Unions threaten Business

randel · Mar 13, 2011

MaggieD said:
What you call union busting, many of the rest of us call reining in the power of public sector employees and giving more power to the individual schools, cities and towns to balance their budgets.

I agree with you. Wisconsin isn't over by a long shot. Time will tell. I hope Governor Walker goes on a PR campaign to educate people on exactly what happened. And part of what happened is that the Wisconsin 14 fled the state in order to give some unions an opportunity to get their contracts signed before the law was passed. Madison's mayor being the most notable.

be honest maggie, you know it was union busting and precious little to do with a budget...as has been pointed out before, if it were about the budget, this would have been over in a few short days, as the concessions the governor wanted were offered, the governor made no effort to talk with the unions...he was perfectly willing to talk to one of his masters, a 'koch ' brother, but not with the unions.

randel · Mar 13, 2011

cpwill said:
exactly. wealth creators tend to vote Republican. Wealth consumers tend to vote Democrat.

Randel: Wisconsin just became like 26 other states and still has more collective bargaining for it's employees than the federal government. what in the world is "hardcore" about that?

the governor overstepped by a country mile...simple union busting is all this was.

Badmutha · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
you realize of course, how assinine you sound?

Why are you having such a problem with THE TRUTH.......

Government's monopoly on brute force ensures you pay.......or men with guns are dispatched to your door. You put the money in the bag, or THE MOB sends people to your home to make you an offer you cant refuse.
.
.
.

MaggieD · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
be honest maggie, you know it was union busting and precious little to do with a budget...as has been pointed out before, if it were about the budget, this would have been over in a few short days, as the concessions the governor wanted were offered, the governor made no effort to talk with the unions...he was perfectly willing to talk to one of his masters, a 'koch ' brother, but not with the unions.

Every time I take a step back and rethink this issue, I come back to the same place: What is union busting about wanting to rein in state public sector unions to have the same (actually slightly more) bargaining rights that Federal workers have? What is so terrible about that? It's a change, yes. But trying to destroy unions? I just don't buy it.

BWG · Mar 13, 2011

Badmutha said:
.......the same Poor and Middle Class Private Market Taxpayers that have sacrificed time and time again........who cant afford to buy their own health insurance, their own retirement, their own roof and food...........

Perhaps the non-union employee should look into how the union employee elevated themselves to having decent wages, adequate retirement, nice housing, enough food for their families, health insurance, etc. and strive to achieve that level, rather than trying to bring that group down to the non-union level of bare subsistence.

randel · Mar 13, 2011

Badmutha said:
Why are you having such a problem with THE TRUTH.......

Government's monopoly on brute force ensures you pay.......or men with guns are dispatched to your door. You put the money in the bag, or THE MOB sends people to your home to make you an offer you cant refuse.
.
.
.

the truth? you want the truth?? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

buck · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
be honest maggie, you know it was union busting and precious little to do with a budget...as has been pointed out before, if it were about the budget, this would have been over in a few short days, as the concessions the governor wanted were offered, the governor made no effort to talk with the unions...he was perfectly willing to talk to one of his masters, a 'koch ' brother, but not with the unions.

The colective bargaining right in the bill that was passed will positively affect future budgets.

Through collective bargaining, teacher's unions had been able to obtain raises above CPI, emeritus status (a retiree shows up for 30 days of work over a three year period (10 days avg/year) and obtains 1 years full salary), captive health care benefits (districts having to take health care coverage through the union, which costs more in premium then other, similar health coverage) were all collectively bargained for.

Not being able to collectively bargain for these types of budget busting items in the future, and being able to roll back some of these (IMO abuses) will result in lower budgets well into the future.

randel · Mar 13, 2011

BWG said:
Perhaps the non-union employee should look into how the union employee elevated themselves to having decent wages, adequate retirement, nice housing, enough food for their families, health insurance, etc. and strive to achieve that level, rather than trying to bring that group down to the non-union level of bare subsistence.

hmmmm..now their is an idea!!!

Badmutha · Mar 13, 2011

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

------Alexander Hamilton--Father of the Constitution--Hater of Liberals--Great American

.
.
.
.

MaggieD · Mar 13, 2011

BWG said:
Perhaps the non-union employee should look into how the union employee elevated themselves to having decent wages, adequate retirement, nice housing, enough food for their families, health insurance, etc. and strive to achieve that level, rather than trying to bring that group down to the non-union level of bare subsistence.

Huh??? So unless someone is a member of a union they are struggling for bare subsistence? Less than 12% of American workers belong to unions. Most of the rest of us, BWG, are doin' just fine.

I've seen this opinion expressed many times before on DP. It makes me think that unions propagandize this viewpoint to keep their members in line. "The evil corporations..." "Us against them..." Yikes!

randel · Mar 13, 2011

buck said:
The colective bargaining right in the bill that was passed will positively affect future budgets.

Through collective bargaining, teacher's unions had been able to obtain raises above CPI, emeritus status (a retiree shows up for 30 days of work over a three year period (10 days avg/year) and obtains 1 years full salary), captive health care benefits (districts having to take health care coverage through the union, which costs more then in premium then other, similar health coverage) were all colelctively bargained for.

Not being able to collectively bargain for these types of items in teh future, and being able to roll back some of these (IMO abuses) will result in lower budgets well into the future.

all of which he could have sat down and negotiated over, and possibly, had gotten more in the way of concessions than he planned on....i had no problem with him asking them to pay more for their retirement/medical, but pray tell, why did he see fit to have to make them 'certify' every year? certification is an internal union matter, with provisions set up for decertification votes if enough of the membership wanted to be rid of the union....and not why not have the government collect the dues? that is standard procedure in most union contracts that the employer collect the dues and mail a check to the union every month...?? union busting, plain and simple.

randel · Mar 13, 2011

MaggieD said:
Huh??? So unless someone is a member of a union they are struggling for bare subsistence? Less than 12% of American workers belong to unions. Most of the rest of us, BWG, are doin' just fine.

I've seen this opinion expressed many times before on DP. It makes me think that unions propagandize this viewpoint to keep their members in line. "The evil corporations..." "Us against them..." Yikes!

most of the rest of you are doing fine? everything i'm reading and seeing is that prices are going up, wages are going down, are stagnant, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class is dissapearing. you personally may be doing fine, but many are treading water, or slipping.

Badmutha · Mar 13, 2011

BWG said:
Perhaps the non-union employee should look into how the union employee elevated themselves to having decent wages, adequate retirement, nice housing, enough food for their families, health insurance, etc. and strive to achieve that level, rather than trying to bring that group down to the non-union level of bare subsistence.

And perhaps Non-union employees could have a decent wage, adequate retirement, nice housing, enough food for their families, health insurance, ect........

.....if they werent too damn broke after paying for yours.
.
.
.
.

buck · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
all of which he could have sat down and negotiated over, and possibly, had gotten more in the way of concessions than he planned on....i had no problem with him asking them to pay more for their retirement/medical, but pray tell, why did he see fit to have to make them 'certify' every year? certification is an internal union matter, with provisions set up for decertification votes if enough of the membership wanted to be rid of the union....and not why not have the government collect the dues? that is standard procedure in most union contracts that the employer collect the dues and mail a check to the union every month...?? union busting, plain and simple.

The problem is that the unions were, in many cases, negotiating with sympathetic parties that were supposed to be representing tax payers/districts. This is the reason we ended up with some of the abuses (IMO) that I listed above. The bill that was passed will get rid of the possilbity of those types of "fringe benefits" in the future which will save districts and the state signifcant amounts of money way into the future. It will also make it likely that those benefits will be unwound. To claim there was no benefit to the budget, as you seemed to do, is either disingenuous or shows a lack of understanding as to what is really going on.

As for the recertifying every year, the dem14 had obtained a compromise on that measure. However, they wanted even more, or as many have stated they were really just delaying in order to allow as many contracts to be renewed under the old rules and waiting for recalls to be completed. In other words, they shot for the moon. They got the moon, just not the one they expected.

randel · Mar 13, 2011

Badmutha said:
And perhaps Non-union employees could have a decent wage, adequate retirement, nice housing, enough food for their families, health insurance, ect........

.....if they werent too damn broke after paying for yours.
.
.
.
.

so are you saying that it is the unions fault that you don't have all these? are the unions the ones not paying you a good wage/benefits? you really need to think things through before you post.

randel · Mar 13, 2011

buck said:
The problem is that the unions were, in many cases, negotiating with sympathetic parties that were supposed to be representing tax payers/districts. This is the reason we ended up with some of the abuses (IMO) that I listed above. The bill that was passed will get rid of the possilbity of those types of "fringe benefits" in the future which will save districts and the state signifcant amounts of money for way into the future. It will also make it likely that those benefits will be unwound. To claim there was no benefit to the budget, as you seemed to do, is either disingenuous or shows a lack of understanding as to what is really going on.

