Revolution in Wisconsin

[Hazir]

How do you define "working for the government" though? What about contractors?

And this question comes from a country that actually has a Civil Service? Your question is a bit redundant anyway because of VAT regulation the way I know it.

You're not reading a thing I say, are you?

You're upset I don't address all the silly problems you throw up because some government agencies in your country don't know how to keep books? That hardly is a problem that has any connections with the idea that it is nonsensical for government agencies to withhold taxes on the incomes of their employees.

I'm truly sorry that you Americans appearantly only have incompetents working for your government, but as a Dutch European I am expecting somewhat higher standards. Maybe you guys should start hire people that can figure out basic maths, because no matter which system you use with the idiots you think are working for your government it's all going to end up in a mess.

[Dreadnaught]

Ah, so the more money you have, the more you can avoid paying taxes. Yeah, sounds like a great system to me.

Err, no. But if you choose to buy a home, have a child, make your home more energy efficient, etc, there are tax incentives in place to reward that. As far as I can tell, this is the case in Germany as well.

Sure that's the point of a filibuster, but it's abused just as bad. Whether you block a vote that has a majority by keeping talking, or by not showing up, its essentially the same thing and both are not the way the rules were intended (I assume the reason for the amount of votes rule is that you can't pass a law by having a vote without the opponents being there).

The filibuster is abused in some respects, but in a sense it's also doing its job. The filibuster is meant to allow a minority to block legislation that it really hates unless the majority can muster 66% to stop the debate and vote on the issue.

There are a lot of arguments about whether this is a wise parliamentary policy. But as Fuzzy pointed out, it's part of the job in our Senate. The Democratic Senators in Wisconsin (remember, different than our federal senators) are simply not showing up to work and bringing all business to a halt for the sake of their campaign contributors.

[Hazir]

So let's get this right, not bringing a law to a vote in the US senate is ok, but not voting on a law in a state senate is evil?

[GGT]

I'm truly sorry that you Americans appearantly only have incompetents working for your government, but as a Dutch European I am expecting somewhat higher standards. Maybe you guys should start hire people that can figure out basic maths, because no matter which system you use with the idiots you think are working for your government it's all going to end up in a mess.

Gee thanks, rub it in why don't ya.

[Hazir]

Gee thanks, rub it in why don't ya.

Well half of the time the reaction to perfectly logical and simple ideas from the US is that your public workers wouldn't be able to add one plus one and therefore it won't work or is too expensive. It really takes an American to claim that the government not doing something would have a higher price tag than the government doing something. (Not be costlier in its outcome that is, but costlier in execution).

[GGT]

Yes, we have a peculiar penchant for blaming gummint for everything. But not wanting to change campaign finance, how our legislators are elected, or whom they "serve".

This Revolution in Wisconsin is really about a state governor trying to ban collective bargaining (unions) for its public-sector workers.

[Steely Glint]

My name is Yon Yonson.

[Ominous Gamer]

Finally, a protest sign thats true, no matter which side of this debate you fall on


Since we've focused so much on who "funds" the dems in this mess, how about the other side?

[LittleFuzzy]

Since we've focused so much on who "funds" the dems in this mess, how about the other side?

We have? I thought it was just one post pointing out all the people behind the only report you linked were union reps.

[Ominous Gamer]

Dread has shoehorned it into his last two replies

[agamemnus]

A few days ago, a Fox News reporter asked a high-school kid something like, "Are you here to protest or testify?" Obviously that's a completely inane question... there must be a .00001% chance that some high-school kid come over there to testify. She answered something like "I don't know!" Terrifying!

Here's another thing I found disconcerting: Fox News said that teachers make between $30,000 to $52,000 in Wisconsin. And that is supposed to be unionized pay. In Massachusetts I'd guess they make twice that. Is Wisconsin that back-woods?

[GGT]

Wisconsin's cost of living is much lower than Massachusetts'.

[GGT]

Let's say WI decides to let go of their union-busting proposals. All the public sector workers, like public school teachers, nurses, fire fighters, and police agree to pay more into their pensions and health care. Maybe they even agree to have defined contribution pensions, instead of defined benefits. Maybe they agree to paying full cost for their health care, as contract workers or self-employed do.

Is the state of Wisconsin prepared to raise the salaries and wages of all these public workers, to be on par with what their private sector peers receive?

Next question would be....who are the peers of fire fighters, cops, or teachers? Would they be the volunteer fire brigade, rent-a-cops, or parochial teachers?

And of course, the following questions would be.....who do you want putting out your house fire, or beating back mountain brush fires, and who do you want protecting your neighborhood or town, and who do you want teaching your children?

Do you want them to be paid as low as possible, or highly paid? Do you want them to rely on unions to bargain for their pay and benefits, or can they just be paid well enough to buy their own pensions and health care?

Next questions would be.....how valuable is your home, or your neighborhood, or your childrens' education? If you don't have children, how valuable is having an educated or peaceful youth, that keeps your neighborhood safe, and creates smart health professionals that treats your periodontal disease, and or your bad hips?

Should these things be willy nilly in a nation like the USA, or is there a minimal standard for teachers and students? Are we selling our professional teachers down the river, and letting our youth drown along the way? Do we really only want those who can pay for flotation devices to survive, knowing that means croneyism or favoritism?

Oh yeah, and thanks to the moderators for not giving me WL for all my consecutive posts. My madness really did have a method.....

[Dreadnaught]

But I will at least consolidate the posts...I mean FFS edit function.

It's not clear at all that these changes would put Wisconsin public workers "below" parity with the private sector. They are still paying less than the private sector for healthcare and they are still getting a defined-benefit salary-for-life.

[GGT]

But I will at least consolidate the posts...I mean FFS edit function.

You mods need to do something with your powers.

t's not clear at all that these changes would put Wisconsin public workers "below" parity with the private sector. They are still paying less than the private sector for healthcare and they are still getting a defined-benefit salary-for-life.

Fine, bring them up to parity with private sector workers in salary and contributions. But don't legally ban them from collective bargaining.

[agamemnus]

Wisconsin's cost of living is much lower than Massachusetts'.

Which creates an interesting situation.

If you halve the income, you more than halve the federal taxes. At 30K they will barely be paying any taxes... at the same time, the state government spends a lot of money on things that are relatively more expensive (i.e.: stay the same in price across state boundaries)... building supplies such as concrete, cars and trucks, other equipment, and possibly health care costs.

[GGT]

If you halve the income, you more than halve the federal taxes. At 30K they will barely be paying any taxes...

I didn't say their cost of living was half or yours, or that their wages were half of yours. Just less. Their state-wide average income is probably within national averages.....maybe $50,000/year or $100,000 per married couple. If they don't pay federal taxes, it's because they have children and a home mortgage. They still pay WI state taxes.

[Being]

It seems to me that many people aren't considering some of the consequences of eliminating collective bargaining rights. If you take the rights away for the unions then you have effectively taken the right away from the government as well. If the rights are eliminated and all teachers decide not to go to work one day, who will the government negotiate with in order to get them back? Of course the government could hire all new teachers but do you really think there are that many good unemployed teachers available. It is possible to remove the legal right but it is impossible to stop people from acting collectively; reference Egypt et al.

[Dreadnaught]

Fine, bring them up to parity with private sector workers in salary and contributions. But don't legally ban them from collective bargaining.

The 40 year experiment with state workers collectively bargaining has brought us nothing beyond a giant patronage scheme that's also bankrupted our state governments. Pensions and employee healthcare have made them unable to build large-scale infrastructure or really do anything else big and significant.

FDR, LaGuardia and other elected officials who are icons of organized labor all didn't support state workers using collective bargaining. It was deliberately left out of the first National Labor Relations Act.

[Being]

The 40 year experiment with state workers collectively bargaining has brought us nothing beyond a giant patronage scheme that's also bankrupted our state governments. Pensions and employee healthcare have made them unable to build large-scale infrastructure or really do anything else big and significant.

FDR, LaGuardia and other elected officials who are icons of organized labor all didn't support state workers using collective bargaining. It was deliberately left out of the first National Labor Relations Act.

Do you really want the schools to negotiate each teacher's contract individually? On the other hand, if you want schools to set salaries and benefits independant of teacher input then I feel you are arguing for hiring lower quality teachers.

edit: See my post above your's.

[Being]

Exempted from those changes would be firefighters and law enforcement personnel.

Got to put out fires and control the crowds so our upscale neighborhoods don't get ransacked and torched by the servants.

[agamemnus]

I didn't say their cost of living was half or yours, or that their wages were half of yours. Just less. Their state-wide average income is probably within national averages.....maybe $50,000/year or $100,000 per married couple. If they don't pay federal taxes, it's because they have children and a home mortgage. They still pay WI state taxes.

Yeah, yeah, but I'm saying that they could be paying a greater share of their taxes than MA residents because government does a lot of spending that doesn't depend on that area's cost of living..

If you really look at the voter map in MA, though, votes for Republicans were generally highest in places where the per-capita income was the highest -- if the income got really really high the votes switched back to more Democrat-leaning, though... (ie: multimillion dollar mansions)

Just some random observations, for now...

[Dreadnaught]

It seems to me that many people aren't considering some of the consequences of eliminating collective bargaining rights. If you take the rights away for the unions then you have effectively taken the right away from the government as well. If the rights are eliminated and all teachers decide not to go to work one day, who will the government negotiate with in order to get them back? Of course the government could hire all new teachers but do you really think there are that many good unemployed teachers available. It is possible to remove the legal right but it is impossible to stop people from acting collectively; reference Egypt et al.

I'm not sure why you have trouble visualizing the...real world. 88% of the workers aren't unionized. We don't have mass-walkouts of our businesses. Our employers pay people what they think is a competitive wage and try to keep good employees within the company. They can also (shock!) fire bad employees.

In other words, the relationship is dynamic and based on reality, instead of seniority, unproductive/unhappy teachers waiting for tenure and arcane work rules.

[Nessus]

I'm not sure why you have trouble visualizing the...real world. 88% of the workers aren't unionized. We don't have mass-walkouts of our businesses. Our employers pay people what they think is a competitive wage and try to keep good employees within the company. They can also (shock!) fire bad employees.

In other words, the relationship is dynamic and based on reality, instead of seniority, unproductive/unhappy teachers waiting for tenure and arcane work rules.

Companies such as Wal-Mart are notorious for repeatedly abusing their employees as much as they can get away with, and presumably the same is true for all low-skill jobs. It's not quite as cozy as that. And Wal-Mart is a union-buster too. If a 14-year-old can be trained to do your job about as effectively as you in 6 hours, how much bargaining power can you have over your employer? It's "based on reality" but it's also clearly fucking over those with the least means of defending themselves. And hinges on blackmailing people with threats of homelessness and starvation.

Not that corrupt unions keeping incompetent teachers employed is much better, especially for the kiddy-winks. But your country probably won't have public schools in a few decades, so problem solved there.

[Dreadnaught]

I've drawn a pretty clear line between public and private sector unions.

[Being]

I'm not sure why you have trouble visualizing the...real world. 88% of the workers aren't unionized. We don't have mass-walkouts of our businesses. Our employers pay people what they think is a competitive wage and try to keep good employees within the company. They can also (shock!) fire bad employees.

In other words, the relationship is dynamic and based on reality, instead of seniority, unproductive/unhappy teachers waiting for tenure and arcane work rules.

Do you know the difference between salary and hourly wages? Salary divided by 2080 (40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year) rarely equals salary divided by hours worked. How do you think it is that companies are able to get away with that? The best answer is oligarchy and getting rid of unions, whether they are public sector or private, fortifies the oligarchy. Reality check Dread, most industrialized countries have unions to protect professionals from under-handed tactics like that; one big exception is the U.S.

Endorsing union busting fortifies oligarchy. Do you want that?

[Dreadnaught]

Do you know the difference between salary and hourly wages? Salary divided by 2080 (40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year) rarely equals salary divided by hours worked. How do you think it is that companies are able to get away with that? The best answer is oligarchy and getting rid of unions, whether they are public sector or private, fortifies the oligarchy. Reality check Dread, most industrialized countries have unions to protect professionals from under-handed tactics like that; one big exception is the U.S.

Endorsing union busting fortifies oligarchy. Do you want that?

Umm...what? New world order? George Soros? Worthless green paper money must be replaced by the gold standard?

So salaries should be banned in favor of timecards?

[Being]

Umm...what? New world order? George Soros? Worthless green paper money must be replaced by the gold standard?

So salaries should be banned in favor of timecards?

How much is your time worth? Who decides what your time is worth? If your time was worth X dollars yesterday but today you're told you must give your time for X/1.2, would you try to negotiate?

[Dreadnaught]

If my employer and I can't agree on what I should be paid, I have every option to leave and take my skills elsewhere (as well as the now-considerable investment my company has made in training, etc). This is how the world works, though yet again you seem to be questioning whether a market economy can function.

In the case of public workers, they have often been promised and compensated more than the state could afford (and what is reasonable compared to the private sector). This isn't some kind of plot to destroy "working people", it's reality. If there are state workers who don't like this, they are welcome to work in the private sector.

But the worth of anyone's time and skills is set by an elegant yet blunt give-and-take known as the labor market.

[Being]

But the worth of anyone's time and skills is set by an elegant yet blunt give-and-take known as the labor market.

And you have no interest in looking at the labor market or you would realize it is skewed in favor of the employer. Have you looked at what employment opportunities you have right now outside of your current company? There are 3 years worth of recent graduates who will be willing to take your job for cheap. If you are lucky enough to keep living the dream then more power to you, but you shouldn't let it delude you into thinking it's the same for everyone. These days most everyone is willing to take the job at less than what you might find acceptable.