Wisconsin Unions to Businesses- you are with us or against us, period

[DaGoose]

And died for?

Uh-huh. That's correct.

.

ummm umm

I find that there are many people who don't know their history and don't realize that.


.

 

[DaGoose]

Or you know, you could just ask people.

A whole bunch of polling companies did that. They all show more favor for the unions.

But continue believing that all polls against you are biased. See how well that works out.

I live in Wisconsin, and I've done that. Most everyone I've talked to got so damn sick of the sons a bitchin', militant, union thugs and their radical supporters TRASHING our capitol, (which in large part were just dumbass college students from the UW), I can tell you they lost A LOT of support. No, no polls will tell you that. You have to be here in Wisconsin and speak directly to the locals to find that out. Support for unions here is in the TOILET. They screwed that up by their CONSTANT PROTESTING. People can only take so much of that crap and then they've HAD IT. But don't take my word for it, we'll see just how right I am next election.

Thank you for that, Pale Rider. I was beginning to wonder what the hell was wrong with people in Wisconsin. I think unions are sort of a "way of life" for people up north more so than those in the south. A lot of states are "right to work" states - as they should be - unions are not as strong in the south as they are up north. Everybody has a right to work, but they should not HAVE to be members of unions to exercise that right.

Unions are the cause of a lot of private/public employment problems - but it's just a whole lot easier to blame it on the "rich Republican(s)/corporations." I find it absolutely impossible to get my brain around the idea that there are NO "rich Democrat(s)/corporations." Unions put so many demands on corporations that they don't have all the finances to pay for those demands without making cuts elsewhere - that includes shipping jobs overseas where the work is done cheaper. Management employees are excluded from union membership/benefits -it's the workers who get hurt worse in the long run.

Unions practically guarantee employment - it's hard as hell to fire an employee when a company has to go through all the union rules, regulations, warning steps, etc. So that drunk, bullying, careless, lazy, incompetent employee next to you on the job is going to stay next to you while you work your ass off doing your job and his - unless the company (at great legal expense) is proven correct in firing the idiot. The union? They have no expense because they have the NLRB to provide legal counsel to them - at taxpayer expense. Those corporate legal expenses could go a long way toward giving other employees a raise or better benefits from the company than from the union. Or maybe even hire a couple of new employees who are willing to work for their pay.

Look at your pay stub. How much money is paid out in union dues each year? Ask yourself what you are really getting from your union. Ask yourself what that money could be used for if you had it at your disposal as part of your net income? Is a strike really beneficial to workers? Not so much - companies have a right to replace every worker out on strike with new employees - who can become your permanent replacement.

Unions are the cause of a lot of private/public employment problems - but it's just a whole lot easier to blame it on the "rich Republican(s)/corporations." I find it absolutely impossible to get my brain around the idea that there are NO "rich Democrat(s)/corporations." Unions put so many demands on corporations that they don't have all the finances to pay for those demands without making cuts elsewhere - that includes shipping jobs overseas where the work is done cheaper. Management employees are excluded from union membership/benefits -it's the workers who get hurt worse in the long run.

Unions are also responsible for many of the benefits that ALL workers enjoy today such as the 40 hour work week, overtime, worker safety laws, child labor laws, pension protection, etc.

And saying that unions cause "shipping jobs overseas where the work is done cheaper" would tell me that you're saying that we need to cut our wages and benefits to that of 3rd world nations in order to compete. RIGHT?

Unions practically guarantee employment - it's hard as hell to fire an employee when a company has to go through all the union rules, regulations, warning steps, etc. So that drunk, bullying, careless, lazy, incompetent employee next to you on the job is going to stay next to you while you work your ass off doing your job and his - unless the company (at great legal expense) is proven correct in firing the idiot. The union? They have no expense because they have the NLRB to provide legal counsel to them - at taxpayer expense. Those corporate legal expenses could go a long way toward giving other employees a raise or better benefits from the company than from the union. Or maybe even hire a couple of new employees who are willing to work for their pay.

I've never heard of any union "guaranteeing employment". And I have seen many unionized employees fired for laziness/incompetence. Most, if not all unions don't want lazy, incompetent workers in their ranks either. And the NLRB represents ALL employees, not just union employees against unfair labor practices.

Look at your pay stub. How much money is paid out in union dues each year? Ask yourself what you are really getting from your union. Ask yourself what that money could be used for if you had it at your disposal as part of your net income? Is a strike really beneficial to workers? Not so much - companies have a right to replace every worker out on strike with new employees - who can become your permanent replacement

I look at my pay stub and wonder what my pay would be if I didn't have the right to collectively bargain. Most companies sure as hell wouldn't pay workers a fair wage if they could get away with it. And that includes minimum wages in non-union environments.

There are many misconceptions about organized labor and you've expoused many of them in your post. Teachers, trash collectors, street workers are not the enemy. They are your friends and neighbors. And if you strip their wages and benefits from them what do you think the effect would be for main street?

.

 

[Jroc]

Uh-huh. That's correct.

.

ummm umm

I find that there are many people who don't know their history and don't realize that.


.

I find that people like you can't get their head out of the 1920s, what have they done for you latley? Public sector unions are not the private sector unions of the 1920s, wake up man your sleep walking.

 

[DaGoose]

ummm umm

I find that there are many people who don't know their history and don't realize that.


.

I find that people like you can't get their head out of the 1920s, what have they done for you latley? Public sector unions are not the private sector unions of the 1920s, wake up man your sleep walking.

Uhhhh....that would be like asking what has the Constitution done for YOU lately? Or the soldiers that have fought and died for your freedoms.

And if you think this is only about the PUBLIC sector you have a lot to learn my friend.

.

 

[Jroc]

I find that there are many people who don't know their history and don't realize that.


.

I find that people like you can't get their head out of the 1920s, what have they done for you latley? Public sector unions are not the private sector unions of the 1920s, wake up man your sleep walking.

Uhhhh....that would be like asking what has the Constitution done for YOU lately? Or the soldiers that have fought and died for your freedoms.

.

Just another example of how far down into the union mantra you are. Nothing else need be added to your comments. Thanks.

 

[Big Fitz]

I can. They need to not bite it all off in one shot. To destroy the public sector union stranglehold, you have to go either for the biggest or the smallest. Since the biggest was the most obvious in trouble due to budgetary percentage, it gave Walker an easy in. Fix the budget crisis. Fine, here's a big chunk that needs fixing. It'd been a sacred cow for many years, and now, we're having Sacred burgers with cheese.

I suspect strongly that these other unions will not be safe for too much longer, but you can't have all of them striking you at once. It's one thing the libs got right. Divide and conquer and the lynchpin in WI was the teacher's union. It's how they got so much power, and how you get them back in line.

That third sentence looks like a false dilemma. WHY would Walker and co want to go through all this again? By putting off the further gutting, he and the Republicans have done themselves no favors and only increased the risk of negative public opinion considering that such a strategy will drag Sconi through all this again. This time dealing with cops and firefighters who are just as sacred as teachers, if not more; cops and firefighters who, if this letter is indicative, would be more than willing to fight him on that front. And let's be clear here, this is about disemboweling public unions, not the budget shortfalls--but it is the budget shortfalls that the voters want to see addressed. Would such another, big distraction from an issue the voters care about REALLY work in Walker's favor? If your scenario is true, it's an amateur move in political chess. Like my grandpa said: men rip band-aids; little boys peel!

WHY would Walker and co want to go through all this again?

Because it's the right thing to do. Look at California.

By putting off the further gutting, he and the Republicans have done themselves no favors and only increased the risk of negative public opinion considering that such a strategy will drag Sconi through all this again. This time dealing with cops and firefighters who are just as sacred as teachers, if not more; cops and firefighters who, if this letter is indicative, would be more than willing to fight him on that front.

