• 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 Governor to Missing Democrats: Do Your Job

look out!

she's comin down fast!

ohio is goin farther---end collective bargaining and binding arbitration, institute instead merit pay

kasich is red hot behind it

"ohio democrat lawmakers are currently powerless and a walk out would not stall legislation"

read: stall

this movement is gonna spread to almost every state in the nation

and the bargainings have already been broadly collectivized

huge reductions in pensions, huge increases in payin's towards health care and retirement, a general reduction of political pull

our unions today are in disgrace

just how far it will go in states like indiana and california remains to be seen

but that it WILL go doesn't

it's a sign of the times

RealClearPolitics - Video - Union Unrest Spreads: Ohio Unions Now Protesting In Capital

RealClearPolitics - Union Disputes Spread to Indiana, Ohio

she may be a lover but she aint no dancer
 
a union engaged in collective bargaining with any agency of the government is NOT analogous to the same negotiating similarly with a private enterprise

hello
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Corrected for a grammatical error that really throws off your point.
LOL. . . .Thanks, don't know what happened there, I really do know the difference. :lol:

dontworrybehappy said:
You're not going to get much sympathy out of private sector employees making half as much and paying 4 times as much into their pensions.
I'm not so sure about that statement. I've read many articles about public vs private and have seen many different conclusions, depending on were the author sits. Most of it is based on raw numbers and don't take into consideration factors such as education level and experience.
 
a union engaged in collective bargaining with any agency of the government is NOT analogous to the same negotiating similarly with a private enterprise

hello

Says who? :coffeepap
 
you have to ask?

LOL!
 
Mach said:
BWG, that describes life in general. It describes every aspect of the free market.
Doesn't mean taking a pay cut isn't a bad thing.

Mach said:
Why should public teachers be insulated by taxpayers from this reality?
Where are they insulated? I've shown many instances of public unions taking cuts, paying more into their health and pension funds.

Mach said:
Where is the innovation in teaching? Why do teachers seem to be getting more and more advanced degrees to teach high school kids? Because they tie salary to them in their pay structure. In the real world you get paid by job duties and performance typically...not simply a degree. Sure fire way to get laughed in the real world, put on your job application you're a genius. It's a clear indicator someone is an idiot.
Teachers don't make education policy. They may 'seem' to get more advanced degrees for many reasons. Most of those that I know simply want to learn more in order to pass that on to their students. I don't know of any teacher that thinks they are a genius.

Mach said:
Why do they have such extraordinary job stability and how much is that worth? We call that risk-reward. Where is the public sector "risk"? How much does this cost, how much is it worth?
Job stability? Probably because students (in increasing numbers) keep showing up at the door every year. Not sure what you're getting at here.

Mach said:
What about these pensions that pay out $50K-$100K per year...these are valued at something like $1.5-$4M dollars. It's like hitting the jackpot.
I've been involved with 3 generations of teachers - that includes their friends who are mostly teachers - and none of them (save administrators) have a pension pay out such as that. By the way, $50k-$100k is a rather large range.

Mach said:
Health care has evolved to have Doctors, PAs, RNs, Urgent Care, etc. Your average medical care is achieved by LESS education. Where is this downard pressure in teaching? It's reversed (!).
You want a babysitter or a teacher?

Mach said:
What about a typical corporate ladder. Yeah, you may start answering phones or working the mail room, but as you're trusted you take on more and more responsibility and rise up in the company based on your skill, work ethic, etc. You get paid more for the new job role, not just because you've been there a while. So why is someone teaching high school for 30 years, essentially the same material over and over, expecting to have a steadily climbing salary? If they love it, fine...but you don't need more and more money for that job because we can just hire someone less expensive who needs the money. The teacher needs to move on. 10 years, either enjoy your 3% raise, or get a new job.
A teacher's corporate ladder is principal on up to school administrator. That requires advanced degrees that demands more pay (just like the private sector). Some don't want to pay for that expertise. There's always going to be more worker bees than queens. Just like the private sector, teachers accept that fact.

Mach said:
It's not meant out of personal spite. I have family and friends that teach, I know who they are and what they do, and what they make. But anyone who has experience in our marketplace, the engine that pays these people, sees obvious fundamental issues with how it operates. It's natural to want to fight for a sweetheart deal, that's why the innovation of the U.S. form of government *was* such a huge positive change in the world. It took that sweetheart deals away from those who didn't earn them (the nobles, ruling party, etc.)
Teacher educate our children, not turn out as many widgets as possible at the lowest cost possible.

Mach said:
Staying at one job for 30 years with millions of value in pension and good overall salary and health insurance on top of that, is not "struggling". Until you compete in the marketplace, the idea of "struggle" doesn't really enter into the picture. It's scary to let go, but if teachers are as skilled and educated as they claim, surely they will have no issue competing with the rest of us idiots.
Millions. .LOL

Here's a comparison of teachers in six states (in 2002) with a salary of approximately $50,000. Their pension, at 30 years service and 60 years of age

TEACHER RETIREMENT COMPARISONS, is approximately $30,000.
 
meanwhile, adults are probably more interested in what TWO POINT FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS of unfunded trust does to the MUNI MARKET

and what a collapse of the bonds market will do to the STATES' ability, or in-, to continue to FINANCE all this DEBT

The last three months have not been pretty in the municipal bond market. Spooked by predictions of government bankruptcies and defaults, investors — especially those in big mutual funds — have fled the field, selling off $20 billion worth of state and local bonds in the process. The exodus, in turn, has left states that need to borrow wary. The number of new offerings from state and local governments is down to a level not seen in 11 years.

Decline in bond market has states nervous
 
Last edited:
Doesn't mean taking a pay cut isn't a bad thing.


Where are they insulated? I've shown many instances of public unions taking cuts, paying more into their health and pension funds.


Teachers don't make education policy. They may 'seem' to get more advanced degrees for many reasons. Most of those that I know simply want to learn more in order to pass that on to their students. I don't know of any teacher that thinks they are a genius.


Job stability? Probably because students (in increasing numbers) keep showing up at the door every year. Not sure what you're getting at here.


I've been involved with 3 generations of teachers - that includes their friends who are mostly teachers - and none of them (save administrators) have a pension pay out such as that. By the way, $50k-$100k is a rather large range.


You want a babysitter or a teacher?


A teacher's corporate ladder is principal on up to school administrator. That requires advanced degrees that demands more pay (just like the private sector). Some don't want to pay for that expertise. There's always going to be more worker bees than queens. Just like the private sector, teachers accept that fact.


Teacher educate our children, not turn out as many widgets as possible at the lowest cost possible.


Millions. .LOL

Here's a comparison of teachers in six states (in 2002) with a salary of approximately $50,000. Their pension, at 30 years service and 60 years of age

TEACHER RETIREMENT COMPARISONS, is approximately $30,000.

Who did the numbers? I call baloney. Even at that, however, $30,000 adjusted from 2002 to 2010 dollars is $35,000. It may come as a total shock to you (who has been involved with three generations of teachers and is out of touch with private sector reality), but:

...Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.
Pension gap divides public and private workers - USATODAY.com

The U.S. government has a bigger unfunded liability for military and civil servant retirement benefits ($4.7 trillion) than it does for Social Security ($4.6 trillion).

Join the real world.
 
"Public employees have agreed to Governor Walker’s pension and health care concessions, which he says will solve the budget challenge. But Governor Walker’s bill goes too far and he has chosen polarizing rhetoric," she said.

Wisconsin Education Association Council
Ohh! I get it now. The unions have agreed to make concessions in their contributions to health coverage and pensions by increasing them...a good thing. Then why are their demonRATic legislators across state lines in motels refusing to show up for duty. A decidedly bad thing! And this WEAC broad Mary Bell now says that she and they are pissed-off (a union term, excuse me) because the bill goes too far. I'm assuming that the concession about collective bargaining rights though you failed to elaborate, but I don't mind helping you out is her "too far" complaint. It's that nasty old "polarizing rhetoric" raising it's ugly head, huh! What else would you expect from the person who "represents approximately 98,000 public education employees"? Not exactly a neutral source to go to Boo.

Did you know Boo that olde Wisconsin is the heart of progressive liberalism. They really took off back in the 70s after they had a baaaaad experience with SCOTUS. I think the social democrats got a foothold there was what happened. You see Boo there was this small town named Hortonville. The case was called Hortonville Joint School Ditrict 1 v. Hortonville Educational Assn. What happened was a battle over due process and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. You see the darn teachers tried to sue the school board whose duty it was to be involved in the labor negotiations. They alleged that they were fired by the board when they went out on strike and their right to due process was violated, because the board was bias simply because they negotiated in the pubic interset wth them. Hell Boo, that don't hold no water, huh! The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the teachers and found in their favor You can imagine how jacked up they were. It didn't last long though and on certiorari it went to SCOTUS. SCOTUS reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court (OUCH!) and said that a school board exercising it's sworn duties in this instance is "assumed to be" an impartial arbiter unless bias could be shown and bias was not able to be shown. That little experience in The Court of Nine in juris prudence put the teachers out on the balls of their rear-ends and set the stage for the progressivism in public unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere. LIberal emotion in all this is a waste, because in the end, after all the enmity and opinion has been discharged this will come down to a legal decision. The union leadership best start reading up on IMPORTANT and RELATED precedential cases like this or they will be in deep-doo-doo. The similarity legally here is that the Guv can be depicted as equivalent to the school board in power and responsibility in the "public domain"..Got it? Legally at this point the unions have shown "bad faith" in doing what they've done compounded by the possible collusion and fraud of the "sick notes" incidents all well-documented. There can be no "due process" claim validated here. The unions, in my opinion, have paddled up ****'s Creek and fell asleep while their oars have slipped into the water and drifted away with the tide. And we conservatives campin' over on the right shore of the Creek are :2wave::2wave::2wave::2wave::2wave: bye-bye!
 
Ohh! I get it now. The unions have agreed to make concessions in their contributions to health coverage and pensions by increasing them...a good thing. Then why are their demonRATic legislators across state lines in motels refusing to show up for duty.

Yes, the source can state what they agree to. We also have the govenor's words as well, who stated clearlythat even if the union agreed to everything he wanted, he still bust up the union. But don't let his words sway you as he too is a biased source. ;)

Now as for the rest, so? I'm fine with the law being the law. The courts will do their duty and if we disagree, we go back and reargue, always trying to make a better case. that's how it works.

As for unions, imperfect institutions, can you recall your history. What were working conditions like before unions? I would not be too egar to return to a time in which workers have less voice. Why conservatives tend to defend the wealthy and demonize the worker I don't understand. how they can do this and keep any votes from workers is even less understandable. But remember, things tend to swing back and forth, and otfen the worse thing that happen is to get what you ask for.
 
As for unions, imperfect institutions, can you recall your history. What were working conditions like before unions? I would not be too egar to return to a time in which workers have less voice. Why conservatives tend to defend the wealthy and demonize the worker I don't understand. how they can do this and keep any votes from workers is even less understandable. But remember, things tend to swing back and forth, and otfen the worse thing that happen is to get what you ask for.
You misread me Boo. Although that's understandable from the position I reflect. I used to be a union member back in the 60s after I got out of the servce. I saw both good and bad and the theory of unions is good. Unfortunately we failed as a people to control the growth and influence of them from being a representative for workers' right in labor-management relations to a political force to be catered to by politicians. That corrruptive influence should never have been legally allowed to happen. Then, like politicians they lusted for the insatiable, more and more power and influence and rather than represent their members they used them. And the rest is a history of corruption and the pervasive what's in it for me attitude. Unions have become their own worst enemy, especially in the public sector. Obama's whoring to the unions in hard times will take it's toll way beyond political affiliations of the citizen. When a father comes home and looks at his kids sleeping and wonders why he couldn't do better by them and sees the abuses in wages and benefits laid on the taxpayers back by unions he thinks I'll get my revenge at the ballot box. Beware...the Silent Majority is coming back and they're pissed-off again.

You ask why conservatives defend the wealthy. We believe in the true promise of America and I keep repeating it on forums I post to, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. That promise was for Equality of Opportunity, NOT a Guarantee of Equality of Outcome. That's your basic difference in economics between the left and right. The wealthy either inherited their wealth, in which case it's nobody's business or concern OR they went out and through investment, hard work and/or risk-taking THEY EARNED IT, in which case it's still nobody else's business. If you believe like your Great Leader in "redistribution of the wealth" you're a socialist. Socialism always fails in the end because it creates a sick society with no inspiration for betterment only for survival and when it runs out of other peoples' money it collapses in upon itself. All I ask is that you (the liberal progressives) be forthright if you believe in socialism and summon up the courage to ADMIT IT! If you believe as Obama appears to, that goverment...the state, should control the means of production of goods and services you're a refined socialist know as a Marxist. All fall under the umbrella of the type of state that shelters such, a Communist one.
 
Why conservatives tend to defend the wealthy and demonize the worker I don't understand.

LOL!

you sure don't

FT.com / US / Economy & Fed - US public pensions face $2,500bn shortfall

"the taxpayer" is not "the wealthy"

you really should stop demonizing both of em

how they can do this and keep any votes from workers is even less understandable

it appears there's much you don't understand

but the world goes on around you anyway

But remember, things tend to swing back and forth, and otfen (sic) the worse (sic) thing that happen (sic) is to get what you ask for.

isn't that a song?

you sure messed it up
 
Workers are starting to strategize for what is going to be done in the event that this passes. There is word of a public sector general strike, although I don't know how seriously it is being discussed. Workers are starting to correctly reject conceding on cuts as well, which means that people here are talking and engaging in debate and developing an idea of what is actually going on here. Solidarity demonstrations are being held all across the country. If Wisconsin workers succeed in their struggle against the union busting in WI, this could be the start of a resurgence of labor struggles throughout the country, something that has been lacking for the past 30-40 years.
 
If Wisconsin workers succeed in their struggle against the union busting in WI, this could be the start of a resurgence of labor struggles throughout the country, something that has been lacking for the past 30-40 years.

I'm not sure that will be the case. The headwinds from a looming long era of austerity will grow increasingly severe, especially if meaningful progress toward addressing the nation's long-term imbalances continues to be put off. Minimizing job losses and benefit reductions will take precedence over job expansion/benefit increases. Neither the private nor public sectors will escape the consequences of fiscal consolidation (reduced services, reduced expenditures, reduced aggregate demand meaning slower revenue growth, higher structural unemployment rate, reduced investment that could flatten long-term economic and productivity growth , etc.).

In terms of Wisconsin, what might appear puzzling on the surface is why Governor Walker is seeking to strip collective bargaining authority when he could achieve exactly the same substantive outcome by enacting legislation empowering the state only to negotiate/agree solely over salaries and put in place a supermajority requirement for expanding such authority. That way, the unions would, in theory, retain all of their collective bargaining authority. However, the state would not be able to accommodate those additional issues due to a lack of legal authority to do so.

It seems to me that he has chosen to pursue an approach that makes it more difficult for him to achieve his fiscal objectives. That is rational only if he seeks benefits from the unnecessary part of the legislation. I suspect that he does. I believe that the Governor's approach likely is not just about fiscal consolidation, but also has a lot to do with the psychological desire to demonstrate power. He may well believe that if he successfully flexes his political muscles early on, he will have greater leverage when it comes to future decision making. Otherwise, his approach makes little sense since he could accomplish the same substantive objectives without touching the unions' collective bargaining authority.
 
Workers are starting to strategize for what is going to be done in the event that this passes. There is word of a public sector general strike, although I don't know how seriously it is being discussed. Workers are starting to correctly reject conceding on cuts as well, which means that people here are talking and engaging in debate and developing an idea of what is actually going on here. Solidarity demonstrations are being held all across the country. If Wisconsin workers succeed in their struggle against the union busting in WI, this could be the start of a resurgence of labor struggles throughout the country, something that has been lacking for the past 30-40 years.

An illegal strike will put their jobs at risk and they can be fired. Either way, there is no "win" for the unions in Wisconsin.
 
who cares what you think

you think that a woman who pays into social security her whole career and gets ripped off her entire investment cuz she died a few months too soon warrants a ;)

and her granddaughter with downs syndrome can just go to the village

LOL!
 
who cares what you think

you think that a woman who pays into social security her whole career and gets ripped off her entire investment cuz she died a few months too soon warrants a ;)

and her granddaughter with downs syndrome can just go to the village

LOL!

The Village is a nice place, and might have done well to be at such a place before she died. That siad, like always, you really don't comprehen any thing argued. So, I'm moving on. :bye:
 
And I will point out again, as I'm not sure how far back you've read Mr V., but a lot of this is about favoritsm. The public safety unions, the same who supported walker in his election, go untouched while Walker touts fiscal responsibility and "everyone has to give" rhetoric.

That was actually rated as untrue by politifact. While Walker did pick up the endorsement of the Milwaukee unions, the statewide unions (which are bigger with more members) actually supported Walker's opponent.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...brazile-says-unions-supported-scott-walker-a/

Walker didn’t get the endorsements of two statewide unions, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, which both backed Barrett.

For the record, the governor told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the charge that he was exempting police and firefighters was "ridiculous." He said he didn't recommend changing the rules for police officers and firefighters because he didn’t want public safety work disrupted.

We then contacted the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, the statewide union that endorsed Walker's opponent last year. Executive director Jim Palmer said the statewide organization is much larger than the local Milwaukee police union that endorsed Walker. The state group has approximately 11,000 members versus Milwaukee’s roughly 1,400, he said.

Similarly, the state firefighters association has more than 3,000, compared with the Milwaukee union’s 875.

And this is the reason I long suspected he exempted the public safety unions:

Palmer said he believes that Walker exempted police and firefighters not for political payback, but because they are the public workers who are most popular with the public. "And in that way, it’s very political," he said.
 
Last edited:
not enough

too late

wisconsin is gonna write FUNDAMENTAL REFORM

and it's gonna spread far and wide

deal with it

Having your arms and legs severed off would not be fundamental reform.
It would be radical amputation of vital limbs that serve a valuable purpose.
 
The Village is a nice place, and might have done well to be at such a place before she died. That siad, like always, you really don't comprehen any thing argued. So, I'm moving on. :bye:

Irony --- is a wonderful thing.

And yes, the person who pays into the system their entire lives who has the bad fortune to die at 64 gets bupkus, as do their heirs. It's free money. But lets not foget that person also gets taxed on their demise and their estate must pay taxes as well, so it's a double hit.

I think many people may prefer the government to send over a professional thug and just steal what they can out of houses instead of doing it the way it's done now. We'd be better off and only feel the pain temporarily.
 
MaggieD said:
...adjusted from 2002 to 2010 dollars is $35,000
A lot less than $100,000, isn't it?

MaggieD said:
...who has been involved with three generations of teachers and is out of touch with private sector reality
I retired from the private sector at age 50. You still working?

Point being, I'm at an age where retirement is a pretty common topic of conversation. With two of the three generations retired - as are most of their friends - I know and have heard just about everything there is to know about teacher retirement. The wife is on my medical insurance plan because the teachers medical health care plan is way too expensive. This is the case with most of her friends that have spouses in or retired from the private sector. The teacher's I know don't have free medical care the rest of their lives and at age 65 they have to go to Medicare as do most people retired from private companies.

The USA article seems to be saying...We want to drag you (unions) down rather than rise to your level.
 
Workers are starting to strategize for what is going to be done in the event that this passes. There is word of a public sector general strike, although I don't know how seriously it is being discussed. Workers are starting to correctly reject conceding on cuts as well, which means that people here are talking and engaging in debate and developing an idea of what is actually going on here. Solidarity demonstrations are being held all across the country. If Wisconsin workers succeed in their struggle against the union busting in WI, this could be the start of a resurgence of labor struggles throughout the country, something that has been lacking for the past 30-40 years.
I think that you are wandering off the reservation on this issue and chasing wildflowers in the wind.
You completely neglected to distinguish between public and private sector unions and such is cogent to this discussion. Public sector unions differ in many ways, but one that must be noted is legally. Private sector are controlled by the federal government and the NLRB and national labor laws. Not so the public sector and with good reason. The TAXPAYER is given more direct control with states mandating regulations and rules
It's easy for these public servive unions to violate law and seek public sympathy, because they only have the indirect peoples' representatives known as politicians to deal with so their tactic is to use every means to pressure them. Easy to do when you don't have to confront the taxpayer with blood dripping from his eye sockets across the negotiating table and YOU KNOW IT.

For more I dug these short pieces up:

David Brooks provides a helpful guide to the perplexed:
In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state-union relations are structurally out of whack.

That's because public sector unions and private sector unions are very different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.

Private sectors unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.


There isn't much doubt, as Richard Cohen explains, that this imbalance has resulted in some grotesque outcomes. He writes:
In New York City, the No. 2 guy in the fire department retired on a pension worth $242,000 a year. In New York State, a single official holding two jobs and one pension took in $641,000. A lieutenant with the Port Authority police retired with an annual pension of $196,767, and 738 of the city's teachers, principals and such have pensions worth more than $100,000 a year. Their former employer, it goes almost without saying, is steamed. Their former employer is me.

These examples of pension obesity were culled from the local newspapers, which never fail to shock with revelations of how good life is for those who once worked for the city, the state or any one of several public agencies. In some cases, retirement came a mere 20 or so years after first reporting to HR and, if you were lucky enough to fake a disability - oh, my aching back! - the sky is virtually the limit. Fully one-third of all New York City cops who retired during a recent 17-month period did so on disability. They have dangerous jobs, we all know - but not nearly as dangerous as Long Island Rail Road workers. Almost all of them retired on disability. All aboard!

Is it any wonder that even private-sector union members have had it with their public union comrades?

In view of all this I would opine that public service unions are digging their own graves. Not too long you'll hear of one state starting to legislate, by public law, public employee unions out...period. That will start the backlash and the heretofore Silent Majority of taxpayers will be heard from.
 
Last edited:
concerning collective bargaining for public employees---just who do these big unions give their hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions to?

and just WHY do these big unions give so much money to the people they give their money to?
 
concerning collective bargaining for public employees---just who do these big unions give their hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions to?

and just WHY do these big unions give so much money to the people they give their money to?

People who support their issues because they support their issues? :coffeepap
 
Back
Top Bottom