also the pension shit is a different issue entirely. funding a pension with assumed future funds is a scam.

6/7/2012 12:06:41 PM

Quote :

" Private unions are an important part of workers' rights though and they need a larger role in politics."

They shouldn't have a role in politics at all, beyond your basic lobbying. Same with corporations.

You and I are in agreement about Citizens United. But you have to realize that a repeal of Citizens United would neuter the political power of both corporations AND unions. And that's a good thing.

6/7/2012 12:23:07 PM

It should not be constitutionally legal for the current government to sign legally binding contracts, binding future legislators hands. If government benefits are ever offered it should be under the legal understanding that they can be rewritten at will by a future legislature without the need for negotiation. If we are to be a democracy then when the people decide they don't want to pay for something anymore then they should have that right.

That said, it is unclear to me this is not currently the case. The states and federal government should have sovereign immunity, so if the legislature had the political will they could throw anyone out of court they wanted, right?

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/7/2012 12:26:10 PM

I would be fine with that. Because that would mean that the average citizen would stand to gain. Unions are being killed though instead of being allowed to exist.

6/7/2012 12:32:30 PM

yeah. guaranteed pensions from future funds is complete bullshit. its a great way for politicians and unions to gain votes without actually doing anything and guarantees that the workers get fucked later on.

6/7/2012 12:32:41 PM

The electorate doesn't know what's best for them.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/study-of-14-state-communities-shows-viruses-in-drinking-water-samples-9n5kj9l-156384225.html

6/7/2012 12:32:47 PM

Were the Unions that Walker "busted" only public sector unions, like teachers and police, or were they all unions?

6/7/2012 1:03:07 PM

public. he went after those fat-cat teachers.


his end goal is to break up all unions though.




"Divide and conquer"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BXTEC4btY8


http://www.thenation.com/blog/168201/scott-walker-tries-buy-election-and-state


http://371productions.com/what-we-make/documentaries/as-goes-janesville/

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2012 1:09:02 PM

Quote :

"To be fair, you need to check what their salaries are. If they are being paid well compared to comparable private sector people in Wisconsin, we can say they're complaining. If however, their pay is significantly less (based upon the assumption that they'd get these benefits), I would argue that their complaints are very legitimate."

From the article: Wisconsin public employees' total compensation is still about 22% greater -- $81,637 versus $67,068 -- than similar private sector workers.

6/7/2012 1:17:53 PM

Quote :

"Ahh yes, instead of, god forbid, making the big rich guy more in taxes, he decided to destroy the little poor guy's only way of standing up to the big rich guy."

Also, comments like this really annoy me and make you sound unintelligent. The poor little guy who has the following?

-Wisconsin public employees' total compensation is still about 22% greater -- $81,637 versus $67,068 than similar private sector workers.
-Wisconsin state employees enjoyed salary and benefits that were about 28% higher than comparable private sector workers
-Paid ZERO towards their pension
- And still pay less than fed govt employees or private sector in health premiums

Yeah, "poor guys"

And for the rich guys...
"Under the bill, businesses with sales of up to $5 million annually would receive a tax deduction of $4,000 for each job they create. Businesses with sales of more than $5 million a year would receive a deduction of $2,000 for each job they create."

If you think its a bunch of "rich guys" at $5m in SALES, not profit, you need to experience the real world.

6/7/2012 1:30:56 PM

Quote :

"Wisconsin public employees' total compensation is still about 22% greater -- $81,637 versus $67,068 than similar private sector workers."

Out of context this means nothing.

Quote :

"Businesses with sales of more than $5 million a year would receive a deduction of $2,000 for e each job they create.""

Sounds like a billion dollar company could fit in there to me.

6/7/2012 3:09:06 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Wisconsin public employees' total compensation is still about 22% greater -- $81,637 versus $67,068 than similar private sector workers." Out of context this means nothing."

What kind of context do you need for that exactly ?

6/7/2012 3:12:18 PM

The public sector tends to have different hiring standards than the private. Do you have income numbers that are adjusted for educational attainment, for instance?

6/7/2012 3:13:01 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like a billion dollar company could fit in there to me."

*could*

So lets say screw all business because a big company could take advantage of an incentive (bc they dont already do that)

Take Amazon, for example. They have $20.3B in assets and sales of $13.2B. Using the same ratio that would mean $5m in revenue would be for an $8m company. Yes larger companies could benefit, but a company with $8m in assets is nothing in the business world

6/7/2012 3:47:33 PM

The right to assembly/association/organization is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, If public workers choose to be in a union, then they should be allowed to collectively bargain. Granted that also means that those that choose to not be a part of those negotiations can also sit out (right to work).

If you tell public workers they can't negotiate then aren't they effectively second class citizens?

6/7/2012 8:41:02 PM

They've already been told they can't not join the union.

But in this instance that is irrelevant. In this instance the state legislature is speaking for itself as the employer of government employees. If an employer refuses to deal with a union that is their right under freedom of association in the Bill of Rights. This isn't the legislature barring private employers from negotiating with a union if they choose, it is the legislature issuing orders to its own managers not to negotiate. It would be a bit absurd to suggest the government shouldn't have authority over itself.

6/7/2012 8:59:33 PM

I already said that I thought workers could choose not to associate with the union.

Certainly, the legislature can choose not to negotiate, but the union could choose the same thing.

That doesn't change the fact that public workers that choose to unionize should be allowed to collectively bargain.

6/7/2012 9:14:00 PM

Quote :

"I never said that "the tax cuts [caused] the deficit.""

Really? You certainly insinuated it, as have others in here. or, would you like to explain how "but I'm sure that all of his tax cuts helped a whole bunch!" doesn't even hint at such a statement?

Quote :

"Was anyone discussing unions being bused into demonstrations?"

What's the difference between money coming in from out of state and demonstrators coming in from out of state? Absolutely nothing. or is it your contention that the demonstrators aren't supposed to try and sway people's opinions on the matter?

Quote :

"I was referring to workers of private companies having more power than the owners of those companies."

Fine. What's that have to do the price of tea in China? What does a governor dealing with PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS have to do with private sector unions? Speaking of red herrings...

Quote :

"Ahh yes, instead of, god forbid, making the big rich guy more in taxes, he decided to destroy the little poor guy's only way of standing up to the big rich guy."

Yeah, the little poor guy that's making 30% more in salary that the same public sector workers in other states. Oh the humanity! And, man, they won't be able to stand up TO THE PEOPLE, you know, the people footing the fucking bill. HOW TERRIBLE!!! How terrible that these workers won't be able to hold the state and the taxpayers hostage! HOW TERRIBLE!!!

Quote :

"Obama raised an unprecedented amount of money from small donations in 2008. That's the main he reason he outspent McCain. So there's really no comparison between that and Walker receiving ridiculous money from the Koch brothers and other billionaires. "

Remember, money is only "dirty" when it comes from people you don't like. The rest of the money passes through a magic filter that makes it pure and pristine and unable to cause any harm. I think the filter involves unicorns and puppies, or something like that.

Quote :

"To be fair, you need to check what their salaries are. If they are being paid well compared to comparable private sector people in Wisconsin, we can say they're complaining. If however, their pay is significantly less (based upon the assumption that they'd get these benefits), I would argue that their complaints are very legitimate."

That was already done above. Can you not read? "Before Walker's reforms, Wisconsin state employees enjoyed salary and benefits that were about 28% higher than comparable private sector workers, according to a new study from the American Enterprise Institute. Even after his much decried reforms, Wisconsin public employees' total compensation is still about 22% greater -- $81,637 versus $67,068 -- than similar private sector workers."

Quote :

"The right to assembly/association/organization is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, If public workers choose to be in a union, then they should be allowed to collectively bargain."

No. They should be allowed to try. The government in no way should be forced to negotiate with these people. How did you come up with such an absurd idea?

Quote :

"That doesn't change the fact that public workers that choose to unionize should be allowed to collectively bargain."

How are they able to collectively bargain with the gov't without forcing the government to negotiate? The two are inseparable.

6/7/2012 9:46:50 PM

I'll concede that our two other arguments that you referenced are irrelevant to the topic.

With regard to our argument regarding how tax cuts affect budgets and deficits, could you explain how tax cuts help to balance budgets or decrease deficits?

6/8/2012 12:28:43 AM

Where did I say the government should be forced to negotiate? Rereading I specifically mentioned both sides could choose not to negotiate. As usual, you are quote bombing while barely reading what others have wrote. Do yourself a favor, take the time you normally use to write those posts to go back and reread what you normally just skim over. Wipe the foam from your mouth and then attempt to post something that adds to the conversation.

6/8/2012 6:35:40 AM

this corrupt cocksucker is going to be the next republican superstar, too.

6/8/2012 12:03:51 PM

There is still a chance he ends up in prison. . . .

6/8/2012 1:36:36 PM

Quote :

"That doesn't change the fact that public workers that choose to unionize should be allowed to collectively bargain."

Allowed by whom? I don't think anyone is suggesting they be put in prison for refusing to show up to work when the union they joined is on strike. That the state legislature has passed a law preventing their managers from negotiating with any union doesn't stop workers from forming a union. They can pay dues to anyone they like. Similarly, the state can refuse to give them a seat come negotiation time: quit if you want.

Now, this is not true in many governments. I find it offensive, but many governments have laws against strikes by government workers, laws enforced with prison time, and they justify having this law by having yet another law that requires workers join the union and pay dues.

6/8/2012 8:01:09 PM

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-much-did-money-matter-in-the-wisconsin-recall/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+|+OTB%29

Good read on the mighty money advantage Walker had. Most interestingly is the link at the bottom that points out that Wisconsin law gives a sitting governor a massive advantage in fundraising by capping donations from an individual donor to $10k for his opponent but no so cap for donations to the incumbent.

6/9/2012 10:26:59 AM

That's fucking dumb as hell.

6/9/2012 7:40:49 PM

^^ The government is clearly unbiased when it makes rules. We should clearly have more government rules!

6/10/2012 6:57:29 PM

Quote :

"Where did I say the government should be forced to negotiate? Rereading I specifically mentioned both sides could choose not to negotiate."

when you said that public sector workers should "be allowed to collectively bargain," that means the gov't must negotiate. If the government can just say "fuck you, we won't negotiate," then how, kind sir, are the workers "allowed to collectively bargain"?

Quote :

"Rereading I specifically mentioned both sides could choose not to negotiate."

And yet, you simply don't recognize the obvious logical incongruity between that statement and your previous one, one that I tried to point out, but that still went massively over your head.

6/11/2012 9:13:54 PM

I was using "collective bargaining" to mean the workers represent themselves as an organized unified front, and interact with their employer as a group rather than individuals.

The actual physical act of negotiating I was seperating from that term, when i said both sides can choose, or choose not to negotiate with each other.

6/12/2012 8:47:08 AM

Over 40% of public union members that voted supported Scott Walker. Even they understand that the gig's up.

Private unions (as long as they don't turn into state-controlled cartels, as they often do) are great. Terrible boss? Go on strike, suddenly it becomes worth it for the boss to make concessions rather than hire hundreds of new workers. If the boss is driving the company into the ground, the union can probably convince a bank or a private equity firm to buy the company and put good management in place. This shit has happened in the real world, it's not conjecture.

The dynamic changes entirely when we're looking at public sector unions. From teachers to garbage collectors, we don't get a choice on whether or not to pay them. If they do a poor job, there is apparently no recourse. I don't like when someone can say, "yeah, we're not going to collect garbage until you pay us more" and there aren't competitors in the market. Public sector unions essentially want to hold the public hostage.

6/12/2012 10:54:52 AM

So if this was a referendum on Walker's policies, why did the voters also elect to switch State legislature control over to the Democrats?

6/13/2012 12:10:12 PM

Quote :

"Over 40% of public union members that voted supported Scott Walker. Even they understand that the gig's up."

Nah. Walker just had more money (which came from out of state billionaires like Koch Industries. Wisconsinites were flooded with anti-Barrette ads. The money discrepancy was too large to overcome. 17% of Obama supporters voted for Walker. That's a pretty telling stat. Why would they do that, as a whole? It's far less likely that they understand the jig is up, and more likely that the moneyed interests helped voters get hoodwinked.

Walker had $30 million to toss around. Barrett had $4 million. You do the math.


By the way, Walker isn't going to stop at public unions. Private unions are next. His end goal, as stated, was to divide and conquer the electorate and turn Wisconsin into a right-to-work state

6/13/2012 12:36:57 PM

Quote :

"the moneyed interests helped voters not get hoodwinked."

6/13/2012 12:39:24 PM

Quote :

"turn Wisconsin into a right-to-work state"

Good lord no! The horror of free association!

6/13/2012 12:42:06 PM

^i know, the nerve of some people. it's almost as if he actually believes in free enterprise

6/13/2012 12:53:58 PM

I'm pretty sure "forming a union with other workers and then collectively entering a voluntary contract with an employer" falls into the realm of free association. So Right To Work is exactly opposite of free enterprise.

6/13/2012 1:02:27 PM

Quote :

"the moneyed interests helped voters not get hoodwinked."

Haha. Be real, son. When has big money ever protected the interests of the working class?

Whether or not you stand on the right or the left of the union debate, the insertion of copious amounts of cash (from out of state donors, no less) should be, at the very fucking least, unsettling.

6/13/2012 1:04:49 PM

^^Right to work laws don't make unions illegal, they just prevent closed shops. NC is a right to work state, but you still have unions in place in some companies, they're just less prevalent because unions can't force workers to join as a requirement of employment.

Forced association is the exact opposite of free association. Closed shops just don't jibe with the concept of free association. If you want to join a union go ahead, if you don't want to don't. Couldn't be simpler.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:07 PM. Reason : asdfsf]

6/13/2012 1:06:41 PM

Quote :

"Forced association is the exact opposite of free association. Closed shops just don't jibe with the concept of free association. If you want to join a union go ahead, if you don't want to don't. Couldn't be simpler."

Free association is being able to set up voluntary contracts with whoever you want. If a union and an employer enter a closed shop agreement, that's a voluntary contract. Just because you don't get to work there doesn't mean it's a violation of free association, it just means you weren't in on the right voluntary contract.


edit: An example of your logic applied against anyone except unions: Networks setting up exclusive contracts with cable companies violates other networks' "Right to Broadcast"

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 1:09:04 PM

no thats a bad example. a better example would be if the government declared you had to purchase time warner cable service.

6/13/2012 1:15:05 PM

No, it's not. The government is completely absent from the process of a union and an employer setting up a closed shop agreement. It's a voluntary agreement between two sets of actors to set up an exclusive business relationship. The government only "enforces" it so far as it penalizes companies that reneg on contracts, AKA fraud.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 1:17:26 PM

I agree, if a company in a right to work state wanted to set up a closed shop they should be allowed to. I can't imagine one ever would, but they should be allowed to.

They should also be allowed to opt out of that contract once the term of that contract is up if they so choose. If the firm is required to collectively bargain with the union even after their term of contract is up whether they want to or not you decrease freedom.

Quote :

"Networks setting up exclusive contracts with cable companies violates other networks' "Right to Broadcast""

This is ok and has in fact happened. There are plenty of instances of TV channels and cable companies not being able to agree on fair compensation and that channel not being carried.

I'm in favor of options and free choice in the job market.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM. Reason : adf]

6/13/2012 1:17:57 PM

Quote :

"I agree, if a company in a right to work state wanted to set up a closed shop they should be allowed to."

"Right to Work" does one thing, which is PROHIBIT those voluntary formations of closed shops.

Quote :

"They should also be allowed to opt out of that contract once the term of that contract is up if they so choose. In a non-right to work state they can't. The firm is required to collectively bargain with the union even after their term of contract is up whether they want to or not."

Required by what law? I'm unaware of this law that requires companies to negotiate with entities they have no contractual agreement with, unless of course that contract includes such negotiations as a condition.

Quote :

"There are plenty of instances of TV channels and cable companies not being able to agree on fair compensation and that channel not being carried."

You didn't understand the example. Read it again. "Right to Work" as applied to that analogy would mean outlawing cable companies from making exclusivity part of their contract with networks.

You agree with Right to Work because you literally do not know what it is.



[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 1:20:42 PM

but it has RIGHT TO WORK in the name?!?!?! How can this be?

6/13/2012 1:23:36 PM

Quote :

""They should also be allowed to opt out of that contract once the term of that contract is up if they so choose. In a non-right to work state they can't. The firm is required to collectively bargain with the union even after their term of contract is up whether they want to or not.""

That was poorly worded, which is why I edited it pretty quickly after posting.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ]

6/13/2012 1:24:14 PM

next your gonna tell me that NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND actually left children behind.

6/13/2012 1:24:45 PM

It's almost as though the reason Walker isn't squatting in a vacant school playground is that the GOP systematically misinforms its constituents as to what their policies actually do.

6/13/2012 1:24:49 PM

Quote :

"That was poorly worded, which is why I edited it pretty quickly after posting."

What did you change, because it still looks like you think Right to Work allows voluntary closed shop agreements (All closed shop agreements).

And please, point me to the law that requires companies to do collective bargaining after a contract expires, in cases where that bargaining is not part of the contractual terms.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 1:25:33 PM

so, in operation IRAQI FREEDOM......we freed Iraq, yes? I'd hate to think we just used that as an excuse to occupy them for a decade.

6/13/2012 1:26:12 PM

We need more money in politics because otherwise people would be duped into voting in their class interest.

Also, Worthington's Law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo

6/13/2012 1:26:23 PM

It's not quite the same as forced negotiation, but the NLRB can force certification of the union thereby making them the negotiating body of the workers whether the company wishes to recognize the union or not.

6/13/2012 1:32:51 PM