Wisconsin shows rest of country the real union thuggery going on in this country

reply to post by sonnny1


And this has what to do with collective bargaining rights?

Red herring, anyone?

reply to post by apacheman


I think this has everything to do with Change,for good or bad. You have to admit,someone calling out the Governor as a slave owner,makes MORE than the Governor. If Walker is a slave owner,what does that make the Union official,since he makes MORE then him?

I am going to sound whiney, but, was I heard?

Union or not, if they take away a Union's bargaining rights, they will most certainly not adhere to any body else's rights in the workplace.

The people of the United States make the United States what it is, they make the government, corporations, farms and banks what they are and not the bad side, but the GOOD SIDE.

The bad side comes from old, old families and old, old money and old, old tricks. It is not from unions...these old families are yucking it up because it worked, they got us once again to turn against each other. And these families date back before the Illuminati.

We, together, can tweak this.

No mandatory union membership, yes! Realization of actual capital on losses plus cost to run the pension within plausible limits of the current market, yes! Insisting on being compliant with audits for assurances that the peoples in the union are thoroughly represented as to the by laws and articles of the organization as founded, yes! And, yes, RICOH compliance, in some parts of the nation, yes! Foregoing cost of living increases, sadly, yes, and giving up of and returning of cost of living increases, apparently according to Wisconsin, yes.

There is so much less dividing us, than keeping use together.

reply to post by angelwrangler


I agree. I dont know how this is going to be fixed,but I do know its pitting everyone against everyone. We do need some sort of change though. It cant go on like it has been. I let myself get heated up on this at first.. My attitude has somewhat subsided though.There isnt one person in WI,that doesnt know someone affected by this. Walker needs to listen to these people before acting,MHO.Although I believe the Unions are going to take a hit on this,because of the Mass debt the state is in. It didnt help that those who were supposed to vote on this,took a sabbatical. I heard they are now going to try and recall those who decided to skip on the vote. Emotion does get the best of us sometimes.

reply to post by sonnny1


Your post is about as perfect an example of an ad-hominem attack as any I've seen. The protest centers around the governors desire to strip these workers of any collective bargaining rights.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Your post is about as perfect an example of an ad-hominem attack as any I've seen. The protest centers around the governors desire to strip these workers of any collective bargaining rights.

Because I posted a fact that a Union official is calling the Governor a slave owner,but makes more money then him? I didnt state it,The Union official did.I said it was Ironic.It has EVERYTHING to do with how people perceive Unions,and their Officials.Is it out of the question to question something said,without some one using "ad-hominem" every time? Must I create my own post for you on this subject alone,being that there are more then 5 posts on the protests already?? Thought/Opinion police,anyone?

reply to post by sonnny1


I feel you have a bead on this.

I bristled the first time I heard the word "austerity" in the news for England, the EU and Greece and I knew it was just a matter of time until it came home to the USA..

American's will make a deal. Wisconsin is in the streets because they took a 3% cut in pay last year and agreed to all economic concessions this year AND IT IS NOT ENOUGH! They have to give up their rights to collective bargaining. If this is not a NWO event I do not know what is.

Am I off the mark, out of the loop or whatever? Are we going to go "numbly" into this dark night? Really?

For people not from America, Wisconsin protesting against the government is like Vatican Archbishops springing forth with signs against the Pope in Vatican Square...yes, Wisconsin is that conservative.

From virtually any other state in our union it could be rationalized that they are picketing, but Wisconsin, Ohio , Illinois...no.

Just a heads up. If Wisconsin is protesting, things in the US are really, really, bad.

reply to post by sonnny1


No, because your post has noting whatsoever to do with the issue of collective bargaining rights.

Union officials are not in the same category as union members, that is the workers. They are the functional equivalent of CEOs, so their pay should be relatively commeasurate since they do the same sort of work. It's an entirely irrelevant nonissue designed (poorly, I might add) to deflect discussion from substantive issues.

It is basically a version of middle-school gossip: "Oooooohhh, didja hear what he called him? Pot calling kettle black! Pot calling kettle black. Nyaahhh, Nyaahh."

Semantically empty and does nothing to further the discussion.

reply to post by angelwrangler


The Unions would be even bigger,if they agreed to ALL the cuts proposed. Why? If they also asked the Governor to trim the fat from the elected officials also. Heres a small list of what they make.Im going to look into this closer. I am sure you could argue whats good for the goose,is good for the gander. You wouldn't have ONE person in WI,protesting against this. The Government wants change,the States do also. Maybe they can start with themselves.Thats not counting all those immediately underneath them.And yes,the plot thickens.


Salaries

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
reply to post by HoldTheBeans

 

It is easy for people to ask others to tighten their belts and to go without for their benefit, but they quickly shy from the pot and have a thousand excuses when it is their time to ante up. Teachers have families and bills to pay just like everyone else and since they have been under paid for years now when things get extra tight you expect them to do with even less. They are putting up with your children and many of them are so poorly disciplined and behaved that even their parents don’t want to deal with them. If you don’t want to pay to have someone take on the responsibility of your child then keep them home and school them yourselves. For some people this will be an advantage for their children since the lot of most schools are a bunch of angry, rebellious, ignorant and violent children that are a bane to the schools and neighborhoods with parents that could not care less.

People don’t ask the union to come in unless they are being abused and unfairly treated by the administration where they work and are left with no voice, no advocacy and no recourse. The unions may be bad but they are better than what they have. When faced with drowning in an ocean, you can dream of rescue by a yacht but you will cling to a Styrofoam box if floats by.

Maybe you should address this to Obama as he is the one who called for the belt tightening. Oh and if everyone did as you said and kept their "angry, rebellious, ignorant and violent children" home thefunding of 9K per student would drastically drop and your beloved teachers who only care about these lovely children would not have a job. I don't swim in the ocean so I'm not looking for a yacht or a box.

reply to post by apacheman


And your opinions is just that,yours. Your attack on me for posting something I feel is beneficial to situation at hand. The Union official is in charge of his people. His remarks galvanize his people to protest. The Union official said what he said,based on Governor Walker trying to end "Collective Bargaining". If you care to argue what the official said,we can. If your post is to derail my opinion,I can say you wont change it.It has EVERYTHING to do with the situation,because the Union official said it,because of the situation. Care to prove me wrong ? Or care to continue to critique my line of posting ?

reply to post by sonnny1


Actually, I'd rather deal with the substantive issues of collective bargaining and union-busting.

The facts seem pretty clear: Walker busted the budget with tax giveaways to business then attempted to use the manufactured crisis to try to bust the unions. Without collective bargaining rights, there is no reason for a union to exist.

Walker's real purpose is not to balance the budget but to remove the ability of unions to protect their members from arbitrary reassignment, unjustified firings, and all the other ills unions have fought against. He showed his true intent whe he justified the removal of bargaining rights by pointing out that no matter what concessions the union made today, in a few years they'd try to get them back.

His refusal to negotiate is classic tinpot dictator stuff, not the stuff of democratic give and take between equals. His is the classic business boss mentality: I'm the boss, you're the employee, you'll do what I tell you, when I tell you, and how I tellyou, or I'll fire you. Except he forgets the State of Wisconsin isn't a company he owns and he's running for private profit, and those employees are also taxpaying citizens.

He's a classic example of :

Why you should NEVER vote for anyone who promises "to run government like a business."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He lacks the proper mindset to govern a state.

I can guarantee that if you gave him everything he asked for Wisconsin will be far further down the toilet than it currently is within a year or two, because those things are irrelevant to the real problems: too many tax breaks for business and the wealthy. If a business can't make a profit without demanding tax breaks, then their management is incompetent, lazy, or both.

Funny how on the one hand neocons think that all government is corrupt, incompetent or lazy, but then argue that that same government is to be trusted to treat its employees fairly and manage them efficiently.

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans

So is everybody else's retirement funds. Welcome to reality.

Are you saying that because you and/or other people lost their retirement funds because no one in the corporate world or in the government was willing to help, these people should too?

reply to post by apacheman


Actually,its is just as relevant on what the Union official says and makes. Its a picture of what Unions have become,and why so many Taxpayers went from the Vicious Left,to the Vicious Right. Collective Bargaining pays for this mans salary. To some taxpayers in Wisconsin,they view it as a luxury to make that kind of money. Let me quote you on what you said.

"Union officials are not in the same category as union members, that is the workers. They are the functional equivalent of CEOs, so their pay should be relatively commeasurate since they do the same sort of work."

My understanding from what you said earlier reads like this.....................
Hes a(functionally equivalent)CEO,and should get paid more then a Governor.
Fact:24 SEPAC employees make six-figure salaries.
24 MORE (functionally equivalent)CEO's in the same Union make 6 figure Salaries.
Even in the Private sector,there is usually one CEO.Here its spread the wealth.Collectively,right?
Again,Collective Bargaining pays his wages.Can I repeat,he gets paid more than the Governor?

Most taxpayers see it like this.Hence,the reason why they voted the last Governor out,because they wanted some change. It might not be the right change,but no one has questioned the Governor and his wages,and his benefits though either.I think if they are going to fix any of this,they are going to need better Union Officials. Ones that are not Biased,and ones that dont make MORE than the Governor.


Despite this, Beil has repeatedly attempted to portray Walker as a member of some upper class elite. In December, Beil said Walker’s treatment of state employees was like “the plantation owner talking to the slaves.”

Beil also blogged on January 7, 2011, “folks attending the inauguration inside were well clad in their minks, sables, and $1000 suits. During the inauguration, the general public was locked out of their Capitol, which was only accessible through invitation or ticket. A fine example for Scott Walker – governor of the ‘people’.

Link

A few more questions.......

Why would any Union member want him representing them?

How productive will he be in talks with the Governor, with a biased opinion? Can I repeat,he gets paid more than the Governor?

This I will say.All the CEO's,and Governor included, are playing with taxpayers lives.

People seem to not understand that union wages set the bar for a working wage.

Hence increases non union wages....

If collective barraging goes out the window so does prevailing wages.

and lower wages across the board...

reply to post by sonnny1


What has any of that to do with collective bargaining issues?

You keep bringing up irrelevancies.

Who called who what might make some sort of difference to you, but it is not germane to the discussion. How much union leaders get paid is between them and their membership who pays them. What business is it of yours or anyone else's?

It still isn't germane to the subject under discussion.

Originally posted by Zaanny
People seem to not understand that union wages set the bar for a working wage.

Hence increases non union wages....

If collective barraging goes out the window so does prevailing wages.

and lower wages across the board...

That is a completely false statement. Years ago there may have been some truth to that, but no longer.

Great message those "sick" teachers ares ending their students. Very, very unprofessional. They've lost any respect I might have had for them.

reply to post by robyn


Let's break that down:

What message are the teachers sending?

That sometimes, you have to stand up for your rights even when people call you names and trivialize your issues.

That standing up for your rights means more when done in a large group, and for more than just yourself.

Those are some pretty sick things to teach kids, I guess.

Being professional means doesn't mean rolling over and accepting abuse.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by sonnny1

 

What has any of that to do with collective bargaining issues?

You keep bringing up irrelevancies.

Who called who what might make some sort of difference to you, but it is not germane to the discussion. How much union leaders get paid is between them and their membership who pays them. What business is it of yours or anyone else's?

It still isn't germane to the subject under discussion.

reply to post by apacheman


"His refusal to negotiate is classic tinpot dictator stuff, not the stuff of democratic give and take between equals. His is the classic business boss mentality: I'm the boss, you're the employee, you'll do what I tell you, when I tell you, and how I tellyou, or I'll fire you."



How is any of your rant germane to the discussion? Classic irrelevance,at its finest.Politically infused opinion also.Wages, Salaries,Collective Bargaining have been the issue all along.Why do we know how much he gets paid? Can you show me private taxpayers wages? Obviously dictator and slave holder opinions are in high demand,and more substantial then fixing the mess.