-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Wis. GOP strips public workers' bargaining rights
- Thread starter nylo
- Start date
Supafly
Retired Mod
Pray, why SHOULD you profit from people standing up and doing something about sharing from the companies profitting from their labourer's workers?
If you want to share those profits, you go and join the union, or you go and see if you can get a share on your own.
Don't cry to me. Together we stand, divided we fall.
......its just not in the budget
The level of ignorance in this country is unbelievable.
Majority of Americans think corporations will do a better job of taking care of them than unions.
This Wisconsion shit is one step closer to this country going back to the Good Ol' Days........American Slavery.
Majority of Americans think corporations will do a better job of taking care of them than unions.
This Wisconsion shit is one step closer to this country going back to the Good Ol' Days........American Slavery.
Here's the obvious difference: I have a CHOICE to use products made by companies, and can choose where I spend my money. With my taxes, I can't choose how it's spent except to try and elect politicians that can try to do it wisely, and unfortunately both parties have failed on that front. But in particular, unions give hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats, now why do you think that is??
The bottom line is that public unions are taxpayer funded and should not be getting better benefits than the people who pay their salaries, especially now when every state and the FEds are dead broke. Not to mention most of these "programs" that waste money yield poor results, especially in the education arena.
There are different types of unions ...
There are different types of unions.
There are those unions that you choose to join at your job.
And then there are those unions you are forced to join to work at all.
This is about unions you are forced to join. This is about unions that can take, directly from your paycheck, and spend that money on political action committees (PACs) and other, 100% political activities. This is about you having no choice in the matter.
Unions are a great American institution, the right to assembly, probably the most important part of the first Amendment (along with free press, free speech being a critical component of that trinity as well). It exists because the British prevented its American citizens from being allowed to assemble, which was the largest complaint leading into the American revolution, and revisited once again when the Second Continental Congress wanted to create a strong, federal government. Unions are about people deciding when an employer or government has gone too far, they assemble to make it known, as is their individual right to form a group with one voice.
Unfortunately within fifty years of the invention of the union, unions took another turn. It grew up with the idea that the right of the group was more important than the right of the individual. That the individual should not have a choice whether or not to join the group, but must be forced to join the group, even if they disagreed. The concept of "group rights" and "for the greater good" took hold, regardless of "individual choice" and "individual rights."
This is when different American states started to enact legislation requiring unions, and granting monopolies to specific unions. These are called "closed shop states." States that did not are called "right to work states."
Most of the latter states also have laws stating that any associating or organization that uses contributions for political actions must make those known and separate from donations from other operations. I live in such a "right to work" state, and several, professional organizations I belong to cannot use my funds for PACs and other, political activities unless I designate so.
Companies like Honda, Toyota and BWM founded plants in "right to work states," where unions exist, but they are not forced into collective bargaining with them. Collective bargaining is when an organization is forced to deal with union, and everyone works under that union, no exceptions. Unions like the UAW and others operate in states where they have this control and power. So when people say Honda, Toyota and BWM don't have unions, what they mean are they don't have unions with collective bargaining power, because they are in states where this doesn't exist.
Eventually the concept of "closed shop" hit the state employees too. And this is what this is all about. It's about people having no choice to join an union and pay dues, including for PACs and other political activities, if they want to work there. This is common in many states, but also outlawed in other states. And most ironically, it's outlawed by the US federal government, which several US Presidents (both Democrat and Republican) have made known during their administrations in various actions.
Which brings us to Wisconsin, and how many other "closed shop" states now taking an interest.
Statistically, Wisconsin has one of the best sets of benefits for their public servants, paying half as much as even a typical US Federal worker for benefits. Also in stark contrast to non-state workers, the income and benefit packages are far above normal. While many constituents believe police and fire servants are deserving, many view those in administrative positions are not.
