Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

[Thunder]

I have to say, that a state wanting to take away government workers' right to collectively bargain, IS grounds for massive protests, and maybe even more.

In a democracy, people have the right to free speech and free association.

don't **** with that right and the people won't **** with you.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Ginger, the assumption that the pension board makes was that the pension investments will realize an 8.5% (just recently downgraded to 8%) annual return, and this is what contributions are based on. It's completely unrealistic.

That number was picked not because anyone actually thought it was a reasonable number, but because it was politically expedient to do so. Any lower requires a tax increase to fund it, which can't happen because every time there's labor issue resolved the pols and union honchos stand on the podium and hold hands and declare that the new contracts won't require a tax increase. It's complete ******** of course, and so we borrow more money and raid the pensions of principle, both of which create even more liabilities down the road.

Now we're "down the road".

 

[Thunder]

I think, worker should have the right for collective bargaining provided union membership (including membership fee) is voluntary/optional.

i have no problem with workers having the right to opt-out of paying their Union dues, as long as they understand that they will NOT be getting Union raises, Union negotiated benefits (annual leave, sick leave, paternity/maternity leave, grievance rights, etc etc).

now, faced with the prospect of losing all of those wonderful rights and privelages that the Union fought hard to get for them, it would be a very small percentage indeed who would give up paying their Union dues.

 

[WildCat]

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

That's why Chicago has the best school system in the country, we gave the teacher's union everything they asked for. Haven't had a strike in 20 years, we just give 'em what they want.

 

[TraneWreck]

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.

It just amazes me that people cannot understand this. It's the most important fact to keep in mind as we discuss every level of the economy.

Running deficits during a recession is healthy. Most of the shortfall will be taken care of simply by recovering from the crisis. Anything that hastens the recovery, even if it increases deficits in the short term, is a good thing.

It's like putting a pregnant woman on a stairmaster to get her to lose 15lbs. Just wait a few months and it will mostly take care of itself.

 

[DavidJames]

That's why Chicago has the best school system in the country, we gave the teacher's union everything they asked for. Haven't had a strike in 20 years, we just give 'em what they want.

The next step is to get the parents to give a ****. Once you have a household that values education, the results will improve.

 

[lomiller]

I think, worker should have the right for collective bargaining provided union membership (including membership fee) is voluntary/optional.

Can you expand on why do you think people should receive the benefits of union negotiated wages without personal contributing to those negotiations? It seems to me you are simply asking for hand-outs to those who don't support unions.

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”

Yes but the real question is whether you even know which side you are on in the "merit". People in the US are less likely to rise/fall on their own merit then any other rich developed country and conservative want to move it even further in the direction of wealth and status being entrenched from generation to generation.

 

[Thunder]

Can you expand on why do you think people should receive the benefits of union negotiated wages without personal contributing to those negotiations?

Like I said, let workers choose to not pay Union dues.

But then they must give up ALL Union benefits, including Union negotiated raises, annual leave, sick leave, grievance rights, etc etc etc.

 

[WildCat]

The next step is to get the parents to give a ****. Once you have a household that values education, the results will improve.

You can't make parents give a damn. What you can, and IMHO should, do is provide public schools for parents who do give a damn. There's lots of parents here who give a damn, who have to move heaven and earth and literally win a lottery to enroll their kids at one of the charter schools where they actually have a chance of getting an education.

You may well ask, "well why doesn't Chicago have more charter schools?"

And the answer is because the teacher's union opposes them.

Because the purpose of a school is to employ teachers, if a kid somehow manages to get an education along the way that's just gravy.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm sure one of our conservative members will be willing to explaing why this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING, LOL! Just a coincidence, I'm sure:

About 80 percent of American teachers, for example, are female; at the elementary school level, nearly 90 percent are women. Nursing is 95 percent female. Nationwide, the majority of public sector union members, represented by AFSCME and other groups, are women.

Meanwhile, over 70 percent of law enforcement workers in the United States are men. Our firefighting ranks are 96 percent male and over half of all professional firefighting departments have never hired a woman.

http://www.danagoldstein.net/dana_g...onsin-labor-fight-an-attack-on-women-too.html

 

[WildCat]

It just amazes me that people cannot understand this. It's the most important fact to keep in mind as we discuss every level of the economy.

Nobody doubts that TW, we just think that unionized government employees should be spared the layoffs and compensation concessions everyone not employed by the government has to contend with.

Aren't we supposed to be in this together?

 

[WildCat]

I'm sure one of our conservative members will be willing to explaing why this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING, LOL! Just a coincidence, I'm sure:


http://www.danagoldstein.net/dana_g...onsin-labor-fight-an-attack-on-women-too.html

Correlation ≠ Causation, especially when you cherry pick.

Hint: there's other unionized government jobs than the ones you mentioned.

 

[TraneWreck]

Nobody doubts that TW, we just think that unionized government employees should be spared the layoffs and compensation concessions everyone not employed by the government has to contend with.

Aren't we supposed to be in this together?

I find that to be an acceptable range of debate. We will disagree on the matter, but I won't argue against the idea that there are serious problems with pension plans and other forms of compensation.

But that's not what's going on here. A fake crisis is being used to dismantle public sector unions. The collective bargaining destruction saves exactly 0 dollars on its own, but obviously restricts future negotiations.

The problem with pensions should be dealt with on its own merits, but we essentially have Walker deploying the municipal version of "Saddam has WMD's. We can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud." Fake a crisis, push through dramatically overbroad "solutions."

 

[TraneWreck]

Correlation ≠ Causation, especially when you cherry pick.

Hint: there's other unionized government jobs than the ones you mentioned.

Walker is going after all of the unions save police officers, firefighters, and state troopers.

The remaining public sector unions are majority female, with those mentioned containing 80-90% women. There was no cherry picking.

 

[daredelvis]

I find that to be an acceptable range of debate. We will disagree on the matter, but I won't argue against the idea that there are serious problems with pension plans and other forms of compensation.

But that's not what's going on here. A fake crisis is being used to dismantle public sector unions. The collective bargaining destruction saves exactly 0 dollars on its own, but obviously restricts future negotiations.

The problem with pensions should be dealt with on its own merits, but we essentially have Walker deploying the municipal version of "Saddam has WMD's. We can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud." Fake a crisis, push through dramatically overbroad "solutions."

Well said.

Nobody doubts that TW, we just think that unionized government employees should be spared the layoffs and compensation concessions everyone not employed by the government has to contend with.

Aren't we supposed to be in this together?

Are you really happy with that straw-man? The employees (the evil union) in this situation have made all of the concessions that were asked. This is not about the budget.

Daredelvis

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ginger, the assumption that the pension board makes was that the pension investments will realize an 8.5% (just recently downgraded to 8%) annual return, and this is what contributions are based on. It's completely unrealistic.

That number was picked not because anyone actually thought it was a reasonable number, but because it was politically expedient to do so. Any lower requires a tax increase to fund it, which can't happen because every time there's labor issue resolved the pols and union honchos stand on the podium and hold hands and declare that the new contracts won't require a tax increase. It's complete ******** of course, and so we borrow more money and raid the pensions of principle, both of which create even more liabilities down the road.

Now we're "down the road".

Whatever the issue, when economic conditions change and you have a collective bargaining unit, you take it to the bargaining table. You don't just unilaterally dissolve the contract.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well said.


Are you really happy with that straw-man? The employees (the evil union) in this situation have made all of the concessions that were asked. This is not about the budget.

Daredelvis

And what about the unions for the city and county governments? Have they agreed as well?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

i have no problem with workers having the right to opt-out of paying their Union dues, as long as they understand that they will NOT be getting Union raises, Union negotiated benefits (annual leave, sick leave, paternity/maternity leave, grievance rights, etc etc).

now, faced with the prospect of losing all of those wonderful rights and privelages that the Union fought hard to get for them, it would be a very small percentage indeed who would give up paying their Union dues.

And therein lies the problem. It has similar aspects to requiring health insurers to cover pre-existing conditions without requiring everyone carry insurance. People who don't view the problem in its entirety can complain it's all about the right to choose, freedom to choose and so on. But the problem cannot be addressed by only looking at half of it.

Some unions (most, all?) have an option of declining to pay into the fund used to lobby and donate to campaigns so workers are not forced to support political candidates and issues they don't want to support. That kind of clause makes sense.

No one forced to pay dues in a closed shop pays out more than they gained in higher pay and benefits. The union should restructure how the dues are 'framed' and instead of collecting dues from each member, they should collect a fee from the payroll based on the number of employees that benefitted from the bargaining, like a tax to pay for your contract negotiators.

It's really all about how people frame these concepts that results in different opinions about the concepts. But closed shops are not the big denial of free choice that the opposition to unions makes it out to be. Unfortunately closed shops are easily used as a marketing tool to declare unions are unfair, and that is really what this is about, effectively deceiving the public into seeing issues as oversimplified black and white.


"How can it be right to force me to pay union dues?"
"It's right because those dues are less than the pay gained because of the union. You are really getting a net gain in pay, not a net loss in the amount of the dues."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can't make parents give a damn. What you can, and IMHO should, do is provide public schools for parents who do give a damn. There's lots of parents here who give a damn, who have to move heaven and earth and literally win a lottery to enroll their kids at one of the charter schools where they actually have a chance of getting an education.

You may well ask, "well why doesn't Chicago have more charter schools?"

And the answer is because the teacher's union opposes them.

Because the purpose of a school is to employ teachers, if a kid somehow manages to get an education along the way that's just gravy.

So your argument is, the teachers who understand the school system best are opposed to charter schools, and you can only imagine the opposition is because of personal gain? That's very cynical.


It also seems you are assuming whatever is true in Chicago is true in all states. You really need to stop using Illinois examples. I don't know that they apply here. I suspect they don't.

 

[Newtons Bit]

i have no problem with workers having the right to opt-out of paying their Union dues, as long as they understand that they will NOT be getting Union raises, Union negotiated benefits (annual leave, sick leave, paternity/maternity leave, grievance rights, etc etc).

now, faced with the prospect of losing all of those wonderful rights and privelages that the Union fought hard to get for them, it would be a very small percentage indeed who would give up paying their Union dues.

That would also give them the ability to form their own unions with different goals in mind. Imagine that, liberty!