Unions help right wingers too
Ben Stewart
Try to read it before you comment. I have become a much bigger union
supporter over the past two weeks. I used to think they were not all
that important. Now they are more necessary than they have been for a
long time.
Why are Rush and Beck in a union?
Jaybyrd
it depends on the individual union and the industry. I'm opposed to
them for sure for health care and teachers. I've seen how they
didn't support their own workers in the steel industry. Maybe in
the coal mining industry there is use for them given the recent
problems with mining safety.
deem...@aol.com
Pretty much any time workers are facing large corporations, unions
are potentially useful. This is especially true when just a few
companies control a whole industry. That being said, unions can reach
the point where they are damaging the industry and costing themselves
jobs.
My brother just retired from GM...well, he's been kinda-sorta
retired for the last 7-8 years. He was paid 75% of his salary as long
as he performed 20 hours of community-service work per week and
retained full benefits. Since he was making over $25/hr when he was
laid-off, he was doing pretty well. That kind of expense can obviously
be crippling to a company considering there were thousands just like
him.
He's not a big fan of the UAW, but compared to GM he thinks
they're saints. He had several plants (5-6?) closed on him. A couple
of these were after labor agreements where GM agreed not to close
plants in return for concessions from the union. They were pretty much
trading job security for less pay and benefits.
The problem was the loophole in the contract allowing GM to close
plants that were losing money.....but guess who can determine whether
a plant loses money? He said they would stop repairing the presses and
other machines. This meant the parts...he worked for Fisher
Body.....wouldn't fit and whole trainloads of fenders. hoods, etc were
rejected at the assembly plants. Even after this, they just kept
churning out crappy parts until the plant was shut because it was
losing money.
He also said GM management at the plant level was very hostile to
the workers. They tended to yell first and find out what was going on
later. Rather than working together, they maintained an adversarial
relationship with the workers....of course, he only saw one side but
that was the overall impression of the workers.
His last job was machine maintenance. If everything was running
correectly, he had a couple hours of free time each day. He'd spend
them on the break room reading....every time new managers came by,
they'd look and frown and then come back half an hour later. If he was
still there, they'd start yelling rather than asking what was going
on. He said they never appreciated him telling them that they were
making more money when he was on his ass.....because that meant all
the presses and lines were running.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<jayby...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Corporations and unions are composed of people - that's the problem.
Either one is likely to bully the other if given the opportunity.
Unions should be able to strike and the corporation should be able to
move the plant to Shangrila. If that doesn't work, divide the assets
between stockholders, management and union members equally. The union
has no job but they have a cupla thousand bucks each. The others get
about 10 cents on the dollar. And don't let the government interfere.
Okay, some fine tuning will be necessary for specific situations. A
"cooling-off" period before final action is taken comes to mind.
When situations become intolerable, people work on solutions - or did
everyone except the Tea Party hibernate last November.
Hugh
Tom Enright
I disagree with you most of the time, but I think you play a fair
game. However, regardless of how many times it's pointed-out to the
pro-union folks in this NG they continually try to muddy the issue by
combining private unions as one. Sorry, but that's really dishonest.
The author of the article does the same thing. Moving between public
and private unions as if the debate is as much about the UAW as it is
about unionized salt truck drivers. It's bullshit.
Another dishonest move by the author is "Because people belong to
unions, unions are good." As if many people have even a choice of
joining a union.
I am against public unions because it creates a quasi-governmental
body which is held largely unaccountable and exists only to squeeze as
much money out of the working tax payer. Furthermore, because half of
the politicians in the government owe a great debt to the unions,
regardless of what the voters desire the Democrats are ALWAYS in
office. Let's pass a law mandating that the NRA run 50% of the
Wisconsin state government. Do you see the obvious conflict of
interest?
I am against ALL unions because they:
Increase costs without no increase in quality or production
Push manufacturing jobs out of the US
Decrease manufacturing flexibility
Interfere with free trade and commerce
Are undemocratic
Keeps the poor, poor.
Make me call India or Singapore at 4:00AM because the stupid fucking
unions have forced the guys I used to work with in the plant down the
road to the other side of the fucking world.
On a personal note, I could feel page after page of examples of how
unions prevent me and my coworkers from doing their jobs. I've got
about 300 examples, but here is just one:
Some of the engineering buildings that I have worked in over the years
have been "union shops" and some have not been. Without an exception,
the non-union shops have been better-run, easier to work with,
cheaper, more flexible, more efficient, used fewer people to get the
job done.
In a union shop if I want to move, no exaggeration, from one desk to
the neighboring desk less than 5 feet away I cannot move my boxes of
books, manuals or my computer. In fact, I could *LITTERALLY* push my
computer 20 inches over a flat surface to the neighboring desk if I
wanted to move. But I could not. It's a union shop. I have to
submit paperwork, schedule a move, pack my stuff in approved boxes,
label each box appropriately and wait...and wait....and wait....and
wait.....sometimes losing an entire day of productivity waiting for
the guys to move my shit.
What's that? Move it myself and don't tell anyone? No way, I've done
that and gotten away with it, but I've also been busted. What happens
when you get caught moving a box or a *GASP* telephone without union
help? You get written-up and the note gets sent not to my boss, but
my bosse's boss. So now I'm the stupid turd that got the attention of
some executive in a glass office. But that's not all, I'm not sure of
the EXACT number these days, but my department gets charged for 2
workers for *5* hours of TIME AND A HALF PAY. And don't think those
union guys don't know this. They patrol the hallways looking to get
people in trouble.
When we need computer equipment moved on/off loading docks, we always
try to schedule it after 3:00PM (Find a union guy actually working as
late as 3:01PM NO WAY!!) because I actually need it done right and
done quickly.
So please, it isn't 1910 anymore, and Montgomery Burns isn't in
charge. Unions? They are a fucking parasite on the economy of the
US. And public unions are a fucking parasite on the working man.
-Tom Enright
Jaybyrd
Ben Stewart
Do you know why it's not like 1910 anymore? Because there has been a
counterweight to big business.
It would certainly be more profitable for everyone to work 50 or 60
hours a week for the same pay instead of 40.
I absolutely agree with you that there are things that are totally
screwed up in some union shops. I agree that MIlwaukee Schools are a
gigantic mess. I agree that bus drivers in Madison shouldn't make over
100k per year because seniormost drivers work 50 hours of overtime per
week.
No, public and private unions are not the same, but there is a place
for public unions. Public employees and teachers perform a duty deemed
necessary by society. If there are jobs and services that are not
needed, then cut away. But I think education is pretty frickin'
important. I think nurses are pretty frickin' important.
Teachers legally can't strike here and their total compensation is
already capped by the state. The only thing that protects them are
collective baraining agreements.
Yes, it's taxpayer money, but it is compensation for work. Hard work,
just like everyone else does.
If you don't like your job, you can move to another company. If a
teacher doesn't like his/her job in Wisconsin, they will have to move
to another state. That's a pretty big difference.
So often I have heard these same republicans preaching the need for
local control of tax dollars. Gov Walker's proposal does the exact
opposite. It takes all the control away from local school districts.
Would there be more work involved if each district has to do its own
negotiations? Sure, but sometimes life is hard work. Compromise it
what protects all of us.
Jaybyrd
>
> Would there be more work involved if each district has to do its own
> negotiations? Sure, but sometimes life is hard work. Compromise it
> what protects all of us.
I would take it a step further and say that each individual charter
school should negotiate their own contracts with their own teachers.
Then we should vastly reduce the number of local school boards
altogether, moving to more regional bodies.
Emperor Wonko the Sane
> http://pubrecord.org/commentary/8963/ironically-anti-union-republicans/
>
> Try to read it before you comment. I have become a much bigger union
> supporter over the past two weeks. I used to think they were not all
> that important. Now they are more necessary than they have been for a
> long time.
"Thousands of anti-union voices have cried out that they don’t need
unions. However, even the most rabid anti-union reactionary has
benefited from labor’s push for a 40 hour work week, overtime, better
working conditions, the enactment of rigorous child labor laws, and
basic benefits, including vacation time and sick leave."
None of these things are the result public sector unions.
Doug
Ben Stewart
wrote:
They are the result of unions in general. Whether or not those unions
were public or private isn't really relevant.
If unions get busted everywhere, who do you think is going to be an
advocate for employees? Businesses already cry about how they can't
compete. It would sure be eaier for them if they didn't have to
contribute as much (or anything) for health insurance. It would sure
be easier for them if they didn't have to offer vacation and sick
days.
There is a much bigger picture to look at:
There won't be a doomsday, there will just be an accellerated rate of
erosion of benefits. I bet is is already happening where a lot of you
work...
In the past couple years, my non-governement, very large, very
profitable, corporate employer has stopped reimbursing tuition,
stopped paying bonuses, stopped giving raises. They have fought their
property tax assessment. They have eliminate multiple departments and
outsourced 50 jobs to india. We still get a 401k match, but they have
made it very clear that is on the chopping block.
Whenever they make changes, they are always for the worse (for the
employees) and the standard line is QUOTE "To bring our benefits and
compensation package in line with other employers in out area and our
industry, we will no longer be offering...".
Slowly and methodically, companies are driving down wages and
benefits. If it hasn't happened to you yet, it's going to.
Huck Kennedy
Indeed. As someone else mentioned, when either unions or
management gain too much power, the result is very bad.
A half century ago, unions had too much power, which led to
many of the abuses Enright mentioned (like his being unable to move
his stuff to a new desk 10 feet away from his old one). Nowadays, the
pendulum has swung too far to the management side.
Also, just because some of us are on the side of the
employees in the Wisconsin dispute does not mean we are rabidly pro-
union. We just happen to think that summarily destroying a union by
fiat just because of the convenience of making future budget cuts
easier to accomplish is wrong.
Huck
Tom Enright
> On Feb 28, 12:12 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:09 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://pubrecord.org/commentary/8963/ironically-anti-union-republicans/
>
> > > Try to read it before you comment. I have become a much bigger union
> > > supporter over the past two weeks. I used to think they were not all
> > > that important. Now they are more necessary than they have been for a
> > > long time.
>
> > "Thousands of anti-union voices have cried out that they don’t need
> > unions. However, even the most rabid anti-union reactionary has
> > benefited from labor’s push for a 40 hour work week, overtime, better
> > working conditions, the enactment of rigorous child labor laws, and
> > basic benefits, including vacation time and sick leave."
> >
> > None of these things are the result public sector unions.
> >
> > Doug
> They are the result of unions in general. Whether or not those unions
> were public or private isn't really relevant.
It is very relevant. The debate is about public unions, you can't
say "public unions are good because of all the great things private
unions have done."
> If unions get busted everywhere, who do you think is going to be an
> advocate for employees? Businesses already cry about how they can't
> compete. It would sure be eaier for them if they didn't have to
> contribute as much (or anything) for health insurance. It would sure
> be easier for them if they didn't have to offer vacation and sick
> days.
Most people are not in unions, who ARE their advocates?
> There is a much bigger picture to look at:
>
> There won't be a doomsday, there will just be an accellerated rate of
> erosion of benefits. I bet is is already happening where a lot of you
> work...
Yep, and the unions are part of the reason why this is happening.
> In the past couple years, my non-governement, very large, very
> profitable, corporate employer has stopped reimbursing tuition,
> stopped paying bonuses, stopped giving raises. They have fought their
> property tax assessment. They have eliminate multiple departments and
> outsourced 50 jobs to india. We still get a 401k match, but they have
> made it very clear that is on the chopping block.
...and? I don't see how unions fit in here. Could you explain?
> Whenever they make changes, they are always for the worse (for the
> employees) and the standard line is QUOTE "To bring our benefits and
> compensation package in line with other employers in out area and our
> industry, we will no longer be offering...".
>
> Slowly and methodically, companies are driving down wages and
> benefits. If it hasn't happened to you yet, it's going to.
Oh it is happening now. None of it is the fault of the company,
unless you want to blame them for so easily caving into the unions.
-Tom Enright
mianderson
> On Feb 28, 1:39 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 12:12 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 8:09 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://pubrecord.org/commentary/8963/ironically-anti-union-republicans/
>
> > > > Try to read it before you comment. I have become a much bigger union
> > > > supporter over the past two weeks. I used to think they were not all
> > > > that important. Now they are more necessary than they have been for a
> > > > long time.
>
> > > "Thousands of anti-union voices have cried out that they don’t need
> > > unions. However, even the most rabid anti-union reactionary has
> > > benefited from labor’s push for a 40 hour work week, overtime, better
> > > working conditions, the enactment of rigorous child labor laws, and
> > > basic benefits, including vacation time and sick leave."
>
> > > None of these things are the result public sector unions.
>
> > > Doug
> > They are the result of unions in general. Whether or not those unions
> > were public or private isn't really relevant.
>
> It is very relevant. The debate is about public unions, you can't
> say "public unions are good because of all the great things private
> unions have done."
*exactly*.....as I said earlier, this thing isn't so much about unions
in general as it is about public/govt employees in general.
it's about the 'govt class' vs the non-govt-class which pays for
them.
Ben Stewart
How is that the employees'/unions faults? They negotiated. Management
agreed. That same principle applies whether it is public or private
sector. Employees certainly can't come back 20 years later and say
"oops, sorry, we really should have done a better job negotiating back
then, please give us more money now."
And keep in mind no one was asking for more money, and they accepted
the financial concessions.
I have always conceded that unions are also politcal and that they
lean hard left. But the Citizens United ruling changed the balance.
Big corporate money is free to flow and big corporate money supports
the right, and if they successfully crush their only real big money
opponent (i.e. unions), then it is game over. One side will be able to
write all legislation, they will be able to undo environmental
protections, etc. etc.
There is safety for all of us in politcal balance. A state or federal
government controlled buy all dems is bad and it's just as bad when
it's all republicans.
BTW, my wife just sent me an email that all the teachers who were laid
of could be hired back at the "base" salary. That is fundamentally
wrong. You may disagree, but we'll see how you feel when it's *your*
job.
mianderson
>
> How is that the employees'/unions faults? They negotiated. Management
> agreed. That same principle applies whether it is public or private
> sector.
no no no no........
for public unions, when "management" agrees that usually means them
taking MY MONEY to appease workers with MY MONEY so they will get
votes in the next election. So everyone, worker and "management"
alike win big. That's just them buying votes with my money.
Ben Stewart
I hate to break this to you Mia, but it ceases to be your money as
soon as public employees work for it.
If you'd like to bitch about the salaries or the number of jobs you
pay with your tax dollars, then take it to your own school board or
legistlature or governor.
Emperor Wonko the Sane
> On Feb 28, 12:12 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:09 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://pubrecord.org/commentary/8963/ironically-anti-union-republicans/
>
> > > Try to read it before you comment. I have become a much bigger union
> > > supporter over the past two weeks. I used to think they were not all
> > > that important. Now they are more necessary than they have been for a
> > > long time.
>
> > "Thousands of anti-union voices have cried out that they don’t need
> > unions. However, even the most rabid anti-union reactionary has
> > benefited from labor’s push for a 40 hour work week, overtime, better
> > working conditions, the enactment of rigorous child labor laws, and
> > basic benefits, including vacation time and sick leave."
>
> > None of these things are the result public sector unions.
>
> were public or private isn't really relevant.
>
It's not only relevant, it's central to the whole damn controversy.
The only thing public unions have accomplished is established a system
of self-dealing where they are negotiating with the politicians they
helped get elected; who are happy to create more jobs, needed or not,
because they are creating more union voters.
Doug
mianderson
> On Feb 28, 2:27 pm, mianderson <clay...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 2:24 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > How is that the employees'/unions faults? They negotiated. Management
> > > agreed. That same principle applies whether it is public or private
> > > sector.
>
> > no no no no........
>
> > for public unions, when "management" agrees that usually means them
> > taking MY MONEY to appease workers with MY MONEY so they will get
> > votes in the next election. So everyone, worker and "management"
> > alike win big. That's just them buying votes with my money.
>
> I hate to break this to you Mia, but it ceases to be your money as
> soon as public employees work for it.
>
thats what this argument is *all about*......the gov and others want
to reduce salaries and benefits so less of taxpayer money will be
forcibly removed from my wallet and given to govt paper pushers.
Ben Stewart
>
> - Show quoted text -
No one is making you live there.
mianderson
so what? I'm not arguing with the govts right to forcibly remove my
money from my wallet at gunpoint and redistribute it to an overpaid
govt worker. They have the right, and Im sure it will continue to a
large degree in the future.
Huck Kennedy
> On Feb 28, 2:24 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How is that the employees'/unions faults? They negotiated. Management
> > agreed. That same principle applies whether it is public or private
> > sector.
>
> no no no no........
>
> for public unions, when "management" agrees that usually means them
> taking MY MONEY
OoooEHHHHH!!! *hic* OoooEHHHHH!!! *hic*
OoooEHHHHH!!! *hic*
Crybaby.
If you don't like it, move out to the wilderness and dig your
own well, police your own streets, pave your own roads, etc.
Huck
Ben Stewart
You know, the funny thing about this is that all these states'
financial messes accross the united states came to a head with the
worst recession since the great depression. The puclic sector unions
were there in boom times too.
Now let's take a ride in the way back machine a about 2 years and look
at who caused this recession... Big banks, mortgage lenders, insurance
companies, wall street, lobbyists, congress, the white house. For some
reason, they have not been held accountable. How is that possible? How
have we now shifted the blame to teachers? Jesus, how can you people
not see this?
You are having your pockets picked and it's not by the woman teaching
your kids or the guy picking up your trash or old lady at the DMV. The
richest of the rich people and companies are not your friends. Take a
look at your real friends and neighbors.
There are 12 teachers, a couple natural resource scientist and a
professor or two in my neighborhood. None of them drive a sports car
(NTTAWTT), none of them own a yacht or a home in the hamptons, and
none of them don't work for our money.
Those people have average pay, better than average health insurance,
and the promise of a good pension. That's about it.
Again, if it's such a cushy thing -- to be a public employee -- anyone
has the right to quit their job and become a teacher. Go for it! It
seems that everyone wants good schools but no one wants to pay for
them. Come up with a better idea to fund an entirely not-for-profit
industry that we all need... I'd love to hear it.
mianderson
the people of wisconsin DIDNT like it. Thats why the decided to vote
for people who ran on a pledge to start fixing the system.
>
> Huck
mianderson
>
> You are having your pockets picked and it's not by the woman teaching
> your kids or the guy picking up your trash or old lady at the DMV.
interestingly enough, my last paycheck says(in the deductions column):
state income tax- (amount)
What it does *NOT* say is:
greedy ceo tax- (amount)
So from that I conclude that yes, the state workers are taking my
money and the greedy ceo's are not.
mianderson
>
> Again, if it's such a cushy thing -- to be a public employee -- anyone
> has the right to quit their job and become a teacher.
no thanks....I like my job better. That doesn't mean I can't be upset
about someone else's work though if it impacts me.
Go for it! It
> seems that everyone wants good schools but no one wants to pay for
> them. Come up with a better idea to fund an entirely not-for-profit
> industry that we all need... I'd love to hear it.
privatize the public school system.
Done.
that was easy.
Tom Enright
It's the union's fault because their parasitic behaviour increases the
costs of doing business in the US. As a result US companies find
themselves at an economic disadvantage thus forced to reduce spending.
> And keep in mind no one was asking for more money, and they accepted
> the financial concessions.
>
> I have always conceded that unions are also politcal and that they
> lean hard left. But the Citizens United ruling changed the balance.
> Big corporate money is free to flow and big corporate money supports
> the right, and if they successfully crush their only real big money
> opponent (i.e. unions), then it is game over. One side will be able to
> write all legislation, they will be able to undo environmental
> protections, etc. etc.
Corporate money is pretty much split between the two parties, while
union money is about 99% going to the Democrats. Corporate donations
typically favor the party in power.
There is nothing on the right that comes close to competing with the
incestuous relationship between the Democrats and the unions. Public
unions are an unelected government with immense power of the people.
> There is safety for all of us in politcal balance. A state or federal
> government controlled buy all dems is bad and it's just as bad when
> it's all republicans.
I agree, but you don't. Corporate cash is about 50/50 Democrat, GOP,
union money is 100% Democrat. Furthemore, public unions have hundreds
times more power than any corporation.
> BTW, my wife just sent me an email that all the teachers who were laid
> of could be hired back at the "base" salary. That is fundamentally
> wrong. You may disagree, but we'll see how you feel when it's *your*
> job.
Why is this wrong? People lose their jobs every day. Isn't a good
thing when they are hired back?
-Tom Enright
Tom Enright
> On Feb 28, 1:27 pm, mianderson <clay...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 2:24 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > How is that the employees'/unions faults? They negotiated. Management
> > > agreed. That same principle applies whether it is public or private
> > > sector.
>
> > no no no no........
>
> > for public unions, when "management" agrees that usually means them
> > taking MY MONEY
> OoooEHHHHH!!! *hic* OoooEHHHHH!!! *hic*
> OoooEHHHHH!!! *hic*
>
> Crybaby.
If you don't let your money be stolen, you are being selfish.
> If you don't like it, move out to the wilderness and dig your
> own well, police your own streets, pave your own roads, etc.
Yep, like the majority of the existance of this country.
-Tom Enright
> Huck
Jaybyrd
> On Feb 28, 3:24 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> There is nothing on the right that comes close to competing with the
> incestuous relationship between the Democrats and the unions.
>
Well, there is the religious right and the NRA types.
Tom Enright
> On Feb 28, 2:37 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
> > It's not only relevant, it's central to the whole damn controversy.
> > The only thing public unions have accomplished is established a system
> > of self-dealing where they are negotiating with the politicians they
> > helped get elected; who are happy to create more jobs, needed or not,
> > because they are creating more union voters.
> You know, the funny thing about this is that all these states'
> financial messes accross the united states came to a head with the
> worst recession since the great depression. The puclic sector unions
> were there in boom times too.
>
> Now let's take a ride in the way back machine a about 2 years and look
> at who caused this recession... Big banks, mortgage lenders, insurance
> companies, wall street, lobbyists, congress, the white house. For some
> reason, they have not been held accountable. How is that possible? How
> have we now shifted the blame to teachers? Jesus, how can you people
> not see this?
Well, the government was the real culprit. No matter, who is blaming
the teachers? Really, who has blamed the teachers for the economic
meltdown? I haven't heard a single person do that. Do you have
examples?
> You are having your pockets picked and it's not by the woman teaching
> your kids or the guy picking up your trash or old lady at the DMV. The
> richest of the rich people and companies are not your friends. Take a
> look at your real friends and neighbors.
My *real* friends let me decide if I engage in a business transaction
with them. Furthermore, the super rich and corporations in this
country have done far more for American citizens than public
employees.
Hint: Without coporations we have *0* public employees.
Tell you what, I'll move to the country of 10,000 Bill Gates and you
move to the country of 10,000 DMV employees and garbage men. I don't
know if we could build a fence high enough to keep out all the people
who will try to sneak into Billgatesland.
> There are 12 teachers, a couple natural resource scientist and a
> professor or two in my neighborhood. None of them drive a sports car
> (NTTAWTT), none of them own a yacht or a home in the hamptons, and
> none of them don't work for our money.
>
> Those people have average pay, better than average health insurance,
> and the promise of a good pension. That's about it.
I've got no beef with that, and really, who does?
Just outlaw public unions and were all on the same playing field.
> Again, if it's such a cushy thing -- to be a public employee -- anyone
> has the right to quit their job and become a teacher. Go for it! It
> seems that everyone wants good schools but no one wants to pay for
> them.
We have been paying. The amount of money sunk into public education
has far outweighed increases in local spending. We continue to pay
and pay and pay and pay and this extra money we pay isn't being used
to educate children, it's to pay for teachers' benefits all the while
the teacher's unions battle against reforms that will improve our
children's education.
> Come up with a better idea to fund an entirely not-for-profit
> industry that we all need... I'd love to hear it.
I don't understand this question.
-Tom Enright
Tom Enright
Please point-out the Religious Right and NRA portions of the local and
Federal governments.
Okay! Thanks!!!
-Tom Enright
Jaybyrd
So please alter your statement to include that fact. The two I
mentioned are among the most powerful special interest groups.
Huck Kennedy
Absolutely wrong yet again, mia (I mean Jaros). They voted for
Walker to balance the budget. They did NOT vote for him to take it
upon himself to bust the unions, and the polling results taken NOW
prove this beyond any doubt.
Huck
Huck Kennedy
> On Feb 28, 3:05 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You are having your pockets picked and it's not by the woman teaching
> > your kids or the guy picking up your trash or old lady at the DMV.
>
> interestingly enough, my last paycheck says(in the deductions column):
>
> state income tax- (amount)
>
> What it does *NOT* say is:
>
> greedy ceo tax- (amount)
Dear God, you're either the stupidest idot or the greatest
fisherman on the planet.
Huck
Tom Enright
Okay! Thanks!!!
-Tom Enright
Ben Stewart
Really? take the difference in between what you think a public
employee *should* pay and what they actually pay. Got the number. Now
how many times would that number fit into 1 CEO compensation and bonus
package (even if his company sucked ass that year). Did he earn his
money? Meanwhile, the people that actually do the day-to-day work get
nada.
> > And keep in mind no one was asking for more money, and they accepted
> > the financial concessions.
>
> > I have always conceded that unions are also politcal and that they
> > lean hard left. But the Citizens United ruling changed the balance.
> > Big corporate money is free to flow and big corporate money supports
> > the right, and if they successfully crush their only real big money
> > opponent (i.e. unions), then it is game over. One side will be able to
> > write all legislation, they will be able to undo environmental
> > protections, etc. etc.
>
> Corporate money is pretty much split between the two parties, while
> union money is about 99% going to the Democrats. Corporate donations
> typically favor the party in power.
Not since Citizens United.
> There is nothing on the right that comes close to competing with the
> incestuous relationship between the Democrats and the unions. Public
> unions are an unelected government with immense power of the people.
>
> > There is safety for all of us in politcal balance. A state or federal
> > government controlled buy all dems is bad and it's just as bad when
> > it's all republicans.
>
> I agree, but you don't. Corporate cash is about 50/50 Democrat, GOP,
> union money is 100% Democrat. Furthemore, public unions have hundreds
> times more power than any corporation.
>
> > BTW, my wife just sent me an email that all the teachers who were laid
> > of could be hired back at the "base" salary. That is fundamentally
> > wrong. You may disagree, but we'll see how you feel when it's *your*
> > job.
>
> Why is this wrong? People lose their jobs every day. Isn't a good
> thing when they are hired back?
>
It amazes me how you can keep business and morality in two completely
different compartments. And no, it's not really a good thing when they
are hired back at 2/3 of what they were making before. That means what
little extra income they once had is gone. Good teachers will be the
first to leave the profession.
Ben Stewart
> On Feb 28, 4:05 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 2:37 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
> > > It's not only relevant, it's central to the whole damn controversy.
> > > The only thing public unions have accomplished is established a system
> > > of self-dealing where they are negotiating with the politicians they
> > > helped get elected; who are happy to create more jobs, needed or not,
> > > because they are creating more union voters.
> > You know, the funny thing about this is that all these states'
> > financial messes accross the united states came to a head with the
> > worst recession since the great depression. The puclic sector unions
> > were there in boom times too.
>
> > Now let's take a ride in the way back machine a about 2 years and look
> > at who caused this recession... Big banks, mortgage lenders, insurance
> > companies, wall street, lobbyists, congress, the white house. For some
> > reason, they have not been held accountable. How is that possible? How
> > have we now shifted the blame to teachers? Jesus, how can you people
> > not see this?
>
> Well, the government was the real culprit. No matter, who is blaming
> the teachers? Really, who has blamed the teachers for the economic
> meltdown? I haven't heard a single person do that. Do you have
> examples?
Other than Rush, Beck, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, WI State Senator
Glen Grothman, local right wing talking head Vivki McKenna... no, not
really
> > You are having your pockets picked and it's not by the woman teaching
> > your kids or the guy picking up your trash or old lady at the DMV. The
> > richest of the rich people and companies are not your friends. Take a
> > look at your real friends and neighbors.
>
> My *real* friends let me decide if I engage in a business transaction
> with them. Furthermore, the super rich and corporations in this
> country have done far more for American citizens than public
> employees.
How? By moving money from one account to another?
> Hint: Without coporations we have *0* public employees.
Wrong - without business we have *0* employees. I have never
complained about small businesses (who make up most of our economy) or
even big privately held corporations. My bitchfest is with publicly
held corporations, who have no purpose other than making shareholders
happy.
> Tell you what, I'll move to the country of 10,000 Bill Gates and you
> move to the country of 10,000 DMV employees and garbage men. I don't
> know if we could build a fence high enough to keep out all the people
> who will try to sneak into Billgatesland.
>
> > There are 12 teachers, a couple natural resource scientist and a
> > professor or two in my neighborhood. None of them drive a sports car
> > (NTTAWTT), none of them own a yacht or a home in the hamptons, and
> > none of them don't work for our money.
>
> > Those people have average pay, better than average health insurance,
> > and the promise of a good pension. That's about it.
>
> I've got no beef with that, and really, who does?
>
> Just outlaw public unions and were all on the same playing field.
>
> > Again, if it's such a cushy thing -- to be a public employee -- anyone
> > has the right to quit their job and become a teacher. Go for it! It
> > seems that everyone wants good schools but no one wants to pay for
> > them.
>
> We have been paying. The amount of money sunk into public education
> has far outweighed increases in local spending. We continue to pay
> and pay and pay and pay and this extra money we pay isn't being used
> to educate children, it's to pay for teachers' benefits all the while
> the teacher's unions battle against reforms that will improve our
> children's education.
>
> > Come up with a better idea to fund an entirely not-for-profit
> > industry that we all need... I'd love to hear it.
>
I'm talking specifically about any job the *must* be done by somebody
that doesn't produce a consumer good. I don't think we can privatize
the public education system. Do you?
And what happens if you try to privatize the highway department in
your state? Or the police or fire departments? Is Billgatesland going
to have a volunteer fire department?
Jaybyrd
You said "the unions". Not "unions that represent state workers in
areas where Democrats are consistently in the majority power in
government".
mianderson
>
> I'm talking specifically about any job the *must* be done by somebody
> that doesn't produce a consumer good. I don't think we can privatize
> the public education system. Do you?
we can't completely privatize it in the sense that the govt would play
NO role, but we can alter it drastically by going to much more of a
voucher system where schools are businesses and each student has a $$
figure the state lays out. Schools would then compete with each other
like the businesses they are to compete for those public $$'s.
Meanwhile most all the teachers and administrators would be employees
of the schools they work for and not the state, with whatever benefits
those businesses provide....just like in the REAL WORLD.
>
> And what happens if you try to privatize the highway department in
> your state? Or the police or fire departments? Is Billgatesland going
> to have a volunteer fire department?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Stewart
> On Feb 28, 4:27 pm, Ben Stewart <benjstew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm talking specifically about any job the *must* be done by somebody
> > that doesn't produce a consumer good. I don't think we can privatize
> > the public education system. Do you?
>
> we can't completely privatize it in the sense that the govt would play
> NO role, but we can alter it drastically by going to much more of a
> voucher system where schools are businesses and each student has a $$
> figure the state lays out. Schools would then compete with each other
> like the businesses they are to compete for those public $$'s.
>
> Meanwhile most all the teachers and administrators would be employees
> of the schools they work for and not the state, with whatever benefits
> those businesses provide....just like in the REAL WORLD.
>
>
Put down the bong. How exactly would a small local school in a little
town "compete"? What would that look like? Are the citizens all going
to pick up and move if they don't like it? Are they going to vote to
dissolve the school? What happens then?
You don't have a clue.
Tom Enright
> Not since Citizens United.
Please. Can you really be that ignorant?
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-KC381_polmon_D_20100920174144.jpg
Corporations have begun to send a majority of donations from their
political action committees to Republican candidates, a reversal from
the trend of the past three years.
The change in corporate PAC giving is the latest sign Republicans are
likely to make significant gains in November's midterm elections.
Business PACs are notoriously cautious in deciding which party should
receive a majority of their donations. They nearly always give most of
their contributions to candidates whose political party is in power on
Capitol Hill.
According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, business
PACs gave 52% of their $72.2 million in total donations to Republican
candidates from January through July.
> > > BTW, my wife just sent me an email that all the teachers who were laid
> > > of could be hired back at the "base" salary. That is fundamentally
> > > wrong. You may disagree, but we'll see how you feel when it's *your*
> > > job.
>
> > Why is this wrong? People lose their jobs every day. Isn't a good
> > thing when they are hired back?
> It amazes me how you can keep business and morality in two completely
> different compartments. And no, it's not really a good thing when they
> are hired back at 2/3 of what they were making before. That means what
> little extra income they once had is gone. Good teachers will be the
> first to leave the profession.
Let me see, so you are saying that it would be better if good teachers
could be paid more than bad teachers? That perhaps bad teachers could
be fired and good teachers receive bonuses for their good work? Golly
who could be against that?
-Tom Enright
Tom Enright
By paying taxes and building colleges and libraries and hospitals and
funding charities and funding medical research and....
> > Hint: Without coporations we have *0* public employees.
> Wrong - without business we have *0* employees. I have never
> complained about small businesses (who make up most of our economy) or
> even big privately held corporations. My bitchfest is with publicly
> held corporations, who have no purpose other than making shareholders
> happy.
My bitchfest is with public unions, who have no purpose other than
taking as much money from the working man in exchange for the least
amount of work possible.
I wonder how much of union pensions are invested in these bigh evil
publically held corporations? So you hate public corporations because
they have no purpose other than making millions of shareholders
financially secure but you like small companies which have no other
purpose than make the owner happy?
> > > Come up with a better idea to fund an entirely not-for-profit
> > > industry that we all need... I'd love to hear it.
> I'm talking specifically about any job the *must* be done by somebody
> that doesn't produce a consumer good. I don't think we can privatize
> the public education system. Do you?
Of course we can. However, it would be cheaper and produce a better
product which would make the public unions unhappy.
> And what happens if you try to privatize the highway department in
> your state? Or the police or fire departments? Is Billgatesland going
> to have a volunteer fire department?
Billgatesland can afford to hire firemen and buy gold-plated fire
trucks. Publicunionland couldn't afford to by a squirt gun because
Bill Gates wouldn't be there to pay for it.
-Tom Enright
dre
> Billgatesland can afford to hire firemen and buy gold-plated fire
> trucks. Publicunionland couldn't afford to by a squirt gun because
> Bill Gates wouldn't be there to pay for it.
First of all, Billgatesland has a problem, because Bill Gates is still
relying on a foreign government to back his currency. That's a
problem; because if Publicunionland collapses, suddenly most of Bill
Gates' billions is so much paper. So even striking out on his own,
Bill Gates needs Publicunionland every bit as much as he did before.
Secondly, Billgatesland is looking mighty lonely out there with no US
troops to protect it or its supply chain. And finally, Billgatesland
will be paying elevated rates for everything, in no small part because
of that loss of security. Good luck luring teachers out there at only
$45k + bennies.