Collective bargaining "rights"??

[Cecilie1200]

In the end, it really doesn't matter what the state does or does not legislate. As long as the union poeple stick together they'll win.

All they have to do is withhold services - and there's nothing that the govenment can do.

Not passing legislation to undermine the unions, and continuing to negotiate will prevent an awful lot of suffering for the people of Wisconson - that's the only difference.

When push comes to shove the unions will win. We've been down this road many a time before.

Actually, dear, in most places, civil servants are legally prohibited from striking, ie. "withholding services", so they could be - and the way things are going, probably would be - fired for doing so. How hard do you honestly think most if not all of those people would be to replace in this economy?

What they REALLY have to do is recognize that their real employers, the voters of Wisconsin, are sick of their shit and not in the mood to put up with them any more.

And unions DON'T always win. Ask the air traffic controllers what happened when they tried to "withhold services" during the Reagan administration.

Liberals tend to overestimate their worth to society even more than they overestimate the value of their opinions...

Can I get an "Amen", brother?!

 

[BenNatuf]

Nope! sure would not want to give the individual union worker their rights back as to whether to pay the dues or not. It's unamerican to force a person to pay dues for a union boss that is not representing your political views. Why do you think so many are dropping out of the unions in that last 10 yrs or so?
Union bosses have gotten way to powerful and need to be taken down a notch or two.

Unions became illigitimate when they stopped negotiating with the employers to reach mutually beneficial arrangements with them and started pushing a political agenda to force employers to do what they could not gain agreement on.

As did our corporations, I note.

In both cases note who gets the shaft?

the workers.

I won't say I support corporations pushing for legislation that will give them an advantage over their competition, but I do support corporations bidding on work the government needs performed. So when the government has a job openning why not let them post it and have potential employees bid for it? Just like corporations, whoever's willing to perform the tasks for the lowest cost to the taxpayor gets the job. Instead of that we allow unions to come in and bid UP the cost.

That said, there really is nothing wrong with corporations using there first amendment rights to petittion the government for changes in legislation that will advantage them, they have that right. And if it costs the government nothing there is no ability for hidden and ongoing legal graft and corruption. What corruption goes on there is ILLEGAL and people are prosecuted for it. With public sector unions its a different story as its not the "legislation" the union members benefit from, its the pay and the graft and corruption is ongoing and legal.

 

[BenNatuf]

Actually, dear, in most places, civil servants are legally prohibited from striking, ie. "withholding services", so they could be - and the way things are going, probably would be - fired for doing so. How hard do you honestly think most if not all of those people would be to replace in this economy?

What they REALLY have to do is recognize that their real employers, the voters of Wisconsin, are sick of their shit and not in the mood to put up with them any more.

And unions DON'T always win. Ask the air traffic controllers what happened when they tried to "withhold services" during the Reagan administration.

Liberals tend to overestimate their worth to society even more than they overestimate the value of their opinions...

Can I get an "Amen", brother?!

LOL, it won't let me.

Amen!!!

 

[taichiliberal]

collective bargaining and labor arbitration: an overview

Collective bargaining consists of negotiations between an employer and a group of employees so as to determine the conditions of employment. The result of collective bargaining procedures is a collective agreement. Employees are often represented in bargaining by a union or other labor organization. Collective bargaining is governed by federal and state statutory laws, administrative agency regulations, and judicial decisions. In areas where federal and state law overlap, state laws are preempted. See, U.S. Constitution, Art. VI.

The main body of law governing collective bargaining is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It explicitly grants employees the right to collectively bargain and join trade unions. The NLRA was originally enacted by Congress in 1935 under its power to regulate interstate commerce. See, U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 8. It applies to most private non-agricultural employees and employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce. Decisions and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, which was established by the NLRA, greatly supplement and define the provisions of the act.

The NLRA establishes procedures for the selection of a labor organization to represent a unit of employees in collective bargaining. The act prohibits employers from interfering with this selection. The NLRA requires the employer to bargain with the appointed representative of its employees. It does not require either side to agree to a proposal or make concessions but does establish procedural guidelines on good faith bargaining. Proposals which would violate the NLRA or other laws may not be subject to collective bargaining. The NLRA also establishes regulations on what tactics (e.g. strikes, lock-outs, picketing) each side may employ to further their bargaining objectives.

State laws further regulate collective bargaining and make collective agreements enforceable under state law. They may also provide guidelines for those employers and employees not covered by the NLRA, such as agricultural laborers.

Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution used as an alternative to litigation. It is commonly designated in collective agreements between employers and employees as the way to resolve disputes. The parties select a neutral third party (an arbiter) to hold a formal or informal hearing on the disagreement. The arbiter then issues a decision binding on the parties. Both federal and state law governs the practice of arbitration. While the Federal Arbitration Act, by its own terms, is not applicable to employment contracts, federal courts are increasingly applying the law in labor disputes. Fourty-nine states have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act (1956) as state law. Thus, the arbitration agreement and decision of the arbiter may be enforceable under state and federal law.

Collective bargaining | LII / Legal Information Institute

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES GAIN PROTECTIONS

Wisconsin also led the nation in giving public employees the right of collective bargaining. The nation’s largest public employee union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was founded in Madison in 1936; throughout the state, public employees organized, even though they had no legal protections. Nonetheless, public workers, like those in Milwaukee regularly showed solidarity in threatening to strike to win fair treatment. Finally in 1959, the State passed the nation’s first comprehensive public employee bargaining law, Section 111.70, which provided the right of collective bargaining to public employees, and also required municipalities, school districts the university system and other public entities to bargain with the unionized workers.

Primer | Wisconsin Labor History Society

So unless there has been a repeal of this law, Gov. Walker's proposal is in violation of the spirit (if not actual letter) of that law.

Absolutely 100% false. The proposal does not stop any workers from forming or belonging to any assembly called a union they voluntarily join for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, the mere fact of their choice to form one, join one or assemble into one cannot and does not compel any other party to negotiate with them.

What you're saying here is essentially moot and somewhat misleading, as I never stated or implied that Walker's proposal stopped the formation of unions for the purpose of collectively bargaining.
Thing is, a key point of Walker's proposal only allows for collective bargaining on base pay, NOT benefits and pensions. THAT is a contradiction to the State law Section 111.70.

 

[skookerasbil]

Just about every headline I have read about the proposed budget changes in Wisconsin mentions Collective Bargaining "rights". I am NOT the sharpest tack in the box, and after extensive Google searches, can find no LAW that stipulates such rights. What am I missing?

Wisconsin passed a law in 1959 giving the public sector employees bargaining rights.

(I'm looking for the text of it)

Laws change by the decree of the people. Time for the laws to change. Americans are sick and tired of union greed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just about every headline I have read about the proposed budget changes in Wisconsin mentions Collective Bargaining "rights". I am NOT the sharpest tack in the box, and after extensive Google searches, can find no LAW that stipulates such rights. What am I missing?

111.04 Rights of employees.

Employees shall have the
right of self−organization and the right to form, join or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; and such employees shall also have the right to refrain
from any or all of such activities.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0111.pdf



>>>>

 

[BenNatuf]

There is finally a solution in sight!!!

Wisconsin Budget: Paychecks to be withheld from absent Wis. senators - WITI

 

[BenNatuf]

Just about every headline I have read about the proposed budget changes in Wisconsin mentions Collective Bargaining "rights". I am NOT the sharpest tack in the box, and after extensive Google searches, can find no LAW that stipulates such rights. What am I missing?

111.04 Rights of employees.

Employees shall have the
right of self−organization and the right to form, join or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; and such employees shall also have the right to refrain
from any or all of such activities.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0111.pdf



>>>>

Is there a right in there that says they can play hookie from work to protest legislation?

 

[BenNatuf]

collective bargaining and labor arbitration: an overview

Collective bargaining consists of negotiations between an employer and a group of employees so as to determine the conditions of employment. The result of collective bargaining procedures is a collective agreement. Employees are often represented in bargaining by a union or other labor organization. Collective bargaining is governed by federal and state statutory laws, administrative agency regulations, and judicial decisions. In areas where federal and state law overlap, state laws are preempted. See, U.S. Constitution, Art. VI.

The main body of law governing collective bargaining is the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It explicitly grants employees the right to collectively bargain and join trade unions. The NLRA was originally enacted by Congress in 1935 under its power to regulate interstate commerce. See, U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 8. It applies to most private non-agricultural employees and employers engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce. Decisions and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, which was established by the NLRA, greatly supplement and define the provisions of the act.

The NLRA establishes procedures for the selection of a labor organization to represent a unit of employees in collective bargaining. The act prohibits employers from interfering with this selection. The NLRA requires the employer to bargain with the appointed representative of its employees. It does not require either side to agree to a proposal or make concessions but does establish procedural guidelines on good faith bargaining. Proposals which would violate the NLRA or other laws may not be subject to collective bargaining. The NLRA also establishes regulations on what tactics (e.g. strikes, lock-outs, picketing) each side may employ to further their bargaining objectives.

State laws further regulate collective bargaining and make collective agreements enforceable under state law. They may also provide guidelines for those employers and employees not covered by the NLRA, such as agricultural laborers.

Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution used as an alternative to litigation. It is commonly designated in collective agreements between employers and employees as the way to resolve disputes. The parties select a neutral third party (an arbiter) to hold a formal or informal hearing on the disagreement. The arbiter then issues a decision binding on the parties. Both federal and state law governs the practice of arbitration. While the Federal Arbitration Act, by its own terms, is not applicable to employment contracts, federal courts are increasingly applying the law in labor disputes. Fourty-nine states have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act (1956) as state law. Thus, the arbitration agreement and decision of the arbiter may be enforceable under state and federal law.

Collective bargaining | LII / Legal Information Institute

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES GAIN PROTECTIONS

Wisconsin also led the nation in giving public employees the right of collective bargaining. The nation’s largest public employee union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was founded in Madison in 1936; throughout the state, public employees organized, even though they had no legal protections. Nonetheless, public workers, like those in Milwaukee regularly showed solidarity in threatening to strike to win fair treatment. Finally in 1959, the State passed the nation’s first comprehensive public employee bargaining law, Section 111.70, which provided the right of collective bargaining to public employees, and also required municipalities, school districts the university system and other public entities to bargain with the unionized workers.

Primer | Wisconsin Labor History Society

So unless there has been a repeal of this law, Gov. Walker's proposal is in violation of the spirit (if not actual letter) of that law.

Absolutely 100% false. The proposal does not stop any workers from forming or belonging to any assembly called a union they voluntarily join for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, the mere fact of their choice to form one, join one or assemble into one cannot and does not compel any other party to negotiate with them.

What you're saying here is essentially moot and somewhat misleading, as I never stated or implied that Walker's proposal stopped the formation of unions for the purpose of collectively bargaining.
Thing is, a key point of Walker's proposal only allows for collective bargaining on base pay, NOT benefits and pensions. THAT is a contradiction to the State law Section 111.70.

once it passed there will be no contradiction, the new law supplants the old... thats how laws work, last one in counts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just about every headline I have read about the proposed budget changes in Wisconsin mentions Collective Bargaining "rights". I am NOT the sharpest tack in the box, and after extensive Google searches, can find no LAW that stipulates such rights. What am I missing?

111.04 Rights of employees.

Employees shall have the
right of self−organization and the right to form, join or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; and such employees shall also have the right to refrain
from any or all of such activities.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0111.pdf



>>>>

Is there a right in there that says they can play hookie from work to protest legislation?

Don't think so. I think it would fall under a later section that has to do with denial of services under unfair labor practices.


>>>>

 

[BenNatuf]

Just about every headline I have read about the proposed budget changes in Wisconsin mentions Collective Bargaining "rights". I am NOT the sharpest tack in the box, and after extensive Google searches, can find no LAW that stipulates such rights. What am I missing?

111.04 Rights of employees.

Employees shall have the
right of self−organization and the right to form, join or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; and such employees shall also have the right to refrain
from any or all of such activities.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0111.pdf



>>>>

I know its a matter of semantics to a point, but "rights" are not conferred in law, rights are inherent to the holder and preexist the law. privledges can be confirred in law, and privledges can be taken away. That said, this law confers a privledge called a "right" onto WI workers, the new law will modify it. That would be what laws do. So, can you say they have a "right" to compel collective bargaining when the "right" can be exised by the legislature?

 

[BenNatuf]

111.04 Rights of employees.

Employees shall have the
right of self−organization and the right to form, join or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; and such employees shall also have the right to refrain
from any or all of such activities.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0111.pdf



>>>>

Is there a right in there that says they can play hookie from work to protest legislation?

Don't think so. I think it would fall under a later section that has to do with denial of services under unfair labor practices.


>>>>

Except of course that we're talking about PUBLIC sector employees who to my knowledge have no such right and there contract also to my knowledge has a no strike clause (pretty much boiler plate for PS employees). Those who are taking part have breached their contract and are no longer protected by it.

FIRE THEM ALL!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Arguing facts with unsupported assertions and unsubstantiated opinions doesn't realy cut it. The top five states there are all closed shop states, TX and FL and a few others are bigger and they ain't there hoss.

States with the lowest unemployment rates

I'm not sure about VT but I belive the rest of them are right to work states.

States with the highest unemployment rates

appear to be five of each with 4 of the bottom 5 all being closed shop, not entirely sure about NV so it may be 3 of the bottom 5.

I guess now you'll be coming out with another unsupported opinion.

Nevada is right to work but is seeing high unemployment in the gaming industry which continues to suffer with fewer people traveling to Las Vegas plus the real estate market in which many people lost jobs is still in a tail spin...
BTW I believe most of the large casinos are union shops...
Vermont in a closed shop state but the percentage of unionized workers is among the lowest of closed shop states.
NC a right to work state is seeing high unemployment in banking which is the largest employer in the State.
NC also has one of the highest state income taxes in the US with a top marginal rate of over 8% and the FIFTH highest gas tax (32.4 cpg) in the US.
As we see, states with high taxes and/or closed shop have the highest numbers of unemployed people.

You don't have to tell me about NC, it is the most liberal southern state and was ruled almost exclusively by Democratics until this past election when the GOP took the legislature for the first time in many, many years.

I wouldn't call North Carolina a liberal state because a large portion of North Carolianans are Democrats. We are a conservative State, with a lot of Bue dogs.

 

[BenNatuf]

Nevada is right to work but is seeing high unemployment in the gaming industry which continues to suffer with fewer people traveling to Las Vegas plus the real estate market in which many people lost jobs is still in a tail spin...
BTW I believe most of the large casinos are union shops...
Vermont in a closed shop state but the percentage of unionized workers is among the lowest of closed shop states.
NC a right to work state is seeing high unemployment in banking which is the largest employer in the State.
NC also has one of the highest state income taxes in the US with a top marginal rate of over 8% and the FIFTH highest gas tax (32.4 cpg) in the US.
As we see, states with high taxes and/or closed shop have the highest numbers of unemployed people.

You don't have to tell me about NC, it is the most liberal southern state and was ruled almost exclusively by Democratics until this past election when the GOP took the legislature for the first time in many, many years.

I wouldn't call North Carolina a liberal state because a large portion of North Carolianans are Democrats. We are a conservative State, with a lot of Bue dogs.

I've lived in a lot of states, this is by far the most liberal of southern states. There is no other state in the union where the DMV can mail you a post card fining you essentially for driving without insurance when they haven't actually caught you driving.

As to "blue dogs", there is no such fucking thing, they are liberals who know if they admit it they'll never get elected, and the ones in congress take turns playing silly games voting against "liberal legislation" when they know its going to pass without them just so they can keep up the charade and continue to fool the dumbass "daddy was a democrat, so I'm a democrat" crowd. There are no blue dogs. Get a clue, if there's anything conservative about you (anyone, not you in particular), you have no place in the democratic party.

 

[Big Fitz]

Is there a right in there that says they can play hookie from work to protest legislation?

Don't think so. I think it would fall under a later section that has to do with denial of services under unfair labor practices.


>>>>

Except of course that we're talking about PUBLIC sector employees who to my knowledge have no such right and there contract also to my knowledge has a no strike clause (pretty much boiler plate for PS employees). Those who are taking part have breached their contract and are no longer protected by it.

FIRE THEM ALL!!!

When this happened in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry just told them that their government credit cards and expenses will not be paid, nor would they receive their wages for the time they were absent. They were back the next day.

I guess their morals and ethics only extend as far as someone else is willing to pay for it... like most libs.

 

[taichiliberal]

Absolutely 100% false. The proposal does not stop any workers from forming or belonging to any assembly called a union they voluntarily join for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, the mere fact of their choice to form one, join one or assemble into one cannot and does not compel any other party to negotiate with them.

What you're saying here is essentially moot and somewhat misleading, as I never stated or implied that Walker's proposal stopped the formation of unions for the purpose of collectively bargaining.
Thing is, a key point of Walker's proposal only allows for collective bargaining on base pay, NOT benefits and pensions. THAT is a contradiction to the State law Section 111.70.

once it passed there will be no contradiction, the new law supplants the old... thats how laws work, last one in counts.

And as is the edict of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the people may and must challenge and unjust law.

The neocon driven GOP became the Party of NO the second Obama took office...logging record filibusters. Now the PEOPLE of Wisconsin are fighting an attempt to rob them of say in the very gov't that rules them.

Gee, you'd think the teabaggers would catch onto that....but being the confused lemmings that they are, they'll just go wherever and say whatever Dick Armey, Limbaugh and the Koch brothers tell them to.

 

[Liability]

What you're saying here is essentially moot and somewhat misleading, as I never stated or implied that Walker's proposal stopped the formation of unions for the purpose of collectively bargaining.
Thing is, a key point of Walker's proposal only allows for collective bargaining on base pay, NOT benefits and pensions. THAT is a contradiction to the State law Section 111.70.

once it passed there will be no contradiction, the new law supplants the old... thats how laws work, last one in counts.

And as is the edict of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the people may and must challenge and unjust law.

The neocon driven GOP became the Party of NO the second Obama took office...logging record filibusters. Now the PEOPLE of Wisconsin are fighting an attempt to rob them of say in the very gov't that rules them.

Gee, you'd think the teabaggers would catch onto that....but being the confused lemmings that they are, they'll just go wherever and say whatever Dick Armey, Limbaugh and the Koch brothers tell them to.

Tackylib loves his mindless stereotypes and platitudes. Just look at (and admire) how he crammed so much into one stupid sentence: "neocon driven GOP became the Party of NO . . . . " Pure babbling bullshit.

The "people" of Wisconsin are not fighting anything. Instead, a small segment of the people, consisting of a semi-powerful interest group (collection of such groups) -- which constitute a financial base of the liberal Democrat Parody -- are fighting greedily to take and preserve the spoils of all of their industrious political hack lobbying over the years.

But confused and/or dishonest liberals always find a way to play class warfare and divide and conquer at the merest prompting of Marxist leaning union bosses and the Soros led brain trust of the liberal Democrats.

Contrary to what you idiots believe (no matter that it was said in a movie): greed is NOT always good.

There is a HUGE, massive, enormous and rather BIG budget problem, you looney-toons. There is also an obligation to file a BALANCED budget. Contrary to your graspy, greedy, reckless thinking, the emphasis on more taxation is NOT a viable answer. You liberoidal morons have NEVER grasped the fundamental problem of killing the golden goose.

It is not time to tax more, you buffoons. It is way past time to reign in spending. It is past time to CUT spending.

 

[BenNatuf]

What you're saying here is essentially moot and somewhat misleading, as I never stated or implied that Walker's proposal stopped the formation of unions for the purpose of collectively bargaining.
Thing is, a key point of Walker's proposal only allows for collective bargaining on base pay, NOT benefits and pensions. THAT is a contradiction to the State law Section 111.70.

once it passed there will be no contradiction, the new law supplants the old... thats how laws work, last one in counts.

And as is the edict of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the people may and must challenge and unjust law.

too funny. 22 states currently have right to work laws and only a handful have laws compelling negotiations at all. Their is nothing remotely unjust about one party choosing not to negotiate with another.

The neocon driven GOP became the Party of NO the second Obama took office...logging record filibusters. Now the PEOPLE of Wisconsin are fighting an attempt to rob them of say in the very gov't that rules them.

ooooh he said neocon

There were no record filibusters, what there were were votes against cloture keeping debate open, which the democratics if they had any balls could have used to force the GOP to actually conduct a filibuster if they wanted to, but didn't.

Gee, you'd think the teabaggers would catch onto that....but being the confused lemmings that they are, they'll just go wherever and say whatever Dick Armey, Limbaugh and the Koch brothers tell them to.

meanwhile, in the real world. confused lemmings are being bussed into WI by Obama and the DNC to protest an act of the WI legislature that will have no effect on them in the states they live in, because their masters have demanded it, and teachers playing hookie are bringing students to a protest who don't even know what it is they're protesting.

 

[taichiliberal]

once it passed there will be no contradiction, the new law supplants the old... thats how laws work, last one in counts.

And as is the edict of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the people may and must challenge and unjust law.

too funny. 22 states currently have right to work laws and only a handful have laws compelling negotiations at all. Their is nothing remotely unjust about one party choosing not to negotiate with another.

Really? Then tell you what chuckles, tell me how great things are when your next elected local gov't tells YOU that not only are you (and your representative) banned from negotiating on parts of your benefits and pension, but the State is also going to reduce your salary by at least 300 dollars and then increase your contribution to benefits and pension by 18%. Mind you, this has NOTHING to do with filling a financial gap caused by hundreds of millions in tax breaks to local corporations, but hey, you've got the right to work, so all is well, right chuckles? Small wonder why 28 states won't allow that "right to work" BS.

The neocon driven GOP became the Party of NO the second Obama took office...logging record filibusters. Now the PEOPLE of Wisconsin are fighting an attempt to rob them of say in the very gov't that rules them.

ooooh he said neocon

Oooh, look up the definitions, you drooling fool....you might learn something with a little honest researchThere were no record filibusters, what there were were votes against cloture keeping debate open, which the democratics if they had any balls could have used to force the GOP to actually conduct a filibuster if they wanted to, but didn't.

Ahhh, so YOU don't have the balls to acknowledge the stonewall tactics of the GOP...instead you try to wussy out on a technicality. Sorry chuckles, the effect was the same, as calling for an actual filibuster would have eaten up time, and if the challenge resulted in an actual filibuster, more time. Yes, the Dems should have called the bluff, but then they wouldn't have gotten through what legislation they did. Again, to condemn the Wisconsin Dems for employing tactics (that they at least have "the balls" to physically carry out) similar to the GOP while giving the GOP a pass or excuse is hypocritcal at best on your part.

Gee, you'd think the teabaggers would catch onto that....but being the confused lemmings that they are, they'll just go wherever and say whatever Dick Armey, Limbaugh and the Koch brothers tell them to.

meanwhile, in the real world. confused lemmings are being bussed into WI by Obama and the DNC to protest an act of the WI legislature that will have no effect on them in the states they live in, because their masters have demanded it, and teachers playing hookie are bringing students to a protest who don't even know what it is they're protesting.

And of course, you have PROOF of your accusation that "Obama and the DNC" are bussing people to Wisconsin?

Let me know when you do, chuckles...and in the meantime you might want to do some honest research as to who is behind the organization that culled the teabaggers to WI recently. If you have trouble doing so or are too cowardly to do so, let me know and I'll educate you on the subject. Get cracking, chuckles.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And as is the edict of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the people may and must challenge and unjust law.

too funny. 22 states currently have right to work laws and only a handful have laws compelling negotiations at all. Their is nothing remotely unjust about one party choosing not to negotiate with another.

Really? Then tell you what chuckles, tell me how great things are when your next elected local gov't tells YOU that not only are you (and your representative) banned from negotiating on parts of your benefits and pension, but the State is also going to reduce your salary by at least 300 dollars and then increase your contribution to benefits and pension by 18%. Mind you, this has NOTHING to do with filling a financial gap caused by hundreds of millions in tax breaks to local corporations, but hey, you've got the right to work, so all is well, right chuckles? Small wonder why 28 states won't allow that "right to work" BS.
ooooh he said neocon

Oooh, look up the definitions, you drooling fool....you might learn something with a little honest researchThere were no record filibusters, what there were were votes against cloture keeping debate open, which the democratics if they had any balls could have used to force the GOP to actually conduct a filibuster if they wanted to, but didn't.

Ahhh, so YOU don't have the balls to acknowledge the stonewall tactics of the GOP...instead you try to wussy out on a technicality. Sorry chuckles, the effect was the same, as calling for an actual filibuster would have eaten up time, and if the challenge resulted in an actual filibuster, more time. Yes, the Dems should have called the bluff, but then they wouldn't have gotten through what legislation they did. Again, to condemn the Wisconsin Dems for employing tactics (that they at least have "the balls" to physically carry out) similar to the GOP while giving the GOP a pass or excuse is hypocritcal at best on your part.

Gee, you'd think the teabaggers would catch onto that....but being the confused lemmings that they are, they'll just go wherever and say whatever Dick Armey, Limbaugh and the Koch brothers tell them to.

meanwhile, in the real world. confused lemmings are being bussed into WI by Obama and the DNC to protest an act of the WI legislature that will have no effect on them in the states they live in, because their masters have demanded it, and teachers playing hookie are bringing students to a protest who don't even know what it is they're protesting.

And of course, you have PROOF of your accusation that "Obama and the DNC" are bussing people to Wisconsin?

Let me know when you do, chuckles...and in the meantime you might want to do some honest research as to who is behind the organization that culled the teabaggers to WI recently. If you have trouble doing so or are too cowardly to do so, let me know and I'll educate you on the subject. Get cracking, chuckles.

This sort of response, deliberately making it all but impossible for anyone to respond in detail to it, is grounds for a FLUSH!

Especially since the poster is a dimwitted, deliberately obtuse troll who's never said anything I would have missed hearing, anyway.