Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law is Working

[daveman]

Will of what workers? Are you claiming that the majority of public sector union workers in WI wanted their union to have to recertify every year?

Link please.

If a majority of the workers want the union, the union will stay. If not, the union goes. What are you afraid of?

see, he doesn't get it, because hes a dyed in the wool lefty;

you see in his and their eyes, its not the state that employs the union, there is no management OVER a union, no employer, the money paid to them is shit by unicorns....the unions just...."are" and not you , me any elected official you cannot touch them unless its tp pour more money on them.....

Allowing for recert, just as you alluded means squat.

Leftists think their beliefs are immutable laws of the universe. The universe, however, refuses to cooperate.

 

[Too Tall]

NOW the Wisconsin GOP suddenly cares about the "will of the workers"?

I'm sure that the "will of the workers" were taken into account when Walker and his cronies decided to balance the budget on their backs.

.

Walker saved 2500 union workers jobs, and the union hates him. What's wrong with this picture

DAMN!!! How about stripping them of their right to collective bargaining which had NOTHING to do with supposedly "saving" union jobs?

.

They still have the collective bargaining rights for wages.

The alternative to having public union workers contribute a small amount for their pension and health care was to layoff 2500 teachers. This was necessary to balance the state budget.

Do all union members prefer laying off their fellow dues paying members to investing in their OWN retirement and paying a pittance for their OWN healthcare?

 

[DaGoose]

Walker saved 2500 union workers jobs, and the union hates him. What's wrong with this picture

DAMN!!! How about stripping them of their right to collective bargaining which had NOTHING to do with supposedly "saving" union jobs?

.

They still have the collective bargaining rights for wages.

The alternative to having public union workers contribute a small amount for their pension and health care was to layoff 2500 teachers. This was necessary to balance the state budget.

Do all union members prefer laying off their fellow dues paying members to investing in their OWN retirement and paying a pittance for their OWN healthcare?

And guess what? They AGREED to increased contributions. Try and keep up.

.

 

[DaGoose]

Will of what workers? Are you claiming that the majority of public sector union workers in WI wanted their union to have to recertify every year?

Link please.

If a majority of the workers want the union, the union will stay. If not, the union goes. What are you afraid of?

see, he doesn't get it, because hes a dyed in the wool lefty;

you see in his and their eyes, its not the state that employs the union, there is no management OVER a union, no employer, the money paid to them is shit by unicorns....the unions just...."are" and not you , me any elected official you cannot touch them unless its tp pour more money on them.....

Allowing for recert, just as you alluded means squat.

Translated: He can't provide a link.

.

 

[DaGoose]

Yep. Unions have become what they were formed to protect workers against: Organizations that exploit workers for money.

And if that's the only reason you think unions were formed for then you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

He didn't use the word "only" once in his post...

Why do you assholes make shit up?

And it's sad that someone so badly misinformed can spew out garbage about something while trying to sound like they know what their talking about.

You better just give it up. With that last post you lost. Badly.

.

Ahhh... another internets victory claimer....

There are 2500 workers in WI that don't have to stand in the unemployment line... That's a good thing, no matter how tou want to spin it.... I'm pretty sure that these workers you like to exploit, given the choice of being employed and not being employed, would not choose the option of unemployment....

I didn't say he said "only". I said IF he meant only so you can blow me, asshole if your going to put words in my mouth. And you pretending you give a shit about union workers is pure bullshit.

And stripping them of bargaining rights doesn't do sqat on "saving jobs" there brainiac, right?

.

 

[daveman]

If a majority of the workers want the union, the union will stay. If not, the union goes. What are you afraid of?

see, he doesn't get it, because hes a dyed in the wool lefty;

you see in his and their eyes, its not the state that employs the union, there is no management OVER a union, no employer, the money paid to them is shit by unicorns....the unions just...."are" and not you , me any elected official you cannot touch them unless its tp pour more money on them.....

Allowing for recert, just as you alluded means squat.

Translated: He can't provide a link.

.

I have no obligation to defend a claim I didn't make. Do keep up.

 

[Trajan]

If a majority of the workers want the union, the union will stay. If not, the union goes. What are you afraid of?

see, he doesn't get it, because hes a dyed in the wool lefty;

you see in his and their eyes, its not the state that employs the union, there is no management OVER a union, no employer, the money paid to them is shit by unicorns....the unions just...."are" and not you , me any elected official you cannot touch them unless its tp pour more money on them.....

Allowing for recert, just as you alluded means squat.

Translated: He can't provide a link.

.

hey false flag, wtheck are you talking about?

you know after outing yourself as and I'll be kind as guy who says one thing then forgets what he said, telling the inquirer to blow off, after having said another, you should be aware of what poster you are responding to.

 

[Trajan]

second time I am asking in this thread ...focus....and 'be careful'....



third time I am asking in this thread ...focus....and 'be careful'....

The new law makes it illegal for public employees unions to bargain collectively for anything but wages, though there are exemptions for police and firefighters. It also imposes hurdles to union representation, bars the automatic collection of union dues from employees' paychecks and requires public employee unions to win certification elections every year with at least one vote more over 50 percent of all eligible employees - not just those participating in the election.

That destroys those unions effected.

Courthouse News Service

you are certifiable....really.

so lets take the only one that has actually been attempted to be suborned BY unions (They tried that shit on Delta airlines, they lost)...

...so; in your opinion if 100 members of the 400 members of a union show up and 51 vote yes, its a done deal? they are certified?

THAT, is exactly why I say, you are certifiable. Certifiably nuts.





so what? how does this destroy the union(s)? exactly?

It also imposes hurdles to union representation,

like what?

bars the automatic collection of union dues from employees' paychecks

let the unions do their own solicitation ( of which under the old rules there was NONE, the state took it and sent it to the union) and accounting and paperwork.

how does this destroy the union? exactly?

hello?

 

[Trajan]

And if that's the only reason you think unions were formed for then you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

He didn't use the word "only" once in his post...

Why do you assholes make shit up?

And it's sad that someone so badly misinformed can spew out garbage about something while trying to sound like they know what their talking about.

You better just give it up. With that last post you lost. Badly.

.

Ahhh... another internets victory claimer....

There are 2500 workers in WI that don't have to stand in the unemployment line... That's a good thing, no matter how tou want to spin it.... I'm pretty sure that these workers you like to exploit, given the choice of being employed and not being employed, would not choose the option of unemployment....

I didn't say he said "only". I said IF he meant only so you can blow me, asshole if your going to put words in my mouth. And you pretending you give a shit about union workers is pure bullshit.

And stripping them of bargaining rights doesn't do sqat on "saving jobs" there brainiac, right?

.

I care, I am one. and, they could do the very same to my union, I have no issue with it.....again- honesty try it sometimes, instead of GREED.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The new law makes it illegal for public employees unions to bargain collectively for anything but wages, though there are exemptions for police and firefighters. It also imposes hurdles to union representation, bars the automatic collection of union dues from employees' paychecks and requires public employee unions to win certification elections every year with at least one vote more over 50 percent of all eligible employees - not just those participating in the election.

That destroys those unions effected.

Courthouse News Service

you are certifiable....really.

so lets take the only one that has actually been attempted to be suborned BY unions (They tried that shit on Delta airlines, they lost)...

...so; in your opinion if 100 members of the 400 members of a union show up and 51 vote yes, its a done deal? they are certified?

THAT, is exactly why I say, you are certifiable. Certifiably nuts.





so what? how does this destroy the union(s)? exactly?





like what?

bars the automatic collection of union dues from employees' paychecks

let the unions do their own solicitation ( of which under the old rules there was NONE, the state took it and sent it to the union) and accounting and paperwork.

how does this destroy the union? exactly?

hello?

What percent of all of Wisconsin's voters do you suppose Scott Walker got, to get elected?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Will of what workers? Are you claiming that the majority of public sector union workers in WI wanted their union to have to recertify every year?

Link please.

Yes he does and no, he cannot provide a link.

.

No, I am not. You too seem to be afraid that the workers will choose to de-certify, despite your insistence that you know what's best for them.

You're the one who said leave it to the will of the workers. Now prove to me that most public sector union workers in WI want an annual certification vote that must get 51% of the entire membership to vote for it.

Maybe once a year the voters of Wisconsin should have to vote on this law, and it would take 51% of all registered voters to vote for it in order for it to remain in place.

Fair enough? Good for one, good for the other. No double standard.

 

[daveman]

Yes he does and no, he cannot provide a link.

.

No, I am not. You too seem to be afraid that the workers will choose to de-certify, despite your insistence that you know what's best for them.

You're the one who said leave it to the will of the workers. Now prove to me that most public sector union workers in WI want an annual certification vote that must get 51% of the entire membership to vote for it.

Maybe once a year the voters of Wisconsin should have to vote on this law, and it would take 51% of all registered voters to vote for it in order for it to remain in place.

Fair enough? Good for one, good for the other. No double standard.

My goodness, you're just terrified that the workers might choose to de-certify. Why is that? Is it because of the union's automatic donations to the Democratic Party?

It's certainly not that you give a damn about what the workers want.

 

[Trajan]

you are certifiable....really.

so lets take the only one that has actually been attempted to be suborned BY unions (They tried that shit on Delta airlines, they lost)...

...so; in your opinion if 100 members of the 400 members of a union show up and 51 vote yes, its a done deal? they are certified?

THAT, is exactly why I say, you are certifiable. Certifiably nuts.





so what? how does this destroy the union(s)? exactly?





like what?



let the unions do their own solicitation ( of which under the old rules there was NONE, the state took it and sent it to the union) and accounting and paperwork.

how does this destroy the union? exactly?

hello?

What percent of all of Wisconsin's voters do you suppose Scott Walker got, to get elected?

I should have said I expected this like I did your other misapplication of 'logic' ala majorities...but, this is exactly what I expected you to say.

you do realize you're boxing yourself in here? no I suppose you don't....

you kill me man, really. thx for the laugh.

 

[Trajan]

Breaking NEWS!! People who steal and scam and take money from honest workers, like the mafia does, get richer doing it, and intimidate other honest working people, too.

The mafia of theft fro hard working people works!


What a crazy way to start a thread about theft from working people! Theft makes one richer, breaking news.

breaking news, you're an imbecile....well, I apologize, thats not really breaking ...is it?

 

[Trajan]

Yes he does and no, he cannot provide a link.

.

No, I am not. You too seem to be afraid that the workers will choose to de-certify, despite your insistence that you know what's best for them.

You're the one who said leave it to the will of the workers. Now prove to me that most public sector union workers in WI want an annual certification vote that must get 51% of the entire membership to vote for it.

Maybe once a year the voters of Wisconsin should have to vote on this law, and it would take 51% of all registered voters to vote for it in order for it to remain in place.

Fair enough? Good for one, good for the other. No double standard.

so, what was the term for certification, whats the length of a unions life before it has to undergo re-certification ?

 

[DaGoose]

see, he doesn't get it, because hes a dyed in the wool lefty;

you see in his and their eyes, its not the state that employs the union, there is no management OVER a union, no employer, the money paid to them is shit by unicorns....the unions just...."are" and not you , me any elected official you cannot touch them unless its tp pour more money on them.....

Allowing for recert, just as you alluded means squat.

Translated: He can't provide a link.

.

hey false flag, wtheck are you talking about?

you know after outing yourself as and I'll be kind as guy who says one thing then forgets what he said, telling the inquirer to blow off, after having said another, you should be aware of what poster you are responding to.

Kinda hard to do when I'm nailing 3 or 4 asses to to the wall at once.

.

 

[DaGoose]

Yes he does and no, he cannot provide a link.

.

No, I am not. You too seem to be afraid that the workers will choose to de-certify, despite your insistence that you know what's best for them.

You're the one who said leave it to the will of the workers. Now prove to me that most public sector union workers in WI want an annual certification vote that must get 51% of the entire membership to vote for it.

Maybe once a year the voters of Wisconsin should have to vote on this law, and it would take 51% of all registered voters to vote for it in order for it to remain in place.

Fair enough? Good for one, good for the other. No double standard.

Good idea. Maybe we should expand on it. Why not make ALL places of employment with more than say....50 employees vote annually if they want to decertify or even form a union where none existed before.

.

 

[DaGoose]

He didn't use the word "only" once in his post...

Why do you assholes make shit up?



Ahhh... another internets victory claimer....

There are 2500 workers in WI that don't have to stand in the unemployment line... That's a good thing, no matter how tou want to spin it.... I'm pretty sure that these workers you like to exploit, given the choice of being employed and not being employed, would not choose the option of unemployment....

I didn't say he said "only". I said IF he meant only so you can blow me, asshole if your going to put words in my mouth. And you pretending you give a shit about union workers is pure bullshit.

And stripping them of bargaining rights doesn't do sqat on "saving jobs" there brainiac, right?

.

I care, I am one. and, they could do the very same to my union, I have no issue with it.....again- honesty try it sometimes, instead of GREED.

You can talk about honesty all you want but I'm having very serious reservations that you actually DO in fact, belong to any union, public or not. I laid my cards on the table and answered your questions. Maybe you could enlighten me as to your job and what local you belong to.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

hello?

What percent of all of Wisconsin's voters do you suppose Scott Walker got, to get elected?

I should have said I expected this like I did your other misapplication of 'logic' ala majorities...but, this is exactly what I expected you to say.

you do realize you're boxing yourself in here? no I suppose you don't....

you kill me man, really. thx for the laugh.

So what other elections other than union certification do you believe should require 51% of the eligible voters to vote for in order to pass? As opposed to a majority of those who vote...

A quick list shouldn't take you much effort. Show us how fair and consistent you are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I am not. You too seem to be afraid that the workers will choose to de-certify, despite your insistence that you know what's best for them.

You're the one who said leave it to the will of the workers. Now prove to me that most public sector union workers in WI want an annual certification vote that must get 51% of the entire membership to vote for it.

Maybe once a year the voters of Wisconsin should have to vote on this law, and it would take 51% of all registered voters to vote for it in order for it to remain in place.

Fair enough? Good for one, good for the other. No double standard.

My goodness, you're just terrified that the workers might choose to de-certify. Why is that? Is it because of the union's automatic donations to the Democratic Party?

It's certainly not that you give a damn about what the workers want.

Same question to you - in post 221.

Try not to dodge it, we need no further affirmation that you're a pussy.