• 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.
Conservative said:
States cannot print money and must have a balanced budget yet one of the biggest costs to the state is public unions and they don't negotiate with the people that pay their salaries.
Click to expand...

yup, and it's TWO POINT FIVE TRIL of UNFUNDED public TRUST held by just those STATE LEVEL pensions ALONE

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

and it's HOW WE GOT HERE---that's the point

not only do they not negotiate with the people who ultimately pay their salaries, they negotiate instead with the people to whom they contribute hundreds of millions
 
haymarket said:
How can anyone answer your question with any verifiable degree of accuracy? You are asking somebody to explain why something DID NOT HAPPEN. Its silly and nonsensical and you seem to think you have latched onto a dinosaur bone but you have no point.
Click to expand...

It is silly to a liberal who cannot explain it and who distorts what the issue in Wisconsin is all about. The point is that public unions don't have full collective bargaining rights at the Federal level and that is the way it should be at the state level as well especially since states cannot print money or run a deficit. Seems that all Presidents from Carter on knew the harm Public unions can do at the Federal Level but for some reason you believe it won't hurt the states. that is what would be silly and nonsensical if it weren't so serious and sad.
 
Conservative said:
Rick, I cannot seem to get anyone who supports the Wisconsin unions to explain to me why public unions in the state deserve better collective bargaining rights than the Federal Public Union employees? What exactly has Obama done to give Federal Employees collective bargaining rights when he had a Democrat Congress for two years? States cannot print money and must have a balanced budget yet one of the biggest costs to the state is public unions and they don't negotiate with the people that pay their salaries.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because you are parroting right-wing talking points that are based in falsities. Despite what FauxNews and right-wing radio has been spouting, most federal employees ARE unionized and have collective bargain rights. There were some that Reagan signed their rights to collective bargaining away, but the vast majority still have collective bargaining, so your first premise is completely false.

Second, you last point is a horribly crafted right-wing talking point that tries to achieve its goal with a play on words.

Public Unions DO negotiate with the people that pay their salaries. The representatives in congress are there representing the PEOPLE of their districts.


DOH!
 
haymarket said:
Lets try this again.

In the USA we have something called Federalism. As part of that we have three different levels of government - National, State and Local. Each is separate and distinct from each other. We also have a principle of government called Separation of Powers which gives us three different branches, each with its own powers.

What a State Government does on its level is separate and apart from what the Federal/National government does on its level.

Are we clear now?
Click to expand...

The question was:

Explain to me why public unions in the state deserve better collective bargaining rights than the Federal Public Union employees?
Click to expand...

An answer that says, "Because they can," is useless. Are we clear now?
 
haymarket said:
You are asking somebody to explain why something DID NOT HAPPEN. Its silly and nonsensical and you seem to think you have latched onto a dinosaur bone but you have no point.
Click to expand...

that's silly, even embarrassing

it's pretty clear barack would advance collective bargaining to them in question if he could

why, he'd put on comfortable shoes and march with em, remember?

for some reason he apparently feels he can't quite get away with going there right now

i wonder why
 
Conservative said:
It is silly to a liberal who cannot explain it and who distorts what the issue in Wisconsin is all about. The point is that public unions don't have full collective bargaining rights at the Federal level and that is the way it should be at the state level as well especially since states cannot print money or run a deficit. Seems that all Presidents from Carter on knew the harm Public unions can do at the Federal Level but for some reason you believe it won't hurt the states. that is what would be silly and nonsensical if it weren't so serious and sad.
Click to expand...

You really do not understand the difference between levels of government. Either that or the world in which you inhabit is not the same one the rest of us do. Until you accept that states can do one thing and the feds can do another and one does provide or disprove the worth of the other, then you are lost here and will continue to flail in the waters with nobody to save you. Nobody can answer your question. Its silly and nonsensical and there is not logic to it.
 
Conservative said:
Good another liberal, how about answering the question, why don't Federal Public employees have full collective bargaining rights that the public unions of Wisconsin have? My bet is you don't even know what the issures are?
Click to expand...

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Restore collective bargaining rights to federal employees - Obama promise No. 499:

excerpt from the above web address

In a letter sent during the campaign to American Federation of Government Employees president John Gage, Barack Obama declared: "I support collective bargaining rights for all workers. As president, I will review decisions by the Bush administration that have denied these rights to federal employees and seek to restore them."
 
The Prof said:
that's silly, even embarrassing

it's pretty clear barack would advance collective bargaining to them in question if he could

why, he'd put on comfortable shoes and march with em, remember?

for some reason he apparently feels he can't quite get away with going there right now

i wonder why
Click to expand...

Thank you President Obama for that heartfelt explanation. Could you next please channel Al Capone because I want to find out where the real safe with the fortune is.
 
disneydude said:
Perhaps because you are parroting right-wing talking points that are based in falsities. Despite what FauxNews and right-wing radio has been spouting, most federal employees ARE unionized and have collective bargain rights. There were some that Reagan signed their rights to collective bargaining away, but the vast majority still have collective bargaining, so your first premise is completely false.

Second, you last point is a horribly crafted right-wing talking point that tries to achieve its goal with a play on words.

Public Unions DO negotiate with the people that pay their salaries. The representatives in congress are there representing the PEOPLE of their districts.


DOH!
Click to expand...

I suggest you do some better research but just like with other issues you really don't have a clue. Federal Public Union employees have reduced collective bargaining rights
 
from Maggie

Explain to me why public unions in the state deserve better collective bargaining rights than the Federal Public Union employees?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Do you have access to the floor debates held at that time which led to the passage of the laws? That could answer your question for you. Or not. I suspect not.
 
haymarket said:
You really do not understand the difference between levels of government. Either that or the world in which you inhabit is not the same one the rest of us do. Until you accept that states can do one thing and the feds can do another and one does provide or disprove the worth of the other, then you are lost here and will continue to flail in the waters with nobody to save you. Nobody can answer your question. Its silly and nonsensical and there is not logic to it.
Click to expand...

Do I need to speak slower, it isn't about the difference between levels of govt. It is all about collective bargaining rights for unions. What is preventing the Federal Public Unions from getting the same rights as Wisconsin Public unions have?
 
haymarket said:
from Maggie

I have no idea. Do you have access to the floor debates held at that time which led to the passage of the laws? That could answer your question for you. Or not. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

Finally. You admit you have nothing.
 

Attachments

  • EPIC FAIL.jpg
    EPIC FAIL.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 13
Conservative said:
I suggest you do some better research but just like with other issues you really don't have a clue. Federal Public Union employees have reduced collective bargaining rights
Click to expand...

Some of them do, but the vast majority of them retain their collective bargaining rights.

Why is it that you people are perfectly fine with corporations having unlimted access to politicians, yet you cannot stand for the public worker to have a say in negotiating their employment contracts.

When did our American values become so perverted?
 
disneydude said:
Some of them do, but the vast majority of them retain their collective bargaining rights.

Why is it that you people are perfectly fine with corporations having unlimted access to politicians, yet you cannot stand for the public worker to have a say in negotiating their employment contracts.

When did our American values become so perverted?
Click to expand...

Vast majority of who retain their collective bargaining rights? You really don't know what collective bargaining rights Federal Employees have, do you?

As for corporations having access to politicians they are doing it with earned money and not taxpayer dollars. Apparently you don't know the difference either.
 
disneydude said:
Some of them do, but the vast majority of them retain their collective bargaining rights.
Click to expand...

No, they did not. Federal employees do not have collective bargaining rights for wages or benefits. They can bargain work rules, safety, etc. That's it. Google, DD, Google.
 
MaggieD said:
No, they did not. Federal employees do not have collective bargaining rights for wages or benefits. They can bargain work rules, safety, etc. That's it. Google, DD, Google.
Click to expand...

And Walker isn't even taking away the collective bargaining rights for Unions on wages.
 
Conservative said:
Vast majority of who retain their collective bargaining rights? You really don't know what collective bargaining rights Federal Employees have, do you?

As for corporations having access to politicians they are doing it with earned money and not taxpayer dollars. Apparently you don't know the difference either.
Click to expand...

Actually, con...its you who don't know what you are talking about with Federal public employees....probably because you are simply reciting information that you are getting from FauxNews. That is their talking point, but it is completely false. Do a little research. Most federal employees are unionized and have collective bargaining rights. There are a few, for example, air traffic controllers, who had their rights signed away by Ronald Reagan.

As for your second point, public employees unions are not operated with tax dollars. They are operated by money paid into it by their members. So by your rationale, public employees shouldn't be able to spend their money on their own choosing because they are paid with by tax dollars, right? That's silly circular reasoning.

Its a sad day in America when multi-billion dollar corporations can buy a politician and the average worker has his/her voice to negotiate in their own salary contract usurped by the government. And you people wonder why we question your perverted values.
 
There is nothing here to get. You righties somehow have swallowed this false premise that the existince of rights on one level somehow casts doubt that the rights do not exist on a different level. Or is it the other way around.

Lewis Carroll would have loved your posts.


’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
 
Last edited:
disneydude;1059319741]Actually, con...its you who don't know what you are talking about with Federal public employees....probably because you are simply reciting information that you are getting from FauxNews. That is their talking point, but it is completely false. Do a little research. Most federal employees are unionized and have collective bargaining rights. There are a few, for example, air traffic controllers, who had their rights signed away by Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...

So anyone that confuses you with facts watches Fox News? Maggie answered your question but obviously being a liberal gives you the right to ignore the response.

As for your second point, public employees unions are not operated with tax dollars. They are operated by money paid into it by their members. So by your rationale, public employees shouldn't be able to spend their money on their own choosing because they are paid with by tax dollars, right? That's silly circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

Brilliant, where do the employees get the money that they use to pay union dues? You don't see a conflict of interest there? Of course not, you live in Disneyland.


Its a sad day in America when multi-billion dollar corporations can buy a politician and the average worker has his/her voice to negotiate in their own salary contract usurped by the government. And you people wonder why we question your perverted values.
Click to expand...

Spoken like the true liberal you are. wonder why liberals like you want to keep union employees dependent?
 
haymarket said:
There is nothing here to get. You righties somehow have swallowed this false premise that the existince of rights on one level somehow casts doubt that the rights do not exist on a different level. Or is it the other way around.

Lewis Carroll would have loved your posts.
Click to expand...

You don't get it and never will because you are blinded about an ideology. There is absolutely nothing that would prevent Obama from submitting a law giving the Federal Employee Unions the same rights as Wisconsin but he hasn't done that. Wonder why? Where is your outrage over how Federal Employees are being treated?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Some of them do, but the vast majority of them retain their collective bargaining rights.

Why is it that you people are perfectly fine with corporations having unlimted access to politicians, yet you cannot stand for the public worker to have a say in negotiating their employment contracts.

When did our American values become so perverted?
Click to expand...


Okay, DisneyDude, prove us all wrong. Post a link that says that Federal employees are allowed to collectively bargain their wages and benefits.



[Get ready for "What difference does it make anyway?"]
 
Last edited:
Wisconsin voters express buyers remorse

"(Reuters) - Wisconsin voters would narrowly favor Governor Scott Walker's Democratic opponent if the November, 2010 election were repeated, according to partial poll results released on Monday.

Walker has stirred national debate and the largest demonstrations in Wisconsin since the Vietnam War with his proposal to strip public sector unions of most collective bargaining rights.

Walker won the November 2, 2010 election 52 to 46 percent for Democrat Tom Barrett, with the remainder of the vote to minor candidates.

Public Policy Polling of Raleigh, North Carolina said a new poll showed if the election were replayed now, the result would be almost exactly flipped, with Democrat Tom Barrett getting 52 percent and Walker 45 percent, with four percent not sure.

The shift in voter sentiment away from Walker was attributed to households with at least one union member, the polling group said. More details of the poll will be released on Tuesday.

The poll surveyed 768 Wisconsin voters from February 24 to 27. Those surveyed were also asked how they voted in the November election and 47 percent said for Walker and 47 percent for Barrett."
Wisconsin voters would shift to Democrat in new election: poll | Reuters
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom