Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 The union has said that it would negotiate on financials... Yep, that's what they say now. Except that their actions don't match their words. In Wisconsin, when they haven't gotten what they wanted, they didn't sit at the table and negotiate. They went to the legislature to get what they wanted. That's the truth. I'm sorry you don't like it. The Governor (backed by the Koch's and their free market aparatchiks) said no way...No negotiating... Don't forget the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group. And,lets face the real facts... What has losing collective bargaining rights,individual opting out,and,annual recert votesd got to do with financial problems? Collective bargaining rights is what's led to unsustainable salaries, pensions and benefits in the first place. As Walker has discussed before. When he worked in the Wisconsin government at the local levels. This particular deal is a good deal. They can retain their bargaining for salaries. What's so horrible about that? Once again, if they don't like it. They can work somewhere else. Nobody's forcing to work for the Wisconsin government. However, I don't believe public sector unions should have any bargaining priviledges at all. And these are the reasons why. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest. Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Jealous? Not that I blame you... Nobel Prize, successful film maker, author, public speaker... Not bad as a consolation prize... He may even be GLAD he lost, the rest of the world maybe not so much... I'm indifferent when one big government politician wins and another one loses...I've said it before...it's all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 In what Country? Canuckistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm sorry...You're simply far too obtuse to understand... This is definately NOT just about breaking public sector unions at all... It may not be just about breaking the public sector unions...but since this is the topic of this thread I figured I'd weigh in. But sure, do tell...what else is this about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Yep, that's what they say now. Except that their actions don't match their words. In Wisconsin, when they haven't gotten what they wanted, they didn't sit at the table and negotiate. They went to the legislature to get what they wanted. That's the truth. I'm sorry you don't like it. Don't forget the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group. And,lets face the real facts... Collective bargaining rights is what's led to unsustainable salaries, pensions and benefits in the first place. As Walker has discussed before. When he worked in the Wisconsin government at the local levels. This particular deal is a good deal. They can retain their bargaining for salaries. What's so horrible about that? Once again, if they don't like it. They can work somewhere else. Nobody's forcing to work for the Wisconsin government. However, I don't believe public sector unions should have any bargaining priviledges at all. And these are the reasons why. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest. Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races. Professor... This is your usual sorry tactic when faced with something you know almost nothing about... Namely,intimate someone is crazy to nullify an arguement you might actually be proven to have less than a tenuous grasp of the actual facts... And certainly have an even lesser (if that's even possible) grasp of tactics... Clearly,you've never been in a contract negotiation,because if you had been,you would realize you are'nt negotiating the current contract buy future ones,as well.... But ,of course,with your intimate knowledge of who's behind things like the RTW movement (you still cannot cite for me,or anyone else,what the NAM is or the Citizens Alliance is and what their goals are),you already knew these things... Right? Tell me something Professor (of industrial labour relations...along with your intimate knowledge of 20th century history and political science)... Why would free entreprise/anti organized labour people like the Koch's ( who we know fund free market groups like the CATO Institute and other Right to Work groups) be interested in a state budgetary problem in Wisconsin??? What's in it for them if it was only about simply public sector bargaining rights??? Now we'll see if you have thought this one through,Professor... Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 It may not be just about breaking the public sector unions...but since this is the topic of this thread I figured I'd weigh in. But sure, do tell...what else is this about? I've stated it several times with a few people agreeing with me and one barely lucid Yank wannabe claiming,as he usually does when he's being outwitted,that I'm crazy... You're the Von Hayek/Friedmanite...You tell me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Prove it. I'm still waiting for an economic argument on this after so many pages. And, yes, fairness has everything to do with it. You yourself speak of "worth" as if there is some justice involved in the wage that two parties negotiate. Economics makes no sense without a fair legal system on which it's founded - honouring contracts for example would be something quite important in such a system. Prove it? Are you serious? What are you trying to say, that there is no debt crisis? That the US and many if not all of the States therein are hugely in debt? Given that there is in fact a debt crisis...where do you think this debt has come from? It didn't arrive out of thin air...it is the result of decades of poor management. Poor management means running a government that has been inefficient, and wasteful and has subsequently piled on debt. I don't have to prove that to you...it's as apparent as the nose on your face. Even folks who don't pay attention to the news on a regular basis know governments around the world are in trouble with debt. And yes, honouring contracts is important in the private sector...in the free market...agreed. Part of the government's responsibility in my eyes would be contract enforcement through the courts. But no, that does not mean I agree that civil servants should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain. To me, that idea needs to be done away with if governments are serious about getting rid of debt for once and for all. The can has been kicked down the road long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Collective Bargaining rights??? Annual recert votes??? Individual opting out??? What has that got to do with state financials??? Allowing civil servants to collectively bargain guarantees that labour will become more expensive with each passing contract negotiation. Collective bargaining is fine in the private sector so long as taxpayers are left out of it, but in the public sector they're not, and so even inept workers are paid far more than their labour is worth by many people who have no say...no means of looking into where or how their money is being spent. And who cares about annual recert votes or individual opting out when the state is unsustainably broke? The public sector unions must be broken...all of the other minutiae is just window dressing in the face of the larger issue at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) And yes, honouring contracts is important in the private sector...in the free market...agreed. Part of the government's responsibility in my eyes would be contract enforcement through the courts. But no, that does not mean I agree that civil servants should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain. To me, that idea needs to be done away with if governments are serious about getting rid of debt for once and for all. The can has been kicked down the road long enough. Contracts are honoured in the private sector?? Are they??? U.S.Steel in Hamilton,Ontario right now... U.S.Steel at Nanticoke,Ontario last year.... Vale/Inco last year in Sudbury,Ontario... Vale/Inco last year in Port Colborne,Ontario... All either lengthy lockouts or strikes ove the company welching on pension obligations and multi-tiered wage levels,and in some case,seniority rights... Not a word from the Harper Con's,who have a signed agreement with US Steel in hand that obligates them to not shift production to the States and to fund the pension plan... Guess what two (2) things they've done??? I could into more about the private sector and it's living up to its contractual obligations,but you get the idea... Basically,you don't trust them farhter than they can be thrown... Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 You speak of philosophy, but at the end it's about something being broke, really. Give us the numbers to chew on then. You can play dumb all you'd like. You know as well as I do Wisconsin, like many other states, is up to its eyeballs in debt. To say you don't believe it is disingenuous...the figures are out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Allowing civil servants to collectively bargain guarantees that labour will become more expensive with each passing contract negotiation. Collective bargaining is fine in the private sector so long as taxpayers are left out of it, but in the public sector they're not, and so even inept workers are paid far more than their labour is worth by many people who have no say...no means of looking into where or how their money is being spent. And who cares about annual recert votes or individual opting out when the state is unsustainably broke? The public sector unions must be broken...all of the other minutiae is just window dressing in the face of the larger issue at hand. Because the individual opting out and annual recert voted go directly the RTW tactic of financially breaking the backs of individual union locals...Which is the point of RTW... Never mind the fact that as long as their is a grievance process,the union loclas will be legally obligated to represent employees who don't pay dues??? You knew that,correct? It gets better... The union can still be sued for lack of representation by the individual if they feel the local did not do it's utmost to protect the non dues paying employee!!! And you still don't see how,if this passes,it could be easily enacted to include the private sector unions??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Professor... No. It's time you started answering some questions Einstein. Please explain how and why you disagree with the following: Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest. Private sector unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races. And please be specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) You can play dumb all you'd like. You know as well as I do Wisconsin, like many other states, is up to its eyeballs in debt. To say you don't believe it is disingenuous...the figures are out there. Yes and no....Wisconsin has a short term operating deficit that can be managed, but longer term unfunded obligations that must be reigned in. Here are the numbers: http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Wisconsin_state_budget All state budgets: http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Transparency_in_your_state Edited February 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Then why is Canadian health care cheaper per capita, and covers more people ? The answer: the middleman. Another question: what is a sustainable size ? Has Wisconsin's budget been increasing steadily ? Why or why not ? Canadian health care is not a good example of government successfully administering anything. Our health care system is lousy compared to what we would have in a free market economy. Rationed care, hospital bed shortages...governments faced with choices between cuts in education or cuts in health care...who wins there? Even our own politicians will venture south of the border for superior care. What is sustainable? Government spending that the private sector can afford without going into debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Pliny would be your friend. The 'defense and roads only' idea for government is one he's argued for here in the past. ( Actually, I'm probably not doing his argument justice but it goes along those lines, I'm pretty sure.) Seek him out. As for me - I think the Industrial Revolution would be a good reason to not go that way. There was an exploration in wealth and opulence, but not for those displayed by the advent of machines. They got poorhouses if they were lucky. See Dickens. There are people living in Canada and the U.S. today that will give Dickens a run for his money. We're no better today than we ever were. There will always be people who have less than others...for various reasons...but a free market economy gives the most amount of people the greatest chance at living well. Look for the ones in our society who live in the most destitute of conditions and you can be sure the hand of government isn't too far away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 You can play dumb all you'd like. You know as well as I do Wisconsin, like many other states, is up to its eyeballs in debt. To say you don't believe it is disingenuous...the figures are out there. So is the fact that Walker GAVE $67 MILLION in tax breaks to Corporations that supported his campaign... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) No. It's time you started answering some questions Einstein. Please explain how and why you disagree with the following: And please be specific. No selective quoting,Professor... 1.Agreed...However,when a public sector union says it is prepared to negotiate on the financials (see willing to take concessions to save money and jobs),and instead,effectively told to "take it or leave it!" as it relates to collective bargaining...Something larger is afoot...And it's got very little to do with a budgetary crisis... The Ohio governor said as much yesterday... 2.Agreed...I've signed contracts where I knew I could get more money...But working for a little less is better than being laid off... 3.I'm not certain about that...The Harris government got tough with the public sector unions here in '95...Fired a ton of them...Then realized that the government really needed actual people to run the everyday goings on of the government,and had to hire many of them back as private consultants...Many of them got three times what they would have been paid as an hourly employee. That was'nt such a good deal for the taxpayers of the province... 4.True...But private sector business has alot more financial clout...Groups like the NAM and people like the Koch's have alot more clout,and pay for alot more access to certain legislators...They can tilt the balance of power to their side alot more easily... You'll probably notice that I'm not a huge fan of public sector unions because many of them have'nt gone through the pain of this recession like the private sector has... However,I don't see this as simply going after public sector employees...I see this as an attempt to attack all of organized labour...This is the thin edge of the wedge test case for the RTW crowd... Remember...No selective quoting...And it's time for you to start answering... Post 1105...Quote it and answer all of it.... Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 How can you criticize government for over reaching when you're living the exact same way ? It's easy when you're in debt, and you realize part of the reason is because we live in a system that necessitates one be in debt to do just about anything. Part of the reason I'm in debt is because government subsidies have made the cost of living extraordinarily high, and all the while I'm taxed within an inch of my life. Would I be in debt were I living in a free market economy? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I really cannot go into every single point in this NCC/Fraser Institute sponsored diatribe... Suffice to say that Uncle Milty Friedman and Friedrich Von Hayek would be so proud... The extreme Capitalist scenario you are proposing would have the vast majority of this planet living like Medieval animals... It's as horrific nightmare as any Marxist global control scenario I can think up... Sorry...I don't buy your version of "freedom"... There is no "version" of freedom...you either have freedom...or you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) So is the fact that Walker GAVE $67 MILLION in tax breaks to Corporations that supported his campaign... That's OK...it's not the government's money. He "gave" nothing. Edited February 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) There is no "version" of freedom...you either have freedom...or you don't. Sorry..I don't buy it... Your version of "freedom" is a horrendous Capitalist nightmare as bad as any Marxist nightmare... It's an extremists position... No thanks... Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 It's easy when you're in debt, and you realize part of the reason is because we live in a system that necessitates one be in debt to do just about anything. Part of the reason I'm in debt is because government subsidies have made the cost of living extraordinarily high, and all the while I'm taxed within an inch of my life. Would I be in debt were I living in a free market economy? No. That's a bald faced LIE... No one FORCES someone to go into debt, if you are in debt, you chose to be... I choose not to be and am not in debt... Don't make excuses, do without... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 That's a bald faced LIE... No one FORCES someone to go into debt, if you are in debt, you chose to be... I choose not to be and am not in debt... Don't make excuses, do without... Are suggesting personal financial freedom is at the root of this?? But I thought we were living in some stultifying quasi Communist financial/economic system?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 That's OK...it's not the government's money. He "gave" nothing. I stand corrected... He gave Wisconsin TAX PAYERS' money to those Corporations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I stand corrected... He gave Wisconsin TAX PAYERS' money to those Corporations... Wrong again...he gave nothing. Corporations are also taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.