Glenn Beck -Fox News - Rush All Belong To A Union

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


OTHER STATE GOVERNMENT
Currently, this state owns and operates numerous heating, cooling, and power
plants that were constructed by the state to provide heating, cooling, and power to
state facilities. The Department of Administration (DOA) determines the method of
operation of these plants and may delegate this authority to any other state agency
that has managing authority for a plant. This bill permits DOA to sell or contract
for the operation of any such plant. The bill exempts such sales and contracts from
the requirement for approval of the Public Service Commission (PSC) that may
otherwise apply under current law. The bill provides that the net proceeds of any
sale, after retirement of any outstanding state debt and any necessary repayment of
federal financial assistance, is deposited in the budget stabilization fund. The bill
also allows DOA, at any time, to petition the PSC to regulate as a public utility any
person who purchases or contracts for the operation of any plant under the bill.
Under current law, the PSC has regulatory authority over public utilities,
including
the authority to set rates for utility service.

READ THE PROPOSED BILL HERE Including Above Statements

Originally posted by ParkerCramer


. . .

so, how many employees? how much will their taxes amount too?? dosen't it seem more logical to just let the BIG business pay their own taxes????

51% of employees. Learn to read.

I am not a fortune teller, so I do not know what their taxes will amount to.

It is a two year deal, and then they get the taxes.

It is a gamble to try and get more taxes to come in.

In business terms, it is called a loss lead. You will get a loss initially, but will end up with a boom of profit.

how can you possibly justify this???

Because it makes sense from a business standpoint. In fact, it is done by most businesses to spur extra income before the known lean months come.

what is it you do for a living??

Neither here nor their.

But whatever it is, I sure understand economics and freedom more than most people in these dumb union threads

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


As usual, a republican resorts to name calling when logic and reason are expressed!
Shame on you for trying to derail this thread!

READ THE PROPOSED BILL HERE Including Above Statements

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

are you kidding??

who do you think is supporting the individuals attempting to bust the unions???

do you not see the same conflict of interest??

That is a different issue altogether, yet one I do agree with you on.

I do not believe that Unions should be able to donate to anything political.

I do not believe that businesses should donate to anything political.

It all needs to be in the hands of the individuals. No one else.

reply to post by Ex


Yes, but proof that Koch is getting the deal.

You said it as a statement of fact, so I am asking you to back up that fact.

Originally posted by Ex
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

As usual, a republican resorts to name calling when logic and reason are expressed!
Shame on you for trying to derail this thread!

READ THE PROPOSED BILL HERE Including Above Statements

edit on 2/22/2011 by Ex because: (no reason given)

I have read the bill. Thanks.

Please show me where I called someone a name? I will grab a Snickers, as I will be waiting a while.




I am not a Republican. I make up my own mind on things. Both parties suck hard. Bush and Obama are on equal footing, in my eyes.



And there was no deraling by me.

You made a thread on how some idiot radio personalities are bashing unions, yet are part of one. I stated that there is a difference between public v private and forced v voluntary. You asked what the difference in public vs private was. I gave you the answer. YOu brought up tax breaks, and I noted that they were not tax breaks, but incentives.

Breaks implies it is something for nothing.

Incentive means the new companies have to do something before they get something in return



Have fun denying reality, though.

That is a different issue altogether, yet one I do agree with you on.

I do not believe that Unions should be able to donate to anything political.

I do not believe that businesses should donate to anything political.

It all needs to be in the hands of the individuals. No one else.

Unfortuntately That isn't what the Supreme court said:
Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns
HERE

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4
Thursday that free-speech rights permit groups like corporations and labor unions to directly spend
on political campaigns.

Now think about this, if you destroy union and labor's ability to fund a poltical campaign...
who do you have left ............corporations !!!!!

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
It is a conflict of interest when the person who is bargaining for you is also getting supported by the Unions.

No less a conflict when the corporations who have destroyed your economy are pulling the strings of government. Times have changed. FDR wasn't fighting two stoopid wars while the manufacturing base that supported the economy was sent offshore. Enter the millennium...the unions represent the last man standing, and for Beck et al to have any comment on the subject is hypocrisy.

Yet the average republican enables the very folks that [snip] them right out of the middle class. Curious.

Corporations are the enemy of the middle class, and the republicans target the unions because they support the dems. It's your country, it's going down the pipes, and you blame your neighbours. Very curious, indeed.

From a related union thread:

Here's another thought that may help put this issue in perspective.

On one issue, the left - which seems to also include include union leaders if not membership - being "pro choice" is a key part of their philosophy.

But not on the issue of union membership. On this issue, to the left it is somehow OK to force people to do what they say they believe in. No pro choice on union membership. Why?

Is this not an example of hypocrisy? I think it is ...

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
More union thuggery. You join or are blackballed. You work for a non union producer good luck getting a job again. Same union thugs different industry.

You'd call "union thuggery" if you saw more than five ants in a room together (I bet there's a "Union" in your kitchen). Your comment just shows your ignorance of the show-business industry. Get a clue, drop your vitriol. Most of all, Grow Up.

Fine, abolish unions. Trust that these government bodies will enforce workers rights, when on this very website people decry the vulnerability of the FDA, the USDA, the FED, the Treasury, the EPA, and numerous other government organizations in regards to lobbying efforts, political, and financial influence. The complexity of the issue is lost in the oversimplification of the situation. It's really easy, somehow, to demonize workers, while corporate executives re-model their offices to the tune of millions of dollars, and get bonuses in the tens of millions. I don't get the logic of people sometimes....really I don't.

reply to post by Ex


Rush and Beck have mentioned it on numerous occasions, and they have openly stated that they would rather not be in the union. New York is not a Right to Work state, therefore the state of New York has forced unionization. Beck's radio show and the Fox News HQ are both in NYC, and Rush's show used to be in NYC. Rush left NYC and moved his company to Florida, a Right to Work state, because of NYC's ridiculous and tyrannical taxes. Now that Rush is doing business in Florida he is no longer a union member.

www.nrtw.org...

reply to post by ossminid


It's not about the Government enforcing workers rights. In a free market it is in a company's best interest to treat their workers fairly and provide fair pay and benefits. If company "A" isn't and company "B" and "C" are then company "A" will soon go out of business because company "A" will lose it's employees to the other companies. Individual workers enforce there own "rights" in a competitive free market. Besides, if you don't like how a company treats you then don't work there. This is the same argument that has been had about the minimum wage for years. Ignorant people are told and believe that if it wasn't for the government mandating a minimum wage that they would make 50 cents an hour. This argument is ridiculous because if there were a company that was trying to pay their employees 50 cents an hour that company would go out of business due to not having any employees, because those people would seek employment elsewhere. Abolishing the minimum wage would create competition between businesses for the available labor. This would lead to an overall increase in the amount someone makes an hour. The Democrats, as well as labor unions, will have you believe that they are there to protect the little guy, the poor, the downtrodden, the "working families". This is a lie. Politicians want one thing and one thing only... to retain their power and control, and they do this by any means, one of which is by enforcing a minimum wage that they know no one can live off of, and so the minimum wage worker is forced on to government entitlement programs in order to survive, and the cycle repeats. Then the Democrats will say "if you don't vote for us the mean ole' Republicans will take away your food stamps and government housing". If Democrats are so compassionate then why don't they just raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour? Because if they did that then the minimum wage worker would be less dependent on them and their entitlement programs. Unions have only one goal and that is to make money. Do you honestly believe that a union boss cares about "working families"? No, the union boss only cares about the union dues that he gets from the "working families". Then the union boss will bitch and moan about outsourcing and corporations sending jobs overseas, all the while the same union boss is donating millions of dollars to the very politicians that create the hostile environment through taxation and over regulation that force corporations to outsource jobs. If you are a union worker there is no way that you can't understand this if you just stop listening to the lies and propaganda and look at the truth with an open mind.

reply to post by Ex

Are you saying they had no choice?

You have hit the nail on the head, but in answer to a different question.

The issue is with workers at public schools and their very nice pension packages that the state of Wisconsin can not afford to keep paying for.

Why do most people send their children to public schools? I am saying that they have no choice, in most cases.

Why do the citizens of Wisconsin pay property taxes? To support public schools that have unionized employees that go on strike even though there are no alternatives for the taxpayers and parents.

You can tune in whatever TV or radio station you want, in most cases you aren't even paying for it. It is free enterprise in any case, unlike the public school system.

Even if a public school employee doesn't want to be in the union, they have to pay union dues to NOT be represented.

Um, pretty simple. If they want to be on air or TV, they are forced to join the Union.
Nice try though.

reply to post by Ex


Care to go back and read my 2 posts and cite where I said I support a tax cut in Wisconsin? I am not even a citizen of that State. My comments dealth specifically with Unions, the fact they are a public group, just like Fire and Police.

The OP made a comparison about News personalities and their calls for action against teacher Unions, pointing out news people are part of a union as well. My point was they are private individuals working for a private sector. Teachers are not.

Police cannot strike, nor are we allowed to have collective bargaining. The irresponsibility of these teachers, as well as the Democrats for fleeing the state instead of doing their jobs, is insane.

Its literally - I am taking my marbles and going home because I am not getting my way.

You think its bad now.. wait until the next election cycle when the dems are chucked the rest of the way out the door.

I am so sick and tired of hearing democrats and republicans spending more time blaming each other, as well as invoking the past, instead of fixing the now to secure our future.

Friggen sham...

What people are missing here is that not all unions are bad. I am in a certain union. They protect our jobs. They dont mix contracts with rights. There is no right to work. Get off your ass, bust it and you will be able to keep your job.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The difference is not whether or not they 'hold teachers accountable.' The difference between public and private schools is much broader and MUCH MORE OBVIOUS than that; the public curriculum is set from the central school board and enforced on all schools in the district, and it must serve the educational needs of a vast number of students from diverse backgrounds i.e. some with 'learning disabilities' and some from non-Anglo-American backgrounds. Meanwhile, private schools have much smaller student bodies, with less bureaucracy, and a more selective/exclusive student body.

Private schools will ALWAYS outperform public schools if they are any good. Public schools are doing their best with a million restrictions placed on them, and Public Schoolteachers are under enormous stress to meet goals, especially now that the absurd 'No Child Left Behind' act ensures that their school will be defunded because many students are incapable of learning quickly enough under the present model.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by ossminid

 

It's not about the Government enforcing workers rights. In a free market it is in a company's best interest to treat their workers fairly and provide fair pay and benefits.

Then, I guess America isn't a free market! The corporations perpetually try to screw the workers in the least noticeable ways possible (i.e. raiding the pension fund, refusing to give standard raises when the cost of living rises, 'cost-cutting measures.')

I read on the newsticker yesterday that Wal-Mart posted a Q4 profit last year despite a decline in revenue. How? Because of 'cost-cutting measures.' What this means is that, in order to appear to investors to be a growing business, Wal-Mart actually slashed its business operation in order to decrease the amount of expenses! It's not growing, it's shrinking and it is not the owners that suffer, nor the investors; it's the workers.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I heard the same argument, (that public sector employees should not have the right to organize) the other night while watching "Real Time" and I also heard what was probably the best response to that premise that I've every heard. When posed with that same argument, one of the guest on the show said something to the effect that; Public sector employees should indeed have the right to organize and bargain because of the fact that some of the most appalling violations of human dignity have been orchestrated by governments elected by voters. It's not always a question of profits, sometimes it just about basic human dignity and protection from those who would abuse their authority.