This born and bred Cheesehead is especially proud of his home state these days. And not only because the Packers won the Super Bowl and the Badgers nearly won the Rose Bowl.
There's House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.
And Gov. Scott Walker is leading the way with what will be and must be the future of public service employment.
Government employee unions are "not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded"
Government unions will one day be remembered as a destructive aberration in our history. Here in WA where a majority of the elected officials in all three branches of government are bought and paid for by those unions, overthrowing the unions will take a lot of work. But it will happen here too, and the sooner the better.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 18, 2011 06:57 PM | Email ThisI too, think there is a lot to be proud of in Wisconsin. It seems the good Governor has gotten an awful lot of folks backs up in his attempt to destroy government unions.
It should be interesting exercise in State Government and public protests.
"[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to 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."
Now compare that with this cut-to-the-chase statement by WI Governor Walker, that collective bargaining issues "had repeatedly stood in the way of local governments and school districts being able to balance their budget."
Precisely. Look, you can want what you want---doesn't mean you're going to get it. Doesn't mean you have the right to receive a better deal than the folks in the private sector who are paying for your deal. And democrats have certainly been the wolf guarding the henhouse in these states for years, giving away the store behind the backs of taxpayers to these public employee unions.
Apparently, these unions have done for the state of Wisconsin what they did for Chrysler and GM---run them into the ground. Nice.
It's a pity we don't have one.
Posted by: hinton on February 18, 2011 06:57 PMThe Dems in the WI legislature have walked away from their jobs and they are ripping off taxpayers. Furthermore, the teachers and unions are whining about an increase from 5-12% in their health care payments, while the avg. for the private sector is 24%. Other states will need to follow suit, in order to fiscally save the Republic.
Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2011 07:01 PMPresent and former members of the Green Bay Packers, all members of the National Football League Players Association, have signed a letter in support of the AFL-CIO's efforts to derail Gov. Scott Walker's plan to cut some union bargaining rights.
and...
"It is the same dedication of our public workers every day that makes Wisconsin run. They are the teachers, nurses and child care workers who take care of us and our families.
and...
The NFLPA also released a statement in support of the AFL-CIO. "The NFL Players Association will always support efforts protecting a worker's right to join a union and collectively bargain. Today, the NFLPA stands in solidarity with its organized labor brothers and sisters in Wisconsin," the statement said.
So cheesehead Sharkandky, opposing the Packers?
Besides, aren't public sector unions just groups of ordinary American workers banding together to stand up to Big Brother and not be taken advantage of by a rapacious government? I thought all you small-government types would love this - it's very Randian.
http://weaskamerica.com/2011/02/18/weirdness-in-wisconsin/
Now what?
More protests?
Time for the Koch Brother's cavalry to ride in and save the day.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 18, 2011 08:01 PMIt is really very sad.
I hope you find counseling before you go and do something to hurt someone.
But that would be in keeping with union tactics.
Posted by: janet s on February 18, 2011 09:06 PMUltimately, this may have to be settled at the ballot box and there may also need to be special elections for those Democrats who have deserted their duty.
Posted by: KDS on February 18, 2011 10:15 PMStefan is right. It's only a matter of time before the voters wake up just a bit more and realize that it makes no sense at all for them to fund lavish salaries, pensions and health benefits that are much greater than the norm in the private sector. It's already happening in states all across the land.
There's more of us than there are of them, the Unions are going to lose. And so we are witnessing their Terminator 2 like death throes as they flail and try to keep from sinking in the molten pool of their own overreach.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 18, 2011 10:36 PMhttp://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Poll_Public_unions_a_hard_sell.html?showall
Posted by: Michele on February 19, 2011 12:30 AMReally, Ms. Moore?? That's your argument?? And Ms. Moore have you ever heard this quote: ""We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." That's a quote from Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger.
Rep. Gwen Moore is african-american.
Violent, harsh-sounding Wisconsin leftists on display:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=71gsnLfsbbM
Posted by: Michele on February 19, 2011 03:08 AMAnd it's a non-starter with the electorate. I know several deeply blue people. People who call themselves Progressives and want more entitlement. People who are true believers. But even these people say the public employee unions have to go.
We are going to win this one. And we have to. There is no other way out of this financial mess. Raising taxes is only drops in the ocean. The debts and deficits are far larger.
Rolling back government and entitlement. This is reality.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 19, 2011 06:25 AMWhat a message that would send to the rest of the nation. Time to break the unsustainable public employee union chokehold on taxpayers.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 19, 2011 07:34 AMOn the left you have the nearly all-white union protesters with their violent militant imagery that might cause some unhinged person to commit mass homicide. Slogans like Kill the bill, targets painted on Walker's face, calling him Mubarak and Hitler.
On the right you have supporters of the legally and democratically elected governor and legislature exercising their legislative duties and the will of the electorate.
Now that we have covered that, we can move on to real substantive questions about the issue at hand.
The value of union representation is primarily in establishing safe and fair working conditions, and secondarily to help employees carve out a little piece of the profit pie for all their work and contribution to the company. Since a company can only survive if it makes profits, there is a natural tension and balance here that helps limit how far employees can push before they kill the goose.
However, there is no natural tension in the public sector. What profits are the employees going after? What natural limit is there on their "share" of the take? Ultimately, their "goose" is the political backlash. In the private sector, if a company cannot afford to pay its employees they cannot simply get more money. they have to either limit compensation or go bankrupt. The public sector can simply ask for more money.
My question for our union supporters is: What is the demarcation for when public employees have taken too much of the "pie"? How do we know when they have more pay and benefits than they should? Maybe I should ask more basically, IS there any limit to what they should earn? Who decides? How is it decided? What recourse do the "employers" have if they employees over-state their demands?
Posted by: Eyago on February 19, 2011 08:40 AMhttp://horsesass.org/?p=32728#comments
What do you call people who run a state to the brink of bankruptcy, enjoy benefits the majority of tax payers don't have access to, and demand continuation of their freebies even in the middle of the Obama Depression? Democrats!
I say fire the lot. Every stinking public school teacher who called in "sick" and is identified on video as being part of the howling commie mobs should be fired for cause. In this economy I doubt Wisonsin will have much trouble finding replacement workers.
Posted by: Attila on February 19, 2011 08:57 AMThe public sector unions are flaunting their power by filling the streets with bussed-in allies and kids commandeered out of school, doing their best to intimidate Wisconsin back onto the path to bankruptcy.
Powerful unions, meet the people. They just elected a Governor and legislature who promised explicitly to end such greedy union capers. We are seeing the people speaking their mind to power, and the unions can't take it. Power to the people!
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 19, 2011 09:00 AMThis act of civil disobedience belies that fact because in this case the "little guys" are ALL the people in Wisconsin who will avoid tax increases; in this case the "little guys" are the Wisconsin public sector employees who will NOT lose their jobs under this plan; in this case the "little guys" are the parents whose children are not in school; in this case the "little guys" are the kids whose school year will end later, whose graduation may be delayed because of days to make up; in this case the "little guys" are the children themselves some of who are being horrifically used as props.
I saw an interview of some of the high schoolers supposedly protesting: they didn't know why they were protesting, they didn't know the issue, they ONLY knew the teachers told them to be there.
These teachers being duped by the unions have to face the same fact that we in the private sector face: WE ARE IN DEBT. Our federal government can't afford the goodies over which they are having a tantrum, our state governments can't afford the goodies over which they are having a tantrum.
What I find particularly scary is that these narrow focused, reality avoiding selfish people are in charge of the nation's children for 6+ hours a day. No wonder we have turned from a proud self-sustaining population to a welfare state.
Don't ever let me hear these despicable unions and/or Democrat claim are for the "little people", because it's being proven in the streets of Wisconsin that it's a LIE.
Unions Co-Opt Kids
Child's Play: Wisconsin Teachers Recruit Their Students to Save Union Jobs
Of course, what the kids don't understand is that Walker's plan is intended to save their teachers' jobs. Without the modest employee contributions required in the bill, Walker estimates he will have to fire up to 6,000 public employees. The teachers are in effect choosing massive job losses over moderate concessions.
*~*~*
And from someone I know who posted @ The Dems' tantrum
In a snit, Senate Democrats run and hide - making a mockery of the democratic process."
What do these childish democrat senators think they're going to accomplish by this act? Are they just NEVER going to come back to work? EVENTUALLY they're going to have to come back, and EVENTUALLY this vote is going to be had. The only thing fleeing out of state accomplishes is that WE ALL SEE THEM DO IT. We all see them for what they are - petulant cowards who would rather run and hide, than not get their way.
As for the teachers, man, the editorial couldn't have put it better. Get back to work. Your job isn't to stand outside yelling and trashing the capitol building (http://tinyurl.com/4fqjdcv) - it's to educate your students. You know what the teachers of Wisconsin are doing? They're effectively holding children hostage. "Do what we say, or we'll punish the kids. Give us what we want, or we'll leave your kids uneducated." Shame on them. Shame on the teachers and the unions of Wisconsin. Hey Governor Walker - take a cue from Reagan. Tell them to get their butts back to work, or FIRE every single one of them. Trust me, your state education system will be a LOT better off.
Oh, and ps - Wisconsin, if you want to help out your 7% unemployment rate, I see a lot of people standing outside the capitol building rather than doing their jobs. How about you help out the unemployed by offering them some very lucrative scab labor.
Wisconsin's state motto is "forward", while the state Democrats in the senate's motto is Retreat (to a neighboring state no less). If i'm a voter in Wisconsin and seeing these yellow Dems run from the job the state has sent them to do, I retire their sorry ass the next elction and put an adult back in their position. I wish this could happen in WA state, but we are an oligarchy at this time where common sense is an uncommon virtue.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 19, 2011 10:53 AMFighting isn't always bad thing. Most of the good stuff we have came from hard work, struggle, and risk taking. What's going on in WI is just another form of that. I solute them all.
Posted by: MichaelfromHA on February 19, 2011 02:04 PM"Fuck all the unions to bloody hell!"
Even the ones that supported the Governor when he was running for election? I ask, 'cause those unions are exempted from this bill.
Posted by: MichaelfromHA on February 19, 2011 02:08 PMIt sounds to me like you, and many others who are supportive of this bill, have a very good reason to be against it, seeing how it doesn't cover all public sector unions and still allows for some collective bargaining with the unions that it does cover.
Posted by: MichaelfromHA on February 19, 2011 02:19 PMFighting is one thing, hiding out in a neighboring state is simply cowardice. What a bunch of sissies. They obviously don't believe in Democracy, so the only solution is to vote their worthless asses out next election. Same thing with the teachers. They care less about their student's learning than retaining their pampered lifestyles.
Do the Reagan thing and Fire them all. Garbage in, garbage out.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 19, 2011 02:37 PMIn the mean time, their salary and benefits should be suspended pending their return to work, as should that of the 'teachers'.
Fake Doctors' Notes Being Handed Out at Wisconsin Gov. Union Rally
Teachers who can be identified from the various videos, news reports and photos should be fired immediately. Hells bells, the parents should/could be paid a finders fee/bounty for submitting the pictures of the lying "teachers".
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 19, 2011 03:18 PMIt seems to me that the baby boomers started a fight in the late 60's-early 70's that they never finished. Now they're getting ready to retire and they're still fighting that undeclared, unfinished, war. Those of us that came later (I was born in '68) unwittingly became part of that undeclared war.
Lets let them fight it out and get this shit done and over with.
Posted by: MichaelfromHA on February 19, 2011 03:28 PMApparently, whether or not a teacher is present in the classroom, the student's are dumber than ever in this nation. Which bodes well for the future of the democrat party.
Why bother to think when you can just vote demcorat???
Posted by: Rick D. on February 19, 2011 03:53 PMIf you are an example of the intellectual firepower of the left - you are a dud. "solute" really? Bwahahaha! Go back to the monkey poop throwing cage know as HA! This is where the adults discuss the issues.
Posted by: pbj on February 19, 2011 04:26 PMSays the guy throwing monkey poop!
Posted by: MichaelfromHA on February 19, 2011 04:34 PMYou forgot to throw in five F-Bombs. The chief monkey from HA will ban you from the monkey cage if you keep showing civility like that!
Posted by: pbj on February 19, 2011 04:59 PMAnd if they are fake doctors, chances are good the Obamaites (who are involved in this mess) have furnished them, because they have a proven record of disrespecting the American people by putting up fake "doctors" to promote their tripe.
Posted by: Michele on February 19, 2011 06:22 PMIf it's legal, (and I doubt it is) I would announce that any teacher, public employee and legislator who is not present at the beginning of the work day Tuesday will be assumed to have abandoned his job and all pay and benefits will cease. In the case of the legislators, start the process to hold a special election. In the case of the teachers, have them go through the hire process FROM THE BEGINNING, as they have abandoned all tenure and seniority when they abandoned their students. In the mean time their state funded HEALTH benefits will cease. Maybe their beloved union masters will pick up their payments. If not, oh my, they'd have to buy their own for their families or not have proof of continuing coverage. Tsk, tsk, tsk, so sad.
They can choose to work for the people through the state or to work for their union masters: not both.
Hells bells, if the governor was smart he would rewrite his bill and make them choose between abandoning the collective bargaining and vouchers/charter schools.
THAT would force them to show their true colors... and put them in a delicious corner.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 19, 2011 07:29 PMYou are wrong on what's ailing math and science education. That's a Democrat created problem as well. Read more on what's happening to our Math Standards from one of our state's top and brightest scientists, Cliff Mass at the UW.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 19, 2011 09:50 PM1. having to teach using worthless curriculum adopted by ill-advised and/or poorly managed school districts.
2. having to take all the leftist indoctrination courses required to become credentialed by the NEA/WEA-dominated teaching profession.
3. having to daily deal with the corrupt, leftist culture of union-dominated public school systems. This was one of the major reasons my MA therapist daughter returned to the private sector after two years with a Puget Sound school district.
Until such time as the public wises up and forces the legislature to offer school vouchers or similar programs, Washington's universities and community colleges will continue to waste time and resources teaching 90-series math and science to poorly-prepared HS graduates.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2011 07:22 AMIndeed - like having Texas dominate the HS textbook market and using such dominance to include paeans to loons like Phylis Schlafly and unscientific, religious idiocy like Intelligent Design Creationism.
Down with worthless curricula!!
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 07:31 AMUnions happen for a reason, and it's not lockstep devotion to Marxism, as the loons/commenters here at SP and Teabaggers in general seem to believe (more on that).
Just about every interaction between an employer and employee is asymmetric in terms of power. Accrete enough power on the owner/employer side and you can dictate terms without constraint. See the company towns in the coal fields and the behavior of the steel and other industries 100 years ago to observe behaviors that were tantamount to feudalism/serfdom.
The only way to counter forces like that is to organize and bargain collectively, and to support parallel unions in their negotiations/strikes with employers. The abolition of child labor, the 40-hour work week, the weekend, and the prosperity that followed the Great Depression and WWII are all directly attributable to the unionization of industrial workers.
Conversely, the stagnation of wages and income, despite massive increases in 'productivity' over the past 40 years, has been a result of a relentless assault on American workers, and importantly, an assault on unions and unionism. This is a core piece of the transfer of wealth upward in our society that is so corrosive and that has resulted in wealth and income distributions that mirror the 1920s. The evisceration of the American manufacturing base through the pursuit of ever-lower wages and standards via off-shoring and outsourcing has resulted in profits for the few and a crippling of the American economy and the American Dream for most.
What is our vision for the American economy? Do we look to the pre-unionism, pre-regulation period of industrialization? Do we want under-fed, under-educated, under-paid serfs - the people who heroically rose up at Homestead and Matewan? Do we want the sweatshops of China and Bangladesh and Pakistan? (I suspect, actually, that some here do)? Or do we model ourselves on Germany, perhaps the healthiest world economy at the moment - where unions are strong and workers actively participate in the management of the companies in which they work? An economy centered on high-tech, high-value manufacturing, where wage and wealth disparity is vastly less than here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient), and unions are a vital part of the mix.
******
As for you folks here at SP, I've been dropping by lately, in part trying to understand what makes you folks tick. Clearly there's a strong streak of anti-feminist Christianism, leavened with an adolescent libertarianism (resulting in Mel Gibson-ish cries of "GOD given freedoms in our Constitution!!"), a myopic and inaccurate fixation on "massive taxes" and "massive spending" that is ruining the economy (though not a peep about the costs of i)Iraq and Afghanistan, ii)massive upper-income tax cuts (thank you!!), or iii)the massive give-away to Pharma that is the Bush Medicare Prescription Plan), peppered with sniping at bus riders and others considered on the dole - but on the topic of Wisconsin lately and unions in general - that really brings out the venom around here. I mean, the statements about Marxism (!) and 'crushing the unions' and myths about 'union bosses' and on and on - it's incredibly vitriolic, even for you guys. I don't think you're all wealthy employers over there, but maybe I'm wrong - I think it's more like one of the people who works in my office, whose husband is a unionized worker - she is always making disparaging comments about his union, seemingly oblivious to what his working conditions and their income would be without a union. There's been a wholesale demonization of unions in our society, an incredibly effective propaganda campaign, that like others, convinces people to choose sides against their own interests.
What say you, heroic Galtians?
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 07:41 AMWhy bother reading the rest of your manifesto past that first sentence? Anyone that starts out with that level of imbecilic bilge is certainly not in their right mind.Is it any wonder that it's crossposted at goldstain's waste treatment plant/hate site?
What's happening in WI is you have 14 cowardly senators refusing to do the business their constituents sent them to do. They are cowards of the lowest order and should be removed from their positions immediately upon return from the sleaze bag hotel (appropriately) in Illinois they were holed up in. Same with the teacher's that called in sick causing parent's to have to react, lose pay or make arrangements for their kids for the days the fake teachers faked illness. Fire all of them immediately upon return from the capitol. It's clear they don't care about educating, they care more about retaining their pampered lifestyles.
Unions are a necessary evil, but they have increasiningly outlived their usefullness in this nation. Large parts of Boeing's operation has left Seattle due to unions and their wishes to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 20, 2011 08:09 AMThe left and right in America each have their religions. Many (most?) conservatives believe that life was created by Almighty God, master of the universe. Many conservatives choose to worship this God.
Most leftists seem to believe life evolved, spontaneously and unaided, from a pit of ooze that somehow, spontaneously, came into existence. Some leftists worship the earth and/or Al Gore as their god.
Which is more believable? The left believes only their version is worthy of being called science, and demands no other plausible explanation be taught in public schools. Just another reason for the Bolshevist public school system to be dismantled.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2011 08:24 AMWhat was so offensive? That I denied the reflex yawps of "Marxism!!" that accompany ANY discussion around here, or the gentle tweaking of "loons" and "Teabaggers"? (that is what you guys call yourselves, isn't it?). It obviously is not going to comport with the comfortable assumptions around here - does that make it inherently wrong?
What's happening in WI...
is a wholesale attack on collective bargaining and unions in general, nothing less. The brash governor there has ginned up a "crisis" (via a tax cut, natch) and has used said "crisis" to attempt to break some of the unions there - notably not the ones that backed him for election, which only adds to the dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Large parts of Boeing's operation has left Seattle due to unions and their wishes to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
I don't believe the unions made the decisions to outsource at Boeing, or to move to the far superior workforce in South Carolina (doh!). Do you really believe that the machinists union was out to "kill the goose" - that's insane, and a product of an ideologic analysis, rather than a rational one.
I hope the LA Times isn't too Marxist for you: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/15/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20110215
Agreed with all you wrote until this statement: "Unions are a necessary evil, but they have increasiningly outlived their usefullness in this nation."
Private sector unions once served a purpose, gaining workers rights that are now protected by federal law. Public-sector unions should never have come into existence, or at least never have been given the right to negotiate wages and benefits. Federal unions cannot negotiate either, so why can state and local unions?
The problem with granting public sector unions rights to negotiate wages and benefits is that unions influence corrupt politicians like Christine Gregoire into forcing all state (in this case) employees to pay dues, even against the will of some. Unions then use their government-mandated windfall to fund election campaigns for the same politicians who filled their pockets. Reeks of corruption and compromises any objectivity such politicians may have once had. Also makes it difficult for such pols to make difficult budget decisions that impact pay, benefits and workforce numbers. Public sector unions need to be abolished.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2011 08:43 AMVoters in WI have listened up and are demanding concessions from greedy public employee unions who serve as puppet masters for corrupt Democrat politicians. High time we in WA did the same and vote in representatives and a governor who answer to the public, rather than the unions.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2011 08:56 AMYou are a Fraud.
You claim to want debate and then all you do is spend time lobbing insults and making sweeping generalizations.
Your screed:
As for you folks here at SP, I've been dropping by lately, in part trying to understand what makes you folks tick. Clearly there's a strong streak of anti-feminist Christianism, leavened with an adolescent libertarianism (resulting in Mel Gibson-ish cries of "GOD given freedoms in our Constitution!!"), a myopic and inaccurate fixation on "massive taxes" and "massive spending" that is ruining the economy (though not a peep about the costs of i)Iraq and Afghanistan, ii)massive upper-income tax cuts (thank you!!), or iii)the massive give-away to Pharma that is the Bush Medicare Prescription Plan), peppered with sniping at bus riders and others considered on the dole - but on the topic of Wisconsin lately and unions in general - that really brings out the venom around here. I mean, the statements about Marxism (!) and 'crushing the unions' and myths about 'union bosses' and on and on - it's incredibly vitriolic, even for you guys.
What you accuse us of is exactly what you and others come here and do from your side.
You claim the mantel of virtue while doing exactly what you deride us for.
You have no interest in serious debate but rather to come here to cherry pick comments to re-enforce your pre-conceived notions of conservatives.
Go back to HA where you can revel in your self-congratulatory, holier-than-thou love-fest with others of your ilk.
Posted by: Eyago on February 20, 2011 09:34 AMI believe the US automakers' problem was that they designed and built cars no one wanted to buy. Perhaps if the union members had participated in management, like they do in Germany, that fatal mismanagement by the owners of the company might have been avoided.
Boeing should listen up before finding itself in a similar state to GM and Chrysler.
I think Boeing is making the same mistake, massive, expensive and mismanaged outsourcing, combined with moving their production to the highly-skilled workforce of South Carolina in order to run away from the unionized and highly skilled workforce here in Washington may ultimately leave the world with a single large aircraft maker, EADS (which is both unionized, and, gasp, Marxist, um, I mean European)
High time we in WA did the same and vote in representatives and a governor who answer to the public, rather than the unions.
Seems you try that every few years, and it keeps ending up the same way - Republicans get rejected at the ballot box. Gonna run Dino again?
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 09:35 AMJust about every interaction between an employer and employee is asymmetric in terms of power. Accrete enough power on the owner/employer side and you can dictate terms without constraint.
That is ludicrous. We're talking an employer who represents all the taxpayers of Wisconsin, and employees who want a nice secure job.
To you, it appears that 'without constraint' deliberately ignores all of the Federal and Wisconsin laws regarding employment. Oh, poor babies who beg the tyrannical employer for a job, the police will beat them up for asking an extra crust of bread.
See the company towns in the coal fields and the behavior of the steel and other industries 100 years ago to observe behaviors that were tantamount to feudalism/serfdom.
THAT's your example? Reading such irrelevance is a waste of time.
There are good reasons for not enabling unionization of public employees. Unions are coercive organizations - are you endorsing the coercion of the entire citizenry by the tiny minority represented by a union? Most likely you are. A pox on that line of thinking, we don't want to be bullied like Europeans by strikes of public workers.
And a pox on the coerced dues from union members being employed to influence elections of officials who then sit to 'negotiate' - on behalf of that citizen supermajority - excessive pay and benefits for union workers, against the public interest.
Governor Walker makes far more sense than you do.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 20, 2011 09:49 AMNumerous commenters here have blasted me about, quote, GOD given liberties in the Constitution. The general position around here is obviously in favor of fetal rights over those of autonomous women. The focus in these parts on government and budgeting is all about how money is being spent frivolously and inappropriately - never is there a peep about how the Bush Administration budgeted Iraq and Afghanistan, or how a surplus was transformed into a deficit with a massive tax cut to the upper eschelons of income and wealth, financed with debt, or how the prescription benefit was a MASSIVE give-away to Big Pharma.
What did I get wrong?
Sometimes mirrors suck, huh?
I tend to think that your persistent complaints with me over process are a convenient way of avoiding the issues - say it ain't so.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 09:55 AMYou refer to laws that came about because of unions and the Labor Movement - and without which there would be no pressure/political constituency to ensure that they stayed on the books and were enforced. Witness the ongoing spate of mine disasters to see the effects of poorly enforced workplace safety laws.
Oh, poor babies who beg the tyrannical employer for a job, the police will beat them up for asking an extra crust of bread.
Derisive condescention that adds nothing to your argument. Tools of state power have always been at the disposal of wealthy and powerful, and yes, many Americans have been murdered for demanding fair wages and safe working conditions.
A pox on that line of thinking, we don't want to be bullied like Europeans by strikes of public workers.
In which you reveal the parochial simplicity of your thinking. Wouldn't want to have empowered workers and high tech manufacturing economies and universal affordable health care - no sir, WE'RE NUMBER ONE, THE GREATEST NATION IN THE GALAXY!!
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 10:08 AMConversely, the unions that were formed to help laborers now hurt them: Detroit is the best example, the fact of FORCED union dues with no say how they are spent is the most egregious and the extortion of governments and employers is the ugliest. There is one overriding reason people clamor for jobs at Walmart, one overriding reason non-union foreign car makers are succeeding wildly, one reason private schools give better education, they have the freedom to pay and reward the BEST and are not forced to protect the worst.
It has become an ugly circular extortion: unions take employee monies to influence legislators who bully employers. How can any economy grow given that trap? It can't.
http://www.unionfacts.com/
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 20, 2011 10:09 AMThe rationale for collective bargaining agreements is that they redress an imbalance of bargaining power that favors private management. There is no similar justification for public sector employees because the government (in a democracy) already, by definition, is carrying out employment policies for the benefit of everyone in the state. Public employee strikes are typically illegal, not because the gov't is anti union but because the strikes are used to coerce & intimidate the public (not just private management that's trying to look after private ownership interests).
Yes, it's MEANT to be a link - read the whole thing.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 20, 2011 10:18 AMAnd the real issue is whether public sector unions should even be allowed to exist. Frankly, when even a modicum of common sense is infused into the equation, the answer is a resounding no. And the foundational reason is simple. There is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated.Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 20, 2011 10:27 AM
...The union bosses represent the workers. Management represents everybody else, including the stockholders, vendors, customers and potential customers of the company. In other words, management represents everyone whose interests are served by keeping payroll costs down.
In the case of a government workforce, those whose interests are served by keeping costs down would include all who pay taxes and fees to said government. In other words, the universe of folks represented by management is far larger than that represented by the union. This inherent tension is the invisible hand of reality that keeps collective bargaining in line.
However, public sector "collective bargaining" is a bad joke, given that there are only chairs on one side of the bargaining table. The bigger universe of interested parties have zero representation in the process. There is no natural force working to keep costs in line.
The outlawing of independent unions is the clearest and most consistent marker of despotism around the world. When Gaddafi seized control of Libya in 1969, his first speech proclaimed the end of labor unions. No sooner had he secured control of Cuba than Fidel Castro banned the ability of unions to strike or to bargain over salary and benefits, saying such demands were detrimental to "the national economy." In Colombia today, right-wing militias work together with corporations to keep down costs and demands for decent working conditions in the most effective way they know-they execute union leaders.
I'd also refer you to the treatment of unions by the fascist juntas of Argentina and the despot Pinochet in Chile (both supported and advised by right-wing saint Milton Friedman). Unionists were murdered, including directly by American corporations like Ford:
Troiani was among those pulled off the assembly line. He recalled that "before detaining me, they walked me around the factory, they did it right out in the open so that the people would see: Ford used this to eliminate unionism in the factory." Most startling was what happened next: rather than being rushed off to a nearby prison, Troiani and others say soldiers took them to a detention facility that had been set up inside the factory gates. In their place of work, where they had been negotiating contracts just days before, workers were beaten, kicked and, in two cases, electroshocked. They were then taken to outside prisons where the torture continued for weeks and, in some cases, months. According to the workers' lawyers, at least twenty-five Ford union reps were kidnapped in this period, half of them detained on the company grounds in a facility that human rights groups in Argentina are lobbying to have placed on an official list of former clandestine detention facilities.
(From The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein)
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 10:27 AMAnswer that one damned question.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 20, 2011 10:31 AMI have to assume you actually believe this, Ragnar. It is quaint and naive and harkens back to an imaginary bygone time, so I can see its appeal - but really - in an age of media consolidation and the corporate ownership of all the major media outlets, this contention is not tenable. I wish it were true...
Detroit is the best example, the fact of FORCED union dues with no say how they are spent is the most egregious and the extortion of governments and employers is the ugliest.
