• 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!

Iowa State House moves to follow in Wisconsins' footsteps

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,623
Reaction score
39,896
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iowa House passes collective bargaining bill

The Iowa House has approved a bill that overhauls the state's collective bargaining law and reduces workers' negotiating rights... The measure would force state workers to pay at least $100 a month toward the cost of their health care and would not allow them to negotiate layoff procedures.

Backers say the measure is needed to cut costs, while critics say it's part of a national assault on public employee unions.

The House voted along party lines to approve the bill 58 to 38. Four representatives did not vote.

Senate Democrats say they have no intention of allowing debate on it.
 
The right wing War on the 20th century continues. Two years ago, right wing libertarian Glen Beck talked at length about the evils of the 20th century and how we had to go back and repeal almost everything progressive that started with Teddy Roosevelt.

Glen must be one happy boy these days.

Glenn Beck and the Fox Puppets Want to Repeal the 20th Century - Newsweek
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
The right wing War on the 20th century continues. Two years ago, right wing libertarian Glen Beck talked at length about the evils of the 20th century and how we had to go back and repeal almost everything progressive that started with Teddy Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

Happy Days Are Here Again!
tumblr_kshyl9bfLS1qa5a9k.gif
 
cpwill said:
Iowa House passes collective bargaining bill

The Iowa House has approved a bill that overhauls the state's collective bargaining law and reduces workers' negotiating rights... The measure would force state workers to pay at least $100 a month toward the cost of their health care and would not allow them to negotiate layoff procedures.

Backers say the measure is needed to cut costs, while critics say it's part of a national assault on public employee unions.

The House voted along party lines to approve the bill 58 to 38. Four representatives did not vote.

Senate Democrats say they have no intention of allowing debate on it.
Click to expand...

$100 a month toward their cost of healthcare. Give me a break. OMG.

Now we'll have to get ready for the Iowa unions to try to make their local banks fail and issue death threats. Wait for it.
 
cpwill said:
Iowa House passes collective bargaining bill

The Iowa House has approved a bill that overhauls the state's collective bargaining law and reduces workers' negotiating rights... The measure would force state workers to pay at least $100 a month toward the cost of their health care and would not allow them to negotiate layoff procedures.

Backers say the measure is needed to cut costs, while critics say it's part of a national assault on public employee unions.

The House voted along party lines to approve the bill 58 to 38. Four representatives did not vote.

Senate Democrats say they have no intention of allowing debate on it.
Click to expand...

Maybe the Dems will run to Wisconsin. :lamo
 
MaggieD said:
$100 a month toward their cost of healthcare. Give me a break. OMG.

Now we'll have to get ready for the Iowa unions to try to make their local banks fail and issue death threats. Wait for it.
Click to expand...

Thats just asking too much......from the almighty Public Sector Union Worker. Dont you know how hard they work.......

.
.
..
 
Badmutha said:
Thats just asking too much......from the almighty Public Sector Union Worker. Dont you know how hard they work.......
Click to expand...

That is a joke right. Anyone who ever stood in line at the DMV knows this is not true.

Unions extort dues and then use them for political bribes.
 
MaggieD said:
$100 a month toward their cost of healthcare. Give me a break. OMG.
Click to expand...

:shock:

$100 a month!?!?!


it's unacceptable! it's dictatorial. why, you know who else demanded that public employees pay $100 a month?




...
...

...
...

...
...

...
that's right... HITLER...... :mad:
 
Does anyone think that anything that limits the spending power of the middle class is a good idea during a downturn? This money the union members aren't getting is money they're not spending and is not being injected back into the economy, isn't keeping things flowing. One can argue whether or not it's more important to cut spending at this time, but it sure won't help the economy
 
the makeout hobo said:
Does anyone think that anything that limits the spending power of the middle class is a good idea during a downturn?
Click to expand...

not particularly, which is why i am glad that these state governors and houses are looking out for those middle class houses by making sure that their tax rates don't get hiked in order to provide exorbitant compensation to the very small percentage of people who make up public employee union members.

This money the union members aren't getting is money they're not spending and is not being injected back into the economy, isn't keeping things flowing.
Click to expand...

gosh. so the government gets the money that it pays them from the magic money tree, then? :)

One can argue whether or not it's more important to cut spending at this time, but it sure won't help the economy
Click to expand...

actually cutting government spending does help the economy by reducing drag and inefficiency.
 
MaggieD said:
$100 a month toward their cost of healthcare. Give me a break. OMG.

Now we'll have to get ready for the Iowa unions to try to make their local banks fail and issue death threats. Wait for it.
Click to expand...

$100 towards my health care is about what I pay in my private sector job :shrug:

Its a traditional low deductable plan too.
 
:gasp: how do you survive???
 
cpwill said:
:shock:

$100 a month!?!?!


it's unacceptable! it's dictatorial. why, you know who else demanded that public employees pay $100 a month?




...
...

...
...

...
...

...
that's right... HITLER...... :mad:
Click to expand...

As a government employee on the taxpayers dollar, what do you pay per month cpwill?
 
haymarket said:
As a government employee on the taxpayers dollar, what do you pay per month cpwill?
Click to expand...

overall compensation is all that actually matters.

I'm sure Wisconsin would be fine with paying 100% of healthcare if they can reduce salary by an equal amount.

so should we compare overall compensation haymarket, or are you going to continue down the road of intellectual dishonesty?
 
haymarket said:
As a government employee on the taxpayers dollar, what do you pay per month cpwill?
Click to expand...

:( i tried looking up my mypay; but the system was down. eh, probably around half that?

