• 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!

Wis. governor to Dems: Return or 1,500 workers will be axed

Isn't it telling that Unions and the Democrat 14 would rather see people get a pink slip than to do something that could save their jobs?

This happens all the time and wrong every time.

You're kidding right? Do you think the Dems coming home are going to save the jobs? Wisconsin intends to do layoffs anyway. This is white noise. Trying to turn the inevitable into a controllable threat is silliness. Its a little like taking hostages in a hospice: "Pay up or the old guy gets it"

If this Walker was serious about the Wisconsin budget, there would be a negotiation. But he is not and there isn't.
 
Last edited:
You're kidding right? Do you think the Dems coming home are going to save the jobs? Wisconsin intends to do layoffs anyway. This is white noise. Trying to turn the inevitable into a controllable threat is silliness. Its a little like taking hostages in a hospice: "Pay up or the old guy gets it"

If this Walker was serious about the Wisconsin budget, there would be a negotiation. But he is not and there isn't.


Can you even have an honest negotiation when one side in that negotiation can undo what has been agreed to through collective barganing later? I don't think so.


j-mac
 
You're kidding right? Do you think the Dems coming home are going to save the jobs? Wisconsin intends to do layoffs anyway. This is white noise. Trying to turn the inevitable into a controllable threat is silliness. Its a little like taking hostages in a hospice: "Pay up or the old guy gets it"

If this Walker was serious about the Wisconsin budget, there would be a negotiation. But he is not and there isn't.

I haven't heard anything about any layoffs except for this one instance, and that is because the Dems won't get back to WI to pass a budget bill. Do you have any proof for your claim? (part in bold)
 
Can you even have an honest negotiation when one side in that negotiation can undo what has been agreed to through collective barganing later? I don't think so.


j-mac

what does that even mean in practical, real life terms?
 
Which part don't you understand? Honest barganing? or the ability to undo what they promise today?


j-mac

Give me an example of how both sides sign a contract and then one can undo it without being in violation of that same contract?
 
Give me an example of how both sides sign a contract and then one can undo it without being in violation of that same contract?

Easy...What is happening now with the people leaving their classes, and jobs to protest, is a defacto strike, that is in violation of their contract. They are illegally leveraging a new negotiation, one that should not stand, which is one reason I think Walker will not compromise. The Union members are dishonest in their words.


j-mac
 
Easy...What is happening now with the people leaving their classes, and jobs to protest, is a defacto strike, that is in violation of their contract. They are illegally leveraging a new negotiation, one that should not stand, which is one reason I think Walker will not compromise. The Union members are dishonest in their words.


j-mac

In your opinion - perhaps. Let us see if the administration sees it that way and pursues their avenues of discipline. I really do not see this as a great problem when there are safeguards and penalties built into the system to take care of these things.
 
I haven't heard anything about any layoffs except for this one instance, and that is because the Dems won't get back to WI to pass a budget bill. Do you have any proof for your claim? (part in bold)

A little intellectual honesty please? How do you cut $1B plus out of a state budget without layoffs? Please take a moment to get real.
 
It looks like the anti-union tea party types are starting to lose faith in their chances of victory

Conservative group warns about losing union fight in Wisconsin - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room



A new email soliciting donations from the Tea Party Express and Our Country Deserves sent out Saturday says that recent polls and an ad campaign by pro-labor groups are getting the upper hand and that conservatives backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's (R) bill to roll back collective bargaining rights are starting to cede ground. "Friends, new polls coming out in Wisconsin show that the Obama-Labor Union ad campaign against him is having an impact," the e-mail says. "Governor Walker has started losing ground, even though polls had previously shown him winning the "public relations war."

The ad warns that there will be a national ripple effect if Walker's effort actually does lose in Wisconsin. "If we lose in Wisconsin then Republican Governors across America will take the lesson that they should give in and capitulate, and all the progress we have seen from the tea party movement will be undone," the e-mail continues.

How sweet it is...... as the Great One used to say.
 
In your opinion - perhaps. Let us see if the administration sees it that way and pursues their avenues of discipline. I really do not see this as a great problem when there are safeguards and penalties built into the system to take care of these things.


No, not just my opinion, I think there are others that may agree. But you see the problem is one of collective bargaining in the first place. It is that aspect that assures that these Public employees not fulfilling their contracts and staging an illegal strike right now won't be touched. I heard that the average to get one teacher let go for cause right now cost the taxpayers some $200K due to protracted processes that are just plain laughable. So what safegaurds might you be speaking of? As far as I see there are none.


j-mac
 
No, not just my opinion, I think there are others that may agree. But you see the problem is one of collective bargaining in the first place. It is that aspect that assures that these Public employees not fulfilling their contracts and staging an illegal strike right now won't be touched. I heard that the average to get one teacher let go for cause right now cost the taxpayers some $200K due to protracted processes that are just plain laughable. So what safegaurds might you be speaking of? As far as I see there are none.


j-mac

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Administration does similar stuff all the time. People are suppose to get breaks and they never do. People are suppose to get support and they never do. I once had a principal tell me I was right about something in the contract and then dare me to file a grievance against him. I was a first year teacher and I understood what he was also threatening to me so I did not . I made up for it in later years however.
 
