Union Worker Protests In Wi

[custom36 4]

I thought you had been saying it's not about money this whole thread.

....yay me?

[85suited 0]

State republicans declared the part of the bill that strips most collective bargaining rights "non-fiscal," formed a committee to pass it in 7 minutes, then voted in the Senate to approve it 18-1.

Aww don't like tricks to pass bills? Obamacare FTW

[timwakefield 68]

Haha sucks for workers! Those useless, lazy workers!

[Balloon guy 158]

State republicans declared the part of the bill that strips most collective bargaining rights "non-fiscal," formed a committee to pass it in 7 minutes, then voted in the Senate to approve it 18-1.

Although I don't like the idea of politicians figuring out ways to force things...The dems refused to come to the meeting to prevent a quorum was equally a hijacking in my mind.Sorry you got screwed the way you did.I expect next time you have a democrat majority this will change.If the republicans leave the state I will be equally disgusted with them for shirking their responsibilities.

[hblask 1]

Edit - Sorry about the post-bomb. I'm done.

Whew, close one, I was worried that you were going to address the actual content of the bill there for a minute.

[hblask 1]

I had started to write up why I like these, because it forces companies to re-invest, gives people incentive to move their money instead of shoving it into their mattress.But then I imagines Henry explaining why its not the place of the government to tell us what to do through threat of confiscation, and I realized that my position isn't as rock steady as I thought.

The tricky part is that the difference between a legitimate deduction and a loophole is 99% in the eye of the beholder. If you have to take your clients to your luxury box at the Vikings game, is that a legitimate deduction or a loophole? (Hint: no matter which answer you give, I can move one step in the other direction and find 20 harder examples).

[hblask 1]

My youngest daughter has won a charter school lottery here. The school has the top math scores in the state.My young son is 2nd on the waiting list, but they do something for siblings that is too confusing to figure out, so he may or may not be in.Suck it, under-performing union schools.

[brvheart 1,752]

I know that Custom has been shouting about this bill being about way more than just teachers, but I just found out that Police and firefighters are exempt. Those were the only people I was actually worried about. (because they could cause the most damage.)

[85suited 0]

Still waiting for Custom's response to the actual bill henry postedhttp://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...p;#entry3456197

So, just to inject a little reality into the debate, you can read the actual bill here:The actual billHighlights:QUOTEThis bill requires an annual certification election of the labor organization that represents each collective bargaining unit containing general employees. If, at the election, less than 51 percent of the actual employees in the collective bargaining unit vote for a representative, then, at the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement, the current representative is decertified and the members of the collective bargaining unit are nonrepresented and may not be represented for one year.OMG how terrible, if a majority wants out they can get out!!! How dare the governor give workers a voice!QUOTEExcept for salary deductions for public safety employees, this bill prohibits the salary deductions for labor organization dues. This bill also allows a general employee to refrain from paying dues and remain a member of a collective bargaining unit.The first sentence seems fine, the second makes no sense at all. Why would they be able to stay in the club if they don't pay the membership?QUOTEadjustments to retirement payouts and contributions, and contributions to insurance and other benefitsPainful, but apparently a necessary step. You can only get so much milk from the cow. (Because it's Wisconsin... get it?) We're hearing the unions have already agreed to this stuff, though.QUOTEThis bill authorizes a state agency to discharge any state employee who fails to report to work as scheduled for any three unexcused working days during a state of emergency or who participates in a strike, work stoppage, sit−down, stay−in, slowdown, or other concerted activities to interrupt the of operations or services of state government, including specifically purported mass resignations or sick calls.Seems pretty uncontroversial....That's all stuff from the summary. Here's a key section from the actual law:QUOTEEmployees shall have the right of self−organization and the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing under this subchapter, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Employees shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities.So that's it, that's the horrible union-busting tactic: employees may form unions, or if they don't want them, they don't have to join.Seriously, this is what they are protesting about? Giving workers an actual choice if they want to contribute to the Democratic party?

[brvheart 1,752]

Whew, close one, I was worried that you were going to address the actual content of the bill there for a minute.

Still waiting for Custom's response to the actual bill henry postedhttp://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...p;#entry3456197

Feel free to address CaneBrain and Randy Reed also. Custom isn't the only one to ask about this.

[brvheart 1,752]

Why I'm Fighting in WisconsinWe can avoid mass teacher layoffs and reward our best performers. But we have to act now. By: Scott WalkerIn 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority.Ms. Sampson got a layoff notice because the union leadership would not accept reasonable changes to their contract. Instead, they hid behind a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher, protects a 0% contribution for health-insurance premiums, and forces schools to hire and fire based on seniority and union rules.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...ections_opinion

[LongLiveYorke 38]

In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority.

Yeah, that's pretty egregious.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Why I'm Fighting in WisconsinWe can avoid mass teacher layoffs and reward our best performers. But we have to act now. By: Scott WalkerIn 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority.Ms. Sampson got a layoff notice because the union leadership would not accept reasonable changes to their contract. Instead, they hid behind a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher, protects a 0% contribution for health-insurance premiums, and forces schools to hire and fire based on seniority and union rules.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...ections_opinion

Really. You're just posting this? I'm surprised. Every major media source has been laughing at him for the last week for sending out these missleading, half-thruth emails.He realized he has been totally discredited and has no chance at ever being re-elected to anything more than assistant secratary at his lodge, so he doesn't care what people think anymore and is simply doing what the Koch Brothers are paying him to do. Bust the union. Eradicate their funding source. By dividing the bill into a non-fiscal portion so he could ramrod it through he proved that he was lying the whole time. It had nothing to do with the budget. Next election things will change and in the long run he's done more to rejunavate the liberal party than anyone in 50 years.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Really. You're just posting this? I'm surprised. Every major media source has been laughing at him for the last week for sending out these missleading, half-thruth emails.

Could you point me in the direction of one?

[Roll the Bones 74]

The article stated three reasons for what causes that.1. Operating losses. I agree, this needs to be stopped. All companies need to make money always. Bail-out it up.2. Tax credits. Companies get tax credits for doing such activities as investing in environmentally friendly processes, performing research for new medicine, and some types of charitable donations. Definitely need to put a stop to that.3. Shifting income to low tax countries. Yes, let's stop this. But whatever can we do to stop them from going to countries with lower tax rates than ours?

I didn't read the article but what people are complaining about are things like the Republicans giving 4 billion in oil subsidies to Big Oil, you know a company like Exxon that is the most profitable company in the history of the world. All the while, they are engaging in price fixing to ensure gouging the American public to gain bigger profits through the gas pump, and the failure to pass legislation to cap speculation on Wall Street, their other huge political doners.You know, at the same time trying to wipe out programs like Head Start, Pell grants, and anything else that might help the poor and middle class.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I didn't read the article but what people are complaining about are things like the Republicans giving 4 billion in oil subsidies to Big Oil, you know a company like Exxon that is the most profitable company in the history of the world. All the while, they are engaging in price fixing to ensure gouging the American public to gain bigger profits through the gas pump, and the failure to pass legislation to cap speculation on Wall Street, their other huge political doners.You know, at the same time trying to wipe out programs like Head Start, Pell grants, and anything else that might help the poor and middle class.

Yeah, that, uh, that has nothing to do with the article I was responding to.Which isn't surprising since you didn't read the article.If you felt up to it, you could try responding to my post that was actually directed to you.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Could you point me in the direction of one?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/w...mails-show.html

The released documents show Walker is “willing to selectively leak e-mails he believes create the illusion he’s willing to make concessions,” Rick Badger, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 40, said in a statement. “The very few bargaining rights he uses to create the illusion he’s willing to compromise are still drastically limited, and the ability of unions to effectively bargain would still be eliminated entirely.”

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

What does that have to do with the Megan Sampson story?

[Roll the Bones 74]

The article stated three reasons for what causes that.1. Operating losses. I agree, this needs to be stopped. All companies need to make money always. Bail-out it up.2. Tax credits. Companies get tax credits for doing such activities as investing in environmentally friendly processes, performing research for new medicine, and some types of charitable donations. Definitely need to put a stop to that.3. Shifting income to low tax countries. Yes, let's stop this. But whatever can we do to stop them from going to countries with lower tax rates than ours?

The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.

It's called "transfer pricing," or improperly shifting income to lower-tax countries. Firms set up offshore "subsidiaries" which, on their books, perform functions that let them cut onshore taxes. They may sell their own "logo" to the subsidiary and then pay a high price to "rent" it back, deducting "rent" as expense. They may move money to the subsidiary and "borrow" it back, deducting interest payments. If several of their subsidiaries are involved in a deal, the firms may grossly inflate profits assigned to those in offshore tax havens, which levy no or minimal taxes on "profits" claimed there. The U.S. firm may "trade" with an offshore "shell" it owns -- a phony company set up in a tax haven -- pretending it's buying goods or services at a high price or selling its product low, to create deductions. Because the tax haven keeps owners' names secret, the IRS won't know the company is "trading" with itself.

This is old but it is still relevant.http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/...n_offshore.html]So this is the kind of thing that allowed Google to avoid paying Tax on hundreds of millions and why Exxon doesn't pay any tax but they all still get rebates and assistance.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

This is old but it is still relevant.http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/...n_offshore.htmlSo this is the kind of thing that allowed Google to avoid paying Tax on hundreds of millions and why Exxon doesn't pay any tax but they all still get rebates and assistance.

Yeah, the stuff they're talking about isn't legal already, so if you're saying they need to do a better job at enforcing the rules, then I agree. If you're saying the rules regarding international business need to be changed, then I need to know what you propose.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Yeah, the stuff they're talking about isn't legal already, so if you're saying they need to do a better job at enforcing the rules, then I agree. If you're saying the rules regarding international business need to be changed, then I need to know what you propose.

Well, many of the rules have become legal which need to be changed. We need to reform corporate tax law, increase enforcement and penalties, which is a sham and under attack in the current budget. I mean, simply the fact that no corporations pay any tax is a sham. Either do away with the tax or enforce the rules. Stop giving them billions in rebates and assistance they don't need as well. Since they are typically the largest political donors it is political suicide to address these issues which is why corporate political donations need to be restricted as well.

[Roll the Bones 74]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/...tml?ref=opinionIntersting article on how Conn is fixing it's state budget.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I mean, simply the fact that no corporations pay any tax is a sham.

lolTax FoundationBefore rushing to create a new federal tax, lawmakers should ask two questions:(1) Do oil companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits? (2) What was the effect of the last windfall profits tax enacted in 1980?The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.[snip]As mentioned above, domestic energy companies earned a total of $630 billion in post-tax profits between 1977 and 2004. Tax Foundation economists estimate that companies paid $518 billion in corporate income taxes to federal and state governments during the same period.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, many of the rules have become legal which need to be changed. We need to reform corporate tax law, increase enforcement and penalties, which is a sham and under attack in the current budget. I mean, simply the fact that no corporations pay any tax is a sham. Either do away with the tax or enforce the rules. Stop giving them billions in rebates and assistance they don't need as well. Since they are typically the largest political donors it is political suicide to address these issues which is why corporate political donations need to be restricted as well.

You do know that the unions are by far the largest political contributors?And the fact that the democrats are the main beneficiary to the hundreds of millions they give.And after each election, the democrats in charge and the union leaders sit down to decide the pay levels for their members?And that is what Scott is addressing.And that by your trying to equate this to the big corporations, which do not get to sit down with republicans only to decide how much they can charge the public for their products, you are actually making the case against the unions and for the corporations?

[custom36 4]

Still waiting for Custom's response to the actual bill henry posted

There are responses to these things scattered all over the thread and it's pretty apparent where I stand on them. And I'm still not responding to Henry's posts, even indirectly.