Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)
do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits,
my question to the bunch is:
Why then do you think the government of Wisconsin can save money by weakening the unions, or getting rid of them?
Why do you support that position in general, for any unionization?
I have never made that caim...
Your penchant for moving goalposts when you are failing is astounding.... I'm pretty sure you'll hit on all the logical falacies today - probably even in this thread alone....
Keep it coming - quite amusing...
Ahhhh, he's trying to negotiate for peace and compromise.OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)
do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits,
my question to the bunch is:
Why then do you think the government of Wisconsin can save money by weakening the unions, or getting rid of them?
Why do you support that position in general, for any unionization?
Nice try for a logic trap though. "If cutting unions causes savings, then people are being paid less. Therefore my graph is right."
The fact that unionization has increased in the public sector while plummeting to a greater extent in all other sectors is not taken into account. All wages are lumped together, and nothing is separated out giving appropriate weight or analysis to the causes of why unionization is lost, and what is replacing it. With the creation of the TSA, and DoHS we should have seen a massive spike in earnings around 2003, but we don't. All those union jobs, and they have been some of the largest areas of union growth in the last 25 years, should have had an impact.
Therefore you need to account for this.
Still have this Tiger Repellent Rock available. I'll give you a 1000 dollar coupon if you purchase in the next 10 posts. A tiger has never come within miles of it in 10,000+ years according to experts. How can you go wrong with such reliability?
Ahhhh, he's trying to negotiate for peace and compromise.OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)
do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits,
my question to the bunch is:
Why then do you think the government of Wisconsin can save money by weakening the unions, or getting rid of them?
Why do you support that position in general, for any unionization?
Nice try for a logic trap though. "If cutting unions causes savings, then people are being paid less. Therefore my graph is right."
The fact that unionization has increased in the public sector while plummeting to a greater extent in all other sectors is not taken into account. All wages are lumped together, and nothing is separated out giving appropriate weight or analysis to the causes of why unionization is lost, and what is replacing it. With the creation of the TSA, and DoHS we should have seen a massive spike in earnings around 2003, but we don't. All those union jobs, and they have been some of the largest areas of union growth in the last 25 years, should have had an impact.
Therefore you need to account for this.
Still have this Tiger Repellent Rock available. I'll give you a 1000 dollar coupon if you purchase in the next 10 posts. A tiger has never come within miles of it in 10,000+ years according to experts. How can you go wrong with such reliability?
OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)
do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits,
my question to the bunch is:
Why then do you think the government of Wisconsin can save money by weakening the unions, or getting rid of them?
Why do you support that position in general, for any unionization?
I have never made that caim...
Your penchant for moving goalposts when you are failing is astounding.... I'm pretty sure you'll hit on all the logical falacies today - probably even in this thread alone....
Keep it coming - quite amusing...
Yes you did when you denied the causality in the chart I posted.
So you're now saying that private sector unions dropped at the same rate of public sector union increases? Riiiiiiiiiight. Why don't you sniff what you're shoveling?Ahhhh, he's trying to negotiate for peace and compromise.OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)
do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits,
my question to the bunch is:
Why then do you think the government of Wisconsin can save money by weakening the unions, or getting rid of them?
Why do you support that position in general, for any unionization?
Nice try for a logic trap though. "If cutting unions causes savings, then people are being paid less. Therefore my graph is right."
The fact that unionization has increased in the public sector while plummeting to a greater extent in all other sectors is not taken into account. All wages are lumped together, and nothing is separated out giving appropriate weight or analysis to the causes of why unionization is lost, and what is replacing it. With the creation of the TSA, and DoHS we should have seen a massive spike in earnings around 2003, but we don't. All those union jobs, and they have been some of the largest areas of union growth in the last 25 years, should have had an impact.
Therefore you need to account for this.
Still have this Tiger Repellent Rock available. I'll give you a 1000 dollar coupon if you purchase in the next 10 posts. A tiger has never come within miles of it in 10,000+ years according to experts. How can you go wrong with such reliability?
The chart is the net % of union jobs.
Do you have a choice to opt out? Was the matter put to a vote? Or is this yet another case of the union leadership doing whatever the hell they want, and screw the proles?In my union at my building there is a large minority pissed off as all hell at the use of union money to try and undermine WI democracy by shipping in protesters from MN. All volunteers, of course, but the buses, signage and organization is all paid for by the Union. I'm not happy I've got to pay X amount a month and having a portion of that go to this type of rabble-rousing.It doesn't matter how union member vote. It matters where union party donations go. And that's overwhelmingly to Democrats:Nope. Because neither one of you know what you're talking about, as usual. As a whole unions are pretty much split between voting R and D. But since you two children know absolutely nothing about unions or their memberships (where I have more than 30 years experience) I would not expect you to know that.
Unions Work to Turn the Tide
.
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010 | OpenSecrets
You think the decline of unionism is good for America? You think it helps the working/middle class? You think busting unions makes life better in working America? More money? Better jobs? A better life for American families? All of that is why you people on the Right are so happy when American unionized labor suffers one defeat after another?
Well, this is really what you've been wishing for, and, apparently, getting:
Congratulations.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.
Like correlation doesn't prove that cutting taxes increases revenues, correct?
I can opt out of the union, but "Since I still benefit from contract negotiations, I must pay for the portion that is used for these same negotiations." The savings is less than 4% of the total, which after seeing the pay for union leadership the top brass make well over 100k and most get around 10k for going to meetings only and voting, it seems, I doubt highly that a savings of 3 bucks and change or so is hardly worth it. So I'm in the union, reluctantly and get protection otherwise not given to me since opting out offers ostensibly no increase in my pay due to a removed expense.Do you have a choice to opt out? Was the matter put to a vote? Or is this yet another case of the union leadership doing whatever the hell they want, and screw the proles?In my union at my building there is a large minority pissed off as all hell at the use of union money to try and undermine WI democracy by shipping in protesters from MN. All volunteers, of course, but the buses, signage and organization is all paid for by the Union. I'm not happy I've got to pay X amount a month and having a portion of that go to this type of rabble-rousing.It doesn't matter how union member vote. It matters where union party donations go. And that's overwhelmingly to Democrats:
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010 | OpenSecrets
Correlation does not imply causation.
Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.
Like correlation doesn't prove that cutting taxes increases revenues, correct?
As long as you realize that your claim is ridiculous. Declining union membership has nothing to do with middle class incomes.
No, I'm saying you haven't proved that there is.If you want make the argument that there's no corrrelation between unionism and higher wages,
by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, fuck off.
in other words, you just admitted defeat. thanks for clearing that up.
Are you retarded? Oh wait we've already established that.
daveman is the one saying there's no correlation between unionization and wages/benefits.
ooOOOOOoooo! how Green of you! Or internet usage. Or toilet paper consumption. Or prison populations. Or illegal drug use. Or abortions....Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.
Like correlation doesn't prove that cutting taxes increases revenues, correct?
As long as you realize that your claim is ridiculous. Declining union membership has nothing to do with middle class incomes.
I wonder if he has a chart that maps union membership with global forrestation during the same timeframe....
OK, so now that we've established that daveman, Big Fitz, Dr. House, and Elvis (and whoever else is in this clown car)
do NOT believe that unionization causes higher wages or better benefits...
Sheesh. What a rip-off.I can opt out of the union, but "Since I still benefit from contract negotiations, I must pay for the portion that is used for these same negotiations." The savings is less than 4% of the total, which after seeing the pay for union leadership the top brass make well over 100k and most get around 10k for going to meetings only and voting, it seems, I doubt highly that a savings of 3 bucks and change or so is hardly worth it. So I'm in the union, reluctantly and get protection otherwise not given to me since opting out offers ostensibly no increase in my pay due to a removed expense.Do you have a choice to opt out? Was the matter put to a vote? Or is this yet another case of the union leadership doing whatever the hell they want, and screw the proles?In my union at my building there is a large minority pissed off as all hell at the use of union money to try and undermine WI democracy by shipping in protesters from MN. All volunteers, of course, but the buses, signage and organization is all paid for by the Union. I'm not happy I've got to pay X amount a month and having a portion of that go to this type of rabble-rousing.
All the important stuff is 3 bucks (protection from managerial abuse and inter staff mediation, which I'm stunned has to be so common) or so. I doubt very highly that the other 96% of what I pay anyway is going exclusively towards contract negotiation. If so I want to see why it's so expensive. I have no idea what is included in "Contract Negotiations" only that so little is invested in my protection by comparison.
Currently also our union is in a court battle over violating it's own election rules to get a crony elected shop steward and getting caught doing it. It's very likely to end up in the supreme court soon. Are those costs coming out of my 3+ dollars? Or is it part of "Contract Negotiations".
All in all, I will say this. I do like our union president because she does live by her ethics in trying to help the employee and protect them from BS from the 'regional' government that runs us. She's a bulldog that way. Is she worth nearly 200k a year? I dunno.
The cost of toilet paper has gone up steadily since 1960. I'm sure the rise in non-union employment has something to do with it.Well actually you could say it doesn't prove causation.
Like correlation doesn't prove that cutting taxes increases revenues, correct?
As long as you realize that your claim is ridiculous. Declining union membership has nothing to do with middle class incomes.
I wonder if he has a chart that maps union membership with global forrestation during the same timeframe....
The cost of toilet paper has gone up steadily since 1960. I'm sure the rise in non-union employment has something to do with it.As long as you realize that your claim is ridiculous. Declining union membership has nothing to do with middle class incomes.
I wonder if he has a chart that maps union membership with global forrestation during the same timeframe....
It doesn't matter how union member vote. It matters where union party donations go. And that's overwhelmingly to Democrats:I know that. YOU know that. But is Lucy Goosey going to admit it?
Nope. Because neither one of you know what you're talking about, as usual. As a whole unions are pretty much split between voting R and D. But since you two children know absolutely nothing about unions or their memberships (where I have more than 30 years experience) I would not expect you to know that.
Consider that 37 percent of Wisconsin union members voted for Republican Gov. Scott Walkerthough most now probably regret doing so.
Unions Work to Turn the Tide
.
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010 | OpenSecrets
Teachers just whine too much. That's been my experience anyway. I blame the Unions & Democrats for this. They have created Entitlement Frankensteins with America's Teachers. Most are trained and indoctrinated to bitch about everything. The fact is,they don't have it nearly as bad as they claim. Take a closer look at all their fantastic perks and you'll see this. Teachers need to stop all the complaining and just get to work. The Children are depending on them.
Teachers just whine too much. That's been my experience anyway. I blame the Unions & Democrats for this. They have created Entitlement Frankensteins with America's Teachers. Most are trained and indoctrinated to bitch about everything. The fact is,they don't have it nearly as bad as they claim. Take a closer look at all their fantastic perks and you'll see this. Teachers need to stop all the complaining and just get to work. The Children are depending on them.
My wife's a teacher and she doesn't whine not has she been trained or indoctrinated to whine. She gets no fantastic perks nor does she claim she has it bad.
So Fuck You.
.