Which brings us to the Republican shift in power in many states as of late. They claim they were elected to bring their budgets under control, and this is one way they will do it. The biggest income of state is typically its property taxes, with income taxes supplementary (if it has any). With the housing market imploded, income is way, way down for states. The biggest expenses and liabilities in its state are its education and law enforcement staffs, and the related retirement of its public servants. It's wholly unlike the federal government that relies on largely income taxes, and can shift expenses from defense to other things, let alone the US federal doesn't fund education and law enforcement much (that's left to the control of states).
For those outside the US, understand the US' large "baby boomer" generation is retiring. The US' prime income earners are "Gen-X" and much smaller than the Boomers. Whereas the Boomers in their prime income earning years of the '90s helped the economy, the massive shift to Gen-X, much smaller, is only getting worse. Gen-Y is as big as the Boomers, but their academic results are the worst generation yet, especially in critical math and science where the US is starting to have a "brain dropoff" with much technology being invented either with the slowly dying latter generations or outside the US. So recovery is not expected there.
So the Republicans have started a battle in Wisconsin to cap collective bargaining rights on public servants, sans police and fire. Democrats say this is because the ones they aren't capping vote more to the right, while other public servants vote more to the left. Furthermore, by removing the automatic political deductions, which Wisconsin's collective bargaining rules currently allow (money to be used for PACs without approval of the employee), this weakens the contributions to the left as well.
The Wisconsin laws do allow pay raises at the rate of inflation. Many states, including the one I live in, don't even have that, and teachers and other servants have gone almost 3 years without raises. They are also paid less than Wisconsin. Some would argue this shows that my home state could benefit from forcing people into collective bargaining. At the same time, one can argue that the pay rates in my state for public servants more closely match private industry.
But in the middle are the people who were promised benefits. Even several on Fox News recognized this, that people have contracts and they were guaranteed benefits. At the same time governments are not private enterprises, where people can lose benefits because the company is not doing well. So Republicans argue that because of the deficits going on right now, it's hard to maintain those contracts.
This is much of a repeat of what happened with Wall Street, where people argued a right to benefits in a failed company, and the US federal government pointed out the company was going to fail so those contracts were null and voice. Some Wall Street employees still got their contracted benefits fulfilled, so regardless of any argument that the state of Wisconsin needs to cut benefits, there is an argument that "the little guy" deserves what they were promised as well.
It's a tough set of issues. But one thing is for sure. There is political grandstanding on all sides.
While it's hard for me to side with the unions behind Wisconsin public servants who have benefits not only in excess of many others, but group rights that even many public servant (especially federal) do not have, I have to see the individual public servants who did their time and should get their benefits. But I do not believe in collective bargaining because the definition of group rights over the individual is communist in nature. I believe in unions by individual choice, and even more so, I believe individuals have a right to say no to portions of their paycheck being used for PACs, even if they want to belong to the union.
I believe Wisconsin, like many states, could benefit from finally getting away from being a "closed shop" state. Most of the US North's industrial production was lost because many corporations decided to flee these issues, and move to "right to work" states, let alone overseas. At the same time, I have sided with several union views, including not passing NAFTA, as it created a loophole on trade that many exploited. NAFTA itself was also a special interest bill, with both Democrat and Republican leaders having major, quite non-objective, fiscal incentives in supporting.
The issues are difficult, and the politics unreal, and the answer pretty jaded on all sides.
There are different types of unions.
There are those unions that you choose to join at your job.
And then there are those unions you are forced to join to work at all.
This is about unions you are forced to join. This is about unions that can take, directly from your paycheck, and spend that money on political action committees (PACs) and other, 100% political activities. This is about you having no choice in the matter.
Unions are a great American institution, the right to assembly, probably the most important part of the first Amendment (along with free press, free speech being a critical component of that trinity as well). It exists because the British prevented its American citizens from being allowed to assemble, which was the largest complaint leading into the American revolution, and revisited once again when the Second Continental Congress wanted to create a strong, federal government. Unions are about people deciding when an employer or government has gone too far, they assemble to make it known, as is their individual right to form a group with one voice.
Unfortunately within fifty years of the invention of the union, unions took another turn. It grew up with the idea that the right of the group was more important than the right of the individual. That the individual should not have a choice whether or not to join the group, but must be forced to join the group, even if they disagreed. The concept of "group rights" and "for the greater good" took hold, regardless of "individual choice" and "individual rights."
This is when different American states started to enact legislation requiring unions, and granting monopolies to specific unions. These are called "closed shop states." States that did not are called "right to work states."
Most of the latter states also have laws stating that any associating or organization that uses contributions for political actions must make those known and separate from donations from other operations. I live in such a "right to work" state, and several, professional organizations I belong to cannot use my funds for PACs and other, political activities unless I designate so.
Companies like Honda, Toyota and BWM founded plants in "right to work states," where unions exist, but they are not forced into collective bargaining with them. Collective bargaining is when an organization is forced to deal with union, and everyone works under that union, no exceptions. Unions like the UAW and others operate in states where they have this control and power. So when people say Honda, Toyota and BWM don't have unions, what they mean are they don't have unions with collective bargaining power, because they are in states where this doesn't exist.
Eventually the concept of "closed shop" hit the state employees too. And this is what this is all about. It's about people having no choice to join an union and pay dues, including for PACs and other political activities, if they want to work there. This is common in many states, but also outlawed in other states. And most ironically, it's outlawed by the US federal government, which several US Presidents (both Democrat and Republican) have made known during their administrations in various actions.
Which brings us to Wisconsin, and how many other "closed shop" states now taking an interest.
Statistically, Wisconsin has one of the best sets of benefits for their public servants, paying half as much as even a typical US Federal worker for benefits. Also in stark contrast to non-state workers, the income and benefit packages are far above normal. While many constituents believe police and fire servants are deserving, many view those in administrative positions are not.
Which brings us to the Republican shift in power in many states as of late. They claim they were elected to bring their budgets under control, and this is one way they will do it. The biggest income of state is typically its property taxes, with income taxes supplementary (if it has any). With the housing market imploded, income is way, way down for states. The biggest expenses and liabilities in its state are its education and law enforcement staffs, and the related retirement of its public servants. It's wholly unlike the federal government that relies on largely income taxes, and can shift expenses from defense to other things, let alone the US federal doesn't fund education and law enforcement much (that's left to the control of states).
For those outside the US, understand the US' large "baby boomer" generation is retiring. The US' prime income earners are "Gen-X" and much smaller than the Boomers. Whereas the Boomers in their prime income earning years of the '90s helped the economy, the massive shift to Gen-X, much smaller, is only getting worse. Gen-Y is as big as the Boomers, but their academic results are the worst generation yet, especially in critical math and science where the US is starting to have a "brain dropoff" with much technology being invented either with the slowly dying latter generations or outside the US. So recovery is not expected there.
So the Republicans have started a battle in Wisconsin to cap collective bargaining rights on public servants, sans police and fire. Democrats say this is because the ones they aren't capping vote more to the right, while other public servants vote more to the left. Furthermore, by removing the automatic political deductions, which Wisconsin's collective bargaining rules currently allow (money to be used for PACs without approval of the employee), this weakens the contributions to the left as well.
The Wisconsin laws do allow pay raises at the rate of inflation. Many states, including the one I live in, don't even have that, and teachers and other servants have gone almost 3 years without raises. They are also paid less than Wisconsin. Some would argue this shows that my home state could benefit from forcing people into collective bargaining. At the same time, one can argue that the pay rates in my state for public servants more closely match private industry.
But in the middle are the people who were promised benefits. Even several on Fox News recognized this, that people have contracts and they were guaranteed benefits. At the same time governments are not private enterprises, where people can lose benefits because the company is not doing well. So Republicans argue that because of the deficits going on right now, it's hard to maintain those contracts.
This is much of a repeat of what happened with Wall Street, where people argued a right to benefits in a failed company, and the US federal government pointed out the company was going to fail so those contracts were null and voice. Some Wall Street employees still got their contracted benefits fulfilled, so regardless of any argument that the state of Wisconsin needs to cut benefits, there is an argument that "the little guy" deserves what they were promised as well.
It's a tough set of issues. But one thing is for sure. There is political grandstanding on all sides.
While it's hard for me to side with the unions behind Wisconsin public servants who have benefits not only in excess of many others, but group rights that even many public servant (especially federal) do not have, I have to see the individual public servants who did their time and should get their benefits. But I do not believe in collective bargaining because the definition of group rights over the individual is communist in nature. I believe in unions by individual choice, and even more so, I believe individuals have a right to say no to portions of their paycheck being used for PACs, even if they want to belong to the union.
I believe Wisconsin, like many states, could benefit from finally getting away from being a "closed shop" state. Most of the US North's industrial production was lost because many corporations decided to flee these issues, and move to "right to work" states, let alone overseas. At the same time, I have sided with several union views, including not passing NAFTA, as it created a loophole on trade that many exploited. NAFTA itself was also a special interest bill, with both Democrat and Republican leaders having major, quite non-objective, fiscal incentives in supporting.
The issues are difficult, and the politics unreal, and the answer pretty jaded on all sides.
what is the fundamental concept of your Randian-Friedman-Capital idealism?
eliminate all competition.....you don't have choices because corporations WANT you to. If it were up to them, they wouldn't give you but one choice.
you will need to focus on the issue and not conflate / muddy it. Baby with the bath water.
If you have a fundamental problem with a CONTRACT already agreed upon, then you need to renegotiate it. It sounds like what you're suggesting (and suggested when this originally came up) was that you're just looking to kick a body while its down out of vitriolic schadenfreude.
If it WERE about public employees contract and pensions....or even the budget....then you would see them actually addressing that. Try to rise above the intellectual dishonesty being fed to you (of what Walker and other governors are doing).
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I support workers who wish to form unions. If men were angels we wouldn't need unions. Men died in Detroit in the 1930's at the Ford factory when they tried to form a union. Like our constitution, with the checks and balances of power between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, unions provide a check and balance against abuse by employers.
I was secretary/treasurer of our union before I retired. I helped negotiate contracts between our union and our employer.
What is happening in Madison, Wisconsin, is class warfare between the middle class and the upper class in our society. So far, the upper class is winning.
The Republicans have very little empathy for those less fortunate. I have a message for them...watch what the rich dictators are doing in the middle east when the mob is banging on their door for justice. They are handing out jobs and cash. lol
Revolutions begin with many men out of work. Rich, greedy man, we will be on your doorstep very soon.
I was secretary/treasurer of our union before I retired. I helped negotiate contracts between our union and our employer.
What is happening in Madison, Wisconsin, is class warfare between the middle class and the upper class in our society. So far, the upper class is winning.
The Republicans have very little empathy for those less fortunate. I have a message for them...watch what the rich dictators are doing in the middle east when the mob is banging on their door for justice. They are handing out jobs and cash. lol
Revolutions begin with many men out of work. Rich, greedy man, we will be on your doorstep very soon.
As do I.
But do you support unions where you are forced to join? Do you support any organization that can take your money directly out of your paycheck and use it for PACs and other political activities, instead of requiring you to designate such?
That's what pisses me off the most here.
You can't work for the state of Wisconsin without such, period, end-of-story. I strongly believe in unions, and I would even have less of an issue if they just took away the forced political contributions from paychecks.
I'm not saying I agree with the Republicans agenda here. They are being just as political as anyone, especially since they are using this as an issue to further their own agendas. But the reason why they are getting a lot of support is because of these facts.
And that was wrong, everyone agrees.
But this isn't about breaking an union. This is about someone having the choice to join an union, or not. This is about having the choice to fund political contributions, or not.
Again, not saying I agree with what the Republicans are all about in Wisconsin. But the reason they are getting a lot of private sector employee and other support is because their using this avenue.
The right to assembly does. But the right to assembly is an individual choice.
That's not what this is about.
This is about the forced assembly of all workers. This is about the forced political contributions. I live in a truly "free" state where I have the individual right to join or not.
Unions are very American in ideal, individual right to assembly. But forced unions are very Communism in ideal, the right of the group over individual.
Just like how communism took hold. You take a real issue and demonize it, hammer and sickle. You claim to represent the "individual worker," but what you tell them is, "you're either with us or against us, and if you're the latter, you can't have a job here."
That's what really pisses me off. Unions define who has a job or not. That's not what the unions are supposed to be about!
I have the same problem with organized religion where they do this to you as well, the difference between a religion and a cult. In the former, you have individual choice. In the latter, you do not, and your entirely livelihood is at the mercy of another.
Not the corporation, but the group. The latter becomes just as bad as the former!
Sorry, I have no love for forced group membership which has driven a lot of the US industry out of many states. It's sad because unions work. But the second some states started making them mandatory, that "balance" you speak of was blown.
First we had legislation requiring unions.
Then we had legislation countering unions, as businesses were at their mercy.
Now we have counter-counter legislation trying to forge a balance, and failing miserably.
This is why government is never the solution. It just re-distributes power into the hands of a few. Assembly only works when it is an individual right.
Because "group rights" always break down once you start growing beyond the size of individual accountability. You're just installing another institution where people have no choice but to belong.
And that's why communism failed, utterly. It's done the same to US industrial power. Because unions today are nothing of what they were in the '30s.
Including being "out-of-touch" with the private citizens in Wisconsin.
^^^Endorses PV's post^^^ 
so wait a minute, I thought this was happening because the state was broke?
then you went on a tirade of why unions need to be broken (while making the statement " this isn't about breaking unions")
are ALL these people from unions? Is that what this is all about?
then you went on a tirade of why unions need to be broken (while making the statement " this isn't about breaking unions")
are ALL these people from unions? Is that what this is all about?
No, that's the excuse the Republicans are making for bringing it up now.
*I* did not say that. Do not confuse my Libertarian logic with the agenda of the Republicans. I was merely pointing out how the Republicans are gaining support for the measures.
State mandated monopolies on unions are against my Libertarian ideals.
I believe in unions, as long as they are about individual choice in joining. I'll even tolerate unions that are forced, as long as the mandatory deductions from paychecks cannot be used for PACs and other political activities.
Apparently a lot of the private sector agrees.
Not just the corporations. But a lot of people who don't enjoy the benefits of Wisconsin state workers which are completely out-of-touch with reality. I mean, even the Republican proposal still provides for inflationary increases.
Most people aren't getting that today.
However, I'm also the first to criticize when Wall Street firms, saved by the government, still get their bonuses. So this is also about "the little guy" getting their cut. It's hard to argue they shouldn't when many failed Wall Street firms did.
But the sad fact remains that much of the private sector, let alone small businesses, are still getting fucked between "group rights" unions and "big business" financial firms. Two wrongs don't make a right, or a left and right in this case.
I'm just a Libertarian, pointing out the realities of Democrats and Republicans fucking all of us as fast as their special interest can.
I think it was a bulshit. The Gov. said day in and day out that it was about the state being broke. Then he fucks the union over by passing this thing that had nothing to do with the budget. Now yes the Pres. and Dems rushed through Healthcare, but they never LIED about it, they always said that it was healthcare. THe Gov. lied and that was wrong
The White House DID lie about the healthcare bill on two fronts: (1) they promised open hearings and (2) they used the excuse of "saving money" to rush that turn through the system...
People need to take their blinders off and look at the facts instead of claiming one side is always "right" and the other "wrong." Most of the time, they are BOTH wrong (or at least less than truthful) because it's really all about one thing: power. :2 cents:
I'm not going to dignify that haughty post with a reasoned reply... since you obviously seem to know everything, it would be a waste of my time and yours.
thats too bad, because we were hoping you could clarify your position outside of empty talking points
You want to rely on the 'invisible hand' of the market, but fail to acknowledge the market is rigged. We have state-sponsored capitalism in America and have had it for some time and there is no benevolent force behind the unceasing lust for increasing the bottom line.
Similar threads
