Protests in Wisconsin

[BanginJimmy]

A whole lot of political muscle and money is heading to Wisconsin right now.where do you stand? With the unions or with the state.

I stand in the middle. I agree with the end of collective bargaining for economic issues such as 401k and medical benefits but I have no issues with retaining collective bargaining for non-economic issues like grievances and promotions.

Where do you stand and how do you think this ia going to end?

As soon as Obama stepped in he put a very large piece of his stock in the union win. If Gov. Walker wins Obama is done and will face a real challenge in the primaries next year. If the unions win we will likely see an Obama second term.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[bu villain]

I admit I am not very familiar with the specifics of the protests. Care to give a brief synopsis Jimmy?

[BanginJimmy]

Gov. Walker (R), wants to raise public workers pension and healthcare premiums along with restrict their collective bargaining rights.

Here is a basic rundown from foxnews. There is a ton more to this though and I could link 20 different articles that hit the same basic points, but hit other points that this one does not.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...-massive-debt/

[bu villain]

Definitely a complex issue and I'm not informed enough to make a real statement of opinion. I don't know all the other budget cut alternatives are or how the state workers' compensation compares to similar private sector compensation. Either way it's a tough situation and voters will have the ultimate say come next election.

[BanginJimmy]

Definitely a complex issue and I'm not informed enough to make a real statement of opinion. I don't know all the other budget cut alternatives are or how the state workers' compensation compares to similar private sector compensation. Either way it's a tough situation and voters will have the ultimate say come next election.

The only thing I know for sure is that state workers have a far superior benefits package compared to private workers. Right now they only contribute .2% of their pay to their pension.

[bu villain]

The only thing I know for sure is that state workers have a far superior benefits package compared to private workers. Right now they only contribute .2% of their pay to their pension.

I agree that is extremely low but it has to be looked at in the context of total compensation. I was under the impression that public employees generally get lower salaries than private sector employees but it is balanced out with better benefits than private sector employees.

Also I have done a bit more reading on the topic and it seems the protesters are much more upset about restricting the collective bargaining rights than the increase in pension contributions.

[BanginJimmy]

I agree that is extremely low but it has to be looked at in the context of total compensation. I was under the impression that public employees generally get lower salaries than private sector employees but it is balanced out with better benefits than private sector employees.

Also I have done a bit more reading on the topic and it seems the protesters are much more upset about restricting the collective bargaining rights than the increase in pension contributions.

In the past you would be correct. Gov workers used to be paid less but had superior benefit packages and job security. That has changed as Gov workers tend to be paid as well or more than private sector equivalents.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...eral-pay_N.htm


A lot of the protests are because of collective bargaining rights. The union mindset is so ingrained in these people that they are unable to fathom things without the union. Listen to the chants and slogan the unions are using in the press. Scott Walker has been called Hitler and a Nazi and it gets worse from there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcDnKQul_c8

The first 10 seconds say everything about the people protesting.

BTW, that lady is a teacher. Guess what she is teaching her students.

[hemi]

I don't disagree with unions, but public sector unions are a joke. There is no competition, and they are bargaining with my tax dollars.
And the comparison to Hitler is laughable. It discredits their entire arguement. I don't know why it is so difficult for people to understand that broke
is broke, and we are broke. You cannot continue to sustain the state of entitlement that we are currently under.
Yes teachers and firefighters are valuable. But they are mainstream Americe. They need to tighten their belt just like private sector employees.

And the fact that the Democratic senators have "fled the state" instead of voting is ridiculous! That should be criminal.

If the proposed changes are voted in and pass, then the ppl have spoken. If in 2 years it comes back up, and the vote is different then the ppl have spoken again.
Either way they should be required to do their job and vote...

[Browning151]

I don't know why it is so difficult for people to understand that broke
is broke, and we are broke. You cannot continue to sustain the state of entitlement that we are currently under.

Exactly.

This is where gov't worker unions really get to me, EVERYONE in the private sector is cutting back through job cuts, pay freezes and overall reduction in spending yet these workers somehow think that they shouldn't be affected because they work for the gov't. Changes have to be made, spending has to be reduced and if ending collective bargaining rights is one way to do that, then so be it, we simply cannot continue at the current rate.

[XanRules]

A lot of the protests are because of collective bargaining rights. The union mindset is so ingrained in these people that they are unable to fathom things without the union. Listen to the chants and slogan the unions are using in the press. Scott Walker has been called Hitler and a Nazi and it gets worse from there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcDnKQul_c8

The first 10 seconds say everything about the people protesting.

