• 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!

Recall Walker Signatures Pass 500,000 Mark

danarhea said:
You are right on one thing..... We ain't seen nothing yet. Just as union busting was done in via a referendum in Ohio, it will be done in via recall elections in Wisconsin. And this also means that the Bushneviks who lost their power and are trying to get it back will be seen as the thugs they really are.
Click to expand...

Prove that Walker has done any union busting. Stop your claiming. Just show the proof.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Then perhaps you can tell me the difference between union busting and negatively affecting unions...which is all that Walker has done?
Click to expand...

I would say that union busting is when one takes strong actions to break apart a union, destroy a unions power to do its job in representing its members or hamstring or handicap it in such a way that it is no longer effective in performing its basic mission and goals.

Policies the negatively impact unions would be less than that, making it more difficult to do their job in representing its members. The goal there is not to destroy or make the union impotent but to weaken it,

Of course, one could start out with the objective of weakening the union but go so far that you actually are involved in breaking the union.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Fine by me. But there is still a difference between union busting and negatively affecting a union.
Click to expand...

So you find a difference that is good for you, first they take away the employees right to have organized representation at the bargaining table and then the real assault begins. I see this for what it is an organized effort by republican governors to attack the middleclass of America.

Walker took the oath of office pledgeing to serve the people of Wisconsin after Walker had signed the no tax increase pledge to republican lobbyist Grover Norquist. Scott Walker needs to decide who he wants to uphold his pledge to a lobbyist or the people who elected him

I do not live in Wisconsin but I supported the recall by donating money
 
haymarket said:
I would say that union busting is when one takes strong actions to break apart a union, destroy a unions power to do its job in representing its members or hamstring or handicap it in such a way that it is no longer effective in performing its basic mission and goals.

Policies the negatively impact unions would be less than that, making it more difficult to do their job in representing its members. The goal there is not to destroy or make the union impotent but to weaken it,
Click to expand...

You basically gave the same reasoning for both. Just that you used less words in one than the other.

haymarket said:
Of course, one could start out with the objective of weakening the union but go so far that you actually are involved in breaking the union.
Click to expand...

So this is what you are actually worried about. That they "might" go too far...either intentionally or not.

EarlzP said:
So you find a difference that is good for you, first they take away the employees right to have organized representation at the bargaining table and then the real assault begins. I see this for what it is an organized effort by republican governors to attack the middleclass of America.
Click to expand...

Only when it came to how much they get paid. The ability to bargain for safety and other concerns is still there. As such they still have the ability to have representation at the bargaining table. And really the solution that Walker gave is far more reasonable to have than allowing a union to dictate what their workers get paid. After all, it is the peoples money that is being used to pay these particular unions wages.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You basically gave the same reasoning for both. Just that you used less words in one than the other.



So this is what you are actually worried about. That they "might" go too far...either intentionally or not.

Only when it came to how much they get paid. The ability to bargain for safety and other concerns is still there. As such they still have the ability to have representation at the bargaining table. And really the solution that Walker gave is far more reasonable to have than allowing a union to dictate what their workers get paid. After all, it is the peoples money that is being used to pay these particular unions wages.
Click to expand...

I have to ask. Do you understand what happens during contract negotiations? Unions represent the members, sitting on the other side of the table are those who negotiate for the state. Before a contract can be settled both sides have to agree to the contract. The unions ask for xyz and the state says yes or no and makes a counter offer. No one forces the state to offer more then they can pay in wages or benefits so if there is a problem it is not that the unions dictate wages and benefits it is that the state is inept in negotiating contracts. Blaming the unions is nothing more then passing the buck allowing the states reps to get away with poor negotiating
 
Last edited:
EarlzP said:
I have to ask. Do you understand what happens during contract negotiations? Unions represent the members, sitting on the other side of the table are those who negotiate for the state. Before a contract can be settled both sides have to agree to the contract. The unions ask for xyz and the state says yes or no and makes a counter offer. No one forces the state to offer more then they can pay in wages or benefits so if there is a problem it is not that the unions dictate wages and benefits it is that the state is inept in negotiating contracts. Blaming the unions is nothing more then passing the buck allowing the states reps to get away with poor negotiating
Click to expand...

1: The unions support Democrats for a reason. Its a I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine type of deal.

2: If negotiations fail what happens? 9 times outta 10 a strike happens. And what happens when public sector union folks strike? They stop services from being supplied, like education. Just how many teachers went protesting instead of being in school teaching thier students in Wisconsin? Know what else happens? With the "poor me" attitude that public sector unions are displaying the blame gets put upon the politician. There is far more pressure upon a politician to make sure a union contract negotiation works out than there is on union leaders who just put the blame on everyone but themselves. In otherwords its a win win for union leaders that spread lies.
 
There are none so blind as they who will not see.
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: The unions support Democrats for a reason. Its a I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine type of deal.
Click to expand...

Who would you expect them to support the party that tries to take away thier collectrive bargaining rights?

2: If negotiations fail what happens? 9 times outta 10 a strike happens. And what happens when public sector union folks strike? They stop services from being supplied, like education. Just how many teachers went protesting instead of being in school teaching thier students in Wisconsin? Know what else happens? With the "poor me" attitude that public sector unions are displaying the blame gets put upon the politician. There is far more pressure upon a politician to make sure a union contract negotiation works out than there is on union leaders who just put the blame on everyone but themselves. In otherwords its a win win for union leaders that spread lies.
Click to expand...

Your statement above is all supported by verifiable sources or are you just shooting from the hip? It sounds to me that you are continuing to pass the buck, the bottom line has not changed the state still controls the purse strings and should not make an offer that would put the state in a position of financial insolvency.
 
EarlzP said:
Who would you expect them to support the party that tries to take away thier collectrive bargaining rights?
Click to expand...

Maybe that party wouldn't try to take em away if they didn't abuse it?

EarlzP said:
Your statement above is all supported by verifiable sources or are you just shooting from the hip? It sounds to me that you are continuing to pass the buck, the bottom line has not changed the state still controls the purse strings and should not make an offer that would put the state in a position of financial insolvency.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that everyone knows what happened in Wisconsin. The moment thier precious wages were seriously threatened thousands of students went without teachers.
 
To those claiming union busting. Did any unions shutdown as a result of the bill?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hmm...can't dispute it so resort to name calling via proverbs huh? Typical.
Click to expand...

Thinking the phrase is Biblical is a common mistake. It is not from the Book of Proverbs.
Jonathan Swift actually. ;)
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
To those claiming union busting. Did any unions shutdown as a result of the bill?
Click to expand...

Did you ever hear the one about the frog in the water where the temperature is increased gradually?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Largest state unions won't seek recertification by Thursday deadline
Click to expand...

This is the union busting you were speaking of?

The legislation also requires that unions go through yearly recertification votes to keep their official status rather than retain that status indefinitely after an initial vote creating the union, as had been done in the past. Unions can still exist without that official status, but government employers, such as schools and the state, don't have to recognize them or bargain with them over anything.

To win the recertification election, unions must get 51% of the vote of all the members of their bargaining unit, not just the ones who take the time to cast ballots - a much higher bar than state elected officials have to clear to win their offices.

"It means that in the future decisions will be made in the best interest of the public and the best state employees, but the radical employees or the underperforming employees will have much less say," he said.

One AFT-Wisconsin member union that is seeking recertification is the Professional Employees in Research, Statistics and Analysis, a union of 58 workers who do research for state agencies and have always paid voluntary dues. Jeff Richter, the president of the union and a telecommunications analyst for the Public Service Commission, said the union will file with the state on Thursday.

"We have a little different viewpoint. We see there's a value in being recognized as a union," he said.

The decertification won't happen, however, until it's requested by either the employer or a citizen, Scott said. That's in part because the agency doesn't have a master list of all the public employee unions in the state, he said.

State employee unions have no current contracts with the state that might trump Walker's law and its recertification provisions. Some school and local government employees have outstanding contracts and won't have to vote to recertify until these current contracts run out.
Click to expand...

Of course these new rules only apply to government worker unions. Weren't we praising democracy earlier in this thread?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
This is the union busting you were speaking of?



Of course these new rules only apply to government worker unions. Weren't we praising democracy earlier in this thread?
Click to expand...
who is the state to meddle in internal union politics? and why is the bar the state wants to set much higher for the unions than for the elected politicians themselves?
 
randel said:
who is the state to meddle in internal union politics?
Click to expand...

The state is the one paying their paychecks. It only makes sense to limit wage increases in the face of crippling budget deficits.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
The state is the one paying their paychecks. It only makes sense to limit wage increases in the face of crippling budget deficits.
Click to expand...
why is the state interfering in union politics? the 'the state is the one paying the paychecks' has been shot down in previous arguments on this topic, and doesnt give the state the right to meddle in business that doesnt concern them....and you havent answered the second question.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
The state is the one paying their paychecks. It only makes sense to limit wage increases in the face of crippling budget deficits.
Click to expand...

What crippling budget deficits? Oh you mean the budget deficit that never existed before Walker approved his tax cuts and "economic development" spending?

Let's not mention the fact that Walker himself admitted that curbing collective bargaining rights wouldn't save any money. Let's not mention that the state's unions already agreed to pay cuts. Let's not mention the fact that Walker failed to deliver on his 250,000 jobs promise. Let's not mention the fact that Walker lost tens of millions in federal funding for his tampering with collective bargaining rights. Shall we go on?
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
What crippling budget deficits? Oh you mean the budget deficit that never existed before Walker approved his tax cuts and "economic development" spending?

Let's not mention the fact that Walker himself admitted that curbing collective bargaining rights wouldn't save any money. Let's not mention that the state's unions already agreed to pay cuts. Let's not mention the fact that Walker failed to deliver on his 250,000 jobs promise. Let's not mention the fact that Walker lost tens of millions in federal funding for his tampering with collective bargaining rights. Shall we go on?
Click to expand...

Please do. I'd like to see some more evidence to back up your rhetoric of union busting.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Please do. I'd like to see some more evidence to back up your rhetoric of union busting.
Click to expand...

Why would I waste my time having a semantics argument with you? The facts are there, if you don't want to call it "union busting" then great.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Why would I waste my time having a semantics argument with you? The facts are there, if you don't want to call it "union busting" then great.
Click to expand...

The facts you provided do not back up your claim. It's obvious your hyperbole is unfounded
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom