Ohio about to break unions; Bill passes house!

[thereisnospoon]

It's the new reality. We just can't afford unions at the public sector level anymore.

I hope you enjoy making a nickel a day. Because that obviosuly what you want. No worker rights YEAH!!! I mean those greedy, everybody, for expecting more than a nickel a day right bucs? Yeah everybody sucks.

Oh please. You and that ed guy are just pissed off because unions are dying and you both think that union work should be the ONLY work.
Well screw the damned unions.
Unions are a big pain in the ass .They cost too much money, drive a wedge between employer and employee, employ ridiculous and archaic work rules and did I say cost too much money?
Nickel a day....Fuck off with that bullshit.
Has it ever dawned on you WHY just under 8% of the US workforce is unionized?
Employees have plenty of laws to protect them. In fact it is unions that do not protect workers. Unions make it worse. I have a friend who used to work for a union shop....He was involved in an auto accident which left him without a vehicle to get to work for three days. He called his supervisor and let her know what the deal was. She told him in no uncertain terms that he HAD to get to work the next day or he would be written up.
Since he had no other vehicle with which to get to work, he got written up. He went to the shop steward to ask about filing a grievance. The Steward told him his hands were tied.
Here's the deal, had my friend NOT had this wall built between him and the company, he could have worked out something such as take a few vacation days. But because of the way the union deal worked, he could not use vacation days.
Unions one size fits all mentality is what sucks. Unions are archaic and simply get in the way of commerce.
No matter what you say it is immaterial. You are not going to change my mind nor will anything you have to say in defense of big labor have any logic attached to it.
Unions are a dinosaur. Case closed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How is this a Union busting bill?

Even WI is not a Union busting bill, why are you saying this? If the Union fails in WI it's because it's members left, the bill does not dissolve the Union in any way.

I agree but it takes all the bargaining power away from the people. Once they have taken all the bargaining power away from the people how long will it be before they start losing some of their benefits not to mention having to take paycuts??????

That's the point. By removing collective bargaining it brings wages and benefits under the control of the employer rather than an agent for the employee.
Obviously the present system is not working for the employer ( taxpayer) who pays the bills but until now has no say in how HIS/HER money gets spent.
It is about time these expensive wages and benefits are reined in. The taxpayers have spoken. There is no more money for these perks.

 

[edthecynic]

It's the new reality. We just can't afford unions at the public sector level anymore.

I hope you enjoy making a nickel a day. Because that obviosuly what you want. No worker rights YEAH!!! I mean those greedy, everybody, for expecting more than a nickel a day right bucs? Yeah everybody sucks.

Oh please. You and that ed guy are just pissed off because unions are dying and you both think that union work should be the ONLY work.
Well screw the damned unions.
Unions are a big pain in the ass .They cost too much money, drive a wedge between employer and employee, employ ridiculous and archaic work rules and did I say cost too much money?
Nickel a day....Fuck off with that bullshit.
Has it ever dawned on you WHY just under 8% of the US workforce is unionized?

American Rights at Work

How is it that so few American workers have a union? The inadequacies of U.S. labor law extinguish or delay organizing campaigns and do little to discourage the firing, harassment and discrimination against workers for exercising their legal rights to form a union and collectively bargain.
Many employers find the weak penalties for breaking the law a bargain if firing a pro-union employee scares others from supporting the union. If workers do successfully form a union despite such tactics, the employer is allowed to repeatedly appeal the results, which can take years.



American Rights at Work - No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing



Overall, 12.4% of U.S. workers are represented by unions, a density far below what would be the case if all workers who wanted to belong to a union could freely do so. In fact, studies have shown that if workers’ preferences were realized, as much as 58% of the workforce would have union representation. Yet, this low overall unionization rate obscures a striking imbalance – while almost 37% of public-sector workers belong to unions, less than 8% of private-sector workers do. A 2009 study by Cornell University researcher, Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner, offers a detailed look at why.
Employers continue to punish workers for supporting a union

In the last two decades, private-sector employer opposition to workers seeking their legal right to union representation has intensified. Compared to the 1990s, employers are more than twice as likely to use 10 or more tactics in their anti-union campaigns, with a greater focus on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity.
It has become standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for supporting a union. An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:

• 63%of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
• 54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
• 57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
• 47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
• 34% of employers fire workers.

Employers have increased their use of more punitive tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment, disciplinary actions, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions. While at the same time, employers are less likely to offer “carrots,” such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, bribes, special favors, social events, promises of improvement, and employee involvement programs.



These private-sector campaigns differ markedly from public-sector campaigns. Survey data from the public sector describe an atmosphere in which workers organize relatively free from the kind of coercion, intimidation, and retaliation that so dominates in the private sector. Most of the states in the public-sector sample have laws allowing workers to choose a union through the majority sign-up process.



Many employers resist collective bargaining long after workers form their union

• One year after a successful election, 52% of newly formed unions had no collective bargaining agreement.
• Two years after an election, 37% of newly formed unions still had no labor agreement.

 

[Care4all]

How is this a Union busting bill?

Even WI is not a Union busting bill, why are you saying this? If the Union fails in WI it's because it's members left, the bill does not dissolve the Union in any way.

I agree but it takes all the bargaining power away from the people. Once they have taken all the bargaining power away from the people how long will it be before they start losing some of their benefits not to mention having to take paycuts??????

That's the point. By removing collective bargaining it brings wages and benefits under the control of the employer rather than an agent for the employee.
Obviously the present system is not working for the employer ( taxpayer) who pays the bills but until now has no say in how HIS/HER money gets spent.
It is about time these expensive wages and benefits are reined in. The taxpayers have spoken. There is no more money for these perks.

are you for doing the same thing with the firefighter and police unions as well or is it only good teachers in wisconsin/ohio etc. that has to pay for the past mistakes and budget shortfalls of these state gvts?

 

[JFK_USA]

I hope you enjoy making a nickel a day. Because that obviosuly what you want. No worker rights YEAH!!! I mean those greedy, everybody, for expecting more than a nickel a day right bucs? Yeah everybody sucks.

Oh please. You and that ed guy are just pissed off because unions are dying and you both think that union work should be the ONLY work.
Well screw the damned unions.
Unions are a big pain in the ass .They cost too much money, drive a wedge between employer and employee, employ ridiculous and archaic work rules and did I say cost too much money?
Nickel a day....Fuck off with that bullshit.
Has it ever dawned on you WHY just under 8% of the US workforce is unionized?

American Rights at Work

How is it that so few American workers have a union? The inadequacies of U.S. labor law extinguish or delay organizing campaigns and do little to discourage the firing, harassment and discrimination against workers for exercising their legal rights to form a union and collectively bargain.
Many employers find the weak penalties for breaking the law a bargain if firing a pro-union employee scares others from supporting the union. If workers do successfully form a union despite such tactics, the employer is allowed to repeatedly appeal the results, which can take years.



American Rights at Work - No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing



Overall, 12.4% of U.S. workers are represented by unions, a density far below what would be the case if all workers who wanted to belong to a union could freely do so. In fact, studies have shown that if workers’ preferences were realized, as much as 58% of the workforce would have union representation. Yet, this low overall unionization rate obscures a striking imbalance – while almost 37% of public-sector workers belong to unions, less than 8% of private-sector workers do. A 2009 study by Cornell University researcher, Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner, offers a detailed look at why.
Employers continue to punish workers for supporting a union

In the last two decades, private-sector employer opposition to workers seeking their legal right to union representation has intensified. Compared to the 1990s, employers are more than twice as likely to use 10 or more tactics in their anti-union campaigns, with a greater focus on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity.
It has become standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for supporting a union. An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:

• 63%of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
• 54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
• 57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
• 47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
• 34% of employers fire workers.

Employers have increased their use of more punitive tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment, disciplinary actions, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions. While at the same time, employers are less likely to offer “carrots,” such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, bribes, special favors, social events, promises of improvement, and employee involvement programs.



These private-sector campaigns differ markedly from public-sector campaigns. Survey data from the public sector describe an atmosphere in which workers organize relatively free from the kind of coercion, intimidation, and retaliation that so dominates in the private sector. Most of the states in the public-sector sample have laws allowing workers to choose a union through the majority sign-up process.



Many employers resist collective bargaining long after workers form their union

• One year after a successful election, 52% of newly formed unions had no collective bargaining agreement.
• Two years after an election, 37% of newly formed unions still had no labor agreement.

My Dad's former company threaten people who wore Teamsters gear around work with their jobs. Then if they talked about getting to be a union, they would fire them.

When people say "Unions are a dying breed" its because employers use corruption and fear to stop unions at all costs. Like you said, without having fear of employer retaliation, most people would join a union. But employers destroy the worker. And republicans cheer it to their own demise. They hate themselves.

 

[Care4all]

How is this a Union busting bill?

Even WI is not a Union busting bill, why are you saying this? If the Union fails in WI it's because it's members left, the bill does not dissolve the Union in any way.

I agree but it takes all the bargaining power away from the people. Once they have taken all the bargaining power away from the people how long will it be before they start losing some of their benefits not to mention having to take paycuts??????

That's the point. By removing collective bargaining it brings wages and benefits under the control of the employer rather than an agent for the employee.
Obviously the present system is not working for the employer ( taxpayer) who pays the bills but until now has no say in how HIS/HER money gets spent.
It is about time these expensive wages and benefits are reined in. The taxpayers have spoken. There is no more money for these perks.

What perks are they getting that others working in the private sector for a corporation wouldn't get?

teachers are not paid that much in Wisconsin....i think the chart someone posted showed their starting salary is 25k....

I paid my starting managers for a retail dept store, some with only high school degrees $28k to start.....and that was 12 years ago, in florida....with a low cost of living....and they got a 401k match, and health Insurance and 2 weeks vacay....

 

[thereisnospoon]

I hope you enjoy making a nickel a day. Because that obviosuly what you want. No worker rights YEAH!!! I mean those greedy, everybody, for expecting more than a nickel a day right bucs? Yeah everybody sucks.

Oh please. You and that ed guy are just pissed off because unions are dying and you both think that union work should be the ONLY work.
Well screw the damned unions.
Unions are a big pain in the ass .They cost too much money, drive a wedge between employer and employee, employ ridiculous and archaic work rules and did I say cost too much money?
Nickel a day....Fuck off with that bullshit.
Has it ever dawned on you WHY just under 8% of the US workforce is unionized?

American Rights at Work

How is it that so few American workers have a union? The inadequacies of U.S. labor law extinguish or delay organizing campaigns and do little to discourage the firing, harassment and discrimination against workers for exercising their legal rights to form a union and collectively bargain.
Many employers find the weak penalties for breaking the law a bargain if firing a pro-union employee scares others from supporting the union. If workers do successfully form a union despite such tactics, the employer is allowed to repeatedly appeal the results, which can take years.



American Rights at Work - No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing



Overall, 12.4% of U.S. workers are represented by unions, a density far below what would be the case if all workers who wanted to belong to a union could freely do so. In fact, studies have shown that if workers’ preferences were realized, as much as 58% of the workforce would have union representation. Yet, this low overall unionization rate obscures a striking imbalance – while almost 37% of public-sector workers belong to unions, less than 8% of private-sector workers do. A 2009 study by Cornell University researcher, Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner, offers a detailed look at why.
Employers continue to punish workers for supporting a union

In the last two decades, private-sector employer opposition to workers seeking their legal right to union representation has intensified. Compared to the 1990s, employers are more than twice as likely to use 10 or more tactics in their anti-union campaigns, with a greater focus on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity.
It has become standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for supporting a union. An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:

• 63%of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
• 54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
• 57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
• 47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
• 34% of employers fire workers.

Employers have increased their use of more punitive tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment, disciplinary actions, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions. While at the same time, employers are less likely to offer “carrots,” such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, bribes, special favors, social events, promises of improvement, and employee involvement programs.



These private-sector campaigns differ markedly from public-sector campaigns. Survey data from the public sector describe an atmosphere in which workers organize relatively free from the kind of coercion, intimidation, and retaliation that so dominates in the private sector. Most of the states in the public-sector sample have laws allowing workers to choose a union through the majority sign-up process.



Many employers resist collective bargaining long after workers form their union

• One year after a successful election, 52% of newly formed unions had no collective bargaining agreement.
• Two years after an election, 37% of newly formed unions still had no labor agreement.

First point. Because the relationship a union may have with an employer is a business relationship it is incumbent on BOTH parties to form an agreement. Should one of those parties decline, that is their decision and it is final. Therefore, the so-called "right" to collectively bargain is a myth.
To put this in simpler terms, just because a group of employees decides to take on an agent to represent them, does not force their employer to enter into any agreement with the agent.
In the past the relationship between union and business has always been adversarial. The employer management looks upon the union as an interloper bent on interfering with their internal affairs. Had unions sought to soften their stance, perhaps union membership would represent a much higher percentage of American workers. However, unions continue to hold on to the notion that the employer is evil and but for the existence of the union you'd be abused and as you say "would be working for a nickel an hour".
Quite frankly unions continued to push their agenda knowing full well their demands( not negotiations) were becoming far more difficult to manage.
This is part of the reason why unions are unpopular and public worker unions even less so.
This is not new. It's just that until now elected officials never questioned the system.
Now that this economy is in a two year slide with no end in sight, politicians are waking up to the reality that the perks given to public workers are no longer affordable and very unpopular. So much so, that politicians who never would dream of incurring the wrath of powerful state union bosses are now more fearful of angry taxpayers who will use the voting both to fire those who they see as the root of their ever growing tax burden.
Political analysts have discovered that as quickly as voters turned over the US House and state legislatures to the GOP and many states swept out democrats, the reverse could occur if voters are not satisfied with the performance of elected officials. This is the primary reason why anti-public worker union sentiment is growing so rapidly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree but it takes all the bargaining power away from the people. Once they have taken all the bargaining power away from the people how long will it be before they start losing some of their benefits not to mention having to take paycuts??????

That's the point. By removing collective bargaining it brings wages and benefits under the control of the employer rather than an agent for the employee.
Obviously the present system is not working for the employer ( taxpayer) who pays the bills but until now has no say in how HIS/HER money gets spent.
It is about time these expensive wages and benefits are reined in. The taxpayers have spoken. There is no more money for these perks.

are you for doing the same thing with the firefighter and police unions as well or is it only good teachers in wisconsin/ohio etc. that has to pay for the past mistakes and budget shortfalls of these state gvts?

Yes. There are several states with highly trained professional public safety ( firefighters, EMT'S Police officers) personnel who do not have collective bargaining rights. These people perform their duties adequately and professionally.
These professionals have pensions and health benefits that are very good but are not so lucrative as to far exceed what exists in the private sector and taxes are under control.
I do not support the elimination of benefits for publicly employed professionals. I support a balance between the interests of those workers and the taxpayers. Right now, in the unionized world of public employees, the scales are tipped far to much in the public employees favor.
The taxpayers have said "no more, we can no longer afford this."

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh please. You and that ed guy are just pissed off because unions are dying and you both think that union work should be the ONLY work.
Well screw the damned unions.
Unions are a big pain in the ass .They cost too much money, drive a wedge between employer and employee, employ ridiculous and archaic work rules and did I say cost too much money?
Nickel a day....Fuck off with that bullshit.
Has it ever dawned on you WHY just under 8% of the US workforce is unionized?

American Rights at Work

How is it that so few American workers have a union? The inadequacies of U.S. labor law extinguish or delay organizing campaigns and do little to discourage the firing, harassment and discrimination against workers for exercising their legal rights to form a union and collectively bargain.
Many employers find the weak penalties for breaking the law a bargain if firing a pro-union employee scares others from supporting the union. If workers do successfully form a union despite such tactics, the employer is allowed to repeatedly appeal the results, which can take years.



American Rights at Work - No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing



Overall, 12.4% of U.S. workers are represented by unions, a density far below what would be the case if all workers who wanted to belong to a union could freely do so. In fact, studies have shown that if workers’ preferences were realized, as much as 58% of the workforce would have union representation. Yet, this low overall unionization rate obscures a striking imbalance – while almost 37% of public-sector workers belong to unions, less than 8% of private-sector workers do. A 2009 study by Cornell University researcher, Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner, offers a detailed look at why.
Employers continue to punish workers for supporting a union

In the last two decades, private-sector employer opposition to workers seeking their legal right to union representation has intensified. Compared to the 1990s, employers are more than twice as likely to use 10 or more tactics in their anti-union campaigns, with a greater focus on more coercive and punitive tactics designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity.
It has become standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for supporting a union. An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:

• 63%of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
• 54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
• 57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
• 47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
• 34% of employers fire workers.

Employers have increased their use of more punitive tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment, disciplinary actions, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions. While at the same time, employers are less likely to offer “carrots,” such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, bribes, special favors, social events, promises of improvement, and employee involvement programs.



These private-sector campaigns differ markedly from public-sector campaigns. Survey data from the public sector describe an atmosphere in which workers organize relatively free from the kind of coercion, intimidation, and retaliation that so dominates in the private sector. Most of the states in the public-sector sample have laws allowing workers to choose a union through the majority sign-up process.



Many employers resist collective bargaining long after workers form their union

• One year after a successful election, 52% of newly formed unions had no collective bargaining agreement.
• Two years after an election, 37% of newly formed unions still had no labor agreement.

My Dad's former company threaten people who wore Teamsters gear around work with their jobs. Then if they talked about getting to be a union, they would fire them.

When people say "Unions are a dying breed" its because employers use corruption and fear to stop unions at all costs. Like you said, without having fear of employer retaliation, most people would join a union. But employers destroy the worker. And republicans cheer it to their own demise. They hate themselves.

Yep, employers seek to destroy their workers.
That is idiotic. What employer can function without workers to do the work that helps the employer turn a profit?
The problem with unions is their all or nothing mindset. Unions do not negotiate. They make demands. Union people do not see a problem with this because they have been told by the union bosses that their employer is evil and is out to screw them.
If employers are out to ruin their workers, why then do certain businesses pay higher wages and increase benefits just to keep unions out?

 

[editec]

Looks like Ohio may beat Wisconsin to the punch, as the Ohio Dems are man enough to show up and live up to their possible defeat rather than running like children.

Last night on the news, they said the Ohio bill was even worse for unions than the Wisconsin bill.

The Ohio bill passed the house, and is in the Republican controlled Senate, then to the Republican governor.

Games up boys. Unions are gonna slowly be dismantled. The massive influx of cash from unions to Democrat candidates will be severely cut off from these union break ups. Combined with the SCOTUS decision to allow corporations their freedom of speech to give to candidates, this spells doom for a lot of Democrats in future elections.

You know...I think you're probably right about that...unions are in serious trouble.

No doubt you think that's a grand development, too.

But I suspect as workers find themselves increasingly put upon by managment, the outcome will not be a compliant third world nation of slaves that you so obviously think is a good thing.

Be careful what you wish for.

People with their backs to the wall, people with nothing to lose can become a very formitable force for change, too.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Looks like Ohio may beat Wisconsin to the punch, as the Ohio Dems are man enough to show up and live up to their possible defeat rather than running like children.

Last night on the news, they said the Ohio bill was even worse for unions than the Wisconsin bill.

The Ohio bill passed the house, and is in the Republican controlled Senate, then to the Republican governor.

Games up boys. Unions are gonna slowly be dismantled. The massive influx of cash from unions to Democrat candidates will be severely cut off from these union break ups. Combined with the SCOTUS decision to allow corporations their freedom of speech to give to candidates, this spells doom for a lot of Democrats in future elections.

You know...I think you're probably right about that...unions are in serious trouble.

No doubt you think that's a grand development, too.

But I suspect as workers find themselves increasingly put upon by managment, the outcome will not be a compliant third world nation of slaves that you so obviously think is a good thing.

Be careful what you wish for.

People with their backs to the wall, people with nothing to lose can become a very formitable force for change, too.

it is the taxpayers which are the formidable force. They are the people who've made the conscious decision to elect people who promised to look out for THEIR interests. The taxpayers have been pushed to the brink. There is one group which is unrepresented at the bargaining table is the one that pays the bills. The one opportunity for the taxpayers to have a say in the negotiations between government and union is at the ballot box. The voters have spoken. The public workers and their unions will just have to live with that.
The Ohio situation is precisely what the taxpayers wanted.
No one is implying that pay for public employees should be substandard. They simply want pay and benefits to be reasonable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just an asdie:
When trying to reduce and/or avoid deficits, why should cuts to public emplyeee salasries and benefiits be off the table?

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree but it takes all the bargaining power away from the people. Once they have taken all the bargaining power away from the people how long will it be before they start losing some of their benefits not to mention having to take paycuts??????

That's the point. By removing collective bargaining it brings wages and benefits under the control of the employer rather than an agent for the employee.
Obviously the present system is not working for the employer ( taxpayer) who pays the bills but until now has no say in how HIS/HER money gets spent.
It is about time these expensive wages and benefits are reined in. The taxpayers have spoken. There is no more money for these perks.

