process. However, it is extremely clear that these attacks are hitting the poor and middle lower classes with the budget cuts and the union busting, it the deficit is such a huge deal why pass the massive tax cut to the wealthy? That played a significant role into the shortfall, so if you care about someone other then the rich why pass that tax cut instead of cutting funding from hospitals and schools?

[Popeman38]

The problem is that if the unions go away the reasons for them will return and pretty quickly. If you don't believe me look at safety conditions in the West Virginia mines or look at the wealth disparity between the rich and the middle class/poor. How can the gap be getting so much wider when companies are making more than ever before and are more profitable than before. Clearly, there's very little voluntarily trickling down.


Exactly that is why unions are needed it is one of the few things holding up a massive backslide by corporations into ****ing over the worker once again.If this is so obvious, whay are right to work states booming while forced union states are shrinking? All the empirical evidence points the opposite direction than you do. , VA, NC and TX are BOOMING while MI, WI, OH, IN are all losing business.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:07 PM ----------


I think what's terrible about it is the loss of voice. The loss of collective bargaining is stealing one's voice. It's child's play for an institution to impose its will if it's only dealing with a single employee. However, when you are facing a group of them then each side has some power in the negotiation.They will still get to bargain for pay. They will not get to bargain for sick time, healthcare or pension.

[Dan T.]

They will still get to bargain for pay. They will not get to bargain for sick time, healthcare or pension.

One thing I haven't heard discussed - If the unions managed to bargain for such cushy deals on wages, pensions, health care, etc., where's the criticism of those on the other side who negotiated such lousy deals. How about, instead of stripping the right of unions to bargain, you get better negotiators to drive a better deal with the unions?

[Madison Redskin]

I loathe unions with a passion and I say good riddance. They have overstepped their bounds and their demands far outweigh their fair wages. Not to mention, they're about as communist as you get. That's right I called them communist. Forced participation with no freedom of association. You HAVE to pay them, if your workplace is part of a union.

They are outdated and a hindrance on the economy. Look at GM. The unions demands were a major factor in their crippling. Not to mention, since it is such a PIA to fire a union worker, they just stay on and do shotty work. I watched a friend of mine in a Union go into work 3-4 days a week for 6+ months before he was FINALLY removed from his project. It's easier to fire a government worker now!

And yes, it should be your SKILLS and EFFORT that get you ahead, not some strong-arming from a leftist group that wants more for less, more for less until there isn't any more to give. F- Unions.

Why is it that so many anti-union rants appear to be based on emotions, platitudes, and anecdotal evidence? "Arrrrgggg, unions are for commies!" "Arrrrrggggg, my friend in a union is lazy!" That kind of reflexive, black-white, good-bad thinking is nothing new, but it's always mildly disturbing.

I have my issues with unions, but I'm not about to pretend that unions are communistic outfits that present nothing but problems for our country.

[jpyaks3]

If this is so obvious, whay are right to work states booming while forced union states are shrinking? All the empirical evidence points the opposite direction than you do. , VA, NC and TX are BOOMING while MI, WI, OH, IN are all losing business.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:07 PM ----------

They will still get to bargain for pay. They will not get to bargain for sick time, healthcare or pension.

I see how you picked the rust belt for your example of non-right to work state but didn't choose something similar like Tennessee, North Carolina, and Florida for the Right to Work states. I think its stupid to think an entire states economy is limited to one factor though for a myriad of reasons.

[Popeman38]

I see how you picked the rust belt for your example of non-right to work state but didn't choose something similar like Tennessee, North Carolina, and Florida for the Right to Work states. I think its stupid to think an entire states economy is limited to one factor though for a myriad of reasons.I chose NC and VA. The rust belt is basically what is left of forced union states.

[jpyaks3]

I chose NC and VA. The rust belt is basically what is left of forced union states.

Wow your saying an entire states economy and economic forecast can be summed up by whether or not a state is Right to Work or not?? Thats incredible I guess a ton of people are wasting money on "economics" courses.

[Popeman38]

One thing I haven't heard discussed - If the unions managed to bargain for such cushy deals on wages, pensions, health care, etc., where's the criticism of those on the other side who negotiated such lousy deals. How about, instead of stripping the right of unions to bargain, you get better negotiators to drive a better deal with the unions?That is the issue with public unions. Most forced union states are Dem controlled at the state level. The Unions fund politicians. Politicians fund unions. They scratch each others back. When the state gets in massive budget issues, they jump to the other side. Now, the politicians ain't getting their back scratched and the union ain't either. It is a fact, unions are pro-Dem. Public unions are funded by tax payers. Unions take tax payer money and contribute them to one political party. It is an immense conflict of interest.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:28 PM ----------


Wow your saying an entire states economy and economic forecast can be summed up by whether or not a state is Right to Work or not?? Thats incredible I guess a ton of people are wasting money on "economics" courses.Why is business literally boarding up plants in forced union states and opening brand new plants in right to work states?

Why pay a union assembly-line worker $100k to put a bumper on a car when yo can pay a non-union member $60k to do the same job, without owing them $100k for life?

[Madison Redskin]

That is the issue with public unions. Most forced union states are Dem controlled at the state level. The Unions fund politicians. Politicians fund unions. They scratch each others back. When the state gets in massive budget issues, they jump to the other side. Now, the politicians ain't getting their back scratched and the union ain't either. It is a fact, unions are pro-Dem. Public unions are funded by tax payers. Unions take tax payer money and contribute them to one political party. It is an immense conflict of interest.

Under your analysis, seeing as how government touches nearly every aspect of our lives, almost any government interaction with any organization entails a conflict of interest. The defense industry lobbies government officials who deal with the defense industry. The NRA lobbies government officials to promote gun rights. The list goes on and on.

The problem I have with Walker's bill is that the unions made every financial concession Walker asked for, so let's quit pretending this is about balancing the budget. It's a power grab, pure and simple. Walker is using his office to defund his political opponents. He has every right to do so, but it still strikes me as a dictatorial move that you'd see in some banana republic.

[Riggo#44]

[QUOTE=Riggo#44;8195044]

I'm an attorney. There is no union for me.

The effectiveness of unions versus the necessity of unions is a different debate.

I would also be curious to know what your mother's wages and benefits would be without a union. It looks like she is about to find out in Wisconsin. Is she willing to take a pay cut, a decrease in benefits, and the loss of her pension to balance the state's budget?

This is all pretty moot, so this will be my last post on the matter b/c we aren't going to change each others mine (and I actually have work to do, and, in procrastinating that, would rather bash Arrington...)

My mom is actually retired. She taught for 35 years. She hates the teacher's union b/c she says it exists "only to further the power of those in power". It's a moot point to sit and debate what her wages might be or might not be. I could sit here and wonder the better quality of work if unions had less power, or less expensive things would be...

Here is my problem with unions, based off my direct experience with them: they further the notion in this country that the world owe you something just because. Unions lower the standard of accountability. Not all union employees are lazy or uncaring. But a lot of the ones I've met sure are.

Take the Madison Hotel strike, for example. They let go the 27 restaurant employees b/c they are renovating and increased the hotel maid staff workload by two rooms per maid. So the AFL-CIO formed a picket line. I've been laid off. I've been fired. I've had my workload increase. It sucks. You know what I did? I got off my ass and found another job or did what was asked of me. And what's really funny is the time the former employees took to picket (the ones that actually did picket, mixed in with people from New York, homeless people, and cause-jumpers) they could have found another job!

I firmly believe that, as a result of unions, we have labor and safety laws in place that make them almost obsolete. People are so afraid of big bad corporations. I've never been part of a union. I've never felt I've been screwed over.

[hitmandm]

Unions are for corrupt lazy workers who dont have the skill set to make it in an open market system. They ruin industries and drive jobs overseas.

Im glad Walker passed this. Unions are out of hand and they need to be brought back to Earth with their silly contracts and unreasonable expectations.

America's tax base is tired of paying lavish pension and health benefits to a select group of people that they couldnt get in a free market.

I am so glad the corrupt, mob-driven union machine is getting crushed.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

[QUOTE=Lombardi's_kid_brother;8195054]

This is all pretty moot, so this will be my last post on the matter b/c we aren't going to change each others mine (and I actually have work to do, and, in procrastinating that, would rather bash Arrington...)

My mom is actually retired. She taught for 35 years. She hates the teacher's union b/c she says it exists "only to further the power of those in power". It's a moot point to sit and debate what her wages might be or might not be. I could sit here and wonder the better quality of work if unions had less power, or less expensive things would be...

Here is my problem with unions, based off my direct experience with them: they further the notion in this country that the world owe you something just because. Unions lower the standard of accountability. Not all union employees are lazy or uncaring. But a lot of the ones I've met sure are.

Take the Madison Hotel strike, for example. They let go the 27 restaurant employees b/c they are renovating and increased the hotel maid staff workload by two rooms per maid. So the AFL-CIO formed a picket line. I've been laid off. I've been fired. I've had my workload increase. It sucks. You know what I did? I got off my ass and found another job or did what was asked of me. And what's really funny is the time the former employees took to picket (the ones that actually did picket, mixed in with people from New York, homeless people, and cause-jumpers) they could have found another job!

I firmly believe that, as a result of unions, we have labor and safety laws in place that make them almost obsolete. People are so afraid of big bad corporations. I've never been part of a union. I've never felt I've been screwed over.

You can't say union workers are GROSSLY overpaid and then not explain that.

What does that mean?

[jpyaks3]

Unions are for corrupt lazy workers who dont have the skill set to make it in an open market system. They ruin industries and drive jobs overseas.

Im glad Walker passed this. Unions are out of hand and they need to be brought back to Earth with their silly contracts and unreasonable expectations.

America's tax base is tired of paying lavish pension and health benefits to a select group of people that they couldnt get in a free market.

I am so glad the corrupt, mob-driven union machine is getting crushed.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. Unions are free market they are labor working together to be more competitive and to gain access to rights, breaking the unions goes against the free market because you restrict peoples ability to optimize their product (labor).

If its not a joke can you substantiate anything you have said with anything other then platitudes?

[Madison Redskin]

Unions are for corrupt lazy workers who dont have the skill set to make it in an open market system. They ruin industries and drive jobs overseas. I am so glad the corrupt, mob-driven union machine is getting crushed.

So, I suppose you think most police officers and firemen are corrupt and lazy members who don't have the skill set to make it in the an open market system and they are driven by the mob, right?

[twa]

How are unions free market if there is no right to work??

[Popeman38]

The problem I have with Walker's bill is that the unions made every financial concession Walker asked for, so let's quit pretending this is about balancing the budget. It's a power grab, pure and simple. Walker is using his office to defund his political opponents. He has every right to do so, but it still strikes me as a dictatorial move that you'd see in some banana republic.They made concessions only after Walker placed no more CB on the table. When it was first proposed that union workers partially fund their pension and benefits packages, the union threw both middle fingers in the air and started laughing. When Walker responded by ending public union CB, the unions suddenly were open to "negotiating" partial funding of pensions and benefits. Lets not pretend like the unions were innocent bystanders in this whole mess. And when Dems realized they would be outvoted if they showed up, they took their ball and went home like 12 year olds.

I love how Reps saying what they are going to do, and then doing it is cowardly. Yet the Dems running to Ilinois and sending a messenger to ask Walker to meet near the border to negotiate is somehow seen as good government. The Dems in WI are chicken ****. They didn't want to be held accountable so they ran away. And if Reps ever do the same, I will stand here and call them chicken **** too. The ones in Texas were chicken ****.

[PeterMP]

They made concessions only after Walker placed no more CB on the table. When it was first proposed that union workers partially fund their pension and benefits packages, the union threw both middle fingers in the air and started laughing. When Walker responded by ending public union CB, the unions suddenly were open to "negotiating" partial funding of pensions and benefits. Lets not pretend like the unions were innocent bystanders in this whole mess. And when Dems realized they would be outvoted if they showed up, they took their ball and went home like 12 year olds.

I love how Reps saying what they are going to do, and then doing it is cowardly. Yet the Dems running to Ilinois and sending a messenger to ask Walker to meet near the border to negotiate is somehow seen as good government. The Dems in WI are" chicken ****. They didn't want to be held accountable so they ran away. And if Reps ever do the same, I will stand here and call them chicken **** too. The ones in Texas were chicken ****.
This if from a Jan. 3rd NYT article, which is also the day that Walker took office:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/business/04labor.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

"Some new governors, most notably Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are even threatening to take away government workers’ right to form unions and bargain contracts. “We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots,” Mr. Walker, a Republican, said in a speech. “The bottom line is that we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers.”"




Or how about this, from Dec. 7th:


http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/111463779.html



"Walker looks at showdown with state employee unions
Governor-elect may try to gut bargaining power"



"Governor-elect Scott Walker raised the possibility of essentially abolishing state employee unions on Tuesday as one option to control rising employee benefits costs and eliminate the state's budget deficit.
Walker, a Republican, said he's looking at a range of options that would weaken unions, including eliminating their ability to negotiate with the state.
"Anything from the decertify all the way through modifications of the current laws in place," Walker said at a luncheon sponsored by the Milwaukee Press Club at the Newsroom Pub.
"The bottom line is that we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers and the people who care about services."
Walker's comments were an escalation of an aggressive posture he's taken with state unions as he prepares to take office on Jan. 3."


I'd be curious as to when the "negotiations" happened where the unions threw two middle fingers at him.

[Nerm]

Why is it that so many anti-union rants appear to be based on emotions, platitudes, and anecdotal evidence? "Arrrrgggg, unions are for commies!" "Arrrrrggggg, my friend in a union is lazy!" That kind of reflexive, black-white, good-bad thinking is nothing new, but it's always mildly disturbing.

I have my issues with unions, but I'm not about to pretend that unions are communistic outfits that present nothing but problems for our country.

I agree that the black/white thinking in this thread is disturbing and unproductive. However, I think the pro union posts can be just as bad as the anti union ones. In general, I think it’s a good idea to acknowledge that a person on the opposite side of an issue is not necessarily ignorant or evil. It seems so unproductive to belittle the opinions of others and assume the worst of them. As a psychologist, I have worked with a lot of public sector employees. There is a lot of diversity of thought about unions even among the union members. I have seen some public workers who are outstanding and strive for excellence. I have also worked with people who have had their jobs protected despite behavior that even the staunchest union supporter on this message board would find appalling.

On a personal note, I do have some understanding of why some consider it to be ok for firefighters, police, prison guards (etc) to have more bargaining rights than other types of employees. For the most part, when I have worked with these individuals, there is a direct correlation between their work experiences and problems in functioning. I think a strong union can help to address safety issues and to advocate for help to address job related trauma experiences. I can see stronger arguments for the need for union protections in lines of work where there are greater physical demands and risks. So, I don’t think that people are necessarily hypocritical about wanting more bargaining rights for some public sector unions and less for others.

I think that it is such a shame that political discussions on the net tend to take on such combative tone. It seems reasonable to assume that there are rational, intelligent, and well meaning people on both sides of most issues. I think outcomes on issues like we are seeing in Wisconsin would be a lot better for both sides if there wasn't an attempt to frame this as good vs evil.

[deejaydana]

Unions are for corrupt lazy workers who dont have the skill set to make it in an open market system. They ruin industries and drive jobs overseas.

Im glad Walker passed this. Unions are out of hand and they need to be brought back to Earth with their silly contracts and unreasonable expectations.

America's tax base is tired of paying lavish pension and health benefits to a select group of people that they couldnt get in a free market.

I am so glad the corrupt, mob-driven union machine is getting crushed.

:applause::applause::applause:

[Popeman38]

This if from a Jan. 3rd NYT article, which is also the day that Walker took office:

Massive newspaper quotes

I'd be curious as to when the "negotiations" happened where the unions threw two middle fingers at him.Really? How long has the budget crisis in WI been going on? What platform did Walker run on? It is not like this is new. It has been an ongoing issue.
An e-mail exchange released by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's office on Tuesday has revealed a series of potential Republican concessions to a three-week standoff over a budget bill that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of most public workers.

The e-mails show a discussion between Walker's deputy chief of staff, Eric Schutt, and Democratic state Sens. Tim Cullen and Bob Jauch in a correspondence that reveals offers and counter-offers between two sides who have remained at an impasse since mid-February.

Walker's initial proposal -- which passed the state's assembly on Friday and would exclude police and firefighters -- requires public workers to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, while prohibiting collection of union dues.

It would also restrict the collective bargaining power of public-sector unions to be limited to wages, and would be capped to the rate of inflation. Pay raises beyond the inflation index would require a voter referendum.Notice the use of the word "restrict"? Nowhere, in any proposal, has Walker ever said he wants to eliminate CB.

[Madison Redskin]

They made concessions only after Walker placed no more CB on the table. When it was first proposed that union workers partially fund their pension and benefits packages, the union threw both middle fingers in the air and started laughing. When Walker responded by ending public union CB, the unions suddenly were open to "negotiating" partial funding of pensions and benefits. Lets not pretend like the unions were innocent bystanders in this whole mess.

So, you're saying: (1) Walker initially only proposed to increase the union members' contributions for health care and their pensions; (2) the union rejected that offer; and (3) only after the unions rejected Walker's initial offer did he propose to substantially restrict the unions' collective bargaining rights? I have never heard anyone make that claim. Care to back it up with a link?

[PeterMP]

Really? How long has the budget crisis in WI been going on? What platform did Walker run on? It is not like this is new. It has been an ongoing issue.Notice the use of the word "restrict"? Nowhere, in any proposal, has Walker ever said he wants to eliminate CB.
For a while, but I don't think Walker was doing any negotiating before he was govenor. I'm pretty sure he was elected in Nov., and at least in early Dec, which was about a month before he actually took office, he was already talking about working to limit the collective bargaining ability of the unions.

Who said he wants to eliminate collective bargaining?

YOU said, he first tried to negotiate with the unions with respect to things like benefits.

My understanding as is the law still doesn't eliminate collective bargaining. It limits what can be collectively bargained, but the unions can still negotiate somethings (and makes it much more difficult for the unions to exist (e.g. recertification every year and no dues removed from pay checks).

Did Walker ever go to the unions, without first threatening to do what has been done (i.e. severly limit their ability to collective bargain) and say, 'I want to negotiate with you.'?

The e-mails are from AFTER the law was in the in the legislature and the Democrats walked out.

Walker had ALREADY sought to severly hamper the unions before those negotiotions took place.

**EDIT**
OH and the unions HAD negotiated a contract with increases in them with the previous govenor after the election, but before Walker took office that didn't pass:

http://www.channel3000.com/politics/25972442/detail.html

"MADISON, Wis. -- A deal with the state and more than half of its unionized employees includes increases in employee health care costs and pension fund contributions.

The deal has a 6.9 percent increase in employee health care costs and between a 0.2 percent and 0.8 percent increase in pension fund contributions."

http://www.channel3000.com/politics/26114651/detail.html

"Largest State Employee Union Approves Contract
Contract Calls For Increased Health Care, Pension Contributions

MADISON, Wis. -- The largest state employees union has approved a new contract, despite calls from Gov.-elect Scott Walker to hold off on any new contracts until he takes office in January.

Officials with the Wisconsin State Employees Union issued a statement Friday saying its members had approved the deal, which will end June 30, 2011. The contract calls for for increases in health care premiums ranging from 5 to 7 percent. It also increases pension contributions ranging from 0.2 percent to 0.8 percent. Walker had called for a 12 percent increase in pension contributions to help plug the state's deficit."

**EDIT 2***

Here's even MORE from after the Democrats had fled:

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110309/GPG0101/103090605/1978&located=rss

"Although Tuesday's list of items, including the resolution honoring the Packers, is largely bipartisan, Fitzgerald hinted that he might try to push some more controversial ones later, even if the Democrats aren't back. Among the possibilities is a vote on the question of whether voters should be required to show identification at the polls.

The Democratic senators taking part in the scheduling meeting urged Republicans to accept the offer made by the unions under which they would accept paying more for benefits as Walker wants but still retain their collective bargaining rights.

Another compromise offered by Republican Sen. Dale Schultz would remove collective bargaining rights just for two years

"It's time for all of us to move forward," said Democratic Sen. Dave Hansen of Green Bay over the phone to the Republicans.

Walker has rejected both offers, saying local governments and school districts can't be hamstrung by the often lengthy collective bargaining process and need to have more flexibility to deal with up to $1 billion in cuts he will propose in his budget next week and into the future."

All emphasis added by me.

And let's be clear. When they say they would retain or remove their collective bargaining rights, they aren't talking about COMPLETELY eliminating their ability to collectively bargain:

"The 14 Senate Democrats who skipped town Thursday to indefinitely delay a vote on Republican Gov. Scott Walker's bill stripping most collective bargaining rights from nearly all public employees remained missing in action for a fifth day."

From the same link. Again, bold added by me.

[deejaydana]

Thomas Sowell rules. Here's a clear eyed 'opinion' piece about Unions:

Link here>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/03/public-sector-unions-enjoy-free-lunch#



That unions are for the workers is biggest myth about labor unions. Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are for politicians.
Nothing shows the utter cynicism of the unions and the politicians who do their bidding like the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" that the Obama administration tried to push through Congress. Employees' free choice as to whether or not to join a union is precisely what that legislation would destroy.

Workers already have a free choice in secret-ballot elections conducted under existing laws. As more and more workers in the private sector have voted to reject having a union represent them, the unions' answer has been to take away secret-ballot elections.

Under the "Employee Free Choice Act," unions would not have to win in secret-ballot elections in order to represent the workers. Instead, union representatives could simply collect signatures from the workers until they had a majority.

Why do we have secret ballots in the first place, whether in elections for unions or elections for government officials? To prevent intimidation and allow people to vote how they want to, without fear of retaliation.

This is a crucial right that unions want to take away from workers. The actions of union mobs in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere give us a free home demonstration of how little they respect the rights of those who disagree with them and how much they rely on harassment and threats to get what they want.

It takes world-class chutzpah to call circumventing secret ballots the "Employee Free Choice Act." To unions, workers are just the raw material used to create union power, just as iron ore is the raw material used by U.S. Steel and bauxite is the raw material used by the Aluminum Company of America.

The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers.

There are limits to how long unions can siphon off money from businesses, without facing serious economic repercussions.

The most famous labor union leader, the legendary John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers from 1920 to 1960, secured rising wages and job benefits for the coal miners, far beyond what they could have gotten out of a free market based on supply and demand.

But there is no free lunch.

An economist at the University of Chicago called John L. Lewis "the world's greatest oil salesman."

His strikes that interrupted the supply of coal, as well as the resulting wage increases that raised its price, caused many individuals and businesses to switch from using coal to using oil, leading to reduced employment of coal miners. The higher wage rates also led coal companies to replace many miners with machines.

The net result was a huge decline in employment in the coal mining industry, leaving many mining towns virtually ghost towns by the 1960s. There is no free lunch.

Similar things happened in the unionized steel industry and in the unionized automobile industry. At one time, U.S. Steel was the largest steel producer in the world and General Motors the largest automobile manufacturer.

No more. Their unions were riding high in their heyday, but they too discovered that there is no free lunch, as their members lost jobs by the hundreds of thousands.

Workers have also learned that there is no free lunch, which is why they have, over the years, increasingly voted against being represented by unions in secret ballot elections.

One set of workers, however, remained largely immune to such repercussions. These are government workers represented by public-sector unions.

While oil could replace coal, while U.S. Steel dropped from number one in the world to number ten, and Toyota could replace General Motors as the world's leading producer of cars, government is a monopoly. Nobody is likely to replace the federal or state bureaucracies, no matter how much money the unions drain from the taxpayers.

That is why government unions continue to thrive while private-sector unions decline. Taxpayers provide their free lunch

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 04:39 PM ----------

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 04:40 PM ----------

Repeat after me:


The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers.

The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers.

The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers.

[Larry]

The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers.

The most fundamental myth by business is that the owner of a business singlehandedly creates all the wealth in the universe, and everybody else is simply a leach.

Wealth is created,(like Super Bowls are won), by teams. Of which the owner, the CEO, the workers, and the janitors are all parts. Some of them are paid what they're worth, some are paid more, some are paid less. But none of them is endowed with any magical powers which automatically make them the first horse on the merry-go-round.

[chipwhich]

The most fundamental myth by business is that the owner of a business singlehandedly creates all the wealth in the universe, and everybody else is simply a leach.

Wealth is created,(like Super Bowls are won), by teams. Of which the owner, the CEO, the workers, and the janitors are all parts. Some of them are paid what they're worth, some are paid more, some are paid less. But none of them is endowed with any magical powers which automatically make them the first horse on the merry-go-round.

If it were all so easy. Sugar plums and roses. Everyone on this board would be an owner!

[twa]

If it were all so easy. Sugar plums and roses. Everyone on this board would be an owner!

Yep...strange that I can't recall considering a employee a leach...at least not for long

But then I don't deal with unions so maybe I'm missing out on fantasy land

[Madison Redskin]

You can't say union workers are GROSSLY overpaid and then not explain that.

What does that mean?

Dude, that's been the MO of the pro-Walker crowd in this thread. Quite a few of them have been doing drive-by posts in which they make factually inaccurate claims, get called out on the BS, fail to respond to posts that note that their facts are ****ed up, duck out, and then return to make a few generic anti-union comments that have nothing to do with the specifics of Walker's bill.

[chipwhich]

[QUOTE=Lombardi's_kid_brother;8195306]

Dude, that's been the MO of the pro-Walker crowd in this thread. Quite a few of them have been doing drive-by posts in which they make factually inaccurate claims, get called out on the BS, fail to respond to posts that note that their facts are ****ed up, duck out, and then return to make a few generic anti-union comments that have nothing to do with the specifics of Walker's bill.

I have only been in one union in my life. I worked at the Capital Center right out of high school doing food service. My friends were making minimum wage. At the time $3.35. I was making $8.00 an hour. In addition, I got paid for a guaranteed 5 hours no matter how long I worked. So if I worked 3 hours for a Georgetown game, I got paid for 5...thanks to the union.

I also had a seniority number. As my ranking grew, my "position" in the union grew. My ability to be fired shrunk. :)

The people in the union who got the money making stands, cotton candy, ice cream, products, never quit and their seniority ensured them of long term guaranteed income. At the time, those guys made 40K a year for a few hours a night in the arena.

I remember being in Disney for a labor dispute. The complaint was Union members were making 70K to operate the Dumbo ride :ols:

I am not a union expert, but I do know Unions paid me more than average right out of high school. And my union dues were trivial in relation to what I made.

[Madison Redskin]

I remember being in Disney for a labor dispute. The complaint was Union members were making 70K to operate the Dumbo ride :ols:

I've heard that story before and I called BS then and I'll call it again. Care to back it up with a link? I did a google search and all I came up with was a link to a site that said the average salary for a Disney ride operator is $23,000 (http://www.careerbliss.com/salary/ride-operator-at-disneyland-resort-salaries-187633/). But, I'm sure many people who want to believe that story will do so, even if that story is pure fiction.

[chipwhich]

I've heard that story before and I called BS then and I'll call it again. Care to back it up with a link? I did a google search and all I came up with was a link to a site that said the average salary for a Disney ride operator is $23,000 (http://www.careerbliss.com/salary/ride-operator-at-disneyland-resort-salaries-187633/). But, I'm sure many people who want to believe that story will do so, even if that story is pure fiction.

I don't have a link. I am just telling you what I was told when my daughter was about 3. She is 15 now.

I can assure you when I was working at the Cap Center at age 18 or 19 I was making $8 an hour and the people with the special stands were making 35K-40K. This was somewhere in the 1985 range.

I am just stating what I experienced. $3.35 minimum wage and I was making $8 an hour....with a 5 hour minimum.

But maybe I am just lying...OK.

[Madison Redskin]

I don't have a link. I am just telling you what I was told when my daughter was about 3. She is 15 now.

I can assure you when I was working at the Cap Center at age 18 or 19 I was making $8 an hour and the people with the special stands were making 35K-40K. This was somewhere in the 1985 range.

I am just stating what I experienced. $3.35 minimum wage and I was making $8 an hour....with a 5 hour minimum.

But maybe I am just lying...OK.

I don't think you're lying, I just think you're wrong. The links I found seem to indicate that you are indeed wrong.

I also doubt that, in 1985, guys made $40K a year to sell popcorn in the stands a couple of hours per night. But, let me do a little bit of research and get back to you.

[chipwhich]

I don't think you're lying, I just think you're wrong. The links I found seem to indicate that you are indeed wrong.

I also doubt that, in 1985, guys made $40K a year to sell popcorn in the stands a couple of hours per night. But, let me do a little bit of research and get back to you.

I didn't make 40K per year to sell popcorn. I made $8 an hour when the minimum wage was $3.35.

I also went to Strayer College with Giant employees (Union) who made 35K a year working the cash register.

This isn't a lie either.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/03/10/wisconsin-gop-leader-admits-the-truth-its-all-about-obama/


It’s not like we didn’t know it – but who would have thought they would be so brazen as to voice it out loud?

Appearing on Fox News, Wisconsin Sen. Majority Leader, Scott Fitzgerald had this to say-

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.


With bills similar -or worse- pending in many states led by GOP governors with legislative majorities, it is becoming increasingly clear that doing away with public employee unions or, outlawing dues paying for all members, is just a bonus for these forces – the real target is wiping out the union treasure chests to deny the president the benefit of their assistance in the 2012 election.

[DRSmith]

[QUOTE=Madison Redskin;8196150]

I have only been in one union in my life. I worked at the Capital Center right out of high school doing food service. My friends were making minimum wage. At the time $3.35. I was making $8.00 an hour. In addition, I got paid for a guaranteed 5 hours no matter how long I worked. So if I worked 3 hours for a Georgetown game, I got paid for 5...thanks to the union.

I also had a seniority number. As my ranking grew, my "position" in the union grew. My ability to be fired shrunk. :)

The people in the union who got the money making stands, cotton candy, ice cream, products, never quit and their seniority ensured them of long term guaranteed income. At the time, those guys made 40K a year for a few hours a night in the arena.

I remember being in Disney for a labor dispute. The complaint was Union members were making 70K to operate the Dumbo ride :ols:

I am not a union expert, but I do know Unions paid me more than average right out of high school. And my union dues were trivial in relation to what I made.


so your friends were being under paid

And this crap about the more seniority you have the less likely you are to be fired is just that pure crap I am union and have seen several guys fired who were higher in seniority than me.

SO your complaint is people who work for a living helping others get rich should be paid next to nothing

[chipwhich]

[QUOTE=chipwhich;8196171]


so your friends were being under paid


No my friends weren't able to find a job making $8 an hour selling hot dogs and cokes. I was fortunate to find a union to pay me to do that, and even guarantee 5 hours pay when I only worked 3. Not a bad gig while getting ready for college.

[jpyaks3]

Along those lines what the hell is this? This seems like a very bad idea

From what I understand this is being called "Financial Martial Law" by the people who voted for it. The Governor can now dissolve the elected governments of Michigan's towns and cities, replacing them with unaccountable "emergency financial managers" (EFMs) who can eliminate services, merge or eliminate school boards, and lay off or renegotiate unionized public employees without recourse. The people living there do not get a say in this.

These EFMs don't have to be qualified in any way, can be anyone the Governor pleases, and he can even appoint a COMPANY to be an EFM over a town or city. That's right, he can now choose to give a corporation complete control over your local government, and the people there have no say in the matter or recourse against it. These EMFs are accountable only to the state legislature themselves, there is no other oversight, and no legal way to recall or fight against them directly.


Michigan Senate passes emergency manager bills

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/03/10/news/doc4d78d0d4d764d009636769.txt?viewmode=fullstory



The senator also rejected claims by Democrats that the bill will destroy Michigan’s long history of local control by allowing the EMF to remove top administrators and elected officials, put millage increases on the ballot, lay off employees, slash services, and merge the city or school district with a neighboring government entity. Brandenburg said the EMFs will be deployed in communities that need “financial martial law.”

“Local control? I’ll tell you what, I think that in a lot of these places there is no control,” he said.

Snyder, a Republican, called for a substantially revised emergency manager process in January, warning that the current law doesn’t allow the state to act pro-actively, providing early intervention long before a city or school district faces financial collapse. In recent weeks, the governor has said that removing officials or altering or deleting contracts is a last resort.

In addition, an EMF can only be put in place if several preliminary steps to shore up a community’s finances fail.

An EMF would be appointed by the governor – in conjunction with the state school superintendent in the case of failing school districts. The Legislature could remove an EMF that was viewed as incompetent or overbearing.

Bieda said he’s disturbed that the Legislature is willing to put so much power in one person’s hands, someone who is not from the community and not elected by the people.

““I am very concerned for the powers this legislation would transfer to an emergency manager. Removing elected officials and overturning local ordinances shows no respect for the will or the rights of the voters. This draconian measure gives authority to an individual with no responsibility to the citizens of the community,” Bieda said in a statement.

[twa]

Along those lines what the hell is this? This seems like a very bad idea


Why when the locals have been proven incompetent?...ya need to look at what must occur first before a emergency state is reached.

Should we instead simply give them more funds to waste if they have been proven incompetent or incapable?

[jpyaks3]

Why when the locals have been proven incompetent?...ya need to look at what must occur first before a emergency state is reached.

Should we instead simply give them more funds to waste if they have been proven incompetent or incapable?

Don't you think the local people should have some say in who is basically a king in their town. Seems like a very dangerous path to go down, Governor declares financial emergency sends in cronies to gut what he wants gutted and the people have no say. There needs to be some back and forth and the local people must have a say.

[twa]

Don't you think the local people should have some say in who is basically a king in their town. Seems like a very dangerous path to go down, Governor declares financial emergency sends in cronies to gut what he wants gutted and the people have no say. There needs to be some back and forth and the local people must have a say.

They have say...and if the ones they elect run it into the ground ya need a new pilot......this is nothing more than exercising control of emergency funds....or bailouts if you prefer.
If you can't handle your finances someone else needs to before you spend their money.

[jpyaks3]

They have say...and if the ones they elect run it into the ground ya need a new pilot......this is nothing more than exercising control of emergency funds....or bailouts if you prefer.
If you can't handle your finances someone else needs to before you spend their money.

So you can't see this being used for political gain? You can't see cronyism being a massive problem when the Governor can put whoever they want in charge of a towns finances with no recourse from the people? You are a hell of a lot more trusting of the government than I am.

[Popeman38]

Don't you think the local people should have some say in who is basically a king in their town. Seems like a very dangerous path to go down, Governor declares financial emergency sends in cronies to gut what he wants gutted and the people have no say. There needs to be some back and forth and the local people must have a say.
The article you linked to stated that the EMFs will only be placed when current methods to resolve the crisis have been exhausted. And if the EMF is seen as being incompetent or overbearing can be removed. It is not like this is in place of locally elected officials. This is to fix what locally elected officials can't/won't do to correct financial issues.

[jpyaks3]

The article you linked to stated that the EMFs will only be placed when current methods to resolve the crisis have been exhausted. And if the EMF is seen as being incompetent or overbearing can be removed. It is not like this is in place of locally elected officials. This is to fix what locally elected officials can't/won't do to correct financial issues.

They can only be removed by the legislative body, so there is no direct way the people can remove them from office.

[Popeman38]

They can only be removed by the legislative body, so there is no direct way the people can remove them from office.Yeah, because the legislative body put them in place. Because the people elected incompetent people.

[Burgold]

The article you linked to stated that the EMFs will only be placed when current methods to resolve the crisis have been exhausted. And if the EMF is seen as being incompetent or overbearing can be removed. It is not like this is in place of locally elected officials. This is to fix what locally elected officials can't/won't do to correct financial issues.

I don't know, these EMF's ought to be able to be vetted and confirmed in some manner. Otherwise, it is a bit draconian, dictatoresque. I wouldn't be happy about this if I were in Michigan. It seems like a way to subvet the will of the people and democracy. It might be done for good reasons, but the end result is a dangerous one.

[Larry]

Notice the use of the word "restrict"? Nowhere, in any proposal, has Walker ever said he wants to eliminate CB.

And I have never said that I want to ban guns.

I've merely passed legislation restricting them to the ability to fire one bullet a year, at a speed which cannot be faster than the speed of gravity. And to force you to re-certify your gun ownership every year.

But I have never actually, directly, stated that I want to deprive you of the right to spend hundreds of dollars on something which I have intentionally made absolutely, completely, worthless.

[Popeman38]

And I have never said that I want to ban guns.

I've merely passed legislation restricting them to the ability to fire one bullet a year, at a speed which cannot be faster than the speed of gravity. And to force you to re-certify your gun ownership every year.

But I have never actually, directly, stated that I want to deprive you of the right to spend hundreds of dollars on something which I have intentionally made absolutely, completely, worthless.Another example of you taking a statement and twisting. WTF does this thread have to do with guns, and your idiotic rant on your restrictions?

Have at it Larry, how anyone can take you seriously anymore is beyond me. You treat a messageboard more seriously than most, and decide which POV is correct and constantly fling **** and accusations at anyone on the other side. Then you ***** about politicians doing the same. Wanna have a rationale debate? Bring something to the table.

[deejaydana]

so now the liberals on this board are calling Walker a dictator and talking about a recall? Classic sour grapes move.

[JimboDaMan]

so now the liberals on this board are calling Walker a dictator and talking about a recall? Classic sour grapes move.Good point.

Except that the dictator comment referenced EMF in Michigan, and Walker is a governor in Wisconsin. So one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Other than that, spot on.

[Popeman38]

Good point.

Except that the dictator comment referenced EMF in Michigan, and Walker is a governor in Wisconsin. So one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Other than that, spot on.Ummmm, you really gonna claim that Walker has not been cast as a dictator?

[JimboDaMan]

Ummmm, you really gonna claim that Walker has not been cast as a dictator?I went back and looked at the last times deejaydana posted and since then only the "martial law" provisions in Michigan have been described as dictatorial.

[Madison Redskin]

so now the liberals on this board are calling Walker a dictator and talking about a recall? Classic sour grapes move.

If you're voted into office in Wisconsin and the voters decide that your actions prove they made a mistake, the voters can hold a recall election. If the majority of voters still support you, you stay in office. If the majority of voters think you've ****ed up, you are booted from office. How is that sour grapes? Let the majority of the voters decide whether you deserve to stay in office.

[deejaydana]

If you're voted into office in Wisconsin and the voters decide that your actions prove they made a mistake, the voters can hold a recall election. If the majority of voters still support you, you stay in office. If the majority of voters think you've ****ed up, you are booted from office. How is that sour grapes? Let the majority of the voters decide whether you deserve to stay in office.

Or how about "elections have consequences?"

[JimboDaMan]

Or how about "elections have consequences?"Remind me again how Schwarzenegger became elected guv of Cali?

<edit> But more importantly, who's gonna get post 1000? What's the over/under on the time #1000 gets posted? </edit>

[Madison Redskin]

Or how about "elections have consequences?"

Is it really such a terrible thing that politicians might be held accountable by the voters and booted if the voters don't like what they're doing?

[deejaydana]

Is it really such a terrible thing that politicians might be held accountable by the voters and booted if the voters don't like what they're doing?

I don't know, can we recall Obama ? ;)


I don't know that there is that much public support to recall Walker. He's taking the right steps towards righting the ship fiscally.

[jpyaks3]

I don't know, can we recall Obama ? ;)


I don't know that there is that much public support to recall Walker. He's taking the right steps towards righting the ship fiscally.

Well every single poll that has come out of Wisconsin disagrees with you.

[Larry]

Another example of you taking a statement and twisting. WTF does this thread have to do with guns, and your idiotic rant on your restrictions?

The parallel went over your head, did it?

---------- Post added March-11th-2011 at 01:30 PM ----------


so now the liberals on this board are calling Walker a dictator and talking about a recall? Classic sour grapes move.

No, they're pointing out that he is using a financial crisis (which I've seen some claim that he, and the Party behind him, contributed to in a large way. But I haven't seen them support this claim much), as an excuse to give himself the power to suspend democratic principals, and to give himself the power to appoint hand-picked dictators with virtually unlimited powers.

(I'm not certain that they're entirely correct. We've seen a lot of cases of news stories about legislation, making all kinds of grandiose claims about the legislation, that don't seem to actually reflect the legislation. It's made me (more) skeptical. I'm working on developing my "wait for people to actually point to the actual legislation" habit.)

---------- Post added March-11th-2011 at 01:31 PM ----------


Good point.

Except that the dictator comment referenced EMF in Michigan, and Walker is a governor in Wisconsin. So one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Other than that, spot on.

Wow. Thanks for pointing that out, Jimbo. I'll confess I missed that.

---------- Post added March-11th-2011 at 01:37 PM ----------


If you're voted into office in Wisconsin and the voters decide that your actions prove they made a mistake, the voters can hold a recall election. If the majority of voters still support you, you stay in office. If the majority of voters think you've ****ed up, you are booted from office. How is that sour grapes? Let the majority of the voters decide whether you deserve to stay in office.

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong, morally, with a recall. Gives the voters a chance to decide if they like the new car they bought. (Note to popeman: This is, I believe, what's called an "analogy". No, I have not stated that the Governor of Wisconsin is a car.)

[devil's advocate]

I'm contemplating the mental image of a law that says that after every crop of new politicians take office, then one year later, there's an automatic vote on whether to keep them. Let the voters vote, based on the politicians actions, rather than on his rhetoric.

In some ways, it's a pleasant mental image.

[aREDSKIN]

so now the liberals on this board are calling Walker a dictator and talking about a recall? Classic sour grapes move.

It happens in many threads.

[Nerm]

I’m actually a little concerned about the recall elections. I would understand it in the case that a legislator leaves the state and refuses to vote, or in the case where someone votes in the opposite way they pledged to during their campaign. However, if most voters just disagree with a representative... I don’t see that as a reason for recall.

Should Obama have been recalled during the healthcare debate? He was obviously going against the majority of the electorate.

We could simply get rid of our representative democracy if we want to make all of our decisions by polling. Who needs a government when we can just respond to random phone calls or make ourselves heard online?

For those that agree with Republicans getting recalled in Wisconsin... do you also think that recently elected democrats should be recalled if they vote against the majority in traditionally republican states? This could get scary in a hurry. I tend to think that representatives spend too much time worrying about reelection. I think it would be a disaster if every vote was a recall test. This could be very bad for all of us.

[twa]

talking about a recall is much easier than being able to..and carries a price of it's own

[Stillers6SB]

I’m actually a little concerned about the recall elections. I would understand it in the case that a legislator leaves the state and refuses to vote, or in the case where someone votes in the opposite way they pledged to during their campaign. However, if most voters just disagree with a representative... I don’t see that as a reason for recall.

Should Obama have been recalled during the healthcare debate? He was obviously going against the majority of the electorate.

We could simply get rid of our representative democracy if we want to make all of our decisions by polling. Who needs a government when we can just respond to random phone calls or make ourselves heard online?

For those that agree with Republicans getting recalled in Wisconsin... do you also think that recently elected democrats should be recalled if they vote against the majority in traditionally republican states? This could get scary in a hurry. I tend to think that representatives spend too much time worrying about reelection. I think it would be a disaster if every vote was a recall test. This could be very bad for all of us.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the recall doesn't necessarily remove the legislator. If the petitioners get enough signatures, then the legislator has to face the voters in a new election.

It would be a good thing if the legislators actually were more responsive to the will of the people instead of the will of the Koch Brothers (or any other group making payments to legislators for legislation)

[Burgold]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the recall doesn't necessarily remove the legislator. If the petitioners get enough signatures, then the legislator has to face the voters in a new election.

It would be a good thing if the legislators actually were more responsive to the will of the people instead of the will of the Koch Brothers (or any other group making payments to legislators for legislation)

I think this is wrong. I suppose technically the guy who has just been ousted could throw his hat in the ring again, but I think once recalled the bum is out. Now, I don't think recalls should be used unless a politician is involved in a crime or treason so I think the Governor of Wis. shouldn't be under threat of a recall and even then it should be about impeachment. I still think what he is trying to do is wrong and against the spirit of capitalism and democracy, but at this point that's for the courts to decide. Legally, he had the right to spearhead this and call for a vote. Just because some or many don't approve of the result is not a good enough reason to demand a recall.

[Goaldeje]

I believe that is correct, Burgold. He is going to face some problems when it comes time for reelection, but until then I don't think there is much he has to fear.

[mardi gras skin]

Nerm, I couldn't agree more. Really, I can't remember a post you've made on the message board I've disagreed with.

[PeterMP]

I’m actually a little concerned about the recall elections. I would understand it in the case that a legislator leaves the state and refuses to vote, or in the case where someone votes in the opposite way they pledged to during their campaign. However, if most voters just disagree with a representative... I don’t see that as a reason for recall.

Should Obama have been recalled during the healthcare debate? He was obviously going against the majority of the electorate.

We could simply get rid of our representative democracy if we want to make all of our decisions by polling. Who needs a government when we can just respond to random phone calls or make ourselves heard online?

For those that agree with Republicans getting recalled in Wisconsin... do you also think that recently elected democrats should be recalled if they vote against the majority in traditionally republican states? This could get scary in a hurry. I tend to think that representatives spend too much time worrying about reelection. I think it would be a disaster if every vote was a recall test. This could be very bad for all of us.
1. I'm not sure if what you are claiming is obvious was in fact all that obvious.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6084856-503544.html

Many people had issues with Obama's healthcare that it didn't go far enough. In some sense, the law that was passed was a compromise law.

2. The people of WI have written it into their laws, therefore, it is their decision.

[Stillers6SB]

I think this is wrong. I suppose technically the guy who has just been ousted could throw his hat in the ring again, but I think once recalled the bum is out. Now, I don't think recalls should be used unless a politician is involved in a crime or treason so I think the Governor of Wis. shouldn't be under threat of a recall and even then it should be about impeachment. I still think what he is trying to do is wrong and against the spirit of capitalism and democracy, but at this point that's for the courts to decide. Legally, he had the right to spearhead this and call for a vote. Just because some or many don't approve of the result is not a good enough reason to demand a recall.

At least in Wisconsin, the legislator that faces the recall is in the election.

He's not actually recalled unless he loses the recall election.


If a recall election is held and the elected official is not recalled -- that is, wins the recall election -- he cannot be the target of a recall drive for the rest of his term.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/10/6235763-on-wisconsins-recall-law

[Nerm]

1. I'm not sure if what you are claiming is obvious was in fact all that obvious.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6084856-503544.html

Many people had issues with Obama's healthcare that it didn't go far enough. In some sense, the law that was passed was a compromise law.

2. The people of WI have written it into their laws, therefore, it is their decision.

I agree that there was considerable opposition from the left because there was no public option or single payer. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Maybe TARP would be a better example. That was something that a large majority of the public was against. Still, I don’t think that it would be a reason to kick people out of their elected positions. I really think that a person should be able to serve their term unless there is a significant legal or ethics issue (or if they become unable to do their job for some reason). In general, the issue should be serious enough to get bipartisan support for the recall.

I do agree that WI does have laws that allow this, I'm just saying that if both sides start going down this path to get rid of people, it could cause huge breakdowns in the democratic process. I think it is better to hold people accountable through the regular election process.

---------- Post added March-12th-2011 at 12:32 PM ----------


Nerm, I couldn't agree more. Really, I can't remember a post you've made on the message board I've disagreed with.

Thanks for the kind words. However, I think that the more I weigh in on issues, you will find areas of disagreement with me. There are a lot of areas where my thoughts on policy issues are in the distinct minority. However, I try to approach all issues with an open mind and I do make an effort to understand opinions that are different than mine. Regardless of how strongly I feel about an issue, I know one thing for certain. I am wrong about some things (we all are), and I do not know which things I am wrong about (if I did, I wouldn’t be wrong about them). The scientist in me likes to try to poke holes in my own hypotheses.

[deejaydana]

great video, this is it in a nutshell:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/10/your_public_sector_unions_at_work.html

---------- Post added March-12th-2011 at 09:06 AM ----------

another good one:

The Political Crisis Of The Welfare State:


Link>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.forbes.com/lawrencehunter/2011/03/10/the-political-crisis-of-the-welfare-state/

[JimboDaMan]

I agree that there was considerable opposition from the left because there was no public option or single payer. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Maybe TARP would be a better example. That was something that a large majority of the public was against. Still, I don’t think that it would be a reason to kick people out of their elected positions. I really think that a person should be able to serve their term unless there is a significant legal or ethics issue (or if they become unable to do their job for some reason). In general, the issue should be serious enough to get bipartisan support for the recall.

I do agree that WI does have laws that allow this, I'm just saying that if both sides start going down this path to get rid of people, it could cause huge breakdowns in the democratic process. I think it is better to hold people accountable through the regular election process.To nitpick, TARP was a Bush program. It would hardly have made sense to recall him for the last month or two. But I get the point your making and for the most part I agree the recall should be a last resort. On the other hand, while California might be a mess fiscally, it didn't fall apart politically just because Gray Davis was recalled.

[DRSmith]

Seems the whole thing is built on a lie

The protests in Wisconsin over public workers’ pay, benefits and collective bargaining rights have underscored a dilemma facing many states: the cost of public pensions and how cash-strapped governments should pay for them. But the turmoil overshadows a salient point: Wisconsin may have a budget deficit, but its pension system does not.

Studies show that Wisconsin’s state pension program is one of the most solid in the country and has enough funds to cover the promises made not only to current retirees but to those in the future. Wisconsin was hailed as a “national leader” in managing its long-term liabilities for both pensions and retiree health care in “The Trillion Dollar Gap,” a Pew Center on the States report last year. (Pew Center on the States is Stateline's parent organization.)

Protesters have camped out in the Wisconsin Capitol for nearly three weeks to protest a “budget repair” bill from Republican Governor Scott Walker that would require public workers to pay substantially more for their pensions and other benefits and sharply limit their collective bargaining rights. Walker and other Republicans say the package is needed to plug a $3.6 billion hole in the state budget while Democrats and organized labor view the legislation as a political attack on unions. Similar legislation — and protests — are occurring in Ohio, Indiana, Maine and other states.

Keith Brainard, research director of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, says that retirement systems eat up a small portion of state and local government budgets, and that the portion is unusually small in Wisconsin — 1.35 percent in 2008, compared to an average of about 3 percent nationally. “The implication is that pension costs are a driving factor in this state’s fiscal problems,” he says, which isn’t true.

“The Wisconsin Retirement System is one of the better funded plans in the nation,” says Jean-Pierre Aubry, a research associate at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, which tracks state and local pensions. He says Wisconsin has consistently contributed 100 percent of the amount of money that actuaries calculate is needed each year, and has a funded ratio well beyond the 80 percent benchmark that experts consider healthy.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=556976

[IHOPSkins]

......... if this measure attracts businesses to move......to Wisconsin.....Only if you support the public unions.......Otherwise

The union bullies in Wisconsin target businesses

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/the_union_bullies_in_wisconsin.html

UNIONS THREATEN BUSINESS

March 10, 2011
Mr. Tom Ellis, President
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
770 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL
Dear Mr. Ellis:
As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a “budget
adjustment bill” to eviscerate public employees’ right to collectively bargain in
Wisconsin. ..

As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for
office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest
contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support.

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor
Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in
Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this
request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not
respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with
Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters,
and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining,
please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the
goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will
do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to
preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.
Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and
fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that
ideal.

In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the
executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer,
at 608.273.3840.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from
you soon.

James L. Palmer, Executive Director
Wisconsin Professional Police Association
Mahlon Mitchell,President
Professional Fire Fighters
Jim Conway, President
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311
John Matthews, Executive Director
Madison Teachers, Inc.
Keith Patt, Executive Director
Green Bay Education Association
Bob Richardson, President
Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Dan Frei, President
Madison Professional Police Officers Association

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117764004.html?blog=y

[Stillers6SB]

As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for
office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest
contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support.

This is the most relevant part of the letter. Bait and switch tactics by Walker and the other Wisconsin Republicans should be responded to with recall elections and boycotts of major campaign contributors.

[Jeeb]

Only if you support the public unions.......Otherwise

The union bullies in Wisconsin target businesses

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/the_union_bullies_in_wisconsin.html

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117764004.html?blog=y

OH NOES THEY ARE CERTAINLY DOOMED AT THE HANDS OF THESE THUGS!!! The idea of a boycott is soooo THREATENING. Spare everyone the hyperbole, if they as individuals making up an organization want to boycott a business, it is will within their rights to do so. I refuse to shop at wal-mart because I don't agree with who they donate too, I must absolutely hate capitalism.

Thanks for posting an article from the American Drinker. I'd been looking for a chuckle and had not visited that site in a good while.

[Thiebear]

In Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuels own words: Never let a crisis go to waste?
It's only funny when its your side saying it:

When the President says Republican can participate but they have to sit in the back its funny.
When its a repub its the definition of a recall.

It would be nice if some on here would say what they actually believe and stop coughing up "I hate the other side" so they are all monsters.

I won't shop at walmart either: They said if 1% went american it would create 200k jobs instantly so i figured i'd give it a shot for this year.
My google machine isn't too difficult to manage on that.

[Larry]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart because their customer service sucks.

I do not know or care about who they make political contributions to.

[chipwhich]

It would be nice if some on here would say what they actually believe and stop coughing up "I hate the other side" so they are all monsters.


Oh wouldn't that be nice...but then there are a few in here who can't make a point...rather just take cheep shots at the other party. If you can't expect it in the Tailgate, how can you expect it from our government :ols:

[Jeeb]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart because their customer service sucks.

I do not know or care about who they make political contributions to.

Well there is a myriad of reasons, I was just simplifying it.

[IHOPSkins]

I refuse to shop at wal-mart because I don't agree with who they donate too,.......So I guess Republicans SHOULD stop all support for Public Unions since they support Democrats...Thank You for making an Excellant point

....... THREATENING.......Whats Threatening to me is how POORLY these Unionized Public Servants actually Serve.......For instance....this Palmer dude that signed the EXTORTION LETTER looks like a CRIMINAL....

MADISON (AP) - The Wisconsin Professional Police Association's executive director has been charged with drunken driving.

Columbia County Sheriff's deputies say they found James L. Palmer II standing beside WPPA finance director Jean O. Steinhauer's car early on Dec. 19. The State Patrol says Steinhauer had rammed her car into a shed.

Palmer told a sheriff's deputy Steinhauer called him and told him she had gone off the road and he had driven out to the scene. Breath tests showed Palmer's blood alcohol content was 0.146 percent and Steinhauer's was 0.15 percent.

Palmer was charged on Dec. 21 with first offense operating while under the influence. Steinhauer has not been charged.

Neither Palmer nor Steinhauer returned messages.

The WPPA represents police statewide in contract negotiations and government lobbying.

http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_ef21424e-f3df-11de-9d15-001cc4c002e0.html

Way to Represent Unions....:applause:

Kinda sounds like it was Union Drunk Driving Day at the Old WPPA doesn't it?

Why hasn't Steinhauer been charged, she ran into a Shed?.....Union Friends in "HIGH" Places :cheers:

Wisconsin Public Unions.....Teachers that don't Teach......Police that don't Police

[DRSmith]

If this was simply a matter of making doing something wrong it would be between the person who broke the law and those who enforce it.

This is much larger as it affects those who work for a living and their families this is giving tax cuts to corporations at the exspense of those who work for a living

[DCSaints_fan]

I pretty much despise everything WalMart stands for so I refuse to shop there. I have been Target's ***** for a while. Among other things, they employed my brother even though he was disabled.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[deejaydana]

This is much larger as it affects those who work for a living and their families this is giving tax cuts to corporations at the exspense of those who work for a living

This is much larger as it affects those who work for a living (taxpayers) and their families (taxpayers in private sector) this is giving tax cuts (read: free med benefits) to corporations (read: Unions) at the exspense (sic) of those who work for a living (see private sector, as in the part of the economy that produces something of worth). :ols:

[DRSmith]

This is much larger as it affects those who work for a living (taxpayers) and their families (taxpayers in private sector) this is giving tax cuts (read: free med benefits) to corporations (read: Unions) at the exspense (sic) of those who work for a living (see private sector, as in the part of the economy that produces something of worth). :ols:

Those people being cut provide a product.

The service good teachers provide pays long term dividends

Even a bad teacher provides the basic service of child watching while the parents work

I wonder how the parents would feel if they were told from now on you look after your children and you provide their education

---------- Post added March-13th-2011 at 05:50 PM ----------

It seems this is going to be an issue in 2012 and the real issue in this will be made very public.


Democrats in Wisconsin are vowing to transform virtually every upcoming state and local election there into a referendum on Walker’s administration. Party leaders from Madison to Washington are gearing up for a major fight in the hope of sending an unmistakable signal to other ambitious GOP state executives.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51181.html#ixzz1GWEPYast


Wisconsin state Senate President Scott Fitzgerald, a Republican who shepherded the labor law to passage, touched off a small firestorm when he told Fox News that ending collective bargaining would affect the outcome of the 2012 presidential race.

“If we win this battle and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions,” he said last week, “Obama is going to have a much … more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51181.html#ixzz1GWEVrq8X

[Madison Redskin]

This is much larger as it affects those who work for a living (taxpayers) and their families (taxpayers in private sector) this is giving tax cuts (read: free med benefits) to corporations (read: Unions) at the exspense (sic) of those who work for a living (see private sector, as in the part of the economy that produces something of worth). :ols:

I was waiting for someone to trot out these Palinesque talking points - government employees don't do any real work, only people in the private sector do anything virtuous, etc. Let's all pretend that all government workers are lazy, incompetent, corrupt, and worthless parasites and all workers in the private sector are bright, hard-working, virtuous, wealth-producing, and real Americans.

[DRSmith]

Well if say that these people are not producing wealth in what they do as teachers and garage collectors then you must apply the same rule to companies like Waste Management and private schools

The thing is these people who work for the goverment provide services

We in turn pay for those services in the form of taxes

These people take the money they are paid and buy goods and services that many of us provide

Their income and our incomes provide the means for more wealth to be created for all

But when the wages are diminished then there is less money floating around and even though it is sitting in banks when one does not make enough to qualify for loans it means nothing and hurts the over all economy as wages go down, jobs dry up and tax revenues disappear.

[IHOPSkins]

.......wonder how the parents would feel if they were told from now on you look after your children and you provide their education.....They might say FAT CHANCE thats what we Over Pay You to do.......

Madison schools will add 20 minutes to school day to make up for sick-outs

Because no additional days will be added to the calendar, most teachers will not receive additional compensation for that time, district spokesman Ken Syke said.

Madison schools were closed to students Feb. 16-18 and Feb. 21 because a significant number of teachers called in sick to attend protests against a state proposal to limit public employee collective bargaining. Gov. Scott Walker signed it into law Friday.

The School Board reached an agreement with Madison Teachers Inc. over the weekend that allowed the district to set the makeup calendar. The agreement also ensures teachers with unexcused absences will not be paid for those days and that teachers who submitted fraudulent sick notes will be suspended.

The district has not yet released the number of teachers that missed school to work those days. The district received more than 1,000 sick notes, including some from doctors who were handing them out at the Capitol protests, assistant legal counsel Matt Bell said.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/article_bf93a6ba-4e8e-11e0-a6eb-001cc4c03286.html

Teachers that Don't Teach....just got a Lesson in Home Economics

[twa]

I wonder how the parents would feel if they were told from now on you look after your children and you provide their education[COLOR="Gold"]



IF they got the money the schools are paid they might like the idea....that little matter of funding matters

[IHOPSkins]

Fitzgerald Says Dems Won't Be Allowed To Vote In Committees

http://www.channel3000.com/politics/27196309/detail.html


Sen. Fitzgerald: Email re: Senate Democrat voting privileges in standing committees
3/14/2011

From: Sen.Fitzgerald
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:52 PM
To: *Legislative Senate Republicans
Subject: Senate Democrat voting privileges in standing committees

Dear Members,

With the return of the Senate Democrats this weekend, questions have arisen regarding Democrat members’ participation in Senate standing committee public hearings and executive sessions.

Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact my office.

Thank you,

Scott Fitzgerald
Senate Majority Leader
13th Senate District

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=230087

[deejaydana]

I was waiting for someone to trot out these Palinesque talking points - government employees don't do any real work, only people in the private sector do anything virtuous, etc. Let's all pretend that all government workers are lazy, incompetent, corrupt, and worthless parasites and all workers in the private sector are bright, hard-working, virtuous, wealth-producing, and real Americans.

Finally it appears you're coming around. ;)

My post was deliberately (a bit) over the top. Hence the smiling face. With that said, I've worked both gov't and private channels and while I wouldn't insult a govt employee by saying they don't contribute, care about and daily make an effort, they also (typically) don't have to fear about their jobs and are greatly insulated (so far anyway) from the brunt of much of the down turn in the market. I've had close friends who are teachers literally boast that "they can't ever get rid of me" and "i never have to work that hard." I really think you'd be hard pressed to find any kind of equivalent in the private sector to these kind of statements.

[Nerm]

They might say FAT CHANCE thats what we Over Pay You to do.......

Madison schools will add 20 minutes to school day to make up for sick-outs

Because no additional days will be added to the calendar, most teachers will not receive additional compensation for that time, district spokesman Ken Syke said.

Madison schools were closed to students Feb. 16-18 and Feb. 21 because a significant number of teachers called in sick to attend protests against a state proposal to limit public employee collective bargaining. Gov. Scott Walker signed it into law Friday.

The School Board reached an agreement with Madison Teachers Inc. over the weekend that allowed the district to set the makeup calendar. The agreement also ensures teachers with unexcused absences will not be paid for those days and that teachers who submitted fraudulent sick notes will be suspended.

The district has not yet released the number of teachers that missed school to work those days. The district received more than 1,000 sick notes, including some from doctors who were handing them out at the Capitol protests, assistant legal counsel Matt Bell said.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/article_bf93a6ba-4e8e-11e0-a6eb-001cc4c03286.html

Teachers that Don't Teach....just got a Lesson in Home Economics

The Dr note issue was one of the things that got me most interested in the Wisconsin debate. I’m a clinical psychologist, and I was shocked at the behavior of some of these MDs that were giving out notes. I have had to make those kinds of decisions for my patients, and I have always taken those decisions seriously. The lack of integrity from those docs was very concerning to me. I understand the tendency to sympathize with the teacher's situation, but you have a duty to be honest in your professional judgment. I saw that one of the Dr's defended his actions by saying the teachers were stressed and needed the time off. My take was that he was being arrogant and basically saying "I’m a doctor, so if I say it, it is true."

As a person who has had to assess when someone is disabled due to their emotions, I'm asking myself... did you offer a competent assessment and treatment options? If you give a note saying that someone is temporarily disabled due to stress, you should also... 1. assess their recent and historical suicidal thoughts, 2. record any history of mental illness in the client or family, 3, discuss options for inpatient treatment, partial hospitalization, outpatient counseling, and antidepressant/anti anxiety medications, and set up an additional consultation prior to them returning to work. There are several more things to discuss and document, but you get the point.

These Doctors have to either admit that they were being disingenuous ( which is a violation of medical ethics) or they have to acknowledge that they were not providing competent care (which could make them unemployable). Can you imagine if one of those teachers committed suicide after a Doc said they were incapacitated due to stress... then the Doc couldn’t even remember or document their contact with the patient... The malpractice involved would be something else.

As for the teachers... they should know better. If you were not sick... don’t lie about it.

[DRSmith]

They might say FAT CHANCE thats what we Over Pay You to do.......

Madison schools will add 20 minutes to school day to make up for sick-outs

Because no additional days will be added to the calendar, most teachers will not receive additional compensation for that time, district spokesman Ken Syke said.

Madison schools were closed to students Feb. 16-18 and Feb. 21 because a significant number of teachers called in sick to attend protests against a state proposal to limit public employee collective bargaining. Gov. Scott Walker signed it into law Friday.

The School Board reached an agreement with Madison Teachers Inc. over the weekend that allowed the district to set the makeup calendar. The agreement also ensures teachers with unexcused absences will not be paid for those days and that teachers who submitted fraudulent sick notes will be suspended.

The district has not yet released the number of teachers that missed school to work those days. The district received more than 1,000 sick notes, including some from doctors who were handing them out at the Capitol protests, assistant legal counsel Matt Bell said.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/article_bf93a6ba-4e8e-11e0-a6eb-001cc4c03286.html

Teachers that Don't Teach....just got a Lesson in Home Economics

So these people do provide a service and therefore have the right to ask for a certain price for the service they provide.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 07:45 AM ----------


Finally it appears you're coming around. ;)

My post was deliberately (a bit) over the top. Hence the smiling face. With that said, I've worked both gov't and private channels and while I wouldn't insult a govt employee by saying they don't contribute, care about and daily make an effort, they also (typically) don't have to fear about their jobs and are greatly insulated (so far anyway) from the brunt of much of the down turn in the market. I've had close friends who are teachers literally boast that "they can't ever get rid of me" and "i never have to work that hard." I really think you'd be hard pressed to find any kind of equivalent in the private sector to these kind of statements.

Yet those sorts of things are made up to be said when complaining about private sector folks who are union.

I say things like that and it has nothing to do with being union, it is the industry that I am in.

[deejaydana]

Yet those sorts of things are made up to be said when complaining about private sector folks who are union.



Private sector Union affiliation accounts for, last I read, less than 5 of 6% of the overall American workforce. I wonder why that is?

[Madison Redskin]

Private sector Union affiliation accounts for, last I read, less than 5 of 6% of the overall American workforce. I wonder why that is?

Largely because of globalization and the resulting shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy. When Chinese workers are willing to work for $10 a day, companies are going to migrate their manufacturing facilities from the United States to China. Although unions might have accelerated the "great migration," it was inevitable.

[deejaydana]

and the "jobs bank" that didn't help either

[Burgold]

Fitzgerald Says Dems Won't Be Allowed To Vote In Committees

http://www.channel3000.com/politics/27196309/detail.html


Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact my office.

Thank you,

Scott Fitzgerald
Senate Majority Leader
13th Senate District [/COLOR]

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=230087

Okay, that's scary stuff. I disagreed with the Dems tactics, but that's effectively removing representation from the government. It's impeachment without a trial. Talk about a sick power play.

Fine these guys, put them on trial and in jail if it's warranted, but don't take away a legally elected representatives right to represent their constituant unless you are tossing them out of the Senate and holding a replacement election.

[Larry]

Okay, that's scary stuff. I disagreed with the Dems tactics, but that's effectively removing representation from the government. It's impeachment without a trial. Talk about a sick power play.

Hey, if it was good for Reconstruction.

[/sarcasm]

[Popeman38]

Okay, that's scary stuff. I disagreed with the Dems tactics, but that's effectively removing representation from the government. It's impeachment without a trial. Talk about a sick power play.

Fine these guys, put them on trial and in jail if it's warranted, but don't take away a legally elected representatives right to represent their constituant unless you are tossing them out of the Senate and holding a replacement election.I agree it is scary.

And I assume that as soon as they are no longer "in contempt" they will have full responsibilities restored. But didn't the Dems do the same to themselves when they fled the state for three weeks? Weren't the 2.2M Wisconsin residents lacking representation for those three weeks? See, when you abdicate your responsibility voluntarily there can be no outcry when your responsibility is stripped. You were elected to serve, not serve selectively.

[Larry]

I agree it is scary.

And I assume that as soon as they are no longer "in contempt" they will have full responsibilities restored. But didn't the Dems do the same to themselves when they fled the state for three weeks? Weren't the 2.2M Wisconsin residents lacking representation for those three weeks? See, when you abdicate your responsibility voluntarily there can be no outcry when your responsibility is stripped. You were elected to serve, not serve selectively.

:secret:Denying a quorum is serving.

[twa]

:secret:Denying a quorum is serving.

No ,it is fleeing and against the senate rules...hence the contempt

added
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/02/17/wisconsin-ground-report-whats-happening-with-the-state-legislature-and-democrats-fleeing-the-capitol-to-avoid-a-vote-on-cutting-union-pork/

[Stillers6SB]

Fitzgerald Says Dems Won't Be Allowed To Vote In CommitteesWith the return of the Senate Democrats this weekend, questions have arisen regarding Democrat members’ participation in Senate standing committee public hearings and executive sessions.

Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.

Scott Fitzgerald
Senate Majority Leader
13th Senate District [/COLOR]

Fitzgerald comes to his senses....


On Tuesday, Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he would rescind contempt orders placed against the Democrats when they were gone. That will allow Democrats to have their votes in committee action counted.

Fitzgerald said he’s comfortable doing that after Democrats made assurances to him they won’t flee the state again. He also said no fines will be imposed, and other smaller steps taken to incite Democrats to return will also be dropped.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110315/GPG0101/110315077/Penalties-against-Democratic-Wisconsin-senators-undone?odyssey=mod|lateststories

[Baculus]

Fitzgerald Says Dems Won't Be Allowed To Vote In Committees

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=230087

Gee, so-says the Republican state senator who pushed through bills under dubious circumstances, for a bill aimed at undercutting unions, after the Republicans pushed through a false budget crises that they created.

It is funny how conservatives are all law and order until they want their laws pushed, then they become authoritarians that use dubious parliamentary procedures to do so.

[DRSmith]

Private sector Union affiliation accounts for, last I read, less than 5 of 6% of the overall American workforce. I wonder why that is?

Laws made to help cripple union membership.

For instance you are at a place where the majority voted to join a union but since democracy is such a failure laws are made to allow you to opt out.

Next you export many manufacturing jobs over seas.

Then you have stores like Walmart that either shut down the entire store or part of their operation to keep from having to paying their employees well for helping them make huge profits.

[Popeman38]

Laws made to help cripple union membership.

For instance you are at a place where the majority voted to join a union but since democracy is such a failure laws are made to allow you to opt out.

Next you export many manufacturing jobs over seas.

Then you have stores like Walmart that either shut down the entire store or part of their operation to keep from having to paying their employees well for helping them make huge profits.I really can't get a feel for you. You make solid posts and then follow up with posts like this.

[Baculus]

I agree it is scary.

And I assume that as soon as they are no longer "in contempt" they will have full responsibilities restored. But didn't the Dems do the same to themselves when they fled the state for three weeks? Weren't the 2.2M Wisconsin residents lacking representation for those three weeks? See, when you abdicate your responsibility voluntarily there can be no outcry when your responsibility is stripped. You were elected to serve, not serve selectively.

And what about the Wisconsin citizens affected by the GOP efforts? What about the Wisconsin citizens who Walker, in his conversation with the fake Koch, had pondered using agitators to cause a law-and-order crises? And what about the Congressional Republican efforts in D.C. who stymied efforts for Democrats to represent the will of THEIR constituents?

Since Fitzgerald is trying to deny these Democrats the right to vote in the state senate, what ABOUT their constituents? Where are you words of criticism for that?

[DRSmith]

I really can't get a feel for you. You make solid posts and then follow up with posts like this.

Was there something false in what I posted?

Oh and I will add one thing unions tend to do a very poor job of marketing themselves now

[Baculus]

Oh, BTW, since the right-wing are calling those Democrats "Fleebaggers," we can now call Tea Partiers "Teabaggers," right? OK, I am glad we got that bit of pop cultural awkwardness out of the way.

[DRSmith]

Oh, BTW, since the right-wing are calling those Democrats "Fleebaggers," we can now call Tea Partiers "Teabaggers," right? OK, I am glad we got that bit of pop cultural awkwardness out of the way.

What is funny is it was Tea Party follks that called themselves Tea Baggers to begin with

[Popeman38]

And what about the Wisconsin citizens affected by the GOP efforts? What about the Wisconsin citizens who Walker, in his conversation with the fake Koch, had pondered using agitators to cause a law-and-order crises? And what about the Congressional Republican efforts in D.C. who stymied efforts for Democrats to represent the will of THEIR constituents?

Since Fitzgerald is trying to deny these Democrats the right to vote in the state senate, what ABOUT their constituents? Where are you words of criticism for that?The first line of my post: I agree it is scary.

[Baculus]

The first line of my post: I agree it is scary.

I hate to say it, but the rest of your post completely sidetracked that comment. :-)

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 08:30 PM ----------


What is funny is it was Tea Party follks that called themselves Tea Baggers to begin with

Yeah, it's pretty ironic, though, of course, they blame it on CNN.

[Popeman38]

I hate to say it, but the rest of your post completely sidetracked that comment. :-)I don't agree with stripping Dem Sen the ability to vote. I also don't agree with fleeing the state to avoid voting on controversial legislation because either way you will face public backlash. You campaigned to serve, now serve.

[JimboDaMan]

No ,it is fleeing and against the senate rules...hence the contempt

added
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/02/17/wisconsin-ground-report-whats-happening-with-the-state-legislature-and-democrats-fleeing-the-capitol-to-avoid-a-vote-on-cutting-union-pork/I have contempt for Wisconsin Republicans, they should try to fine me also.

[twa]

Since Fitzgerald is trying to deny these Democrats the right to vote in the state senate, what ABOUT their constituents? Where are you words of criticism for that?

Their right to vote in committee,not their normal votes on bills.

It doesn't pay to be in contempt.

[Burgold]

Fitzgerald comes to his senses....

Relieved to hear this. And, I think the Dems strategy of flight was wrongheaded as well.