Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

JudeBrando said:
Skeptic Ginger, would you support this?
Click to expand...
It's not practical. Nor do I think the pubic at large has the knowledge to best judge a collective bargaining agreement.

If I go to the store, I don't get to vote on the price I want to pay for things. If I want it at the price offered, I buy it. When I take a job, I'm not obligated to work for the wage offered, it is a choice I make. I can walk away or take the job. Collective bargaining units are only saying, if you don't offer the wage I want, I have the right to walk away. That's how wages are determined, not by votes.

Say the voters did choose a wage for workers that was below what the union collectively would accept? That usually means the majority of the workers do not agree to work for that wage. Even if some agree, think what would happen if even 20% of teachers or nurses decided to seek work elsewhere and not take the wage the public voted for. It could not be corrected for months. It would be a mess.

Bargaining agreements do not result in exorbitant wages and benefits for workers. The collective unit does not have the excessive advantage they are being portrayed as having. Collective bargaining units give workers a fair position, not a controlling position. The resulting wages are the wages that the workers will accept and not refuse the job as is the worker's right.


Just as voters have rights, workers' fought and some lost their lives for the right to collective bargaining. It is legal. It should not be up to politicians who conveniently want to eviscerate the strength of unions that campaign against them to take that right away.

The idea unions are the cause of state's economic woes has been fabricated by politicians that stand to gain politically if unions are no longer able to campaign against them. Big business that stands to gain from eliminating collective bargaining rights have the money to fund campaigns to blame unions for any number of ills.

I posted evidence earlier that the public employees in Wisconsin have wages on par with similar jobs in the private sector. There was also evidence that fact was being distorted in corporate controlled news reports by cherry picking groups to compare to the workers which were not comparable groups. For example they compared Wisconsin employees to national averages rather than to Wisconsin averages. It's easy if you have the money to sell anything including false ideas.
 
Last edited:
This looks like an interesting source of information on the subject: Public Unions – Problem Or Scapegoat?

I've not yet looked at the links in detail but I'm working on it. I'll post again after I do. I want to make a note here that I'm looking at the facts for the truth, not just to confirm what I already believe.

CNN suggested an hour ago that the decrease in union strength coincided with the increase in the beginning of the widening gap between the earnings of CEOs vs workers. If you haven't seen the curve I'm talking about, here is a link to it. So you can guess what I already believe.

I'm willing to consider other evidence. But at the same time, maybe someone who has bought the union scapegoat meme can give us a good reason why the CEOs should be able to vote themselves unlimited wages and benefits, but the workers bargaining collectively for their wages are evil or unfair.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
This looks like an interesting source of information on the subject: Public Unions – Problem Or Scapegoat?

I've not yet looked at the links in detail but I'm working on it. I'll post again after I do. I want to make a note here that I'm looking at the facts for the truth, not just to confirm what I already believe. CNN suggested an hour ago that the decrease in union strength coincided with the increase in the beginning of the widening gap between the earnings of CEOs vs workers. If you haven't seen the curve I'm talking about, here is a link to it. So you can guess what I already believe.

I'm willing to consider other evidence.
Click to expand...

Someone should create a graph showing what the NBA superstars make compared to what the guys who supply the players with gatorade make.

Gatorade Guys, form a Union and demand equal pay to Lebron!!
 
johnny karate said:
Again, the math is simple. See above.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask whether the math was simple, I asked if it was relevant. Did Gov. Walker actually point to that $137M current deficit as the reason for the bill? If not, the math may be simple but it has nothing to do with the discussion.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
That link is about Illinois, not Wisconsin!
Click to expand...
My claim was about Illinois and states in general. And my point is that I hope Walker succeeds, so that Wisconsin doesn't have to go through the financial disaster we are going through right now.

Because as we are seeing in Illinois, even after the feces hits the fan and we are borrowing billions despite the worst credit rating of any state just to make pension payments, there is still no political will to fix the problem.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
My claim was about Illinois and states in general. And my point is that I hope Walker succeeds, so that Wisconsin doesn't have to go through the financial disaster we are going through right now.

Because as we are seeing in Illinois, even after the feces hits the fan and we are borrowing billions despite the worst credit rating of any state just to make pension payments, there is still no political will to fix the problem.
Click to expand...
Failure to consider the facts such as those on Politifact about Walker's deception, and the facts that unions haven't created the budget shortfalls you believe noted.

In your link on Illinois, the pensions were not the problem. The fact they were UNFUNDED and relied on the unreliable stock market was the problem.

You are blaming the union for the mismanagement of their pension fund.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Failure to consider the facts such as those on Politifact about Walker's deception, and the facts that unions haven't created the budget shortfalls you believe noted.

In your link on Illinois, the pensions were not the problem. The fact they were UNFUNDED and relied on the unreliable stock market was the problem.

You are blaming the union for the mismanagement of their pension fund.
Click to expand...
The pensions were unfunded because they were too damned generous in the first place. The state made promises they couldn't keep because the unions have way too much negotiating power. They can shut down the government, force parents to find daycare, leave sick patients without care. They say "jump", the pols say "how high?". Because the pols only care about getting elected, they don't care that their actions will bankrupt the state 20 or 30 years down the line. They're not in the negotiating position private companies are with unions. Well here we are, 20 or 30 years later and the whole mess has blown up in our faces. And still there's no political will to fix it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
In your link on Illinois, the pensions were not the problem. The fact they were UNFUNDED and relied on the unreliable stock market was the problem.
Click to expand...

What is Wisconsin's pension plan "funded" by that is going to generate a 7.8% yearly return without being invested in something "unreliable"?
 
On Fox News Sunday: Walker is saying that this is much more than a State issue. By removing collective bargaining rights, the local governments have more power to balance their budgets. I don't have the reference anymore, but I recall reading last night that the local wisconsin governments (all cities, counties, etc) had a total budget of over 50 billion. About 3.5 times more than the state budget.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I posted evidence earlier that the public employees in Wisconsin have wages on par with similar jobs in the private sector. There was also evidence that fact was being distorted in corporate controlled news reports by cherry picking groups to compare to the workers which were not comparable groups. For example they compared Wisconsin employees to national averages rather than to Wisconsin averages. It's easy if you have the money to sell anything including false ideas.
Click to expand...

Yes, they cherry pick by comparing to national averages that are actually slightly higher than Wisconsin average. :rolleyes:

Average $89.5k wage+benefits for 180 day work year for teachers in Wisconsin is much more than the state average.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
The pensions were unfunded because they were too damned generous in the first place. The state made promises they couldn't keep because the unions have way too much negotiating power. They can shut down the government, force parents to find daycare, leave sick patients without care. They say "jump", the pols say "how high?". Because the pols only care about getting elected, they don't care that their actions will bankrupt the state 20 or 30 years down the line. They're not in the negotiating position private companies are with unions. Well here we are, 20 or 30 years later and the whole mess has blown up in our faces. And still there's no political will to fix it.
Click to expand...
That doesn't even make sense WC, It wouldn't have mattered if the pensions were meager or generous. If you invest in the stock market you risk losing in any limited time period. So it's generally safe to invest long term in the stock market, but it's a gamble to invest short term.

You are only looking for information to confirm your conclusion. You are not looking at the evidence to refine your conclusion.

And goodness, what's with all the whining about evil greedy nurses and teachers? There's no evidence those charges are realistic.

Let me tell you the history of nursing pay. Hospitals illegally communicated with each other to set nursing pay at low rates for a century or more. The result was a chronic nursing shortage in hospitals and nurses whose pay was demeaning considering the skill and education involved. Nurses earned a fraction of the pay for comparably skilled jobs.

Then they joined collective bargaining units through their state nurses' associations. Nothing changed. Most of these pseudo-unions had no strike agreements. Supply and demand did not operate because hospitals could just complain they were unable to properly staff hospitals because of the shortage. But when supply is low the cost should go up according to the market rules. That didn't happen because the hospitals acting together as a group prevented it from happening by fixing wages lower than the market rate would have been.

About 25 years ago, SEIU started unionizing nurses instead of the ineffective state nurse association unions. There was a big controversy about no strike agreements and the hospitals really played up the "you will be letting down the patients" crap. Of course, so were they by refusing to pay reasonable amounts and by trading the nursing shortage for keeping wages low.

Keep in mind all this time how many people selling health care were making more than enough money. One dose of an IV antibiotic cost the patient more than a nurse's earnings for a week.

About the same time SEIU started competing to represent nurses, our jobs had become so technical hospitals could not get along short staffing units. So some of us started working as agency nurses. The hospitals had no choice but to compete now. My wages as an ICU agency nurse went from about $7hr to $17 and then to $25 in the course of ~2 years. Once wages got high enough based on real market forces, not wages held low by hospitals colluding with each other, 2 things happened. One, more people started going into the nursing field, and two, hospitals started paying their own workers more because that was more cost effective than paying agency nurse wages plus agency fees.

SEIU has since moved to represent lots of nurses. Wages have leveled out to what they should be based on market forces, not based on employer collusion. The shortage has eased, though employment remains good despite the economy. And strikes are extremely rare.


I am self employed. I set my own fees. But for the nurses working in hospitals, they are getting a fair wage, finally. They are not getting rich. The other health care sectors like pharmaceuticals and for profit hospitals are getting rich. That's why health care costs are high despite the fact the hospitals will tell you wages are their biggest expense. Sure, when lots of stuff is billed directly to the patient and not through the hospital's books, wages are a big precent of what's left. But nurses also happen to be 90% of the reason the patients are there. They are there to get nursing care. If not, then they could be at home.


People like you who think someone is ripping you off couldn't be more wrong. You are listening to a phony campaign to make unions the scapegoats for bad fiscal management and to sell the politicians behind the lie as the knights in shining armor come to save you from the evil unions.

You've been duped.
 
Last edited:
Teemu said:
Yes, they cherry pick by comparing to national averages that are actually slightly higher than Wisconsin average. :rolleyes:

Average $89.5k wage+benefits for 180 day work year for teachers in Wisconsin is much more than the state average.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you are comparing since we are talking about several different kinds of jobs, nurses, teachers, and other workers. I posted the supporting evidence in post #257.

Wisconsin: Dueling statistics about public employees

How apples and oranges comparisons have been used to misrepresent the wages of the employees involved in this dispute is explained and supported in the article.
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
What is Wisconsin's pension plan "funded" by that is going to generate a 7.8% yearly return without being invested in something "unreliable"?
Click to expand...
I was commenting on WC's ILLINOIS example of the contrived blaming of union pensions.

Given the unions involved in WI have agreed to the individual contributions to the pension plans, what is your point? You still don't like it?
 
Last edited:
In case people haven't noticed, a recession caused the current state financial crises. It was not caused by greedier and greedier collective bargaining agreements.

And yet look how easily the scapegoat has been created, and how much wrath that should be directed elsewhere is so easily shifted to the scapegoat?

The executives who created the real estate and bank crises are richer than ever, no one is at risk of going to jail, deceitful loans have been blamed on the borrowers, not on the deceivers. Banks are forcing people out of homes rather than renegotiating the loans then selling the houses for less than the renegotiation offers. Or they are simply abandoning the houses because they don't want to pay upkeep of empty houses.

But the bankers and real estate criminals have easily deflected all blame to borrowers taking out loans they supposedly couldn't afford. No matter those borrowers were often duped, or lost their jobs in the recession and ended up with loans worth more than the houses by no action of their own. And the Repubs are conveniently making scapegoats of the unions that are a political threat to the Repubs. And the public just swallows the party line, hook line and sinker.
 
Last edited:
Whether it is a topic of Wisconsin union, or Cash for Clunker, or Minimum Wage, or ACORN, or Florida Train, or Affirmative Action, boil down to a single deeper, more fundamental topic:
a) “merit base” versus b) “everyone should get equal result”
In other words Socialism versus Capitalism
Some of us are more inclined to one side or the other.

Statistically speaking, people who feel they are not as competent as others would favor (a) others will favor (b)

I think, worker should have the right for collective bargaining provided union membership (including membership fee) is voluntary/optional.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
On Fox News Sunday: Walker is saying that this is much more than a State issue. By removing collective bargaining rights, the local governments have more power to balance their budgets. I don't have the reference anymore, but I recall reading last night that the local wisconsin governments (all cities, counties, etc) had a total budget of over 50 billion. About 3.5 times more than the state budget.
Click to expand...

"removing collective bargaining rights" has an ominous sound, don't you think?

A collective bargaining agreement is a contract between the two parties - in this case, the government and the unions. You, and Walker, appear to be saying that the state should just default on the contract. I don't see how this could stand up in court, and that is most certainly where this issue will end up.
 
Teemu said:
Yes, they cherry pick by comparing to national averages that are actually slightly higher than Wisconsin average. :rolleyes:

Average $89.5k wage+benefits for 180 day work year for teachers in Wisconsin is much more than the state average.
Click to expand...

I believe that is an overinflated number.
I looked at sites for people looking into becoming teachers and found a figure in the 50,000s as an average Wisconsin teacher salary.

Wildcat would love this statistic
•Atlanta, Georgia: $53,940
•Boston, Massachusetts: $62,360
•Chicago, Illinois: $75,090
•Cincinnati, Ohio: $55,200
•Dallas, Texas: $47,710
•Los Angeles, California: $64,230
•Miami, Florida: $48,200
•New York, New York: $66,440
•Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: $53,690
•St. Louis, Missouri: $47,340
•Seattle, Washington: $56,960
•Washington, D.C.: $61,130
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom