Collective bargaining at itsfinest

[KissMy]

Pimco's Gross Sees Little Value In Treasurys As US Debt Grows

Pimco's Bill Gross, founder of bond powerhouse Pimco explained in his April outlook that he had dumped his U.S. Treasury holdings at the end of February because he sees little value in the market given the nation's mounting debt burden.

In addition to the $9.1 trillion in federal debt seen on the books, Gross is worried about the hefty portion of each year's budget that goes toward non-discretionary and entitlement spending. Including obligations for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the "true but unrecorded" U.S. debt is $75 trillion, Gross said, which amounts to near 500% of gross domestic product.

"[I have] been selling Treasuries because they have little value within the context of a $75 trillion total debt burden," Gross said in his outlook published on Pimco's website. "Unless entitlements are substantially reformed, I am confident that this country will default on its debt," but "not in conventional ways."

Earlier in March, reports showed that the bond-fund company, which manages more than $1 trillion in assets, sold all its holdings in U.S. government bonds of more than 12 months maturity. Gross's April newsletter reflected his belief that the nation is ultimately in danger of default if deficit spending is not addressed.

"Unless entitlements are substantially reformed, I am confident that this country will default on its debt; not in conventional ways, but by picking the pocket of savers," Gross said, pointing to inflation, currency devaluation and low to negative real interest rates as the "stealth" forms of default--all of which are detrimental to Treasury holders.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is why you renegotiate the deal. Unions were willing to compromise walker was not. If you have a mole on your foot that you want to remove you don't amputate the leg.

According to walker's own website he sites a press release with no link and your source is parroting walker's talking points and I cannot find an original copy of the press release so can you prove your claim that they get two pensions??

That is certainly one way to interpret the situation, but there are others. He put out the terms of his deal, and the union rejected them. Did you notice in all of this that his plan affects more than just the teachers union? Or that the teachers union is the only one that raised a big stink and refused to accept it? Until, that is, the President of the United States decided to interject himself into state politics and made a bigger issue of it.

So "he" gets 100% of what he wants or no deal and you call that compromise??

BTW is that a "NO" that you can't prove the claim that they recieve two pensions??

compromise is the current method of doing business with public worker unions. Obviously that has not been beneficial to the people whom the public workers aresupposed to serve.
Time for things to be changed radically. This is an urgent call to reduce the burden faced by taxpayers struggling to get by in a double dip recession.
In other words, if union members have to take it in the shorts, too bad. They've had it very good for a very long time. The party is over. For the last 7 decades, union members have been all but sheltered from the realities of the private sector. Union bosses have gamed the system to coerce special benefits for public workers by using their political power and influenece with and over elected officials. The end.

 

[drsmith1072]

That is certainly one way to interpret the situation, but there are others. He put out the terms of his deal, and the union rejected them. Did you notice in all of this that his plan affects more than just the teachers union? Or that the teachers union is the only one that raised a big stink and refused to accept it? Until, that is, the President of the United States decided to interject himself into state politics and made a bigger issue of it.

So "he" gets 100% of what he wants or no deal and you call that compromise??

BTW is that a "NO" that you can't prove the claim that they recieve two pensions??

compromise is the current method of doing business with public worker unions. Obviously that has not been beneficial to the people whom the public workers aresupposed to serve.
Time for things to be changed radically. This is an urgent call to reduce the burden faced by taxpayers struggling to get by in a double dip recession.
In other words, if union members have to take it in the shorts, too bad. They've had it very good for a very long time. The party is over. For the last 7 decades, union members have been all but sheltered from the realities of the private sector. Union bosses have gamed the system to coerce special benefits for public workers by using their political power and influenece with and over elected officials. The end.

So you can't actually answer the question that was asked either and can only provide BS talking points about "union bosses" and an "urgent call"?? LOL Thanks for nothing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So "he" gets 100% of what he wants or no deal and you call that compromise??

BTW is that a "NO" that you can't prove the claim that they recieve two pensions??

compromise is the current method of doing business with public worker unions. Obviously that has not been beneficial to the people whom the public workers are supposed to serve.
Time for things to be changed radically. This is an urgent call to reduce the burden faced by taxpayers struggling to get by in a double dip recession.
In other words, if union members have to take it in the shorts, too bad. They've had it very good for a very long time. The party is over. For the last 7 decades, union members have been all but sheltered from the realities of the private sector. Union bosses have gamed the system to coerce special benefits for public workers by using their political power and influence with and over elected officials. The end.

So you can't actually answer the question that was asked either and can only provide BS talking points about "union bosses" and an "urgent call"?? LOL Thanks for nothing.

No. You just didn't get the answer you wanted.
If you want to ignore the fact that union bosses and complicit politicians are not in bed with each other per the deals public union workers get, you're living in a parallel universe.
What you refer to "talking points" are facts.
Look, this is a done deal. The era of ever increasing union benefits and wages for public employees is over.
There are many states where public workers are not represented by unions. The sky did not fall.

 

[drsmith1072]

compromise is the current method of doing business with public worker unions. Obviously that has not been beneficial to the people whom the public workers are supposed to serve.
Time for things to be changed radically. This is an urgent call to reduce the burden faced by taxpayers struggling to get by in a double dip recession.
In other words, if union members have to take it in the shorts, too bad. They've had it very good for a very long time. The party is over. For the last 7 decades, union members have been all but sheltered from the realities of the private sector. Union bosses have gamed the system to coerce special benefits for public workers by using their political power and influence with and over elected officials. The end.

So you can't actually answer the question that was asked either and can only provide BS talking points about "union bosses" and an "urgent call"?? LOL Thanks for nothing.

No. You just didn't get the answer you wanted.
If you want to ignore the fact that union bosses and complicit politicians are not in bed with each other per the deals public union workers get, you're living in a parallel universe.
What you refer to "talking points" are facts.
Look, this is a done deal. The era of ever increasing union benefits and wages for public employees is over.
There are many states where public workers are not represented by unions. The sky did not fall.

Actually you didn't answer the question that was actually asked and decided to thrown out the usual bs talking points of the right as you try to claim that they facts while failing to subustantiate them. Thanks for playing though.

 

[Gadawg73]

Public employee unions are totally ILLOGICAL.
The employers, THE TAXPAYERS, do not get a seat at the "bargaining" table.

 

[Charles_Main]

I heard from "Waiting For Superman" documentary, that tenure is indeed a major factor in killing quality in our public schools.

Absolutely. Tenure is an INSANE system. It Assures that even sub par Teachers only have to make it 10 years or so, get tenure and boom. It becomes almost impossible to fire them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you can't actually answer the question that was asked either and can only provide BS talking points about "union bosses" and an "urgent call"?? LOL Thanks for nothing.

No. You just didn't get the answer you wanted.
If you want to ignore the fact that union bosses and complicit politicians are not in bed with each other per the deals public union workers get, you're living in a parallel universe.
What you refer to "talking points" are facts.
Look, this is a done deal. The era of ever increasing union benefits and wages for public employees is over.
There are many states where public workers are not represented by unions. The sky did not fall.

Actually you didn't answer the question that was actually asked and decided to thrown out the usual bs talking points of the right as you try to claim that they facts while failing to subustantiate them. Thanks for playing though.

I gather since you decided to repeat your previous post, you have run out of ideas and your argument out of gas.
Despite your protestations, you're still on the wrong side of the issue.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I heard from "Waiting For Superman" documentary, that tenure is indeed a major factor in killing quality in our public schools.

Absolutely. Tenure is an INSANE system. It Assures that even sub par Teachers only have to make it 10 years or so, get tenure and boom. It becomes almost impossible to fire them.

In New Jersey teachers receive tenure after three years of service.

 

[snjmom]

If a current employee believes their rate of pay to be substandard, they are free to go to their employer and request an increase or leave the job.

And with collective bargaining, employees are free to stand together and request an increase or leave.


You don't think management acts as individuals in the process, do you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

If a current employee believes their rate of pay to be substandard, they are free to go to their employer and request an increase or leave the job.

And with collective bargaining, employees are free to stand together and request an increase or leave.


You don't think management acts as individuals in the process, do you?

The question is irrelevant per the focus of this discussion which is public sector unions.
Actually you are wrong. The union bosses make the decisions. They go to the table and negotiate with the employer.
In the case of public worker unions and their negotiations with the political leadership, the actual employers are denied a seat at the table. And THAT is the root of the problem.
The taxpayers, the ones who pay the freight are not permitted to have a say in how their money is spent. That MUST end.
There are two ways to combat this problem. One , is through the legislative process. That has happened in Wisconsin. The other way is for the state to permit the voters to choose via referendum.
Either way the current system has to go because it is unsustainable and the taxpayers can fund it no more.

 

[bripat9643]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go. If the employer has agreed to such terms, then that's on the employer, plain and simple. If I sit down at the table with you and work out a business deal that ends up being foolish for me, then that is my fault for being foolish in my business deals. Same thing applies.

Then you should have no trouble when the employer (the taxpayer) says he doesn't want to negotiate with the union anymore.

 

[bripat9643]

But with collective bargaining with public workers, the ones opposing them on the bargaining table are often the very same people who promised them the most on the campaign trail.

This is why even FDR opposed collective bargaining for Public sector workers.

Then that is an issue to be dealt with via the democratic voting process. No need for people to throw a bitch fit about it.

That's why Walker got elected in Wisconsin.

Problem solved. by-by union bargaining.

 

[drsmith1072]

Public employee unions are totally ILLOGICAL.
The employers, THE TAXPAYERS, do not get a seat at the "bargaining" table.

OK so let's get this straight.

"THE TAXPAYERS" vote in elections and elect those they wish to represent them and you are actually trying to argue that "THE TAXPAYERS" don't get a seate at the "bargaining" table??

So does this apply now or is it only when what is being agreed to goes against your opinons that you argue that "THE TAXPAYERS" should get a seat (have a vote) at the bargaining table??

Should states like wisconsin put their new union-busting legislation up for a statewide vote and let "THE TAXPAYER" get a seat at the "bargaining" table??

Is that really what you and the person who thanked you (thereisnospoon) really trying to say??

 

[drsmith1072]

No. You just didn't get the answer you wanted.
If you want to ignore the fact that union bosses and complicit politicians are not in bed with each other per the deals public union workers get, you're living in a parallel universe.
What you refer to "talking points" are facts.
Look, this is a done deal. The era of ever increasing union benefits and wages for public employees is over.
There are many states where public workers are not represented by unions. The sky did not fall.

Actually you didn't answer the question that was actually asked and decided to thrown out the usual bs talking points of the right as you try to claim that they facts while failing to subustantiate them. Thanks for playing though.

I gather since you decided to repeat your previous post, you have run out of ideas and your argument out of gas.
Despite your protestations, you're still on the wrong side of the issue.

Since you failed to answer the question that was actually asked and repeated bascially the same line of bs about "union bosses" and "no compromise" then "I gather since you decided to repeat your previous post, you have run out of ideas and your argument out of gas." Thanks for coutnering your own repeated spin. LOL


So this type of class warfare is one that you support?? Oh those evil teachers and their unions have something that you do not so let's take it away from them. LOL If union busting is such a good idea then why doesn't the wisconsin legislation apply to all public unions??

 

[del]

Actually you didn't answer the question that was actually asked and decided to thrown out the usual bs talking points of the right as you try to claim that they facts while failing to subustantiate them. Thanks for playing though.

I gather since you decided to repeat your previous post, you have run out of ideas and your argument out of gas.
Despite your protestations, you're still on the wrong side of the issue.

Since you failed to answer the question that was actually asked and repeated bascially the same line of bs about "union bosses" and "no compromise" then "I gather since you decided to repeat your previous post, you have run out of ideas and your argument out of gas." Thanks for coutnering your own repeated spin. LOL


So this type of class warfare is one that you support?? Oh those evil teachers and their unions have something that you do not so let's take it away from them. LOL If union busting is such a good idea then why doesn't the wisconsin legislation apply to all public unions??

um, it does, pretty much, except for cops.

do try to keep up, einstein.

Judge blocks Wisconsin collective-bargaining law - CSMonitor.com

 

[drsmith1072]

If a current employee believes their rate of pay to be substandard, they are free to go to their employer and request an increase or leave the job.

And with collective bargaining, employees are free to stand together and request an increase or leave.


You don't think management acts as individuals in the process, do you?

The question is irrelevant per the focus of this discussion which is public sector unions.

Really?? How is it irrelevant?? Is it really or are you merely trying to avoid an argument that you know you can't win by claiming it's irrelevant so you can ignore it??

Actually you are wrong. The union bosses make the decisions. They go to the table and negotiate with the employer.

How is he wrong?? I don't know how every union works but based on your standards my mother was a "union boss" who was elected by the union members to represent them and their needs. So care to explain how he is wrong?? Or do you actually believe that claiming it, is enough to make it so??

In the case of public worker unions and their negotiations with the political leadership, the actual employers are denied a seat at the table. And THAT is the root of the problem.
The taxpayers, the ones who pay the freight are not permitted to have a say in how their money is spent. That MUST end.

So you are seriously trying to argue, based on a previous posters line of bs, that "the taxpayers" have no say in who represents them at the table. So I ask you since I asked the other poster whould all legislation that affects public sector workers be put up to a state wide vote so "the taxpayers" can have a seat at the table??

There are two ways to combat this problem. One , is through the legislative process. That has happened in Wisconsin.

Did "the taxpayers" have a seat at that table?? LOL let's see how you spin this.

The other way is for the state to permit the voters to choose via referendum.

So since you believe that "the taxpayers" should have a seat at the table my guess is that you would support the latter over the former. So why is it that you support what the right is doing when they did not allow "the taxpayers" a seat at the table even as you are against the left for handling it the same way??

Either way the current system has to go because it is unsustainable and the taxpayers can fund it no more.

Which system is that?? The one you support when republicans do it or the one that you are agaisnt when democrats do it??

 

[drsmith1072]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go. If the employer has agreed to such terms, then that's on the employer, plain and simple. If I sit down at the table with you and work out a business deal that ends up being foolish for me, then that is my fault for being foolish in my business deals. Same thing applies.

Then you should have no trouble when the employer (the taxpayer) says he doesn't want to negotiate with the union anymore.

When did the taxpayer say any such thing?? Was there a secret vote in which "the taxpayer" was allowed to do this??

According to your fellow morons they have said that "the taxpayer" was not allowed to have a seat at the table so when where they able to make this known??

Oh and if you say the election then you must show proof that every anti-union rightwinger that is now trying to bust unions campaigned on doing just that.

 

[drsmith1072]

But with collective bargaining with public workers, the ones opposing them on the bargaining table are often the very same people who promised them the most on the campaign trail.

This is why even FDR opposed collective bargaining for Public sector workers.

Then that is an issue to be dealt with via the democratic voting process. No need for people to throw a bitch fit about it.

That's why Walker got elected in Wisconsin.

Problem solved. by-by union bargaining.

Now if you can actually show that he campaigned on busting the unions then you would actually have an argument. Too bad for you he didn't.

 

[drsmith1072]

I gather since you decided to repeat your previous post, you have run out of ideas and your argument out of gas.
Despite your protestations, you're still on the wrong side of the issue.

Since you failed to answer the question that was actually asked and repeated bascially the same line of bs about "union bosses" and "no compromise" then "I gather since you decided to repeat your previous post, you have run out of ideas and your argument out of gas." Thanks for coutnering your own repeated spin. LOL


So this type of class warfare is one that you support?? Oh those evil teachers and their unions have something that you do not so let's take it away from them. LOL If union busting is such a good idea then why doesn't the wisconsin legislation apply to all public unions??

um, it does, pretty much, except for cops.

do try to keep up, einstein.

Judge blocks Wisconsin collective-bargaining law - CSMonitor.com

So it doesn't apply to ALL public unions.

Thanks for the unnecessary clarification. It's really funny how you agree with me and then try to insult me. LOL