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

[rhodescholar]

I know that Conservatives love the "49%" statistic. But it only tells one side of the story.Those 49% make less than 25,000 dollars a year.The percentage that pays no income tax is growing because the average American family is making less money than they were before. The richest are getting richer, and the rest of us are getting poorer. You guys talk about how the top 5% pay half the income taxes - but they also make nearly half the income.You claim to want tax equality in a very unequal world.

And WHY are they only making $20,000 per year? Is it because their skills are so low that they cannot command higher compensation?

Using sports as an analogy, we see a few superstars getting most of the revenue...should we reduce what they are making simply because they are so much better than the other players?

Further, a few scientists are reknowned in their field, perhaps we should reduce their salaries and compensation simply because they are more successful at what they do?

What you are proposing smacks of communism...

 

[rhodescholar]

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.

The NY Times/CBS poll of 1,000 people included an estimated 20% with connections to union households.

I myself have hundreds of clients with whom I've spoken to about this, including some of whom are far from wealthy, and NONE support the union positions. Sorry, but the polls just don't cut it.

And I do find it hilarious that a leftist is complaining that conservatives are wrong for questioning the veracity of these polls, yet have no problem fighting the only polls that count - voting - by trying to recall WI elected officials recently VOTED into office.

 

[rhodescholar]

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

You're one of the lesser intelligent posters here, but I'll lower myself and indulge this post...

I called the NYSUT media center and spoke with some of their people, as well as my state assemblyman and senators...to make it clear that they are going to be facing well-funded opposing campaigns of candidates in the next few years specifically targeting them and their contracts.

 

[bodecea]

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

You're one of the lesser intelligent posters here, but I'll lower myself and indulge this post...

I called the NYSUT media center and spoke with some of their people, as well as my state assemblyman and senators...to make it clear that they are going to be facing well-funded opposing campaigns of candidates in the next few years specifically targeting them and their contracts.

Good for you. It's the American way. Now tell us what they said in reply.

 

[rhodescholar]

Good for you. It's the American way. Now tell us what they said in reply.

When pushed, the assemblyman's office admitted that most of the calls coming in are not favorable to the public union employees...

 

[bodecea]

Good for you. It's the American way. Now tell us what they said in reply.

When pushed, the assemblyman's office admitted that most of the calls coming in are not favorable to the public union employees...

When pushed, eh? What did you do to "push" them? I'm interested in how you gained such a confirmable admission.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know that Conservatives love the "49%" statistic. But it only tells one side of the story.Those 49% make less than 25,000 dollars a year.The percentage that pays no income tax is growing because the average American family is making less money than they were before. The richest are getting richer, and the rest of us are getting poorer. You guys talk about how the top 5% pay half the income taxes - but they also make nearly half the income.You claim to want tax equality in a very unequal world.

And WHY are they only making $20,000 per year? Is it because their skills are so low that they cannot command higher compensation?

Using sports as an analogy, we see a few superstars getting most of the revenue...should we reduce what they are making simply because they are so much better than the other players?

Further, a few scientists are reknowned in their field, perhaps we should reduce their salaries and compensation simply because they are more successful at what they do?

What you are proposing smacks of communism...

Well, if you re-read my post, you'll see I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm just pointing out that your hysterics about "49% of Americans" who make $9/hour not "paying their share" are a bit ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting any "spreading the wealth around", I'm just pointing out that the family of 4 living on 35 grand a year shouldn't have any tax liability.

 

[Denver]

I want more tax payer money to ensure my huge pension, gimee gimee gimee. The level of intitlement is shocking. What would they do if they had it like the rest of us. And now they are even in the mob business threatening and intimidating.

 

[Denver]

Hey Doctor, taxation is a percentage and those who only make 35,000 pay a lot less in taxes, as they should, but what makes you think they should just be exempt from doing there part, would that not incentivise being a slacker and not pursuing challenging high paying careers??

 

[Sheldon]

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



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?

You're approaching this from an ideological trench. I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of unionization in the public sector or the merits of this economic policy. What I'm talking about is an objective look at the political strategy you put up.

That reductio ad absurdum about impoverishment and disaster is not working for your argument. A significant number of cops and firefighters and state troopers going on strike would be the cost of stripping their collective bargaining powers; whether the stripping had been done with the teachers, or separately at a later date, the strikes would occur and your chicken little would still apply. You're also assuming that everyone in those profession would go on strike and there'd be no one to call in. This wasn't the case with the teachers, so then why with the cops?

Look,





The local stations and units showed up anyways even though they were exempt from the bill. Regardless of personal feelings about the unions and these protests, what you are putting forward is a strategy that would be repeat of what has not worked out favorably for Walker's PO numbers. That doesn't make sense on an objective level.

 

[Trajan]

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 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?

.

I am a public sector union employee- the union can disappear anytime they like.

I look at my paycheck and wonder that too, I wonder why the next guy next to me and who works half as hard and is as half as effective gets exactly what I get as a raise AND because hes there 2 years longer than me would stay while I got the axe if it came to it.......

A raise btw given to us AFTER the union negotiated har har for a 5 year 4.5% raise a year because we were told starting in 4 years we have to start paying gosh!! 5% of our salaries towards our defined pension plan, you are living in the past, what was in 30 thru the 50’s is no longer required now ala collective bargaining etc. due to Civil Service Laws, Ohsa, the Equal Opp. Commission, the Nat. labor Relations Board and...the media.

time to buck up and work in the real world like private sector folks AND at the end of the day MY job like yours is paid BY the taxpayer and we should be infinitely more amendable to city county or state governance to THEIR wishes than some arbitration board which is a joke as the split the baby almost all the time, and decided we would get that raise ahead of the payroll deductions, in effect we didn't lose a thing, we are in fact ahead, and the state is on the hook for even more money. It blows and its not honest anymore imho.


give this a read, its all fine by me.

here ya go.

Civil service law offers less than union contracts

 

[DaGoose]

I want more tax payer money to ensure my huge pension, gimee gimee gimee. The level of intitlement is shocking. What would they do if they had it like the rest of us. And now they are even in the mob business threatening and intimidating.

First of all, learn how to spell, although you do tend to show the mentality of those who are against the blue collar workers in Wisconsin.

Second of all, pensions are EARNED. It's part of a total compensation package not unlike most other jobs.

.

 

[DaGoose]

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 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?



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?

.

I am a public sector union employee- the union can disappear anytime they like.

I look at my paycheck and wonder that too, I wonder why the next guy next to me and who works half as hard and is as half as effective gets exactly what I get as a raise AND because hes there 2 years longer than me would stay while I got the axe if it came to it.......

A raise btw given to us AFTER the union negotiated har har for a 5 year 4.5% raise a year because we were told starting in 4 years we have to start paying gosh!! 5% of our salaries towards our defined pension plan, you are living in the past, what was in 30 thru the 50’s is no longer required now ala collective bargaining etc. due to Civil Service Laws, Ohsa, the Equal Opp. Commission, the Nat. labor Relations Board and...the media.

time to buck up and work in the real world like private sector folks AND at the end of the day MY job like yours is paid BY the taxpayer and we should be infinitely more amendable to city county or state governance to THEIR wishes than some arbitration board which is a joke as the split the baby almost all the time, and decided we would get that raise ahead of the payroll deductions, in effect we didn't lose a thing, we are in fact ahead, and the state is on the hook for even more money. It blows and its not honest anymore imho.


give this a read, its all fine by me.

here ya go.

Civil service law offers less than union contracts

As an elected county official I have negotiated with the unions on the county level. And maybe it's different where you are but the ones that work in my county earn everything they get.

If you have a lot of slackers then get rid of them. And don't say you can't.

.

 

[Trajan]

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?



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.



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?

.

I am a public sector union employee- the union can disappear anytime they like.

I look at my paycheck and wonder that too, I wonder why the next guy next to me and who works half as hard and is as half as effective gets exactly what I get as a raise AND because hes there 2 years longer than me would stay while I got the axe if it came to it.......

A raise btw given to us AFTER the union negotiated har har for a 5 year 4.5% raise a year because we were told starting in 4 years we have to start paying gosh!! 5% of our salaries towards our defined pension plan, you are living in the past, what was in 30 thru the 50’s is no longer required now ala collective bargaining etc. due to Civil Service Laws, Ohsa, the Equal Opp. Commission, the Nat. labor Relations Board and...the media.

time to buck up and work in the real world like private sector folks AND at the end of the day MY job like yours is paid BY the taxpayer and we should be infinitely more amendable to city county or state governance to THEIR wishes than some arbitration board which is a joke as the split the baby almost all the time, and decided we would get that raise ahead of the payroll deductions, in effect we didn't lose a thing, we are in fact ahead, and the state is on the hook for even more money. It blows and its not honest anymore imho.


give this a read, its all fine by me.

here ya go.

Civil service law offers less than union contracts

As an elected county official I have negotiated with the unions on the county level. And maybe it's different where you are but the ones that work in my county earn everything they get.

If you have a lot of slackers then get rid of them. And don't say you can't.

.

as an elected county official I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about,sorry, but based on that response and prior ones, unless you're hiding it, Earn whoever said anything about Earning? what does that have to do with it?

are you a member of a public sector union, pay dues, go to meeting, work in a 'shop' etc.? And, How long have you worked in the private sector?

 

[rhodescholar]

When pushed, eh? What did you do to "push" them? I'm interested in how you gained such a confirmable admission.

Leftwing, democratic assemblymen in the pockets of the public union employees generally do not like to admit that the majority of their constituents are unhappy with their voting against what they want to see done.

The public unions are a far more powerful force in my state, and the state assembly is basically their rubber stamp. The assemblymen doesn't like when the taxpaying public takes them to task for being the POS fucking lackeys for the public union machine.

 

[rhodescholar]

I'm just pointing out that your hysterics about "49% of Americans" who make $9/hour not "paying their share" are a bit ridiculous.

Perhaps if those "49% of Americans" stopped voting for fucking asshole democrats leading the charge for infinite numbers of illegal aliens that undermine the ability of the private sector middle class to earn a decent living, and stopped supporting scumbag organizations like La Reza, they would have the bargaining power to drive wages upwards...

I'm not suggesting any "spreading the wealth around", I'm just pointing out that the family of 4 living on 35 grand a year shouldn't have any tax liability.

Why is that? Do they not benefit from police/fire/military protection, public roads and libraries, etc.?

 

[Trajan]

I'm not suggesting any "spreading the wealth around", I'm just pointing out that the family of 4 living on 35 grand a year shouldn't have any tax liability.

well hey, maybe we should send them money too, after their net zero fed. burden is awarded?

 

[rhodescholar]

You're approaching this from an ideological trench. I'm not talking about the rightness or wrongness of unionization in the public sector or the merits of this economic policy. What I'm talking about is an objective look at the political strategy you put up.That reductio ad absurdum about impoverishment and disaster is not working for your argument. A significant number of cops and firefighters and state troopers going on strike would be the cost of stripping their collective bargaining powers; whether the stripping had been done with the teachers, or separately at a later date, the strikes would occur and your chicken little would still apply. You're also assuming that everyone in those profession would go on strike and there'd be no one to call in. This wasn't the case with the teachers, so then why with the cops?The local stations and units showed up anyways even though they were exempt from the bill. Regardless of personal feelings about the unions and these protests, what you are putting forward is a strategy that would be repeat of what has not worked out favorably for Walker's PO numbers. That doesn't make sense on an objective level.

And I'd fire every cop / firemen who went on strike, outright. There are states with laws such as the Taylor law which prevent strikes, so if they went out they'd face disciplinary hearings and/or dismissal.

With 20% REAL unemployment, there is no such thing as "irreplaceable" right now, that word does not exist.

 

[rhodescholar]

Second of all, pensions are EARNED. It's part of a total compensation package not unlike most other jobs.

Is there a reason some posters continue to post this bullshit over and over, even after it got de-bunked like 3 weeks and 10 threads ago?

Many public employees contribute little or nothing to their pension, and the taxpayer is on the hook in case there is a shortfall, like to make up for amazingly shocking events like the market not achieving 9% returns EVERY YEAR, or future juiced benefits promised for new hires, or allowances for those retiring at age 40, etc.

All of these fall on ME - the taxpayer to fill the gap. Explain how the fuck a pension or any other benefit is "earned," this sounds like my 6 year old: "daddy, can I have the Wii game now since I earned it by cleaning my room..."

 

[The Gadfly]

I know that Conservatives love the "49%" statistic. But it only tells one side of the story.Those 49% make less than 25,000 dollars a year.The percentage that pays no income tax is growing because the average American family is making less money than they were before. The richest are getting richer, and the rest of us are getting poorer. You guys talk about how the top 5% pay half the income taxes - but they also make nearly half the income.You claim to want tax equality in a very unequal world.

And WHY are they only making $20,000 per year? Is it because their skills are so low that they cannot command higher compensation?

Using sports as an analogy, we see a few superstars getting most of the revenue...should we reduce what they are making simply because they are so much better than the other players?

Further, a few scientists are reknowned in their field, perhaps we should reduce their salaries and compensation simply because they are more successful at what they do?

What you are proposing smacks of communism...

Well, if you re-read my post, you'll see I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm just pointing out that your hysterics about "49% of Americans" who make $9/hour not "paying their share" are a bit ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting any "spreading the wealth around", I'm just pointing out that the family of 4 living on 35 grand a year shouldn't have any tax liability.

And that last is where we disagree. I DO NOT want to place an undue burden on these people; I DO want them to pay SOMETHING, just a token amount, so that they at least MINIMALLY contribute to the cost of the government they vote for. $50 to $100 a year would be plenty, so as not to give them the impression that they get a free ride while others pay the entire bill. I think that's reasonable, and I think it's fair. Let them (and everyone else) pay in quarterly installments (like those of us who bear most of the tax burden). I assure you it's going to cause them less pain to write a $10 or $25 check, than it causes me, to write the check for the obscene percentage of my income I pay every three months. I want them to understand that those programs they vote for are NOT free; they COST something, and that THEY, along with "the rich", are helping pay that cost. Let's see how much extra spending they want from their elected officials then. That sort of "truth in taxation" will never happen for one simple reason; the democrat party will not allow it to happen, because it would help their constituents to realize that their vote is being bought at least partially with their own money, not just with someone else's money. It's time for the democrats to quit posing as "Robin Hood" and I can't think of a better or fairer way to unmask their spending for what it really is. Maybe, if we got rid of the perception on both ends of the economic spectrum that half the population is entitled to ride on the backs of the other half, we just might have a little more harmony in this nation.