toldailytopic: The Wisconsin state government standoff: who's side are you on and why

[chrysostom]

Perhaps he has an agenda that isn't necessarily best for the people?

Wisconsin needs to cut costs. Gov. employees agree to cut costs. Not good enough, Walker says...

this is just at the state level

they also have to do it at the county level
and
city level

 

[Aimiel]

I'm one the side of common sense... the unions are too stubborn to bargain realistically. The workers would have performance reviews. Wow! That's cruel and unusual. DUH The workers are mostly teachers, and our country is going down the tubes because teachers primarily are represented by unions, and their jobs are assured, as well as hefty pay raises with tenure which has produced 'graduates' who can't read or do simple math. We need less government, sure, but we don't need unions telling our states how to run their business. That's just passing the buck to the wrong hands with eyes closed.

 

[genuineoriginal]

A man cannot serve two masters.
You are either working for the corporation that pays you (your employer) or the corporation that you pay into (your union).

Unions are now nothing more than corporations that make their profits from extorting money from their members in order to extort money for the members from the member's employers. This extortion racket is now called collective barganing.

 

[Aimiel]

A man cannot serve two masters.
You are either working for the corporation that pays you (your employer) or the corporation that you pay into (your union).

Unions are now nothing more than corporations that make their profits from extorting money from their members in order to extort money for the members from the member's employers. This extortion racket is now called collective barganing.

Very good synopsis. :thumb:

 

[Alate_One]

I'm one the side of common sense... the unions are too stubborn to bargain realistically. The workers would have performance reviews. Wow! That's cruel and unusual. DUH The workers are mostly teachers, and our country is going down the tubes because teachers primarily are represented by unions, and their jobs are assured, as well as hefty pay raises with tenure which has produced 'graduates' who can't read or do simple math. We need less government, sure, but we don't need unions telling our states how to run their business. That's just passing the buck to the wrong hands with eyes closed.

You honestly think UNIONS are why US education is in the toilet? Give me a break. Parents complain when their kid brings home a bad grade and it's the teacher that gets in trouble, rather than the student. Or the student complains that the teacher is "too hard" and so the parent complains to the school, completely oblivious to the fact that their child is most likely lazy. Schools are rewarded based on test scores so the teachers are forced to teach to tests rather than actually teaching them to learn. (That is the fault of both the Bush and the Obama administration)

I see the products of the schools and I see students that feel entitled to good grades and easy tests.
Common phrases overheard in class: "Can I have a study guide?" (Translation: can you tell me the exact questions you will ask on the test and give me the answers?)
"Can we have a word bank?" (I don't want to be asked to actually know any terminology)
Or my favorite, after a 100 level Biology class "After this class there won't be anything left to know!" . . . . . :doh:


There is no responsibility placed on the students or the parents. Talk about passing the buck . . .

 

[nicholsmom]

I always stand with the union, unless it's a cops' union or a jailers' union. If it's cops or jailers, anything done to them is fair game.

Otherwise, I'm always with the worker.

Collective bargaining is a right. It was conquered after a long and hard and sorta bloody history. Taking it away should not be tolerated.

Unions are a good idea for jobs where the workers can be easily replaced by any Joe, but they are not generally considered acceptable at all for degreed professionals like engineers and scientists. Teachers are degreed professionals, why do they need a union? Are they easily replaced? No. Are they without resource for individual bargaining? No. What do they need a union for?

Unions are a good idea where workers have no power to sway their employers and no ability to replace their bosses. They are not generally considered acceptable where workers are also part-owners or where they can fire their own bosses. Teachers are employed by government officials who are put in place by popular vote. They can actually fire their bosses and hire new ones. Should they be allowed to combine their individual power to fund and back candidates who will give them everything they want as a union? Should politicians be "owned" by unions of public servants?

 

[some other dude]

Unions are a good idea for jobs where the workers can be easily replaced by any Joe, but they are not generally considered acceptable at all for degreed professionals like engineers and scientists. Teachers are degreed professionals, why do they need a union? Are they easily replaced? No. Are they without resource for individual bargaining? No. What do they need a union for?

Unions are a good idea where workers have no power to sway their employers and no ability to replace their bosses. They are not generally considered acceptable where workers are also part-owners or where they can fire their own bosses. Teachers are employed by government officials who are put in place by popular vote. They can actually fire their bosses and hire new ones. Should they be allowed to combine their individual power to fund and back candidates who will give them everything they want as a union? Should politicians be "owned" by unions of public servants?

Teacher unions were formed in response to abuses of the past, in which teacher's jobs were at the whim of each new school superintendent or principal, and teaching jobs were basically patronage.

A necessary idea at the time, they have become an 800 pound gorilla.

 

[Pragmatic_Liberal]

A man cannot serve two masters.
You are either working for the corporation that pays you (your employer) or the corporation that you pay into (your union).

Unions are now nothing more than corporations that make their profits from extorting money from their members in order to extort money for the members from the member's employers. This extortion racket is now called collective barganing.

Unions are a counterbalance to the concentration of power in corporate hands. As such, they are CRITICAL to the proper function of market economy. Had you or any of the people I see parroting this position had any economic education, you would know this. It isn't 'liberal' economic theory, it's econ 101. Don't take my word for it, though. Ask Adam Smith, the founder of market theory. He understood the organizational power of industry, and the need to counterbalance that power:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

It is, by the way, because of this, among other reasons, that the free market unregulated is just as broken as communism. Regulation is not just necessary, it's salutary - a point lost on the supply-side 'economics' free market nuts. The US economic system is NOT free-market, but mixed-market, AS IT SHOULD BE. Supply side 'economics' is politics, not economics, as George Bush senior rightly noted when he referred to it as 'voodoo economics'. The right has been using this fake brand of economics to slowly strangle the middle class, pushing the US further from democracy and closer to oligarchy. The attack on the Wisconsin unions is just the latest chapter.

In case you find the above quote too ambiguous (Smith is talking about price fixing), here's more on the power imbalance.

"I.8.11

What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
I.8.12

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations,*10 while it prohibits those of the workmen.*11 We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."

The sooner the 99% of conservatives for whom republican policies spell eventual economic slavery realize that they're being suckered, the sooner we can get back to having a serious political debate in this country. The right to unionize should be a constitutional right, at least if you're a fan of market economics. This WOULD cause serious issues with foreign trade, though...this is not a magical fix-all (at least not until the right to unionize is realized globally - don't hold your breath).

Think I'm playing up the class warfare angle here? Consider that virtually all of the gains in worker productivity in the years since Reagan took office have gone to the owners, not the workers. I suggest all you conservative union-haters give the following article a thorough read, though the productivity data I'm referring to is about halfway down the page:
rationalrevolution.net/articles/recession_cause.htm

The right has been waging war against the middle class since long before Reagan. They'll continue to succeed until you all wake up. The success the right has had in getting you all to pillory anyone pointing this out as a 'communist' is disheartening. Democracy only functions properly with an educated electorate.

PL

 

[Alate_One]

Should they be allowed to combine their individual power to fund and back candidates who will give them everything they want as a union? Should politicians be "owned" by unions of public servants?

Should companies be able to *buy* politicians that will give the company anything they want?
Should workers be "owned" by politicians? Politicians that can change benefits and pensions on a whim with no input at all from the workers?

There are plenty of problems. Killing unions doesn't solve them, it just creates different problems.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Unions are a counterbalance to the concentration of power in corporate hands. As such, they are CRITICAL to the proper function of market economy. Had you or any of the people I see parroting this position had any economic education, you would know this. It isn't 'liberal' economic theory, it's econ 101. Don't take my word for it, though. Ask Adam Smith, the founder of market theory. He understood the organizational power of industry, and the need to counterbalance that power:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

It is, by the way, because of this, among other reasons, that the free market unregulated is just as broken as communism. Regulation is not just necessary, it's salutary - a point lost on the supply-side 'economics' free market nuts. The US economic system is NOT free-market, but mixed-market, AS IT SHOULD BE. Supply side 'economics' is politics, not economics, as George Bush senior rightly noted when he referred to it as 'voodoo economics'. The right has been using this fake brand of economics to slowly strangle the middle class, pushing the US further from democracy and closer to oligarchy. The attack on the Wisconsin unions is just the latest chapter.

In case you find the above quote too ambiguous (Smith is talking about price fixing), here's more on the power imbalance.

"I.8.11

What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
I.8.12

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations,*10 while it prohibits those of the workmen.*11 We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate."

The sooner the 99% of conservatives for whom republican policies spell eventual economic slavery realize that they're being suckered, the sooner we can get back to having a serious political debate in this country. The right to unionize should be a constitutional right, at least if you're a fan of market economics. This WOULD cause serious issues with foreign trade, though...this is not a magical fix-all (at least not until the right to unionize is realized globally - don't hold your breath).

Think I'm playing up the class warfare angle here? Consider that virtually all of the gains in worker productivity in the years since Reagan took office have gone to the owners, not the workers. I suggest all you conservative union-haters give the following article a thorough read, though the productivity data I'm referring to is about halfway down the page:
rationalrevolution.net/articles/recession_cause.htm

The right has been waging war against the middle class since long before Reagan. They'll continue to succeed until you all wake up. The success the right has had in getting you all to pillory anyone pointing this out as a 'communist' is disheartening. Democracy only functions properly with an educated electorate.

PL

You seem to have overlooked that the current unions are corporations that are just as evil, if not more so, than the ones you are villifying. I want both abolished.

 

[Alate_One]

You seem to have overlooked that the current unions are corporations that are just as evil, if not more so, than the ones you are villifying. I want both abolished.

How about you give us some data as to *why* unions are actually evil?

Here is the graph I think he was talking about . . . .

It seems to kind of coincide with the loss of union membership.

Of course correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but it is certainly interesting.

 

[chrysostom]

How about you give us some data as to *why* unions are actually evil?

they support the democratic party that kills babies

 

[Alate_One]

they support the democratic party that kills babies

When are you going to get it through your head that there are pro life democrats and pro choice Republicans?

Let me guess . . . never.

Plus with all the years of Republicans in power, nothing has been done on Roe v. Wade. And even if you did get rid of Roe, the states will then be able to legalize abortion.

Besides, the modern Republican party has no interest in preserving life outside of the womb. Once a child is born, all bets are off. The US has high child poverty rates compared to other industrialized nations, high infant mortality and low health insurance rates for children. According to modern Republicans, sick, poor and needy children are drains on the state. Their benefits need to be cut so we can have more tax cuts for the rich. :kookoo:

It's the moronic Republican dichotomy of being so upset that unborn children die, and then being angry at having to support them once they are born.

You're stuck in the Republicans good Democrats bad gear. It isn't that simple and I'm sorry you are too dense to get it into your thick skull. You'll just keep on blindly pulling that R lever no matter what Repubs actually do. It's so sad there are so many like you.

 

[chrysostom]

Plus with all the years of Republicans in power, nothing has been done on Roe v. Wade.

that is because democrats have blocked conservative judges

 

[Alate_One]

that is because democrats have blocked conservative judges

You think Thomas and Scalia aren't conservative? :rotfl: If you're talking about Bork, he was so crazy right he thought it was okay for the southern states to impose a poll tax. So no, he wasn't going anywhere.

Besides they certainly have more they can do that just overturn Roe. They haven't introduced much of any legislation that would challenge it.

 

[chrysostom]

You think Thomas and Scalia aren't conservative? :rotfl: If you're talking about Bork, he was so crazy right he thought it was okay for the southern states to impose a poll tax. So no, he wasn't going anywhere.

Besides they certainly have more they can do that just overturn Roe. They haven't introduced much of any legislation that would challenge it.

the truth is with democrats you get liberal judges
and
they block the conservative judges republicans want on the courts

 

[Alate_One]

the truth is with democrats you get liberal judges
and
they block the conservative judges republicans want on the courts

As I showed you with Bork, the problem is "conservative judges" get you more than just a pro life stance. They are pro corporation and against the rest of the people (see their last ruling that money = speech). The destruction conservative judges wreak is not worth the off chance that Roe, A will actually come up and B. will be struck down.

You should be demanding your legislators to take action, local and national. Understand that a life at conception ruling will never be enacted unless you get a pro-life dictator, but you can certainly get more protections for the unborn even under Roe.

 

[genuineoriginal]

How about you give us some data as to *why* unions are actually evil?

Here is the graph I think he was talking about . . . .

It seems to kind of coincide with the loss of union membership.

Of course correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but it is certainly interesting.

Funny, I see no correlatiion between the two graphs.

 

[Alate_One]

Funny, I see no correlatiion between the two graphs.

Guess you need to take graph reading 101. It seems PL was right about your education level. The scales aren't the same. One starts at 1959, the second starts in the 1900s, so you need to ignore the front half of the second graph with respect to the other. Right around the 1980s in both graphs, productivity goes up (without a corresponding increase in compensation) and union membership starts to really plunge.

 

[Bob Enyart]

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining ... We demand this fraud be stopped.”

- Martin Luther King Jr.

PD, when the government makes an uneven playing field slanted toward organized labor, then unions become especially harmful. Let unions negotiate whatever contract they can, but no one has the right to tell my employer that he can't hire me unless I agree to join them.