Unions Suffer Deathblow after Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling

[JoeB131]

People of Wisconsin are already realizing Scott Walker was huge mistake, which is why he's running behind the Bicycle Lady.

JoeBlowJob lying again...don't YOU ever get tired of being caught with your mouth around a democrats dick?

New Poll Shows Dead Heat In Wisconsin Governor's Race

A dead heat in a blue state like Wisconsin is pretty bad news for Walker.

ANd the fact he is playing the populist card by attacking her family's company just shows his level of desperation.

 

[Bush92]

The robber barons are licking their lips! **** the worker they scream!

Robber barons is a misstatement, for they were neither "robbers" nor "barons." But the were entrepreneurs who risked their own venture capital to make a profit, and in return stimulated the economy and gave us all good products and a higher standard of living.

no they didn't ...you need to read a little history... thats why they got broke up becasue of their greed ... they would come into a competors market who was making larges somes of money these men would buy out that company close it down and send their employees packing ... this was happing all the time ... untill they were forced to sell off their monoploy of business... John D Rockfeller said he would go broke becasue of the break up of their company they would go broke by being forced to accept unions ... this was the furtherest from the truth ... he earn more money then he could have ever made ...

Cornelius Vanderbilt reduced the cost of a ticket by ship or train an allowed average Americans to travel about the nation. Rockefeller produced cheap kerosene that replaced the wood burning fireplace and candle and allowed millions of people to stay up later, read, become educated and more productive. Carnegie produced the steel that built the skyscrapers and bridges across the land providing millions of jobs to poor people in the process. Your just another fuzzy headed liberal who has history askew.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

I don't think it's a good thing. That's why I continually advocate that we deport every illegal infiltrator and stop all immigration until our workforce participation rates get back up to the highs we saw in the 50s-70s.

The real question is why so many liberals don't favor deporting 20 million illegal infiltrators, why so many liberals want to amnesty these criminals and why so many liberals are trying to grant refugee status to this most recent crop. All of these people find their way, or are already in, the labor market and put downward pressure on wages.

Liberal: "We need higher wages for workers. We also need to add 20 million more workers to the already oversupplied workforce."

Conservative: "You realize that this is like asking someone to be awake and asleep at the same time, don't you?"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

It isn't a good thing. But instead of blaming us, blame your government. They do little to help businesses in paying livable wages, instead using such a circumstance to push government welfare and the like.

I support earning enough to live on, while also acknowledging that the employer has to earn his living as well. Employees work for the business, they don't run the business.

 

[Vigilante]

People of Wisconsin are already realizing Scott Walker was huge mistake, which is why he's running behind the Bicycle Lady.

JoeBlowJob lying again...don't YOU ever get tired of being caught with your mouth around a democrats dick?

New Poll Shows Dead Heat In Wisconsin Governor's Race

A dead heat in a blue state like Wisconsin is pretty bad news for Walker.

ANd the fact he is playing the populist card by attacking her family's company just shows his level of desperation.

So, JoeBlowJob, you admit you lied about the poll and now try and spin more bullshit! ....Didn't subversive scumbags in Wisc. attack Walkers family in 2012?...Why YES the cocksuckers did do just that.... the subversives really need to be XXXXXXXX, or at least beaten into the ground so bad, the hospital makes them permanent residents!

War On Children: Liberals Attack Scott Walker’s Kids

 

[The Rabbi]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

It isn't a good thing. But instead of blaming us, blame your government. They do little to help businesses in paying livable wages, instead using such a circumstance to push government welfare and the like.

I support earning enough to live on, while also acknowledging that the employer has to earn his living as well. Employees work for the business, they don't run the business.

There is no decline in working class wages.
Libs are dupes of the progressive masters.

 

[jon_berzerk]

People of Wisconsin are already realizing Scott Walker was huge mistake, which is why he's running behind the Bicycle Lady.

JoeBlowJob lying again...don't YOU ever get tired of being caught with your mouth around a democrats dick?

New Poll Shows Dead Heat In Wisconsin Governor's Race

A dead heat in a blue state like Wisconsin is pretty bad news for Walker.