What are you actually trying to say here? Is this a complaint against the closed shop? Is it a willful avoidance of the democratic (small 'd') nature of union governance? Is it a contention that the American automakers economic and business problems were the fault of unions (not true, and dealt with above)?
There is one overriding reason people clamor for jobs at Walmart...
Sheer hilarity. I mean, literally jaw dropping. Try reading Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehernreich, as just one source on how easy it is to make ends meet with the lavish salaries paid by Walmart.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 10:40 AMWHO REPRESENTS THE TAXPAYERS?
WHO REPRESENTS THE WORKERS WHO DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO A UNION?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 20, 2011 10:42 AMAs to your second question, don't want to join a union? Go work at Walmart and get one of those excellent jobs you were braying about just above.
Hundreds of eager applicants line up for Wal-Mart job fair
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20090221/articles/902210976
Thousands show up for shot at Wal-Mart job
http://www.itulip.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2880.html
Want a Wal-Mart job? Join the crowd / 11,000 apply for 400 openings at retailer's new Oakland store
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-08-17/news/17387778_1_wal-mart-job-market-hot-job
In Oakland, Thousands Apply for Wal-Mart Jobs
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4815023&ps=rs
Black Friday: More Than 1,000 Line Up At Mountain View Wal-Mart
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2009/11/27/black-friday-more-than-1000-people-line-up-at-mountain-view-wal-mart/
Hundreds line up in SC for Wal-Mart job fair
http://www.midlandsconnect.com/News/story.aspx?id=263308
You guys really are sheeple.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 11:02 AMWatch out - facts contrary to blinkered beliefs abound.
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 11:05 AMBut Ragnar, your links attest to the lack of jobs and overall horrid economy, not the quality of jobs at Walmart.
Swing and a miss!
Posted by: Dr. Liberal on February 20, 2011 11:07 AMSure he did. Whining now about changes he said he'd make for the state while campaigning is just sour grapes. WI Senator's fleeing to Illinois is about as thin-skinned as it gets. Alleged "educators" calling in sick and eschewing their duties is equally egregious and should result in their firing.
Walker is showing leadership; something that our current president has no clue about. As for him issuing his opinion on the WI debate, I say STFU, you can't even do your job competently, so why ignorantly comment on a particular state's issues?
Posted by: Rick D. on February 20, 2011 11:29 AMThe feedy frenzy is now coming to an end in many states where unsustainable growth in public-sector hiring, wages and benefits have broken the bank. Thank God for wise conservatives like Govs Christie and Walker, who listen to taxpayers and do what they promised, providing examples for states looking to cut costs and stimulate economic growth.
Go to hell, unions, and take your leftist governors and legislators with you.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 20, 2011 12:17 PMTo protect workers rights, allow voluntary unmonopolistic worker associations to represent the folks that want to join. There would be a free market of worker associations so if a public employee decided to join one, they would have a diverse choice of associations to choose from. The marxists could have their own association, the folks just interested in the legal representation could join another, etc.
Posted by: AP on February 20, 2011 12:56 PMThat's what happened in Wisconsin and the Fascist Left went bananas! Public sector unions hate democracy, which is another reason they need to be banned and replaced by voluntary worker associations.
Posted by: AP on February 20, 2011 01:07 PMAll you liberal "champions" of the "little people" who can't get past their Walmart snobbery always manage to forget that the marginally handicapped trying to live independent lives are thrilled to have Walmart jobs "to make ends meet" - does your idolized union hire them?
All you liberal "champions" of the "little people" who can't get past their Walmart snobbery always manage to forget that the older folks supplementing their retirement are thrilled to have Walmart jobs "to make ends meet" - does your idolized union hire them?
All you liberal "champions" of the "little people" who can't get past their Walmart snobbery always manage to forget that the poorly and/or barely educated (from PUBLIC SCHOOLS) are thrilled to have Walmart jobs "to make ends meet" - does your idolized union hire them?
All you liberal "champions" of the "little people" who can't get past their Walmart snobbery always manage to forget dropouts, the newly sober, the desperate for a job are thrilled to have Walmart jobs "to make ends meet" - does your idolized union hire them?
Not swing and a miss, STRIKE AND OUT - in more ways than baseball.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 20, 2011 02:05 PMExcuse notes from docs at protests draw scrutiny
APNews
The University of Wisconsin medical school says it's investigating reports that doctors from the school handed out medical excuse notes to protesters at the state Capitol this weekend.Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 20, 2011 02:16 PM
Doctors from numerous hospitals set up a station near the Capitol on Saturday to provide notes to explain public employees' absences from work. One of those doctors was Lou Sanner, who practices family medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Sanner said he had given out hundreds of notes to protesters and many he spoke with seemed to be suffering from stress.
(apologies in advance. I had time to write this [ok, no I didn't] but I did not have time to edit. It is not a reflection of my ignorance, just my time)
I calls em as I sees em.
You claim to want debate on issues, but you spend an inordinate amount of time accusations and hyperbole.
I clearly asked some very specific questions about public unions that on one seemed willing to address, but more on that later.
First, let's look at your willingness to cherry pick comments and assume that is representative of everyone.
Clearly there's a strong streak of anti-feminist Christianism
Here is an egregious example of your blanket hyperbole born out of your prejudices. I have clearly articulated an alternative position that is NOT based on hating women, but rather is strongly concerned about the murder of unborn children. You reject that the unborn are worthy of protecting, that can be a reasonable argument from a rational stand point. It is a point that cannot be "won or lost" because it is a moral position. Just because you reject my argument you do NOT have the right then to call me anti-woman. I value the life of the child over the inconvenience to the woman. If YOU valued the woman over the child but STILL required her to carry to term, then YOU would be anti-woman. What we have here is a conflict in values, but that does not give you the right to redefine MY values to suit your prejudices and then to slander me.
It goes back to my earlier claim. You liberals make no effort to respect the values of the conservatives and so you redefine them and slander us based on that unproven redefinition.
Another example is leavened with an adolescent libertarianism (resulting in Mel Gibson-ish cries of "GOD given freedoms in our Constitution!!")
You are truly a victim of liberal re-education. You have to twist and manipulate history beyond recognition to get to the point where you can believe that the founding fathers did NOT believe that our freedoms were God given. It was foundational to their whole formulation of our government - that our rights and freedoms derive from the creator NOT man and not the government. Now there IS a distinction. The Constitution, which is the law of the land does not say these laws were passed down from God. However, that does not give you the justification to make the claim that the founders did not fully understand that the freedoms they were articulating were based on the fact that they were NOT granted by man. So, when someone says that the Constitution guarantees our God given freedoms, you can quibble about whether it "SAYS" that, but you are wrong to say it was not the basis for it. So go ahead and tweak someone for being sloppy in his articulation of the truth, but stop trying to claim that it is not actually true about where our rights derived. And even if you cannot accept that for yourself, it is a fully defensible position regarding our foundation, backed up with historical documents, so your attempts to color ardent believers in that interpretation as juvenile is in itself a juvenile position to take.
And that is my point over all. You ridicule and deride those who hold positions different from yours rather than debate the issues themselves.
You and many like you take a very strict and unyielding view of your own superiority - that on almost all issues of import, you hold that you are the only true possessors of the truth and that anyone who does not believe as you do is either evil or stupid, but either way, they are worthy of your contempt.
Now if you can look into the mirror and honestly ask yourself, "Am I truly able treat those who disagree with me with respect and assume that they have come upon their beliefs as honestly as I believe I have come on my own" then start acting like it. Otherwise, if you cannot, then go away because you do nothing but pour fuel on a fire with your condescending attitude.
So, I will ask you. When a liberal calls someone a Hitler is it any different than when a conservative does? When a liberal draws cross hairs on the face of a human being during a protest, is it more or less violent than drawing cross hairs on a state? When a liberal holds up a sign about teabagging children, is it over the top or only if a conservative did it? Are liberals ignorant when they compare a democratically elected governor to a Middle East dictator or is it impossible for liberals to be ignorant, by definition?
Well maybe I can answer that last one. you see, you compare OUR country to a dictatorship that suspends unions. Do you really think to equate a democratically elected government, still fully subject to the will of the people with a dictatorship that can suspend laws and rules at will with no recourse for the people but violent revolution? Somehow this is the same?
You have to formulate your arguments much better than that. A first year college poly-sci student would get crucified by his instructor for trying to pass off an argument that weak.
Let's look at a few more gems. Some have already been addressed
Just about every interaction between an employer and employee is asymmetric in terms of power. Accrete enough power on the owner/employer side and you can dictate terms without constraint.
You have to clearly articulate that this is still the case in modern America. Employees have many, many recourses available to them today that negates the need to form a union to protect these rights. There may still be industries that can benefit from union support, but most no longer do.
See the company towns in the coal fields and the behavior of the steel and other industries 100 years ago to observe behaviors that were tantamount to feudalism/serfdom.The only way to counter forces like that is to organize and bargain collectively, and to support parallel unions in their negotiations/strikes with employers. The abolition of child labor, the 40-hour work week, the weekend, and the prosperity that followed the Great Depression and WWII are all directly attributable to the unionization of industrial workers.
Yes. 100 years ago. But what have you done for me lately? You will get few if any on this blog that don't credit unions with some ground breaking work when it was needed. Stop living in the past.
Conversely, the stagnation of wages and income, despite massive increases in 'productivity' over the past 40 years, has been a result of a relentless assault on American workers, and importantly, an assault on unions and unionism. This is a core piece of the transfer of wealth upward in our society that is so corrosive and that has resulted in wealth and income distributions that mirror the 1920s.
You need to understand better the way wealth has transferred. Many wealthy today are first generation, and under a strict union system, those people would never have been wealthy. It's a whole new dynamic that goes beyond union verses non-union questions.
The evisceration of the American manufacturing base through the pursuit of ever-lower wages and standards via off-shoring and outsourcing has resulted in profits for the few and a crippling of the American economy and the American Dream for most.
Yes, labor became too expensive. Unions bargained themselves right out of their jobs. I'm sure all the brown people you hate so much are very thankful that they no longer have to live in a garbage heap to survive. It is a very complex question which I HAVE studied, but way too meaty to get into at this juncture.
What is our vision for the American economy? Do we look to the pre-unionism, pre-regulation period of industrialization? Do we want under-fed, under-educated, under-paid serfs - the people who heroically rose up at Homestead and Matewan? Do we want the sweatshops of China and Bangladesh and Pakistan? (I suspect, actually, that some here do)? Or do we model ourselves on Germany, perhaps the healthiest world economy at the moment - where unions are strong and workers actively participate in the management of the companies in which they work? An economy centered on high-tech, high-value manufacturing, where wage and wealth disparity is vastly less than here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient), and unions are a vital part of the mix.
False dichotomy.
And one more issue:
Try reading Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehernreich
I did. Tripe. And I mean tripe. My first impression was that this woman was a spoiled upper middle class woman who had pretty much everything handed to her on a silver platter while she probably felt like she earned her place in the world. I could easily tell by the weakness of her experiment, the false choices she manufactured and the total inability to look at the true causes of a person's plight and what real options they have.
Let me tell you a little something. My mother was born in Berlin in 1942. Let the sink in just a bit. She arrived in America in 1958 at the age of 15. Pretty much she set out on her own. Had two kids and a husband who walked out on her when the youngest was 9 months old. She worked her tail off and provided for those children. I also worked hard. Got a partial scholarship and worked my way through college and married a woman from a blue collar family. I made minimum wage $3.15 an hour working 2-3 jobs to get through school, my wife did similar. How did we survive on those nickles and dimes? We used our heads. We made choices. We shared housing. We did all kinds of safe, legal and frugal things. We did not need a sugar daddy government to bring us up to poverty level. It was not even a consideration. It was a tough 6 years. (Yes I took 6 years to graduate. I must be one of the dumb ones out there.)
Barbara's book totally ignores both the causes of one's current state and the options open to them to get out. We worked our way out and America is full of people who have done the same and do it today.
Posted by: Eyago on February 20, 2011 06:31 PMI also think that public financial status should be open source along with the software that runs the data...no free lunch for Bill Gates.
Hey people are gonna get laid off anyway.
Privatize the educational system and charge a per student fee.
It's good to see people bitching though. Need to cut that federal military spending too...Obama...O-bey-me...O-pay-me...O-bummer...not really an American and a closet fascist too.
The only thing I would add is regarding the shrinking manufacturing base. Yes, that's called technology. Programmed machines can do the work faster, to higher standards and with more accuracy than humans... and they don't need benefits.
Liberals like to denigrate us for our 'old fashioned ' way of thinking and our out of date morality, but their extremists are the ones that want to change back the clock by outlawing cars, by bringing back trains, by celebrating obsolete unions over progress and tantrums over reality.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 20, 2011 07:15 PMAnd you will lose this fight because there are a lot more private non-union workers and private union workers who don't get the lavish benefits. And the rest of us are not impressed with the public employee unions' unwillingness to accept small concessions to help balance our budgets.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 20, 2011 09:22 PMLacking sound moral principles, fact-based historical perspectives and a willingness/ability to reason to a sound conclusion, they are stuck with parroting the leftist gibberish the media and their teachers/professors have pounded into their otherwise empty heads.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 21, 2011 06:19 AMThere is no middle ground here. Either the Public sector unions restrain the government and the budget from taxpayers to lock in the debt OR the people's will echoed from the government will restrain the unions and enable the possibility of a balanced budget.
Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2011 11:21 AMYou will notice that I have not argued over the argument of whether public unions should or should not exist, and to what degree they should have collective bargaining rights. I have argued over the charade of a reason given by the governor for the crisis. The other argument can me made outside of the budget issue. For him to raise it at this point is disingenuous. He is using the current crisis to push through a change without full discussion and thought because he can (he has the lemmings in the legislature to go along with him). It is a stupid move and will cost him and the GOP legislators dearly. They spent any goodwill they may have had up to this point.
Wisconsin's budget problem has nothing to do with public employees pay. It has to do with the fact that the scope of the government is too broad. If the Governor had any balls, he would cut programs and not come up with this flimsy excuse of blaming the current budget crisis on the fact that public employees enjoy some (not full) collective bargaining rights.
Posted by: tc on February 21, 2011 12:05 PMtc, you seem like a smart guy. Surely you can figure this out. If Walker lets them keep collective bargaining on pension and benefits, they will win that back in the near future and then Wisconsin is right back where it started, in a deep fiscal hole. Walker is thinking longer term than that.
Posted by: Palouse on February 21, 2011 12:19 PMDo you think our own WA state workers would be granting concessions if our state government was controlled by the R's?
Conclusion: It's all about politics and Dem duplicity.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 21, 2011 12:27 PMThis union talking point has been debunked here. Walker didn't "manufacture" the budget crisis as the unions are trying to get everyone to believe. They are $3.6 billion in the hole. Perhaps the tax breaks will help create jobs and end up bringing in more revenue than it loses. I don't know how you can claim to know otherwise.
Posted by: Palouse on February 21, 2011 12:38 PM"How to lie,cheat,steal and be a treasonous commie progressive insurgent"
There will be a test children.
They rank middle of the pack for one of their most offered government service (Public Education -- WI was birthplace for Public Education and has extensive Public Education system including elementary, secondary, vocational, and extensive state run university system).
Saltherring,
The reason for the "peep" now is because the issue has nothing to do with the budget, which is what I am saying. It has to do with doing away with the union for all but GOP leaning public employees. What is a union if it doesn't have any collective bargaining rights?
Palouse,
I agree they are in the hole. I don't agree that the talking point has been debunked (your link shouldn't be trusted due to its source, but going to other non-partisan sources, they did mention some of what your link mentioned). Here is a source closer to the action:
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html
Again, I agree there is a hole. I would also argue that the scope of state services is too big for continued revenue forecast. This doesn't mean collective bargaining needs to be cut for public employees, who happen to vote for democrats more than republican's (not being cut for pro-GOP based public employee unions). What needs to be cut is programs/services. Let the issue be about what it is really about and not the made-up one that Walker is using.
Posted by: tc on February 21, 2011 01:22 PMLet the issue be about what it is really about and not the made-up one that Walker is using.
No, it actually is about fixing the budget mess, as he has said all along. He is FIXING the problem by removing benefit collective bargaining, not just putting a band aid on it. It will save the state $300 million in the next two years, but in the next two decades, it will save them billions.
Posted by: Palouse on February 21, 2011 01:42 PMAlso note that collective bargaining for non-salary benefits is being eliminated, not collective bargaining for salaries.
Posted by: Eyago on February 21, 2011 01:47 PMOf course you don't. You cited the source of the lie as your 'proof', and dismissed the actual correction as not trustworthy because it doesn't fit your worldview.
Believe what you want. It doesn't matter. The bill will be passed as is, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
The. End.
Elections have consequences.
And all the liberal who were crowing when Obama informed us that as he shoved the hated Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling America can now eat that very same crow.
AND, I firmly believe if that Obama had been honest and actually governed as the centrist who portrayed himself to be, this fight would not be taking place.
The arrogant liberals in power overstepped their mandate and happily stepped on the throats of the American people. The American people happily threw them out of power in congress and in state houses across the country. The Republicans who won did not hide their agenda, did not pretend to be someone they weren't as did Obama: they are governing in the exact way they campaigned and honoring the REASONS the voters chose them.
I firmly believe Obama has brought this nation to a watershed moment, THIS moment. I firmly believe the new politician's in state houses across the country will to honor their word to their voters. This country as a whole and each state idividually is in grave financial trouble.
WE got Clinton to abdicate to welfare reform and when it succeeded he claimed it as his own. It doesn't matter who got the glory because the fact of the matter is it worked, it proved us right and it changed the nation for the better. The same will happen here with these onerous union liabilities.
I relish this fight in Wisconsin and New Jersey. I expect to be even more proud of Ohio, Michigan and Indiana as it spreads and I actually have no problem if the GOP holds firm on the federal budget even if it means a shut down.
Elections have consequences.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 21, 2011 03:53 PMI worked for the Department of Defense for 33 years. Federal unions have no collective bargaining rights for wages, benefits or working conditions. The only areas open for intrepretation concern whether management is acting within the confines of federal law. Federal employees pay approximately 30% of their healthcare premiums (plus co-pays and deductibles), have no right to strike and cost-of-living adjustments are entirely at the employer's discretion.
Government employees, unlike private sector workers, do not engage in work that competes with other companies. As such, there is no competitive basis for what wages and benefits the market will bear. Private sector unions at some point can ask for more than a company can bear, and that company can either refuse or give in or satisfy demands and risk bankruptcy. In the public sector, foolish lawmakers can continue to hire, raise pay and increase benefits at will, and pay for it all by raising taxes....until the public demands accountability for for resultant debt. Wisconsin residents did just that by electing a more responsible government.
There is no place in the public sector for wage, strike and benefit negotiations. Union organization is not a right in the public sector, but a privilege granted by foolish and/or corrupt elected officials seeking to create a cash cow (unions) to milk whenever their re-election accounts need replenishing.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 21, 2011 04:06 PMIn the 1980s a government attempted to destroy a union of workers who claimed the right to collective bargaining.
Was it the union that is remembered as the destructive aberration? Or was it the government which tried to destroy them which is remembered as an aberration.
No way a blogger with a Polish surname could know the answer to that question.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at February 21, 2011 06:37 PM
Cerainly not if you continue on and conflate the argument - too late, MBS -the genie is out of the bottle, thanks to the battle in Wisconsin. Is that all you've got ?
Posted by: KDS on February 21, 2011 08:05 PMI'm not conflating anyone's argument.
Do yourself a favor and perform a little desk exercise.
Make 3 lists.
List 1: All the countries that allow public sector employees the right to collectively bargain.
List 2: All the countries that do not allow and have never allowed public sector employees the right to collectively bargain.
List 3: All of the countries that previously did not allow, but now do allow public sector employees the right to collectively bargain.
Now, with your 3 lists complete, sing this song and see if you can figure it out.
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
For in the end, the images and messages tell the story. The showdown in Madison pits pampered public employees against hard-pressed taxpayers. It portrays union workers as an angry mob against those seeking orderly legislative deliberation. It paints Democratic lawmakers as outlaws on the run, undermining the democratic process. It launched a national debate about the generous salaries and benefits for government workers during a time of economic shortages. And it showcased school teachers who abandoned their children in favor of narrow, partisan political gain.Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 21, 2011 08:39 PM
This is a bad unraveling of a political campaign
As with many posts on this site, the cited post at the corporate lawyer's site is revealed to be fallacious in the very first comment there:
That's an argument for prohibiting civil servants from voting. They can organize and vote as a bloc in accordance with their own self interest (like every other group in society) whether unionized or not.
Also the post conflates being unionized with going on strike but those are two different things. Many federal government employees are unionized but they cannot strike and can't bargain over wages.
Well, since this site has long argued that we need severe restrictions on voting to prevent "fraud" that can never, ever be shown to have happened, I'm sure someone here will argue that public employees should not, in fact, have the right to vote.
As for the quote from FDR, while I'm glad you guys have, finally, after 70+ years, recognized his brilliant leadership, you might like him even more if you'd not take his quote out of context. Again from the comments to the corporate lawyer's post, here's the link to FDR's entire actual letter. Note passages such as the following:
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.
As that corrective comment to the corporate lawyer's self-serving and selective quote goes on to explain, The entire letter makes it clear that FDR's concern was militancy and strikes - not conflicts of interest or unions per se.
(Again, it's good to see you learning -- and quickly, for you guys, at least -- about how great a leader FDR was.)
Here in WA where a majority of the elected officials in all three branches of government are bought and paid for by those unions, overthrowing the unions will take a lot of work. But it will happen here too, and the sooner the better.
If this state is so corrupt, why do you continue to pay taxes to it? Why do you not move to some "right-to-work" state, which has been run according to anti-union philosophy forever? Should not the quality of life be that very much higher in such a place? Or does your knowingly aiding and abetting blatant public corruption not bother your moral judgment in the least?
Posted by: tensor on February 21, 2011 09:53 PMWhat's wrong with this picture??
And that's why the unions will lose this war....maybe even THEY will figure out that this picture does not put them in a good light at all.
Posted by: Michele on February 21, 2011 10:21 PMNone.
No paid vacations, no free major medical, no sick pay, no cushy pensions, no "personal paid time off".
Nothing. They don't work, they don't eat.
One would expect that the paid-time-offers would understand why the ones paying for their pampered lifestyle don't sympathize.
Posted by: Michele on February 21, 2011 10:53 PMAs a thought experiment which exposes their schizophrenia and their total addiction to the double standard, imagine their apoplexy had the GOP fled DC to avoid a vote on Obamacare?
Permanent Progressive Majority? My how quickly things change.
They can see the truth as well as we can ... A critical pillar of the temple of collectivism, is crumbling!
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 21, 2011 11:42 PMCorrelation is not causation. Your logic is flawed.
Repressive governments concentrate power and need to deny that power to any other competition.
In the transition from repressive regime to fully democratic government, opposition power structures are needed to protect the people.
Eventually the fully free and democratic society no longer needs those same institutions as new forms of protections arise.
I asked way back in this thread what are the limits to what public employees should have as pay and benefits and what mechanism exists to determine those limits and what mechanism exists to enforce those limits.
The showdown in WI is a natural consequence of the structure inherent in the system. When the unions push too far or are too recalcitrant, the only recourse is to jerk the leash.
Posted by: eyago on February 22, 2011 07:35 AMThey screwed themselves.
A new Rasmussen Reports poll showed 48 percent of likely voters agree with Walker.
According to the poll released Monday, 38 percent sided with the public employees. The survey of 1,000 likely voters was taken Feb. 18-19 and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
A national Clarus Poll released last week also found that 64 percent of voters think government workers should not have union representation. Just 29 percent said the opposite, in a survey of 1,001 registered voters taken Feb. 4-8.
Wisconsin's governor, on the other hand wants to take away all rights (irrespective of impact on budget), except for base pay with that being limited to less than Cost of Living adjustments.
Further, nothing in your post refutes my claim that the whole "budget" crisis is a charade for bringing this up at this time. There is a deadline of Friday to pass a bill addressing the current year's issue. The unions have offerred up more than their fare share of concessions. A GOP Senator even coded those into an amendment. Walker's response was "forget about it." To him the primary issue is collective bargaining, not the budget, yet he keeps spouting off to the media that this is about the budget. He is using Friday's deadline as a brute force club to get this passed, when everyone can see it isn't about the budget at all.
Additionally, a couple of other points refuting others here, like Michelle, who thinks that public employees are living the life of luxury. There was a study done of public employees pay in Wisconsin (http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf). While it couldn't conclude whether they are underpaid, margin of error in pay something like 5%. It most definitely shows that they are not overpaid.
Also, David Brooks in his article on the Wisconsin mess mentions that collective bargaining in whole only effects pay by 3-5% (i.e., whether public employees have collective bargaining rights or not). This is further evidence that Walkers straw-man for the crisis is total hogwash.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a big union person. I never belonged to a union when I worked at the Shipyard. I prefer to work for organizations that do take care of their employees. At the same time, I grew up in Wisconsin and know that unions do have their purpose. They may have overstepped their bounds, but the solution is not to throw them out completely. The bill in question has three parts dealing with unions. One is the collective bargaining issue. Another is yearly election of whether employees want the union. I believe the third deals with union docking of pay whether employees are members or not. I agree with the last item (i.e., what the bill proposes). The second item I agree in principle, but may quibble in whether the elections need to be yearly (yearly seems overkill). On the collective bargaining, I agree that some rights may need restricting (like the issue with the WI state unions forcing municipality unions to buy into their health care via the collective bargaining process). I don't agree that all collective bargaining rights (like work hours, working conditions, etc.) need to be pulled. That being said, it still doesn't excuse the Governor for the charade of saying that all collective bargaining needs to go (except for one minor issue) because the current budget issue. It is a made up controversy. The other issues could be addressed with in an open debate when the legislature isn't under the gun to fix their current mess. Walker is trying to strong-arm this decision and will pay dearly in the future. Any goodwill he may have had has been used up. Look for him to be one-term and look for losses on the GOP side in the legislature the next election cycle.
Posted by: tc on February 22, 2011 04:15 PMNo, it's not. The benefits proposals will save the state $300 million over 2 years. This is a fact. That money goes directly towards balancing the budget. If Walker lets them keep benefits collective bargaining, they could win that back in the very next contract. Then what? Back where they are now. There's no point in that. Removing benefits collective bargaining will save the state BILLIONS into the future. Do you dispute this?
Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2011 07:08 PM-UW
Breitbart/Koch mythology brought to you by FoxNoise.
-Dr Liberal
Talk about sheeple. The left created this Koch brothers cabal, making it appear that they bought and paid for Walker, when they only contributed $43,000 to his campaign! 1/10 of 1% of what spent on the governors race!
Want the real story? Read this.
Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2011 07:40 PMAre you saying BMTC negotiated percentages of retirement paid by federal employees? or percentage of healthcare premiums? or COLAs?
All those are presently bargained by many state unions, including WI.
BMTC and other federal unions had very little to bargain for. I know, as I was a Keyport steward for years and was offered the Keyport BMTC Chairmanship in 2000. I declined, and later resigned from the IAM/BMTC for their shameful, uber-leftist politics and accepted a (non-bargaining unit) "Demonstration Project" managerial position instead.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 22, 2011 10:12 PMBtw, in the aftermanth of the Giffords shooting, we now have another quality liberal, a MA state senator, telling his union supporters its time to get in the streets and "get a little bloody" (full quote: "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."). Yup. More liberal peace and civility (but its OK because its surely for the children).
I say let the liberals show America what they are all about. People can either believe Mikey and his ilk or believe their own lying eyes.
Leftist weenies start attacking an armed citizenry looking for blood they might find the only blood they get will be their own.
I am not advocating violence, but would certainly defend myself and my family should the leftists begin inciting violence.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 23, 2011 12:02 PMThe leftists are whining because they are afraid they will have stand on their merits. They will get a little bloody for the cause as the monochromatic astroturfers from the unions and the narcissistic teachers causing mayhem. Collective bargaining is killing the budget of the states and the taxpayers, even worse than illegal aliens. It's time to get the parasitic nature of these public sector unions - they don't need to exist in a vast majority of cases. All they end up doing is plunging states further into debt while helping get Democrats elected, who have no fiscal responsibility.
Posted by: KDS on February 23, 2011 09:05 PMAn additional tidbit: The two states that have the least privileges for their public employees (and nothing close to collective bargaining) are Mississippi and Louisiana. They also have the highest level of corruption among public employees. I would rather have living wage paid public employees that have a say and are not corrupt than have any level corruption because that is the only way to make by. I guess the worst scenario would be both high wages and corruption (Chicago, Jersey, etc.). Wisconsin however is low on the corruption of public employees scale (not even the Governor, even with all this baloney, would stoop to accept the corrupt offer of the Koch imposer made).