View Poll Results: Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

Voters
73. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    44 60.27%
  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    14 19.18%
  • It depends on November.

    15 20.55%
Page 106 of 124 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108116 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,060 of 1237

Thread: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

  1. #1051
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    In you last few posts, you spend more time attacking me personally than you do defending your position. How does that give credibility to your position?
    If you come with arguments, then I will defend my position. However, talking about hypocrisy. Not only have you been doing personal attacks, but you have kept ignoring arguments you don't like.

    Dr. Lafer and the studies he cites compare workers of like categories in union and non-union states. When they do that, they find that the unionized states worker of similar kind makes $1500 more than the non unionized worker of the same kind.
    They are comparing for factors like the age of the state and unemployment rate. If you are in a state that have a household income of 60K, does your household income change if we make your state older. No? Then he is not comparing workers of like categories.

    And before you start crying. I don't understand. Try to think. Ask yourself these questions.
    1. Is it possible adjusting for every single factor?
    2. Could trying to adjust for every single factor actually make it worse?
    3. Why are there so many unrelated factors that shouldn't be adjusted for, such as unemployment and the age of the state.
    4. Are all black people the same? Are all Hispanics the same? Why do the study, then assume they are the same?
    5. Isn't the results very dependant on what variables you choose to correlate for?

    I call that excellent research.
    Of course you do. You would call any research that support your view excellent.

    But if it was so excelent. Why do you keep ignoring the flaws I pointed out in his research. I reapat, and write it bold because this is the 5 time you have ignored it.
    Why do you keep ignoring the flaws I pointed out in his research.

    Not so easy to ignore when I make it bigger, is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You obviously do not approve of seeing your own intellectual prejudices exposed and made fun of in this manner. Thats okay. Few do.

    The cartoon contains much truth that I have seen displayed over and over and over again through many years by those who bash both public education and the men and women who are professional educators in public education. It is an excellent cartoon and does a fine job at getting the point across.
    Haha, no. The cartoon is childish. Its like you hearing Republicans say dumb ****. It doesn't hurt you. You just weep thinking about how dumb some people are.

    Of course you think it is excelent. You would call any cartoon who support your view excellent. That is the kind of person you are. But Republicans have never blamed teachers for the economic crisis. Some Republicans may have stated a few of them, but unrelated to the crisis. It is just completely unrelated to the actual arguments, feeding the worst democratic stereotypes. It is actually kind of pathetic that Democrats can't make fun of the actual arguments Republicans are making. It obviously show who has the upper hand.

  2. #1052
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    We have discussed this recently in the thread on the topic of union members not siging up for dues payments. I stated there and I will state here again that if you or anyone else interprets that as a sign that they do not want a union or they do not want union protections or they do not want the union to negotitate a contract - that is a wrong interpretation of what is going on here.

    It comes down to one thing as most things do in life and that one thing is MONEY. When the right wing Repubicans passed laws to penalize and weaken unions by refusing to allow employers to collect the dues to the union, we know that some workers will see only the opportunity for a short term gain in keeping those dues for themselves and will decide to stop paying them. Many do so because of selfishness. Others do it because they fail to see the long term effects. Still others expect to have their cake and eat it too hoping that while they will keep their dues, other workers will pay and thus their own ass will be well protected by the majority.

    So I do not interpret this as a sign that 2 out of 3 are opting out of the union. I see this for what it is.
    1. Thank you for at least answering.

    2. However, you haven't really done so - you have redirected. You have instead provided an alternate explanation for the loss of membership and money. What you haven't done is demonstrate how Public Unions will overcome these losses. Yet you voted that they will not only recover their losses, but grow stronger.

    3. The next time you accuse us of hating on teachers, I think I shall recall that you claim that 1-2/3rds of them are either selfish or stupid.

    As far as your claim that the limitations on unions is coming from both parties, I differ with that claim also. Yes, some democrats have joined in. But this is largely a GOP effort spurred on by their right wing. In my State of Michigan, no Democrat in the legislature has signed on these sort of extreme bills promoting things like right to work. Yes, a tiny number of Democrats have voted for laws here which unions lobbied and worked against - but they are a minority in the party and do not represent the dominant thinking of the majority. The vast majority of the Democrtic Party is supportive of labor and labor rights. Wisconsin demonstrat4es this reality also.
    The breakdown seems to occur at the level where Democrats become responsible. When Democrats have had to actually put forward and pass budgets, that is where we have seen Democrats limit public unions. Nor are those breaking ranks so infinitesimally small in number as you seem to suggest.