Would you rather take them on one at a time or all at once? How well would it go if there was a general public sector strike, regardless of what the individual union worker may think (which at least a third, probably more, do not agree with their reps), and caused government to shut down and impoverish even MORE people, with no one to stop civil unrest or disaster that could occur?

And let's be clear here, this is about disemboweling public unions, not the budget shortfalls--but it is the budget shortfalls that the voters want to see addressed.

No, the two are indelibly connected. Public Sector Unions are directly tied to high government spending by a corrupted negotiation process. Therefore, busting the union directly relates to long term budgetary savings and encourages privatization which is better still.

Would such another, big distraction from an issue the voters care about REALLY work in Walker's favor?

It's not a distraction. It's a temporary fit designed to disrupt government and blackmail the public into backing down from good economic policy and their professed desire of reducing budget costs.

If your scenario is true, it's an amateur move in political chess.

No, it is a DECISIVE gambit. It's a move to risk losing a bishop to gain the opponent's queen. So far, it's working. If the protesters go violent, they move from taking the Queen to also getting Check, for it delegitimizes their position.

Like my grandpa said: men rip band-aids; little boys peel!

Poor analogy. Wise men don't rip out surgical stitches, they let a doctor take them out at their appropriate time. Fools rip them out too early.

 

[signelect]

When did 18% of the labor force get off on telling the other 82% that they are wrong. Union serve no good purpose today but the real issue is that you don't have to agree just because someone demands. Say no to the demands and they can meet all they want. Union leaders rank right up there with congressmen when it comes to integrity.

 

[Big Fitz]

5000 to educate a student in 1970 would be 27,000 in 2009, but it's only between 9,000/11.000

Current data is only available till 2009. $27600.00 in the year 2009 has the same "purchase power" as $5000 in the year 1970.

The 2009 observation is preliminary and will change.



Source note for "Purchasing Power of Money"




Another Computation?


















Citation
Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson, "Purchasing Power of Money in the United States from 1774 to 2010," MeasuringWorth, 2009.


URL: Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let us know if and how this discussion has assisted you in using our calculators.


HOME
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
USER GUIDE
GLOSSARY & FAQ

Assuming that data is correct, why is it that the value for our purchase has gone down dramatically since 1970?

 

[Trajan]

Read the letter from the OP again.

Yup, still just a boycott. Exactly the kind of free market mechanism Milton Friedman argued works better than government regulations.

Surprised to see alleged free market conservatives getting their panties in a twist over it.

I don't what know what to say, I don’t like being snarky, so, I’ll just say it appears to me manifold, your comprehension skills are off, I’ll break it down;









And they even promise a quid pro quo. In addition to not boycotting them...

However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership

So businessmen can work as a partnership but not unions? Thats ridiculous. Republicans hate freedoms, thats obvious.

I have no idea of what you are trying to say.

 

[bodecea]

This is another example of how nasty these people are. These are not my friends and neighbors like our dear leader told us. They are the enemy of freedom. They are against the interests of hard working Americans.

Voluntary boycotts are the "enemy of freedom".....only if you disagree with the purpose of the boycott tho.....

 

[DaGoose]

I find that people like you can't get their head out of the 1920s, what have they done for you latley? Public sector unions are not the private sector unions of the 1920s, wake up man your sleep walking.

Uhhhh....that would be like asking what has the Constitution done for YOU lately? Or the soldiers that have fought and died for your freedoms.

.

Just another example of how far down into the union mantra you are. Nothing else need be added to your comments. Thanks.

And your post shows just how little today's youth understands the history of our nation.

.

 

[bodecea]

to each his own.

Yup. And my 'own' includes support for freedom and a free market.

Does this mean I as a taxpayer can bid out/privatize services such as police, fire, subway management, schools, etc., also?

Can I send a letter to the public employee unions that if they continue to fight the elimination of CB, I will push to have them summarily fired and replaced with some of the 20% unemployed in this country, who would give their right arm for one of their jobs?

