Collective bargaining at itsfinest

[Big Fitz]

So unregulated corporations = Liberty?

Please find where I advocate lassaiez faire and unregulated corporate activity?

I am ethical capitalist. I believe in broad well defined guardrails to protect society from bad behavior of corporations. Always have, always will. The guardrails are very far apart, and not some narrow one lane road most liberalcommiefucks want. It's 10 lanes wide and no speed limit. Just stay in the lines and in the guardrails and everyone gets along fine.

First answer one question...are you The T?

Sorry, I'm not the T.

I'm more suave and erudite in handing you your lunch.

There can be only one Big Fitz.

More humble too.

 

[Bfgrn]

Please find where I advocate lassaiez faire and unregulated corporate activity?

I am ethical capitalist. I believe in broad well defined guardrails to protect society from bad behavior of corporations. Always have, always will. The guardrails are very far apart, and not some narrow one lane road most liberalcommiefucks want. It's 10 lanes wide and no speed limit. Just stay in the lines and in the guardrails and everyone gets along fine.

First answer one question...are you The T?

Sorry, I'm not the T.

I'm more suave and erudite in handing you your lunch.

There can be only one Big Fitz.

More humble too.

Then you are not as suave and erudite as you think, because my premise was posed to The T, not you. You altered the 'Quote' in your usual ignorant way, by removing the name, so you had opportunity to see his name when you rudely edited it.

 

[editec]

Suggesting that one can have entirely deregulated business makes about as much sense as suggesting that one can have an entirely unregulated society.

Can there be too much regulation that makes it more difficult for businesses to thrive?

Of course there can be.

But that isn't the argument for no regulation.


That's the argument for having just enough regulation to keep the crooks in business from destroying a business friendly environment.

 

[Big Fitz]

First answer one question...are you The T?

Sorry, I'm not the T.

I'm more suave and erudite in handing you your lunch.

There can be only one Big Fitz.

More humble too.

Then you are not as suave and erudite as you think, because my premise was posed to The T, not you. You altered the 'Quote' in your usual ignorant way, by removing the name, so you had opportunity to see his name when you rudely edited it.

Then you are not as suave and erudite as you think, because my premise was posed to The T, not you. You altered the 'Quote' in your usual ignorant way, by removing the name, so you had opportunity to see his name when you rudely edited it.

Once again, I do not alter quotes. I cut and paste just like everyone else. I do not alter what was said either as you seem to love to imply.

You are posting in a public forum and were not clear on to whom you are speaking or that your statement was specifically for him. Therefore, deal with it. If you don't like being Fisked, you really have no recourse other than to quit posting here.

Grow up tardtard.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry, I'm not the T.

I'm more suave and erudite in handing you your lunch.

There can be only one Big Fitz.

More humble too.

Then you are not as suave and erudite as you think, because my premise was posed to The T, not you. You altered the 'Quote' in your usual ignorant way, by removing the name, so you had opportunity to see his name when you rudely edited it.

Then you are not as suave and erudite as you think, because my premise was posed to The T, not you. You altered the 'Quote' in your usual ignorant way, by removing the name, so you had opportunity to see his name when you rudely edited it.

Once again, I do not alter quotes. I cut and paste just like everyone else. I do not alter what was said either as you seem to love to imply.

You are posting in a public forum and were not clear on to whom you are speaking or that your statement was specifically for him. Therefore, deal with it. If you don't like being Fisked, you really have no recourse other than to quit posting here.

Grow up tardtard.

When you hit the 'Quote' button, the poster's name appears. You remove the names, so you are lying. This is a public forum, BUT, The T made the link between unregulated corporations and liberty

Then YOU ask:

Please find where I advocate lassaiez faire and unregulated corporate activity?

Are you really THAT dense?

 

[Seawytch]

That's the argument for having just enough regulation to keep the crooks in business from destroying a business friendly environment.

Don't forget to keep them from poisoning water and food supplies with pollution.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why am I not surprised? You are more than welcome to bring your own sources into the debate. An intelligent person would do some research and try to bring some proof that disputes my facts.

You choose to just dismiss the truth because it doesn't fit into your agenda, dogma and the propaganda you swallow on a daily basis. So like all cowards, you cut & run.

Problem is? You don't debate...So how can he oblige you?

Well T, you, Fitz or anyone else on this board is welcome to bring proof our founding fathers supported unregulated corporations and mass privatization.

You involved me here, implying I supported lassaiez faire capitalism. Therefore deal with your own mistake, tardtard. Find proof I ever advocated unregulated capitalism.

When you hit the 'Quote' button, the poster's name appears. You remove the names, so you are lying. This is a public forum, BUT, The T made the link between unregulated corporations and liberty

No. I cut and paste and use the quote function in the box. So change your pull-ups. I don't remove anything.

 

[Bfgrn]

Problem is? You don't debate...So how can he oblige you?

Well T, you, Fitz or anyone else on this board is welcome to bring proof our founding fathers supported unregulated corporations and mass privatization.

You involved me here, implying I supported lassaiez faire capitalism. Therefore deal with your own mistake, tardtard. Find proof I ever advocated unregulated capitalism.

When you hit the 'Quote' button, the poster's name appears. You remove the names, so you are lying. This is a public forum, BUT, The T made the link between unregulated corporations and liberty

No. I cut and paste and use the quote function in the box. So change your pull-ups. I don't remove anything.

OH, so you're a founding father...

 

[The T]

Please find where I advocate lassaiez faire and unregulated corporate activity?

I am ethical capitalist. I believe in broad well defined guardrails to protect society from bad behavior of corporations. Always have, always will. The guardrails are very far apart, and not some narrow one lane road most liberalcommiefucks want. It's 10 lanes wide and no speed limit. Just stay in the lines and in the guardrails and everyone gets along fine.

First answer one question...are you The T?

Sorry, I'm not the T.

I'm more suave and erudite in handing you your lunch.

There can be only one Big Fitz.

More humble too.

That's OK. BuFu is easily confused.

 

[The T]

So unregulated corporations = Liberty?

Please find where I advocate lassaiez faire and unregulated corporate activity?

I am ethical capitalist. I believe in broad well defined guardrails to protect society from bad behavior of corporations. Always have, always will. The guardrails are very far apart, and not some narrow one lane road most liberalcommiefucks want. It's 10 lanes wide and no speed limit. Just stay in the lines and in the guardrails and everyone gets along fine.

First answer one question...are you The T?

He doesn't HAVE to be, moron. Where is the rule that on;ly *I* have to answer to your unmittigating stupidity?

 

[Big Fitz]

Well T, you, Fitz or anyone else on this board is welcome to bring proof our founding fathers supported unregulated corporations and mass privatization.

You involved me here, implying I supported lassaiez faire capitalism. Therefore deal with your own mistake, tardtard. Find proof I ever advocated unregulated capitalism.

When you hit the 'Quote' button, the poster's name appears. You remove the names, so you are lying. This is a public forum, BUT, The T made the link between unregulated corporations and liberty

No. I cut and paste and use the quote function in the box. So change your pull-ups. I don't remove anything.

OH, so you're a founding father...

If you're too simple to follow, you should stop posting and go back to hellokitty.com's forum.

 

[Bfgrn]

You involved me here, implying I supported lassaiez faire capitalism. Therefore deal with your own mistake, tardtard. Find proof I ever advocated unregulated capitalism.



No. I cut and paste and use the quote function in the box. So change your pull-ups. I don't remove anything.

OH, so you're a founding father...

If you're too simple to follow, you should stop posting and go back to hellokitty.com's forum.

What is so hard to understand? This is just basic conversation. You didn't say 'unregulated corporations = liberty', The T did. Then you want me to prove YOU SAID IT.

Pretty fucked up.

 

[Bfgrn]

You seem keenly aware of the danger of big government, and haplessly obtuse to the danger of big corporations. I believe the real danger in big, because big can always crush small. And a mortal human being is small and fragile compared to a big government or a big corporation.

Really? Pop quiz tardtard:

1. Who has the power to imprison?
2. Who has the power to tax?
3. Who has the power to confiscate property?
4. Can any corporation force you to do business with them?
5. Can any business force you to work against your will?
6. Must a corporation provide compensation for your labor?

So answer away tardtard. Who's the bigger danger?

You totally miss the point of Jefferson's concerns, just as you totally miss the dangers of corporate capture of laws and regulations and you deny the truth that our founders strictly regulated corporations. They believed making profit off of We, the People was a privilege, not a right.

And where are you getting such insight? As I read the constitution, I see nothing like that in there.

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act.

Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy.

There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter. …

A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view.

-- William Jennings Bryan
address to the Ohio 1912 Constitutional Convention

Christ, you don't have an original thought either. Why don't you just start quoting the Cross of Gold speech and act like it was the founding father's who said it? Attribute it to Adams or Madison maybe.

Again, prisoner of his own timeframe. He lived to see the TeaPot dome scandal, so many consumer and labor protection acts that were desperately needed at the time; and IIRC the New Deal fiasco that decimated this nation for 8 years till WW2 dragged us out of it.

So you want to use quotes from turn of the 20th politicians and act like they're the founders? Fine. Try this one on for size:

"The business of America... is business." Calvin Coolidge.

Pretty funny coming from you of all people. I am the one who argued that government is building a police state, and argued against the state being able to kill citizens.

YOU argued against it. You dismissed proof that America incarcerates more of their citizens per capita than Russia, you argued that government should have mandatory drug testing and you defended the state killing citizens, even if they execute an innocent person.

Killing an innocent human being is murder. WHO pays for that crime when the State murders an innocent person, you?...the Governor? What about the families of THOSE innocent victims YOU have created? If one of my family members murdered someone, I could find a way to accept their consequences. But if my family member were innocent and executed, I would now be a victim you righteously say you are protecting.

No system of justice is perfect. Secondly, executing the wrong person is an accident. Not murder. Executions are a punishment for a crime.

 

[Big Fitz]

YOU argued against it. You dismissed proof that America incarcerates more of their citizens per capita than Russia, you argued that government should have mandatory drug testing and you defended the state killing citizens, even if they execute an innocent person.

Oh for **** sake... This why you can't have intelligent thoughts. Not even 1.3% of the population. I dismiss the importance you place on it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go. If the employer has agreed to such terms, then that's on the employer, plain and simple. If I sit down at the table with you and work out a business deal that ends up being foolish for me, then that is my fault for being foolish in my business deals. Same thing applies.

But with collective bargaining with public workers, the ones opposing them on the bargaining table are often the very same people who promised them the most on the campaign trail.

This is why even FDR opposed collective bargaining for Public sector workers.

One other problem is with public workers it is the taxpayers that pay the price, not a corporation.

 

[Big Fitz]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go. If the employer has agreed to such terms, then that's on the employer, plain and simple. If I sit down at the table with you and work out a business deal that ends up being foolish for me, then that is my fault for being foolish in my business deals. Same thing applies.

But with collective bargaining with public workers, the ones opposing them on the bargaining table are often the very same people who promised them the most on the campaign trail.

This is why even FDR opposed collective bargaining for Public sector workers.

One other problem is with public workers it is the taxpayers that pay the price, not a corporation.

And have no ability to take their business elsewhere OR refuse to pay. So if the union corrupts the negotiating process by putting shills on the 'management' side, they union and politicians conspire against the public which can do almost nothing to stop it till the system starts to collapse... as it is now.

 

[Trajan]

Some of these are indefensible.

Calling in sick and getting overtime?

Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as “sick leave stacking.” Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours.

Remember those teachers taking their students out of class to protest? Now I know why they like collective bargaining.

Due to a 1982 provision of their collective bargaining agreement, Milwaukee Public School teachers actually receive two pensions upon retirement instead of one. The contribution to the second pension is equal to 4.2% of a teacher’s salary, with the school district making 100% of the contribution, just like they do for the first pension. This extra benefit costs taxpayers more than $16 million per year.

I love this one.

Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit. Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, “Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers."

CARPE DIEM: Collective Bargaining Abuse Examples in Wisconsin

Guess what people, teachers might not be the problem, but their union is.

I knew about the teacher getting laid off. Lifo blows and is in and of itself so inherently unfair, its beyond words.

the stacking is, well, corrupt, , period.

and as far as the second pension. my union pension( a defined U.C. pension plan) provides that when I die, my wife gets a check for 25% of my pension, till she dies.

Now, I have said for years that I thought social sec. should, when I die pay my spouse NOT the higher of the 2, that is hers or mine, but mine as well until its exhausted, BUT, I paid into it, there-fore as my spouse she as part of the household lived without that contribution to our investment and funds thru the years. This, the additional pension, however is crap, hey I am happy for her if I go first but frankly, its bullshit.

 

[MikeK]

Not the baby with the bathwater argument! OMG, what can I say?

Please tell me how contracts that allow a person to connect two separate pensions from one job is an abuse?[...]

Okay. But it's really not a complex issue.

The provision in those contracts which enable such exploitation is a methodical abuse of the civil service system.

The bathwater in this example is a metaphor for the legal process which may be used to eliminate the abusive provision.

To eliminate collective bargaining would effectively neutralize the unions, thereby rendering them null and void, which is excessive. The unions in this example being the metaphorical baby, to neutralize the unions when all that is needed is to eliminate the abusive provision in the contract would be to metaphorically "toss out the baby with the bathwater."

What is so difficult about that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not the baby with the bathwater argument! OMG, what can I say?

Please tell me how contracts that allow a person to connect two separate pensions from one job is an abuse?[...]

Okay. But it's really not a complex issue.

The provision in those contracts which enable such exploitation is a methodical abuse of the civil service system.

The bathwater in this example is a metaphor for the legal process which may be used to eliminate the abusive provision.

To eliminate collective bargaining would effectively neutralize the unions, thereby rendering them null and void, which is excessive. The unions in this example being the metaphorical baby, to neutralize the unions when all that is needed is to eliminate the abusive provision in the contract would be to metaphorically "toss out the baby with the bathwater."

What is so difficult about that?

Are you saying that the state can simply sit down and renegotiate the contract whenever they want? If so, why do you have a problem with Walker's attempt to do just that?

Collective bargaining is not the baby here, nor is it the bathwater Your analogy only works if you understand that collective bargaining is the the bath toys. It is nice to have them, but it has nothing to do with bating the baby.

Civil service guidelines already exist that protect public employees from retaliation, making it all but impossible to fire them in the first place, and even guaranteeing pay and benefits. Adding in collective bargaining, and the accompanying threat of strikes, without which collective bargaining is completely useless, and you essentially multiply their poser to the point they can demand anything they want, including the very contracts you consider to be abusive.

I already outlined the minimum conditions under which I would allow unions to have collective bargaining. If unions do not want to allow votes from both members and taxpayers before any contract is approved they do not deserve the privilege of collective bargaining.

 

[drsmith1072]

So how often is this actually done and what percentage of public workers that walker is stripping of their collective bargaining rights does it apply to?? Furthermore how does a correctional officer exploiting the system have anything to do with teachers??

I have no idea ho often it happens, but the fact that it happens at all is wrong. The fact that there are honest empoyees that do not do it does not excuse those that do.

and yet based on your posts you seem mjore than willing to condemn and hold them all accountable for the actions of an unknown few. Imagine that. BTW, You missed a couple of questions. What percentage of public workers that walker is stripping of their collective bargaining rights does it apply to?? Furthermore how does a correctional officer exploiting the system have anything to do with teachers?? Why do you only address one question and assume that is enough??

BTW, how can you qualify for overtime if you only work 8 hours?? Fuzzy math?? My guess is that the officer works 32 hours exploits a loophole that does need to be addressed and takes sick leave for 8 hours and then works an additional 8 at the overtime rate. Funny how your link claims he only works 8 hours. LOL

The contract is written so that anytime you clock in for two shifts in one day you get overtime for the second shift. This means that you can take your sick day for a week, work the second shift every day, work only 40 hours, and get paid for 100 hours.

Maybe you should work on your comprehension skills, and you math.

According to what?? I saw nothing like this in your link so where did you draw this new info from?? Your article clearly claims that they get 2.5 times the rate of pay for only working 8 hours. Furthermore, are you telling me that they have unlimited sick days?? Oh and I am still waiting on you to show how this applies to teachers since you made the claim that

Remember those teachers taking their students out of class to protest? Now I know why they like collective bargaining.

uh you do realize that the numbers now add up to 104.2% don't you?? How can teachers contribute 4.2% and the school district pay 100%. More of that fuzzy math? I am beginning to doubt the veractiy of the content from your link. Funny how the blog fails to offer anything of substance to back up it's claims and yet you jump at the chance to swallow what it is feeding you without question.

I take that back, you definitely need to work on both.

They receive two, entirely separate pensions. One is not detailed here, and it is entirely supported by taxpayers, the second pension is equivalent to 4.2% of their salary, and is also 100% taxpayer funded. Neither of them require any contributions by teachers, and adding them together does not add up to more than 100% of anything.

You are correct I misread the excerpt but i am still waiting on proof that there is anything to this claim. You are citing a sources that is using walker's talking points as it's source which uses am unlisted press release as his source. So where is your proof??

Yeah that sucks but it's good that seniority counts for something in this world. BTW was her lay off directly caused by the hc plan and if so can you show proof of that link? Or was it part of the overall budget shortfall that every state is running into because of the economy??


BTW come to find out that your blog is parroting walker's talking points.

Media Room

LOL Good job. quantum want a cracker?

Seniority is more important than merit? Why?

First off you would have to prove that she was a better teacher than those that were kept while she was laid off. Claiming it does not make it so.

The point I, and the teacher, am making is that she would rather have a less expensive health care plan and a job than no health care and no job. She was not given a choice in the matter though, because her "right" to collective bargaining trumped her right to make a choice.

Still waiting on you to show proof that her layoff was in direct response to the hc plan that they had. Claiming it does not make it so.

Calling a fact a talking point doe not make them false, it just means you have no rebuttal.

Calling it a fact when you have no substance to back it up and then repeating it as if it is known as a fact does not make it fact. Me, asking you for substance because you provided NONE as I showed how your info came straight form walker's talking point memo is a rebuttal to your presumption that everything to posted is a fact. So can you support the claims you parroted from a blog that parroted walker's talking points or not??