Collective bargaining at itsfinest

[drsmith1072]

You have no problem with the fact that your community cannot afford to pay for basic services because some idiot in the past gave unions a sweetheart deal? My advice to you is not to expect anyone to fill potholes around you house because you think it is more important to pay a teacher two pensions than fill holes.

That is why you renegotiate the deal. Unions were willing to compromise walker was not. If you have a mole on your foot that you want to remove you don't amputate the leg.

According to walker's own website he sites a press release with no link and your source is parroting walker's talking points and I cannot find an original copy of the press release so can you prove your claim that they get two pensions??

That is certainly one way to interpret the situation, but there are others. He put out the terms of his deal, and the union rejected them. Did you notice in all of this that his plan affects more than just the teachers union? Or that the teachers union is the only one that raised a big stink and refused to accept it? Until, that is, the President of the United States decided to interject himself into state politics and made a bigger issue of it.

So "he" gets 100% of what he wants or no deal and you call that compromise??

BTW is that a "NO" that you can't prove the claim that they recieve two pensions??

 

[MikeK]

Are you saying that the state can simply sit down and renegotiate the contract whenever they want?

The standard procedure is to negotiate at the expiration of an existing contract, or if some special circumstance calls for emergency session.

If so, why do you have a problem with Walker's attempt to do just that?

The only problem I have is Walker's stated intention to eliminate collective bargaining, without which the unions are rendered impotent.

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.

In this specific example the Teachers' Unions have already conceded all issues of wages, benefits and conditions, but Walker wants to eliminate their right to collectively bargain, which essentially is the union's right to exist as an empowered entity.

As for "civil service guidelines," they are just that -- guidelines. They are not laws and therefore without union intervention are subject to official discretion.

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.

Who told you collective bargaining means unlimited mandate -- Glenn Beck? It simply isn't true. Collective bargaining is simply the right to demand negotiation, without which a union is nothing but an unrecognized wildcat organization. And as I've noted above, the union has already given in to the State's assertion that it cannot afford any pay raises or increased benefits.


The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.[3] Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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??

Unknown few? It is written into the ******* contract. The problem is not the people who take advantage of it, it is the contract itself.

BTW, if I am parroting Walker's talking points, I am going to have to admit that he is one of the few politicians that actually know what he is talking about.

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

It is called math, you should try it some time. 2.5 x 40 = 100.

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??

I provided a link. If you do not like his sources feel free to take it up with him, and feel free to provide the evidence that proves him wrong.

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.

First off, she was teacher of the year. That, by default, makes her the best teacher in the entire district.

Next?

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.

Why should I provide proof that something I did not say is true? What I am saying is that she, and the rest of the union, should have been given a chance to vote on which they would rather have. If you can prove they did feel free to post evidence.

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??

Since you want me to provide substance that things I never claimed were true are I have no idea how to respond to your ridiculous argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is why you renegotiate the deal. Unions were willing to compromise walker was not. If you have a mole on your foot that you want to remove you don't amputate the leg.

According to walker's own website he sites a press release with no link and your source is parroting walker's talking points and I cannot find an original copy of the press release so can you prove your claim that they get two pensions??

That is certainly one way to interpret the situation, but there are others. He put out the terms of his deal, and the union rejected them. Did you notice in all of this that his plan affects more than just the teachers union? Or that the teachers union is the only one that raised a big stink and refused to accept it? Until, that is, the President of the United States decided to interject himself into state politics and made a bigger issue of it.

So "he" gets 100% of what he wants or no deal and you call that compromise??

BTW is that a "NO" that you can't prove the claim that they recieve two pensions??

Where did I call that compromise. The fact is that the other side walked away and refused to negotiate, so they lost by default.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The standard procedure is to negotiate at the expiration of an existing contract, or if some special circumstance calls for emergency session.

In other words, no. Glad you agree woth me.

[

The only problem I have is Walker's stated intention to eliminate collective bargaining, without which the unions are rendered impotent.

They are not impotent, just less potent.

In this specific example the Teachers' Unions have already conceded all issues of wages, benefits and conditions, but Walker wants to eliminate their right to collectively bargain, which essentially is the union's right to exist as an empowered entity.

Apparently Walker thought the issue is something other than you think it is.

As for "civil service guidelines," they are just that -- guidelines. They are not laws and therefore without union intervention are subject to official discretion.

Wrong, they have the force of law.

Who told you collective bargaining means unlimited mandate -- Glenn Beck? It simply isn't true. Collective bargaining is simply the right to demand negotiation, without which a union is nothing but an unrecognized wildcat organization. And as I've noted above, the union has already given in to the State's assertion that it cannot afford any pay raises or increased benefits.

No one told me that, and I did not say it. What I said is that, when combined with civil service rules and the threat of a strike, they amount to one.

The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.[3] Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.

Yada yada yada. I believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees housing, food, and a job. You might want to remember that, since we are actually talking about the United States here, the UDHR has no impact on what we are discussing. I will also point out that federal workers do not have collective bargaining, so you will have a hard time arguing that it is a constitutional right. Collective bargaining is not a right, it is a privilege.

 

[Harry Dresden]

well after reading all this shit.....my conclusion is, there are a lot of people here who should go out and get a Govt job......AND im willing to bet everyone here bitching about the pay and Benefits recieved ....would not give up either one if they had one of them jobs.....hey.....just sayin....

 

[Big Fitz]

As a government employee... I do have to say, given the choice of being laid off or taking a pay/benefit cut... I'll keep my employment thanks. There are others I know who would do the same, but the vast majority would not and fight you tooth and claw over it.

 

[Trajan]

well after reading all this shit.....my conclusion is, there are a lot of people here who should go out and get a Govt job......AND im willing to bet everyone here bitching about the pay and Benefits recieved ....would not give up either one if they had one of them jobs.....hey.....just sayin....

sorry, you're wrong.

 

[jeffrockit]

It was dealt with via the democratic voting process. The losers of that process (Democrats) chose to ignore that fact and leave the state rather than vote, thereby refusing to do their job. They were still paid for the 3 weeks "vacation" they took and the union supporters in WI (and others that were bussed in form other states) gave them a hero's welcome home. What other job in this country can you walk off of for 3 weeks and still keep your job?

Everything about which you're complaining here is a matter between WI state legislators, and their constituents. Unless you live in Wisconsin, what is your complaint? You admit that there were many people in Wisconsin who were welcoming of these legislators' actions. That is their prerogative.

Not complaining just stating facts. You are unable to refute the facts so you state that it is complaining. You don't have a problem with politicians walking off of their job but still being paid and still are able to keep their jobs?

 

[jeffrockit]

Corps are not paid by taxpayer dollars, public employee unions are.

No, public employee unions are paid with membership dues that come from the private funds of those members. It stops being taxpayer money the moment it's put into someone's paycheck, just like your money stops being your money the moment it is taxed away from you.

Let me ask you this, what happens when a corporation lobbies the local politicians for favorable tax breaks and credits. That's taxes that the corporation rightfully owed for the public benefit. Now, it's lost tax money that has to be made up for by the taxpayers directly. How is that any different then what you're complaining about?

That is completely false. Those "private funds" you suggest are taxpayer dollars. I suggest you do some research before you make a false statement. The state budget is in the red because the taxpayer dollars that are needed to pay the employees and their benefits, (which they currently pay 0 into their pensions and a fraction into their health care) are not their. In some states to offset this, they raise the property taxes (New Jersey). The taxpayer is totally on the hook for these employees but have no voice at the bargaining table.
Again you seem to have a problem with understanding what complaining is vrs stating facts. You also want to shift the debate on unions to a debate on corporations. Focus on the debate at hand rather than diluting it with another topic.

 

[Harry Dresden]

well after reading all this shit.....my conclusion is, there are a lot of people here who should go out and get a Govt job......AND im willing to bet everyone here bitching about the pay and Benefits recieved ....would not give up either one if they had one of them jobs.....hey.....just sayin....

sorry, you're wrong.

about what?......taking a Govt job or giving up benifits if you were a Govt employee?....if your going to say the Latter.....sorry i dont believe ya.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you saying that the state can simply sit down and renegotiate the contract whenever they want?

The standard procedure is to negotiate at the expiration of an existing contract, or if some special circumstance calls for emergency session.