Go right ahead...and show us here a copy....I need a good laugh at times.

 

[bodecea]

These UNIONS need to be charged just like the mob, UNDER RICO
This is threatening INTIMATION at it's finest

Sure you weren't in Montgomery Alabama in the 50s? They declared that bus boycott to be illegal too.

 

[Trajan]

Well boys, you Teabaggers started this game of hardball. Now you are squeeling like little girls when the opposition joins the game. Too bad, it is going to get tougher. There are a lot more things than just this which can be done legally to create an even meaner environment.

The public unions are welcome to try any such aggressive activities they see fit. I, as a taxpayer, will do everything in my power - along with the rest of the taxpaying public being asked to sustain the public employee's outsized salaries, benefits and pensions - to stop them, and that includes firing them en masse and replacing them outright.

Except that the majority of the "tax paying public" isn't standing with you. You guys are losing the battle of public opinion, and that's what really matters.

This is gonna come back to bite you guys soon.

so whats the over and under on public opinion, what's a 'fail' as in lack of sppt. to the point of no return? Frankly with all of the friendly coverage they have had, that is the unions, I'd say that 55 or even 60, all in- somewhat fav. and strongly fav. combined isn't an over an over the top figure. IF the public were firmly behind them that figure would be north of 65.

 

[ba1614]

I'll go out of my way to eat or shop anywhere they publicly tell these assholes to go fuck themselves.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah...ok..Which is why Obama didn't take any questions on this matter when he had that press conference, you'd think if you were correct he have taken advantage of the situation, but he ignored it. I guess that tells you something about the popularity of these public sector unions

Or you know, you could just ask people.

A whole bunch of polling companies did that. They all show more favor for the unions.

But continue believing that all polls against you are biased. See how well that works out.

I live in Wisconsin, and I've done that. Most everyone I've talked to got so damn sick of the sons a bitchin', militant, union thugs and their radical supporters TRASHING our capitol, (which in large part were just dumbass college students from the UW), I can tell you they lost A LOT of support. No, no polls will tell you that. You have to be here in Wisconsin and speak directly to the locals to find that out. Support for unions here is in the TOILET. They screwed that up by their CONSTANT PROTESTING. People can only take so much of that crap and then they've HAD IT. But don't take my word for it, we'll see just how right I am next election.

But you are only asking the people sharing your bunker.

 

[Trajan]

These UNIONS need to be charged just like the mob, UNDER RICO
This is threatening INTIMATION at it's finest

Sure you weren't in Montgomery Alabama in the 50s? They declared that bus boycott to be illegal too.

I have no problem at all with a boycott, let them boycott away, its one of those on the ground at the tip of the spear grassroots rights that every American can employ, vote with your pocketbook so to speak, hey I dropped cable becasue they were screw-ups and most of all their lack of customer service was appalling, I told them they suck and I will tell everyone I know and switched service.

Now, I am under no allusions, they didn't fold and won't, but I demonstrated my rights(s) in the only fashion I had left, by withdrawing and advocating for withdrawal of sppt. or purchases of their product(s). They can have at it.

 

[bodecea]

I'll go out of my way to eat or shop anywhere they publicly tell these assholes to go fuck themselves.

Which is also totally legal and quite likely to happen as in all boycotts. For example when the silly baptists boycotted Disney...I went more.

 

[manifold]

This is another example of how nasty these people are. These are not my friends and neighbors like our dear leader told us. They are the enemy of freedom. They are against the interests of hard working Americans.

Voluntary boycotts are the "enemy of freedom".....only if you disagree with the purpose of the boycott tho.....

I'd say that voluntary boycotts are the epitome of freedom.

But for some that's only if you agree with the purpose of the boycott.

 

[The Gadfly]

I'll go out of my way to eat or shop anywhere they publicly tell these assholes to go fuck themselves.

I couldn't agree more!