Collective bargaining "rights"??

[BenNatuf]

All you have is a twitter account voicing support of the protesters and an unamed source making an undocumented claim of supplying busses and phone banks and planning.

All I have? LOL BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.

Yeah chuckles, that's ALL you've got. It's called "hearsay", "unsubstantiated evidence", etc. Wouldn't fly in a court of law to prove your case, chuckles. And since all you've got to go along with this is Boehner bitching about Obama voicing criticism of Walker, you sure as hell are not producing a "Deep Throat" scenario here.

Oh, and Learn to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, genius. I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF MAKING ANY CLAIMS REGARDING THE TEABAGGERS, I merely pointed out that if YOU are going to make claims against the unions, Dems and Obama, you might want to do some HONEST research as to who's backing the pro-Walker groups.

What would me proving Obama and the DNC are backing the protests have to do with who might be backing the TP protesters? Oh gee... nothing. You might try a little intellectual honesty yourself schmucky instead of pretending your attempted (but failed) deflection actually means anything.

Notice folks, that Benny here just realizes that his "proof" of his claim didn't really support his intial claim. So Benny does what all intellectually bankrupt neocon toadies do and obfuscates. All I do is point out the sheer hypocrisy of Benny making a false accusation about Obama and the Dem Party giving more than vocal support for the Wisconsin protesters while there is DEFINITE proof of the Koch Brothers backing the pro-Walker, anti-Obama groups like Americans for Prosperity. I'll give Benny some rope...hopefully he'll man-up and do some honest research...because quite frankly I'm tired of doing willfully ignorant neocon's homework.

Let me help you out. me showing you that OofA is behind this crap has absolutely no bearing on who might be behind the honest efforts on the other side. And since we were only talking about the sleazy democratics and their scummy henchmen there is no dishonesty in not mentioning the patriots and fine people on the other side. Me showing what the scumbag unions are doing does not compel me to do anything else to be "honest". Now if I were making a comparison, as you are, perhaps it might, but I wasn't.

So lets look at your "comparison" schmucky. You are attempting (lamely) to deny the evedence of the scum sucking democratics insinuating themselves in the protest, while at the same time you insinuate some nefarious funding (without proof) on the other side. if you were honest...

Benny wastes two paragraphs to essentially repeat that the his "proof" is valid DESPITE NOT documenting the "connections" beyond verbal support and subsequent complaints about that verbal support. See my above responses, folks....Benny is just on loop.

Still haven't figured out that quote function huh?

 

[taichiliberal]

see you can be partially honest... but the correct verbiage is "have" not "had" and there is no reason to capitalize your condition.

When you excerpt parts of a paragraph or sentence, you cannot adequately comment on the correct tense of a verb...one must have a COMPLETE sentence or paragraph to do what our mentally challenged BenNatuf tries to do here. That Benny tries to be condescending as well makes his post here all the more pathetic.

And when all is said and done, Benny and his compadres STILL cannot explain how depriving unions portions collective bargaining rights will alleviate Wisconsin's budget deficit.

Did you completely skip gramar school?

For a quick start, not having to buy HI for teachers from the teachers union will save about 62M. Which is one of the reasons their exempting benefits from collective bargaining.

Ahhh, so Walker states in his bill that pensions and benefits are off limits for COLLECTIVE BARGAINING....didn't say anything about eliminating teacher union benefits and pensions from state/federal contribution.

Seems Benny has taken a neocon flight of fancy, or has some inside information no one else has. So according to Benny, the REAL plan is to eliminate pensions and benefits for the State. Now I don't recall Walker (or anyone else) stating such, but hey maybe Benny can pretend to be a Koch brother and call up Walker with his $62 million saver. Or maybe Benny's confusing the former Gov. plan Senior Care plan? Oh well, hold onto your chair folks, because Benny's gonna blow a LOT of smoke.

 

[taichiliberal]

All I have? LOL BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. What would me proving Obama and the DNC are backing the protests have to do with who might be backing the TP protesters? Oh gee... nothing. You might try a little intellectual honesty yourself schmucky instead of pretending your attempted (but failed) deflection actually means anything.

Notice folks, that Benny here just realizes that his "proof" of his claim didn't really support his intial claim. So Benny does what all intellectually bankrupt neocon toadies do and obfuscates. All I do is point out the sheer hypocrisy of Benny making a false accusation about Obama and the Dem Party giving more than vocal support for the Wisconsin protesters while there is DEFINITE proof of the Koch Brothers backing the pro-Walker, anti-Obama groups like Americans for Prosperity. I'll give Benny some rope...hopefully he'll man-up and do some honest research...because quite frankly I'm tired of doing willfully ignorant neocon's homework.

Let me help you out. me showing you that OofA is behind this crap has absolutely no bearing on who might be behind the honest efforts on the other side. And since we were only talking about the sleazy democratics and their scummy henchmen there is no dishonesty in not mentioning the patriots and fine people on the other side. Me showing what the scumbag unions are doing does not compel me to do anything else to be "honest". Now if I were making a comparison, as you are, perhaps it might, but I wasn't.

So lets look at your "comparison" schmucky. You are attempting (lamely) to deny the evedence of the scum sucking democratics insinuating themselves in the protest, while at the same time you insinuate some nefarious funding (without proof) on the other side. if you were honest...

Benny wastes two paragraphs to essentially repeat that the his "proof" is valid DESPITE NOT documenting the "connections" beyond verbal support and subsequent complaints about that verbal support. See my above responses, folks....Benny is just on loop.

Still haven't figured out that quote function huh?

See folks, Benny can't BS his way past me, so all he's got is some stupid gripe about quote functions.

You can read EVERYTHING, Benny....so stop being a neocon wussy and just debate honestly.

 

[taichiliberal]

When you excerpt parts of a paragraph or sentence, you cannot adequately comment on the correct tense of a verb...one must have a COMPLETE sentence or paragraph to do what our mentally challenged BenNatuf tries to do here. That Benny tries to be condescending as well makes his post here all the more pathetic.

And when all is said and done, Benny and his compadres STILL cannot explain how depriving unions portions collective bargaining rights will alleviate Wisconsin's budget deficit.

Did you completely skip gramar school?

For a quick start, not having to buy HI for teachers from the teachers union will save about 62M. Which is one of the reasons their exempting benefits from collective bargaining.

Might also benefit the teachers, since they might actually get the chance to choose a health plan, rather than having one forced on them because the union makes money off of it.

And of course, Cecelie can provide proof of a health plan being "forced" on union members. And can Cecilie explain how having the State "force" a benefit and pension rate & plan on people is so much better than what she imagines the union is doing?

Somebody clue Cecelie in...the debate is about the right to have a say in your benefits and pensions.

 

[The T]

Did you completely skip gramar school?

For a quick start, not having to buy HI for teachers from the teachers union will save about 62M. Which is one of the reasons their exempting benefits from collective bargaining.

Might also benefit the teachers, since they might actually get the chance to choose a health plan, rather than having one forced on them because the union makes money off of it.

And of course, Cecelie can provide proof of a health plan being "forced" on union members. And can Cecilie explain how having the State "force" a benefit and pension rate & plan on people is so much better than what she imagines the union is doing?

Somebody clue Cecelie in...the debate is about the right to have a say in your benefits and pensions.

You're correct...it's the other fucking way around...it's the UNIONS FORCING it on the TAXPAYERS like it or not...or they;ll strike and RUN AWAY like little bitch COWARDS.

 

[taichiliberal]

Might also benefit the teachers, since they might actually get the chance to choose a health plan, rather than having one forced on them because the union makes money off of it.

And of course, Cecelie can provide proof of a health plan being "forced" on union members. And can Cecilie explain how having the State "force" a benefit and pension rate & plan on people is so much better than what she imagines the union is doing?

Somebody clue Cecelie in...the debate is about the right to have a say in your benefits and pensions.

You're correct...it's the other fucking way around...it's the UNIONS FORCING it on the TAXPAYERS like it or not...or they;ll strike and RUN AWAY like little bitch COWARDS.

You're not too bright, are you "T"? Why do you think it's called "collective BARGAINING"....and why do you think the unions AGREED to Walker's request for increase in contributions? If you STILL don't get it, get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And of course, Cecelie can provide proof of a health plan being "forced" on union members. And can Cecilie explain how having the State "force" a benefit and pension rate & plan on people is so much better than what she imagines the union is doing?

Somebody clue Cecelie in...the debate is about the right to have a say in your benefits and pensions.

You're correct...it's the other fucking way around...it's the UNIONS FORCING it on the TAXPAYERS like it or not...or they;ll strike and RUN AWAY like little bitch COWARDS.

You're not too bright, are you "T"? Why do you think it's called "collective BARGAINING"....and why do you think the unions AGREED to Walker's request for increase in contributions? If you STILL don't get it, get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Not good enough. There is no reason for public employees to have collective bargaining rights when the one group most important(taxpayers) does not get a seat at the table.
Everyone who supports the unions like to see this fact swept under the rug.
In a perfect world, the politicians who are supposed to be representing the interests of their constituents would go home to consult with those who pay the friggin bills.
So, in absence of any other way to control wages and benefits for public workers, the referendum should be used to decide if public workers deserve these benefits and high wages.
There is no bargaining when the people paying the freight have a say in the manner in which their money is spent.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Did you completely skip gramar school?

For a quick start, not having to buy HI for teachers from the teachers union will save about 62M. Which is one of the reasons their exempting benefits from collective bargaining.

Might also benefit the teachers, since they might actually get the chance to choose a health plan, rather than having one forced on them because the union makes money off of it.

And of course, Cecelie can provide proof of a health plan being "forced" on union members. And can Cecilie explain how having the State "force" a benefit and pension rate & plan on people is so much better than what she imagines the union is doing?

Somebody clue Cecelie in...the debate is about the right to have a say in your benefits and pensions.

Get your shit wired a little tighter, soldier. The union people are all insured by the same carrier.
No more collective bargaining. Too expensive and the taxpayers cannot afford it. Over. Done.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And of course, Cecelie can provide proof of a health plan being "forced" on union members. And can Cecilie explain how having the State "force" a benefit and pension rate & plan on people is so much better than what she imagines the union is doing?

Somebody clue Cecelie in...the debate is about the right to have a say in your benefits and pensions.

You're correct...it's the other fucking way around...it's the UNIONS FORCING it on the TAXPAYERS like it or not...or they;ll strike and RUN AWAY like little bitch COWARDS.

You're not too bright, are you "T"? Why do you think it's called "collective BARGAINING"....and why do you think the unions AGREED to Walker's request for increase in contributions? If you STILL don't get it, get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Could that be because, if they agree to pay more, and not give up collective bargaining, they get to keep forcing schools to purchase their overpriced health care?

 

[taichiliberal]

You're correct...it's the other fucking way around...it's the UNIONS FORCING it on the TAXPAYERS like it or not...or they;ll strike and RUN AWAY like little bitch COWARDS.

You're not too bright, are you "T"? Why do you think it's called "collective BARGAINING"....and why do you think the unions AGREED to Walker's request for increase in contributions? If you STILL don't get it, get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Not good enough. There is no reason for public employees to have collective bargaining rights when the one group most important(taxpayers) does not get a seat at the table.
Everyone who supports the unions like to see this fact swept under the rug.
In a perfect world, the politicians who are supposed to be representing the interests of their constituents would go home to consult with those who pay the friggin bills.
So, in absence of any other way to control wages and benefits for public workers, the referendum should be used to decide if public workers deserve these benefits and high wages.
There is no bargaining when the people paying the freight have a say in the manner in which their money is spent.

You're laboring under a misconception.....pensions are deferred payments (meaning that the money is taken from the contributors paycheck). It's only when the STATE starts siphoning from the pension funds to close various deficits and such that it becomes a problem for ALL taxpaying citizens. Thus, all the right wing ballyhoo from media pundits to politicians that you just repeated here should NOT be taken seriously.

 

[taichiliberal]

Might also benefit the teachers, since they might actually get the chance to choose a health plan, rather than having one forced on them because the union makes money off of it.

And of course, Cecelie can provide proof of a health plan being "forced" on union members. And can Cecilie explain how having the State "force" a benefit and pension rate & plan on people is so much better than what she imagines the union is doing?

Somebody clue Cecelie in...the debate is about the right to have a say in your benefits and pensions.

Get your shit wired a little tighter, soldier. The union people are all insured by the same carrier.
No more collective bargaining. Too expensive and the taxpayers cannot afford it. Over. Done.

FYI, private: Pensions are DEFERRED payments.....the ONLY time the "taypayers" get involved is when the STATE siphons off pension/retirement funds to solve various deficit problems. Onece you understand that, then you'll realize why your statement above is incorrect from it's inception.

 

[taichiliberal]

You're correct...it's the other fucking way around...it's the UNIONS FORCING it on the TAXPAYERS like it or not...or they;ll strike and RUN AWAY like little bitch COWARDS.

You're not too bright, are you "T"? Why do you think it's called "collective BARGAINING"....and why do you think the unions AGREED to Walker's request for increase in contributions? If you STILL don't get it, get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Could that be because, if they agree to pay more, and not give up collective bargaining, they get to keep forcing schools to purchase their overpriced health care?

How are unions forcing a school system to accept one particular healthcare insurance when there are choices offered to members? What is your documentation/source for your claim.

 

[The Infidel]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


freedom of assembly


You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

When they get together and talk they can deside to join forces and stick together to acheive a collective goal.


How anyone can think a group of any Americans can be told who they are allowed to group with is beyond me.

There is something you leave out though.

When it involves the "public sector", we (the taxpayers) get left out of the conversation.

Politicians and union bosses get together to see how much of "our" money is going to get divided up, and who gets how much.

 

[Londoner]

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?

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . ."

