ok, i understand why governor walker wants the concession (that the union has already agreed to) in benefits contribution....but WHY the demand to give up all collective bargaining rights?

  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Feb 21, 2011 11:41 PM GMT
    WTF?

    icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 12:34 AM GMT
    Because next year they will try and reverse whatever they agreed to now.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Feb 22, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidBecause next year they will try and reverse whatever they agreed to now.


    HOW can you prove this?

    just because you say it doesn't mean it will happen, sb...i mean sf.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 12:40 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidBecause next year they will try and reverse whatever they agreed to now.


    I believe the contract is longer than a year, but I'm not positive. In any event, given all the concessions they have already made, why wouldn't they renegotiate when the economic climate improves.

    The Governor could also negotiate benchmarks for salary increases and merit raises either per individual or for things like efficiency, costs-savings, etc.

    But since Walker is doing the bidding of his benefactors (those pesky Koch brothers), his sole goal is to break the union. The union workers and other middle class Wisconsinites understand that and that's why they're fighting so hard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 12:42 AM GMT
    rnch said
    socalfitness saidBecause next year they will try and reverse whatever they agreed to now.


    HOW can you prove this?

    just because you say it doesn't mean it will happen, sb...i mean sf.

    Can't prove it, but a reasonable assumption based on the tenacity of the public employee unions in the past.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 22, 2011 12:54 AM GMT
    Tenacity of the public employees?

    WTF is that?
    Collective bargaining is just that
    If there is no money in the State system then what the hell is the State Government doing giving it away

    These State workers have already given concessions and have stated they will give up more
    so you're entire point is ridiculous

    Again this is NOT about the money
    and all about a power play

    But the republicans were taken by surprise they didn't see the backlash comin and the longer this stews the worse it's going to be for them
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Feb 22, 2011 12:56 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rnch said
    socalfitness saidBecause next year they will try and reverse whatever they agreed to now.


    HOW can you prove this?

    just because you say it doesn't mean it will happen, sb...i mean sf.

    Can't prove it, but a reasonable assumption based on the tenacity of the public employee unions in the past.




    translation: sf's own Wild Assed Guess.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 1:46 AM GMT
    rnch said
    socalfitness said
    rnch said
    socalfitness saidBecause next year they will try and reverse whatever they agreed to now.


    HOW can you prove this?

    just because you say it doesn't mean it will happen, sb...i mean sf.

    Can't prove it, but a reasonable assumption based on the tenacity of the public employee unions in the past.


    translation: sf's own Wild Assed Guess.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Oh pardon me. I offered my opinion. I thought based on your thread you were seeking any opinions or relevant facts. You should have qualified your request that you only sought responses that were pro-union and consistent with your liberal position. If you had stated that, I wouldn't have wasted my time. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I might point out also the Governor is doing exactly what he stated he would do before being elected, so apparently the voters of Wisconsin also support his position.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 22, 2011 1:59 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidBecause next year they will try and reverse whatever they agreed to now.


    Yes just like they apparently tried in the lame duck session in the Wisconsin legislature, they knew it was coming. They failed to get the votes for the contracts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 2:20 AM GMT
    jprichva saidThe real reason, which everyone except brainwashed rightist robots know, is that unions represent the only reliable source of big money that the Democrats can possibly use to counter the newly-unleashed corporate money tsunami. Break the unions and you break the Democratic piggybank.

    Anyone who doesn't get this is dreaming or deluded.


    Yup. They're not satisfied with the Supreme Court opening up the full corporate coffers to fuel the Republican/Tea Bagger agenda. They also want to cut off the funding from the opposition.

    It's okay. They've overstepped and the American people's general sense of fairness is being rebooted as we speak.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:25 AM GMT
    jprichva saidThe real reason, which everyone except brainwashed rightist robots know, is that unions represent the only reliable source of big money that the Democrats can possibly use to counter the newly-unleashed corporate money tsunami. Break the unions and you break the Democratic piggybank.

    Anyone who doesn't get this is dreaming or deluded.

    Agree. as I've written here before and predicted would happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:31 AM GMT
    rnch saidjust because you say it doesn't mean it will happen, sb...i mean sf.

    C'est le meme chose, oui? socialfitness = southbeach. They are clones. Listen to one, you've heard the other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 4:15 AM GMT
    "For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side. "

    Op-Ed Columnist
    Wisconsin Power Play
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 4:45 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    rnch saidjust because you say it doesn't mean it will happen, sb...i mean sf.

    C'est le meme chose, oui? socialfitness = southbeach. They are clones. Listen to one, you've heard the other.

    From your perspective, anyone who is only moderately liberal, middle of the road, or conservative, and also psychologically stable, must look the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 5:16 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    rnch saidjust because you say it doesn't mean it will happen, sb...i mean sf.

    C'est le meme chose, oui? socialfitness = southbeach. They are clones. Listen to one, you've heard the other.

    From your perspective, anyone who is only moderately liberal, middle of the road, or conservative, and also psychologically stable, must look the same.


    This whole "gay males liberals are mean to conservative guys" shtick is really growing tiresome.

    If you, riddler, SouthBeach, conservativejock et al are such fabulously wealthy self-made men, why not enjoy the fruits of your mendacity and let the poor union workers have the crumbs they get?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 22, 2011 5:40 AM GMT
    kisuke12 said"For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side. "

    Op-Ed Columnist
    Wisconsin Power Play
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB


    Years later Krugman has been shown to be wrong on just about everything he has said ( stimulus program , GDP, open markets).

    Its no wonder why he has turned to more politics.

    He does the same thing others do here on RJ, he personally attacks the economists that disagree with him . A common thread amongst that political ideology.

    http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/krugman_response.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 5:48 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    rnch saidjust because you say it doesn't mean it will happen, sb...i mean sf.

    C'est le meme chose, oui? socialfitness = southbeach. They are clones. Listen to one, you've heard the other.

    From your perspective, anyone who is only moderately liberal, middle of the road, or conservative, and also psychologically stable, must look the same.


    This whole "gay males liberals are mean to conservative guys" shtick is really growing tiresome.

    If you, riddler, SouthBeach, conservativejock et al are such fabulously wealthy self-made men, why not enjoy the fruits of your mendacity and let the poor union workers have the crumbs they get?

    My point to Art_Deco was not about him being mean, but in his case, a unique perspective.

    As far as personal wealth, I have never discussed that at all on RJ. Regarding union workers, I have only the highest regard for them. From the time I was very young, I was brought up knowing that the worth of each person is not dependent on how they earn a living or how much is in their bank account. My beef is with the union bosses and the unions themselves, who have gotten too powerful and because of benefits exceeding private sector, have put governments in a financial bind. My only complaint against the workers is that they went along with the excess benefits, but who would turn down very generous benefits? The other thing - I knew twin brothers who were welders in a union shop. They had to be union members, but saw the corruption, and said the rules negotiated always protected the worst performers, leading to significant inefficiencies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 5:59 AM GMT
    Socal, at one time, I worked for a very large company with a union. In a six year span, the union agreed to wage increases of 0. Zero. You know what they got for that? One day off. So, wage increases of an average, company wide, of 50 dollars a year. Oh, and the right to have 8 hours between shifts, so you couldn't be worked on an 8 hour shift til 2am then start again at 7am for another 8 hour shift. But you see, this stuff doesn't make the news; it won't sell.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 6:17 AM GMT
    I think the proposed law allows collective bargaining rights for pay but not for benefits, it doesn't get rid of all collective bargaining rights. There must be a better way for public sector workers to come to a contract. They were given their current pay and benefits and bargaining rights probably by politicians who were favorable to them, who needed their support to get re-elected. And now they are being taken away by politicians who probably get their support elsewhere. Feast or famine, live by the election - die by the election. Maybe I've only been exposed to the most egregious examples, but some of the benefits I've heard about for public sector employees sounded very very generous. I guess it took a severe downturn to expose them. I think people should be properly incentivized to work as public servants, but I think it took an imbalanced and probably secretive system to produce those kinds of benefits. I don't think the solution is to now rely on the pendulum to swing far in the opposite direction. Is there no better way for this system to work?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 22, 2011 6:32 AM GMT
    meninlove said Socal, at one time, I worked for a very large company with a union. In a six year span, the union agreed to wage increases of 0. Zero. You know what they got for that? One day off. So, wage increases of an average, company wide, of 50 dollars a year. Oh, and the right to have 8 hours between shifts, so you couldn't be worked on an 8 hour shift til 2am then start again at 7am for another 8 hour shift. But you see, this stuff doesn't make the news; it won't sell.



    sounds like my work schedule.

    See if your union "sucked" and didnt get a good agreement or was even corrupt in Wisconsin you have no recourse.
    you would have had no choice to pay into the Union.

    It makes sense why workers would unionize, what doesnt make sense is the forced membership and dues.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 6:59 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Years later Krugman has been shown to be wrong on just about everything he has said ( stimulus program , GDP, open markets).



    Just wondering exactly what he said and how he's been proved wrong.

    One thing he said again and again was that the stimulus was too small to do enough good.

    After all, during the last months of the Bush administration, hundreds of thousands of jobs were being lost each month (up to 700,000 in some months). it's been a long time since a net job loss has been reported. Of course, the job gains are not sufficient to make up for the MASSIVE job losses of the Bush administration, but it's certainly an improvement and one that most likely wouldn't have happened without the stimulus.

    It may be that Krugman is right that if the stimulus had been bigger (as he felt it should be), job gains would have been greater. Or perhaps he'd have been wrong. But there's no way to prove it, is there? If there is, I'm all ears. Or eyes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 7:00 AM GMT
    boydroid saidI think the proposed law allows collective bargaining rights for pay but not for benefits, it doesn't get rid of all collective bargaining rights. There must be a better way for public sector workers to come to a contract. They were given their current pay and benefits and bargaining rights probably by politicians who were favorable to them, who needed their support to get re-elected. And now they are being taken away by politicians who probably get their support elsewhere. Feast or famine, live by the election - die by the election. Maybe I've only been exposed to the most egregious examples, but some of the benefits I've heard about for public sector employees sounded very very generous. I guess it took a severe downturn to expose them. I think people should be properly incentivized to work as public servants, but I think it took an imbalanced and probably secretive system to produce those kinds of benefits. I don't think the solution is to now rely on the pendulum to swing far in the opposite direction. Is there no better way for this system to work?


    As a state worker in Ohio...I have very modest benefits and retirement and I pay a good percentage of them. The excesses that are heard of are quite the exceptions and should be prosecuted if illegal. My union collectively has taken ZERO pay increases, have taken furlough days, forfeited vacation, sick and personal time, have increased the % we pay of our health insurance and retirement, have had the out of pocket for insurance triple, the tax rate for city taxes increased by 1% to 3%, along with other "give backs"....I am not allowed to strike and our union doesn't have a strike fund....this is NOT the Teamsters or Autoworkers unions.. I agree the Union system as it is , needs to be "tweaked" ....but not removed....This is a temper tantrum of the new Republican Governors taking advantage of alot of knee-jerk short-sightedness....They will all be one term disasters......tossing the baby out with the bath water right now...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 9:25 AM GMT
    One thing I am truly mystifed (thought not surprised) about is that a lot of people who identify with the Tea Party are actively supporting the governor in this.

    I thought that the Tea Party felt that the government had too much power and was taking away our fundamental rights and freedoms as Americans. But isn't the right to organize with others who share common interests and objectives among our fundamental rights and freedoms? I'm sure that members of the Tea Party would object, and rightly, if the government tried to curtail their right to organize and protest. And when the government is your employer, isn't the right to negotiate the terms of employment with the government clearly something we should have as Americans? I would think so, and I'd think that people who feel that the government is taking our rights and encroaching upon our freedoms would view it that way.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 10:48 AM GMT
    Don't be mystified. According to wikipedia, what the tea party believes:

    It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

    Based on this, it seems obvious that they would side with the governor. And I think they would probably dispute your contention that collective negotiation with your employer is a fundamental right of Americans since they have a strict interpretation of the constitution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 11:39 AM GMT
    boydroid saidI think the proposed law allows collective bargaining rights for pay but not for benefits, it doesn't get rid of all collective bargaining rights. There must be a better way for public sector workers to come to a contract. They were given their current pay and benefits and bargaining rights probably by politicians who were favorable to them, who needed their support to get re-elected. And now they are being taken away by politicians who probably get their support elsewhere. Feast or famine, live by the election - die by the election. Maybe I've only been exposed to the most egregious examples, but some of the benefits I've heard about for public sector employees sounded very very generous. I guess it took a severe downturn to expose them. I think people should be properly incentivized to work as public servants, but I think it took an imbalanced and probably secretive system to produce those kinds of benefits. I don't think the solution is to now rely on the pendulum to swing far in the opposite direction. Is there no better way for this system to work?


    There's a lot of misinformation in your post.

    Public sector workers do not earn more than their private sector counterparts when controlled for experience, education, and other variables. In fact, they earn less. Part of why they earn less is that they have given up wages for job security, health and retirement benefits.

    One thing I've seen a lot of economists note in this and other public worker disputes is that the politicians (Dem and Repub alike) agreed to all of this deferred compensation (re: pensions) because it saved money in the short-term, but now that the bill is coming due no one wants to pay it.

    In terms of why the Tea Party supports Walker, that's very simple. The primary funders of the Tea Party are anti-union billionaires who have spent a great deal of money and effort convincing them that public sector unions are responsible for all the world's evils. And Americans right to free assembly includes the right to join a union, as does international human rights declarations to which the US is a signatory.