Jump to content

Union Busting in Wisconsin


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://thedailybeast/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-20/wisconsin-union-fight-is-really-a-15-state-gop-power-grab/?cid=hp:mainpromo5

The Ohio governor gave it away yesterday...In the face of being asked,on CNN,why he was demanding public sector workers give up their collective bargaining rights after they admitted they were prepared to discuss financials....He replied this way...

1.Managers need to be able to manage...

(I suspect this is corporate code for "We need to be able to control our workforces!")

2.We have lost alot of jobs to the Southeast and the Mid-West(most,if not all are RTW states) and we need to be able to compete!

(He hit 1 of the 3 free marketeer buzzwords with that one..He forgot "productivity" and"freedom"...I suspect they'll follow shortly)

This spectacular humanitarian of the year candidate wants to have his working populous end up competing with this...

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work

I guess competing with places like West Virginia (RTW mine disaster).the Gulf States(RTW oil spill disaster),and Kentucky (mine disaster)..All of this in the last 12 months!!...Is a good thing!!!

The free marketeering race to the bottom continues...

'Cause it's all about "the freedom"...

(see shareholder value)

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people wind up working in unionized positions because it comes part and parcel with the job they've applied for.

Right. So they choose that job. This is akin to telling people "if they don't like it, they can work elsewhere"... which I hear all the time. However it makes more sense at the beginning of a career, rather than part way through - especially when the employer is changing contracts that they have agreed to.

The public sector does not need a union...nor should it be allowed one. These powerful unions that "protect" civil servants are the same ones that help get the legislators they "bargain" with elected...it's a huge conflict of interest.

I have already shown you why they do - this very situation. Do you have anything to say to that ?

Unfair? It's unfair that the WI governor stop the practice of public sector unions extorting taxpayers for higher pay? If things were fair education would be entirely private, and the taxpayers would be left out of this mess.

If you don't like the tax system, move elsewhere. Or, better yet, work towards changing it democratically.

The system requires that you pay. Whether or not you think that is fair (it is) it's still MORE fair than changing a contract after it has been signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like, the freedom to not have more money taken from my pay in the form of taxation so that unionized civil servants can continue to get raises every time their contracts come up for bargaining.

What's happened to Canada's education system?

There was a TIME not that long ago that people would actually make some effort to know something about what they're talkinng about...

So, what's your excuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to your catchphrase above: can you please provide an economic rationale for how this mess came about ? We're still waiting to see numbers on what is ostensibly an economic issue. ( It isn't. )

Of course it's not..

This is a trojan horse attempt in Wisconsin to get RTW legislation in through the back door in a free collective bargaining state

At least in Indiana,they admit they are going to go for RTW across the board...Unlike this weasel in Wisconsin....

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Greater government control means less freedom and leads to the kind of extortion we see going on with public sector unions, i.e. the teachers in Wisconsin."

A lot of hyperbole but no facts to back it up.

No facts to back up what, exactly?

The larger the government, the less free are its constituents...that's logic.

Civil servants threatening to walk out from providing an essential service (in this case educating children) is a form of extortion - and it's taxpayers who have to 'pay up or else'.

When does the cycle end?

It doesn't...every time a union signs a new contract it expects a bump in pay and/or benefits. In the private sector, that's fine...in the public sector...when everyone including the government is broke?

It's unsustainable and must be stopped.

Do you really need a textbook to help you understand this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you follow the history of unions and their origins in Britain you will be better able to address the issue.

The majority of collective agreements don't require memberhsip as a condition of employment. Some here have conflated the payment of dues with the closed shop concept.

This is false...many do require union membership as a condition of employment, regardless of dues payment and collection in the payroll system. I have worked as an exempt employee in union shops and there is no doubt what that means for hourly workers wishing to be employed in certain trades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about spending more time understanding free market economics (i.e. the only way out of our debt crisis), and less time trying to conveniently label those you disagree with?

And you believe that driving the standard of living down in areas that cannot freely collectively bargain is a way to do this???

'Cause it's all about "the freedom"... :rolleyes:

And how 'bout you answer the question...

Are you a WRAP lovin' Albertan???

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're so confused.

Pro corporate? Try pro liberty.

Freedom isn't a limited premise...it doesn't begin and end with the business world...it extends out to include everyone.

Sure ...

The "freedom" to work for less...

'Cause it's all about "the freedom"

(see shareholder value and an upwards wealth redistribution excercise)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about spending more time understanding free market economics (i.e. the only way out of our debt crisis), and less time trying to conveniently label those you disagree with?

Hey, here's a novel idea what about RAISING TAXES as a way to get out of our debt crisis, especially those that can easily afford to contribute a little more for the benefit of the country or state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, here's a novel idea what about RAISING TAXES as a way to get out of our debt crisis, especially those that can easily afford to contribute a little more for the benefit of the country or state?

No way!!!

That's an encumberance!!!

Let's crush workers rights instead....And we'll use public sector workers as a test case!!!

RTW!!!

'Cause it's all about the "freedom"!!!!

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullshite...

And I suppose you think management would be fair...Just out of the goodness of their compassionate heart...

Of course not, but in a free market it wouldn't matter.

In a free market with plenty of private sector jobs, people would be more free to choose where they work - and companies would have more incentive to provide a better working environment and/or better pay/benefits to keep talent from competitors.

Grey-area terms such as fair and unfair don't really apply in a free market. There is under-valued, and over-valued.

If you feel your skills and/or your labour are being under-valued by your employer you can take your skills/labour somewhere else. If an employer feels you are lacking in skills or work ethic, they will pay you accordingly or let you go.

In a free market there are jobs for everyone...but the rates of pay will be much more commensurate with the value of the workers' skills/labour as businesses recognize that survival rests on keeping overhead low, but also quality of product high.

Who would choose to live in an RTW "paradise" if one knew the facts about that "freedom"?

Explain.

And as far as my skills go...I'm vastly underpaid in my union shop...

Happy about that? If you feel your skills are being under-valued in your current workplace you would benefit greatly from a free market economy where your income would be commensurate with what you bring to the table.

We could,quite rightfully,demand more!!!!

Sure you could. Don't get me wrong...I'm not anti-union in the private sector. I think unions in the private sector are fine if that's the way companies want to go.

We choose to take a little less to assist the company get contracts..Yeah...We're anti company....

You mean you choose to take less in order to keep your employer's overhead low?

That's great for competitiveness...I don't see why you wouldn't be in favor of a free market economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not, but in a free market it wouldn't matter.

In a free market with plenty of private sector jobs, people would be more free to choose where they work - and companies would have more incentive to provide a better working environment and/or better pay/benefits to keep talent from competitors.

In theory, not in practice. Also, when your job is "State Cheese Inspector" there are limited lateral options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way!!!

That's an encumberance!!!

Let's crush workers rights instead....And we'll use public sector workers as a test case!!!

RTW!!!

'Cause it's all about the "freedom"!!!!

Aren't TAXES a BIG part of FREEing yourself from debt? What is more indicative of FREEDOM than that?

What I can't understand is that a couple of the BILLIONAIRS in Wisconsin haven't stepped forward and FREEly gotten Wisconsin out of debt yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, not in practice. Also, when your job is "State Cheese Inspector" there are limited lateral options.

There are many lateral and vertical options. Such an employee would be welcomed by many food manufacturers, food equipment manufacturers, transportation, etc. There are very few occupations that are so limited by design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not, but in a free market it wouldn't matter.

In a free market with plenty of private sector jobs, people would be more free to choose where they work - and companies would have more incentive to provide a better working environment and/or better pay/benefits to keep talent from competitors.

Grey-area terms such as fair and unfair don't really apply in a free market. There is under-valued, and over-valued.

If you feel your skills and/or your labour are being under-valued by your employer you can take your skills/labour somewhere else. If an employer feels you are lacking in skills or work ethic, they will pay you accordingly or let you go.

In a free market there are jobs for everyone...but the rates of pay will be much more commensurate with the value of the workers' skills/labour as businesses recognize that survival rests on keeping overhead low, but also quality of product high.

Explain.

Happy about that? If you feel your skills are being under-valued in your current workplace you would benefit greatly from a free market economy where your income would be commensurate with what you bring to the table.

Sure you could. Don't get me wrong...I'm not anti-union in the private sector. I think unions in the private sector are fine if that's the way companies want to go.

You mean you choose to take less in order to keep your employer's overhead low?

That's great for competitiveness...I don't see why you wouldn't be in favor of a free market economy.

Pardon my ignorance but what is the unemployment rate in Wisconsin and how does it compare to the rest of the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not, but in a free market it wouldn't matter.

In a free market with plenty of private sector jobs, people would be more free to choose where they work - and companies would have more incentive to provide a better working environment and/or better pay/benefits to keep talent from competitors.

Grey-area terms such as fair and unfair don't really apply in a free market. There is under-valued, and over-valued.

If you feel your skills and/or your labour are being under-valued by your employer you can take your skills/labour somewhere else. If an employer feels you are lacking in skills or work ethic, they will pay you accordingly or let you go.

In a free market there are jobs for everyone...but the rates of pay will be much more commensurate with the value of the workers' skills/labour as businesses recognize that survival rests on keeping overhead low, but also quality of product high.

Explain.

Happy about that? If you feel your skills are being under-valued in your current workplace you would benefit greatly from a free market economy where your income would be commensurate with what you bring to the table.

Sure you could. Don't get me wrong...I'm not anti-union in the private sector. I think unions in the private sector are fine if that's the way companies want to go.

You mean you choose to take less in order to keep your employer's overhead low?

That's great for competitiveness...I don't see why you wouldn't be in favor of a free market economy.

1.Not in your non-union/free market paradise...I would get paid less...

We took less than we could have got...We did'nt low-ball ourselves...

There's a serious difference...

In your free market there are jobs for everyone...I'l bet!!Extremely low paying ones to increase shareholder value...Because we have to be "competative" and increase "productivity" to forward our "freedom",right?..

All part of your upward wealth redistribution excercise...No thanks...

2.Check out the corporate aparatchiks behind the "Right to Work" movement and then ask yourself if those really have individual workers rights in the workplace at heart,OR,if RTW is simply a way to "regain the balance" in the power and control dynamic in the workplace...

Interestingly,look at RTW advocate groups,COLLECTIVELY,advocating for such things...

It's kind of illuminating about the duplicitous nature of RTW...

3.Union certification should never be "up to the company"...It's a collective decision made by the workers of that comapny....

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BOO!

Hey, here's a novel idea what about RAISING TAXES as a way to get out of our debt crisis, especially those that can easily afford to contribute a little more for the benefit of the country or state?

Scared?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...