100,000 rally in Madison to retain collective bargaining powers

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

    Mar 15, 2011 3:00 AM GMT
    Demonstrators say signing of measure sets back labor laws

    http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110313/MAN0101/103130471/

    The battle is far from over and will spread over the whole country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 3:33 AM GMT
    ...and has energized the labor movement and people who support the rights of average American workers.

    The Repubs will find out at the next election that their efforts to strip workers of their rights and bust the unions, have had the opposite of the effect they were hoping for.
    The Repubs will find out that they haven't weakened the political power of the unions.
    They've strengthened it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 4:01 AM GMT
    No doubt the union supporters can organize. While focusing on Wisconsin, Ohio passing stronger law. Also, see the new Gallup poll: More people favor changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions than oppose

    The New York Times headline mirrors the wording used in a separate Gallup poll conducted March 3-6 in which Americans were asked about a plan (Wisconsin not specified) that would involve “Changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions.” The results showed 49% in favor, 45% opposed.

    http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/

    I think your wishful thinking is blinding you to the facts.

    Take it or leave it. Don't intend to participate further.

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

    Mar 15, 2011 4:18 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidNo doubt the union supporters can organize. While focusing on Wisconsin, Ohio passing stronger law. Also, see the new Gallup poll: More people favor changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions than oppose

    The New York Times headline mirrors the wording used in a separate Gallup poll conducted March 3-6 in which Americans were asked about a plan (Wisconsin not specified) that would involve “Changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions.” The results showed 49% in favor, 45% opposed.

    http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/

    I think your wishful thinking is blinding you to the facts.

    Take it or leave it. Don't intend to participate further.




    Here's a new poll that proves yet again that YOU are the one engaging in "wishful thinking".
    62% - the widest margin yet - back the unions.
    Only 33% agree with stripping workers of their rights.
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/02/6171265-nbcwsj-poll-62-against-stripping-public-employees-bargaining-rights

    And even the pro-right-wing biased Rasmussen finds that 56% back the unions and only 41% back Walker
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/ramussen-poll-majority-of-wisconsinites-side-with-unions-on-collective-bargaining.php
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    Mar 15, 2011 4:53 AM GMT

    I was there on Saturday and think 100,000 is a conservative estimate.
    Some friends of mine made the three hour trip from upstate to participate. They're on the conservative side and aren't the type to be politically vocal. I think that's what makes this thing so moving. Many people who wouldn't normally take a stand have been motivated. Gov. Walker has to realize this and it has surely given him a scare even though he would never admit to that. The trouble is he's not a bright guy and those types just dig in their heels rather use this as a learning moment.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 15, 2011 9:38 AM GMT
    ....... those types........ ?

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

    Mar 15, 2011 4:22 PM GMT
    rickrick91 saidHere's a new poll that proves yet again that YOU are the one engaging in "wishful thinking".
    62% - the widest margin yet - back the unions.
    Only 33% agree with stripping workers of their rights.
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/02/6171265-nbcwsj-poll-62-against-stripping-public-employees-bargaining-rights

    And even the pro-right-wing biased Rasmussen finds that 56% back the unions and only 41% back Walker
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/ramussen-poll-majority-of-wisconsinites-side-with-unions-on-collective-bargaining.php


    I'm curious if you happen to know what the wording in those polls were? I'm not sure how you see this invalidates socalfitness's comment - that wording matters. For instance, most people react negatively when asked if "rights" should be taken away.

    On the other hand, do you see collective bargaining specifically as a right? If it is, why have some states been able to ban collective bargaining for their public union workers?

    Finally, 100,000 is definitely an impressive number. I'm curious if you happen to know how many union members there are in Wisconsin and specifically public sector union members?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 4:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 said... I'm curious if you happen to know what the wording in those polls were? I'm not sure how you see this invalidates socalfitness's comment - that wording matters. For instance, most people react negatively when asked if "rights" should be taken away.

    Quite correct. The Gallup article that goes along with the poll discusses how important the wording is. My Gallup reference is not invalidated at all. Some here like to "mold" the facts to fit their agenda, but I'm beyond arguing back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 5:09 PM GMT
    The best thing to come out of this entire mess is that complacency by voters has been self admitted and vowed to NEVER happen again.......
    bye bye tea party wisconsin!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 7:00 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said... I'm curious if you happen to know what the wording in those polls were? I'm not sure how you see this invalidates socalfitness's comment - that wording matters. For instance, most people react negatively when asked if "rights" should be taken away.

    Quite correct. The Gallup article that goes along with the poll discusses how important the wording is. My Gallup reference is not invalidated at all. Some here like to "mold" the facts to fit their agenda, but I'm beyond arguing back.




