Showdown In Wisconsin

[TheDancinMonarch]

80 years ago workers died for the right to bargain collectively...

"the rights that labor has won, labor must defend"

And none of these people were downtrodden public employees slaving away in government sweatshops. Nor are they that today. They are just greedy people attempting to further enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer while providing little, if any, in return. Fire the whole damn lot of them!

[Grizalltheway]

80 years ago workers died for the right to bargain collectively...

"the rights that labor has won, labor must defend"

And none of these people were downtrodden public employees slaving away in government sweatshops. Nor are they that today. They are just greedy people attempting to further enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer while providing little, if any, in return. Fire the whole damn lot of them!

Why aren't you concerned about the tax payer-funded bonuses bank execs receive?

[Baldy]

"Elections have consequences"
--Barack Obama

Every public sector union needs to be busted. They should have no right to collectively bargain with our tax money and against the taxpayers.

so why is this douchebag tying to only bust the unions who didn't back his campaign? he's exempting police and firefighters - both backed his campagin - but not teachers and prison guards...

As if busting all the unions would make a difference?
The prima donnas (who average $100K in compensation per year) would still be in the streets whining about having to pay their own way instead of hitching a ride on the backs of the taxpayers.

[houndawg]

Even FDR thought public employee unions were a bad idea

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

So it's come down to quoting FDR has it?

[houndawg]

And none of these people were downtrodden public employees slaving away in government sweatshops. Nor are they that today. They are just greedy people attempting to further enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer while providing little, if any, in return. Fire the whole damn lot of them!

Why aren't you concerned about the tax payer-funded bonuses bank execs receive?

Oh, that's different. Parasites get a free ride.

[TheDancinMonarch]

And none of these people were downtrodden public employees slaving away in government sweatshops. Nor are they that today. They are just greedy people attempting to further enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer while providing little, if any, in return. Fire the whole damn lot of them!

Why aren't you concerned about the tax payer-funded bonuses bank execs receive?

When that topic comes up you now know which side of it I will be on.

[HI54UNI]

Even FDR thought public employee unions were a bad idea

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

So it's come down to quoting FDR has it?

According to many libs FDR was the most brilliant president ever. So I thought maybe they would accept it when their god tells them that public employee unions are a bad idea.

[houndawg]

So it's come down to quoting FDR has it?

According to many libs FDR was the most brilliant president ever. So I thought maybe they would accept it when their god tells them that public employee unions are a bad idea.

They bargain better than we do, so we need to take away their right to bargain.

[Baldy]

Oh, that's different. Parasites get a free ride.

Yes, it's called a progressive tax system.

[kalm]

Why aren't you concerned about the tax payer-funded bonuses bank execs receive?

When that topic comes up you now know which side of it I will be on.

Yeah, c'mon GATW. Bankers earned their cash rather than stealing it from the taxpayers. They are the producers. They are the engine that drives our economy.

[HI54UNI]

According to many libs FDR was the most brilliant president ever. So I thought maybe they would accept it when their god tells them that public employee unions are a bad idea.

They bargain better than we do, so we need to take away their right to bargain.

The law is stacked in their favor. They can't strike so you are forced to go to binding arbitration. The arbitrator isn't forced to weigh tax increases so the arbitrator says its "this" and if taxes go up so be it. Plus you have politicians in charge of the negotiating that these same unions worked to elect. Our loser ex governor democrat Chet Culver approved all state union contracts in December of last year with no negotiation. He just approved the union's proposals. One last big FU to the voters that through his dumbass out in November.

[SuperHornet]

The thing that may skew this: CBS reported last night that old man Jesse is getting involved. Like you didn't know he would.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

So it's come down to quoting FDR has it?

According to many libs FDR was the most brilliant president ever. So I thought maybe they would accept it when their god tells them that public employee unions are a bad idea.

FDR is, in my opinion, the best president in our history... but he was wrong about some things, like everyone else (court packing, internment of American citizens and this)

[TwinTownBisonFan]

so why is this douchebag tying to only bust the unions who didn't back his campaign? he's exempting police and firefighters - both backed his campagin - but not teachers and prison guards...

As if busting all the unions would make a difference?
The prima donnas (who average $100K in compensation per year) would still be in the streets whining about having to pay their own way instead of hitching a ride on the backs of the taxpayers.

1. State employees "averaging" 100k??? I don't know what state you live in, but it sure as hell isn't true in Wisconsin. Most public servants make less in the public sector than they would in the corporate world for similar jobs. The reasons they stay in the public sector? Generally much more stable, better benefits and the prospect of helping your state.

2. "hitching a ride"? These people work for a living. They repair your roads, teach your kids, clean your water, and PROTECT YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP. They aren't asking for a fucking handout - they work for a living. They want their right to bargain collectively with their employer to be respected.

in fact - the head of AFSCME in Wisconsin (I believe, might be SEIU) has said if the Governor is willing to negotiate in good faith, the public employees believe a compromise, wherein they cover more of their pensions and benefits as a means of helping stem the budget crisis would be appropriate. (provided their right to bargain collectively is respected)...

doesn't seem unreasonable - waiting to hear what Walker has to say to that.

[GannonFan]

As if busting all the unions would make a difference?
The prima donnas (who average $100K in compensation per year) would still be in the streets whining about having to pay their own way instead of hitching a ride on the backs of the taxpayers.

1. State employees "averaging" 100k??? I don't know what state you live in, but it sure as hell isn't true in Wisconsin. Most public servants make less in the public sector than they would in the corporate world for similar jobs. The reasons they stay in the public sector? Generally much more stable, better benefits and the prospect of helping your state.

2. "hitching a ride"? These people work for a living. They repair your roads, teach your kids, clean your water, and PROTECT YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP. They aren't asking for a **** handout - they work for a living. They want their right to bargain collectively with their employer to be respected.

in fact - the head of AFSCME in Wisconsin (I believe, might be SEIU) has said if the Governor is willing to negotiate in good faith, the public employees believe a compromise, wherein they cover more of their pensions and benefits as a means of helping stem the budget crisis would be appropriate. (provided their right to bargain collectively is respected)...

doesn't seem unreasonable - waiting to hear what Walker has to say to that.

The thing is, they had months and months to do that with the prior governor in negotiations that didn't include stripping collective bargaining but they wouldn't budge on almost anything. And why should they have? Up to now, they've managed to have a pretty good deal. Most don't contribute anything to their pensions, and even those that do end up contributing a token amount (somewhere around 0.2% - the national average is 7.5%). And that doesn't even include the health care costs, which mirror the pension situation.

I think you can certainly blame the governor to some extent for taking a more aggressive stance, but again, he was voted into office on these very same ideas so it's not shocking he's fulfilling a campaign promise that won voter support. And there's going to have to be some giveback by the unions - collective bargaining sometimes skews wrong when you have unions that are basically represented on both sides of the table (the union on one, and their bosses they voted and supported with cash into office on the other).

[Col Hogan]

1. State employees "averaging" 100k??? I don't know what state you live in, but it sure as hell isn't true in Wisconsin. Most public servants make less in the public sector than they would in the corporate world for similar jobs. The reasons they stay in the public sector? Generally much more stable, better benefits and the prospect of helping your state.

2. "hitching a ride"? These people work for a living. They repair your roads, teach your kids, clean your water, and PROTECT YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP. They aren't asking for a **** handout - they work for a living. They want their right to bargain collectively with their employer to be respected.

in fact - the head of AFSCME in Wisconsin (I believe, might be SEIU) has said if the Governor is willing to negotiate in good faith, the public employees believe a compromise, wherein they cover more of their pensions and benefits as a means of helping stem the budget crisis would be appropriate. (provided their right to bargain collectively is respected)...

doesn't seem unreasonable - waiting to hear what Walker has to say to that.

The thing is, they had months and months to do that with the prior governor in negotiations that didn't include stripping collective bargaining but they wouldn't budge on almost anything. And why should they have? Up to now, they've managed to have a pretty good deal. Most don't contribute anything to their pensions, and even those that do end up contributing a token amount (somewhere around 0.2% - the national average is 7.5%). And that doesn't even include the health care costs, which mirror the pension situation.

I think you can certainly blame the governor to some extent for taking a more aggressive stance, but again, he was voted into office on these very same ideas so it's not shocking he's fulfilling a campaign promise that won voter support. And there's going to have to be some giveback by the unions - collective bargaining sometimes skews wrong when you have unions that are basically represented on both sides of the table (the union on one, and their bosses they voted and supported with cash into office on the other).

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

1. State employees "averaging" 100k??? I don't know what state you live in, but it sure as hell isn't true in Wisconsin. Most public servants make less in the public sector than they would in the corporate world for similar jobs. The reasons they stay in the public sector? Generally much more stable, better benefits and the prospect of helping your state.

2. "hitching a ride"? These people work for a living. They repair your roads, teach your kids, clean your water, and PROTECT YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP. They aren't asking for a **** handout - they work for a living. They want their right to bargain collectively with their employer to be respected.

in fact - the head of AFSCME in Wisconsin (I believe, might be SEIU) has said if the Governor is willing to negotiate in good faith, the public employees believe a compromise, wherein they cover more of their pensions and benefits as a means of helping stem the budget crisis would be appropriate. (provided their right to bargain collectively is respected)...

doesn't seem unreasonable - waiting to hear what Walker has to say to that.

The thing is, they had months and months to do that with the prior governor in negotiations that didn't include stripping collective bargaining but they wouldn't budge on almost anything. And why should they have? Up to now, they've managed to have a pretty good deal. Most don't contribute anything to their pensions, and even those that do end up contributing a token amount (somewhere around 0.2% - the national average is 7.5%). And that doesn't even include the health care costs, which mirror the pension situation.

I think you can certainly blame the governor to some extent for taking a more aggressive stance, but again, he was voted into office on these very same ideas so it's not shocking he's fulfilling a campaign promise that won voter support. And there's going to have to be some giveback by the unions - collective bargaining sometimes skews wrong when you have unions that are basically represented on both sides of the table (the union on one, and their bosses they voted and supported with cash into office on the other).

and i don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some of those concessions either... however, walker's attempts aren't rooted in the fiscal problems of Wisconsin... he too is motivated by his financial backers, the Koch brothers chief among them - who want an end to collective bargaining in Wisconsin period. I'll give him his due if he reaches out and makes an honest attempt to compromise - but I'm skeptical based on what I've seen so far.

[Bronco]

The thing that may skew this: CBS reported last night that old man Jesse is getting involved. Like you didn't know he would.

Also the commies are on the scene.



Video: Communist Revolution on the Ground in Madison, Wisconsin
YouTube ^ | 2/19/2011

The protests in Madison, Wis, which originally began in opposition to a budget repair bill being debated in the legislature, are now drawing individuals and organizations from beyond the state.
This morning MacIver News Service's Bill Osmuski caught up with some Communist organizers from Chicago.


[youtube][/youtube]

[houndawg]

They bargain better than we do, so we need to take away their right to bargain.

The law is stacked in their favor. They can't strike so you are forced to go to binding arbitration. The arbitrator isn't forced to weigh tax increases so the arbitrator says its "this" and if taxes go up so be it. Plus you have politicians in charge of the negotiating that these same unions worked to elect. Our loser ex governor democrat Chet Culver approved all state union contracts in December of last year with no negotiation. He just approved the union's proposals. One last big FU to the voters that through his dumbass out in November.

BS the law is stacked in their favor. Business has way more money than the unions.

[Grizalltheway]

They bargain better than we do, so we need to take away their right to bargain.

The law is stacked in their favor. They can't strike so you are forced to go to binding arbitration. The arbitrator isn't forced to weigh tax increases so the arbitrator says its "this" and if taxes go up so be it. Plus you have politicians in charge of the negotiating that these same unions worked to elect. Our loser ex governor democrat Chet Culver approved all state union contracts in December of last year with no negotiation. He just approved the union's proposals. One last big FU to the voters that through his dumbass out in November.

[JohnStOnge]

80 years ago workers died for the right to bargain collectively...

"the rights that labor has won, labor must defend"

There's no reason to oppose the "right" of workers to bargain collectively. However, there is also no reason to oppose the right of the employer to end its association with them at any point.

The idea that there is a "right" to force someone to keep you as an employee is absurd. An employer should have the right to end its association with an employee at any time for any reason just like an employee has a right to end association with the employer.

[JohnStOnge]

Pulling the same move as the donks did in TX in 03'. Cowards.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... as-in-2003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes. I think all State legislatures need to get rid of the requirement for a quorum. It really isn't necessary. The only tme there is any risk at all of not having a quorum is when there is a situation in which somebody does something like Wisconsin Democrats are doing now in tryng to make sure there isn't one.

[dbackjon]

The thing is, they had months and months to do that with the prior governor in negotiations that didn't include stripping collective bargaining but they wouldn't budge on almost anything. And why should they have? Up to now, they've managed to have a pretty good deal. Most don't contribute anything to their pensions, and even those that do end up contributing a token amount (somewhere around 0.2% - the national average is 7.5%). And that doesn't even include the health care costs, which mirror the pension situation.

I think you can certainly blame the governor to some extent for taking a more aggressive stance, but again, he was voted into office on these very same ideas so it's not shocking he's fulfilling a campaign promise that won voter support. And there's going to have to be some giveback by the unions - collective bargaining sometimes skews wrong when you have unions that are basically represented on both sides of the table (the union on one, and their bosses they voted and supported with cash into office on the other).

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

So you agree then that the Republicans should have voted for Universal Health Care, like Obama was elected to do

[Col Hogan]

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

So you agree then that the Republicans should have voted for Universal Health Care, like Obama was elected to do

No, I don't agree...like the Governor of Wisconsin, the President supported something he ran on...good for both of them...

Now, the people, in both cases, can't argue that they didn't get what they voted for...and the people will decide if they really wanted what they got...

I opposed Obamacare...I support the governor of Wisconsin and would have voted for him...

[JohnStOnge]

To call in sick when you are not sick is unethical.

A Doctor issuing a sick "excue" when he or she knows the person he or she is issuing it to is not sick is unethical.

To refuse to attend a legislative session for the purpose of denying a quorum is unethical.

What's going on is absolutely disgusting.