Collective bargaining at itsfinest

[Gadawg73]

It all boils down to:
Who owns the job?
The employer or the employee?

 

[drsmith1072]

It all boils down to:
Who owns the job?
The employer or the employee?

Hmm? Interesting argument. However, when the job is a public job according to the arguments from the right in this thread the employee is also the employer/taxpayer and should have a seat at the table.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In at least one Ohio city, making up snow days costs the district $2m per day.

Why?

The union contract specifies that the teachers get paid for these days, as they lay outside the school year.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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??

NO. We mean exactly what it is we wrote.
Why did you ask the same question worded differently three times?
In any event, the answer is YES. The taxpayer despite the ability to vote for certain candidates does NOT get a seat at the table. This is why all wage and benefit negotiations should go to referendum. Let the voters decide if not on the details of the new contract proposal, the tax increase what will come with it. In other words, if we do not get to decide the size of the increases, we should damn well get a chance to vote on whether or not we want to pay for it. It works for road and other bond issues, school budgets. Why not taxes that pay for the workers who serve the public?
If property and other taxes are going to be used to fund these wages and benefits, you're God Damned right we should have a say.
As previously stated, this is a done deal. The taxpayers are sick of forking over larger and larger portions essentially shrinking their paychecks in order to have the paychecks of those in service to the state get larger.
Government has become over priced and even more inefficient. The largest portion of the cost of government is labor. Based on that fact, labor must take the largest cuts first. Too bad. If the workers don't like it, they should either learn to make better use of their work time or work cheaper. We in the private sector MUST do this or we are replaced with someone who can.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They said it when they voted out the DemoRAT criminals and voted in Walker and the rest of the Republicans.

Suck on it, Dims.

 

[The T]

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.

YOU stupid Son Of A Bitch...Wake up...the Taxpayers DID when they voted the Governor in, and the Legislature.

YOU are sore that it wasn't YOUR GUYS to continue to BILK the TAXPAYERS.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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??

Now you are repeating MY posts..Sheesh.

Dude....Please stop the nonsense. You're not going to filibuster this discussion while insisting on getting the answer you expect. Did your upbringing not include lessons on disappointment?
Class warfare? Yer kidding right? You people on the Left are the ones who are constantly trashing any one who earns more than you think is appropriate. YOU are the people who demand the evil rich be punished for their greed by using the force of government sanctions( taxation) YOU are the people who think success and achievement should be punished instead of rewarded.
The point is public employees do not require unions to represent them. Many states operate just fine without the interference and additional expense of public worker unions.
No one is implying workers are not needed to perform essential services. They just need to perform their jobs at a pay rate that is affordable to the employer.
If you do not or cannot grasp that concept, you are just not a logical person.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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??




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??



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??



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??

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??
This is not about winning or losing an argument, genius. The question is irrelevant because this discussion is not about the private sector




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??
I do not know your mother. Why bring her into it? Did she work for a government agency?
Their "needs"....What are these people, a bunch of post menopausal high school chicks? "Their needs"..Grow the fuck up.
And no, shop reps do not get wined and dined by the political power brokers. Those guys entertain the union bosses with the black Cadillacs and the pinky rings.



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 should 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?? No. That is not practical. But in may states, referendums are voted upon for public expenditures such as school budgets, road funding, capital or infrastructure improvements, whether or not to increase the number of city council members or county executives or even city or county budgets.
The bottom line is if the unions are going to rely on contracts in which taxpayers are to fulfill them, the taxpayers should have the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to have their taxes increased to pay for them. It is unjust for a union or unions representing workers to have virtual taxing authority when the taxpayers do not get to vote on who runs the unions.




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?? Who said anything like that? It is you people on the left who have politicized this. That is by virtue of the democrat senators leaving the State in an effort to avoid a vote on an issue which would result in the defeat of an important democrat constituency....Unions.
The difference between us and your side is when your side loses in legislation, you run to the courts and cry foul in search of relief.
Our side simply elects people with whom we support and through the legislative process implements changes with which we asked for.
You are asking questions for which you already have the answers.

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??[/QUOTE]
The system where workers are paid so much in wage and benefits that the taxpayers are no longer able to sustain the cost. The system that feeds on itself. It feeds on itself by virtue of the politicians in office who have their campaigns well funded by the very people who sit across from them when the new union contract is negotiated.
If you want to deny this happens, go right ahead. You'd be living a lie.
Now look, this is over. The public workers are not getting any sympathy here. Their unions are on the taxpayer shit list. The stranglehold public worker unions have had is evaporating.
There is no more money. Deal with it.

 

[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??

NO. We mean exactly what it is we wrote.

So what is it that you are trying to say?? Please clarify because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Why did you ask the same question worded differently three times?

I am sorry, I decided to word my questions that way to make sure all of the bases were covered in the event that you right wingers tried to spin some bs response.

In any event, the answer is YES.

So that is a yes to this question.

"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??

meaning that you are actually trying to argue that elections don't matter which runs contrary to the positions of other right wingers in this very thread.

You said YES to all the above so please clarify


You answered the other question about referendums even though you obviously don't apply that standard to the republicans trying to bust unions right NOW. More of the usual hypocrisy.

The taxpayer despite the ability to vote for certain candidates does NOT get a seat at the table.

That's funny considering how a couple of your fellow right wingers, as expected, is giving the whole "elections have consequences" line of BS that shows that "the taxpayers" had elected someone to represent their interests at the table.
Oops. Looks like you guys have some contradiction to work out. LOL

This is why all wage and benefit negotiations should go to referendum. Let the voters decide if not on the details of the new contract proposal, the tax increase what will come with it. In other words, if we do not get to decide the size of the increases, we should damn well get a chance to vote on whether or not we want to pay for it. It works for road and other bond issues, school budgets. Why not taxes that pay for the workers who serve the public?
If property and other taxes are going to be used to fund these wages and benefits, you're God Damned right we should have a say.

So due to the fact that walker didn't do it this way, why is it that you support what he did even as you claim that it was wrong to do it that way?? Thanks for exposing your hypocrisy.

As previously stated, this is a done deal. The taxpayers are sick of forking over larger and larger portions essentially shrinking their paychecks in order to have the paychecks of those in service to the state get larger.
Government has become over priced and even more inefficient. The largest portion of the cost of government is labor. Based on that fact, labor must take the largest cuts first. Too bad. If the workers don't like it, they should either learn to make better use of their work time or work cheaper. We in the private sector MUST do this or we are replaced with someone who can.

Blah blah blah BS, thanks for the talking points but it is far from a done deal. There is a case being discussed in wisconsin and it appears that the conservative lost the election to the state supreme court so it's funny that you continue to make claims pretending that they are written in stone when they are NOT. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

They said it when they voted out the DemoRAT criminals and voted in Walker and the rest of the Republicans.

Suck on it, Dims.

Please show when and where those elected campaigned on busting unions. If you cannot show how they did campaign on it then how can you even begin to claim that the taxpayers voted in favor of what walker and the republicans are doing now?

When did the taxpayer say that they don't want to negotiate with unions anymore?? Your claim, put up or shut up.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

YOU stupid Son Of A Bitch...Wake up...the Taxpayers DID when they voted the Governor in, and the Legislature.

YOU are sore that it wasn't YOUR GUYS to continue to BILK the TAXPAYERS.

LOL apparently you can't prove his claim any better than he could even as you rush in to try and defend him.

BTW, Please show when and where those elected campaigned on busting unions. If you cannot show how they did campaign on it then how can you even begin to claim that the taxpayers voted in favor of what walker and the republicans are doing now?

When did the taxpayer say that they don't want to negotiate with unions anymore?? THis is the claim that you are defending, put up or shut up.

 

[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??

Now you are repeating MY posts..Sheesh.

Dude....Please stop the nonsense.

No nonsense on my part. I asked a question and haven't gotten a valid answer.

You're not going to filibuster this discussion while insisting on getting the answer you expect.

Actually due to the fact that you are the one repeating bs talking points about unions bosses etc it is you who is trying to filibuster.

Did your upbringing not include lessons on disappointment?

WOW you actually think your avoidance of providing a REAL answer to the question that was asked disappoints me?? You obviously think too highly of yourself. LOL I just wanted a real answer and all you could do was spew out talking points that didn't address the question that was actually asked.

Class warfare? Yer kidding right? You people on the Left are the ones who are constantly trashing any one who earns more than you think is appropriate. YOU are the people who demand the evil rich be punished for their greed by using the force of government sanctions( taxation) YOU are the people who think success and achievement should be punished instead of rewarded.

Uh, you do realize that you are proving my point don't you?? My point is that the right accuses the left of class warfare all the time and you just gave examples of your beliefs. However, in this instance the right is the group trying to make private workers jealous of public workers as they attack public workers over the better benefits and pay that they have and how they need to be punished for getting sucha good deal.
Are you following yet or are you still stuck on spin??

The point is public employees do not require unions to represent them. Many states operate just fine without the interference and additional expense of public worker unions.
No one is implying workers are not needed to perform essential services. They just need to perform their jobs at a pay rate that is affordable to the employer.
If you do not or cannot grasp that concept, you are just not a logical person.

Wow, more talking points. Imagine that. LOL So which right wing site did you read all of that bs from?? LOL
I do find it funny how you are trying to dictate to others what they don't need. Interesting how that sounds just like the left winger trying to tell "the rich" what they do and do not need. LOL thanks for helping my argument and exposing the hypocrisy of the right.

 

[drsmith1072]

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??




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??



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??



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



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??



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

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??
This is not about winning or losing an argument, genius. The question is irrelevant because this discussion is not about the private sector




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??
I do not know your mother. Why bring her into it? Did she work for a government agency?
Their "needs"....What are these people, a bunch of post menopausal high school chicks? "Their needs"..Grow the fuck up.
And no, shop reps do not get wined and dined by the political power brokers. Those guys entertain the union bosses with the black Cadillacs and the pinky rings.



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 should 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?? No. That is not practical. But in may states, referendums are voted upon for public expenditures such as school budgets, road funding, capital or infrastructure improvements, whether or not to increase the number of city council members or county executives or even city or county budgets.
The bottom line is if the unions are going to rely on contracts in which taxpayers are to fulfill them, the taxpayers should have the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to have their taxes increased to pay for them. It is unjust for a union or unions representing workers to have virtual taxing authority when the taxpayers do not get to vote on who runs the unions.




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?? Who said anything like that? It is you people on the left who have politicized this. That is by virtue of the democrat senators leaving the State in an effort to avoid a vote on an issue which would result in the defeat of an important democrat constituency....Unions.
The difference between us and your side is when your side loses in legislation, you run to the courts and cry foul in search of relief.
Our side simply elects people with whom we support and through the legislative process implements changes with which we asked for.
You are asking questions for which you already have the answers.

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??

The system where workers are paid so much in wage and benefits that the taxpayers are no longer able to sustain the cost. The system that feeds on itself. It feeds on itself by virtue of the politicians in office who have their campaigns well funded by the very people who sit across from them when the new union contract is negotiated.
If you want to deny this happens, go right ahead. You'd be living a lie.
Now look, this is over. The public workers are not getting any sympathy here. Their unions are on the taxpayer shit list. The stranglehold public worker unions have had is evaporating.
There is no more money. Deal with it.

Is that jumbled incoherent mess supposed to mean anything?? I had to add quotes to separate your mess from my response. LOL