Walker cruises in WI recall election

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
You think Walker's plan just ends where it started? Really are you that naive?

When you weaken and then destroy a union then you don't have a choice to remain a union member.

If the members want to continue paying for the union they can still have it, yes?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
C) public employees losing their jobs.
D) public employees who keep their jobs having their salaries, pensions reduced significantly.

Is part of it.

Without the profit motive, the state doesn't have the same kind of incentive to rip off its workers as private companies do. Moreover, because they rely on votes and not profits, they don't have the same incentive to negotiate hard against the unions as private companies do.

To have unions of public companies enjoy the same rights and protections as unions of private workers is illogical.

In my town, the bloated school budget was causing backbreaking property tax hikes until they passed a cap on property tax hikes. Now the schools are feeling an enormous pinch because property tax can't be hiked more than a small percentage each year. You know what's putting the pressure on the budget? Not services for children or even current teachers' salaries. It's the enormous pensions and retirement benefits the idiot school boards negotiated away 20 and 30 years ago to the teacher's unions. I'm sure they knew it was going to come back to haunt the town eventually, but what did they care? They didn't have to answer to the market. They just had to answer to voters who don't have the attention span to worry about next generation's property tax. Taking on the teachers' unions, on the other hand, would have been very unpopular with the electorate at the time.

This is anecdotal of course, but I would guess the same phenomenon exists in many places.

I don't blame the teachers' unions for squeezing every ounce of blood from the taxpayers. Hey, they have the right to negotiate for anything they can. But when a politician uses legal political processes to curb the excesses that this sort of negotiating system, more power to him.

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/06/wisconsin_gov_scott_walker_wins_recall_election_114387.html

After all that... A gung-ho anti-union capitalist budget cutter cruises to a relatively easy win in a blue(ish) state.

Go figure.

Maybe the people finally are starting to get serious about deficit reduction.

If you think it represents anything other than a victory for corporate cash then you're a fool.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Public employees make up what, maybe 5% of the population of WI? So some of this 5% losing their jobs, and others having compensation reduced equals "crushing the middle class" of WI?

Another strawman. Enjoy it.

I didn't say that on its own is crushing the middle class - it is part of the overall strategy.

Originally posted by sh76
Without the profit motive, the state doesn't have the same kind of incentive to rip off its workers as private companies do. Moreover, because they rely on votes and not profits, they don't have the same incentive to negotiate hard against the unions as private companies do.

To have unions of public companies enjoy the same rights and protections as unions o ...[text shortened]... sses to curb the excesses that this sort of negotiating system, more power to him.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of public unions having a different and a more difficult dynamic than private unions.

My problem in part here is that it's not just about public unions. Walker has been caught on tape saying just that it is a divide and conquer strategy. He's going after private unions in due time.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/in-film-walker-talks-of-divide-and-conquer-strategy-with-unions-8o57h6f-151049555.html

He also didn't do anything to the collective bargaining options of police and firefighters.

There are ways of defining parameters that can give public workers the ability to fight and consolidate to bargain for benefits and allow the state to protect their stability. I don't see simply busting the union as being the answer.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
If the members want to continue paying for the union they can still have it, yes?

If a union has no power to actually bargain for anything then it is destroyed and then people won't be able to have it.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
If the members want to continue paying for the union they can still have it, yes?

I think what he's suggesting is that if you don't force everyone else to be in a union, then you might not have a union to join.

For example, there is no over-40 baseball recreation teams in my town. I should legally be allowed to force others to form a team so that I can have one to join.

You see, It's all about choice.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you think it represents anything other than a victory for corporate cash then you're a fool.

You think both parties are corporate tools, no?

Wouldn't a win by either side be just a victory for corporate cash?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of public unions having a different and a more difficult dynamic than private unions.

My problem in part here is that it's not just about public unions. Walker has been caught on tape saying just that it is a divide and conquer strategy. He's going after private unions in due time.

http://www.jsonline.com/news ...[text shortened]... state to protect their stability. I don't see simply busting the union as being the answer.

There are federal laws that protect private job unions. I don't think a governor could have much impact on private unions if he wanted to. He could affect public unions because he controls the purse strings from which public employees get paid.

Originally posted by techsouth
I think what he's suggesting is that if you don't force everyone else to be in a union, then you might not have a union to join.

For example, there is no over-40 baseball recreation teams in my town. I should legally be allowed to force others to form a team so that I can have one to join.

You see, It's all about choice.

Wow you guys love strawmen.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Wow you guys love strawmen.

Isn't this the gist of your argument? Seriously, how is your argument different?

You've suggested that a change of rules that results in fewer unions is tantamount to taking away a choice. But in fact, this is just the natural result of people having a choice.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Another strawman. Enjoy it.

I didn't say that on its own is crushing the middle class - it is part of the overall strategy.

OK PP, my apologies on misrepresenting your position. It really did seem to me that you were just equating "middle class" with public employee unions. I see the bigger picture you're painting. Furthermore I think we've covered this ground before and I should have known better.

I don't agree with you however because I believe huge deficits are far more destructive to the middle class than reforms like Walker's.

Originally posted by sh76
You think both parties are corporate tools, no?

Wouldn't a win by either side be just a victory for corporate cash?

One party is frequently a corporate whore. The other is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wallstreet.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy

I don't agree with you however because I believe huge deficits are far more destructive to the middle class than reforms like Walker's.

I agree that deficits are a problem for sure and while necessary to run deficits in some situations, it definitely isn't good policy to indefinitely have them.

I just don't believe in solving a problem by creating another and I think there are first, ways that he could have at least implemented some of his reforms and also made the pain of balancing the budget more balanced.

Originally posted by techsouth
Isn't this the gist of your argument?

Your post implied that I am suggesting we force everyone into a union. That is not at all what I ever suggested.

You also suggested that my argument was that it's "all about choice". I never made that claim either.

So, no that isn't the gist of my argument, it's an oversimplification and misrepresentation.

I don't really have time right now to go into a simple enough explanation that I think you would actually not use to once again distort by using such strawmen so maybe I'll be able to clarify later... but I wouldn't hold my breath.