Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm happy to discuss both issues with you. But conflating them isn't a discussion.
Click to expand...

What do you think the unions will become without collective bargaining? It's conflating anything.

In this case the 'public' you speak of is the employer. You are claiming the employer, like if the stockholders outnumber the employees, constitutes a majority and should be able to dissolve a union.
Click to expand...

So you're denying representative democracy is democracy? That's ridiculous, but also exceedingly hypocritical given that you've already rejected the idea of using direct democracy (ballot measures) for public pay you. Who's supposed to decide Skeptic Ginger?

(I'll give you a hint, it's the legislators that were elected by the people. But it'd be nice if it could be a ballot issue either. You just can't reject both options)

edit: I see you've edited your post and noticed that you've already denied direct democracy.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's not realistic to make fantasy claims about the cost of deferred wages.

The deferred reimbursement of the union dues has a real cost. It's a pittance.

You are arguing a different subject, an individual's perceived loss because they didn't have a choice in the matter.

The individual has a net gain in wages partly due to the union using that "borrowed" political donation. So whatever lost interest you feel the individual had a right to demand because choice was denied is still a wash.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

I'm not arguing anything. I made two perfectly true statements (teachers aren't allowed to refuse to pay their politically utilized union dues and lenders set interest rates) and you started jabbering on about "administration fees" and "deferred reimbursement" and other nonsense. You're so spun out about the fact that a union that you're not even a member of has taken its first step into the LaBrea tar pits that you pick a fight about "perceived loss"?

Get a grip, lady. Let me loan you some money for a nice day at the spa. Only 54% interest. :D
 
Newtons Bit said:
What do you think the unions will become without collective bargaining? It's conflating anything.



So you're denying representative democracy is democracy? That's ridiculous, but also exceedingly hypocritical given that you've already rejected the idea of using direct democracy (ballot measures) for public pay you. Who's supposed to decide Skeptic Ginger?

(I'll give you a hint, it's the legislators that were elected by the people. But it'd be nice if it could be a ballot issue either. You just can't reject both options)

edit: I see you've edited your post and noticed that you've already denied direct democracy.
Click to expand...
I always edit my posts just after I post them. I write, post, read, edit. I don't think that's unusual.

Democracy applies within a group that has something in common. All US citizens, all Wisconsins, all union members.

Democracy does not apply between an employer and an employee. The relationship is not the same.

In one case, the union members, they are a group and the will of the group is rightfully decided using democratic principles.

In the case of the citizens of Wisconsin and employees of the state of Wisconsin, that is technically an employer/employee relationship.

If you can't see and discuss those two issues separately, then we can't get beyond this underlying premise we differ on to talk about either situation.
 
Howie Felterbush said:
Wrong.

I'm not arguing anything. I made two perfectly true statements (teachers aren't allowed to refuse to pay their politically utilized union dues and lenders set interest rates) and you started jabbering on about "administration fees" and "deferred reimbursement" and other nonsense. You're so spun out about the fact that a union that you're not even a member of has taken its first step into the LaBrea tar pits that you pick a fight about "perceived loss"?

Get a grip, lady. Let me loan you some money for a nice day at the spa. Only 54% interest. :D
Click to expand...
How much money are we talking about here? Last time I was in a union the dues were a couple hundred bucks and the political portion of that was only about $25.

So your hypothetical employee would be out about $12 in interest. There are 2080 hours in an annual 40 hr/week job. That comes to 1/2 of 1 cent per hour. :rolleyes:
 
PMR30 said:
All the teachers that called in 'sick' should be fired if their collective bargaining agreement has a no strike clause. A mass 'sick in' is a 'wildcat' strike.
Click to expand...

I believe it's actually against state law for teachers to go on strike, so yes they should at least all be fired if not fined or otherwise penalized. Hell it's against the state constitution for legislators to go on strike, they keep it up and there could be recall elections in their futures as well.
 
Last edited:
Emperor_Gestahl said:
I believe it's actually against state law for teachers to go on strike, so yes they should at least all be fired if not fined or otherwise penalized. Hell it's against the state constitution for legislators to go on strike, they keep it up and there could be recall elections in their futures as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that'll really make the tea partiers popular in Wisconsin.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I always edit my posts just after I post them. I write, post, read, edit. I don't think that's unusual.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to criticize over this, I apologize if that's how it seemed.

Democracy applies within a group that has something in common. All US citizens, all Wisconsins, all union members.

Democracy does not apply between an employer and an employee. The relationship is not the same.

In one case, the union members, they are a group and the will of the group is rightfully decided using democratic principles.

In the case of the citizens of Wisconsin and employees of the state of Wisconsin, that is technically an employer/employee relationship.

If you can't see and discuss those two issues separately, then we can't get beyond this underlying premise we differ on to talk about either situation.
Click to expand...

Still, the legislators have the power to do collective bargaining or to not do it. All employers in Wisconsin have that power. Do you think that the unions will crumble and effectively die once they lose the ability to help members get higher wages?

edit: and to get back to my original point of this tangent: this would allow different unions with different goals to form.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
...
Still, the legislators have the power to do collective bargaining or to not do it. All employers in Wisconsin have that power. Do you think that the unions will crumble and effectively die once they lose the ability to help members get higher wages?

edit: and to get back to my original point of this tangent: this would allow different unions with different goals to form.
Click to expand...
I think the outcome will be, these idiot Tea Partiers who've come in to office naively demanding, my way or the highway, are going to find out that is not what the voters elected them to do.

But we'll have to wait to see on that.

I do think the Repubs will fail to break the unions. But they'll fail because people who see what is going on speak up, not by the people who see what is going on letting the Repubs control the public discourse and pump out their dishonest propaganda unchallenged.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think the outcome will be, these idiot Tea Partiers who've come in to office naively demanding, my way or the highway, are going to find out that is not what the voters elected them to do.

But we'll have to wait to see on that.

I do think the Repubs will fail to break the unions. But they'll fail because people who see what is going on speak up, not by the people who see what is going on letting the Repubs control the public discourse and pump out their dishonest propaganda unchallenged.
Click to expand...

Did you reply to the right post? That was kind of non-sequitur.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Cool strawman!
Click to expand...

What strawman? You said safety is taken care of by OSHA, did you not? Food safety is taken care of by the FDA, and that is something the Pubs want to defund. It appears the Pubs want to defund public safety and work safety. Now they're trying to eliminate unions, which would be our last line of organizational defense against big-money getting people to work unsafe again.
 
Thunder said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

not acceptable.
Once the deal is made it must be for everyone.
 
timf1234 said:
not acceptable.
Once the deal is made it must be for everyone.
Click to expand...

oh really? workers who don't pay Union dues should still benefit from Union negotiated contracts and benefits?

that's crap. any worker who thinks they should not have to pay union dues but still get all the benefits as if they did, sure do have an amazing sense of entitlement.
 
Thunder said:
oh really? workers who don't pay Union dues should still benefit from Union negotiated contracts and benefits?
Click to expand...

Then how about letting them opt-out specifically of the part that gets spent politically? Those who agree with the unions political activities can pay more to represent that fact, or not and donate the difference to the politicians themselves.
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Then how about letting them opt-out specifically of the part that gets spent politically? Those who agree with the unions political activities can pay more to represent that fact, or not and donate the difference to the politicians themselves.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the discussion on this? Union workers can opt out of that part of the dues.

It starts here and goes on forever discussing how awful it is the union forces said workers to essentially loan that amount interest free for a year to the unions. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
Yeah, that'll really make the tea partiers popular in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

They aren't really that popular right now, despite what the GOP/Tea Party is saying. Case in point...

I had to laugh at the Tea Party claiming to be "The People's" movement on Saturday. Despite an entire week of planning, the few people they were able to get to Madison, WI were absolutely dwarfed (DWARFED) by the immense crowd of pro-union people there. By the estimates I've seen, the Tea Party people were outnumbered by roughly 30-to-1, with about 70,000 pro-union people present.

Kind of makes you wonder where "The People" of Wisconsin actually stand, eh? Note that the GOP is mumbling phrases like "we are supported by a silent majority" and similar rot - I guess this "silent majority" doesn't care enough to get off their asses to get to the Capitol, eh?

Apparently not :rolleyes:

ETA: I can tell you this, Gov. Walker's ham-fisted move and refusal to entertain any sort of compromise (as even suggested by some GOP state senators) is going to backfire, big time, even if he eventually wins this fight. That's because now the unions are taking the we-have-nothing-to-lose attitude, as now they've seen the true face of Tea Party nitwits like Walker. And it's not just unions in Wisconsin; union people I'm talking to from all over the country are fired up like they haven't been in years. I think at the end of the day we'll end up thanking Gov. Walker for giving us a good reason to fight - it's just the shot in the arm we need :D
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
oh really? workers who don't pay Union dues should still benefit from Union negotiated contracts and benefits?

that's crap. any worker who thinks they should not have to pay union dues but still get all the benefits as if they did, sure do have an amazing sense of entitlement.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't some people protest that as a form of welfare? :rolleyes:
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Then how about letting them opt-out specifically of the part that gets spent politically? Those who agree with the unions political activities can pay more to represent that fact, or not and donate the difference to the politicians themselves.
Click to expand...

or how about if you don't like Unions and don't agree with Unions, you simply don't pay Union dues and don't get Union benefits.

its appears some folks want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
Newtons Bit said:
That would be true if the unions would agree to either pay cuts or benefits cost-sharing, etc. Have the unions voiced an opinion on whether they would agree to that?

edit: from Johnny Karate's link it appears they will.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have agreed to this sort of concession, and they've done so publicly. Yet Gov. Walker refuses to accept any kind of compromise, even that offered by a GOP state senator; in short, he wants nothing less than taking away their right to collectively bargain... period.

He wants to bust the unions, end of story. Only a fool or a tool would believe otherwise by this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom