Wisconsin Union Bill

[ElasticNinja]

If people don't like the way the union represents them, they shouldn't join one. It really is pretty simple. And from the government's point of view, a 10% job cut is probably a better deal since both wages and benefits go away. Sure, it sucks big time if you're one of the people losing a job, but that is the way a free market works.

yet the government then has to pay redundancy, social welfare, healthcare costs, and the people have services reduced and strained
great, aint it?

 

[cipher6]

Uh, the ability to function as a union? Collective bargaining is the whole reason to have a union. Without collective bargaining, there is no union.

This isn't quite true, in respect to the WI law. The WI law only removes collective bargaining for non-wage issues. They are doing this because, to if the Unions can collectively barging their benefits, the part of the law that requires them to pay more could be fought with threat of strike.

If people don't like the way the union represents them, they shouldn't join one. It really is pretty simple

You don't always have that choice. For example, to be a teacher in the state of Texas, you HAVE to be a member of the teachers union, and have dues taken out of your check. This is the same for many jobs and places of employment.

Obama and dems, wanted to pass the "card check" law a while back, that would take away secret ballot votes on forming a union. Meaning union thugs would know who and who didn't support them.

Card check - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They already have accepted the cuts. The issue in Wisconsin isn't about the union accepting reduced pay and increased health and retirement payments. The senators that left the state have said that they will absolutely vote for the governors proposal on wages and benefits. What they are upset about is the governor removing the right to have a union.

Their not removing the right to have a union, your either misinformed or lying.

They retain collective bargaining rights on wages only.

Sure they agree now, that a large chunk of their power is on the chopping block. But if this doesn't pass, and they just change the current benefit structure. Nothing is stopping the union from coming back in a few years, after this isn't big news anymore, and demanding a return to unsustainable levels... Unions get their way many times, because their the loudest voice. They will run commercials calling any politician that doesn't agree "evil" and what not... they will bus in people from around and outside the state (like their doing now) to make a big protest. Average people won't care what the fuss is about, and government will cave.

And yes, management deserves some responsibility when it comes to accepting too much union demands... but thats kinda like saying the guy getting rob is partly to blame because he turned over his wallet. Unions are organized, and will play a nasty PR game, that could destroy your brand, before they ever get to a strike.

 

[cjr72]

And yes, management deserves some responsibility when it comes to accepting too much union demands... but thats kinda like saying the guy getting rob is partly to blame because he turned over his wallet. Unions are organized, and will play a nasty PR game, that could destroy your brand, before they ever get to a strike.

To me a better analogy is a bank manager allowing robbers rob a bank and getting a kickback of some of that stolen money. Politicians know when negotiating with unions that if they increase their benefits there will be a continuation of union donations to their reelection coffers. To be fair this is true with any powerful special interest not just the unions.

 

[Hangdog42]

This isn't quite true, in respect to the WI law. The WI law only removes collective bargaining for non-wage issues. They are doing this because, to if the Unions can collectively barging their benefits, the part of the law that requires them to pay more could be fought with threat of strike.

What you're leaving out is that the law restricts the wage bargaining to cost of living increases only. If inflation is 2%, you can't even ask for 3%. So while technically, they still have bargaining rights, in practice it is utterly useless. Kind of like putting a governor on a Forumla 1 car to keep it under 20 MPH.

You don't always have that choice. For example, to be a teacher in the state of Texas, you HAVE to be a member of the teachers union, and have dues taken out of your check. This is the same for many jobs and places of employment.

Then be a teacher someplace else. Or don't be a teacher at all. If unions offend someone that much, then they shouldn't go into a heavily unionized field.

Their not removing the right to have a union, your either misinformed or lying.

No, I'm neither, but thank you for the personal attack. The law neuters the unions to the point where they really can't do anything. Sort of like having a bowling league where nobody is allowed to own, rent or borrow a bowling ball. Sure you can have it, but it is completely useless.

Unions get their way many times, because their the loudest voice. They will run commercials calling any politician that doesn't agree "evil" and what not... they will bus in people from around and outside the state (like their doing now) to make a big protest. Average people won't care what the fuss is about, and government will cave.

And what is stopping the opposition from doing exactly the same thing? Essentially your complaining that the unions are better at playing the game than the opposition is. Politicians respond to voters, and if voters keep up the pressure then the unions won't be able to pull off outrageous demands. But don't complain when the other side works harder than you do.

Politicians know when negotiating with unions that if they increase their benefits there will be a continuation of union donations to their reelection coffers. To be fair this is true with any powerful special interest not just the unions.

Maybe if we didn't elect career politicians, unions would lose a lot of their power.

 

[mdram]

the state should have the right to hire teachers who are non union. any employer should have the right to hire non union people

 

[cipher6]

What you're leaving out is that the law restricts the wage bargaining to cost of living increases only. If inflation is 2%, you can't even ask for 3%. So while technically, they still have bargaining rights, in practice it is utterly useless. Kind of like putting a governor on a Forumla 1 car to keep it under 20 MPH.

I think its telling you compair a union to a Formula 1 car... unions shouldn't be trying to get as much as they can out of an employer.

And your wrong again, they can ask for 3% or 20% rasies, but they have to be approved by voters. Seems like a good plan to keep those incompetent government officials from agreeing to such outlandish demands, which you pointed out as the problem.

Then be a teacher someplace else. Or don't be a teacher at all. If unions offend someone that much, then they shouldn't go into a heavily unionized field.

In a free country, no one should be forced into and forced to pay dues to an organization they don't want to belong to. Maybe a solution is to neuter the unions instead of sending talented labor in away.

The law neuters the unions to the point where they really can't do anything. Sort of like having a bowling league where nobody is allowed to own, rent or borrow a bowling ball. Sure you can have it, but it is completely useless.

Then maybe the state shouldn't have elected representatives saying the would balance the budget and go after unions and their outlandish contracts.

And what is stopping the opposition from doing exactly the same thing? Essentially your complaining that the unions are better at playing the game than the opposition is. Politicians respond to voters, and if voters keep up the pressure then the unions won't be able to pull off outrageous demands. But don't complain when the other side works harder than you do.

So, now our democracy is based on who can yell louder and stir up more of a stink? Why don't we let the elected representatives do the job we elected them for? WI. elected a GOP majority, that said they would do exactly this... now that the unions didn't get their way, their throwing a big fit.

Democracy isn't about who can yell the loudest, gather the most people to skip work and hold signs... its about who wins elections.

Maybe if we didn't elect career politicians, unions would lose a lot of their power.

Career politicians are trying to remove some of the unions power now... but the unions are attempting to derail the democratic process by having a big baby fit.

 

[Dark Jedi]

What you'releaving out is that the law restricts the wage bargaining to cost of living increases only. If inflation is2%,you can'teven askfor3%. So while technically, they still have bargaining rights, in practice it is utterly useless. Kind of likeputting a governor on a Forumla 1 car to keep it under 20 MPH.

look at how many jobs where people don't even get a cost of living increase

 

[ElasticNinja]

look at how many jobs where people don't even get a cost of living increase

havent wages (PPP) stagnated since the 80's in the US?

 

[EarlyMon]

Political Fight Over Unions Escalates

Seems like unrest is spreading. WSJ article linked above.

 

[Hangdog42]

I think its telling you compair a union to a Formula 1 car... unions shouldn't be trying to get as much as they can out of an employer.

So you've never negotiated a salary with an employer? Isn't one of the tenets of a free market the ability to get whatever price/salary the market will bear?

And your wrong again, they can ask for 3% or 20% rasies, but they have to be approved by voters. Seems like a good plan to keep those incompetent government officials from agreeing to such outlandish demands, which you pointed out as the problem.

Voters don't ever approved increased spending unless they don't have to pay for it. Putting this sort of stuff in front of voters is one of the major reasons California is in such a mess. This is nothing but a way for cowardly politicians to avoid making the decisions they were supposedly elected to make. Besides, if unions are such a problem, why does this law not apply to all unions in Wisconsin? Police and fire still have their full bargaining rights. Not co-incidentally, they also endorsed the governor. Gee. Who'da thunk that would ever happen.

In a free country, no one should be forced into and forced to pay dues to an organization they don't want to belong to. Maybe a solution is to neuter the unions instead of sending talented labor in away.

How is this any different from having to be licensed/bonded/insured or pass the bar exam or pay for certifications or buy your own tools? Many, many, many jobs come with costs that I'm sure people would prefer not to pay. And maybe the solution is to actually work with unions so they aren't such a problem. That is what the Germans do. They have much stronger and bigger unions that we do and their economy is kicking our butt.

Then maybe the state shouldn't have elected representatives saying the would balance the budget and go after unions and their outlandish contracts.

Considering a 50% voter turnout , I'd be hesitant to claim any sort of mandate.

So, now our democracy is based on who can yell louder and stir up more of a stink?

It's been this way pretty much since 1776.

Democracy isn't about who can yell the loudest, gather the most people to skip work and hold signs... its about who wins elections.

Again, you may want to do some looking into American history. Politics have always been highly influence by people yelling and carrying signs. Remember the protests over Vietnam? Civil rights? Those are only recent examples.

Career politicians are trying to remove some of the unions power now... but the unions are attempting to derail the democratic process by having a big baby fit.

Since when is freedom of speech and freedom of expression un-American? People have a right to protest, it is right there in the First Amendment.

 

[cipher6]

So you've never negotiated a salary with an employer? Isn't one of the tenets of a free market the ability to get whatever price/salary the market will bear?

Yes it is, and your employer, if your a public employee (lets not forget this law is only about public unions) is the tax payer, so, I don't see an issue with putting public employee raises to a vote by the tax payer. You said yourself the problem was officials agreeing to stupid terms, so, let them vote on it.

Voters don't ever approved increased spending unless they don't have to pay for it.

Do you remember when you said this:

Why the hell do unions get all the blame? Excuse me, but for each and every one of the examples brought up in this thread, some management moron AGREED to the union demands.

The WI law fixes that problem, but letting voters vote on it. And now you don't like that because voters won't approve crazy outlandish raises.

Putting this sort of stuff in front of voters is one of the major reasons California is in such a mess.

Mmmm... I disagree but thats a different subject.

This is nothing but a way for cowardly politicians to avoid making the decisions they were supposedly elected to make.

I see some politicians trying to make decisions that are a bit unpopular, but needed to fix the budget. I see other politicians running and hiding out of state, so they don't have to do the job they were elected for... seems you got things a bit backwards.

Besides, if unions are such a problem, why does this law not apply to all unions in Wisconsin?

Because unions aren't the problem... public unions are. Public unions are bankrupting cities, counties and states, not private unions.

How is this any different from having to be licensed/bonded/insured or pass the bar exam or pay for certifications or buy your own tools? Many, many, many jobs come with costs that I'm sure people would prefer not to pay.

Because union dues have nothing to do with your job... its not certifying your qualified to do a job, their not tools used to do your job, its just money to feed an organization that would throw you under the buss if it helped their fat cats.

And maybe the solution is to actually work with unions so they aren't such a problem. That is what the Germans do. They have much stronger and bigger unions that we do and their economy is kicking our butt.

Again, we're talking public unions, and "working with them" bankrupted the state.

Considering a 50% voter turnout , I'd be hesitant to claim any sort of mandate.

then why didn't these thousands of people protesting get out and vote? Now, that they don't get their way, they want to throw a fit and force the democratically elected government to do what they want... thats not how democracy works.

It's been this way pretty much since 1776.

Yeah, protests have their place, so do elections... lefties lost the elections in WI. get over it.

Again, you may want to do some looking into American history. Politics have always been highly influence by people yelling and carrying signs. Remember the protests over Vietnam? Civil rights? Those are only recent examples.

Yup, protests play a role, but so do elections. There is nothing wrong with the protests, but the Democratic legislators who ran away to another state to avoid having to vote, THATS avoiding democracy. If it was the other way around, and the GOP guys ran to hide from something, they would be called every name in the book.

Since when is freedom of speech and freedom of expression un-American? People have a right to protest, it is right there in the First Amendment.

Yeah, people have a right. I just don't give these guys a lot of credit, they are only their because their union bussed them in... and their scared they will loose a sweet lifetime gig. But people can freely express their dissatisfaction with a law, thats fine. It doesn't mean the law will change... and I'm curious how far they will take it.

What gets me more is elected representatives running away to avoid a vote they new was coming, they should start procedures to recall those reps.

 

[cipher6]

Political Fight Over Unions Escalates

Seems like unrest is spreading. WSJ article linked above.

I think this quote from your article cuts to the heart of the issue.

Democrats claim the fight has injected fresh energy into the ranks of labor unions, which are a major supplier of campaign money and volunteers for Democratic candidates.

Dems are fighting so hard for the unions, not out of some love for the common man, but because thats a major source of funding for their campaigns... Its not about protecting anyone but their leaders and fat cats.

 

[cipher6]

And here is the effects of these public unions milking government budgets.

Illinois slashes ALL state funding for drug and alcohol abuse treatment in massive cuts programme

Read more: Tens of thousands to be hit as Illinois cuts funding for drug treatment programmes | Mail Online


And there is this:

Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can’t Read Proficiently—Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest

The test also showed that the reading abilities of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders had not improved at all between 1998 and 2009 despite a significant inflation-adjusted increase in the amount of money Wisconsin public schools spent per pupil each year.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g

 

[cjr72]

Dems are fighting so hard for the unions, not out of some love for the common man, but because thats a major source of funding for their campaigns... Its not about protecting anyone but their leaders and fat cats.

Yep, on the national level before the elections, in a struggling economy, the Dem controlled Congress slashed food stamps and used the money to help shore up union jobs. 'The party of the little guy' knows who butters their bread, and it ain't food stamp recipients.

Food Stamps Slashed to Pay for Teacher Jobs Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[byteware]

Unions have their place. They maintain a healthy balance between employer and employee.

No, they SHOULD maintain a healthy balance, but it is in their nature to suck the company dry.

If Unions were half controlled by Employees and Half controlled by companies, we might see something different, but that's not the case.

IMO state and federal jobs should NEVER be unionized. There is no profit margin in public services. I'm pro scott walker

I disagree entirely here. Public sector employees are great political whipping boys. We went nearly a decade without COLA increases, because it was the politically RIGHT thing to do... We lost a LOT of talent because of that.

 

[byteware]

Why the hell do unions get all the blame? Excuse me, but for each and every one of the examples brought up in this thread, some management moron AGREED to the union demands. Did the UAW get out of line? Sure did, and management agreed to let them. Every time. Are teachers unions preventing incompetents from being fired? Yup. And school boards agreed to it.

Let me explain the how and the why of this...

Each year, unions demand a little more than last year. Each year they have to show something to their members that they got them from the negotiations.

It's only a little more.

Compare that "little more" with the threat of losing millions/billions due to strikes.

Compare that "little more" with students not being educated, police officers not being on the job.

Each year, companies agree to that little more, because they really have no choice. They stand to lose SO much by not giving in to that "little more".

The problem isn't just unions, it is people on the other side of the table not doing their jobs. Unions don't have some unholy power to force their wishes upon an unwilling partner.

Abide by our demands or lose millions of dollars a day...

they do have an unholy power to force their wishes upon an unwilling partner. That's the problem.

 

[byteware]

Please explain the difference between millions lost due to a strike and millions lost due to a stupid labor agreement.

The management and the board have a legal duty to look out for the interest of the shareholders, and if they are agreeing to demands that will bankrupt the company, then they are very negligent in that duty.

The small changes to the contract each year aren't millions of dollars worth of changes. Each year's small changes amount to pocket change against the Millions of dollars they could lose because of a shutdown. However, as we've seen, union demands are cumulative. That's the problem.

Again, whose fault is it that spineless government officials bow to unreasonable demands?

Yep, spineless government officials that refuse to allow people to die because the police aren't on the job, or hate the idea of someone losing their home because the Fire Department isn't on the job...

Yep spineless alright. Until you call 911 and the service you need is on strike for the third time that year... and someone you care about is dying because of it.

These are the choices that government officials have.

 

[byteware]

So what does the unions lose if collective bargaining is removed?

The ability to force the yearly "small change" increase on the government.

They will still be able to lobby their legislature for things that are to their members benefits.

Uh, the ability to function as a union? Collective bargaining is the whole reason to have a union. Without collective bargaining, there is no union.

That's either a misconception or a lie. There are actually plenty of public employee unions throughout the nation that do not have collective bargaining rights. They still function as a union, just via different methods.

The right to collective bargaining isn't about whether or not a worker is in a union or not. Workers always have the right to work someplace that isn't part of a union. But if workers choose to unionize, who gives the government the right to prevent that?

If a worker chooses to not be a part of a union, who gives the government the right to prevent that?

And if your argument is that they can always work someplace else, or do something else... then I ask you this question...

If workers choose to unionize, then they can always change jobs to one that is unionized.

What you're leaving out is that the law restricts the wage bargaining to cost of living increases only. If inflation is 2%, you can't even ask for 3%. So while technically, they still have bargaining rights, in practice it is utterly useless. Kind of like putting a governor on a Forumla 1 car to keep it under 20 MPH.

Why should employee pay go up more than inflation. There are merit raises that each employee earns, but the base pay should only go up with COLA increases, and those shouldn't outpace the economy.

Then be a teacher someplace else. Or don't be a teacher at all. If unions offend someone that much, then they shouldn't go into a heavily unionized field.

To paraphrase your earlier question.. If someone wants to be a non-union teacher, who is the government to interfere with that?

Or better yet... If they want a union, then they should move to a state that supports public service employees being unionized, or change jobs to another unionized field.

No, I'm neither, but thank you for the personal attack. The law neuters the unions to the point where they really can't do anything. Sort of like having a bowling league where nobody is allowed to own, rent or borrow a bowling ball. Sure you can have it, but it is completely useless.

Again, the numerous unions who function under these conditions would beg to differ.

And what is stopping the opposition from doing exactly the same thing? Essentially your complaining that the unions are better at playing the game than the opposition is. Politicians respond to voters, and if voters keep up the pressure then the unions won't be able to pull off outrageous demands. But don't complain when the other side works harder than you do.

I didn't realize that governments could send all of their employees home until their demands were met... I didn't realize governments had that kind of bargaining power. No, all the bargaining power lies in the hands of the unions unfortunately.

So you've never negotiated a salary with an employer? Isn't one of the tenets of a free market the ability to get whatever price/salary the market will bear?

There is a different in negotiating a fair market price, and forcing a price on an employer via threat of strike.

Voters don't ever approved increased spending unless they don't have to pay for it. Putting this sort of stuff in front of voters is one of the major reasons California is in such a mess. This is nothing but a way for cowardly politicians to avoid making the decisions they were supposedly elected to make. Besides, if unions are such a problem, why does this law not apply to all unions in Wisconsin? Police and fire still have their full bargaining rights. Not co-incidentally, they also endorsed the governor. Gee. Who'da thunk that would ever happen.

Umm... no. Voters never approve taxes. They approve plenty of spending increases.

How is this any different from having to be licensed/bonded/insured or pass the bar exam or pay for certifications or buy your own tools? Many, many, many jobs come with costs that I'm sure people would prefer not to pay. And maybe the solution is to actually work with unions so they aren't such a problem. That is what the Germans do. They have much stronger and bigger unions that we do and their economy is kicking our butt.

How is being required to pay a private company a fee to be allowed to work in your field different from paying a government license? Really?

I will answer this, as I'm reasonably sure that it's not a sarcastic question...

Government agency is part of the government... a union is a private company.

Government agency has the responsibility of regulating the workforce... a union does not.

Forcing someone to join a union is forcing them to pay for representation that they may not like, or care for. OR that they may not even want.

It's like forcing people to sign up for AARP. They are fighting so hard to prevent any chances to Social Security that they are basically ensuring that Social Security won't be there when I get there.

 

[Bob Maxey]

How is being required to pay a private company a fee to be allowed to work in your field different from paying a government license? Really?

A government license ostensibly demonstrates some level of competence. They are required by law so consumers can feel more confident that important work will be done properly. You would never hire an unlicensed person to install an electrical system or remove a kidney.

Bob Maxey

 

[byteware]

A government license ostensibly demonstrates some level of competence. They are required by law so consumers can feel more confident that important work will be done properly. You would never hire an unlicensed person to install an electrical system or remove a kidney.

Bob Maxey

I was referring to his question about how they differ... I absolutely understand the difference.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I was referring to his question about how they differ... I absolutely understand the difference.

OK.

Just sounded like you think a government mandated license is somehow a bad thing.

Bob Maxey

 

[ElasticNinja]

OK.

Just sounded like you think a government mandated license is somehow a bad thing.

Bob Maxey

of course its BAD, its the government <insert rolleyes emoticon here>

 

[EarlyMon]

That's either a misconception or a lie. There are actually plenty of public employee unions throughout the nation that do not have collective bargaining rights. They still function as a union, just via different methods.

Respectfully disagree - whether with insurance providers (gov unions) or management or with credit unions, all unions engage in collective bargaining.

Without collective bargaining, unions provide nothing.

 

[jamor]

Governor Scott Walker spoke tonight to the state of Wisconsin.

I'll post a video of it when it comes on youtube.

 

[byteware]

Respectfully disagree - whether with insurance providers (gov unions) or management or with credit unions, all unions engage in collective bargaining.

Without collective bargaining, unions provide nothing.

I have a Union, we don't have collective bargaining, and yet, they still fight for our COLA raises. It's a completely different process, but it works, and it works just fine.

AND we aren't constantly increasing our costs to the point of bankrupting the government.