Union Busting in Wisconsin

[bush_cheney2004]

Only when used in a completely bizarre way that can only suggest you have no idea what it means.

No...it's good for a laffer anytime...so twisted in knots become you and your ilk. I don't know what it is about Palin that sets you off, but it sure is funny to watch the knee jerk reactions.

[Scotty]

Neil Young lives in La Honda, California, US of A. He voted with his feet.

Well, it is a lot warmer out there, and given how your house prices have collapsed I've been looking at houses in Florida myself. I could buy one for half the price of a cottage up here.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, it is a lot warmer out there, and given how your house prices have collapsed I've been looking at houses in Florida myself. I could buy one for half the price of a cottage up here.

Yea...I get that a lot..."It's the weather". Mr. Young also bought about 1500 acres of land, so it's more than just the weather. He won't be dying in any expensive Canadian "cottage".

[Mr.Canada]

Public unions know no bounds because they think that the government has an endless supply of money. We simply cannot afford to continue to raise taxes forever. That's where public union wages come from, our taxes. In Wi, the public unions want the government to raise taxes by $3.2 Billion this year in order to pay for their wages and benefits. Then the next year they'll have to be raised again and on and on and on.

A small percentage of the workforce is unionized, why should the rest of us be forced to pay ever rising taxes in order to pay these wages and benefits?

Plus unionized workers don't have to work and there's nothing anyone can do about it. These people cannot be fired.

[SF/PF]

Plus unionized workers don't have to work and there's nothing anyone can do about it. These people cannot be fired.

Boy are you ever wrong.

[Mr.Canada]

Boy are you ever wrong.

So your saying that a manager or whomever is in charge of such things can fire a member of a public sector union like they can a private employee? That just isn't true.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[Shady]

Boy are you ever wrong.

Moore, he's right. Just google "rubber rooms.". It literally takes years to fire some public employees, and at a tremendous financial cost to the state.

[BubberMiley]

No...it's good for a laffer anytime...so twisted in knots become you and your ilk. I don't know what it is about Palin that sets you off, but it sure is funny to watch the knee jerk reactions.

Palin set me off? Only in your dreams. Or mine. My only opinion about Palin I share with Tracy Morgan.

But I was just wondering how "blood libel" related to what he was talking about.

Perhaps, seeing as you're the anonymous expert on everything, you could tell me.

Or not.

[SF/PF]

So your saying that a manager or whomever is in charge of such things can fire a member of a public sector union like they can a private employee? That just isn't true.

Your claim was that unionized workers don't have to work, AND that they can't be fired. Anyone that isn't a simple ideologue knows that both claims are obviously untrue.

Even in the most protective agreements, an employee can be fired for just cause. More often than not, the limiting factor is management's will to do so. Not the union itself.

[Shady]

Palin set me off? Only in your dreams. Or mine. My only opinion about Palin I share with Tracy Morgan.

But I was just wondering how "blood libel" related to what he was talking about.

Perhaps, seeing as you're the anonymous expert on everything, you could tell me.

Or not.

As I've already said, it's called a rhetorical flourish. The same way it was used by John Kerry supporters to describe the Swift Boat attacks. I didnt hear you types complaining then. Deal with it.

[BubberMiley]

As I've already said, it's called a rhetorical flourish. The same way it was used by John Kerry supporters to describe the Swift Boat attacks. I didnt hear you types complaining then. Deal with it.

I'm not complaining at all. It just seemed like you were inserting the words without knowing what they meant.

Thank you for proving my initial assumption.

[Mr.Canada]

Your claim was that unionized workers don't have to work, AND that they can't be fired. Anyone that isn't a simple ideologue knows that both claims are obviously untrue.

Even in the most protective agreements, an employee can be fired for just cause. More often than not, the limiting factor is management's will to do so. Not the union itself.

People sleeping on the job isn't just cause?

[bush_cheney2004]

Palin set me off? Only in your dreams. Or mine. My only opinion about Palin I share with Tracy Morgan.

But I was just wondering how "blood libel" related to what he was talking about.

Perhaps, seeing as you're the anonymous expert on everything, you could tell me.

Or not.

Only two words....placed tactically...causes you to expend much energy. They must be very important to you. Shady said it best..."Deal with it".

[SF/PF]

People sleeping on the job isn't just cause?

What gives you that idea?

[ToadBrother]

If you say so...neither you nor "Toadbrother" have served in the US Armed Forces, have experience in US employment law, or even live in the United States. Googling from Canada does not make you an expert.

Oh well, there you have it. I can't possibly be right about American jurisprudence because... and wait for it... I'm not an American! Only Americans can understand American law, American soldiering, because, gosh darnit, the US is just a galderned special place that only Americans can understand.

Sometimes your arrogance is understandable, but sometimes it just looks like the thinly-veiled attempts of a small man to try to make himself look big by seeking out a forum where he's guaranteed that most folks won't know as much about his homeland as he does.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh well, there you have it. I can't possibly be right about American jurisprudence because... and wait for it... I'm not an American! Only Americans can understand American law, American soldiering, because, gosh darnit, the US is just a galderned special place that only Americans can understand.

What other qualifications do you offer? If you really think that American armed forces personnel cannot bring suit against the US government, what is this based on? Why do you presume to know more than an American who actually served and has first hand experience in such things?

Sometimes your arrogance is understandable, but sometimes it just looks like the thinly-veiled attempts of a small man to try to make himself look big by seeking out a forum where he's guaranteed that most folks won't know as much about his homeland as he does.

Clearly they don't...and why would they? Would you be as accepting if I were to croak such expertise about Canada? Probably not. The endless ramblings of American wannabes on this forum is a bottomless source of entertainment.

Edited March 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

What other qualifications do you offer? If you really think that American armed forces personnel cannot bring suit against the US government, what is this based on? Why do you presume to know more than an American who actually served and has first hand experience in such things?

This is an Internet forum, Mr. American. Neither one of us likely have any particular credentials in the areas of US military justice. However, what we both are is literate. The Feres doctrine has been applied for decades to active duty soldiers. This would be, I think common knowledge among Americans, and hardly knowledge that requires American citizenship for an outsider.

Clearly they don't...and why would they? Would you be as accepting if I were to croak such expertise about Canada? Probably not. The endless ramblings of American wannabes on this forum is a bottomless source of entertainment.

And your endless attempts to hold yourself as some sort of "expert", even when you're wrong, are for me a bottomless source of entertainment. It does not follow that just because you are a US citizen that you magically gain some greater knowledge, and that I, not being an American citizen, have inferior knowledge. I am no expert in American law, civilian or military, but I'll confess some interest in legal systems not just in Canada, but in other parts of the world as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is an Internet forum, Mr. American. Neither one of us likely have any particular credentials in the areas of US military justice. However, what we both are is literate. The Feres doctrine has been applied for decades to active duty soldiers. This would be, I think common knowledge among Americans, and hardly knowledge that requires American citizenship for an outsider.

Again, you are wrong. I have first hand experience in NJP and court martial proceedings as a commissioned officer in the US Navy. A JAG course is required for my commissioning source. "Soldiers" can and do bring suit against the government on a routine basis, only to find that immunity must be waived in most, but not all circumstances.

And your endless attempts to hold yourself as some sort of "expert", even when you're wrong, are for me a bottomless source of entertainment. It does not follow that just because you are a US citizen that you magically gain some greater knowledge, and that I, not being an American citizen, have inferior knowledge. I am no expert in American law, civilian or military, but I'll confess some interest in legal systems not just in Canada, but in other parts of the world as well.

I am not an expert, but I am an American afforded the experience to be far more expert than you in this (and many other) instances. Your interests are your choice, but they are not a substitute for actual experience. If you have no better credential(s), then your opinions will be held in lower regard.

And yes...I take great pleasure in the interception of half-assed notions about America and Americans, and returning them to sender with a cherry on top.

Edited March 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

Again, you are wrong. I have first hand experience in NJP and court martial proceedings as a commissioned officer in the US Navy. A JAG course is required for my commissioning source. "Soldiers" can and do bring suit against the government on a routine basis, only to find that immunity must be waived in most, but not all circumstances.

The Feres doctrine places sufficient restrictions on active duty soldiers' ability to sue the Federal government that, for all intents and purposes, active duty soldiers have no ability to sue. This, again, is not secret knowledge. In fact, I think the Feres doctrine, though it may have some detrimental aspects, is a damned good idea.

I am not an expert, but I am an American afforded the experience to be far more expert than you in this (and many other) instances. Your interests are your choice, but they are not a substitute for actual experience. If you have no better credential(s), then your opinions will be held in lower regard.

And yet you were still wrong. Fancy that.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Feres doctrine places sufficient restrictions on active duty soldiers' ability to sue the Federal government that, for all intents and purposes, active duty soldiers have no ability to sue. This, again, is not secret knowledge. In fact, I think the Feres doctrine, though it may have some detrimental aspects, is a damned good idea.

And yet you were still wrong. Fancy that.

The Feres Doctrine applies to narrow circumstances, and even then exceptions have been granted, particularly when provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act have been found to be lacking. The fact is that American "soldiers" (active duty or not), dependents, and other employees have brought suit against the government.

Here is an example:

Sixth circuit waives Feres doctrine for prenatal injuries.

Publication: Trial

Publication Date: 01-JAN-07 Format: Online

The Sixth Circuit has allowed a lawsuit against a U.S. Navy doctor to go forward, ruling that the case is not barred by the so-called Feres doctrine, which limits government liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The decision clears the way for a case alleging that the doctor's improper prenatal care led to birth defects in a servicewoman's child. (Brown v. United States, 462 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2006).)

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6184905/Sixth-circuit-waives-Feres-doctrine.html

Here is another involving an active duty servicemember plaintiff-appellant:

The care provided a pregnant woman hardly can be considered to be distinctively military in character. In short, Atkinson's injuries have nothing to do with her army career "except in the sense that all human events depend upon what has already transpired." Brooks, 337 U.S. at 52, 69 S.Ct. at 920. There is simply no connection between Atkinson's medical treatment and the decisional or disciplinary interest protected by the Feres doctrine.

http://openjurist.org/804/f2d/561

Here is an older example concerning military aircraft falling on active-duty military personnel housing located off base:

Sapp v. United States, 153 F.Supp. 496 (W.D.La.1957)

Here is another more recent lawsuit filed in court:

The suit — brought by 2 men and 15 women, both veterans and active-duty service members — specifically claims that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, “ran institutions in which perpetrators were promoted and where military personnel openly mocked and flouted the modest Congressionally mandated institutional reforms.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-15/robert-gates-sued-over-us-militarys-rape-epidemic/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/us/16military.html

Score: American 1, Canadian 0

Edited March 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

Hey, there's a fleebagging anthem! Did you pro-fleebaggers know that?

Now we're fleeeeeeee! Fleeeeeeebagging!

[pinko]

So your saying that a manager or whomever is in charge of such things can fire a member of a public sector union like they can a private employee? That just isn't true.

You are mistaken. In the public sector there is the concept of delegated authority. In such circumstances a person with that authority may have the capacity to discipline a person up to and including dismissal.

Edited March 14, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

People sleeping on the job isn't just cause?

In cases of discipline there is a two fold test. The first part of that test is whether there is"just cause" based upon the circumstances. The burden of proof is on the employer to provide the evidence to warrant whatever sanction is chosen. If it is found that there are grounds for a sanction then the next phase of the process is to establish the appropriate penalty. At this stage a number of factors are taken into account including the previous disciplinary record, if any, the length of service of the employee and any other mitigating factor.

It is safe to say that sleeping on the job normally draws a disciplinary sanction.

If you are interested Brown & Beatty is a good source of information.

Edited March 14, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

Again, you are wrong. I have first hand experience in NJP and court martial proceedings as a commissioned officer in the US Navy. A JAG course is required for my commissioning source. "Soldiers" can and do bring suit against the government on a routine basis, only to find that immunity must be waived in most, but not all circumstances.

I am not an expert, but I am an American afforded the experience to be far more expert than you in this (and many other) instances. Your interests are your choice, but they are not a substitute for actual experience. If you have no better credential(s), then your opinions will be held in lower regard.

And yes...I take great pleasure in the interception of half-assed notions about America and Americans, and returning them to sender with a cherry on top.

You say you have first hand experience in NJP and court martial proceedings as a commissioned officer in the US Navy. Please inform us of the duration of your service in the US Navy. Please inform us of your rank. Please inform us of the nature of your experience in these proceedings. Please inform us of your qualifications.

Normally when one claims a certain expertise that person is obliged to establish his credentials.

Edited March 14, 2011 by pinko

[Mr.Canada]

Public unions know no bounds because they think that the government has an endless supply of money. We simply cannot afford to continue to raise taxes forever. That's where public union wages come from, our taxes. In Wi, the public unions want the government to raise taxes by $3.2 Billion this year in order to pay for their wages and benefits. Then the next year they'll have to be raised again and on and on and on.

A small percentage of the workforce is unionized, why should the rest of us be forced to pay ever rising taxes in order to pay these wages and benefits?