:) but again, your implicit charges here of hypocrisy don't work because i loathe the "health insurance" system that federal employees have. Tricare has been problematic for us from the get-go (when Hillary suggested putting the entire nation on it I freaked. it took me two years to convinced those idiots that the woman on my marriage liscence who was listed as mother of my child was - in fact - my wife). I would much rather get an HSA, like the public employees of Indiana have the option of doing, and if Daniels wins in 2012, then i sincerely hope he offers us that alternative.
 
cpwill said:
Iowa House passes collective bargaining bill

The Iowa House has approved a bill that overhauls the state's collective bargaining law and reduces workers' negotiating rights... The measure would force state workers to pay at least $100 a month toward the cost of their health care and would not allow them to negotiate layoff procedures.Backers say the measure is needed to cut costs, while critics say it's part of a national assault on public employee unions.

The House voted along party lines to approve the bill 58 to 38. Four representatives did not vote.

Senate Democrats say they have no intention of allowing debate on it.
Click to expand...

Yes! Now they can choose NOT to lay-off the best teachers. Finally, something for the children.
 
ARealConservative said:
overall compensation is all that actually matters.

I'm sure Wisconsin would be fine with paying 100% of healthcare if they can reduce salary by an equal amount.

so should we compare overall compensation haymarket, or are you going to continue down the road of intellectual dishonesty?
Click to expand...

a better question might be if he would support offering Wisconsin public workers the option to switch to an HSA (which, as mentioned above, Indiana has successfully done). Where implemented, it's proven wildly popular with state employees while reducing expenses for the state at the same time.

:) the only loser in this scenario, of course, would be the Wisconsin education unions' privately owned health insurance company, which charged much higher than the market rates, but which the union has pushed politicians into forcing teachers into.

it would be an interesting test, to see if, given a clear choice between something that benfits workers but doesn't benefit unions, he chooses the workers or not.
 
cpwill said:
a better question might be if he would support offering Wisconsin public workers the option to switch to an HSA (which, as mentioned above, Indiana has successfully done). Where implemented, it's proven wildly popular with state employees while reducing expenses for the state at the same time.

:) the only loser in this scenario, of course, would be the Wisconsin education unions' privately owned health insurance company, which charged much higher than the market rates, but which the union has pushed politicians into forcing teachers into.

it would be an interesting test, to see if, given a clear choice between something that benfits workers but doesn't benefit unions, he chooses the workers or not.
Click to expand...

The Wisconsin bill does give workers the choice to change to a different HC. I'm sure that's another reason the Unions are so aggravated to the point they are. They are going to lose a lot of money.
 
Barbbtx said:
The Wisconsin bill does give workers the choice to change to a different HC. I'm sure that's another reason the Unions are so aggravated to the point they are. They are going to lose a lot of money.
Click to expand...

ah. well you learn something new every day. of course they would be upset at losing their captive market.
 
cpwill said:
not particularly, which is why i am glad that these state governors and houses are looking out for those middle class houses by making sure that their tax rates don't get hiked in order to provide exorbitant compensation to the very small percentage of people who make up public employee union members.
Click to expand...

If it's very small, then why would it have that great of an impact? It seems to me that righties are all about shared sacrifice, for everyone but the rich, who need tax breaks while everyone else sacrifices.


gosh. so the government gets the money that it pays them from the magic money tree, then? :)
Click to expand...
Oh, there's so many other ways to grow how much money is on that tree. But it's all moot anyways since walker's bill doesn't even do anything fiscal, it just punishes unions for donating to the wrong party.


actually cutting government spending does help the economy by reducing drag and inefficiency.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in the long run, but that's debatable on the specific grounds of whatever's being cut. As it stands right now, this is bad for the economy, just as it'd be bad if a private sector job did this to their workers. The rich don't drive the economy nearly as much as the middle class does.
 
The U.S. needs to compete with China if it is to survive. Lowering worker rights is one avenue, and the GOP is succeeding in doing it.

America is selling out thanks to the neo-cons.
 
the makeout hobo said:
If it's very small, then why would it have that great of an impact?
Click to expand...

it wouldn't. which is why we need to worry more about the much, much larger sector of the economy, which is the taxpayers.

It seems to me that righties are all about shared sacrifice, for everyone but the rich, who need tax breaks while everyone else sacrifices.
Click to expand...

then you are incorrect. what the right has recognized is that the more you tax the wealthy, the more they engage in tax-avoidance, which means the less they are chasing return, which means the less they are investing, which means lower growth, which means lower employment, lower wages, and lower standards of living.

we are 'about' increasing the size of the pie so that everyone else get's more. folks like Haymarket, otoh, seem to be more 'about' making sure that the pieces are equalized, irrespective of whether or not everyone actually ends up with more pie.

Oh, there's so many other ways to grow how much money is on that tree.
Click to expand...

what? the point was that all the money going to those "middle class teachers" is coming from someone else. not the government; the government does not have it's own money; it only has what it has taken from others either through taxation or borrowing.

But it's all moot anyways since walker's bill doesn't even do anything fiscal, it just punishes unions for donating to the wrong party.
Click to expand...

incorrect. reducing public union power over the process reduces future expenditures as surely as reforming social security to a lower rate of benefit growth does.

Perhaps in the long run, but that's debatable on the specific grounds of whatever's being cut.
Click to expand...

you've got public-square issues, the result of whose loss can bring a greater long-term drag, but they are pretty specific and fairly limited (contract enforcement, rule of law, protection from invasion, solid monetary supply, pollution reduction, etc)

As it stands right now, this is bad for the economy, just as it'd be bad if a private sector job did this to their workers. The rich don't drive the economy nearly as much as the middle class does.
Click to expand...

actually about 2% of the populace 'drives' the economy. the rest of us are mostly just along for the ride.
 
later edit: after doing some further reading it looks like it might have a wider range of 2-5% of the populace that are the economic drivers in our economy. so the point remains the same, but the math changes a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom