Unions Suffer Deathblow after Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling

[The Rabbi]

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? We now have the answer.

Yes! Thats why we need to get rid of the unions now! THank you Nonepercenter. Unions grab all tbe pay for themselves and let everyone else starve. First sensible thing you've posted on here.

 

[Erand7899]

In 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed Act 10, a law effectively ending collective bargaining among teachers unions there. It gave rise to massive protests, recall elections, teacher strikes and Democratic State Senators abandoning their posts during the bill's passage. Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 5-2 to uphold Act 10 in it's entirety, effectively ending the fight that began three years ago.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers, sparked massive protests and led to Republican Gov. Scott Walker's recall election and rise to national prominence.


The 5-2 ruling upholds the signature policy achievement of Walker in its entirety and is a major victory for the potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, who is seeking re-election this year.


The ruling also marks the end of the three-year legal fight over the union rights law, which prohibits public worker unions from collectively bargaining for anything beyond base wage increases based on inflation. A federal appeals court twice upheld the law as constitutional.


"No matter the limitations or 'burdens' a legislative enactment places on the collective bargaining process, collective bargaining remains a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation," Justice Michael Gableman wrote for the majority.


The high court ruled in a lawsuit filed by the Madison teachers union and a union representing Milwaukee public workers. They had argued that the law, which came to be known as Act 10, violated workers' constitutional rights to free assembly and equal protection.


The law also requires public employees to contribute more toward their health insurance and pension costs. In a two-sentence statement Walker issued Thursday, he praised the ruling and claimed the law has saved taxpayers more than $3 billion — mostly attributable to schools and local governments saving more money because of the higher contributions.


"Today's ruling is a victory for those hard-working taxpayers," Walker said.

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds 2011 union law

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

The labor unions are doing a pretty good job of breaking themselves, and that includes both the public employee labor unions and the private sector labor unions. A large sector of the working population no longer believe that labor unions are worth the dues paid.

 

[bripat9643]

Get rid of police and firemen unions also, if you really believe that public employees should have no collective bargaining rights. It's not fair to condemn some and not all in the same group. That will be the issue when this is presented to the US Supreme Court..

It's not fair. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? We now have the answer.

"I've got mine, so **** everyone else" is the union motto.

 

[OnePercenter]

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? We now have the answer.

Yes! Thats why we need to get rid of the unions now! THank you Nonepercenter. Unions grab all tbe pay for themselves and let everyone else starve. First sensible thing you've posted on here.

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths like faux Rabbi do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? It's faux Rabbi.

 

[OnePercenter]

In 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed Act 10, a law effectively ending collective bargaining among teachers unions there. It gave rise to massive protests, recall elections, teacher strikes and Democratic State Senators abandoning their posts during the bill's passage. Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 5-2 to uphold Act 10 in it's entirety, effectively ending the fight that began three years ago.

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds 2011 union law

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

The labor unions are doing a pretty good job of breaking themselves, and that includes both the public employee labor unions and the private sector labor unions. A large sector of the working population no longer believe that labor unions are worth the dues paid.

No, it's corporate America and the whores they hire, Republicans.

 

[The Rabbi]

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? We now have the answer.

Yes! Thats why we need to get rid of the unions now! THank you Nonepercenter. Unions grab all tbe pay for themselves and let everyone else starve. First sensible thing you've posted on here.

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths like faux Rabbi do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? It's faux Rabbi.

Wow, I had no idea you thought I was so important. I'm what's wrong with America. OK< send me a ticket to my favorite destination and about $100M and I'll leave and you can have paradise to yourself.

 

[OnePercenter]

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? We now have the answer.

"I've got mine, so **** everyone else" is the union motto.

Nope, it's the old, retired, self-centered. Unions represent workers, the people that are still working and paying into the system so you can receive your check every month. Quit biting the hand that feeds you!

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed Act 10, a law effectively ending collective bargaining among teachers unions there. It gave rise to massive protests, recall elections, teacher strikes and Democratic State Senators abandoning their posts during the bill's passage. Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 5-2 to uphold Act 10 in it's entirety, effectively ending the fight that began three years ago.

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds 2011 union law

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

It protects the employer and the worker. The workers have shown ungrateful they can be by colluding against the very people who give them their jobs and paying them their oh-so-paltry salaries. It isn't the union's right to tell the employer what to do with his capital. He should be allowed to pay his employees anything above minimum wage that he sees fit.

Unions are greedy. They don't seem to grasp that they are lucky to have a job where so many don't (including myself) and that colluding against your employer is like biting the hand that feeds you. Pretty stupid. Government employees shouldn't be able to unionize.

And where do the better jobs with better pay come from after this? That was my question.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes! Thats why we need to get rid of the unions now! THank you Nonepercenter. Unions grab all tbe pay for themselves and let everyone else starve. First sensible thing you've posted on here.

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths like faux Rabbi do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? It's faux Rabbi.

Wow, I had no idea you thought I was so important. I'm what's wrong with America. OK< send me a ticket to my favorite destination and about $100M and I'll leave and you can have paradise to yourself.

I don't think you're important. I just like to see you squirm.

 

[OnePercenter]

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

It protects the employer and the worker. The workers have shown ungrateful they can be by colluding against the very people who give them their jobs and paying them their oh-so-paltry salaries. It isn't the union's right to tell the employer what to do with his capital. He should be allowed to pay his employees anything above minimum wage that he sees fit.

Unions are greedy. They don't seem to grasp that they are lucky to have a job where so many don't (including myself) and that colluding against your employer is like biting the hand that feeds you. Pretty stupid. Government employees shouldn't be able to unionize.

And where do the better jobs with better pay come from after this? That was my question.

That's the point. Driving wages, benefits, and working conditions down so employers can make more $$$.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

The labor unions are doing a pretty good job of breaking themselves, and that includes both the public employee labor unions and the private sector labor unions. A large sector of the working population no longer believe that labor unions are worth the dues paid.

No, it's corporate America and the whores they hire, Republicans.

You'll live.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then again corporate whores aren't limited to the Republican party either.

 

[Jarlaxle]

American workers get screwed and the 'I've got mine, so **** everyone else' sociopaths like faux Rabbi do the happy dance. People ask what's wrong with America? It's faux Rabbi.

Wow, I had no idea you thought I was so important. I'm what's wrong with America. OK< send me a ticket to my favorite destination and about $100M and I'll leave and you can have paradise to yourself.

I don't think you're important. I just like to see you squirm.

Dude, you seem to be having delusions of adequacy.

 

[kiwiman127]

In 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed Act 10, a law effectively ending collective bargaining among teachers unions there. It gave rise to massive protests, recall elections, teacher strikes and Democratic State Senators abandoning their posts during the bill's passage. Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 5-2 to uphold Act 10 in it's entirety, effectively ending the fight that began three years ago.

Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds 2011 union law

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

Both. That's pretty well established. When unions move in they raise wages. For union workers. For non union workers their wages go down. I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more.

I would love to see your evidence Rabbi. Cough it up.
I know you love charts, so here you go.

 

[Ibentoken]

Get rid of police and firemen unions also, if you really believe that public employees should have no collective bargaining rights. It's not fair to condemn some and not all in the same group. That will be the issue when this is presented to the US Supreme Court..

Excellent news. The era of Public sector unions is coming to a close. This is the beginning of the end. Like gay marriage and marijuana legalization- the momentum is unstoppable. State after state will fall. Say Buh-bye to Public sector Unions.....

It's about damn time too! Even FDR knew that Public Sector Unions represented an inherent conflict of interest.

Did FDR oppose collective bargaining for government workers? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDR’s sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers, the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high.

Walker cites an on-point and oft-quoted FDR letter that conservatives frequently highlight when arguing for limits on unions in the government sector. That letter, we found, dominates scholarly debate over Roosevelt’s views on this issue.

And it’s easy to see why: The president’s Aug. 16, 1937 correspondence with Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least.

Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organization’s 20th jubilee convention.

In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers.

Organizations of government employees "have a logical place in Government affairs," he wrote.

But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government."

Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walker’s comment:

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."

Roosevelt didn’t stop there.

"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.

When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind.

"The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFE’s bylaws rejected strikes.

The letter, the FDR Presidential Library site points out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's "official position" on collective bargaining and federal government employees.

Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at a July 9, 1937 news conference.

His statements there add more weight to Walker’s claim.

A reporter directly asked Roosevelt "whether he favored government employees joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with the government."

Roosevelt’s response made clear he thought managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not. Federal workers are free to join "any union they want," he said.

But he recalled that in 1913, when he was Navy assistant secretary, he told a union official the Navy would not enter into a contract with the union because it had no discretion under federal law.

"The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay," Roosevelt said.

His thinking then still applied, Roosevelt told the reporters in 1937.

At the end of news conference, Roosevelt was asked, after making the point that Congress sets compensation: "In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents?"

Roosevelt: "Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isn’t any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise."

Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system.

When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it "impossible" for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didn’t leave a lot of ambiguity.

Same with the phrase "insurmountable limitations."

It protects the employer and the worker. The workers have shown ungrateful they can be by colluding against the very people who give them their jobs and paying them their oh-so-paltry salaries. It isn't the union's right to tell the employer what to do with his capital. He should be allowed to pay his employees anything above minimum wage that he sees fit.

Unions are greedy. They don't seem to grasp that they are lucky to have a job where so many don't (including myself) and that colluding against your employer is like biting the hand that feeds you. Pretty stupid. Government employees shouldn't be able to unionize.

And where do the better jobs with better pay come from after this? That was my question.

That's the point. Driving wages, benefits, and working conditions down so employers can make more $$$.

How about paying productive people more than unproductive people.

 

[Dutch]

The greatest expansion of the middle class in history occurred when Union's were at their highest membership. Since the membership started decreasing middle class wages become more and more stagnet.

 

[kiwiman127]

Get rid of police and firemen unions also, if you really believe that public employees should have no collective bargaining rights. It's not fair to condemn some and not all in the same group. That will be the issue when this is presented to the US Supreme Court..

Excellent news. The era of Public sector unions is coming to a close. This is the beginning of the end. Like gay marriage and marijuana legalization- the momentum is unstoppable. State after state will fall. Say Buh-bye to Public sector Unions.....

It's about damn time too! Even FDR knew that Public Sector Unions represented an inherent conflict of interest.

And where do the better jobs with better pay come from after this? That was my question.

That's the point. Driving wages, benefits, and working conditions down so employers can make more $$$.

How about paying productive people more than unproductive people.

It seems as productivity has risen, wages have been stagnant. It's a fact that in Real Dollars, a non supervisory worker made more in 1979 than they do now.

 

[The Rabbi]

What do you think are the positive consequences of breaking labor unions?

Better jobs? Better paying jobs?

Both. That's pretty well established. When unions move in they raise wages. For union workers. For non union workers their wages go down. I'll take more people working for slightly less over fewer people working for much more.

I would love to see your evidence Rabbi. Cough it up.
I know you love charts, so here you go.

Wow. You're a trip. I maintain constantly that you cannot read graphs and charts. And then you go and prove me right. Even when I didnt challenge you.
Go read Thomas Sowell, who provides the evidence. Unions raise wages for union members but depress wages for non union members. It only makes sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

The greatest expansion of the middle class in history occurred when Union's were at their highest membership. Since the membership started decreasing middle class wages become more and more stagnet.

Actually the greatest expansion occurred before unions.