Collective bargaining at itsfinest

[KissMy]

Having politicions promising lucrative pensions is just another scheme for kicking the can down the road until his term in office is over & the next official gets to be the bad guy.

There should be no tax payer backed pensions. The employee or union should be responsible for saving their own money. If they lose their money then they get the same thing the private sector gets, a regular size Social Security check & nothing more.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

You really need to learn how to read. I already explained the compromise issue do I need to spell it out again?? BTW, How did the state senate reject a deal with the unions?? Furthermore, I am focused on the unions because they and their collective bargaining are the topic of this thread. The title of your thread is "Collective bargaining at it's finenest" and your opening post in this thread talks about unions.

How typical that you try to change the subject after figuring out that your argument is not based on reality. LOL

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.

repeating your new line of spin doesn't make it relevant or true.

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.

uh he was elected to do the job of governor, part of which is dealing with every aspect of the job including unions.

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.

uh that is the way it works. If you present an argument, which you did when you began this thread, then the burden of proof lies with you. You started this thread based on the link that you cited and now you are running away from it as fast as possible as you demand that others prove you wrong.

If you can't substantiate the claims that are the foundation of your argument then the honest thing to do would be admit it.

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.

You provided a link to a BLOG that makes unsubstatiated claims which you used to support your arguments and attacks on collective bargaining. Due to the fact that there was no substance to begin with the burden still lies with you.
Just becuase it is written on the internet it doesn't make it fact.

Are you really this gullible??

 

[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.

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



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.





same to you.




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.





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.



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




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??





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




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.




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.

Let me make this simple for you.

I posted a link that you took exception to. Since then you have demanded that I defend things I did not say, and made the the unsupported assumption that the details in the link I posted are wrong. If you just want to argue about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims I suggest that you go to the blog and argue with the guy who wrote it.

 

[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.

You really need to learn how to read. I already explained the compromise issue do I need to spell it out again?? BTW, How did the state senate reject a deal with the unions?? Furthermore, I am focused on the unions because they and their collective bargaining are the topic of this thread. The title of your thread is "Collective bargaining at it's finenest" and your opening post in this thread talks about unions.

How typical that you try to change the subject after figuring out that your argument is not based on reality. LOL



repeating your new line of spin doesn't make it relevant or true.



uh he was elected to do the job of governor, part of which is dealing with every aspect of the job including unions.




uh that is the way it works. If you present an argument, which you did when you began this thread, then the burden of proof lies with you. You started this thread based on the link that you cited and now you are running away from it as fast as possible as you demand that others prove you wrong.

If you can't substantiate the claims that are the foundation of your argument then the honest thing to do would be admit it.

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.

You provided a link to a BLOG that makes unsubstatiated claims which you used to support your arguments and attacks on collective bargaining. Due to the fact that there was no substance to begin with the burden still lies with you.
Just becuase it is written on the internet it doesn't make it fact.

Are you really this gullible??

Why are you insisting I need to learn to read when you keep missing the point I have been making since the beginning?

By the way, I do not care if you think the blog I linked to made unsubstantiated claims. I am not even marginally inclined to defend that bloggers reputation, so go take your beef up with him.

If, on the other hand, you actually want to prove the guy wrong, post some links to evidence that does so. If you ever do that, and I feel so inclined, I will then do some more research and either admit you are right, or prove you wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[...]

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.

Oh so now we're governed by the UN? Ok, let's toss the US Constitution, get rid of our three branches of govt and hand over the reins to the UN..Yeah..Right.
Look, the purpose of the UN is and always has been to act as a mediator of international treaties and disputes. The UN does not and never has the power to make law.
The United States of America is a sovereign independent state with it's own laws. If that makes us a rogue state, call me proud to be an American.
International laws do not usurp the laws of independent sovereign nations so as long as that nation does not violate the sovereignty of other PEACEFUL nations..That's all.
Nice leap on this one, sunshine. UN chirping still does not change the fact that unions have no special rights. Unions are businesses.
Contemptible and deplorable..That's your OPINION...Nobody cares.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no such thing as "underpaid" If pone believed upon the interview the wage to be substandard, they were within their rights to NOT TAKE THE JOB.
If a current employee believes their rate of pay to be substandard, they are free to go to their employer and request an increase or leave the job.
In some places teachers paid lower salaries than their counterparts in areas where the cost of living is much higher or where teachers have unions to represent them against the taxpayers in collective bargaining.
If you are a union electrician and you are barely making a living, your union sucks. All they are doing is collecting dues to pay for their vacations, fancy houses in the suburbs and their wive's jewelery.
The IBEW guys I knew in NY/NJ were very high earners. In fact the IBEW Locals in the NY Metro area were one of the few unions that got paid for days off between jobs.
In any event, union workers are not poor. SO please stop the nonsense.
Once again, this has nothing to do with the private sector. So either stay on point with the public sector or go back to your throne room with the untouched shaving cream in the medicine cabinet.
Hey, what beer is that you're swilling...Pabst Blue Ribbon? It figures.
Public sector unions......

 

[drsmith1072]

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.



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.





same to you.




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.





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.



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




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??





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




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.




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.

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.

Let me make this simple for you.

I posted a link that you took exception to. Since then you have demanded that I defend things I did not say, and made the the unsupported assumption that the details in the link I posted are wrong. If you just want to argue about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims I suggest that you go to the blog and argue with the guy who wrote it.

OMG you really are that retarded. YOU started this thread to attack collective bargaining and unions and YOU chose to use that unsubstantiated link as the foundation for your entire argument. Without it you have nothing to support the very core of your argument.

IF you were honest and had any integrity, you only have two choices. One is to admit that you can't substantiate the very core of your argument and admit that your have nothing real to offer and the other is to actually try to back up your own claims and the claims of the blog that is the foundation of your argument.

The act of providing a link proves NOTHING.

Claiming that what you and your link presented is FACT when neither has been substantiated is flat out dishonesty.

Trying to put the onus of disproving your claims and the link that you cited onto others when you have failed to substantiate either is "argue(ing) about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims". You counter your own spin.

This thread began with you, yor claims, your link and your interpretation of that link and therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

You really need to learn how to read. I already explained the compromise issue do I need to spell it out again?? BTW, How did the state senate reject a deal with the unions?? Furthermore, I am focused on the unions because they and their collective bargaining are the topic of this thread. The title of your thread is "Collective bargaining at it's finenest" and your opening post in this thread talks about unions.

How typical that you try to change the subject after figuring out that your argument is not based on reality. LOL



repeating your new line of spin doesn't make it relevant or true.



uh he was elected to do the job of governor, part of which is dealing with every aspect of the job including unions.




uh that is the way it works. If you present an argument, which you did when you began this thread, then the burden of proof lies with you. You started this thread based on the link that you cited and now you are running away from it as fast as possible as you demand that others prove you wrong.

If you can't substantiate the claims that are the foundation of your argument then the honest thing to do would be admit it.

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.

You provided a link to a BLOG that makes unsubstatiated claims which you used to support your arguments and attacks on collective bargaining. Due to the fact that there was no substance to begin with the burden still lies with you.
Just becuase it is written on the internet it doesn't make it fact.

Are you really this gullible??

Why are you insisting I need to learn to read when you keep missing the point I have been making since the beginning?

What is your point?? Does it have anything to do with how you actually started thsi thread??

By the way, I do not care if you think the blog I linked to made unsubstantiated claims.

Well they did and you chose to use them as the core of your arguments and despite that you can't even defend the only incarnation of substance that you provided.

I am not even marginally inclined to defend that bloggers reputation, so go take your beef up with him.

So what about claims that YOU made concerning the topic of this thread?? I pointed out claims that YOU made and yet you still try to pretend that it's the bloggers rep that you are being asked to defend.
You are being asked to defend the position that you took at the outset of this thread and the claims that YOU made based on your source.
Why is that so hard for you to understand??

If, on the other hand, you actually want to prove the guy wrong, post some links to evidence that does so. If you ever do that, and I feel so inclined, I will then do some more research and either admit you are right, or prove you wrong.

I am asking YOU to prove YOUR arguments that you made using this blog as your source. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so further shows that you can't.

Spin and twist as much as you like but it won't change the FACT that you made the claims based on your choice of sources and therefore you need to provide the substance to substantiate the claims that are the core of your argument.
Failrure to do so shows that you have no valid argument and have nothing real to offer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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



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.





same to you.




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.





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.



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




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??





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




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.




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.



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.

Let me make this simple for you.

I posted a link that you took exception to. Since then you have demanded that I defend things I did not say, and made the the unsupported assumption that the details in the link I posted are wrong. If you just want to argue about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims I suggest that you go to the blog and argue with the guy who wrote it.

OMG you really are that retarded. YOU started this thread to attack collective bargaining and unions and YOU chose to use that unsubstantiated link as the foundation for your entire argument. Without it you have nothing to support the very core of your argument.

IF you were honest and had any integrity, you only have two choices. One is to admit that you can't substantiate the very core of your argument and admit that your have nothing real to offer and the other is to actually try to back up your own claims and the claims of the blog that is the foundation of your argument.

The act of providing a link proves NOTHING.

Claiming that what you and your link presented is FACT when neither has been substantiated is flat out dishonesty.

Trying to put the onus of disproving your claims and the link that you cited onto others when you have failed to substantiate either is "argue(ing) about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims". You counter your own spin.

This thread began with you, yor claims, your link and your interpretation of that link and therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

I started this thread to attack collective bargaining?

I have some serious advice for you, don't try to sell yourself as a psychic.

I started this thread to make a point, one which you obviously missed in your obsession with defending a non existent right.

If you have a problem with the link, either post some evidence of why it is wrong, or take it up with the guy who wrote the blog. Your claim that the link I posted is false is worth even less than my claim that it is fact, because you have provided no evidence to support your point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really need to learn how to read. I already explained the compromise issue do I need to spell it out again?? BTW, How did the state senate reject a deal with the unions?? Furthermore, I am focused on the unions because they and their collective bargaining are the topic of this thread. The title of your thread is "Collective bargaining at it's finenest" and your opening post in this thread talks about unions.

How typical that you try to change the subject after figuring out that your argument is not based on reality. LOL



repeating your new line of spin doesn't make it relevant or true.



uh he was elected to do the job of governor, part of which is dealing with every aspect of the job including unions.




uh that is the way it works. If you present an argument, which you did when you began this thread, then the burden of proof lies with you. You started this thread based on the link that you cited and now you are running away from it as fast as possible as you demand that others prove you wrong.

If you can't substantiate the claims that are the foundation of your argument then the honest thing to do would be admit it.



You provided a link to a BLOG that makes unsubstatiated claims which you used to support your arguments and attacks on collective bargaining. Due to the fact that there was no substance to begin with the burden still lies with you.
Just becuase it is written on the internet it doesn't make it fact.

Are you really this gullible??

Why are you insisting I need to learn to read when you keep missing the point I have been making since the beginning?

What is your point?? Does it have anything to do with how you actually started thsi thread??



Well they did and you chose to use them as the core of your arguments and despite that you can't even defend the only incarnation of substance that you provided.

I am not even marginally inclined to defend that bloggers reputation, so go take your beef up with him.

So what about claims that YOU made concerning the topic of this thread?? I pointed out claims that YOU made and yet you still try to pretend that it's the bloggers rep that you are being asked to defend.
You are being asked to defend the position that you took at the outset of this thread and the claims that YOU made based on your source.
Why is that so hard for you to understand??

If, on the other hand, you actually want to prove the guy wrong, post some links to evidence that does so. If you ever do that, and I feel so inclined, I will then do some more research and either admit you are right, or prove you wrong.

I am asking YOU to prove YOUR arguments that you made using this blog as your source. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so further shows that you can't.

Spin and twist as much as you like but it won't change the FACT that you made the claims based on your choice of sources and therefore you need to provide the substance to substantiate the claims that are the core of your argument.
Failrure to do so shows that you have no valid argument and have nothing real to offer.

I provided a link, you countered with a demand that I prove something else.

Your move.

 

[MalibuMan]

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.

The problem I have with all of this is with BINDING ARBRITRATION. Here where I work if the Sheriff's union and the County Commissioners cant agree on a contract then the debate goes before a abirtator. Whatever the arbitrator says goes. Both parties by law have to go a long with what he says. Even if the County can't afford it or not. That is the biggest problem. I have been here for about 20 years and the arbitrator almost always divides the two parties differences in half. The union uses that to their advantage. They always ask for something ridculous knowing the arbitrator will give them something. The tax payers are held hostage in this case.

 

[drsmith1072]

Let me make this simple for you.

I posted a link that you took exception to. Since then you have demanded that I defend things I did not say, and made the the unsupported assumption that the details in the link I posted are wrong. If you just want to argue about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims I suggest that you go to the blog and argue with the guy who wrote it.

OMG you really are that retarded. YOU started this thread to attack collective bargaining and unions and YOU chose to use that unsubstantiated link as the foundation for your entire argument. Without it you have nothing to support the very core of your argument.

IF you were honest and had any integrity, you only have two choices. One is to admit that you can't substantiate the very core of your argument and admit that your have nothing real to offer and the other is to actually try to back up your own claims and the claims of the blog that is the foundation of your argument.

The act of providing a link proves NOTHING.

Claiming that what you and your link presented is FACT when neither has been substantiated is flat out dishonesty.

Trying to put the onus of disproving your claims and the link that you cited onto others when you have failed to substantiate either is "argue(ing) about those things without supplying any evidence to back up your claims". You counter your own spin.

This thread began with you, yor claims, your link and your interpretation of that link and therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

I started this thread to attack collective bargaining?

Yes you did and actually I said you started this thread to attack BOTH unions and collective abrgaining and here is the title of your thread and the comments that you made in your OP.

Collective bargaining at itsfinest

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.

LOOK AT THE TITLE. How are you not attacking collective bargaining??
Then there is this BS in which you take an instance of collective bargaining made by correctional officers and use it to attack teachers when it doesn't even apply to teachers

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.

Still waiting on you to prove this one which you restated later on within this very thread and have yet to substantiate.

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.

And this one is chock full of assumptions. First you assume later in the thread that she was more qualified than those who were allowed to keep their jobs when you have NO proof of that assumption. Second you try to argue using the unsubstantiated claims of the blog that she lost her job because the union chose not to pick a lower cost HC plan when nothing has been provided to substantiate that claim.

So if it was not yout attempt to attack collective bargaining and the unions then what was your point?? BTW I have already asked you what you point was a few times so it's funny that you continue to avoid providing an answer.

 

[drsmith1072]

I started this thread to make a point, one which you obviously missed in your obsession with defending a non existent right.

Then what was your point? I already showed how you started this thread attacking collective bargaining and unions, so if that was not your intent then what was your point??

 

[drsmith1072]

If you have a problem with the link, either post some evidence of why it is wrong, or take it up with the guy who wrote the blog. Your claim that the link I posted is false is worth even less than my claim that it is fact, because you have provided no evidence to support your point.

WOW, are you really this slow?? I have already spelled it out to you many times over so why is it that you still fail to understand simple english??

YOU provided the link to an unsubstantiated blog as the basis for your entire argument and then YOU made claims based on the content of your link to a blog when nothing that your link has provided has been substantiated, therefore the burden of proof lies with YOU.

No one has to prove you or your link to a blog wrong when it does NOTHING to substantiate the claims that it makes.

Oh and me claiming that you link lacks substance, which it does, as I ask you to provide substance is a far cry from your claims that everything in your link is fact when you and your link fail to provide anything of substance to support it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go.

Well of course you don't, the public is simply a resource for government workers to suck dry to you.

Pretty typical of a leftist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then that is an issue to be dealt with via the democratic voting process. No need for people to throw a ***** fit about it.

So person "A" bribes person "B" who promises to take more from person "C" and give it to "A" as long as "A" campaigns for "B" to get into office?

There is a term for this... Oh yeah "corruption." Well you dims have always been big advocates of corruption, so your position is no surprise.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was a great deal for the union and a horrible deal for the government.

No, it was a great deal for the union and a great deal for the government. The union and the government agreed to mug the taxpayers and give the booty to the union, in return the union agreed to bribe the government hacks and lie to the public in order to keep the hacks in power.

In any other situation we would call this a criminal conspiracy. The government and the union are on the same side - against the tax payer.

 

[drsmith1072]

Why are you insisting I need to learn to read when you keep missing the point I have been making since the beginning?

What is your point?? Does it have anything to do with how you actually started thsi thread??



Well they did and you chose to use them as the core of your arguments and despite that you can't even defend the only incarnation of substance that you provided.




So what about claims that YOU made concerning the topic of this thread?? I pointed out claims that YOU made and yet you still try to pretend that it's the bloggers rep that you are being asked to defend.
You are being asked to defend the position that you took at the outset of this thread and the claims that YOU made based on your source.
Why is that so hard for you to understand??

If, on the other hand, you actually want to prove the guy wrong, post some links to evidence that does so. If you ever do that, and I feel so inclined, I will then do some more research and either admit you are right, or prove you wrong.

I am asking YOU to prove YOUR arguments that you made using this blog as your source. The fact that you continue to avoid doing so further shows that you can't.

Spin and twist as much as you like but it won't change the FACT that you made the claims based on your choice of sources and therefore you need to provide the substance to substantiate the claims that are the core of your argument.
Failrure to do so shows that you have no valid argument and have nothing real to offer.

I provided a link, you countered with a demand that I prove something else.

Your move.

Actually the way it occured in reality is that you provided a link to a blog that lacks substance and clarification while you made arguments against teacher unions and collective bargaining that were solely based on the blog's unsubstantiated claims.

Then I asked you for substance to support the claims made by yourself and your link and in response you turned tail and ran away from the foundation of your entire argument as you started claiming that others need to provide substance to prove your unsubstantiated blog to be false.

You started this thread and made arguments against collective bargaining and unions therefore the burden is on you to provide the substance.

YOU have to prove your argument to begin with, then you can call on others to prove it wrong.
Providing a link to a blog that makes unsubstantiated claims that it copied from a press release put out by gov. walker is not fulfilling your initial obligation to provide a substantive argument that needs to be countered.

Your move.

 

[Gadawg73]

If we did away with every government employee union worker today, how long would the line be for those jobs with benefits, wages and conditions at a level, significantly lower than what they receive now, consistent with what their bosses, THE TAXPAYERS, can afford?

 

[Gadawg73]

The unfunded union government defined pension funds for the 7 metro Atlanta counties is:
ONE BILLION ******* DOLLARS.
And guess who fights to the death the necessary change from defined to contributory plans?
That would be idiot dumb ass UNIONS.
Unions do not care about American citizens or the families of the employees they claim to "represent".
They are bankrupting the nation and making the families of their members pay the freight.