Jump to content

Union Busting in Wisconsin


Jonsa

Recommended Posts

As I understand it,they've had demanded of them to give up negotiating rights AND allow for "Open Shop" provisions...

Essentially,union busting...

Am I incorrect in this?

Because,if I'm right,then they have every right to tell the people demanding this to shove it...

If it's what you say it is, then you'd be correct. I've read that they'll still have the ability to negotiate their salaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If it's what you say it is, then you'd be correct. I've read that they'll still have the ability to negotiate their salaries.

Then it's about union busting...

Because,as I've read it,they want the union to end it's collective bargaining rights and to allow open shop...

And people wonder why these union members might not want to slit their own throats????

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's what you say it is, then you'd be correct. I've read that they'll still have the ability to negotiate their salaries.

Where did you read that? Rightwinglies.com? I assume this is where you get all your news and half truths.

State workers would lose collective bargaining rights, except for salary. Salary increases would be capped by a rate tied to inflation

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/116497188.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

State workers would lose collective bargaining rights, except for salary. Salary increases would be capped by a rate tied to inflation

http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/116497188.html

That's exactly what I said. They'd still have bargaining rights for salary. And increases during years between bargaining would be capped at inflation. Seems pretty fair to me. If they don't like it, they can quit and get other jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I said. They'd still have bargaining rights for salary. And increases during years between bargaining would be capped at inflation. Seems pretty fair to me. If they don't like it, they can quit and get other jobs.

So you support rank and file members losing thier collective bargaining rights???

And "open shop" provisions????

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I said. They'd still have bargaining rights for salary. And increases during years between bargaining would be capped at inflation. Seems pretty fair to me. If they don't like it, they can quit and get other jobs.

No that is not what the bills says Shady. It says they have bargaining rights for salary up to the price of inflation not that is capped at inflation between bargaining years. Please read the bill. They don't get bargaining rights if their salary increases are capped when going to the table already at inflation. THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL SAYS. Not what you claim.

You can't rewrite this terrible legislation because even you know it is wrong. No matter how many times you lie about what is in it.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, union's did a great job of achieving a great number of things. Private sector unions. Public sector employees pay taxes, but their entire salary is tax money paid by other people. So they don't really produce anything, or add anything new to the government treasury. They just take unsustainable pensions and benefits, at the expense of Joe and Jane 6-pack. Who see their property taxes and state income taxes go up, and up, and up to cover the cost of these economic reality sheltered people.

Are you serious? they don't really produce anything? The deliver the government services that are necessary to the operation of the whole damn country. they don't add anything to the treasury? Not only do they pay taxes, but the spend their wages in the economy, you know buy shit and consume shit, they invest their savings.

Unsustainable pensions and benefits? is this all of the public union workers or just some?

At what level does a benefit or pension become unsustainable.

Did the union member create this unsustainablity or was it the irresponsiblity of their employers?

How many of these people are economically sheltered - all of them, or just some of them - what percentage?

It is not the worker who does this at the expense of joe sixpak its the politians.

Does the private sector compete with the public sector for employees?

Does a private sector worker make as much or more than an equivalent in the public sector?

Why do you really think that public sector workers arent worth as much nor contribute as much as private sector workers>

could it possibly be that you have absolutely no clue? that you drink the koolaid, swallow the sound bites and feel satisfied that you have a handle on reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...could it possibly be that you have absolutely no clue? that you drink the koolaid, swallow the sound bites and feel satisfied that you have a handle on reality?

No....he is well informed on the underlying problem. The pensions are underfunded and underperforming. This has been reported for several years:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/06/pension-fund-bankruptcy-bailout-personal-finance-uglychoices.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No....he is well informed on the underlying problem. The pensions are underfunded and underperforming. This has been reported for several years:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/06/pension-fund-bankruptcy-bailout-personal-finance-uglychoices.html

Actually what makes this so odd is that in Wisconsin the pension fund is in pretty good shape. I think they should be paying much more into their pension then they are there but the problem is that the GOP in WI is trying to roll back the workers rights to sit down at the table which is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually what makes this so odd is that in Wisconsin the pension fund is in pretty good shape. I think they should be paying much more into their pension then they are there but the problem is that the GOP in WI is trying to roll back the workers rights to sit down at the table which is wrong.

They are not paying much at all....I live in the neighbouring state and the comparisons are shocking. Collective bargaining led to this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not paying much at all....I live in the neighbouring state and the comparisons are shocking. Collective bargaining led to this situation.

No like I said they should be paying much more. Collective bargaining did not lead that situation you are being crazy. There are plenty of places that have Collective bargaining where workers pay plenty into their pension. So it is quite clear to anyone who thinks that the process did not lead to the problem, in my province most provincial workers pay 10-15% into their pensions and they have collective bargaining to so yah not relationship there between collective bargaining and not paying into the pension.

Again if this rocks for brains Walker wants to sit across the table and tell the unions there is no money you will have to do this or walk then he should. Let the strike happen but don't take away workers rights to have a say in their workplace. He just doesn't want to have to explain why he cause a budget short fall to strip the unions of their benefits.

BTW if you live in a neighboring state you have collective bargaining as well. Yet you say the comparisons are staggering hmmmmm.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/02/look_at_the_map.php#more?ref=fpblg

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No like I said they should be paying much more. Collective bargaining did not lead that situation you are being crazy. There are plenty of places that have Collective bargaining where workers pay plenty into their pension. So it is quite clear to anyone who thinks that the process did not lead to the problem, in my province most provincial workers pay 10-15% into their pensions and they have collective bargaining to so yah not relationship there between collective bargaining and not paying into the pension.

Wisconsin is not your province. The history for this particular state's public labour relations and bargaining unit demands is quite clear based on the very comparisons you speak of. It is shocking.

Again if this rocks for brains Walker wants to sit across the table and tell the unions there is no money you will have to do this or walk then he should. Let the strike happen but don't take away workers rights to have a say in their workplace. He just doesn't want to have to explain why he cause a budget short fall to strip the unions of their benefits.

He ran for office on these issues and won. Complain to the voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin is not your province. The history for this particular state's public labour relations and bargaining unit demands is quite clear based on the very comparisons you speak of. It is shocking.

He ran for office on these issues and won. Complain to the voters.

I am pointing out if it can be done in your state and my province there is no reason that in WI they should take away all rights of unions to bargaining for the people they represent. Maybe they go on strike and that is fine but they will be forced to make tough choices. However when a Governor creates a budget short fall to strip all rights away from state workers I don't suspect the bargaining is going to go well.

I am not complaining to voters they are complaining to him. Like I posted 65% of people in WI think this is to far only 30 support these measures. I have heard the recall papers on 3 Republicans have already gone out. I think democracy is going to work and this thing is going to have a tough time passing.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....However when a Governor creates a budget short fall to strip all rights away from state workers I don't suspect the bargaining is going to go well.

That is the governor's very intention....this will end up in court. Screw the union(s)!

I am not complaining to voters they are complaining to him. Like I posted 65% of people in WI think this is to far only 30 support these measures.

Too bad...November elections have come and gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pointing out if it can be done in your state and my province there is no reason that in WI they should take away all rights of unions to bargaining for the people they represent. Maybe they go on strike and that is fine but they will be forced to make tough choices. However when a Governor creates a budget short fall to strip all rights away from state workers I don't suspect the bargaining is going to go well.

I am not complaining to voters they are complaining to him. Like I posted 65% of people in WI think this is to far only 30 support these measures.

If Miss Saskatchewan lives in an adjacent state,it is most likely NOT a RTW state (Most Yankee states are'nt)...

The fact that the Governor of Wisconsin is doing this suggest some sort of RTW through the back door.

Very weaselesque!!!

And,more importantly,it's precedent setting.If the public sector unions were to aquiesce to this silliness,the governor could rightly say that the private sector should aquiesce,as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a surprise...Go Packers!

The party's two-front battle against the legislation is the boldest action yet by Democrats to push back against last fall's GOP wave, and it's taken hold even as the anti-union agenda pushed by new GOP Gov. Scott Walker spreads to other states.

But the dramatic strategy that has clogged the Capitol with thousands of protesters
clashes with one essential truth: Republicans told everyone months ago that unions would be one of their targets
,
and the GOP now has more than enough votes to pass its plans once the Legislature can convene.

- Star Tribune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a union rep I dealt with many a scumbag like you. With your attitude it is a wonder you weren't given an attitude adjustment. I think you know what I mean.

And you are part of the reason why unions are not respected sometimes. I've been on both sides myself. I prefer to be in management, because at least I can control my own affairs. Most people are not willing to step up to the plate as I have. I gained respect from the union in my workplace because I have done many things to make their lives easier and their work more enjoyable. I give respect, and I get a lot of respect. However there are always a few bad apples on BOTH sides of the fence. I have dealt with both. I've always come out on top. But not everyone is like me, that is why they need a union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have been reading too many stories about the fifties.

:)

You're right about that.

The idea here is of the mob-controlled or -influenced unions. A real enough dilemma, but what's forgotten is that the mob (usually the same mob) were also in bed with the busineses fighting the unions; and the mob would make decisions based on the practical capitalist considerations of which side should win in a particular dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the governor's very intention....this will end up in court. Screw the union(s)!

Too bad...November elections have come and gone.

Good thing the state has recalls we could have some march elections which will be a real referendum on this issue.

I think Ezra Klein has put it best.

Let's be clear: Whatever fiscal problems Wisconsin is -- or is not -- facing at the moment, they're not caused by labor unions. That's also true for New Jersey, for Ohio and for the other states. There was no sharp rise in collective bargaining in 2006 and 2007, no major reforms of the country's labor laws, no dramatic change in how unions organize. And yet, state budgets collapsed. Revenues plummeted. Taxes had to go up, and spending had to go down, all across the country.

Blame the banks. Blame global capital flows. Blame lax regulation of Wall Street. Blame home buyers, or home sellers. But don't blame the unions. Not for this recession.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a basic difference between those of us who believe in individual effort, diligence, right to work and support our families, and achieve success on our own merit and those who, due to whatever reason have to rely on someone else to get for them what they obviously unable or unwilling to EARN is that WE don't resort to name-calling, we don't rely on violence - actual or implied or threatened - and we look at the union boasters the same way as one would look at a buggy whip.

There was a time when a buggy whip helped one move, by cracking it over the horses in front of one's buggy.

What unions are doing today is nothing more than cracking a buggy whip over a union-built car that doesn't start. (Union built? Doesn't start? No surprise here!)

Perfect definition of OBSOLETE.

Edited by Yukon Jack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You portray yourself as the white knight and the union and its members as the antithesis of that fantasy world you have constructed for yourself. That you went out of your way to antagonize union members at a plant you worked at suggests to me an element of bad faith on your part which had nothing to do with your supposed purity and everything to do with your own personal ambition and an apparent dislike for unions.

You haven't indicated what your specific capacity was at the plant you worked at nor have you described in any detail what gave rise to the threats and damage to your property and what role you played in provoking such circumstances.

That nice middle class wage you likely earned came in no small part through gains made by unions notwithstanding your perceived worth in management.

As others have noted places of employment without union representation provide an environment where an employee is at the workplace at the will and pleasure of the employer or person designated to act on behalf of the employer.

In each jurisdiction in Canada there are very elaborate procedures unions must follow in seeking to represent employees in a given workplace. These laws give recognition to democracy in the workplace and the wishes of the employees and also, in the formulation of a collective agreement, the countervailing power of collective action not otherwise available without a union. You may not like this in that smug complacency that you offer but this is the way it is.

Edited by pinko
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.

Guest
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 - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...