100,000 leave unions ???

[jon_berzerk]

I am not saying this actually happened. But this story is pretty interesting.....

I'd be curious to watch and see how this plays out.

100,000 Government Workers Choose Freedom from Unions in Wisconsin - Matt Batzel - Page 1

Less than 3 years after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed his collective bargaining reforms (Act 10), more than 100,000 union members have left Big Labor.

Later the article says....

In May 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) had lost 34,073 and at least 2,455 have left since then. American Federation of Teachers- Wisconsin (AFT-Wisconsin) told the Wisconsin State Journal that they had lost about 5,250 members, while the UW-Madison Teaching Assistants’ Association lost 1,350 members. Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) lost around 50,000 members prior to this latest round of voting. Even the Wisconsin Professional Police Association lost 1,700 members. In total, the public reports indicate Wisconsin unions have now lost more than 100,000 members since Act 10 became law.

Do we know what percentage that is of the total ?

the voting is still under way

somewhere in my stuff i have some results

takes over 50% to keep the union

not voting counts as a no vote

http://werc.wi.gov/doaroot/total_votes_cast_2013_annual_school_elections.pdf

 

[rdean]

I have no problem with private sector unions.

But public sector unions should be illegal.

Even FDR recognized that simple fact.

FDR was wrong on that point.

Public Sector unions are needed for the same reason that private sector ones are... to collectively bargain working conditions and advocate when individual members are being abused.

Otherwise, you just have the situation where the mayor's idiot cousin is put in charge of your office and starts grabbing ass.

WRONG!!

In the private sector there is COMPETITION. A company that is struck by a union can defy union and see customers flock to another company.

Yea, because safety only interferes with COMPETITION. The best thing you can do is block injured workers from suing companies whose policies left them maimed.

 

[rdean]

Why would they call something Scott Walker not only did, but is very proud of "Far left propaganda"? Doesn't make any sense.

Well Kosh is a terrible, terrible poster. Maybe it's just confined to him/her.

coming from one that can only post in the from of far left talking points and propaganda.

So what exactly are Scott Walker's policies? Besides what he has actually told us?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

FDR was wrong on that point.

Public Sector unions are needed for the same reason that private sector ones are... to collectively bargain working conditions and advocate when individual members are being abused.

Otherwise, you just have the situation where the mayor's idiot cousin is put in charge of your office and starts grabbing ass.

WRONG!!

In the private sector there is COMPETITION. A company that is struck by a union can defy union and see customers flock to another company.

Yea, because safety only interferes with COMPETITION. The best thing you can do is block injured workers from suing companies whose policies left them maimed.

Non-union workers have no safety laws protecting them?
Non-union workers have no recourse when they are injured?
Wow, those are silly claims.

 

[longknife]

I read a couple of Wisconsin blogs and most confirm that many workers who were forced to pay union dues under previous laws have opted to no longer have dues taken from their pay checks.

In other words, they weren't members but were forced to pay dues.

At the same time, as those workers opt other, other union members are dropping out because the unions no longer have the clout at the bargaining table as before and their benefits are no longer appetizing to their members.

I totally agree with another poster that public employees should never be forced to join unions!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Unions are as useful as a broken antique

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They are nothing more than a legal money laundering machine for liberals

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you don't have the right to work, you will NEVER achieve what you are capable of. Being an unwilling member of a bully union might give you temporary and totally unearned financial advantage, but no person with even the slightest amount of self-respect can be happy about advantages that were given to him by a union, of which he is a dues-paying slave.

I made a strong and successful effort to get out of the union which I was forced to join. If I had stayed in the union, I would have retired as a poorly paid laborer, instead of getting the opportunity to become a successful and self-taught computer programmer. I would have never had the pleasure of crossing picket lines and work for the company that put bread and butter on my table, rather than wasting my time walking the picket line for the bastards whose main ambition was to sabotage the company in order to make a phony stand, chasing a raise in pay, which would never catch up with the loss of wages caused by an insane strike.

If you want to see the accomplishments of unions, look at Detroit. Or in the same state, the union that is fighting to give a teacher, a child molesting member, a $10,000 severance pay.

Before Unions, children were going down into the mines for 60 hours a week and women were jumping out of burning factories.

Your children may not have the opportunity, with outsourcing, to become successul computer programmers.

I do not denigrate you for your choices but I don't think you should denigrate others for their choice to join a labor union.

If you really want to evaluate the worth of unions, you need to compare countries with strong union movements with those without union movements, like most, i not all, of the third world countries.

If you really want to evaluate the worth of unions, you need to compare countries with strong union movements today with what they were like before they became countries with unions.

I wonder how much a computer programmer in Pakistan makes.

First of all the year is 2013 not 1890. You guys act like with out Unions we would go back to that time period. Scare tatics that's all that is.

2nd FYI For example Unions in Germany is right wing, way different than the piece of crap Uions here.

 

[TooTall]

Are you surprised? Walker's entire shtick is diminishing the right to organize. Couple that with the unemployment rate in Wisconsin during the time the article specified and less union members should be expected.

There is no diminishing the right to organize when employees decide to quit paying dues to a union. The union is still organized, just has less members.

 

[FJO]

WRONG!!

In the private sector there is COMPETITION. A company that is struck by a union can defy union and see customers flock to another company.

Yea, because safety only interferes with COMPETITION. The best thing you can do is block injured workers from suing companies whose policies left them maimed.

Non-union workers have no safety laws protecting them?
Non-union workers have no recourse when they are injured?
Wow, those are silly claims.

What the supporters of unions do not seem to realize is that the present day laws regarding work place safety, discrimination, harassment, working conditions, freedom of disagreeing with the Boss, etc., are so firmly entrenched by now (thanks to the efforts of unions when they were still relevant) that unions are and have been obsolete for years.

No person who has any self-respect should rely on a bully to speak for him/her.

 

[MACAULAY]

Letting people decide for themselves whether they want to join a Union, rather than forcing them to join, as part of getting a job with the State.

That's what Scott Walker did.

And in Socialist spin world that move toward freedom is called "diminishing the right to organize".

What Bullshit.

There ought to be real diminishment of the right to organize Public Emplouee Unions---they ought to be illegal.

Private Unions were formed to fight the great Greed.

Tax Payers aren't guilty of Greed in paying the people who work for them, and Public Employee Unions are good for doing nothing but buying Democratic politicians who make deals with them to bilk the Taxpayers. See Detroit.

OUTLAW THEM.

 

[Kosh]

Well Kosh is a terrible, terrible poster. Maybe it's just confined to him/her.

coming from one that can only post in the from of far left talking points and propaganda.

So what exactly are Scott Walker's policies? Besides what he has actually told us?

More far left diversion.

 

[Listening]

O.K. folks.

I posted this to see if anyone could help me understand if this is "significant". This is something I know little about. The article seems to think it is a big deal, but since when was TownHall.com a friend of unions ?

I've seen a lot of bickering about unions...but I am looking for someone who understands this to tell me if it really means something.

 

[Kosh]

FDR was wrong on that point.

Public Sector unions are needed for the same reason that private sector ones are... to collectively bargain working conditions and advocate when individual members are being abused.

Otherwise, you just have the situation where the mayor's idiot cousin is put in charge of your office and starts grabbing ass.

WRONG!!

In the private sector there is COMPETITION. A company that is struck by a union can defy union and see customers flock to another company.

Yea, because safety only interferes with COMPETITION. The best thing you can do is block injured workers from suing companies whose policies left them maimed.

Could be worse you far leftists should get your way and have the government control everything and still have no one to sue when you get injured, maimed or even death.

 

[Listening]

Are you surprised? Walker's entire shtick is diminishing the right to organize. Couple that with the unemployment rate in Wisconsin during the time the article specified and less union members should be expected.

Please provide the numbers you are referencing.

My biggest issue is that I don't know if 100,000 is 1%, 5%, or 25%. It would almost seem like a 1% swing could be explained by attrition.

Wow, you don't really know very much do you? Do you know how to use "Google"? Perhaps you should spend some time and learn. You can't seriously debate if you don't know anything and always include "I'm guessing" and "My biggest issue is I don't know".

Dean,

Since when have you seriously debated anything ? I mean really ? Please point me to something like that. Your second statement is a strawman. You make stuff up and post it like it was fact. You need to learn that you are considered one of the five board morons (by people on both sides).

 

[Kosh]

O.K. folks.

I posted this to see if anyone could help me understand if this is "significant". This is something I know little about. The article seems to think it is a big deal, but since when was TownHall.com a friend of unions ?

I've seen a lot of bickering about unions...but I am looking for someone who understands this to tell me if it really means something.

It is significant because when workers are given a real choices, they choose not to be a part of the unions.

Once you take away forced unionization the unions will have do something that haven't had do since the early 1900's, compete for workers and jobs.

 

[Listening]

O.K. folks.

I posted this to see if anyone could help me understand if this is "significant". This is something I know little about. The article seems to think it is a big deal, but since when was TownHall.com a friend of unions ?

I've seen a lot of bickering about unions...but I am looking for someone who understands this to tell me if it really means something.

It is significant because when workers are given a real choices, they choose not to be a part of the unions.

Once you take away forced unionization the unions will have do something that haven't had do since the early 1900's, compete for workers and jobs.

I understand your second sentence, but it does not necessarily follow the first (that it is significant). If the departure looks like things of the past, or is within some band of statistical "noise", then it isn't significant.

Does this represent 1% of 10% of union members. Is this a reversing trend ?

 

[Kosh]

O.K. folks.

I posted this to see if anyone could help me understand if this is "significant". This is something I know little about. The article seems to think it is a big deal, but since when was TownHall.com a friend of unions ?

I've seen a lot of bickering about unions...but I am looking for someone who understands this to tell me if it really means something.

It is significant because when workers are given a real choices, they choose not to be a part of the unions.

Once you take away forced unionization the unions will have do something that haven't had do since the early 1900's, compete for workers and jobs.

I understand your second sentence, but it does not necessarily follow the first (that it is significant). If the departure looks like things of the past, or is within some band of statistical "noise", then it isn't significant.

Does this represent 1% of 10% of union members. Is this a reversing trend ?

Like I said it is significant. It is huge change.

The law in Wisconsin affects all union and non-union workers.

It is significant as the bulk of the DNC coffers comes from unions. As their money tightens so will the DNC.

That is the impact and that is why the far left is so dead set against what has happened in Wisconsin. They see their gravy train drying up.

To make the unions compete is a very big deal.

14% of the work force in the US is union labor. Wisconsin is about 1% of that number. So imagine if all states did this. That is what the far left is scared of.

That is why it is significant and why it is a big deal.

 

[initforme]

All you that don't live in Wisconsin and are speculating why walker did this are chumps... rhetoric blah blah eras. I happen to live there. The power of unions is basically gone which I know you think is a good thing. But he did NOT do it to give people a choice. It is a political move to hurt the Democratic party. People not joining the unions are not doing so because they know their dues will do no good anyway. I really don't have a problem with the new law. As long as no corporations get a tax break at the expense of hard working public employees I am fine with it. Those really active in the unions were few and far between. Wages of public employees have gone down as school districts have reworked their salary schedule. Again, not a bad thing but my question is where is the MERIT PAY people lied about? That doesn't exist. So if you don't live here, please don't act like you have a clue. Was this effort backed by big conservative groups who want people to have lower wages? You bet. And I'm a conservative. Just one that won't stick up for conservatives even if I hear them say one thing and do another.

 

[TooTall]

FDR was wrong on that point.

Public Sector unions are needed for the same reason that private sector ones are... to collectively bargain working conditions and advocate when individual members are being abused.

Otherwise, you just have the situation where the mayor's idiot cousin is put in charge of your office and starts grabbing ass.

WRONG!!

In the private sector there is COMPETITION. A company that is struck by a union can defy union and see customers flock to another company.

Yea, because safety only interferes with COMPETITION. The best thing you can do is block injured workers from suing companies whose policies left them maimed.

How could anyone block anyone from suing anyone?