    Massachussetts Democrats have voted to strip collective bargaining by public employees on healthcare. The Democrat Governor of New York has pushed for limits on Public Sector Pensions. The Democrat Governor of Illinois moved to limit collective bargaining. Democrat Governor of Virginia banned it all-together. Democrats in New Jersey have worked with and voted for Christ Christie's reforms. Even the Democrat Governor of California has realized his state will be unable to solve it's fiscal woes until it reins in the cost of public sector unions. At the local level, Democrat Mayors and councilmen in places such as San Jose and San Diego have moved to contain the deleterious costs of public sector unions as well. Democrats all over are realizing that increasingly a suffering private sector is unwilling to support public sector workers who have greater job security, greater compensation, and lower unemployment than them to their own detriment. Even at ground zero - Wisconsin - Barrett didn't run on collective bargaining. Because that would have caused him to lose even more.

    Having said that, I have no actual idea as to pubic employee unions getting stronger or weaker in the short run.
    You don't think losing membership and a guaranteed protector in Democrat politicians will make them weaker?

    We know there is a war on and I have no idea how it is going to turn out. Perhaps unions need to be kicked a bit to motivate and arouse apathetic members who have no memory or knowledge of why it is so important to have a union in the first place? Perhaps the union needs to do more education of its own members?

    I also think that the right wing efforts against unions may bear soem fruit in the short run but in the long run will only spur unions to work harder, organize and recruit more, and dig their collective heels in deeper. And that would be a good thing.

    As to economic forces, lots of Americans are not on board with globalization and the attendant sacrifices it means for them. Lots of people are simply not willing to allow unskilled workers in Asia to dictate what they will get paid here. They are not going to take this indefinetely and there will be push back as the pendulum swings too far to the right. It always does swing back. That will result in political action and perhaps we will do something extremely radical and far out like actually insist that we follow the Constitution and exercise the powers the Founders gave us to protect American markets and jobs. We will see.

    In short, I think the right is riding high right now at this point in time. And I think the pendulum has swung nearly as far as its going to swing to the right. For you or anyone else to misinterpret this only does America a great disservice.
    But what do you see causing it to swing back? Unions have spent massive amounts of money and seen little to no return on it. Republicans all over the country are emboldened, and many Democrats are (quietly) following suit. They've lost major, key public battles and allies. Public Unions are bleeding money and membership, and the reasons you list above indicate that it's going to be pretty difficult for them to pull off making up for that by "organizing better and recruiting more". What is the great socio-economic factor that is going to push Public Unions back on top?
    Last edited by cpwill; 06-14-12 at 08:59 AM.

  3. #1053
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The cartoon contains much truth that I have seen displayed over and over and over again through many years by those who bash both public education and the men and women who are professional educators in public education. It is an excellent cartoon and does a fine job at getting the point across.
    Can you cite examples of leading conservatives on this board making any of those arguments?

  4. #1054
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    This is hilarious. You have cited an article that demonstrates my position.

    I did? Maybe you should read more than the first paragraph or two, huh?

    The selective factors that favored coalitionary killing of neighbors may have remained in play until as late as 1 million years ago. The precise chronology of the persistence of these selective factors during the Lower Paleolithic remains an open question at present. However, the development of the throwing spear, used in conjunction with ambush hunting techniques, ushered in an era in which the enhanced lethality of weaponry amplified the costs of assessment errors, and the necessity of movement also placed intruders at a comparative disadvantage with respect to both detection and assessment. ...

    These developments marked a major turning point in the evolution of lethal intergroup violence and in the character of interrelations between neighboring groups. Although fitness continued to be related to territory size (for food-limited populations in occupied environments), selective circumstances no longer favored aggression as a means of achieving territorial gain.
    Conflict avoidance and the development of intergroup relations of friendship, mutuality, sharing, and cooperation were favored instead. Intragroup cooperation was elaborated in conjunction with the teamwork entailed by large game hunting and was further reinforced by mechanisms for sharing large animals jointly killed by a hunting party. ...
    In other words, for the past ~1 million years of our history - which includes the entire existence of H.sapiens and the later half of H.erectus - cooperation has been a more efficient strategy than aggression.

    Only the advent of agriculture, ~10k years ago, made killing a better scheme - and, again, this is still an inter-group strategy. Even then, individuals inside a group did not kill or miam each other. Individual property rights did not exist until thousands of years after the advent of agriculture. They're a very recent and very artificial construct.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-14-12 at 09:39 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  5. #1055
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I did? Maybe you should read more than the first paragraph or two, huh?

    In other words, for the past ~1 million years of our history - which includes the entire existence of H.sapiens and the later half of H.erectus - cooperation has been a more efficient strategy than aggression.
    yeah, and the thing we cooperated most about was killing each other - armed conflict has consistently driven the formation and expansion of the heirarchy and the state. However, I would love for these people to explain to me how the Romans, Mongols, or British all ended up with massive empires through peaceful avoidance of violence. In fact our savage ancestors were more violent than we are today.

    ...quantitative body-counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with axemarks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own. It is true that raids and battles killed a tiny percentage of the numbers that die in modern warfare. But, in tribal violence, the clashes are more frequent, the percentage of men in the population who fight is greater, and the rates of death per battle are higher. According to anthropologists like Lawrence Keeley, Stephen LeBlanc, Phillip Walker, and Bruce Knauft, these factors combine to yield population-wide rates of death in tribal warfare that dwarf those of modern times. If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million....

    Hobbes got it right. Life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short, not because of a primal thirst for blood but because of the inescapable logic of anarchy. Any beings with a modicum of self-interest may be tempted to invade their neighbors to steal their resources. The resulting fear of attack will tempt the neighbors to strike first in preemptive self-defense, which will in turn tempt the first group to strike against them preemptively, and so on. This danger can be defused by a policy of deterrence—don't strike first, retaliate if struck—but, to guarantee its credibility, parties must avenge all insults and settle all scores, leading to cycles of bloody vendetta. These tragedies can be averted by a state with a monopoly on violence, because it can inflict disinterested penalties that eliminate the incentives for aggression, thereby defusing anxieties about preemptive attack and obviating the need to maintain a hair-trigger propensity for retaliation. Indeed, Eisner and Elias attribute the decline in European homicide to the transition from knightly warrior societies to the centralized governments of early modernity. And, today, violence continues to fester in zones of anarchy, such as frontier regions, failed states, collapsed empires, and territories contested by mafias, gangs, and other dealers of contraband...
    Only the advent of agriculture made killing a better scheme - and, again, this is still an inter-group strategy. Individual property rights did not exist until many, many years after the advent of agriculture.
    That is not true either - even an infant knows "mine".
    Last edited by cpwill; 06-14-12 at 09:44 AM.

  6. #1056
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Well that's a failure of analysis then. I would love for these people to explain to me how the Romans, Mongols, or British all ended up with massive empires through peaceful avoidance of violence. In fact our savage ancestors were more violent than we are today.
    You really do have a problem with reading comprehension don't you?
    Did you miss "Agricultural Revolution"???


    Do you honestly believe that a million years of evolution including all but the last ~5k years of our entire species existence - out of 200,000 years - can be erased by recent events?
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-14-12 at 09:52 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #1057
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Who is saying that public unions destroyed the economy? We're just saying that they are wrecking State and Local governments' fiscs.
    Agreed they are harming government budgets, but depriving citizens their Bill of Rights (e.g. right of assembling) isn't the way to go. Destroying unions isn't the answer. Finding a balance of power between managers and union employees is a better solution.

  8. #1058
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    You really do have a problem with reading comprehension don't you?
    not at all - though you will note we both have a habit of editing our posts.

    Did you miss "Agricultural Revolution"???
    nope.

  9. #1059
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    not at all - though you will note we both have a habit of editing our posts.

    nope.
    What I posted is not changed by your minor edit.

    Now, if you'd like to discuss group ownership of land and 'production', as has been the case for most of our species history, then I'm all for it.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-14-12 at 10:44 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  10. #1060
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,905

    Re: Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

    from Camlon on the Dr. lafer study showing that workers in right to work states make $15,00 LESS even adjusting for cost of living than their same counterparts in union states:


    Ask yourself these questions.
    1. Is it possible adjusting for every single factor?
    I would imagine that would be nearly impossible without infinite resources. So your answer is to adjust for none at all? That seems ridiculous on its face.


    2. Could trying to adjust for every single factor actually make it worse?
    Since nobody seems to be doing this, it is an irrelevant question.

    3. Why are there so many unrelated factors that shouldn't be adjusted for, such as unemployment and the age of the state.
    Did you write what you meant to say? Are you really asking me why factors SHOULDN'T BE ADJUSTED FOR? I do not see the point here.



    4. Are all black people the same? Are all Hispanics the same? Why do the study, then assume they are the same?
    It did not say ther were the same. That is your own particular false assumption. I have no doubt that ALL female high school graduates living in rural environments are not the same either. So what? People in this business group people by common categories by which they share certain characteristics and commonalities. They do not have to be the same.

    5. Isn't the results very dependant on what variables you choose to correlate for
    Perhaps - perhaps not. I would be glad to look at data in which you intentionally manipulate such factors but yet still produce a respected study.

    Why do you keep ignoring the flaws I pointed out in his research.
    It was never ignored. It was read. It was considered. It was evaluated. It was judged. And it was rejected as without merit.
    Last edited by haymarket; 06-14-12 at 02:33 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •