Vitriolic Rhetoric in Wisconsin

[PearlWatson]

Well these people have already agreed to the pay and benefit reductions. So the amount of money they make and quality of their benefits is not an issue. It's just a smokescreen.

It does appear to be a smokescreen for the union bosses.

By the way, if their pay and benefits aren't the issue then why did you bring their pay and benefits up in your #116 post, in order to condemn the "far right?"...and again in 118?

 

[PearlWatson]

1: They work for their money and benefits. This is not a government handout.

2: They have already agreed to all of the pay and benefit reductions. The sticking point is their right to collective bargain in the future. The amount of their pay and benefits hurting the budget (or being more than the taxpayers') is not an issue if they have already agreed to the governor's demanded cuts.

3: These are not tweakers who dropped out of high school and flip burgers at mickey dees between their meth binges to satisfy the employment requirement of their parole. These are teachers, firemen, police officers, etc. Educated people, people who put their lives on the line for us, people who are tasked with helping our children be all they can be... These people deserve our respect and we should not be trying to take their rights and freedoms away.

1. I didn't say it was a handout any more than paying our military is a handout. I said it comes from tax dollars and there is only so much of that to spread around.
2. Their collective bargaining ability for higher pay in the future is not effected. The only collective bargaining restrictions would be with benefits and pensions, and that is being done to correct a continuing problem of out of control unfunded obligations.
3. Collective bargaining is not a "right." That word gets abused too much. They still have as much freedoms as private sector citizens. The only people I've lost respect for are those calling the governor Hitler, lying about being sick and getting fake doctor notes, or propagandizing their students.

 

[SaltyDawg]

It does appear to be a smokescreen for the union bosses.

By the way, if their pay and benefits aren't the issue then why did you bring their pay and benefits up in your #116 post, in order to condemn the "far right?"...and again in 118?

I am am not the one who brought up their pay and benefits. I just posted the irony (hypocrisy?) spewing from the far right, and found in this thread.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[SaltyDawg]

1. I didn't say it was a handout any more than paying our military is a handout. I said it comes from tax dollars and there is only so much of that to spread around.
2. Their collective bargaining ability for higher pay in the future is not effected. The only collective bargaining restrictions would be with benefits and pensions, and that is being done to correct a continuing problem of out of control unfunded obligations.
3. Collective bargaining is not a "right." That word gets abused too much. They still have as much freedoms as private sector citizens. The only people I've lost respect for are those calling the governor Hitler, lying about being sick and getting fake doctor notes, or propagandizing their students.

1: It being from tax dollars should not mean they don't have the right to collective bargain. You don't want to deal with the union, fire them and hire non union replacements.

2: If there is a problem of out of control and unfunded obligations, stop electing morons. Don't take away the rights and personal freedoms of the American middle class workers (who have already agreed to the requested pay and benefit cuts needed to correct the problem).

3: Collective bargaining is too a right. Governor jackass is trying to take that right away.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[franklin]

I am am not the one who brought up their pay and benefits. I just posted the irony (hypocrisy?) spewing from the far right, and found in this thread.

I'm still waiting for you to coherently support your hypocrisy claims. All I've read is the same tired schtick spewed from a known ideologue with a chip on the shoulder. Please, for the sake of sanity, say something that makes a little sense and shows you actually care about detail as opposed to party line rhetoric.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I'm still waiting for you to coherently support your hypocrisy claims. All I've read is the same tired schtick spewed from a known ideologue with a chip on the shoulder. Please, for the sake of sanity, say something that makes a little sense and shows you actually care about detail as opposed to party line rhetoric.

If what I've already said doesn't make any sense to you, it's because your mind is already closed on this subject.

 

[franklin]

If what I've already said doesn't make any sense to you, it's because your mind is already closed on this subject.

Try again.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Try again.

Try what again? And you say I'm the one not making any sense? lol

 

[babe]

Try what again? And you say I'm the one not making any sense? lol

Here. Let me help.

I like unions. I remember when I studied American History in the eleventh grade, taking the course from Coach Lovell. Well, mostly he talked about football in the fall, basketball in the winter, and baseball and track in the spring, but I read the book. Used to be some really bad work situations, especially those coal mines owned by Al Gore's greatgrandpa, steel mills where they were making railroad ties to build the iron highways across the country, maybe some garment factories. A lot of immigrants back in those days. And farmers were still having more kids than it took to work the land what with new machinery and all. I've got some of the "new" machinery. Glad I don't have to work with that now. But back then it meant a lot of boys and girls from the farms had to go to the cities and look for cash jobs.

Then there were the cartels, like Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and the big Steel men. These folks had "company stores" where workers got to spend more than they earned just buying bread and some necessities. I remember legends like the Molly Maguires, the Pinkertons, and a lot of brutal violence. Men with nothing demanding something for their service.

Then I got a job at a plant where the UAW supposedly represents the working men. And over the years I saw the local Union heads, one by one, negotiate "deals" for the striking workers where after a few weeks running low on groceries and having no savings to pay the mortgage, the union men settled for less than they were offered before going on strike. After a couple of years, the "union" heads who negotiated these wondrous contracts were, one by one, given comparatively lush management jobs.

hate to say so, but they were sell-outs. I'm convinced our Unions today are generally sell-outs so far as the workers are concerned, at least in the private sector.

When I listened the other day to the former UAW national chief explaining how the money honchos are trying to bust the whole idea of Unions, I agreed with him. Yes, he has good reasons to know for sure. He helped the big money honchos bust the Unions in the private sector by supporting NAFTA and GATT and the WTO, and he knows he supported exporting jobs to where the big money honchos could get the job done for much less, and enjoy lucrative profit margins.

But public sector unions are something else. The big money honchos need a leige servant class that is attractively paid, to staff the bureaucracy that is supposed to keep the trailer trash folks under the heel of BigGov, which they, the bigmoney honchos, now own lock, stock and barrel.

And did anyone else notice how the Union "elite" bosses carry themselves nowadays? They got the same perks the CEOs have.

Sell-outs.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Here. Let me help.

I like unions. I remember when I studied American History in the eleventh grade, taking the course from Coach Lovell. Well, mostly he talked about football in the fall, basketball in the winter, and baseball and track in the spring, but I read the book. Used to be some really bad work situations, especially those coal mines owned by Al Gore's greatgrandpa, steel mills where they were making railroad ties to build the iron highways across the country, maybe some garment factories. A lot of immigrants back in those days. And farmers were still having more kids than it took to work the land what with new machinery and all. I've got some of the "new" machinery. Glad I don't have to work with that now. But back then it meant a lot of boys and girls from the farms had to go to the cities and look for cash jobs.

Then there were the cartels, like Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and the big Steel men. These folks had "company stores" where workers got to spend more than they earned just buying bread and some necessities. I remember legends like the Molly Maguires, the Pinkertons, and a lot of brutal violence. Men with nothing demanding something for their service.

Then I got a job at a plant where the UAW supposedly represents the working men. And over the years I saw the local Union heads, one by one, negotiate "deals" for the striking workers where after a few weeks running low on groceries and having no savings to pay the mortgage, the union men settled for less than they were offered before going on strike. After a couple of years, the "union" heads who negotiated these wondrous contracts were, one by one, given comparatively lush management jobs.

hate to say so, but they were sell-outs. I'm convinced our Unions today are generally sell-outs so far as the workers are concerned, at least in the private sector.

When I listened the other day to the former UAW national chief explaining how the money honchos are trying to bust the whole idea of Unions, I agreed with him. Yes, he has good reasons to know for sure. He helped the big money honchos bust the Unions in the private sector by supporting NAFTA and GATT and the WTO, and he knows he supported exporting jobs to where the big money honchos could get the job done for much less, and enjoy lucrative profit margins.

But public sector unions are something else. The big money honchos need a leige servant class that is attractively paid, to staff the bureaucracy that is supposed to keep the trailer trash folks under the heel of BigGov, which they, the bigmoney honchos, now own lock, stock and barrel.

And did anyone else notice how the Union "elite" bosses carry themselves nowadays? They got the same perks the CEOs have.

Sell-outs.

I agree there is corruption in some (not all) of the unions. So those union members should vote those guys out. The union heads are not a royal family or anything like that, they are elected.

Even so, that is not grounds to make collective bargaining illegal. That may b grounds to make some people want to leave the union, and others not to join in the first place. but it should be the choice of the people if they join or not. Nobody should be forced to join a union, but nobody should be prohibited from joining a union either.

 

[LogGrad98]

Some states are closed-shop states though, meaning that if a union already exists in a given company then to work there you are required to join the union. Others are right to work states meaning that you can choose whether to join a union or not. Consequently the unions are far stronger in close shop states than in right to work states. In many right to work states the only unions in operations at all are those in the public sector.

Also, decertifying a union is difficult. The laws as they are constituted right now are built to protect the union, not necessarily the workers. I have been in 2 decertification attempts, both failed. It requires that employees of their own accord circulate a petition to call for a decertification election. They must get 30% of the employee population to sign the petition. Then they notify the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) office in their area. After the NLRB confirms the results of the petition they then call for a general vote. It can take a while (I have seen months go by in one case) to get to the general election phase. During this time the employees and the union may campaign for either side of the argument. Often people who signed the petition get cold feet and, under pressure from the union or other employees who still want to union, either vote pro-union or abstain from voting. In the vote all that is needed is a simple majority, but the majority required is NOT of the total employee population, rather just those who participate. If a facility has 500 workers and only 10 actually vote and 6 of them vote pro-union, then the union stays. Typically fewer than 1/3 of the employees in a given facility actually vote. The union makes sure that as many as possible of the employees who are pro-union vote. On the other side, it is basically a ground-swell movement and often many people either don't care, are afraid of some kind of retribution, or feel pressured to vote one way or the other so they just don't vote. The employer may not interfere on either side as it would constitute an unfair labor practice.

Not very long ago a bill was proposed that made it even harder to remove a union, requiring I believe that over half of the total population of employees vote to remove the union (in the above example, 251 must vote to remove the union), but that the employees could not be required to vote at all. So if not enough employees even voted then the vote was disqualified.

 

[babe]

I agree there is corruption in some (not all) of the unions. So those union members should vote those guys out. The union heads are not a royal family or anything like that, they are elected.

Even so, that is not grounds to make collective bargaining illegal. That may b grounds to make some people want to leave the union, and others not to join in the first place. but it should be the choice of the people if they join or not. Nobody should be forced to join a union, but nobody should be prohibited from joining a union either.

In case I did not make my position clear, I think Unions are essential in dealing with cartels, and I agree workers should be alert to sell-outs. I also think the voters need representatives who will stand up for them rather than the corporate lobbyists.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Some states are closed-shop states though, meaning that if a union already exists in a given company then to work there you are required to join the union. Others are right to work states meaning that you can choose whether to join a union or not. Consequently the unions are far stronger in close shop states than in right to work states. In many right to work states the only unions in operations at all are those in the public sector.

Also, decertifying a union is difficult. The laws as they are constituted right now are built to protect the union, not necessarily the workers. I have been in 2 decertification attempts, both failed. It requires that employees of their own accord circulate a petition to call for a decertification election. They must get 30% of the employee population to sign the petition. Then they notify the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) office in their area. After the NLRB confirms the results of the petition they then call for a general vote. It can take a while (I have seen months go by in one case) to get to the general election phase. During this time the employees and the union may campaign for either side of the argument. Often people who signed the petition get cold feet and, under pressure from the union or other employees who still want to union, either vote pro-union or abstain from voting. In the vote all that is needed is a simple majority, but the majority required is NOT of the total employee population, rather just those who participate. If a facility has 500 workers and only 10 actually vote and 6 of them vote pro-union, then the union stays. Typically fewer than 1/3 of the employees in a given facility actually vote. The union makes sure that as many as possible of the employees who are pro-union vote. On the other side, it is basically a ground-swell movement and often many people either don't care, are afraid of some kind of retribution, or feel pressured to vote one way or the other so they just don't vote. The employer may not interfere on either side as it would constitute an unfair labor practice.

Not very long ago a bill was proposed that made it even harder to remove a union, requiring I believe that over half of the total population of employees vote to remove the union (in the above example, 251 must vote to remove the union), but that the employees could not be required to vote at all. So if not enough employees even voted then the vote was disqualified.

Can you name a state where the only unions in operation at all are in the public sector? That is such BS.

I agree that nobody should be forced to join a union. But nobody should be prohibited either.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[SaltyDawg]

In case I did not make my position clear, I think Unions are essential in dealing with cartels, and I agree workers should be alert to sell-outs. I also think the voters need representatives who will stand up for them rather than the corporate lobbyists.

If everyone shared your position, this country would be a much better place.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[franklin]

It was a nice attempt and good story/history lesson, babe, but what I'm waiting for is a coherent explanation and justification of this "vitriolic rhetoric":

I love how the far right cries about having to pay for people's health insurance, and their social security, and their food stamps, etc. And when we have people trying to earn an honest living with their own medical insurance, retirement, and living wage, the far right screams about that too.

Right. Because we can pay any obscure amount in a make work job and those damned hypocritical right wingers will scream. Ooh the irony! I mean, who are they to dislike being forced to either pay someone subsistence or forced to pay them a collusion built pay scheme? It really pisses me off when people push back to force, cause, ya know, it's not like it's their right or anything.

I am am not the one who brought up their pay and benefits. I just posted the irony (hypocrisy?) spewing from the far right, and found in this thread.

Divisive party hack politics at it's best.

BTW, I work for government, but that doesn't mean I have to be a radical party liner.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Right. Because we can pay any obscure amount in a make work job and those damned hypocritical right wingers will scream. Ooh the irony! I mean, who are they to dislike being forced to either pay someone subsistence or forced to pay them a collusion built pay scheme? It really pisses me off when people push back to force, cause, ya know, it's not like it's their right or anything.

My point remains valid. If people have no way to eat, visit a doctor, pay for housing, etc, then be prepared to either pay their way or deal with the repercussions when those people have no other options. And that goes for today as well as when they retire.

BTW, I work for government, but that doesn't mean I have to be a radical party liner.

BTW, I pay taxes, but that doesn't mean I have to be a radical right wing nutjob bent on destroying the middle class.



Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[PearlWatson]

1: It being from tax dollars should not mean they don't have the right to collective bargain. You don't want to deal with the union, fire them and hire non union replacements.

2: If there is a problem of out of control and unfunded obligations, stop electing morons. Don't take away the rights and personal freedoms of the American middle class workers (who have already agreed to the requested pay and benefit cuts needed to correct the problem).

3: Collective bargaining is too a right. Governor jackass is trying to take that right away.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

I'm going with my thinkers on this one: "Government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO. Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers."

Your firing idea is good. BTW, are there teachers available who aren't forced to join the union?

Wisconsin did stop electing morons in the last election, but there are some residual morons left who threw a tantrum and ran off to Illinois.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I'm going with my thinkers on this one: "Government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO. Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers."

Totally false. The government has historically been one of the biggest abusers of people. Why do we have the right to keep arms if the government is so trustworthy? You really think people should be allowed to buy assault rifles but shouldn't be allowed to collective bargain? And for the record, I am against gun control as well.

Your firing idea is good. BTW, are there teachers available who aren't forced to join the union?

Again, I agree that nobody should be forced to join a union. I just don't think anyone should be prohibited from joining a union either.

Wisconsin did stop electing morons in the last election, but there are some residual morons left who threw a tantrum and ran off to Illinois.

Did you hear that recorded call between the governor and the fake Koch brother? They definitely elected a moron. And they know this; polls show if the election were held today Walker would lose in a landslide.



Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[PearlWatson]

I just don't think anyone should be prohibited from joining a union either.

Nobody is being prohibited from joining the union. In fact just the opposite is happening. Their right to refuse to pay mandatory dues despite not wanting to join is being restored.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Nobody is being prohibited from joining the union. In fact just the opposite is happening. Their right to refuse to pay mandatory dues despite not wanting to join is being restored.

They are taking away the unions' right to collective bargain. That is what makes it a union. So while they are not telling anyone they can't join a union, they are telling unions they can no longer be a union except in name only.



Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.