PDA

View Full Version : Wisconsin public workers stand up to Republicans


Pages : [1] 2 3

Thomas Veil
Feb 18, 2011, 06:24 AM
At last, we're seeing some blowback from the Republican budget hacking efforts.

State Democrats absent for vote as Wisconsin budget protests swell (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/17/wisconsin.budget/index.html)

(CNN) -- The nation's most visible budget battle was heavy on passion and light on legislative attendance Thursday as Wisconsin wrangled over a bill that would strip teachers and other public employees of most of their collective bargaining rights and cut their benefits.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker called for 16 senators -- 14 of them Democrats -- to appear at the Capitol in Wisconsin for a vote on his bill. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said the chamber will reconvene Friday.

Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller said he and fellow Democrats had left Madison because they were "trying to allow opportunity for democracy to work."

"We will return and do our job, but the governor has to do his job," Miller said. He noted their return is contingent on changes to the controversial legislation....

The budget battle is somewhat unique in heavily unionized Wisconsin, where collective bargaining began. Many workers don't take kindly to what they see as a frontal assault on workers' rights.

Walker, who says the state is in a crisis, is asking legislators to pass his Budget Repair Bill to combat a $137 million shortfall through June 30. An upcoming two-year budget for 2011-13 must address a pending $3.6 billion deficit, he said.

But the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau -- similar to the federal government's Congressional Budget Office -- reported last month that tax cuts passed late last year by Wisconsin's newly elected, Republican-led legislature had helped add more than $200 million to the state's budget shortfall.It's nice to see a story where the average guy stands up for himself and Democrats stand up to Republicans. I hope the Dems stay out until this bill gets withdrawn.

There's no way they should be talking about making workers contribute more until the legislature rescinds that $200m tax cut. And taking away workers' bargaining rights should be off the table.

I'm glad this story is receiving national play. It was the lead on ABC News last night. Let's hope this is only the first in a series.

Peterkro
Feb 18, 2011, 07:01 AM
I've been following this,it's quite uplifting to see a group fighting back against the dreary drift right in the U.S. Obama for once seems to have grown a spine.I'm thinking unless they have one Democratic senator take part they can't pass the bill?

yg17
Feb 18, 2011, 07:23 AM
I've been following this,it's quite uplifting to see a group fighting back against the dreary drift right in the U.S. Obama for once seems to have grown a spine.I'm thinking unless they have one Democratic senator take part they can't pass the bill?

Yeah, that's correct. 20 senators have to be present for a bill to be voted on. Republicans only have 19, so as long as all Democrats refuse to show up, they can't pass it. And I hope they hold out until the bill is changed.

leekohler
Feb 18, 2011, 07:47 AM
It's about damn time. We have seen too many unions dismantled in this country. Now, do unions have problems? Sure. But dammit, corporate America is not living up to it's "free market" promise either. It's been a race to the bottom for a while, and it will probably get worse before it gets better. I've said we need a union in my occupation for a while. The higher ups refuse to pay us folks who come up with the ideas that they sell. We've gone without raises for seven years while they show us these glowing annual financial statements. It's disgusting.

mrkramer
Feb 18, 2011, 08:03 AM
It's about damn time. We have seen too many unions dismantled in this country. Now, do unions have problems? Sure. But dammit, corporate America is not living up to it's "free market" promise either. It's been a race to the bottom for a while, and it will probably get worse before it gets better. I've said we need a union in my occupation for a while. The higher ups refuse to pay us folks who come up with the ideas that they sell. We've gone without raises for seven years while they show us these glowing annual financial statements. It's disgusting.

While I think what the Republicans are trying to do here is horrible, how is what the Dems are doing here any different from what the Republicans where doing in the US senate with filibustering bills, which I think I remember you getting mad about?

leekohler
Feb 18, 2011, 08:05 AM
While I think what the Republicans are trying to do here is horrible, how is what the Dems are doing here any different from what the Republicans where doing in the US senate with filibustering bills, which I think I remember you getting mad about?

Have I ever advocated for getting rid of the filibuster? No. The Republicans used it for every little thing though. In some cases, such as this, it's warranted.

fivepoint
Feb 18, 2011, 09:26 AM
I think the headline should read "Democrat congressmen, like local teachers, skirt public duties and skip town with Tea Party and Local Authorities in Hot Pursuit."

What a despicable display. Clearly there's one party in Wisconsin that REALLY cares about taking care of the deficit while others cling to every scrap of tax funds and benefits they can. While everyone else in Wisconsin cuts back during these difficult economic times... the unions want MORE MORE MORE. And these are the people we trust with our children. Amazing. For future reference... if you have to LEAVE THE STATE to avoid the authorities as a state congressman, you should probably rethink your actions.



At last, we're seeing some blowback from the Republican budget hacking efforts.

Hahaha, how rich... the teachers are like children complaining that they don't get extra dessert after dinner when his parents are barely making the mortgage payment and the electricity bill. Good thing that child stood up to those mean budget hacking parents. ;)

kavika411
Feb 18, 2011, 09:32 AM
I thought this exchange of comments on digg.com said it well.

____

http://qkpic.com/95137

____

I remain in favor of the abolishment of filibustering and similar tricks for preventing votes.

Peterkro
Feb 18, 2011, 09:35 AM
I think the headline should read "Democrat congressmen, like local teachers, skirt public duties and skip town with Tea Party and Local Authorities in Hot Pursuit."

What a despicable display. Clearly there's one party in Wisconsin that REALLY cares about taking care of the deficit while others cling to every scrap of tax funds and benefits they can. While everyone else in Wisconsin cuts back during these difficult economic times... the unions want MORE MORE MORE. And these are the people we trust with our children. Amazing. For future reference... if you have to LEAVE THE STATE to avoid the authorities as a state congressman, you should probably rethink your actions.

Anti-freedom,anti-liberty and authoritarian to the core.("Libertarian"? arf)

mcrain
Feb 18, 2011, 09:57 AM
The party that freaks out because a bill that's been in the works for months hasn't had enough time for review, reading and hearings, is actually trying to strip collective bargaining rights from unions in 6 days? In the name of the budget?

I call BS.

(edit) By the way Fivepoint, it's good to see that you are still getting your "libertarian" talking points from Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc...

citizenzen
Feb 18, 2011, 10:04 AM
What a despicable display.

The people rise up in protest and 5P calls it despicable.

[shakes head]

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/18/wisconsin.budget/)...

Walker, who says the state is in a crisis, is asking legislators to pass his Budget Repair Bill to combat a $137 million shortfall through June 30. An upcoming two-year budget for 2011-13 must address a pending $3.6 billion deficit, he said.

But the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau -- similar to the federal government's Congressional Budget Office -- reported last month that tax cuts passed late last year by Wisconsin's newly elected, Republican-led legislature had helped add more than $200 million to the state's budget shortfall.


First the Wisconsin republicans redistribute state funds to their special interests, and ask the working men and women to make up for it.

Then when the workers rise up in protest, 5P's horrified that they aren't dutifully sitting at their desks like good serfs.

Now THAT is despicable.

leekohler
Feb 18, 2011, 10:18 AM
The people rise up in protest and 5P calls it despicable.

[shakes head]

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/18/wisconsin.budget/)...

Walker, who says the state is in a crisis, is asking legislators to pass his Budget Repair Bill to combat a $137 million shortfall through June 30. An upcoming two-year budget for 2011-13 must address a pending $3.6 billion deficit, he said.

But the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau -- similar to the federal government's Congressional Budget Office -- reported last month that tax cuts passed late last year by Wisconsin's newly elected, Republican-led legislature had helped add more than $200 million to the state's budget shortfall.


First the Wisconsin republicans redistribute state funds to their special interests, and ask the working men and women to make up for it.

Then when the workers rise up in protest, 5P's horrified that they aren't dutifully sitting at their desks like good serfs.

Now THAT is despicable.

Yep- but hey, teachers and such aren't important and don't deserve benefits or decent pay, right?

mcrain
Feb 18, 2011, 10:30 AM
I would think libertarians would stand up for individual rights, including the rights of people to work together to ensure safe workplaces, living wages, job security, etc...

When did libertarian become about supporting corporations and their profits?

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 10:37 AM
I would think libertarians would stand up for individual rights, including the rights of people to work together to ensure safe workplaces, living wages, job security, etc...

When did libertarian become about supporting corporations and their profits?

To which "libertarians" do you refer?

Rt&Dzine
Feb 18, 2011, 10:39 AM
i would think libertarians would stand up for individual rights, including the rights of people to work together to ensure safe workplaces, living wages, job security, etc...

When did libertarian become about supporting corporations and their profits?

1980.

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 10:52 AM
Yep- but hey, teachers and such aren't important and don't deserve benefits or decent pay, right?

No, there is a much bigger issue at play here. Public employees represent the majority of the organized workforce in this country right now. Bust these unions and there will be no strong voice left in the political arena to counter corporate money.

mcrain
Feb 18, 2011, 10:53 AM
To which "libertarians" do you refer?

No one in particular, I just don't understand those who claim to be libertarian, but support anti-individual rights/pro-corporatist views. Seems disingenuous.

leekohler
Feb 18, 2011, 10:57 AM
No, there is a much bigger issue at play here. Public employees represent the majority of the organized workforce in this country right now. Bust these unions and there will be no strong voice left in the political arena to counter corporate money.

I'm well aware of that.

mcrain
Feb 18, 2011, 11:58 AM
$120 Million Dollar Budget Surplus in Wisconsin at the start of this year.

(New Republican Governor gave away $140 Million dollars of business tax breaks - coincidentally, $137 Million dollar shortfall).

From the Madison Cap Times (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html):

To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January. If the Legislature were simply to rescind Walker’s new spending schemes -- or delay their implementation until they are offset by fresh revenues -- the “crisis” would not exist.

So... why are they proposing union busting legislation to "balance the budget?" (Zero fiscal impact?)

(Here's why: http://www.polls.newsvine.com/_vine/images/users/600/WillFemia/6077424.jpg)

leekohler
Feb 18, 2011, 12:16 PM
$120 Million Dollar Budget Surplus in Wisconsin at the start of this year.

(New Republican Governor gave away $140 Million dollars of business tax breaks - coincidentally, $137 Million dollar shortfall).



So... why are they proposing union busting legislation to "balance the budget?" (Zero fiscal impact?)

(Here's why: )

Wow- talk about your redistribution of wealth. :eek:

IntelliUser
Feb 18, 2011, 12:17 PM
the vast majority of the public are pretty mindless most of the time. I think the school situation has a parallel here when it comes to technology. It is so much more hopeful to think that technology can solve the problems that are more human and more organizational and more political in nature, and it ain’t so. We need to attack these things at the root, which is people and how much freedom we give people, the competition that will attract the best people. Unfortunately, there are side effects, like pushing out a lot of 46 year old teachers who lost their spirit fifteen years ago and shouldn’t be teaching anymore. I feel very strongly about this. I wish it was as simple as giving it over to the computer.

The unions are the worst thing that ever happened to education because it’s not a meritocracy. It turns into a bureaucracy, which is exactly what has happened. The teachers can’t teach and administrators run the place and nobody can be fired. It’s terrible.

-Steve Jobs.

leekohler
Feb 18, 2011, 12:36 PM
-Steve Jobs.

I have no interest in Steve Jobs opinion on education. He markets computers, he's not a teacher.

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 12:39 PM
I have no interest in Steve Jobs opinion on education. He markets computers, he's not a teacher.

Unsourced "opinion"

leekohler
Feb 18, 2011, 12:49 PM
Unsourced "opinion"

That's true. Not even a link.

ravenvii
Feb 18, 2011, 12:55 PM
That's true. Not even a link.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/micro-markets/steve-jobs-on-entrepreneurial-education-circa-1995/1008

Jus' sayin'.

obeygiant
Feb 18, 2011, 01:11 PM
Yep- but hey, teachers and such aren't important and don't deserve benefits or decent pay, right?

Fivepoint has sunk to a new low with this one.

I think the teachers are getting benefits and decent pay already.

Lord Blackadder
Feb 18, 2011, 01:20 PM
Considering how many filibusters the GOP has been involved in since 2008, any shock and indignation displayed on their part during this affair is going to make them look pretty hypocritical. Both sides can play that game.

mcrain
Feb 18, 2011, 01:24 PM
Considering how many filibusters the GOP has been involved in since 2008, any shock and indignation displayed on their part during this affair is going to make them look pretty hypocritical. Both sides can play that game.

Don't forget, this was proposed Friday, and they want it passed this week. This coming from the party that couldn't figure out bills that had been debated for months (and concepts that we've been dealing with for decades {not to mention, in the case of healthcare reform, it was very similar to their own proposals})

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 01:49 PM
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/micro-markets/steve-jobs-on-entrepreneurial-education-circa-1995/1008

Jus' sayin'.
No, "jus' saying'." is not OK when referencing sixteen year old comments. Give me his current opinion (as of last month, or in context) and I might give it some weight, WRT how I weigh his comments. Ancient history is just not relevant.
I think the teachers are getting benefits and decent pay already.
"Already" means in the context of the AFT and NEA. If they had not had those unions to get them here in the first place, they would be getting minimum wage + 50˘/year-of-college.

leekohler
Feb 18, 2011, 01:52 PM
God, it's becoming Egypt up there. Go Wisconsin folks! Stop this BS!

Several hundred protesters were in the building early in the morning. The ranks grew as the day progressed. Many of them spent the night in the Capitol and another large rally was planned around noon.

As many as 25,000 students, teachers and prison guards have turned out at the Capitol this week to protest, standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the building's hallways, sitting cross-legged across the floor and making it difficult to move from room to room. Some brought along sleeping bags and stayed through the night. Union organizers expected yet more to gather Friday.

The protesters chants of "Kill the Bill!" and "Recall Walker Now!" could be heard throughout the day and long past dark. They beat on drums and carried signs deriding Walker and his plan to end collective bargaining for state, county and local workers, except for police, firefighters and the state patrol.

Hundreds of teachers have joined the protests by calling in sick, forcing school districts — including the state's largest, Milwaukee Public Schools — to cancel classes.

Some signs seen at the Capitol compared the governor to former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, who stepped down last week after weeks of mass protests against his three-decade rule. On read, "Impeach Scott Mubarak!" and another said, "Walker like an Egyptian." Others compared to Walker and his supporters to boy wizard Harry Potter's nemesis and his evil minions, calling them "Governor Voldemort and his DeathEater Legislators."

Despite the groundswell of support, it seems Democrats are merely delaying the inevitable — Republicans say they have the votes to pass the bill — yet the protesters are undeterred.

"I always expect the worst, but at the least I figure this would lead to such larger strikes that it would be a bad move for Republicans and Scott Walker," Graupner said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-wis-protesters-buoyed-by-delay-on-antiunion-bill-20110218,0,4199916.story

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 03:33 PM
And like Egypt, the religious leaders are not supporting the statehouse (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/116450358.html)

When Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki lent his voice to this week's legislative debate over collective bargaining by public employees, he was drawing on more than 100 years of Catholic social teaching, which has endorsed the role of labor unions in creating a just economy and society.

"The goal of Catholic social teaching is the fundamental dignity of the human person. And the right to unionize is the concrete means by which workers can demand those things we consider as fundamental human rights - the right to a living wage, to safe working conditions," said Father Bryan Massingale, a social ethicist and professor of theology at Marquette University.

Listecki is among a number of faith leaders and organizations in Wisconsin and around the country that have weighed in on Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate most collective bargaining rights for public employees as part of a budget cutting measure that would increase workers' contributions to health care and retirement benefits.

Bishop Linda Lee of the Wisconsin Conference of the United Methodist Church sent a letter to Walker on Wednesday articulating her church's support of unions and collective bargaining. Madison Rabbi Jonathan Biatch invoked biblical and Talmudic passages that support workers' rights during a candlelight vigil and training event for union members in Madison. And on Thursday, the Washington-based advocacy group Catholics United issued a statement thanking Listecki for taking a stand and calling on Wisconsin officials to "suspend (their) attacks on public workers."

More are expected to come forward as details of Walker's proposed biennial budget emerge next week, said Scott Anderson, executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition of Churches, which encouraged faith leaders to voice their opinions on the collective bargaining issue but did not take an official position itself.

When the hard right wing loses support of religion, I would suggest they are in trouble.

mcrain
Feb 18, 2011, 03:42 PM
When the hard right wing loses support of religion, I would suggest they are in trouble.

They will never lose the support of those who worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.

Liquorpuki
Feb 18, 2011, 04:42 PM
Regardless of what you feel about civil servants and their pensions, the unions and collective bargaining need to be there. Not having them leaves civil servants open to abuse from the politicians, especially at the local level where career politicians just do whatever it takes to strategically position themselves to seek higher office.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 18, 2011, 05:22 PM
Considering how many filibusters the GOP has been involved in since 2008, any shock and indignation displayed on their part during this affair is going to make them look pretty hypocritical. Both sides can play that game.

I have said it before I will say it again. Those filibusters GOP has done are at best wanna be one. It required no real action on their part.

Now what the WI dems are doing is the type of filibuster I support because it requires some real action on their part and does do a true shut down of the office. No way around it.

If the US senate required some real work to do a filibuster then we would see a lot fewer of them. As in real work require the senators to stay in their offices or at least sleep on cots waiting for something to happen. It would do a true shut down of the senate. Until then please do not try to blame the GOP for filibusters. Dems refused to call them on any of them.

Lord Blackadder
Feb 18, 2011, 05:44 PM
Until then please do not try to blame the GOP for filibusters. Dems refused to call them on any of them.

I hold the Republicans completely responsible for any filibuster they undertake. They made no secret of what they were doing, and I can't imagine calling what they did anything other than some form of filibuster.

The action being undertaken by Democrats in Wisconsin is more than filibuster, it is direct action on the part of people with collective bargaining rights are on chopping block.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 18, 2011, 05:54 PM
I hold the Republicans completely responsible for any filibuster they undertake. They made no secret of what they were doing, and I can't imagine calling what they did anything other than some form of filibuster.

The action being undertaken by Democrats in Wisconsin is more than filibuster, it is direct action on the part of people with collective bargaining rights are on chopping block.

keep saying that but I ahve said it before I blame the dems just as much as the GOP for the so called wanna be filibusters.
Dems are at fault because just the THREAT of one is enough for them to change it. Dems showed they are to scared to call the bluff and until they do then they have no real room to talk.

Lord Blackadder
Feb 18, 2011, 05:58 PM
Dems are at fault because just the THREAT of one is enough for them to change it. Dems showed they are to scared to call the bluff and until they do then they have no real room to talk.

How can you blame Democrats for Republican filibusters? What good is "calling their bluff" when it will result in costly legislative constipation? I want to see more cooperation, not less.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 18, 2011, 06:02 PM
How can you blame Democrats for Republican filibusters? What good is "calling their bluff" when it will result in costly legislative constipation? I want to see more cooperation, not less.


Then I take it you support the threat system. Calling the bluff so to speak would make it a lot easier to point the finger at the GOP. The system in the US has gotten this bad because just the threat of it is enough to call it off.


As for this case it is something that I would support what WI since they can not do a fillibuster so to speak they went with another choice which in many ways is just as costly as a filibuster in terms of money because it is a complete shut down. What the Dems refused to do in Washiton is allow the Senate to go to a complete shut down and until they do they have no room to talk because they lack the balls to do it. If they would call it I can promise you the number of so call filibusters would drop like a rock.

Thomas Veil
Feb 18, 2011, 06:09 PM
Clearly there's one party in Wisconsin that REALLY cares about taking care of the deficit while others cling to every scrap of tax funds and benefits they can. While everyone else in Wisconsin cuts back during these difficult economic times... the unions want MORE MORE MORE. And these are the people we trust with our children. Amazing. Where does it say that these unions want more? What they want is for Republicans to stop bleeding them dry. No one can afford the kinds of cuts they're asking these public employees to take.

Hahaha, how rich... the teachers are like children complaining that they don't get extra dessert after dinner when his parents are barely making the mortgage payment and the electricity bill. Good thing that child stood up to those mean budget hacking parents. ;)Now you know how the Tea Party comes across to reasonable people who understand you can't keep arbitrarily cutting taxes, especially for the rich, and expect the country to keep working.

These workers, however, don't look at all like Tea Party crowds. They are unarmed, they have valid concerns, and best of all, they can spell.

For future reference... if you have to LEAVE THE STATE to avoid the authorities as a state congressman, you should probably rethink your actions.Pardon me, but aren't you the guy who talks about rising up against tyranny all the time?? :p

rdowns
Feb 18, 2011, 06:13 PM
These workers, however, don't look at all like Tea Party crowds. They are unarmed, they have valid concerns, and best of all, they can spell.



Maybe a little bit.

http://cdn-ugc.cafemom.com/gen/resize/403/270/80/2011/02/18/15/4l/5d/poz85nkxwkvzco.jpg

http://cdn-ugc.cafemom.com/gen/resize/403/268/80/2011/02/18/16/3q/8w/poapqwb2qsvzco.jpg

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 07:02 PM
Maybe a little bit.
http://cdn-ugc.cafemom.com/gen/resize/403/270/80/2011/02/18/15/4l/5d/poz85nkxwkvzco.jpg

Get a few dozen people together, you can count on Godwin showing up. It does get tiresome, really.

Dillenger
Feb 18, 2011, 07:58 PM
When all the politicians take cuts in pay, health and retirement benefits, then I'll agree to take cuts. Until they do, they can shove it.

kavika411
Feb 18, 2011, 08:05 PM
If [teachers] had not had those unions to get them here in the first place, they would be getting minimum wage + 50˘/year-of-college.

Apparently no one else here will ask their favorite question, so I guess I will.

Link?

Thomas Veil
Feb 18, 2011, 08:48 PM
The pope wears a tall hat.Link?

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 08:50 PM
Apparently no one else here will ask their favorite question, so I guess I will.

Link?

Here is one little piece of data (http://www.wtulocal6.org/History/) from 1907, prior to unionization; this can be cross-referenced with the approximate overall average (http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/1907-salaries-and-today.html) for that year. From this, one might be able to infer that my assertion was an exaggeration or that it was not too far off. Realistically, wages would probably be determined by market forces, which could force them upward due to demand, but I suspect it would be more likely to see districts being consolidated to manage costs. That could be a good thing. Or not.

The first link is, yes, a little slanted due to it being a teachers' union. I apologize for that, if I could present unbiased information, I would, but I doubt such information exists.

yg17
Feb 18, 2011, 08:50 PM
Maybe a little bit.

http://cdn-ugc.cafemom.com/gen/resize/403/270/80/2011/02/18/15/4l/5d/poz85nkxwkvzco.jpg

http://cdn-ugc.cafemom.com/gen/resize/403/268/80/2011/02/18/16/3q/8w/poapqwb2qsvzco.jpg

The Heil one is a bit much and whoever made it was an idiot, but I like the use of Don't Tread On Me. Take their stupid slogan and use it against them.

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 09:05 PM
On a related note, this just in: 60 US House Яepublicans break ranks and vote against defunding (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/17/nlrb-defunding-fails-but-agency-remains-gop-target/) the National Labor Relations Board.

No surprise, though, they had good reason to (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/144983-dem-says-gop-plan-threatens-nfl-season) vote to save it.

yojitani
Feb 18, 2011, 09:28 PM
Get a few dozen people together, you can count on Godwin showing up. It does get tiresome, really.

The problem is that you can't go around correcting your own. My friends and colleagues likening Walker to Hitler or fascism is irritating but I'm not going to call them out, at least not now. I guess labeling the other side Nazis is enervating for some.

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 09:38 PM
The problem is that you can't go around correcting your own. My friends and colleagues likening Walker to Hitler or fascism is irritating but I'm not going to call them out, at least not now. I guess labeling the other side Nazis is enervating for some.

Yes, it is beginning to wear many of us out.

NT1440
Feb 18, 2011, 10:05 PM
The problem is that you can't go around correcting your own. My friends and colleagues likening Walker to Hitler or fascism is irritating but I'm not going to call them out, at least not now. I guess labeling the other side Nazis is enervating for some.

Why not? :confused:

All the name calling does is detract from the issue at hand.

obeygiant
Feb 18, 2011, 10:11 PM
God, it's becoming Egypt up there.


LOL Hyperbole much?

Sydde
Feb 18, 2011, 10:35 PM
LOL Hyperbole much?

hyperbole (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/egypt-wisconsin-and-the-f_b_825185.html)

metaphor (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/02/wisconsin-not-egypt)

kind of like simile (http://allmediany.com/details_news_article.php?news_artid=693)

not lytotes (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/144765-rep-ryan-wisconsin-protests-like-egpyt)

by comparison... (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7766062/wisconsin_protests_officially_compared.html)

"Like Cairo, but better cheese" (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/54721/wisconsin-like-cairo-but-with-better-cheese/)

Thomas Veil
Feb 19, 2011, 05:22 AM
On a related note, this just in: 60 US House Яepublicans break ranks and vote against defunding (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/17/nlrb-defunding-fails-but-agency-remains-gop-target/) the National Labor Relations Board.

No surprise, though, they had good reason to (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/144983-dem-says-gop-plan-threatens-nfl-season) vote to save it.LOL! Well, we can't have all those loges going to waste now, can we?

rdowns
Feb 19, 2011, 07:19 AM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/wisconsin-gop-produces-video-that-hits-back-at-liberal-protesters-hitler-imagery/

Thomas Veil
Feb 19, 2011, 07:33 AM
I sympathize with those who don't think we should be using Hitler imagery.

On the other hand, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the poor Republicans who have been using hammers & sickles and pictures of Mao and Lenin to describe us for the last two years. We may have room to criticize the Hitler imagery, but they certainly don't.

obeygiant
Feb 19, 2011, 08:08 AM
hyperbole (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/egypt-wisconsin-and-the-f_b_825185.html)

metaphor (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/02/wisconsin-not-egypt)

kind of like simile (http://allmediany.com/details_news_article.php?news_artid=693)

not lytotes (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/144765-rep-ryan-wisconsin-protests-like-egpyt)

by comparison... (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7766062/wisconsin_protests_officially_compared.html)

"Like Cairo, but better cheese" (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/54721/wisconsin-like-cairo-but-with-better-cheese/)


Oh yeah, i see the similarity-- people protesting against the the 30 year rule of a dictator and people protesting because they'll have to pay more for their health insurance and put more into their pension funds. :rolleyes: Makes perfect sense lol


btw, those are all basically the same article on different websites.

Peterkro
Feb 19, 2011, 08:12 AM
Doesn't appear to be photoshopped:

obeygiant
Feb 19, 2011, 08:13 AM
I sympathize with those who don't think we should be using Hitler imagery.

On the other hand, I have a hard time feeling sorry for the poor Republicans who have been using hammers & sickles and pictures of Mao and Lenin to describe us for the last two years. We may have room to criticize the Hitler imagery, but they certainly don't.

Yes, because this isn't about budget shortfalls or tightening your belt to keep the system from collapsing but being able to levy pointless insults at your political opponents and getting revenge with nazi imagery.

torbjoern
Feb 19, 2011, 08:14 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Thomas Veil
Feb 19, 2011, 08:50 AM
Yes, because this isn't about budget shortfalls or tightening your belt to keep the system from collapsing but being able to levy pointless insults at your political opponents and getting revenge with nazi imagery.That's certainly not what I said, but in talking about budget shortfalls, we have to remember that this was a deliberately created shortfall. Republicans who made it easy for companies to ship jobs overseas, who voted for tax cuts they knew we couldn't afford, who created the regulatory environment that caused the housing market to collapse, who threw a lot of people onto unemployment...they had to know this was going to happen -- and they didn't care.

http://www.enotes.com/w/images/thumb/1/1a/Crow_T._Robot.jpg/200px-Crow_T._Robot.jpg

Or, as the guy above put it when he purposely breached the hull of his spaceship in an attempt to tunnel his way back to Earth: "I weighed the chance of success vs. the chances I was doing something incredibly stupid and...I went ahead anyway."

leekohler
Feb 19, 2011, 08:56 AM
That's certainly not what I said, but in talking about budget shortfalls, we have to remember that this was a deliberately created shortfall. Republicans who made it easy for companies to ship jobs overseas, who voted for tax cuts they knew we couldn't afford, who created the regulatory environment that caused the housing market to collapse, who threw a lot of people onto unemployment...they had to know this was going to happen -- and they didn't care.

http://www.enotes.com/w/images/thumb/1/1a/Crow_T._Robot.jpg/200px-Crow_T._Robot.jpg

Or, as the guy above put it when he purposely breached the hull of his spaceship in an attempt to tunnel his way back to Earth: "I weighed the chance of success vs. the chances I was doing something incredibly stupid and...I went ahead anyway."

I predict this is the first of many backlashes against the Republicans. Since Reagan this country has been bleeding from the jugular. Let's just hope it's not too late.

freeny
Feb 19, 2011, 09:15 AM
Good to see real Americans and patriots getting out there to fight this out of control Republican regime that's trying to strip them of their rights.

Sydde
Feb 19, 2011, 09:36 AM
Oh yeah, i see the similarity-- people protesting against the the 30 year rule of a dictator and people protesting because they'll have to pay more for their health insurance and put more into their pension funds. :rolleyes: Makes perfect sense lol

No, this is not at all about fiscal responsibility and belt tightening — at least, not in the way you are suggesting. In fact, the argument runs exactly backwards. Analysis on the Capital Times says governor Walker created this situation (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_90196216-3b66-11e0-a327-001cc4c03286.html) in January with some useless tax breaks and incentives that only help the wealthy. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin us the governor himself. The unions have already been tightening their belts, for years (I personally know a guy who works as a prison guard in Oshkosh, his wage has not changed in five years, and they have been given furloughs to cut back on their income).

In other words, Scott Walker is making a big deal over budget issues that could have been dealt with without pissing off the entire state, without redistributing wealth to those who already have plenty, without running-around-hair-on-fire that the state is in a dire strait. This here action is about one thing and one thing only: to bust unions. If you applaud that idea, come right out and say it. I say this is stupid, divisive BS.

Zombie Acorn
Feb 19, 2011, 09:58 AM
Unions are only required when qualifications are easily obtained by the populace at large and you need to insulate your worth.

citizenzen
Feb 19, 2011, 10:37 AM
Unions are only required when qualifications are easily obtained by the populace at large and you need to insulate your worth.

I don't buy it.

Take the impending NFL lockout...

I think you'd agree that the qualifications of a professional football player are not easily obtained by the populace at large. So according to your definition, there should be no need for a player's union.

But what chance would the players have bargaining against the owners as individuals without a union? An individual player could not make league-wide decisions about revenue sharing, player salaries, free agency, or pensions. That requires consensus among all the players. That requires a union.

yojitani
Feb 19, 2011, 10:43 AM
Why not? :confused:

All the name calling does is detract from the issue at hand.

That's complicated to answer actually. Moments like these are like team sports and for whatever reason it seems that comparing the guy you don't like to Hitler or another dictator is the type of rhetoric that excites people. You don't want to squash their enthusiasm, even if it is off-kilter. I think the best one can do is offer alternatives without saying much about what other people are doing.

I don't think we (i.e. "progressives") should justify the comparisons because the other side did it. Let's be honest, not every Tea Partier compared Obama to Hitler (or Stalin or Mao).

Also, I might add that I am very pleased about Obama and the Dems' response to the situation in WI specifically, but I should also point out that, like the US dithering on Egypt, the support of Bahrain, etc. what Obama gives with one hand, he takes with another:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021807507.html

Now, many union leaders are bristling at White House efforts to reset its relationship with corporate America. Unions were opposed to the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy in the December deal Obama struck with Republicans. Some have criticized his call for a review of regulations, including the temporary withdrawal last month of one proposed rule governing how companies report certain worker joint and muscle sprains. And most unions oppose the South Korea deal.

Thomas Veil
Feb 19, 2011, 11:13 AM
I predict this is the first of many backlashes against the Republicans. Since Reagan this country has been bleeding from the jugular. Let's just hope it's not too late....This here action is about one thing and one thing only: to bust unions.Of course it is.

And Rachel Maddow talked about just how important this is last night on her show. It's frightening. She makes a very good case for saying that if Wisconsin goes, there go all the other states (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XalLT0hq16A&hd=1). Make no mistake, this is a big, big deal for Republicans.

And if you didn't already know it, the Wisconsin legislature needs to flip only one Democrat for this to succeed.

Like I said...frightening.

NT1440
Feb 19, 2011, 11:39 AM
Oh yeah, i see the similarity-- people protesting against the the 30 year rule of a dictator and people protesting because they'll have to pay more for their health insurance and put more into their pension funds. :rolleyes: Makes perfect sense lol


btw, those are all basically the same article on different websites.
You're valid on the Egypt comparison is stupid to bring up. That said, you have a clear misunderstanding of the union busting this jackass is trying to pull here.

Yes, because this isn't about budget shortfalls or tightening your belt to keep the system from collapsing but being able to levy pointless insults at your political opponents and getting revenge with nazi imagery.
WI's former governor left what was going to be a surplus in place. This guy came in and handed out money to the rich via tax breaks that really only affected them, thus creating an artificial shortfall that he is convienantly trying to fill by cutting from the unions and benefits. Make no mistake, the media may be afraid of actually saying this but I'm not, this is a clear cut example of class warfare. Give to the rich for nothing, and expect those beneath them to sacrifice to make up the difference.

NT1440
Feb 19, 2011, 11:44 AM
.

callmemike20
Feb 19, 2011, 12:01 PM
Most teachers in the United States are terrible. They should be getting paid less anyway. Money doesn't equal better teachers. Get rid of the bad ones, bring the U.S. education level to that of other major nations, and then we will talk...

http://www.worldsalaries.org/teacher.shtml American teachers get paid too much compared to teachers who show better outcomes.

NT1440
Feb 19, 2011, 12:05 PM
Most teachers in the United States are terrible. They should be getting paid less anyway. Money doesn't equal better teachers. Get rid of the bad ones, bring the U.S. education level to that of other major nations, and then we will talk...

http://www.worldsalaries.org/teacher.shtml American teachers get paid too much compared to teachers who show better outcomes.

I don't know about your neck of the woods but the teachers just starting out in my area were making roughly $28,000 starting, and it takes damn near 20 years for them to get to the $80,000 that my HS english teacher was making just 3 years from retirement.

Whoa, just checked your link, you seriously think ~$63,000 a year is an outrageous amount of money for an educator to make? Thats crap for something you have to be so invested in. No wonder so many teachers take forever to pay off their student loans.

I see a real odd disconnect where no one seems to upset anymore about CEO pay and taxpayers directly paying for absurdly massive bonuses, yet we can seriously argue that teachers make too much money. What?

Sydde
Feb 19, 2011, 12:21 PM
Most teachers in the United States are terrible. They should be getting paid less anyway. Money doesn't equal better teachers. Get rid of the bad ones, bring the U.S. education level to that of other major nations, and then we will talk...

http://www.worldsalaries.org/teacher.shtml American teachers get paid too much compared to teachers who show better outcomes.

What you have just spewed looks like opinionated BS to me. Do you really think the primary short-coming of the education system us the teachers? Sounds like you are getting your info from people whom the education system has failed.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 19, 2011, 12:22 PM
Most teachers in the United States are terrible. They should be getting paid less anyway. Money doesn't equal better teachers. Get rid of the bad ones, bring the U.S. education level to that of other major nations, and then we will talk...

http://www.worldsalaries.org/teacher.shtml American teachers get paid too much compared to teachers who show better outcomes.

umm problem with your source is it uses inconsistence data. You can not flip between medium and average in your argument and average in this case is not a good one to us.

Also most teachers in the US are good. Problem is it is near impossible to get rid of the bad ones and it is the bad ones everyone sites time and time again. For ever bad teacher you have 4-5 great teachers no one hears about and another 4 to 5 good teachers.

Also pay does effect teachers. Problem is getting good teachers for math and science is very difficult because lets face it pay wise teachers do not make much compared to what those fields make in the private sector. Most teachers make around 40k a year. Average is higher because inner city school districts pay more because they have to just to get enough teachers and to retain teachers.
Those teachers in the inner city often times suffer from burn out and they shut down their emotions just to do their jobs. It is near impossible to teach kids who do not want to learn and have a home life with parents who do not put any value on education.

callmemike20
Feb 19, 2011, 12:26 PM
I don't know about your neck of the woods but the teachers just starting out in my area were making roughly $28,000 starting, and it takes damn near 20 years for them to get to the $80,000 that my HS english teacher was making just 3 years from retirement.

Whoa, just checked your link, you seriously think ~$63,000 a year is an outrageous amount of money for an educator to make? Thats crap for something you have to be so invested in. No wonder so many teachers take forever to pay off their student loans.

I see a real odd disconnect where no one seems to upset anymore about CEO pay and taxpayers directly paying for absurdly massive bonuses, yet we can seriously argue that teachers make too much money. What?

I don't mind them making that much money, but only if they produce the results. America's education levels have been terrible compared to the rest of the world, yet our teachers make more money than teachers in most other nations. I've known teachers that make close or over 100k per year and I'm fine with it as long as they are good and students are learning.

What's wrong with 80k/year right before retirement. That's excellent money to many people. Plus, he probably has a pension and actually gets to retire unlike many people. Face it, he has a decent life. If he is drowning in debt and didn't know how to manage his money, then that's his own problem. His income is fine.

But teachers get 3 months out of the year off along with most of the days that students get off, but I won't count all those extra days. If you base that 63k on a 9 month salary, that works out to 84k per year. Your teachers that are making 28k starting brings their starting salary up to 37k per year adjusted for the months they have off.

NT1440
Feb 19, 2011, 12:53 PM
I don't mind them making that much money, but only if they produce the results. America's education levels have been terrible compared to the rest of the world, yet our teachers make more money than teachers in most other nations. I've known teachers that make close or over 100k per year and I'm fine with it as long as they are good and students are learning.

First, why compare to other nations when this is the richest country on the planet? That doesn't make any sense, this is all about relativity.

Second, yes the educational system needs a major overhaul, but that's not on the teachers. The teachers don't make the curriculum and the teachers have to teach the curriculum that is mandated to them.

You don't even know why the educational system is so crappy in this country, so it's gotta be the teachers who have no power to change it right? :rolleyes:

Come on man, do some homework.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 19, 2011, 01:00 PM
I might like to point out any changes we make to education to improve it will take years to show any results and by years I am talking 5 -12 years to really show the results. Reason being is takes a while to filter threw the system plus you do not see the pay off for a long time. Education is a long process and as such changes take a while to show up.

NT1440
Feb 19, 2011, 01:32 PM
From what I've been reading Obama supposedly wants an overhaul of NCLB by summer, can't wait to hear all about how this nation's educational system is "the greatest in the world" and how Obama is trying to "indoctrinate our youth" through schools.

This should be fun. :mad::(

callmemike20
Feb 19, 2011, 02:09 PM
From what I've been reading Obama supposedly wants an overhaul of NCLB by summer, can't wait to hear all about how this nation's educational system is "the greatest in the world" and how Obama is trying to "indoctrinate our youth" through schools.

This should be fun. :mad::(

I also can't wait to see his plans. America really needs to start competing with the rest of the world. As for my last statement, I am aware that teachers are not the only problem. My point was that we can't just keep throwing money into the education system without results. We need to make very fundamental changes and stress the importance of education to students more.

Heck, I think much of the problem (at least in high school) are the students. They just don't care and only do what is necessary to graduate. Before high school, it may be bad teachers or even the parents who don't make their kids to homework or study when they are failing.

Obama has been making great statements over the past couple months about becoming a more competitive nation, which I agree with (and I don't usually agree with him and I probably won't agree with his way of making us more competitive). However, congress is full of pansies from both parties and we all know that true reform will never happen.

Sydde
Feb 19, 2011, 03:23 PM
Smoking gun:

http://www.standwithwalker.com

Look at the url translation and banner at the lower right. You might want to cover your nose with a hankie.

rdowns
Feb 19, 2011, 03:42 PM
Until parents gets more involved with their child's education, there is little we can do to improve our system.

NT1440
Feb 19, 2011, 04:21 PM
Until parents gets more involved with their child's education, there is little we can do to improve our system.

It is true that parents need to step up their game, but we need to remember that our current system is standardized test based. There are definite improvements that can be made from just a policy level, but yes this is the kind of thing the nation as a whole needs to get behind.

MacNut
Feb 19, 2011, 04:31 PM
It is true that parents need to step up their game, but we need to remember that our current system is standardized test based. There are definite improvements that can be made from just a policy level, but yes this is the kind of thing the nation as a whole needs to get behind.We need to stop teaching to a test that has no bearing on shaping a child for adult hood and the real world, and start teaching critical thinking.

We also need to realize that not everyone is teachable. "No child left behind" should really be "No child left behind unless they don't want to learn and no matter what we try they will never succeed so why are we wasting money on them if they will just work at McDonald's their whole life".

Thomas Veil
Feb 19, 2011, 05:14 PM
One thing that is amazing to see (in comments written under articles about this protest) is people saying things like, "I want union workers to suffer like everybody else."

Really. You're getting raped by the Republicans, but it would make you feel better if you saw somebody else getting raped too?

It's a unique variation on penis envy -- union envy, I guess you could call it -- and what's interesting is that it's aimed at the middle class. These jokers don't want to see the rich sacrifice like the rest of us, they want more of us to do it.

That's kind of taking boot-licking to a whole new level.

MacNut
Feb 19, 2011, 05:15 PM
One thing that is amazing to see (in comments written under articles about this protest) is people saying things like, "I want union workers to suffer like everybody else."

Really. You're getting raped by the Republicans, but it would make you feel better if you saw somebody else getting raped too?

It's a unique variation on penis envy -- union envy, I guess you could call it -- and what's interesting is that it's aimed at the middle class. These jokers don't want to see the rich sacrifice like the rest of us, they want more of us to do it.

That's kind of taking boot-licking to a whole new level.Up in CT we are going to get raped by a democrat governor who wants to raise the taxes higher than ever without much in cuts

Sydde
Feb 19, 2011, 05:34 PM
Up in CT we are going to get raped by a democrat governor who wants to raise the taxes higher than ever without much in cuts

Really.

Ugg
Feb 19, 2011, 05:46 PM
One thing that is amazing to see (in comments written under articles about this protest) is people saying things like, "I want union workers to suffer like everybody else."

Really. You're getting raped by the Republicans, but it would make you feel better if you saw somebody else getting raped too?

It's a unique variation on penis envy -- union envy, I guess you could call it -- and what's interesting is that it's aimed at the middle class. These jokers don't want to see the rich sacrifice like the rest of us, they want more of us to do it.

That's kind of taking boot-licking to a whole new level.

There's a huge disconnect going on right now. Part of it is justified, I believe, but most of it is sheer ignorance.

Things That Need to be Addressed

* Retiree Health Benefits (sometimes they are granted with as little as 5 years service) and this is the single biggest problem that most government entities are facing.

* Double Dipping. If you have one government pension, then that should be all that you get.

* Teacher Accountability. Here in California at least, it's insane how many stupid and abusive teachers still have jobs.

Things That Are Fine with Unions

* Collective Bargaining

* Fixed Benefit Pensions (although demographics mean that employees are going to have to contribute more money(


American unions are woefully behind their European counterparts. In Germany, all company boards are required to have a union representative on them. The skies haven't fallen as a result because it's been a game changer. Nobody wins if production is sent overseas.

NT1440
Feb 19, 2011, 06:47 PM
Up in CT we are going to get raped by a democrat governor who wants to raise the taxes higher than ever without much in cuts

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/nyregion/16malloy.html

Seems like he wants to actually get CT out of its whole without borrowing, like we've done for years, or cutting $800 million from education.

The horror :rolleyes:

This country needs to realize that you cant just hack away at anything and everything to solve our debt problems, we actually have to pay to make up for the historically low tax rates that is somehow now considered the norm.

MacNut
Feb 19, 2011, 06:51 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/nyregion/16malloy.html

Seems like he wants to actually get CT out of its whole without borrowing, like we've done for years, or cutting $800 million from education.

The horror :rolleyes:

This country needs to realize that you cant just hack away at anything and everything to solve our debt problems, we actually have to pay to make up for the historically low tax rates that is somehow now considered the norm.CT is one of the most expensive states as it is. We pay more than our share of taxes without anything to show for it. We went into debt because the tax money wasn't there the last time. So how can people be expected even more when they barely paid up the last time.

Thomas Veil
Feb 19, 2011, 06:52 PM
Nobody wins if production is sent overseas.Would that that were the philosophy here. In America, business seems to believe that everybody wins if production is sent overseas.

Here's something else that's interesting. Wisconsin voters must not have been paying attention when they elected this Scott Walker. He seems like exactly the wrong type of person to be holding this job (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20walker.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp).

Wisconsin may seem to the rest of the country like an unlikely catalyst, but to people who have watched the governor’s political rise through the years, the events of the week feel like a Scott Walker rerun, though on a much larger screen and with a much bigger audience.

Critics and supporters alike say Mr. Walker has never strayed from his approach to his political career: always pressing for austerity, and never blinking or apologizing for his lightning-rod proposals.

He regularly clashed with the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors over the past decade when he was that county’s elected executive. He pushed to privatize cleaning and food service workers and sought changes to pension and health contributions and workers’ hours. At one point, he proposed that the county government might want to consider, in essence, abolishing itself. It was redundant, he suggested.

“All I can think is, here we go again,” said Chris Larson, one of 14 Democratic state senators who fled Wisconsin last week to block a vote on Mr. Walker’s call to cut benefits. Mr. Larson knows the governor well, having served on Milwaukee County’s board when Mr. Walker was the executive. He says that Mr. Walker is a nice guy on a personal level, “a good listener,” but that his politics are another matter.

“Unions have always been his pińata, over and over,” Mr. Larson said. “And this time I think he’s trying to out-right-wing the right wing on his way to the next lily pad.”...

“This doesn’t faze me one bit,” Mr. Walker said Friday as thousands of protesters from around the country marched and screamed and filled every unguarded cranny of the Capitol, just as they had all week....

“I’m not going to be intimidated,” Mr. Walker said, “particularly by people from other places.”...

Democrats here say Mr. Walker’s style has led to a sea change in Wisconsin’s political tradition.

“Every other Republican governor has had moderates in their caucus and histories of working with Democrats,” said Graeme Zielinski, a spokesman for the state’s Democratic Party. “But he is a hard-right partisan who does not negotiate, does not compromise. He is totally modeled after a slash-and-burn, scorched-earth approach that has never existed here before.”What emerges from this description is pretty much a guy with a sociopathic political personality including such a stubborn streak he makes Dubya look reasonable. Very much the opposite of Connecticut's governor in NT1440's link.

Thomas Veil
Feb 19, 2011, 09:28 PM
Uh-oh. Part II is happening right in my home state.

Workers Pack Statehouse In Protest Of Union Bill | WBNS-10TV, Central Ohio News (http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2011/02/17/story-columbus-workers-protest-senate-bill-5.html)

COLUMBUS, Ohio — More than 1,000 workers were at the Ohio Statehouse on Thursday to protest Senate Bill 5.
If approved, the bill would overhaul collective bargaining, 10TV's Danielle Elias reported.

Supporters of the bill spoke on Tuesday. Thursday's testimony before the senate committee was from those opposing the bill.

Firefighters, police officers, corrections workers and educators from around Ohio showed up to protest a bill they call a "union buster."

If the bill passes, collective bargaining by unions, which became law in 1983, could come to an end.

"We work hard to help the community," said Mark Harrington, who opposes the bill. "Our goal is to be strong and be well. It's only fair to collective bargain."

Ohio is facing an estimated $8 billion deficit, and Gov. John Kasich has said union labor costs must be reined in.

"We think some of the cities and the state will go bankrupt if we don't find a way to get around some of the union contract," said S.B. 5 supporter Pearl Pullman.

Kasich has expressed support for the bill in concept, but he also signaled he might offer his own plan that could go even further, including banning public employee strikes.My bold.

Serfdom, here we come.

Addendum: Is there nothing the Tea Party types will not lie about?

A number of the comments under the article which I cited state that the media are lying, and that all those red-shirted people on the floor of the Ohio statehouse are really Tea Party people who are in support of the bill.

Well looky what I found in another article (http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/02/republicans_challenging_unions.html):

http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/photo/9300265-large.jpg

Tea Party, you're such friggin' liars.

ender land
Feb 20, 2011, 12:10 AM
Would that that were the philosophy here. In America, business seems to believe that everybody wins if production is sent overseas.

You can't have cake and eat it too.

If you want affordable products, the cost has to be down. Unions tend to increase the cost of products.

I've worked in a manufacturing plant in which a considerable amount of effort was done to minimize the work done onsite (unionized) and push it offsite (even to a location 20 miles away). This site was non union, so instead of every hour of labor costing the company $25+ it was less. It was cheaper to ship parts there, assemble them, and ship them back.

Labor costs resulting from unions, at least in manufacturing, are a large reason it is cheaper to assemble products in Asia and send it overseas.

NT1440
Feb 20, 2011, 12:23 AM
Labor costs resulting from unions, at least in manufacturing, are a large reason it is cheaper to assemble products in Asia and send it overseas.

We'll just ignore that someone working full time in the States should be paid a living wage rather than minimum wage. Also, we'll overlook that even if you were paying minimum wage, it would still be dramatically cheaper to assemble products in much of Asia.

ender land
Feb 20, 2011, 12:27 AM
We'll just ignore that someone working full time in the States should be paid a living wage rather than minimum wage. Also, we'll overlook that even if you were paying minimum wage, it would still be dramatically cheaper to assemble products in much of Asia.

I never said it wasn't.

The post I was referencing was lamenting how businesses tend to think everyone wins if production goes overseas.

Unions are part of that problem, but the greater problem is that the American standard of living is significantly higher than those in Asia. Until the rest of the world has a comparatively equal standard of living (or at least $1 in additional cost is no longer equal to $1 of savings) products will continue to be manufactured overseas.

callmemike20
Feb 20, 2011, 01:28 AM
The idea of a "living wage" just ends up moving in circles.

There are 2 ways that will allow people to get what they want...

Lowering Prices:Companies can send work overseas to lower the cost of production on goods. This will allow products to be cheaper in America.

Raising Wages (Unions):People can unionize and demand higher wages to pay for those goods (living wage + MUCH more).

The problem with outsourcing is that America loses jobs and the income levels drop and the prices aren't any more affordable than before.

The problem with unions demanding higher wages is that it results in prices rising along with it. You may work for Ford and demand a raise so you can afford your new TV, but what if the guy who makes your TV is doing the same? Overall prices will just increase if everyone unionized since the added costs would have to be factored in. So, things are no longer affordable and the unions demand higher wages again. It just doesn't end and the only result is $1 becoming $100.

Sydde
Feb 20, 2011, 01:41 AM
The idea of a "living wage" just ends up moving in circles.

There are 2 ways that will allow people to get what they want...

Lowering Prices:Companies can send work overseas to lower the cost of production on goods. This will allow products to be cheaper in America.

Raising Wages (Unions):People can unionize and demand higher wages to pay for those goods (living wage + MUCH more).

The problem with outsourcing is that America loses jobs and the income levels drop and the prices aren't any more affordable than before.

The problem with unions demanding higher wages is that it results in prices rising along with it. You may work for Ford and demand a raise so you can afford your new TV, but what if the guy who makes your TV is doing the same? Overall prices will just increase if everyone unionized since the added costs would have to be factored in. So, things are no longer affordable and the unions demand higher wages again. It just doesn't end and the only result is $1 becoming $100.

So what would you suggest? If we shipped all our executroids off to live in exile on Rapanui and used the savings to subsidize the workers, most of the problem would go away, right? I remember seeing some thing about a worker owned-and-operated bakery in California where most of the people working there were making in excess of $60K/year in ordinary jobs. The living wages and fair prices are both there, they are just getting sucked away, into an administrative vortex

I think we need to reexamine where all our money is getting wasted and stop subsidizing these wealthy burden-on-society leeches, make them do something useful.

See, we will not agree on what needs to be done to stabilize the country, but if we just talk past each other as has been going on for the past couple of decades, things will not improve. We simply have to start listening to each other and figure out what common ground we can establish, instead of fighting over who gets the wheel.

I blame all this divisive stuff on the guy who was there when it started to get out of hand. It must be H. Ross Perot's fault.

Thomas Veil
Feb 20, 2011, 06:53 AM
Listen to what this guy has to say about what's really affecting public workers' pension and benefits plans: (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/irrational-exuberance-trouble)

A new report from Baker's Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), “The Origins and Severity of the Public Pension Crisis,” shows that the main reason public pension shortfalls exist at all is the downturn in the stock market following the housing crash in 2007-2009, not inadequate contributions by state governments.

Contrary to what many opponents of unions claim, the new report shows that pension shortfalls are not causing an economic downturn. (It should be noted that the Center for Economic and Policy Research receives no funding from organized labor, so the study has serious weight).

Dean Baker, a co-director of CEPR and author of the report, indisputably shows that the pension obligations that unions negotiated with states would be completely realistic had the economy recovered. It demonstrates that if pension funds had just earned returns equal to the interest rate on 30-year Treasury bonds since 2007, their assets would be more than $850 billion greater than they are today – filing the current funding gap.

“Much of the recent discussion of public pensions is misleading,” Baker says. “The shortfalls represent a small percentage of each state’s economy and, barring another sudden reversal of the stock market, are manageable.”

Anti-union commentators frequently note that pension obligations will bankrupt states. However, Baker’s study points out that the size of the projected state and local government shortfalls measured as a shot of future gross products appear manageable. The study shows that the total shortfall for pension funds is less than 0.2% of projected gross state revenues over the next 30 years.

Keith Brainard, research director of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA), who appeared before the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, debunked several of the arguments put forward by right-wing think tanks.

“One such report compares, for many states, local governments’ unfunded pension liabilities with the tax effort of only the state. However, local governments are also responsible for funding pension liabilities, and excluding local sources of revenue “produces a distorted and misleading measure,” said Brainard. “This is akin to measuring the mortgage capacity of a working couple, yet considering the income of only one of them."

Pension funds hold $2.8 trillion in trust (from which they pay benefits), which is roughly 14 times the amount they distributed in benefits last year, according to Brainard. “Using even conservative estimates, pension funds representing the vast majority of public employees will be able to continue to pay benefits for decades, if not into perpetuity.”My bold.

So if these bills address a largely imaginary "crisis", it certainly bears out the notion that their real purpose is to break the unions.

You can't have cake and eat it too.

If you want affordable products, the cost has to be down. Unions tend to increase the cost of products.

I've worked in a manufacturing plant in which a considerable amount of effort was done to minimize the work done onsite (unionized) and push it offsite (even to a location 20 miles away). This site was non union, so instead of every hour of labor costing the company $25+ it was less. It was cheaper to ship parts there, assemble them, and ship them back.

Labor costs resulting from unions, at least in manufacturing, are a large reason it is cheaper to assemble products in Asia and send it overseas.Do we really want to go here? At this point the subject explodes and becomes ten times bigger. We have to start asking questions like, is the company not making a profit with union workers, or is it just not making the profit "the street" says it should? And who appointed "the street" to be the arbiter of what's right for American wages? How do companies figure they have an obligation to always increase profit to the shareholders but decrease them to the workers? If overseas companies pay lower wages, then the playing field is obviously not level, and are not those wages a de facto subsidy?

All of that is beside NT1400's point that any full time job should pay a living wage, not minimum wage. And I'll throw in one more: we are already in a cycle where people are being paid so little they can't afford to buy anything. Where does that leave companies' customer base? Are they so dense that they can't see that they're shooting themselves in the foot because people can't buy their stuff anymore?

Sorry, ender land, I'm not trying to be harsh here. Your point is actually a valid one and refreshingly devoid of spin. It's just that I do think that it gets much more complex than that...and that business and politicians would rather avoid those prickly questions.

leekohler
Feb 20, 2011, 08:34 AM
Uh-oh. Part II is happening right in my home state.

My bold.

Serfdom, here we come.

Addendum: Is there nothing the Tea Party types will not lie about?

A number of the comments under the article which I cited state that the media are lying, and that all those red-shirted people on the floor of the Ohio statehouse are really Tea Party people who are in support of the bill.

Well looky what I found in another article (http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/02/republicans_challenging_unions.html):

http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/photo/9300265-large.jpg

Tea Party, you're such friggin' liars.

Can there be any doubt anymore just what the Republicans are up to? They want an aristocracy in this country. They will stop at nothing to devalue the American worker. Folks- it is seriously time to fight back hard. Vote them all out next election. In the short time they've been in power, look what they have done. Scary.

Thomas Veil
Feb 20, 2011, 09:04 AM
Can there be any doubt anymore just what the Republicans are up to? They want an aristocracy in this country. They will stop at nothing to devalue the American worker. Folks- it is seriously time to fight back hard. Vote them all our next election. In the short time they've been in power, look what they have done. Scary.I think you mean, "Vote them all out." :D

Problem is, so many people rely on Fox to disinform them. I was just flipping channels this morning and came across Fox and Friends' lead story. It wasn't about the protest, it was about the horrors of doctors giving teachers medical slips to allow the protesters to be there. Oh yeah, and they laid a heavy emphasis on the Tea Party contingent that was there. They didn't exactly say the Sheep Party group was as big as or bigger than the union supporters (it wasn't -- not even close), but they kinda left that impression. Oh, and then they went to their expert analyst -- a guy from the National Review.

Now, in the face of the #1 media outlet filling people's heads with false, misleading or irrelevant information...how are voters to make intelligent decisions? Does anybody even think all these straw man issues would get much public support without Fox and the rest of the right wing media?

Fox is the reason I don't hold out much hope for this country anymore. It's like the Ministry of Truth come to life. Temporally speaking, the title of Orwell's book really wasn't that far off.

senseless
Feb 20, 2011, 09:08 AM
"Save our Schools". Oh, that's what's it all about.

leekohler
Feb 20, 2011, 09:09 AM
I think you mean, "Vote them all out." :D

Problem is, so many people rely on Fox to disinform them. I was just flipping channels this morning and came across Fox and Friends' lead story. It wasn't about the protest, it was about the horrors of doctors giving teachers medical slips to allow the protesters to be there. Oh yeah, and they laid a heavy emphasis on the Tea Party contingent that was there. They didn't exactly say the Sheep Party group was as big as or bigger than the union supporters (it wasn't -- not even close), but they kinda left that impression. Oh, and then they went to their expert analyst -- a guy from the National Review.

Now, in the face of the #1 media outlet filling people's heads with false, misleading or irrelevant information...how are voters to make intelligent decisions? Does anybody even think all these straw man issues would get much public support without Fox and the rest of the right wing media?

Fox is the reason I don't hold out much hope for this country anymore. It's like the Ministry of Truth come to life. Temporally speaking, the title of Orwell's book really wasn't that far off.

Agreed. It is really scary what's happening right now. Like I said, let's hope we can stop this before it gets worse.

Ugg
Feb 20, 2011, 09:23 AM
The biggest problem facing government today, as Thomas Veil points out, is NOT pensions, but unfunded retiree medical benefits.

Paul Krugman has been beating this drum for years now and in his most recent NYT column, he repeated it again. If the US can tackle health care, we can be a viable nation again. If we can't, we're SOL.

Germany is Europe's powerhouse and despite high wages and strong unions they remain a major exporter. Unions don't send jobs overseas, greedy shareholders and CEOs do.

leekohler
Feb 20, 2011, 09:59 AM
The biggest problem facing government today, as Thomas Veil points out, is NOT pensions, but unfunded retiree medical benefits.

Paul Krugman has been beating this drum for years now and in his most recent NYT column, he repeated it again. If the US can tackle health care, we can be a viable nation again. If we can't, we're SOL.

Germany is Europe's powerhouse and despite high wages and strong unions they remain a major exporter. Unions don't send jobs overseas, greedy shareholders and CEOs do.

Funny how that works, isn;t it? When more people have money, things seem to work a little better.

And I've been saying we need to get health care off the backs of our companies forever.

iJohnHenry
Feb 20, 2011, 11:10 AM
Germany is Europe's powerhouse and despite high wages and strong unions they remain a major exporter. Unions don't send jobs overseas, greedy shareholders and CEOs do.

You speak as if the American Worker would not welcome being a minion to Corporate Interests. ;)

It would appear that the Republican Party is in dire need of a name change.

Sydde
Feb 20, 2011, 11:27 AM
You speak as if the American Worker would not welcome being a minion to Corporate Interests. ;)

It would appear that the Republican Party is in dire need of a name change.

Something like Bluster Against Terrorism, Socialist Healthcare, Income Tax?

SuperCachetes
Feb 20, 2011, 11:39 AM
Something like Bluster Against Terrorism, Socialist Healthcare, Income Tax?

I see what you did there. :)

I doubt they would ever consider using "bluster" to name themselves, though. You really need an over-the-top word meaning "patriot" that starts with "B." ;)

ender land
Feb 20, 2011, 11:39 AM
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a05349be-3be1-11e0-b0a1-001cc4c002e0.html
Walker's plan calls for nearly all state, local and school employees to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care premiums. That would save $30 million by June 30 and $300 million over the next two years, the governor has said.


This is quite interesting. If it is true, which I assume it is, I find it particularly interesting if only because that is STILL better than the benefits I received at my last job - the only difference being I believe I paid slightly less for health care (I think it was a little closer to 10%) and instead of a pension, the retirement option was a 401k where I got slightly less than 1 to 1 but also only for 6%. If I contributed more I still was only matched for the first odd percent.

I had thought I had a pretty solid benefit plan... apparently not :(



Thomas Vei, you are right the issue becomes more complicated, but the point I was trying to make is that unions will increase labor costs. Without huge import taxes on goods (ie walmart going out of business haha!) manufacturing or assembly jobs are unlikely to return to the USA regardless of wages

NT1440
Feb 20, 2011, 11:56 AM
Thomas Vei, you are right the issue becomes more complicated, but the point I was trying to make is that unions will increase labor costs. Without huge import taxes on goods (ie walmart going out of business haha!) manufacturing or assembly jobs are unlikely to return to the USA regardless of wages

Did anyone else hear the whooshing sound? :confused:

Sydde
Feb 20, 2011, 12:05 PM
I see what you did there. :)

I doubt they would ever consider using "bluster" to name themselves, though. You really need an over-the-top word meaning "patriot" that starts with "B." ;)

There was an appropriate "B" word that applies to a great many Яepublicans and most M-Tea Partiers, but we do not use it on this forum at risk of ending up in Time-Out for unjustly accusing people of liking to use the dreaded "N" word.

Thomas Veil
Feb 20, 2011, 12:17 PM
And I've been saying we need to get health care off the backs of our companies forever.Yup.

The biggest problem facing government today, as Thomas Veil points out, is NOT pensions, but unfunded retiree medical benefits.

Paul Krugman has been beating this drum for years now and in his most recent NYT column, he repeated it again. If the US can tackle health care, we can be a viable nation again. If we can't, we're SOL.We, sir, are thinking along similar wavelengths. I just read that column (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general) yesterday:

The whole budget debate, then, is a sham. House Republicans, in particular, are literally stealing food from the mouths of babes — nutritional aid to pregnant women and very young children is one of the items on their cutting block — so they can pose, falsely, as deficit hawks.

What would a serious approach to our fiscal problems involve? I can summarize it in seven words: health care, health care, health care, revenue.

Notice that I said “health care,” not “entitlements.” People in Washington often talk as if there were a program called Socialsecuritymedicareandmedicaid, then focus on things like raising the retirement age. But that’s more anti-Willie Suttonism. Long-run projections suggest that spending on the major entitlement programs will rise sharply over the decades ahead, but the great bulk of that rise will come from the health insurance programs, not Social Security.

So anyone who is really serious about the budget should be focusing mainly on health care. And by focusing, I don’t mean writing down a number and expecting someone else to make that number happen — a dodge known in the trade as a “magic asterisk.” I mean getting behind specific actions to rein in costs....

What would real action on health look like? Well, it might include things like giving an independent commission the power to ensure that Medicare only pays for procedures with real medical value; rewarding health care providers for delivering quality care rather than simply paying a fixed sum for every procedure; limiting the tax deductibility of private insurance plans; and so on.

And what do these things have in common? They’re all in last year’s health reform bill.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 01:03 PM
This thread looks fun. I'll just leave this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsnLfsbbM&feature=player_embedded#at=42

fivepoint
Feb 22, 2011, 01:12 PM
This thread looks fun. I'll just leave this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsnLfsbbM&feature=player_embedded#at=42

Photoshopped! ;)

Here's a fun one I saw on the local news from the Wisconsin rallies...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ub4QdZ-iiK0/TWPCLkTipnI/AAAAAAAAHEc/gSlRsqtHA7k/s400/RapePosterWisconsinUnionSupporterFeb192011JFalkMalkin.jpg

fivepoint
Feb 22, 2011, 01:21 PM
In my experience, unions are largely a way for unqualified, incapable, and otherwise poor performing workers to tie their productivity to that of more capable workers thus avoiding being held accountable for their own actions and work ethic. It's mob-mentality at the most fundamental level. Truly skilled, professional, capable workers don't want their productivity tied to less capable workers through a union because it means they will no longer be as easily recognized for above-average work. It means that they can no longer privately bargain for improved pay/benefits/conditions, but rather that they're fate is now tied directly to the worst workers around them.

In the case of public unions because unlike when they bargain with a private entity who has their own personal interests to protect, they're bargaining with a public official who's simply doling out public funds. It doesn't matter them nearly as much if they're forced to give substantial concessions because it isn't coming out of their paycheck, and they're 'too big to fail.' It's the government for crying out loud... they can afford it!

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 01:24 PM
In my experience, unions are largely a way for unqualified, incapable, and otherwise poor performing workers to tie their productivity to that of more capable workers thus avoiding being held accountable for their own actions and work ethic. It's mob-mentality at the most fundamental level. Truly skilled, professional, capable workers don't want their productivity tied to less capable workers through a union because it means they will no longer be as easily recognized for above-average work. It means that they can no longer privately bargain for improved pay/benefits/conditions, but rather that they're fate is now tied directly to the worst workers around them.

In the case of public unions because unlike when they bargain with a private entity who has their own personal interests to protect, they're bargaining with a public official who's simply doling out public funds. It doesn't matter them nearly as much if they're forced to give substantial concessions because it isn't coming out of their paycheck, and they're 'too big to fail.' It's the government for crying out loud... they can afford it!
And yet again, Fivepoint's post has literally no resemblance to the reality of the artificial economic crisis used as a tool for union busting that is going on in WI.

Also, in what kind of company can anyone not higher up the corporate ladder privately bargain for their conditions? Where the hell have you worked?

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 01:29 PM
Photoshopped! ;)

Here's a fun one I saw on the local news from the Wisconsin rallies...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ub4QdZ-iiK0/TWPCLkTipnI/AAAAAAAAHEc/gSlRsqtHA7k/s400/RapePosterWisconsinUnionSupporterFeb192011JFalkMalkin.jpg

Vitriolic talk show hosts inciting vitriol with their vitriol.

My new favorite $5 word. Its all vitriol baby. Except when it comes from protesting union members and students dragged their by their teachers; then it's a "right," just like the ability to vote yourself a raise.

My favorite signs are the ones the equate themselves to the protesters in Egypt. Sooooo, let's see:

- Egypt has been under the thumb of a (for all practical means and purposes) un-elected dictator. They had enough of their corrupt 30 year regime so they overthrew it. Good on them.

- The majority of Wisconsin citizens and tax payers elected a republican governor campaigning on cutting spending and fixing a deficit. He proposes ideas to fix the deficit.

Not quite the same...

Lord Blackadder
Feb 22, 2011, 01:30 PM
Germany is Europe's powerhouse and despite high wages and strong unions they remain a major exporter. Unions don't send jobs overseas, greedy shareholders and CEOs do.

A point worth repeating. Conservatives like fivepoint claim that unions choke the economy, but that is simply false.

Thomas Veil
Feb 22, 2011, 01:35 PM
...largely a way for unqualified, incapable, and otherwise poor performing workers to tie their productivity to that of more capable workers thus avoiding being held accountable for their own actions and work ethic....:confused: When did we start talking about executive compensation?? :confused:

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 01:38 PM
A point worth repeating. Conservatives like fivepoint claim that unions choke the economy, but that is simply false.

I look at it as more an idealistic battle.

IMO we should bust up every single public union. A public union is mind bogglingly self serving and conflicted. Think about it:

Unions back the democratic candidates almost exclusively. From The Dailey Caller: " * The AFL-CIO, whose president Richard Trumka is orchestrating much of the protests in Madison this week, donated $1.2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $900,000 in 2010.

* The American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees donated $2.6 million to the Democrats in 2008 and another $2.6 million in 2010.

* The National Education Association donated $2.3 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2010.

* The Teamsters union donated $2.4 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.3 million in 2010.

* The SEIU donated $2.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.7 million in 2010.

* The Carpenters and Joiners union donated $2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million 2010.

* The Laborers union donated $2.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2010.

* The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers donated $3.8 million to Democrats in 2008 and $3.2 million in 2010.

* The American Federation of Teachers donated $2.8 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.7 million in 2010.

* The Machinists and Aerospace union donated $2.5 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2010.

* The Communication Workers of America, which includes employees from several television and radio stations and other publishing platforms, donated $2.2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2010.

* The United Autoworkers union (UAW) donated $2.1 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.5 million in 2010.

* The United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) donated $2.1 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.9 million in 2010.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/19/unions-fuel-democratic-party-financially/#ixzz1EicdM2Sw
"

Now let's say you are a conservative teacher. You can be forced to pay up to 85% of the union dues even if you do not want to join the union. This money you are extorted out of is by and large going to help elect Democrats.

Lets look at it even closer: Private sector workers + wages pay the wages + benefits of every single public employee. A good chunk of those wages paid from the pockets of the American citizenry will inevitably be put into the Union campaign PACs and such, inevitably going towards electing Democrats, even though half of the people this money is coming from support the other side. And these people have the audacity to compare themselves to the oppressed EGYPTIANS? SERIOUSLY?

Doesn't make a lick of sense if you ask me.

EDIT: A more accurate title to this thread would be: "Wisonsin Taxpayers Stand Up to Democratic Unions by democratically electing Scott Walker. Wisconsin Democrat Lawmakers Stomping on Citizens Will by Thwarting Democracy hailed as Heroes after Republicans practicing similar (But constitutionally protected) techniques decried as "obstructionist""

rdowns
Feb 22, 2011, 01:50 PM
I look at it as more an idealistic battle.


Yeah, we get it. Corporations spending unchecked to elect more corporatists while cutting off a major source of funding for the other side.

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 01:50 PM
I look at it as more an idealistic battle.

IMO we should bust up every single public union. A public union is mind bogglingly self serving and conflicted. Think about it:

Unions back the democratic candidates almost exclusively. From The Dailey Caller: " * The AFL-CIO, whose president Richard Trumka is orchestrating much of the protests in Madison this week, donated $1.2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $900,000 in 2010.

* The American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees donated $2.6 million to the Democrats in 2008 and another $2.6 million in 2010.

* The National Education Association donated $2.3 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2010.

* The Teamsters union donated $2.4 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.3 million in 2010.

* The SEIU donated $2.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.7 million in 2010.

* The Carpenters and Joiners union donated $2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million 2010.

* The Laborers union donated $2.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2010.

* The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers donated $3.8 million to Democrats in 2008 and $3.2 million in 2010.

* The American Federation of Teachers donated $2.8 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.7 million in 2010.

* The Machinists and Aerospace union donated $2.5 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2010.

* The Communication Workers of America, which includes employees from several television and radio stations and other publishing platforms, donated $2.2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2010.

* The United Autoworkers union (UAW) donated $2.1 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.5 million in 2010.

* The United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) donated $2.1 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.9 million in 2010.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/19/unions-fuel-democratic-party-financially/#ixzz1EicdM2Sw
"

Now let's say you are a conservative teacher. You can be forced to pay up to 85% of the union dues even if you do not want to join the union. This money you are extorted out of is by and large going to help elect Democrats.

Lets look at it even closer: Private sector workers + wages pay the wages + benefits of every single public employee. A good chunk of those wages paid from the pockets of the American citizenry will inevitably be put into the Union campaign PACs and such, inevitably going towards electing Democrats, even though half of the people this money is coming from support the other side. And these people have the audacity to compare themselves to the oppressed EGYPTIANS? SERIOUSLY?

Doesn't make a lick of sense if you ask me.
And now you've gotten to the point, destroy the last of the institutions that don't support the GOP. Unions are the last hold outs of big campaign contributions that don't give almost exclusively to the GOP. The rest of the biggest donators are big business that give to the GOP.

Get rid of unions and you essentially have nothing but big business giving big money to the GOP.

This is all political engineering that has been going on for decades, and now a whole new wave has been propelled by the Citizens United ruling.

Thomas Veil
Feb 22, 2011, 01:53 PM
EDIT: A more accurate title to this thread would be: "Wisonsin Taxpayers Stand Up to Democratic Unions by democratically electing Scott Walker. Wisconsin Democrat Lawmakers Stomping on Citizens Will by Thwarting Democracy hailed as Heroes after Republicans practicing similar (But constitutionally protected) techniques decried as "obstructionist"" Or maybe just, "Wisconsin voters didn't realize they'd elected a wacko governor".

As to your other point, you do manage to show that the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer working class people. If they did, labor would be donating money to them.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 01:58 PM
And now you've gotten to the point, destroy the last of the institutions that don't support the GOP. Unions are the last hold outs of big campaign contributions that don't give almost exclusively to the GOP. The rest of the biggest donators are big business that give to the GOP.

Get rid of unions and you essentially have nothing but big business giving big money to the GOP.

This is all political engineering that has been going on for decades, and now a whole new wave has been propelled by the Citizens United ruling.

Sure, you can call it "political engineering", but I could more accurately call it "fixing something that never should have happened in the first place".

You never refuted a single point I made. Not even close.

Let's see what a well respected former president has to say on the matter: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

That must have been Reagan. That evil union hater. Or maybe Evil ol' GWB. Or soulless NIXON!

OH WAIT. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Are you telling me that FDR supported denying citizens of their "rights"? Are you telling me that FDR was akin to Mubarack?

S, again: How on earth is it right/fair/logical for the private citizen's tax money to go towards paying the union dues of Public Sector unions, which exclusively go towards Democratic campaigns constantly trying to secure more and more benefits to be paid TO the public servant, FROM the taxpayer?

Sounds to me like this is the tax payer unwillingly campaigning against their own rights.

Or maybe just, "Wisconsin voters didn't realize they'd elected a wacko governor".

As to your other point, you do manage to show that the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer working class people. If they did, labor would be donating money to them.

This tells me one thing: Not everyone votes based on who has the most to "offer" (read: GIMME).

Me, for example: I am in the lowest tax bracket imaginable, yet I will still vote conservative simply because no one owes me a darn thing. Do you really think that Americans have sunk as low as to vote simply for who gives them the most stuff? Looks like you just unintentionally have proven the motivating factor behind the democratic voter base.

Peterkro
Feb 22, 2011, 02:01 PM
It was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Are you telling me that FDR supported denying citizens of their "rights"? Are you telling me that FDR was akin to Mubarack?



Yes.

fivepoint
Feb 22, 2011, 02:01 PM
As to your other point, you do manage to show that the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer working class people. If they did, labor would be donating money to them.

Good point. I had completely forgotten that 'working class' people were all (or even mostly) unionized. Good thing you reminded me!


In the case of public unions because unlike when they bargain with a private entity who has their own personal interests to protect, they're bargaining with a public official who's simply doling out public funds. It doesn't matter them nearly as much if they're forced to give substantial concessions because it isn't coming out of their paycheck, and they're 'too big to fail.' It's the government for crying out loud... they can afford it!

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters." -Franklin D. Roosevelt

Oh snap! Man, he had such a more beautiful way of stating it than I did.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 02:04 PM
Yes.

Really? THIS FDR? "Roosevelt called for a tax program called the Wealth Tax Act to redistribute wealth, in which he proposed to increase inheritance tax, a gift tax, a severely graduated income tax, and a corporate income tax scaled according to income. However, Congress watered it down, by dropping the inheritance tax and only mildly increased the corporate tax"

Sounds like a terrible, right wing authoritarian corporate shill dictator to me.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

EDIT: Someone should really tell my boss that it is my "right" to organize, set my own wage, have a guaranteed pension, have medical benefits, etc.

Surprised I am even alive with these terrible, terrible working conditions and compensations!

Peterkro
Feb 22, 2011, 02:08 PM
Really? THIS FDR? "Roosevelt called for a tax program called the Wealth Tax Act to redistribute wealth, in which he proposed to increase inheritance tax, a gift tax, a severely graduated income tax, and a corporate income tax scaled according to income. However, Congress watered it down, by dropping the inheritance tax and only mildly increased the corporate tax"

Sounds like a terrible, right wing authoritarian corporate shill dictator to me.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

That's because you can't distinguish between a right wing ideologue giving ground in the face of reality and a actual left wing criticism of capitalism.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 02:13 PM
Seeing as to how nobody can answer this question, I'll post it again.

How on earth is it right/fair/logical for the private citizen's tax money to go towards paying the union dues of Public Sector unions, which by and large exclusively go towards Democratic campaigns constantly trying to secure more and more benefits to be paid TO the public servant, FROM the taxpayer (Who is unwillingly financing this campaign against himself)

I don't want to hear any "blah blah blah without unions there is nobody left for the average guy!" That is a talking point/culture war que that is irrelevant to the question.

Liquorpuki
Feb 22, 2011, 02:13 PM
In my experience, unions are largely a way for unqualified, incapable, and otherwise poor performing workers to tie their productivity to that of more capable workers thus avoiding being held accountable for their own actions and work ethic. It's mob-mentality at the most fundamental level. Truly skilled, professional, capable workers don't want their productivity tied to less capable workers through a union because it means they will no longer be as easily recognized for above-average work. It means that they can no longer privately bargain for improved pay/benefits/conditions, but rather that they're fate is now tied directly to the worst workers around them.

In the case of public unions because unlike when they bargain with a private entity who has their own personal interests to protect, they're bargaining with a public official who's simply doling out public funds. It doesn't matter them nearly as much if they're forced to give substantial concessions because it isn't coming out of their paycheck, and they're 'too big to fail.' It's the government for crying out loud... they can afford it!

From my experience, private industry sans unions is more prone to abuse with their at-will employment model. This abuse is most applicable to the manufacturing sector and blue collar work, which is why most unions are blue collar. Also public unions aren't just bargaining with a neutral public official. They're bargaining with a public official who's only in office for 4 years until he can jump to higher office and as a result, usually doesn't have their best interests at stake. As for the notion civil servants shouldn't get paid anything because they're civil servants, I disagree - you pay them what they're worth. IE Public lawyers already make less than their private counterparts. You remove all the benefits and perks and stability that's keeping them there and they will jump to private and your city/state will get all the leftover crap attorneys who will screw up and end up producing unnecessary fines and settlements that will get paid out of a tax hike.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 02:17 PM
As for the notion civil servants shouldn't get paid anything because they're civil servants, I disagree - you pay them what they're worth. IE Public lawyers already make less than their private counterparts.

This just in: Ultra conservative vitriol rag mag makes outrageous claims that "Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupation"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm#chart

Edit: Ya got me with your lawyer example: Federal lawmen make $123,660 on average compared to the $126,763 a private lawman makes on average. THOSE NASTY PROFITEERS!!!

Anyways, aren't greedy people evil and republican? Wouldn't we want the $3,000 LESS greedy/evil individual working on our behalf?

EDIT 2: Looks like if I was employed by you guys rather than my private employer in my line of work I would be making $24,000 MORE a year. And I would have benefits. Yet I vote conservative. [world implodes]

fivepoint
Feb 22, 2011, 02:20 PM
Also, in what kind of company can anyone not higher up the corporate ladder privately bargain for their conditions? Where the hell have you worked?

My wife is a teacher. Can teachers in YOUR area privately bargain for better pay/benefits? Because here in Iowa, teachers only get paid based on longevity and what the unions can get them. Truly successful, talented, results-based teachers get paid exactly the same as a crappy teacher who started working in that district at the same time.

So, I guess the question is... where the hell have YOU worked?

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 02:22 PM
My wife is a teacher. Can teachers in YOUR area privately bargain for better pay/benefits? Because here in Iowa, teachers only get paid based on longevity and what the unions can get them. Truly successful, talented, results-based teachers get paid exactly the same as a crappy teacher who started working in that district at the same time.

So, I guess the question is... where the hell have YOU worked?
You just contradicted yourself.

Your teachers start off making the same amount of money as one that has been there 20 years? :confused:

Also, you didn't provide anything for your claim that without unions teachers would somehow be able to privately negotiate their contracts and benefits on an individual basis.

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 02:27 PM
Seeing as to how nobody can answer this question, I'll post it again.

How on earth is it right/fair/logical for the private citizen's tax money to go towards paying the union dues of Public Sector unions, which by and large exclusively go towards Democratic campaigns constantly trying to secure more and more benefits to be paid TO the public servant, FROM the taxpayer (Who is unwillingly financing this campaign against himself)

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that because taxes pay the public servants salary, that their union dues are paid by the tax payer? Or are you saying that the money is directly funneled into union dues before the public servant is paid? :confused:

fivepoint
Feb 22, 2011, 02:27 PM
You just contradicted yourself.

Your teachers start off making the same amount of money as one that has been there 20 years? :confused:

Also, you didn't provide anything for your claim that without unions teachers would somehow be able to privately negotiate their contracts and benefits on an individual basis.

What in the hell are you talking about? I didn't contradict myself in the least. I stated in both cases that teachers are paid based on longevity and that good teachers and bad teachers with the same longevity get paid the same since they're relying on union 'race to the bottom' bargaining instead of their own personal merit-based bargaining like the real world (private enterprise) uses. The really sad part is that it's the students who lose out in the end. Bad teachers stay around for the guaranteed pay while the good teachers either move on to greener pastures or inevitably lose their motivation and passion for teaching. Why wouldn't they? No recognition, no opportunity for advancement based on merit. Who can blame them. This is what the unions have don to the teaching profession.

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 02:33 PM
What in the hell are you talking about? I didn't contradict myself in the least. I stated in both cases that teachers are paid based on longevity and that good teachers and bad teachers with the same longevity get paid the same since they're relying on union 'race to the bottom' bargaining instead of their own personal merit-based bargaining like the real world (private enterprise) uses. The really sad part is that it's the students who lose out in the end. Bad teachers stay around for the guaranteed pay while the good teachers either move on to greener pastures or inevitably lose their motivation and passion for teaching. Why wouldn't they? No recognition, no opportunity for advancement based on merit. Who can blame them. This is what the unions have don to the teaching profession.

Um, first off, you aren't even using "race to the bottom" in the correct context at all, it simply doesn't apply in this part of the conversation.

Second, what advancement does a teacher get? Who wants a teacher that isn't there to teach, but to get a promotion to whatever is above a teacher? Teachers lose their passion for teaching now if they don't get praised via awards and promotions? That doesn't sound like any good teacher I've ever had. :confused:

Also, how is private enterprise "real world" while public employees aren't? They both exist in the real world.

But again, every private place I've had contact with doesn't allow you to negotiate your pay, you're told what you will get as a raise (if any) that year and you have to select a certain health plan from limited options. How is that negotiating? The only people I can think of that have true negotiating powers are the higher ups in companies...

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 02:34 PM
I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that because taxes pay the public servants salary, that their union dues are paid by the tax payer? Or are you saying that the money is directly funneled into union dues before the public servant is paid? :confused:

I am talking about "closed shop" states requiring union membership for certain public employees.

-You get the job and you automatically have to pay union dues.
-Tax payer pays your salary.
-Union dues taken from said salary
-Said union dues go towards electing democrat politicians promising the unions even more at the cost of the people financing the union dues.

Is this really that hard to understand?

mcrain
Feb 22, 2011, 02:36 PM
About a week before this debacle, there was a proposal to cut legislator salaries by about 20%. The Wisconsin Republican Senators uniformly voted against such a proposal, and Governor Walker indicated he would veto any bill that had the 20% pay cut attached to it. This one act alone would have saved more revenue than this anti-union bill.

Priorities are all fouled up.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 02:37 PM
About a week before this debacle, there was a proposal to cut legislator salaries by about 20%. The Wisconsin Republican Senators uniformly voted against such a proposal, and Governor Walker indicated he would veto any bill that had the 20% pay cut attached to it. This one act alone would have saved more revenue than this anti-union bill.

Priorities are all fouled up.

And shame on them for voting it down. Disgusting. Does not change the facts though.

PS Link?

mcrain
Feb 22, 2011, 02:41 PM
And shame on them for voting it down. Disgusting. Does not change the facts though.

PS Link?

It was on Rush Limbaugh, but he and his caller spun it as a positive. I'll have to look it up.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 02:42 PM
It was on Rush Limbaugh, but he and his caller spun it as a positive. I'll have to look it up.

LOL@ picturing you listening to rush limbaugh

fivepoint
Feb 22, 2011, 02:47 PM
Um, first off, you aren't even using "race to the bottom" in the correct context at all, it simply doesn't apply in this part of the conversation.

Second, what advancement does a teacher get? Who wants a teacher that isn't there to teach, but to get a promotion to whatever is above a teacher? Teachers lose their passion for teaching now if they don't get praised via awards and promotions? That doesn't sound like any good teacher I've ever had. :confused:

Also, how is private enterprise "real world" while public employees aren't? They both exist in the real world.

But again, every private place I've had contact with doesn't allow you to negotiate your pay, you're told what you will get as a raise (if any) that year and you have to select a certain health plan from limited options. How is that negotiating? The only people I can think of that have true negotiating powers are the higher ups in companies...

You don't like that usage of 'race to the bottom?' ;)

Do you think that 'advancement' only means position change? How about salary change? Benefits change? Responsibility change? Leadership opportunities. You're right... it DOESN'T sounds like any teacher you've ever had. And that's sad.

Private enterprise is real world because that's how the real world works. You get compensated based on how you do your job, not based on how well your friends bargain. In the real world sacrifices are made, compensations change based on performance and based on supply/demand.

Every private entity allows for pay negotiation. If you're not allowed to make your case, you're clearly losing the negotiation. For one reason or another, they've got the upper hand. Either because there are a ton of people waiting to fill your shoes if you leave (common in low-skill trades), if they're already paying you relatively highly already and any more would result in your position being no longer viable, etc. any number of reasons. Positions/people that are in heavy demand have the equation reversed. If they're in heavy demand, they begin to lead the negotiations and they tell their employers that they'll be leaving unless X happens, and compensation is raised Y. This is how supply/demand in the real world works.



