• 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!

Walker takes broad swipe at public employee unions

Status
Not open for further replies.
pbrauer said:
Wis. Law Enforcement Association 'Regrets' Endorsing Walker - Politics News Story - WISC Madison

"In a post dated Feb. 16, Tracy Fuller writes, "I am going to make an effort to speak for myself, and every member of the Wisconsin State Patrol when I say this … I specifically regret the endorsement of the Wisconsin Trooper's Association for Gov. Scott Walker. I regret the governor's decision to 'endorse' the troopers and inspectors of the Wisconsin State Patrol. I regret being the recipient of any of the perceived benefits provided by the governor's anointing. I think everyone's job and career is just as significant as the others. Everyone's family is just as valuable as mine or any other persons, especially mine. Everyone's needs are just as valuable. We are all great people!!" The full statement can be found at www.wlea.org."​
Click to expand...

another reason to get rid of public sectors unions
 
LookingGlass said:
Is that so? Tell that to the publishers of adult literature and grind metal bands.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking political speech which is the most important speach we have.

Sure there are people who would like to do away with things they feel are harmful, but others consider free speech. Not sure it's just conservatives.
Hec, even I was against Amazon selling that book for child molesters.
I don't know what Grind Metal Bands are. Sounds nasty though. :)
 
whysoserious said:
And they caused it to happen in one year? Wow, democrats are fast! Get real. The crash happened from years of trading, repackaging of bad derivatives (that had been disguised so well that the traders bought them back).

This crash was a deadly combination of overregulation and deregulation by both parties over many years. By your logic Clinton and the liberals must have been economic geniuses.
Click to expand...

Who caused it then? Where was Obama during that period of time? By your post you remain a complete partisan in denial of what the Democrats have accomplished. You have no problem blaming Bush but ignore who controls the purse strings and the legislation. You believe it happened during the Bush years when the CRA was passed under Carter and re-authorized under Clinton. Bush tried numberous times to regulate Freddie and Fannie but was rebuked. So continue with the partisanship and believing the Obama lies. This is "your" President in action.

Breitbart tv » Uncovered Video Obama Leads SEIU Chant After Vowing to Paint the Nation Purple - Patriot Action Network
 
pbrauer said:
Are you still pushing this line of bull****? The crash was caused by deregulation and regulators not minding the store. And yes the super rich speculating -- not much different than the '29 crash. Wall Street casino gambling...
Click to expand...

So then tell me who is to blame for the crash of 2008 and when it happened? Ever hear of Glass-Steagall? How about the CRA? I anxiously await your explanation.
 
Conservative said:
Who caused it then? Where was Obama during that period of time? By your post you remain a complete partisan in denial of what the Democrats have accomplished. You have no problem blaming Bush but ignore who controls the purse strings and the legislation. You believe it happened during the Bush years when the CRA was passed under Carter and re-authorized under Clinton. Bush tried numberous times to regulate Freddie and Fannie but was rebuked. So continue with the partisanship and believing the Obama lies. This is "your" President in action.

Breitbart tv » Uncovered Video Obama Leads SEIU Chant After Vowing to Paint the Nation Purple - Patriot Action Network
Click to expand...

Here's their president again.
 
Conservative said:
Certainly not the past two years. The only time I recall the GOP controlling the two branches of the govt. was 2003-2006 and yes, I will take those economic results.
Click to expand...

You will have to look to other countries to observe the effects of one party rule. We have never had to worry about it in this country, until now.
 
Conservative said:
Who caused it then? Where was Obama during that period of time? By your post you remain a complete partisan in denial of what the Democrats have accomplished. You have no problem blaming Bush but ignore who controls the purse strings and the legislation. You believe it happened during the Bush years when the CRA was passed under Carter and re-authorized under Clinton. Bush tried numberous times to regulate Freddie and Fannie but was rebuked. So continue with the partisanship and believing the Obama lies. This is "your" President in action.

Breitbart tv » Uncovered Video Obama Leads SEIU Chant After Vowing to Paint the Nation Purple - Patriot Action Network
Click to expand...

What? Man, your partisanship is allowing you to put words into my mouth. Explain were I blamed Bush. I just found it funny that you give them credit for one and not the other. Everyone knows that Obama came into the office long after the recession had begun and that if a crash happens in 2007, the people elected in 2006 can't be blamed. It's common sense.

Come on man. Are we having a discussion here or are you just blowing smoke? By the way, I believe the crash was a long time coming from, again, a fatal combination of deregulation in the wrong places and regulation in the wrong places.

*Edit:

And I didn't happen to click on the link because I like my brain cells and it is clearly off topic anyway.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
Wis. Law Enforcement Association 'Regrets' Endorsing Walker - Politics News Story - WISC Madison

"In a post dated Feb. 16, Tracy Fuller writes, "I am going to make an effort to speak for myself, and every member of the Wisconsin State Patrol when I say this … I specifically regret the endorsement of the Wisconsin Trooper's Association for Gov. Scott Walker. I regret the governor's decision to 'endorse' the troopers and inspectors of the Wisconsin State Patrol. I regret being the recipient of any of the perceived benefits provided by the governor's anointing. I think everyone's job and career is just as significant as the others. Everyone's family is just as valuable as mine or any other persons, especially mine. Everyone's needs are just as valuable. We are all great people!!" The full statement can be found at www.wlea.org."​
Click to expand...


Wisconsin firefighters joined the teachers the other night in a show of solidarity as well! :sun
 
Catawba said:
Prove it. Document the big money corporations that gave more to Democrats than the GOP.
Click to expand...

you went from saying overwhelmingly to "gave more "

you are making a fool of yourself
 
Barbbtx said:
So just as a glance........
It seems we could do away with all union campaign donations and the playing field would be pretty level.
Stop whining liberals. You don't need the unions anyway. :)
Click to expand...

Are you in a job field that has unions? If not, what is your prerogative? Also, obviously these people like being a part of a union, which means thats what the people want. Why do you think you are better than they are or that your opinion is worth so much more?
 
whysoserious said:
Are you in a job field that has unions? If not, what is your prerogative? Also, obviously these people like being a part of a union, which means thats what the people want. Why do you think you are better than they are or that your opinion is worth so much more?
Click to expand...

if people want to form a union fine

if the business wants to fire them-fine as well
 
TurtleDude said:
if people want to form a union fine

if the business wants to fire them-fine as well
Click to expand...

And if they want to fire the secretary for not sleeping with the boss, fine as well too?

*Edit:

At what point do laws regulating firing go to far? At the union stage? At the sexual harassment stage?
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
Are you in a job field that has unions? If not, what is your prerogative? Also, obviously these people like being a part of a union, which means thats what the people want. Why do you think you are better than they are or that your opinion is worth so much more?
Click to expand...

My post was partly in jest. However, no, I don't have a very good opinion of Unions as a whole.
I've explained my reasons in other posts, not to mention I think they are now hurting a lot of states financially.
 
whysoserious said:
And if they want to fire the secretary for not sleeping with the boss, fine as well too?

*Edit:

At what point do laws regulating firing go to far? At the union stage? At the sexual harassment stage?
Click to expand...

I believe the owner of a business has the right to fire whomever he wants for any reason he wants
 
whysoserious said:
Again, unions were the "free market" response to poor work conditions. So are you for government controlling business or the free market? I am confused. I thought you were conservative.
Click to expand...

That's true. But when the membership to a union is forced...it isn't exactly a free market any more...is it?
 
whysoserious said:
And if they want to fire the secretary for not sleeping with the boss, fine as well too?

*Edit:

At what point do laws regulating firing go to far? At the union stage? At the sexual harassment stage?
Click to expand...

Something you need to think about, Government employees are being paid through my taxes. In a way, I am paying a portion of every public workers income and benefits. The more they make, the more I have to pay. I have a say about that as I vote every year and try to elect individuals who understand how I feel.

Those who sought to work for the government in the public sector, chose to do so. They were not forced into a job. The sought it out, interviewed, was offered a position and accepted it. They knew at the time that it was a public position and the people they had to service was the public, the taxpayers who are paying their salaries.

The CEO or executive or even a clerk or salesperson at a private company are individuals that I am not required to support. If I spend my money there it is my choice. If I decide not to purchase at that company, I don't. No skin off my back. If I am treated poorly, I will not give them my money. I can't say the same when dealing with a government employee. If I don't like their service, I am still required to pay their salaries.
 
Conservative said:
Something you need to think about, Government employees are being paid through my taxes. In a way, I am paying a portion of every public workers income and benefits. The more they make, the more I have to pay. I have a say about that as I vote every year and try to elect individuals who understand how I feel.

Those who sought to work for the government in the public sector, chose to do so. They were not forced into a job. The sought it out, interviewed, was offered a position and accepted it. They knew at the time that it was a public position and the people they had to service was the public, the taxpayers who are paying their salaries.

The CEO or executive or even a clerk or salesperson at a private company are individuals that I am not required to support. If I spend my money there it is my choice. If I decide not to purchase at that company, I don't. No skin off my back. If I am treated poorly, I will not give them my money. I can't say the same when dealing with a government employee. If I don't like their service, I am still required to pay their salaries.
Click to expand...

I totally understand, but you live in Houston, TX, right? Just like I live in Charlotte, NC, so this debate in Wiconsin is not really concerning me. It is not North Carolina's taxes nor Texas' taxes paying for it. As well, how much are teachers being paid that you object to the amount of control unions have?

According to salary.com, in Wisconsin the median high school teacher makes between 42-62,000 a year. Up to 90% confidence interval the range is $32-70,000. The median grade school teacher makes $42-60,000 and up to 90% confidence interval is $33-70,000.

Does this seem unreasonable? As far as administrators go... that I am less passionate about. I am not even aware of what they usually get paid.
 
whysoserious said:
I totally understand, but you live in Houston, TX, right? Just like I live in Charlotte, NC, so this debate in Wiconsin is not really concerning me. It is not North Carolina's taxes nor Texas' taxes paying for it. As well, how much are teachers being paid that you object to the amount of control unions have?

According to salary.com, in Wisconsin the median high school teacher makes between 42-62,000 a year. Up to 90% confidence interval the range is $32-70,000. The median grade school teacher makes $42-60,000 and up to 90% confidence interval is $33-70,000.

Does this seem unreasonable? As far as administrators go... that I am less passionate about. I am not even aware of what they usually get paid.
Click to expand...

You are right, what goes on in Wisconsin doesn't affect what I pay at all nor does it affect you or even many of the SEIU members that were bussed into the state to assist in the rally. It doesn't affect Obama either but he interjected himself into the debate. MY post could have easily been made by someone in Wisconsin or any other state with public unions. No one that I know is against civil service workers. We are against their unions that force the state to pay higher benefits and wages than the same job will require in the private sector.

One other VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

Government departments SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN UNIONIZED as it is definitely a strong conflict of interest between the government entity, the taxpayer and the union.

Elected officials who negotiate with unions are also supported by those unions through campaign donations. How likely would an elected official go against the people that helped put him in office and expect them to help him get re-elected?

The more the elected official needs the unions help in staying in office, the more he would bend to the Union demands leaving the tax payer as the victim.

It should be disallowed.
 
whysoserious said:
Yeah! Damn unions. How dare you raise worker's compensation, make sure conditions are safe, and promote an overall better work environment!?!?

www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/143/bp143.pdf


So evil! They must be destroyed!
Click to expand...

So we are to assume that you do not agree with the biggest progressive of the 20th Century, FDR?

Quote -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, "....Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations...the very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for officials...to bind the employer...the employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives....

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... the obligation is paramount ...a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent...to prevent...obstruct...Government, such action, looking toward paralysis of government is unthinkable and intolerable." EXCEPT in WISCONSIN where these CIVIL SERVANTS ignore their oath to both the State and Federal Constitution to serve and defend the publics best interest, instead, serve the UNION BOSSES and their CONSTITUTION.

Just how does that work? Who is more important, THE PEOPLE...or the UNION HIERARCHY? Are you suggesting the UNION CONSTITUTION and BI-LAWS are paramount to the Legislation that is being passed by the PEOPLES REPRESENTATIVE who have democratically assumed office under the mandate of fiscal responsibility? Hardly...it is the PEOPLE who entered into an agreement to collectively bargain with these unions and grant them any rights to collectively assemble in the first place while under contract to the Government. They can and are rescinding that law and drafting a new one. EAT CAKE. This is a Representative Republic, not a social totalitarian communist state, the PEOPLE make the rules...not the UNIONS nor their thugs.

This administration has already sent legions of BROWN SHIRT propaganda artists into that area. By what right does the federal government have assume the authority to interfere with a state governments and their acts of legislations...before they are voted upon?
 
Last edited:
Walter said:
So we are to assume that you do not agree with the biggest progressive of the 20th Century, FDR?

Quote -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, "....Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations...the very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for officials...to bind the employer...the employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives....

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... the obligation is paramount ...a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent...to prevent...obstruct...Government, such action, looking toward paralysis of government is unthinkable and intolerable." EXCEPT in WISCONSIN where these CIVIL SERVANTS ignore their oath to both the State and Federal Constitution to serve and defend the publics best interest, instead, serve the UNION BOSSES and their CONSTITUTION.

Just how does that work? Who is more important, THE PEOPLE...or the UNION HIERARCHY? Are you suggesting the UNION CONSTITUTION and BI-LAWS are paramount to the Legislation that is being passed by the PEOPLES REPRESENTATIVE who have democratically assumed office under the mandate of fiscal responsibility? Hardly...it is the PEOPLE who entered into an agreement to collectively bargain with these unions and grant them any rights to collectively assemble in the first place while under contract to the Government. They can and are rescinding that law and drafting a new one. EAT CAKE. This is a Representative Republic, not a social totalitarian communist state, the PEOPLE make the rules...not the UNIONS nor their thugs.

This administration has already sent legions of BROWN SHIRT propaganda artists into that area. By what right does the federal government have assume the authority to interfere with a state governments and their acts of legislations...before they are voted upon?
Click to expand...

I do like FDR. He said and did a lot of great things. I think I have shown myself to be open to discussion and compromise. Often I ask questions so that I can get a feel for what the overall problem is. For instance, with the WI strikes, I understand why those are mad about the possibility of fake doctors notes and not going to work. What I don't understand is the hatred of the union. I don't understand what exactly these teachers are getting that is causing such an issue.

Also, this isn't just about the public sector. The same people on these boards who are calling these teachers "slobs" (direct quote) are the same ones who want to knock out all unions - not just those in the public sector. So while your FDR quote is intriguing and I appreciate you bringing up his viewpoint, it isn't entirely relevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom