WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

WildCat said:
I am not going to take it as a given that concessions were made.
Click to expand...
Then you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. You quoted a site critical of the unions that noted concessions were made. Now you dispute this site? What reason did the site have to lie? If concessions were not made why would Walker not dispute the reporting of those concessions?

I'm sorry WC but I find this disingenuous to say the least.
 
Oh, and BTW WC...

You are STILL refusing to answer my questions while you demand I answer yours. Bad form. Bad faith.
 
I don't like Walker, and all the times I spent in Wisconsin hauling loads told me he had few fans. I have serious problems when the chief executive of any political entity rolls over and allows the end of collective bargaining, a right which was paid for with the blood of workers. (And, no, I'm really not engaging in hyperbole here. Look it up.)

It's a dangerous precedent for anyone to set, and creates some serious problems for everyone, including non-union workers who may have genuine grievances with their employers. I have a strong expectation that any leader would understand this and uphold something so basic.

That said, I read through the documentation and the links. Walker is linked, but I've yet to see where this activity can be directly connected to any order issued by him. It's a wait and see thing right now.
 
RandFan said:
Then you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. You quoted a site critical of the unions that noted concessions were made. Now you dispute this site? What reason did the site have to lie? If concessions were not made why would Walker not dispute the reporting of those concessions?

I'm sorry WC but I find this disingenuous to say the least.
Click to expand...
It's quite obvious what the goals of the unions are whether or not concessions were made.
 
RandFan said:
I don't see how they could be anything else. Walker could have accepted the concessions, right?
Click to expand...
Unknown. Did the concessions offered actually solve the budget problem?

Walker said he would listen but he wouldn't change his mind. Walker did nothing to try to preserve the rights of union workers, or do you have evidence that he did?
Click to expand...
Quite a number of people (mostly Rep voters) don't agree that public unions -- teachers, police, firefighters, SEIU -- have the same rights non-public unions have and should continue to have.

per FDR:

http://www.conservativeblog.org/amy...pposing-public-employee-government-union.html

Walker is in good company, unless you've thrown FDR under the bus too.
 
RandFan said:
Reality Check: Wisconsin Unions Have Already Agreed to Major Concessions

Top leaders of two of Wisconsin's largest public employee unions announced they are willing to accept the financial concessions called for in Walker's plan, but will not accept the loss of collective bargaining rights.



All lies? Really?
Click to expand...
So they agreed to unspecified "financial" concessions, and there was no written proposal.

What about other issues, like work rules? Hours? Age of retirement? Etc etc etc.

Here in Chicago the schools have a $700 million budget deficit, nearly half the kids don't graduate from high school, and the Chicago Teacher's Union is demanding a 30% pay raise (25% next year, 5% the next) and smaller class sizes. This is the kind of crap Wisconsin is trying to avoid.
 
WildCat said:
It's quite obvious what the goals of the unions are whether or not concessions were made.
Click to expand...
Let's assume the worst of the unions. Corrupt and wanting power and money. Even granting the worst for arguments sake, it doesn't justify what Walker did. That said, I don't buy the narrative of only the worst for unions.
 
WildCat said:
So they agreed to unspecified "financial" concessions, and there was no written proposal.

What about other issues, like work rules? Hours? Age of retirement? Etc etc etc.

Here in Chicago the schools have a $700 million budget deficit, nearly half the kids don't graduate from high school, and the Chicago Teacher's Union is demanding a 30% pay raise (25% next year, 5% the next) and smaller class sizes. This is the kind of crap Wisconsin is trying to avoid.
Click to expand...
You still are not addressing my questions. Those are not going to go away.

  • Walker offered no counter proposals.
  • Walker did not negotiate at all.
 
AlBell said:
Unknown. Did the concessions offered actually solve the budget problem?
Click to expand...
Had Walker negotiated and offered counter proposals and brought up these concerns then you would have something worth discussing.
 
RandFan said:
Let's assume the worst of the unions. Corrupt and wanting power and money. Even granting the worst for arguments sake, it doesn't justify what Walker did. That said, I don't buy the narrative of only the worst for unions.
Click to expand...
I'm living it here in Illinois, where we're tossing the sick out of nursing homes and are late in paying $9 billion to state vendors so we can continue to make pension payments to retired union members. The pensions which, btw, are underfunded by $80 billion because the unions have the power to make the state agree to contracts and rules it cannot afford.

Maybe you don't buy it, but if the proof is in the pudding we're swimming in pudding here in Illinois.
 