What perks are they getting that others working in the private sector for a corporation wouldn't get?

teachers are not paid that much in Wisconsin....i think the chart someone posted showed their starting salary is 25k....

I paid my starting managers for a retail dept store, some with only high school degrees $28k to start.....and that was 12 years ago, in florida....with a low cost of living....and they got a 401k match, and health Insurance and 2 weeks vacay....

It is not the current pay that is the problem. Politicians are smarter than that. If they were to pay teacher exorbitant amounts now then they would have to show that on the budget as well as make cuts to their favorite pet projects. Instead, they have set up pensions that are unreasonable and processes that allow workers that do not do their job to continue to be employed. This way they need not make any of the hard decisions. The problem arises years in the future when they are gone as we now need to not only pay the current group of public employees but also the past ones that have retired and are making almost full wage without working for the rest of their lives. That is rather insane.

Except private sector unions like the United Auto Workers union.

So you are saying that unions aren't needed any more because laws can NEVER be changed.

Any Union that has a monopoly will end badly. Any Union reciving Government money will probably end badly but when you mix a monopoly with Government money it will once again just flat out end badly.

When Unions can give (I hear) 400ish million of tax payer money to the Democratic party in a single year you can't honestly nod your had saying that is not corruption at it's finest... I mean, if they have 400 million to just give to the Dems what did they take for themselves???

No union has a monopoly.

You, of course, "heard" wrong. Right wing estimates of all union, public and private, support for the Dems in the 2010 election were $170 million. CON$ervative corporate groups spent $300 million on TV ads for the GOP in 2010. So, I would guess, suddenly hundreds of millions of CORPORATE monopoly dollars going to the GOP is not "corruption at its finest," but free speech.

There are many unions that have monopolies as there are many professions that you are REQUIRED to be a union member to even work. This is why the right to work states even exists: they recognize that this is just as repugnant as not having unions at all. There is a serious breach in your rights if you are required to pay someone simply to practice your profession. On the other hand, there are very few corporations that are in the same place or can be called a monopoly. The amount of money spent is irrelevant even though those numbers that you gave have already been pointed out as a lie. The subject is, rather, that people are FORCED into supporting a union that they otherwise may not want to be a member of and then are forces into contributing, through dues, to political candidates that they simply do not support. Then right to work states have it right, while you should be allowed to form a union you should never be required to be part of one and there should be no protections for you should you decide to not go to work one day. If you strike then your employer should equally be able to replace you as he sees fit. Of course, this is for private unions and they are not the same animal as public sector unions. In the public's case, unions have no real purpose and have no reason to exist.

The problem with unions is not that they exist. The problem with unions is that they have special legal protections that they should never have received. If it makes you feel any better, the exact same thing goes for corporations. They should not be getting special legal treatment in any case. However, the corruption of corporations within the government will never justify the corruption within the government for any other entity such as unions. To say such a thing is to embrace corruption.

 

[American I Am]

This has to be one of the most enlightening and informative threads I have come across. Very interesting intellect going on here. THANK YOU ALL

 

[The T]

Just an asdie:
When trying to reduce and/or avoid deficits, why should cuts to public emplyeee salasries and benefiits be off the table?

They shouldn't...thus uncovering the ongoing Statist WAR (with OBAMA as the leader of it) against the PRIVATE SECTOR. (That incidently PAYS the taxes these idiots are after)...

Destroy the private sector? Destroy the tax base...simple.

 

[FA_Q2]

Just an asdie:
When trying to reduce and/or avoid deficits, why should cuts to public emplyeee salasries and benefiits be off the table?

They shouldn't...thus uncovering the ongoing Statist WAR (with OBAMA as the leader of it) against the PRIVATE SECTOR. (That incidently PAYS the taxes these idiots are after)...

Destroy the private sector? Destroy the tax base...simple.

Of course they should - as long as they donated to my campaign of course....

Much like some of the unions that are exempt in WI ....

 

[Trajan]

Looks like Ohio may beat Wisconsin to the punch, as the Ohio Dems are man enough to show up and live up to their possible defeat rather than running like children.

Last night on the news, they said the Ohio bill was even worse for unions than the Wisconsin bill.

The Ohio bill passed the house, and is in the Republican controlled Senate, then to the Republican governor.

