Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Readies National Guard Against Unions

If you feel that unions should be outlawed because there have been criminals within their ranks in the past, then wouldn't the same philosophy hold true for corporations?

reply to post by Flatfish


I have not stated here that I think that unions should be "outlawed".

All I'm trying to point out is that you can't just selectively apply your philosophy of outlawing every element of society that has ever had a criminal within their ranks because that virtually includes every industry ever started.

I have never stated that anyone should "outlaw every element of society that has ever had a criminal within their ranks".

Are you not stating that all unions are criminal organizations just because one was found to have a criminal element at one time?

You are partially correct in your read of my position here. What is apparent to me and to most folks that, either currently or historically, have had the misfortune of dealing with unions realize that labor unions were first conceived by statist oligarchs, birthed out of abject corruption, parented by hard-core criminals, disciplined by thuggish louts and perpetuated by selfish, self-righteous know-nothings.

The point in all of this is to state that labor unions are, at their very core, corrupt. they were born out of a pathological ideology and regularly use violence, arson, extortion, blackmail and murder to attain their ends.

like most large successful criminal enterprises, their reach grown over the years and they have further comprimised the political process - state and federal. In doing so, they have attempted to legitimize and sanitize themselves.

however, based on some polls that have been floating around in the media for the past couple of weeks, unions are now at their most unpopular in American history. People - prospective union members, especially - have come to understand that these union "syndicates" exist for one primary / core purpose - to control and extort legitimate business and people. Governors are finally standing up to the extortionists, and I commend the wisconsin governor for acting in strangling these diseased groups' influence.

reply to post by MMPI2


If the main statements in this article are true, then I would also put the question of what level of corruptedness is 'acceptable' among politicians. In my opinion societies are becoming more aware of the fact that white collar crimes are no better than lesser crimes, and in fact many are worse as they impact larger groups of people.

There is no easy way for difficult situations, but extreme abborations of misuse of power and authority should be checked on all sides.

host.madison.com...

Originally posted by MMPI2

If you feel that unions should be outlawed because there have been criminals within their ranks in the past, then wouldn't the same philosophy hold true for corporations?

reply to post by Flatfish

 

I have not stated here that I think that unions should be "outlawed".

All I'm trying to point out is that you can't just selectively apply your philosophy of outlawing every element of society that has ever had a criminal within their ranks because that virtually includes every industry ever started.

I have never stated that anyone should "outlaw every element of society that has ever had a criminal within their ranks".

Are you not stating that all unions are criminal organizations just because one was found to have a criminal element at one time?

You are partially correct in your read of my position here. What is apparent to me and to most folks that, either currently or historically, have had the misfortune of dealing with unions realize that labor unions were first conceived by statist oligarchs, birthed out of abject corruption, parented by hard-core criminals, disciplined by thuggish louts and perpetuated by selfish, self-righteous know-nothings.

The point in all of this is to state that labor unions are, at their very core, corrupt. they were born out of a pathological ideology and regularly use violence, arson, extortion, blackmail and murder to attain their ends.

like most large successful criminal enterprises, their reach grown over the years and they have further comprimised the political process - state and federal. In doing so, they have attempted to legitimize and sanitize themselves.

however, based on some polls that have been floating around in the media for the past couple of weeks, unions are now at their most unpopular in American history. People - prospective union members, especially - have come to understand that these union "syndicates" exist for one primary / core purpose - to control and extort legitimate business and people. Governors are finally standing up to the extortionists, and I commend the wisconsin governor for acting in strangling these diseased groups' influence.

I don't think that I quoted you in my response so there's no need to deny that you actually stated what I implied was your position. When you "truly hope the worst for them" or you state that you feel that "Maybe we can all get lucky and the Gov. will get his boys to crack some union skulls open, just for the fun of it," I am inclined to draw certain conclusions with regard to your intent. (by the way, those statements were indeed quotes) It almost sounds like a call for violence against the very organizations that you accuse of being violent and corrupt.

IMO, the rest of your post is so ideological and deceptive that I don't feel it even deserves a response. You have a lot to unlearn about unions.

I cannot believe in this day and age that people would go so far as to say that the only way to get a fair shake with an employer is to have a union to back you. Sad that you have no confidence in your own skills and ability, or perhaps you have no skills or ability. If you feel you are getting ripped off at the job you are doing, then perhaps it's time to find a new job, no? And if it's the only job you know how to do, who's fault is that? Mine? Yours? Your momma's? Since we've established that it's not MY FAULT, then how about you get off your butt and learn a new skill so that YOU can make more money for YOU?

Here in California in 2003-2004 we had the largest grocery store worker strike I'd ever seen. These people were out of work for 4 months, from October to January. One cashier who was a major protestor every day was making $27 an hour. You get that? $27 an hour to taking payments and swipe food products over a cash register bar code scanner. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep.

What did the union do for him after he had paid his dues for 11 years and was now on strike? He certainly didn't get $27 an hour for the four months he was out of work. So Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's all came and went and still they were striking. Getting less than 25% pf the pay he had been making. The final outcome of all of the strikes?

On February 26, 2004 union members voted 86% to ratify an agreement with a two-tier system. Both sides claimed victory:

The trade unions won the following conditions for current employees:
Affordable health care benefits for new and current workers with no weekly employee premiums in the first two years, and only nominal payments if needed, in the third year.
Employer contributions of nearly $190 million to re-build the health plan reserves.
A combined pension fund for new hires and current employees .
A wage payment averaging about $500 in the first and third years of the contract (UFCW.org)”.

The employers won the following conditions for future employees they hire:
Lower base salaries.
Changed rate of pay for Sunday work from time and a half to time plus one dollar.
Longer work period required before earning benefits.

Wikipedia

You get that? He has better benefits. Whoopie!! Because surely, someone making $27/hour plus benefits simply cannot be expected to take care of their own healthcare issues. Well, I have no idea what happened to the cashier formerly making $27 an hour. My hope is that he was sent packing; I certainly don't need someone doing a mindless F'ing job making more money than I do! A cashier's job is not supposed to be a damn career, it's supposed to be a stepping stone.

Another example...

My firm just moved from 2 seperate floors onto one new floor. We had to have cubicles and office furniture set up for a firm of 120 people, electrical and computer hookups and all sorts of painting, decorating etc. We allowed everyone (union and non) to bid on the jobs, but the local carpenters union could NOT install the cubicles, as they were not qualified. They simply did not have the skills necessary to do the job. So we went with a non-union firm. That was in December. Ever since the move, the local carpenters union has been picketing/protesting outside our offices. They want compensation! They think that since we went with an outfit that was capable of putting together our furniture and cubicles that we have somehow robbed the union of money. What a crock. They were not qualified to put our # together and now they want a payout to stop picketing.

I say F'em. And to all of you who need a union to guarantee you are getting what's "rightfully" yours from your boss, then I have only one word for you - LAWYER. In this day and age all a union is is a middle man who is basically there to get a share of money that RIGHTFULLY belongs to YOU or your BOSS. There's NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT.

More stupid union stories...

Harper's fights unions

TSA and Unions

Washington Times Editorial

reply to post by Flatfish


I see that there is no way to reach you about this very important issue.

LOL...It's odd that you, as a supporter and firm believer in labor unions, would be so squeamish about the use of violence. Unions own organized violence, just like their stalinist forefathers did. I would also say that your squeamishness and hyper-reactivity in this case is more than a little hypocritical given the EXTREME violence regularly practiced by standing union members.

Please remember: Minds are like parachutes...they only work well when they are open. You would do well to think about this in relation to your obvious lack of insight about the obvious criminality of unions and their rank-and-file membership.

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by Flatfish

 

I see that there is no way to reach you about this very important issue.

LOL...It's odd that you, as a supporter and firm believer in labor unions, would be so squeamish about the use of violence. Unions own organized violence, just like their stalinist forefathers did. I would also say that your squeamishness and hyper-reactivity in this case is more than a little hypocritical given the EXTREME violence regularly practiced by standing union members.

Please remember: Minds are like parachutes...they only work well when they are open. You would do well to think about this in relation to your obvious lack of insight about the obvious criminality of unions and their rank-and-file membership.

You're correct in your belief that "you" will not be able to convince me to accept your distorted concept of union membership because of the fact that I actually worked for 32 yrs. at a union job, my knowledge of the inner workings are based on firsthand experience and not on ideological rhetoric. I was 5th generation in my field so I would expect that even my pre-adult knowledge of unions is more accurate than yours. On top of that, the specific union that I was associated with had a early history of being manipulated by organized crime but that was a long time ago and for the most part it's non-existent in my trade today.

I'm not saying that we totally eliminated any and all criminal activity, but we have no more than the rest of society. How long do think that union members will tolerate being robbed by thieves? If criminals are skimming of the top of contracts, they are stealing from both management & labor and working people don't like being robbed.

I almost forgot, during my 32 yrs. as a union worker, the only violence I witnessed was when two workers would get into a fight amongst themselves. I was a longshoreman and I admit that from time to time a fight would occur, usually in the hold of a ship where temps. normally exceeded 120 in the summer. Imagine that.

Like I said, You have a lot to unlearn about unions.

Originally posted by Califemme
Unions are good for one thing: Getting the most amount of pay for the least amount of work.

Which sounds really good... unless you own a business. When you own a business, your main concern is how to get the most work (productivity) for the least amount of pay. In otherwords, to turn a profit. That is a dirty word to unions, don't you think?

PROFIT.

Unions would rather that the business owner make LESS profit so that the WORKERS get greater PAY.

Why would ANYBODY open a business if that's the case?

And if you are so inclined to open a business under those circumstances, please let everyone here at ATS know! (Because from the sounds of it, you'd have a tsunami of applications

Ok lets be honest here what's worse putting money in the hands of a few or one person or the hands of many like the employees? Yes that's right unions won't let a person like you give unfair wages to a person like me just so you can grow YOUR business! I do not benefit from your business making more profit unless you pay me more and that doesn't seem like what you wanna do so I would need a union to keep you from being a greedy employer and running me into poverty while you get rich...Get real man put yourself in each pair of shoes and tell me what's worse.

reply to post by RickyD


I am to be penalized because you aren't smart enough or ambitious enough to start your own business? You want the unions to suck my business dry? So who wins when I can no longer afford to employ people and have to close my doors? The unions? The employees? Me? I think not.

Get off your butt and be a productive member of society. Need more money? Then a learn a skill that makes you more money. It's not my job or other people's jobs to take care of you. It's your momma's job to teach you to take care of yourself. Then, it's YOUR job to take care of yourself and your family. Not mine, not the governments. And if you disagree, then I believe there are other countries you can go to.

America is a special place simply because noone here is better than anyone else. If you work hard, you can get somewhere in life. I don't "owe" you something because I've been able to do better for myself and my family. That's your problem.

I do believe that co-operating with others of a like mind is actually something that society needs to survive.

as long as you believe that individuals have freedom of speech and association then you really cannot rail against them organising themselves to better their situation collectively.

reply to post by Califemme



You have succinctly summarized how the corruption at the hearts of union managers and employees is translated into real-world practice...they don't want to make their own way, take risks, invest their own time/money/effort, sweat, blood and tears into a potentially profitable enterprise...they want to take YOURS! they feel entitled to it to the point of burning down your factories or dynamiting your house to make their point.

this sort of cowardice lies at the heart of communism and stalinism, which explains why unions were originally masterminded by card-carrying communists and stalinists. everybody should have a claim on the fruits of your risk, hard work and sacrifice. why should you have it, when other people can't (or won't) move outside of their comfort zone in order to prosper?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...I applaud any politician, CEO or policy maker that flattens the hopes, goals and dreams of a union boss and every one of their minions. I truly hope the worst for each and every one of them.

Most things start out good but with time seem to fail.
I think most of you opposed to unions don't have a clue what unions have accomplished.
I have been a union steward and a executive board member , I have seen the accomplishments and achievements by unions and the abuse by the unions and their members.
As for the unions, the good out weights the bad.
Thought this article was relivent.

finance.yahoo.com...


How the middle class became the underclass
cnnmoney



Annalyn Censky, staff reporter, On Wednesday February 16, 2011, 9:28 am EST

Are you better off than your parents?

Probably not if you're in the middle class.

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.

But there's more to the story.

A real drag on the middle class

One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University.

Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, union workers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than their non-union counterparts, Rodgers said.

But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years. In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010, they represented less than 12%.

"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explain why low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen their wages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.

Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially for blue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.

International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.

Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to other countries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure on American wages.

"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question of whether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.

Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costs abroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producing economy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skills American employers are looking for.

Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collar opportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, now employers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college, Rodgers said.

A boon for the rich

While average folks were losing ground in the economy, the wealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, and driving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest of America.

For example, though globalization has been a drag on labor, it's been a major win for corporations who've used new global channels to reduce costs and boost profits. In addition, new markets around the world have created even greater demand for their products.

"With a global economy, people who have extraordinary skills... whether they be in financial services, technology, entertainment or media, have a bigger place to play and be rewarded from," said Alan Johnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.

As a result, the disparity between the wages for college educated workers versus high school grads has widened significantly since the 1980s.

In 1980, workers with a high school diploma earned about 71% of what college-educated workers made. In 2010, that number fell to 55%.

Another driver of the rich: The stock market.

The S&P 500 has gained more than 1,300% since 1970. While that's helped the American economy grow, the benefits have been disproportionately reaped by the wealthy.

And public policy of the past few decades has only encouraged the trend.

The 1980s was a period of anti-regulation, presided over by President Reagan, who loosened rules governing banks and thrifts.

A major game changer came during the Clinton era, when barriers between commercial and investment banks, enacted during the post-Depression era, were removed.

In 2000, President Bush also weakened the government's oversight of complex securities, allowing financial innovations to take off, creating unprecedented amounts of wealth both for the overall economy, and for those directly involved in the financial sector.

Tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and extended under Obama were also a major windfall for the nation's richest.

And as then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan brought interest rates down to new lows during the decade, the housing market experienced explosive growth.

"We were all drinking the Kool-aid, Greenspan was tending bar, Bernanke and the academic establishment were supplying the liquor," Deutsche Bank managing director Ajay Kapur wrote in a research report in 2009.

But the story didn't end well. Eventually, it all came crashing down, resulting in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.

With the unemployment rate still excessively high and the real estate market showing few signs of rebounding, the American middle class is still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, as corporate profits come roaring back and the stock market charges ahead, the wealthiest people continue to eclipse their middle-class counterparts.

"I think it's a terrible dilemma, because what we're obviously heading toward is some kind of class warfare," Johnson said.

reply to post by MMPI2


Thanks, I have been following your arguments here as well. These people are leeches. It just kills me that they want to be a lazy ass, and they think I need to subsidize their laziness. I have no sympathy for anyone who wants to hold a gun to my head and take what's in my pocket, against my will. And the fact that there are so many people here on ATS who think it's perfectly okay to do just that, tells me that we have our work cut out for us.

To those union fans: *snip* We're not gonna take it anymore. Watch. Just watch. America has woken up.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I do believe that co-operating with others of a like mind is actually something that society needs to survive.

as long as you believe that individuals have freedom of speech and association then you really cannot rail against them organising themselves to better their situation collectively.

And what if "they" organise themselves right out of a job? GM ring a bell? So yes, I can "rail" all I want, because the "outcome" of all their organising is "them" taking more money from ME to pay for "their" laziness. Go find another job if the one that you have is so bad. Noone is making you work there. Noone is making you live where you live. Your choices = your responsibility.

Originally posted by Califemme
reply to post by MMPI2

 

Thanks, I have been following your arguments here as well. These people are leeches. It just kills me that they want to be a lazy ass, and they think I need to subsidize their laziness. I have no sympathy for anyone who wants to hold a gun to my head and take what's in my pocket, against my will. And the fact that there are so many people here on ATS who think it's perfectly okay to do just that, tells me that we have our work cut out for us.

To those union fans: Suck it. We're not gonna take it anymore. Watch. Just watch. America has woken up.

You're quite right in that America has indeed woken up, hell just look at the growing protest taking place this very moment in Wisconsin. The one thing I'm not seeing in the crowds is the governors fan base. Not one article could I find regarding those who would support the governors move and I did about 6 different searches. I even googled "Governor Walker Supporters" and I couldn't find one article about people standing up in support of his current actions.

Like I said before, this battle is long from being over and I just bet that working people of Wisconsin, (voters I might add) will welcome the governors actions about as much as a fart in a crowded elevator. Let's just see how this works out for him in the end.

Originally posted by MMPI2

If you feel that unions should be outlawed because there have been criminals within their ranks in the past, then wouldn't the same philosophy hold true for corporations?

reply to post by Flatfish

 

I have not stated here that I think that unions should be "outlawed".

All I'm trying to point out is that you can't just selectively apply your philosophy of outlawing every element of society that has ever had a criminal within their ranks because that virtually includes every industry ever started.

I have never stated that anyone should "outlaw every element of society that has ever had a criminal within their ranks".

Are you not stating that all unions are criminal organizations just because one was found to have a criminal element at one time?

You are partially correct in your read of my position here. What is apparent to me and to most folks that, either currently or historically, have had the misfortune of dealing with unions realize that labor unions were first conceived by statist oligarchs, birthed out of abject corruption, parented by hard-core criminals, disciplined by thuggish louts and perpetuated by selfish, self-righteous know-nothings.

The point in all of this is to state that labor unions are, at their very core, corrupt. they were born out of a pathological ideology and regularly use violence, arson, extortion, blackmail and murder to attain their ends.

like most large successful criminal enterprises, their reach grown over the years and they have further comprimised the political process - state and federal. In doing so, they have attempted to legitimize and sanitize themselves.

however, based on some polls that have been floating around in the media for the past couple of weeks, unions are now at their most unpopular in American history. People - prospective union members, especially - have come to understand that these union "syndicates" exist for one primary / core purpose - to control and extort legitimate business and people. Governors are finally standing up to the extortionists, and I commend the wisconsin governor for acting in strangling these diseased groups' influence.

That's complete BS and propaganda, but you are entitled to your severely skewed opinion.

I support my Governor! I voted for a change, and change is happening... I love it! So do family, relatives, friends, and associates.

Just wanted to voice my support for my Governors actions, and that he doesn't need the National Guard, a lot of us here in Wisconsin support this measure despite the news and commercials.

HELLO WISCONSIN! Long live its wild beauty!

reply to post by NoHierarchy


what part of my post is "propaganda"? Please enlighten me with a reference refuting any point I made.

Originally posted by ForestForager
I support my Governor! I voted for a change, and change is happening... I love it! So do family, relatives, friends, and associates.

Just wanted to voice my support for my Governors actions, and that he doesn't need the National Guard, a lot of us here in Wisconsin support this measure despite the news and commercials.

HELLO WISCONSIN! Long live its wild beauty!

AWESOME!!!! Congratulations on the good work your Governor's doing to get rid of the leeches!!

God Bless America!!

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

what part of my post is "propaganda"? Please enlighten me with a reference refuting any point I made.

It's almost like there's a concerted effort being made to hide this one lousy piece of paper that we all have to show at one time or another. They run from facts. Cowards.

I work in the media in Madison, Wisconsin. If you were here, you'd know how big of a deal this is. Despite agreeing to massive cuts under the previous administration, and even conceding that more will go to Walker, they are drawing the line on collective bargaining.

There hasn't been a turnout like this in 30-40 years...far more than a tea party rally ever garnered. And I think this plan is a testing ground for the rest of the country.

You lose collective bargaining for protections, we will go the way of Brazil, where every new administration fires ALL public workers and replaces them with loyalists.

These protesters have my support.