Wisconsin Union Law Upheld

MattusMaximus said:
This ^

While I'm personally bummed about the decision, and I do think there were procedural issues with how this law was passed, I respect the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision. I also think the issue should stop there, as I see no way this is a viable federal issue (any legal experts feel free to jump in and correct me).

I think the best option for those of us on the Democratic/union side of this issue is to hunker down, roll up our sleeves, and get ready for 2012 and those WI recall elections. Making our voices heard at the voting booth is the best way to go now - that's what allowed these Tea Party goofs to get into power in the first place, and it's what will get them out and more sane heads in.

So let's get moving.
Click to expand...


To that end, https://secure.pfaw.org/site/Donati...in=true&JServSessionIdr004=wk1w84cxw2.app304b
 
stokes234 said:
If you're feeling insecure about your financial position on 100k a year, you need to learn to budget.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this criticism, to a certain degree. 100k is a LOT of money, even in a relatively high cost-of-living place like where I live (bought my house for about 240k back in 2000, when I was making about 55k). Hell, up until a few years ago my wife and I combined made less than 100k/year and we were doing just fine. However, we don't have kids, and if we had a few kids it would have been a lot tougher - but I supposed the solution to that problem is to try avoid having so many kids. Birth control is a beautiful thing :)

Now, if you're dealing with health issues that are extremely expensive, that's another matter, imo.
 
bikerdruid said:
utter nonsense......and a link to the daily show, proves my point.
Click to expand...
Not utter nonsense. The unions are paying minimum wage to people to picket for them. They certainly aren't offering them health insurance and other benefits either.

Billy Raye, a 51-year-old unemployed bike courier, is looking for work.

Fortunately for him, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters is seeking paid demonstrators to march and chant in its current picket line outside the McPherson Building, an office complex here where the council says work is being done with nonunion labor.

"For a lot of our members, it's really difficult to have them come out, either because of parking or something else," explains Vincente Garcia, a union representative who is supervising the picketing.

So instead, the union hires unemployed people at the minimum wage—$8.25 an hour—to walk picket lines. Mr. Raye says he's grateful for the work, even though he's not sure why he's doing it. "I could care less," he says. "I am being paid to march around and sound off."

Protest organizers and advocacy groups are reaping an unexpected benefit from continued high joblessness. With the national unemployment rate currently at 9.5%, an "endless supply" of the out-of-work, as well as retirees seeking extra income, are lining up to be paid demonstrators, says George Eisner, the union's director of organization. Extra feet help the union staff about 150 picket lines in the District of Columbia and Baltimore each day.
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75362763101099660.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

So, here we have unions hiring non-union labor to protest a company for hiring non-union labor. :boggled:
 
bikerdruid said:
can't do vids.(dialup)
however, it is a fact that union members are required to picket to receive strike pay.
Click to expand...

The video wasn't about a strike, it was about picketing.

That the union hired non-union workers to do.

At minimum wage.

Under the same conditions that the union officer gave as a justification for the necessity of unions (in this case, getting hours cut without any recourse).

Look, my statement about union workers not picketing was made in jest. I'm sure there are union workers who do picket. But there are also non-union workers being paid like **** to work under *****y conditions to picket for unions they don't belong to.
 
bikerdruid said:
can't do vids.(dialup)
however, it is a fact that union members are required to picket to receive strike pay.
Click to expand...
They're not striking, they're picketing a company for not hiring union labor.

And so they hired non-union labor to picket.

Don't you see a problem here?
 
Just thinking said:
Since that includes those making $100K and above, I can say with absolute personal certainty, that the answer is YES !!!
Click to expand...

Just thinking said:
You really know not of what you speak ... (you might also want to do some research first):

James Randi himself used to live in central New Jersey back in 1980. He admitted then to an income of around $40K and claimed that this in no way made him rich. Back then, I felt that it was a healthy income ... now, I know better, much better.

In the 1990's, then Governor Florio, ran on a platform of increasing taxes only on the "rich" ... which was in his view those making $35K and up. That's right, 10+ years after Randi himself admitted that $40K in 1980 was not a rich person's income.

Now it's over 20 years later. NJ is the most expensive state in which to live. The amount my family pays in overall taxes (for a very modest 3 bedroom ranch) in a single year can refinish my kitchen with Viking appliances. A teacher's starting salary in this state begins at around $50K ... many make close to the $100K mark. Toll booth collectors are close as well. So the thought that grouping all of the top 10% of income earners nationwide is somehow anywhere near some ridiculous equivalency is absurd at best. And the thought that mere budgeting will cure the ability to continue to afford the cost of living here on just a pension is ... well, there are rules of conduct on this forum that I will abide to.

Notice that Randi no longer resides in New Jersey. (As is true for a good many businesses over the years.)
Click to expand...
I don't get it. Is $100K just barely enough to get by on when you earn it, and $50-100K an outrageous sum when it is what a teacher earns??

Reminds me of this guy.


Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
I don't get it. Is $100K just barely enough to get by on when you earn it, and $50-100K an outrageous sum when it is what a teacher earns??

Reminds me of this guy.


Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Just what are you trying to say? Do you think I'm trying to make such a ridiculous assertion/correlation?

$100K in New Jersey is NOT a lot of money in 2011. Yes, you can get buy and live comfortably ... but in no way is one even approaching being rich --- even though it puts one in the top 10% of US wage earners. Teachers and toll collectors can make that much and in no way are THEY rich either. That's my point. And the pensions from many employment sources (public/private) are not all they great even if you left at that salary level. Why? Because NJ is a highly taxed and expensive state in which to reside --- especially for those on fixed incomes. Which is why some of those top 10% wage earners ARE very concerned about their pensions ... something a few on this forum don't quite appreciate. (And that's putting it nicely.)

These comments are in response to stokes234's comments from post #30 : "I wonder if the richest 10% are worrying about their benefits and pensions right now."
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
As does Warren Buffett. And Bill Gates.
Click to expand...
Yup. And they both agree that too many people with too much money arer paying too little in taxes compared to the middle class.

But then, Buffet and Gates made their money investing in ways that actually created something other than the Ponzi schemes the the banksters cooked up.
 
bikerdruid said:
can't do vids.(dialup)
however, it is a fact that union members are required to picket to receive strike pay.
Click to expand...

Ummm, not in my union. In my union, picketing is purely voluntary and there is no pay penalty whether one chooses to (or not to) picket.
 
WildCat said:
Not utter nonsense. The unions are paying minimum wage to people to picket for them. They certainly aren't offering them health insurance and other benefits either.
Click to expand...

There are way too many over-generalizations in your statement. It isn't the unions, it is some unions. For example, in my union the members (and only the members) picket - period. And even then it is purely voluntary.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75362763101099660.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

So, here we have unions hiring non-union labor to protest a company for hiring non-union labor. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Wow, the stupid - it burns! :rolleyes:

I think those particular unions are being downright moronic. But, once again for the record, this isn't all unions.
 
MattusMaximus said:
There are way too many over-generalizations in your statement. It isn't the unions, it is some unions. For example, in my union the members (and only the members) picket - period. And even then it is purely voluntary.



Wow, the stupid - it burns! :rolleyes:

I think those particular unions are being downright moronic. But, once again for the record, this isn't all unions.
Click to expand...

Your argument is bordering on No True Scotsman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom