Union Busting in Wisconsin

[Scotty]

No. I am saying what I said.

If I had ten thousand workers and paid them a dollar a head I would have X profit. Profit being what is left over after all costs are figured in. Let's say I made $10,000 profit.

If they unionized and demanded 2 dollars a head the next year and produced the same then I would have 0 profit.

You're acting like there are only two choices. You can screw the workers and give them as little as possible, and thus make a profit, or you can be more generous to the workers and give them a working wage, and thus go bankrupt. It's not that black and white. It's more than possible to pay your workers reasonable wages and benefits and still turn a healthy profit. But the corporate mindset is that if you can shave a quarter of a percentage point off your costs, then you do it. And if that means firebombing kindergartens that's what you do - no thought involved, just automatic.

And note that I'm not suggesting every enterprise can afford to pay their workers more. Many cannot without raising prices. But for the most part, the ones that can afford it are the ones least likely to do it.

[Shady]

They've been taking higher and higher profits.

What do you mean by "taking?"

[punked]

Looks like Union members are starting Bank Runs on banks that support Walker in the last election. M&I bank supported Walker, shut their doors for the rest of the day after the Firefighters took 200,000 out of the bank today. Doubt it will end tomorrow. The bank is owned by the Bank of Montreal.

Edited March 10, 2011 by punked

[Shady]

Looks like Union members are starting Bank Runs on banks that support Walker in the last election. M&I bank supported Walker, shut their doors for the rest of the day after the Firefighters took 200,000 out of the bank today. Doubt it will end tomorrow. The bank is owned by the Bank of Montreal.

It's a great illustration of how much power public unions have over the goings on in a particular state, and why it needed to end. They're almost the equivalent of too big to fail.

[Michael Hardner]

You mean people who don't upgrade their skills or continually look to how they can be of service or useful to society are going to fall behind. When you say "the mass of workers" then you are talking about a group. The problem with the mass of workers idea is that the individuals then depend upon the force of the masses to improve their lot.

By saying they depend upon the force of the masses, you're making incorrect assumptions. They may not depend on anything. They may not even be aware of how the economy works, or how to improve themselves, or a whole range of other facts of life.

This may be necessary in the face of oppression or exploitation but to become dependent upon acting as a "mass of workers" and using force to get your way is barbaric. Each individual has an obligation to himself to improve his skills, upgrade his education, to be continually learning.

And if they don't, then where are we ?

Becoming dependent upon acting as a "mob" or demanding benefits and privileges as a right en masse is self-defeating and demoralizing. An individual who feels he can only accomplish things by being part of a mob begins to feel ineffectual as a person. Certainly some things can only can be accompished collectively and if there is exploitation or abuse that is reason to use force. Things like demanding viagra be supplied to workers and considereing it a right are just plain idiotic.

That's acting in collusion, which as I have pointed out happens in business all the time. It even produces a desirable result some of the time.

Where did you look to see how laissez-faire "faired"?

Not where, but when. The answer is "the past".

[Michael Hardner]

Contracts only exist as enforceable instruments within a legal framework, the same one used to execute bankruptcy and payments to secured creditors over all others.

That isn't the point...government takings follow an established legal protocol, just like any abrogating of union contracts.

What is the established legal protocol for abrogation of contracts ?

Well, it would be no more appropriate for me to believe what the proper level of taxation would be in Canada, regardless of OECD ranking. The US cannot tax its way out of the problem...there must be concurrent limits and cuts on the spending side, and that includes entitlements.

The US can't tax its way out of the problem, I agree. That is because there is no public will to do so. In France and Greece they try to raise the retirement age - which is already low - by a few years and all hell breaks loose. This is the human side of economics.

But there's no law in physics or math that says taxes can't go up. They can. If they can't tax their way out of problems, it's because people expect services to be rendered but don't want to pay for them.

You must agree that taxes can't be zero, and services can't be non-existent. We've been seeing taxes and services cut for decades now - I ask you when is enough and more importantly how will we know when we're there ?

[bush_cheney2004]

What is the established legal protocol for abrogation of contracts ?

Depends on the parties and circumstance, but contract abrogation certainly exists. Here is one example for the US FDIC:

TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING

CHAPTER III - FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

SUBCHAPTER B - REGULATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY

PART 367 - SUSPENSION AND EXCLUSION OF CONTRACTOR AND TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS

367.18 - Abrogation of contracts.

(a) The FDIC may, in its discretion, rescind or terminate any contract in existence at the time a contractor is suspended or excluded.

(

Any contract not rescinded or terminated shall continue in force in accordance with the terms thereof.

© The right to rescind or terminate a contract in existence is cumulative and in addition to any other remedies or rights the FDIC may have under the terms of the contract, at law, or otherwise.

The US can't tax its way out of the problem, I agree. That is because there is no public will to do so. In France and Greece they try to raise the retirement age - which is already low - by a few years and all hell breaks loose. This is the human side of economics.

Can't means won't.....the US already had a much higher retirement age. Means testing is also politically unacceptable.

But there's no law in physics or math that says taxes can't go up. They can. If they can't tax their way out of problems, it's because people expect services to be rendered but don't want to pay for them.

Correct....I think you are beginning to understand the problem. The benefits and entitlements mentality must give way to this reality. Raising revenues for yet even more spending does not break the cycle.

You must agree that taxes can't be zero, and services can't be non-existent. We've been seeing taxes and services cut for decades now - I ask you when is enough and more importantly how will we know when we're there ?

Taxes have been higher and lower over many years and administrations, but the growing liabilities will not be moderated any time soon. Ross Perot got 18% of the vote in 1992 telling Americans this very same thing. But 18% only helps some other guy get elected!

[Michael Hardner]

Correct....I think you are beginning to understand the problem. The benefits and entitlements mentality must give way to this reality. Raising revenues for yet even more spending does not break the cycle.

Yet more spending... but... but...

Ok. This is very confusing.

Some facts:

The wealthiest are getting wealthier at a faster pace than everyone.

Their tax rates are falling over time.

Now:

Spending is also going (up over the long term) ? In real terms ?

Is revenue going up too ?

I think I knew this once, but it's easier to just ask you.

Taxes have been higher and lower over many years and administrations, but the growing liabilities will not be moderated any time soon. Ross Perot got 18% of the vote in 1992 telling Americans this very same thing. But 18% only helps some other guy get elected!

Don't tell me you voted for him ?

Ok.... fill me on on liabilities. You get 140 Twitter characters before I change the channel.

[Scotty]

I tend to disagree. As a proponent of small government, I do not think it is the government's job to look after anyone's "economic lot". The economy is the domain of the private sector, or should be.

Well, Republicans have certainly seemed to demonstrate a healthy interest in enriching big corporate donors and the wealthy over the last thirty years or so.

[Scotty]

The increases of the wealthiest earners are coming from the same place that the general growth of the economy is coming from. You know, technological progress, increased productivity, population growth, expanding markets, etc.

You forgot big tax cuts which were weighted in their favour.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet more spending... but... but...

Ok. This is very confusing.

Some facts:

The wealthiest are getting wealthier at a faster pace than everyone.

Their tax rates are falling over time.

So what? Their wealth has nothing to do with structured nondiscretional government liabilities going forward. Income is not wealth, and the estate tax is back on the books.

Now:

Spending is also going (up over the long term) ? In real terms ?

Is revenue going up too ?

Yes...revenue is going up, but not at a pace to match entitlement programs.

Edited March 11, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

What a bunch of petulant babies posing as adults.

Imagine if the Tea Party had acted this way!

[Shady]

You forgot big tax cuts which were weighted in their favour.

Complete nonsense. Each bracket was reduced by the same 5%. And almost 50% of the bottom income earners pay ZERO income tax. That's right. ZERO income taxes.

[GostHacked]

What a bunch of petulant babies posing as adults.

Imagine if the Tea Party had acted this way!

Public unions first, next up private unions. The police should be arresting those democrats who were MIA for a month for not doing their job. I guess they were afraid of the people, and that's a good thing.

So what is the next state to go through this, and how long before all states go through this. Or will there be riots in the streets before that happens.

[Shady]

Public unions first, next up private unions.

I disagree.

The police should be arresting those democrats who were MIA for a month for not doing their job. I guess they were afraid of the people, and that's a good thing.

I agree.

So what is the next state to go through this, and how long before all states go through this. Or will there be riots in the streets before that happens.

Well, 26 states already have limited collective bargaining for public sector workers, so not all states will be going through this. Not to mention that there's no collective bargaining for federal workers, and never has been.

[Topaz]

Just remember, who belongs to the unions? Middle-class workers are on their out and the nation will only have low class workers, so who will be paying the most taxes, the rich, the lower class won't have any money!

[Shady]

Just remember, who belongs to the unions? Middle-class workers are on their out and the nation will only have low class workers, so who will be paying the most taxes, the rich, the lower class won't have any money!

The issue isn't unions. It's public sector unions. I'm not sure why everyone of you tries to conflate the two. What does it say about you people when you have to base your premise off of a lie?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes...revenue is going up, but not at a pace to match entitlement programs.

So overall spending is going up, or just certain programs ?

Is it going up per capita, in real dollars or... not ?

[CANADIEN]

The issue isn't unions. It's public sector unions. I'm not sure why everyone of you tries to conflate the two. What does it say about you people when you have to base your premise off of a lie?

The big lie is the claim that this is about public sector unions only. Te weakening of public sector unions is mthe first step in weakening all unions and, ultimately, workers' rights and protection.

Edited March 11, 2011 by CANADIEN

[bush_cheney2004]

So overall spending is going up, or just certain programs ?

Is it going up per capita, in real dollars or... not ?

Overall spending is increasing in real dollars at federal and state levels because of several nondiscretionary programs that are driven by an aging demographic, the disabled, veterans, the poor, and associated (rising faster than inflation) health care costs. Nowadays, people just refuse to hurry up and die already! States are having to make hard budget choices for education vs. health and human services.

Military spending and debt service have also become a major concern going forward, but are not consuming budget dollars at a growing proportion of the total budget compared to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. See link below for a historical view:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

Edited March 11, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[SF/PF]

Democracy in action?

Edited March 11, 2011 by SF/PF

[pinko]

Democracy in action?

Thank-you for providing that clip. It would appear to me that, as a matter of law, insufficient notice was given in introducing this particular bill. I don't know whether injunctive relief is available through the courts but it does seem a cause of action is in the making. It is quite shocking to see the disrespect shown by the Republicans in the State of Wisconsin to the democratic process. Clearly in such circumstances the Democrats ought to have been given sufficient notice and an opportunity to review and debate the bill.

In our system of democracy legislative bills allow for public input at the committee level and in this particular case that input has been disregarded to date.

I look forward to a review by the courts and am hoping the court will consider the bill void ab initio.

Edited March 11, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

19.84 Public Notice

...

(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In our system of democracy legislative bills allow for public input at the committee level and in this particular case that input has been disregarded to date.

In "our" system of democracy, elected representatives do not abandon their responsibilities in contempt by hunkering down in another state.

[Michael Hardner]

Overall spending is increasing in real dollars at federal and state levels because of several nondiscretionary programs that are driven by an aging demographic, the disabled, veterans, the poor, and associated (rising faster than inflation) health care costs. Nowadays, people just refuse to hurry up and die already! States are having to make hard budget choices for education vs. health and human services.

Ok. You were referring to entitlements, though and now you're referring to people who depend on social assistance. I'm not bringing this up to poke any kind of hole in your argument or anything, I'm just wondering how much of the increase is due to either group of factors.

Military spending and debt service have also become a major concern going forward, but are not consuming budget dollars at a growing proportion of the total budget compared to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. See link below for a historical view:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

Will do.