ANd the fact he is playing the populist card by attacking her family's company just shows his level of desperation.

this time he is going down --LOL--

--LOL

 

[Cecilie1200]

Robber barons is a misstatement, for they were neither "robbers" nor "barons." But the were entrepreneurs who risked their own venture capital to make a profit, and in return stimulated the economy and gave us all good products and a higher standard of living.

no they didn't ...you need to read a little history... thats why they got broke up becasue of their greed ... they would come into a competors market who was making larges somes of money these men would buy out that company close it down and send their employees packing ... this was happing all the time ... untill they were forced to sell off their monoploy of business... John D Rockfeller said he would go broke becasue of the break up of their company they would go broke by being forced to accept unions ... this was the furtherest from the truth ... he earn more money then he could have ever made ...

Cornelius Vanderbilt reduced the cost of a ticket by ship or train an allowed average Americans to travel about the nation. Rockefeller produced cheap kerosene that replaced the wood burning fireplace and candle and allowed millions of people to stay up later, read, become educated and more productive. Carnegie produced the steel that built the skyscrapers and bridges across the land providing millions of jobs to poor people in the process. Your just another fuzzy headed liberal who has history askew.

Rockefeller also funded the research that led to the many, many byproducts of oil refining that make our lives better today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

It isn't a good thing. But instead of blaming us, blame your government. They do little to help businesses in paying livable wages, instead using such a circumstance to push government welfare and the like.

I support earning enough to live on, while also acknowledging that the employer has to earn his living as well. Employees work for the business, they don't run the business.

Do you even realize that most 'welfare' is income based? The less money you make the more government assistance you qualify for. The less money you make the less taxes you pay. The less money you make the less you spend on goods and services.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What exactly is it that all you conservatives do, for a living I mean, that you think driving down wages and benefits is something that is only going to affect the 'other' guy,

and is going to make your life better somehow?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unions are just another deduction on your paycheck.
Everyone is better off without them.

Really? So the teachers in Wisconsin are getting, or will be getting, better pay and benefits and better work rules and better job security because of this ruling?

How will that work, exactly?

 

[Meathead]

Unions are just another deduction on your paycheck.
Everyone is better off without them.

Really? So the teachers in Wisconsin are getting, or will be getting, better pay and benefits and better work rules and better job security because of this ruling?

How will that work, exactly?

Well, for starters public sector unions will have a harder time picking the pockets of taxpayers and their members. Secondly, the general Wisconsin public will benefit by being able to dispose of incompetent teachers. They can go teach in Chicago inner-city schools where no one's learning anything anyway.

 

[Shanty]

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

Too bad. Corporations and billionaires have the supreme court and most politicians (including scott walker) as their trade unions. But teachers? Hell no.

Hah, a Teachers Union was the one who brought the case! Is this it? How the evil corporations influenced the court? How facile. Just what makes you think that Corporations played any part in this ruling?

Right wing lunatics are waging a war of attrition on working people, and know that if they can hurt public sector employees, they can focus on finishing off the private sector unions.

More poverty, less economic freedom and the US can slip closer to third world status.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Unions are just another deduction on your paycheck.
Everyone is better off without them.

Really? So the teachers in Wisconsin are getting, or will be getting, better pay and benefits and better work rules and better job security because of this ruling?

How will that work, exactly?

When you cut inefficiency and graft out of a system, then you can deliver more bang for the buck.

with the collective bargaining agreement gone, the school district is free to shop around for coverage. Kaukauna can reduce the size of its classes - from 31 students to 26 students in high school and from 26 students to 23 students in elementary school. In addition, there will be more teacher time for one-on-one sessions with troubled students. Those changes would not have been possible without the changes in collective bargaining. The money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.[54]

The city of Milwaukee projects it will save at least $25 million a year and possibly as much as $36 million in 2012 from health care benefit changes due to not having to negotiate with unions. This is offset by about $14 million in cuts in state aid. This contrasts with Mayor Tom Barrett's initial comments in March, after the Walker administration and the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau released figures on the extent of the aid cuts in the state budget.[55] Regarding Milwaukee Public Schools, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute completed a study in 2012 of the effect on the school district due to the implementation of Act 10 and found that the school system will save $101.1 million by 2020.[56]​

 

[Rikurzhen]

Right wing lunatics are waging a war of attrition on working people, and know that if they can hurt public sector employees, they can focus on finishing off the private sector unions.

More poverty, less economic freedom and the US can slip closer to third world status.

And to help us achieve that Third World status even sooner, Democrats are keen to legalize 20 million Third World illegal infiltrators and to invite in 10s of millions more from the Third World.

Import Third World people and your country moves ever closer to itself joining the Third World.

 

[FA_Q2]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

Since almost no one supports that why would they defend it?

You realize that the problems are not all related to the fact that there have been bad contracts negotiated with unions who are colluding with the politicians to get them in power in the first place. That can translate into lesser wages in an industry where those wages were not set at appropriate levels in the first place. That is just one benefit that the taxpayers will receive though.

The real benefits stem from having more control over your workforce - being able to get rid of teachers that are not carrying their weight and hire new teachers. Getting rid of seniority practices that reward time warming a chair over skills. More flexibility in who you can hire. The list goes on.

The question that you have to answer is where the balancing force is for a public sector union? That is a VITAL piece that is missing from the public sector. In a private sector union the company and the workers come to an equitable agreement through negotiations that balance the needs of the company to generate profit and the needs of the worker to generate an income and benefits. In a public sector there is nothing balancing the other side of that equation. Further, they are negotiating with people that they have invested millions into for obtaining the office they hold with promise of further donations if they support the unions. IOW, they are on the same side. That hoses the taxpayer.

Finally, there is nothing to be gained at all in paying higher wages than justified by the added value of a worker. It causes companies to go out of business and municipalities to run out of money. Those teachers are not getting paid out of thin air - they are paid by the rest of us and our taxes. The economy is not getting anything by taking my dollars and transferring more to a teacher or any other public sector employee than they are worth.

You seem to be inferring that teachers are now going to have to live on the wages of a pauper suddenly because they are no longer part of a public sector union (sucking some of their wages off the top I might add) and that is flatly false.

 

[JoeB131]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

It isn't a good thing. But instead of blaming us, blame your government. They do little to help businesses in paying livable wages, instead using such a circumstance to push government welfare and the like.

I support earning enough to live on, while also acknowledging that the employer has to earn his living as well. Employees work for the business, they don't run the business.

Employees create the revenue of the business. Therefore they deserve a fair share.

But here's the real problem, which you probably don't get. when McDonald's or WalMart pays someone starvation wages, those fuckers don't go off and starve.

Nope. They go to the government for section 8 housing vouchers, EBT Cards and MedicAid.

So essentially, what you have is the rest of us subsidizing the work force of McDonalds and WalMart. Which does kind of suck when you realize how rich the Waltons and the Krocks are.

 

[zeke]

Weakening the public sector labor unions means one thing and one thing only. It means that one more sector of the American economy will have its labor force working for less money, fewer benefits, and less job security;

it's all a part of the long slow decline of America. Why conservatives think this is a good thing is a mystery. It's not as if conservatives have some sort of immunity or insulation from the decline. It's not as if every conservative is in ownership or management or of some other status that has a personal special interest in making America's workers poorer.

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

Since almost no one supports that why would they defend it?

You realize that the problems are not all related to the fact that there have been bad contracts negotiated with unions who are colluding with the politicians to get them in power in the first place. That can translate into lesser wages in an industry where those wages were not set at appropriate levels in the first place. That is just one benefit that the taxpayers will receive though.

The real benefits stem from having more control over your workforce - being able to get rid of teachers that are not carrying their weight and hire new teachers. Getting rid of seniority practices that reward time warming a chair over skills. More flexibility in who you can hire. The list goes on.

The question that you have to answer is where the balancing force is for a public sector union? That is a VITAL piece that is missing from the public sector. In a private sector union the company and the workers come to an equitable agreement through negotiations that balance the needs of the company to generate profit and the needs of the worker to generate an income and benefits. In a public sector there is nothing balancing the other side of that equation. Further, they are negotiating with people that they have invested millions into for obtaining the office they hold with promise of further donations if they support the unions. IOW, they are on the same side. That hoses the taxpayer.

Finally, there is nothing to be gained at all in paying higher wages than justified by the added value of a worker. It causes companies to go out of business and municipalities to run out of money. Those teachers are not getting paid out of thin air - they are paid by the rest of us and our taxes. The economy is not getting anything by taking my dollars and transferring more to a teacher or any other public sector employee than they are worth.

You seem to be inferring that teachers are now going to have to live on the wages of a pauper suddenly because they are no longer part of a public sector union (sucking some of their wages off the top I might add) and that is flatly false.

Now what is it that private sector unions can do that public sector unions can't do.
Do you have any idea what the difference between the two types of unions are?

Does it have ANYTHING to do with the fact a public sector union can't strike? Why yes I do think that is a MAJOR difference right there.

And while it is nice that you are so concerned that a public sector union member not be paid what you think they are worth, it does seem strange that you don't complain about all the non union workers who are way overpaid for what they do.

Is it just public sector union members that are able to fool everybody as to what their worth in the work force really is? How they do that?

Why is it that governments can band together, corporations can band together but let the workers band together and the world is close to an end.

Just what is it that you republicans are so afraid of with unions? Seems to me that your fear is based on union members voting for Democrats. To bad. It is the American way to band together with like minded people and vote your pocketbook.

More power to the unions is what I say. They are a counter balance to the worship of the corporation that you Republicans practice.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

It isn't a good thing. But instead of blaming us, blame your government. They do little to help businesses in paying livable wages, instead using such a circumstance to push government welfare and the like.

I support earning enough to live on, while also acknowledging that the employer has to earn his living as well. Employees work for the business, they don't run the business.

Employees create the revenue of the business. Therefore they deserve a fair share.

But here's the real problem, which you probably don't get. when McDonald's or WalMart pays someone starvation wages, those fuckers don't go off and starve.

Nope. They go to the government for section 8 housing vouchers, EBT Cards and MedicAid.

So essentially, what you have is the rest of us subsidizing the work force of McDonalds and WalMart. Which does kind of suck when you realize how rich the Waltons and the Krocks are.

No, Joe. Sales create revenue. Lots of things go into sales, mostly things that escape you. Employees dont deserve shit. They are entitled to whatever they agreed to when they got hired.
WalMart subsidizes the government, not the other way around. Get it right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesn't any conservative want to explain why he thinks the decline of working class wages in this country is a good thing?

You support it; you ought to be able to defend it.

Since almost no one supports that why would they defend it?

You realize that the problems are not all related to the fact that there have been bad contracts negotiated with unions who are colluding with the politicians to get them in power in the first place. That can translate into lesser wages in an industry where those wages were not set at appropriate levels in the first place. That is just one benefit that the taxpayers will receive though.

The real benefits stem from having more control over your workforce - being able to get rid of teachers that are not carrying their weight and hire new teachers. Getting rid of seniority practices that reward time warming a chair over skills. More flexibility in who you can hire. The list goes on.

The question that you have to answer is where the balancing force is for a public sector union? That is a VITAL piece that is missing from the public sector. In a private sector union the company and the workers come to an equitable agreement through negotiations that balance the needs of the company to generate profit and the needs of the worker to generate an income and benefits. In a public sector there is nothing balancing the other side of that equation. Further, they are negotiating with people that they have invested millions into for obtaining the office they hold with promise of further donations if they support the unions. IOW, they are on the same side. That hoses the taxpayer.

Finally, there is nothing to be gained at all in paying higher wages than justified by the added value of a worker. It causes companies to go out of business and municipalities to run out of money. Those teachers are not getting paid out of thin air - they are paid by the rest of us and our taxes. The economy is not getting anything by taking my dollars and transferring more to a teacher or any other public sector employee than they are worth.

You seem to be inferring that teachers are now going to have to live on the wages of a pauper suddenly because they are no longer part of a public sector union (sucking some of their wages off the top I might add) and that is flatly false.

Now what is it that private sector unions can do that public sector unions can't do.
Do you have any idea what the difference between the two types of unions are?

Does it have ANYTHING to do with the fact a public sector union can't strike? Why yes I do think that is a MAJOR difference right there.

And while it is nice that you are so concerned that a public sector union member not be paid what you think they are worth, it does seem strange that you don't complain about all the non union workers who are way overpaid for what they do.

Is it just public sector union members that are able to fool everybody as to what their worth in the work force really is? How they do that?

Why is it that governments can band together, corporations can band together but let the workers band together and the world is close to an end.

Just what is it that you republicans are so afraid of with unions? Seems to me that your fear is based on union members voting for Democrats. To bad. It is the American way to band together with like minded people and vote your pocketbook.

More power to the unions is what I say. They are a counter balance to the worship of the corporation that you Republicans practice.

What did you say< Zeke ole turd?
Chicago Teachers Union Strike