As for the recertifying every year, the dem14 had obtained a compromise on that measure. However, they wanted even more, or as many have stated they were really just delaying in order to allow as many contracts to be renewed under the old rules and waiting for recalls to be completed. In other words, they shot for the moon. They got the moon, just not the one they expected.

i'd have no problem with the governor if he would have sat down and discussed this with the unions, instead of acting like a tyrant, the whole 'my way or the highway' way of governing...the whole recertification thing is none of his business, as i stated, that is an internal union issue. what i don't get, is the state budget, he was looking to save 30 mill immediately, which he would have gotten, and something like 300 mill over 3 years...the budget deficit was what? 3 billion...this fight got him less than 10 percent of his shortfall...what about the rest of the deficit? if you are really broke, and looking to make cuts, why was he giving tax breaks to those who supported him? i maintain that this was nothing but union busting...by the way, i am enjoying the conversation with you buck. we may not agree, but i like the civility.

EarlzP · Mar 13, 2011

MaggieD said:
Huh??? So unless someone is a member of a union they are struggling for bare subsistence? Less than 12% of American workers belong to unions. Most of the rest of us, BWG, are doin' just fine.

I've seen this opinion expressed many times before on DP. It makes me think that unions propagandize this viewpoint to keep their members in line. "The evil corporations..." "Us against them..." Yikes!

Non union workers benefit along with the union workers
How unions help all workers

" How unions help all workers
Lawrence Mishel Matthew Walters
August 26, 2003 "

Badmutha · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
so are you saying that it is the unions fault that you don't have all these? are the unions the ones not paying you a good wage/benefits? you really need to think things through before you post.

No Im saying its the Union's fault that Poor and Middle Class taxpayers are being raped via State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, and City Income Taxes.........in the name of providing Public Sector Union slobs with their Bloated Salaries, Gold Plated Health Care, and Diamond Inlayed Pensions.

As I said, maybe the Poor and Middle Class could afford their own......if they werent too damn broke after paying for yours.
.
.
.

randel · Mar 13, 2011

buck said:
The problem is that the unions were, in many cases, negotiating with sympathetic parties that were supposed to be representing tax payers/districts. This is the reason we ended up with some of the abuses (IMO) that I listed above. The bill that was passed will get rid of the possilbity of those types of "fringe benefits" in the future which will save districts and the state signifcant amounts of money way into the future. It will also make it likely that those benefits will be unwound. To claim there was no benefit to the budget, as you seemed to do, is either disingenuous or shows a lack of understanding as to what is really going on.

As for the recertifying every year, the dem14 had obtained a compromise on that measure. However, they wanted even more, or as many have stated they were really just delaying in order to allow as many contracts to be renewed under the old rules and waiting for recalls to be completed. In other words, they shot for the moon. They got the moon, just not the one they expected.

as for the 'sympathetic parties'...i really don't think that holds water, as the majority of the electorate didnt belong to this union, and they voted in those who represent them...why not vote them out if the electorate thought that they had been giving away the house all these years?

randel · Mar 13, 2011

Badmutha said:
No Im saying its the Union's fault that Poor and Middle Class taxpayers are being raped via State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, and City Income Taxes.........in the name of providing Public Sector Union slobs with their Bloated Salaries, Gold Plated Health Care, and Diamond Inlayed Pensions.

As I said, maybe the Poor and Middle Class could afford their own......if they werent too damn broke after paying for yours.
.
.
.

again, think through what you are saying..you are not making much sense.

Badmutha · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
as for the 'sympathetic parties'...i really don't think that holds water, as the majority of the electorate didnt belong to this union, and they voted in those who represent them...why not vote them out if the electorate thought that they had been giving away the house all these years?

What do you think just happened on Nov. 2, 2010--The Largest Political Ass Whooping in history?

We The People spoke......and instead of abiding by the Will of the People......Democrat Lawmakers fled to ****cago in an effort to stop the People's will.
.
.
.

randel · Mar 13, 2011

Badmutha said:
What do you think just happened on Nov. 2, 2010--The Largest Political Ass Whooping in history?

We The People spoke......and instead of abiding by the Will of the People......Democrat Lawmakers fled to ****cago in an effort to stop the People's will.
.
.
.

this last election really wasnt about taxes...it was more frustration with how the economy was, and that it wasnt improving as fast as people liked...takes more than 2 years to fix the disaster obama walked into ...especially when it was quite a few years in the making.

buck · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
the whole recertification thing is none of his business, as i stated, that is an internal union issue.

Not any more. If the unions had been interested in negotiating this, they probably could have encouraged the dem 14 to really engage. I have a feeling (just a guess) that the unions were encouraging the dem 14 to stay away and prolong the exercise as long as possible for the previously mentioned reasons.

randel said:
what i don't get, is the state budget, he was looking to save 30 mill immediately, which he would have gotten, and something like 300 mill over 3 years...the budget deficit was what? 3 billion...this fight got him less than 10 percent of his shortfall...what about the rest of the deficit?

As I stated, the bill that was passed is gong to save the distrcits/states a lot of money over a long period of time. You won't see this savings refelected in any estimate - because how do you really estimate savings on hypothetical expenses, but the savings will be real. I never saw final projections once the governor's full budget proposal is passed. Did you? I know a lot of budget cuts are coming - and this bill will make it a lot easier for the districts to deal with these cuts (another reason it was needed). But, do you know what the final tally was? After all of the cuts, what is the expected deficit?

if you are really broke, and looking to make cuts, why was he giving tax breaks to those who supported him? i maintain that this was nothing but union busting...by the way, i am enjoying the conversation with you buck. we may not agree, but i like the civility.

Are you talking about police and fire unions? You would have a hella hard time to make me believe that exempting them was political payback. Out of the 300 some police and FF unions in WI only 4 endorsed Walker. The 4 that endorsed Walker were not even the biggest in the state. I believe the reason they were exempted was due to police and FF being very sympathetic characters. Basically, he thought that if they were included, the backlash and rejection of his plan would be a lot larger. It's likely that is true - but we'll never know for certain.

And, as you know, we are simply going to have a disagreement over wether tax cuts to buseinss end up paying for themselves or not. I am not too interested in getting involved in that again. However, as someone that lives in IL, right over the border from WI, I can tell you I do know of one business that has alrady left for WI (due to Quinn's tax increases) and another business that has plans on moving. This is outside of some of the stories I have read of in the local papers. I realize this is anectdotal, so make of it what you will. However, I have personally seen evidence of the tax cuts having the affect intended.

buck · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
as for the 'sympathetic parties'...i really don't think that holds water, as the majority of the electorate didnt belong to this union, and they voted in those who represent them...why not vote them out if the electorate thought that they had been giving away the house all these years?

Alot of times the union is negotiating against former teachers. Teachers that are sympathetic to the position of the current teachers. Also, the cost to taxpayers is hidden. If every tax payer had to write a check every year that had to be paid to the local school district, I think this would be much more obvious and probably would have sparked more outrage. It's similar to, what i think, is some of the reasoning in requiring teachers to begin writing their own union dues checks. The teachers are now gong to see exactly how much of their salary will be going towards the union. Think this will cause some pause when they have to write out a $1,000.00+ check to the union?

randel · Mar 13, 2011

buck said:
Not any more. If the unions had been interested in negotiating this, they probably could have encouraged the dem 14 to really engage. I have a feeling (just a guess) that the unions were encouraging the dem 14 to stay away and prolong the exercise as long as possible for the previously mentioned reasons.

As I stated, the bill that was passed is gong to save the distrcits/states a lot of money over a long period of time. You won't see this savings refelected in any estimate - because how do you really estimate savings on hypothetical expenses, but the savings will be real. I never saw final projections once the governor's full budget proposal is passed. Did you? I know a lot of budget cuts are coming - and this bill will make it a lot easier for the districts to deal with these cuts (another reason it was needed). But, do you know what the final tally was? After all of the cuts, what is the expected deficit?

Are you talking about police and fire unions? You would have a hella hard time to make me believe that exempting them was political payback. Out of the 300 some police and FF unions in WI only 4 endorsed Walker. The 4 that endorsed Walker were not even the biggest in the state. I believe the reason they were exempted was due to police and FF being very sympathetic characters. Basically, he thought that if they were included, the backlash and rejection of his plan would be a lot larger. It's likely that is true - but we'll never know for certain.

And, as you know, we are simply going to have a disagreement over wether tax cuts to buseinss end up paying for themselves or not. I am not too interested in getting involved in that again. However, as someone that lives in IL, right over the border from WI, I can tell you I do know of one business that has alrady left for WI (due to Quinn's tax increases) and another business that has plans on moving. This is outside of some of the stories I have read of in the local papers. I realize this is anectdotal, so make of it what you will. However, I have personally seen evidence of the tax cuts having the affect intended.

i don't think walker had any intention whether the democrats stayed or not...as for the firefighters and police, you may have point, he also may not have wanted to piss away what little support he did have from unions.