A little intellectual honesty please? How do you cut $1B plus out of a state budget without layoffs? Please take a moment to get real.

Well, for example, the auto industry had the best health care benefits of any industry, and workers went on strike to protect their benefits from being slashed. Then their companies were forced into bankruptcy. Unions can prove detrimental at times.

Anyway, my point is you could cut costs without layoffs through some of the following methods:

1 - Reduce benefits for those workers.
2 - Reduce materials expense, purchases of materials used by the workers.
3 - Reduce property held, which the bill in seeking to give power to sell power plants appeared to be seeking to do.
4 - Reduce bureaucracy - the collective bargaining process takes time and time is money so it might have indirect effects in making better use of time for work.

Anyway, those are just off the top of my head, but it would definitely allow for reducing costs without firing workers. You figure the budget is in the $35-80 billion range, those should easily allow leeway for cutting $1 billion.
 
A little intellectual honesty please? How do you cut $1B plus out of a state budget without layoffs? Please take a moment to get real.

In case you hadn't noticed it Walkers plan reduces spending without laying off one single person. Know how it happened? Reducing salaries. No one gets laid off but the budget is smaller.
 
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Administration does similar stuff all the time. People are suppose to get breaks and they never do. People are suppose to get support and they never do. I once had a principal tell me I was right about something in the contract and then dare me to file a grievance against him. I was a first year teacher and I understood what he was also threatening to me so I did not . I made up for it in later years however.



Sorry, "the other guy does it too" didn't work with my kids, and won't work here. But glad to see you agree that the offer of consessions is an empty promise by the Unions.


j-mac
 
Well, for example, the auto industry had the best health care benefits of any industry, and workers went on strike to protect their benefits from being slashed. Then their companies were forced into bankruptcy. Unions can prove detrimental at times.

My Tom has watched two companies fold - caused, in part, because the membersehip wouldn't agree to wage concessions. Their unions thought they wouldn't have to. One, I remember, was a rollback to $17/hour from $20. After he saw it happen to the first company, he tried to tell members at the next company they needed to give something back, to no avail. The union was encouraging workers to refuse. That plant closed as well. The second one was OMC in Waukegan, IL; don't remember the name of the first one.
 
Sorry, "the other guy does it too" didn't work with my kids, and won't work here. But glad to see you agree that the offer of consessions is an empty promise by the Unions.


j-mac

Do you at all feel a bit slimy and guilty when you outright lie about the position of another poster?

Do you somehow, someway feel that your attempted sleight of hand deception is fooling anyone?
 
My Tom has watched two companies fold - caused, in part, because the membersehip wouldn't agree to wage concessions. Their unions thought they wouldn't have to. One, I remember, was a rollback to $17/hour from $20. After he saw it happen to the first company, he tried to tell members at the next company they needed to give something back, to no avail. The union was encouraging workers to refuse. That plant closed as well. The second one was OMC in Waukegan, IL; don't remember the name of the first one.

like a banker inveseting other people's money; hey, it's not like the union leadership suffers if the bet goes bad.
 
All of the bright, energetic, buzzcut, conservative CEO's in the world cannot make a product without the workers.

sure they can. more than one successful business has started with a guy and an idea working out of his living room.
 
Can you share with us what you mean by the above. The state has to close a budget gap. Workers will either need to take a pay cut by paying more for their benefits or they keep the benefits and have fellow co-workers laid off.

What I mean is that they can deal with this budget gap without taking away collective bargaining. If the Governor wasn't trying to eviscerate the unions, the Democrats would be there to vote on some reasonable give backs.
 
What I mean is that they can deal with this budget gap without taking away collective bargaining. If the Governor wasn't trying to eviscerate the unions, the Democrats would be there to vote on some reasonable give backs.

By leaving the collective bargaining in place you open up the possibility that sometime in the future...possibly in just a couple of years the unions would be demanding higher wages again. Which just puts WI right back to where they were/are now. Which means debt. Which means hardships.

Gotta look at the long term and not the short term.
 
How sweet it is...... as the Great One used to say.

a fundraising email...

and a rasmussen poll...

LOL!

it looks like the michael moores in madison really got us on the run

where's cuomo

where's obama
 
sure they can. more than one successful business has started with a guy and an idea working out of his living room.

You seem to be missing the point. Name one company that is notably profitable (or sizeable) thats only workers are its owners. Sure, some may have started that way, but they never stayed that way.
 
By leaving the collective bargaining in place you open up the possibility that sometime in the future...possibly in just a couple of years the unions would be demanding higher wages again. Which just puts WI right back to where they were/are now. Which means debt. Which means hardships.

Gotta look at the long term and not the short term.

So the no-bid contract opportunities for Koch Brother owned companies and massive tax breaks for large businesses need to be in place? What do you think those are costing them (or in the case of the no-bid contract, what it's going to cost them)?
 
Back
Top Bottom