About a week before this debacle, there was a proposal to cut legislator salaries by about 20%. The Wisconsin Republican Senators uniformly voted against such a proposal, and Governor Walker indicated he would veto any bill that had the 20% pay cut attached to it. This one act alone would have saved more revenue than this anti-union bill.

Such a vote would have been purely symbolic as those numbers don't amount to anything substantial. (where did you get the idea this would amount to more than this 'anti-union' bill?) But I agree, they should have definitely cut their own income first as a symbolic example for future cuts.

Arran
Feb 22, 2011, 02:54 PM
...Bad teachers stay around for the guaranteed pay while the good teachers either move on to greener pastures or inevitably lose their motivation and passion for teaching. Why wouldn't they? No recognition, no opportunity for advancement based on merit. Who can blame them. This is what the unions have don to the teaching profession.

I agree with the outcome you've described (I've seen it myself) but not, necessarily, your suggested cause.

Why do the good teachers stay in the crappy environment? Surely the onus is on them to hop into a better job in a private school? It's a free market after all. Why don't they?

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 03:03 PM
I am talking about "closed shop" states requiring union membership for certain public employees.

-You get the job and you automatically have to pay union dues.
-Tax payer pays your salary.
-Union dues taken from said salary
-Said union dues go towards electing democrat politicians promising the unions even more at the cost of the people financing the union dues.

Is this really that hard to understand?
Can we use the same process to rally against Big Business using government subsidies to donate to political campaigns? After all, we give things like oil companies Billions of dollars a year, which then in turn they use part of to contribute millions to political funds.

Is that ok with you?

fivepoint
Feb 22, 2011, 03:04 PM
I agree with the outcome you've described (I've seen it myself) but not, necessarily, your suggested cause.

Why do the good teachers stay in the crappy environment? Surely the onus is on them to hop into a better job in a private school? It's a free market after all. Why don't they?

I agree the onus is on them. They do move on. The private schools are completely full of teachers who've done exactly that. Other teachers have moved on to other positions within the school, they've also left the field entirely, and still more have simply given up on being 'beyond ordinary' and are just going through the motions.

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 03:06 PM
You don't like that usage of 'race to the bottom?' ;)


I don't like it because you aren't using it correctly. "Race to the bottom" is a phenomena in international relations between states and multinational corporations and other NGO's. It simply doesn't apply (or even make sense) the way you used it.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 03:17 PM
Can we use the same process to rally against Big Business using government subsidies to donate to political campaigns? After all, we give things like oil companies Billions of dollars a year, which then in turn they use part of to contribute millions to political funds.

Is that ok with you?


Subsidies for none. Not oil, not light rail, not unions, not anyone.

Of course that's ok with me, and I hardly appreciate your attempt to frame me as a hypocrite.

EDIT: While we are on that note, I will just leave these here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-rake-record-donations-corporations/story?id=9777742

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 03:23 PM
Subsidies for none. Not oil, not light rail, not unions, not anyone.

Of course that's ok with me, and I hardly appreciate your attempt to frame me as a hypocrite.

I didn't try to frame you as a hypocrite, I just don't think that you really thought through your entire post.

I don't, however, understand why thats ok with you in the case of companies getting to donate with taxpayer money (or give bonuses for that matter) but its no ok suddenly when unions are involved. Can you elaborate why one is acceptable to you and not the other? :confused::confused::confused:

mcrain
Feb 22, 2011, 03:23 PM
You know, the unions bargained for the salary and benefits their members received. There are federal rules for how you negotiate labor contracts, and this law is nothing more than an underhanded way to break the law. I don't understand why the Republicans in Wisconsin are so afraid to sit down and negotiate with the unions. They are supposed to be all for free markets deciding, yet they can't negotiate a contract?

I'm not a big fan of unions, but shareholders have a right to pool their resources together to try to earn money, and they are represented by the corporation and its board. Employees are also authorized to band together and collectively bargain.

Personally, I say abolish corporations and unions, and let everyone fend for themselves. Wouldn't that be the tea party wet dream?

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 03:31 PM
I didn't try to frame you as a hypocrite, I just don't think that you really thought through your entire post.

I don't, however, understand why thats ok with you in the case of companies getting to donate with taxpayer money (or give bonuses for that matter) but its no ok suddenly when unions are involved. Can you elaborate why one is acceptable to you and not the other? :confused::confused::confused:

What are you talking about? Did you miss the part where I said I don't want any subsidies or anybody, hence, no tax payer money funding campaigns against their will?

Why do you need to resort to once again assuming (you know what they say about that...) my viewpoints?

Let me try to be as CLEAR as possible. It is wrong for a corporation to use "bailout" or "subsidy" funds to campaign. It is JUST as wrong for a union union to do the same.


However- We DO need to maintain the difference between a public and a private union.

• If the UAW union is donating crap tons of money to liberals, I can decide to buy a BMW or something to avoid financing the "other side". -My money does not go towards causes I do not support.

• If AFSCME union donates (Which it does) exclusively to liberals, I do NOT have the option of refusing to finance them. If I attempt to do so, I will be a criminal.

Hello, extortion?

I don't understand why the Republicans in Wisconsin are so afraid to sit down and negotiate with the unions. They are supposed to be all for free markets deciding, yet they can't negotiate a contract?

Mcrain, you are smarter than that. A public sector union is the ANTITHESIS of the free market.

Liquorpuki
Feb 22, 2011, 03:32 PM
This just in: Ultra conservative vitriol rag mag makes outrageous claims that "Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupation"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm#chart

Edit: Ya got me with your lawyer example: Federal lawmen make $123,660 on average compared to the $126,763 a private lawman makes on average. THOSE NASTY PROFITEERS!!!

Anyways, aren't greedy people evil and republican? Wouldn't we want the $3,000 LESS greedy/evil individual working on our behalf?

EDIT 2: Looks like if I was employed by you guys rather than my private employer in my line of work I would be making $24,000 MORE a year. And I would have benefits. Yet I vote conservative. [world implodes]

No clue why you're trying really hard to inject some partisan BS into this.

I will point out that civil servants include state and local workers in addition to Feds. So try your math again.

Arran
Feb 22, 2011, 03:34 PM
I agree the onus is on them. They do move on. The private schools are completely full of teachers who've done exactly that. Other teachers have moved on to other positions within the school, they've also left the field entirely, and still more have simply given up on being 'beyond ordinary' and are just going through the motions.

But simply moving to another position within the school keeps the good teachers under the union's thumb (which, supposedly, is a bad thing). Why not quit and go private? If the good teachers consistently did that, then eventually education would move to the private sector and the underachieving public system would collapse.

But that doesn't happen. I know great teachers who chose to remain in the public system, alongside the "also-rans". Why?

freeny
Feb 22, 2011, 03:34 PM
So the GOP wants to strip all collective bargaining rights of the people? Then it will be just corporations vs. Citizens... Corporations by nature don't like competition, it hurts the bottom line. Soon it will just be corporation vs corporation until one giant corporation squashes everyone else and takes over the world... Why do I feel like this will all end like Wall-e?

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 03:35 PM
No clue why you're trying really hard to inject some partisan BS into this.

I will point out that civil servants include state and local workers in addition to Feds. So try your math again.

I do that because it IS a partisan issue... Is it not?

Did you miss the part where I specifically stated "Federal" and not "public sector" with those figures? Where do I need to do "my math" again?

So the GOP wants to strip all collective bargaining rights of the people? Then it will be just corporations vs. Citizens... Corporations by nature don't like competition, it hurts the bottom line. Soon it will just be corporation vs corporation until one giant corporation squashes everyone else and takes over the world... Why do I feel like this will all end like Wall-e?

Selective reading. Did you miss the part where this was about PUBLIC UNIONS? NOT unions within a corporation? Care to show me a source for the "gop wanting to strip ALL collective bargaining rights of the people? Your statement is over the top and incorrect in sooo many ways. Walker is simply taking pension and medical off the collective bargaining table, which still leaves them with a heckuva much better deal than the private employees funding their collective bargaining "right."

Have fun fantasizing about the end of the world with your ludicrous defeatism.

mcrain
Feb 22, 2011, 03:36 PM
Mcrain, you are smarter than that. A public sector union is the ANTITHESIS of the free market.

Yeah, and working for, and negotiating with the State is very different than working for or negotiating with an employer in the free market.

The fact that we both understand that means we probably both agree that this is a far more complex issue than Wisconsin being in a budgetary hole of their own choosing.

(edit) One other small thing... Corporations have shareholders who supposedly can decide how the corporation is run and who runs it. I have yet to have my dividend increased because a company I invest in chose to support the Republicans. It's majority rule in that setting too. In AFSME, if the majority of its members choose to support Republicans, it will. They don't, and there are a bunch of conservatives in the organization.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 03:44 PM
Yeah, and working for, and negotiating with the State is very different than working for or negotiating with an employer in the free market.

The fact that we both understand that means we probably both agree that this is a far more complex issue than Wisconsin being in a budgetary hole of their own choosing.

(edit) One other small thing... Corporations have shareholders who supposedly can decide how the corporation is run and who runs it. I have yet to have my dividend increased because a company I invest in chose to support the Republicans. It's majority rule in that setting too. In AFSME, if the majority of its members choose to support Republicans, it will. They don't, and there are a bunch of conservatives in the organization.

Right you are, on all counts. It does not change a thing though. Just more reasons to get taxpayer money out of more things, including union dues and corporate subsidies.

Liquorpuki
Feb 22, 2011, 03:58 PM
I do that because it IS a partisan issue... Is it not?

Did you miss the part where I specifically stated "Federal" and not "public sector" with those figures? Where do I need to do "my math" again?

Since a union includes members of both parties that benefit from union membership,it's only indirectly partisan. As far as limiting what unions do with their dues that come from tax dollars, that can be addressed with legislation that limits or eliminates contributions. I don't see why collective bargaining has to be dismantled just because you hate liberals and don't want to see union contributions going to liberals.

Also Federal employees do not tokenize civil servants as a whole. So when you use a Federal workers vs Private Sector example to make a point and extend it to State/Municipal workers, you're using statistics fallaciously.

JoeG4
Feb 22, 2011, 03:58 PM
That the entire situation in WI was caused by tax cuts to businesses is appalling. Why are we even having this argument?

There are people that work for state governments that aren't paid that much. In California we have a union with a lot of people that get paid $20-35,000 a year (medical on top of that), no vacation leave, no sick pay, no retirement. Jerry Brown's short list includes nuking that program because he'd rather see the disabled people in it in much more costlier institutions.

Admittedly, if it wasn't for that particular example I'd totally agree about nuking government programs where the average employee makes a boatload and has full benefits! You should see what we pay our toll collectors! :O

I don't understand why the state has no problem paying toll collectors $70k a year including benefits but has a hell of a problem paying caregivers $35k a year. >< I'd question if the toll collectors even actually generate money for the state after their ridiculous costs!

mcrain
Feb 22, 2011, 04:04 PM
Is it just me, or does this sound like a lot of jealousy going around.

Oh, that guy gets paid way too much for such an easy job. No, that teacher has months off, and doesn't have to work very hard to get a raise. Oh wait, that toll collector negotiated a sweetheart deal.

I find the level of jealousy ironic considering the main argument against tax increases is that the poor/middle class are jealous and want to take from the rich.

Just my $.02

(edit) For every benefit or wage or whatever that a union received as part of a negotiation, there is a company, state or local government that negotiated for something in return. I can tell you from experience that in labor negotiations neither side gives up anything for free, and the negotiations are high level give and take with lots of very experienced representation on both sides. No one, including the taxpayers, were unrepresented, and even in negotiations with "liberal" governments, the type of opposing interests eliminate any "free give aways." If they exist, I'd be very surprised if they weren't incredibly rare.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 04:28 PM
As far as limiting what unions do with their dues that come from tax dollars, that can be addressed with legislation that limits or eliminates contributions. I don't see why collective bargaining has to be dismantled just because you hate liberals and don't want to see union contributions going to liberals.

Also Federal employees do not tokenize civil servants as a whole. So when you use a Federal workers vs Private Sector example to make a point and extend it to State/Municipal workers, you're using statistics fallaciously.

1. I certainly do not hate liberals.

2. I imagine a great deal of people (including myself) would be tickled pink if public unions dues were prohibited from going to political causes.

3. Ok, lets look at wisconsin state government employees specifically if you really want to play that game.

240,000 full time people working for wisonsin, making a net of $998,312,248 a month. That equates to the average full time wisconsin public employee making $49,000 a year. As far as I can tell this figure does not include benefits, which are ridiculously cushier than any private worker could dream of.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Wisconsin_state_government_salary (Thanks FOIA!!!)

Despite half an hours of searching google I can not find a good chart or article on average private sector employee income, so I am going with wikipedias GDP per capita for Wisconsin. Comes in at $36,822. No idea if this includes benefits, but I am assuming it does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita

I know that these are not perfect comparisons, but it should give you an idea.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a lot of jealousy going around.


So let me get this straight: 'Sconies tax dollar are being used to fund salaries and benefits of public employees that are substantially higher than their own, in addition to semi-directly funding campaigns of a political party you do not agree with, and they simply want to tone it back. And you consider it "Jealousy?"

Lets say the government was taking your money and using it to pay for salaries and benefits for another group of people making more than you, as well as going towards the NRA, Focus on the Family, and Republican organization 'XYZ". You vote in a guy to stop this. You are just jealous!

JoeG4
Feb 22, 2011, 04:35 PM
What's the cost of living in the state of Wisconsin though?

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 04:37 PM
What's the cost of living in the state of Wisconsin though?

Why does it matter? The cost of living is the same for a public employee as it is for a private employee.

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 04:49 PM
EDIT: While we are on that note, I will just leave these here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-rake-record-donations-corporations/story?id=9777742

So you've stumbled onto the realization that both parties are part of the same thing? Finally.

blackfox
Feb 22, 2011, 04:52 PM
As someone who went to highschool and some college in Madison - I have been keeping an eye on things there and certainly have had friends forward interesting information on to me.

Some things I've learned or found interesting:

1. The city of Madison released a note on behalf of law enforcement praising the protesters for their decorum and professionalism. There have been no arrests. Whatever your stance on this issue, this is a win for democracy.

2. That this issue is really about collective bargaining. That is why people are protesting. No one takes issue with paying more of their insurance or pension - it is all about collective bargaining. This is why the police and firefighters unions, who are exempted from governor walkers bill, are joining in the protests, as are several private unions.

3. I was forwarded a youtube video that described one wisconsinites' solution to the budget shortfall of 137 million. It was that every adult in wisconsin pay $32. He derived this figure by dividing $137 million by approximately 4.4million adults in wisconsin (a number he got from the 2009 census). He said that was a lot simpler that an 140 page document with sweeping changes in it from Gov. Walkers desk - and he has a point

4. For those who might think teachers are overpaid - consider this:
Say we pay teachers what we pay babysitters - say $3/hr. That is from 7:45 till 3pm, with 45minutes off for lunch - that's 6.5 hrs and $19.50. So each parent should pay 19.50 for a teacher to babysit their child.

Now how many children do teachers have in a class? Around 30? So $19.50x30= $585 a day. Still, they only work 180 days a year...$585 x 180 = $105,300.

Howabout those special education teachers or those with advanced degrees? We could pay them regular minimum wage, or slightly higher - let's say $8/hr. so $8/hr x 6.5 hrs x 30 children x 180 days = $280, 800.

So what is the average teacher's salary? About $50,000. So $50,000 divided by 180 is $277.77 a day, divided by 30 students is $9.25, divided by 6.5 hrs = $1.42 an hr - a rather inexpensive babysitter that happens to educate your kids for free.

Just some interesting perspectives I've run across....

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 04:52 PM
What are you talking about? Did you miss the part where I said I don't want any subsidies or anybody, hence, no tax payer money funding campaigns against their will?

Why do you need to resort to once again assuming (you know what they say about that...) my viewpoints?

Did you or did you not write, "Of course that's ok with me"?

Was that a typo? I'm confused. It didn't hold with the rest of your post.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 04:52 PM
So you've stumbled onto the realization that both parties are part of the same thing? Finally.

Again, with the ass-umptions.

Feel free to read my back posts and "finally" figure out that I am a supporter of neither party, but rather the Libertarian party.

NT1440
Feb 22, 2011, 04:54 PM
Again, with the ass-umptions.

Feel free to read my back posts and "finally" figure out that I am a supporter of neither party, but rather the Libertarian party.

What were the added links for? Did you think for some reason that I support either party? They both suck and are essentially the same except for wedge issues.

I wasn't assuming anything about you with my post, just that you pointed out the Dems do the same things as the GOP.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 22, 2011, 04:57 PM
1. I certainly do not hate liberals.

2. I imagine a great deal of people (including myself) would be tickled pink if public unions dues were prohibited from going to political causes.

3. Ok, lets look at wisconsin state government employees specifically if you really want to play that game.

240,000 full time people working for wisonsin, making a net of $998,312,248 a month. That equates to the average full time wisconsin public employee making $49,000 a year. As far as I can tell this figure does not include benefits, which are ridiculously cushier than any private worker could dream of.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Wisconsin_state_government_salary (Thanks FOIA!!!)

Despite half an hours of searching google I can not find a good chart or article on average private sector employee income, so I am going with wikipedias GDP per capita for Wisconsin. Comes in at $36,822. No idea if this includes benefits, but I am assuming it does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita

I know that these are not perfect comparisons, but it should give you an idea.


problem you run into with that argument is the private sector include a lot of workers that is GED level or lower and do not require degree. Government jobs generally require the person to have a degree and as such it going to push their pay up. The government sector lacks all those very low paying jobs that really throw off the averages.

As for their benefits package here is some insider info for you. The only thing they currently really beat the private sector any more in just retirement pensions. Other wise not really. Benefits are about the same if not worse.

Sorry to complete kill that argument with some very basic facts and logic.

MattSepeta
Feb 22, 2011, 05:02 PM
Did you or did you not write, "Of course that's ok with me"?

Was that a typo? I'm confused. It didn't hold with the rest of your post.
Ok, well you asked two questions in your post, and my "of course its ok with me" was in answer to your "rally against Big Business using government subsidies to donate to political campaigns?" questions. Understandable misundertanding ;)

What were the added links for? Did you think for some reason that I support either party? They both suck and are essentially the same except for wedge issues.

I wasn't assuming anything about you with my post, just that you pointed out the Dems do the same things as the GOP.

The added links were there to inform you that big business/big oil / big XYZ does not strictly give to the GOP. Just to further hammer home my point that I support ceasing corporate subsidies.

Both parties do suck, they simply exploit wedge issues.

Solution: States Rights. Let the backwoods hillbillies down south smoke in their bars and pay for their own health insurance. Let the enlightened academics up north dictate diets and rag on theism. Don't like it? Move or convince your neighbors to vote differently. Until we come to this realization, the divide is going to deepen and deepen until we see another war between the states, and there is NO reason it should come to that.

Thomas Veil
Feb 22, 2011, 06:23 PM
Good point. I had completely forgotten that 'working class' people were all (or even mostly) unionized. Good thing you reminded me!Illogical syllogism.

This tells me one thing: Not everyone votes based on who has the most to "offer" (read: GIMME).

Me, for example: I am in the lowest tax bracket imaginable, yet I will still vote conservative simply because no one owes me a darn thing. Do you really think that Americans have sunk as low as to vote simply for who gives them the most stuff? Looks like you just unintentionally have proven the motivating factor behind the democratic voter base.I'm at a loss how to respond to this. You're somehow rationalizing voting conservative, which is basically the equivalent of brandishing a big "Kick Me" sign on your back, as a matter of personal pride.

It's not a matter of who gives you the most "stuff". It's a matter of who treats you with any respect and fairness, who isn't constantly trying to see what they can take away from you this week.

I can't imagine the kind of personality that hasn't got enough spine to stand up for himself and ask for a livable wage and decent working conditions, but gives over his life to a philosophy designed to take more and more and give less and less in return. Hardly anything to be proud of.

LOL@ picturing you listening to rush limbaughKnow thy enemy.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a lot of jealousy going around.

Oh, that guy gets paid way too much for such an easy job. No, that teacher has months off, and doesn't have to work very hard to get a raise. Oh wait, that toll collector negotiated a sweetheart deal.

I find the level of jealousy ironic considering the main argument against tax increases is that the poor/middle class are jealous and want to take from the rich.

Just my $.02
Now we're hitting on the crux of the issue. I half-jokingly referred to this as penis envy elsewhere, but you are apparently thinking along similar lines.

There are tons of middle class Americans out there who are union-haters because they see somebody still making decent living wages while everyone else is constantly being pushed nearer and nearer to bankruptcy in Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Deregulated Business. So hell yes, it's jealousy.

Liquorpuki
Feb 22, 2011, 06:58 PM
Seeing as to how nobody can answer this question, I'll post it again.

How on earth is it right/fair/logical for the private citizen's tax money to go towards paying the union dues of Public Sector unions, which by and large exclusively go towards Democratic campaigns constantly trying to secure more and more benefits to be paid TO the public servant, FROM the taxpayer (Who is unwillingly financing this campaign against himself)

Unless the government agency is proprietary, there's no other logistical way a public union can be funded. Tax money will always go into a General Fund that is budgeted to pay out civil servants. X% of that civil servant's post-tax paycheck then goes to union dues. Whether or not that X% still qualifies as public money at that point is debatable. Personally I think once it's in a paycheck, that money belongs to the civil servant and union dues count as a personal expenditure. When a civil servant spends $100 out of his paycheck on wine and beer, it doesn't mean public money is being used to support alcoholism. Union dues come from the same paycheck.

2. I imagine a great deal of people (including myself) would be tickled pink if public unions dues were prohibited from going to political causes.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, especially after you asked the question above.

problem you run into with that argument is the private sector include a lot of workers that is GED level or lower and do not require degree. Government jobs generally require the person to have a degree and as such it going to push their pay up. The government sector lacks all those very low paying jobs that really throw off the averages.