WildCat said:
I'm living it here in Illinois, where we're tossing the sick out of nursing homes and are late in paying $9 billion to state vendors so we can continue to make pension payments to retired union members. The pensions which, btw, are underfunded by $80 billion because the unions have the power to make the state agree to contracts and rules it cannot afford.

Maybe you don't buy it, but if the proof is in the pudding we're swimming in pudding here in Illinois.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to grant you all of that but it does nothing to address my argument.

I've shown you that the unions offered concessions. If you could show me that Walker offered a counter proposal or was willing to negotiate with the unions then I would be happy to accept that perhaps Walker had no other option.
 
RandFan said:
I'm happy to grant you all of that but it does nothing to address my argument.

I've shown you that the unions offered concessions. If you could show me that Walker offered a counter proposal or was willing to negotiate with the unions then I would be happy to accept that perhaps Walker had no other option.
Click to expand...
I think Walker wanted to get rid of public sector unions as a corrupting political force, and the only way to do that is take away their collective bargaining rights. I really don't see room for concessions there.

I fail to see why public sector unions should have collective bargaining rights, it gives them too much power over the people who "negotiate" their contracts. Federal workers don't have collective bargaiuning rights, neither do the public employees in about half of the states. This is about lessening the influence of public labor unions so government can go about looking after the best interests of the citizens, and not just the unions that own them thanks to the power of collective bargaining.
 
WildCat said:
I think Walker wanted to get rid of public sector unions as a corrupting political force, and the only way to do that is take away their collective bargaining rights. I really don't see room for concessions there.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! Thank you. Thank you. Walker's arrogance was that only his opinion mattered. No one else. No need to negotiate in good faith. Just act unilaterally. That's what makes him a scoundrel. Liberals have been known to do this also and it pisses me off. There are no absolutes. Just trade offs for various philosophies. We live in a society and in the very least elected leaders should consider the opinions of the opposition and try to negotiate compromise.

I fail to see why public sector unions should have collective bargaining rights, it gives them too much power over the people who "negotiate" their contracts. Federal workers don't have collective bargaiuning rights, neither do the public employees in about half of the states. This is about lessening the influence of public labor unions so government can go about looking after the best interests of the citizens, and not just the unions that own them thanks to the power of collective bargaining.
Click to expand...
  • The power of business corrupts business.
  • Since weakening of unions the gap between rich and poor has only grown.
As one who grew up despising and hating unions I can say I came to my current position only through the facts that unions gave American workers much of what they enjoy today. We are in serious danger of losing that. And that is not in the best interest of anyone. Not even the rich.
 
Last edited:
Roadtoad said:
I don't like Walker, and all the times I spent in Wisconsin hauling loads told me he had few fans. I have serious problems when the chief executive of any political entity rolls over and allows the end of collective bargaining, a right which was paid for with the blood of workers. (And, no, I'm really not engaging in hyperbole here. ... )
Click to expand...
Back in the bad old days of AFL-CIO-Teamsters, yup, blood was spilled. Public service employees ... I suspect is hyperbole.


Look it up.)
Click to expand...
Go right ahead; cites for your assertion.

It's a dangerous precedent for anyone to set, and creates some serious problems for everyone, including non-union workers who may have genuine grievances with their employers. I have a strong expectation that any leader would understand this and uphold something so basic.
Click to expand...
We can agree to disagree.

That said, I read through the documentation and the links. Walker is linked, but I've yet to see where this activity can be directly connected to any order issued by him. It's a wait and see thing right now.
Click to expand...
This foofarah? Wait and see is the only option imo too.
 
WildCat said:
I think Walker wanted to get rid of public sector unions as a corrupting political force, and the only way to do that is take away their collective bargaining rights. I really don't see room for concessions there.
Click to expand...

Balderdash. He just wants the unions gone. The unions are certainly lesser corrupt than are those politicians bought and paid for by vermin like the Koch roaches.

Unions are our first line of defense against deals like Il Duce's sale of state assets to his owners.
 
I think the little snot wants the unions gone because their first loyalty is to the beneficiaries of government (like working people) rather than to Il Duce.
 
AlBell said:
Back in the bad old days of AFL-CIO-Teamsters, yup, blood was spilled. Public service employees ... I suspect is hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Used to be a Teamster, and was galled in learning that one local actually had its own arsenal of weapons. (Wish I could find the article in Teamster publications that cited the Independent Review Board's decision to boot the head of the local and some of his staff.)

AlBell said:
We can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Agreeably, I note. That's welcome. I'm not always right.

AlBell said:
This foofarah? Wait and see is the only option imo too.
Click to expand...

Methinks it's the best option. Others would beg to differ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom