hblask 1 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 "The New York Times reported last month that union membership in 2010 slipped to 11.9 percent, the lowest rate in more than 70 years."Unions at private companies are plummeting. Unions in the public sector are growing. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The collective bargaining rights removal is nothing more than an attempt to permanently destroy WI's teacher union---deceptively packaged as fiscal responsibility.Any concessions they get now are useless if the unions buy the next election and get rid of the concessions and then award themselves back pay.If the unions are serious about believing in the fiscal responsibility part of it, they should make this proposal: we agree to no more bargaining rights on salary or benefits, only on worker safety. Make that a serious proposal and see if the R's will talk.This whole thing is a ruse, a stalling tactic to rally the troops to vote the union-controlled candidates back in.Public sector unions make no sense in the first place -- don't liberals LOVE government and believe they are the source of all good in the world? Why would anyone need a union to protect them from a kindly boss like that? So again, the unions are trying to have it both ways: we need government programs to protect us from evil capitalists, but we need unions to protect a selected group of people from the people who are protecting the rest of us.The very thin charade is failing. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Should I be for or against unions if I don't want to lose even part of the next NFL or NBA seasons? For.This says a lot. Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 This says a lot.I wasn't serious. I don't give a shit about the NBA. Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Any concessions they get now are useless if the unions buy the next election and get rid of the concessions and then award themselves back pay.LolIf the unions are serious about believing in the fiscal responsibility part of it, they should make this proposal: we agree to no more bargaining rights on salary or benefits, only on worker safety. Make that a serious proposal and see if the R's will talk.So that Republicans can continue slashing funds to education and then slash salaries to $10/hour or less before taxes? No thanks Many public employees are already at $11/hour or less before taxes.This whole thing is a ruse, a stalling tactic to rally the troops to vote the union-controlled candidates back in.False.Public sector unions make no sense in the first place -- don't liberals LOVE government and believe they are the source of all good in the world?No. Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Rebublicans are so much better at fighting dirtyLove you Bob but this might be the dumbest statement you ever made. I have been involved in American politics for well over thirty years and you couldn't be more wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Republican so much better at fighting dirty? That is a flat out stupid, false statement. Alinsky is lefty and his tactics are widely and proudly used by most all of the mainstream democratic candadates and the news media.^^^^^^^^ Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 So that Republicans can continue slashing funds to education and then slash salaries to $10/hour or less before taxes? No thanks Many public employees are already at $11/hour or less before taxes.Do you think that teachers deserve above-market wages? If so, why? If not, then your sentence above should not be a concern, because if the state is paying below market wages, they will not be able to attract teachers, and will have to raise wages back to a level that keeps all spots filled.So which is it?We both know the real truth: the public sector unions are using their political power to get above-market wages -- basically, to steal from taxpayers. If you don't believe this is true, then you and the unions should have no problem subjecting teacher wages to market forces. Make that suggestion to the governor -- we'll return to the table if you let us get market wages instead of wages based on political clout. No? Didn't think so. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I wasn't serious. I don't give a shit about the NBA.This says a lot about what you thought I was trying to point out.It doesn't matter if you like the NBA or the NFL. If you read SJ's question it only has one correct answer. If SJ doesn't care about anything, except for a work stoppage, then the very worst possible solution would be to have a union involved. If the owners have total control, and the market is determining salaries, the football season will continue unabated indefinitely, because there will always be idiots that are incredible athletes and have no other option but to be forced to make millions of dollars in the terrible occupation that is the NFL or the NBA.You not seeing that immediately says a lot.... and you weren't joking, because you went on to explain the logic behind your statement... "But they're private sector unions. Big, big difference."Also: after reading Hblask's last post, it just reminds me how incredibly ignorant almost the entire public is about economics. It would solve a lot of issues in politics if everyone was forced to take Econ 101 every year before voting. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 if the state is paying below market wages, they will not be able to attract teachers, and will have to raise wages back to a level that keeps all spots filled.but, the argument hinges on this statement which I think is definitely false. they will attract bad teachers and people who would rather be underpaid than move---because people need jobs "in this economy."and if you end all 50 unions then there will be no better option.the free market just is not as efficient or dynamic as you (or Econ 101) would want us to believe and employees generally having at least some leverage is important to keep corporations or the government in line. it's why unions started in the first place. Ending their golden parachutes and absurd bonus and retirement structures is fine....ending collective bargaining is not. And if the unions win the next election and undo these changes, BFD, get more votes the next time. That should not even be a concern. No victory in politics is absolute because of our system's structure. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 but, the argument hinges on this statement which I think is definitely false. they will attract bad teachers and people who would rather be underpaid than move---because people need jobs "in this economy."and if you end all 50 unions then there will be no better option.the free market just is not as efficient or dynamic as you (or Econ 101) would want us to believe and employees generally having at least some leverage is important to keep corporations or the government in line. it's why unions started in the first place. Ending their golden parachutes and absurd bonus and retirement structures is fine....ending collective bargaining is not. And if the unions win the next election and undo these changes, BFD, get more votes the next time. That should not even be a concern. No victory in politics is absolute because of our system's structure.But our side got more votes this time...and they are being told they can't make these changes... Link to post Share on other sites
SlapStick 0 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 . Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyRhJZQYTkgCliffs from another siteThe problem with these types of 'finds' is that they get passed around like they are true in order to make them true, even though the guy's not a senator, and is guilty of a crime that he wasn't arrested for, only cited while 6 other guys were booked for the crime.But twist it around to bring Sarah Palin's name and it has now become internet truth.Plus you provided a link to his rant..so was it really 'taken down'?Goggle News searching for Hintz arrested turned over exactly one story:Wisconsin State Rep. Gordon Hintz told reporters today that his arrest for sexual misconduct is a distraction from larger issues facing the state.The Chicago Tribune reported:State Rep. Gordon Hintz says he is willing to take responsibility for his actions after he was cited this month for sexual misconduct.Records say the Oshkosh Democrat was arrested Feb. 10. The 37-year-old was accused of violating a City of Appleton ordinance of touching or offering to touch sexual parts.Best for the protesters to distance themselves from this before they get dragged down by another scummy politician. Link to post Share on other sites
SlapStick 0 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 . Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 But our side got more votes this time...and they are being told they can't make these changes...doesn't matter, rules are only for when they win or get what they want. The American public has created, allowed, empowered and ignored public unions and all the crap they come with, some even believe the garbage they post on here. good intentions pave the way to hell. many of us who actually create jobs and stimulate the economy are the bad guys....that is funny, typical of lawyer but funny.for all of you well educated economic experts out there, what happens when the public sector which creates nothing, operates on a loss and is backed up by a government that is losing money at the national and state level is the prefered place to work due to pay and benefits? Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 but, the argument hinges on this statement which I think is definitely false. they will attract bad teachers and people who would rather be underpaid than move---because people need jobs "in this economy."and if you end all 50 unions then there will be no better option.the free market just is not as efficient or dynamic as you (or Econ 101) would want us to believe and employees generally having at least some leverage is important to keep corporations or the government in line. it's why unions started in the first place. Ending their golden parachutes and absurd bonus and retirement structures is fine....ending collective bargaining is not. And if the unions win the next election and undo these changes, BFD, get more votes the next time. That should not even be a concern. No victory in politics is absolute because of our system's structure. Also: after reading Hblask's last post, it just reminds me how incredibly ignorant almost the entire public is about economics. It would solve a lot of issues in politics if everyone was forced to take Econ 101 every year before voting. Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 This says a lot about what you thought I was trying to point out.It doesn't matter if you like the NBA or the NFL. If you read SJ's question it only has one correct answer. If SJ doesn't care about anything, except for a work stoppage, then the very worst possible solution would be to have a union involved. If the owners have total control, and the market is determining salaries, the football season will continue unabated indefinitely, because there will always be idiots that are incredible athletes and have no other option but to be forced to make millions of dollars in the terrible occupation that is the NFL or the NBA.You not seeing that immediately says a lot.... and you weren't joking, because you went on to explain the logic behind your statement... "But they're private sector unions. Big, big difference."Also: after reading Hblask's last post, it just reminds me how incredibly ignorant almost the entire public is about economics. It would solve a lot of issues in politics if everyone was forced to take Econ 101 every year before voting.I don't give a shit about any players union. They all make millions of dollars. I wanted to make the public/private argument before somebody said "LOOKIT! THEY'RE A UNION AND MAKE MILLIONS!"But, you're clearly going to believe whatever you want as opposed to the truth. Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Do you think that teachers deserve above-market wages? If so, why? If not, then your sentence above should not be a concern, because if the state is paying below market wages, they will not be able to attract teachers, and will have to raise wages back to a level that keeps all spots filled.So which is it?We both know the real truth: the public sector unions are using their political power to get above-market wages -- basically, to steal from taxpayers. If you don't believe this is true, then you and the unions should have no problem subjecting teacher wages to market forces. Make that suggestion to the governor -- we'll return to the table if you let us get market wages instead of wages based on political clout. No? Didn't think so.Why are you so stuck on teachers? Do you not care about the other public employees? Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I don't give a shit about any players union. They all make millions of dollars. I wanted to make the public/private argument before somebody said "LOOKIT! THEY'RE A UNION AND MAKE MILLIONS!"But, you're clearly going to believe whatever you want as opposed to the truth.Oh my goodness.Why are you so stuck on teachers? Do you not care about the other public employees?I think Hblask doesn't want any public employee unions. He has mentioned several times that you can't have it both ways. (as a democrat) "Either the government is good, and here to protect you, or the government is bad and you need a union to protect you from IT. " Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 like they are true in order to make them true I seen it yesterday doesn't matter, rules are only for when they win or get what they want. The American public has created, allowed, empowered and ignored public unions and all the crap they come with, some even believe the garbage they post on here. good intentions pave the way to hell. many of us who actually create jobs and stimulate the economy are the bad guys....that is funny, typical of lawyer but funny.for all of you well educated economic experts out there, what happens when the public sector which creates nothing, operates on a loss and is backed up by a government that is losing money at the national and state level is the prefered place to work due to pay and benefits?I literally chuckled out loud at each of your posts. The quoted parts are why. The size of each quote is relative to your idiocy in each post.BG's is the only post idiotic due to proposed beliefs outside of the post itself. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Outside of that. It seems I put this thread on track after calling you fucktards out about your lib/con bullshit. Now I can get back to asking a question: Despite that most "LOL OTHER SIDE" nonsense has come from the "right" in this thread, the "right" has been the most compelling. It seems to me that teachers shouldn't have the ability to be horrible and keep their jobs and have guaranteed at-market wages with the rest of the public. And this protest seems to, if tangentially, fight for the right to keep that sort of practice in place. What say you, you filthy fucking, Jon Stewart watching libs?!?!?!?!?!? Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I think Hblask doesn't want any public employee unions. He has mentioned several times that you can't have it both ways. (as a democrat) "Either the government is good, and here to protect you, or the government is bad and you need a union to protect you from IT. "Edit - Nevermind. I misread your statement. Still waking up. Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Outside of that. It seems I put this thread on track after calling you fucktards out about your lib/con bullshit. Now I can get back to asking a question: Despite that most "LOL OTHER SIDE" nonsense has come from the "right" in this thread, the "right" has been the most compelling. It seems to me that teachers shouldn't have the ability to be horrible and keep their jobs and have guaranteed at-market wages with the rest of the public. And this protest seems to, if tangentially, fight for the right to keep that sort of practice in place. What say you, you filthy fucking, Jon Stewart watching libs?!?!?!?!?!?Just because you want to fire bad teachers doesn't mean you should blow up every union you can find. There's an analogy here I'm not imaginative enough to find... Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Outside of that. It seems I put this thread on track after calling you fucktards out about your lib/con bullshit.Wait. So you're saying that the beginning of the thread was good. (when I was posting)The middle of the thread sucked. (when I stopped)and now it's good again? (I'm back.)What could possibly be the cause of that happening Spademan!? I, for one, give you full credit. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Just because you want to fire bad teachers doesn't mean you should blow up every union you can find. There's an analogy here I'm not imaginative enough to find...That's not good enough. According to what I've seen in this thread, and the (admittedly minor) research I've done as a result, it seems to me the two go hand and hand. Without the unions the absolutely ape-shit horrible teachers wouldn't have a lock-down on their jobs. That's about the worst thing I can imagine when it comes to teachers. Being unable to fire them.I, for one, give you full credit.As you should. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now