100,000 strong in Wisconsin (and Growing)

[Value Buy]

Feb 28, 2011 10:19:16 GMT -5 decoy409 said:

Value Buy, good morning to you! Can you break this down for me as to what you are seeing in this sentence of yours,

Quote: American workers, union and non union alike, have increased productivity for 25 years now, and
Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=4015&page=2#ixzz1FGbqeUuG

As I am looking at the 10,500 plants (plus) that have been sold off down the road and are no longer here just over the course of the last 10-11 years.

And then let me add that MORE $cake$ has been pressed out here in the U.S. in the past 3 years now than the entire history of it's running!

I mean that is some heavy stuff.

Decoy, yes, you are correct about plant closings and downsizing, but that is not part of my response.
Can you name one commerial industry that has not increased productivity of it's workforce in the last 25 years? It does not matter whether it is the auto, or steel industry, as it applies to technology, retail, and even the utility companies. Productivity per worker is up across the board, except in the public Government sector.
The taxpayers are now demanding more work from the public sector per person, at a lower cost.
Let's just say, the state and federal government has done little to protect worker's jobs in the past, as "it is part of world globalization" of the markets.
Well, what goes around comes around. There is no money left for the freeloaders at the Government trough.
Cutbacks and givebacks are due, and American taxpayers are sending the layoff notices.

[decoy409]

Value Buy, have a good read from Oct. 2010 as I see my answer to your question with in.

Quote: Are Layoffs Bad For Business?
www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/10/22/46411/are-layoffs-bad-for-business

[Tennesseer]

Feb 28, 2011 3:24:10 GMT -5 @stayput said:

Decoy, my only question is this. How in the world did you get a Karma of 166? Who do you know? Are you secretly working for "The Man"? I can't even break double digits.

LOL

Decoy posts on another one of our boards.

As for Decoy having 166 karma points and working for "The Man"? Have you seen burnsattornincan's karma points of 247? Does burnsattornincan work for "The Man"?

[Value Buy]

Feb 28, 2011 11:00:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Feb 28, 2011 3:24:10 GMT -5 @stayput said:

Decoy, my only question is this. How in the world did you get a Karma of 166? Who do you know? Are you secretly working for "The Man"? I can't even break double digits.

LOL

Decoy posts on another one of our boards.

As for Decoy having 166 karma points and working for "The Man"? Have you seen burnsattornincan's karma points of 247? Does burnsattornincan work for "The Man"?

Burns is a stand up attorney!
He does look out for the little man, not "the Man".

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 28, 2011 3:51:05 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

All the "wing-clipping" in the world won't put money in your pockets. The percentage of American Workers in unions has consistently slid throughout my lifetime, and with it, the standard of living of average Americans.

Much of this anti-union stuff and nonsense is the result of envy. Don't you wish you had a little clout too? For those who own businesses, I respect your point of view. At least you are voting your pocketbooks as is your right.

The rest are nuts.

So far as complaining about the benefits and pension, that is known as "compensation" and in one form or another is part of your own pay as well. People give up salary to get a better pension or health care.

Call it like it is. The state is in Chapter 7 and is renegotiating its debts to its creditors. The union people are taking the shaft and you should not be so proud to give it to them, because you, the recipients of partially-paid for services, are "deadbeats."

In Wisconsin in particular there is one government employee for every 183 people. The costs of their pay and benefits averages-- averages-- $89,500 compared with the private sector average of $61,000.

Envy has nothing to do with it. Wisconsin DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY. And it's not merely about the money in this year's budget- it's about work rules, and other problems unions create. Managers need the power to manage.

In exchange for keeping their collective bargaining rights on salary and benefits, they have to be more flexible on other things like hours worked, break time, days worked- in the case of teachers especially who work just 9 months a year. The workers are going to have to work harder, produce more, work longer- and that's just the way it is. Managers need to have the authority to direct their staff without having to have all communication go through a union ombudsman.

In this down economy, more competitive workers need to have the right to work. There needs to be a democratic process- unionization needs to be the choice of the majority of the workers, and individual rights- like the right to choose to opt out- have to be respected, too. If it's so bad outside the unions, workers will choose the union. And if they choose to keep their $1,000 + a year- that's their choice.

As I've repeated over and over-- we're just delaying the inevitable. The golden age of unions was the 1950's. We started to see the fruit of the union tree in the 1970's, and now the tree is dead, and the earth where the fruit landed is scorched so nothing can grow there-- Detroit anyone? And now it's over.

One way, or another- this battle is lost for the unions. They need to examine the best way to lose. Their best option is to go with Governor Walker's modest compromise proposal. If they "win" against the governor-- they lose.

[Tennesseer]

But is Burns licensed to practice law in the States? That is the real question.

[Value Buy]

Feb 28, 2011 11:21:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

But is Burns licensed to practice law in the States? That is the real question.

There is a rumor floating around on the internet, he is actually a Wisconsin lawyer serving in the State Legislature, who went north, to Canada, rather than south to Illinois, but that might have been because he is a Independent rather than a Democrat, and he got lost in the wilderness.........

[burnsattornincan]

Have you seen burnsattornincan's karma points of 247? Does burnsattornincan work for "The Man"?

Nothing of the sort. I support good hardworking patriotic real American taxpayers who produce real things that are used domestically and more importantly abroad for profit. Does "The Man" figure in any of that? Quite the contrary. In fact "The Man" is standing in the way of it. It is high time to steamroll "The Man".

Dalton McGuinty Burns III

[Tennesseer]

Feb 28, 2011 11:34:46 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

Have you seen burnsattornincan's karma points of 247? Does burnsattornincan work for "The Man"?

Nothing of the sort. I support good hardworking patriotic real American taxpayers who produce real things that are used domestically and more importantly abroad for profit. Does "The Man" figure in any of that? Quite the contrary. In fact "The Man" is standing in the way of it. It is high time to steamroll "The Man".

Dalton McGuinty Burns III

Then you must like me Mr. Burns and my question was purely rhetorical.

[deziloooooo]

"One way, or another- this battle is lost for the unions. They need to examine the best way to lose. Their best option is to go with Governor Walker's modest compromise proposal. If they "win" against the governor-- they lose"

Modest compromise? If you consider the compromise of breaking the unions with the rules he has suggested, a "modest compromise "....I don't, they are his way of making the unions impotent.

"they have to be more flexible on other things like hours worked, break time, days worked- in the case of teachers especially who work just 9 months a year. The workers are going to have to work harder, produce more, work longer- and that's just the way it is. "

It sounds like you are really knowlegable in the field of education so would you care to list where you think the teachers can do all those things you have said they need to do, that will save the communities better and actually improve their production in their field of endeavors?

{One of the reasons they work 9 months a year, the ones they are there for, are not there, thus, ...}

[wyouser]

This is devolping into an interesting debate. The discussion is becoming mainstream. Might be some unintended consequences for the unions? Maybe for the Democratic party too? Public sector unions have been negotiating with politicians for decades. Unlike private businessmen politicians have no "skin in the game". The how do you pay for this issue has always been kicked down the road. How does this play out as the average Joe begins to compare wages or benefits to his own? Does the democratic party suddenly take on the mantel of the party of no?? Interesting to watch how this plays out.

[Deleted]

Someone help me understand this, please. SO-- the union will accept the larger contributions, etc. The battle is about collective bargaining, and people are saying it is not fair. Tell me-- if they have collective bargaining, can't they just turn around in the next cycle and put the same sweet deals back in during negotiations?? True/False? If so, that is a very reasonable explanation of why the Gov wants to end that practice. If so, that could be why the employees that have said NO for years are now saying YES-- because they know it is just until November or whenever the new contracts go on the table. Right/Wrong?

[Tennesseer]

Feb 28, 2011 12:19:51 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Someone help me understand this, please. SO-- the union will accept the larger contributions, etc. The battle is about collective bargaining, and people are saying it is not fair. Tell me-- if they have collective bargaining, can't they just turn around in the next cycle and put the same sweet deals back in during negotiations?? True/False? If so, that is a very reasonable explanation of why the Gov wants to end that practice. If so, that could be why the employees that have said NO for years are now saying YES-- because they know it is just until November or whenever the new contracts go on the table. Right/Wrong?

Krickitt-if the governor takes away the union's right to collectively bargain, how are they going to collectively bargain it back into into their union contract come November or whenever their contracts are up.

In essence, the governor is taking the union's right away to negotiate their contracts now or in the future.

[Tennesseer]

Legal definition of Collective Bargaining:

The process through which a Labor Union and an employer negotiate the scope of the employment relationship.

A collective bargaining agreement is the ultimate goal of the collective bargaining process. Typically, the agreement establishes wages, hours, promotions, benefits, and other employment terms as well as procedures for handling disputes arising under it. Because the collective bargaining agreement cannot address every workplace issue that might arise in the future, unwritten customs and past practices, external law, and informal agreements are as important to the collective bargaining agreement as the written instrument itself.

Collective bargaining allows workers and employers to reach voluntary agreement on a wide range of topics. Even so, it is limited to some extent by federal and state laws. A collective bargaining agreement cannot accomplish by contract what the law prohibits. For example, a union and an employer cannot use collective bargaining to deprive employees of rights they would otherwise enjoy under laws such as the Civil Rights statutes (Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S. Ct. 1011, 39 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1974]). Collective bargaining also cannot be used to waive rights or obligations that laws impose on either party. For example, an employer may not use collective bargaining to reduce the level of safety standards it must follow under the occupational safety and health act (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 651 et seq.). Furthermore, the collective bargaining agreement is not purely voluntary. One party's failure to reach agreement entitles the other to resort to certain legal tactics, such as strikes and lockouts, to apply economic pressure and force agreement. Moreover, unlike commercial contracts governed by state law, the collective bargaining agreement is governed almost exclusively by federal Labor Law, which determines the issues that require collective bargaining, the timing and method of bargaining, and the consequences of a failure to bargain properly or to adhere to a collective bargaining agreement.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collective+bargaining

[bean29]

Personally I think the unions are demonstrating and the rest of us are supportive of the governor but afraid of union tactics should we show our faces. I realized the other day that some of my facebook "friends and relatives" have their position on this issue blatantly disclosed. I will not touch the subject with them with a 10 foot pole, but I am unwilling to pay to have public workers receive benefits 10x better than I have. Do they plan to tell taxpayers the government gets 70% of your earnigns and you get to keep what's left?

[woodwand]

Many of the protesters are being bussed in from other states with the unions footing the bill because they know if Walker wins, they're next.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 28, 2011 12:19:51 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Someone help me understand this, please. SO-- the union will accept the larger contributions, etc. The battle is about collective bargaining, and people are saying it is not fair. Tell me-- if they have collective bargaining, can't they just turn around in the next cycle and put the same sweet deals back in during negotiations?? True/False? If so, that is a very reasonable explanation of why the Gov wants to end that practice. If so, that could be why the employees that have said NO for years are now saying YES-- because they know it is just until November or whenever the new contracts go on the table. Right/Wrong?

Krickett , that is why they are called collective bargaining...You sit down and bargain.
The Governor it seems like to be able to sit down th next time and dictate, not bargain.
If he is the one who is there when the next contract is coming up for negotiating , then he can be as firm or easy as he wants. Since the reality is that in this particular case he knows , common sense, he will not be getting the support of the unions and most of their membership when the next election rolls around he will probably bargain strongly against what you call the "sweet deals", as his predecessors have done, but also Krickett, before you blame all those previous administrations of the past in giving special treatment to the unions, in part because they were supporters, remember this governor also exempted the three unions that supported HIM in his election campaign from the loss of collective bargaining rights that he is trying to force on the other unions that did NOT support him.
You do know that don't you?
{What I don't know was what was his stand on their , the Unions who supported him, regarding the membership to pay more into their pensions and pick up more of their health care costs. I asked here but there was no answer given. Anyone know? Have to go Google?? OK, darn.}

[Deleted]

That's my POINT, Tenn!! They are saying YES now knowing if they can keep their collective bargaining rights they can put the same things back in a few months. Now that I am finally getting this I am 100% on the side of the Governor. These protesters did not suddenly "see the light", and decide to take cuts-- they know it is temporary IF they can keep their bargaining rights. Bullshit on that. Go, Gov Walker. These protesters are agreeing to a TEMPORARY setback!! Well- they need to suck it up, just like the rest of us. Times are tough, and they are not exempt.

[Tennesseer]

I am all for union members paying a greater portion of their health care benefits-everyone is having to do that today. I am also for union members putting money into their own retirement accounts/401Ks. The days of the defined benefit pension plan are going away.

[Tennesseer]

krickitt-the governor wants to take away their collective bargaining rights which are part of their current contract. Take away their negotiating rights and they are at the mercy of the state. They will not be able to negotiate their salaries and benefits in the future.

Is that what you want?

[mmhmm]

The teachers can't reinstitute anything all by themselves. That's why it's called collective bargaining. They'll have to negotiate for what they want (or, think they need). In likelihood, a compromise will have to be reached.

[mmhmm]

Agree, Tennesseer. If their benefits currently include full payment of all health costs, that's not realistic. These benefits should be in line with benefits the vast majority of us have. That's reasonable.

Of course, the decision could be made to give us all the same benefits congress has ...

[Tennesseer]

LOL mmhmm

[jkapp]

Feb 27, 2011 12:24:07 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Wisconsin has a population of roughly 5.6 million. 100,000 is a mere insignificant fraction of the total population of the state.

The identical situation is unfolding in nearly every single state in the US.

The party is over for the public employment sector. They need to get over it. They have written a reality check that has bounced.

Plus the fact that not all of those individuals are actually from Wisconsin nor live there in any way, shape, or form

plus the news likes to overestimate things...the news previously stated over 100k people were there over the past two weeks, but the largest gathering so far has been more around 70k (quite a large disparity)

[Tennesseer]

But not small potatoes either.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 28, 2011 12:53:59 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

That's my POINT, Tenn!! They are saying YES now knowing if they can keep their collective bargaining rights they can put the same things back in a few months. Now that I am finally getting this I am 100% on the side of the Governor. These protesters did not suddenly "see the light", and decide to take cuts-- they know it is temporary IF they can keep their bargaining rights. Bullshit on that. Go, Gov Walker. These protesters are agreeing to a TEMPORARY setback!! Well- they need to suck it up, just like the rest of us. Times are tough, and they are not exempt.

Krickett do you ever read what you post?

"if they can keep their collective bargaining rights they can put the same things back in a few months"

While I am sure when they next negotiate, that s the magic word krickett..negotiate, they will be understanding the economics of the times but yes they can put anything they want as demands and wants on the table.
That doesn't mean those wants and desires have to be accepted.

Do you really want a form of Dictatorship here, one side dictates to the other...in this case the employer telling the employed this is it, case close, don't like it, take a hike?

I know your not working know, but when you do..since you might be a bit desperate , a natural thing for one out of work, so any bargaining with the possible employer possible the last thing on your mind, but wouldn't it be nice if there were decent benefits and fair wages available, gotten because of past collaboration of workers?

There is always strength in #'s instead of standing alone actions.

I am afraid. it is true you will see less of that in the future, and in my experience I believe the collective bargaining tools, Unions , will have a resurgence , because once more workers are employed and they sit around the kitchen table and discuss things with their better half, they will recognize that while yes they are working, however , the job, the wages earned suck, and every time they think of going into the superior asking for a better deal, being a lone voice, they are getting no where.

In fact, being a realist, many times they are afraid to go in and ask at all, as they are afraid as much as the job sucks, there is a good chance they will be let go so their thoughts don't contaminate the other workers , better to get rid of the vocal one quick, good worker or not, .

That kid is the reality of worker/employer relations.

If you had representation in your particular situation, you just might not have had the vehicles taken away as they were. Those organizations...they are there for a reason, and the reasons are not all bad, even today.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 28, 2011 13:11:53 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Feb 27, 2011 12:24:07 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Wisconsin has a population of roughly 5.6 million. 100,000 is a mere insignificant fraction of the total population of the state.

The identical situation is unfolding in nearly every single state in the US.

The party is over for the public employment sector. They need to get over it. They have written a reality check that has bounced.

Plus the fact that not all of those individuals are actually from Wisconsin nor live there in any way, shape, or form

plus the news likes to overestimate things...the news previously stated over 100k people were there over the past two weeks, but the largest gathering so far has been more around 70k (quite a large disparity)

Picky, picky..and with gas going up as they prepare to depart..understandable, and if 70,000..and who knows how that source , 70,000 is a less accurate one then then 100,000...but a lot of people did show up, and unlike where I live , take a break from the marching, drop into the Sand, warm waters, palm trees..here we are in WI..land of , in February...nough said..that they got 700 there is remarkable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I am still trying to nail down that three supporting unions of the Governor and his deal with them besides the non cancellation of the collective bargaining rights but some interesting articles have come up..this is one which kind of puts the thoughts of influential people in regard to unions, collective bargaining, in the right perspective.

blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/

[burnsattornincan]

They will not be able to negotiate their salaries and benefits in the future.

What are you talking about? I thought it was only the benefit portion of their compensation that will be removed from collective bargaining.

[jkapp]

Feb 28, 2011 13:00:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

krickitt-the governor wants to take away their collective bargaining rights which are part of their current contract. Take away their negotiating rights and they are at the mercy of the state. They will not be able to negotiate their salaries and benefits in the future.

Is that what you want?

Yes...or else all they will do is wait for Democrat leadership again and then get everthing they conceded back...probably plus some.

The Unions have had their paid lackeys in office for decades and now our state is broke...it is only a matter of time (if collective bargaining stays in place) that the state will become broke again due to the outrageous demands of the public unions.

These same unions told the residents of WI to piss off for the past three years when the residents were struggling with the recession. They hit us with 8-10% property tax increases EACH YEAR...all to cover their pay and benefit increases. I bet you didn't know that little tidbit did you? So they were hitting people on fixed/limited incomes with an additional 8-10% on those taxes and hurting them without any consideration or care...so that is why I say screw these greedy union bastards...

[bean29]

PS. The union people I know are understandably on the Dem's side.

All the non-union members ( a much greater number) seem to support walker. The media seems to be reporting that the Pro-union people have the larger crowds...but as I said, unions are well known for retaliatory tactics, so I think Walker's supporters are probably communicating with their Reps in the house and senate and waiting for the democratic process to work.