Games up boys. Unions are gonna slowly be dismantled. The massive influx of cash from unions to Democrat candidates will be severely cut off from these union break ups. Combined with the SCOTUS decision to allow corporations their freedom of speech to give to candidates, this spells doom for a lot of Democrats in future elections.

You know...I think you're probably right about that...unions are in serious trouble.

No doubt you think that's a grand development, too.

But I suspect as workers find themselves increasingly put upon by managment, the outcome will not be a compliant third world nation of slaves that you so obviously think is a good thing.

Be careful what you wish for.

People with their backs to the wall, people with nothing to lose can become a very formitable force for change, too.

thats some serious hyperbole man...come on.

civil service laws, equal opportunity comm.'s, state ( if they have one ) and fed osha etc...life in 23 other states goes on, the fed work force goes on.

 

[Trajan]

I agree but it takes all the bargaining power away from the people. Once they have taken all the bargaining power away from the people how long will it be before they start losing some of their benefits not to mention having to take paycuts??????

That's the point. By removing collective bargaining it brings wages and benefits under the control of the employer rather than an agent for the employee.
Obviously the present system is not working for the employer ( taxpayer) who pays the bills but until now has no say in how HIS/HER money gets spent.
It is about time these expensive wages and benefits are reined in. The taxpayers have spoken. There is no more money for these perks.

What perks are they getting that others working in the private sector for a corporation wouldn't get?

well, job security? seniority? the DEFINED pension plan? the forever medical benefits? much more time off?

 

[Care4all]

That's the point. By removing collective bargaining it brings wages and benefits under the control of the employer rather than an agent for the employee.
Obviously the present system is not working for the employer ( taxpayer) who pays the bills but until now has no say in how HIS/HER money gets spent.
It is about time these expensive wages and benefits are reined in. The taxpayers have spoken. There is no more money for these perks.

What perks are they getting that others working in the private sector for a corporation wouldn't get?

well, job security? seniority? the DEFINED pension plan? the forever medical benefits? much more time off?

surprisingly....the teachers pay 100% of their own defined pension plan, i read in an article last night, which really surprised me....let me see if i can find it again to confirm...

job security how?

there is job security in the private sector as well....my last couple of jobs i had contracts with my employers...if something were to happen and i was let go, that was covered in the contract....in fact, my last job, laid off 650 people globally...my department was dissolved, they paid me for a year and paid my medical insurance too, for me and matt, due to being let go in the downsize, before my contract was up ....though the company got something out of the contract too....I was not allowed to work for one of their competitors during that period, nor could i disclose company secrets....

seniority is alive and well in the private sector too?

i will admit, my career lead me to only working for large corporations, so my view on this could be skewed....i haven't worked for a small business or even a medium sized business, so i am not quite in tune on what happens with their employees.

the starting salary for teachers in wisconsin is around 25k....at least from a chart/link provided on this thread....that isn't much money for a college grad...we hired managers of retail departments, 12 years ago, with or without a college education, for $28k!

wisconsin has one of the better school systems in our country too, if memory serves...

the teachers there agreed to the cuts the governor was asking for and on the increase of their contribution towards their health care BEFORE they went to protest, but that just wasn't good enough for this governor....

I could be sensitive on this, due to my older sister being a teacher....but i went my whole career making at least double and even triple of what she was paid as a teacher and she has more college education than I do! Granted, i worked longer hours than her, and i had to travel out of town for weeks at a time....but still!

it just appears to me that some people are just jealous or ranting on this for purely political reasons....

care

 

[edthecynic]

well, job security? seniority? the DEFINED pension plan? the forever medical benefits? much more time off?

surprisingly....the teachers pay 100% of their own defined pension plan, i read in an article last night, which really surprised me....let me see if i can find it again to confirm...

tax.com: Really Bad Reporting in Wisconsin: Who 'Contributes' to Public Workers' Pensions?

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: "The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee." This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.

The collective bargaining agreements for prosecutors, cops and scientists are all on-line.

Reporters should sit down, get a cup of coffee and read them. And then they could take what they learn, and what the state website says about fringe benefits, to Gov. Walker and challenge his assumptions.

And they should point out the very first words the state has posted at a web page on careers as a state employee (emphasis added):

The fringe benefits offered to State of Wisconsin employees are significant, and are a valuable partof an individual's compensation package.