#1 2011-02-17 23:17:46
Refusing to deal with reality Wisconsin Dem's flee the state to avoid their duties.
Can't these people face the facts that:
1. People now live longer so they need to work longer.
2. Public employee unions are the biggest scam going.
The world has gone daft...
Offline
#2 2011-02-17 23:26:36
That's all very good but, as I understand it, the governor's trying to strip state employees of their right to collective bargaining. Yes, the union members should accept the same sort of deep cuts everyone else is struggling with but, no, it doesn't mean they have to give up their right to collective bargaining.
More power to'em, I say.
Offline
#3 2011-02-18 01:00:53
Fuck the unions and fuck the public sector employees. Combine the two of them and you always get the worst possible service for the highest possible price.
Offline
#4 2011-02-18 02:10:55
Has anyone here ever heard of the idea that the rise of trade unions probably prevented a Marxist revolution in America? Read up on George Pullman and his ideas about how a town should be run, then come back and sob some more about how collective bargaining is ruining the country.
Offline
#5 2011-02-18 02:48:59
What I find sad is how little Americans know of their history, and the class struggles of generations past. It seems most of forgotten the actions of the Pinkertons against workers and their families trying to secure decent wages and working conditions... the National Guard machine gunning women and children, the assassination of organizers, the torture and murder of workers up to the present time by US corporations in other countries.
There has been a campaign waged in the media for the last 110 years against your best interest, and you side with those that despise you.
Offline
#6 2011-02-18 03:24:23
Dmtdust wrote:
What I find sad is how little Americans know of their history, and the class struggles of generations past. It seems most of forgotten the actions of the Pinkertons against workers and their families trying to secure decent wages and working conditions... the National Guard machine gunning women and children, the assassination of organizers, the torture and murder of workers up to the present time by US corporations in other countries.
There has been a campaign waged in the media for the last 110 years against your best interest, and you side with those that despise you.
Just like no one today seems to know or care why the days of everyone toting a six-shooter came to an end.
Offline
#7 2011-02-18 08:38:34
Dmt, when was the last time that you heard of a group of workers striking because of unsafe working conditions?
Offline
#8 2011-02-18 10:03:37
Unions are generally a good thing, public employee unions however are a direct conflict of interest. The ability to donate funds to the policitians deciding your compensation deals is literally legalized bribery (and in the end has resulted in corporations being granted those same rights.) I won't even speak to the double-dipping, retirement year loading and other scams which our witless elected representatives have legalized to appease the unions; those are just symptoms of the overall rot.
The math really shows it all: If a private sector employee and a california fireman both retired today at age 65 and both can expect to live to 85 the fireman would receive at least two million dollars direct compensation during that period. The private sector employee would need to have at least $1.5 million in his IRA to effect the same living standard. Unfortunately most fireman retire at 55 and start collecting that check right away pushing the number to almost $4 million - which is far more than he actually earned when he actually performed service. Far worse the individuals usually move on to a second career and double earn, they can actually add a second pension from the same system.
The conflict of interest of public employee unions has created a reality where the pension system is no longer program reflecting a societies desire to care for those who served but a scheme to create wealth for it's members via political influence.
Offline
#9 2011-02-18 10:37:35
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU ALL BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Offline
#10 2011-02-18 11:28:13
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Dmt, when was the last time that you heard of a group of workers striking because of unsafe working conditions?
Last week, why?
Offline
#11 2011-02-18 12:25:20
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much of higher consideration.
-Abraham Lincoln
Offline
#12 2011-02-18 12:44:52
This is not a labor question, this is a question of public servants who claim the right to organize against the oppressive and greedy public?
Offline
#13 2011-02-18 14:35:17
Just because unions were useful and beneficial 100 years ago doesn't mean they are now.
Many people forget that fact.
Offline
#14 2011-02-18 15:03:20
They are however a constitutional right (in the US) and are a large part of why we are the economic powerhouse that we are today.
One must look to the underlying corruption which is based largely upon the decisions to allow unions to donate politically, these donations are directly attributable to the pension crisis besetting most American states.
Politicians have always been for sale but it's up to the constituents to monitor and manage the level of the sell-out.
Offline
#15 2011-02-18 15:25:54
Emmeran wrote:
They are however a constitutional right (in the US)
Do what?
Offline
#16 2011-02-18 15:39:29
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
NLRB
LMRA
LMRDA
Good luck with that "oblivious to the facts" approach.
Offline
#17 2011-02-18 15:59:53
peco wrote:
Just because unions were useful and beneficial 100 years ago doesn't mean they are now.
Many people forget that fact.
Fact? Care to offer some facts to back up that "fact"?
Offline
#18 2011-02-18 16:06:40
Not sure why you're down on me there, Em, but I still doubt your constitutional pedigree.
NAMBLA and the rest of your labor alphabet derive their powers from Wagner and Taft-Hartley if recent readings over this kerfuffle serve my memory correctly.
Offline
#19 2011-02-18 16:18:04
Public sector labor organizations have very little real power in the US , especially when compared to other countries. Just recall what Reagan did to the air traffic controllers. He ordered them back to work, as allowed by labor statutes, and when they refused he fired them (more than 11,000 of them).
What the governor is doing in Wisconsin is to legislate away an existing, lawfully organized union's right to collective bargaining. He would arrogate to the governor's office the power to set pay and other working conditions unilaterally. While I have had mostly negative experiences with public sector unions, I nonetheless can understand being a little pissed off that a politician is trying to bypass the bargaining process that protects (and perhaps overprotects) me.
I have no problem with unions making campaign contributions, so long as the employers of union workers are free to do so. You can complain that these are public sector unions and therefore their employer, unlike private corporation, cannot make campaign contributions. However, in that public sector unions generally have no power or right to negotiate compensation, it seems like a reasonable thing that they be allowed to make campaign contributions as that may be their only way to influence their pay.
Offline
#21 2011-02-18 18:08:11
Scotty wrote:
Not sure why you're down on me there, Em, but I still doubt your constitutional pedigree.
NAMBLA and the rest of your labor alphabet derive their powers from Wagner and Taft-Hartley if recent readings over this kerfuffle serve my memory correctly.
You are welcome and very correct to doubt my consitutional pedigree. I do not claim to offer anything but the populist view based on common, easily discoverable knowledge.
I'm not down on you, just a bit of a jousting tilt based on the observation that our basic right to assemble allows most forms of organisation for one's betterment so long that does not infringe on the rights of others. I'm not a big fan of unions however I do feel that the knuckleheads in our world do need some protection from the ruthless capitalists that occaisionally pop up.
Offline
#22 2011-02-18 18:11:01
Fled wrote:
However, in that public sector unions generally have no power or right to negotiate compensation, it seems like a reasonable thing that they be allowed to make campaign contributions as that may be their only way to influence their pay.
Obviously you need to visit California...
Offline
#23 2011-02-18 18:14:18
I did say "generally." I know more about the right side of the country.
Offline
#24 2011-02-18 18:50:06
A strike by organized labor is the appropriate method to work their will, cash contributions is generally accepted as a form of bribery; regardless and inclusive of both parties.
Offline
#25 2011-02-18 19:08:59
What we're forgetting in the pleasure of this discussion is that political hacks have (once again) set up unions as a boogie man to frighten voters either too busy or too thick-skulled to pay much attention to facts and current events. Unions are a reasonable way for workers to counter the hefty advantages that law and capital give to employers, there's not much controversy in that. Political mismanagement has landed us into an untenable financial predicament, and there's not a lot to argue about there either. What we're talking about here is a craven attempt to deflect blame pure and simple, not about the merits of collective bargaining.
Offline
#26 2011-02-18 19:41:00
Get used to this noise about unions; it's the future. It's the Right's latest sing-along and they're only tuning up at this point.
I admit to being a little astonished at some of the folks here reflexively falling into step. I mean, you've never had a strong bitch about labor unions before, yet with a tiny amount of media prompting suddenly you're barking right along.
I hope and expect that the strategists on the Right continue to get nasty surprises from the American people just like the one they're currently dealing with in Wisconsin.
Some erudite person on another website wrote:
Politicians told working people in government, We can't pay you as much as the private sector, but we can give you some job stability, slightly better benefits and ensure you aren't a hobo once you retire.
Many working people took them at their word and spent decades ensuring the government functions, streets are cleaned, regulations are met, children are taught, fires are put out, roads are built & maintained and rapists are caught then incarcerated.
Since the government is public, these employers were also barred from using the union-busting tactics that Wal-Mart and their ilk use (thus the prevalence of union workers in gov't versus McJobs you're so much in favor of).
Then, after decades of this arrangement, and of decades of these people working for less than they could make in the private sector, greedy asshats who want taxes slashed so they can buy a second boat buy a lot of commercials to convince people like you that firefighters, policemen and teachers are a cabal ripping you off, "leeching" off of Real 'Mericans™. And some of your more slow compatriots bought the lie as well.
Meanwhile, these same public servants who have been underpaid are now told by pols, "Since WE didn't budget for obligations that WE agreed to, YOU get the double-shaft."
What's quite sad is I'm fairly sure that your livelihood would be severely impacted were it not for these workers that you call leeches. Certainly your quality of life would be ravaged if your Libertarian paradise (a.k.a., Somalia) happened.
But the bottom line is that politicians made promises they now want to change after the fact, simply because they were too incompetent to ensure their obligations were met. If that involves – gasp – raising taxes to fund them, so be it. Paying for The Shiny you've bought is part of being a grown up.
You should consider joining the big table, and realize this.
Offline
#27 2011-02-18 20:34:34
George Orr wrote:
I admit to being a little astonished at some of the folks here reflexively falling into step. I mean, you've never had a strong bitch about labor unions before, yet with a tiny amount of media prompting suddenly you're barking right along.
I, myself, am quite astonished at the lack of understanding of the situation. Promises were made to everyone when we were flush; they have now all been broke save the union excesses.
I don't pretend to approve of any of this silliness, however a fireman should not be able to retire (healthy) at 52 and live off of the rest of us for 38 years - 8 more years than he actually worked. Due to technology we all now live far longer, it follows that we must work and contribute longer. Retirement should average 10 years, which was the fact when we started these pensions.
Life isn't meant to be a party on the rest of society's dime, one must work, even if only part-time, to survive. We should take care of our public servants, but not reward them with a lotto situation:
1. Retention and promotion must be performanced based.
2. Retirement age must increase in accordance with current longevity.
3. Payout's must be tied to the local economy.
4. Retirement pay must be tied to average comp, not final year loading.
This is America, not Greece - you have to earn your way.
Offline
#28 2011-02-18 21:06:28
Emmeran wrote:
George Orr wrote:
I admit to being a little astonished at some of the folks here reflexively falling into step. I mean, you've never had a strong bitch about labor unions before, yet with a tiny amount of media prompting suddenly you're barking right along.
I, myself, am quite astonished at the lack of understanding of the situation. Promises were made to everyone when we were flush; they have now all been broke save the union excesses.
I don't pretend to approve of any of this silliness, however a fireman should not be able to retire (healthy) at 52 and live off of the rest of us for 38 years - 8 more years than he actually worked. Due to technology we all now live far longer, it follows that we must work and contribute longer. Retirement should average 10 years, which was the fact when we started these pensions.
Life isn't meant to be a party on the rest of society's dime, one must work, even if only part-time, to survive. We should take care of our public servants, but not reward them with a lotto situation:
1. Retention and promotion must be performanced based.
2. Retirement age must increase in accordance with current longevity.
3. Payout's must be tied to the local economy.
4. Retirement pay must be tied to average comp, not final year loading.
This is America, not Greece - you have to earn your way.
Are you saying that a contract is worthless, or that your word means nothing? Maybe you're suggesting that mine shouldn't? If so I'd like to borrow some money from you! That is in effect what happened in your example. Firemen negotiated a collective agreement to defer compensation (during which time the government could have earned interest on the monies owed) to a later date and the other side of the contract decided to ignore their own obligation. Be that as it may it is certainly no reason to deny them the right to bargain collectively in the future.
Maybe the firemen should go back and burn a percentage of the buildings they saved in the past?
Offline
#29 2011-02-18 21:17:49
Nobody is talking about what got us here. You all are pissing on the foundations, and you haven't a clue.
Lowest Taxes in 60 years. Check.
Two Wars Going. Check.
Largest Corporate Loop Holes in the world. Check.
And it is labours' fault. Talk to the banks.
Offline
#30 2011-02-18 21:17:54
Emmeran wrote:
…however a fireman should not be able to retire (healthy) at 52 and live off of the rest of us for 38 years …
You should have said DMV clerk. Firefighters and LEO's, people who risk life and limb for us, ought to be able to retire after 30 years.
Offline
#31 2011-02-18 21:41:58
Dmtdust wrote:
Nobody is talking about what got us here. You all are pissing on the foundations, and you haven't a clue.
Lowest Taxes in 60 years. Check.
Two Wars Going. Check.
Largest Corporate Loop Holes in the world. Check.
And it is labours' fault. Talk to the banks.
I take all that as read, Dusty.
Offline
#32 2011-02-18 22:07:53
Taint wrote:
peco wrote:
Just because unions were useful and beneficial 100 years ago doesn't mean they are now.
Many people forget that fact.Fact? Care to offer some facts to back up that "fact"?
Certainly.
One need only look as far as the massive movement of labour to off-shore markets. That is done, in large part, because North American (read: Canada/US) labour is too expensive to be competitive on the world stage.
North American labour is too expensive because unions have driven up the cost of labour to the point where it's now self-defeating.
Unions tax their membership with dues but deliver strikes, layoffs and chase jobs off-shore.
Within the last 5 years, we've had unions go on multi-month strikes over crucial issues like "we don't want our bosses to set our schedules" and "so what if the law says I have to call out the bus stops, I don't want to". These sorts of things indicate that there are plenty of unions that have no serious issues to deal with and are now belligerent for the sake of belligerence.
The university workers union near here went on strike a while a go to hold out for 10%+ pay increases. They stayed out for longer than 10% of the resulting contract and ended up with a 6 or 7% increase... do the math: they went on strike and SET THEIR MEMBERS BACK 3%, depleted their war chest and raised dues. Go Go Team Union.
For the most part, unions have clearly and obviously outlived their usefulness. yes, there are still a few places that could benefit from traditional unionism, but those places are relatively few.
Offline
#33 2011-02-18 23:06:30
sigmoid freud wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
…however a fireman should not be able to retire (healthy) at 52 and live off of the rest of us for 38 years …
You should have said DMV clerk. Firefighters and LEO's, people who risk life and limb for us, ought to be able to retire after 30 years.
No, I was talking about the pussy ass "professional" fire fighters who happily charge pointless overtime and rarely - if ever - risk a fucking hair on their chinny chin chin.
As a career jarhead and a past "volunteer" firefighter I have a few informed takes on the "holy" profession of fireman.
Get a clue mate, nobody rides for free; even more-so, nobody gets a 38 year free ride; not even an MoH winner.
Offline
#34 2011-02-18 23:19:36
Dmtdust wrote:
Nobody is talking about what got us here. You all are pissing on the foundations, and you haven't a clue.
Lowest Taxes in 60 years. Check.
Two Wars Going. Check.
Largest Corporate Loop Holes in the world. Check.
And it is labours' fault. Talk to the banks.
I'm talking about what got us here Dusty and I know you agree with me. I can only speak to CA's situation, but an uncompetitive state congress during a 30 year run of over the top economic successes encouraged those representatives to get completely stupid. Hell, even Jerry Brown admitted that during his campaign.
Labour now expects an unemployed electorate to come up with a way to finance their happy trip into a rosy retirement but we just can't do it. Just because some other assholes ripped us off doesn't give the people working down at the DMV a right to do so also.
Let's face it, if the were a legal means the state would have declared bancruptcy two years ago and we still may find a way to do so yet.
Offline
#35 2011-02-19 06:19:53
peco wrote:
Taint wrote:
peco wrote:
Just because unions were useful and beneficial 100 years ago doesn't mean they are now.
Many people forget that fact.Fact? Care to offer some facts to back up that "fact"?
Certainly.
One need only look as far as the massive movement of labour to off-shore markets. That is done, in large part, because North American (read: Canada/US) labour is too expensive to be competitive on the world stage.
North American labour is too expensive because unions have driven up the cost of labour to the point where it's now self-defeating.
Unions tax their membership with dues but deliver strikes, layoffs and chase jobs off-shore.
Within the last 5 years, we've had unions go on multi-month strikes over crucial issues like "we don't want our bosses to set our schedules" and "so what if the law says I have to call out the bus stops, I don't want to". These sorts of things indicate that there are plenty of unions that have no serious issues to deal with and are now belligerent for the sake of belligerence.
The university workers union near here went on strike a while a go to hold out for 10%+ pay increases. They stayed out for longer than 10% of the resulting contract and ended up with a 6 or 7% increase... do the math: they went on strike and SET THEIR MEMBERS BACK 3%, depleted their war chest and raised dues. Go Go Team Union.
For the most part, unions have clearly and obviously outlived their usefulness. yes, there are still a few places that could benefit from traditional unionism, but those places are relatively few.
The union argument the Right loves to use is a red herring. The simple fact is that greed is the driving force behind businesses moving offshore. Our laws force businesses to think about their shareholders first, everyone else second. Today, there is no such thing as company loyalty. Not for the employer, nor the employee. Business is now run by people who's only motivation is to make the most money possible. At the expense of everyone.
According to the IRS, the average income for the middle class in 1988 was $30,400. As of 2008, the average income for the middle class had actually fallen to $30,000. A small drop, but a drop none-the-less. Why would that be if unions are so good at forcing companies to pay employees too much?
As I see it, it is the public trading of stocks, and the greed motivation that creates, which are causing our country to fail. We no longer look at the product, we look at the stock, as a measure of a companies success. Companies which are not publicly traded, and which have a product people actually want, don't seem to have these same problems. The few companies which are employee owned seem to be doing just fine. Why is that? Because those companies do not look past the employee. It IS the employees making the decisions. And they are smart enough to know that throwing everything into simply making a profit is, in the end, only going to hurt themselves.
Capitalism is a great thing, but we no longer have that, if we ever really did. Instead we have businesses who's success is measured by stock price, not quality of product.
Offline
#36 2011-02-19 10:01:59
Emmeran wrote:
organisation for one's betterment so long that does not infringe on the rights of others
And from my admittedly limited knowledge of Wisconsin this is exactly what is being corrected. Government unions have been infringing on taxpayers long enough to cause some pretty unstable and untenable economic situations.
Offline
#37 2011-02-19 11:00:14
Scotty wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
organisation for one's betterment so long that does not infringe on the rights of others
And from my admittedly limited knowledge of Wisconsin this is exactly what is being corrected. Government unions have been infringing on taxpayers long enough to cause some pretty unstable and untenable economic situations.
The right to collectively bargain was affirmed long ago and as a basic concept it is correct. What has happened is pretty simple (and not nearly as convoluted as PoutyPussy claims):
1. People live an average of 15 years longer now than they did when most the retirement ages were set 75 years, but the cost of living those years is a lot higher. (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf)
2. Limitations on double-dipping, backend loading and other types of fraud have been slowly stripped out of the contracts through colusion/corruption.
3. "Comfort" benefits have increased.
4. Pay scales were untethered from market conditions.
5. The economy is in complete tatters due to actions by politicians of both parties, corporations and consumers. (We ALL fucked it up)
Now the anti-union crowd sees the current conditions as an opportunity to hurt the unions, the unions want to maintain the status quo and both of those groups want to prevent the rest of us from seeing the happy medium which would resolve this problem in a logical manner.
Last edited by Emmeran (2011-02-19 11:02:44)
Offline
#39 2011-02-19 15:54:04
Fled wrote:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/whats-happening-wisconsin-explained
He's clinging to ignorance; all of the damage done to our economy happened between 95 & 05 when regulations were gutted and the governments were flush with cash. The unions are just as responsible as the rest of us.
Offline
#40 2011-02-19 19:29:37
Emmeran wrote:
Fled wrote:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/whats-happening-wisconsin-explained
He's clinging to ignorance; all of the damage done to our economy happened between 95 & 05 when regulations were gutted and the governments were flush with cash. The unions are just as responsible as the rest of us.
Then why is only one side being made to suffer here? What does any of the anti-union rhetoric here have to do with repealing the right of collective bargaining, and how would repeal be better than bargaining? I see this as the latest chapter in a long effort to go back to the days when this country was founded and people could be taken up and hung for banding together for higher wages.
Offline
#41 2011-02-19 20:11:03
Tall Paul wrote:
Then why is only one side being made to suffer here? What does any of the anti-union rhetoric here have to do with repealing the right of collective bargaining, and how would repeal be better than bargaining? I see this as the latest chapter in a long effort to go back to the days when this country was founded and people could be taken up and hung for banding together for higher wages.
In my (uneducated opinion) I doubt that it matters if they pass a law limiting CBA. This issue has been before the courts before and the law will be injuncted and struck down faster than the AZ immigration enforcement law.
However that doesn't mean that things don't need to be adjusted.
Last edited by Emmeran (2011-02-19 20:13:14)
Offline
#42 2011-02-19 20:37:35
Emmeran wrote:
Tall Paul wrote:
Then why is only one side being made to suffer here? What does any of the anti-union rhetoric here have to do with repealing the right of collective bargaining, and how would repeal be better than bargaining? I see this as the latest chapter in a long effort to go back to the days when this country was founded and people could be taken up and hung for banding together for higher wages.
In my (uneducated opinion) I doubt that it matters if they pass a law limiting CBA. This issue has been before the courts before and the law will be injuncted and struck down faster than the AZ immigration enforcement law.
However that doesn't mean that things don't need to be adjusted.
We can certainly agree on that, Em. However, doing away with CB is in effect saying: Take what's given to you by your master and don't dare to complain, or else. Where does that fit into The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave?
Offline
#43 2011-02-19 22:37:22
Tall Paul wrote:
I see this as the latest chapter in a long effort to go back to the days when this country was founded and people could be taken up and hung for banding together for higher wages.
And as proof I offer this:
BizTimes Daily wrote:
Although union leaders and Wisconsin Democratic Senators are offering to accept the wage and benefit concessions Gov. Scott Walker is demanding, Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said today a bill taking away collective bargaining rights from public employees is not negotiable.
Democrats and union leaders said they're willing to agree to the parts of Walker's budget repair bill that would double their health insurance contributions and require them to contribute 5.8 percent of their salary to their pensions.
*snip*
Earlier this week, Walker had said his bill was strictly based on the need to cut the budget and was not based on any political agenda.
So, the governor got what he said he wanted but still wants to attack CB?
Offline
#45 2011-02-20 08:59:32
Offline
#47 2011-02-20 17:37:17
Interesting indeed, as it seems to be a small-scale version at what has happened on the national level in recent years. Maybe we should get Kathy to look into it?
Offline
#49 2011-02-20 19:30:40
MSG Tripps wrote:
Seems like defending the indefensible is getting harder every day!
Offline
#50 2011-02-21 00:57:01
In an audio bit I heard today, a woman, upset that she and her husband were denied a home purchase loan, said: "I feel like a second class citizen."
That's right ma'am. Unless you're filthy rich, you are.
Last edited by sigmoid freud (2011-02-21 00:58:44)
Offline