    Wording?
    LOL
    You guys are in DEEP denial.
    When voters are asked very simply who do you side with: the unions or Gov. Walker - 56% back the unions and only 41% back Walker.
    And that's according to the pro-right-wing biased Rasmussen.

    Who voters SIDE WITH is the bottom line.
    On this issue - THAT is what will determine who they vote for in the next election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 8:40 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said... I'm curious if you happen to know what the wording in those polls were? I'm not sure how you see this invalidates socalfitness's comment - that wording matters. For instance, most people react negatively when asked if "rights" should be taken away.

    Quite correct. The Gallup article that goes along with the poll discusses how important the wording is. My Gallup reference is not invalidated at all. Some here like to "mold" the facts to fit their agenda, but I'm beyond arguing back.




    Wording?
    LOL
    You guys are in DEEP denial.
    When voters are asked very simply who do you side with: the unions or Gov. Walker - 56% back the unions and only 41% back Walker.
    And that's according to the pro-right-wing biased Rasmussen.

    Who voters SIDE WITH is the bottom line.
    On this issue - THAT is what will determine who they vote for in the next election.

    Sounds like you did not read or understand the Gallup article. But no matter, people will ultimately respond to a better economy, and this analysis shows Walker is on the right side.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1434846
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 8:40 PM GMT
    Protests are for plebs with too much time on their hands, and apparently enough money!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidProtests are for plebs with too much time on their hands, and apparently enough money!
    Yeah.. thats what the jews said in 1939..
    What an asinine comment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:02 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rickrick91 saidHere's a new poll that proves yet again that YOU are the one engaging in "wishful thinking".
    62% - the widest margin yet - back the unions.
    Only 33% agree with stripping workers of their rights.
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/02/6171265-nbcwsj-poll-62-against-stripping-public-employees-bargaining-rights

    And even the pro-right-wing biased Rasmussen finds that 56% back the unions and only 41% back Walker
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/ramussen-poll-majority-of-wisconsinites-side-with-unions-on-collective-bargaining.php


    I'm curious if you happen to know what the wording in those polls were? I'm not sure how you see this invalidates socalfitness's comment - that wording matters. For instance, most people react negatively when asked if "rights" should be taken away.

    On the other hand, do you see collective bargaining specifically as a right? If it is, why have some states been able to ban collective bargaining for their public union workers?

    Finally, 100,000 is definitely an impressive number. I'm curious if you happen to know how many union members there are in Wisconsin and specifically public sector union members?


    It is a priviledge and a right in this country for workers to collectively bargain and it is what has allowed middle class America to prosper. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days of slavery when workers were abused. The reason Walker wants to end collective bargaining is so that they don't have to go through this every year when he knows further cuts will be forth coming.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:09 PM GMT
    jockgymboy said
    riddler78 said
    I'm curious if you happen to know what the wording in those polls were? I'm not sure how you see this invalidates socalfitness's comment - that wording matters. For instance, most people react negatively when asked if "rights" should be taken away.

    On the other hand, do you see collective bargaining specifically as a right? If it is, why have some states been able to ban collective bargaining for their public union workers?

    Finally, 100,000 is definitely an impressive number. I'm curious if you happen to know how many union members there are in Wisconsin and specifically public sector union members?


    It is a priviledge and a right in this country for workers to collectively bargain and it is what has allowed middle class America to prosper. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days of slavery when workers were abused. The reason Walker wants to end collective bargaining is so that they don't have to go through this every year when he knows further cuts will be forth coming.


    Not quite clear on what makes it a "right" - at least from a public union context - is it true there are also other protections?

    Surely, there's a middle ground between collective bargaining and "slavery"? I mean you would agree that Walker isn't advocating slavery?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:17 PM GMT
    He doesn't call it slavery, but it's not much different.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:23 PM GMT
    The political ads from both sides are really blasting now on our TV's. If the state is so broke, where are they getting all the money for these TV ads? Every commerical break there is an ad from one side or the other and it is an all out war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:24 PM GMT
    jockgymboy saidHe doesn't call it slavery, but it's not much different.


    Surely you jest. In what way?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:27 PM GMT
    Just wait and it will affect you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:28 PM GMT
    jockgymboy saidHe doesn't call it slavery, but it's not much different.

    I think you're greatly exaggerating. SB is right about the federal workers not having collective bargaining capability.

    Here's how I look at it, trying to be fairly objective. Unions have benefitted workers. There is a stronger need for unions in the private sector, but still some role in the public sector. The problem is the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of union bosses getting much power and having a very close relationship with politicians who influenced worker benefits. Yes, many groups lobby and seek rewards, but when one group becomes too powerful, and the problem is aggravated by the deficits, then remedies are needed.

    Granting wage and benefit concessions at the state level was not sufficient for two reasons: 1) The issue would come up again in the future, and with collective bargaining, the union would keep their power to influence as they have done in the past, and 2) Would not help the state and local governments.

    Is it possible that without collective bargaining the workers, who now have very generous benefits, could be at a disadvantage in the future? The answer is yes. There are at least a couple of options. 1) Making corrections in the future. Remember, the voters are fair and don't want the workers hurt. and 2) Some type of arbitration process could be put in place.

    Bottom line, the current system of union bosses influencing politicians and via collective bargaining, strong-arming the taxpayer needed to stop.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:28 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said
    jockgymboy said
    riddler78 said
    I'm curious if you happen to know what the wording in those polls were? I'm not sure how you see this invalidates socalfitness's comment - that wording matters. For instance, most people react negatively when asked if "rights" should be taken away.

    On the other hand, do you see collective bargaining specifically as a right? If it is, why have some states been able to ban collective bargaining for their public union workers?

    Finally, 100,000 is definitely an impressive number. I'm curious if you happen to know how many union members there are in Wisconsin and specifically public sector union members?


    It is a priviledge and a right in this country for workers to collectively bargain and it is what has allowed middle class America to prosper. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days of slavery when workers were abused. The reason Walker wants to end collective bargaining is so that they don't have to go through this every year when he knows further cuts will be forth coming.


    Not quite clear on what makes it a "right" - at least from a public union context - is it true there are also other protections?

    Surely, there's a middle ground between collective bargaining and "slavery"? I mean you would agree that Walker isn't advocating slavery?





    Most unionized Federal employees do not have the ability to collectively bargain for wages and benefits.

    Where are the protests in Washington DC?

    Where are the signs being held by unionized Federal employees equating Obama to Hitler?

    Where are the sit ins on the Mall?

    Why haven't the Democrats - who controlled all branches of the Federal government for the past two years - corrected this grave injustice?


    Because they don't have as much power as some think.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:36 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    jockgymboy saidHe doesn't call it slavery, but it's not much different.

    I think you're greatly exaggerating. SB is right about the federal workers not having collective bargaining capability.

    Here's how I look at it, trying to be fairly objective. Unions have benefitted workers. There is a stronger need for unions in the private sector, but still some role in the public sector. The problem is the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of union bosses getting much power and having a very close relationship with politicians who influenced worker benefits. Yes, many groups lobby and seek rewards, but when one group becomes too powerful, and the problem is aggravated by the deficits, then remedies are needed.

    Granting wage and benefit concessions at the state level was not sufficient for two reasons: 1) The issue would come up again in the future, and with collective bargaining, the union would keep their power to influence as they have done in the past, and 2) Would not help the state and local governments.

    Is it possible that without collective bargaining the workers, who now have very generous benefits, could be at a disadvantage in the future? The answer is yes. There are at least a couple of options. 1) Making corrections in the future. Remember, the voters are fair and don't want the workers hurt. and 2) Some type of arbitration process could be put in place.

    Bottom line, the current system of union bosses influencing politicians and via collective bargaining, strong-arming the taxpayer needed to stop.


    Some taxpayers want benefit and wage cuts to public workers because initially it helps them, but in the end it hurts them. They often look and want quick fixes rather than long term growth.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 15, 2011 10:40 PM GMT
    The problem is the pendulum has swung too far in the direction ..........


    The pendulum my man ran its direction toward the Union side many many years ago
    In the 1950's 40% of our workers were Unionized
    Today that number is 12 %

    If the pendulum has swung too far anywhere it's swung too far toward the Corporations
    and that shift you're feeling is that people are finally getting wise to it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2011 10:57 PM GMT
    GQjock saidThe problem is the pendulum has swung too far in the direction ..........


    The pendulum my man ran its direction toward the Union side many many years ago
    In the 1950's 40% of our workers were Unionized
    Today that number is 12 %

    If the pendulum has swung too far anywhere it's swung too far toward the Corporations
    and that shift you're feeling is that people are finally getting wise to it

    Yes, the percentage of workers in private sector is down, but by pendulum I mean the influence the public unions have over politicians and the resulting public worker benefits compared to private sector.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 15, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    Again you're not seeing history as it really is
    The influence of labor has decreased over the last few decades

    while ..... the influence as you readily see has been on the side of the corporate world
    But the corporate world can only work in the cover of darkness
    when you shine a flashlight on the works ... like we have seen in Wisconsin
    there comes a backlash

    which is what we are seeing now