If so, why do you have a problem with Walker's attempt to do just that?

The only problem I have is Walker's stated intention to eliminate collective bargaining, without which the unions are rendered impotent.

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.

In this specific example the Teachers' Unions have already conceded all issues of wages, benefits and conditions, but Walker wants to eliminate their right to collectively bargain, which essentially is the union's right to exist as an empowered entity.

As for "civil service guidelines," they are just that -- guidelines. They are not laws and therefore without union intervention are subject to official discretion.

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.

Who told you collective bargaining means unlimited mandate -- Glenn Beck? It simply isn't true. Collective bargaining is simply the right to demand negotiation, without which a union is nothing but an unrecognized wildcat organization. And as I've noted above, the union has already given in to the State's assertion that it cannot afford any pay raises or increased benefits.


The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.[3] Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.

The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.[3] Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.

the above is at best horse shit. At worst, it's a lie to pull the wool over the eyes of tha taxpeyers.
If the above statement were true, 'right to work laws" would never have passed the muster of court challenges. Additionally, the Sen Harry Reid proposed Senate bill to require all states allow collective bargaining for public employees would be wholly unnecessary. As we know none of that is true.
So the statement claiming the right to collective bargaining is patently false and legally, the right does not exist.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights"....What the **** is that?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights"....What the **** is that?

Interestingly, and sadly, the average right-wing chauvinist harbors contempt for the very concept of human rights. So there is no need for you to feel alone in this example of deplorable and contemptuous ignorance.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, because certain agents and entities within the United States chooses to ignore the articles of the UDHR does not mean they are no longer components of International Law. What it means is the United States is quickly becoming a categorical rogue nation. And I wonder how you feel about that.

 

[billber]

Teachers are very much UNDERPAID,and so u can understand unions a little better,I am a PROUD retired union electrician.When we take a day off,we DO NOT GET PAID.We MUST do a days work for a days pay.u had better be working as soon as u start,or u will not have a job.Yes I have a decent retirement which took me 40 years to achieve,in short oppose collective bargaining and continue to barely make a living,and while your at it BUY AMERICAN THR JOB YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[drsmith1072]

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??

Unknown few? It is written into the ******* contract. The problem is not the people who take advantage of it, it is the contract itself.

unknown few is to describe the number and the fact that it is UNKNOWN. Furthermore, just becuase it's in the contract doesn't mean that it is exploited. Can you provide proof that this issue is real and that there are those that exploit it without cause??

BTW, if I am parroting Walker's talking points, I am going to have to admit that he is one of the few politicians that actually know what he is talking about.

So am I to take your continued avoidance to mean that you can't answer the questions that i asked?? Here are the questions you skipped over.

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??

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

It is called math, you should try it some time. 2.5 x 40 = 100.

Actually that is not what I was asking about. you made claims not supported by your link so I asked you "according to what" and avoidance is apparently all that you have to offer. Furthermore you still have failed to show how this applies to teachers. Why do you continue to run away from your own statements??

I provided a link. If you do not like his sources feel free to take it up with him, and feel free to provide the evidence that proves him wrong.

You provided a link that proves nothing except that you are gullible and willing to claim that you are presenting facts when there is nothing to substantiate the claims that you made.
BTW, in case you missed it the burden of proof lies with you. You are the one that presented this cut and paste drivel and tried to claim that it's fact. Therefore, YOU need to prove that it is as you claim or admit that it's not fact.

First off, she was teacher of the year. That, by default, makes her the best teacher in the entire district.

actually IF you could read she wasnamed outstanding FIRST year teacher meaning it was her first year and she was the best out of all of the FIRST year teachers. However, what if she was the onlyFIRST year teacher?? Did you ever think of that??

This is from your own link.

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.

Next?

You should actually address the first FEW points before you try to move on. LOL

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.

Why should I provide proof that something I did not say is true? What I am saying is that she, and the rest of the union, should have been given a chance to vote on which they would rather have. If you can prove they did feel free to post evidence.

Are you really this retarded?? YOU chose to use the clip from your link that flat out says that the HC plan was the cause of their layoffs as you used that claim to support your attacks against the unions and collective bargaining. Are you now claiming that is not the case and that the HC plan was not the cause??

Here is a part of your post where you state that they lost their jobs due to the hc plan they had.

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.

If that is not your implication then how would they have had a choice between a less expensive plan and a job??

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??

Since you want me to provide substance that things I never claimed were true are I have no idea how to respond to your ridiculous argument.

Ah the typical avoidance bs. YOU provided the link and then claimed that you were presenting facts when there is nothing to substantiate such a claim. or did you forget this calim that YOU made?

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

YOU claimed that they were facts, therefore the burden is on you to substantiate said claim.
How sad is that? You based your entire rant on the content of the link that you provided and don't even have the integrity to stand behind the foundation of your own argument.

Thanks for bascially admitting that you have nothing to offer to support your claims and won't even bother trying. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

That is certainly one way to interpret the situation, but there are others. He put out the terms of his deal, and the union rejected them. Did you notice in all of this that his plan affects more than just the teachers union? Or that the teachers union is the only one that raised a big stink and refused to accept it? Until, that is, the President of the United States decided to interject himself into state politics and made a bigger issue of it.

So "he" gets 100% of what he wants or no deal and you call that compromise??

BTW is that a "NO" that you can't prove the claim that they recieve two pensions??

Where did I call that compromise.

I mentioned compromise in my previous post and you responded "That is certainly one way to interpret the situation, but there are others." as you claimed that "he" put out the terms of his deal and the union rejected them. which is NOT the case. The unions were willing to compromose on almost everything except the issue of collective bargaining and he walked away claiming that they were not willing to compromise.

The fact is that the other side walked away and refused to negotiate, so they lost by default.

uh where do you get your "facts" because the unions have stated publically that they offered compromise and on what they were willing to compromise and yet walker wanted everything he was asking for. So i ask again "So "he" gets 100% of what he wants or no deal and you call that compromise??"

Oh and still waiting on you to prove that they get two pensions. The sad fact is that you can't even hide behind claims that you never said it because here are you own words.

You have no problem with the fact that your community cannot afford to pay for basic services because some idiot in the past gave unions a sweetheart deal? My advice to you is not to expect anyone to fill potholes around you house because you think it is more important to pay a teacher two pensions than fill holes.

So where is your proof and why do you continue to run away from your own argument and the link that is the very foundation of the argument that you based this thread on? If it is all fact as you claim then you should be able to prove that it is and yet at every opportunity to do so you refuse to or just avoid questions in the hopes that they will go away.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[...]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights"....What the **** is that?

Interestingly, and sadly, the average right-wing chauvinist harbors contempt for the very concept of human rights. So there is no need for you to feel alone in this example of deplorable and contemptuous ignorance.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, because certain agents and entities within the United States chooses to ignore the articles of the UDHR does not mean they are no longer components of International Law. What it means is the United States is quickly becoming a categorical rogue nation. And I wonder how you feel about that.

I am more than willing to stack my personal record on human rights up against anyone on this board. I also understand the difference between a right and something that requires a someone to pay for something for another person. I would fully support the right to housing care if it did not require me forcing someone who has any type of objection to paying for it to do so. Should you be forced to live in an apartment instead of a house in order to ensure that everyone who cannot afford it has a roof over their head? Should you be forced to accept a less inclusive health plan because another person does not have the money to pay for dental insurance?

Positive rights only work if you believe that unicorns fart rainbows.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

unknown few is to describe the number and the fact that it is UNKNOWN. Furthermore, just becuase it's in the contract doesn't mean that it is exploited. Can you provide proof that this issue is real and that there are those that exploit it without cause??

Sure it doesn't.

I do not have to provide proof that it is happening, you have to prove it isn't.

So am I to take your continued avoidance to mean that you can't answer the questions that i asked?? Here are the questions you skipped over.

I prefer that you take it as total contempt and scorn for you position that your questions deserve an answer. If it makes you feel better to delude yourself that I cannot answer at all, I cannot stop you.

Enjoy your delusions.

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??

See above.

Actually that is not what I was asking about. you made claims not supported by your link so I asked you "according to what" and avoidance is apparently all that you have to offer. Furthermore you still have failed to show how this applies to teachers. Why do you continue to run away from your own statements??




You provided a link that proves nothing except that you are gullible and willing to claim that you are presenting facts when there is nothing to substantiate the claims that you made.
BTW, in case you missed it the burden of proof lies with you. You are the one that presented this cut and paste drivel and tried to claim that it's fact. Therefore, YOU need to prove that it is as you claim or admit that it's not fact.

I made no claims at all, I pointed out how you could get overtime without working more than 40 hours because the contract allows a corrections officer to stack sick time with a second shift. That is not a claim that is an explanation of one way to scam the system.

actually IF you could read she wasnamed outstanding FIRST year teacher meaning it was her first year and she was the best out of all of the FIRST year teachers. However, what if she was the onlyFIRST year teacher?? Did you ever think of that??

What if she was the only first year teacher? Do you even realize how stupid that sounds?

This is from your own link.

And how many of those teachers that were not fired made outstanding teacher of the year their first year?

You should actually address the first FEW points before you try to move on. LOL

You are assuming the points you are making make sense.

Are you really this retarded?? YOU chose to use the clip from your link that flat out says that the HC plan was the cause of their layoffs as you used that claim to support your attacks against the unions and collective bargaining. Are you now claiming that is not the case and that the HC plan was not the cause??

Here is a part of your post where you state that they lost their jobs due to the hc plan they had.



If that is not your implication then how would they have had a choice between a less expensive plan and a job??

They did not have a choice. The teachers is saying shoe would rather have a job and a lesser plan. Where did you get from that that I am implying anything?

Ah the typical avoidance bs. YOU provided the link and then claimed that you were presenting facts when there is nothing to substantiate such a claim. or did you forget this calim that YOU made?

If what I am saying is not true you should have no time proving it. Since the only thing you have done in this discussion is misrepresent my position and insist that everything I posted is wrong you should have no problem providing links. Until then, feel free to continue blathering.

YOU claimed that they were facts, therefore the burden is on you to substantiate said claim.
How sad is that? You based your entire rant on the content of the link that you provided and don't even have the integrity to stand behind the foundation of your own argument.

Thanks for bascially admitting that you have nothing to offer to support your claims and won't even bother trying. LOL

And you call them talking points. If they are not, as I say, factual, feel free to provide evidence that they are false. Until that time, they are the only facts that I need to provide.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I mentioned compromise in my previous post and you responded "That is certainly one way to interpret the situation, but there are others." as you claimed that "he" put out the terms of his deal and the union rejected them. which is NOT the case. The unions were willing to compromose on almost everything except the issue of collective bargaining and he walked away claiming that they were not willing to compromise.

He did put out the terms of the deal, and the Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate rejected them. You are assuming again.

I never said he offered to compromise, and I never said that the unions rejected them. You are so focused on the unions that you are missing the fact that I am talking about politicians.

Your problem, not mine.

uh where do you get your "facts" because the unions have stated publically that they offered compromise and on what they were willing to compromise and yet walker wanted everything he was asking for. So i ask again "So "he" gets 100% of what he wants or no deal and you call that compromise??"

Oh and still waiting on you to prove that they get two pensions. The sad fact is that you can't even hide behind claims that you never said it because here are you own words.

And the Democrats walked away. Since he was not elected as governor to negotiate with the unions I fail to understand why your insistence that they were willing to compromise makes any difference.

You seem to still think I am required to prove what I linked to is true. I don't. If, as you contend, it is false it is up to you to provide the proof.

So where is your proof and why do you continue to run away from your own argument and the link that is the very foundation of the argument that you based this thread on? If it is all fact as you claim then you should be able to prove that it is and yet at every opportunity to do so you refuse to or just avoid questions in the hopes that they will go away.

I provided my evidence, you dismissed it.I have no problem with you doing so, but I refuse to accept that your rejection automatically invalidates my link.

That puts the burden of proof on you.

 

[drsmith1072]

unknown few is to describe the number and the fact that it is UNKNOWN. Furthermore, just becuase it's in the contract doesn't mean that it is exploited. Can you provide proof that this issue is real and that there are those that exploit it without cause??

Sure it doesn't.

I do not have to provide proof that it is happening, you have to prove it isn't.

Actually due to the fact that you are the one making the claims based on your source the burden of proof is on YOU.

So am I to take your continued avoidance to mean that you can't answer the questions that i asked?? Here are the questions you skipped over.

I prefer that you take it as total contempt and scorn for you position that your questions deserve an answer. If it makes you feel better to delude yourself that I cannot answer at all, I cannot stop you.

Enjoy your delusions.

They are valid questions considering the claims made by you and your link. Making lame excuses for your avoidance of these questions doesn't change the fact that you are avoiding them.

See above.

same to you.

I made no claims at all, I pointed out how you could get overtime without working more than 40 hours because the contract allows a corrections officer to stack sick time with a second shift. That is not a claim that is an explanation of one way to scam the system.

Uh in case you missed it, your attempts to "point out" something is making a claim based on your own interpretation of your unsubstantiated source.

What if she was the only first year teacher? Do you even realize how stupid that sounds?

Do you have the number of first year teachers?? Do you have a comparison between her and the teachers who got to keep their jobs?? You continue to make claims that you don;t have the facts to back up. Imagine that.

BTW funny how you gloss over the FACT that you were WRONG when you tried to claim that she was "teacher of the year" as you edit my post and delete the aprts that you lack the integrity to respond to.

First off, she was teacher of the year. That, by default, makes her the best teacher in the entire district.

I guess you forgot that you just made up "facts" to suit the needs of your argument. LOL

And how many of those teachers that were not fired made outstanding teacher of the year their first year?

Are you assuming that they stayed at the same level of experience as they had when they were a first year teacher?? The point is to compare where they are now. Not to be dishonest and compare her first year to their first year when they actually have at least 3 years of experience under their belts. Are you typical this disheonst as you try to spin and CYA??

You are assuming the points you are making make sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKlWGZHEO7Q

Imagine that, more lame excuses for your avoidance and dishonesty. How typical.

They did not have a choice. The teachers is saying shoe would rather have a job and a lesser plan.

WOW more lame spin and avoidance. The fact is that you continued with the claim that they lost their jobs due to the HC plan they had so where is your PROOF??

Where did you get from that that I am implying anything?

Right here.

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.

I already listed it once so how many times are you going to avoid your own words and pretend that it never happened?

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.

Ah the typical avoidance bs. YOU provided the link and then claimed that you were presenting facts when there is nothing to substantiate such a claim. or did you forget this calim that YOU made?

If what I am saying is not true you should have no time proving it.

The burden of proof is on YOU. You started this thread attacking collective bargaining using a BLOG as your source when your source doesn't ahve the info to support the claims it makes which you are using as the foundation for your attack thread. No one has to prove you wrong. Either provide the substance to support the attacks and claims that you have made or admit that you can't. A person of integrity would do one of those two.

Since the only thing you have done in this discussion is misrepresent my position and insist that everything I posted is wrong you should have no problem providing links. Until then, feel free to continue blathering.

So quoting your own posts as you try to pretend that you never posted them and asking you for clarification is what you consider misrepresentiung your position?? LOL Furthermore, i have not insisted that everything you have posted is wrong. I merely exposed the holes and gaps in your arguments and the claims made by the blog that you cited and asked you to provide substance to support said claims and arguments.
Your response has been to deny that you made claims even when they have been posted to shww otherwise and claim that others have to prove you wrong.

YOU claimed that they were facts, therefore the burden is on you to substantiate said claim.
How sad is that? You based your entire rant on the content of the link that you provided and don't even have the integrity to stand behind the foundation of your own argument.

Thanks for bascially admitting that you have nothing to offer to support your claims and won't even bother trying. LOL

And you call them talking points. If they are not, as I say, factual, feel free to provide evidence that they are false. Until that time, they are the only facts that I need to provide.

I provided a link that showed that they were cut and pasted from walker's own talking points memo, what more proof do you need?? They didn't even bother rephrasing the talking points. LOL

Furthermore, what have you provided to substantiate ANY of the claims made in your source that you are now running away from?? Anything??

In case you missed it, providing a link to a blog and claiming that what is presented is fact doesn't make it so.