• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

The Man said:
Again, Walker did not bust any union. Being fiscally responsible and balancing the state budget is NOT union busting. Are public labor unions no longer allowed to exist in Wisconsin? I'm pretty sure that even if the whole point of the labor union is only to get together to go bowling every Friday, or have a barbecue twice a week, labor unions are allowed to exist.

But, even if candidates can't receive out of state money in the future, does it really matter? If no candidate can receive out of state funding, then it's still an even playing field, no?
Click to expand...

Be serious; eliminating collective bargaining IS union busting. Somehow WI managed to balance its budget every year prior to Walker without busting the unions. I guess Walker is uniquely unqualified....
 
AdamT said:
Be serious; eliminating collective bargaining IS union busting. Somehow WI managed to balance its budget every year prior to Walker without busting the unions. I guess Walker is uniquely unqualified....
Click to expand...

They kept raising taxes (and using accounting gimmicks)- taxpayers were quite obviously tired of it., as evidenced by the initial election of Walker and subsequent recall victory.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Be serious; eliminating collective bargaining IS union busting. Somehow WI managed to balance its budget every year prior to Walker without busting the unions. I guess Walker is uniquely unqualified....
Click to expand...

Again, Walker DID NOT eliminate collective bargaining. Show us evidence that he did.

And yes, Wisconsin balanced its budget before Walker (by raising taxes), he is addressing future budget concerns before they become a crisis. Walker is not kicking the can down the road like other politicians, which is refreshing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I just love how it is all the states fault but the unions hold no blame what so ever. :roll: I mean come on...union folk are all angels that would NEVER take advantage of anyone or any situation! ....Right?
Click to expand...

No, that would be the reverse of what so many of you are doing. I keep saying it takes two, and that both hold responsibility. Too many here focus only in one direction, excusing the the state as if they played no role.
 
cpwill said:
Let me make sure I have this right - because they are not civilians, members of the military are not public employees? What, precisely, causes this distinction?
Click to expand...

What if I decide to quit the military, can I walk in say I quit and go home? This is but one difference. You have trouble seeing difference when you don't want to, when it doesn't help you make a false a argument.

Except that businesses must provide a service that people want and are willing to pay for.
Click to expand...

Same with the satate actually. They are free to ask the people if we need police officers, firefighters or teachers. They can reduce force and be responsive to the needs of the people. And they can ask if they want to pay for these services, and the people can elect people who will or won't. NO ONE is held at gun point.

That is incorrect. Public servants are precisely that - our servants.
Click to expand...

As in slaves? No. They work for us at a salary, free to quit anytime they please. Free not to work for what we offer. And the less you offer, the less quality you're likely to get, same as any other service.

No - that's a crap cop-out designed to dodge the issue.
Click to expand...

No it is the issue. Two sit down to the table. States are not held at gun point. They can do what any business does and negotiate.


While not familiar with the book or author you use, listen what is said. Old agreement. This does not rule out a new agreement. Again, you seek out anything that will remove blame from one side and place it all on the other. The entire premise is flawed. Again, there are two sides at the table.

Yes. As in, leadership that is influenced by the Public Unions.
Click to expand...

And yet, other states have union, and their influence, and are not in trouble. Too bad you don't look at what doesn't support your bias.
 
Karl said:
Did Walker say no to the out-of-state Koch money?
Click to expand...
Funny how Barrett also recieved out of state funds and its also funny how many of you die hard union supporters are whining that Obama did not support Barrett.

Thank you for pointing out that Walker's efforts were nothing more than a partisan ploy to cripple the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Both parties are guilty of this.This is what different parties are for.
 
Karl said:
There ya go, folks... makes one wonder why the others expended so much effort denying it :mrgreen:
Click to expand...



You didn't answer my question about this re-election of Walker.

Do you believe the taxpayers of WI should give a better "pay and benefits" package to their civil servants than they themselves get?
 
Billy the Kid said:
You didn't answer my question about this re-election of Walker.

Do you believe the taxpayers of WI should give a better "pay and benefits" package to their civil servants than they themselves get?
Click to expand...

That begs a lot of questions. Do the tax payers all have the same pay and benefits package, and what should be the critieria for getting any package? And which package are we measuring them against?
 
Boo Radley said:
That begs a lot of questions. Do the tax payers all have the same pay and benefits package, and what should be the critieria for getting any package? And which package are we measuring them against?
Click to expand...

How about this for starters: The average public school teacher should receive the average pay and benefits of the the average private school teacher. (Where I live, public school teachers get paid many times over what private school teachers get paid, both in salary and benefits, yet private schools perform many times better than public schools, hmmmm?) As for elected officials, I think they should be paid the average salary of their constituents (something that I don't think many would argue against).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
How about this for starters: The average public school teacher should receive the average pay and benefits of the the average private school teacher. As for elected officials, I don't think any of them should receive any pay or benefits for their elected position duties, or minimal at best (something that I don't think many would argue against).
Click to expand...

Which private schools. Top private schools pay pretty well. Lower ones not worth a crap. However, these figures are hard to come by.
 
Boo Radley said:
Which private schools. Top private schools pay pretty well. Lower ones not worth a crap. However, these figures are hard to come by.
Click to expand...

Where I live (which we do have good/above average public schooling), public school teachers in even the worst public schools get paid better, and have better benefits than teachers in the best of private schools, and the private schools have better performance (and no teachers unions).

One thing that I've always been a proponent of is eliminating tenure for teachers in unions. That would incentivize them to perform better, rather than just rely on their seniority for job security.
 
Boo Radley said:
That begs a lot of questions. Do the tax payers all have the same pay and benefits package, and what should be the critieria for getting any package? And which package are we measuring them against?
Click to expand...

The criteria is simple. What is the minimum required salary/benefits to attract well qualified applicants? Compute that and add perhaps 5% and go from there. You do not need to compete with ALL private schools, only those near you. The insane Idea that a federal gov't position must offer pay suitable to NYC or DC, in an office in TN or MS, makes no sense at all. Public education has FAR more managers and support personnel per student/teacher than private schools as well. Many ignore that more than half of public education labor costs are not for classsroom teachers, while that is not so for private schools.
 
The Man said:
Again, Walker DID NOT eliminate collective bargaining. Show us evidence that he did.
Click to expand...

Of course he did! WTF do you think this whole thing is about? :lol:

Wis. governor signs bill to curb union rights - politics - More politics - msnbc.com

And yes, Wisconsin balanced its budget before Walker (by raising taxes), he is addressing future budget concerns before they become a crisis. Walker is not kicking the can down the road like other politicians, which is refreshing.
Click to expand...

Obviously Wisconsin did not raise taxes every year before Walker. What he did is take advantage of the temporary problem that every state faced as a result of the Great Recession in order to permanently eliminate public sector collective bargaining rights and effectively kill the public sector unions. This has more to do with politics (eliminating a major Democratic funding source) than it does with budget concerns.
 
AdamT said:
Obviously Wisconsin did not raise taxes every year before Walker. What he did is take advantage of the temporary problem that every state faced as a result of the Great Recession in order to permanently eliminate public sector collective bargaining rights and effectively kill the public sector unions. This has more to do with politics (eliminating a major Democratic funding source) than it does with budget concerns.
Click to expand...

I wonder if any democrat finds it a bit pathetic they need government power to fund their campaigns.
 
winston53660 said:
Well an increase in private sector employment over public sector employment........
Click to expand...

Something conservatives generally cream their pants merely at the thought of it happening... unless it's happening under Obama.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Of course he did! WTF do you think this whole thing is about? :lol:

Wis. governor signs bill to curb union rights - politics - More politics - msnbc.com



Obviously Wisconsin did not raise taxes every year before Walker. What he did is take advantage of the temporary problem that every state faced as a result of the Great Recession in order to permanently eliminate public sector collective bargaining rights and effectively kill the public sector unions. This has more to do with politics (eliminating a major Democratic funding source) than it does with budget concerns.
Click to expand...

Again, Walker IS NOT ELIMINATING union collective bargaining rights. CURBING collective bargaining does not mean ELIMINATING.

If the public sector employees don't like what Walker is doing, are they not free to get a private sector job?
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure Perot was over 20% at some point PRIOR to the debates (and prior to originally dropping out). Even if they did institute the 15% rule after him, which I'm not sure on that but is possible, he'd still have met that requirement.

Ah, here we go...

Gallup Poll. From April to Mid June, Perot managed to poll at 24% or higher, topping out at 39% (actually leading Clinton and Bush). Mind you this was before any "debates" occured and he managed those numbers. While his numbers prior to the debate...and note, post him dropping out of the race...had dropped, starting at 8% when he came back in and hovering in the low 10's prior to the debate (The Gallup picture doesn't show specific dates). It did rise some, but even after getting on the debates Perot never managed to get back to the numbers he originally was showing. But its unquestionable that during the year of the Presidential election Perot managed to get above 15% in a national opinion poll. Not only did he get above it, he managed to more than double that amount.

Gallop was the only national poll I could easily find information on for back then.

Conversely...

Johnson has managed 7% support in a Public Policy Polling national poll recently. Beyond that he's not been listed, but "other" has managed 1% in a CNN naitonal poll, 1% in an ABC/WaPo national poll, and 3% in a Fox News national poll. He doesn't seem to blip on the gallop radar on first look.

Perot, prior to debates, managed to make a compelling enough appeal to the American people to garner significant and substantial public support to the point where he actually lead in a national poll during the election year. He gave compelling and significant reason why he should be part of the debates...not because he needed them to get support but because he HAD support and thus should be in them. Johnson can't even crack 10% support at this point in one poll let alone potentially consistently over a few.
Click to expand...

It was perot's dropping out that killed him. I swore that guy looked like he was bound for the whitehouse before that happened. And he was totally pwning both in the debates. Especially when they asked him about experience... His reply was something like, "Yeah they got me there... I don't have any experience running up a $1.5 trillion deficit."

Still think that the debates can change everything. Although the amount of money that is getting thrown around by the two parties these days... makes it look like you are dogmeat if you were to make a dent in their mutual leads over everyone else.
 
The Man said:
Again, Walker DID NOT eliminate collective bargaining. Show us evidence that he did.
AdamT said:
Of course he did! WTF do you think this whole thing is about? :lol:
Wis. governor signs bill to curb union rights - politics - More politics - msnbc.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

From your link “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has officially taken away nearly all collective bargaining rights from the vast majority of the state's public employees.”

Does ‘nearly all’ equate to ‘eliminate’?

Further reading:

As for the other public employees -- a much larger group that includes schoolteachers, local government workers and about half of 76,000 state employees -- the bill would allow collective bargaining only on a base pay rate (not overtime or special pay issues), and on raises only within the rate of inflation. That means no bargaining on fringe benefits, working conditions, outsourcing, safety and other issues.
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Wisconsin AFL-CIO says Gov. Scott Walker

It would appear that Walker DID NOT ELIMINATE collective bargaining rights for ALL public workers but HE DID SOME OF THEM…can we stipulate to that?
 
jpevans said:
They (R's) broke a contract. :peace
Click to expand...

1: They were negotiating a contract. It wasn't a done deal as such no contract was broke.

2: Show me the contract that prohibited any future legislation that would deny collective bargaining. Good luck proving a negative.
 
Dickieboy said:
From your link “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has officially taken away nearly all collective bargaining rights from the vast majority of the state's public employees.”

Does ‘nearly all’ equate to ‘eliminate’?

Further reading:

As for the other public employees -- a much larger group that includes schoolteachers, local government workers and about half of 76,000 state employees -- the bill would allow collective bargaining only on a base pay rate (not overtime or special pay issues), and on raises only within the rate of inflation. That means no bargaining on fringe benefits, working conditions, outsourcing, safety and other issues.
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Wisconsin AFL-CIO says Gov. Scott Walker

It would appear that Walker DID NOT ELIMINATE collective bargaining rights for ALL public workers but HE DID SOME OF THEM…can we stipulate to that?
Click to expand...

As far as working conditions, there are already laws that dictate satisfactory working conditions and worker safety. There's no negotiations needed for that.

And as far as raises only within the rate of inflation, what's wrong with that? I say to them: Welcome to reality. And overtime should never be guaranteed to begin with.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Where I live (which we do have good/above average public schooling), public school teachers in even the worst public schools get paid better, and have better benefits than teachers in the best of private schools, and the private schools have better performance (and no teachers unions).

One thing that I've always been a proponent of is eliminating tenure for teachers in unions. That would incentivize them to perform better, rather than just rely on their seniority for job security.
Click to expand...

The reason private schools perfrom better is they're student population is different. Many are selective. The schools themselves do nothing particularly different than public schools.

Most places are eliminating tenure, but that isn't a cure all. It's effect will be minimal, but no real objection from me. However, even tenured teachers can lose their job. Most places, union or not, have procedures in which the employer has to go through to fire people. This is largely fair.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The criteria is simple. What is the minimum required salary/benefits to attract well qualified applicants? Compute that and add perhaps 5% and go from there. You do not need to compete with ALL private schools, only those near you. The insane Idea that a federal gov't position must offer pay suitable to NYC or DC, in an office in TN or MS, makes no sense at all. Public education has FAR more managers and support personnel per student/teacher than private schools as well. Many ignore that more than half of public education labor costs are not for classsroom teachers, while that is not so for private schools.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There are other reasons people work at private schools, and wouldn't want to work at a public school. It is easier to look good when you have good students and don't have to deal with the problems of the general population. And you can have that benefit and not face the lack of respect public school teachers face.
 
Boo Radley said:
That begs a lot of questions. Do the tax payers all have the same pay and benefits package, and what should be the critieria for getting any package? And which package are we measuring them against?
Click to expand...

There are no "begging questions". The folks that work for the state are being paid by the state and if they're getting better benefits that most of those who are paying for these bennies, then the bennie payers get to call the shots. And they did with the re-election of Gov. Walker, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom