Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Feb '11 18:20
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41808726/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/

    The main question I had of Walker was why he was going for the reduction of CB rights if the union had agreed to his proposed cuts in any case. His response is that only two statewide union officials had agreed to his cuts, but that the local leaders, who would also have to approve, had put in proposals that did not include the cuts and that getting the approval of the lower union officials was proving impossible.

    If true, and David Gregory was unable to challenge it, this negates a lot of the criticism of Walker that has been made and I would withdraw my criticism of him that I made on another thread.

    However, I find his distinction between the police and firefighters and teacher less convincing. If an austerity budget really requires cuts across the board, treating police better because "they are needed for security" doesn't make much sense. I will retain my criticism of Walker on that front.
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    27 Feb '11 18:22
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41808726/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/

    The main question I had of Walker was why he was going for the reduction of CB rights if the union had agreed to his proposed cuts in any case. His response is that only two statewide union officials had agreed to his cuts, but that the local leaders, who would also have to approve, had p ...[text shortened]... ed for security" doesn't make much sense. I will retain my criticism of Walker on that front.
    Rich people need publicly funded police and firefighters. They do not need publicly funded teachers.
  3. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    27 Feb '11 19:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    However, I find his distinction between the police and firefighters and teacher less convincing. If an austerity budget really requires cuts across the board, treating police better because "they are needed for security" doesn't make much sense. I will retain my criticism of Walker on that front.
    Yes, that's a chink in his armor. Maybe he's just trying waiting until after the ensuing riots to handle the police and firefighters.
  4. 02 Mar '11 01:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41808726/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/

    The main question I had of Walker was why he was going for the reduction of CB rights if the union had agreed to his proposed cuts in any case. His response is that only two statewide union officials had agreed to his cuts, but that the local leaders, who would also have to approve, had p ed for security" doesn't make much sense. I will retain my criticism of Walker on that front.
    Edited out a cheap shot. I find sh76 to be an intelligent rationale participant in these fun and games and he doesn't warrent some personal sniping simply becuase I disagree with him.

    But....

    America the Oligarchy.

    When you let the government be run be the rich and their contributions, it lessons democratic and republic values. And breaking the back of labor further disenfranchising the middle class then oligarchy is what will happen.
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Mar '11 02:37 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by badmoon
    Edited cheap shot middle class layer, blah blah..

    America the Oligarchy.
    When did "public employee unions" become shorthand for "the middle class"? There's a lot more people in the middle class than this small subset of pampered crybabies throwing a tantrum over the public teat being removed from their clenched teeth.
  6. 02 Mar '11 03:03
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    When did "public employee unions" become shorthand for "the middle class"? There's a lot more people in the middle class than this small subset of pampered crybabies throwing a tantrum over the public teat being removed from their clenched teeth.
    Since when did having the right to collectively bargain become "sucking from the public teat"??

    I know, all those teachers are just sitting at home doing nothing for the money. It's not like they earn any of it.

    Do you categorize what you do as sucking from your employer's teat?
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Mar '11 03:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by badmoon
    Edited out a cheap shot. I find sh76 to be an intelligent rationale participant in these fun and games and he doesn't warrent some personal sniping simply becuase I disagree with him.

    But....

    America the Oligarchy.

    When you let the government be run be the rich and their contributions, it lessons democratic and republic values. And breaking the back of labor further disenfranchising the middle class then oligarchy is what will happen.
    Thank you; though I did see the initial pre-edit post and frankly, I didn't think it was that bad.

    Everyone has a single vote and there are far more poor people than there are rich people, so I really don't see why the US would be an oligarchy unless you're implying that the people are brainwashed by the media to vote against their own interests.

    In any case, I'm not saying that unions are always right or always wrong and of course businesses have to be held to certain standards and regulations. But coming out against "labor" on an individual issue is not tantamount to wanting to break their backs.

    I don't begrudge unions anything. Let them negotiate, I say. Let them get as good a deal as they can. But the companies/states can do the same and if union intransigence makes it impossible for companies or states to function, then they can take legal steps necessary to overcome the obstacles.

    Remember when United went into Chapter 11? The unions refused to budge even though it was plain that the company was failing. So, United made an end run around the union by getting chapter 11 protection, which allowed the trustee to break the pact with the union. Did I blame the unions? Of course not. They're just trying to get the best deal they can. But did I blame United? No. What they did was a legal negotiating ploy to save their company.

    If a company is doing well and wants to crush the workers to increase an already substantial profit, that's one thing. If a company needs the unions to bend in order to save the company's bottom line, that's another. The unions don't have to cave, but then the company is within its rights to do what's necessary to save itself. You reap what you sow.
  8. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Mar '11 15:07
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Since when did having the right to collectively bargain become "sucking from the public teat"??

    I know, all those teachers are just sitting at home doing nothing for the money. It's not like they earn any of it.

    Do you categorize what you do as sucking from your employer's teat?
    OK, let's explore the difference between public sector employees, and middle class private sector blokes like me.

    Let's start with the fact that public sector unions have a monopoly on work for the govt. The govt must employ workers on the terms the union negotiates, and may not employ non-union workers. I enjoy no such leverage.

    In the private sector, wages have to come from profits, so even private sector unions have real world limits on what they can realistically demand. No such limit exists for public sector unions since the whole thing gets fed by the taxpayer, and there's always some legislator willing to give away the store for campaign contributions.

    This arrangement obviously gives unions great power and influence over tax dollars that individuals in the private sector do not enjoy, which results in higher wages, sweetheart deals for pensions and benefits, unbeatable job security (even for those who deserve to be fired), early retirement, and even, to give a Wisconsin example, including coverage for Viagra to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars that had to be paid for by private sector chumps like me.

    Now added to all this, in 28 states, public unions get to force members to fork over dues as a condition of employment, giving them billions to spend on electing the very people they negotiate all these sweetheart deals with, which is why public sector unions are always big spenders in campaigns. Who's a public official going to listen to, little 'ol me with my $100 contribution, or the big fat union with millions? And where did those millions come from? Oh yeah, taxpayers like me.

    So, yes, even though your average teacher may be doing a fine job, they are absolutely on the teat of the taxpayer because they are enjoying wages, benefits, conditions of employment, and political clout to keep the whole thing going that public sector chumps do not enjoy even while paying for it all.

    Even after the reforms in Wisconsin go through, collective bargaining "rights" will still exist for wages, and the union members will still be able to contribute money in dues if they want to. Union members will still have more power than Federal workers enjoy, and they will definitely still have better benefits and more power than chumps like me.
  9. 02 Mar '11 15:13
    There's nothing wrong with collective bargaining. But there certainly is something wrong with unions demanding that all workers are members of their union - surely the government should never give in to such demands and indeed ban it. If workers cannot give up their membership if they are unhappy with the union's policies it's obviously detrimental to the effectiveness of unions.
  10. 02 Mar '11 15:24
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    OK, let's explore the difference between public sector employees, and middle class private sector blokes like me.

    Let's start with the fact that public sector unions have a monopoly on work for the govt. The govt must employ workers on the terms the union negotiates, and may not employ non-union workers. I enjoy no such leverage.

    In the private sec ...[text shortened]... , and they will definitely still have better benefits and more power than chumps like me.
    Even after the reforms in Wisconsin go through, collective bargaining "rights" will still exist for wages,

    Except it will only nominally exist - they can negotiate up to the rate of inflation. That means they essentially can ONLY negotiate up to a measly barely keeping track with inflation if they are lucky enough to not have to make any concessions in the negotiations.

    Also, Why do you think police unions (another public union), firefighters unions (another public union) are exempt from walker's attack on their bargaining rights? Shouldn't they be taken down too?

    Of course, those unions supported Walker so... oh yeah, their clout works in his favor so it's not unions he has a problem with really, it's just unions who don't vote for him.

    It's telling that you use the same verbage for teachers who work and earn their pay as you probably would for someone who sits on their arse collecting welfare.
  11. 02 Mar '11 15:29
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy

    In the private sector, wages have to come from profits, so even private sector unions have real world limits on what they can realistically demand. No such limit exists for public sector unions since the whole thing gets fed by the taxpayer, and there's always some legislator willing to give away the store for campaign contributions.
    Well, there are limits and in this case the unions have accepted a reduction in pay/benefits in order to help bridge the benefit gap.

    It's a false claim that unions ALWAYS insist on their pay going up. Of course they try to - but that's their role. However, they have agreed to reductions in pay in Wisconsin already.

    There's also always some legislator willing to shovel money to their rich friends, but for some reason that doesn't get quite so much ire as when a union who represents people solidly in the middle class actually want good benefits and secure pay.
  12. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Mar '11 16:00
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Except it will only nominally exist - they can negotiate up to the rate of inflation. That means they essentially can ONLY negotiate up to a measly barely keeping track with inflation if they are lucky enough to not have to make any concessions in the negotiations.

    Just like the rest of us. I haven't had a raise in years now because the economy sucks, but my state taxes have gone up in part to pay for public employee's sweetheart deals. Maybe I should strike.

    Also, Why do you think police unions (another public union), firefighters unions (another public union) are exempt from walker's attack on their bargaining rights? Shouldn't they be taken down too?

    Of course, those unions supported Walker so... oh yeah, their clout works in his favor so it's not unions he has a problem with really, it's just unions who don't vote for him.


    That's bare knuckle politics right there, political favoritism. It's contemptible.

    It's telling that you use the same verbage for teachers who work and earn their pay as you probably would for someone who sits on their arse collecting welfare.

    I could make a crack about how the teachers who lie about being sick, or Dem Senators that flee the state earn their pay, but that would be too cheap and easy. I really don't have a beef with any individual union member. The fact is the unions are doing exactly what they are designed to do, getting sweet deals for public employees. The ultimate blame should fall on the politicians, supposed defenders of the public trust, that keep giving away the store for campaign contributions. This process repeats itself over and over in American politics. Organizations with money, be they unions or corporations (or drug cartels?), can buy what they want from shameless government officials. In most cases the taxpayer's money is conglomerated and used against us, even as our own influence over our government shrinks because we don't have the money to compete . It's just plain corrupt, and I welcome any change in the right direction.
  13. 02 Mar '11 16:14
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    [b]Except it will only nominally exist - they can negotiate up to the rate of inflation. That means they essentially can ONLY negotiate up to a measly barely keeping track with inflation if they are lucky enough to not have to make any concessions in the negotiations.


    Just like the rest of us. I haven't had a ...[text shortened]... mpete . It's just plain corrupt, and I welcome any change in the right direction.[/b]
    Just like the rest of us. I haven't had a raise in years now because the economy sucks,

    Just wondering, what would you do if your employer asked you to take an 8% cut in pay? I don't know anyone who wouldn't immediately start looking for a job. I know different industries are well, different so that may be different in your line of work.

    The thing is, in Wisconsin the teacher's union agreed to essentially just that. I think you need to pressure your government and your local unions to make that kind of deal. It worked in Wisconsin outside of trying to take away the whole collective bargaining thing.

    I could make a crack about how the teachers who lie about being sick

    As opposed to all the private workers who never lie about being sick..ever. That kind of thing is frankly part of life and they should have ways of punishing those who do abuse them but you'll never eliminate it.

    I'll admit it, I've taken a sick day when I probably could have come to work myself - I don't really know anyone who hasn't.

    The ultimate blame should fall on the politicians, supposed defenders of the public trust, that keep giving away the store for campaign contributions. This process repeats itself over and over in American politics.

    Well, here's where we have complete agreement.
  14. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Mar '11 16:35
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Just wondering, what would you do if your employer asked you to take an 8% cut in pay? I don't know anyone who wouldn't immediately start looking for a job.

    I might look, but I likely wouldn't find one. I'd probably have to bite the bullet.

    The thing is, in Wisconsin the teacher's union agreed to essentially just that. I think you need to pressure your government and your local unions to make that kind of deal. It worked in Wisconsin outside of trying to take away the whole collective bargaining thing.

    The collective bargaining thing, along with corrupt govt officials, is what allows them to negotiate crap like coverage for Viagra, and ridiculous benefits that the private sector doesn't enjoy. Collective bargaining power is not a "Right". It was granted by a legislature, and it can be taken away by one. 22 other states manage to get by without it. So can Wisconsin.

    I'll admit it, I've taken a sick day when I probably could have come to work myself - I don't really know anyone who hasn't.

    Were you a role model for a class room of students when you did so? Did it cause a complete shutdown of a govt service for several days, disrupting the lives of taxpaying parents and their kids? This is another difference between public and private sectors. When public sector employees walk out, public services go out the window. (Knowing this, maybe it makes sense that Walker didn't include the police and firefighters, eh?)
  15. 02 Mar '11 16:46
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy

    Were you a role model for a class room of students when you did so? Did it cause a complete shutdown of a govt service for several days, disrupting the lives of taxpaying parents and their kids? This is another difference between public and private sectors. When public sector employees walk out, public services go out the window. (Knowing this, maybe it makes sense that Walker didn't include the police and firefighters, eh?)
    Well, the teachers are teaching students about being politically active and how peaceful and civil protest is useful in a democracy... could be seen as a positive role model if you look at it in a different way.

    Of course there's a line to draw.

    One of the main problems I have is that Walker reduced taxes to businesses and others before this - and so reduced his state's income and increases the budget deficit. Then he turns around and says that it's the unions problem and they should sacrifice to fill in that deficit.

    Why not just not lower the taxes in the first place?