Revolution in Wisconsin

[GGT]

How revolting of you. He's openly saying that he thinks he's paying too little, yet you're sitting around calling him fat and demanding he not get any healthcare at all.

What adjective describes how you twisted my words......Donkey?


Fact: He is obese. Is he paying a higher insurance premium for that "lifestyle" risk, like others might? Was he denied coverage for his obesity or asthma, like others have? No.

Did I demand he not get ANY HEALTHCARE AT ALL? No.

I did suggest he shouldn't call anyone's tax-payer subsidized health plan gold-plated when his tax-payer health plan is platinum. Surely his salary is high enough to buy his own insurance and medications like many others do. Ditto for his federal retirement pension.

[Being]

If that was true you would've posted examples.

Well, I heard Mark Shields tonight state that only 9 states do not allow collective bargaining by state employees and they are all further in the red than Wisconsin. You can look that up if you believe it is false information. I'm pretty sure GGT already provided some information on that in this thread. If you look at it from a logical management perspective, negotiating with a single entity for the contracts of millions of employees is far more cost effective, bureaucratically, than negotiating with each of the millions of employees individually. Much of the bureaucracy is in fact currently handled by the unions. Where does that burden shift to when they are removed from the picture?

[GGT]

To blame "collective bargaining" or "unions" for state budget woes is lame. For every contract there are two parties, the guys across the table from unions were....legislators. They should have said NO to many things, but they benefited too. Not just in getting votes, but also their own damn tax-paid perks. As healthcare costs and insurance kept escalating, they should have addressed that, decades ago.

It's an attempt to demonize certain groups of people during hard economic times, just to further a political agenda. blecht

[coinich]

I trust you, but correlation isn't causation. Linking a lack of collective bargaining with state deficits doesn't work without more information. Also, its the government's job to deal with teacher salaries. If they hire them, let the government deal with the consequences. And besides, when was the last time any state negotiated with all ___ million of its employees, union or not?

Edit: GGT, so you say that collective bargaining has little impact on the budget? Yes, I recognize that there were corporation tax breaks (whatever that means) beforehand, and despite my conservative leaning I'm suspicious of those as well. Fiscal responsibility is a two-headed beast, and as far as I can tell Governor Walker only tackled one head so far.

[Being]

And besides, when was the last time any state negotiated with all ___ million of its employees, union or not?

It's the one at a time thing that gets expensive.

[GGT]

Edit: GGT, so you say that collective bargaining has little impact on the budget? Yes, I recognize that there were corporation tax breaks (whatever that means) beforehand, and despite my conservative leaning I'm suspicious of those as well. Fiscal responsibility is a two-headed beast, and as far as I can tell Governor Walker only tackled one head so far.

Of course legacy costs for state workers impacts the budget! I'm criticizing Christie, Walker, Dread [etc] who find it justifiable to call teachers spoiled, elite, greedy leeches because they belong to a union. Or blame unions for the deeply buried pustule that finally came to a head.

WI teachers agreed to all the fiscal demands......but NOT to banning their ability to bargain as a collective whole. That's a dirty tactic, to add that to the bill, and I hope it backfires on the GOP.

[coinich]

Teachers and other public servants need methods to protest their pay and such, I just feel that collective bargaining is a horrible way of doing it. We need to setup another process somehow that keeps their interests out of both sides of the table.

[GGT]

Teachers and other public servants need methods to protest their pay and such, I just feel that collective bargaining is a horrible way of doing it. We need to setup another process somehow that keeps their interests out of both sides of the table.

Got any ideas?

How they bargain or negotiate (or protest) is an issue that should be dealt with separately from a budget. Civil servants do have interests on both sides of the table---they're also tax payers and members of the community.

[Being]

Teachers and other public servants need methods to protest their pay and such, I just feel that collective bargaining is a horrible way of doing it. We need to setup another process somehow that keeps their interests out of both sides of the table.

Campaign reform. Make every candidate draw their campaign money from a general pool rather than special interests. That will prevent all special interests (not just unions) from gaining unproportional representation.

[Dreadnaught]

Collective bargaining has benefits for the state as well as for the workers.

What pray tell are those?

I did suggest he shouldn't call anyone's tax-payer subsidized health plan gold-plated when his tax-payer health plan is platinum.

Actually, if you read the article I posted, his insurance is a standard state plan.

To blame "collective bargaining" or "unions" for state budget woes is lame. For every contract there are two parties, the guys across the table from unions were....legislators. They should have said NO to many things, but they benefited too. Not just in getting votes, but also their own damn tax-paid perks. As healthcare costs and insurance kept escalating, they should have addressed that, decades ago.

It's an attempt to demonize certain groups of people during hard economic times, just to further a political agenda. blecht

They couldn't. If they tried, the unions would simply run ads against them, donate to their challengers and mobilize their members against the legislator. How does it feel to pay for someone else's healthcare for life?

[Being]

What pray tell are those?

See posts #189 and #182 for starters.

[GGT]

Actually, if you read the article I posted, his insurance is a standard state plan.

So fucking what? He's still leeching off New Jersey for his healthcare and retirement. He's calling teachers spoiled--that's the pot calling the kettle black.

They couldn't. If they tried, the unions would simply run ads against them, donate to their challengers and mobilize their members against the legislator.

Bullshit. That's the same damn thing wealthy private "benefactors" do; run attack ads, donate to "political war chests", mobilize people. Start PACs. Some even have an In on FoxNews.

How does it feel to pay for someone else's healthcare for life?

Ah, so you like their political tactic. Appeal to emotion, pitt one group against another, get a rise out of private sector workers, suggest it's stolen money. Or something. Because YOU don't get what THEY get!

Well guess what, I'm tired of paying for others' employer-subsidized healthcare and cost-shifting. It trickles down into everything I buy, and every service I use from the private sector. But it's a hidden cost.

I don't like the collective bargaining large corporations get from Aetna or Blue Cross or UnitedHealth, that their premiums are lower than mine, and their costs are less. Whether it's hospital charges, outpatient co-pays, or prescription meds. They never pay full price or real price, because the insurance industry rigs the system to their favor. With help from congress. So where's the outrage at private corporations or the insurance industry, where's the accountability from legislators?

It's easier to pick on teachers, huh. Police and fire fighters were excluded from Walker's bill. Too hard to pick on the guys with guns and fire hoses?

[Dreadnaught]

So fucking what? He's still leeching off New Jersey for his healthcare and retirement. He's calling teachers spoiled--that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Bullshit. That's the same damn thing wealthy private "benefactors" do; run attack ads, donate to "political war chests", mobilize people. Start PACs. Some even have an In on FoxNews.

He's very openly trying to cut costs for everyone. Do you think the teacher's union would back down if he suddenly started paying more for his health plan? The NJ teacher's union still has a guy on the payroll who e-mailed around a prayer for the governor to die.

The difference between public sector unions and private organizations is the unions are created and funded by the state with the explicit purpose of getting more of your tax dollars. They are kafir.

[GGT]

He's very openly trying to cut costs for everyone. Do you think the teacher's union would back down if he suddenly started paying more for his health plan? The NJ teacher's union still has a guy on the payroll who e-mailed around a prayer for the governor to die.

You're splitting hairs. Do you think NJ's budget would save money if all current and retired legislators, including the Guv, withdrew from the state tax-payer subsidized plans?

The difference between public sector unions and private organizations is the unions are created and funded by the state with the explicit purpose of getting more of your tax dollars. They are kafir.

Wrong. The real difference is transparency; knowing what you're paying for, knowing what you're buying, knowing the accounting.

*Starbucks likely gets plenty of tax breaks from the state, as a carrot to do business there, and hire workers. Sales tax feeds the state coffers. They pay their baristas pretty well, even giving part-timers a subsidy for health insurance. You don't pay $5 for one paper cup of coffee, so much as their philosophy of business [fair trade or employee perks]. You can do the same by buying their coffee cheaper per pound in the grocery store, and making it at home. Or forego their prices altogether and buy a store generic.*

Edit to Dread:

You're making ideological statements. By suggesting that taxes are bad, because we have too many taxes and/or our taxation system is FUBAR.....anything that comes from taxes is also, therefore, bad.

[Dreadnaught]

You're splitting hairs. Do you think NJ's budget would save money if all current and retired legislators, including the Guv, withdrew from the state tax-payer subsidized plans?

Wrong. The real difference is transparency; knowing what you're paying for, knowing what you're buying, knowing the accounting.

Yes, the state would save money if its workers had no health insurance.

And no, transparency doesn't help...it's transparently obvious that the state can't pay the insane lifetime benefits lavished on its employees.

[Being]

The difference between public sector unions and private organizations is the unions are created and funded by the state with the explicit purpose of getting more of your tax dollars.

In that respect, private sector unions are funded by industry with the explicit purpose of getting more of your consumer dollars. From what I see, you have become a conspiratist. Balance is necessary in all things, including labor relations. What balances your personal relations with your employer (that's rhetorical since we all know it is state and federal laws)? How about we just get rid of those balances? It'd be sure to make you more affordable.

[GGT]

Also, public unions are NOT created by the state. Either that was a typo or.....

They're created by the workers, who happen to get their wages from the state.

[GGT]

Yes, the state would save money if its workers had no health insurance.

The state would save money if they didn't pay so much in employer contributions. That doesn't mean workers would have no health insurance.

Google would also save money if they didn't pay so much in employer contributions. That doesn't mean they don't pay their employees well enough to buy their own....

And no, transparency doesn't help...it's transparently obvious that the state can't pay the insane lifetime benefits lavished on its employees.

No one can afford to pay "insane" lifetime benefits. *Except the top percentile of wealthy people.* Not the state, not Google, not GM. Even responsible and self-reliant people can't afford to pay for their OWN lifetime costs. Because those costs have become insane, without being a lavish indulgence.

[Dreadnaught]

In that respect, private sector unions are funded by industry with the explicit purpose of getting more of your consumer dollars. From what I see, you have become a conspiratist. Balance is necessary in all things, including labor relations. What balances your personal relations with your employer (that's rhetorical since we all know it is state and federal laws)? How about we just get rid of those balances? It'd be sure to make you more affordable.

Also, public unions are NOT created by the state. Either that was a typo or.....

They're created by the workers, who happen to get their wages from the state.

The National Labor Relations Act excluded government workers for a reason. State workers can unionize because their states have explicitly changed the laws to allow it, and then built systems where states automatically deduct union fees from worker salaries to build a state-funded political organization devoted to getting more money from the state.

Compare Indiana and New York. Indiana is a state with a rapidly-fading industrial base that banned state unions in 2005. New York has a rapidly-fading industrial base but a major urban center focusing on growing services industries.

Yet New York is lousy with state-run unions. Indiana has a relatively strong budget and a higher debt rating compared to New York. Indiana is seeing a net influx of people.

The state would save money if they didn't pay so much in employer contributions. That doesn't mean workers would have no health insurance.

Google would also save money if they didn't pay so much in employer contributions. That doesn't mean they don't pay their employees well enough to buy their own....

No one can afford to pay "insane" lifetime benefits. *Except the top percentile of wealthy people.* Not the state, not Google, not GM. Even responsible and self-reliant people can't afford to pay for their OWN lifetime costs. Because those costs have become insane, without being a lavish indulgence.

Promising (and demanding) these costs from taxpayers for state workers is an insane, lavish indulgence. The state workers are demanding these. I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty confident even a leftish company like Google never promised its employees lifetime healthcare.

[GGT]

The National Labor Relations Act excluded government workers for a reason. State workers can unionize because their states have explicitly changed the laws to allow it, and then built systems where states automatically deduct union fees from worker salaries to build a state-funded political organization devoted to getting more money from the state.

So you admit it's the legislators that set up the current system.

Compare Indiana and New York. Indiana is a state with a rapidly-fading industrial base that banned state unions in 2005. New York has a rapidly-fading industrial base but a major urban center focusing on growing services industries.

Yet New York is lousy with state-run unions. Indiana has a relatively strong budget and a higher debt rating compared to New York. Indiana is seeing a net influx of people.

Show us any state with a healthy surplus budget. Then try to show that's because they have no unions.

Promising (and demanding) these costs from taxpayers for state workers is an insane, lavish indulgence. The state workers are demanding these.

So fucking what? Is that like saying kids demand all sorts of things from mom and dad, but those parents can't say NO?

I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty confident even a leftish company like Google never promised its employees lifetime healthcare.

Very few private corporations carry lifetime benefits for their workers. Private pensions died a while ago. **CEOs and CFOs can often work for a short period, sometimes just one day, and get enough compensation to buy a house in the Hamptons and never work again, even if they took the whole company to ruin**

"I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty confident" that Google pays well enough that their employees can buy healthcare AND start a retirement plan, with Google's contributions.

If their security, occupational nurses, janitors, housekeepers, cafeteria workers, grounds maintenance and snow plowers are among that group---that would be great.


Comparing Indiana with New York, really? Have you noticed the number of Insurance companies (especially health insurance) that make their HQ in Indiana? It's kind of a regional thing between Chicago, ILL and surrounding states. Do you suppose it might be because the quality of life is better and COL is lower in IN than NY?

[Khendraja'aro]

There's a good saying afterall, "those that can do, those that can't ..."

I'm taking that as a direct insult towards my parents and thus am allowed to call you an idiot and a moron.

Thus: Moron. Idiot. I'll take back those insults as soon as you post an apology.

Your previous post also showed that you did not understand what my comment was about at all.

It's rhetoric like yours which makes me wonder why anyone actually wants to become a teacher with constant abuse by the likes of you. In Germany it's the same - insulting rhetoric towards the teachers, calling them "lazy" and everything else under the sun.

The result: A massive lack of teachers. Even with our huge benefits.

Contrast that with Finland, which pays comparatively little but has a very high degree of respect for teachers. Finland can thus pick and choose from the applicants whereas here we are forced to take anybody as long as he passed the tests at least with a "meh".

A friend of mine recently passed her exam. She applied for Hamburg and looked at 12 schools - all of which wanted her to teach there.
Contrast that with my parents' situation after their exam - they had NO say in which school they were to teach at (they could only influence it a bit by marrying).

[Lewkowski]

Being:

In that respect, private sector unions are funded by industry with the explicit purpose of getting more of your consumer dollars. From what I see, you have become a conspiratist. Balance is necessary in all things, including labor relations. What balances your personal relations with your employer (that's rhetorical since we all know it is state and federal laws)? How about we just get rid of those balances? It'd be sure to make you more affordable.

This is what liberals never understand. When the government does something people do not have a choice! When a private company does something the consumer HAS a choice. People don't have the option not to pay their property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes without dire consequences. Now if you are looking for a car and GM or Ford has too high prices because of the unions working there the consumer has a CHOICE they can choose not to 'pay' for those union benefits simply by shopping elsewhere.

That is why government unions are so insidious.

[Being]

Being:



This is what liberals never understand. When the government does something people do not have a choice! When a private company does something the consumer HAS a choice. People don't have the option not to pay their property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes without dire consequences. Now if you are looking for a car and GM or Ford has too high prices because of the unions working there the consumer has a CHOICE they can choose not to 'pay' for those union benefits simply by shopping elsewhere.

That is why government unions are so insidious.

Just as does Dread, you fail to account for the shifting burden of bureaucratic costs from these unions to the government. Disciplinary actions alone will swamp most savings from reduced wages. Couple that with cost of finding new hires for everyone disenchanted with working under a take-it-or-leave-it environment and you will see the cost of getting rid of the unions is higher than working with them to achieve all of your goals. Removing union clout from the legislature is as easy as removing corporate clout; campaign finance reform. It's more cost effective than elliminating unions and it kills two birds with one stone.

[Lewkowski]

Just as does Dread, you fail to account for the shifting burden of bureaucratic costs from these unions to the government. Disciplinary actions alone will swamp most savings from reduced wages. Couple that with cost of finding new hires for everyone disenchanted with working under a take-it-or-leave-it environment and you will see the cost of getting rid of the unions is higher than working with them to achieve all of your goals. Removing union clout from the legislature is as easy as removing corporate clout; campaign finance reform. It's more cost effective than elliminating unions and it kills two birds with one stone.

Disciplinary actions? Seriously? You think a bunch of teachers are going to become a pain in the but and leave during one of the most difficult economic times in the last 20 years? No way. They have cushy jobs and once the dust is settled they aren't going to act out. Furthermore we *need* to fire some government workers. Involuntary turnover should *at least* be 5%.

And its not just about money. Unions provide a huge number of boots on the ground. Volunteers for phone banks, GOTV campaign ect ect. Unless you ban that activity as well you won't eliminate union clout. And frankly banning that or money is an affront to the most precious form of speech of all. Political speech.

[Being]

Disciplinary actions? Seriously? You think a bunch of teachers are going to become a pain in the but and leave during one of the most difficult economic times in the last 20 years? No way. They have cushy jobs and once the dust is settled they aren't going to act out. Furthermore we *need* to fire some government workers. Involuntary turnover should *at least* be 5%.

And its not just about money. Unions provide a huge number of boots on the ground. Volunteers for phone banks, GOTV campaign ect ect. Unless you ban that activity as well you won't eliminate union clout. And frankly banning that or money is an affront to the most precious form of speech of all. Political speech.

How exactly does eliminating unions reduce the number of boots? You always tout the Constitution so how does eliminating unions prevent the teachers from peacably assembling and petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances without violating their First Amendment rights granted under the Constitution?

[Ominous Gamer]

Someone want to explain the need/use of only allowing 19 seconds to allow members to vote on this?

[Dreadnaught]

So you admit it's the legislators that set up the current system...
Very few private corporations carry lifetime benefits for their workers. Private pensions died a while ago. **CEOs and CFOs can often work for a short period, sometimes just one day, and get enough compensation to buy a house in the Hamptons and never work again, even if they took the whole company to ruin**

"I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty confident" that Google pays well enough that their employees can buy healthcare AND start a retirement plan, with Google's contributions.

1) Legislators set up the system, so why the hubbub when they try to dismantle the gravy train? Aren't you tired of paying for someone else's contribution-free health plan?

2) You vastly underestimate the cost of real estate in the Hamptons.

3) Most private companies don't offer defined contribution plans because they don't make sense. Our states are the last holdouts, and our tax dollars are being held hostage in this struggle.

Just as does Dread, you fail to account for the shifting burden of bureaucratic costs from these unions to the government. Disciplinary actions alone will swamp most savings from reduced wages. Couple that with cost of finding new hires for everyone disenchanted with working under a take-it-or-leave-it environment and you will see the cost of getting rid of the unions is higher than working with them to achieve all of your goals. Removing union clout from the legislature is as easy as removing corporate clout; campaign finance reform. It's more cost effective than elliminating unions and it kills two birds with one stone.

Actually, the cost of disciplining teachers in New York City runs into the very high millions, because the union won't let anyone be disciplined or fired. So they are paid not to work.

But Lewk is right, it's insane to think that the union has a bureaucracy for these things that would cost more money to replace when the state is paying for the entire union in the first place. Not to mention what a perversion of the employee/employer relationship that is when the employer is the taxpayer.

[Being]

...when the state is paying for the entire union in the first place.

That is a false argument and you know it -- disingenuous argumentation becomes you though. If that money doesn't go to the union it goes to the workers whose paycheck it is deducted from.

Not to mention what a perversion of the employee/employer relationship that is when the employer is the taxpayer.

Let's get back to non-union perversion of your employee/employer relationship. What state or federal laws governing your employment should be removed to create a better economic environment for your employer and their customers?

[Nessus]

I'm taking that as a direct insult towards my parents and thus am allowed to call you an idiot and a moron.

Thus: Moron. Idiot. I'll take back those insults as soon as you post an apology.

Your previous post also showed that you did not understand what my comment was about at all.

It's rhetoric like yours which makes me wonder why anyone actually wants to become a teacher with constant abuse by the likes of you. In Germany it's the same - insulting rhetoric towards the teachers, calling them "lazy" and everything else under the sun.

The result: A massive lack of teachers. Even with our huge benefits.

Contrast that with Finland, which pays comparatively little but has a very high degree of respect for teachers. Finland can thus pick and choose from the applicants whereas here we are forced to take anybody as long as he passed the tests at least with a "meh".

A friend of mine recently passed her exam. She applied for Hamburg and looked at 12 schools - all of which wanted her to teach there.
Contrast that with my parents' situation after their exam - they had NO say in which school they were to teach at (they could only influence it a bit by marrying).

I wonder if it's a cultural thing? British teachers are only good for beating kids and empowering homosexual trysts between 10-year-olds?

Though it's not like Finnish teachers didn't beat kids 60 years ago, either.

Could it be the rampant Randian religion? Gee whiz!

[Dreadnaught]

That is a false argument and you know it -- disingenuous argumentation becomes you though. If that money doesn't go to the union it goes to the workers whose paycheck it is deducted from.

Let's get back to non-union perversion of your employee/employer relationship. What state or federal laws governing your employment should be removed to create a better economic environment for your employer and their customers?

The state workers have no choice about that money. It's mandated that they are part of the union and part of their checks goes to the union. The state automatically deducts this money and hands it over to the unions, who use it to elect their own bosses. The only thing disingenuous is saying that this isn't a rigged system.

Otherwise I don't know what you're referring to, it's not like I oppose workplace laws or even private-sector unions [albeit with right-to-work laws].