As for their benefits package here is some insider info for you. The only thing they currently really beat the private sector any more in just retirement pensions. Other wise not really. Benefits are about the same if not worse.

Sorry to complete kill that argument with some very basic facts and logic.

Yeah, there are no fast food workers in government for example.

The best benefits for a public servant are good healthcare, the contract bound pension, and to a lesser degree, stability. From what I've seen, private benefits run the gamut between pitiful and relatively excessive. Private industry can have crappy benefits, especially if the company runs lean. Then you have companies that give out 401k's with employer matching, stock options / employee stock purchase plans, large bonuses for random crap, salaries that go through the roof once you hit management, and in the end there's still enough leftover stockholder money to buy out the local Dave and Busters once a year for the annual Christmas party. Most criticism of public servants comes from muckrakers so they make the comparison without maintaining context, focusing on private companies that offer very little to their employees.

fivepoint
Feb 22, 2011, 09:15 PM
It's not a matter of who gives you the most "stuff". It's a matter of who treats you with any respect and fairness, who isn't constantly trying to see what they can take away from you this week.

Exactly, and you seem to think that 'respect and fairness' is measured by the amount of money someone is willing to take from someone else and redistribute in your direction. How quaint. Do you honestly think you know how every lower-middle class person should vote? Is this similar to black Americans calling any black conservative an 'uncle tom' or any feminist absolutely hating powerful conservative women or gay liberals completely disowning gay conservatives? For such a 'open' and 'accepting' group, you sure seem to want to control people a lot... the way they think, the way they act, who they vote for.

Matt Septa was exactly right... many liberals/democrats think that all poor/lower/working/middle class people are liberals and all rich people are conservatives. This couldn't be further from the truth, thank God! Thankfully, most people still don't simply base their political leanings on which party is willing to give them the most handouts or freebies. They based it on which party or ideology they think will lead to a better America for them and for their children. Thankfully, some people still believe in personal responsibility, opportunity for growth and empowerment, and don't rely on the government taking care of them from cradle to grave.

However, as more and more people get on the government doles, it's becoming easier and easier for one party to control the masses. Vote for us, we're you're money train. Vote for us, we feel your pain... we'll make sure you have the handouts you need. More and more people are becoming zero (or low) accountability voters. Meaning they vote for people deciding on how to spend the money, but they personally never actually contribute any of the money. It's a lot easier to say 'keep the teachers' on full benefits!' 'They don't need to contribute!' 'Who cares about the deficit?' when it's not your money they're spending?

Thomas Veil
Feb 22, 2011, 09:36 PM
You've no room to talk about redistribution, none at all, because your arguments always seem to end up defending powerful people gaming the system to transfer all the money their way. Why do you think management is the only one that should have any bargaining power?

This isn't just about some monolithic government bogeyman, this is about people. People as individuals can't fight the powerful for better wages or working conditions, but as a group they can.

Nor do you have any right to talk about controlling. There is one party controlling almost everything -- the media, big business, a lot of government -- and it's obviously not the Democrats. I don't know how much more you guys could possibly want.

Talking about growth and empowerment while arguing against same. Sheesh.

Arran
Feb 23, 2011, 06:20 AM
Old news, but I've not seen this mentioned in this thread: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/

I do agree with them on this:
You really have to wonder how long it will take for Tea Party devotees to realize just how badly they are being used.

Interesting position for Forbes to take. Perhaps even they accept that pushing the winner-take-all ethos of capitalism too far, damages the game for everyone?

Or maybe they're just protecting their subscribers (or, rather, their continued subscriptions)? ;)

Huntn
Feb 23, 2011, 07:37 AM
This may have all ready been mentioned as I did not read every reply:

The problem with the Wisconsin Republican Governor and Legislature is that they will tell you with a straight face that this is just making unions pay a for a portion of their health and pension benefits. What they don't want to talk about is that their bill also guts the collective bargaining rights of these unions, in essence, kill the union.

My understanding is that the unions have all ready agreed to pay more while the State is struggling with it's budget, but they are not going to willingly give up their collective bargaining rights. If you don't have the ability to function as a group, you have ZERO power, there is no reason for the union to exist. With collective bargaining, the group has a little power and I support that.

fivepoint
Feb 23, 2011, 08:26 AM
You've no room to talk about redistribution, none at all, because your arguments always seem to end up defending powerful people gaming the system to transfer all the money their way. Why do you think management is the only one that should have any bargaining power?

This isn't just about some monolithic government bogeyman, this is about people. People as individuals can't fight the powerful for better wages or working conditions, but as a group they can.

Nor do you have any right to talk about controlling. There is one party controlling almost everything -- the media, big business, a lot of government -- and it's obviously not the Democrats. I don't know how much more you guys could possibly want.

Talking about growth and empowerment while arguing against same. Sheesh.

I've already explained my views on public unions. First of all, they're just an excuse for bad employees to tie their job/compensation to better employees. Second of all, they actually hurt the members of the union in the long run... or should I say the good members of the union because left up to their own devices in the free market they'd end up with much better and higher paying jobs. Third, unlike private sector unions, the person sitting across from them at the bargaining table doesn't really have skin in the game. They aren't trying to save their business, or promote future growth, they're just trying to make sure they spend ALL but not MORE than the budget they've been given. If they spend less, they get less next year. They're not advocating for tax payers, they're just putting in their 9 to 5, signing checks, making employees happy. This isn't true in all cases obviously, but it's true in far too many.

As for party control... the Democrats are clearly attempting to control the masses and the zero (or low) accountability voters by simply promising them more goods, more money, more redistribution as long as they vote for them. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for a redistributive paycheck, and people know it. As I believe one voter put it during the 2008 campaign... "Obama Money" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q).

A few weeks ago, there was a near-riot in Detroit as thousands of citizens lined up to get “Obama money.”

By city estimates, 65,000 poor and homeless people descended on Detroit’s Cabo Center after rumors circulated that the government would be dispersing $3,000 stimulus checks.

In actuality, the government was handing out applications to people seeking help to avoid foreclosure and homelessness. Just 3,500 of the tens of thousands of applicants will receive a cut of the stimulus funds earmarked for this purpose.

The fact that so many people would line up for a government handout is tragic enough, but the disconnect with reality that these people have is even more tragic. What makes it worse is that our politicians are even more clueless than these poor people.

If you have not listened to the street interviews conducted by WJR Talk Radio in Detroit, you should.

Ken Rogulski, WJR News reporter, asked one woman waiting in line why she was there.

“To get some money,” she said.

“What kind of money?” Rogulski asked.

“Obama money,” the woman replied.

When Rogulski asked where the money was coming from, the woman said it was from Obama. When he asked where Obama got the money, the woman replied, “I don't know. His stash. I don't know. I don't know where he got it from but he's giving it to us, to help us. We love him. That's why we voted for him. Obama! Obama!”

Well, folks... I can tell you where the money came from. And let me tell you, it ain't Obama's money.



Interesting position for Forbes to take. Perhaps even they accept that pushing the winner-take-all ethos of capitalism too far, damages the game for everyone?

Or maybe they're just protecting their subscribers (or, rather, their continued subscriptions)? ;)

It's not really a big secret that elite ruling neo-cons are just as scared of the Tea Party as the liberals are. We're here to create change from the status quo. The vote on the Patriot Act really woke them up. The tides are changing - big-government advocates everywhere are losing their mind!

Blue Velvet
Feb 23, 2011, 08:34 AM
Anyway, back to the story:

Wisconsin Governor takes call from David Koch

...except it's not David Koch he thinks he's talking to. It's the Buffalo Beast.

Transcript and audio clips here. (http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045)


Koch: You’re the first domino.

Walker: Yep. This is our moment.

Koch: Now what else could we do for you down there?

Walker: Well the biggest thing would be—and your guy on the ground [Americans For Prosperity president Tim Phillips] is probably seeing this [stuff about all the people protesting, and some of them flip him off].

[Abrupt end of first recording, and start of second.]

Walker: [******** about doing the right thing and getting flipped off by “union bulls,” and the decreasing number of protesters. Or some such.]

Koch: We’ll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.

Walker: You know, well, the only problem with that —because we thought about that. The problem—the, my only gut reaction to that is right now the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this…[explains that planting troublemakers may not work.] My only fear would be if there’s a ruckus caused is that maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems…[something about '60s liberals.]…Let ‘em protest all they want…Sooner or later the media stops finding it interesting.


Obviously a state fiscal issue.

mrkramer
Feb 23, 2011, 08:43 AM
I've already explained my views on public unions. First of all, they're just an excuse for bad employees to tie their job/compensation to better employees. Second of all, they actually hurt the members of the union in the long run... or should I say the good members of the union because left up to their own devices in the free market they'd end up with much better and higher paying jobs.

Do you have some proof from the real world to show that what you are saying really works? From what I've seen the pay doesn't get better for the good employees if they don't have collective bargaining rights. I'm currently in Eastern Europe where as far as I can tell there aren't any public employee unions, and we don't have the good employees getting paid more, what happens is the good employees go to other higher paying jobs, and the ones that are left are paid almost nothing and resort to corruption and bribes to survive. So how does the free market help them again?

Huntn
Feb 23, 2011, 08:55 AM
I've already explained my views on public unions. First of all, they're just an excuse for bad employees to tie their job/compensation to better employees.

I suppose you support private unions? Oh, you don't? ;) A completely conservative centric view. Unions in general (not distinguishing between public and private) exist for a reason. When businesses are left to their own devices they figure out a way to pay their workers as little as possible while raking in huge profits for a small number of owners and investors. The 'profit' is not be a factor with public unions but the purpose of the union is the same- for individual workers to have some say in their work conditions vs having no say.

I know your comeback will be, 'but they do have say, they can quit'! :p

fivepoint
Feb 23, 2011, 09:05 AM
Voters agree with Governor, not Union Thugs...

48% Back GOP Governor in Wisconsin Spat, 38% Side With Unions (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2011/48_back_gop_governor_in_wisconsin_spat_38_side_with_unions)

A sizable number of voters are following new Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s showdown with unionized public employees in his state, and nearly half side with the governor.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
In an effort to close the state’s sizable budget deficit, Walker is proposing to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees including teachers on everything but wage issues. He is excluding public safety workers such as policemen and firemen from his plan.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters think teachers, firemen and policemen should be allowed to go on strike, but 49% disagree and believe they should not have that right. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.
There’s strong partisan disagreement on both questions and a wide gap between the Political Class and Mainstream voters.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of all voters say that in their state the average public employee earns more than the average private sector worker. Twenty-one percent (21%) say the government employee earns less, while 20% think their pay is about the same. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.
With states across the country finding that benefits for public workers are becoming difficult to fund in the current economic climate, support for public employee unions has fallen. Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans favor them, and 45% don’t. These findings include 21% who Strongly Favor such unions and 30% who are Strongly Opposed to them.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 18-19, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Fifty percent (50%) of voters favor reducing their home state’s government payroll by one percent a year for 10 years either by reducing the number of state employees or by cutting the pay of state workers. Twenty-eight percent (28%) oppose a cut of this nature, while another 23% aren’t sure about it.
In a survey last month, voters were evenly divided over the idea of a 10% across-the-board pay cut for all state employees to help reduce overall spending.
Public employee unions have long been strong supporters, financially and otherwise, of Democratic Party candidates, so it’s no surprise that 68% of Democrats support the union workers in the Wisconsin dispute. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties side with the governor.
Most Democrats (54%) say teachers, firemen and policemen should be allowed to go on strike. The majority of GOP voters (62%) and unaffiliateds (58%) disagree.
While 61% of Republicans and 56% of unaffiliated voters like the idea of a one percent reduction in their state’s government payroll for the next 10 years, a plurality (41%) of Democrats are opposed.
The Political Class’ opposition is more emphatic. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Political Class voters oppose a payroll cut of this kind, while 56% of those in the Mainstream think it’s a good idea.
But then 56% of Mainstream voters agree more with the governor in the Wisconsin dispute, while 56% of the Political Class side with the union workers.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of all voters say they are following at least somewhat closely news reports about the Wisconsin governor’s effort to limit collective bargaining rights for most state employees, with 37% who are following Very Closely.
With new Republican majorities in both chambers of Wisconsin’s legislature, the governor’s plan is likely to pass, prompting thousands of protesting public workers and their allies to descend on the state capital. President Obama and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, have publicly sided with the protestors, while national Republicans have backed the governor.
A sizable majority of Americans say their states are now having major budget problems, and they think spending cuts, not higher taxes, are the solution.
Most voters continue to oppose federal bailouts for financially troubled states. Voters aren’t thrilled with the idea of letting states declare bankruptcy, but they're more supportive if told government employees might have their pensions reduced in the process.
Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Americans say politicians’ unwillingness to reduce government spending is to blame for the budget crises in many states.
When it comes to the nation’s historic-level federal budget deficit, 70% of all voters think voters are more willing to make the hard choices needed to reduce government spending than elected politicians are.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of all voters nationwide favor a proposal to cut the federal payroll by 10% over the coming decade.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans think workers in the private sector work harder than government workers.

yg17
Feb 23, 2011, 09:14 AM
Voters agree with unions, not republican thugs...


Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm)

MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.
Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Republican legislators in Wisconsin have proposed cutting union rights for most state government workers and making them pay more for benefits. Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Iowa and other states with Republican governors are considering similar laws.
Thousands gathered in Madison for an eighth day to protest Walker's plan. Rallies were also held in Columbus, Ohio, Des Moines and Montpelier, Vt.
"Most people ... mistakenly think worker rights come from collective bargaining," Walker told USA TODAY Tuesday. He said his plan would not remove union workers' protections from wrongful termination or inappropriate discipline or hiring. "When you alter collective bargaining, it doesn't alter workers' rights," he said.
Walker wants union members to pay more for their health care and pension benefits, moves he and other Republicans say would save $300 million over the next two years as the state faces a projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall.
Fourteen Democratic legislators have left the state for the past week to keep the Senate from having a quorum needed to vote on the bill. Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives also stayed away from their Capitol on Tuesday as unions protested Republican-backed labor bills.
Almost two-thirds of those polled say their states face budget crises, but respondents oppose or are split on potential solutions, from tax hikes to spending cuts.
Key results:
— 71% oppose increasing sales, income or other taxes while 27% are in favor that approach.
— 53% oppose reducing pay or benefits for government workers while 44% are in favor.
— 48% opposed reducing or eliminating government programs while 47% were in favor of cuts.
"This underlines the difficulty of solving these problems," Jeffrey Jones of Gallup says. "It's hard to find a consensus on what to do."
Despite the opposition to tax hikes or spending cuts, those surveyed agreed overwhelmingly that their state was facing a budget crisis.
Sixty-four percent said their state was in financial crisis while only 5% said it wasn't. The rest were unsure.
The poll found people were divided on whether public employee unions were a good thing. A slight majority of 46% said unions were generally more harmful to states while 45% thought they were helpful.
Still, this mixed view did not extend to supporting changes in pay, benefits or bargaining rights.
Republicans supported limiting bargaining by a 54%-41% margin. However, only 18% of Democrats favored restrictions while 79% were opposed. Independents were against bargaining restrictions by a 31% to 62% margain.
Jones says that public support for unions has been strong for decades, although it has dropped in the last few years. Still, he says the poll shows Americans are reluctant to take away something that unions have already.

Arran
Feb 23, 2011, 09:15 AM
I've already explained my views on public unions. First of all, they're just an excuse for bad employees to tie their job/compensation to better employees. Second of all, they actually hurt the members of the union in the long run... or should I say the good members of the union because left up to their own devices in the free market they'd end up with much better and higher paying jobs.

But I don't think you answered my earlier question (and apologies if you did and I missed it) on why a good teacher would simply not take it upon themselves to hop to a better job in a private school? Let the unions die through lack of member interest: No outside union-crushing required. Isn't that a more honest, free market solution?

We're here to create change from the status quo.

Change can go both ways. How do you propose to keep private interests in check once the referee (i.e., the democratically elected government) has been neutered? Aren't you just helping create a power vacuum? What's the long-range plan? Who's on next?

fivepoint
Feb 23, 2011, 09:45 AM
I suppose you support private unions? Oh, you don't? ;) A completely conservative centric view. Unions in general (not distinguishing between public and private) exist for a reason. When businesses are left to their own devices they figure out a way to pay their workers as little as possible while raking in huge profits for a small number of owners and investors. The 'profit' is not be a factor with public unions but the purpose of the union is the same- for individual workers to have some say in their work conditions vs having no say.

I know your comeback will be, 'but they do have say, they can quit'! :p

I support the right of private unions to exist. Not public (for the reasons I've repeated previously). However, if employees of a business I ran ever tried to unionize, I'd fire them all in a heartbeat if that's what it took to prevent it from happening. I'd move the business if necessary. As a business owner, it's absolutely essential to be able to hire, fire, change compensation, adapt to conditions on the ground, at will. It's fundamental to the survival and success of the company.

Your assumption that it's either unionized or the employees have no sway is ridiculous and factually incorrect.

HyperX13
Feb 23, 2011, 09:53 AM
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/02/wisconsin_teach.php

It turns out that collective bargaining is one of the ways that the Teacher's Union is stealing from the taxpayers of Wisconsin. A union-mandated high-cost health plan that is owned by the union is milking the taxpayers by charging premiums that far exceed market norms, and are doing so with impunity or apparent recourse.

From the report by the folks at the Education Act Group Foundation and MacIver Institute:

Here are a few simple, startling facts for anyone concerned about the financial condition of Wisconsin public schools.

WEA Trust, an insurance company established and closely associated with the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), siphons millions of crucial dollars from K-12 schools and their students every year.

WEA Trust has grown very fat on public school dollars, with a net worth of $316 million and a team of 12 administrators all receiving compensation packages worth six figures per year.

Sadly, this insurance swindle is endorsed by state law. We at Education Action Group believe it's time for the citizens of Wisconsin to demand that their school boards be allowed to freely shop for less expensive employee health insurance.

That's particularly important in the current economic environment, when schools have been forced to lay off teachers, curtail student programs, privatize services and, in some districts, seek permission from voters to exceed their local revenue caps.

The problem is state law, which makes the identity of a school district's employee health insurance carrier a topic of collective bargaining. That means school boards and local school employee unions must agree on the insurance company that will provide health coverage.

So most unions have traditionally come to the negotiating table demanding expensive WEA Trust insurance coverage, and the strategy has been effective. About 64 percent of Wisconsin's 426 districts carry WEA Trust insurance, despite its prohibitive costs.

Why do union employees demand WEA Trust coverage?

WEA Trust offers what is commonly known as the "Cadillac" of school employee health coverage. It earned that moniker for two very good reasons - the health coverage is very thorough, and the cost to local school districts is very high.

WEAC pressures its local union officials to stick with WEA Trust. One district administrator told us about a meeting where everyone present, including union employees, agreed that a non-WEA health plan would be better for the district. He said state WEAC representatives were present and argued in favor of WEA Trust, just because it's the union's insurance brand.

[...] Collective bargaining also adversely affects some districts that aren't covered by WEA Trust. The best recent example is the Milwaukee school district, where the deficit-plagued schoolboard tried to save $48 million and avoid hundreds of teacher layoffs last spring by switching from an expensive health plan to a lower-cost plan. The union said no, and the layoffs occurred.

Many observers agree that the best answer is to allow or force all public school employees into the state employee health insurance plan, which they say would be less expensive than WEA Trust, at least for most schools. Part of that strategy would be to take the identity of the insurance carrier off the collective bargaining table, so school boards would be free to join the state plan without union approval.

Other observers would simply set school boards free to seek whatever insurance coverage is best for their districts, whether it's part of the state plan or not.

Huntn
Feb 23, 2011, 10:12 AM
Your assumption that it's either unionized or the employees have no sway is ridiculous and factually incorrect.

Well at least you acknowledge the right of private unions to exist although you'd do your best to stamp them out. ;) The proof is abundant that rank and file employees have no real power in an organization other then when they act as a group. Even in non-union businesses.

Unions exist for a reason. I know the reason. I'd be curious to hear your view of why unions exist, if you feel like it.

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/02/wisconsin_teach.php
It turns out that collective bargaining is one of the ways that the Teacher's Union is stealing from the taxpayers of Wisconsin. A union-mandated high-cost health plan that is owned by the union is milking the taxpayers by charging premiums that far exceed market norms, and are doing so with impunity or apparent recourse.


Stealing? Whose term is this, a neutral union person who feels that unions have a place in the market place or those in charge who don't want unions elbowing in on their power? Unions have and do overreach. They are people just like business owners and partisan leaders of government who overreach. If your link is correct, then it should be fixed. But the concept of collective bargaining should not be dismantled in the process especially in the face of overtly hostile labor forces.

Liquorpuki
Feb 23, 2011, 10:46 AM
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/02/wisconsin_teach.php

It turns out that collective bargaining is one of the ways that the Teacher's Union is stealing from the taxpayers of Wisconsin. A union-mandated high-cost health plan that is owned by the union is milking the taxpayers by charging premiums that far exceed market norms, and are doing so with impunity or apparent recourse.

From the report by the folks at the Education Act Group Foundation and MacIver Institute:

Here are a few simple, startling facts for anyone concerned about the financial condition of Wisconsin public schools.

WEA Trust, an insurance company established and closely associated with the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), siphons millions of crucial dollars from K-12 schools and their students every year.

WEA Trust has grown very fat on public school dollars, with a net worth of $316 million and a team of 12 administrators all receiving compensation packages worth six figures per year.

Sadly, this insurance swindle is endorsed by state law. We at Education Action Group believe it's time for the citizens of Wisconsin to demand that their school boards be allowed to freely shop for less expensive employee health insurance.

That's particularly important in the current economic environment, when schools have been forced to lay off teachers, curtail student programs, privatize services and, in some districts, seek permission from voters to exceed their local revenue caps.

The problem is state law, which makes the identity of a school district's employee health insurance carrier a topic of collective bargaining. That means school boards and local school employee unions must agree on the insurance company that will provide health coverage.

So most unions have traditionally come to the negotiating table demanding expensive WEA Trust insurance coverage, and the strategy has been effective. About 64 percent of Wisconsin's 426 districts carry WEA Trust insurance, despite its prohibitive costs.

Why do union employees demand WEA Trust coverage?

WEA Trust offers what is commonly known as the "Cadillac" of school employee health coverage. It earned that moniker for two very good reasons - the health coverage is very thorough, and the cost to local school districts is very high.

WEAC pressures its local union officials to stick with WEA Trust. One district administrator told us about a meeting where everyone present, including union employees, agreed that a non-WEA health plan would be better for the district. He said state WEAC representatives were present and argued in favor of WEA Trust, just because it's the union's insurance brand.

[...] Collective bargaining also adversely affects some districts that aren't covered by WEA Trust. The best recent example is the Milwaukee school district, where the deficit-plagued schoolboard tried to save $48 million and avoid hundreds of teacher layoffs last spring by switching from an expensive health plan to a lower-cost plan. The union said no, and the layoffs occurred.

Many observers agree that the best answer is to allow or force all public school employees into the state employee health insurance plan, which they say would be less expensive than WEA Trust, at least for most schools. Part of that strategy would be to take the identity of the insurance carrier off the collective bargaining table, so school boards would be free to join the state plan without union approval.

Other observers would simply set school boards free to seek whatever insurance coverage is best for their districts, whether it's part of the state plan or not.

That's not an issue with collective bargaining. That's an issue with state law because if you feel teachers should not have premium healthcare, it's your politicians that have failed you, not the unions. The legislation they passed allowed it to happen.

For public workers, collective bargaining is just a mechanic that allows negotations between the politicians and the unions. The unions are free to make demands for better benefits and working conditions, higher pay, and with certain job classes, go on strike. The politicians control where General Fund money goes and are free to ignore them, appease them, or lay them off. Collective bargaining allows them to both go the table beforehand and hopefully find some middle ground. You remove collective bargaining and the unions no longer have any leverage. The only thing that would happen is that politicians would ignore them and do whatever the hell they want.

With your Milwaukee example, without collective bargaining, the politicians might not even explored the option of lowering healthcare to save a buck in the first place. They may have just gone straight to layoffs. And if they're career politicians, it's equally plausible they would have already trimmed salaries to fund pet projects that would land them in higher office. They're already doing this with essential services.

Rodimus Prime
Feb 23, 2011, 10:54 AM
I support the right of private unions to exist. Not public (for the reasons I've repeated previously). However, if employees of a business I ran ever tried to unionize, I'd fire them all in a heartbeat if that's what it took to prevent it from happening. I'd move the business if necessary. As a business owner, it's absolutely essential to be able to hire, fire, change compensation, adapt to conditions on the ground, at will. It's fundamental to the survival and success of the company.

Your assumption that it's either unionized or the employees have no sway is ridiculous and factually incorrect.

FYI if you did that you would be sued and lose in a heart beat in all 50 states. It is illegal to make that your reason.

Rt&Dzine
Feb 23, 2011, 11:00 AM
The Tea Party is showing their true colors with this one. They want government to dictate when it suits their needs.

Huntn
Feb 23, 2011, 11:07 AM
The Tea Party is showing their true colors with this one. They want government to dictate when it suits their needs.

A human quality. So much for standards when we can get our way by abandoning our standard just this once. What exactly are you referring to? ;)

mcrain
Feb 23, 2011, 11:10 AM
Why do you think management is the only one that should have any bargaining power?

I don't know how much more you guys could possibly want.

Well, considering anytime someone supports Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, healthcare reform, unions, or ANY liberal policy, they are called a "socialist" because the policies that benefit the average American have "socialist" leanings, I have to ask one question.

What do you call people who support policies that lean the other way? What do you call the leanings of people who support having all the power and control in a nation centralized with either a single person, a single party, or a group of wealthy/powerful people? Are they monarchists, "f" word, corporatists, supporters of aristocracy? I'd like to know so that when someone here decides to say I'm being a socialist or support socialism, or that our president is a socialist, I can respond appropriately.

Definition of the "f" word
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Definition of ARISTOCRACY
1: government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
2a : a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified b : a state with such a government
3: a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
4: the aggregate of those believed to be superior

I've already explained my views on public unions. Are you in a union? Are you a state employee? Are you basing everything you are saying on anecdotes you heard on Limbaugh, because there are a few bad apples in every group, but for the most part, public sector employees are pretty darn good at what they do, and do it far more efficiently, effectively and more cost effectively than when replaced by private firms (e.g. just look at Governor Walker's illegal firing of security workers at the Milwalkee courthouse. He replaced them with a private security firm, and the firm was no where near as inexpensive as they thought, was run by a man with a criminal record, and on top of that, was illegal!)

I've seen firsthand situations where an employee has been protected by the union. From both perspectives. Sometimes the union acts in silly ways, but in doing so, the union retained the power to protect good employees from bad decisions of management (which do occur just about as often as the situation of having a bad employee).

On a side note, I'll say one more time that there is a big difference in negotiating with a State/Local government for salaries and benefits. The employer, when given merit based powers, often abuses the power and rewards employees who vote and support the candidates/parties. The two Ryan administrations in Illinois, and the fallout that resulted, are good examples.

To avoid politicizing and turning essential services into revolving doors of jobs for campaign workers, you have to have some uniformity, some level of predictability, and some level of insulation from the politics that makes the decisions. The union is pretty good at doing just that. You may not like them, but they do that task well.

As for party control... the Democrats are clearly attempting to control the masses and the zero (or low) accountability voters by simply promising them more goods, more money, more redistribution as long as they vote for them. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for a redistributive paycheck, and people know it.

How about we make voting registration mandetory. Every year or every other year every person over 18 has to renew their drivers license or state issued ID, and is automatically registered to vote in the next election. Anyone who does not vote loses their ID/drivers license. Who would that benefit? If you're opposed to that, then aren't you merely trying to consolidate power in a minority of voters who just are more angry and more motiviated to vote than the majority? Just a thought.

Rt&Dzine
Feb 23, 2011, 11:21 AM
A human quality. So much for standards when we can get our way by abandoning our standard just this once. What exactly are you referring to? ;)

What this is all about, government taking away collective bargaining rights permanently.

chrmjenkins
Feb 23, 2011, 11:23 AM
Apparently Walker spoke with a blogger claiming to be one of the Koch brothers.

http://www.americablog.com/2011/02/wisconsins-scott-walker-tells-all-in.html

This is kinda stunning. Last night, the Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, delivered an address to the people of his state. But, yesterday, Walker also got on the phone with someone who really matters to him -- billionaire GOP activist David Koch, who is behind much of what is happening in Wisconsin, but also funds GOP far-right GOP activism nationwide. Well, that's who Walker thought he was talking to. Much of the transcript is at the end of this post, courtesy of Buffalo Beast, the blog that made the call.

Ian Murphy, a blogger at Buffalo Beast, managed to talk to Governor Scott Walker by pretending to be Koch. Apparently, those are magic words to gain access to GOPers. (The Buffalo Beast site is down.) The post is titled, Koch Whore. Now, keep in mind, Walker won't talk to Democratic State Senators. But, he found plenty of time for Koch.

More details from the call are emerging - Greg Sargent at the Washington Post has a few:

* Walker doesn't bat an eye when Koch describes the opposition as "Democrat bastards."

* Walker reveals that he and other Republicans are looking at whether they can charge an "ethics code violation if not an outright felony" if unions are paying for food or lodging for any of the Dem state senators.

* Walker says he's sending out notices next week to some five or six thousand state workers letting them know that they are "at risk" of layoffs.

"Beautiful, beautiful," the Koch impersonator replies. "You gotta crush that union."

Listen so you'll know that Walker really is one of Koch's minions. And, this is about crushing unions and workers. In fact, you'll hear Governor Walker admit that he "thought about" it when fake Koch suggested the idea of "planting some troublemakers" among the protesters in Madison. Were they going to come in on horses and camels?

Two things: 1) Recording a call like this is legal in Wisconsin; 2) Sam Stein got confirmation about the call from the publisher of Buffalo Beast:

Publisher of the Buffalo Beast, tells me the Walker audio is "absolutely legit" -- call made by skype, no camera function obviously

UPDATE @ 11:37 AM: The call has been confirmed as real by the Governor's office.

rdowns
Feb 23, 2011, 11:50 AM
I was just coming here to post the 'Koch' call.

dscuber9000
Feb 23, 2011, 11:50 AM
Indiana democrats joined the fight (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145689-indiana-democrats-wont-return-until-bill-is-shelved). The bizarre thing is that Gov. Mitch Daniels, someone who is a legitimate presidential candidate, is siding with the Democrats. He has cut education so much in our state and made so many enemies in education, that a lot of people don't know how to respond to his support. :D This essentially kills any chance he had at running for president in my opinion.

rdowns
Feb 23, 2011, 11:54 AM
Indiana democrats joined the fight (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145689-indiana-democrats-wont-return-until-bill-is-shelved). The bizarre thing is that Gov. Mitch Daniels, someone who is a legitimate presidential candidate, is siding with the Democrats. He has cut education so much in our state and made so many enemies in education, that a lot of people don't know how to respond to his support. :D This essentially kills any chance he had at running for president in my opinion.


I'd say his stint as Bush's Director of OMB killed that long ago.

Rt&Dzine
Feb 23, 2011, 12:11 PM
Apparently Walker spoke with a blogger claiming to be one of the Koch brothers.

I hate to admit it, but I think Walker handled that call fairly well. He's a politician and no saint, but it could have been a lot worse.

fivepoint
Feb 23, 2011, 12:33 PM
I hate to admit it, but I think Walker handled that call fairly well. He's a politician and no saint, but it could have been a lot worse.

Yeah. He handled it flawlessly. Must have hurt so much to be the guy on the other end of the phone trying to bait him into saying something stupid but he just stayed on with the message, same as if he was in front of a crowd. Say what you will about Walker, but clearly he's honest.

Rt&Dzine
Feb 23, 2011, 12:36 PM
Yeah. He handled it flawlessly. Must have hurt so much to be the guy on the other end of the phone trying to bait him into saying something stupid but he just stayed on with the message, same as if he was in front of a crowd. Say what you will about Walker, but clearly he's honest.

That deceptive stuff makes me uneasy . . . on both sides.

fivepoint
Feb 23, 2011, 12:43 PM
That deceptive stuff makes me uneasy . . . on both sides.

Not very classy, that's for sure.

Blue Velvet
Feb 23, 2011, 12:47 PM
Yeah. He handled it flawlessly.


Laughable. Saying that him and his team:

• Considered planting agitators into the crowds of protesters
• Talked about the baseball bat he'd like to bring to negotiations
• Wanting to trick Democratic politicians to return to the table under false pretences and then...
• Looking forward to his payment from 'Koch' as 'flown out to Cali to have a good time'.

Sometimes, it's really just better to not try and defend the indefensible.

Rt&Dzine
Feb 23, 2011, 12:50 PM
Laughable. Saying that him and his team:

• Considered planting agitators into the crowds of protesters
• Talked about the baseball bat he'd like to bring to negotiations
• Wanting to trick Democratic politicians to return to the table under false pretences and then...
• Looking forward to his payment from 'Koch' as 'flown out to Cali to have a good time'.

Sometimes, it's really just better to not try and defend the indefensible.

I was expecting much worse than that.

Blue Velvet
Feb 23, 2011, 01:07 PM
I was expecting much worse than that.


Given the transcript, would you agree with this assertion:

Say what you will about Walker, but clearly he's honest.

Personally, I wouldn't.

Meanwhile, a deputy attorney general in Indiana has advocated (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/indiana-dep-ag-use-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters.php?ref=fpblg) the use of live ammunition against the union protestors in Wisconsin and:

SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, is holding rallies at state capitols around the country to demonstrate solidarity with public employee unions in Wisconsin. The union has scheduled an event at the Gold Dome in Atlanta at 4 pm today.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/02/23/a-call-for-armed-counterprotesters-to-atlanta-labor-rally/

The advice that “attendees are requested to be flexible in your attire” is apparently a suggestion to keep firearms concealed. The original author goes on to claim that “the lefties are idiots who are very good at running their mouths… and also very good at keeping their distance from an armed American”.

So, a group of 'hospital, home care and nursing home workers; public services (local and state government employees); and property services (including janitors, security officers and food service workers)' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_International_Union) want to rally in support...

...yet tea-partiers think that turning up armed is a good idea?


Seriously, just what is it with these people?

Arran
Feb 23, 2011, 01:36 PM
Laughable. Saying that him and his team:

• Considered planting agitators into the crowds of protesters
• Talked about the baseball bat he'd like to bring to negotiations
• Wanting to trick Democratic politicians to return to the table under false pretences and then...
• Looking forward to his payment from 'Koch' as 'flown out to Cali to have a good time'.

Sometimes, it's really just better to not try and defend the indefensible.

No, I think it's fine to describe him as "honest."

After all, there has to be honour amongst thieves, otherwise they'd never be able to pull off their heist.

(Semi-)joking aside, it was an interesting call. To me, the governor seemed more interested in gaining favor with his rich backer, than actually serving the public. Spending 20 minutes taking an unsolicited call from his buddy and then thoroughly briefing him (an outsider) on the internals of government seems a bit unorthodox.

Rt&Dzine
Feb 23, 2011, 01:43 PM
Given the transcript, would you agree with this assertion:

Originally Posted by fivepoint
Say what you will about Walker, but clearly he's honest.


Personally, I wouldn't.


No, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's honest. I thought the bit with Walker's quick response about not wanting 'Koch' to call the supportive democrat was telling.

Arran
Feb 23, 2011, 02:11 PM
No, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's honest. I thought the bit with Walker's quick response about not wanting 'Koch' to call the supportive democrat was telling.

Well quite. And referring to him disparagingly as, "not one of us"; What does that mean? Whatever happened to, "we the people"?

You know, peeking behind the scenes like this, it seems the teaparty "revolution" was nothing more than a manipulative opening gambit in a dirty little game of them and us.

Thomas Veil
Feb 23, 2011, 03:07 PM
Well, considering anytime someone supports Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, healthcare reform, unions, or ANY liberal policy, they are called a "socialist" because the policies that benefit the average American have "socialist" leanings, I have to ask one question.

What do you call people who support policies that lean the other way? What do you call the leanings of people who support having all the power and control in a nation centralized with either a single person, a single party, or a group of wealthy/powerful people? Are they monarchists, "f" word, corporatists, supporters of aristocracy? I'd like to know so that when someone here decides to say I'm being a socialist or support socialism, or that our president is a socialist, I can respond appropriately. Well, let's turn to the experts to figure out what we should call this kind of belief system.

Fascism: a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. -- American Heritage Dictionary

But don't take their word for it. As they used to say in the commercials, ask the person who owns one:

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. -- Benito Mussolini

Huntn
Feb 23, 2011, 05:13 PM
Well, let's turn to the experts to figure out what we should call this kind of belief system.

Fascism: a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. -- American Heritage Dictionary

But don't take their word for it. As they used to say in the commercials, ask the person who owns one:

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. -- Benito Mussolini

I think we could be just as close to fascism as we are to socialism. The real problem is that most people don't get involved in the political process. Our (U.S.) voting turn out sucks. Until the vast majority of people get involved we'll never get a government the majority can depend upon. Society/government are formed for mutual benefit, not for benefiting a small portion of the populace at the expense of everyone else.

Sydde
Feb 23, 2011, 07:14 PM
No, I wouldn't go so far as to say he's honest. I thought the bit with Walker's quick response about not wanting 'Koch' to call the supportive democrat was telling.

I think the episode illustrates that Walker more than a little naďve. If an observant person had received such a call, he would have told his receptionist "Tell him I will call him back."

Rt&Dzine
Feb 23, 2011, 09:56 PM
I think the episode illustrates that Walker more than a little naďve. If an observant person had received such a call, he would have told his receptionist "Tell him I will call him back."

That occurred to me too. He may have been overly nervous or excited to hear from his benefactor.

Thomas Veil
Feb 27, 2011, 12:02 PM
:mad: Oh, here we go. Watch closely, everybody -- the hand is quicker than the eye.
What’s happening in Wisconsin is...a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.

For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.

And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”

What’s that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be “considered to be in the public interest.”

If this sounds to you like a perfect setup for cronyism and profiteering — remember those missing billions in Iraq? — you’re not alone.Emphasis mine.

And yes, Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html?src=me&ref=general) is talking about the union-busting bill that just passed the Wisconsin Assembly.

I think what we're seeing here is one of those horror movie things where Dick Cheney performs some kind of incantation to transfer his personality into a younger body (Scott Walker).

Sydde
Feb 27, 2011, 01:04 PM
To an observer in the top row of the bleachers, it looks like these Tea-types are pushing hard on as much of their agenda as possible, which lends the impression that they are at least in part insecure in their position, lacking confidence that they will be able to hold the majority after the next election so this stuff must all be done quickly and totally, by whatever means necessary.

At the same time, the deck is being stacked (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_1b703fdf-1eba-5d74-aed4-1968afc1fce5.html) in the traditional Яepublicanesque way, in effort to hold on to as much power as they can.

The American system is badly broken. When violent power shifts become the norm, leading the party that was heretofore disenfranchised to drastically change as much as possible, it becomes obvious that the only way to rein this problem in is to make sure all voices are duly heard, that no side should ever be denied a seat at the table.

Eraserhead
Feb 27, 2011, 01:20 PM
Sounds really accountable...

mcrain
Feb 28, 2011, 10:23 AM
The American system is badly broken. When violent power shifts become the norm, leading the party that was heretofore disenfranchised to drastically change as much as possible, it becomes obvious that the only way to rein this problem in is to make sure all voices are duly heard, that no side should ever be denied a seat at the table.

Except, those on the right refuse to listen, negotiate or compromise. Instead of reasonable people working together to find solutions to our common problems, those on the right throw around propaganda like "socialism" "communism" and "marxist" and insist that they represent the "majority" of Americans, and therefore must NOT listen to the minority, or take into consideration any other views or opinions.

leekohler
Feb 28, 2011, 10:29 AM
Except, those on the right refuse to listen, negotiate or compromise. Instead of reasonable people working together to find solutions to our common problems, those on the right throw around propaganda like "socialism" "communism" and "marxist" and insist that they represent the "majority" of Americans, and therefore must NOT listen to the minority, or take into consideration any other views or opinions.

Yep- pretty much. Sad, isn't it? Even more sad is how many of those people would rather believe a lie than the truth.

Huntn
Feb 28, 2011, 11:43 AM
:mad: Oh, here we go. Watch closely, everybody -- the hand is quicker than the eye.
Emphasis mine.

And yes, Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html?src=me&ref=general) is talking about the union-busting bill that just passed the Wisconsin Assembly.

I think what we're seeing here is one of those horror movie things where Dick Cheney performs some kind of incantation to transfer his personality into a younger body (Scott Walker).

Looking at your quote (is there a link in this thread for it?) the battle cry, "Remember Wisconsin!" seems appropriate.

I don't usually repost jokes, but this nicely sums up the situation in SIMPLE language:

"A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."

Good one! :D

Arran
Feb 28, 2011, 11:50 AM
I don't usually repost jokes, but this nicely sums up the situation in SIMPLE language:

"A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."

leekohler
Feb 28, 2011, 12:32 PM
I don't usually repost jokes, but this nicely sums up the situation in SIMPLE language:

"A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."

That's awesome. :)

Rodimus Prime
Feb 28, 2011, 12:42 PM
I don't usually repost jokes, but this nicely sums up the situation in SIMPLE language:

"A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."

damn it that is over a 140 chars long other wise I would tweet it out :-D

Thomas Veil
Feb 28, 2011, 01:21 PM
Looking at your quote (is there a link in this thread for it?) the battle cry, "Remember Wisconsin!" seems appropriate.I linked at the words "Paul Krugman", but was afraid some might miss it. Here is the link again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

The part I quoted begins with paragraph 6 on that page.

...and I love the cookie story. So true!

rdowns
Feb 28, 2011, 01:42 PM
No link but an MSNBC anchor said 2 or 3 Wisconsin Republicans are wavering and may vote against the bill.

chrmjenkins
Feb 28, 2011, 02:30 PM
Anonymous claims they are going to get involved based on the Koch brothers' actions.

http://www.frequency.com/video/dear-citizens-of-united-states-of/2961812

leekohler
Feb 28, 2011, 03:20 PM
Anonymous claims they are going to get involved based on the Koch brothers' actions.

http://www.frequency.com/video/dear-citizens-of-united-states-of/2961812

Good! I'm beginning to like Anonymous more and more every day.

MattSepeta
Feb 28, 2011, 03:29 PM
Anonymous claims they are going to get involved based on the Koch brothers' actions.

http://www.frequency.com/video/dear-citizens-of-united-states-of/2961812

Holy cow I can't get over this...

Why is it ok for Public union money (read: Taxpayers money) to go unchecked for democrat campaigns, but when a private company funded voluntarily by private people paying for their products/services (Not forced by law, unlike the tax money that funds public uninons) wants to help their guys out, the whiners cry "foul"?

??????????

Makes my head spin.

mcrain
Feb 28, 2011, 03:34 PM
Holy cow I can't get over this...

Why is it ok for Public union money (read: Taxpayers money) to go unchecked for democrat campaigns, but when a private company funded voluntarily by private people paying for their products/services (Not forced by law, unlike the tax money that funds public uninons) wants to help their guys out, the whiners cry "foul"?

??????????

Makes my head spin.

You do realize that unions consist of members who pay the dues, not the taxpayers. The union employee is paid a wage that is negotiated, part of that wage is deducted automatically in the form of a union due. Those dues are voted on by the members, and the activities of the union are voted on by the members. Where the vast majority of members wants the protection of the union, dues are not opposed. Where the vast majority of members want the union to lobby for policies that benefit the union, its members, and workers in general, then guess what, that is NOT the republican party.

On the flip side, I'm invested in corporations that donate MY (oops) money to republicans. I have no vote in that. Those who control the corporations maintain a controlling interest, and no amount of public ownership can change their personal interests or their personal control over the company. I'm invested in a company that makes money, my share has a portion of my earnings spent on lobbying for Republican politicians so that they can pass laws that benefit the richest shareholders. Not necessarily the company.

Justify that.

(In the union, my one vote is equal to someone elses vote. In the corporation, my one vote is drowned out by the one vote of the billionaire who has more shares than I do).

MattSepeta
Feb 28, 2011, 03:39 PM
On the flip side, I'm invested in corporations that donate MY (oops) money to republicans. I have no vote in that. Those who control the corporations maintain a controlling interest, and no amount of public ownership can change their personal interests or their personal control over the company. I'm invested in a company that makes money, my share has a portion of my earnings spent on lobbying for Republican politicians so that they can pass laws that benefit the richest shareholders. Not necessarily the company.

Justify that.

First of all, you should not have invested in a company that aims to help elect republicans if you are so against that. Sell your shares, or better yet, GIVE them away.

There, justified.

Now, justify this:

Wisconsin is NOT a right-to-work state. When a teacher is hired in a public school, they MUST join the union, must pay the dues. No choice, unless they want to still pay a portion of the dues and forgo benefits (EDIT AFAIK, based on what I can gather from my searchings) . These dues go towards electing more democrats, which in turn, promise to give more and pay more to the union members, who are paid by the tax payers, half of which disagree with the democrat party.

Can the Taxpayer refuse to contribute money towards the Unions by way of refusing to pay the teachers salaries, which fund the union? Nope. Unjustifiable.

leekohler
Feb 28, 2011, 03:43 PM
First of all, you should not have invested in a company that aims to help elect republicans if you are so against that. Sell your shares, or better yet, GIVE them away.

There, justified.

Now, justify this:

Wisconsin is NOT a right-to-work state. When a teacher is hired in a public school, they MUST join the union, must pay the dues. No choice, unless they want to still pay a portion of the dues and forgo benefits (EDIT AFAIK, based on what I can gather from my searchings) . These dues go towards electing more democrats, which in turn, promise to give more and pay more to the union members, who are paid by the tax payers, half of which disagree with the democrat party.

Can the Taxpayer refuse to contribute money towards the Unions by way of refusing to pay the teachers salaries, which fund the union? Nope. Unjustifiable.

We could simply do away with banning private contribution to politicians and campaigns. Can you agree to that? All campaigns would be limited to a certain amount of money funded by the public.

MattSepeta
Feb 28, 2011, 03:50 PM
We could simply do away with banning private contribution to politicians and campaigns. Can you agree to that?

No.... Not even close.

If I want to give 2 million bucks to a candidate I honestly do not see a problem with that.

If George Soros wants to give 99 billion to a candidate I don't care either.

If a Public Union wants to donate money siphoned from the tax payer to a candidate, I DO have a problem with it.

Half of the people essentially funding the union (Tax Payers) are rooting for the other guy, and they have no blow off (Refuse to buy products from a company whose contribution recipients you are against) valve to prevent their money from working against them (Contributions to Democrats promising higher wage and more benefits for union members at the cost of the taxpayer)

Take away all the crap about "collective bargaining rights" "fair wages/benefits" etc, and it is simple logic. "Illogic", actually

leekohler
Feb 28, 2011, 04:08 PM
No.... Not even close.

If I want to give 2 million bucks to a candidate I honestly do not see a problem with that.


I have a huge problem with it. It means that people can literally buy a candidate, and therefore unfairly influence their decision making. I have an enormous problem with that.

Arran
Feb 28, 2011, 04:08 PM
...donate money siphoned from the tax payer to a candidate...

Hang on a minute. Teachers earn that money for teaching the kids. Are they supposed to work for free?

To put it another way, when a dentist fills your tooth and you write him a check, is he "siphoning" money from you? Are you saying it's still your money and the dentist should only spend it on whatever you deem appropriate?

Closer to home; when you get paid for working, is it still your employer's money?

mcrain
Feb 28, 2011, 04:08 PM
(edit - removed bad question) There is NO money siphoned from the taxpayers. The union negotiates on behalf of the teachers (or other public workers), which believe it or not, is a benefit for both the workers and the state. (Do you know how expensive and how much of a hassle it would be to negotiate every single individual contract when there are contracting rules every single time the state executes a contract?) If not, then perhaps you're just blowing a bunch of hot air and you might want to look into it.

Again, the union represents the workers pursuant to the employees choice to have a union. If you don't want to be a teacher that has a union, you can go work at a private school. If you want a job where the benefits and salary were obtained through collective bargaining, then you pay for the privelege of having the wages/benefits that the union got for you. You can opt out of a portion of the dues and a portion of the benefits, but the "fair share" usually takes enough to cover your share of operations (only).

I invest in companies because the corporate charter defines the corporations goal as the making of profits; the charter, that little thing that allows the company to legally operate and defines what it can and can not do. I'm still not sure how or why corporations are allowed to spend shareholder capital on political operations. Gotta love those activist right-wing judges.

MattSepeta
Feb 28, 2011, 04:17 PM
If every state was Right-to-Work, this would be a non issue. My problem, which you both conveniently ignored, was that if you want to teach in a non-RTW state, your mandatory dues are going to go towards electing democrats, even if you have a problem with that.

That being said, of course they earn the money and it is theirs to do with what they see fit.

mcrain
Feb 28, 2011, 04:20 PM
If every state was Right-to-Work, this would be a non issue. My problem, which you both conveniently ignored, was that if you want to teach in a non-RTW state, your mandatory dues are going to go towards electing democrats, even if you have a problem with that.

That being said, of course they earn the money and it is theirs to do with what they see fit.

Even in non right to work states, you can opt out of the union and only pay the "fair share" dues. My understanding of the litigation surrounding that is that the fair share dues don't include union political operations, but I could be mistaken. I'd have to actually research it, and that's not high on my list of to do.

(edit) Here ya go: Pursuant to federal and state court decisions, mandatory fair share fees charged to non-union members cannot be used for political purposes Link (http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2005/050027.pdf)

So, now that you can't hang your hat on that argument, what are you going to come up with to oppose collective bargaining now? (Personally, I'm all for "right to work," but your argument doesn't mesh with the facts.)

Arran
Feb 28, 2011, 04:26 PM
If every state was Right-to-Work, this would be a non issue. My problem, which you both conveniently ignored, was that if you want to teach in a non-RTW state, your mandatory dues are going to go towards electing democrats, even if you have a problem with that.

That being said, of course they earn the money and it is theirs to do with what they see fit.

And thanks to the free market in the US, they're free to teach in any state they want, in either private or public schools, yes?

The teachers are American citizens and taxpayers who, of their free will, have chosen to work in Wisconsin public schools under their current negotiated arrangement.

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to do that because you don't like it?

chrmjenkins
Feb 28, 2011, 04:26 PM
If every state was Right-to-Work, this would be a non issue. My problem, which you both conveniently ignored, was that if you want to teach in a non-RTW state, your mandatory dues are going to go towards electing democrats, even if you have a problem with that.

That being said, of course they earn the money and it is theirs to do with what they see fit.

Ok, so let's run worse case scenarios. What do you think the worst case scenario is of a union's money going to a candidate's campaign fund? I don't really see an organization that works on behalf of its workers as an evil institution.

Now, billionaires who can donate to campaigns and get sweetheart deals where they can steal a publicly owned utility out from under taxpayer noses with a no-bid contract? That's evil.

edit: Seems I've been one-up'ed by mcrain. Well done :D

dsnort
Feb 28, 2011, 05:19 PM
Ok, so let's run worse case scenarios. What do you think the worst case scenario is of a union's money going to a candidate's campaign fund?

Uh, that said union might end up at the negotiating table with the same candidate/now elected official for sweetheart deals like making the taxpayers pay for teachers health insurance that is purchased at higher premiums from from a provider founded and owned by the union, after which the union will donate generously to said elected officials re-election campaign so he can come back to the bargaining table and solidify the unions gains, and on, and on, and on!!?? (This is called a perpetual motion circle jerk of power and influence peddling).

That was easy!

Now, billionaires who can donate to campaigns and get sweetheart deals where they can steal a publicly owned utility out from under taxpayer noses with a no-bid contract? That's evil.

You're right, that is evil, though I am unfamiliar with the particulars of the situation to which you refer.

Look, both sides of this argument are blowing as much smoke up as many skirts as they can. This ain't about "balancing the budget", or "workers rights", or "protecting working families". Those phrases are just each side putting their best spin on a struggle over power and influence. The unions are a HUGE(*) benefit to the Democratic party during elections, and the Republicans want to tear down their little play house.

Personally, I find the incestuous relationship between public unions and the candidates they help to elect corrupt in it's very concept, and think it could stand a little dismantling.

(*)Over the last twenty years, 10 unions have donated more money to political candidates than all but one private corporation, AT&T. AT&T splits its political donations ~ 56-42%, repub over dem, while unions give an average of 95% to the dems. In the 2010 election cycle, three unions, (AFSCME, SEIU, and the NEA), out spent the top three Repub contributors, (Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads, and GOP Crossroads), 171M to 140M. This does not even consider ActBlue, a democratic party clearing house for donations. Formed in 2004, ActBlue is currently the largest political contributor over the last twenty years, 100% to the democrats. Most contributions to ActBlue below the $200 threshold for disclosure of source.

Remind me again, who's the party of big money?

chrmjenkins
Feb 28, 2011, 05:37 PM
Uh, that said union might end up at the negotiating table with the same candidate/now elected official for sweetheart deals like making the taxpayers pay for teachers health insurance that is purchased at higher premiums from from a provider founded and owned by the union, after which the union will donate generously to said elected officials re-election campaign so he can come back to the bargaining table and solidify the unions gains, and on, and on, and on!!?? (This is called a perpetual motion circle jerk of power and influence peddling).

That was easy!

That is your worst case scenario? I guess I rest my case. If we had UHC like many Dems wanted, it wouldn't even be possible, mind you.

rdowns
Feb 28, 2011, 05:48 PM
You're right, that is evil, though I am unfamiliar with the particulars of the situation to which you refer.



Um, that's a part of the Wisconsin "budget repair bill" (http://www.jsonline.com/business/116965798.html).

Under the budget-repair bill passed by the Assembly on Friday, no bids would be required for the state to sell up to 37 heating and cooling plants across the state.

The bill would empower the secretary of the state Department of Administration to sell the plants, which primarily serve University of Wisconsin campuses, including those in Madison and Milwaukee, as well as state prisons and other facilities.

In a change from a similar proposal that Republican lawmakers sought six years ago, the bill stripped a requirement that the Public Service Commission review whether the sale is in the public interest.

During their marathon debate on the budget-repair bill, Democrats unsuccessfully sought changes to the plants issue, including a requirement that competitive bids be sought and another to restore PSC review of the deals.

hulugu
Mar 1, 2011, 12:47 AM
...

(*)Over the last twenty years, 10 unions have donated more money to political candidates than all but one private corporation, AT&T. AT&T splits its political donations ~ 56-42%, repub over dem, while unions give an average of 95% to the dems. In the 2010 election cycle, three unions, (AFSCME, SEIU, and the NEA), out spent the top three Repub contributors, (Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads, and GOP Crossroads), 171M to 140M. This does not even consider ActBlue, a democratic party clearing house for donations. Formed in 2004, ActBlue is currently the largest political contributor over the last twenty years, 100% to the democrats. Most contributions to ActBlue below the $200 threshold for disclosure of source.

Remind me again, who's the party of big money?

Source?

mcrain
Mar 1, 2011, 09:20 AM
Are Wisconsin Democratic senators taking their guidance from Abe?
Yes, it’s true that the absconded Wisconsin Democratic senators can point to Abe as a precursor. I’ve been ignoring the comparison, because I figured the Wisconsin episode would be over by now, but what the heck.

The full story is in Michael Burlingame’s “Abraham Lincoln: A Life” (chapter 5, starting on page 493). The legislature at the time –December 1840 — was meeting in a church, because the capital had just been moved to Springfield from Vandalia, and the Capitol building (now the Old Capitol) hadn’t been built yet.

Lincoln’s Whigs were embroiled in a complicated dispute involving the state bank and needed to keep the Democratic-controlled legislature from getting the necessary quorum to adjourn.

When the Democrats came perilously close to the number they needed, Lincoln and a couple other Whigs — who had hung around to observe and obstruct — realized they needed to make themselves scarce. They tried first to go out the door, but it was locked.

So, Burlingame writes (footnoting a correspondent for the Belleville Advocate):

Lincoln “then made an assault upon an unoffending window, through which he broke his way and made his escape,” followed by Gillespie and Gridley, who “slid gracefully out of the window and piled themselves beneath it upon the body of their chivalrous leader. …”

“Understandably,” Burlingame writes, “Lincoln found this episode embarrassing.”

(H/t to Ray and Ginny for bugging me about this.)

SJ-R (http://blogs.sj-r.com/alo/index.php/2011/03/01/are-wisconsin-democratic-senators-taking-their-guidance-from-abe/)

I thought this was funny. I can only imagine them trying to escape through the window.

dsnort
Mar 1, 2011, 01:33 PM
That is your worst case scenario? I guess I rest my case.

Yeah, the taxpayers being overcharged for their employees benefits to the financial gain of the union is waaaaay different than a defense contractor charging $300 for a hammer or $1500 for a toilet seat! :rolleyes:

Um, that's a part of the Wisconsin "budget repair bill" (http://www.jsonline.com/business/116965798.html).

You had me worried, until I read the source article, then I lol'd. Call me when this advances beyond the "wild eyed conspiracy theory" phase, and something untoward or unsavory actually happens. (And if it does, I'll add my voice to yours in calling for heads to roll!)

Source?

This (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578461221742460.html) and that (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A).

Carnac the Magnificent moment coming soon.

chrmjenkins
Mar 1, 2011, 01:49 PM
Yeah, the taxpayers being overcharged for their employees benefits to the financial gain of the union is waaaaay different than a defense contractor charging $300 for a hammer or $1500 for a toilet seat! :rolleyes:

That's not the counter example I gave. I gave a counter example of a publicly owned utility being sold in a no-bid contract to a private entity. That's government sponsored theft as a sweetheart deal for corporate gain. Moreover, that's an actual example, not a theoretical.

Thomas Veil
Mar 1, 2011, 01:52 PM
I thought this was funny. I can only imagine them trying to escape through the window.Great story. Thanks!

First of all, you should not have invested in a company that aims to help elect republicans if you are so against that. Sell your shares, or better yet, GIVE them away.

There, justified. No, not really.

Every time I pay my cell phone bill, I can be pretty sure that some of what I paid is going to be sent to the company's corporate-friendly Republican congressmen in Washington. And I know that it pretty much doesn't matter which carrier I choose. Since cable is a monopoly in most towns, I know part the money I pay my cable company will be similarly spent. Same thing with the clothes I wear and the food I buy. If they contribute to Democrats at all. it's because they're hedging their bets in the next election.

Unless I'm a major shareholder, I really have no power to vote these people out. About all I can do is sit and watch them spend my money to buy off my congressman to "earn" them more of my money.

dsnort
Mar 1, 2011, 02:53 PM
That's not the counter example I gave. I gave a counter example of a publicly owned utility being sold in a no-bid contract to a private entity.

What you quoted wasn't a response to your counter example, that was response to your "worst case scenario" statement.

If you look further down, I did respond to your "counter example", although I quoted rdowns, who posted the clarification I needed to know what you were talking about.

That's government sponsored theft as a sweetheart deal for corporate gain. Moreover, that's an actual example, not a theoretical.

Let me see if I understand you. There is a clause in a bill, which hasn't passed yet, that opens up the possibility that someone might be allowed to buy certain coal fired plants that produce steam for heat, (anybody into ancient technology?), on a no bid contract, and that that someone might have donated to a republican candidate, but no such activity has yet occurred, and that's an actual example?

Meanwhile, school districts across Wisconsin are currently paying, from taxpayer funds, higher premiums for health care insurance than they otherwise might if they weren't being strong armed by the Union into buying insurance plans from the Union owned insurance company, and that's a hypothetical???

:confused::confused::confused:

Interesting quote from the article rdowns posted:

Jeff Plale, a former Democratic state senator who was hired by the Walker administration to run the Division of State Facilities, said he didn't think a bidding process is appropriate for the sale of the heating plants. "A bid implies that there is a value in the physical asset," he said.

It's difficult to tell what kind of price they could fetch, particularly because of environmental liabilities. Several of the old coal plants are in potential violation of the Clean Air Act because they lack modern pollution controls, Plale said.

"A number of these plants have potential environmental liabilities hanging over their head. How that falls into the mix still needs to be addressed," Plale said.

Bold emphasis mine.

chrmjenkins
Mar 1, 2011, 03:09 PM
What you quoted wasn't a response to your counter example, that was response to your "worst case scenario" statement.

If you look further down, I did respond to your "counter example", although I quoted rdowns, who posted the clarification I needed to know what you were talking about.

And a pretty poor worst case scenario, as it was a hypothetical with no cited history of such an instance actually happening.

Let me see if I understand you. There is a clause in a bill, which hasn't passed yet, that opens up the possibility that someone might be allowed to buy certain coal fired plants that produce steam for heat, (anybody into ancient technology?), on a no bid contract, and that that someone might have donated to a republican candidate, but no such activity has yet occurred, and that's an actual example?

I'll make it simple. When I solicited a worst case scenario, you gave a hypothetical with no historical basis. My example was not hypothetical, but based on actual proposed legislation in a state. Not even close.

Meanwhile, school districts across Wisconsin are currently paying, from taxpayer funds, higher premiums for health care insurance than they otherwise might if they weren't being strong armed by the Union into buying insurance plans from the Union owned insurance company, and that's a hypothetical???

Ok, then your response is simple. Cite a source that shows 1) their premiums are higher than those of non-union members in their state as well as other states and 2) their level of coverage is the exact same as given in 1). Then your point will stand.

Interesting quote from the article rdowns posted: Bold emphasis mine.

Which in no way detracts from the disturbing nature of the proposed legislation.

Huntn
Mar 1, 2011, 03:40 PM
We could simply do away with banning private contribution to politicians and campaigns. Can you agree to that? All campaigns would be limited to a certain amount of money funded by the public.

In little amounts with a cap no less! :) Corporations are buying our politicians for their own vested interests. :(

JoeG4
Mar 1, 2011, 03:50 PM
So you republicans are ****** pissed off that unionized teachers take the $$ you give them via taxes and use it to donate to democrat candidates? :D

I suppose you should be ****** pissed off that part of Apple's profits went to donating to democratic nominees too. :D

JoeG4
Mar 1, 2011, 05:37 PM
I have a new cookie one that'll please Glen Beck and his watchers:

A tea partyer sits at a table with a baker, enjoying cookies. A CEO comes to the table with a big dish of cookies that were made with his cookie-baking machine.

The CEO tells the baker, "Hey, why don't you stop with your crap? I just opened a new Mr Fields down the street! Everyone will be buying cookies there from now on, and if you come to work for me you'll work all year instead of just when people feel like buying cookies!"

The baker says "but I'm happy with my business, and it's mine!"

you go on and finish it :P

freeny
Mar 1, 2011, 06:12 PM
Just dropping a reminder of why unions started in the first place. History has shown, if given the chance, corporations abuse and take advantage of their workers, period.

Employees as individuals stand zero chance going up against a corporation. Workers need unions to establish equality. Without unions, wages will fall, sweat shops will be established and the middle class will die. Long term, America will fall back 100+ years becoming a 3rd world country.

I don't like unions myself, but they are desperately needed unfortunately.

Rodimus Prime
Mar 1, 2011, 06:25 PM
Just dropping a reminder of why unions started in the first place. History has shown, if given the chance, corporations abuse and take advantage of their workers, period.

Employees as individuals stand zero chance going up against a corporation. Workers need unions to establish equality. Without unions, wages will fall, sweat shops will be established and the middle class will die. Long term, America will fall back 100+ years becoming a 3rd world country.

I don't like unions myself, but they are desperately needed unfortunately.


I think we can show proof of the problem with looking at CEO pay vs average work. It is WAY WAY out of line and upper management pay is climbing a way out of line in terms of percetages compared to the workers.

Company can keep unions out by doing things like treating their workers with respect and more than a number. Show loyalty to them instead of laying them off for 1 extra dollar.

CorvusCamenarum
Mar 1, 2011, 06:56 PM
What's really interesting is that both the Tea Party and the union protesters are pretty much the same demographic.

dscuber9000
Mar 1, 2011, 08:22 PM
What's really interesting is that both the Tea Party and the union protesters are pretty much the same demographic.

Well, it is Wisconsin. :D

Huntn
Mar 1, 2011, 08:44 PM
If I want to give 2 million bucks to a candidate I honestly do not see a problem with that.


Along the lines of everything is for sale? Because that is what $2M represents. ;)

Thomas Veil
Mar 1, 2011, 09:16 PM
What do Wisconsin Democrats and Abe Lincoln have in common?

When Lincoln Fled (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/24/when_lincoln_fled.html)

Legislators fleeing to prevent a quorum is nothing new. In fact, KPMH-TV reports Abraham Lincoln did it in "one of the most bizarre episodes" of his political career by trying to keep the Illinois House of Representatives in session so the Illinois State Bank might survive.

On December 5, 1840, Democrats "proposed an early adjournment, knowing this would bring a speedy end to the State Bank. The Whigs tried to counter by leaving the capitol building before the vote, but the doors were locked. That's when Lincoln made his move. He headed for the second story, opened a window and jumped to the ground!"Democrats: the party of Lincoln. :D