Usually I don't read the editorial in the NYT week in review (the one that appears with no author, produced by "the editorial board) but I noticed that the subject was NY state workers, and I was curious to see how they would play it.
First, their version of squaring the circle:
"[A bunch of facts about crazy NY public employee compensation..] To point out these alarming facts is not to be anti-union, or anti-worker. In recent weeks, Republican politicians in the Midwest have distorted what should be a serious discussion about state employees' wages and benefits, cynically using it as a pretext to crush unions.
New York does not need that sort of destructive game playing. What it needs is a sober examination of the high costs of wages and benefits, and some serious proposals to rein them in while remaining fair to hardworking government employees."
Some factoids:
In 2000 NY paid $100 million into the pension fund. Now it costs $1.5 billion.
Last April, in the teeth of "The Great Recession," NY workers got a 4% raise.
NY workers can retire at 55 with full benefits.
After 10 years of service NY workers stop contributing to their own pensions.
Average state employee salary is $63,382. State average for all workers is $46,957.
Strix must be ready to man the ramparts.
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 02:06:04 PM
Strix must be ready to man the ramparts.
Or at least pay some unemployed guy to do it for him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
After 10 years of service NY workers stop contributing to their own pensions.
:huh:
Even the crypto-commie inside of me feels that's not right.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 06, 2011, 03:09:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
After 10 years of service NY workers stop contributing to their own pensions.
:huh:
Even the crypto-commie inside of me feels that's not right.
I fucking hate that shit. That and the high three business. My pay is being skimmed into a pensino system that's being systematically looted and seems designed to be gutted decades before I see a dime of return.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 06, 2011, 03:09:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
After 10 years of service NY workers stop contributing to their own pensions.
:huh:
Even the crypto-commie inside of me feels that's not right.
Me too. Government workers really irritate me and their unions irritate me even more.
Everyone employed by the state is fortunate and shouldn't complain
The problem with Wisconsin and their ilk is that they're setting this up as a union-busting battle, and us lefties have no option whom to side with. If they just set it up as an anti-government worker perque battle, I might be more inclined to support the gov't on this.
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2011, 03:32:11 PM
Me too. Government workers really irritate me and their unions irritate me even more.
....
The problem with Wisconsin and their ilk is that they're setting this up as a union-busting battle, and us lefties have no option whom to side with.
A bit of a contradiction, no?
Quote from: Zoupa on March 06, 2011, 03:09:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
After 10 years of service NY workers stop contributing to their own pensions.
:huh:
Even the crypto-commie inside of me feels that's not right.
I don't think that makes more than a sentimental difference. Pension is part of pay package, how much employee nominally contributes isn't that relevant. What's relevant is the actuarial value of the pension being given to the employee (and how hidden a cost that is, given the habit of state governments to both severely undervalue pension obligations, and their refusal to fund them fully).
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2011, 03:32:11 PM
The problem with Wisconsin and their ilk is that they're setting this up as a union-busting battle, and us lefties have no option whom to side with. If they just set it up as an anti-government worker perque battle, I might be more inclined to support the gov't on this.
Agreed. I never knew there would be a day where I would even consider siding with public employee unions, but Wisconsin Republicans sure tempt me. Unions are bad, but oligarchs are much worse, and this appears to be a battle between resurgent oligarchs and decaying unions. The Wisconsin fight threatens to discredit the effort to push back the unions in states where they really are a cancer on the economy.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 04:14:10 PM
I don't think that makes more than a sentimental difference. Pension is part of pay package, how much employee nominally contributes isn't that relevant. What's relevant is the actuarial value of the pension being given to the employee (and how hidden a cost that is, given the habit of state governments to both severely undervalue pension obligations, and their refusal to fund them fully).
It makes much more than a sentimental difference to the state budget. The more an employee contributes, holding the payout constant, the less the state has to poney up.
Scott Walker and John Kasich makes me question my votes for the last 10 years or so.
:( I have to pay into my pension plan until I retire.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 04:18:50 PM
Agreed. I never knew there would be a day where I would even consider siding with public employee unions, but Wisconsin Republicans sure tempt me. Unions are bad, but oligarchs are much worse, and this appears to be a battle between resurgent oligarchs and decaying unions. The Wisconsin fight threatens to discredit the effort to push back the unions in states where they really are a cancer on the economy.
Oligarchs aren't the only ones paying state workers. Well, at least they're not the only ones.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
NY workers can retire at 55 with full benefits.
Is that after 20 or 25 years vested?
I pay into my 401k and IRA. And the investments in there are directed by me, not some flunky who mismanages it. Pension fund directors tend to be morons on the whole, so good luck with that. Just don't make me pay extra taxes to make up for the money they lost on credit default swaps, Venezuelan sovereigns and wind farms in Tanganyika.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 06, 2011, 03:09:41 PM
Even the crypto-commie inside of me feels that's not right.
And that's what they want you to think.
After all, the more your gaze is transfixed on a specific part of the workforce and their commie nazi Kenyan ways, the less you're focused on Wall Street, the banks, and the Koch Brothers.
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2011, 03:32:11 PM
The problem with Wisconsin and their ilk is that they're setting this up as a union-busting battle, and us lefties have no option whom to side with. If they just set it up as an anti-government worker perque battle, I might be more inclined to support the gov't on this.
I would've been too, if Walker hadn't bothered to steamroll all those corporate tax breaks his first two weeks in office. So now we know it's not about the money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 04:14:10 PM
I don't think that makes more than a sentimental difference. Pension is part of pay package, how much employee nominally contributes isn't that relevant. What's relevant is the actuarial value of the pension being given to the employee (and how hidden a cost that is, given the habit of state governments to both severely undervalue pension obligations, and their refusal to fund them fully).
It makes much more than a sentimental difference to the state budget. The more an employee contributes, holding the payout constant, the less the state has to poney up.
Well, duh, holding the payout constant is the assumption that you need. Increasing the employee contribution is equivalent to reducing the pension payouts. Yes, increasing employee contributions while keeping pension payments constant would help the state deficits, as pay cuts by any other name tend to do.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 05:32:26 PM
Well, duh, holding the payout constant is the assumption that you need. Increasing the employee contribution is equivalent to reducing the pension payouts. Yes, increasing employee contributions while keeping pension payments constant would help the state deficits, as pay cuts by any other name tend to do.
If that part is duh, what were you on about with sentimental differences?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 04:29:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 04:18:50 PM
Agreed. I never knew there would be a day where I would even consider siding with public employee unions, but Wisconsin Republicans sure tempt me. Unions are bad, but oligarchs are much worse, and this appears to be a battle between resurgent oligarchs and decaying unions. The Wisconsin fight threatens to discredit the effort to push back the unions in states where they really are a cancer on the economy.
Oligarchs aren't the only ones paying state workers. Well, at least they're not the only ones.
:rolleyes: Unions and oligarchs don't just involve themselves in economic matters directly, they also involve themselves in political matters to help themselves economically. Whichever side wins the political battle gets the economic windfall, even if indirectly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 05:35:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 05:32:26 PM
Well, duh, holding the payout constant is the assumption that you need. Increasing the employee contribution is equivalent to reducing the pension payouts. Yes, increasing employee contributions while keeping pension payments constant would help the state deficits, as pay cuts by any other name tend to do.
If that part is duh, what were you on about with sentimental differences?
The point is that you can't judge how good a deal unions are getting just by looking at how much they contribute to their pensions.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 05:35:23 PM
:rolleyes: Unions and oligarchs don't just involve themselves in economic matters directly, they also involve themselves in political matters to help themselves economically. Whichever side wins the political battle gets the economic windfall, even if indirectly.
I would think the vast bulk of the economic windfall would accrue to future Wisconsin taxpayers and possibly current bond holders.
I understand that the Koch brothers have a vested interest in maintaining their factories union-free (more power to 'em). But I think an honest person has to admit that the chain of causality between breaking the power of the Wisconsin state employees and preventing Koch Industries from unionizing is a very tenuous one at best.
Koch is such a minor issue anyway. Who gives a fuck about them? Why did they suddenly become so bloody important? It's all hype. It's not like they haven't been doing the same thing for decades now. All of a sudden they're public enemy number one. I think it's a distraction.
The Kocheads are the left's version of George Soros. Just like the right-wingers who carp on about him, I've learned to zone out mention of the Kochs.
Anyone (besides Mongers) know the details of the corporate tax cut?
Quote from: Habbaku on March 06, 2011, 06:10:53 PM
The Kocheads are the left's version of George Soros. Just like the right-wingers who carp on about him, I've learned to zone out mention of the Kochs.
Whatever. They're number 83.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
Seedy's right. I'm more concerned about Goldman Sachs.
For the record, lawyers for the government of Alberta are NOT unionized. And so if anyone wants to bitch about my non-union government pension they can kiss my ass.
Of course I have to contribute right up until I retire.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2011, 06:19:05 PM
For the record, lawyers for the government of Alberta are NOT unionized. And so if anyone wants to bitch about my non-union government pension they can kiss my ass.
Of course I have to contribute right up until I retire.
Can you direct your investments?
QuoteTerry, Randall A (Democrat, District of Columbia)
Status: Confirmed
Terry, born in 1959, filed a statement of candidacy on Jan. 18, 2011, to run for president as a Democrat. The outspoken anti-abortion activist has previously made unsuccessful bids in New York state for the U.S. House (1998) and in Florida for the U.S. Senate (2006).
Somebody filled out the wrong party on their form.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2011, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2011, 06:19:05 PM
For the record, lawyers for the government of Alberta are NOT unionized. And so if anyone wants to bitch about my non-union government pension they can kiss my ass.
Of course I have to contribute right up until I retire.
Can you direct your investments?
Why would I want to do that?
It's a defined benefit plan.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2011, 06:17:58 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 06, 2011, 06:10:53 PM
The Kocheads are the left's version of George Soros. Just like the right-wingers who carp on about him, I've learned to zone out mention of the Kochs.
Whatever. They're number 83.
I think you may have misunderstood my point.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2011, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2011, 06:19:05 PM
For the record, lawyers for the government of Alberta are NOT unionized. And so if anyone wants to bitch about my non-union government pension they can kiss my ass.
Of course I have to contribute right up until I retire.
Can you direct your investments?
That defeats the purpose of having a pension, doesn't it?
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 07:01:31 PM
That defeats the purpose of having a pension, doesn't it?
In the US we call both defined benefit and defined contribution plans "pensions."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 07:07:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 07:01:31 PM
That defeats the purpose of having a pension, doesn't it?
In the US we call both defined benefit and defined contribution plans "pensions."
Same here. I'm just saying that directing your pension investments at our age is pointless, given the financial Armageddon to come. If you're not rich, you should just kill yourself instead of retiring, for the good of the world.
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 07:36:54 PM
Same here. I'm just saying that directing your pension investments at our age is pointless, given the financial Armageddon to come. If you're not rich, you should just kill yourself instead of retiring, for the good of the world.
Ah, gotcha. Just that when most people say that defeats the purpose of a pension they have a purpose in mind.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 08:00:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2011, 07:36:54 PM
Same here. I'm just saying that directing your pension investments at our age is pointless, given the financial Armageddon to come. If you're not rich, you should just kill yourself instead of retiring, for the good of the world.
Ah, gotcha. Just that when most people say that defeats the purpose of a pension they have a purpose in mind.
I really didn't, apart from spreading my message that The End Is Near.
Internet > Sandwich board and cowbell.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 06:13:14 PM
Anyone (besides Mongers) know the details of the corporate tax cut?
Whose? Walker's in Wisconsin?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2011, 06:09:40 PM
Koch is such a minor issue anyway. Who gives a fuck about them? Why did they suddenly become so bloody important?
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
From February.
QuoteWisconsin governor signs bill granting tax cuts
Gov. Walker signs bill granting Wisconsin companies small tax break for each job added
Friday February 4, 2011
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Wisconsin companies will get a small tax break for every new job they add under a bill signed Friday by Gov. Scott Walker.
The deductions will be worth between $92 and $316 per job depending on the size of the company and its tax bracket, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The Republican-authored plan will cost $67 million over the next two-year budget, contributing to the state's projected $3.2 billion shortfall.
Walker promised tax cuts for businesses on the campaign trail and introduced the bill as part of his jobs-creation agenda. He hasn't said how he plans to make up the lost revenue, and Democrats have blasted the cuts as too insignificant to stimulate job creation.
Walker said the bill was one step in his agenda, and when businesses consider his plan as a whole they'll see his administration and Republican lawmakers are serious about helping them and reviving the state's economy.
"This is part of changing the climate," Walker said before he signed the bill in front of manufacturing equipment at Saris Cycling Group, a Madison factory that produces bike racks. "For us, it's a state of mind. There's no one bill that will make or break the business climate. (But) we want to show ... Wisconsin government gets it."
Walker, who has been in office for about a month, has been pushing his agenda forward at breakneck speed.
He signed two other tax cut bills in January. One wipes out corporate and personal income taxes for companies that relocate to Wisconsin and would cost the state about $1 million. The other eliminated state income taxes on contributions to health savings accounts and will cost the state $49 million.
His fellow Republicans in control of both houses of the Legislature.
And while we're at it, let's stick it to the poor.
QuoteWalker's budget slashes tax credits that aid poor
Low-income taxpayers in Wisconsin would lose hundreds of dollars in tax credits a year under Gov. Scott Walker's proposed budget — at the same time the governor wants tax cuts for businesses and investors to boost jobs.
Walker proposes cutting about $16 million a year from the program, which in 2009 paid 273,939 low-income Wisconsin residents a total of $133 million.
Under Walker's proposed biennial budget, a single mother with two children earning about minimum wage — $15,000 a year — would lose $302 of her $704 Earned Income Tax Credit next year, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. A two-parent household with two children earning $30,000 a year would see its tax credit cut by $194 to $258, the alliance said.
"Gov. Walker's raid on the Earned Income Tax Credit is the most egregious example of Walker's war on Wisconsin families," said Rep. Tamara Grigsby, D-Milwaukee. "At a time when Wisconsin is supposed to be putting people to work, Gov. Walker is actually stealing from working families in order to give big payouts to special interests."
The program gives rebates to qualifying taxpayers earning $48,362 a year or less. Many pay no state income taxes because their wages are so low, said Jon Peacock, research director at the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families. The credit is seen as an anti-poverty tool that helps offset federal Social Security taxes and encourages work among the lowest-wage earners.
In an interview Friday, the Republican governor called the tax credit a "redistribution program" that involves "taking money from other taxpayers and giving it to individuals who have a limited tax liability."
"This is reducing how much money other taxpayers have to give to those individuals," Walker said.
The governor also proposes cutting $9 million in tax rebates to low-income homeowners under the Homestead Tax Credit. That credit is designed to offset the cost of property taxes for residents earning no more than $24,500 a year, many of them elderly.
The budget proposal would freeze the Homestead credit at the current level rather than allowing it to rise with inflation. Last year, 247,011 taxpayers claimed the credit, costing the state $128 million, according to the Department of Revenue.
Revenue Secretary Rick Chandler said about half of the states do not have an earned-income tax credit, and among those that do, Wisconsin's is one of the most generous. Chandler said the proposed changes to the Homestead credit would return Wisconsin to the system it had before 2009, when the tax credit remained unchanged for 20 years.
A family earning $20,000 a year that qualified for a $332 tax credit would see that drop to $300 next year under the proposal, the taxpayers alliance said.
"We're strongly opposed to both changes," Peacock said. "We think it's very disappointing that the governor's proposing changes that amount to tax increases for low-income families at the same time he's proposing tax breaks for multistate corporations and the wealthy."
Laura Dresser, associate director of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, echoed Peacock's concerns. Combined with Walker's proposals to cuts millions from health care, child care and other social support programs, cutting the tax credits would be a double whammy for poor families, said Dresser, whose group advocates economic development based on good-paying jobs.
Todd Berry, president of taxpayers alliance, said the Homestead and Earned Income tax credits generally are seen as effective and efficient ways to combat poverty.
"Together, Homestead and EITC do work as sort of a low-cost form of income maintenance, and they certainly make the tax system more fair in the sense that the folks on the bottom end are not only not paying increased taxes, they're getting tax rebates," Berry said.
Chandler said cutting tax credits for the poor while increasing tax incentives for businesses and individuals that invest and add jobs to Wisconsin are not in conflict.
"The best thing for people at the lower end of the income scale is to get more Wisconsin jobs," he said.
But state Rep. Donna Seidel, D-Wausau, sees hypocrisy in the governor's approach.
"The main thing we have heard over and over (from Walker) about shared sacrifice and no tax increases, as details of the budget unfold, we see that there are in fact tax increases, and the people bearing the burden of balancing our budget are the middle- and low-income — the people who can least afford it."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2011, 08:39:01 PM
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Wisconsin companies will get a small tax break for every new job they add under a bill signed Friday by Gov. Scott Walker.
The deductions will be worth between $92 and $316 per job depending on the size of the company and its tax bracket, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The Republican-authored plan will cost $67 million over the next two-year budget, contributing to the state's projected $3.2 billion shortfall.
Oh Christ! It's a fucking jobs bill! Of all the stories I've read on Wisconsin you'd think at least one would have bothered to mention that. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 08:47:07 PMOh Christ! It's a fucking jobs bill! Of all the stories I've read on Wisconsin you'd think at least one would have bothered to mention that. :lol:
For a state that claims it's red-lining so bad it has to go after the evil teachers and public sector workers who landed us in this entire mortage derivatives-fueled mess in 2008, is going after revenue streams first and THEN bitching about state-funded benefits really all that smart?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 05:35:23 PM
:rolleyes: Unions and oligarchs don't just involve themselves in economic matters directly, they also involve themselves in political matters to help themselves economically. Whichever side wins the political battle gets the economic windfall, even if indirectly.
I would think the vast bulk of the economic windfall would accrue to future Wisconsin taxpayers and possibly current bond holders.
I understand that the Koch brothers have a vested interest in maintaining their factories union-free (more power to 'em). But I think an honest person has to admit that the chain of causality between breaking the power of the Wisconsin state employees and preventing Koch Industries from unionizing is a very tenuous one at best.
It is tenuous, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I sure didn't, and I fail to see anything that I said that might cause you to put these words in my mouth.
What oligarchs want is free reign for their businesses and low personal taxes. That means no taxes and no regulation, more or less. With unions destroyed, Democrats would lose their deep pockets, and Republicans aided by the free speech of the oligarchs' deep pockets would come out on top.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 08:47:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2011, 08:39:01 PM
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Wisconsin companies will get a small tax break for every new job they add under a bill signed Friday by Gov. Scott Walker.
The deductions will be worth between $92 and $316 per job depending on the size of the company and its tax bracket, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The Republican-authored plan will cost $67 million over the next two-year budget, contributing to the state's projected $3.2 billion shortfall.
Oh Christ! It's a fucking jobs bill! Of all the stories I've read on Wisconsin you'd think at least one would have bothered to mention that. :lol:
To add, Walker campaigned heavily on the corporate tax cut and cutting public employee benefits. Corporate taxes had been pretty high in Wisconsin-- higher than in Illinois even after they raised their corporate tax rates in January. Not that it matters to Seedy, but if you're going to attract new businesses to your state, it makes sense to be competitive in terms of tax rates.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 01:06:37 AM
To add, Walker campaigned heavily on the corporate tax cut and cutting public employee benefits. Corporate taxes had been pretty high in Wisconsin-- higher than in Illinois even after they raised their corporate tax rates in January. Not that it matters to Seedy, but if you're going to attract new businesses to your state, it makes sense to be competitive in terms of tax rates.
QuoteThe state's 5 percent sales tax rate hasn't increased since 1982. The 7.9 percent corporate income tax rate hasn't gone up since it was created in 1981.
LOL, it's been the same rate for 30 years. Absolutely stifling. Nice try, Teabagger. :P
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2011, 09:02:04 PM
What oligarchs want is free reign for their businesses and low personal taxes. That means no taxes and no regulation, more or less. With unions destroyed, Democrats would lose their deep pockets, and Republicans aided by the free speech of the oligarchs' deep pockets would come out on top.
I think you are mistaken in supposing that Walker wants to destroy all unions. The unions that contributed to republicans, like the state police union and the local police and firefighters' unions, are unaffected by Walker's plan. If you are simpy making the point that Walker's policies are nakedly partisan, you are correct, but I think only the dimmest bulbs couldn't see that already.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 01:06:37 AM
To add, Walker campaigned heavily on the corporate tax cut and cutting public employee benefits. Corporate taxes had been pretty high in Wisconsin-- higher than in Illinois even after they raised their corporate tax rates in January. Not that it matters to Seedy, but if you're going to attract new businesses to your state, it makes sense to be competitive in terms of tax rates.
What Seedy said. AFAICT there is no "corporate tax cut," not in the sense that most people would use the term, to denote a decrease in the marginal tax rate on corporate profits. There's a one time credit for new employees hired, up to a whopping $332.
You've been bamboozled by the advocacy media son.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2011, 06:44:06 AM
I think you are mistaken in supposing that Walker wants to destroy all unions. The unions that contributed to republicans, like the state police union and the local police and firefighters' unions, are unaffected by Walker's plan. If you are simpy making the point that Walker's policies are nakedly partisan, you are correct, but I think only the dimmest bulbs couldn't see that already.
All unions, some unions, the effect is in the same direction. The unions that are under attack will get destroyed, and so will the associated deep pockets.
The point wasn't about naked partisanship; I am in agreement that people who don't acknowledge it shouldn't even be taken seriously. The point was about whether the destruction of unions should be viewed as a good or bad thing, on balance, even if it's obvious that Walker is highly disingenuous.
I'm conflicted, because I hate unions, but I also hate crony capitalism. If the former is replaced by the latter, we're much worse off for that.
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2011, 07:48:17 AM
What Seedy said. AFAICT there is no "corporate tax cut," not in the sense that most people would use the term, to denote a decrease in the marginal tax rate on corporate profits. There's a one time credit for new employees hired, up to a whopping $332.
You've been bamboozled by the advocacy media son.
So Seedy links one article & you assume that's conclusive? Here's another. Though it expires after a couple years & is targeted toward companies that relocate to Wisconsin, it's still a tax cut: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/wis-gov-inks-tax-cut-bill-for-businesses-into-law.html
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
:yeah:
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 11:59:45 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
:yeah:
But not in Canada. :P
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 11:59:45 AM
:yeah:
Meh, I don't see New York or New Jersey unions going anywhere. Even Chris Christie said that he loved collective bargaining. It's a shame, because those two states truly do need a couple of divisions of Pinkertons to save themselves from financial abyss.
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 12:00:27 PM
But not in Canada. :P
Trends in the South often follow up here.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
So Seedy links one article & you assume that's conclusive? Here's another. Though it expires after a couple years & is targeted toward companies that relocate to Wisconsin, it's still a tax cut: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/wis-gov-inks-tax-cut-bill-for-businesses-into-law.html
None of the tax cuts take effect during the current budget, so don't impact the current deficit.
I am a bit surprised, though, that Walker didn't claim he would finance the tax cuts by means of a magical reduction in "fraud and waste."
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2011, 07:48:17 AM
What Seedy said. AFAICT there is no "corporate tax cut," not in the sense that most people would use the term, to denote a decrease in the marginal tax rate on corporate profits. There's a one time credit for new employees hired, up to a whopping $332.
You've been bamboozled by the advocacy media son.
So Seedy links one article & you assume that's conclusive? Here's another. Though it expires after a couple years & is targeted toward companies that relocate to Wisconsin, it's still a tax cut: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/wis-gov-inks-tax-cut-bill-for-businesses-into-law.html
Isn't it a tax break rather than a tax cut? With a price tag of $1m it doesn't sound very impressive
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
Thank God it's not 30%. It's 7.2% for private sector employees and 12.4% for public employees according to wikipedia.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2011, 12:06:53 PM
I am a bit surprised, though, that Walker didn't claim he would finance the tax cuts by means of a magical reduction in "fraud and waste."
That only works at the federal level, apparently.
Quote from: Gups on March 07, 2011, 12:09:51 PM
Isn't it a tax break rather than a tax cut? With a price tag of $1m it doesn't sound very impressive
Potato, potahto. But yeah, it's projected to be pretty small. Theoretically, the actual cost to the state is zero, though that assumes no businesses were already planning to relocate to Wisconsin. In which case I guess it could be a net gain in revenue, assuming the company pays other taxes & has in-state workers who pay income & sales taxes.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 11:59:45 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
:yeah:
Irony: not just the opposite of wrinkly anymore.
Like public-employee unions, defined-benefit public pensions should be terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 11:59:45 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
:yeah:
Yep, that's basically correct - most union members are in the public sector. Private sector union numbers are much lower than public sector numbers. And given the trend in more states for "right to work" laws (Right-to-work laws are state laws that prohibit both the closed and union shop. A right to work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union), and more push back vs public unions, I'm thinking those numbers will fall. Though I believe that public sector union numbers had been rising for a while otherwise.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 12:15:59 PM
Thank God it's not 30%. It's 7.2% for private sector employees and 12.4% for public employees according to wikipedia.
It is not a good time to unionize anyway. The opening up of the international labor market means the conditions that made unionizing a good strategy do not really exist. In theory when labor grows scarce you should be able to renegotiate for higher wages and then management pushes back when it loosens up. But it is unlikely American companies are going to be hurting for labor anytime soon.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2011, 01:23:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 11:59:45 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
:yeah:
Irony: not just the opposite of wrinkly anymore.
Like public-employee unions, defined-benefit public pensions should be terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.
Quote from: BarristerAnd so if anyone wants to bitch about my non-union government pension they can kiss my ass.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2011, 01:32:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 12:15:59 PM
Thank God it's not 30%. It's 7.2% for private sector employees and 12.4% for public employees according to wikipedia.
It is not a good time to unionize anyway. The opening up of the international labor market means the conditions that made unionizing a good strategy do not really exist. In theory when labor grows scarce you should be able to renegotiate for higher wages and then management pushes back when it loosens up. But it is unlikely American companies are going to be hurting for labor anytime soon.
Labour is scarce in many areas of Canada and workers are able to increase wages quite nicely without having to unionize. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 01:35:40 PM
Labour is scarce in many areas of Canada and workers are able to increase wages quite nicely without having to unionize. :huh:
The only time it makes any sense to pay dues to a Union and give up a bit of your independence doing so is when a Union has negotiating power that makes it worth it. Otherwise you are just getting screwed for no good reason. I am not sure where I said anything about not being in a Union meant your wages were going to suck or that even a union was necessary.
The reason there is such low union membership here is that having the labor force of an industry unionized tends to mean the jobs get shipped somewhere where the labor force is not unionized. That sort of removes whatever incentive you had to pay those dues and put up with union crap.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2011, 01:23:23 PM
Like public-employee unions, defined-benefit public pensions should be terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.
There is nothing inherently wrong with defined-benefit pensions. In fact, they make a whole lot more sense than defined-contribution plans, from the standpoint of providing insurance against poverty in the old age. The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2011, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2011, 01:23:23 PM
Like public-employee unions, defined-benefit public pensions should be terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.
There is nothing inherently wrong with defined-benefit pensions. In fact, they make a whole lot more sense than defined-contribution plans, from the standpoint of providing insurance against poverty in the old age. The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.
I didn't want to respond to grumbles who was obviously just trolling me, but that's my take. There's nothing inherently silly about a defined benefit plan. Heck an individual can go out and purchase one themselves - it's called an annuity.
The problem is that because there are so many assumptions and planning built into them there can be great temptation to game the system. After all the problems won't come home to roost for decades.
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2011, 02:15:43 PM
The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.
Such as?
I'n not doubting you... I seriously don't know what tricks one games such plans with.
Quote from: Caliga on March 07, 2011, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2011, 02:15:43 PM
The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.
Such as?
I'n not doubting you... I seriously don't know what tricks one games such plans with.
From the employee/union side, one common abuse is to peg the pension payments to employee's last year earnings, and then load up the employee in his last year to the hilt with overtime. Of course, it's also aided by the union rules that assign overtime priority by seniority. This means that employee's pension payments are out of line with what he contributes for most of his career (implicitly or explicitly, it doesn't matter who nominally contributes to the pension).
From the employer's side, there are two common abuses. One abuse is to not fund the pensions fully. The effect of that is that you don't pay the full wages to the workers you're emplying today, and leaving it to your successors to pay the "legacy costs". The second abuse is assuming too high a rate of return on your pension fund's assets, which is a more hidden way of not funding your pensions fully.
Bad management is number one. Look at CalPers. Ugh. Ulterior motives is another. The US pension funds are notorious for being gangster laundering devices. The ones that aren't are run by financial novices that got the position by being elected treasurer of the union. Some of them (the smart ones) outsource that to professionals, but a lot don't. They invest in things for political rather than sound investment reasons. They make ridiculous earnings estimates and budget using those numbers. Yeah, our fund is gonna earn 10% return in 2009...right. :rolleyes:
It's not bad if they just hand the fund over to Fidelity or Vanguard or something. Hopefully that what beeb's does, and it's not some former prosecutor running the fund.
Oh, and the Wisconsin public employee union owns something like 50 million in Koch corporate bonds... :lol:
Apparently, it's pronounced like Coke. Didn't know that.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a defined benefit pension as long as there was a supplemental plan as well with some kind of stock investments I could do. I don't want to be locked in to a retirement package that can't grow aggressively and has an upper ceiling.
Simul-posting ftw.
My (upcoming) pension plan is a Government of Alberta Management pension plan, so it's administered by the Alberta government, with no union involvement whatsoever.
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2011, 02:15:43 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with defined-benefit pensions. In fact, they make a whole lot more sense than defined-contribution plans, from the standpoint of providing insurance against poverty in the old age. The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.
What is inherently wrong with defined-benefit plans is their lack of portability, since the chances any two plans will have the same defined benefit are small, and the mechanisms for transferring benefits from company A to company B are complex even where they exist.
Defined-benefit pensions are dinosaurs. Best to put the beasties down, even if socialists eligible for them really want them.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 02:19:06 PM
I didn't want to respond to grumbles who was obviously just trolling me, but that's my take.
Of curse you don't want to respond to me. You celebrate the extinction of people who want exactly what you have - a strong union and a defined-benefit pension.
QuoteThere's nothing inherently silly about a defined benefit plan. Heck an individual can go out and purchase one themselves - it's called an annuity.
Annuities and defined-benefit pensions are apples and road apples. Defined-benefit pensions are inherently silly in any market-based system of employment, and for any government pension scheme.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2011, 03:33:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 02:19:06 PM
I didn't want to respond to grumbles who was obviously just trolling me, but that's my take.
Of curse you don't want to respond to me. You celebrate the extinction of people who want exactly what you have - a strong union and a defined-benefit pension.
:cool:
That's right baby - I want to exterminate them. They don't call me "Worse than Hitler" for nothing.
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2011, 03:30:13 PM
What is inherently wrong with defined-benefit plans is their lack of portability, since the chances any two plans will have the same defined benefit are small, and the mechanisms for transferring benefits from company A to company B are complex even where they exist.
Defined-benefit pensions are dinosaurs. Best to put the beasties down, even if socialists eligible for them really want them.
In theory, this does not have to be a problem. The pension benefits you're entitled to have a cash value. If you change jobs, you can be given an annuity for the vested value of your pension.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 03:38:10 PM
:cool:
That's right baby - I want to exterminate them. They don't call me "Worse than Ed Anger" for nothing.
Fixed
Quote from: grumbler on March 07, 2011, 03:30:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 07, 2011, 02:15:43 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with defined-benefit pensions. In fact, they make a whole lot more sense than defined-contribution plans, from the standpoint of providing insurance against poverty in the old age. The problem with them is that they're abused and gamed in various ways with tricks that should be illegal.
What is inherently wrong with defined-benefit plans is their lack of portability, since the chances any two plans will have the same defined benefit are small, and the mechanisms for transferring benefits from company A to company B are complex even where they exist.
I'm going to try responding to arguments that you choose to present, and will ignore and/or ridicule the hyperbole.
Portability can be an issue, but hardly an insurmountable one. I was able to transfer my pensionable service from Alberta to the Feds, and I double checked I will be able to transfer it all back.
Even if that was not an optin (and it frequently is not) any pension plan has a cash value, and many pension plans do allow you to purchase pensionable time. You can usually cash out the old pension and use that money to buy into the new pension plan.
That of course assumes rationale, well funded pension plans, which may not always be a safe assumption.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
Thank God it's not 30%. It's 7.2% for private sector employees and 12.4% for public employees according to wikipedia.
7 per cent of private employees in America are unionized. That's seriously disturbing.
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 05:27:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 12:15:59 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
I've read that the number of Americans who are unionized is incredibly low. i can't remember the number but wasn't it in the teens or something? Maybe 30 per cent, don't remember. And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
Thank God it's not 30%. It's 7.2% for private sector employees and 12.4% for public employees according to wikipedia.
7 per cent of private employees in America are unionized. That's seriously disturbing.
I agree, but probably for different reasons than you do. :shifty:
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 05:27:24 PM
7 per cent of private employees in America are unionized. That's seriously disturbing.
Okay, I gotta hear this. Why?
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 05:27:24 PM
7 per cent of private employees in America are unionized. That's seriously disturbing.
But not surprising. The decline of union labor has been going on for awhile.
Why is it so disturbing?
I mean I do not have any problem with unions per se but they have not been that effective at helping workers for awhile now. The economic climate is not very union friendly.
If I read this chart right, and I'm not saying I do, than 25 per cent of "civilian" employees in Canada belong to unions.
http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/wid/union_membership.shtml
Interestingly, though not surprisingly, the largest number of unionized workers belong to the Canadian Union of Public Employees
Not sure what a civilian is for the purposes of that chart.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2011, 05:45:22 PM
Not sure what a civilian is for the purposes of that chart.
I assume it means non public worker? :huh: I don't know to be honest.
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 05:27:24 PM
7 per cent of private employees in America are unionized. That's seriously disturbing.
:lol:
Quote from: Gups on March 07, 2011, 12:09:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2011, 07:48:17 AM
What Seedy said. AFAICT there is no "corporate tax cut," not in the sense that most people would use the term, to denote a decrease in the marginal tax rate on corporate profits. There's a one time credit for new employees hired, up to a whopping $332.
You've been bamboozled by the advocacy media son.
So Seedy links one article & you assume that's conclusive? Here's another. Though it expires after a couple years & is targeted toward companies that relocate to Wisconsin, it's still a tax cut: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/wis-gov-inks-tax-cut-bill-for-businesses-into-law.html
Isn't it a tax break rather than a tax cut? With a price tag of $1m it doesn't sound very impressive
Too funny; there's three separate tax actions in the article I posted, and everyone fixates on the smallest one.
You've been bamboozled by the Yi, son.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2011, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2011, 03:38:10 PM
:cool:
That's right baby - I want to exterminate them. They don't call me "Worse than Ed Anger" for nothing.
Fixed
Damn right.
Hmm, interestingly enough, it turns out that I have a defined-benefit pension of my own. :o It's not a typical defined-benefit plan, but rather a cash balance plan. I managed to get hired by my company just a month before new employees stopped being eligible for it. It feels nice to be a fat cat. :)
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
But more importantly, their ability to raise funds for political campaigns.
On the left, the only substantial players left in the national political campaign contribution game are a mere handful of unions. Once they're gone, the ability of the Democrats to raise money in the post-
Citizens United world of unlimited campaign contributions will go with them. Which is just what the GOP is hoping will happen.
Destroy the unions > destroy the liberal left's ability to raise money > destroy the Democratic Party on the national and state election level. Easy peasy Japaneasy.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2011, 11:59:14 AM
So Seedy links one article & you assume that's conclusive? Here's another. Though it expires after a couple years & is targeted toward companies that relocate to Wisconsin, it's still a tax cut: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/wis-gov-inks-tax-cut-bill-for-businesses-into-law.html
It seems you and I are approaching this issue from diametirically different directions. You seem to be defending Walker's tax cutting bona fides, whereas I'm agreeing with DGuller's and Seedy's premise that if you're going to be cutting payrolls it's unseemly to be cutting taxes at the same time. My point is that the Wisconsin legislation, which has been regularly described in the media as "a corporate tax cut" is a) miniscule and b) not really a tax cut at all but rather every true-blue Democrats favorite form of spending, a jobs bill.
I wouldn't be shocked to learn that the police and firefighters got exempted from the current cuts because either they already took a round of cuts earlier or they're underpaid relative to everyone else.
Speaking of which, just heard on NPR that five Ohio GOP state senators voted against their version precisely because it did include cops, firefighters, and prison guards. Squeaked through the Senate by one vote; expected to breeze through the House.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2011, 07:37:39 PM
It seems you and I are approaching this issue from diametirically different directions. You seem to be defending Walker's tax cutting bona fides, whereas I'm agreeing with DGuller's and Seedy's premise that if you're going to be cutting payrolls it's unseemly to be cutting taxes at the same time.
Walker campaigned heavily on cutting corporate taxes/enacting other business-friendly measures and cutting public employee pay & benefits. Call it unseemly if you want, but a majority of Wisconsin voters didn't seem to think so.
QuoteMy point is that the Wisconsin legislation, which has been regularly described in the media as "a corporate tax cut" is a) miniscule and b) not really a tax cut at all but rather every true-blue Democrats favorite form of spending, a jobs bill.
Then go argue with Seedy & D4G :P
Quote
Speaking of which, just heard on NPR that five Ohio GOP state senators voted against their version precisely because it did include cops, firefighters, and prison guards. Squeaked through the Senate by one vote; expected to breeze through the House.
These guys were from the urban districts, which tend to be more pro-union. I have a feeling a back room deal was cut and just enough GOP senators were 'allowed' to vote no without spoiling the bill. My own senator was the sponsor of the bill, so I sent her a "thank you" email.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2011, 05:35:24 PM
I mean I do not have any problem with unions per se but they have not been that effective at helping workers for awhile now. The economic climate is not very union friendly.
But for the opposite reason most people seem to believe: labor doesn't greatly exceed jobs, so unions don't do the worker much good. When they were big, it was because they created artificial scarcity of labor.
That is for the US, of course. Unions serve a completely different purpose in some other nations.
I just got the info on my new defined-benefit pension from the union in the mail yesterday. :showoff:
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 05:27:24 PM
7 per cent of private employees in America are unionized. That's seriously disturbing.
I agree. It's much too high.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2011, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
But more importantly, their ability to raise funds for political campaigns.
On the left, the only substantial players left in the national political campaign contribution game are a mere handful of unions. Once they're gone, the ability of the Democrats to raise money in the post-Citizens United world of unlimited campaign contributions will go with them. Which is just what the GOP is hoping will happen.
Destroy the unions > destroy the liberal left's ability to raise money > destroy the Democratic Party on the national and state election level. Easy peasy Japaneasy.
I just came.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2011, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 07, 2011, 11:06:59 AM
And of those uniionized workers, the majority belong to civil service unions; which means that busting those unions, in effect, will end the unions in America.
But more importantly, their ability to raise funds for political campaigns.
On the left, the only substantial players left in the national political campaign contribution game are a mere handful of unions. Once they're gone, the ability of the Democrats to raise money in the post-Citizens United world of unlimited campaign contributions will go with them. Which is just what the GOP is hoping will happen.
Destroy the unions > destroy the liberal left's ability to raise money > destroy the Democratic Party on the national and state election level. Easy peasy Japaneasy.
So your basically arguing that the only way for the "liberal left" to raise money is by extorting it from union members?
An interesting perspective.
I guess I am thinking that if the "liberal left" can only raise money via these means, they probably deserve to be made irrelevant. However, I am not really buying the claim that the only way the left raises funds is via these handfuls of unions. Obama seemed to be rather capable of raising rather stunning amounts of cash, and I don't think he got it all from a handful of unions.
Especially when they only make up 7 per cent of the private workforce. I imagine the Dems are getting money from others sources. :hmm:
Quote from: Josephus on March 08, 2011, 03:18:17 PM
Especially when they only make up 7 per cent of the private workforce. I imagine the Dems are getting money from others sources. :hmm:
Public sector unions contribute heavily to the Dems. One Union, I think AFSCME maybe it was, gave about 90 million dollars to Dems in the last election. So it can be huge dollars. Of course, then the Union bosses sometimes get to negotiate with the same politicians they helped elect! Lol...
unions are organised, and I think it's their organisational depth that helps more in dem campaigns, more than their money (which is also appreciated).
Quote from: saskganesh on March 08, 2011, 03:29:27 PM
unions are organised, and I think it's their organisational depth that helps more in dem campaigns, more than their money (which is also appreciated).
This.
While most of the biggest campaign contributors in the country are unions, it's really the organization that makes the massive difference in GOTV and activism.
I've always wondered if it was wise for public service unions to take such overt partisan positions.
My wife was involved in YEU/PSAC, so we'd get there material in the mail all the time. It was always, universally, blistering in its attacks on Harper.
Is it really serving your members best interests to attack their employer so loudly?
Whatever its sins, at least the AJC (the union that represents me, though I studiously have never joined) does not do that.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2011, 03:44:33 PM
I've always wondered if it was wise for public service unions to take such overt partisan positions.
What in the world could be wrong with a union you are required to join in order to work being able to force you to fund political positions you may not agree with or support?
BB hates personal freedom.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 03:49:58 PM
What in the world could be wrong with a union you are required to join in order to work being able to force you to fund political positions you may not agree with or support?
It may not be able to. The Georgia Bar (which has more than a few traits in common with a closed shop union) has the lobbying fund as a separate line item on the annual dues, which you are not required to pay.
Quote from: saskganesh on March 08, 2011, 03:29:27 PM
unions are organised, and I think it's their organisational depth that helps more in dem campaigns, more than their money (which is also appreciated).
Union thugs are certainly useful for roughing up anyone opposed to Democrats, but don't discount the huge sums of cash they send the Democrats' way.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Democrat politicians use taxpayer funds to cut generous deals with public sector unions, which return the favor by kicking money back to the Democrats to help them get elected. Rinse, lather, repeat...
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2011, 04:20:06 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on March 08, 2011, 03:29:27 PM
unions are organised, and I think it's their organisational depth that helps more in dem campaigns, more than their money (which is also appreciated).
Union thugs are certainly useful for roughing up anyone opposed to Democrats, but don't discount the huge sums of cash they send the Democrats' way.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Democrat politicians use taxpayer funds to cut generous deals with public sector unions, which return the favor by kicking money back to the Democrats to help them get elected. Rinse, lather, repeat...
Yeah, but at least they are not oligarchs! ZOMG!
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2011, 04:20:06 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on March 08, 2011, 03:29:27 PM
unions are organised, and I think it's their organisational depth that helps more in dem campaigns, more than their money (which is also appreciated).
Union thugs are certainly useful for roughing up anyone opposed to Democrats, but don't discount the huge sums of cash they send the Democrats' way.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Democrat politicians use taxpayer funds to cut generous deals with public sector unions, which return the favor by kicking money back to the Democrats to help them get elected. Rinse, lather, repeat...
Just think FDR considered public unions "unthinkable and untolerable". He just needed to use a little imagination.
Quote from: Josephus on March 08, 2011, 03:18:17 PM
Especially when they only make up 7 per cent of the private workforce. I imagine the Dems are getting money from others sources. :hmm:
To add to what KRonn said, union dues for Wisconsin teachers are $1,000/year. Multiply that by the number of teachers in the state and suddenly you've got a lot of friends in high places.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 02:30:27 PM
So your basically arguing that the only way for the "liberal left" to raise money is by extorting it from union members?
An interesting perspective.
As members of unions, they gladly and willfully volunteer these dollars.
QuoteI guess I am thinking that if the "liberal left" can only raise money via these means, they probably deserve to be made irrelevant. However, I am not really buying the claim that the only way the left raises funds is via these handfuls of unions. Obama seemed to be rather capable of raising rather stunning amounts of cash, and I don't think he got it all from a handful of unions.
Unions are the only comparable leftist equivalent in size and scope to the GOP's private sector corporate contributors. The singular novelty of a black presidential candidate igniting the masses notwithstanding, you and I both know that with the eradication of all campaign finance restraint, unions of teachers, steamfitters, auto workers and your local DMV counter queen can't touch the financial generating power of Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, or United Healthcare.
But that's OK, thanks to the Supreme Court and the GOP's successful media blitz of demonizing unions as the real reason for today's economic crisis, you and your buddy Yi will be able to enjoy years and years of Republitard electoral dominance in the very near future, free to live a life of spiritual fulfillment.
:lol: Corporations gave significantly more to Obama than they did to McCain. Corporations back winners.
And Goldman-Sachs is a particularly bad example because they're known historically as a major donor to Democrats.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2011, 04:20:06 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on March 08, 2011, 03:29:27 PM
unions are organised, and I think it's their organisational depth that helps more in dem campaigns, more than their money (which is also appreciated).
Union thugs are certainly useful for roughing up anyone opposed to Democrats, but don't discount the huge sums of cash they send the Democrats' way.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Democrat politicians use taxpayer funds to cut generous deals with public sector unions, which return the favor by kicking money back to the Democrats to help them get elected. Rinse, lather, repeat...
Hey Derspeiss, I was looking at that Breitbart site while Languish was down. A lot of "thug" talk. I suppose that's the new thing. What does it mean when someone calls the President a "Welfare thug"?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2011, 07:59:29 PM
:lol: Corporations gave significantly more to Obama than they did to McCain. Corporations back winners.
And Goldman-Sachs is a particularly bad example because they're known historically as a major donor to Democrats.
As I said, the singular novelty of a HNIC notwithstanding.
QuoteTop Groups Making Outside Expenditures in 2010 Elections, Excluding Party Committees
Organization Total View*
US Chamber of Commerce $32,851,997 C
American Action Network $26,088,031 C
American Crossroads $21,553,277 C
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies $17,122,446 C
Service Employees International Union $15,795,194 L
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees$12,631,170 L
American Future Fund $9,599,806 C
Americans for Job Security $8,991,209 C
National Assn of Realtors $8,890,737
National Education Assn $8,746,556 L
6 of the top 10 are Conservative; the only 3 Liberals on the list are unions. Realtors don't know what the fuck they're doing.
Destroy the unions > destroy the liberal left's ability to raise money > destroy the Democratic Party on the national and state election level.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2011, 08:06:23 PM
As I said, the singular novelty of a HNIC notwithstanding.
QuoteTop Groups Making Outside Expenditures in 2010 Elections, Excluding Party Committees
Organization Total View*
US Chamber of Commerce $32,851,997 C
American Action Network $26,088,031 C
American Crossroads $21,553,277 C
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies $17,122,446 C
Service Employees International Union $15,795,194 L
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees$12,631,170 L
American Future Fund $9,599,806 C
Americans for Job Security $8,991,209 C
National Assn of Realtors $8,890,737
National Education Assn $8,746,556 L
6 of the top 10 are Conservative; the only 3 Liberals on the list are unions. Realtors don't know what the fuck they're doing.
Destroy the unions > destroy the liberal left's ability to raise money > destroy the Democratic Party on the national and state election level.
It seems your table is the top groups that run quote unquote issues ads. So I'll concede the point that the destruction of the unions will mean the end of the liberal left's principal funders of issue ads (though I'm a little surprised SorosOn.org didn't make the cut). Obviously that's not the same thing as fundraising in general.
What's HNIC?
What was the total amount spent by each side on the 2010.
Is that a question.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2011, 07:54:06 PM
As members of unions, they gladly and willfully volunteer these dollars.
I suspect that might change if the state stops auto-deducting union dues from teachers' paychecks. Hmm, that's not a bad idea...
Quote
But that's OK, thanks to the Supreme Court and the GOP's successful media blitz of demonizing unions as the real reason for today's economic crisis, you and your buddy Yi will be able to enjoy years and years of Republitard electoral dominance in the very near future, free to live a life of spiritual fulfillment.
I'm seriously digging fatalistic Seedy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2011, 08:06:23 PM
Hey Derspeiss, I was looking at that Breitbart site while Languish was down. A lot of "thug" talk.
Some interesting youtube videos as well if you search for "union thug".
QuoteI suppose that's the new thing. What does it mean when someone calls the President a "Welfare thug"?
Dunno.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2011, 08:16:49 PM
What's HNIC?
You've spent way too much time in Iowa, cornbread.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2011, 07:59:29 PM
And Goldman-Sachs is a particularly bad example because they're known historically as a major donor to Democrats.
When it comes to financial industry, Democrats and Republicans are equal opportunity sociopathic sellouts. After all, Chuck Schumer was one of Wall Street's most reliable men. It's also important to remember that Democrats were in charge when Wall Street got away with murder. So, in a way, GS is actually a very good example, because it shows that who contributes matters more than to whom the money is contributed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2011, 08:16:49 PM
It seems your table is the top groups that run quote unquote issues ads. So I'll concede the point that the destruction of the unions will mean the end of the liberal left's principal funders of issue ads (though I'm a little surprised SorosOn.org didn't make the cut). Obviously that's not the same thing as fundraising in general.
Also, Seedy's chart only gives one example (an off-cycle election in which top Dem donors notoriously held back). The link I posted covers 1989-2010. The top 10 from that list is:
ActBlue $51,124,846 (Dem)
AT&T Inc $46,292,670 (Split, slightly GOP)
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $43,477,361 (Dem)
National Assn of Realtors $38,721,441 (Split)
Goldman Sachs $33,387,252 (Dem)
American Assn for Justice $33,143,279 (Dem)
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $33,056,216 (Dem)
National Education Assn $32,024,610 (Dem)
Laborers Union $30,292,050 (Dem)
Teamsters Union $29,319,982 (Dem)
FWIW, the EEEEVILLLLLLLLL Koch Industries is #63.
Yeah, my earlier point was that this is a perfectly timed exploit of the crisis to directly attack the sources of Democrat campaign funding and organization. Look where Dems would be if, say, the union funding got cut in half. That would be devastating.
What you're not saying spicy is that, while it looks like the GOP has a massive fundraising disadvantage looking at that list, IIRC they get a ton more money from small individual donors. Dems need all the big guys to pony up in order to stay even.
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 02:30:27 PM
So your basically arguing that the only way for the "liberal left" to raise money is by extorting it from union members?
An interesting perspective.
I guess I am thinking that if the "liberal left" can only raise money via these means, they probably deserve to be made irrelevant. However, I am not really buying the claim that the only way the left raises funds is via these handfuls of unions. Obama seemed to be rather capable of raising rather stunning amounts of cash, and I don't think he got it all from a handful of unions.
:yes:
Oh and on a totally different note, New York just sent me 3 identical voter change forms. Good use of public funds/natural resources? :(
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 08:49:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2011, 08:16:49 PM
What's HNIC?
"Head Nigger In Charge." :)
er matt
Hockey Night in Canada.
y'all culture poses difficulties in comprehenson. It does not matter not matter tho, as this forum is a proven political graveyard on humane issues, and so engaging is like playing in night soil.
good fucking luck. bye.
:huh:
I was just telling him what it means dude. I never heard of this 'Hockey Night in Canada' thing...
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2011, 10:04:00 PM
:huh:
I was just telling him what it means dude. I never heard of this 'Hockey Night in Canada' thing...
Besides beavers and aboot, who's ever heard anything about Canada? :D
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 08, 2011, 09:29:25 PM
Yeah, my earlier point was that this is a perfectly timed exploit of the crisis to directly attack the sources of Democrat campaign funding and organization.
Yeah, because it is not like there could be any OTHER reason to go after public service unions, now could there?
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2011, 10:24:12 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 08, 2011, 09:29:25 PM
Yeah, my earlier point was that this is a perfectly timed exploit of the crisis to directly attack the sources of Democrat campaign funding and organization.
Yeah, because it is not like there could be any OTHER reason to go after public service unions, now could there?
To be fair, I'm not dismissing the fact that they've dug themselves into this unsustainable hole where the expectations are way out of whack with fiscal reality. The budgetary concerns are totally legitimate.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2011, 12:59:51 AM
It stands for Hockey Night In Canada. :mad:
Ok, so it stands for two things. :mellow:
Hilarious.
Oh so this is where Sask rage-left.
Was that what that was?
I still don't fully understand his post.
I think what happened is that he thought I was trying to make a racist joke, not realizing there's an actual slang phrase "HNIC" (I think some rapper even did an album called that). I'm not sure how one gets from that to quitting Languish altogether though. :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
I still don't fully understand his post.
Yi is not even Canadian so jumping in to defend his culture was odd...
And public unions are a humanity issue?
Hmmmm....
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 12:30:40 PM
I think what happened is that he thought I was trying to make a racist joke, not realizing there's an actual slang phrase "HNIC" (I think some rapper even did an album called that). I'm not sure how one gets from that to quitting Languish altogether though. :huh:
Maybe he never saw 'Lean on Me'.
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2011, 12:31:25 PM
And public unions are a humanity issue?
Actually, I felt bad about his post and couldn't understand what triggered it, so I had Princesca read the thread and she said she thought he was probably upset about the thread in general, not what I posted.
Quote from: Caliga on March 09, 2011, 12:30:40 PM
I think what happened is that he thought I was trying to make a racist joke, not realizing there's an actual slang phrase "HNIC" (I think some rapper even did an album called that). I'm not sure how one gets from that to quitting Languish altogether though. :huh:
I could understand him not knowing what HNIC stands for down here, but "Hockey Night In Canada" doesn't exactly fit into the context of Seedy's post or this thread.
His entire post confused me, beginning with "er matt" :huh:
Yeah, that's the other thing I forgot to mention... Money was definitely using it in the "Head Nigga In Charge" sense, given the context.
Also my name isn't Matt. :)
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2011, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
I still don't fully understand his post.
Yi is not even Canadian so jumping in to defend his culture was odd...
And public unions are a humanity issue?
Hmmmm....
Maybe a humanity issue for taxpayers paying the freight?? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 12:36:27 PM
His entire post confused me, beginning with "er matt" :huh:
That part made me think he was ragequitting some other forum based on a post by someone named Matt. I hope I am right.
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
I still don't fully understand his post.
Woah, how did I miss that the first time? I guess I saw something incomprehensible, thought it was Tyr or something like that, and immediately skipped to the post below. My guess is that Sask's mind was less than crystal clear, for whatever reason, when he posted that.
Quote from: Valmy on March 09, 2011, 12:31:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
I still don't fully understand his post.
And public unions are a humanity issue?
Hmmmm....
They certainly destroyed my faith in same.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2011, 01:00:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 12:21:47 PM
I still don't fully understand his post.
Woah, how did I miss that the first time? I guess I saw something incomprehensible, thought it was Tyr or something like that, and immediately skipped to the post below. My guess is that Sask's mind was less than crystal clear, for whatever reason, when he posted that.
:yes: Maybe he's running a fever.
Quote from: The Brain on March 09, 2011, 01:07:56 PM
:yes: Maybe he's running a fever.
Is the cure: more cowbell. :(
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2011, 08:58:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 08, 2011, 08:06:23 PM
Hey Derspeiss, I was looking at that Breitbart site while Languish was down. A lot of "thug" talk.
Some interesting youtube videos as well if you search for "union thug".
QuoteI suppose that's the new thing. What does it mean when someone calls the President a "Welfare thug"?
Dunno.
I'll look up Union thug, you see if you can find out what a "welfare thug" is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2011, 05:05:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2011, 01:50:53 PM
NY workers can retire at 55 with full benefits.
Is that after 20 or 25 years vested?
In my Union, you need 25 years vested, 27 years if you want a full pension.
Who works 27 years at one job anymore? I assume you can count your previous years toward that if you move to a different job and transfer your pension with you.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2011, 03:12:51 PM
Who works 27 years at one job anymore? I assume you can count your previous years toward that if you move to a different job and transfer your pension with you.
Only if you stay with the State.
How very 19th century.
The problem is that the economic structure pendulum is swinging away from the consolidation that happened with the industrial revolution. We went from individual farmer-operators in the economy when we were all doing agriculture to consolidating into working for companies. Now we're going back to being individual operators in the information age. The future of the labor market is not going to be an environment where staying at one job for decades is common. We'll all be contractors and short-termers, so our method of retirement savings needs to shift too.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2011, 02:39:22 PM
I'll look up Union thug, you see if you can find out what a "welfare thug" is.
Deal. First result was a HuffPo link, which I'm sure you already read :mellow:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2011, 04:00:28 PM
How very 19th century.
The problem is that the economic structure pendulum is swinging away from the consolidation that happened with the industrial revolution. We went from individual farmer-operators in the economy when we were all doing agriculture to consolidating into working for companies. Now we're going back to being individual operators in the information age. The future of the labor market is not going to be an environment where staying at one job for decades is common. We'll all be contractors and short-termers, so our method of retirement savings needs to shift too.
Or we could just go back to how they retired before the Industrial Revolution.
At any rate, the shift towards poverty is somewhat alarming.
Looks like Walker got what he wanted anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
I guess this was inevitable.
QuoteOr we could just go back to how they retired before the Industrial Revolution.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg851.imageshack.us%2Fimg851%2F7577%2Fgsss.jpg&hash=880a8eb85f190d55220dc5ed6c9450756d1f62d7)
:hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2011, 10:56:23 PM
Looks like Walker got what he wanted anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
I guess this was inevitable.
I see a recall coming down the road.
Well. After having skimmed through the thread, all I can say on Sask's ragequit is:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpub%2Fimages%2Fcrazy-cat-lady.jpg&hash=fa2464ac61f51b026df052c7e281f823830ab923)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2011, 10:56:23 PM
Looks like Walker got what he wanted anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
I guess this was inevitable.
On behalf of all liberals, I'd like to thank the Wisconsin Republicans for ensuring Obama's reelection in 2012. Thanks, guys!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2011, 10:56:23 PM
Looks like Walker got what he wanted anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
I guess this was inevitable.
What, they just realized they could do this?
Quote from: Faeelin on March 10, 2011, 07:20:09 AM
What, they just realized they could do this?
Oh, I'm sure they've known all along they could; it's just the matter of how much political will they were willing to gamble. This kind of stuff never looks good, and there's always blowback.
Americans that don't know any better may not like unions, but one thing they definitely don't like are political machinations that don't look above board.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 07:18:03 AM
On behalf of all liberals, I'd like to thank the Wisconsin Republicans for ensuring Obama's reelection in 2012. Thanks, guys!
What, this is going to motivate the public sector unions to be more pro-Democrat? As if they weren't 100% dedicated to the cause already?
Quote from: Neil on March 10, 2011, 07:33:43 AM
What, this is going to motivate the public sector unions to be more pro-Democrat? As if they weren't 100% dedicated to the cause already?
:huh: There are pro-Republican public sector unions in the US, which were not (for some reason) seen as evil as "all" public sector unions and so kept (in this case) all the union negotiating powers that no union can possibly be trusted with. They could theoretically turn against the Republicans. Not that they will, of course.
In Canada, your statement is probably true.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 07:28:37 AM
Oh, I'm sure they've known all along they could; it's just the matter of how much political will they were willing to gamble. This kind of stuff never looks good, and there's always blowback.
Americans that don't know any better may not like unions, but one thing they definitely don't like are political machinations that don't look above board.
I agree. They wanted to avoid making their position this nakedly partisan-political. Making the bill explicitly not about budgeting
at all robs them of the fig leaf that this was about budget deficits and not the Republican Party's political ambitions.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 07:28:37 AM
Americans that don't know any better may not like unions, but one thing they definitely don't like are political machinations that don't look above board.
Such as fleeing out of state to avoid a vote? :lol:
Quote from: Faeelin on March 10, 2011, 07:20:09 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2011, 10:56:23 PM
Looks like Walker got what he wanted anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
I guess this was inevitable.
What, they just realized they could do this?
Nah, the Repubs and Dems knew this was doable. But both sides playing the game, stalling for time, or political timing, or what ever.
Quote from: derspiess on March 09, 2011, 04:10:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2011, 02:39:22 PM
I'll look up Union thug, you see if you can find out what a "welfare thug" is.
Deal. First result was a HuffPo link, which I'm sure you already read :mellow:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html
Actually, I did not read it (and still haven't. My internet connection is crap and I can't play movies). I just saw the term used over and over on that Breitbart site. I wondered if it was related to "welfare queen" in the conservative phraseology.
"Union thug" seems to mean, slob, cockroach, and leech or more precisely a person who doesn't want to lose their job and votes Democratic.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2011, 10:56:23 PM
Looks like Walker got what he wanted anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
I guess this was inevitable.
Doesn't this take care of your objection that Walker was using the benefits cuts as a cover for ending collective bargaining privileges? With it split into separate bills (which I'm still vexed as to why it took them so long to figure out they could do that), collective bargaining and benefits cuts are now separate issues.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 07:28:37 AM
Americans that don't know any better may not like unions,
I could forgive my pro-union granddad for being stuck in the 30s & 40s, but you have no excuse. Unions in general are an anachronism. Public sector unions are an abomination that should have never been allowed in the first place
Quotebut one thing they definitely don't like are political machinations that don't look above board.
I'm not sure they're exactly turned on by examples of union member behavior, either.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2011, 09:49:14 AM
"Union thug" seems to mean, slob, cockroach, and leech or more precisely a person who doesn't want to lose their job and votes Democratic.
No. Maybe it gets overused (but in the internet era of political debate, what term doesn't), but there are clear examples of what a union thug actually is. If you could access Youtube you'd see them.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 09, 2011, 10:56:23 PM
Looks like Walker got what he wanted anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
I guess this was inevitable.
I like the CNN article on it; there's no game without polyhedron dice quite as entertaining as Politics and Punditry:
QuoteWisconsin State Assembly takes up divisive union billFrom Ed Lavandera, CNN
March 10, 2011 10:09 a.m. EST
Madison, Wisconsin (CNN) -- Thousands of protesters began filling up the Wisconsin state Capitol building Thursday as the state Assembly prepared to vote on a new version of a bill that takes away collective bargaining powers from most state workers.
The Assembly will convene at 11 a.m. (12 p.m. ET) to vote on the revised measure, which was left only with provisions taking away collective bargaining powers and increasing health insurance and pension fund contributions.
The Assembly is expected to pass the bill, which could then reach Gov. Scott Walker's desk as early as Thursday for final approval.
Senate Republicans approved the measure in a controversial move Wednesday evening, getting around a long-running Democratic walkout by stripping financial provisions from the budget repair bill.
Nearly 200 protesters refused to leave the Capitol building after the Senate vote, sleeping on the floor of the rotunda and in front of the Assembly doors. Capitol police allowed the protesters to stay despite a court order that prohibits people from remaining inside the building at night when state business is not being conducted.
"Working families, labor leaders and concerned Wisconsinites will gather outside the Capitol to let Gov. Walker know the fight will continue," a statement from the Wisconsin AFL-CIO said.
In announcing the vote on the measure Wednesday night, Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, the chamber's Republican majority leader, said, "Tonight, the Senate will be passing the items in the Budget Repair Bill that we can with the 19 members who actually do show up and do their jobs."
The Senate's 14 Democrats had fled to Illinois to prevent the chamber from attaining a quorum and passing the collective bargaining measures, which they have called an unnecessary attack on the rights of public employees.
Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach said Thursday the Republican leaders violated state open meetings laws by calling the chamber into session without proper notice.
"I'd assume this would end up in court," Erpenbach told CNN's "American Morning." "We're going to get together somewhere around noon and talk about what our options are, and then take it from there."
Republicans were able to move ahead by voting only on the non-financial aspects of Walker's proposed bill, which requires fewer members for a quorum.
"The Senate Democrats have had three weeks to debate this bill and were offered repeated opportunities to come home, which they refused," Walker said in a statement on the vote. "In order to move the state forward, I applaud the Legislature's action today to stand up to the status quo and take a step in the right direction to balance the budget and reform government."
But the move drew howls of outrage from outside the chamber, where pro-union demonstrators chanted "shame" and "you lied to Wisconsin" as the bill passed. Thousands more began to converge on the building, and a chorus of horns from passing cars echoed in the streets around the Capitol after the vote.
James Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, said officers with the Madison police department and Dane County sheriff's deputies have been placed on alert in anticipation of Thursday's protests.
Walker and GOP lawmakers are trying to close a $137 million budget shortfall with a plan that calls for curbs on public employee union bargaining rights and requires public workers, with the exception of police and firefighters, to cover more of their retirement plans and health care premiums.
Public employee unions agreed to financial concessions that they say will help meet the state's fiscal needs, but Walker has said the limits on public bargaining are a critical component of his plan. His bill, which already had passed the state Assembly, would bar public workers other than police and firefighters from bargaining for anything other than wages.
Raises would be capped to the rate of inflation, unless state voters approve. The legislation also would require unions to hold a new certification vote every year, and unions would no longer be allowed to collect dues from workers' paychecks.
Unions mobilized their supporters to oppose the bill, drawing tens of thousands of workers to rallies opposing Walker and supporting the fugitive Democrats.
Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the state AFL-CIO, said Wednesday night's maneuver "shows that Scott Walker and the Republicans have been lying throughout this entire process."
"None of the provisions that attacked workers' rights had anything to do with the budget," Neuenfeldt said. "Losing badly in the court of public opinion and failing to break the Democratic senators' principled stand, Scott Walker and the GOP have eviscerated both the letter and the spirit of the law and our democratic process to ram through their payback to their deep-pocketed friends."
But the Tea Party Express praised the developments, saying Walker was "holding strong" to his principles.
"Under tremendous pressure from union bosses, who have become irrelevant other than in their unquenchable thirst for power, Gov. Walker held fast and did what was best for the people of Wisconsin," a statement from the political action committee said. "This is a victory not only for the state, but for the nation, as many states now face their own budget battles, and will be forced to put a stop to union bullying that has become almost commonplace."
The vote in the Senate was 18-1, with Republican state Sen. Dale Schultz -- who earlier had floated a compromise that neither side bought into -- the lone opponent.
Outside, state Rep. Peter Barca argued that Republican leaders violated state open meetings laws, a move he called "a naked abuse of power."
"The gig is now up. The fraud on the people of Wisconsin is now very clear. They are now going to pass a bill to take away people's rights," Barca, a Democrat, said.
And Sen. Mark Miller, the Democratic Senate leader, said Republicans "conspired to take government away from the people."
"In 30 minutes, 18 state senators undid 50 years of civil rights in Wisconsin," Miller said in a statement condemning the vote. "Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten."
The problem with Wisconsinites is that they think small. By undoing 50 years of civil rights all they've accomplished is the need to build twice as many lavatories and drinking fountains. If they undid 150 years of civil rights they could kidnap black people and man the civil service with slave labor.
Quote from: Savonarola on March 10, 2011, 10:44:44 AM
The problem with Wisconsinites is that they think small. By undoing 50 years of civil rights all they've accomplished is the need to build twice as many lavatories and drinking fountains. If they undid 150 years of civil rights they could kidnap black people and man the civil service with slave labor.
If the legislature had only required that they themselves follow the rules they set for others, they could have done more good. They should have made it so that elected officials could not collect taxes for their own pay from the taxpayers' wages (require such taxes to be paid voluntarily), and require that voters approve the continued tenure of each state-level elected official every year. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?
Death threats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html
Quote
"This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult (sic) you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent..."
Quote from: Savonarola on March 10, 2011, 10:44:44 AM
there's no game without polyhedron dice quite as entertaining as Politics and Punditry:
Very nice phrase. :thumbsup:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 10, 2011, 03:34:28 PM
Death threats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html
Quote
"This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult (sic) you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent..."
Good old Socialists.
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2011, 03:38:47 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 10, 2011, 03:34:28 PM
Death threats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html
Quote
"This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult (sic) you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent..."
Good old Socialists.
Looks like Congressman King needs a lot more home grown terrorist hearings!! <_<
Terror - what a civilized way to get what you want.
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2011, 11:22:10 AM
If the legislature had only required that they themselves follow the rules they set for others, they could have done more good. They should have made it so that elected officials could not collect taxes for their own pay from the taxpayers' wages (require such taxes to be paid voluntarily), and require that voters approve the continued tenure of each state-level elected official every year. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?
Hmm-- could we then also vote for who gets teaching positions?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 10, 2011, 03:34:28 PM
Death threats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html
Quote
"This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult (sic) you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent..."
Glad the left is keeping things civil LOLZ
Quote from: derspiess on March 10, 2011, 04:11:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2011, 11:22:10 AM
If the legislature had only required that they themselves follow the rules they set for others, they could have done more good. They should have made it so that elected officials could not collect taxes for their own pay from the taxpayers' wages (require such taxes to be paid voluntarily), and require that voters approve the continued tenure of each state-level elected official every year. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?
Hmm-- could we then also vote for who gets teaching positions?
Why not let the kids vote? I am sure they'd be just as impartial and objective as the parents and school administrators. Honestly, it would be best to let the Legislators decide the issue. Just imagine all the bribes and graft they could get as each individual teacher and school has to lobby for their careers than do it again the next year. It will certainly inspire the next generation of teachers to go get their Bachelor's degree and than their Masters knowing they'll have no job security but a huge college loan debt over their heads.
Oh man, teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job???
Oh, the huge manatees!
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Oh man, teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job???
Oh, the huge manatees!
Of course, we have to reassess if we want people to be teachers. Long vacations are great, but if you are shelling out lots of money for an advanced degree and then likely end up with no job, not really sure the allure of long vacations will draw anyone sensible.
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2011, 03:38:47 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 10, 2011, 03:34:28 PM
Death threats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html
Quote
"This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult (sic) you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent..."
Good old Socialists.
Wait a minute. I thought only Muslims were terrorists in the US.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-muslims-hearing-20110311,0,7503436.story
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 04:40:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Oh man, teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job???
Oh, the huge manatees!
Of course, we have to reassess if we want people to be teachers. Long vacations are great, but if you are shelling out lots of money for an advanced degree and then likely end up with no job, not really sure the allure of long vacations will draw anyone sensible.
The funny thing is that its not like unions guarantee that college grads will get jobs - they certainly do not CREATE jobs. The only thing they can do is promise that once you get a job, you won't have to actually perform in order to make above the market rate in salary - often well above it.
I have no problem paying teachers (or police officers, fireman, parole officers, whatever) well. But "well" should be determined by the market, not by what the unions can manage to trade/blackmail for. The state of New York should pay what it takes to attract the best teachers we can afford.
Comments like Strix's just really illustrate how disconnected with reality those sucking at the public tit become. They actually say things like that as if non-union people might think "Holy shit, we cannot possibly have teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job! Why, that would be just like everyone fucking else!"
Excuse me while I go right out my monthly student loan payment check. Paid for by my salary from my non-guaranteed job. How can I possibly survive like this?
Sounds like a delightful state to work in.
Also, apart from the ridculous policy of selectively removing certain unions' right to bargain collectively, making salary increases beyond the rate of inflation a matter of referendum is likewise insane.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Oh man, teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job???
Oh, the huge manatees!
Nice strawman. Who said anything about guaranteed jobs? The only people with guaranteed jobs are political appointees. The rest have to qualify with the required amount of education, experience, and natural attributes. This is usually followed by a Civil Service test. Than an interview process. And once you have gotten through all those phases than you get hired. This is followed by a year or so of probation when you can be terminated at any time.
Not sure how that process = guaranteed. But you know best.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 04:45:41 PM
The funny thing is that its not like unions guarantee that college grads will get jobs - they certainly do not CREATE jobs. The only thing they can do is promise that once you get a job, you won't have to actually perform in order to make above the market rate in salary - often well above it.
I have no problem paying teachers (or police officers, fireman, parole officers, whatever) well. But "well" should be determined by the market, not by what the unions can manage to trade/blackmail for. The state of New York should pay what it takes to attract the best teachers we can afford.
Comments like Strix's just really illustrate how disconnected with reality those sucking at the public tit become. They actually say things like that as if non-union people might think "Holy shit, we cannot possibly have teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job! Why, that would be just like everyone fucking else!"
:hug:
Excuse me while I go right out my monthly student loan payment check. Paid for by my salary from my non-guaranteed job. How can I possibly survive like this?
Teaching has never really struck me as a job that one goes into for great pay. Love of the field seems more important and perhaps for some the vacation (although seems like a lesser bonus). However, it seems like a foolish decision to enter a low-paying position that often gets the axe when it comes to righting state budgets - one wouldn't even beg getting to do one's passion! :(*
*Although perhaps the news media just over-represents teacher layoffs.
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Oh man, teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job???
Oh, the huge manatees!
Nice strawman. Who said anything about guaranteed jobs? The only people with guaranteed jobs are political appointees. The rest have to qualify with the required amount of education, experience, and natural attributes. This is usually followed by a Civil Service test. Than an interview process. And once you have gotten through all those phases than you get hired. This is followed by a year or so of probation when you can be terminated at any time.
Not sure how that process = guaranteed. But you know best.
Wow, so you have to endure an ENTIRE YEAR of at-will employment? :o
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 04:45:41 PM
The funny thing is that its not like unions guarantee that college grads will get jobs - they certainly do not CREATE jobs. The only thing they can do is promise that once you get a job, you won't have to actually perform in order to make above the market rate in salary - often well above it.
I have no problem paying teachers (or police officers, fireman, parole officers, whatever) well. But "well" should be determined by the market, not by what the unions can manage to trade/blackmail for. The state of New York should pay what it takes to attract the best teachers we can afford.
Comments like Strix's just really illustrate how disconnected with reality those sucking at the public tit become. They actually say things like that as if non-union people might think "Holy shit, we cannot possibly have teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job! Why, that would be just like everyone fucking else!"
Excuse me while I go right out my monthly student loan payment check. Paid for by my salary from my non-guaranteed job. How can I possibly survive like this?
:lmfao: I like the way you knocked that Strawman over. You are the master. The way the arms, legs, and head popped off was amazing!
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Oh man, teachers with student loans and no guaranteed job???
Oh, the huge manatees!
Nice strawman. Who said anything about guaranteed jobs? The only people with guaranteed jobs are political appointees. The rest have to qualify with the required amount of education, experience, and natural attributes. This is usually followed by a Civil Service test. Than an interview process. And once you have gotten through all those phases than you get hired. This is followed by a year or so of probation when you can be terminated at any time.
Not sure how that process = guaranteed. But you know best.
Excessive barriers to entry are one of the signs that the position is overpaid. There are a variety of ways to deal with a glut of truly qualified applicants when you pay too much: make the requirements unnecessarily stringent, have people wait in lines for years for a chance at a job, or have some unofficial connections/bribe requirements.
Quote from: derspiess on March 10, 2011, 05:04:27 PM
Wow, so you have to endure an ENTIRE YEAR of at-will employment? :o
After four years of college and three years of previous job experience. Yes, it is followed by a year of at-will employment. After that, there are standards that must be met each month or you get in trouble. Once you have gotten in trouble three times within 3 years than termination unless of course you are female or non-white but that is another issue that has nothing to do with being Union or non-Union.
What are the qualifications for your job?
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 05:07:06 PM
Excessive barriers to entry are one of the signs that the position is overpaid. There are a variety of ways to deal with a glut of truly qualified applicants when you pay too much: make the requirements unnecessarily stringent, have people wait in lines for years for a chance at a job, or have some unofficial connections/bribe requirements.
As opposed to creating a pool of unqualified job applicants? That makes perfect sense. Perhaps the local McDonald's in your area can work out a transfer policy to the local school system. People can go from being the 'fry guy' to a Principal in six months. :lmfao:
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:10:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 05:07:06 PM
Excessive barriers to entry are one of the signs that the position is overpaid. There are a variety of ways to deal with a glut of truly qualified applicants when you pay too much: make the requirements unnecessarily stringent, have people wait in lines for years for a chance at a job, or have some unofficial connections/bribe requirements.
As opposed to creating a pool of unqualified job applicants? That makes perfect sense. Perhaps the local McDonald's in your area can work out a transfer policy to the local school system. People can go from being the 'fry guy' to a Principal in six months. :lmfao:
As usual, I'm a total loss as to the logical connection between the post quoted and your reply to it.
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:07:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 10, 2011, 05:04:27 PM
Wow, so you have to endure an ENTIRE YEAR of at-will employment? :o
After four years of college and three years of previous job experience. Yes, it is followed by a year of at-will employment. After that, there are standards that must be met each month or you get in trouble. Once you have gotten in trouble three times within 3 years than termination unless of course you are female or non-white but that is another issue that has nothing to do with being Union or non-Union.
What are the qualifications for your job?
I've had 4 years of college and 3 years of job experience. I'll still likely be on at-will employment for the rest of my career.
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 05:03:49 PM
Teaching has never really struck me as a job that one goes into for great pay. Love of the field seems more important and perhaps for some the vacation (although seems like a lesser bonus). However, it seems like a foolish decision to enter a low-paying position that often gets the axe when it comes to righting state budgets - one wouldn't even beg getting to do one's passion! :(*
*Although perhaps the news media just over-represents teacher layoffs.
You made the obvious point that Berkut is ignoring. Teaching, law enforcement, military service, etc, and so on, are more careers or "callings" than avenues to great pay. Job security is what makes it possible to deal with the inherent stress involved in those fields. Once you strip away all the "benefits" and "perks" associated with the job than people won't bother to get the education and training required to get those jobs. Yes, pay will go down, costs will go down, and quality will go down.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 05:12:31 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:10:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 05:07:06 PM
Excessive barriers to entry are one of the signs that the position is overpaid. There are a variety of ways to deal with a glut of truly qualified applicants when you pay too much: make the requirements unnecessarily stringent, have people wait in lines for years for a chance at a job, or have some unofficial connections/bribe requirements.
As opposed to creating a pool of unqualified job applicants? That makes perfect sense. Perhaps the local McDonald's in your area can work out a transfer policy to the local school system. People can go from being the 'fry guy' to a Principal in six months. :lmfao:
As usual, I'm a total loss as to the logical connection between the post quoted and your reply to it.
Blame the people who educated you. It's their fault. They were overpaid. Perhaps if they were in a more competitive field than you wouldn't face the daily handicap of being you.
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 05:14:57 PM
I've had 4 years of college and 3 years of job experience. I'll still likely be on at-will employment for the rest of my career.
And what career is that? Anyways, find a career that offers better job security but lower pay. It's what a lot of people do. It makes them lazy and overpaid to Berkut but it is what it is.
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:16:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 05:03:49 PM
Teaching has never really struck me as a job that one goes into for great pay. Love of the field seems more important and perhaps for some the vacation (although seems like a lesser bonus). However, it seems like a foolish decision to enter a low-paying position that often gets the axe when it comes to righting state budgets - one wouldn't even beg getting to do one's passion! :(*
*Although perhaps the news media just over-represents teacher layoffs.
You made the obvious point that Berkut is ignoring. Teaching, law enforcement, military service, etc, and so on, are more careers or "callings" than avenues to great pay. Job security is what makes it possible to deal with the inherent stress involved in those fields. Once you strip away all the "benefits" and "perks" associated with the job than people won't bother to get the education and training required to get those jobs. Yes, pay will go down, costs will go down, and quality will go down.
:huh:
I find there's less stress in my government job than there was in private practice.
There isn't actually a hell of a lot of training or education required for law enforcement or military. There is a lot of training required to teach, but that's fairly recent. Back when my mother started she got a teacher's certificate with one year of university.
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:20:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 05:14:57 PM
I've had 4 years of college and 3 years of job experience. I'll still likely be on at-will employment for the rest of my career.
And what career is that? Anyways, find a career that offers better job security but lower pay. It's what a lot of people do. It makes them lazy and overpaid to Berkut but it is what it is.
Pharmaceuticals. But no thanks, I'll keep my higher pay and jump around to other positions when needs be. I've no intention of staying with one company or geographical area for life.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 05:22:59 PM
There is a lot of training required to teach, but that's fairly recent. Back when my mother started she got a teacher's certificate with one year of university.
That's why I wonder if perhaps if the 'perks' aren't going to be there, if the route to becoming a teacher should become easier.
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:18:18 PM
Blame the people who educated you. It's their fault. They were overpaid. Perhaps if they were in a more competitive field than you wouldn't face the daily handicap of being you.
Possibly. Can you humor me, though, and restate the point you tried to make with McDonalds workers in a way that's conveying some thought?
Quote from: Savonarola on March 10, 2011, 10:44:44 AM
The problem with Wisconsinites is that they think small. By undoing 50 years of civil rights all they've accomplished is the need to build twice as many lavatories and drinking fountains. If they undid 150 years of civil rights they could kidnap black people and man the civil service with slave labor.
Actually, the labor movement in Wisconsin spawned worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, the 8 hour work day, and the 40 hour work week. Only took 7 labor deaths shot by state militiamen in 1886 to give you your Saturday off.
Ungrateful fucks.
The concept of unions isn't hard to defend. The practices of some unions are.
Spitting on a hundred years of Worker driven progress in the area of basic liberties is pretty stupid even for Languish.
If you don't know where you've been, how the fuck can you know where you're going? Simpletons.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 05:22:59 PM
There is a lot of training required to teach, but that's fairly recent. Back when my mother started she got a teacher's certificate with one year of university.
Its not that different. You can have a degree in something completely unrelated to teaching and still get a teacher's certificate in one year.
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:40:00 PM
The concept of unions isn't hard to defend. The practices of some unions are.
Spitting on a hundred years of Worker driven progress in the area of basic liberties is pretty stupid even for Languish.
If you don't know where you've been, how the fuck can you know where you're going? Simpletons.
I think Americans have a different experience of unions than Sweden or even the UK because I find the level of dislike just utterly incomprehensible. It's like gun laws it's something I read the opinions of people and just can't understand it, I never encounter it. I think there's one of those cultural gaps.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 05:22:59 PM
There is a lot of training required to work as a teacher, but that's fairly recent. Back when my mother started she got a teacher's certificate with one year of university.
FYP. People have been teaching for thousands upon thousands of years without university credentials. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:40:00 PM
The concept of unions isn't hard to defend.
That's debatable. In isolation, I think it is a very hard concept to defend, because effective unions are cartels in nature, and have to employ coercion to function. It gets complicated when you consider the historical context, when unions first arose in response to some pretty reprehensible practices of the employers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2011, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:40:00 PM
The concept of unions isn't hard to defend. The practices of some unions are.
Spitting on a hundred years of Worker driven progress in the area of basic liberties is pretty stupid even for Languish.
If you don't know where you've been, how the fuck can you know where you're going? Simpletons.
I think Americans have a different experience of unions than Sweden or even the UK because I find the level of dislike just utterly incomprehensible. It's like gun laws it's something I read the opinions of people and just can't understand it, I never encounter it. I think there's one of those cultural gaps.
Maybe. I'm going to go out on a limb though and guess that unions did pretty much the same very important work in the US during their conceptualization that they did in Europe. They may certainly have developed differently over time in the US than in Europe. Frankly, modern unions certainly don't have the same raison d'etre that they used to, and some of them are clearly just working to perpetuate their own existence rather than for the rights of their members.
The umbrella Labour union in Sweden is a very good example.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
Possibly. Can you humor me, though, and restate the point you tried to make with McDonalds workers in a way that's conveying some thought?
I can try but not much to work with in you.
You stated your drivel about excessive barriers. That means you believe that there should be fewer requirements for a position. Apparently meeting requirements does not equal greater potential ability at doing a job to you. I picked a job that doesn't require a lot of qualifications to work e.g. McDonald's. Creating a real life example of removing most job qualifications would mean that someone could easily transfer from the 'fry guy' at McDonald's to being a Principal at a local school.
In your world anyways.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2011, 05:45:14 PMI think Americans have a different experience of unions than Sweden or even the UK because I find the level of dislike just utterly incomprehensible. It's like gun laws it's something I read the opinions of people and just can't understand it, I never encounter it. I think there's one of those cultural gaps.
You have to remember, the rise of unions came at a time of a comparable rise in socialist/communist/anarchist activity, and there was, for a lot of reasons, a lot of overlap of personalities. The concept of unions is antithetical to the Calvinist work ethic that has driven this country since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
In addition, you're dealing with a lot of Languishites that came of age during the Reagan Revolution, so it's been imprinted on their tiny little minds all their lives that unions = commies. They're simply part of the usual right-hate hat trick: fags, niggers and unions. They're destroying America from within. Only Wall Street can save us now.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 05:46:13 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:40:00 PM
The concept of unions isn't hard to defend.
That's debatable. In isolation, I think it is a very hard concept to defend, because effective unions are cartels in nature, and have to employ coercion to function. It gets complicated when you consider the historical context, when unions first arose in response to some pretty reprehensible practices of the employers.
Like I said, when one discusses the concept of unions one can't only look at extreme examples of modern union corruption, but at the entire concept of what a union SHOULD be doing and what they have historically done. That some (I refuse to believe that it's all of them, but since I don't know enough I certainly won't stand my ground on the issue if pressed) apples are bad doesn't necessarily mean the whole batch is.
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:07:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 10, 2011, 05:04:27 PM
Wow, so you have to endure an ENTIRE YEAR of at-will employment? :o
After four years of college and three years of previous job experience. Yes, it is followed by a year of at-will employment. After that, there are standards that must be met each month or you get in trouble. Once you have gotten in trouble three times within 3 years than termination unless of course you are female or non-white but that is another issue that has nothing to do with being Union or non-Union.
What are the qualifications for your job?
Four year degree minimum, MBA preferred. Not sure what work experience is required on paper, but you really need 6-8 years in payment industry experience to hit the ground running.
At-will employment, of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2011, 05:45:14 PMI think Americans have a different experience of unions than Sweden or even the UK because I find the level of dislike just utterly incomprehensible. It's like gun laws it's something I read the opinions of people and just can't understand it, I never encounter it. I think there's one of those cultural gaps.
You have to remember, the rise of unions came at a time of a comparable rise in socialist/communist/anarchist activity, and there was, for a lot of reasons, a lot of overlap of personalities. The concept of unions is antithetical to the Calvinist work ethic that has driven this country since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
In addition, you're dealing with a lot of Languishites that came of age during the Reagan Revolution, so it's been imprinted on their tiny little minds all their lives that unions = commies. They're simply part of the usual right-hate hat trick: fags, niggers and unions. They're destroying America from within. Only Wall Street can save us now.
A reasonable explanation for an unreasonable phenomenon. Interesting. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
In addition, you're dealing with a lot of Languishites that came of age during the Reagan Revolution, so it's been imprinted on their tiny little minds all their lives that unions = commies. They're simply part of the usual right-hate hat trick: fags, niggers and unions. They're destroying America from within. Only Wall Street can save us now.
:rolleyes: First off, I'm actually not a fan of Reagan. To me, Reagan and Obama are similar in many ways and I like neither.
Secondly, my dislike of unions stems from quite a bit of personal experience. I've been in a union twice (both times forced to enroll due to stupid closed shop rules), and had to deal with union organizing actions once. When I was in a union I was forced to pay dues in exchange for absolutely nothing other than promises of 'protection' (sounds a lot like racketeering, actually), and when I was on the management side of the fence we had to deal with union infiltration of our hourly staff complete with lies, propaganda, and unfair lobbying... by which I mean unions have the right to do a lot of things to press their cause that employers actually lack.
I don't think unions should be made illegal, but I would love it if the NLRA was ever repealed. Unions don't need unfair advantages enforced by federal law when it comes to organizing battles.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
In addition, you're dealing with a lot of Languishites that came of age during the Reagan Revolution,
:punk:
I was only 7 when he was elected but I am & will always be a: Reagan Republican.
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
Possibly. Can you humor me, though, and restate the point you tried to make with McDonalds workers in a way that's conveying some thought?
I can try but not much to work with in you.
You stated your drivel about excessive barriers. That means you believe that there should be fewer requirements for a position. Apparently meeting requirements does not equal greater potential ability at doing a job to you. I picked a job that doesn't require a lot of qualifications to work e.g. McDonald's. Creating a real life example of removing most job qualifications would mean that someone could easily transfer from the 'fry guy' at McDonald's to being a Principal at a local school.
In your world anyways.
Ok, I didn't miss anything the first time. There is not much thought to be had in your argument.
Just because requirements can be excessive for certain positions doesn't mean that the only other alternative is to have no job requirements. It also doesn't mean that requirements would be the same for jobs with wildly different responsibilities and expectations.
I do commend you on forming a well-hidden strawman. The logic of your argument is so tortured to death that's it's very hard to recognize straw (or anything else) in it.
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:49:05 PM
Maybe. I'm going to go out on a limb though and guess that unions did pretty much the same very important work in the US during their conceptualization that they did in Europe. They may certainly have developed differently over time in the US than in Europe. Frankly, modern unions certainly don't have the same raison d'etre that they used to, and some of them are clearly just working to perpetuate their own existence rather than for the rights of their members.
I would also agree that in America's past, unions played a vital and commendable role in advancing workers' rights and by extension democracy.
Quote from: derspiess on March 10, 2011, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
In addition, you're dealing with a lot of Languishites that came of age during the Reagan Revolution,
:punk:
I was only 7 when he was elected but I am & will always be a: Reagan Republican.
And I will always be a (Manning) Reformer. :punk:
The West Wants In!
You guys can bitch and moan all you want about how useless unions are all you want...after all, if they're gone, we all know we can trust Big Bidness, Wall Street and the Republicans to always do the right thing when it comes to workers, right?
Unions are the last bulwark against exploitation in our capitalist society. It sure as shit ain't the courts, it sure as shit ain't the government, and it sure as shit ain't shareholder-driven employers.
You guys kills me. The totality of every fucking union in this country doesn't even touch the damage Wall Street does to our society. But that's OK, you keep backing the wealthy, the Republicans and the 1% Masters of The Universe that would fucking hate you if they knew you. Suckers.
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 05:46:13 PM
Quote from: Slargos on March 10, 2011, 05:40:00 PM
The concept of unions isn't hard to defend.
That's debatable. In isolation, I think it is a very hard concept to defend, because effective unions are cartels in nature, and have to employ coercion to function. It gets complicated when you consider the historical context, when unions first arose in response to some pretty reprehensible practices of the employers.
Like I said, when one discusses the concept of unions one can't only look at extreme examples of modern union corruption, but at the entire concept of what a union SHOULD be doing and what they have historically done. That some (I refuse to believe that it's all of them, but since I don't know enough I certainly won't stand my ground on the issue if pressed) apples are bad doesn't necessarily mean the whole batch is.
Nothing I said applied exclusively to the modern unions. Any kind of labor union is a cartel in nature.
The whole point of a labor union is to organize the workers so that they individually wouldn't compete with each other on salary or perks. That's labor cartel. Another necessity of such an arrangement is that you also need to intimidate potential scabs to not compete with your union, or your whole union can just be fired and replaced with non-unionized force. There are numerous ways to accomplish this; social pressure, laws, or violence. Whatever the way, it's coercive, and ultimatley an attack on individual freedom.
Quote from: Caliga on March 10, 2011, 05:57:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 05:50:55 PM
In addition, you're dealing with a lot of Languishites that came of age during the Reagan Revolution, so it's been imprinted on their tiny little minds all their lives that unions = commies. They're simply part of the usual right-hate hat trick: fags, niggers and unions. They're destroying America from within. Only Wall Street can save us now.
:rolleyes: First off, I'm actually not a fan of Reagan. To me, Reagan and Obama are similar in many ways and I like neither.
Secondly, my dislike of unions stems from quite a bit of personal experience. I've been in a union twice (both times forced to enroll due to stupid closed shop rules), and had to deal with union organizing actions once. When I was in a union I was forced to pay dues in exchange for absolutely nothing other than promises of 'protection' (sounds a lot like racketeering, actually), and when I was on the management side of the fence we had to deal with union infiltration of our hourly staff complete with lies, propaganda, and unfair lobbying... by which I mean unions have the right to do a lot of things to press their cause that employers actually lack.
I don't think unions should be made illegal, but I would love it if the NLRA was ever repealed. Unions don't need unfair advantages enforced by federal law when it comes to organizing battles.
My issues with unions are largely philosophical, but I have personal experience as well.
My wife did get involved in the local at her job, and was promptly asked to be union President. So I got to see a bit of that side. And she did some good - bringing up workplace safety concerns with management all the time. She'd also tell employees that the union would not help when it was their own fault.
However on the negative side... About a dozen years ago my father crossed a picket line. He was out of work at the time, he was good friends with the manager, so he took the job. (Incedentally this was one of the few / only times I've ever seen a union completely, 100% busted. I don't know exactly how, but when the final agreement was signed the union was no more, and several people were not welcome back at their jobs).
But unions have continued to hound him ever since. He was offered a job at a place - the union said they would refuse to give him a union card, therefore the company could not hire him. WTF! Since when do unions get to veto employees? And they have continued to give him problems getting employment ever since. All for him helping a friend and trying to put food on his table.
So - unions at their best can have a small positive. At their worst they are nothing but thugs and bullies.
Quote from: Caliga on March 10, 2011, 05:57:18 PM
I don't think unions should be made illegal, but I would love it if the NLRA was ever repealed. Unions don't need unfair advantages enforced by federal law when it comes to organizing battles.
Actually, they do. Unions cannot survive if they're not in some way protected form being fired wholesale and replaced with non-union workers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 06:05:19 PM
You guys can bitch and moan all you want about how useless unions are all you want...after all, if they're gone, we all know we can trust Big Bidness, Wall Street and the Republicans to always do the right thing when it comes to workers, right?
Unions are the last bulwark against exploitation in our capitalist society. It sure as shit ain't the courts, it sure as shit ain't the government, and it sure as shit ain't shareholder-driven employers.
You guys kills me. The totality of every fucking union in this country doesn't even touch the damage Wall Street does to our society. But that's OK, you keep backing the wealthy, the Republicans and the 1% Masters of The Universe that would fucking hate you if they knew you. Suckers.
It does not necessarily follow, IMO, that you have to love Wall Street just because you aren't a big fan of organized labor. I also concede that there are probably some unions that are well-run and do more good than harm, but based on my personal experiences the AFL-CIO, HUCTW, and SEIU are not among them.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:08:45 PM
Actually, they do. Unions cannot survive if they're not in some way protected form being fired wholesale and replaced with non-union workers.
Sure they can. If they manage to organize all skilled workers in a given area, management has no choice but to deal with them.
Quote from: Caliga on March 10, 2011, 06:09:06 PMIt does not necessarily follow, IMO, that you have to love Wall Street just because you aren't a big fan of organized labor. I also concede that there are probably some unions that are well-run and do more good than harm, but based on my personal experiences the AFL-CIO, HUCTW, and SEIU are not among them.
Based on my personal experience, you're a conservative assmonkey. Enjoy your future unappealable reduction-in-force action, Teabagger. *middulfinger* :P :P :P
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:00:07 PM
Just because requirements can be excessive for certain positions doesn't mean that the only other alternative is to have no job requirements. It also doesn't mean that requirements would be the same for jobs with wildly different responsibilities and expectations.
According to your drivel, yes, yes it does. I don't hold you to it though. You are the Monkey Rider of Languish. Always aping what others say without any understanding on your part. Watching you argue is like watching a monkey ride a bike. Yes, it can be done but it never looks natural and isn't funny beyond the initial chuckle.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 10, 2011, 05:57:18 PM
I don't think unions should be made illegal, but I would love it if the NLRA was ever repealed. Unions don't need unfair advantages enforced by federal law when it comes to organizing battles.
Actually, they do. Unions cannot survive if they're not in some way protected form being fired wholesale and replaced with non-union workers.
I'll give you an example of a good "union".
At my new job I will be represented by the Alberta Crown Attorney's Association. Now, it technically is not a union, but it is a voluntary organization whose membership is open to all Alberta Crown Attorneys. Membership is voluntary, so they work hard to give value for your membership fees, and they do get most people to sign up. They do advocate with the government for their membership. While it is not collective bargaining, they have successfully made the case for their membership such that they were given a substantial raise.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 06:05:19 PM
You guys can bitch and moan all you want about how useless unions are all you want...after all, if they're gone, we all know we can trust Big Bidness, Wall Street and the Republicans to always do the right thing when it comes to workers, right?
This, in a nutshell, sums up competely the difference between the populist left and the free market right.
I don't expect, and I don't need, Big Bidness et al to "do right by me." I need the laws of supply and demand to operate so that an employer can hire me if he thinks he can generate more profit by doing so.
You disgust me Yi.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 06:26:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 06:05:19 PM
You guys can bitch and moan all you want about how useless unions are all you want...after all, if they're gone, we all know we can trust Big Bidness, Wall Street and the Republicans to always do the right thing when it comes to workers, right?
This, in a nutshell, sums up competely the difference between the populist left and the free market right.
I don't expect, and I don't need, Big Bidness et al to "do right by me." I need the laws of supply and demand to operate so that an employer can hire me if he thinks he can generate more profit by doing so.
That would explain the number of years you were out of a job then. *bothmiddulfingers*
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 06:16:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:00:07 PM
Just because requirements can be excessive for certain positions doesn't mean that the only other alternative is to have no job requirements. It also doesn't mean that requirements would be the same for jobs with wildly different responsibilities and expectations.
According to your drivel, yes, yes it does. I don't hold you to it though. You are the Monkey Rider of Languish. Always aping what others say without any understanding on your part. Watching you argue is like watching a monkey ride a bike. Yes, it can be done but it never looks natural and isn't funny beyond the initial chuckle.
Here is a word of advice. If you want to insult, scalpel works better than an axe. It also works better if there is a hint of truth in an insult. This is Languish, not a kindergarten playground, people expect you to work on your insults here, not just piece together half a dozen random nasty things.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 06:34:18 PM
That would explain the number of years you were out of a job then. *bothmiddulfingers*
What Guller said to Strix.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:38:13 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 10, 2011, 06:16:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:00:07 PM
Just because requirements can be excessive for certain positions doesn't mean that the only other alternative is to have no job requirements. It also doesn't mean that requirements would be the same for jobs with wildly different responsibilities and expectations.
According to your drivel, yes, yes it does. I don't hold you to it though. You are the Monkey Rider of Languish. Always aping what others say without any understanding on your part. Watching you argue is like watching a monkey ride a bike. Yes, it can be done but it never looks natural and isn't funny beyond the initial chuckle.
Here is a word of advice. If you want to insult, scalpel works better than an axe. It also works better if there is a hint of truth in an insult. This is Languish, not a kindergarten playground, people expect you to work on your insults here, not just piece together half a dozen random nasty things.
Slav.
There.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 06:26:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 06:05:19 PM
You guys can bitch and moan all you want about how useless unions are all you want...after all, if they're gone, we all know we can trust Big Bidness, Wall Street and the Republicans to always do the right thing when it comes to workers, right?
This, in a nutshell, sums up competely the difference between the populist left and the free market right.
I don't expect, and I don't need, Big Bidness et al to "do right by me." I need the laws of supply and demand to operate so that an employer can hire me if he thinks he can generate more profit by doing so.
Why, that is just crazy talk right there.
I love seeing Strix and Seedy on the same side though. Warms my heart.
I throw M-80's into threads.
Quote from: Berkut on March 10, 2011, 06:42:59 PMI love seeing Strix and Seedy on the same side though. Warms my heart.
Only until September.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 06:05:19 PM
Unions are the last bulwark against exploitation in our capitalist society.
Lol. In many cases, the union leaders
are the exploiters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Actually, the labor movement in Wisconsin spawned worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, the 8 hour work day, and the 40 hour work week. Only took 7 labor deaths shot by state militiamen in 1886 to give you your Saturday off.
Ungrateful fucks.
In the 21st century I'm supposed to support an institution that did something relevant for me in the 19th century? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 07:28:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Actually, the labor movement in Wisconsin spawned worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, the 8 hour work day, and the 40 hour work week. Only took 7 labor deaths shot by state militiamen in 1886 to give you your Saturday off.
Ungrateful fucks.
In the 21st century I'm supposed to support an institution that did something relevant for me in the 19th century? :huh:
Where would you be without slave trade, you ingrate?
If unions were still as large as they used to be, garbon wouldn't be able to get a job.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 07:30:51 PM
Where would you be without slave trade, you ingrate?
And slavery was eventually put off to pasture. It's existence now would certainly harm me.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 10, 2011, 07:34:20 PMIf unions were still as large as they used to be, garbon wouldn't be able to get a job.
That doesn't sound like an anti-union statement.
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 07:30:51 PM
Where would you be without slave trade, you ingrate?
And slavery was eventually put off to pasture. It's existence now would certainly harm me.
lol, 650,000+ dead a "pasture".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 07:36:31 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 10, 2011, 07:34:20 PMIf unions were still as large as they used to be, garbon wouldn't be able to get a job.
That doesn't sound like an anti-union statement.
Big Poppa don't get all bent out of shape.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 07:37:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 07:30:51 PM
Where would you be without slave trade, you ingrate?
And slavery was eventually put off to pasture. It's existence now would certainly harm me.
lol, 650,000+ dead a "pasture".
Oh that war that was started because Lincoln wanted to free all the slaves? :hmm:
IT WAS ABOUT STATE RIGHTS! :mad:
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 07:42:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 07:37:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 07:30:51 PM
Where would you be without slave trade, you ingrate?
And slavery was eventually put off to pasture. It's existence now would certainly harm me.
lol, 650,000+ dead a "pasture".
Oh that war that was started because Lincoln wanted to free all the slaves? :hmm:
After a while, yes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on March 10, 2011, 10:44:44 AM
The problem with Wisconsinites is that they think small. By undoing 50 years of civil rights all they've accomplished is the need to build twice as many lavatories and drinking fountains. If they undid 150 years of civil rights they could kidnap black people and man the civil service with slave labor.
Actually, the labor movement in Wisconsin spawned worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, the 8 hour work day, and the 40 hour work week. Only took 7 labor deaths shot by state militiamen in 1886 to give you your Saturday off.
Ungrateful fucks.
Everyone alive in 1886 is dead today. There is noone left to be grateful to.
I wonder what kinds of hours we would be working now if it weren't for the labor unions.
I think we should standardize the 3-day weekend. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 08:11:00 PM
I wonder what kinds of hours we would be working now if it weren't for the labor unions.
Something very similar to what we're working now. Henry Ford supported a 40-hour workweek without being whined at by unions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 08:11:00 PM
I wonder what kinds of hours we would be working now if it weren't for the labor unions.
Probably even fewer, because they've held back technological and economic progress in the country. Some estimates say that they've caused, over the decades, several trillions of dollars in economic damage.
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 10, 2011, 09:21:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 08:11:00 PM
I wonder what kinds of hours we would be working now if it weren't for the labor unions.
Probably even fewer, because they've held back technological and economic progress in the country. Some estimates say that they've caused, over the decades, several trillions of dollars in economic damage.
You are assuming that economic growth reduces the average number of hours worked. That has not exactly been the case in the last half a century.
In fact, one of the few things that I think unions are good at is promoting a more acceptable work-life balance. It's not easy for an individual employee to negotiate working 6 hour days when everyone else works 8 hour days, even if he's willing to take the paycut. If you work at an assembly line, you pretty much have to work on the same schedule as all your other co-workers.
Swedish unions are a very destructive force. They serve no legitimate purpose. Our laws are sufficient to protect workers, no need for organized losers.
I could have been in a union, had I wanted to. If I had I would make a LOT less than I do now. Because unions hate productive employees. When great employees get more money it increases "inequality".
On the bright side we don't have closed shops in Sweden AFAIK. The exception was when you studied at university, but I don't know if that's still the case.
Also, Swedish unions are losing members at a great rate.
Quote from: derspiess on March 10, 2011, 04:11:48 PM
Hmm-- could we then also vote for who gets teaching positions?
I suppose we could all vote for who gets every job in the country. Not sure why anyone would
want to do that, but we
could do it.
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 04:40:34 PM
Of course, we have to reassess if we want people to be teachers. Long vacations are great, but if you are shelling out lots of money for an advanced degree and then likely end up with no job, not really sure the allure of long vacations will draw anyone sensible.
Actually, the whole "long vacations" thing is a bit over-done. The teachers at the public schools here have a total of ten weeks off due to Christmas, Spring Break, and summer. I had six weeks off in the military, with much better pay. In my beltway bandit job I had five weeks off and much, much better pay than a teacher gets.
"Swedish unions are a very destructive force. They serve no legitimate purpose. Our laws are sufficient to protect workers, no need for organized losers."
That's just not true. You clearly know nothing about how the labour market in this country works. The classic Swedish model is for the state to not legislate and leave it to employers and employees to collectively negotiate the terms of the labour market. This was the case for most of the 1900s until the 70s when we got the two major laws we have today, LAS and MBL. LAS removed the free right to fire employees but is today a weak law that can be easily bypassed. MBL makes most of the collective bargaining agreement normative as a minimum for the whole workplace. This is called "kollektivavtals utfyllande verkan" (google it). So you enjoy protection and benefit from the collective agreement even though you're not a member. This also explains why a lot of people aren't members. It is not that we have a lot of laws protecting employees. Because we don't. That's just bullshit.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 07:37:24 AMActually, the whole "long vacations" thing is a bit over-done. The teachers at the public schools here have a total of ten weeks off due to Christmas, Spring Break, and summer. I had six weeks off in the military, with much better pay. In my beltway bandit job I had five weeks off and much, much better pay than a teacher gets.
But teachers are destroying the economy from within. And for that they must pay.
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 09:25:22 PM
In fact, one of the few things that I think unions are good at is promoting a more acceptable work-life balance. It's not easy for an individual employee to negotiate working 6 hour days when everyone else works 8 hour days, even if he's willing to take the paycut. If you work at an assembly line, you pretty much have to work on the same schedule as all your other co-workers.
The mechanism you describe seems to have more to do with the nature of the work than with the nature of the employee/employer relationship.
Quote from: JonasSalk on March 10, 2011, 09:21:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 08:11:00 PM
I wonder what kinds of hours we would be working now if it weren't for the labor unions.
Probably even fewer, because they've held back technological and economic progress in the country. Some estimates say that they've caused, over the decades, several trillions of dollars in economic damage.
Some estimate say they have prevented us from reaching the technological singularity and the land of milkshakes and hand jobs.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 10, 2011, 08:16:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2011, 08:11:00 PM
I wonder what kinds of hours we would be working now if it weren't for the labor unions.
Something very similar to what we're working now. Henry Ford supported a 40-hour workweek without being whined at by unions.
Mr. Ford used a domestic terrorist group against unions. Also got a medal from Hitler and helped build the Soviet automotive industry. He'd have been saddened to know that the armored vehicles built by the factory he helped start did so poorly in killing Jews in the Six day war and the Yom Kippur war.
Quote from: Pat on March 11, 2011, 07:38:51 AM
"Swedish unions are a very destructive force. They serve no legitimate purpose. Our laws are sufficient to protect workers, no need for organized losers."
That's just not true. You clearly know nothing about how the labour market in this country works. The classic Swedish model is for the state to not legislate and leave it to employers and employees to collectively negotiate the terms of the labour market. This was the case for most of the 1900s until the 70s when we got the two major laws we have today, LAS and MBL. LAS removed the free right to fire employees but is today a weak law that can be easily bypassed. MBL makes most of the collective bargaining agreement normative as a minimum for the whole workplace. This is called "kollektivavtals utfyllande verkan" (google it). So you enjoy protection and benefit from the collective agreement even though you're not a member. This also explains why a lot of people aren't members. It is not that we have a lot of laws protecting employees. Because we don't. That's just bullshit.
What kind of worker needs to be protected from supply and demand? Worker safety is heavily regulated and does not depend on unions.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 07:37:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 04:40:34 PM
Of course, we have to reassess if we want people to be teachers. Long vacations are great, but if you are shelling out lots of money for an advanced degree and then likely end up with no job, not really sure the allure of long vacations will draw anyone sensible.
Actually, the whole "long vacations" thing is a bit over-done. The teachers at the public schools here have a total of ten weeks off due to Christmas, Spring Break, and summer. I had six weeks off in the military, with much better pay. In my beltway bandit job I had five weeks off and much, much better pay than a teacher gets.
I don't have a problem with teacher vacations. And I'm tired of the teacher bashing that goes on. The education system has problems, as do the unions which people can argue may cause additional problems, but the teachers are trying to do a decent job, just like the rest of us in our jobs. The system is broken if kids aren't learning.
In fact, while I agree with what Gov Walker is doing, as many other states are taking some measures though not all as strong, I take issue with the bashing of public workers that this debate sometimes devolves into. It's not the workers, but the union - politician corrupt like connection which give them rights to retire in the 40s and 50s, pay nothing towards benefits and health care, and other items that I have a problem with. I have no problem with a soldier retiring after 20 years, but not for public workers driving buses, office workers, or such. Cops and firefighters can perhaps be given earlier retirement as their jobs are dangerous and more difficult to keep with as someone ages.
Even Massachusetts union leaders have started talking about making some concessions. They see the writing on the wall, though in MA they're pretty safe. I'd be shocked if the Dems here did too much to rock the boat. Though Gov Patrick has floated some ideas and suggestions to help ease financial strains on towns/cities, not too far off some of what Walker is legislating. Gov Patrick suggested that towns pool together for worker benefits, which requires the agreement of each town's local union. That's not happening so well, but it's similar to some of what Walker is putting into law, from what I can tell.
Question: You say they serve no legitimate purpose. The Swedish model allows decentralised rule-making that can be tailored to fit the most diverse of fields and work-places. Would you rather we had bulky all-encompassing laws? Because that's the alternative. Unions are heavily involved in worker safety. Arbetsmiljölagen (labour environment law) is based on the principle of co-operation between employers and employees. Skyddsombud (worker's protection representatives) are chosen by the union. They are required on all work-places with more than five employees and have wide-ranging rights including the right to order immediate halt of all work if found necessary for the health and safety of the employees.
I would agree with the concept that bashing the people because you don't like the results is absurd. when crime rates go up, we don't reduce police salaries; when obesity increases, we don't chop doctor's benefits.
There certainly is a problem with public education in the US, just as there is a problem with private health care. These are systemic problems, though, not ones that lie at the feet of teachers and doctors and nurses. If wages and benefits are out of line (and i am not sure that they are), then a responsible leadership will rein them in, even if that means taking on powerful interests. It seems clear to me that all of the current efforts to rein in sending on public sector compensation are not created equal. walker's approach, for instance, seems to me to be far less intelligent and principled than the approach taken by Mitch Daniels in Indiana, for instance.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 11:14:25 AM
There certainly is a problem with public education in the US, just as there is a problem with private health care. These are systemic problems, though, not ones that lie at the feet of teachers and doctors and nurses.
Is it not possible that we have underperforming teachers in public schools? I think many teachers are overpaid; I also think many are underpaid.
QuoteIf wages and benefits are out of line (and i am not sure that they are), then a responsible leadership will rein them in, even if that means taking on powerful interests. It seems clear to me that all of the current efforts to rein in sending on public sector compensation are not created equal. walker's approach, for instance, seems to me to be far less intelligent and principled than the approach taken by Mitch Daniels in Indiana, for instance.
Less principled? Sure, but it was political reality. Not because Police & firefighter unions supported Walker, mind you (they didn't) but because he had to pick his battles. Police officers & firefighters tend to be more popular than teachers; could you imagine how increased the increased shitstorm in Madison & in the media if they were added to the equation?
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2011, 12:13:55 PM
Is it not possible that we have underperforming teachers in public schools?
How is it possible that we don't have under-performing teachers? We have under-performing workers in every other field.
QuoteLess principled? Sure, but it was political reality. Not because Police & firefighter unions supported Walker, mind you (they didn't) but because he had to pick his battles. Police officers & firefighters tend to be more popular than teachers; could you imagine how increased the increased shitstorm in Madison & in the media if they were added to the equation?
Political reality was that the firefighters' and police unions did support Walker. Walker has a political shitstorm because he deliberately provoked a political shitstorm. Adding police and firefighters would have made no difference at worst and may have helped at best - as it made no difference or even helped when Daniels took the principled approach to this same problem in Indiana. Walker appears to believe that the more bitter and partisan he can make the battle, the better-off he is. I am thinking he is guaranteeing himself a single term, instead.
Quote from: Caliga on March 10, 2011, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:08:45 PM
Actually, they do. Unions cannot survive if they're not in some way protected form being fired wholesale and replaced with non-union workers.
Sure they can. If they manage to organize all skilled workers in a given area, management has no choice but to deal with them.
Unions need legislative protection to exist. But necessarily the kind DGuller is referring to. The most significant legislative requirement is that an employer is obligated to deal only with the union (and not individual bargaining unit members) when discussing terms of employment. Without that legislative requirement Unions would have signficantly less power even if they did manage to organize and certify a particular bargaining unit.
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2011, 12:13:55 PM
I think many teachers are overpaid; I also think many are underpaid.
I am not sure how one comes to such a conclusion. Overpaid or underpaid relative to what? Most teachers' salaries are dictated by the financial constraints of the Government who pays them rather than the actual value they represent. Typically private school teachers are paid more but the lower salaries of their publicly paid counterparts creates a downdrag on those wages since there is a large pool of able teachers for whom a slighly larger pay increase would be attractive.
Its always hard to assign a particular value to a job that has little immediate economic impact and the situation is more complicated for teachers since the job they do arguably has very significant long term economic impact. Imo we should be paying as much as needed to attract the best and brightest to the profession of teaching. If in your observation we are not doing so then that is good evidence that teachers are underpaid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2011, 12:55:31 PM
Unions need legislative protection to exist. But necessarily the kind DGuller is referring to. The most significant legislative requirement is that an employer is obligated to deal only with the union (and not individual bargaining unit members) when discussing terms of employment. Without that legislative requirement Unions would have signficantly less power even if they did manage to organize and certify a particular bargaining unit.
Welcome to New York State. There is nothing quite like working in a closed shop Union state.
From what I've seen, teachers make a similar amount whether they're public or private here. Our main problem is that the money we spend on education doesn't make it to the classroom. My mom's class has 30 kids and the state spends 10k per kid on education every year---that's $300,000 to run that class. Of course, some will be siphoned off for other expenses, but the amount that actually makes it to the class is a very small fraction of that.
Quote from: Strix on March 11, 2011, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2011, 12:55:31 PM
Unions need legislative protection to exist. But necessarily the kind DGuller is referring to. The most significant legislative requirement is that an employer is obligated to deal only with the union (and not individual bargaining unit members) when discussing terms of employment. Without that legislative requirement Unions would have signficantly less power even if they did manage to organize and certify a particular bargaining unit.
Welcome to New York State. There is nothing quite like working in a closed shop Union state.
I think all Provinces in Canada are closed shop. It is really the sine qua non of unions. If it is not a closed shop a union is nothing more than just another potential stake holder.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2011, 01:09:27 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 11, 2011, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2011, 12:55:31 PM
Unions need legislative protection to exist. But necessarily the kind DGuller is referring to. The most significant legislative requirement is that an employer is obligated to deal only with the union (and not individual bargaining unit members) when discussing terms of employment. Without that legislative requirement Unions would have signficantly less power even if they did manage to organize and certify a particular bargaining unit.
Welcome to New York State. There is nothing quite like working in a closed shop Union state.
I think all Provinces in Canada are closed shop. It is really the sine qua non of unions. If it is not a closed shop a union is nothing more than just another potential stake holder.
I know. I just find it funny that some people (not you) put the cart before the horse when it comes to Union work. They seem to feel that people join a Union to get a job when the reality is that most public jobs are Union Shops where you get the job than have to support the Union financially regardless if you join or not.
(and yes, I meant Union Shop and not Closed Shop as I am sure several replies will bring up the Taft-Hartley Act)
This is a reply bringing up the Taft-Hartley Act.
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 06:17:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 10, 2011, 05:57:18 PM
I don't think unions should be made illegal, but I would love it if the NLRA was ever repealed. Unions don't need unfair advantages enforced by federal law when it comes to organizing battles.
Actually, they do. Unions cannot survive if they're not in some way protected form being fired wholesale and replaced with non-union workers.
I'll give you an example of a good "union".
At my new job I will be represented by the Alberta Crown Attorney's Association. Now, it technically is not a union, but it is a voluntary organization whose membership is open to all Alberta Crown Attorneys. Membership is voluntary, so they work hard to give value for your membership fees, and they do get most people to sign up. They do advocate with the government for their membership. While it is not collective bargaining, they have successfully made the case for their membership such that they were given a substantial raise.
What about the Bar association?
Quote from: derspiess on March 10, 2011, 10:19:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2011, 09:49:14 AM
"Union thug" seems to mean, slob, cockroach, and leech or more precisely a person who doesn't want to lose their job and votes Democratic.
No. Maybe it gets overused (but in the internet era of political debate, what term doesn't), but there are clear examples of what a union thug actually is. If you could access Youtube you'd see them.
Ah, I found something. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ You'betcha!
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2011, 01:33:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 10, 2011, 06:17:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 10, 2011, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 10, 2011, 05:57:18 PM
I don't think unions should be made illegal, but I would love it if the NLRA was ever repealed. Unions don't need unfair advantages enforced by federal law when it comes to organizing battles.
Actually, they do. Unions cannot survive if they're not in some way protected form being fired wholesale and replaced with non-union workers.
I'll give you an example of a good "union".
At my new job I will be represented by the Alberta Crown Attorney's Association. Now, it technically is not a union, but it is a voluntary organization whose membership is open to all Alberta Crown Attorneys. Membership is voluntary, so they work hard to give value for your membership fees, and they do get most people to sign up. They do advocate with the government for their membership. While it is not collective bargaining, they have successfully made the case for their membership such that they were given a substantial raise.
What about the Bar association?
Do you mean the Bar Association (which is a voluntary organization), or the Law Society (which is the licensing body every lawyer must belong to)?
And either way - what about them?
They function like Unions do. In many states belonging to the Bar is not voluntary.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 12:25:45 PM
How is it possible that we don't have under-performing teachers? We have under-performing workers in every other field.
I meant more than an acceptable number of under-performing teachers.
QuotePolitical reality was that the firefighters' and police unions did support Walker.
The two significant statewide unions supported his opponent. Looks like he did have the support of a couple city unions and the state troopers association.
QuoteWalker has a political shitstorm because he deliberately provoked a political shitstorm. Adding police and firefighters would have made no difference at worst and may have helped at best
In your mind. But not everyone is grumbler. The anti-Walker mantra would go from "Walker hates teachers" to "Walker hates teachers, policemen & firefighters!" And when pro-union protesters are ransacking the state capitol, it's probably not the best thing to piss off public safety personnel.
Quote- as it made no difference or even helped when Daniels took the principled approach to this same problem in Indiana.
Different time, different state, different political climate.
QuoteWalker appears to believe that the more bitter and partisan he can make the battle, the better-off he is. I am thinking he is guaranteeing himself a single term, instead.
I'd say the Democrat lawmakers who fled the state, teachers who called in sick & got fake doctor notes (great example for our kids there btw), and the nutjob pro-union protesters are making the battle so bitter & partisan. Odd that you're not making any mention of those folks.
Quote from: Pat on March 11, 2011, 11:10:44 AM
Question: You say they serve no legitimate purpose. The Swedish model allows decentralised rule-making that can be tailored to fit the most diverse of fields and work-places. Would you rather we had bulky all-encompassing laws? Because that's the alternative. Unions are heavily involved in worker safety. Arbetsmiljölagen (labour environment law) is based on the principle of co-operation between employers and employees. Skyddsombud (worker's protection representatives) are chosen by the union. They are required on all work-places with more than five employees and have wide-ranging rights including the right to order immediate halt of all work if found necessary for the health and safety of the employees.
Unions are involved in a lot of things. Doesn't mean that they are necessary for those (or even desirable).
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2011, 01:50:01 PM
They function like Unions do. In many states belonging to the Bar is not voluntary.
They're guilds, not unions. There is a big difference between the two. Guilds are actually much more effective at inflating the salaries of their members in a socially destructive way.
Quote from: Strix on March 11, 2011, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2011, 01:09:27 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 11, 2011, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2011, 12:55:31 PM
Unions need legislative protection to exist. But necessarily the kind DGuller is referring to. The most significant legislative requirement is that an employer is obligated to deal only with the union (and not individual bargaining unit members) when discussing terms of employment. Without that legislative requirement Unions would have signficantly less power even if they did manage to organize and certify a particular bargaining unit.
Welcome to New York State. There is nothing quite like working in a closed shop Union state.
I think all Provinces in Canada are closed shop. It is really the sine qua non of unions. If it is not a closed shop a union is nothing more than just another potential stake holder.
I know. I just find it funny that some people (not you) put the cart before the horse when it comes to Union work. They seem to feel that people join a Union to get a job when the reality is that most public jobs are Union Shops where you get the job than have to support the Union financially regardless if you join or not.
(and yes, I meant Union Shop and not Closed Shop as I am sure several replies will bring up the Taft-Hartley Act)
I didn't realize until this whole Union debate in WI that there were so many right to work or non-union states. A few other states have recently passed, or are considering, right to work legislation. Means a person can choose not to join a Union and can opt out of union dues if he/she chooses, rather than having to join just because it's part of his workplace. I knew many Southern states are non-union, hence partly why many corps/jobs re-locate there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2011, 01:04:01 PM
I am not sure how one comes to such a conclusion. Overpaid or underpaid relative to what? Most teachers' salaries are dictated by the financial constraints of the Government
Yeah, hopefully soon that'll be the case.
Quotewho pays them rather than the actual value they represent. Typically private school teachers are paid more but the lower salaries of their publicly paid counterparts creates a downdrag on those wages since there is a large pool of able teachers for whom a slighly larger pay increase would be attractive.
Its always hard to assign a particular value to a job that has little immediate economic impact and the situation is more complicated for teachers since the job they do arguably has very significant long term economic impact.
Average teacher salary ideally should be competitive with private sector jobs with similar educational requirements. But obviously you should also factor in state budget constraints.
QuoteImo we should be paying as much as needed to attract the best and brightest to the profession of teaching. If in your observation we are not doing so then that is good evidence that teachers are underpaid.
I don't fully agree with your premise, but it's irrelevant to my earlier comment anyway. My point was that when teacher unions and collective bargaining are in play, teachers are essentially paid the same regardless of performance. Thus, there is no financial incentive for better individual performance. I think this needs to change.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2011, 01:50:01 PM
They function like Unions do. In many states belonging to the Bar is not voluntary.
Except they really don't function like unions do at all. They don't negotiate anyone's salary or benefits.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2011, 02:14:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2011, 01:50:01 PM
They function like Unions do. In many states belonging to the Bar is not voluntary.
Except they really don't function like unions do at all. They don't negotiate anyone's salary or benefits.
The guilds do, however, ensure that by law, only the guild members can provide certain services, increasing the demand for the services of their members. By restricting entry into the guild, under the guise of ensuring quality of service, they can also limit supply of the services of their members. The free market does the rest, after both demand and supply have been tampered with.
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2011, 01:52:39 PM
I meant more than an acceptable number of under-performing teachers.
This is meaningless noise. "Acceptable" is so subjective as to be useless.
QuoteThe two significant statewide unions supported his opponent. Looks like he did have the support of a couple city unions and the state troopers association.
Seems the firefighters as a union supported no one. The state police association supported Walker.
QuoteIn your mind. But not everyone is grumbler. The anti-Walker mantra would go from "Walker hates teachers" to "Walker hates teachers, policemen & firefighters!" And when pro-union protesters are ransacking the state capitol, it's probably not the best thing to piss off public safety personnel.
Walker would have saved himself the embarrassment of claiming that (1) Wisconsin cannot afford to have public-sector unions bargaining for total compensations and at the same time arguing (2) that Wisconsin must have police and firefighter unions that bargain over total compensation. Even non-grumblers can understand that. even you can, if you try hard enough.
QuoteDifferent time, different state, different political climate.
That's my point. Daniels didn't go the demagogue route, and had an entirely different climate.
QuoteI'd say the Democrat lawmakers who fled the state, teachers who called in sick & got fake doctor notes (great example for our kids there btw), and the nutjob pro-union protesters are making the battle so bitter & partisan. Odd that you're not making any mention of those folks.
The lawmakers, teachers, and union members are not significantly different in Wisconsin and Indiana, but the tacks taken by the governors were entirely different and the results were completely different. Why mention to common elements when trying to explain differences (unless due to ideological blinders)? Note that I actually agree with the position that public employee unions are a bad idea. I just don't think that getting rid of them in a stupidly confrontational fashion is the smart way to go about it. You mileage may differ.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 07:37:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2011, 04:40:34 PM
Of course, we have to reassess if we want people to be teachers. Long vacations are great, but if you are shelling out lots of money for an advanced degree and then likely end up with no job, not really sure the allure of long vacations will draw anyone sensible.
Actually, the whole "long vacations" thing is a bit over-done. The teachers at the public schools here have a total of ten weeks off due to Christmas, Spring Break, and summer. I had six weeks off in the military, with much better pay. In my beltway bandit job I had five weeks off and much, much better pay than a teacher gets.
I know I shouldn't...but I'm not really sure how your two examples show that teachers don't have long vacation times. 10 weeks is certainly much longer than 5 and 6.
If anything I think you are supporting what I've been saying: crap pay, long vacations aren't super appealing, if you've got to shell out a decent amount of cash for your degree and then only get a year of working in the field you are passionate about before getting pink slipped.*
*I've no idea if my opinion is widespread, of course. :D
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2011, 03:23:57 PM
Seems the firefighters as a union supported no one. The state police association supported Walker.
Okay, Ms. Brazile-- take a look at this: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/21/donna-brazile/donna-brazile-says-unions-supported-scott-walker-a/
QuoteThat's my point. Daniels didn't go the demagogue route, and had an entirely different climate.
What you're missing is that in 2005 states did not have nearly the budget issues they are having today, not to mention the looming federal budget showdown. The reason unions and other left-leaning organizations rushed to Wisconsin is that they see it as the first skirmish in a larger battle that is encompassing other states and the federal budget. That was simply not the atmosphere in 2005.
Daniels had the foresight to take action in 2005, and good on him for it. Unfortunately, Walker wasn't governor of Wisconsin in 2005 and doesn't have a time machine :(
QuoteNote that I actually agree with the position that public employee unions are a bad idea. I just don't think that getting rid of them in a stupidly confrontational fashion is the smart way to go about it. You mileage may differ.
So Walker should back down whenever a certain group opposed to his policy throws a huge shitfit? And which side would you say has been more confrontational? Walker or the protesters?
Anyway, I'm still trying to see how things would be better for Walker if he had added police & firefighters to the equation. But I can't follow your logic on that.
It would have been better if Walker had included cops and firefighters because he would have ameliorated the accusation that politics trumps the budget.
Federal employees don't have collective bargaining, right? I've seen that reported a few times, though I'm not sure. Maybe some do but most don't? In any event, they seem to do well without it, good wages and benefits without collective bargaining.
While I acknowledge there are some problems with unions (as there is with pretty much everything), I'm generally pro-union and definitely believe that they're an important mechanism for protecting workers and improving conditions for the working population.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2011, 03:32:32 PM
While I acknowledge there are some problems with unions (as there is with pretty much everything), I'm generally pro-union and definitely believe that they're an important mechanism for protecting workers and improving conditions for the working population.
I don't actually have a problem with the concept of unions in general.
I have a serious problem with the concept of public employees unions. There is zero evidence that they need protecting, and their working conditions are generally considerably superior to the private sector.
They have none of the problems that unions are ostensibly supposed to solve, and they magnify most of the problems that unions are associated with, and create some rather alarming news ones.
I don't have any philosophical or ideological objections to private sector unions either. My principal criticism is their gross stupidity in assuming that the lush conditions of the post war labor boom were a birthright.
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2011, 03:47:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2011, 03:32:32 PM
While I acknowledge there are some problems with unions (as there is with pretty much everything), I'm generally pro-union and definitely believe that they're an important mechanism for protecting workers and improving conditions for the working population.
I don't actually have a problem with the concept of unions in general.
I have a serious problem with the concept of public employees unions. There is zero evidence that they need protecting, and their working conditions are generally considerably superior to the private sector.
They have none of the problems that unions are ostensibly supposed to solve, and they magnify most of the problems that unions are associated with, and create some rather alarming news ones.
What problems do they not have that unions are suppose to solve?
The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2011, 03:47:16 PM
and their working conditions are generally considerably superior to the private sector.
Man, you just love to drink the tea.
Quote from: KRonn on March 12, 2011, 03:25:40 PM
Federal employees don't have collective bargaining, right? I've seen that reported a few times, though I'm not sure. Maybe some do but most don't? In any event, they seem to do well without it, good wages and benefits without collective bargaining.
A good percentage do and some dont. Unions are a big part of the federal work force minus the actiove duty military of course.
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2011, 08:10:25 PM
The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).
What would the point be of bribing if this wasn't the case?
Government officials who negotiate deals with anyone rarely have the incentive to get the best deal possible.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2011, 02:50:16 PM
Government officials who negotiate deals with anyone rarely have the incentive to get the best deal possible.
They do now.
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2011, 10:20:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2011, 02:50:16 PM
Government officials who negotiate deals with anyone rarely have the incentive to get the best deal possible.
They do now.
They do?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2011, 10:38:35 AM
They do?
With state & federal budgets the way they are, voters are starting to pay more attention to government expenditures.
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2011, 08:10:25 PM
The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).
I meant to report to this at the time.
With respect, that is not the "big problem" with public sector unions. Government has plenty of incentives to negotiate the best deal possible (they are, after all, accountable to voters).
The problem with the public sector is there is no exposure to market forces. A private sector company has to maintain profits. The union therefore can only demand up to what the company is able to pay in benefits. There's plenty of room to quibble about what that precise level is, but that's the ultimate economic reality.
That's not the case in the public sector. The government has, theoretically, an unlimited ability to pay (they can always just raise taxes). It's completely removed from any market forces.
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2011, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2011, 10:38:35 AM
They do?
With state & federal budgets the way they are, voters are starting to pay more attention to government expenditures.
Well, they become interested in it. I wouldn't say they are paying attention. Most people don't understand it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2011, 12:54:33 PM
Well, they become interested in it. I wouldn't say they are paying attention. Most people don't understand it.
Heck I don't. Every number is cooked to some extent. What is really true is a matter of conjecture.
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 12:47:36 PM
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2011, 08:10:25 PM
The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).
I meant to report to this at the time.
With respect, that is not the "big problem" with public sector unions. Government has plenty of incentives to negotiate the best deal possible (they are, after all, accountable to voters).
In theory, this is true.
But there are two problems with this when it comes to public sector unions:
1. The unions themselves are full of voters. And they are voters that vote in blocks, and are perfectly willing to destroy any Democrat who has the nerve to challenge them. And there are a huge number of them, since they will also combine their votes to destroy politicians who do not give them what they want.
2. There is something politicians need to get votes. Money. And lots of it. Unions can provide that money. So there is a nice deal going. Unions give politicians lots of money and votes, politicians reward the unions with sweetheart deals so their members get more money, and then some percentage of that money gets to go right back to the politicians who got them the money to begin with - what a nice cycle.
Of course, the "other" party is going to try to break that cycle if they can - they certainly are not going to get any of that money or votes, and hence are not obligated to the unions. They have their own sets of obligations of course...
But the "system" by which states like New York end up with a public sector that is literally not sustainable, even for a ridiculously wealthy state like New York, is very, very broken. I can certainly understand the hesitancy of replacing Dems who are beholden to unions with Republicans that are beholden to business, but that doesn't mean that the system of public service unions is not grossly perversely incented (from a non-union taxpayers perspective).
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2011, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 12:47:36 PM
Quote from: dps on March 12, 2011, 08:10:25 PM
The big problem with public sector unions is that, unlike private employers, the government officials the unions negotiate with often have very little incentive to negotiate the best deal possible, and in fact in many instances favor the positions of the union leadership, rather than those of the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).
I meant to report to this at the time.
With respect, that is not the "big problem" with public sector unions. Government has plenty of incentives to negotiate the best deal possible (they are, after all, accountable to voters).
In theory, this is true.
But there are two problems with this when it comes to public sector unions:
1. The unions themselves are full of voters. And they are voters that vote in blocks, and are perfectly willing to destroy any Democrat who has the nerve to challenge them. And there are a huge number of them, since they will also combine their votes to destroy politicians who do not give them what they want.
2. There is something politicians need to get votes. Money. And lots of it. Unions can provide that money. So there is a nice deal going. Unions give politicians lots of money and votes, politicians reward the unions with sweetheart deals so their members get more money, and then some percentage of that money gets to go right back to the politicians who got them the money to begin with - what a nice cycle.
Of course, the "other" party is going to try to break that cycle if they can - they certainly are not going to get any of that money or votes, and hence are not obligated to the unions. They have their own sets of obligations of course...
But the "system" by which states like New York end up with a public sector that is literally not sustainable, even for a ridiculously wealthy state like New York, is very, very broken. I can certainly understand the hesitancy of replacing Dems who are beholden to unions with Republicans that are beholden to business, but that doesn't mean that the system of public service unions is not grossly perversely incented (from a non-union taxpayers perspective).
#1 - unions are actually very bad at getting their members to vote en mass. The Republicans get a substantial number of union voters (even if not a majority of them).
#2 - well that's a problem for any kind of interest group though.
I stand by what I said - the "problem" with public sector unions are there are no market forces at work to enforce any kind of discipline.
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:08:21 PM
#1 - unions are actually very bad at getting their members to vote en mass. The Republicans get a substantial number of union voters (even if not a majority of them).
#2 - well that's a problem for any kind of interest group though.
I stand by what I said - the "problem" with public sector unions are there are no market forces at work to enforce any kind of discipline.
I wasn't really disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that the lack of market forces isn't real sufficient to explain things. The lack of market forces combined with the forces that replace them (political forces) is the problem.
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2011, 01:13:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:08:21 PM
#1 - unions are actually very bad at getting their members to vote en mass. The Republicans get a substantial number of union voters (even if not a majority of them).
#2 - well that's a problem for any kind of interest group though.
I stand by what I said - the "problem" with public sector unions are there are no market forces at work to enforce any kind of discipline.
I wasn't really disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that the lack of market forces isn't real sufficient to explain things. The lack of market forces combined with the forces that replace them (political forces) is the problem.
No problem. We just have to embrace the idea of becoming more like Greece, or France. Wait until all these folks go on strike! <_<
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2011, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2011, 10:38:35 AM
They do?
With state & federal budgets the way they are, voters are starting to pay more attention to government expenditures.
I'd say the voters anger is being misdirected. The various governments are running a great campaign of bait and switch. They have everyone starting to focus on public sector employees as the cause of all the woe and taxes when the reality is that public sector employees make up a small percentage of most budgets.
Education (not salaries) and Welfare are out of control. The government has done a masterful job of defocusing people from the real budget issue.
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2011, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2011, 10:38:35 AM
They do?
With state & federal budgets the way they are, voters are starting to pay more attention to government expenditures.
I'd say the voters anger is being misdirected. The various governments are running a great campaign of bait and switch. They have everyone starting to focus on public sector employees as the cause of all the woe and taxes when the reality is that public sector employees make up a small percentage of most budgets.
Education (not salaries) and Welfare are out of control. The government has done a masterful job of defocusing people from the real budget issue.
:yeahright:
You got any proof of that? I think you're wrong on all counts - public sector salaries are a significant portion of government spending, AND education (excluding salaries) and even more so welfare are not out of control.
They've got to be... the main expense for nearly every company I'm familiar with is payroll, so I'm not sure why state government wouldn't also have a huge payroll burden.
Quote from: Caliga on March 14, 2011, 02:15:27 PM
They've got to be... the main expense for nearly every company I'm familiar with is payroll, so I'm not sure why state government wouldn't also have a huge payroll burden.
How many companies are you familiar with that provide free medical insurance, housing, heating, food, spending money, and other associated costs?
Quote from: Barrister on March 14, 2011, 01:33:01 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 14, 2011, 12:30:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2011, 10:38:35 AM
They do?
With state & federal budgets the way they are, voters are starting to pay more attention to government expenditures.
I'd say the voters anger is being misdirected. The various governments are running a great campaign of bait and switch. They have everyone starting to focus on public sector employees as the cause of all the woe and taxes when the reality is that public sector employees make up a small percentage of most budgets.
Education (not salaries) and Welfare are out of control. The government has done a masterful job of defocusing people from the real budget issue.
:yeahright:
You got any proof of that? I think you're wrong on all counts - public sector salaries are a significant portion of government spending, AND education (excluding salaries) and even more so welfare are not out of control.
Well, you can check out this website for starters http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_NY_statelocal (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_NY_statelocal)!
The cost for General Government was $6.2 Billion and $22.1 Billion for Protection (prisons, courts, police, etc).
The cost for Education was $66 Billion and $23.4 Billion for Welfare. Tack on the health costs associated with Medicaid for Welfare and that is another $34.8 Billion.
You do the math. :bowler:
Public union members only cost 23.4 bn? :yeahright:
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 03:51:01 PM
Well, you can check out this website for starters http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_NY_statelocal (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_NY_statelocal)!
The cost for General Government was $6.2 Billion and $22.1 Billion for Protection (prisons, courts, police, etc).
The cost for Education was $66 Billion and $23.4 Billion for Welfare. Tack on the health costs associated with Medicaid for Welfare and that is another $34.8 Billion.
You do the math. :bowler:
Is education and protection done by robots in New York?
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 04:08:24 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 03:51:01 PM
Well, you can check out this website for starters http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_NY_statelocal (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_NY_statelocal)!
The cost for General Government was $6.2 Billion and $22.1 Billion for Protection (prisons, courts, police, etc).
The cost for Education was $66 Billion and $23.4 Billion for Welfare. Tack on the health costs associated with Medicaid for Welfare and that is another $34.8 Billion.
You do the math. :bowler:
Is education and protection done by robots in New York?
Can you read?
Quote from: The Brain on March 14, 2011, 03:56:39 PM
Public union members only cost 23.4 bn? :yeahright:
Good one. :hug:
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 04:25:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 04:08:24 PM
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 03:51:01 PM
Well, you can check out this website for starters http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_NY_statelocal (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_NY_statelocal)!
The cost for General Government was $6.2 Billion and $22.1 Billion for Protection (prisons, courts, police, etc).
The cost for Education was $66 Billion and $23.4 Billion for Welfare. Tack on the health costs associated with Medicaid for Welfare and that is another $34.8 Billion.
You do the math. :bowler:
Is education and protection done by robots in New York?
Can you read?
Words, yes. Minds, no. Can you state your point more clearly, rather than throwing out the numbers without explaining them?
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 04:31:29 PM
Words, yes. Minds, no. Can you state your point more clearly, rather than throwing out the numbers without explaining them?
I understand your problem. When you ape the behaviors and beliefs of others it can be difficult to think for yourself.
It's why we love you, Monkey Rider!! :punk:
:lol: Give up now, DG. You can't debate that which cannot be debated.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 14, 2011, 04:36:21 PM
:lol: Give up now, DG. You can't debate that which cannot be debated.
:yes:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 14, 2011, 04:36:21 PM
:lol: Give up now, DG. You can't debate that which cannot be debated.
Do you drink the kool-aid straight from the cup? Or do you get enough swallowing Berkut's load?
:lol: The originality continues.
I'll see if I can get some results with slightly better manners.
Don't you think the "Education" number is primarily teachers' salaries?
Quote from: Habbaku on March 14, 2011, 04:42:44 PM
:lol: The originality continues.
I think you're being unfair, Strix can be original. Nobody else has called me "Monkey Rider" or something to that effect, you have to have a unique level of stupidity/insanity to come up with that one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2011, 04:49:30 PM
I'll see if I can get some results with slightly better manners.
That hurts, Yi, that hurts a lot. :(
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 04:55:22 PM
That hurts, Yi, that hurts a lot. :(
If the glove fits,
you must ragequit.
Monkey rider. :lol:
Wait, is Berkut gay? :o
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 04:40:54 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 14, 2011, 04:36:21 PM
:lol: Give up now, DG. You can't debate that which cannot be debated.
Do you drink the kool-aid straight from the cup? Or do you get enough swallowing Berkut's load?
I don't think Berkut is going to be president anytime soon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2011, 04:49:30 PM
I'll see if I can get some results with slightly better manners.
Don't you think the "Education" number is primarily teachers' salaries?
No, for example, in New York roughly $16,000 per student was spent on education in 2007. The average class size is between 20-25 and the average teachers salary is around $60,000. So, the first four students in every class pay for the teacher ($64,000) and the rest of the students provide $224,000 to the system. That's probably 20-25% of the budget towards salaries.
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2011, 04:49:30 PM
I'll see if I can get some results with slightly better manners.
Don't you think the "Education" number is primarily teachers' salaries?
No, for example, in New York roughly $16,000 per student was spent on education in 2007. The average class size is between 20-25 and the average teachers salary is around $60,000. So, the first four students in every class pay for the teacher ($64,000) and the rest of the students provide $224,000 to the system. That's probably 20-25% of the budget towards salaries.
LOL, that is a pretty interesting way of figuring that out.
Of course, one could just look at the numbers instead, and see that nearly half of the total budget spent by New York on education goes towards salaries.
Hint: More than just teachers get paid a salary...but hey, you are only off by a factor of two - that is pretty good for you!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-29-school-spending_N.htm
Quote
New York public schools top nation in per-student spending *
By Cara Matthews, The Ithaca Journal
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York spent $17,173 per student for public education in 2007-08, more than any other state and 67% more than the U.S. average, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics released Monday.
The $10,259 national average — $6,914 less than New York — was a 6.1% increase over 2006-07, the Census Bureau said. New York's spending went up 7.4% over the two years. New York's per-student spending was highest in 2006-07 too at $15,981 per student, and the national average was $9,666.
Eighteen states and the District of Columbia spent more than $10,259 and 32 spent less in the 2007-08 school year. States and state equivalents that came close to New York's spending per student in 2007-08 were New Jersey ($16,491), Alaska ($14,630), the District of Columbia ($14,594), Vermont ($14,300) and Connecticut ($13,848), the Census Bureau found. At the other end of the spectrum were Utah ($5,765), Idaho ($6,931), Arizona ($7,608), Oklahoma ($7,685) and Tennessee ($7,739).
Public education is the single largest category of all state and local government expenditures, Lisa Blumerman, chief of the Census Bureau's Governments Division, said in a statement.
In New York, lawmakers and Gov. David Paterson have been considering placing a cap on how much school-district expenses can increase each year as a way of providing property-tax relief to strapped homeowners. The amount of property taxes that went to New York education in 2007-08 was $14.8 billion, compared to $14.1 billion in 2006-07, the Census Bureau said.
Paterson and lawmakers are also fighting over how much aid to provide to schools. Members of the Assembly and Senate said they plan to pass a joint budget that restores $600 million of the governor's proposed $1.4 billion school-aid cut. The governor's revised budget proposal would restore $300 million of the $1.4 billion cut.
Public schools nationally spent $593.2 billion in 2007-08, a 6% jump over the previous year, the census report said.
Total funding that public-school systems received in 2008 was $582.1 billion, 4.5% more than in 2006-07. State governments' portion of that totaled 48.3% and local governments contributed 43.7%. The remaining 8.1% came from federal sources, the report said.
In New York, state government's portion was 45.4% in 2007-08, and local governments contributed 48.7% of the total, with 5.9% from federal sources. The spread in 2006-07 was 45.2% from the state, 48.4% from local governments and 6.5% from federal sources.
Outstanding debt at the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year was $28.7 billion in New York, and it increased to $29.5 billion the following year, census statistics show. The amount of revenue New York received from the federal government dropped from one year to the next — from $3.3 billion to $3.1 billion.
The report was compiled based on data from all 15,569 public-school districts around the U.S.
Other highlights in the 2007-08 report:
• School districts' debt totaled $377.4 billion, a 7.9% increase.
• The largest single category of spending was for instructional salaries, which were $203.5 billion, 40.2% of the total.
• Louisiana had the highest percentage of public-school funding from the federal government at 16.8%, followed by Mississippi (16%) and South Dakota (15.2%). The lowest percentages were in New Jersey (3.9%), Connecticut (4.2%) and Massachusetts (5.1%).
• Vermont had the highest percentage of state-government funding at 88.5%, followed by 84.8% in Hawaii, where state government runs elementary and secondary education. States with the lowest percentages of funding from state government were Nebraska (33%), South Dakota (33.2%) and Illinois (33.8%).
• States with the highest percentage of local-government funding were Illinois (58.2%), Nebraska (57.3%) and Connecticut (57.3%). The lowest were Hawaii (3%), Vermont (5%) and Arkansas (13.4%).
• Nearly 64% of revenue for public education from local sources came from property taxes.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Quote from: Caliga on March 14, 2011, 05:42:06 PM
Wait, is Berkut gay? :o
I think it is best to let people self-identify.
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2011, 08:29:09 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-29-school-spending_N.htm
Quote
New York public schools top nation in per-student spending *
By Cara Matthews, The Ithaca Journal
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York spent $17,173 per student for public education in 2007-08, more than any other state and 67% more than the U.S. average, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics released Monday.
The $10,259 national average — $6,914 less than New York — was a 6.1% increase over 2006-07, the Census Bureau said. New York's spending went up 7.4% over the two years. New York's per-student spending was highest in 2006-07 too at $15,981 per student, and the national average was $9,666.
Eighteen states and the District of Columbia spent more than $10,259 and 32 spent less in the 2007-08 school year. States and state equivalents that came close to New York's spending per student in 2007-08 were New Jersey ($16,491), Alaska ($14,630), the District of Columbia ($14,594), Vermont ($14,300) and Connecticut ($13,848), the Census Bureau found. At the other end of the spectrum were Utah ($5,765), Idaho ($6,931), Arizona ($7,608), Oklahoma ($7,685) and Tennessee ($7,739).
Public education is the single largest category of all state and local government expenditures, Lisa Blumerman, chief of the Census Bureau's Governments Division, said in a statement.
In New York, lawmakers and Gov. David Paterson have been considering placing a cap on how much school-district expenses can increase each year as a way of providing property-tax relief to strapped homeowners. The amount of property taxes that went to New York education in 2007-08 was $14.8 billion, compared to $14.1 billion in 2006-07, the Census Bureau said.
Paterson and lawmakers are also fighting over how much aid to provide to schools. Members of the Assembly and Senate said they plan to pass a joint budget that restores $600 million of the governor's proposed $1.4 billion school-aid cut. The governor's revised budget proposal would restore $300 million of the $1.4 billion cut.
Public schools nationally spent $593.2 billion in 2007-08, a 6% jump over the previous year, the census report said.
Total funding that public-school systems received in 2008 was $582.1 billion, 4.5% more than in 2006-07. State governments' portion of that totaled 48.3% and local governments contributed 43.7%. The remaining 8.1% came from federal sources, the report said.
In New York, state government's portion was 45.4% in 2007-08, and local governments contributed 48.7% of the total, with 5.9% from federal sources. The spread in 2006-07 was 45.2% from the state, 48.4% from local governments and 6.5% from federal sources.
Outstanding debt at the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year was $28.7 billion in New York, and it increased to $29.5 billion the following year, census statistics show. The amount of revenue New York received from the federal government dropped from one year to the next — from $3.3 billion to $3.1 billion.
The report was compiled based on data from all 15,569 public-school districts around the U.S.
Other highlights in the 2007-08 report:
• School districts' debt totaled $377.4 billion, a 7.9% increase.
• The largest single category of spending was for instructional salaries, which were $203.5 billion, 40.2% of the total.
• Louisiana had the highest percentage of public-school funding from the federal government at 16.8%, followed by Mississippi (16%) and South Dakota (15.2%). The lowest percentages were in New Jersey (3.9%), Connecticut (4.2%) and Massachusetts (5.1%).
• Vermont had the highest percentage of state-government funding at 88.5%, followed by 84.8% in Hawaii, where state government runs elementary and secondary education. States with the lowest percentages of funding from state government were Nebraska (33%), South Dakota (33.2%) and Illinois (33.8%).
• States with the highest percentage of local-government funding were Illinois (58.2%), Nebraska (57.3%) and Connecticut (57.3%). The lowest were Hawaii (3%), Vermont (5%) and Arkansas (13.4%).
• Nearly 64% of revenue for public education from local sources came from property taxes.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Have any data on New York's spending on salaries? Not really interested in the National. Regardless, even if salaries were 50% of the Education budget ($66 Billion) than that is still $33 Billion in spending that could be changed along with $55+ Billion in Welfare. That's around $90-100 Billion dollars that is filled with waste and corruption that the government doesn't want people to focus on.
Berkut, enjoy your drink. The politicians love to lead people like you around by the nose. :lol:
I love it - he is completely wrong, off by a factor of 2, but I am the one being led around by the nose. Right. And his answer is the age old "why, just reduce waste in some OTHER part of the budget!"
Of course, only one of us has a direct and personal interest in protecting his spot at the government trough.
You're just drinking the Kool-Aid. :mad:
Quote from: Habbaku on March 14, 2011, 10:38:42 PM
You're just drinking the Kool-Aid. :mad:
And you're just, :unsure:, uh, I won't say anything. :shutup:
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 10:50:18 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 14, 2011, 10:38:42 PM
You're just drinking the Kool-Aid. :mad:
And you're just, :unsure:, uh, I won't say anything. :shutup:
Wait, what did I miss there?
Monkey rider.
Quote from: Berkut on March 14, 2011, 10:53:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 14, 2011, 10:50:18 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on March 14, 2011, 10:38:42 PM
You're just drinking the Kool-Aid. :mad:
And you're just, :unsure:, uh, I won't say anything. :shutup:
Wait, what did I miss there?
Well, you know, is it a coincidence that you back each other up in close succession in this thread? People are talking. Well, not people, just Strix, but still.
Is Strix people?
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2011, 12:17:24 AM
Is Strix people?
At this point I'm not even sure what it is.
Quote from: Strix on March 14, 2011, 08:20:46 PM
No, for example, in New York roughly $16,000 per student was spent on education in 2007. The average class size is between 20-25 and the average teachers salary is around $60,000. So, the first four students in every class pay for the teacher ($64,000) and the rest of the students provide $224,000 to the system. That's probably 20-25% of the budget towards salaries.
You probably need another 4 students or so to pay for the teacher's pension and medical. Then with the school's non-teaching staff you get somewhere around the percentage Berkut threw up there.
I sort of feel for you Strix. You do a crappy job that not many other people would want to do, you slog in the right to work hellhole of North Carolina for years and years, then just when you reach the promised land of union-delivered largesse, the political tide shifts on you.
I feel sorry for Strix as well.
Isn't he in New York though? Is there going to be any actual efforts to reign in the public sector in New York? Would a Democratic government who owes his position to the corruption of organized labour (and the fact that the GOP nominated a loon) go after the unions?
Quote from: Neil on March 15, 2011, 08:09:43 AM
Isn't he in New York though? Is there going to be any actual efforts to reign in the public sector in New York? Would a Democratic government who owes his position to the corruption of organized labour (and the fact that the GOP nominated a loon) go after the unions?
Possibily, if their only other choice is raising taxes. My understanding is most states have exhausted their accounting gimmicks.
States like NY and Mass will watch how things play out in Wisconsin, Ohio et al. Once the dust settles and no riots have broken out they could try for some cost cutting.
They're probably also keeping an eye on Washington state, where the governor's proposal was to fund the unions by imposing a millionaire's tax. It was a while ago when I saw that on TV, it could have already passed for all I know.
Actually Cuomo is at least talking tough on Unions.
Of course, his predecessor saw what happens when a Dem crosses the union bosses.
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2011, 05:26:09 PM
Actually Cuomo is at least talking tough on Unions.
Of course, his predecessor saw what happens when a Dem crosses the union bosses.
Do any of these governors have a choice, really? The situation sucks. Cuomo isn't talking about busting up collective bargaining I bet.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 15, 2011, 05:28:04 PM
Do any of these governors have a choice, really? The situation sucks. Cuomo isn't talking about busting up collective bargaining I bet.
Of course. Compensation cuts, layoffs, higher taxes.
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2011, 05:26:09 PM
Actually Cuomo is at least talking tough on Unions.
Of course, his predecessor saw what happens when a Dem crosses the union bosses.
I suspect his predecessor did not see that, or much of anything else.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2011, 05:26:09 PM
Actually Cuomo is at least talking tough on Unions.
Of course, his predecessor saw what happens when a Dem crosses the union bosses.
I suspect his predecessor did not see that, or much of anything else.
:pinch:
I really liked that guy and I'm sorry his term as governor was a failure. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2011, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 15, 2011, 05:26:09 PM
Actually Cuomo is at least talking tough on Unions.
Of course, his predecessor saw what happens when a Dem crosses the union bosses.
I suspect his predecessor did not see that, or much of anything else.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2011, 07:10:14 AM
I sort of feel for you Strix. You do a crappy job that not many other people would want to do, you slog in the right to work hellhole of North Carolina for years and years, then just when you reach the promised land of union-delivered largesse, the political tide shifts on you.
Thanks for the thought but no worries. Cuomo knows what he can and cannot screw with. Cuomo will announce a pay increase freeze and new contracts with 0% raises over the length of the contracts (4-5 years). He'll also roll out a new retirement Tier plan that will only apply to new hires. He'll get a lot of praise and the Union leaders will take lots of photos with him.
I get the frozen pay back (in a lump sum) once the budget issues die down in a few years or so. So, no biggy there. It will make a nice down payment on some lakefront property. My bigger concern is being forced to stay in my current crappy Union (PEF) when my division gets merged with the Department of Corrections (NYSCOPBA). The DOC has a much nicer benefit package but they hate Parole because we allow prisons to be closed.
Now Maryland and union protests, against a Dem Governor.
Quote
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/15/AR2011031500097.html?wprss=rss_metro/md
Md. teachers, state employees protest budget cuts, pension changes
Protestors gather in Annapolis for a rally against Governor Martin O'Malley's (D-Md.) proposed changes to state workers' pensions. (Getty Images)
Protestors gather in Annapolis for a rally against Governor Martin O'Malley's (D-Md.) proposed changes to state workers' pensions. (Getty Images)
Chanting "keep the promise" and "hands off our pensions," thousands of Maryland teachers and public employees descended on the State House in Annapolis on Monday night to protest budget cuts and higher employee pension costs proposed by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D).
Teachers charged that the governor's budget, which would close a $1.6 billion gap partly by freezing education funding, abandons a hard-fought law mandating annual increases to improve the state's classrooms.
State workers, railing against O'Malley's pension proposal, turned the governor's winning re-election slogan from last fall back at him: "Forward, not back," they yelled.
"I hate to do this to the governor, he's one of us, he's a union guy," said Bob Dickerson, a University of Maryland employee, as he jostled for a view two blocks deep in a section of the crowd clad in green emblazoned with logos of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Maryland's largest public employees union.
"But I make $35,000 after working the same job for 35 years and you're telling me I'm the problem with the budget?" Dickerson said. "You're going to cut my pension? That's wrong."
Against the advice of some staffers and event organizers, O'Malley took the protest head-on.
Near the end of the rally, he emerged from the State House and took the stage immediately after a fist-pumping address by AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka, who had been a fixture in recent weeks at union protests outside the Wisconsin state house as the Republican governor there sought to eliminate public employees' collective bargaining rights.
"Good evening, Maryland," O'Malley said, first to a smattering of boos and then a swelling chant of "keep the promise."
But O'Malley quickly disarmed much of the crowd, saying he didn't want to hurt public employees and was not at all like his Republican counterparts in the Midwest.
"I don't like this budget either," he said, "but I wanted to come here and say this: Our state is not like other states.
"We are a great state ... because our public employees do a good job every single day," he said to hearty applause. "You will not find in Maryland the sort of Midwestern repression that goes on in places like Wisconsin . . . Ohio, that are doing away with collective bargaining."
O'Malley then offered the near exact words Maryland State Education Association President Clara B. Floyd said earlier in the evening that she wanted to hear.
"Look we have tough decisions ahead of us," O'Malley said. "But we are committed to staying at the table, and figuring this out together" with the unions, he said.
After O'Malley got off stage, he saw Trumka waiting to speak and embraced him. O'Malley then posed for pictures with union members and others.
In an interview, Trumka said the protest by unions and cooperative spirit displayed by O'Malley is "the way it's supposed to work."
"Now," Trumka said, "we negotiate.''
We've got protests in Michigan as well:
QuoteMichigan Dems to seek constitutional amendment to ensure union rights
12:12 PM, Mar. 16, 2011 | 15Comments
DETROIT FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU
LANSING -- House and Senate Democratic leaders today will call for a state constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to collective bargaining for all employees, either in the public or private sectors.
Senate Majority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, said the proposal is modeled after similar constitutional guarantees for collective bargaining in other states.
The proposal will be announced shortly at a union-led rally at the Capitol, where demonstrators are protesting Gov. Rick Snyder's budget and tax plan.
The rally, like previous ones, also is targeting a new law – soon to be signed by Snyder – that will give state-appointed emergency financial managers such sweeping powers as the ability to nullify city and school district employee union contracts.
A Republican-led effort in Wisconsin to eliminate most collective bargaining rights for state employees has outraged unionists and Democrats around the U.S.
Whitmer said Snyder and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, have said they do not favor blocking bargaining rights.
"Let's really get it off the table and give it constitutional protection," Whitmer said.
She will jointly sponsor the measure with House Minority Leader Richard Hammel, D-Flushing. Whitmer said they will introduce the resolutions this week.
The proposal would require a two-thirds vote of approval by both the House and Senate for a spot on the 2012 fall election ballot.
If that fails, a petition drive would be required to put the issue before voters.
Whitmer said no arrangements have been made to lead a petition drive if the measure is not approved by the Legislature.
Michigan is a union heavy state; the Democrat candidate for governor is always the one whom the UAW endorsed in the primaries. There are no right to work laws and union shops abound. Our state has major financial problems as people leave taxes are down and as the housing market continues to decline property taxes are way down. Given these circumstances Governor Snyder's budget is quite generous to the state unions, there are no layoffs, wages remain the same though union members will have to contribute more to their health care plan. Even so we've had demonstrations in the state capital and Union members occupied the rotunda in the State Capitol building during votes on the bill about emergency financial managers.
To the best of my knowledge only Detroit Public Schools and the City of Highland Park have emergency financial managers. The many unions that serve the Detroit Public Schools (not just teachers, but cooks, cleaners, maintenance and bus drivers are all unionized) have fought the DPS emergency financial manager over everything (as have the school board and community activists as well.) I think Snyder is trying to help with that situation but he's also trying to avoid a similar situation in the worst case scenario, if the City of Detroit requires an emergency financial manager.
This amendment is largely political theater; it probably won't pass a Republican controlled state house and state senate. You can petition to have amendments put on the ballot; given the power of the unions they would have a much easier time getting it that way.
Scott Walker trying to defend himself.
Quote
Striking the right bargain in Wisconsin
By Scott Walker, Wednesday, March 16, 8:11 PM
Imagine the outrage if government workers did not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits. Consider the massive protests that would be staged by labor leaders all across the country.
Think I'm talking about Wisconsin? No, I'm talking about the federal government.
Contrary to what the Obama administration would lead you to believe, most employees of the federal government do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits. That means the budget reform plan we signed into law in Wisconsin on Friday is more generous than what President Obama offers federal employees.
Our reform plan calls for a 5.8 percent pension contribution from government workers, including myself, and a 12.6 percent health insurance premium payment. Both are well below what middle-class, private-sector workers pay. Federal workers, however, pay an average of 28 percent of health insurance costs.
It's enough to make you wonder why there are no protesters circling the White House.
My brother is a banquet manager and occasional bartender at a hotel. He pays nearly $800 a month for his family's health insurance and can put away only a little bit toward his 401(k). He would love the plan I'm offering to public employees.
As my brother recognizes, our plan is a good deal for government workers when compared with what other middle-class workers are paying for benefits. It would be a great deal for federal workers.
Nearly every state in the country is facing a large budget deficit, just like the federal government. Many states are cutting billions of dollars in funding for schools and local governments, resulting in massive layoffs or massive property tax increases — or both.
In Wisconsin, we are choosing a different way. The Wisconsin way allows local governments to balance the budget through reasonable benefit contributions. These reasonable contributions will save local governments almost $1.5 billion.
The financial savings in our budget reforms will protect 1,500 jobs this fiscal year and 10,000 jobs over the next two years. The savings come from giving state and local governments the tools to manage benefit costs through collective bargaining reform.
Some have questioned the need to reform collective bargaining. After all, they say, the union bosses in Washington said publicly that their workers were ready to pay a little bit more for their benefits. But the truth is that as the national union bosses were saying one thing, their locals were doing something entirely different. Over the past several weeks, local unions across Wisconsin have pursued contracts without new pension or health insurance contributions. Some have even pushed through pay increases.
Their actions leave one wondering how tone-deaf and out of touch union bosses are with what's happening in the private sector. Even the president instituted a pay freeze on government workers this year, something he was able to do only because federal employees enjoy fewer collective bargaining rights than do Wisconsin workers — even with our recent reforms.
Beyond balancing budgets, our reforms give schools — as well as state and local governments — the tools to improve their operations. We allow them to reward merit and performance instead of facing the barriers of collective bargaining that all too often block innovation and reform. Because of our reforms, government will become more efficient and effective for the people.
Ultimately, our budget repair bill is about the next generation. We are making the difficult decisions now so that our children don't have to make even more difficult choices to balance the budget we left them.
A lot of people have made their voices heard during this debate, including the president and the union bosses. But middle-class taxpayers who want a government that works for them also deserve a voice. Now they have one.
The writer, a Republican, is governor of Wisconsin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/striking-the-right-bargain-in-wisconsin-/2011/03/14/ABL7cAh_story.html
Walker needs to learn to STFU. President Obama doesn't offer jobs with any conditions to "federal employees" except political appointees, and Walker's a moron to try to draw this comparison.
I also note that walker continues to pretend that we won't notice that he is lying when he says what he believes about the necessity to get rid of the police and firefighters' unions.
No, I would prefer he keeps talking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12791155
QuoteUS judge blocks Wisconsin union bargaining law
A US judge in Wisconsin has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the state's new collective bargaining law from taking effect.
Public-sector unions' bargaining rights would be affected by the law, if it is published later this month.
Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order, which is being seen as a setback to Republican Governor Scott Walker.
Tens of thousands of people rallied at the state capitol in recent weeks in protest against the anti-union measure.
Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee which broke a stalemate that had kept the bill in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin's open meetings law.
Last month, US state's 14 Democratic senators had sought to prevent the bill moving forward by fleeing the state, leaving the chamber short of the number needed for a vote.
But Republicans used a procedural move last week to allow them to pass the measure in committee instead. Mr Walker signed it into law shortly afterwards.
The state's justice department argued that it had given enough notice of the committee meeting when it posted a memo on a bulletin board two hours beforehand.
The law was to be published on 25 March, but the new restraining order will now prevent that from happening.
Remaining 'confident'
Cullen Werwie, a spokesman for Mr Walker, said he was confident the law would still be published in the near future.
"This legislation is still working through the legal process," Mr Werwie said.
But Democrats were hopeful Republicans in the state would come back to the negotiating table.
"I would hope the Republicans would take this as an opportunity to sit down with Democrats and negotiate a proposal we could all get behind," said Democratic Senator Jon Erpenbach.
The state faces a $3.6bn (£2.23bn) budget deficit in the coming two-year period. Mr Walker and Republicans say the law on labour unions is needed to help the state balance that deficit.
If implemented, the legislation would affect rubbish collectors, teachers, nurses, prison guards and other public workers.
Why is a US judge ruling on whether the Wisconsin legislature followed its own rules? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2011, 07:32:19 PM
Why is a US judge ruling on whether the Wisconsin legislature followed its own rules? :huh:
Stupid Brits, I got that from the BBC. Here is an American source that know what they are talking about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/judge_blocks_wisconsin_law_curbing_labor_rights/2011/03/18/ABDDjjq_story.html?wprss=rss_business
Is Wisconsin not in the US anymore?
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2011, 07:43:28 PM
Is Wisconsin not in the US anymore?
Federal judges have no jurisdiction on whether or not actions violate state laws. They only have jurisdiction on issues involving federal laws, or questions arising under the US Constitution.
I think it's a county judge.
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2011, 01:04:36 PM
Walker needs to learn to STFU. President Obama doesn't offer jobs with any conditions to "federal employees" except political appointees, and Walker's a moron to try to draw this comparison.
I also note that walker continues to pretend that we won't notice that he is lying when he says what he believes about the necessity to get rid of the police and firefighters' unions.
This is not even a coherent statement. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2011, 05:12:27 PM
I think it's a county judge.
Yep. It is a county judge in Wisconsin, which is in the US. So the BBC report of a US judge is right, but that usually implies a federal judge, which this was not.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 19, 2011, 05:20:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2011, 01:04:36 PM
Walker needs to learn to STFU. President Obama doesn't offer jobs with any conditions to "federal employees" except political appointees, and Walker's a moron to try to draw this comparison.
I also note that walker continues to pretend that we won't notice that he is lying when he says what he believes about the necessity to get rid of the police and firefighters' unions.
This is not even a coherent statement. :hmm:
I thought you were out killing people.
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2011, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2011, 07:43:28 PM
Is Wisconsin not in the US anymore?
Federal judges have no jurisdiction on whether or not actions violate state laws. They only have jurisdiction on issues involving federal laws, or questions arising under the US Constitution.
Yeah, but any judge in the US is a US judge.
Quote from: Neil on March 20, 2011, 01:38:50 PM
Yeah, but any judge in the US is a US judge.
As any judge living in Ontario is an Ontario judge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2011, 01:56:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 20, 2011, 01:38:50 PM
Yeah, but any judge in the US is a US judge.
As any judge living in Ontario is an Ontario judge.
But also a Canadian judge.
Quote from: Neil on March 20, 2011, 01:38:50 PM
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2011, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2011, 07:43:28 PM
Is Wisconsin not in the US anymore?
Federal judges have no jurisdiction on whether or not actions violate state laws. They only have jurisdiction on issues involving federal laws, or questions arising under the US Constitution.
Yeah, but any judge in the US is a US judge.
??
I'll say this for Republicans, they always go for the kill. They inevitably overreach like this, but at least they try to enact the entirety of their agenda. The Dems barely even try.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/buried-provision-food-stamps/
QuoteQuoteBuried Provision In House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps To Entire Families If One Member Strikes
All around the country, right-wing legislators are asking middle class Americans to pay for budget deficits caused mainly by a recession caused by Wall Street; they are attacking workers' collective bargaining rights, which has provoked a huge Main Street Movement to fight back.
Now, a group of House Republicans is launching a new stealth attack against union workers. GOP Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Tim Scott (SC), Scott Garrett (NJ), Dan Burton (IN), and Louie Gohmert (TX) have introduced H.R. 1135, which states that it is designed to "provide information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to provide additional work requirements, and to provide an overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs."
Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F03%2Fstrike2.jpg&hash=27b7e74ce0a47215734c9ace66b5325edb602197)
The bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, "if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household."
Yet removing entire families from eligibility while a single adult family member is striking would have a chilling effect on workers who are considering going on strike for better wages, benefits, or working conditions — something that is especially alarming in light of the fact that unions are one of the fundamental building blocks of the middle class that allow people to earn wages that keep them off food stamps.
With a record 42 million Americans on food stamps during these poor economic times, it appears that the right is simply looking for more ways to hurt working class Americans.
That's just wrong. I think everybody knows that I'm generally anti-union, but if the household is already eligible for food stamps, they shouldn't loose them just because someone in the house goes out on strike. OTOH, if a household isn't already eligible, I don't think that they should become eligible if someone goes on strike.
Quote from: dps on March 24, 2011, 04:00:22 AM
That's just wrong. I think everybody knows that I'm generally anti-union, but if the household is already eligible for food stamps, they shouldn't loose them just because someone in the house goes out on strike. OTOH, if a household isn't already eligible, I don't think that they should become eligible if someone goes on strike.
QuoteThe bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, "if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household."
Partially fucked over instead of completely fucked over; that's good enough for Yi.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2011, 07:16:25 AM
Partially fucked over instead of completely fucked over; that's good enough for Yi.
The slogans you copy verbatim from Mother Jones work better than you ones you come up with yourself.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2011, 02:08:54 AMQuoteQuote
it appears that the right is simply looking for more ways to hurt working class Americans.
:lol: What an absurd statement.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2011, 02:08:54 AM
I'll say this for Republicans, they always go for the kill. They inevitably overreach like this, but at least they try to enact the entirety of their agenda.
Always?? Up until this year the GOP way has been to half-ass their agenda, dropping the better parts of it while adding enough spending to appease the Dems.
QuoteThe Dems barely even try.
Right, like when they used every trick, loophole, etc. to pass Obamacare?
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2011, 11:09:39 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2011, 02:08:54 AM
I'll say this for Republicans, they always go for the kill. They inevitably overreach like this, but at least they try to enact the entirety of their agenda.
Always?? Up until this year the GOP way has been to half-ass their agenda, dropping the better parts of it while adding enough spending to appease the Dems.
QuoteThe Dems barely even try.
Right, like when they used every trick, loophole, etc. to pass Obamacare?
The Democratic base wanted at least a public option, if not single payer. Obamacare is the '94 GOP proposal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2011, 06:52:42 AM
Quote from: dps on March 24, 2011, 04:00:22 AM
That's just wrong. I think everybody knows that I'm generally anti-union, but if the household is already eligible for food stamps, they shouldn't loose them just because someone in the house goes out on strike. OTOH, if a household isn't already eligible, I don't think that they should become eligible if someone goes on strike.
Ooops.
QuoteThe bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, “if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household.”
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2011, 07:24:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2011, 07:16:25 AM
Partially fucked over instead of completely fucked over; that's good enough for Yi.
The slogans you copy verbatim from Mother Jones work better than you ones you come up with yourself.
Stop hating middle class America. You don't make enough.
Is middle class America really that invested in unions? :x
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2011, 10:39:31 PM
Is middle class America really that invested in unions? :x
If it is, then it would explain why it's taking it in the ass so hard for the last 30 years.
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2011, 10:39:31 PM
Is middle class America really that invested in unions? :x
Employers sure as shit aren't.
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2011, 10:39:31 PM
Is middle class America really that invested in unions? :x
If you paid more attention to MSNBC, The Progressive, Mother Jones, or The Nation, you would be aware that the line being adopted by supporters of the public sector unions is that the various attempts to roll back their compensation and/or collective bargaining rights is an effort to eliminate one of the few remaining vestiges of the American middle class. So to answer your question more directly, it's not that middle class America is invested in unions, it's that unions ARE middle class America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 24, 2011, 11:11:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2011, 10:39:31 PM
Is middle class America really that invested in unions? :x
Employers sure as shit aren't.
They wouldn't be employers for very long if they did :showoff:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2011, 07:55:50 PM
The Democratic base wanted at least a public option, if not single payer.
The base doesn't dictate every part of the Democrat agenda in congress.
QuoteObamacare is the '94 GOP proposal.
Man, have you gone full Democrat now? Obamacare is pretty much what Obama said he wanted in the 2008 campaign-- plus a lot of goodies added out to get enough Democrat votes + special interest support.
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2011, 11:02:21 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2011, 07:55:50 PM
The Democratic base wanted at least a public option, if not single payer.
The base doesn't dictate every part of the Democrat agenda in congress.
QuoteObamacare is the '94 GOP proposal.
Man, have you gone full Democrat now? Obamacare is pretty much what Obama said he wanted in the 2008 campaign-- plus a lot of goodies added out to get enough Democrat votes + special interest support.
No. Pro-life, in favor of a balanced budget and as hawkish as ever. Plan on voting for Romney if he wins the nomination.
And that's their problem. The GOP listens to their base a lot more.
Obama backed the public option in '08.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2011, 11:17:10 PM
Plan on voting for Romney if he wins the nomination.
Fag.
Romney certainly looks better than most of the Republican names that have been mentioned so far.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2011, 08:01:16 AMRomney certainly looks better than most of the Republican names that have been mentioned so far.
I'd rather take a Chaotic Evil goof like Palin over a Lawful Evil cultist like a Mormon.
Crazy is one thing, crazy AND diabolically sinister is another.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2011, 09:19:07 AM
I'd rather take a Chaotic Evil goof like Palin over a Lawful Evil cultist like a Mormon.
Crazy is one thing, crazy AND diabolically sinister is another.
It's alright. I don't blame you for making poor choices. Besides, without President Palin, your doomsday prophecy would look a bit off.
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2011, 11:02:21 AMMan, have you gone full Democrat now? Obamacare is pretty much what Obama said he wanted in the 2008 campaign-- plus a lot of goodies added out to get enough Democrat votes + special interest support.
He did win that election by a pretty good margin. There are two major deviations though - one is the mandate which Hillary pushed and Obama opposed, and the other was something from McCain's campaign.
But that doesn't invalidate Tim's point. What he campaigned on wasn't that far from what Republicans supported 15 years ago.
QuoteNo. Pro-life, in favor of a balanced budget and as hawkish as ever. Plan on voting for Romney if he wins the nomination.
I think the issue is that the Republicans have a base. The Democrats don't - they have bases with views that don't always cohere and priorities that don't always mesh. So Mayor Daley was as much of a candidate of the Democratic base as George McGovern was. Similarly Clinton and, say, Dean.
I think the Republicans, since Reagan, have a far more coherent ideological base - which can provide great advantages a lot of the time. I think it's coming under pressure now from Bush's legacy when I think these tensions were sort of buried. I think this primary season could be very, very useful for Republicans in that sense.
What are you talking about that Republicans supported 15 years ago?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2011, 09:19:07 AM
I'd rather take a Chaotic Evil goof like Palin over a Lawful Evil cultist like a Mormon.
Crazy is one thing, crazy AND diabolically sinister is another.
I never thought of it that way, but you're right.
Lawful Evil = Mitt Romney
Neutral Evil = Michele Bachmann
Chaotic Evil = Sarah Palin
:cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2011, 01:12:58 PM
What are you talking about that Republicans supported 15 years ago?
Tim said Obamacare was basically the Republican plan from 94. DS said that it was what Obama campaigned on. I said both can be true.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2011, 01:18:22 PM
Tim said Obamacare was basically the Republican plan from 94. DS said that it was what Obama campaigned on. I said both can be true.
Yes. I don't remember any Republican plan from 94. Can you refresh my memory?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2011, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2011, 01:18:22 PM
Tim said Obamacare was basically the Republican plan from 94. DS said that it was what Obama campaigned on. I said both can be true.
Yes. I don't remember any Republican plan from 94. Can you refresh my memory?
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-Comparison.aspx
I believe this was before the Republicans in 93 decided that it would be more advantageous to kill the bill.
Thanks Shelf. You're a prince.
Sarah Palin is Chaotic Stupid. It isn't the same thing.
More Republican shenanigans, what a bunch of twats.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110326/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
QuoteMADISON, Wis. – Wisconsin Republicans were accustomed to getting what they wanted after the election put Scott Walker in the governor's office and flipped legislative control to the GOP, even gaining some Democratic support for a series of economic measures in his first weeks in office. Then they took on unions.
Uproar was swift and furious when Walker unveiled his plan to take away nearly all public employee collective bargaining rights, drawing tens of thousands of protesters to the Capitol and sending Senate Democrats running away from it to stall further action.
Delayed but not deterred, GOP leaders found a legislative workaround and passed the measure without even needing the Democrats to be in the state. The move brought quick court action, and a temporary restraining order meant to stop the plan from becoming law while a judge decides whether steps taken to get it approved were legal.
But the GOP may have outsmarted the plan's opponents again.
On Friday, in a move Democrats and unions decried as an end-run around the court order barring implementation, Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald asked the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau to publish the law. Publication typically means a law takes effect.
If the law is in effect, the question before the courts would shift from attempting to block it to rescinding it. And the implementation date is significant because the law doesn't apply to unions that have existing contracts.
Those without contracts once the law takes effect cannot enter into new agreements.
Fitzgerald defended himself against accusations he has thumbed his nose at the judiciary in a move that appeared to run afoul of the temporary restraining order. He said going to the Reference Bureau was legal because the court order only specifically barred the secretary of state from taking action.
Even the Reference Bureau says its move does not put the law into effect. But Fitzgerald insists the bureau's posting on the Legislature's website Friday has the same effect as the secretary of state publishing it — meaning the law took effect Saturday.
Fitzgerald said he didn't consult with Walker about the move.
"It is not the usual path, I admit that," he said. "Clearly we're in this uncharted territory again where we'd like it to be behind us so we can move forward with the budget."
Others doubt the motivations.
"It seems to me they must be just offended that their power is questioned by anybody," said Madison attorney Lester Pines, who plans to file his own lawsuit challenging the law on Monday.
Democrats and unions, meanwhile, are flabbergasted.
"Their actions continue to show a disregard not only for people's rights and open government, but also the authority of the courts," said Democratic Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller.
Fitzgerald said he's only seeking finality and resolution so local governments have certainty in knowing what the law is as they proceed with making budget decisions.
The law takes away the ability of teacher and other public sector unions from collectively bargaining for anything other than wage increases no greater than inflation. It also forces them to pay more for health insurance and pensions, amounting to an 8 percent pay cut on average.
The concessions are expected to save local governments about $330 million by mid-2013 and without those taking effect it will be much more difficult to absorb more than $1 billion in other cuts Walker is proposing in his pending two-year budget plan.
Walker spokesmen did not return messages Saturday seeking comment.
Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said Saturday that he believed the law was now in place. He said he'd begin implementing it, just as the department was required to do after any bill was lawfully published.
"We are mindful that this act is continuing to be litigated, and we will continue to be responsive to the courts as the law begins to be applied," he said in a statement.
The head of the Reference Bureau and one of the Legislature's nonpartisan attorneys both said that despite Fitzgerald's insistence, the law is not in effect until Secretary of State Doug La Follette acts.
The bill passed on March 10 and Walker signed it the next day, after less than 10 weeks on the job.
Under normal circumstances, the law would take effect within the next 10 business days. But a judge issued a temporary restraining order on March 18 preventing La Follette from publishing it.
That order came in response to a complaint filed by the Democratic Dane County district attorney. He alleged the state open meetings law was violated when a special legislative committee met with less than two hours' notice March 9 to put the bill into the necessary form so it could pass the Senate without any of the 14 AWOL Democratic senators present.
The state appealed and an appeals court earlier this week asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case. It has yet to say whether it will.
La Follette remained adamant Saturday that the law is not in effect until he orders it published and he will not take any action because he remains under the restraining order.
"I did not violate the restraining order," La Follette said.
The latest action didn't spur any massive protests in the hours that followed it like other action had last month that motivated demonstrations of more than 85,000 people.
A couple hundred protesters did return to the Capitol on Saturday morning, including one man who stood outside Fitzgerald's office and repeatedly shouted, "I am the Senate majority leader and I am czar! You will do as I say! I am above the law!"
'Now let's see them enforce it'.
Quote from: sbr on March 26, 2011, 11:41:12 PM
More Republican shenanigans, what a bunch of twats.
Yeah but blocking the law through the courts and them dems being derelict in their duties was not. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2011, 10:39:12 AM
Yeah but blocking the law through the courts and them dems being derelict in their duties was not. :rolleyes:
Fleeing the state was, going to the court was not. Wisconsin law says you have to post notice 72 hours before a vote; they didn't do that.
The part about this story that has me scratching my head is the fact that the teachers' union has already signed contracts with some jurisdications (school boards I assume). If a given school board wants to pay each teacher a million dollars, why should the state government care? The only explanation I can come up with is that the state is on the hook for a set percentage of each school board's payroll.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2011, 11:59:49 AM
Fleeing the state was, going to the court was not. Wisconsin law says you have to post notice 72 hours before a vote; they didn't do that.
I recognize that but I tend the view the shortening of notice was a result of the politician flight. Both foul, of course.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2011, 12:41:21 PM
I recognize that but I tend the view the shortening of notice was a result of the politician flight. Both foul, of course.
The Democrats grabbed all the Dry-Erase markers before they left? :huh:
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2011, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 18, 2011, 07:43:28 PM
Is Wisconsin not in the US anymore?
Federal judges have no jurisdiction on whether or not actions violate state laws. They only have jurisdiction on issues involving federal laws, or questions arising under the US Constitution.
Technically not true. Federal courts have potential jurisdiction over state law claims if the plaintiff and defendants are from different states and the claim is for over $75,000. Also, if there is a claim based on federal law, parties can bring in additional, related claims that are based on state law.
Aaaaaaand this:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/118654904.html
Quote
GOP seeks e-mails of UW-Madison professor
By Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel
The Republican Party of Wisconsin has made an open records request for the e-mails of a University of Wisconsin professor of history, geography and environmental studies in an apparent response to a blog post the professor wrote about a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
Professor William J. Cronon, who is the president-elect of the American Historical Association, said in an interview Friday that the party asked for e-mails starting Jan. 1.
The request was made by Stephan Thompson of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. In his request, Thompson asked for e-mails of Cronon's state e-mail account that "reference any of the following terms: Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell."
Most of the names are Republican legislators. Marty Beil is the head of the Wisconsin State Employees Union and Mary Bell is the head of the Wisconsin Education Association Council.
Cronon said the university had not yet complied with the open records request. The e-mails would be subject to the state's open records law because they were written on an university e-mail account.
The university has an e-mail policy that states, "University employees may not use these resources to support the nomination of any person for political office or to influence a vote in any election or referendum."
Cronon said he did not violate the policy in any way. "I really object in principle to this inquiry," Cronon said of the party's open records request.
Thompson was not available for comment. But in an statement, Mark Jefferson, the party's executive director, said, "Like anyone else who makes an open records request in Wisconsin, the Republican Party of Wisconsin does not have to give a reason for doing so.
"I have never seen such a concerted effort to intimidate someone from lawfully seeking information about their government.
"Further, it is chilling to see that so many members of the media would take up the cause of a professor who seeks to quash a lawful open records request. Taxpayers have a right to accountable government and a right to know if public officials are conducting themselves in an ethical manner. The Left is far more aggressive in this state than the Right in its use of open records requests, yet these rights do extend beyond the liberal left and members of the media.
"Finally, I find it appalling that Professor Cronon seems to have plenty of time to round up reporters from around the nation to push the Republican Party of Wisconsin into explaining its motives behind a lawful open records request, but has apparently not found time to provide any of the requested information.
"We look forward to the University's prompt response to our request and hope those who seek to intimidate us from making such requests will reconsider their actions."
Cronon maintains his own blog, which you can read here.
Cronon said he had been doing research for an op-ed he planned to offer to the New York Times about the ongoing budget debate in Madison. In the course of his research, he discovered an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council.
On his own blog, which has no affiliation with the university, Cronon wrote what he described as a "study guide" about the council. Two days later, he said, he had 500,000 hits on the post.
On March 17, Thompson made his open records request, or about 36 hours after the blog was posted. Cronon said.
"I have no doubt there was a causal relationship between those two," Cronon said.
"It never occurred to me that my suggestion that more study needed to be done about the group might be interpreted as electioneering," Cronon added. "The GOP drew a line that had not occurred to me. That my posting might damage people involved in the recall elections. That surprised me. But that's clearly what they were concluding."
A link to the NYT op-ed the professor wrote is on the page.
LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.
Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.
Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?
People are interested in what a professor wrote when it's not required reading? :blink:
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.
Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.
Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?
Something that could be taken out of context, maybe? Not that GOP would ever do anything like that, of course.
Quote from: The Brain on March 28, 2011, 03:29:02 PM
People are interested in what a professor wrote when it's not required reading? :blink:
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2011, 03:47:36 PM
Something that could be taken out of context, maybe? Not that GOP a political party would ever do anything like that, of course.
:rolleyes:
But then I fixed it for you. :hug:
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.
Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.
Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?
Just further why you should never use your work address for anything but work. You use your yahoo or whatever address to take down your political enemies.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2011, 04:10:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.
Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.
Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?
Just further why you should never use your work address for anything but work. You use your yahoo or whatever address to take down your political enemies.
True. Just about everywhere there is zero expectation of privacy in institutional communications. This is certainly no violation of anything. It does stink though.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.
Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.
Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?
Looking at his blog, not turning it over apparently has given him enough material for like 80 posts. He succeeded in boring me to the point of not giving a shit about this particular issue.
Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2011, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.
Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.
Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?
Something that could be taken out of context, maybe? Not that GOP would ever do anything like that, of course.
Of course they could and would. So what?
Trying to fight it makes him look like he really DOES have something to hide.
Quote from: derspiess on March 28, 2011, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.
Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.
Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?
Looking at his blog, not turning it over apparently has given him enough material for like 80 posts. He succeeded in boring me to the point of not giving a shit about this particular issue.
True - climbing up on his martyrs cross is probably way too tempting to pass up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2011, 11:59:49 AM
Fleeing the state was, going to the court was not. Wisconsin law says you have to post notice 72 hours before a vote; they didn't do that.
The part about this story that has me scratching my head is the fact that the teachers' union has already signed contracts with some jurisdications (school boards I assume). If a given school board wants to pay each teacher a million dollars, why should the state government care? The only explanation I can come up with is that the state is on the hook for a set percentage of each school board's payroll.
You are correct about the State being on the hook for promises of local gov't, which is why they care about this issue, it also reveals that the Union promise of concessions was a lie. You're incorrect about the 72-hour notice prior to a vote, it is only a two-hour wait in case of emergencies as determined by the legislature (as being in an emergency session would qualify). Little noticed has been the fact that the son of the Judge is a high-ranking Union official, which meant she probably should have recused herself from the matter.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 30, 2011, 08:26:11 AM
You are correct about the State being on the hook for promises of local gov't, which is why they care about this issue, it also reveals that the Union promise of concessions was a lie. You're incorrect about the 72-hour notice prior to a vote, it is only a two-hour wait in case of emergencies as determined by the legislature (as being in an emergency session would qualify). Little noticed has been the fact that the son of the Judge is a high-ranking Union official, which meant she probably should have recused herself from the matter.
Was a union official. That's a pretty big difference to start with. Conflicts aren't a bright-line test, Hansi- it's not just whether the individual was exposed to a person who could be a potential conflict, it's also whether the individual may be prejudiced as a result of that exposure. Parents
don't routinely consult their children about career decisions, and if you were going to force recusal based on similar associations alone, you'd have to axe damn near all the family court judges.
Sorry, Hans, but this stinks of a witch-hunt for purposes of "judicial shopping." It's a page right out of the divorce law playbook, where a bitter spouse makes interview appointments with all the best law firms to conflict them out for their spouse and make sure the spouse doesn't have as good an attorney.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2011, 09:03:18 AM
Parents don't routinely consult their children about career decisions
But it is the case that they often take steps to ensure their children's position and happiness. Not that I think that is going on here but I think you are overstating in the case in the face of Hans.
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2011, 09:41:40 AM
But it is the case that they often take steps to ensure their children's position and happiness. Not that I think that is going on here but I think you are overstating in the case in the face of Hans.
Possibly. I just get really irked with fishing expeditions to get the most sympathetic judge; of course, given how much the Republicans have flouted the system in this case, why not milk a little more?
Honestly, while I'm irked by the attempts to circumvent the established legislature, mostly I just pity the Republicans. Obviously, certain elements of the Republican Party feel they've got sufficient moral high ground to get away with all kinds of dirty politics, and I'm relatively sure it's going to come back and bite them in the voting booth.
Oh wait, no disdain for the party who sought to cripple the legislature by having their legislators flee? :huh:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 30, 2011, 10:10:12 AM
Honestly, while I'm irked by the attempts to circumvent the established legislature, mostly I just pity the Republicans. Obviously, certain elements of the Republican Party feel they've got sufficient moral high ground to get away with all kinds of dirty politics, and I'm relatively sure it's going to come back and bite them in the voting booth.
The GOP has tried taking the high ground in the past-- that did not turn out too well. If the Dems are going to play dirty, you can't expect the GOP not to adjust their efforts accordingly.
Yeah, I don't think there is much high ground for anyone to be taking.
Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2011, 10:23:42 AM
Yeah, I don't think there is much high ground for anyone to be taking.
I guess the defense could be that the Dems were simply trying to prevent a genuinely evil set of legislation by the Republicans.
Of course, it probably got to this judge in the first place via judicial shopping. Everyone does that...
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2011, 10:32:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2011, 10:23:42 AM
Yeah, I don't think there is much high ground for anyone to be taking.
I guess the defense could be that the Dems were simply trying to prevent a genuinely evil set of legislation by the Republicans.
No excuse. If the Republican's are so evil they should be able to convince the voters of that.
I didn't say I buy that excuse. :P
All is well in the Union Shop! I got my step raise, so life is 5% better, hehehehehe. I have four more coming, so not that concerned if we get small raises from the next contract.
I love politics always much ado about nothing when they shake their fists at the Unions.
Heheheheheheheheeheheheheheheheehehehe.
Heheheheheheheheeheheheheheheheehehehehehehehehehehehe.
Quote from: Strix on March 31, 2011, 02:58:29 PM
All is well in the Union Shop! I got my step raise, so life is 5% better, hehehehehe. I have four more coming, so not that concerned if we get small raises from the next contract.
I love politics always much ado about nothing when they shake their fists at the Unions.
It would be a lot funnier if Berkut just had to cut you a check directly.
Quote from: Strix on March 31, 2011, 02:58:29 PM
All is well in the Union Shop! I got my step raise, so life is 5% better, hehehehehe. I have four more coming, so not that concerned if we get small raises from the next contract.
I love politics always much ado about nothing when they shake their fists at the Unions.
If we legalize drugs, will you get laid off? Be honest plz. :)
The crazy threatening emailer is caught.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com%2Fimages02%2F129%2Fl_7deb5640ca79486e954e7aaaee3dd561.jpg&hash=7183ef909a81d63f59c69ac676991629d8c57e37)
Quote
Woman charged with email threats
By Bill Glauber of the Journal Sentinel
Madison - A 26-year-old woman was charged Thursday with two felony counts and two misdemeanor counts for allegedly making email threats against Wisconsin lawmakers during the height of the battle over Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill.
Katherine R. Windels of Cross Plains was named in a criminal complaint filed in Dane County Criminal Court.
According to the criminal complaint, Windels allegedly sent an email threat to State Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) March 9. Later that evening, she allegedly sent another email to 15 Republican legislators, including Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).
The subject line of the second email was: "Atten: Death Threat!!!! Bomb!!!" In that email, she purportedly wrote, "Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks."
"I hope you have a good time in hell," she allegedly wrote in the lengthy email in which she purportedly listed scenarios in which the legislators and their families would die, including bombings and by "putting a nice little bullet in your head."
According to the criminal complaint, Windels told investigators "I sent out emails that I was
disgusted and very upset by what they were doing."
Asked if she intended to follow through on any of her threats, Windels told the investigators "No," according to the complaint.
Windels was charged with two felony counts "bomb scare" and two misdemeanor counts of "computer message-threatening injury/bodily harm." If convicted, each felony count carries a maximum penalty of three years and six months in prison and a $10,000 fine, and each misdemeanor count carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in prison and a $1,000 fine.
WKOW-TV reported Windels was not in custody. She was expected to be served Friday with her first court appearance in late April, according to the station's website.
Remember that crazy bitch who worked for the McCain campaign and beat herself up, claiming that two menacing negroes did it and tattooed Obama on her face or something? Wonder what she's up to these days. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 12:08:26 PM
Remember that crazy bitch who worked for the McCain campaign and beat herself up, claiming that two menacing negroes did it and tattooed Obama on her face or something? Wonder what she's up to these days. :)
Dating Alan Keyes.
I would not hit it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 01:30:23 PM
I would not hit it.
Are you talking about Alan Keyes or this Katherine Windels chick? From her mug shot it looks like she may be decent looking (when not depicted in a mug shot).
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 01:32:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 01:30:23 PM
I would not hit it.
Are you talking about Alan Keyes or this Katherine Windels chick? From her mug shot it looks like she may be decent looking (when not depicted in a mug shot).
The chick.
Long face, fat arms, man hands. PASS.
Oh, I didn't see a full body shot. :blush:
I saw enough up there. :yuk:
Was there a photo in an earlier post? When I'm at work a lot of the inline images get blocked and I can't even tell someone was trying to post one. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 01:41:57 PM
Was there a photo in an earlier post? When I'm at work a lot of the inline images get blocked and I can't even tell someone was trying to post one. :blush:
I hotlinked it from the chick's myspace page. You probably have myspace blocked.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 01:41:57 PM
Was there a photo in an earlier post? When I'm at work a lot of the inline images get blocked and I can't even tell someone was trying to post one. :blush:
Working on a friday. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 06:49:07 AMIf we legalize drugs, will you get laid off? Be honest plz. :)
Only if you legalize murder and stealing.
:hmm:
I guess I don't really care, since I'm not a sucker who lives in New York. Carry on my good man. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 03:21:12 PM
:hmm:
I guess I don't really care, since I'm not a sucker who lives in New York. Carry on my good man. :)
Better be on the lookout in case New York gets some kind of federal bailout.
Anywho, here in Ohio Gov. Kasich signed SB 5 into law yesterday which scales back collective bargaining privileges for public sector unions :punk:
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2011, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 03:21:12 PM
:hmm:
I guess I don't really care, since I'm not a sucker who lives in New York. Carry on my good man. :)
Better be on the lookout in case New York gets some kind of federal bailout.
Anywho, here in Ohio Gov. Kasich signed SB 5 into law yesterday which scales back collective bargaining privileges for public sector unions :punk:
My cop friends are...displeased. I'm displeased.
I think I voted for the wrong tard. Strickland, who takes his own helmet to groundbreaking ceremonies, or the cop hater Kasich.
Fuck 'em all.
Dirty pinko.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 04:41:16 PM
Dirty pinko.
The Tea Party has certainly driven me leftwards economically from the center-right position.
When the tea party dies(I predict a painful 2012 death), I'll vote for Republicans again.
I'd still kick countmoveon.org in the balls though, just on general principles.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 04:35:45 PM
My cop friends are...displeased. I'm displeased.
I think I voted for the wrong tard. Strickland, who takes his own helmet to groundbreaking ceremonies, or the cop hater Kasich.
I never thought Strickland was that bad-- it's just that I like Kasich a lot better.
QuoteFuck 'em all.
It shouldn't be a surprise. Kasich made a campaign pledge to sign a bill just like SB 5.
Quote
It shouldn't be a surprise. Kasich made a campaign pledge to sign a bill just like SB 5.
I never read that shit. I walk into the voting booth and pound on the diebold machines.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2011, 06:19:32 AM
Quote from: Strix on March 31, 2011, 02:58:29 PM
All is well in the Union Shop! I got my step raise, so life is 5% better, hehehehehe. I have four more coming, so not that concerned if we get small raises from the next contract.
I love politics always much ado about nothing when they shake their fists at the Unions.
It would be a lot funnier if Berkut just had to cut you a check directly.
Does your Berkut Political Indignation Forecast Scale go from 1 to 5 or from 5 to 1?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 02, 2011, 08:34:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 01, 2011, 06:19:32 AM
Quote from: Strix on March 31, 2011, 02:58:29 PM
All is well in the Union Shop! I got my step raise, so life is 5% better, hehehehehe. I have four more coming, so not that concerned if we get small raises from the next contract.
I love politics always much ado about nothing when they shake their fists at the Unions.
It would be a lot funnier if Berkut just had to cut you a check directly.
Does your Berkut Political Indignation Forecast Scale go from 1 to 5 or from 5 to 1?
1 to 5. Wait till the GOP shuts down the government, and Berkut blames those damned liberal commie Democrats. Landfall will be ugly.
The Union issue brings out the vote in Wisconsin SC judge race.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-06-wisconsin-union-election_N.htm
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2011, 08:47:38 PM
1 to 5. Wait till the GOP shuts down the government, and Berkut blames those damned liberal commie Democrats. Landfall will be ugly.
Weird coincidence that the person you are talking about has the same name as the poster here. Did he take it from "our" Berkut, or the reverse?
I approve of most unions, though have never been a member of any; yeah, Thatcherism. :bowler:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 06, 2011, 09:31:17 PM
The Union issue brings out the vote in Wisconsin SC judge race.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-06-wisconsin-union-election_N.htm
So it's within the margin of fraud. Kloppenburg will win.
Apparently a whole city was accidentally left off the tally, giving Prosser an insurmountable 7,000 vote lead.
I didn't think Prosser had a chance due to the heavy Union involvemtn in this are, they outspend him 10 to 1.
I'm surprised Prosser spent anything at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 06:08:29 PM
I'm surprised Prosser spent anything at all.
He got state funding of $300,000.
I'm shocked, I tell ya! That Massachusetts Dem leaders are actually pushing plans that rile the Public Unions, SEIU, etc.
:huh:
Quote
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/2011_0414unions_fuming_over_deleos_wisconsin-esque_budget/
Unions fuming over Robert DeLeo's 'Wisconsin-esque' budget
Bay State union honchos yesterday struck back against House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo's $30.45 billion budget that includes legislation giving cities and towns broad powers to raise health-care co-payments and deductibles for their workers.
"It's almost Wisconsin-esque, I would say, that they would eliminate our right to bargain, sit down and meet with our employer on the issue of health insurance," said Raymond McGrath, legislative director of SEIU-NAGE. "The movement in the great liberal state of Massachusetts is not to the liberal end of things, it's to the conservative end of things."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made headlines this year when he tried to eliminate most collective bargaining rights for public employees.
New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang defended the speaker's plan, which would mean $100 million in savings for cities and towns, saying public employees should make the same insurance payments those in the private sector make.
Gov. Deval Patrick, a supporter of collective bargaining, adopted a similar plan in his budget but gave unions some time to bargain before officials can impose the changes. Patrick's plan also would give public employees up to 50 percent of the savings. DeLeo's plan allocates 10 percent of the savings to employees for one year.
The rest of the House budget has deep cuts and reforms to close a $1.9 billion deficit, including $65 million chopped from local aid to cities and towns and $55 million in cuts to adult day health services.
"We had to make some very tough decisions," DeLeo said. "It's a tough budget but a very responsible one."
DeLeo said his budget reduces overall spending by 2.2 percent, or $664 million, from fiscal year 2011.
The Winthrop Democrat rejected at least $30 million in fee hikes in Patrick's budget, including an extra nickel on water and juice drinks and an annual car insurance charge of up to $2.75.
DeLeo also eliminated funding for one of Patrick's priorities — an immigrant health-care assistance program titled the Commonwealth Care Bridge program. The savings totals $50 million.
But DeLeo adopted Patrick's health-care reforms, saying the state will save $789 million by changing how it pays for health care for the poor. The budget seeks to work with health-care providers to bring down costs.
Pro-union state representatives and lobbyists already are pushing back on the health insurance changes.
"I'm hoping to get to an understanding instead of a one-sided proposal," said Martin J. Walsh (D-Dorchester), who said he'd file an amendment to the plan.
Check out the House Ways and Means budget proposal.
Quote from: KRonn on April 14, 2011, 11:16:16 AM
I'm shocked, I tell ya! That Massachusetts Dem leaders are actually pushing plans that rile the Public Unions, SEIU, etc.
Even Demublicans have to accept reality one of these days.
Looks like Prosser is going to end up the winner after all, with a big enough margin not to dispute.
Stunner, for sure. :huh: Massachusetts House voted overwhelmingly for the bill restricting public union collective bargaining. It goes to the Senate next, where it may have a tougher fight, not sure. This is similar to ideas that Governor Patrick was saying a while ago, so I'm thinking he may approve it. The Unions were putting huge pressure out so I didn't expect this to pass. Some of this stuff looks similar to what had Wisconsin in days of Union rage.
Quote
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/04/27/house_votes_to_limit_bargaining_on_health_care/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3
House votes to restrict unions
Measure would curb bargaining on health care
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.
The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers' rights.
Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.
"It's pretty stunning,'' said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. "These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they're with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It's a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.''
"We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,'' he added. "Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.''
The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.
DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.
"By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,'' he said in a statement.
Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.
The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.
The second concession gives union members 20 percent of the savings from any health care changes for one year, if the unions object to changes imposed by local officials. The original bill gave the unions 10 percent of the savings for one year.
The modifications bring the House bill closer to a plan introduced by Governor Deval Patrick in January. The governor, like Murray, has said he wants workers to have some say in altering their health plans, but does not want unions to have the power to block changes.
But union leaders said that even with the last-minute concessions, the bill was an assault on workers' rights, unthinkable in a state that has long been a bastion of union support. Some Democrats accused DeLeo of following the lead of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other Republicans who have targeted public employee benefits. "In the bigger world out there, this fits into a very bad movement to disempower labor unions,'' said Representative Denise Provost, a Somerville Democrat who opposed the bill.
Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.
Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said that, even if the bill becomes law, municipal workers would still have more bargaining power over their health care plans than state employees. "It's a fair, balanced, strong, effective and meaningful reform,'' he said.
Unions lobbied to derail the speaker's plan in favor of a labor-backed proposal that would preserve collective bargaining, and would let an arbitrator decide changes to employee health plans if local officials and unions deadlock after 45 days. Labor leaders initially persuaded 50 lawmakers, including six members of DeLeo's leadership team, to back their plan last week. But DeLeo peeled off some of the labor support in the final vote.
Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat who is secretary-treasurer of the Boston Building Trades Council, led the fight against the speaker's plan. In a speech that was more wistful than angry, he recalled growing up in a union household that had health care benefits generous enough to help him overcome cancer in 1974. He said collective bargaining rights helped build the middle class.
"Municipal workers aren't the bad guys here,'' he said. "They're not the ones who caused the financial crisis. Banks and investment companies got a slap on the wrist for their wrongdoing, but public employees are losing their benefits.''
The timing of the vote was significant. Union leaders plan today to unleash a major lobbying blitz with police officers, firefighters, and other workers flooding the State House. Taking the vote last night at 11:30 allowed lawmakers to avoid a potentially tense confrontation with those workers, and vote when the marble halls of the House were all but empty.
Quote
Quote
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/05/25/mass_unions_soften_approach_on_health_care/?page=1
Unions soften tone on health
Put positive spin on Senate plan; bill aims to cut municipal costs
Massachusetts labor leaders have given up their full-throated battle to protect certain collective bargaining rights amid an increasing likelihood that the Legislature will empower local governments to raise the health insurance costs of teachers, firefighters, and other municipal employees.
Today, the Senate is to open debate on a state budget that includes a proposal, long sought by mayors and other local officials, to allow them to shift workers into less expensive health plans, even if unions oppose the changes.
A month ago, before the House overwhelmingly approved a similar measure, labor leaders ran dramatic radio ads, held protests at the State House, and threatened to oust lawmakers. The standoff, they said, was a historic effort to ensure Massachusetts did not slide toward the tougher measures imposed in Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere.
But now, as the Senate prepares to debate its bill, unions have issued a conciliatory press release, and tried to put a positive spin on the developments.
The changed tactics reflect shifting political ground and a tacit acknowledgement that their earlier hardball tactics did not work in an economy that has hit city and town budgets hard.
Although there are three proposals on the table, the House, the Senate, and Governor Deval Patrick are in broad agreement that local governments should be able either to switch their workers into the state's health care plan or to design their own plan that similarly trims costs for management. Each plan would leave a window to discuss those changes with workers, but ultimately would let city and town governments alter their plans, regardless of whether workers oppose it.
Several union-friendly senators have filed amendments in advance of this week's debate, but appear to be aiming merely to tweak the bill at the margins, rather than kill it. There is little sense they are mounting the kind of sustained fight that characterized the House debate last month, when nearly a third of the chamber's members faced off against Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and signed onto a union-backed effort to rewrite the measure.
Senate Democrats, who hold 36 of 40 seats in the chamber, met behind closed doors yesterday to discuss the measure before today's debate.
"I'm hoping to be able to find a balance,'' Senator Steven A. Tolman, a Brighton Democrat and union ally said yesterday on his way back to the daylong meeting.
Service Employees International Union Local 888 portrayed the Senate plan as a victory in an e-mail to members last Thursday, a day after the measure was released, casting a positive light on a plan that many union members would have railed against only weeks ago.
The union proudly declared that the 700 letters its members sent to state senators had won the day.
"Our efforts paid off!'' union leaders wrote in bright-red boldface. The newsletter said the bill was not perfect, but praised the Senate version for "preserving our fundamental collective bargaining rights.''
* Tweet 7 people Tweeted this
* ShareThis
Bruce T. Boccardy, president of the union, said he still believes all three proposals are part of a fundamental attack on health care for working people.
He described his praise for the Senate bill as a practical move.
"Pragmatically, considering the climate, considering the anti-union hysteria that's out there,'' the Senate version does much more than the House to at least preserve the principle of collective bargaining, he said.
Other leaders have been reluctant to talk about the issue of late. The president of the AFL-CIO, Robert J. Haynes, who offered the most impassioned arguments and threats when the House passed its measure last month, has made no public statements about the Senate bill, and his spokesman declined a request to speak for this report.
A coalition including the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and the two statewide teachers unions put out a joint statement praising the Senate for its "thoughtful approach'' to "this complex issue'' and offering to work with senators.
Business groups and city and town officials, who favor both the House and Senate versions of the plan, applauded them for attempting to curb collective bargaining and help managers control costs.
"You get to the exact same place if you're a municipality; it's just a different process,'' said Andrew C. Bagley, director of research and public affairs for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed group that has backed the changes.
The differences between the plans are subtle. But Senate President Therese Murray, a Plymouth Democrat, and other members of the Senate have argued that their proposal would give workers a greater say in making the changes and would protect retirees and chronically ill employees by taking more of the savings and putting it into an account for workers.
The Senate bill would also allow a three-member panel to resolve deadlocks if unions and cities cannot agree on a new health plan. And it would give the governor's office the authority to nominate the tie-breaking member of the committee. But that panel would have to rule against the unions if the city wants to put workers under the state's insurance plan.
Last month, after DeLeo released his proposal, labor leaders stood in his office, angrily demanding a meeting. But a day after Murray's plan came out last week, she said she had heard from no one.
In a move that may have helped deflate labor opposition, Murray chose a senator with strong union backing, Katherine Clark of Melrose, to lead the effort to write the Senate bill.
The governor, who has tried to promote his relationship with unions nationally even as he aims to curb health costs for cities and towns, said Monday that he preferred the Senate bill as well, arguing that it gives workers more of a voice than the House version.
"I said at the time I thought some of the rhetoric after the House action was inflated,'' Patrick said. "This is not Wisconsin. That bill is not Wisconsin. The Senate comes a little closer to what we had in mind in our original proposal in terms of the role of labor, having an opportunity to be at the table and negotiate around these issues.''
Postal workers are on rotating strikes here. I wonder how many peopel are really affected? Most of the mail i get no adays are junk mail. i go paperless for alomst everything.
Quote from: HVC on June 05, 2011, 05:08:17 PM
Postal workers are on rotating strikes here. I wonder how many peopel are really affected? Most of the mail i get no adays are junk mail. i go paperless for alomst everything.
Well, the parcel service still seems some use by private citizens, although courier ground services are usually better for late scale users.
I've been on strike for almost a decade. Nobody has even noticed. :(
Wisky SC just just in favor of Walker's bill over the prior ruling striking it.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2011, 06:35:27 PM
I've been on strike for almost a decade. Nobody has even noticed. :(
From the bagel shop? I heard the new minimum wage finally raised their hourly wage to what you guys were demanding back then, so you can go back to work now.
Berkut should be happy. Lay-off notices are starting to go out, and soon Cuomo the Great's Union Busting Plan will be in full effect. Watch for it coming to a White House near you soon.
This thread seems as good a one as any:
Canada Post has had a series of rotating strikes for a few weeks. Today Canada Post announced it is loosing too much money trying to operate this way, so they're instituting a full lockout.
This should be interesting. :shifty:
and the union is bitching say the postal service is trying to get ottawa to legislae them back to work.
I used to have some sympathy for public service unions complaining about the state legislating the terms of their contract, often even over-turning negotiatited positions.
Until I read about how the NYS teachers union had a law passed barring the state from using the results of standardized tests as a metric in tenure decisions. You can argue whether that is a good metric or not, but there was no doubt that the union contract allowed it's use. Right up until the union went to the legislature and got their pet legislators to slap an amendment on a bill making it illegal.
So screw them. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2011, 01:58:16 PM
and the union is bitching say the postal service is trying to get ottawa to legislae them back to work.
I am not sure of the exact details but if it's similar to what happens in NY I don't blame the Union for bitching. If NY has a lockout of it's workers e.g. a governmental shutdown than I still have to work but I don't get paid. I get the money back at the back end of my government service, so basically I have to work without pay for my bills or quit.
The only sympathy I have for public service unions is from the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" perspective. It concerns me that initiatives such as in Wisconsin were initiated by the oligarchs who think that the Gilded Age is the right model for America. Them defeating the unions just removes one destructive influence with a far more destructive influence. That's not the case with Cuomo, though, so fuck the unions.
Quote from: Strix on June 15, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2011, 01:58:16 PM
and the union is bitching say the postal service is trying to get ottawa to legislae them back to work.
I am not sure of the exact details but since I am union democlone I don't blame the Union for bitching.
FYP.
Quote from: DGuller on June 15, 2011, 02:20:32 PM
The only sympathy I have for public service unions is from the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" perspective. It concerns me that initiatives such as in Wisconsin were initiated by the oligarchs who think that the Gilded Age is the right model for America. Them defeating the unions just removes one destructive influence with a far more destructive influence. That's not the case with Cuomo, though, so fuck the unions.
But it is the case with Cuomo, just further demonstrates your inability to think or add any insight to a discussion.
Quote from: Strix on June 15, 2011, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 15, 2011, 02:20:32 PM
The only sympathy I have for public service unions is from the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" perspective. It concerns me that initiatives such as in Wisconsin were initiated by the oligarchs who think that the Gilded Age is the right model for America. Them defeating the unions just removes one destructive influence with a far more destructive influence. That's not the case with Cuomo, though, so fuck the unions.
But it is the case with Cuomo, just further demonstrates your inability to think or add any insight to a discussion.
:jaron:
Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2011, 02:22:14 PM
Quote from: Strix on June 15, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2011, 01:58:16 PM
and the union is bitching say the postal service is trying to get ottawa to legislae them back to work.
I am not sure of the exact details but since I am union democlone I don't blame the Union for bitching.
FYP.
So, now I am a Democrat? Or, perhaps a Republocrat?
Quote from: Strix on June 15, 2011, 02:18:26 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 15, 2011, 01:58:16 PM
and the union is bitching say the postal service is trying to get ottawa to legislae them back to work.
I am not sure of the exact details but if it's similar to what happens in NY I don't blame the Union for bitching. If NY has a lockout of it's workers e.g. a governmental shutdown than I still have to work but I don't get paid. I get the money back at the back end of my government service, so basically I have to work without pay for my bills or quit.
That doesn't make any sense - the point of a lockout is that people can not continue to work.
I would imagine that if you are an essential service I would think you'd be paid as normal.
Quote from: Strix on June 15, 2011, 02:27:36 PM
So, now I am a Democrat? Or, perhaps a Republocrat?
No, you're just a whore. :hug:
Quote from: DGuller on June 15, 2011, 02:28:45 PM
Quote from: Strix on June 15, 2011, 02:27:36 PM
So, now I am a Democrat? Or, perhaps a Republocrat?
No, you're just a whore. :hug:
That was clever, did you think it up all on your own? :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2011, 01:46:45 PM
This thread seems as good a one as any:
Canada Post has had a series of rotating strikes for a few weeks. Today Canada Post announced it is loosing too much money trying to operate this way, so they're instituting a full lockout.
This should be interesting. :shifty:
So anything I mail across the border might actually reach its destination now?
Canada Post = wretched hive of scum and villiany
Just read a review of a Cesar Chavez biography in the Atlantic. For the benighted few, he was the charismatic founder of the United Farm Workers. Unflattering biography and review. He reported illegals to the INS when they competed with the UFW. He went nuts later in life.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 05, 2011, 06:35:27 PM
I've been on strike for almost a decade. Nobody has even noticed. :(
Are you sure?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnedroid.com%2Fcomics%2F2011-04-18-beartato-lateforwork.png&hash=2fd4492b8ffe4d99241d7ac33acac7aa2a8aef5d)