Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law is Working

[daveman]

Employers HATE unions because then they feel forced to actually pay a decent wage. But in their minds one penny per hour is too much to pay. On top of that, big business hates collective bargaining because they dont consider those they employ as their equals and therefore feel they shouldnt have to actually sit across the table from them.

 

[daveman]

Employers HATE unions because then they feel forced to actually pay a decent wage. But in their minds one penny per hour is too much to pay. On top of that, big business hates collective bargaining because they dont consider those they employ as their equals and therefore feel they shouldnt have to actually sit across the table from them.

Who told you this drivel?

He read it on a protest sign.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's very simple in the end. Public Unions are not good for the Nation. The System is flawed & failed. It's in their own self-interests to screw Taxpayers over. So why would they stop doing it? It really is a corrupt & very expensive scam. I'm ok with Private-Sector Unions but there should be no Unions in Government period. The Taxpayer always loses in the end. Public Unions should be abolished.

Plus the negotiations are corrupt for the union often gets people elected who are sympathetic to the cause, not the tax payers cause who are footing the bill.

Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.

In other words give up their Constitutional rights. Shame on you.

.

There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining. Nor is there a Constitutional right to compel an employer to engage in business with a union.
NO public employee should have collective bargaining rights. That system is an absolute sham. Close to criminal. Politicians and union bosses in collusion with each other. Meanwhile the taxpayers keep shelling out and more an more.
No public employee should be paid more or receive better benefits than the people who are paying the bills.
There's not a thing constitutional about the extortion from taxpayers of exorbitant wages and gold plated benefits for unionized public workers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle here's the question in post 221...


.

Trajan and daveman won't answer it because they can't.

If the unions have to get 51% of the membership every year to vote for re-certification then Wisconsin should have to get 51% of the registered voters every year to re-affirm this law.

That is patently absurd! What other law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor do you want the registered voters to re-affirm. All of them? Just some of them? We elect our representatives to do that.

Then why should the state of Wisconsin be telling the unions they have to do it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol,

the Kaukauna school district got 310,000 in stimulus money last year. Now they're counting the loss of that as part of their woes.

But of course the stimulus didn't save any jobs, right???

 

[daveman]

Plus the negotiations are corrupt for the union often gets people elected who are sympathetic to the cause, not the tax payers cause who are footing the bill.

Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.

In other words give up their Constitutional rights. Shame on you.

.

There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining. Nor is there a Constitutional right to compel an employer to engage in business with a union.
NO public employee should have collective bargaining rights. That system is an absolute sham. Close to criminal. Politicians and union bosses in collusion with each other. Meanwhile the taxpayers keep shelling out and more an more.
No public employee should be paid more or receive better benefits than the people who are paying the bills.
There's not a thing constitutional about the extortion from taxpayers of exorbitant wages and gold plated benefits for unionized public workers.

Well, you just have to look at the Constitution with the right chemical assistance.

 

[DaGoose]

because that nepotism is no better and than union nepotism.

how does dropping unions politicize the process any further? what happened post1960 ( or whenever wiscy) broke the mold?

and why is he replacing them? are they not performing? OR is he playing his game? his alike party only...wow....


whether you intended to or not you just made a case for might makes right, if so, then lets just strip it all down and settle on the one indisputable fact;

walker won, the reps control the leg. and thats that....next time the dems win they can just turn the clock back and lets move on already.

please goose, stop it.

the leverage of friendship/ kinship, hey this is my nephew etc...who gets apprentice jobs who gets summer jobs who gets the nod to hire in when they open the books...





I addressed this, what was wrong with how it worked pre union?

And this is one small county in a big state. Get rid of all public unions and you will see a free for all like never before as elected officials all over the nation purge all of their employees from their jobs simply because they belong to the wrong party.

THAT'S one good reason for public unions. To take the politics out of the hiring/firing process.

.

I have to say goose whatever it was that you ingested, drank smoked back in the earlier 2 of the last 3 posts you sent me, please have some more. . I am not 30 or 40 or even 50 years old? I am older, ok? And dare say, I have 'been around'. stop selling and stop schilling, please.

there is politics in EVERY institution;

when I was a summer apprentice for a teamster local in Brooklyn for Key Foods ( I was a 'selector' at their warehouse) , I a) got the job because my buddies dad worked in the front office ( he was non union btw), b) I got offered a position full time at the end of summer based on that c) it was ahead of minorities too, black and Puerto Rican whom had been apprenticing for months more than I did and were just as good.

I am sure they didn't call it politics did they?

wanna here what went down at my hiring for my present position? I almost didn't get it, though I was MILES ahead in interview skills and job skills as I found about 6 months ago in a moment just between my manager and myself at lunch as by that time he had realized we were each simpatico ala unions etc. .
SAME SHIT, different union, different sector.

The difference is.....nobody was FIRED to make room for you which is exactly what will happen when you take unions out of it. As I said, what you'll see happen is the boss will come up, say "You're registered to the other political party so you're done here. You're fired!!" And then turn around and hire a political contributor.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree which is how these threads usually end.

.

 

[DaGoose]

In other words give up their Constitutional rights. Shame on you.

.

There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining. Nor is there a Constitutional right to compel an employer to engage in business with a union.
NO public employee should have collective bargaining rights. That system is an absolute sham. Close to criminal. Politicians and union bosses in collusion with each other. Meanwhile the taxpayers keep shelling out and more an more.
No public employee should be paid more or receive better benefits than the people who are paying the bills.
There's not a thing constitutional about the extortion from taxpayers of exorbitant wages and gold plated benefits for unionized public workers.

Well, you just have to look at the Constitution with the right chemical assistance.

But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.

THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.

.

 

[Trajan]

Trajan and daveman won't answer it because they can't.

If the unions have to get 51% of the membership every year to vote for re-certification then Wisconsin should have to get 51% of the registered voters every year to re-affirm this law.

That is patently absurd! What other law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor do you want the registered voters to re-affirm. All of them? Just some of them? We elect our representatives to do that.

Then why should the state of Wisconsin be telling the unions they have to do it?

see folks this is how far disconnected this all is, it never occurs to ny carb and others here it seems that ultimately though public sector employees uses the unions as its middle man, the STATE is their employer and the STATE does at the end of the day have the ultimate power over the union MEMBERS as ITS employer. IF not then the wheoile thing makes exactly no sense as their would be no ULTIMATE employer...and we both know there is, but its better if we pretend there isn't, the state should just be an ATM forgoing any control whatsoever.

When they get what they want, the relationship as is, is fine, when they don't ooops, Houston there's a problem.

You cannot have it both ways. They pay you, they, THEY employ you, If you don't recognize the state as your ultimate employer and in such has at some point the ability to change or control your empployment and the union has got to stand aside, then you have kidded yourself and rocketed yourself into never never land......and this is one of those times.

 

[initforme]

Question then,

if ALL public unions are bad, then why did the firefighters and police NOT get included? Answers? I would expect those of you that are so critical of my posts will skirt this with some lame excuse. For you who love corporations well I worked for one for 27 years and then retired. THEY STILL OWE ME. I hear they are struggling to stay afloat and for one PRAY FOR THEIR DEMISE. Looks like I might get my way. And I WILL celebrate the day they close their doors. Now thats being patriotic.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ah you're just still asleep. But you'll wake up one day. Public Unions are and have been an awful Shakedown Scam for many years. I don't have a problem with Private-Sector Unions but Public Unions have to go. They are not good for this Nation. I think you'll see this one day.

Even the patron saint of progressivism FDR was afraid of them and forbade collective bargaining for Gubmint people.

Never underestimate the damage that can be done by stupid people in large numbers.

Then again, I spent this last weekend explaining to a University Chancellor that we are a representative republic, not a democracy and why it's different because he didn't know. So I'm not surprised people don't get this.

ahh yes, fascism rears it's head again..

THAT didn't take long.

Sorry, Godwin cannot save you now. I never suspected you saw FDR as a fascist though. Interesting.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I suppose the crux of the issue is whether one considers a union for a PUBLIC utility to, in fact be a public sector union. We don't have to compete for business and the ratepayers simply have to pay whatever costs we pass onto them (provided the Illinois Commerce Commision allowed it). So I've always considered myself as having experience in a union that spanned both public and private entities.

My elected position forced me to sit on the other side of the table negotiating against the AFSCME union. And I wasn't the only power plant union member on the board or on the negotiating committee (there were two of us). The wage negotiations went pretty well since their demands weren't too far out of line. But when we negotiated medical benefits all hell broke loose. The county portion nearly tripled over the life of the last contract and we were able to convince them to pay more into their plans, but it was tough.

Ironically after my last term was up negotiations were scheduled for that year. The board pushed them to both pay more AND tried to force into plans with less coverage. The union went on strike and after a month they were able to come to an agreement. I'm glad I wasn't part of that.

Now how does this translate to my posts in this forum?

One on hand I have no problem forcing union members to pay more towards their benefits. I agree that in limited cases they even take advantage of the system and things should change. So much for being, as you said, being closed minded.

On the other I do get pissed when I read comments that place all the blame on the rank and file, that they are nothing more than leeches and lazy bums who steal from the taxpayers. And I will ram words and attitudes like that right back down their throats. I take personal offense at it and it most comes from morons that have no clue as to what their talking about.

Now I don't have much of a problem with Walker making them pay more. But to strip them of bargaining rights is WRONG. Period. And I will never compromise on that issue. That's where I draw the line.

I consider you a union brother and acknowledge that you have an opinion that doesn't agree with mine. So what? I work with several people who are openly critical of the union and a few who are nothing more than "fee payers". Nothing bad ever happens to them. Co-workers are civil to them and just don't get into discussions with them about it. If they did they could be disciplined for creating a hostile work environment.

So there it is............

.

Not to sound patronizing, but; I have to say that that’s the second completely lucid, apparently honest and hostility free post you have sent me, perhaps if we had kept it that way the past conversations would have went differently. So I will respond in an alike manner.

I am not going to zebra quote your post to death, I have learned more from this thread than all others you have posted. Thx for taking the time.

Heres the deal, imho; unions have outlived their usefulness especially in the public sector. That being said, they never belonged in the public sector, I am not going to re-post comments from hard core union adherents from the past whom have said so.

Unions have an image problem, now we can argue why that is, but I think in the end the major portion of that burden was brought on by themselves. The membership takes heat for it, justified OR not.

Maybe now, that re-certification has to take place, the members will re-think the efficacy of being unionized. I mean why? They get treated well they get paid well, they have excellent benefits and more importantly there is a plethora of fed and state agencies whom have grown up over the decades that can insure, as well as public opinion that they don’t get submarined.


I won’t go into my unions situation here and my part in it other than to say- in my opinion it is completely warped and in fact detrimental to practice say- the seniority game. Yes I know why it exists and understand that before the gov. provided redress for egregious employment ( or that is unemployment practices vis a vis older employees) this was definitely needed, I agree, however, now? (thats just one)

Anyway…..there it is

I can't sit here and say that everything they do is 100% correct. There are some rules I've read that I disagree with and never would have allowed in my county through negotiations.

However, I support public unions because I support the people that make them up. Every elected department head and school official would salivate at being able to replace even the good workers to give jobs to cousins, aunts, uncles, political supporters, etc. You get rid of the unions and you're guaranteed to completely politisize the entire hiring/firing processes. Hardly anyone will have a job for 4 years and lazy workers would be protected by the elected officials that hired them.

Our local county officials bear this out. The County Clerk complained to me (5 years ago after he was elected) that he had too many Republicans in his office that were left over from a Republican County Clerk that served over 15 years ago. Now he has been replacing them with Democrats as they retired but he would have loved to simply fired and replaced them right away. But he couldn't because according to the AFSCME contract he had to have just cause. It would be the same with the Treasurer, Sheriff, County Board Chairman, Clerk of the Circuit Court, etc.

Why in the hell would we want to go back to those days?

.

PLease explain why then in non collective bargaining states this sort of thing does not occur.
If anything, nepotism and political patronage is rampant in collective bargaining states.
Google "Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission" for an example of the above and to that add corruption of the highest order.
BTW, in most states County Sheriffs have virtual absolute authority over which people comprise their management staff. In non collective bargaining states that authority extends to all employees. I am in one of the latter. There is a Lieutenant that has served the Sheriff's Dept here for 29 years. So please, don't throw out these inflammatory generalizations.
The real problem wiht public worker unions is not the unions themselves. The issue is they all got so greedy. All "negotiations" were one way favoring the union.
Here...In New Jersey, there are about 550 municipalities. Each City, township, borough or village must deal with the union on it's own. Of course the full weight an power of the union is brought to bear vs these small governments during contract negotiations. The towns are left in no position to make demands . The union wins every time. That's why police officers with 10 or more years on the job are paid in excess of $100,000 per year.
To save money on salary and benefits the Borough of Rutherford, NJ eliminated the position of Chief of Police. The position salary is $180,000 per year. Instead the boss of the police dept is now a civilian "Police Director". At half the salary.
This is a growing trend and it is not going to stop. The union people in places like Wisconsin can scream their heads off. The polls can say the people in office will be recalled or voted out. It doesn't matter. This is not going to stop. It's over for these high wages and and greedy unions. The wages and benefits are no longer sustainable.

 

[Big Fitz]

And just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle here's the question in post 221...


.

Trajan and daveman won't answer it because they can't.

If the unions have to get 51% of the membership every year to vote for re-certification then Wisconsin should have to get 51% of the registered voters every year to re-affirm this law.

Yes, childish foot-stamping is such a compelling argument.

Apparently, they don't like mob rule when they aren't the winning mob.

 

[initforme]

"It's over for these high wages and and greedy unions. The wages and benefits are no longer sustainable. "

This is true especially when the corporations get big breaks. There is no such thing as "Fair Share." The greedy corporations should be TRIPLE TAXED if they do not produce jobs that pay very well with benefits. Lets NOT call a job that pays less than $15 per hour a job.

 

[daveman]

But there is a Constitutional right to free speech. As Big Fitz said (that I was referring to) "Public Sector unions could be allowed if you allowed a direct referendum to the public on the contract AND barred the unions from ANY organized support or even unorganized endorsements of candidates.

THAT is a violation of free speech you dumb FUCKS.

.

Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.

Could you explain that to me?

 

[daveman]

Trajan and daveman won't answer it because they can't.

If the unions have to get 51% of the membership every year to vote for re-certification then Wisconsin should have to get 51% of the registered voters every year to re-affirm this law.

Yes, childish foot-stamping is such a compelling argument.

Apparently, they don't like mob rule when they aren't the winning mob.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.

Could you explain that to me?

Unions vote Democrat.

 

[daveman]

"It's over for these high wages and and greedy unions. The wages and benefits are no longer sustainable. "

This is true especially when the corporations get big breaks. There is no such thing as "Fair Share." The greedy corporations should be TRIPLE TAXED if they do not produce jobs that pay very well with benefits. Lets NOT call a job that pays less than $15 per hour a job.

 

[daveman]

Funny how unions (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a good thing, but corporations (a group of people organized for a common purpose) endorsing candidates is a bad thing.

Could you explain that to me?

Unions vote Democrat.

I know that. YOU know that. But is Lucy Goosey going to admit it?

 

[initforme]

Question still stands. I have heard nobody not even those who can do nothing but name call answer the question why were the police and firefighters not included in the union killing bill?