BTW, that lady is a teacher. Guess what she is teaching her students.

What is she teaching them? Go on, I'm listening.

Here's the thing. This isn't about budget shortfalls or anything like that. It's about union-busting.
The public sector unions have already agreed to all of the cuts proposed in Walker's bill, and he won't compromise until they lose their collective bargaining rights, which is the entire point of a union. It's bullshit, and Walker knows it. He's a union-busting fraud.
Now, let's talk about the more interesting part of the bill.
Let's first assume that we are all well aware that Gov. Walker was largely funded by the Koch Brothers, the billionaire energy moguls who fund everything from Tea Party rallies to Republican Campaign Rallies (this is a matter of public record.)
Then, let's look at this: (emphasis mine)

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state −owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) 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).

For those of you who don't speak "Politician," let me translate.
Walker, who got a large chunk of his funding from the owners of an energy company, wants to sell the ownership and operation of all state-owned energy facilities (heating, cooling, and power plants) to any energy company he wants, for whatever price the company wants. This is called a "no-bid contract." He also adds that last little bit in: "any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest," as a real slap in the face: that means that no matter what happens, it will legally be declared to be a good thing. These people could say "Hey, that's a cool power plant the taxpayers just funded for $10 miollion. We're going to buy that shit off you for $150, take over the operations, and then the taxpayers are going to pay for it, cool? Kthx" and it would be automatically approved as being in everyone's best interest.
But sure, let's just blame unions, right?

[XanRules]

Exactly.

This is where gov't worker unions really get to me, EVERYONE in the private sector is cutting back through job cuts, pay freezes and overall reduction in spending yet these workers somehow think that they shouldn't be affected because they work for the gov't. Changes have to be made, spending has to be reduced and if ending collective bargaining rights is one way to do that, then so be it, we simply cannot continue at the current rate.

but it isn't.

[alpine_aw11]

Government workers in Wisconsin have a ridiculous setup for their pension/benefits, my mom is a public employee in GA and even when Wisconsin makes these changes their pension and healthcare payments will still be much lower.

[XanRules]

Government workers in Wisconsin have a ridiculous setup for their pension/benefits, my mom is a public employee in GA and even when Wisconsin makes these changes their pension and healthcare payments will still be much lower.

yeah, YOUR MOM is a public employee!

It's really not that ridiculous, but, that doesn't matter - the point is, the unions have already agreed to the changes.

[XanRules]

Here's something for your "can this possibly be for real" file this morning. Over at the Buffalo Beast -- the former print alt-weekly turned online newspaper founded by onetime editor Matt Taibbi, typically best known for its annual list of "The 50 Most Loathsome Americans" -- there appear to be recordings of a phone call between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and current editor Ian Murphy. Now, why on earth would Scott Walker want to talk on the phone with the editor of an online site in Buffalo? Well, he wouldn't.

But what if said editor pretended to be David Koch of the famed Koch Brothers? Well, that's a different story altogether, apparently! And so Walker, believing himself to be on the phone with his patron, seems to have had a long conversation about busting Wisconsin's unions.

Buffalo Beast Publisher Paul Fallon told The Huffington Post that the audio is "absolutely legit." That the call took place as described by the Beast has been confirmed by Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie.

"Basically what happened was, yesterday morning [Murphy] was watching television about this Wisconsin stuff and he saw a report where he saw Walker say he wasn't going to talk to anybody," Fallon said. "And he said, 'I bet he would talk to somebody if he had enough oomph behind him.'"

This all apparently went down Tuesday afternoon, hours before Walker made his "fireside chat." It took some doing: Murphy-as-Koch said he had several hoops to jump through before he was granted access to Walker, beginning with a receptionist, leading to the governor's executive assistant, and finally ending up with his chief of staff, Keith Gilkes.

From Murphy's account:

I politely said hello, not knowing how friendly Gilkes and Koch may be. He was eager to help. "I was really hoping to talk directly to Scott," I said. He said that could be arranged and that I should just leave my number. I explained to Gilkes, "My goddamn maid, Maria, put my phone in the washer. I'd have her deported, but she works for next to nothing." Gilkes found this amusing. "I'm calling from the VOID--with the VOID, or whatever it's called. You know, the Snype!"
"Gotcha," Gilkes said. "Let me check the schedule here...OK, there's an opening at 2 o'clock Central Standard Time. Just call this same number and we'll put you through."
ADVERTISEMENT

I tell you what, if Walker really wants to pare down the state budget, he can start by firing all of these people!

At any rate, yesterday afternoon, Murphy says he and Walker had their own chat. The other man on the tape dutifully briefs "Koch" on the latest news, telling him that one tactic they are exploring to bring the wayward Senate Democrats back to the state is stopping the direct deposit of their paychecks. "Koch" asks, "Now you're not talking to any of these Democrat bastards, are you?" The other man replies that there is one, state Sen. Tim Cullen, who might be approachable, though he cautions, "He's pretty reasonable, but he's not one of us."

[For a longer collection of transcripted highlights of this call, click here.]


The conversation continues: the other man talks about his plans to threaten workers with layoffs, about sowing divisions between the public sector and private sector unions, and the potential for their union busting efforts to spread to other states. "This is our moment," he tells Murphy when Murphy describes him as "the first domino."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBnSv3a6Nh4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3a2pYGr7-k

[SPOOLIN]

My parents have been involved with union work places and its never good news. Union pipe fitters and welders i talk to talk about how they work and also get payed a lot for standing around. Then they go and bury hundreds of thousands of dollars in tools in a container under the job site when done to prevent the tools that are marked for the union workers from being released to general population and injuring someone using it and then they sue the union or whatever. I wouldn't even apply for a job at a union shop if i had to, i dont need someone else doing my dealings.

[XanRules]

My parents have been involved with union work places and its never good news. Union pipe fitters and welders i talk to talk about how they work and also get payed a lot for standing around. Then they go and bury hundreds of thousands of dollars in tools in a container under the job site when done to prevent the tools that are marked for the union workers from being released to general population and injuring someone using it and then they sue the union or whatever. I wouldn't even apply for a job at a union shop if i had to, i dont need someone else doing my dealings.

What the hell unions were those?
I always hear stories like this, but in all my union experience I've never met anybody who was actually like this, except for the assholes in the UAW - and even other unions don't like them.
Every time I ask for details on who these people were, I never get a response.

[alpine_aw11]

yeah, YOUR MOM is a public employee!

It's really not that ridiculous, but, that doesn't matter - the point is, the unions have already agreed to the changes.

I'm just not a big fan of the people who are protesting for the sole reason that they won't be so spoiled anymore. It's like.....the reverse tea party.

[XanRules]

I'm just not a big fan of the people who are protesting for the sole reason that they won't be so spoiled anymore. It's like.....the reverse tea party.

Protesting for the sole reason that they won't be spoiled anymore?

You serious?
The working class is spoiled?

[ahabion]

I would tend to side with the State with this.

My understanding of unions (and I'm sure I'm ignorant) is that unions were first created to protect workers from abuse like: child labor, 40 hour work week, dangerous working environments, and vacation time. Now it's more to benefits and pay. Not even benefits in vacation time but pensions, health insurance, and the like.

What I'm trying to say is that unions now are more about 'the more' rather than 'abuse'. They've become so 'powerful' or influential in union-based employment that they can literally stall an entire company and hold them hostage to it. Not that the company wasn't paying them fairly but because the union workers want more pay or more benefits. It's all about the more rather than necessity or earning. I'm just glad to have a job and earning an income. Those teachers probably get paid significantly higher than me, but I'm okay with that. They get 1000% more days vacation than I do and I'm okay with that. I get 4 days of paid vacation time out of the year and I'm okay with that. But the moment I move from my low income earning job to a lot higher than what they're getting, they're not okay with that? Their pay is not good enough anymore because now me, working in the private sector, is making more than them in the public sector? Some how we view that as not being fair? I chose my life path and it led me to X, and they chose their path, and it lead them to Y, and yet somehow they think that variables in life should be equal?

Again, it's probably me just being ignorant and if you make more money than me, you know what? I'm okay with that. I applaud you and am happy for you and your success. My wife makes twice the amount of money than me without a day of post-secondary schooling compared to my 8 years and I'm okay with that. In the next few years, I hope to make 3 times as much as she does and she'll be okay with that but yet, somehow I'll be viewed as the rich and think that's not fair. A lot of people who see that kind of 'living' is not okay with that but want that very life without the hard work, so we have unions that equalize things.

[XanRules]

I would tend to side with the State with this.

My understanding of unions (and I'm sure I'm ignorant) is that unions were first created to protect workers from abuse like: child labor, 40 hour work week, dangerous working environments, and vacation time. Now it's more to benefits and pay. Not even benefits in vacation time but pensions, health insurance, and the like.

What I'm trying to say is that unions now are more about 'the more' rather than 'abuse'. They've become so 'powerful' or influential in union-based employment that they can literally stall an entire company and hold them hostage to it. Not that the company wasn't paying them fairly but because the union workers want more pay or more benefits. It's all about the more rather than necessity or earning. I'm just glad to have a job and earning an income. Those teachers probably get paid significantly higher than me, but I'm okay with that. They get 1000% more days vacation than I do and I'm okay with that. I get 4 days of paid vacation time out of the year and I'm okay with that. But the moment I move from my low income earning job to a lot higher than what they're getting, they're not okay with that? Their pay is not good enough anymore because now me, working in the private sector, is making more than them in the public sector? Some how we view that as not being fair? I chose my life path and it led me to X, and they chose their path, and it lead them to Y, and yet somehow they think that variables in life should be equal?

Again, it's probably me just being ignorant and if you make more money than me, you know what? I'm okay with that. I applaud you and am happy for you and your success. My wife makes twice the amount of money than me without a day of post-secondary schooling compared to my 8 years and I'm okay with that. In the next few years, I hope to make 3 times as much as she does and she'll be okay with that but yet, somehow I'll be viewed as the rich and think that's not fair. A lot of people who see that kind of 'living' is not okay with that but want that very life without the hard work, so we have unions that equalize things.

That's mostly irrelevant, because that isn't what they're protesting about.
They're protesting about the fact that this crooked motherfucker's bill, if passed, will strip them of the rights that are guaranteed to them by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 under the guise of "balancing the budget."
Scott Walker is stripping Americans of their rights because he doesn't agree that those should be their rights. That's the issue. Whether you think public sector unions are too powerful, not strong enough, etc - doesn't matter. The fact is that people - Working Americans, no less - are being stripped of the rights guaranteed to them by our laws. Nobody should support that.

[XanRules]

Let me spin this a bit differently.
The National Labor Relations Act is to Labor Unions what the Civil Rights Act is to Black Americans. It guarantees them rights that they previously did not have. Generations of people fought and died for the rights that those acts finally gave them.

So, I'll take my original quote.

They're protesting about the fact that this crooked motherfucker's bill, if passed, will strip them of the rights that are guaranteed to them by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 under the guise of "balancing the budget."

The governor says, "it's too expensive to let union members have their collective bargaining rights, so we're going to break the unions." And people say, "yeah man, unions had their place, but they're outdated and now they really suck, they're just parasites" or "these people just need to stop bitching!"

Let's rephrase that in a new way using a different piece of landmark legislation.

They're protesting about the fact that this crooked motherfucker's bill, if passed, will strip them of the rights that are guaranteed to them by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the guise of "balancing the budget."

If someone said "it's too expensive to let blacks and whites work in the same place, so we're going to go back to segregation," would people say, "yeah man, racial equality had its place, but now it's outdated and really sucks, these people are just parasites," and that African-Americans "just needed to stop bitching?"
Because it's the exact same goddamn principle. Denying people rights because they're different. In this case, they're different because of their income, not because of their race.

Here's another one with another major act of congress.

They're protesting about the fact that this crooked motherfucker's bill, if passed, will strip them of the rights that are guaranteed to them by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 under the guise of "balancing the budget."

would people say, "yeah man, equal access for the handicapped had its place, but now it's outdated and really sucks, these people are just parasites who take my tax dollars and make me use automatic doors" and that the handicapped "just needed to stop bitching?"

Again, it's the exact same principle. Taking away peoples' rights because they're different, or you don't like them, or you have something to gain by disenfranchising them.

[Browning151]

They're protesting about the fact that this crooked motherfucker's bill, if passed, will strip them of the rights that are guaranteed to them by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 under the guise of "balancing the budget."

Is this the law that you're citing?

The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act (after its sponsor, Senator Robert F. Wagner) (Pub.L. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 151–169), is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors,
federal, state or local government workers,
independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers.

Link HERE

The law applied to all employers involved in interstate commerce other than airlines, railroads, agriculture, and government.

Link HERE

That's just 2 quick articles I read from a quick search on google, so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you citing a law that doesn't cover public sector workers? Under what law are public sector workers given collective bargaining rights? So far as I can tell they aren't being stripped of any right guaranteed to them by this law.

Also, your comparison to segregation and handicapped issues makes no sense to me. Not hiring someone based upon skin color or physical disability is far different from ending collective bargaining rights because they are costing a government too much money. If Walker is in fact just union busting for the sake of not liking them, then yes it's wrong, if it's being done to cut costs then no it's not. Walker may have his own agenda, but this isn't the first or the last time that you will hear about this being brought up in relation to fed/state/local budgets and unions, and it's not a coincidence that it keeps coming up and will continue to come up.

[XanRules]

Is this the law that you're citing?


Link HERE


Link HERE

That's just 2 quick articles I read from a quick search on google, so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you citing a law that doesn't cover public sector workers? Under what law are public sector workers given collective bargaining rights? So far as I can tell they aren't being stripped of any right guaranteed to them by this law.

Also, your comparison to segregation and handicapped issues makes no sense to me. Not hiring someone based upon skin color or physical disability is far different from ending collective bargaining rights because they are costing a government too much money. If Walker is in fact just union busting for the sake of not liking them, then yes it's wrong, if it's being done to cut costs then no it's not. Walker may have his own agenda, but this isn't the first or the last time that you will hear about this being brought up in relation to fed/state/local budgets and unions, and it's not a coincidence that it keeps coming up and will continue to come up.

Ah. My mistake on the NLRA - I can't believe I let that one past me

It looks like, from some brief research, that it has since been interpreted into state and federal laws and various bits of the constitution. Generally speaking, unionization has in the past been covered under the free assembly clause of the first amendment. Collective bargaining is also implicitly covered under the fourteenth amendment (denial of life, liberty, property without due process, etc.) This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes or state statutes. In Wisconsin, statutes permit bargaining by municipal/government employees, as their specific labor laws are modeled after the NLRA and as such do allow government employees to unionize.

So, under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Walker can do this.
Under the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, not to mention all of their laws and statutes pertaining to labor, he can't.

+reps on fact-checking me, though.
Still feel like a douche for missing that.

Now, regarding my comparison, I'm not saying it's the same as firing someone because they're black or disabled (because that would be a stupid argument) I'm saying it's just an example of denying people their rights under the law because you don't like or don't agree with them, because they're different from you.

[ahabion]

Let me spin this a bit differently.
The National Labor Relations Act is to Labor Unions what the Civil Rights Act is to Black Americans. It guarantees them rights that they previously did not have. Generations of people fought and died for the rights that those acts finally gave them.

Really? Black Americans? Really?! Pretty short sighted if you think that. Even Rev, MLK would be ashamed of such a statement.

[Browning151]

Ah. My mistake on the NLRA - I can't believe I let that one past me

It looks like, from some brief research, that it has since been interpreted into state and federal laws and various bits of the constitution. Generally speaking, unionization has in the past been covered under the free assembly clause of the first amendment. Collective bargaining is also implicitly covered under the fourteenth amendment (denial of life, liberty, property without due process, etc.) This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes or state statutes. In Wisconsin, statutes permit bargaining by municipal/government employees, as their specific labor laws are modeled after the NLRA and as such do allow government employees to unionize.

So, under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Walker can do this.
Under the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, not to mention all of their laws and statutes pertaining to labor, he can't.

+reps on fact-checking me, though.
Still feel like a douche for missing that.

Now, regarding my comparison, I'm not saying it's the same as firing someone because they're black or disabled (because that would be a stupid argument) I'm saying it's just an example of denying people their rights under the law because you don't like or don't agree with them, because they're different from you.

lol, reps for "owning up" so to speak (if I can actually get it to work)

My biggest problem with public sector unions is that their collective bargaining rights are between them, and politicians. The public doesn't get much chance to voice where they stand on how their tax dollars are being spent in regards to union contracts. Yes, we can vote out politicians if we don't like what they do, but with contracts that's not necessarily a quick fix either. Broken down into a very simple state lets say that you have a State/County/Municipal gov't that is facing massive budget shortfalls, and for the sake of argument their basic functions are to:
Collect taxes
Provide infrastructure
Pay workers salaries
Maintain assistance programs
(I know that's probably a far over simplified list, but I'm not trying to get too long winded.)
So in order to meet what is available in the budget you have to either cut spending, raise taxes or both. So let's suppose that you've made cuts in every area except for one and now you intend to implement pay cuts, workers go on strike so you agree not to make cuts, what is your other option? Raise taxes. Now you've cut infrastructure, you've cut assistance programs and you've raised taxes so essentially everyone, including those union workers have taken a pay cut due to higher taxes. Now those unions once again demand a pay raise to cover the money they've lost due to increase taxes and you've ended up right back where you started. It's a vicious cycle that just continues on and on and on. I know that unions aren't the only cause of this, nor are they the only entity that creates such a cycle but in large part I don't see where they really have a place in the public sector. Just my feel free to pick that apart, I'm always willing to learn.

[BanginJimmy]

The governor says, "it's too expensive to let union members have their collective bargaining rights, so we're going to break the unions." And people say, "yeah man, unions had their place, but they're outdated and now they really suck, they're just parasites" or "these people just need to stop bitching!"

Let's rephrase that in a new way using a different piece of landmark legislation.

Walker has come out several times and said that limiting collective bargaining, not ending it as you are saying, is about long term cost savings. He can get the contract in place now, but what happens in 4 or 5 years when the dems are back in charge?

The bill that is going to be approved and signed will still allow collective bargaining for wage and working conditions, but will end collective bargaining for pension, health insurance, and other legacy costs.

[alpine_aw11]

Protesting for the sole reason that they won't be spoiled anymore?

You serious?
The working class is spoiled?

Yea, government workers in Wisconsin do happen to be very spoiled compared to most other states. There really isn't an argument against it either.

[XanRules]

Really? Black Americans? Really?! Pretty short sighted if you think that. Even Rev, MLK would be ashamed of such a statement.

How is it not?
I explained how it is, tell me how I'm wrong. I'm all ears.

lol, reps for "owning up" so to speak (if I can actually get it to work)

My biggest problem with public sector unions is that their collective bargaining rights are between them, and politicians. The public doesn't get much chance to voice where they stand on how their tax dollars are being spent in regards to union contracts. Yes, we can vote out politicians if we don't like what they do, but with contracts that's not necessarily a quick fix either. Broken down into a very simple state lets say that you have a State/County/Municipal gov't that is facing massive budget shortfalls, and for the sake of argument their basic functions are to:
Collect taxes
Provide infrastructure
Pay workers salaries
Maintain assistance programs
(I know that's probably a far over simplified list, but I'm not trying to get too long winded.)
So in order to meet what is available in the budget you have to either cut spending, raise taxes or both. So let's suppose that you've made cuts in every area except for one and now you intend to implement pay cuts, workers go on strike so you agree not to make cuts, what is your other option? Raise taxes. Now you've cut infrastructure, you've cut assistance programs and you've raised taxes so essentially everyone, including those union workers have taken a pay cut due to higher taxes. Now those unions once again demand a pay raise to cover the money they've lost due to increase taxes and you've ended up right back where you started. It's a vicious cycle that just continues on and on and on. I know that unions aren't the only cause of this, nor are they the only entity that creates such a cycle but in large part I don't see where they really have a place in the public sector. Just my feel free to pick that apart, I'm always willing to learn.

Public workers don't collectively bargain with politicians, they still have bosses.
Also, public workers can't strike.

Walker has come out several times and said that limiting collective bargaining, not ending it as you are saying, is about long term cost savings. He can get the contract in place now, but what happens in 4 or 5 years when the dems are back in charge?

The bill that is going to be approved and signed will still allow collective bargaining for wage and working conditions, but will end collective bargaining for pension, health insurance, and other legacy costs.

That's like saying that banning firearms is just "limiting" them. That's intentionally disingenuous and you know it. He's "limiting" it to things that nobody collectively bargains for. Furthermore, eliminating collective bargaining has nothing to do with the budget. Absolutely nothing.

[Browning151]

Public workers don't collectively bargain with politicians, they still have bosses.

In this case the employer is the gov't, whose budget is allocated by state legislature or a board of commissioners or such, which is voted on by politicians. I wasn't implying that they directly bargain with the politicians, but in the end that's who votes on the budget which ultimately determines what is available for employee compensation.

Also, public workers can't strike.

"Sick out", essentially the same principle.

[ahabion]

How is it not?
I explained how it is, tell me how I'm wrong. I'm all ears.

Because MLK was more than just Blacks, he was for all mankind. C'mon man, listen to his speeches and he reiterates this time and time again. Though he was viewed as a civil man, he knew that he answered to a higher authority, that his convictions in his faith far outweighed blacks, whites, or any other color. He spoke out against Vietnam, not only because of the unfair treatment of blacks in the war but also the massacre of the Vietnamese on American hands.

To say that the Civil Rights Act was purely for the purpose of blacks is ridiculous and is riding on the coat tail of one of the most influential leaders in history as completely self-serving and sadly, where his grander vision of equality will never come to fruition so long as there is such blindness to only see the opposite of what he preached. Equality. In opportunity and in pursuit. Sure not everyone gets dealt the same hand in life, but it's what you do with the cards you're dealt instead of folding and then say that the game is rigged. We could somehow rig the system where everyone gets dealt Kings regardless of what you earned, learned, did or didn't do to deserve it but the moment we see someone pickup an Ace, we cry foul. Dr. King didn't preach about you having what the other person had (which is coveting for you Bible scholars), he preached that you would have that opportunity that the other person had. What that person did with that opportunity is up to them to decide. (thinking about that Eminem song) Ironically, a white dude being one of hip hop's elite rappers... yep, Dr. King was talking about that too.

[Total_Blender]

I like the teachers unions in GA that work to keep me in my job and push for expansion of my benefits etc. GA educators are severely underpaid. Some people forget that being an educator, or an academic professional requires a Masters degree, and constant training. Its reasonable for educators to ask for compensation that is commensurate with that of the private sector, and to use unions to do so.

While y'all might see it as "the people not having a say" in the negotiation between the politicians and the unions, its really the unions that protect us public employees from the politicians. We are people too, after all. We pay the same taxes that you do in the private sector, and contribute to our own retirements, insurance etc.

You should also realize that Walker suspended corporate income tax for 2 years for businesses that relocate to WI or newly incorporated businesses. And he's pushed for more funds for economic development initiatives that have been running surpluses of unspent money. The "budget crisis" is just a false meme the Republicans have manufactured as a pretense to bust the union.

http://www.wiscnews.com/bdc/business...cc4c002e0.html

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1AB-3.pdf

This is not so much about the budget concerns as it is Walker attempting to break the unions just for the fuck of it. If its about the rates they were paying into their pensions and healthcare, he would negotiate those with the unions. But Walker is trying to take away ALL of their bargaining rights, including such things as workplace safety, discrimination, promotions, etc etc.

And then there's the call from Buffalo Beast editor Ian Murphy (posing as billionaire rightwing astroturfer David Koch) to Walker. I think it pretty much speaks for itself, The good stuff doesn't start until part 2:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBnSv...eature=related

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3a2pYGr7-k

"They're gonna need a message out reenforcing why this is a good thing for the economy and the state"

"We thought about that (planting troublemakers in the crowd)... but that would scare the public into thinking that maybe the governors gotta settle to avoid these problems".

Yep, Walker is a Kochsucker.

[XanRules]

I posted those videos already

[XanRules]

Because MLK was more than just Blacks, he was for all mankind. C'mon man, listen to his speeches and he reiterates this time and time again. Though he was viewed as a civil man, he knew that he answered to a higher authority, that his convictions in his faith far outweighed blacks, whites, or any other color. He spoke out against Vietnam, not only because of the unfair treatment of blacks in the war but also the massacre of the Vietnamese on American hands.

To say that the Civil Rights Act was purely for the purpose of blacks is ridiculous and is riding on the coat tail of one of the most influential leaders in history as completely self-serving and sadly, where his grander vision of equality will never come to fruition so long as there is such blindness to only see the opposite of what he preached. Equality. In opportunity and in pursuit. Sure not everyone gets dealt the same hand in life, but it's what you do with the cards you're dealt instead of folding and then say that the game is rigged. We could somehow rig the system where everyone gets dealt Kings regardless of what you earned, learned, did or didn't do to deserve it but the moment we see someone pickup an Ace, we cry foul. Dr. King didn't preach about you having what the other person had (which is coveting for you Bible scholars), he preached that you would have that opportunity that the other person had. What that person did with that opportunity is up to them to decide. (thinking about that Eminem song) Ironically, a white dude being one of hip hop's elite rappers... yep, Dr. King was talking about that too.

I never said it was purely for the purpose of blacks.
But if you don't think that the Civil Rights Act was largely aimed at black Americans, I don't really know what to tell you.

PS: King was a union supporter, too

[ahabion]

I never said it was purely for the purpose of blacks.
But if you don't think that the Civil Rights Act was largely aimed at black Americans, I don't really know what to tell you.

PS: King was a union supporter, too

If you think of it from the point of iew of the majority, then yes you'd be right, but as a minority and looking back to the one who fathered it, then the bigger picture is to be seen.

I'm not against unions entirely, I'm against greed and the tools used to enforce them. Hard work and dedication earns gain, but abuse on te backs of others, that's greed regardless of it being private or pubic, individual or union.

[ek forever]

Bottom line, Wisconsin education employees average about $88,000 per year in wages and benefits.

Private sector employees average about $60,000 per year in wages and benefits.

What right is there to collectively bargain? There is none. Many states around the country, like Virgina, have banned collective bargaining for decades now.

Public sector unionism is slowly on the decline, but still on average makes up about a 1/4 of the public sector workforce.

Private sector unionism is rapidly on the decline and is currently at 7%

If you aren't happy with your public sector job, leave the public sector and produce something. You don't HAVE TO stick with a shitty job and hold a gun to the taxpayers head to make better money than all the people paying you.

Also consider that the avg private sector at ~$60,000 in wages/benefits also include the ENTIRE POOL of the private sector. All the millionaires, billionaires, and well compensated athletes for big sports teams are also included. The education portion of the public sector salary is JUST people with an education in education and is a very limited pool of capability and intelligence.

Ever looked at a universities grade rolls? At mine for example in West GA the grades go something like this:

Poli Sci A's: 29 B's: 56 C's: 44 F's: 27
Education A's: 89 B's 112 C's: 19 F's: 12

That may be dramatic as I'm trying to remember as best I can, but it's staggering.

[Total_Blender]

You are wrong when you say that the public sector is "just people with education in education and is a very limited pool of capability and intelligence".

Just in this one building we have academic professionals of a diverse assortment of backgrounds including administrators, professors, librarians, archivists, etc.

But we also have systems analysts, IT professionals, software engineers, database administrators, food service workers, custodial staff, groundskeepers, maintenance personnel, fabricators, and security personnel.

There is a tremendous spread in our incomes as well. Our university president makes $600,000 per year and many of our administrators make 6 figures, but the lady who cleans the bathrooms makes minimum wage. There are a lot more ladies who clean bathrooms than there are administrators, obviously.

And then there is law enforcement, firefighters, EMT's, health professionals, park rangers, game wardens, etc etc etc.

As for your comment "leave the public sector and produce something," do you consider the education of students to not exist as a "something" which one can produce?

Concerning your commentary of "grade rolls," I really don't get what you are trying to insinuate. Are your statistics referring to Bachelor's or Masters degrees? You do realize, also, that most college professors don't hold degrees in Education, they hold degrees in the fields that they teach.

[ek forever]

You're exactly right. Professors don't have degrees in education. Unless they teach education.

And by "public sector having an education in education" i meant for that to be teachers. I'll edit it.

[ek forever]

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_50.htm

This is a study based on a BLS report:

Among the key findings of this report:

* According to the BLS, the average public school teacher in the United States earned $34.06 per hour in 2005.


* The average public school teacher was paid 36% more per hour than the average non-sales white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty and technical worker.

* Full-time public school teachers work on average 36.5 hours per week during weeks that they are working. By comparison, white-collar workers (excluding sales) work 39.4 hours, and professional specialty and technical workers work 39.0 hours per week. Private school teachers work 38.3 hours per week.

* Compared with public school teachers, editors and reporters earn 24% less; architects, 11% less; psychologists, 9% less; chemists, 5% less; mechanical engineers, 6% less; and economists, 1% less.

[Total_Blender]

Your source material is tainted by Koch money:

http://mediamattersaction.org/transp...search/funders

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/...eachers/Salary

If you look more closely at the BLS statistics, you'll see that teacher pay is highest where the cost of living and the average wage is higher. Places like NYC, and the wealthy areas of New England have the highest average wage for teachers, but even the fast food workers there earn higher than national averages.

K-12 teachers:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes252021.htm

College professors:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes251125.htm

Also, a teacher's hours in the classroom are only part of the work, as grade school teachers have to grade papers and meet with parents on their own time and many teachers volunteer to run the extracurricular activities, PTA, etc. And college professors also have grading, advising, mentoring, and they have a research obligation as well. At the highest paying schools, professors spend as much time doing research and publishing as they do teaching a full load of classes. I know most of the Prof's here don't last more than 4 or 5 years because they are expected to publish so much.

[ek forever]

Your source material is tainted with Soros money. Someone even wealthier than the Koch brothers.

How is the BLS tainted with Koch money?

I'll post the numbers again:


* According to the BLS, the average public school teacher in the United States earned $34.06 per hour in 2005.


* The average public school teacher was paid 36% more per hour than the average non-sales white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty and technical worker.

* Full-time public school teachers work on average 36.5 hours per week during weeks that they are working. By comparison, white-collar workers (excluding sales) work 39.4 hours, and professional specialty and technical workers work 39.0 hours per week. Private school teachers work 38.3 hours per week.

* Compared with public school teachers, editors and reporters earn 24% less; architects, 11% less; psychologists, 9% less; chemists, 5% less; mechanical engineers, 6% less; and economists, 1% less.