• 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

I can never understand how people can vote against their own interest. The ones that voted for the Gov were any of them the very people he's trying to destroy.

Scott Walker supposedly got 30% of the Union vote (note, not all municipal union, but union in general)

Perhaps they were voting with the best interests of their children in mind.
 
First, I have not said the people haven't spoken. They have. Though I'd be slow to take too much from an vote that close.

What I have said, and you should read slowly, is that their right to unionize is the same as it is in the private sector. And when you try to deny them that right, you effectively regluate them to second class status. They don't have the same rights. What you fail to realize is that in the few states where problems of any significance has arisen, the blame is either equal or more so on the the other side of the negotiating table. If you think your leaders can be bribed, you'd do better to get another leader.

No. There is no "right to unionize" and expect to keep your job. And you keep saying things as if fact, when most of us know them to be your imaginative folly.
 
This is probably the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Recalls are part of the democratic process; when enough citizens want a recall, then one is performed. IIRC like a million people signed the recall, which is a massive number and therefore - legally and rationally - satisfies the need for one.

Except that in this case it was a waste of money as the recall did not do what those that called for it wanted it to do. They also only wanted it for one reason and one reason only. To protect their precious public union bargaining "right". If you spend millions of dollars on something and it fails in its purpose then that money was wasted.

If a recall suceeds then its not a waste. If it fails then it was a waste.
 
No. There is no "right to unionize" and expect to keep your job. And you keep saying things as if fact, when most of us know them to be your imaginative folly.

NO, I responding to people who said it was OK for the private sector, but not the public. You must keep the conversation in context.
 
The vast majority of Obama's fundraising comes from small donors. The vast majority of Romney's money comes from millionaires and billionaires.

Really? Romney was on the ballot against Obama in 2008? Must have missed that one, further didn't know he was on the ballot in the Walker recall either. I really need to find out where you get your information
 
Factory workers, retail clerks and, yes, even the UAW doesn't have the sweet deal that public sector employees have. Not anywhere near. All to buy those union votes -- and the contributions the unions make to the coffers of the Democrats to keep their butts in office.

Not sure that's true (that public sector deals are sweeter . . . overall). And those unions vote as well. It's just a fact that they do vote. And their unions contribute. That is also a fact. And dispite this, both parties win elections. How cna this be?
 
If we're still talking about Walker, the Unions agreed to all the financial consessions he proposed (reluctantly) but as Walker later admitted, it wasn't about the $$$, it was about stripping Unions of their right to bargain in good faith.:peace

Throw another temper tantrum, Walker won, get over it
 
If we're still talking about Walker, the Unions agreed to all the financial consessions he proposed (reluctantly) but as Walker later admitted, it wasn't about the $$$, it was about stripping Unions of their right to bargain in good faith.:peace

Yes I know they agreed to the concessions. But how long would those concessions have lasted? The odds are that they would have lasted until a democrat was in office. Then things would have gone back up. Which means that ultimately the situation wasn't fixed. They just put a bandaid on it. Walkers solution was far more permanent.
 
Yes I know they agreed to the concessions. But how long would those concessions have lasted? The odds are that they would have lasted until a democrat was in office. Then things would have gone back up. Which means that ultimately the situation wasn't fixed. They just put a bandaid on it. Walkers solution was far more permanent.

MAybe, Maybe not. But this is the nature of negotiations. Works best when both sides participate.
 
A union is a collective voice, formalized. What makes someone second class is when they can't do what others do. When you say one group can form a union, and another group can't, you are regulating that group to second class status.

Try following the argument. ;)

Except that no one is telling anyone, not even public employee's, that they cannot form a union.
 
Except that no one is telling anyone, not even public employee's, that they cannot form a union.

I try hard to keep in the context of the discussion. I entered when it was stated private sector unions were OK, but public weren't. If they are not be made not OK, then someone has to say they cannot form them.
 
MAybe, Maybe not. But this is the nature of negotiations. Works best when both sides participate.

Who do public unions negotiate with? People want to be part of a public union then all pay and benefits should put to a vote of the electorate not a politician that is bought by campaign contributions.
 
Oh, this is the be silly approach used when you can't address the actual points. I'm well aware of the tactics. However, as one who supports more to the solider, by all means, unionize.

You know, there is a word for when the military decides to make it's own decisions and influence control over governance. That word is "junta".

But we're not talking about themilitary.

sure we are - or are you arguing that members of the military are not public employees?

We're talking about civilians who do a job, like any other employee

no, not "like any other employee", as the government is not "any other employer". The nature of representative government is inimical to the unionization of it's workforce, as Samuel Gompers and FDR well understood.

I know that some don't think comparisons should be between things that are actually alike, as that wouldn't work as well for the false point they try to make. But, I insist they must actually be alike.

There has been no removal of soverity from the public.

that is incorrect. When any part of government is controlled by factions of the government, the power of the populace to have its will reflected instead is reduced in direct proportion.

They can vote for any candidate who runs. They can made negotiating priority in the candidate they want. As I noted earlier, most states handle this rather well.

Correct. Most states handle this rather well through the expedient of limiting their public sector unions. The ones that do not do so (Illinois, California) are doing rather badly.
 
Last edited:
sure we are - or are you arguing that members of the military are not public employees?

They are not civilian employees. No, they are not.

no, not "like any other employee", as the government is not "any other employer". The nature of representative government is inimical to the unionization of it's workforce, as Samuel Gompers and FDR well understood.

Actually, the government is a lot like every other employer. Police provide a service. Firefighters provide a service. Teachers provide a service and they are paid for doing that service.

that is incorrect. When any part of government is controlled by factions of the government, the power of the populace to have its will reflected instead is reduced in direct proportion.

No, I am correct. There has bene no removal of soverity from the public. They are just as free to vote as they ahve ever been.



Correct. Most states handle this rather well through the expedient of limiting their public sector unions. The ones that do not do so (Illinois, California) are doing rather badly.

NO, they negotiate better. The few states that did a poor job do not reflect unions, but the poor leadership involved by the state.
 
I've spent some time in the third world and often, if it is something of a democracy, the most powerful people are the union leaders. They can shut down the country tomorrow, but the President can't. Democratically elected leaders come and go but the unions stay right where they are and are a law unto themselves.

The people of Wisconsin voted wisely, despite all the Union propaganda, and it's a very good thing that people who are forced to pay their wages finally curbed their powers.
 
They are not civilian employees. No, they are not.

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?

Actually, the government is a lot like every other employer. Police provide a service. Firefighters provide a service. Teachers provide a service and they are paid for doing that service.

Except that businesses must provide a service that people want and are willing to pay for. They must also run a profit, and they are also subject to competition. This is not broadly true of government, which changes the incentive structures involved. Unions in the private sector have natural limits placed on them by the competition of the market - if they sluice off too much or provide too poor a service, the host dies. Unions in the public sector have no such natural limits - since the government is not required to provide quality services nor to run a profit in order to survive, their abuse is not curbed by these boundaries, but rather only by the threat of the ruin of the states' fisc, to the harm of all citizens.

No, I am correct. There has bene no removal of soverity from the public. They are just as free to vote as they ahve ever been.

That is incorrect. Public servants are precisely that - our servants. They work for us. They are not our boss, and this government belongs to us not them. When sectors of the government become interest groups, they are able to control that portion of the government to their own benefit rather than that of the citizenry. Government seeks to be For The People and becomes For The Government.

NO, they negotiate better

No - that's a crap cop-out designed to dodge the issue. You accuse local and state governments who are effectively controlled by unions as simply being "poor negotiators". They are excellent negotiators - they simply are not negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers and citizens, but rather on behalf of their political constituency, which is the union sitting across the table from them. Remember when John Corzine told a crowdfull of unionized public employees that he was going to "fight for a fair contract" for them? Who was he planning on fighting? He was the guy at the other end of the negotiating table.

States are more successful when they limit the power and reach of public sector unions. It limits the ability of the unions to prey on the State Fisc, and makes it easier for the state to be more flexible and adaptive. That's why localities in Wisconsin who aren't held up by local contract are doing so much better right now than those that aren't.

Variations Within Wisconsin
...The budget repair law experience has not been uniform across the state of Wisconsin. Some jurisdictions that are not encumbered by legacy labor contracts were able to achieve significant savings right away due to the budget repair law, and were not forced to make sharp reductions in employment—some, such as the City of Milwaukee, were even able to expand public services.

Milwaukee lost $14 million in annual aid payments from the state, but found $30 million in employee benefits savings, of which $20 million was made possible by the budget repair law. These savings came mostly from changes to health benefits: partly requiring employees to pay a larger share of their insurance premiums, and partly switching to more economical plans. This is an example of what Wisconsinites can expect to see in cities and towns across their state in the next few years.

But other jurisdictions that must honor existing contracts have had very different experiences. Take, for example, the Milwaukee Public Schools. The district lost $82 million in state aid. But it was not able to realize any health care or pension savings with unionized employees, because it entered into a four-year employee contract at the end of 2010. As a result, the district laid off 119 teachers and over 100 other employees.

This situation is difficult, but temporary. There will be significant labor savings available to the Milwaukee Public Schools starting in 2014 when existing contracts expire. Employees will make larger pension and health contributions, and the district will have a free hand to modify health benefits.

Those savings, when realized, should be substantial. A recent study found that even simply moving MPS employees into the same health plan used by state employees would save $64 million per year, enough to nearly wipe out the loss of state aid.[3]

Over the next three years, municipal governments will begin taking advantage of labor reforms, and we can expect their ability to maintain or expand headcount to improve. Over time, the City of Milwaukee experience will move from unusually fortunate to typical—much as we’ve seen with how Indiana governments have weathered the recession...

In his book, Mitch Daniels went to lengths to describe the impact of reducing the power of the public sector unions on the ability of his state government to provide good governance:

...In Indiana our actions were only secondarily about finances. It is true that the freedom to restructure departments, consolidate functions, and so on saved Hoosier taxpayers tons of money. But the principal motive, and equally important gains, came in the transformation of state services. There simply was no way we could have revolutionized our Bureau of Motor Vehicles (more on this later), our state parks, our prison system, or so many other services if we had been hogtied by the old union agreement.

One of the most important changes this new freedom allowed involved the protection of children, one of the few literally life-and-death duties state government has, and one that Indiana was failing miserably at when my administration entered office. By almost every measure, Indiana had one of the worst child welfare systems in the country. Rates of child fatality and abuse in the system were shockingly high, and the average caseworker was overwhelmed with twice as many cases as the national average. There was tremendously high turnover among caseworkers, and incoming workers were rarely trained properly. At the same time, we had one of the poorest records anywhere of collecting child support for single parents. Only one of every two dollars in support ordered by a court was ever delivered to a single mom (or, occasionally, dad) in Indiana. …

Six years later our child welfare system was winning national awards from private evaluators, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and from the same federal Department of Health and Human Services that was preparing to penalize the state for maintaining an atrocious system before we took office. Today, 60 percent of single parents who are owed child support in the state receive it. That’s a significant improvement—although it is not nearly enough, so I continually press for more progress.

Fixing the department required making thousands of organizational, process, and personnel changes. Hundreds of workers either were reassigned or, in some cases, dismissed for poor performance. The agency of 2011 looks totally different, and operates in a totally different way from its predecessor. If every one of these steps had required union consultation or signoff, as the old agreement provided, we would still be trying to take some of the earliest actions....​

The few states that did a poor job do not reflect unions, but the poor leadership involved by the state.

Yes. As in, leadership that is influenced by the Public Unions.
 
NO, they negotiate better. The few states that did a poor job do not reflect unions, but the poor leadership involved by the state.

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?
 
NO, they negotiate better. The few states that did a poor job do not reflect unions, but the poor leadership involved by the state.

They negotiate better, now that's a good one. You have liberal legislators that love unions and of course the liberal legislators give the unions whatever they want in exchange for their vote. It's not negotiating at all, it's "I'll pat your back and you pat mine" or simply put, It's liberal legislators buying votes.
 
Unions are mandentory where they have a trade or shop locked in to a contract. When one takes a job ate a Union shop it's often about getting the union bene's & $ as the job itself. Having worked both over the years, a nonunion shop can be place of a$$ kissing & backstabbing, where the dominant personality often is favored over the good machinic. Also as a consruction weldor I appreciate the safe measures of OSHA which were innitiated by the workers :peace(union).
This is insane. Try this on. When you tell someone that if they take the job, they must join the union, that is to take away their liberty. When you then automatically deduct money from their paychecks to support a political party, you take away more liberty. When you then use the threat of force on a taxpayer to pay you more money, you are now taking away the liberty of that taxpayer.

The people of Wisconsin spoke. They told the municipal unions that they were full of ****.

And frankly, I am tiring of the whiney liberal parasites myself.
 
Apparently I am having my rights denied. Interesting.

Very well, Boo, I accept your logic. If teachers can invade Madison to protest budget cuts, then we shall see how well you favor it when I unionize the Marine Corps and we.... "invade"... Washington DC to lodge our protests over slashes to DOD funding. I'm betting a couple of tanks parked outside the capital and a BN of infantry guarding the exits would focus Congresscritters minds wonderfully on how Very Important It Is To Double Each Military Member's Pay Overnight Regardless Of The Effect On The Budget. :)



When portions of a government become an active political interest group, it represents a removal of sovereignty from the populace. It is Government by the Government for the Government.



Great post and, IMO, it needs to be reposted. :applaud
 
Many elections, from Nixon onward don't turn out the way I wanted, that was the American way, prior to "Citizens United". :peace
Except that in this case it was a waste of money as the recall did not do what those that called for it wanted it to do. They also only wanted it for one reason and one reason only. To protect their precious public union bargaining "right". If you spend millions of dollars on something and it fails in its purpose then that money was wasted.

If a recall suceeds then its not a waste. If it fails then it was a waste.
 
They (R's) broke a contract. :peace
Yes I know they agreed to the concessions. But how long would those concessions have lasted? The odds are that they would have lasted until a democrat was in office. Then things would have gone back up. Which means that ultimately the situation wasn't fixed. They just put a bandaid on it. Walkers solution was far more permanent.
 
Here's what I found a PolitiFact Wisconsin


Gov. Walker said: "most state employees could pay twice as much toward their health care premiums and it would still be half the national average." Politifact said: "It's True."

The article stated "unionized state workers pay about 4 percent to 5 percent of their health insurance premiums". The Kaiser Family Foundation did a study saying employees share "paid by state and local government workers nationwide at 25 percent for family coverage."


Thus I have to conclude, these union folks were/are getting better bennies, coming from Wisconsin taxpayers pockets, that the taxpayer is getting.
 
Back
Top Bottom