Wisconsin Unions

[Parkbandit]

Ah, clarifications.

That was sarcasm... as clearly their own site claims they are unbiased.

[Warriorbird]

That was sarcasm... as clearly their own site claims they are unbiased.

Serious business.

http://whyyoumad.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/qaddafi-0908-ps01.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Serious business.



Let's just give a quick recap:

PB: EGI is a liberal slanted think tank
WB: I would love to see a source on that.
PB: **Evidence provided**
WB: Serious Business
PB: WB wrong again

You never fail to entertain.

[Warriorbird]

Let's just give a quick recap:

PB: EGI is a liberal slanted think tank
WB: I would love to see a source on that.
PB: **Evidence provided**
WB: Serious Business
PB: WB wrong again

You never fail to entertain.

More of a failure of reading comprehension on your part. I'm amused at all the effort you went to though.

I suggested that it might be nice if any of your arguments in the thread were going to have unbiased sources, given how it was apparently your standard for others. You then went and railed about somebody else not having them. I'm proud of you for doing some reading though.

Maybe eventually you'll study hard and be ready to debate this issue.

[Parkbandit]

More of a failure of reading comprehension on your part. I'm amused at all the effort you went to though.

I suggested that it might be nice if any of your arguments in the thread were going to have unbiased sources, given how it was apparently your standard for others. You then went and railed about somebody else not having them. I'm proud of you for doing some reading though.

Maybe eventually you'll study hard and be ready to debate this issue.

You're usually wrong about plenty of things.. but how can you be so wrong about events in a single thread? That's not your regular stupidity, that's just being a lazy fuck.

[Latrinsorm]

Also in a perfect world, unions would be more flexible to state budget pressures.Look no further than the Nutmeg State, where Governor Malloy has obtained substantial sacrifices from the unions while being cheered by them. While we cannot obtain a perfect world, it turns out that behaving in a polite and reasonable manner can provoke a similar response from others.

[xt3kn1x]

And I have a feeling this is going to be another Obama broken promise:

I'd love to see that be a kept promise.

[Warriorbird]

http://rortybomb.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/walker_roadmap.jpg

And PB? When you descend to "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!" like a petulant child I clearly don't have much left to do. Let me know when you want to fail to get back to the actual issue.

[Parkbandit]

http://rortybomb.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/walker_roadmap.jpg

And PB? When you descend to "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!" like a petulant child I clearly don't have much left to do. Let me know when you want to fail to get back to the actual issue.

Which issue? That the website is unbiased?

[Warriorbird]

Which issue? That the website is unbiased?

That'd be educational budget cuts and collective bargaining in Wisconsin. I understand that you can only have one thing on your mind at a time though.

[Clove]

Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.

Op ED pages of NYT - David BrooksThis sentiment has probably already been expressed here, but if it has I think it bears repeating.

[Warriorbird]

This sentiment has probably already been expressed here, but if it has I think it bears repeating.

If we were only looking at one aspect of the issue that might be more convincing to me. There's certainly a punitive aspect of it in the wake of Citizens United vs FEC and a profiteering aspect in the large amounts of charter school boosterism (with no super scores) that backs a number of candidates (of both parties, including Obama).

The same folks who give that line also would love to deny other workers the rights to unionize as well, making it also disingenuous.

[Clove]

The same folks who give that line also would love to deny other workers the rights to unionize as well, making it also disingenuous.I'm not sure what your point is with this statement. Either the reasoning is sound or it isn't. Are you saying some people who use the argument have an untrustworthy agenda and so we should question its entire validity? Really? Really?

[Warriorbird]

My point is that if you don't want private sector workers to unionize either that this is effectively concern trolling.

[Clove]

lolwut

[pabstblueribbon]

lolwut

Trying to vilify something, aka unions, in one sector to garner support to eliminate it in another that may or may not be completely related except on the surface.

Or something.

[Clove]

My point is that there is more risks of public employee unions gouging the public than there is the risk of public employees being terribly exploited by the public. That some might use this observation to twist it into a banning of all collective bargaining isn't really germane to whether or not it's a valid point; you're preemptively poisoning the well.

Private industry had to make layoffs and compensation cuts (I myself took deep cuts in 08 and 09) to adjust to the economic conditions but the public sector went on as if their positions were sacrosanct.

Somewhere between the positions of public employee and the public there's a balance, but right now it sure looks like those paying the bill are being asked to provide better compensation than they're receiving themselves.

[pabstblueribbon]

Why did the focus suddenly shift from waisting money on elected official salaries and abuses to suddenly the people who the public actually benefit from through their services?

[pabstblueribbon]

Well, I mean. We do benefit from representation.. I think..

Well, some of us.

[Parkbandit]

That'd be educational budget cuts and collective bargaining in Wisconsin. I understand that you can only have one thing on your mind at a time though.

I was merely replying to your post. Protip for the future: if you don't want to be proven stupid, don't go off topic and question others.

Back on topic: I'm against collective "rights" because I believe each individual is responsible for themselves. The current union system rewards shitty employees and doesn't award people based upon their own merits and performance.

[xt3kn1x]

I was merely replying to your post. Protip for the future: if you don't want to be proven stupid, don't go off topic and question others.

Back on topic: I'm against collective "rights" because I believe each individual is responsible for themselves. The current union system rewards shitty employees and doesn't award people based upon their own merits and performance.

I am a union welder and very much a blue collar man. I have a bachelors and have experienced corporate America and found I enjoyed working with my hands much much more, despite the consequences to health and safety. Collective bargaining DOES in fact protect people who are, for lack of better words, useless. It pisses me off probably more than you or my employers. These people give unions as a whole a bad name. And my local has taken steps to alleviate this problem as best we can by instituting a policy called the standard of excellence. As union workers we envision yourself the pinnacle of our trade And second to none in the quality of our work. This standard provides no benefits upon us but penalizes, fines, and potentially removes troublesome individuals from our union. This covers basics from just showing up to work, standing around taking a "union break" to quality of work and craftsmanship. I firmly believe that employers should get exemplary and steadfast work from our members and should tollerate littlle to no faults in production. Hence why we have such high costing wages and benefits.

The problem with deunionizing, and especially in my line of work whichis mostly construction, is employers will begin to demand more and more. They will keep the guy who has 8,000 dollars worth of tools over the guy who can only afford a few hundred. They will expect plumbers to put in air ducts and steal other peoples work. They will have you do, as we refer to it as, "ratty shit". Climbing into harms way without proper
protection and safety equipment just to save our jobs. OSHA doesn't protect workers like you may think. As soon as they are off the job people will do stupid shit to save their jobs. Especially with so many out of work. Collective bargaining is two sided. It allows us to NEGOTIATE our wage, benefits, and scope of work. But it also allows employers the ability to negotiate what they expect out of employees and institute standards of their own. Its what's known as a labor AGREEMENT. If an agreement cannot be made it is usually passed to an impartial arbitrator to make a decision. Completely without bias.

So in short I am for unions and bargaining in order to protect worker's rights. Its because of unions you have weekends off, workers comp, vacation days, etc etc.

[Parkbandit]

I am a union welder and very much a blue collar man. I have a bachelors and have experienced corporate America and found I enjoyed working with my hands much much more, despite the consequences to health and safety. Collective bargaining DOES in fact protect people who are, for lack of better words, useless. It pisses me off probably more than you or my employers. These people give unions as a whole a bad name. And my local has taken steps to alleviate this problem as best we can by instituting a policy called the standard of excellence. As union workers we envision yourself the pinnacle of our trade And second to none in the quality of our work. This standard provides no benefits upon us but penalizes, fines, and potentially removes troublesome individuals from our union. This covers basics from just showing up to work, standing around taking a "union break" to quality of work and craftsmanship. I firmly believe that employers should get exemplary and steadfast work from our members and should tollerate littlle to no faults in production. Hence why we have such high costing wages and benefits.

If all unions did this, it would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, your union is the rare exception and not the rule.



The problem with deunionizing, and especially in my line of work whichis mostly construction, is employers will begin to demand more and more. They will keep the guy who has 8,000 dollars worth of tools over the guy who can only afford a few hundred. They will expect plumbers to put in air ducts and steal other peoples work. They will have you do, as we refer to it as, "ratty shit". Climbing into harms way without proper protection and safety equipment just to save our jobs. OSHA doesn't protect workers like you may think. As soon as they are off the job people will do stupid shit to save their jobs. Especially with so many out of work. Collective bargaining is two sided. It allows us to NEGOTIATE our wage, benefits, and scope of work. But it also allows employers the ability to negotiate what they expect out of employees and institute standards of their own. Its what's known as a labor AGREEMENT. If an agreement cannot be made it is usually passed to an impartial arbitrator to make a decision. Completely without bias.

And if there is an accident, OSHA is there to determine the cause and rectify the situation. Your excuse that we can't deunionize or everyone's safety will be jeopardized is disengenuous.



So in short I am for unions and bargaining in order to protect worker's rights. Its because of unions you have weekends off, workers comp, vacation days, etc etc.

It's not because of unions that I have weekends off, workers comp, vacation days, etc... those are products of capitalism and companies trying to one up the competition's benefits package.

[Warriorbird]

It's not because of unions that I have weekends off, workers comp, vacation days, etc... those are products of capitalism and companies trying to one up the competition's benefits package.

For a former manager you you sure don't know much about the source of worker's comp or weekends off.

[Kembal]

My point is that there is more risks of public employee unions gouging the public than there is the risk of public employees being terribly exploited by the public. That some might use this observation to twist it into a banning of all collective bargaining isn't really germane to whether or not it's a valid point; you're preemptively poisoning the well.

Private industry had to make layoffs and compensation cuts (I myself took deep cuts in 08 and 09) to adjust to the economic conditions but the public sector went on as if their positions were sacrosanct.

Somewhere between the positions of public employee and the public there's a balance, but right now it sure looks like those paying the bill are being asked to provide better compensation than they're receiving themselves.

I don't think the public sector went through that time period without taking any cuts, at least not at the state and local level. A lot of states and municipalities laid off people and did unpaid furloughs to save money. And the unions have generally agreed to the cuts.

[Kembal]

Is this entirely desirable? While the common conservative canard is that privatization works and saves money, the data so far show corruption and profit motive tend to drive both of those goals awry when actually put into practice, especially w.r.t. prisons and transportation. I have no doubt that many state services could be privatized and generate cost savings with no impact (or even a positive impact) on services rendered, but...


No, it's not really desirable. I'm not certain there's too many success stories of it working compared to the amount of failures. (it got so bad in Texas with regards to some privatized health insurance or welfare program that the state had to take it back...and Rick Perry still stayed in office. Go figure.)

[Parkbandit]

For a former manager you you sure don't know much about the source of worker's comp or weekends off.

I hadn't realized that needing to know the history of worker's comp and weekends off was a prerequisite to being an effective manager.

Oh, it's not.

Please, stop being stupid at every opportunity...

[Warriorbird]

I hadn't realized that needing to know the history of worker's comp and weekends off was a prerequisite to being an effective manager.

Oh, it's not.

Please, stop being stupid at every opportunity...

Then don't make claims about them that aren't true. Companies didn't spontaneously randomly offer them like the article of your 'companies do no wrong!' faith.

[xt3kn1x]

First I would like to preface that my opinions and arguments speak strictly on behalf of my experience and time spent in the building trades union, as I cannot speak for other trade unions (teachers, teamsters, etc).


If all unions did this, it would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, your union is the rare exception and not the rule.


Well, we are all the same union, we are just different locals and trades. This standard of excellence has started not only with my trade but several others within my city, and has been lobbied to become a standard nationwide, including Canada.



And if there is an accident, OSHA is there to determine the cause and rectify the situation. Your excuse that we can't deunionize or everyone's safety will be jeopardized is disengenuous.


Not only is OSHA there to determine the cause and provide preventative standards to situations, but they institute policies and standards that are to be adhered at all times. In my city (Las Vegas) it is required to have an OSHA 10 class on record, renewed every 3 years (10 hours of safety training). And if you are a foreman a minimum of 30 hours. 100 if you are a safety manager. This is all well and good, as I am a firm believer of safety and safety regulations. Even if they make the job more difficult. We all want to go home to our families at the end of the day. Unfortunately, through my years of experience, the contractors could honestly give a shit. They care primarily about production. Let's say (in my instance), I have to weld a piece of pipe buried in the ceiling requiring you to stand on some duct work, and you're taking too long because you have to put your safety harness on, drill an anchor in the ceiling, tie off, and provide yourself adequate lighting to do your job (as an OSHA standard) you will typically have two checks at the end of the day, for doing the right thing. Henceforth, in an effort to keep their jobs, people will do stupid things in order to keep getting a paycheck. Unions at least give contractors an extra hurdle to jump through before getting rid of an employee. Because let's face it. Noone should be getting fired for protecting themselves from injury and/or death. I know several people who are non union construction workers, climbing into trenches that haven't been properly shored or supported. Lifting cast iron tubs on their back and hauling them up several flights of stairs. Doing things that could severely injure you to keep their jobs. I'm sorry, but if you were my foreman and told me to "just get it done" and fuck safety. I would tell you, fuck you. Without the union, I'd be fired.
[/quote]



It's not because of unions that I have weekends off, workers comp, vacation days, etc... those are products of capitalism and companies trying to one up the competition's benefits package.

Uh. Yes it is. It's called the union labor movement. And not only did you get weekends, worker's compensation, vacation... but women also recieved maternity leave. We instituted the EIGHT HOUR WORK DAY. Living wages. Retirement packages, including pensions. Unions were the reason child labor STOPPED and sweatshops closed down. People are quick to point the finger at us and say we strong arm everyone for money, but we merely want to provide ourselves a decent wage, without the burden of being overworked. And in our spirit we give back to the community. My local does things for the community every single day. Replacing water heaters for people who can't afford it. Fixing sinks and mechanical rooms for small businesses. I personally have volunteered many, many days working for the Candlelighters (http://www.candlelighters.org/) building them a new laundry room, bathrooms, and kitchen.

In closure here's food for thought, a quote from our forefather, Samuel Gompers who lead the AFL and began the union movement:

"And what have our unions done? What do they aim to do? To improve the standard of life, to uproot ignorance and foster education, to instill character, manhood and independent spirit among our people; to bring about a recognition of the interdependence of man upon his fellow man. We aim to establish a normal work-day, to take the children from the factory and workshop and give them the opportunity of the school and the play-ground. In a word, our unions strive to lighten toil, educate their members, make their homes more cheerful, and in every way contribute an earnest effort toward making life the better worth living."

[pabstblueribbon]

I understand it costs more to be safe and do things right. And there are a lot instances where workers are asked to do something in the name of production that are unsafe or downright thoughtless. And unions have benefited us all in many ways. My father was huge on telecommunication unions.

I work in a very unionized environment and the main thing that bothers me are silly 'tooker jawbs' mentalities when it comes to changing a light bulb or putting on a gas cap. Seriously. You have to have an electrician install a light bulb and a pipe fitter to put on a fuel cap in the rail industry even if they are on the other side of the yard. This is mostly only the case with Class III's though. Some of went to an all craft or all trades type deal lately.

[Clove]

We instituted the EIGHT HOUR WORK DAY.What the hell is that?!?!!?! Just sayin'. I need to get me into a union...

[Parkbandit]

Then don't make claims about them that aren't true.

Being wrong is a full time job for you. Oh, look... you are making a claim that isn't true in the next sentence.



Companies didn't spontaneously randomly offer them like the article of your 'companies do no wrong!' faith.

How often must I remind you that no one has ever made the claim that "companies do no wrong"? Just because you put a quote on each end of it doesn't make it suddenly right.

Seriously, stop being stupid. Try and be better... I really do believe you can, it will just take enormous effort on your part, some supervision and a little luck.

We are rooting for you!

[xt3kn1x]

What the hell is that?!?!!?! Just sayin'. I need to get me into a union...


Hehehe trust me, I hardly work 8 hours, either. But I get compensated for working overtime.. Thanks unions ;)

[Parkbandit]

Hehehe trust me, I hardly work 8 hours, either. But I get compensated for working overtime.. Thanks unions ;)

How do you believe that is a good system.. when the US Taxpayers are footing the bills?

[Warriorbird]

Being wrong is a full time job for you. Oh, look... you are making a claim that isn't true in the next sentence.



How often must I remind you that no one has ever made the claim that "companies do no wrong"? Just because you put a quote on each end of it doesn't make it suddenly right.

Seriously, stop being stupid. Try and be better... I really do believe you can, it will just take enormous effort on your part, some supervision and a little luck.

We are rooting for you!

Sort of entertaining given that the root here is you not knowing where worker's compensation comes from.

[pabstblueribbon]

How do you believe that is a good system.. when the US Taxpayers are footing the bills?

He's saying he works more than 8 hours and when he works over, he gets paid overtime, which it should even if the bill is footed by the US taxpayer.

What do you think is going to happen to the quality of service when you repeatedly deny them overtime? I would rather pay a little more for overtime than have someone who hates their job or have increased turnover thus more money being wasted on rehiring and retraining which I GUARANTEE costs more than a little overtime here and there.

PB, you are a fucking idiot.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Lots of anecdotes

I'm not dismissing your position though. From your perspective, I can see Union's as being an awesome entity. You certainly have many positive things to say about it.

I can see how historically Union's have had a place in various industries. I don't see their value today though. All the things you listed were important - what do today's Union's get us? And by us, I don't mean Union employees.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not dismissing your position though. From your perspective, I can see Union's as being an awesome entity. You certainly have many positive things to say about it.

I can see how historically Union's have had a place in various industries. I don't see their value today though. All the things you listed were important - what do today's Union's get us? And by us, I don't mean Union employees.

My question is whether they're supposed to get something for you.

[xt3kn1x]

He's saying he works more than 8 hours and when he works over, he gets paid overtime, which it should even if the bill is footed by the US taxpayer.

What do you think is going to happen to the quality of service when you repeatedly deny them overtime? I would rather pay a little more for overtime than have someone who hates their job or have increased turnover thus more money being wasted on rehiring and retraining which I GUARANTEE costs more than a little overtime here and there.

PB, you are a fucking idiot.

thank you for clarifying that for me, PBR, even if I hate the taste of that skunky ass beer =)



I can see how historically Union's have had a place in various industries. I don't see their value today though. All the things you listed were important - what do today's Union's get us? And by us, I don't mean Union employees.

As much as I'd like to advocate the positive things about unions, it seems here that from an outsider's perspective things have been, and will always (as far as I can see) remain skewed. Unfortunately, I am not at the business end of the unions, or my local hall for that matter. I am a worker, and am quite content with that. As I get older, I'll care to educate myself more on the more political side of things. However, The two main points of interest, that I can illustrate is working standards and community action.

Unions ensure a standard to which employers must treat their employees. I can only speculate that a world without unions would (eventually, not immediately) mutate into an offspring of George Orwell's 1984. Okay, okay, that reference might be a bit extreme but pause to think about how corporations are owned and operated. One CEO will (most) always try to make more money than the next, and it's facilitated by greed. At the end of the day, they care about numbers, not working conditions and the health and welfare of their employees. Again, I can only reflect that the reason they DO care about these things is because of the standards the union has implemented in the first place, which would impose fines and losses to the company, thus diminishing their bottom line. I can envision every company in the world being run like Wal Mart. A few select people getting paid big dollars and every other worker being over-worked, under paid, and under compensated. But I digress, this is merely my speculative opinion.

Unions give back to the community. Most all locals have a community action fund of some sort. Some locals don't have much money, so it's hard for them to do much, but we all do care about the community, and the welfare of our neighbors.

I'm sure there are more benefits to nonunion members, but I'll not elude to the fact that there are more benefits to being a part of the union as to not being a part of it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't think the public sector went through that time period without taking any cuts, at least not at the state and local level. A lot of states and municipalities laid off people and did unpaid furloughs to save money. And the unions have generally agreed to the cuts.

That's good if it is on par with the private sector. Government needs to be running itself like it's for profit or at the least like it's a charitible organization. Funds are not unlimited and you cannot just ignore the economy and hope shit gets better. Only when the ink is so red you cannot see anything else does it appear we actually wake up. I personally think many things can be cut without job or benefit loss. But that would mean running the government efficiently, which we do not do.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

As much as I'd like to advocate the positive things about unions, it seems here that from an outsider's perspective things have been, and will always (as far as I can see) remain skewed. Unfortunately, I am not at the business end of the unions, or my local hall for that matter. I am a worker, and am quite content with that. As I get older, I'll care to educate myself more on the more political side of things. However, The two main points of interest, that I can illustrate is working standards and community action.

Unions ensure a standard to which employers must treat their employees. I can only speculate that a world without unions would (eventually, not immediately) mutate into an offspring of George Orwell's 1984. Okay, okay, that reference might be a bit extreme but pause to think about how corporations are owned and operated. One CEO will (most) always try to make more money than the next, and it's facilitated by greed. At the end of the day, they care about numbers, not working conditions and the health and welfare of their employees. Again, I can only reflect that the reason they DO care about these things is because of the standards the union has implemented in the first place, which would impose fines and losses to the company, thus diminishing their bottom line. I can envision every company in the world being run like Wal Mart. A few select people getting paid big dollars and every other worker being over-worked, under paid, and under compensated. But I digress, this is merely my speculative opinion.

Unions give back to the community. Most all locals have a community action fund of some sort. Some locals don't have much money, so it's hard for them to do much, but we all do care about the community, and the welfare of our neighbors.

I'm sure there are more benefits to nonunion members, but I'll not elude to the fact that there are more benefits to being a part of the union as to not being a part of it.

I don't believe that our leadership (leadership being CEOs) is simply a bunch of criminals waiting to find a loophole in laws and regulations to keep down the common man. See I actually believe people are generally good and wouldn't want to "open that plant in podunk USA, and staff it with children because they eat less and do more before they die". Yes, there are examples of these douchebags certainly - but I'd suggest the overwhelming majority, are not.

In my adult career, I have worked in white collar america. I've held middle management roles in two fortune 500 companies. Both jobs were and still are non-union. I didn't make minimum wage, I have ample benefits, and frankly I get paid more than many households do. Why do you think that is? I'll tell you why, from my perspective. Because happy employees produce more than unhappy ones. Period. That is the end of the reason. My overall compensation package is what it is, because if I wasn't happy with it, I could go work for someone else and that is more costly to the company than the alternative. Private Corporations have to be competitive or they go extinct. Public Union employees do not have that to worry about.

I'm not saying all unions are bad. Certainly a lot of positive things have resulted from having Unions. I don't think we need them in the government though. If anything, the government should hold the standard for employment we all strive for - not be the thing we cry about funding.

[Parkbandit]

thank you for clarifying that for me, PBR, even if I hate the taste of that skunky ass beer =)


PBR is ignorant about many things... one of which is good beer.



As much as I'd like to advocate the positive things about unions, it seems here that from an outsider's perspective things have been, and will always (as far as I can see) remain skewed. Unfortunately, I am not at the business end of the unions, or my local hall for that matter. I am a worker, and am quite content with that. As I get older, I'll care to educate myself more on the more political side of things. However, The two main points of interest, that I can illustrate is working standards and community action.

Unions ensure a standard to which employers must treat their employees. I can only speculate that a world without unions would (eventually, not immediately) mutate into an offspring of George Orwell's 1984. Okay, okay, that reference might be a bit extreme but pause to think about how corporations are owned and operated. One CEO will (most) always try to make more money than the next, and it's facilitated by greed. At the end of the day, they care about numbers, not working conditions and the health and welfare of their employees. Again, I can only reflect that the reason they DO care about these things is because of the standards the union has implemented in the first place, which would impose fines and losses to the company, thus diminishing their bottom line. I can envision every company in the world being run like Wal Mart. A few select people getting paid big dollars and every other worker being over-worked, under paid, and under compensated. But I digress, this is merely my speculative opinion.


Extreme speculation imo. I have never had any of my employees working under a union flag, yet they have been happy and made plenty of money.

There are some bad companies out there, but the ones that take advantage of good employees won't have them for long, because another company down the street will snap them up with bigger pay/bigger benefits/better perks.



Unions give back to the community. Most all locals have a community action fund of some sort. Some locals don't have much money, so it's hard for them to do much, but we all do care about the community, and the welfare of our neighbors.


Bernie Madoff gave millions to charity.... still doesn't make what he did right.



I'm sure there are more benefits to nonunion members, but I'll not elude to the fact that there are more benefits to being a part of the union as to not being a part of it.

You really haven't given a real benefit to non-union workers... given that companies who employ union members just pass the high wages/benefits onto their consumers.

[Warriorbird]

I don't believe that our leadership (leadership being CEOs) is simply a bunch of criminals waiting to find a loophole in laws and regulations to keep down the common man. See I actually believe people are generally good and wouldn't want to "open that plant in podunk USA, and staff it with children because they eat less and do more before they die". Yes, there are examples of these douchebags certainly - but I'd suggest the overwhelming majority, are not.
If anything, the government should hold the standard for employment we all strive for - not be the thing we cry about funding.

My first corporate experience (after seeing behind the curtain at Apple) was working for Dennis Kozlowski. We're definitely influenced by our environment.


I don't think we need them in the government though. If anything, the government should hold the standard for employment we all strive for - not be the thing we cry about funding.

What is it that reduced teacher salaries with private school teachers or with for profit charter school teachers pays for?

I'd also like to suggest that this is some convenient bait to jiggle in front of conservatives. Teacher salaries aren't the real expenditure issue with education on a state level.

[Tgo01]

Unions ensure a standard to which employers must treat their employees. I can only speculate that a world without unions would (eventually, not immediately) mutate into an offspring of George Orwell's 1984. Okay, okay, that reference might be a bit extreme but pause to think about how corporations are owned and operated. One CEO will (most) always try to make more money than the next, and it's facilitated by greed. At the end of the day, they care about numbers, not working conditions and the health and welfare of their employees. Again, I can only reflect that the reason they DO care about these things is because of the standards the union has implemented in the first place, which would impose fines and losses to the company, thus diminishing their bottom line. I can envision every company in the world being run like Wal Mart. A few select people getting paid big dollars and every other worker being over-worked, under paid, and under compensated.

Corporations aren't evil entities willing to do anything in order to make a buck. This isn't the movies, a lot has changed since the creation of unions. First of all the role the government plays. Most of the time the government was in the corporations back pocket thus workers didn't really have anyone to turn to for help if they were really being oppressed. Also we didn't have this world wide 24 hour news service to shed light on the bastards that would take advantage of child labor or force their employees to work 20 hours a day without a lunch break. You also have to take lawsuits into account, a company fears lawsuits a lot more than they fear unions. 80 years ago you never would have won a case against a company for 'unsafe working conditions.'

Nowadays the government is the one making all of the rules about worker safety and how many hours someone can work and exactly when an employee is supposed to get a lunch break. Companies don't want bad publicity either, that would indeed cut into their bottom line. I worked at Mcdonalds when I was in high school, they were very particular about making sure I got my lunch breaks, making sure we had a safe working environment and all of those things unions are supposedly needed for to make sure we got. Granted the pay obviously sucked but I don't think even a union can expect to get much money out of Mcdonalds.

Unions for the most part these days aren't needed. I used to work for the telephone portion of AT&T as well which was unionized. When they started getting into the cable division they tried their hardest to make sure the cable division people do not unionize by offering them more and more benefits. It ended up that the non union workers were actually getting the same or in some cases better benefits than the union workers were, for the simple fact of the matter that AT&T didn't want to have to worry about mass strikes interfering with business, they would be free to fire a bad employee when needed instead of going through the lengthy union process and they wouldn't have to worry about constant demands.

In the end the only thing the union did for me was take money out of each of my paychecks and demand that I go on strike whenever the union demanded even more outrageous benefits (for crying out loud I was making almost 25 dollars an hour with just a high school diploma, how could anyone possibly say the company was 'taking advantage of them'?) But hey, the union had to keep demanding more money to pay for their many officers scattered around the world and to pay their own employees (yes, the union actually had paid workers and even the union workers who worked for AT&T got paid from the union as well.)


Unions give back to the community. Most all locals have a community action fund of some sort. Some locals don't have much money, so it's hard for them to do much, but we all do care about the community, and the welfare of our neighbors.

Corporations give back to the community as well, they manage to do this without siphoning money directly out of their employees paychecks too.

[Warriorbird]

Corporations aren't evil entities willing to do anything in order to make a buck. This isn't the movies, a lot has changed since the creation of unions. First of all the role the government plays. Most of the time the government was in the corporations back pocket thus workers didn't really have anyone to turn to for help if they were really being oppressed.

I'm not quite so sure that this never happens now.

[Tgo01]

I'm not quite so sure that this never happens now.

I'm sure it does happen on occasion but it's nothing compared to how bad it was in the past.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sure it does happen on occasion but it's nothing compared to how bad it was in the past.

But of course in our wisdom we want to go back to the regulatory level of the Gilded Age and the robber barons, because corporations totally would never do anything wrong.

[Carl Spackler]

interesting article on collective bargaining

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166011983939364.html

[Parkbandit]

But of course in our wisdom we want to go back to the regulatory level of the Gilded Age and the robber barons, because corporations totally would never do anything wrong.

Holy shit.. seriously?

It's like you are fucking retarded or something. Again, I will remind you that the only one that brings up that corporations never do anything wrong is you. It's a stupid argument by a very stupid individual.

For fuck sake, do you even realize how utterly bad you are at this? You have to at this point.

[Tgo01]

But of course in our wisdom we want to go back to the regulatory level of the Gilded Age and the robber barons, because corporations totally would never do anything wrong.

You got me. That's exactly what I was trying to get at. You are also correct that the only thing keeping these evil, scheming corporations in check is unions fighting for oppressed workers everywhere! Oh wait, no, they just fight for higher salaries and more vacation time for themselves.

It's a wonder how people who work for non union companies manage to survive at all, what with corporations running amuck with no unions around. I imagine it's so bad out there that to save a buck cooks at restaurants aren't even given oven mitts and are forced to pick up scalding hot pans all day with their bare hands.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You got me. That's exactly what I was trying to get at. You are also correct that the only thing keeping these evil, scheming corporations in check is unions fighting for oppressed workers everywhere! Oh wait, no, they just fight for higher salaries and more vacation time for themselves.

It's a wonder how people who work for non union companies manage to survive at all, what with corporations running amuck with no unions around. I imagine it's so bad out there that to save a buck cooks at restaurants aren't even given oven mitts and are forced to pick up scalding hot pans all day with their bare hands.

Warriorbird is chicken little. If the sky isn't falling when he posts, the world is not right. You'll get used to it.

[Warriorbird]

Funny, given how teachers unions should not be allowed to exist, apparently, and unions are responsible for the current economic downturn.

You're arguing from the point of destroying something. I'm suggesting a little restraint might be a good idea. Almost, dare I say it, conservative on my part.

[Parkbandit]

Funny, given how teachers unions should not be allowed to exist, apparently, and unions are responsible for the current economic downturn.

You're arguing from the point of destroying something. I'm suggesting a little restraint might be a good idea. Almost, dare I say it, conservative on my part.

Who said that teachers unions should not be allowed to exist?

Who said unions are responsible for the current economic downturn?

What is it like to constantly debate an opinion you created?

[xt3kn1x]

Response to TGO + Hobbit:

I completely understand and respect your guys' opinion. I've worked plenty of jobs myself that were non union and made a good salary and decent benefits. A brief background about myself: Bachelors in computer science. I've worked as a Programmer, Network Admin, went back to school got my real estate license, been a realtor, interior designer.. All of those jobs were not union, and I could not see how being union would benefit any of them much except for that feeling of being "equal" to my other co workers. (Let's face it, who likes Debbie getting more on her check because she's deep throating the boss every night?)

Anyhow, as a worker in the construction industry I love the union and thank them for all that they do for me. Mostly it has to do with the safety issues I brought up in my previous posts. More than likely without the union I would have to change my career again, which sucks because I finally found one I liked!

[AnticorRifling]

So the only reason you like being in a union is because you like to feel safe?

Don't ever go to a dr then they're not union.

[xt3kn1x]

No that's not the only reason. That's a big reason. I don't have to be job scared over doing stupid shit.

[xt3kn1x]

And I don't view non union workers as the fucking anti christ, like it seems nonunion does to union.

[Kuyuk]

In a school year, of ~225 working days, employees can miss like 21 days without any real worry of being fired.


Not including paid vacation they may take too.

[AnticorRifling]

And I don't view non union workers as the fucking anti christ, like it seems nonunion does to union.

Yeah it's totally a one way street, not a single union worker has ever throw objects, insults, etc. towards people going into job while they sit outside protesting.

[AnticorRifling]

In a school year, of ~225 working days, employees can miss like 21 days without any real worry of being fired.


Not including paid vacation they may take too.

Work with a class room full of other people's kids (keep in mind most of our generation can't raise a child for shit so they are annoying, disrespectful, functionally retarded shit birds) for 225 days. See what that does for your view on it.

[AnticorRifling]

I would also encourage you to buy school supplies for all the students that would otherwise go without. Buy the kleenex, hand sanitizer, etc. for the class when parents don't because those items help keep the class moving forward. Buy the gym shoes, clothing, backpacks, etc that I seem to purchase every year for kids that aren't mine because parents will send their kids to school without them.

But that's not factored in because it's not the teacher's responsibility right? Sure because any teacher worth a shit is just going to sit back and let the student suffer...

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I would also encourage you to buy school supplies for all the students that would otherwise go without. Buy the kleenex, hand sanitizer, etc. for the class when parents don't because those items help keep the class moving forward. Buy the gym shoes, clothing, backpacks, etc that I seem to purchase every year for kids that aren't mine because parents will send their kids to school without them.

But that's not factored in because it's not the teacher's responsibility right? Sure because any teacher worth a shit is just going to sit back and let the student suffer...

Not sure your point on this, but this happens irrespective of Union or no Union, right? Most people shouldn't be allowed to procreate, IMO.

[AnticorRifling]

Not sure your point on this, but this happens irrespective of Union or no Union, right? Most people shouldn't be allowed to procreate, IMO.

Correct. Although if they dock my wife's pay by a third like they want then those things go away.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It honestly shouldn't be your family or any teacher's responsibility for those things. If it helps you sleep at night, I have no spawn and no plans to have any eating into your budget?

[AnticorRifling]

It honestly shouldn't be your family or any teacher's responsibility for those things. If it helps you sleep at night, I have no spawn and no plans to have any eating into your budget? It shouldn't be but it is. The burden always falls to the teachers because the teachers care. That's why they are teachers.

Personally I could give a fuck I take care of my boys but she's the wife and she spends my money. And believe me I don't lose sleep over it.

[Clove]

And I don't view non union workers as the fucking anti christ, like it seems nonunion does to union.


Yeah it's totally a one way street, not a single union worker has ever throw objects, insults, etc. towards people going into job while they sit outside protesting.QFT.

[Parkbandit]

It shouldn't be but it is. The burden always falls to the teachers because the teachers care. That's why they are teachers.

Personally I could give a fuck I take care of my boys but she's the wife and she spends my money. And believe me I don't lose sleep over it.

It's been my experience that the teachers that actually care are outnumbered by the teachers that don't... but that experience is limited to only 4 public schools in the state of Florida, so take it for what it's worth.

[AnticorRifling]

They do. Just like most everything else (in the Marine Corps we called it the 10%) people focus on the bad, those 10% of the populace that are shit birds that make a bad name for those of us that do everything right.

Teachers in state X make too much money !!!! = All teachers make too much money!!!!!

My wife has a masters degree as well as additional certs, schooling and training to make her a better teacher, her take home less than mine. I've got a high school diploma.

[Parkbandit]

They do. Just like most everything else (in the Marine Corps we called it the 10%) people focus on the bad, those 10% of the populace that are shit birds that make a bad name for those of us that do everything right.

Teachers in state X make too much money !!!! = All teachers make too much money!!!!!

My wife has a masters degree as well as additional certs, schooling and training to make her a better teacher, her take home less than mine. I've got a high school diploma.

Out of 12 teachers my kids currently have, 4 of them I would consider good teachers. 2 are pieces of shit, 5 are collecting a paycheck and seem indifferent and 1 is under school investigation for selling grades for some science club donations.

[Warriorbird]

Who said that teachers unions should not be allowed to exist?

Scott Walker. Your support of that side of this particular issue. I'm sorry that you have difficulty grasping it.

[Keller]

I never had a bad high school teacher.

I also never took a non-IB/AP class, so I think I self-selected the type of teachers who signed up to teach those classes.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Scott Walker. Your support of that side of this particular issue. I'm sorry that you have difficulty grasping it.

I don't recall seeing anywhere that Walker said Teacher's Unions shouldn't exist. Can you direct me to the news article that quotes him?

[Latrinsorm]

I don't believe that our leadership (leadership being CEOs) is simply a bunch of criminals waiting to find a loophole in laws and regulations to keep down the common man. See I actually believe people are generally good and wouldn't want to "open that plant in podunk USA, and staff it with children because they eat less and do more before they die". Yes, there are examples of these douchebags certainly - but I'd suggest the overwhelming majority, are not.How many is too many, though? As xt3kn1x says, you really only need one to start. Without punishment to balance out that advantage, all the others will eventually have to follow suit or lose business - that's how the free market works, after all.
My overall compensation package is what it is, because if I wasn't happy with it, I could go work for someone else and that is more costly to the company than the alternative.This I think is a crucial point. Your type of job requires significant training to do properly. xt3kn1x's type of job requires significant training to do properly and safely. Cut out safety regulations, and you make it much easier to replace disabled/dead workers. Additionally, I think you significantly overestimate the degree to which your mobility resembles the mobility of certain union workers.

[Warriorbird]

I don't recall seeing anywhere that Walker said Teacher's Unions shouldn't exist. Can you direct me to the news article that quotes him?

Remove collective bargaining and what exactly do you have? Be serious. You have places in the South that're completely fucked (schools closing et al), with worse cuts, and they're petrified of the thought of even saying a damn thing. Boost those charter schools!

[Clove]

Additionally, I think you significantly overestimate the degree to which your mobility resembles the mobility of certain union workers.Maybe but I bet the Teamsters are pretty mobile. Just sayin'

[Parkbandit]

Remove collective bargaining and what exactly do you have? Be serious. You have places in the South that're completely fucked (schools closing et al), with worse cuts, and they're petrified of the thought of even saying a damn thing. Boost those charter schools!

Seriously, you stated that Scott Walker said that "teachers unions shouldn't exist". Just a simple link to that quote would be great.

Also, did you figure out who said "unions are responsible for the current economic downturn".. or are you still working on that claim?

[Alfster]

They do. Just like most everything else (in the Marine Corps we called it the 10%) people focus on the bad, those 10% of the populace that are shit birds that make a bad name for those of us that do everything right.

Teachers in state X make too much money !!!! = All teachers make too much money!!!!!

My wife has a masters degree as well as additional certs, schooling and training to make her a better teacher, her take home less than mine. I've got a high school diploma.

I can't even figure out where they're getting their numbers from. I've heard teachers in wisconsin average 60k-85k. Considering starting is less than 40k (with bene's), and a maxxed out teacher will make about 85k.

Also - in order to max out, they need to get their masters, and all the certifications, etc. This bill will allow teachers to teach without a college degree or certifications. Talk about a step in the wrong direction.

But again. It's not about money. It's simply about getting rid of collective bargaining.

[Tgo01]

Cut out safety regulations, and you make it much easier to replace disabled/dead workers.

Is anyone arguing in favor of cutting out safety regulations?

[Alfster]

Seriously, you stated that Scott Walker said that "teachers unions shouldn't exist". Just a simple link to that quote would be great.

Also, did you figure out who said "unions are responsible for the current economic downturn".. or are you still working on that claim?

He doesn't have to step up and state that word for word. Look at his actions...No collective bargaining = no union. It's not hard man.

There is so much going on with Walker that is shady that he's quickly losing faith with the entire state. People that were for the budget changes are starting to read further into the bill and find unsettling things.

[Latrinsorm]

Is anyone arguing in favor of cutting out safety regulations?Out of every CEO (or equivalent) in America for any given industry, I am very confident that at least one will take the money offered by such a strategy. I base this on the past and the idea that human nature has not changed significantly over the past 100 years, and on raw statistics. If you have 50 people, for instance, you have to say that each one has about a 1.4% chance of being a scumbag to reasonably expect that none of them will be. Perhaps it's the paranoid in me, but I think that the rough chance of any given human being a scumbag is a lot higher than 1.4%.

Eternal vigilance, and all that.

[Tgo01]

Out of every CEO (or equivalent) in America for any given industry, I am very confident that at least one will take the money offered by such a strategy. I base this on the past and the idea that human nature has not changed significantly over the past 100 years, and on raw statistics. If you have 50 people, for instance, you have to say that each one has about a 1.4% chance of being a scumbag to reasonably expect that none of them will be. Perhaps it's the paranoid in me, but I think that the rough chance of any given human being a scumbag is a lot higher than 1.4%.

Eternal vigilance, and all that.

That didn't really answer my question. OHSA regulates safety standards in the workplace in the US. Most states (I'm almost positive all states) have their own set of safety standards that companies must adhere to as well. I'm not really sure why people feel that only companies with a union ensure their employees work safely. Yes, we have unions to thank for these regulations existing today but that doesn't mean unions are the ones making sure these standards continue to exist.

[Parkbandit]

Out of every CEO (or equivalent) in America for any given industry, I am very confident that at least one will take the money offered by such a strategy. I base this on the past and the idea that human nature has not changed significantly over the past 100 years, and on raw statistics. If you have 50 people, for instance, you have to say that each one has about a 1.4% chance of being a scumbag to reasonably expect that none of them will be. Perhaps it's the paranoid in me, but I think that the rough chance of any given human being a scumbag is a lot higher than 1.4%.

Eternal vigilance, and all that.

Isn't it government's responsibility to ensure job safety?

[Latrinsorm]

That didn't really answer my question. OHSA regulates safety standards in the workplace in the US. Most states (I'm almost positive all states) have their own set of safety standards that companies must adhere to as well. I'm not really sure why people feel that only companies with a union ensure their employees work safely. Yes, we have unions to thank for these regulations existing today but that doesn't mean unions are the ones making sure these standards continue to exist.
Isn't it government's responsibility to ensure job safety?I don't believe the government has a great track record with making corporations do things they don't want to. It's gotten better, but until it's gotten to about 100%, there has to be another guard to balance the interests.

[Tgo01]

I don't believe the government has a great track record with making corporations do things they don't want to. It's gotten better, but until it's gotten to about 100%, there has to be another guard to balance the interests.

Any examples of non union workers being subjected to harsh and/or unsafe working conditions that the government failed to do anything about? Or is this just a gut feeling?

[xt3kn1x]

Yeah it's totally a one way street, not a single union worker has ever throw objects, insults, etc. towards people going into job while they sit outside protesting.



Wow youlike to take what I say and take it to the extreme. Calm down little buddy.

[xt3kn1x]

Any examples of non union workers being subjected to harsh and/or unsafe working conditions that the government failed to do anything about? Or is this just a gut feeling?



Unions put a bump in the road to help say NO to an employer that's asking for you to do something stupid. Look at city center in Las Vegas. 7 people lost their lives on a union job no less for failure to comply to OSHA regs for fear of non production and losing their jobs.

[Tgo01]

Unions put a bump in the road to help say NO to an employer that's asking for you to do something stupid. Look at city center in Las Vegas. 7 people lost their lives on a union job no less for failure to comply to OSHA regs for fear of non production and losing their jobs.

So do we need to form unions for the union to ensure the union ensures the employers provide a safe working environment?

[xt3kn1x]

So do we need to form unions for the union to ensure the union ensures the employers provide a safe working environment?

Thats a silly question. I see what you're trying to say but the bottom line is unions ensure workers rights. One of which is to yell your employer to get fucked if They propose to do something that will get you hurt or killed.

[Tgo01]

One of which is to yell your employer to get fucked if They propose to do something that will get you hurt or killed.

I don't need a union to give me this right.

[xt3kn1x]

Easy to say from the comfort of a cubicle or an office. Try working a blue collar job where your lifeis at risk every single second of the day and your foreman makes a suggestion to cut corners to get the job done. I can't expect any of you to understand what its like out there, and my attempts to explain have been feeble at best. I can agree to just disagree with you on this topic.

[Warriorbird]

Isn't it government's responsibility to ensure job safety?

If only removing unions were the only prong of the "return to laissez faire economics" thrust. Then you have deregulation!

[Latrinsorm]

Any examples of non union workers being subjected to harsh and/or unsafe working conditions that the government failed to do anything about? Or is this just a gut feeling?This (http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2009/02-09-203-10-105.pdf) .pdf gives you examples of life-threatening working conditions. Cross-referencing the worst offenders listed shows very few connections to organized labor. It's pretty dense, I suggest you take my word for it. :)

[xt3kn1x]

That didn't really answer my question. OHSA regulates safety standards in the workplace in the US. Most states (I'm almost positive all states) have their own set of safety standards that companies must adhere to as well. I'm not really sure why people feel that only companies with a union ensure their employees work safely. Yes, we have unions to thank for these regulations existing today but that doesn't mean unions are the ones making sure these standards continue to exist.


I was posting from my phone earlier, so it was hard for me to reply efficiently..

In regards to this, OSHA mandates health and safety standards nationwide. States have little say, but contractors may exceed these standards. Just FYI. For instance, the project I'm working on says you need to be tied off (harnessed, lanyard/yo-yo) within 10 feet of a ledge of a building. OSHA standard, I believe is 6 feet. But a contractor may not say 4 feet, etc.

[AnticorRifling]

Easy to say from the comfort of a cubicle or an office. Try working a blue collar job where your lifeis at risk every single second of the day and your foreman makes a suggestion to cut corners to get the job done. I can't expect any of you to understand what its like out there, and my attempts to explain have been feeble at best. I can agree to just disagree with you on this topic.

You're making some pretty ugly assumptions there. Unless of course you know all of us and our work histories.

The only thing you did get right is your attempts to explain anything have been feeble at best.

[xt3kn1x]

So you have a background in industrial building trades then?

[ClydeR]

Easy to say from the comfort of a cubicle or an office. Try working a blue collar job where your lifeis at risk every single second of the day and your foreman makes a suggestion to cut corners to get the job done. I can't expect any of you to understand what its like out there, and my attempts to explain have been feeble at best. I can agree to just disagree with you on this topic.

You, my friend, need to walk a mile in other people's moccasins before making judgments. People who work in offices are subject to daily dangers, like paper cuts -- the worst ones are paper cuts from new crisp file folders -- burning your mouth on hot coffee, getting dirty toner on your hands, opening a popcorn bag too soon, getting germs in enclosed spaces, gluing your fingers together and so on.

[AnticorRifling]

I've done industrial contracting, yes. It wasn't steel high rises it was machines and electrical only 4 to 6 stories up. Working on things that could ZOMG KILL YOU!!!! But we didn't have a union how I was able to make it out using only common sense and following rules that were in place I'll never know... And to say your life is at risk EVERY SINGLE SECOND OF THE DAY makes me lol pretty hard.

[AnticorRifling]

You, my friend, need to walk a mile in other people's moccasins before making judgments. People who work in offices are subject to daily dangers, like paper cuts -- the worst ones are paper cuts from new crisp file folders -- burning your mouth on hot coffee, getting dirty toner on your hands, opening a popcorn bag too soon, getting germs in enclosed spaces, gluing your fingers together and so on.

You forgot the biggest danger where we choke on our own vomit after throwing up reading the political folder.

[xt3kn1x]

Contracting as in you did paperwork in the trailers or you actually did some kind of construction work? Like what exactly?

Anticor, you've obviously no experience on a real construction site because there are dangers everywhere you step. I've watched two people die before me eyes, and many people get hurt. How about you?

[Tgo01]

I've watched two people die before me eyes, and many people get hurt. How about you?

Union or no union job?

[xt3kn1x]

I must've missed the part about machines and electrical having re-read that. My apologies. So you did something akin to millwrights?

[AnticorRifling]

Contracting as in you did paperwork in the trailers or you actually did some kind of construction work? Like what exactly?

Anticor, you've obviously no experience on a real construction site because there are dangers everywhere you step. I've watched two people die before me eyes, and many people get hurt. How about you?

Yeah I was doing the paperwork 4 to 6 stories up....I'm sorry I guess I needed to explain I was up there rerouting power, running power, installing and maintaining equipment (hydraulic, pheumatic, etc) with enough moving parts, crushing force, and juice to pop you out of your skin.

Have I seen people killed and or hurt? Yes. Was I on cleanup duty and picking up teeth after crashes? Yes.

Although I never saw anyone killed on my job site because we had the ability to be safe using things like common sense and following local/state/federal regulations.

But obviously I've got no "real" experience with construction. You're just proving my point for that I thank you.

And again EVERY SECOND OF EVERY DAY no, just no. Unless you're planning on choking on your sammich or dying during your breaks (breaks plural) or well you get the idea.

[AnticorRifling]

I must've missed the part about machines and electrical having re-read that. My apologies. So you did something akin to millwrights?

It would essentially be millwright work, yes. Taking a blueprint from shop A and making it work in shop B. Redo the scematic, figure out materials, and go make it happen. Redid several businesses when they were bought out and the facilities were used in a different industry so the machines had to be "adapted". It was tons of problem solving and it was fun as hell.

[AnticorRifling]

Union or no union job?

Couldn't have been union. The union magically prevents people getting hurt haven't you been paying attention?!

[xt3kn1x]

There are times where danger is more prevalent than others, I can agree with you there. But to say when you're on a jobsite and the completely unquestionable can never possibly happen is completely ludicrous. You never know when a pair of channellocks will fall from 40 stories up and put a hole in your skull. That happens during break or not. Not all trades are taking lunch at the same time.

[AnticorRifling]

There are times where danger is more prevalent than others, I can agree with you there. But to say when you're on a jobsite and the completely unquestionable can never possibly happen is completely ludicrous. You never know when a pair of channellocks will fall from 40 stories up and put a hole in your skull. That happens during break or not. Not all trades are taking lunch at the same time.

But the union can't protect you from accidents any more than non union. That's all I'm getting at. If you're biggest defense of the union is it makes things safer I've got an issue with that. 100 years ago hell yes no question, today? I don't think so.

[xt3kn1x]

Couldn't have been union. The union magically prevents people getting hurt haven't you been paying attention?!

har har. I don't know anyone who said those words exactly.

[xt3kn1x]

But the union can't protect you from accidents any more than non union. That's all I'm getting at. If you're biggest defense of the union is it makes things safer I've got an issue with that. 100 years ago hell yes no question, today? I don't think so.

WOW. That's not what I've been saying. All I've been pointing out is unions ensure the worker the right to tell a contractor NO. That's ALL.

[xt3kn1x]

It's my OPINION, however, that nonunion construction sites are much more dangerous, however, due to what we call "ratty" behaviour, the overwhelming urge to put yourself at risk in order to get the job done.

[AnticorRifling]

WOW. That's not what I've been saying. All I've been pointing out is unions ensure the worker the right to tell a contractor NO. That's ALL.

You don't need to be in a union to tell a contractor no. This isn't 1805. We have things like news outlets and interwebs. If you tell a job no that's not safe and they say do it anyway or your fired boom they are in a world of shit. What happens if a union tells the job no? Boom they are in a world of shit via union avenues of shit worlding (yeah that's a term now). The result is the same.

[xt3kn1x]

Sadly, I wish you were right. That's not really how it is. I will always take the approach aforementioned. If I was not a union worker, and asked to do something I felt was not safe, yes. *I* would say no. I don't put up with that, and if they fired me for it, and I could prove it, yes. I would definitely take it to a higher authority. The problem, I suppose, is in the mentality of the workforce majority. While I won't take shit from people, there are many that do because they are worried about feeding their families, as I've been stressing especially in this hard economic time.

Workers will allow themselves to get bullied and make hasty, stupid, wreckless decisions, which were both evident in the two deaths I witnessed. Even with the union at their back, people are willing to be stupid, which is why I'm saying the union doesn't prevent accidents or people getting hurt, but affords some people an avenue to say "no" and to know you've got someone in your corner when you feel like you're putting your job on the line, which they otherwise might not.

[Clove]

You don't need to be in a union to tell a contractor no. This isn't 1805. We have things like news outlets and interwebs. If you tell a job no that's not safe and they say do it anyway or your fired boom they are in a world of shit. What happens if a union tells the job no? Boom they are in a world of shit via union avenues of shit worlding (yeah that's a term now). The result is the same.I have to agree. While a union might help give some people a spine, avenues of protection DO exist today for non-union workers that didn't back in the day.

[AnticorRifling]

Don't get me wrong I don't think that unions are a horrible idea, they just aren't the end all be all of how it should be done. I think if unions did a better job of policing their ranks and removing those that are taking advantage of the protection being afforded to them then public outlook towards unions might change. Until you remove the "I got a cold while working in a reefer so I'm taking the next 8 months off" or "I lifted my tool belt and pulled a muscle so I'm going to pretend it's life changing back pain" turds from your punch bowl people will still view it as a toliet.

[Parkbandit]

Easy to say from the comfort of a cubicle or an office. Try working a blue collar job where your lifeis at risk every single second of the day and your foreman makes a suggestion to cut corners to get the job done. I can't expect any of you to understand what its like out there, and my attempts to explain have been feeble at best. I can agree to just disagree with you on this topic.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/captain_hyperbole.jpg

Thankfully, you haven't burdened us with the enormous weight of understanding your heroic lifestyle.

[Parkbandit]

It's my OPINION, however, that nonunion construction sites are much more dangerous, however, due to what we call "ratty" behaviour, the overwhelming urge to put yourself at risk in order to get the job done.

Have you had to risk your life every second of every day as a non-union worker?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I risk my life every second of every day. I drink leaded sodas, eat fast food, don't buy carbon offsets and scoff at the polar caps melting and making my backyard the next ocean. My car only gets 24 MPG and I have sex without condoms.

[Clove]

I have sex without condoms.You spelled "masturbate" wrong.

[AnticorRifling]

Condoms != partners

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It's not big but it goes off fast.

[Parkbandit]

I risk my life every second of every day. I drink leaded sodas, eat fast food, don't buy carbon offsets and scoff at the polar caps melting and making my backyard the next ocean. My car only gets 24 MPG and I have sex without condoms.

Your total disregard for our Earth's health sickens me. I bet you dump lead waste in your backyard just because you hate Her so much.

[Alfster]

I've been known to dump my oil in my backyard after changing it...

[AnticorRifling]

I've been known to dump my oil in my backyard after changing it...

You jackass hardware stores will take your used oil for processing at no charge.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You jackass hardware stores will take your used oil for processing at no charge.

Places like Jiffy lube use it to heat their locations in the winter!

[Clove]

I've been known to dump my oil in my backyard after changing it...You jackass, that's what your neighbor's yard is for.

[Alfster]

You jackass hardware stores will take your used oil for processing at no charge.

They started charging.

[AnticorRifling]

Oh well that's ok then......

[Latrinsorm]

You don't need to be in a union to tell a contractor no. This isn't 1805. We have things like news outlets and interwebs. If you tell a job no that's not safe and they say do it anyway or your fired boom they are in a world of shit. What happens if a union tells the job no? Boom they are in a world of shit via union avenues of shit worlding (yeah that's a term now). The result is the same.Workers don't get any money for causing someone bad publicity. If all the workers stand together, they are less likely to be fired in the first place, and therefore more likely to continue having money. Unions offer an immediate and tangible threat to profits, bad publicity is delayed and vague.

[AnticorRifling]

They also provide a blanket of fuck you I don't have to work hard because you can't fire me security.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm more willing to tolerate 10% of steel workers being bums than 10% of mill owners mutilating children. And yes, those are the only choices. :[

[Tgo01]

I'm more willing to tolerate 10% of steel workers being bums than 10% of mill owners mutilating children. And yes, those are the only choices. :[

Wait wait, wouldn't the non union companies just mutilate the children anyways? I mean since non union companies aren't held accountable for laws they break or anything.

[Parkbandit]

I'm more willing to tolerate 10% of steel workers being bums than 10% of mill owners mutilating children. And yes, those are the only choices. :[

http://mycrimespace.com/wp-content/uploads/Red_Forman_you_dumb_ass.jpg

[waywardgs]

Your taste in short-sleeve button up shirts is terrible.

[xt3kn1x]

Don't get me wrong I don't think that unions are a horrible idea, they just aren't the end all be all of how it should be done. I think if unions did a better job of policing their ranks and removing those that are taking advantage of the protection being afforded to them then public outlook towards unions might change. Until you remove the "I got a cold while working in a reefer so I'm taking the next 8 months off" or "I lifted my tool belt and pulled a muscle so I'm going to pretend it's life changing back pain" turds from your punch bowl people will still view it as a toliet.

Agree and agree. I want nothing more than unions to represent the pinnacle of perfection for their given trade. There are those that abuse the system, and should be reprimanded for doing so, if not outright removed. We demand higher wages and benefits because we're the so-called best. I get very upset seeing people lolly-gag, and not getting their job done.

[Parkbandit]

Your taste in short-sleeve button up shirts is terrible.

You do realize that's a character, played on a tv series that portrayed an American family in the '70's, right?

[Parkbandit]

Agree and agree. I want nothing more than unions to represent the pinnacle of perfection for their given trade. There are those that abuse the system, and should be reprimanded for doing so, if not outright removed. We demand higher wages and benefits because we're the so-called best. I get very upset seeing people lolly-gag, and not getting their job done.

:rofl:

Union workers are the "so-called best"? Really?

Unions protect the shitty workers by making it near impossible for companies to can their ass. Your union may be the exception to this rule, but the rule is there for many of them.

[xt3kn1x]

:rofl:

Union workers are the "so-called best"? Really?



Your point has been labored several times in this thread. I'm not denying there's pieces of shit that take advantage of the system, but a healthy majority of members in each trade are bar none, the best at their particular skill. Not to say non-union isn't skilled either, as in my trade there are plenty of non union hands who have been organized into our ranks who are damn good at what they do, also. Unions need to strive to be better and more efficient than their counterparts. I know it, our leaders know it. It's just up to our members to take action.

[Clove]

I'm more willing to tolerate 10% of steel workers being bums than 10% of mill owners mutilating children. And yes, those are the only choices. :[Yes, yes because we'll just reverse all those labor laws that have been on the books for decades now if we didn't have unions watching.

[Alfster]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2011/2/21/125549/659

Liberal fun!

[Parkbandit]

Your point has been labored several times in this thread. I'm not denying there's pieces of shit that take advantage of the system, but a healthy majority of members in each trade are bar none, the best at their particular skill.

Any source on this claim? Union job vs. non-union job productivity maybe? I mean, it couldn't possibly be you being a union worker that makes you say that, could it?



Not to say non-union isn't skilled either, as in my trade there are plenty of non union hands who have been organized into our ranks who are damn good at what they do, also.

But somehow, they aren't the best of the best because they aren't in a union.......



Unions need to strive to be better and more efficient than their counterparts. I know it, our leaders know it. It's just up to our members to take action.

The members are the ones that are taking advantage of the system.. why would they want to take action?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Your point has been labored several times in this thread. I'm not denying there's pieces of shit that take advantage of the system, but a healthy majority of members in each trade are bar none, the best at their particular skill. Not to say non-union isn't skilled either, as in my trade there are plenty of non union hands who have been organized into our ranks who are damn good at what they do, also. Unions need to strive to be better and more efficient than their counterparts. I know it, our leaders know it. It's just up to our members to take action.

In the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unions account for 11.9% of the workforce.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

I would suggest that your opinion that a population representiong 11.9% of the workforce is comprised of a majority of "the best at their particular skill" is perhaps, skewed.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the demographics of union workers to non-union workers is probably less skilled, as private sector non-union workers who are not capable at their chosen trade, quickly become private sector non-union non-workers.

Just saying.

[waywardgs]

You do realize that's a character, played on a tv series that portrayed an American family in the '70's, right?

:rofl:

[xt3kn1x]

Any source on this claim? Union job vs. non-union job productivity maybe? I mean, it couldn't possibly be you being a union worker that makes you say that, could it?



But somehow, they aren't the best of the best because they aren't in a union.......


Those are both basically the same thing, just repeated. I'm a union worker therefore I think I'm the best. No, there's no irrefutable evidence that I can offer off-hand to say that one is better than the other, except for my experience which I am sure you'll just dismiss. The quality of craftsmanship between union and non-union workers, is in my opinion, night and day. At least in a handful of trades, including mine. I've done some nonunion work framing, and it doesn't take much to read a level and a tape measure. But something a bit more mechanically inclined, say plumbing, I would say a union plumber is definately better at his job than his non-union counterpart. On average.



The members are the ones that are taking advantage of the system.. why would they want to take action?

Contrary to your belief, unions aren't trying to bankrupt anyone. If we bankrupt our contractors, where the hell are we going to get our next job?

[xt3kn1x]

In the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unions account for 11.9% of the workforce.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

I would suggest that your opinion that a population representiong 11.9% of the workforce is comprised of a majority of "the best at their particular skill" is perhaps, skewed.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the demographics of union workers to non-union workers is probably less skilled, as private sector non-union workers who are not capable at their chosen trade, quickly become private sector non-union non-workers.

Just saying.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the first part. That the union work force is small or over abundant? And in either case, they're not good at what they do, regardless?

As for nonunion folks who get clipped for being bad workers, union workers still can be fired. It's not like we're untouchable. Employers have to show due cause, is all.

[Parkbandit]

Those are both basically the same thing, just repeated. I'm a union worker therefore I think I'm the best. No, there's no irrefutable evidence that I can offer off-hand to say that one is better than the other, except for my experience which I am sure you'll just dismiss. The quality of craftsmanship between union and non-union workers, is in my opinion, night and day. At least in a handful of trades, including mine. I've done some nonunion work framing, and it doesn't take much to read a level and a tape measure. But something a bit more mechanically inclined, say plumbing, I would say a union plumber is definately better at his job than his non-union counterpart. On average.

:rofl:, whut?

You say you have no evidence except your experience at one company in one union.. but end with union plumbers are definitely better than non-union plumbers? Have you ever been a plumber before?

Hilarious.



Contrary to your belief, unions aren't trying to bankrupt anyone. If we bankrupt our contractors, where the hell are we going to get our next job?

Their intention isn't to bankrupt the companies they work for.. but it ends up that way in many cases.

[Tgo01]

You say you have no evidence except your experience at one company in one union.. but end with union plumbers are definitely better than non-union plumbers? Have you ever been a plumber before?

He knows for a fact he's the only one posting in this thread that has ever worked in construction so I can see how he would know union plumbers are better than their non union counterparts. He has powers man, don't mess with him.

[xt3kn1x]

:rofl:, whut?

You say you have no evidence except your experience at one company in one union.. but end with union plumbers are definitely better than non-union plumbers? Have you ever been a plumber before?

Hilarious.




Wait, what? Where did I ever say I've only worked for one union contractor? And yes, I've plumbed a shit ton more than you, I'm sure. I have a plumbing license, am backflow certified and med-gas certified. I've seen unskilled nonunion plumbers improperly install drainage fittings, in the wrong direction. Undersized storm drains, improper grading to piping, you name it. Why is that hilarious?



Their intention isn't to bankrupt the companies they work for.. but it ends up that way in many cases.

Well since everyone seems to like quoting me for references, care to show me where a union construction company was put out of business just for being signatory?

[AnticorRifling]

Wait, what? Where did I ever say I've only worked for one union contractor? And yes, I've plumbed a shit ton more than you, I'm sure.

I don't think you know how facts work.

You are doing a great job of supporting the stereotype that unions house a lot toolboxes though.

[xt3kn1x]

Well apparently so, because now I'm severely confused.

[Alfster]

You faggots.

Public Unions != Private sector unions.

faggots. all of you.

[AnticorRifling]

I can't hear you I'm too busy not being the best!

[EasternBrand]

I can't hear you I'm too busy not being the best!

When you said you were plumbing Rob's toilet, I didn't think you meant you were literally plumbing Rob's toilet.

[AnticorRifling]

Have you heard the shit that comes out of his mouth? Yeah, exactly.

[Parkbandit]

Wait, what? Where did I ever say I've only worked for one union contractor? And yes, I've plumbed a shit ton more than you, I'm sure. I have a plumbing license, am backflow certified and med-gas certified. I've seen unskilled nonunion plumbers improperly install drainage fittings, in the wrong direction. Undersized storm drains, improper grading to piping, you name it.

You are correct... I only hire them.

And when I have hired unionized contractors in the past, they spent more time telling me what isn't their job rather than doing their job.



Why is that hilarious?

Because in one paragraph you say you only have your experience to go on, but in the next sentence, you make a claim that unionized plumbers are definitely better at their job than non-unionized plumbers. That's just a really stupid stretch to make, given your extremely limited experience across the country.



Well since everyone seems to like quoting me for references, care to show me where a union construction company was put out of business just for being signatory?

When did unions only work in the construction profession?

[crb]

You know the stupidest union?

The Writer's Guild, I can't believe they went on strike.

No creative profession should have a union. Honestly. A union more or less means your labor is a commodity any other drone can produce. So Hollywood was saying the writers on Lost were equal to the writers on Heroes, or the writers on The Office were equal to the writers on According to Jim. Like Chewbacca living on Endor, this does not make sense.

[crb]

Wait wait, wouldn't the non union companies just mutilate the children anyways? I mean since non union companies aren't held accountable for laws they break or anything.

Exactly, we have personal injury lawyers, we don't need unions anymore.

[Warriorbird]

Exactly, we have personal injury lawyers, we don't need unions anymore.

Except, much like with unions and de-reguation, we have tort reform.

Viva the 1890's! Things ended up so well the first time we did laissez faire.

[Parkbandit]

Except, much like with unions and de-reguation, we have tort reform.

Viva the 1890's! Things ended up so well the first time we did laissez faire.

ZOMG IF UNIONS DISAPPEAR WE WILL BE BACK IN THE 1890's ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!

http://pictureperfectsandiego.com/files/2009/12/disney-chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg

[crb]

Except, much like with unions and de-reguation, we have tort reform.

Viva the 1890's! Things ended up so well the first time we did laissez faire.

We didn't have OSHA or the CPSC or Wikileaks or Whistleblower laws in the 1890s either. Does your liberal brain have so little faith in government overseers that you think unions are still necessary for any workplace or product safety assurances?

Unions served a purpose for society at one time, that time has now passed. The only purpose they serve anymore is to generate money for Democratic politicians.

[Warriorbird]

We didn't have OSHA or the CPSC or Wikileaks or Whistleblower laws in the 1890s either. Does your liberal brain have so little faith in government overseers that you think unions are still necessary for any workplace or product safety assurances?

Unions served a purpose for society at one time, that time has now passed. The only purpose they serve anymore is to generate money for Democratic politicians.

The preventing of which is the real reason for this holier than thou crusade. Give crb enough time and he gives the shady Republican subtext to any controversy.

[Carl Spackler]

We didn't have OSHA or the CPSC or Wikileaks or Whistleblower laws in the 1890s either. Does your liberal brain have so little faith in government overseers that you think unions are still necessary for any workplace or product safety assurances?

Unions served a purpose for society at one time, that time has now passed. The only purpose they serve anymore is to generate money for Democratic politicians.

That's not necessarily true. Aside from raising money to defeat republicans, they also strangle just about any organization their workers happen to work for.

[crb]

The preventing of which is the real reason for this holier than thou crusade. Give crb enough time and he gives the shady Republican subtext to any controversy.

Who says it is subtext? This is obvious, has been obvious from the start.

And why need it be shady or need it be painted as a bad thing?

Democrats, when in power, funnel tons of cash to unions who then support them during elections. (See Obama - project labor agreements, stimulus, GM bailout, etc etc etc).

Republicans doing the opposite shouldn't be surprising, or viewed shockingly by the left as if they don't know all the money and favors their side does to curry favor.

Pot, kettle, elections have consequences, etc.

[Parkbandit]

Madison - State officials said Thursday that damage to the marble inside and out the State Capitol would cost an estimated $7.5 million.

Cari Anne Renlund, chief legal counsel for the state Department of Administration, said in Dane County court that estimates of damage to marble includes $6 million to repair damaged marble inside the Capitol, $1 million for damage outside and $500,000 for costs to supervise the damage.

Much of the damage apparently has come from tape used to put up signs and placards at the Capitol.

It was not immediately clear how the estimates were made, though the state is apparently relying on opinions by historical architects, one of whom works for the U.S. Park Service.

One concern is the residue from tape that the state says is causing damage to stone and other surfaces inside the Capitol.

Michele Curran, an architectural historian for the National Parks Service who coordinates national historic landmarks in Wisconsin, said she didn’t know how the state had arrived at its damage figures.

She said certain kinds of tape can leave lasting residues on surfaces such as marble or wood if they are improperly removed. But she said only a professional cleaning service experienced in such work and familiar with the situation in the state Capitol could estimate any possible costs.

“They need a quote from a company that specializes in cleaning historic surfaces,” Curran said.

Many of the papers and banners posted in the state Capitol were put up using painter’s tape, which is employed to minimize effects on walls.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117340918.html


.......

[~Rocktar~]

Why the hell did they let anyone tape anything anywhere in the first place?

Hold signs, make sandwich signs that stand up, tote protest placards, yeah, great, come into the capitol building, wipe your feet and don't deface the property. Go try that on your own, take a piece of paper and go tape it up in the state capitol building of your state capitol. In my state, you try some crap like that, protest or not, and state police will tell you no and then escort your ass out if you keep at it. I appreciate their efforts to use less offensive tape, that's good, still no excuse.

Right to peaceable assembly does not not include right to deface public or private property.

[Alfster]

Turns out the marble company is owned by the Koch brothers.







































































This is retarded.

[Warriorbird]

Who says it is subtext? This is obvious, has been obvious from the start.

And why need it be shady or need it be painted as a bad thing?

Democrats, when in power, funnel tons of cash to unions who then support them during elections. (See Obama - project labor agreements, stimulus, GM bailout, etc etc etc).

Republicans doing the opposite shouldn't be surprising, or viewed shockingly by the left as if they don't know all the money and favors their side does to curry favor.

Pot, kettle, elections have consequences, etc.

Democrats are lucky to have anything in that category at all. The whole give everything possible to a candidate if you're a company idea and court case was probably never intended to make unions more powerful, just make the country Republican.

[Parkbandit]

Democrats are lucky to have anything in that category at all. The whole give everything possible to a candidate if you're a company idea and court case was probably never intended to make unions more powerful, just make the country Republican.

I know, right! Before that SCOTUS decision, must people in this country were socialists.

It's not fair!!

[Parkbandit]

Turns out the marble company is owned by the Koch brothers.

This is retarded.

:rofl:

That would be awesome if a bunch of liberals ended up making millions of dollars for a far right company.

I find it difficult to believe there was that much damage caused by tape.

[Latrinsorm]

In high school I worked in a book store, and I can't tell you how many books ended up getting defaced from peeling/scraping/tearing off stickers. Here's a tip from an old hand, Wisconsin: just put another sticker on the defaced part! Problem solved, and for much less than $1.5 million.

[Parkbandit]

In high school I worked in a book store, and I can't tell you how many books ended up getting defaced from peeling/scraping/tearing off stickers. Here's a tip from an old hand, Wisconsin: just put another sticker on the defaced part! Problem solved, and for much less than $1.5 million.

How can tape damage marble though? Sure, there might be some cleaning and removing of the tape, but 7.5 million dollars worth of damage?

And don't even get me started on the reason why they would use such expensive marble in a state building.

[Alfster]

I can't believe the damage is anywhere near estimated. I'm assuming the same people that did the math to come up with Wisconsin's "debt" also did the math for this.

[Carl Spackler]

How can tape damage marble though? Sure, there might be some cleaning and removing of the tape, but 7.5 million dollars worth of damage?

And don't even get me started on the reason why they would use such expensive marble in a state building.

Easy! They gotta pay some guy government wages to come clean it off!

[Parkbandit]

Easy! They gotta pay some guy government wages to come clean it off!

Fucking union workers!

[Carl Spackler]

Piece from the Wall Street Journal, I liked it.



Public Unions Get Too 'Friendly' They resemble 'On the Waterfront' more than 'Norma Rae.'By PEGGY NOONAN

When you step back and try to get a sense of the larger picture in the battle between the states and their public employee unions, two elements emerge. One seems small but could prove decisive, and the other is big and, if I'm seeing it right, carries significant implications.

The seemingly small thing is that the battles in the states, while summoning emotions from all sides, are not at their heart emotional. Yes, a lot of people are waving placards, but it's also true that suddenly everyone's talking about numbers; the numbers are being reported in the press and dissected on talk radio. This state has a $5 billion deficit; that state has projected deficits in the tens of millions. One estimate of New Jersey's bill for health and pension benefits for state workers over the next 30 years is an astounding $100 billion—money the state literally does not have and cannot get. The very force of the math has the heartening effect of squeezing ideology right out of the story. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal or a conservative, it's all about the numbers, and numbers are sobering things.

The rise of arithmetic as a player in the drama is politically promising because when people argue over data and hard facts, and not over ideological loyalties and impulses, progress is more possible. Governors can take their stand, their opponents can take theirs, and if they happen to argue the budget problem doesn't really exist, they'll have to prove it. With numbers.

The big thing that is new has to do with the atmospherics of the drama.

Let's look for a second at one of the most famous battles, in New Jersey. A year ago Chris Christie was sworn in as the new governor. He immediately faced a $10.7 billion deficit and catastrophic debt projections. State and local taxes were already high, so that if he raised them he'd send people racing out of the state. So Mr. Christie came up with a plan. He asked the state's powerful teachers union for two things: a one-year pay freeze—not a cut—and a modest 1.5% contribution to their benefit packages.

The teachers union went to war. They said, "Christie is trying to kill the unions," so they tried to kill him politically. They spent millions on ads trying to take him down.

And it backfired. They didn't kill him, they made him. Chris Christie is a national figure now because the teachers union decided, in an epic political drama in which arithmetic is the predominant fact, to ignore the math. They also decided to play the wrong role in the drama. They decided to play the role of Johnny Friendly, on whom more in a moment.

If the union leaders had been smart—if they'd had a heart!—they would have held a private meeting and said, "Look, the party's over. We've done great the past 20 years, but now taxpayers are starting to resent us, and they have reason. They're losing their benefits and footing the bill for our gold-plated plans, they don't have job security and we do, taxes are high. We have to back off."

They didn't do this. It was a big mistake. And the teachers union made it just as two terrible but unrelated things were happening to their reputation. In what might be called an expression of the new spirit of transparency that is sweeping the globe, two documentaries came out in 2010, "The Lottery" and "Waiting for Superman." Both were made by and featured people who are largely liberal in their sympathies, and both said the same brave thing: The single biggest impediment to better schools in our country is the teachers unions, which look to their own interests and not those of the kids.

In both films, as in real life, the problem is the unions themselves, not individual teachers. They present teachers who are heroic, who are creative and idealistic. But they too, in the films, are victims of union rules.

That's the unions' problem in terms of atmospherics. They are starting to destroy their own reputation. They are robbing themselves of their mystique. They still exist, and they're big and rich—a force—but they are abandoning the very positive place they've held in the American imagination. Polls are all over the place on union support, but I'm speaking of the kind of thing that is hard to quantify and that has to do with words like "luster" and "tradition."

Unions have been respected in America forever, and public employee unions have reaped that respect. There are two great reasons for this. One is that unions always stood for the little guy. The other is that Americans like balance. We have management over here and the union over here, they'll talk and find balance, it'll turn out fine.

But with the public employee unions, the balance has been off for decades. And when they lost their balance they fell off their pedestal.

When union leaders negotiate with a politician, they're negotiating with someone they can hire and fire. Public unions have numbers and money, and politicians need both. And politicians fear strikes because the public hates them. When governors negotiate with unions, it's not collective bargaining, it's more like collusion. Someone said last week the taxpayers aren't at the table. The taxpayers aren't even in the room.

As for unions looking out for the little guy, that's not how it's looking right now. Right now the little guy is the public school pupil whose daily rounds take him from a neglectful family to an indifferent teacher who can't be removed. The little guy is the beleaguered administrator whose attempts at improvement are thwarted by unions. The little guy is the private-sector worker who doesn't have a good health-care plan, who barely has a pension, who lacks job security, and who is paying everyone else's bills.

This is a major perceptual change. In my lifetime, people have felt so supportive of unions. That great scene in the 1979 film "Norma Rae," in which the North Carolina cotton mill worker played by Sally Field holds up the sign that says UNION—people were moved by that scene because they believed in its underlying justice. When I was a child, kids bragged if their father had a union job because it meant he was part of something, someone was looking out for him, he was a citizen.

There were hiccups—the labor racketeering scandals of the 1950s, Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters. But they served as a corrective to romanticism. Men in groups will be men in groups, whether they run a government or a union. Budd Schulberg and Elia Kazan captured this in their 1954 masterpiece, "On the Waterfront," in which Terry Malloy, played by Marlon Brando, stands up to the selfish, bullying union chief Johnny Friendly. Brando's character testifies to the Waterfront Commission and then defiantly stands down Johnny and his goons. "I'm glad what I done today. . . . You hear me? Glad what I done."

We're at quite a moment when public employee unions remind you of Johnny Friendly. They're so powerful, such a base of the Democratic Party, and they must think nothing can hurt them. But they can hurt themselves. And they are. Are they noticing?

[Alfster]

That article is great and all. But it's leaving out one thing. When the Unions go ahead and agree to pay exactly what the governor is asking, then get told that it's not enough. Walker's a douche, plain and simple. His number's seem more made up than accurate.

I haven't followed NJ, but things played out here far different than there...according to your article.

[Carl Spackler]

That article is great and all. But it's leaving out one thing. When the Unions go ahead and agree to pay exactly what the governor is asking, then get told that it's not enough. Walker's a douche, plain and simple. His number's seem more made up than accurate.

I haven't followed NJ, but things played out here far different than there...according to your article.

Walker's doing what he said he'd do in his campaign, is he not? The fact is concessions need to be made, and unions around America have gone far too long without making very many... Times are tough, everyone has to share in the pain.

[Latrinsorm]

They explicitly agreed to the financial concessions asked of them, and the governor explicitly said that wasn't enough. It's not about the money, it never was.

[Alfster]

Um, no. He's not doing what he said he'd be doing in his campaign.

Durka Durka.

1) Let's see, cut taxes on corporations. Check.
2) Blame Unions for debt created in 1. Check.
3) Blame former Governors for debt created in 1. Check.
4) Ask Unions to pay a share. They agree. Check.

Where's the problem with leaving it at that? The issue I have is making this bill far more political...ie --> UNIONRS R BSAD

Keep this about the money, do the rest in another bill. I'll say it again, it's very hard to trust Walker. He's shady as hell, and he's absolutely trying to give himself to much power.

Every day something shadier comes out about him. A large chunk of the people that supported him are changing their minds when the bullshit he pulls starts making it's way to the media. My issue is that he's trying to do entirely too much, to fast.

[Tgo01]

Fucking union workers!

But it's worth it to assure the workers will be safe. Otherwise they might get their hands dirty.

[Carl Spackler]

Um, no. He's not doing what he said he'd be doing in his campaign.

Durka Durka.

1) Let's see, cut taxes on corporations. Check.
2) Blame Unions for debt created in 1. Check.
3) Blame former Governors for debt created in 1. Check.
4) Ask Unions to pay a share. They agree. Check.

Where's the problem with leaving it at that? The issue I have is making this bill far more political...ie --> UNIONRS R BSAD

Keep this about the money, do the rest in another bill. I'll say it again, it's very hard to trust Walker. He's shady as hell, and he's absolutely trying to give himself to much power.

Every day something shadier comes out about him. A large chunk of the people that supported him are changing their minds when the bullshit he pulls starts making it's way to the media. My issue is that he's trying to do entirely too much, to fast.

1) I fail to see how that's a problem.

2) They as well as the government are at fault for all their unfunded liabilities.

3) Well of course he's blaming former administrations, look where they got you.

4) Because leaving it at just paying a portion isn't enough. Taking away their bargaining rights helps to assure that this shit doesn't happen again down the line.

Not being in WI I don't see the daily news, but I wouldn't doubt the liberal media isn't trying to dig up anything they can to deface this guy.

[Alfster]

The big question right now is where he is getting his numbers for how much Wisconsin is in debt. He can't seem to answer those questions either, and the debt that he's blaming on the past two governor's isn't legit.

Taking away all of their bargaining rights has nothing to do with money, and all about politics.

As far as defacing him, he did that to himself. He can't answer questions about where his numbers are coming from, it's time for him to step up and actually break down his numbers rather than throwing out a random number. The phone call got him in a ton of trouble, while I personally find it funny, some of his supporters feel it was retarded of him (it was). The other thing that's hurting him is the part about Koch brothers in the bill. It doesn't name them, but tell me how it can be financially responsible to pay a price without even getting bids?

The college students are realizing that the bill is going to fuck them just as bad. No more state aid for college, no more Badger care for children. The teacher's union is the headlines, but there's so much more that's fucking every person here.

Speaking to some of the school administrators around, they don't want this bill to pass either. Why wouldn't they? Because it's going to be a nightmare for them. Right now, they have to negotiate one contract. What's going to happen? They'll have to come up with contracts for every single person working in their school...from the janitors, to the teachers, to the coaches, etc. They'll also be forced to do this...every year. Every. Single. Year. They don't even think it's going to be possible.

They're also afraid of being sued by people working for them. I'll say it again. This bill is going to cost the state more money than if he had tried to pass something like Ohio is. Where they let them collectively bargain on certain things, but not on benefits and retirement.

[crb]

There is a legitimate reason to take away their bargaining rights.

IF it is true that the average contract negotiation takes 15 months, then local governments and school districts WILL be screwed when their budgets are cut by less funds coming from the state. They will not have time to adapt.

But it IS about politics. There is a perversity in public unions where they fund politicians who then are the ones holding the purse when unions come begging. I heard a liberal obama water carrying journalist today call it an "incestuous circle." David Brooks, from the NYT, has said much the same thing.

Furthermore, when a Democratic politician diverts money to unions as they do (as Obama does all the time) they might claim it is for "quality" or for "the middle class" but it is still about politics, just like this is.

I don't see how a liberal can be offended at a Republican wanting to hurt unions for political reasons while not being offended (or pretending it doesn't exist) at a Democrat wanting to help unions for political reasons.

Do you remember all the fights over the TSA when it was created? That, in the end, was about money as well. Democrats wanted them public and unionized, Republicans didn't.

[Carl Spackler]

This was from an article dated 2-7-11 .... it doesn't appear this guy works for Walker and he's coming up with some pretty big numbers. Walker's estimate at this time was like 3.6 billion. Bigger, but either way, both numbers are huge.


Andrew Reschovsky, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has estimated that larger two-year shortfall at $3.1 billion, including the money in the medical malpractice fund. He said that one difficulty of measuring the size of the shortfall is getting a handle on how much new money state agencies need to keep providing the current levels of services.

[crb]

Speaking to some of the school administrators around, they don't want this bill to pass either. Why wouldn't they? Because it's going to be a nightmare for them. Right now, they have to negotiate one contract. What's going to happen? They'll have to come up with contracts for every single person working in their school...from the janitors, to the teachers, to the coaches, etc. They'll also be forced to do this...every year. Every. Single. Year. They don't even think it's going to be possible.

That is a pretty retarded argument. Like, extremely retarded. It is too stupid for me to even pick apart. How does this dipshit think private companies hire people? One on one yearly negotiations? ROFL.



I'll say it again. This bill is going to cost the state more money than if he had tried to pass something like Ohio is. Where they let them collectively bargain on certain things, but not on benefits and retirement.

Uhh, that is what Wisconsin IS doing. Just with the added caveat of voter approval for wage increases above the CPI.

[Alfster]

That's what the bill has in it. Yearly contract negotiations for ALL school employees.

[Alfster]

Uhh, that is what Wisconsin IS doing. Just with the added caveat of voter approval for wage increases above the CPI.

Walker has introduced a bill that would strip public employees across the board -- from teachers to snowplow drivers -- of their right to collectively bargain for sick leave, vacation, even the hours they work. But absolutely nothing would change for local police, fire departments and the State Patrol.



Not exactly man. Sick leave, vacation, and hours. Not quite.

[Alfster]

This was from an article dated 2-7-11 .... it doesn't appear this guy works for Walker and he's coming up with some pretty big numbers. Walker's estimate at this time was like 3.6 billion. Bigger, but either way, both numbers are huge.

And a huge chunk of that was due to cutting taxes on corporations and the top 2%. You can't exactly create a problem, then blame other people for it.

[crb]

Walker has introduced a bill that would strip public employees across the board -- from teachers to snowplow drivers -- of their right to collectively bargain for sick leave, vacation, even the hours they work. But absolutely nothing would change for local police, fire departments and the State Patrol.



Not exactly man. Sick leave, vacation, and hours. Not quite.

Collective bargaining on wages would still be allowed.

No collective barganing on benefits. Like in Ohio etc.

[Parkbandit]

And a huge chunk of that was due to cutting taxes on corporations and the top 2%. You can't exactly create a problem, then blame other people for it.

Do you have that breakdown? Nacho posted something along those lines, but it amounted to 140 million dollars.

Not exactly a "huge chunk" of 3.6 billion.

[Deathravin]

http://i.imgur.com/NnXJZ.png

[~Rocktar~]

http://i.imgur.com/NnXJZ.png

When in doubt, post a retarded graphic and claim that we need to punish the "rich" all the while ignoring fundamental root cause(s) of issues and denying our own willing, greed driven, participation in said "rich" wrecking the economy because it benefited us at the time. By us, I mean the general populous of stupid, greedy, ignorant people who had no business owning a house much less a half million dollar mansion financed on sub-prime paper because their Liberal government reps removed the laws limiting banks from loaning their credit mutt asses ridiculous abouts of fiat money at interest rates previously labeled as Usary.

Nice attempt at distraction though. You do realize if we took every single dollar from every single CEO of every institution that participated in the meltdown, you would see a huge number of homeless Liberal Clintonite buddies and you would not even make a small dent in the budget shortfalls of anyone. No, guess you don't, you are all about "punish the man" class warfare instead of working to fix the root cause flaws of the system.

[Carl Spackler]

I saw an interview a couple days ago with a democratic senator from WI... That scumbag Jesse Jackson was in the background... One rule I live by, don't support anything he or Al Sharpton stick their noses in.

[Warriorbird]

Right. Because they're totally the source of this.

[~Rocktar~]

Right. Because they're totally the source of this.

No, but like rubbing fetid shit into an open wound, they certainly don't help much of anything they touch and won't until they are buried and fertilizing something useful.

[Deathravin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw&t=5m15s

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png

[Parkbandit]

Well heck, if you keep wishing you had money, maybe it'll become true! Fuck working for it, let's HOPE for it!!

[Stretch]

Barack Obama doesn't care about black people.

[crb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw&t=5m15s

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png

Now do percentage of federal tax burden per income quintile.

Although, you'll need to figure out a way to show a negative value, so maybe a different chart type.

Personally, I don't give a shit about inequality. IMO a perfect world is not one where everyone is equally wealthy. But one where it is possible for a person born poor to become wealthy through their own merits.

Plus, you also can't legislate financial responsibility. There are plenty of stories of millionaires (musicians, actors, athletes, lottery winners) going bankrupt. Sometimes poorer people are poorer because they're just irresponsible with their money. Even a plumber can become a millionaire if he works hard and is smart with his money. There are some books you can read if you want to find out how.

[Warriorbird]

Now do percentage of federal tax burden per income quintile.

Although, you'll need to figure out a way to show a negative value, so maybe a different chart type.

Personally, I don't give a shit about inequality. IMO a perfect world is not one where everyone is equally wealthy. But one where it is possible for a person born poor to become wealthy through their own merits.

Plus, you also can't legislate financial responsibility. There are plenty of stories of millionaires (musicians, actors, athletes, lottery winners) going bankrupt. Sometimes poorer people are poorer because they're just irresponsible with their money. Even a plumber can become a millionaire if he works hard and is smart with his money. There are some books you can read if you want to find out how.

If you work it out as percent of income actually paid the very wealthy pay less.

[crb]

Not less than the poor. But you're talking effective tax rates, not share of the federal budget.

For the extremely rich who have no jobs they pay no "income" tax but only investment taxes on dividends and capital gains. Which are (rightfully) taxed lower. If you wanted to stop this "unfairness" you would have to increase investment taxes. Which would hurt economic growth since investment is a primary driver of that. This would hurt jobs, and the poor. A bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But, even if these extremely rich people are paying a smaller percentage of their income than say, the modestly wealthy middle class (people who have a job, but make a lot of money at it, doctors, lawyers, etc - lets be clear, Warren Buffett isn't paying a lower tax rate than a bus driver), the actual amount of taxes they pay is significantly higher.

If you're going to complain about absolute amounts of wealth like Deathraven, you should at least be fair and point out that almost all federal programs are funded by taxes on the 20% of people, and that the bottom 40% of people pay nothing to cover the budget, and that around 20% of people actually are net receivers of cash.

[~Rocktar~]

For the extremely rich who have no jobs they pay no "income" tax but only investment taxes on dividends and capital gains. Which are (rightfully) taxed lower.

That's because capital gains taxes have exactly NO exclusions, addenda, loopholes and other things. If you invest in X shares of stock and they pay a dividend of Y dollars, you pay capital gains tax rate on Y dollars.

Yes, there are all kinds of accounting tricks you can play about other capital gains taxes and profit vs loss in business and so on but when you come down to it, there aren't exclusions and dependents and minimum earned income credits and so on for reducing capital gains tax burden.

[Warriorbird]

Not less than the poor. But you're talking effective tax rates, not share of the federal budget.

For the extremely rich who have no jobs they pay no "income" tax but only investment taxes on dividends and capital gains. Which are (rightfully) taxed lower. If you wanted to stop this "unfairness" you would have to increase investment taxes. Which would hurt economic growth since investment is a primary driver of that. This would hurt jobs, and the poor. A bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But, even if these extremely rich people are paying a smaller percentage of their income than say, the modestly wealthy middle class (people who have a job, but make a lot of money at it, doctors, lawyers, etc - lets be clear, Warren Buffett isn't paying a lower tax rate than a bus driver), the actual amount of taxes they pay is significantly higher.

If you're going to complain about absolute amounts of wealth like Deathraven, you should at least be fair and point out that almost all federal programs are funded by taxes on the 20% of people, and that the bottom 40% of people pay nothing to cover the budget, and that around 20% of people actually are net receivers of cash.

So you really think most of these people have a tax bill? Oh do they have you buffaloed.

[~Rocktar~]

So you really think most of these people have a tax bill? Oh do they have you buffaloed.

Prove that George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill gates and Michael Moore pay no taxes.

[Warriorbird]

Prove that George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill gates and Michael Moore pay no taxes.

Obvious Moore trolling is obvious. That was his foundation anyways. I'll cut and paste since most of your trolling is.

http://johnmurraycpa.typepad.com/blog/2010/12/bill-gates-warren-buffet-george-soros-etc-or-effective-tax-rate.html

[~Rocktar~]

Obvious Moore trolling is obvious. That was his foundation anyways. I'll cut and paste since most of your trolling is.

http://johnmurraycpa.typepad.com/blog/2010/12/bill-gates-warren-buffet-george-soros-etc-or-effective-tax-rate.html

So you are saying they do pay taxes when above you say they don't. Which is it? Do they pay taxes or don't they and if they don't, prove it.

[Warriorbird]

So you are saying they do pay taxes when above you say they don't. Which is it? Do they pay taxes or don't they and if they don't, prove it.

They don't have a typical tax bill. That is different than "did they pay taxes." which George Soros actually does not. Buffet has gone through multi year periods without paying taxes at all. Gates typically alters his tax bill massively through charity. Michael Moore does similar, in spite of the relatively miniscule amount of wealth that is his.

[~Rocktar~]

They don't have a typical tax bill. That is different than "did they pay taxes." which George Soros actually does not. Buffet has gone through multi year periods without paying taxes at all. Gates typically alters his tax bill massively through charity. Michael Moore does similar, in spite of the relatively miniscule amount of wealth that is his.

Wrong. While they may or may not pay "income tax" they all pay taxes and all of them pay a good bit of them. You flip flop back and forth on this and can't even hold a steady position much less defend it. Having a "tax bill" seems to mean that they pay taxes, which they do. If you are going to make asinine statements at least be clear about them.

[Warriorbird]

How exactly does Soros pay American taxes?

[~Rocktar~]

Own companies in America, come to America and eat food, import or export goods across American borders...

[Deathravin]

http://i.imgur.com/tlG0Y.jpg

[Tgo01]

I love how Bush hasn't been in office for years and people are still referring to the extension of tax cuts as 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.'

[~Rocktar~]

I love how any kind of estate, tax or other planning that mitigates tax debt is a "cost". Trying to make it sound like something that is somehow "owed" to the government or the people when it is simply following the LAW. If the law says you can't collect it, then it isn't owed and it isn't a "cost". In addition, a spending cut must also be a reduction over last year's spending to really be a cut.

If I were in Congress, I would make a series of campaign and media reform laws regarding the definitions and words used to describe the budget and it's processes. Want to clear things up, then use the proper words and stop dancing around. By the way, has any final accounting been done yet as to the real cost of the "stimulus" package? You know, then 800+ billion along with interest since it was all deficit spending and so on?

[Warriorbird]

Own companies in America, come to America and eat food, import or export goods across American borders...

Non profits, LOL, and no.

[Parkbandit]

I love how any kind of estate, tax or other planning that mitigates tax debt is a "cost". Trying to make it sound like something that is somehow "owed" to the government or the people when it is simply following the LAW. If the law says you can't collect it, then it isn't owed and it isn't a "cost". In addition, a spending cut must also be a reduction over last year's spending to really be a cut.

If I were in Congress, I would make a series of campaign and media reform laws regarding the definitions and words used to describe the budget and it's processes. Want to clear things up, then use the proper words and stop dancing around. By the way, has any final accounting been done yet as to the real cost of the "stimulus" package? You know, then 800+ billion along with interest since it was all deficit spending and so on?

I'm guessing Deathravin gets all of his "information" from moveon.org or iwantmyfairsharebutnothavetoworktogetit.org

[~Rocktar~]

Non profits, LOL, and no.

Uh huh. Like I thought, spewing more bullshit you can't back up.

[Warriorbird]

Uh huh. Like I thought, spewing more bullshit you can't back up.

Show me all the taxes that George Soros pays other than when he goes out to eat. I'm looking for this compelling evidence.

[Firestorm Killa]

Show me all the taxes that George Soros pays other than when he goes out to eat. I'm looking for this compelling evidence.

Bringing up Obama's and Hillary's buddy George Soros won't win this argument for you.

[Warriorbird]

Oddly it pretty much does. The whole 'Billionaires have it so bad.' line is hilarious, no matter their political affiliations.

[~Rocktar~]

Oddly it pretty much does. The whole 'Billionaires have it so bad.' line is hilarious, no matter their political affiliations.

Where did anyone say anything like "Billionaires have it so bad"?

I distinctly remember YOU saying they have no tax bill, which is bullshit and you know it. Now, back it up or shut up.

[lightwellspam]

I'm guessing Deathravin gets all of his "information" from moveon.org or iwantmyfairsharebutnothavetoworktogetit.org

I love how you defend the tax cuts for a tax level you have never and will never be a part of, when the majority of the people IN that bracket voted for Obama.

[Firestorm Killa]

Oddly it pretty much does. The whole 'Billionaires have it so bad.' line is hilarious, no matter their political affiliations.

They may not have it so bad. But redistributing the wealth they earned is wrong, it's like if you own a home and I don't and the government stepping in to take half of your home and giving it to me. Besides George Soros gets all sorts of tax breaks because of his Center for American Progress(which wrote the health care bill), Media matters, NPR, Open Society, etc etc..
Personally I believe there should be a flat tax. Everyone pays in like 10% and no one gets a refund. Would also make the IRS unnecessary.

[Tgo01]

I haven't seen Firestorm Killa nor lightspamwell post in a while and now we get them both! I've missed you guys.

[Firestorm Killa]

I haven't seen Firestorm Killa nor lightspamwell post in a while and now we get them both! I've missed you guys.

yep.

[Firestorm Killa]

I love how you defend the tax cuts for a tax level you have never and will never be a part of, when the majority of the people IN that bracket voted for Obama.

I would like to see proof that the majority of people in that bracket voted for him.

[Parkbandit]

Oddly it pretty much does. The whole 'Billionaires have it so bad.' line is hilarious, no matter their political affiliations.

Who claimed that billionaires have it so bad?

[Parkbandit]

I love how you defend the tax cuts for a tax level you have never and will never be a part of, when the majority of the people IN that bracket voted for Obama.

It's a principle that doesn't change if you make $100 a year or $1,000,000,000. I don't believe in high taxes for anyone.

[Warriorbird]

Who claimed that billionaires have it so bad?

The folks who'll hate on public unions but love some public funded CEO's. The ones who took about how the poor "don't pay their fair share." and want more tax breaks for the wealthy.

The one who say "$250k a year is nothing!" but will whine about a teacher getting $50k.

[Parkbandit]

I haven't seen Firestorm Killa nor lightspamwell post in a while and now we get them both! I've missed you guys.

http://filmpopper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/dumb-and-dumber.jpg

[Parkbandit]

The folks who'll hate on public unions but love some public funded CEO's. The ones who took about how the poor "don't pay their fair share." and want more tax breaks for the wealthy.

The one who say "$250k a year is nothing!" but will whine about a teacher getting $50k.

So, once again, no one ever claimed that "billionaires have it so bad".

Stop being a retard in every single political thread.

[Warriorbird]

lightwellspam = SuckerFish

[Warriorbird]

So, once again, no one ever claimed that "billionaires have it so bad".

Stop being a retard in every single political thread.

I'll stop using hyperbole when you stop using insults. I bet it will be soon.

[Parkbandit]

I'll stop using hyperbole when you stop using insults. I bet it will be soon.

The insult is a result of your use of creating a debating opportunity where that opportunity never existed.

If you care to debate yourself, I'm sure there are some 1 player roleplaying forum you could wander over to. Here though, how about we simply debate each other's real points? It's not too difficult and it saves you from making stuff up.

You should give it a try.

[Warriorbird]

The insult is a result of your use of creating a debating opportunity where that opportunity never existed.

If you care to debate yourself, I'm sure there are some 1 player roleplaying forum you could wander over to. Here though, how about we simply debate each other's real points? It's not too difficult and it saves you from making stuff up.

You should give it a try.

If you ever want to move to a conservative fantasyland where everybody agrees with everything you say and gives your political musings nothing but the respect you feel entitled to I'd suggest

http://www.redstate.com

OR

http://www.freerepublic.com

You should give it a try.

Until then we can get back to doing what we've done since prior to 04.

EDIT:

Also


That's because capital gains taxes have exactly NO exclusions, addenda, loopholes and other things.

None WHATSOEVER. Don't stop believing.

[Parkbandit]

If you ever want to move to a conservative fantasyland where everybody agrees with everything you say and gives your political musings nothing but the respect you feel entitled to I'd suggest

http://www.redstate.com

OR

http://www.freerepublic.com

You should give it a try.

Until then we can get back to doing what we've done since prior to 04.

EDIT:

Also

None WHATSOEVER. Don't stop believing.


Which one is claiming that "Billionaires have it so bad"?

Oh, still none.. so you are still debating fabrications. Awesome. Here's an idea, let us all know when you want to debate us instead of an alter ego of your imagination.

Thanks.

[lightwellspam]

I would like to see proof that the majority of people in that bracket voted for him.

Exit poll numbers from CNN were quite conclusive

[Warriorbird]

Which one is claiming that "Billionaires have it so bad"?

Oh, still none.. so you are still debating fabrications. Awesome. Here's an idea, let us all know when you want to debate us instead of an alter ego of your imagination.

Thanks.

All right then. Where's the proof that paying public school teachers less will do anything to improve the system? Why are tax cuts for corporations more valuable than properly paying for education?

Is punitively attacking groups that did not politically support you a good way for a state governor to govern?

[~Rocktar~]

All right then. Where's the proof that paying public school teachers less will do anything to improve the system?

Nice distraction, where's the proof that paying more will do anything to improve the system? I am assuming that you mean education system since you are unspecific here. At no time did anyone suggest that reducing department of education budgets through reductions in payments for benefits and retirement was or is being done to "improve" the education system other than to make it somewhat more efficient and less expensive. There has been provided simple mathematical proof that paying less for teacher benefits will reduce costs for the state and reduce the state budget deficit, this is an undeniable fact.


Why are tax cuts for corporations more valuable than properly paying for education?

Why are the two mutually exclusive in your mind? Why do you nearly always focus on attacking others and punishing "the rich" rather than actually addressing the glaring problems with the systems in place? Why do you chose this form of action in all cases even when it is and has been proven ineffective in virtually all cases regarding government run programs at all levels and for all purposes?


Is punitively attacking groups that did not politically support you a good way for a state governor to govern?

Is bankrupting the country to reward those unions that supported you politically a good way for the President to run the country?

[LMingrone]

I mostly agree with you Rocktar, but you must know education is very important for the future. Half the schools around my area have closed in the last two years. All the private schools are gone, and kids are being forced into classrooms with 30+ others. Not a very good learning environment. The teachers ARE asking for too much though.

[Warriorbird]

Curiously enough, I think there's a lot in education that could be reformed. The worst bloat in public school is administration and support related, however, but because the Republicans merely want to be punitive they'd never address that.

[Carl Spackler]

Curiously enough, I think there's a lot in education that could be reformed. The worst bloat in public school is administration and support related, however, but because the Republicans merely want to be punitive they'd never address that.

I agree that administration is a huge problem. They need to be cut back the most. Why does a school of 1100 kids need 3 principals? However, I wouldn't call the Republicans punitive, they're simply asking for realistic concessions to be made.

[IorakeWarhammer]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23550

How Wisconsin Can Turn Austerity into Prosperity – Own a Bank

by Ellen Brown

[~Rocktar~]

I mostly agree with you Rocktar, but you must know education is very important for the future. Half the schools around my area have closed in the last two years. All the private schools are gone, and kids are being forced into classrooms with 30+ others. Not a very good learning environment. The teachers ARE asking for too much though.

While I absolutely agree that there are massive reforms needed, I don't agree that there is some magic number of students that are right as a teachable class. I also agree that education is the keystone to the future prosperity of this nation, though what is being taught is insane and how it is being taught is equally ludicrous. I also agree that public workers are generally overpaid for what they do and unions are responsible for that. Fundamental changes need to come from Society and be moved through our schools but those changes are antithetical to modern socialist/populous thinking and thus the mass media so I am not all that hopeful.

The topic is massive and the reforms needed are many, several threads have attempted to speak on the matter but the typical bullshit and name calling prevails and they get all retarded up with obfuscation and distraction tactics.

[~Rocktar~]

Curiously enough, I think there's a lot in education that could be reformed. The worst bloat in public school is administration and support related, however, but because the Republicans merely want to be punitive they'd never address that.

They have in many cases and been rebuked in the same manner as the current fight. 'You want to cut anything, you must hate education and our kids.' That has been oh so effective so far in getting those cuts made.

Nice distraction again WB, mind actually answering some of the questions put to you or do you want to continue to ignore the debate to throw out non-sequitur comments as distractions or do you want to debate? Oh sorry, again, it's one of your standard debate tactics, ignore points made or questions raised to throw out incendiary commentary in the hopes of avoiding the question or to cast the debate in a frame where you feel you can win.

Answer the questions.

[AnticorRifling]

Indiana republicans voted in favor of making the dems pay a fine of $250 for each day they stay away from the voting on the education and union bills. Probably not the best way to handle it.

[Parkbandit]

I'm going to laugh if the Dems try and expense their Indiana hotel bills.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm going to laugh if the Dems try and expense their Indiana hotel bills.

They said there weren't going to. Thus far they seem to be footing the bill for everything and were ok with not being paid for their time in Illinoisssss as well.

The sad thing is I kind of agree with them on this one because more than a few of the republicans that have been talked to stated they were voting party lines and really didn't even know what was included in the bills. I've never agreed with that. Obviously I would expect the majority of a persons votes to fall in line with their party but to not even know what is being voted on is sad.

[Parkbandit]

They said there weren't going to. Thus far they seem to be footing the bill for everything and were ok with not being paid for their time in Illinoisssss as well.

The sad thing is I kind of agree with them on this one because more than a few of the republicans that have been talked to stated they were voting party lines and really didn't even know what was included in the bills. I've never agreed with that. Obviously I would expect the majority of a persons votes to fall in line with their party but to not even know what is being voted on is sad.

Is that a dig at Obamacare? You fucking racist.

[Warriorbird]

I agree that administration is a huge problem. They need to be cut back the most. Why does a school of 1100 kids need 3 principals? However, I wouldn't call the Republicans punitive, they're simply asking for realistic concessions to be made.

They were made and rejected.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
All right then. Where's the proof that paying public school teachers less will do anything to improve the system?


Nice distraction, where's the proof that paying more will do anything to improve the system? I am assuming that you mean education system since you are unspecific here. At no time did anyone suggest that reducing department of education budgets through reductions in payments for benefits and retirement was or is being done to "improve" the education system other than to make it somewhat more efficient and less expensive. There has been provided simple mathematical proof that paying less for teacher benefits will reduce costs for the state and reduce the state budget deficit, this is an undeniable fact.

You just suggested that cutting funds would somehow make education "more efficient." If the only goal is reducing the state budget deficit, why not accept the union agreeing to the financial terms? It isn't the only goal, clearly.



Quote:
Why are tax cuts for corporations more valuable than properly paying for education?

Why are the two mutually exclusive in your mind? Why do you nearly always focus on attacking others and punishing "the rich" rather than actually addressing the glaring problems with the systems in place? Why do you chose this form of action in all cases even when it is and has been proven ineffective in virtually all cases regarding government run programs at all levels and for all purposes?

I don't see not making tax cuts as "punishing" the rich or even attacking them. Not making tax cuts actually helps states avoid becoming California, with no revenue AND massive expensives. Privatization is fundamentally a failure in nearly every aspect.


Quote:
Is punitively attacking groups that did not politically support you a good way for a state governor to govern?

Is bankrupting the country to reward those unions that supported you politically a good way for the President to run the country?

The biggest boost to unions in recent times is Citizens United vs FEC which was enacted by a whole bunch of Republican Supreme Court justices. Whoops. If you mean the specifically automotive bailout? There's one with much worse results and not just Democratic fingerprints all over it.

[Firestorm Killa]

Exit poll numbers from CNN were quite conclusive

If it wasn't a biased news company it would be believable. Unfortunately they pretty much worship socialism and the Dems. Wanna try another poll that has no bias?

[AnticorRifling]

If it wasn't a biased news company it would be believable. Unfortunately they pretty much worship socialism and the Dems. Wanna try another poll that has no bias?

Like the one you're smoking?

OH SNAP PENIS JOKE

[Firestorm Killa]

They said there weren't going to. Thus far they seem to be footing the bill for everything and were ok with not being paid for their time in Illinoisssss as well.

The sad thing is I kind of agree with them on this one because more than a few of the republicans that have been talked to stated they were voting party lines and really didn't even know what was included in the bills. I've never agreed with that. Obviously I would expect the majority of a persons votes to fall in line with their party but to not even know what is being voted on is sad.

One of the many reasons why there should be no parties. Most people who vote for politicians in elections generally vote based on party and not the Politician's ideals and character. Then these politicians also vote on bills based on what their party votes on not what those they represent want.

[Firestorm Killa]

Like the one you're smoking?

OH SNAP PENIS JOKE

You're almost as funny as a brick.