• 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.
randel said:
i will say this SLOOOOOOWLY FOR YOU...no dues are used...any money spent on politics is collected by voluntary contribution....as for the rest of your post, read the thread.
Click to expand...

That's total BS. If dues were not used for political contributions, why did the Supreme Court have to rule on the practice in 1988 in the Communications Workers vs Beck case. Nonunion workers were required to pay union dues, but sued to pay only the portion of the dues that went directly to representation. They did NOT want their dues to be used for political purposes. The court ruled that nonunion workers only have to pay the portion of the dues that went directly for representation and none for political or charitible contributions.

In addition, numerous states have passed laws preventing unions from using dues for political contributions, but most have not. California had a ballot iniative in 2005 that would prohibit dues from being used for political purposes without written consent of the union member.

If dues cannot be used for political purposes, why are so many states trying to pass laws prohibiting it ???
 
randel said:
i support what the governor is asking for when it comes to contributing more to their pensions and insurance..,i'd be ok with him wanting to phase out pensions, and switch over to 401k plans...but wanting to take away their collective bargaining rights is total bs.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm doing great, and I don't have "collective bargaining rights."

Why do you think government workers paid by taxpayer dollars should be able to unionize? If you don't like the job, do something else. They have college degrees for crying out loud.
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
That's total BS. If dues were not used for political contributions, why did the Supreme Court have to rule on the practice in 1988 in the Communications Workers vs Beck case. Nonunion workers were required to pay union dues, but sued to pay only the portion of the dues that went directly to representation. They did NOT want their dues to be used for political purposes. The court ruled that nonunion workers only have to pay the portion of the dues that went directly for representation and none for political or charitible contributions.

In addition, numerous states have passed laws preventing unions from using dues for political contributions, but most have not. California had a ballot iniative in 2005 that would prohibit dues from being used for political purposes without written consent of the union member.

If dues cannot be used for political purposes, why are so many states trying to pass laws prohibiting it ???
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. And these unions are giving millions to the very people who are sitting at the bargaining table with them. Ridiculous.
 
Conservative said:
If that is the case, so be it, there is no place in this country for public unions funded by the taxpayers. On this FDR got it right but of course liberals ignore that.
Click to expand...

You may want to check your calendar. Mine reads 2011 - not 1933.
 
TurtleDude said:
here is my comment that catawba claims says that I believe unions were unconstitutional
Click to expand...

some of us actually think the constitution ought to be applied as written an intended
Click to expand...


Not a fan of the rule of law?
 
The Last Time Scott Walker Went Union Busting, He Was Overruled And Wasted Taxpayer Dollars

"The last time Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) went after public sector unions it had “disastrous results” for him and for taxpayers. As Milwaukee County Executive in 2009, Walker tried to get rid of the unionized security guards at the county courthouse and replace them with contractors, which he promised would save the county money. The County Board rejected the idea, but in March of 2010 Walker “unilaterally ordered it,” claiming there was a budget emergency. Walker hired the British security contractor Wackenhut — of Kabul Embassy sex scandal fame — to replace the guards. Unfortunately for Walker and Milwaukee taxpayers, an arbiter later ruledthat Walker had overstepped his authority, and ordered the county to reinstate the unionized workers, pay backwages, and pay tens-of-thousands of dollars in arbiter fees. As MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, Walker’s “dress rehersal” for his current union busting effort may end up costing Milwaukee taxpayers an extra half a million dollars."
The Last Time Scott Walker Went Union Busting, He Was Overruled And Wasted Taxpayer Dollars | AlterNet
 
Catawba said:
The Last Time Scott Walker Went Union Busting, He Was Overruled And Wasted Taxpayer Dollars

"The last time Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) went after public sector unions it had “disastrous results” for him and for taxpayers. As Milwaukee County Executive in 2009, Walker tried to get rid of the unionized security guards at the county courthouse and replace them with contractors, which he promised would save the county money. The County Board rejected the idea, but in March of 2010 Walker “unilaterally ordered it,” claiming there was a budget emergency. Walker hired the British security contractor Wackenhut — of Kabul Embassy sex scandal fame — to replace the guards. Unfortunately for Walker and Milwaukee taxpayers, an arbiter later ruledthat Walker had overstepped his authority, and ordered the county to reinstate the unionized workers, pay backwages, and pay tens-of-thousands of dollars in arbiter fees. As MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, Walker’s “dress rehersal” for his current union busting effort may end up costing Milwaukee taxpayers an extra half a million dollars."
The Last Time Scott Walker Went Union Busting, He Was Overruled And Wasted Taxpayer Dollars | AlterNet
Click to expand...

Apparently Scott Walker learned from his mistakes...
 
Catawba said:
The Last Time Scott Walker Went Union Busting, He Was Overruled And Wasted Taxpayer Dollars

"The last time Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) went after public sector unions it had “disastrous results” for him and for taxpayers. As Milwaukee County Executive in 2009, Walker tried to get rid of the unionized security guards at the county courthouse and replace them with contractors, which he promised would save the county money. The County Board rejected the idea, but in March of 2010 Walker “unilaterally ordered it,” claiming there was a budget emergency. Walker hired the British security contractor Wackenhut — of Kabul Embassy sex scandal fame — to replace the guards. Unfortunately for Walker and Milwaukee taxpayers, an arbiter later ruledthat Walker had overstepped his authority, and ordered the county to reinstate the unionized workers, pay backwages, and pay tens-of-thousands of dollars in arbiter fees. As MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, Walker’s “dress rehersal” for his current union busting effort may end up costing Milwaukee taxpayers an extra half a million dollars."
The Last Time Scott Walker Went Union Busting, He Was Overruled And Wasted Taxpayer Dollars | AlterNet
Click to expand...

The article calls it wasting taxpayer dollars. I call it a noble battle fought and lost...and proving, yet again, that unions have the taxpayer by the yang-yangs.
 
Catawba said:
Not a fan of the rule of law?
Click to expand...

Meh, not to mention any lawyer would tell you that "applied as written and intended" is a funny statement. The job of the law is to interpret that very statement, and many different results occur. For instance, many claim that because the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the Constitution that no where does it imply that the state and religion should be kept separate. However, others will point out that the words clearly indicate it and that actual spoken words by the people who wrote the document show intent of separation.

One amendment, two different interpretations. There is no right or wrong, unfortunately, since interpretations are subjective (that is until you put it in front of a judge who decides which argument makes more sense).
 
randel said:
in my union, the UAW, member dues most certainly DO NOT GO TO SUPPORT POLITICAL CANDIDATES..the money used for that comes from separate VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS . NO DUES ARE USED...
Click to expand...

Really? So almost all union members are democrats and voluntarily donate to candidates? Then what the hec are liberals worried about. I'm sure those Dems will still voluntarily contribute to the candidates of their choice, unions or not.
The teachers union and SEIU seem to operate differently. How would you feel about your dues if you were this lady?


Michelle Malkin » Union members speak up on coerced political spending

I’m Jade Thompson and my husband, Andy Thompson, is running for the Ohio House of Representatives. I am a teacher at Marietta High School. Imagine my chagrin when my friends and colleagues began showing me the awful attack ads against my husband which they had received in the mail. Now imagine my dismay when I saw that those defamatory mailers were paid for by the Ohio Education Association – my teachers’ union. In effect, they are using my union dues to attack my husband! This is a new low, even for the OEA.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
If that is the case, so be it, there is no place in this country for public unions funded by the taxpayers. On this FDR got it right but of course liberals ignore that.
Click to expand...

I’m glad that we have something we can both agree on.:2wave:

Yes, FDR got it right on many occasions here a few.

From his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.

In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights".

Which were.

Employment, with a living wage

Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies

Housing

Medical care,

Education, and

Social security

The we have him saying this in a letter on August 16, 1937.

< The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. >

Note the part that I have bolded.

I,m sure that the e-mail that is being passed around and being parrated on this thread is referring to this part of the letter.

< This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States >

Enjoy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
 
donc said:
I’m glad that we have something we can both agree on.:2wave:

Yes, FDR got it right on many occasions here a few.

From his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944.

In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights".

Which were.

Employment, with a living wage

Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies

Housing

Medical care,

Education, and

Social security

The we have him saying this in a letter on August 16, 1937.

< The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. >

Note the part that I have bolded.

I,m sure that the e-mail that is being passed around and being parrated on this thread is referring to this part of the letter.

< This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States >

Enjoy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
Click to expand...

Did you read the article you posted?

Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but 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 when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
Did you read the article you posted?
Click to expand...

I sure did, evidently your lack of reading comprehension is kicking in again.

I was responding to this post by you.

Originally Posted by Conservative

If that is the case, so be it, there is no place in this country for public unions funded by the taxpayers. On this FDR got it right but of course liberals ignore that.
Click to expand...

I,ll put it under your post…with any luck at all you can get the drift of what President Roosevolt was saying.

<The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry.>
 
donc said:
I sure did, evidently your lack of reading comprehension is kicking in again.

I was responding to this post by you.



I,ll put it under your post…with any luck at all you can get the drift of what President Roosevolt was saying.

<The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry.>
Click to expand...

Yet his own words followed and I posted those which of course you ignored. Are you telling me that FDR endorsed public unions? The desire for fair and adequate pay, etc. can be generated without unions and as FDR stated which of course you ignored,

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 when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is you that needs to learn how to read.
 
Conservative said:
Yet his own words followed and I posted those which of course you ignored. Are you telling me that FDR endorsed public unions? The desire for fair and adequate pay, etc. can be generated without unions and as FDR stated which of course you ignored,



Maybe it is you that needs to learn how to read.
Click to expand...

OK...i get it now,your taking the ole obtuse defense.:roll:


You said this …….
there is no place in this country for public unions funded by the taxpayers.
Click to expand...


FDR said this …….
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry.
Click to expand...


Case closed, go take your nap.:2wave:
 
Its not about the budget, its about power -

"For what's happening in Wisconsin isn't about the state budget, despite Walker's pretense that he's just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin - and eventually, America - less of a functioning democracy and more of a Third World-style oligarchy. And that's why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators' side.

Some background: Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away.

In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions.

But Walker isn't interested in making a deal. Partly that's because he doesn't want to share the sacrifice: Even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers' ability to bargain.

The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the state's workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers - namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning - are exempted from the ban; it's as if Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions.

Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state's budget prospects even in the long run: Contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there's not much room for further pay squeezes.

So it's not about the budget; it's about the power."
Wisconsin as ground zero: It's really about power - JSOnline
 
donc said:
OK...i get it now,your taking the ole obtuse defense.:roll:


You said this …….


FDR said this …….


Case closed, go take your nap.:2wave:
Click to expand...

You are unbelieveable and just typical of those who want to bait and troll. You don't have a clue. would you say that FDR was pro union? How many public unions did FDR support and how many Federal Employee unions did FDR have to deal with?
 
QUOTE Conservative;

would you say that FDR was pro union?
Click to expand...

Yes

How many public unions did FDR support and how many Federal Employee unions did FDR have to deal with?
Click to expand...

At least the NFFE, as per the letter... <I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.>
 
Catawba said:
Not a fan of the rule of law?
Click to expand...

not a fan of thinking?

you clearly have a rather stilted understanding of constitutional law and the arguments that surround it.

You claimed that I said unions were unconstitutional which never did and then you claim that anyone who correctly notes that the FDR courts ignored both 130 years of stare decisis and the obvious intent of the USSC is not a "fan of the rule of law"

pretty pathetic evasion on your part
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Its not about the budget, its about power -
Click to expand...

You have to realize any time management or government go into battle with the unions it's about power. Of course part of it's about power, but the rest of it is about a very real budget problem. There is no money. Walker has the basic math to give him cover for any accusations about a power grab. This isn't Walkers fault, the unions got greedy and have been for a long time. It's just their time to pay the piper.
 
donc said:
Yes



At least the NFFE, as per the letter... <I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.>
Click to expand...

National Federation of Federal Employees was established in 1917 and to the best of my knowledge never had a shutdown or labor unrest thus adhering to FDR's comments which you continue to ignore.
 
Ockham said:
You have to realize any time management or government go into battle with the unions it's about power. Of course part of it's about power, but the rest of it is about a very real budget problem. There is no money. Walker has the basic math to give him cover for any accusations about a power grab. This isn't Walkers fault, the unions got greedy and have been for a long time. It's just their time to pay the piper.
Click to expand...

destroying the power of unions is a proper GOP tactic
 
Ockham said:
You have to realize any time management or government go into battle with the unions it's about power. Of course part of it's about power, but the rest of it is about a very real budget problem. There is no money. Walker has the basic math to give him cover for any accusations about a power grab. This isn't Walkers fault, the unions got greedy and have been for a long time. It's just their time to pay the piper.
Click to expand...


As has been pointed out, the unions are willing to take one for the state.All they ask in return is the right of collective bargaining which they have had through many financial crisis in the past.
 
donc said:
As has been pointed out, the unions are willing to take one for the state.All they ask in return is the right of collective bargaining which they have had through many financial crisis in the past.
Click to expand...

I've stated the reason that's not acceptable --- collective bargaining will nullify the measures taken by union members to pay more into their healthcare and pension fund, and will put at risk the 120 million already approved in a bipartisan effort with the WI Senate. Therefore, collective bargaining has to go and bargaining has to be done at the local level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom