BWAHAHAHAA! Unions Lose in Wis!

[NYcarbineer]

I don't recall any conservatives saying that the Republicans lost in 2010 because THEY failed to win a majority in the Senate.

Anyone? Anyone remember any wingnuts saying that?

Psst! We kept our majority in Wis. What are you talking about?

Or do you even know?

We? Are you from Wisconsin?

The Democrats kept their majority in the US Senate in 2010 too. That means the GOP lost the Senate elections in 2010.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Not naming names, but one idiot here doesn't understand how a recall works.

The republicans lost 6 seats via recall petition.

They gained 4 back in the ensuing elections.

Yes, relative to where they were following the 2010 elections, the democrats are now 2 seats better, the republicans 2 seats worse (a swing of 4 seats). But relative to where they were following the recall petition, the republicans are up a net of 2 seats and hold a majority. You can spin it any way you like, but it sure looks to me like the republican agenda in Wisconson will continue unabated. If you supported the democrats and that feels like a win to you then you're dumber than shit.

Liberals have to spin any way they can.

Plus there are Democrat recalls coming.

Who really won Wisconsin recall elections? - CSMonitor.com

 

[GHook93]

More!

Democrats Lose AGAIN in Wisconsin

A stand by Wisconsin Republicans against a massive effort to oust them from power could reverberate across the country as the battle over union rights and the conservative revolution heads toward the 2012 presidential race.

Democrats succeeded in taking two Wisconsin state Senate seats away from Republican incumbents on Tuesday but fell one short of what they needed to seize majority control of the chamber.

Republicans saw it as a big win for Gov. Scott Walker and a confirmation of his conservative agenda, the hallmark of which was a polarizing proposal taking away most collective bargaining rights from public workers.

Read more at foxnews.com.

Read more: Democrats Lose AGAIN in Wisconsin - Wisconsin - Fox Nation

35 million dollars of union dues used and no gain of any value.

Typical example of how the unions have no issue of spending dues money of their memebers for lost causes.

I agree $35 million is absolutely INSANE for a State election. The Dimocrats were trying to buy the seats. Heck $35 mil might have been enough to make 3 or 4 of the GOPer change parties!!!

 

[Jarhead]

Now they are no longer necessary.

They are no longer necessary because we can just trust corporations to not exploit the weak financial position of their workers like they did for the centuries prior.

OK.

Unions were required to ensure..

Normal working hours.....now we have federal and state laws that do that
Safe working enironment.....now we have OSHA that governs that
Acceptable wages....now we have minimum wage laws AND a MUCH larger workforce to ensure this....bear in mind...salaries too low, people will not take the job.

What you fear is no longer an issue. We have federal and state laws that govern it.

 

[Google]

Since the Democrats ended up with more seats than they had before the recall, that is a win not a loss.

It is only a loss when measured against expectations.

Idiot-it is a loss when you lose against an opponent. Typical dimwit logic=makes no sense. Dimwits lose like the losers they are.

They didn't lose. They gained 2 seats. A gain is not a loss.

"Democrats succeeded in taking two Wisconsin state Senate seats away from Republican incumbents on Tuesday but fell one short of what they needed to seize majority control of the chamber."

The goal of the recall elections was to retake the state senate, they failed. Sorry, but it is a failure.

"Democrats had hoped enough wins in the recalls would have allowed them to block the Republican agenda, but the GOP will hold on to their majorities, which have allowed them to pass bills rapidly through the Legislature." Wis. GOP's stand could reverberate elsewhere - Washington Times

But I'm sure you are that delusional as to say it was a victory. There are two more recall elections of Democrat incumbents next week though.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Apparently not.

Companies are run by CEO's, boards of directors, and ultimately - shareholders - so which one of those three were the Union?

Which one of those three submitted the union bloated package? CEO? Board of Directors?
Shareholders? Come on, which one of those three?

The CEOs did agree to a bloated union package in the 70s.

I guess they thought they could sustain them back IN the 70s.

Or maybe they thought like politicians think now, they can kick the spending can down to a succeeding Congress, (or CEO in this case).

But competition from NON union companies in Japan or like Ford (I believe Ford is non-union) became too much.

GM could not compete and went under.

GM went under because of a refusal from their own union emloyees to see that the time of bloated union packages are over.

 

[bodecea]

congrats on all the money your team poured into Wi.

I guess that is all elections are anymore.

Just great big piles of money from thre wealthy

That money created jobs...at least temporarily.

But, as some said in the other thread about this...it's only local...not national.

 

[Google]

I don't recall any conservatives saying that the Republicans lost in 2010 because THEY failed to win a majority in the Senate.

Anyone? Anyone remember any wingnuts saying that?

Psst! We kept our majority in Wis. What are you talking about?

Or do you even know?

We? Are you from Wisconsin?

The Democrats kept their majority in the US Senate in 2010 too. That means the GOP lost the Senate elections in 2010.

Wait what year is it again?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Liberals are dealt a loss yet still claim victory.

They tried to do the same thing with the 2010 elections, claiming the 63 seat pick up by the GOP in the House was a loss because they only won six seats in the Senate and failed to take that chamber as well. Only an Obamabot can spin landslide victories as a failure.

Exactly!

They are trying to spin this any way they can.

But, as I pointed out, the Senate is on notice that 2012 is coming and voters ARE fed up with business as usual.

I think voters are angry enough with this stupid budget deal, they will come out IN FORCE to say enough is enough in 2012.

I think there will be Democrats AND REPUBLICANS that are going to lose their jobs in 2012.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sadly, you are clueless to how unions operate and how they negotiate...and the issues that come up with their negotiating tactics.

Then why don't you illuminate my mind with your superior knowledge?

Shouldnt you be in school at this time?

Passed my disseration oral defense last month - taking it easy now.

I did illuminate you with my knowledge...you, for some unknown reason, opted to ignore it.

Your knowledge is that a union and a company couldn't come to a mutual agreement and hence both suffered as a result? That's hardly uncommon knowledge. Happens all the time in all matters of contract. I thought maybe you had something more in depth.

And yep...just as I thought.....congrats on your dissertation...

You will be quite surprised when you hit the real world. It is nothing like we learned in college.

I used to inspect petro-chemical barges for a living. That's not the real world?

I was Syracuse University, BA Economics......Got news for you....I look at my senior "thesis"...(not a real graduate thesis, but I was a member of the economics committee and asked to write one)....I laugh at what I said in that piece of garbage...if only I had known what the real world was like...

So you wrote a senior thesis when you were working on your BA and it was garbage. That, too, is not remarkable in anyway. Especially considering much of economics is bullshit.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Companies are run by CEO's, boards of directors, and ultimately - shareholders - so which one of those three were the Union?

Which one of those three submitted the union bloated package? CEO? Board of Directors?
Shareholders? Come on, which one of those three?

I'm guessing is the board of directors that ultimately approves any agreement with the union. I could be wrong. Do you know the answer?

Oh the CEOs that agreed to an unsustainable deal are partly responsible. No doubt.

But UNIONS that refused to see that the deal was unsustainable and coming to an end, AND REFUSED TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT IT, despite the reality it was coming to an end are EQUALLY AS RESPONSIBLE.

 

[Google]

Unions don't F-ing hire people. What the hell is the point of unions if there aren't any GD jobs!?!?!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Companies are run by CEO's, boards of directors, and ultimately - shareholders - so which one of those three were the Union?

Which one of those three submitted the union bloated package? CEO? Board of Directors?
Shareholders? Come on, which one of those three?

The CEOs did agree to a bloated union package in the 70s.

I guess they thought they could sustain them back IN the 70s.

Or maybe they thought like politicians think now, they can kick the spending can down to a succeeding Congress, (or CEO in this case).

But competition from NON union companies in Japan or like Ford (I believe Ford is non-union) became too much.

GM could not compete and went under.

GM went under because of a refusal from their own union emloyees to see that the time of bloated union packages are over.

Sounds to me, based on what you have said, GM went under because someone made bad long term decision in the 70's.

Might also have something to do with their decision, along with other U.S. car manufacturers, to concentrate their efforts on producing and advertising gas guzzlers in the face of ever increasing gas prices - but hey, I wouldn't want to suggest that upper-level management decisions about which kinds products to make and advertise have anything to do with the failure of a company, that would be absurd - it must be the dumbs workers fault!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh the CEOs that agreed to an unsustainable deal are partly responsible. No doubt.

"CEO's - getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars annually to be partially responsible for our decisions!"

But UNIONS that refused to see that the deal was unsustainable and coming to an end, AND REFUSED TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT IT, despite the reality it was coming to an end are EQUALLY AS RESPONSIBLE.

And the failure of these American car companies couldn't possibly have had anything to do with anything else but employee compensation. You don't see a difference in the kinds of autos American companies were producing v. foreign companies?

 

[Google]

Which one of those three submitted the union bloated package? CEO? Board of Directors?
Shareholders? Come on, which one of those three?

The CEOs did agree to a bloated union package in the 70s.

I guess they thought they could sustain them back IN the 70s.

Or maybe they thought like politicians think now, they can kick the spending can down to a succeeding Congress, (or CEO in this case).

But competition from NON union companies in Japan or like Ford (I believe Ford is non-union) became too much.

GM could not compete and went under.

GM went under because of a refusal from their own union emloyees to see that the time of bloated union packages are over.

Sounds to me, based on what you have said, GM went under because someone made bad long term decision in the 70's.

Might also have something to do with their decision, along with other U.S. car manufacturers, to concentrate their efforts on producing and advertising gas guzzlers in the face of ever increasing gas prices - but hey, I wouldn't want to suggest that upper-level management decisions about which kinds products to make and advertise have anything to do with the failure of a company, that would be absurd - it must be the dumbs workers fault!

Toyota is the one of the only car manufacturers that is opening new plants here in the US. Know why?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The CEOs did agree to a bloated union package in the 70s.

I guess they thought they could sustain them back IN the 70s.

Or maybe they thought like politicians think now, they can kick the spending can down to a succeeding Congress, (or CEO in this case).

But competition from NON union companies in Japan or like Ford (I believe Ford is non-union) became too much.

GM could not compete and went under.

GM went under because of a refusal from their own union emloyees to see that the time of bloated union packages are over.

Sounds to me, based on what you have said, GM went under because someone made bad long term decision in the 70's.

Might also have something to do with their decision, along with other U.S. car manufacturers, to concentrate their efforts on producing and advertising gas guzzlers in the face of ever increasing gas prices - but hey, I wouldn't want to suggest that upper-level management decisions about which kinds products to make and advertise have anything to do with the failure of a company, that would be absurd - it must be the dumbs workers fault!

Toyota is the one of the only car manufacturers that is opening new plants here in the US. Know why?

I'm betting its because they treat their workers with dignity and just compensation and therefore their workers have no need or want to unionize, resulting in a win-win for everyone.

Might also be because there is higher demand for their products than the products of the American companies.

Could be both.

You tell me.

 

[Dr.House]

Since the Democrats ended up with more seats than they had before the recall, that is a win not a loss.

It is only a loss when measured against expectations.

Idiot-it is a loss when you lose against an opponent. Typical dimwit logic=makes no sense. Dimwits lose like the losers they are.

They didn't lose. They gained 2 seats. A gain is not a loss.

6 seats were vacated prior to the elections last night...

R's won 4 of those seats... D's won 2 of them...

4 > 2

 

[Jarhead]

Then why don't you illuminate my mind with your superior knowledge?


Passed my disseration oral defense last month - taking it easy now.

I did illuminate you with my knowledge...you, for some unknown reason, opted to ignore it.

Your knowledge is that a union and a company couldn't come to a mutual agreement and hence both suffered as a result? That's hardly uncommon knowledge. Happens all the time in all matters of contract. I thought maybe you had something more in depth.

No sir. That was not my point. The unions lack of care for a difficult poisition the agreed upon contract put the business owner in was the issue. The owner did not expect a change in technology when he agreed upon a stipulation with the union. Owners fault? Sure. He erred. But this change in trechnology resulted in his need to hire additional employees...at a cost that was higher than what the union would allow him to hire new employees at. The uniuon took the position of "a deal is a deal"...and that deal put the owner in a position of "shut the plant and move it" or "not be able to meet the edemand of his clients".
So he was forced to shut the plant and move it.
The employees filed a suit against the employer...and we had all of the doicumentation showing how we tried to get the union to understand our predicament. The union had the case tossed out.
The union, due to their stubborness, cost the employees their jobs.

And yep...just as I thought.....congrats on your dissertation...

You will be quite surprised when you hit the real world. It is nothing like we learned in college.

I used to inspect petro-chemical barges for a living. That's not the real world?

Sure...but not as a business owner or as one that represents business owners or one that has to deal with business owners or one that hjas to deal with unions.

I was Syracuse University, BA Economics......Got news for you....I look at my senior "thesis"...(not a real graduate thesis, but I was a member of the economics committee and asked to write one)....I laugh at what I said in that piece of garbage...if only I had known what the real world was like...

So you wrote a senior thesis when you were working on your BA and it was garbage. That, too, is not remarkable in anyway. Especially considering much of economics is bullshit.

The senior thesis was not garbage from an academic standpoint. It was well recieved by the economics department with some very positive comments...and published by the SU Byrd Library.

What was garbage was how applicable it was to the real world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a real positive way to spin losing 2 seats.

Sorry, but I've never had to interview for a job after I was already hired.

The number 4 is larger than the number 2.

That's not simple math, it's counting.

You may want to hunt down your K teacher and beat the fuck outta him or her for letting you continue on to 1st grade.

So how many seats did the Republicans gain?

Who still has control of the Senate?

 

[Google]

Toyota's announcement that it will resume construction of a car factory in Mississippi was a much-needed piece of good news for both the state struggling with persistent employment and the automaker trying to recover some goodwill after a recall crisis bruised its reputation.

But the decision drew fire from America's largest auto union, which accused Toyota of shifting production from a union plant to a nonunion facility.

Toyota promised to hire 2,000 workers at its nearly complete factory in Blue Springs, Mississippi, and start producing Corolla sedans by the end of next year.

The plant has been on hold since late 2008, when Toyota suspended construction as the economy fell apart and sales of new cars and trucks collapsed in the U.S.

But Toyota's decision to build Corollas there comes just weeks after announcing the sale of a California plant that also built the compact sedans.

To the United Auto Workers Union, the key difference was the California plant was unionized, while the Mississippi plant -- like the rest of Toyota's U.S. factories -- isn't.

Toyota to restart US auto plant, draws UAW ire - Yahoo! Finance

The UAW has stood in the way of economic progress countless times. In its' negations they secured ridiculous pension plans--causing American Auto companies to not even be able to lay off workers. Instead, workers still get paid even if laid off. To sit there and say its the CEO's fault for these exorbitant union deals is folly. They resisted publicly and were ridiculed.