But even if there was no legal "Right", you should consider the wider use of the term "rights", e.g.,

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Very often the term "Rights" is used to define something extra-legal, often referring to traditional or religious content. Whether you like it or not, the right to organize is a very real tradition in America. In the old days, corporations like Kodak were committed to taking better care of their workers than the Soviets took care of theirs. Indeed, postwar America had a kind of pride in labor that wouldn't fit on today's balance sheet. Before Reagan, America used to see her laborers as more than just welfare queens. They were fellow Americans not liabilities on the balance sheet. Indeed, they were included in the immense prosperity made off their backs. America was proud of the fact that working class families could send their children to collage (see upward mobility). America was proud of the fact that a father's wages could support the entire family, freeing up the mother to take care of the children. This is in stark contrast to the post-Reagan years where both parents needed several jobs, leaving kids to gangs and the vagaries of pop culture. [Some conservative commentators in the 70s and 80s actually criticized the GOP's war on labor because of what it did to working class families. Christopher Lasch -- an iconic Conservative -- was kicked out of Movement Conservatism for criticizing the Republican alliance with corporate America]

The right to organize grew out of the postwar compact between capital and labor. In exchange for getting subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, and regulatory protection, capital agreed to give the American worker a higher standard of living than workers in 3rd world sweat shops. The American worker set a global standard. Even Reagan bragged how much better American workers were treated than in Asia and Russia. The world created by the postwar union movement meant that working class families had money to spend. This lead to the golden age of American consumption, a time when America had its greatest economic growth. Today's talk radio conservatives don't get it. If capital accumulates all the wealth, and workers don't have enough money to consume, the economy dies. The middle class is too big to fail.

Today's GOP voter doesn't get it. The American economy was built by middle class consumption. The middle class had money because capital made concessions to labor. Once Reagan cut labor out of the loop, the greatest economy on earth required credit cards to drive consumption. Why did Reagan put the middle class on Master Cards and Visas? Because the he didn't want to admit that the money wasn't trickling down. He didn't want to admit that Morning in America was a fancy debt instrument -- so he swept the deficits under the rug. Besides, Capital loved the new arrangement. Rather than paying workers high wages and benefits, they would lend them the money at a high interest rate. Brilliant.

(of course, debt fueled consumption eventually breaks the bank and bankrupts the consumer. But that's fine. All you need to do is bail our the wealthy, then foreclose on the consumers, and then sell their homes to the next batch of morons.)

suckers.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

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?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Ware are the unions covered there ?

 

[Londoner]

There is something you leave out though.

When it involves the "public sector", we (the taxpayers) get left out of the conversation.

Politicians and union bosses get together to see how much of "our" money is going to get divided up, and who gets how much.

You should research the universe of no-bid contracts, especially in places like Iraq.

or, maybe check out how the 2003 drug bill was created, specifically who was bribed and who made a king's ransom.

You have know idea how much of your money is moved around behind your back.

(the serfs are fighting over nickels)

(brilliant)

The American government in an ATM/bailout machine for corporate looters. These corporate looters pay talk radio to shift the conversation from the trillions of dollars AIG burned to the school teacher in Shaboygan driving a dented 97 Corolla.

(Brilliant)

At least when a school teacher in Wisconsin makes money, he spends it in the local economy, which actually benefits the country. This is quite unlike the money being stuffed into some offshore anus or hookers in Dubai.

(Wow)

(Has anyone ever told conservatives that Talk Radio is paid handsomely to focus the rage of the serfs?)

 

[Cecilie1200]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


freedom of assembly


You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

When they get together and talk they can deside to join forces and stick together to acheive a collective goal.


How anyone can think a group of any Americans can be told who they are allowed to group with is beyond me.

There is something you leave out though.

When it involves the "public sector", we (the taxpayers) get left out of the conversation.

Politicians and union bosses get together to see how much of "our" money is going to get divided up, and who gets how much.

This is why, until relatively recently, even people who thought unions were a spiffy idea didn't think that civil servants had any business having them: because in their case, both sides of the table are bargaining FOR the benefit of the employee and AGAINST the benefit of the people actually footing the bill.

 

[konradv]

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?

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Ware are the unions covered there ?

What does that have to do with anything? Collective bargaining may not be a Constitutional right, but it a Legislative right in WI. Now the governor is using an underhanded method to eliminate that right. He ran on fiscal responsibility, not the removal of long-held rights. If it was important to him, why didn't he run on that, instead of springing it on the citizens after the election?

 

[taichiliberal]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


freedom of assembly


You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

When they get together and talk they can deside to join forces and stick together to acheive a collective goal.


How anyone can think a group of any Americans can be told who they are allowed to group with is beyond me.

There is something you leave out though.

When it involves the "public sector", we (the taxpayers) get left out of the conversation.

Politicians and union bosses get together to see how much of "our" money is going to get divided up, and who gets how much.

This is why, until relatively recently, even people who thought unions were a spiffy idea didn't think that civil servants had any business having them: because in their case, both sides of the table are bargaining FOR the benefit of the employee and AGAINST the benefit of the people actually footing the bill.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/155746-collective-bargaining-rights-38.html#post3365344

Still waiting.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

"Collective bargaining rights" = A united selfish force of dumb shits who are blind to any notion of a thing called a budget. ~BH