Wisconsin Teachers shut down schools for 2nd day to Protest Elimination of CBA

• Bigdogg

  fan_from_texas;708207 wrote:Right. If a public sector union contributes significant money to an election to secure that the person across from the table is negotiating with a conflict of interest (i.e., representing the party across from it, rather than the interests of the taxpayers, to whom it should be beholden), and those negotiations result in significant pay increases to the entire scale that outstrip inflation (regular step increases that outstrip inflation are fine), then the citizens must approve it.
  
  The idea is to prevent the outrage we see in MKE where one of the worst school systems in the country can pay its teachers an average of $100K annually.

  
  If you rally believe that drivel, I have some swampland to sell you. The real purpose is to eliminate the union's ability to provide money to the Democratic party. At least admit that.
• believer

  

  Bigdogg;709971 wrote:The real purpose of unions is to provide money to the Democratic party. At least admit that.

  fixed
• derek bomar

  

  Bigdogg;709971 wrote:If you rally believe that drivel, I have some swampland to sell you. The real purpose is to eliminate the union's ability to provide money to the Democratic party. At least admit that.

  
  may be the dumbest thing I've read on this site
• dwccrew

  

  Bigdogg;709971 wrote:If you rally believe that drivel, I have some swampland to sell you. The real purpose is to eliminate the union's ability to provide money to the Democratic party. At least admit that.

  
  This is the dumbest thing I have read on here. If that was the goal, why did they only go after public sector unions? Are you wearing your foilhat? This is one of the lamest conspiracy theories ever.
• Bigdogg

  dwccrew;710578 wrote:This is the dumbest thing I have read on here. If that was the goal, why did they only go after public sector unions? Are you wearing your foilhat? This is one of the lamest conspiracy theories ever.

  
  Really? Then explain this quote from Wisconsin state Senate President Scott Fitzgerald on your favorite Fox and Friends show:
  

  "If we win this battle and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions," he said last week, "Obama is going to have a much ... more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin."

• sleeper

  

  Bigdogg;710702 wrote:Really? Then explain this quote from Wisconsin state Senate President Scott Fitzgerald on your favorite Fox and Friends show:

  
  Because Obama promised to stand side by side in the fight for unions and ended up turning his back when they needed help the most. The people of Wisconsin will never forget.
• fan_from_texas

  Bigdogg;709971 wrote:The real purpose is to eliminate the union's ability to provide money to the Democratic party. At least admit that.

  
  The real purpose of what? The real purpose of my statement?
  
  My statement is exactly what I meant it to be--there are significant philosophical reasons with public sector collective bargaining, hence the reason it's not done everywhere, and where it is done, it's only come into existence relatively recently.
• dwccrew

  

  Bigdogg;710702 wrote:Really? Then explain this quote from Wisconsin state Senate President Scott Fitzgerald on your favorite Fox and Friends show:

  My favorite show? I don't watch Fox News.....ever. But good try, I still stand by my statement that your statement was one of the dumbest I've read on this thread. See below as to why Obama would have a harder time (as if this Wisconsin thing would be the decisive reason as to Obama wouldn't get re-elected).
  

  sleeper;710765 wrote:Because Obama promised to stand side by side in the fight for unions and ended up turning his back when they needed help the most. The people of Wisconsin will never forget.

• believer

  

  dwccrew;711220 wrote:My favorite show? I don't watch Fox News.....ever.

  Whenever Bigdogg's back is against the wall and he's in major fail mode, he always uses Fox News as a crutch. Nothing personal.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;711379 wrote:Whenever Bigdogg's back is against the wall and he's in major fail mode, he always uses Fox News as a crutch. Nothing personal.

  
  I know. I get a kick out of it. I'm not a Republican, and I will even go toe-to-toe with you crazy GOPers on several issues (nothing personal ), but apparently, since I don't agree with them on every issue, a few Democrats on here seem to think I'm a reincarnated Rush Limbaugh and get my jollies off to Fox.
  
  To be fair, I get the same from some on the other side as well ... just on different issues.
• queencitybuckeye

  believer;711379 wrote:Whenever Bigdogg's back is against the wall and he's in major fail mode, he always uses Fox News as a crutch. Nothing personal.

  
  It seems to be considered some sort of trump card used by the intellectually dull.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "My statement is exactly what I meant it to be--there are significant philosophical reasons with public sector collective bargaining, hence the reason it's not done everywhere, and where it is done, it's only come into existence relatively recently. "
  
  IMO there is only one, but it is very important. It isn't an arms-length transaction. In the private sector there are checks and balances with management dealing with labor on the one hand, and its stakeholders (shareholders, creditors, business partners, etc.) on the other. In the public sector it is taxpayer money negotiating with taxpayer money - and one major political party has their head up both rear ends.
  
  At what point do we realize we're broke, or at least on an unsustainable path? Is it when no-talent assclowns like Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore stand up for workers against the "evil corporation"? - or wait, what evil corporation? Its against us!
• QuakerOats

  Manhattan Buckeye;711605 wrote:At what point do we realize we're broke, or at least on an unsustainable path? Is it when no-talent assclowns like Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore stand up for workers against the "evil corporation"? - or wait, what evil corporation? Its against us!

  
  A part of me wishes that instead of rightfully concluding the 'fight' as they did, that the governors(s) just said, "fine, we aren't going to change anything, but your paychecks will start bouncing on March 20th --- go cry to your union 'leaders' when that happens; good luck".
• Bigdogg

  Manhattan Buckeye;711605 wrote:"My statement is exactly what I meant it to be--there are significant philosophical reasons with public sector collective bargaining, hence the reason it's not done everywhere, and where it is done, it's only come into existence relatively recently. "
  
  IMO there is only one, but it is very important. It isn't an arms-length transaction. In the private sector there are checks and balances with management dealing with labor on the one hand, and its stakeholders (shareholders, creditors, business partners, etc.) on the other. In the public sector it is taxpayer money negotiating with taxpayer money - and one major political party has their head up both rear ends.
  
  At what point do we realize we're broke, or at least on an unsustainable path? Is it when no-talent assclowns like Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore stand up for workers against the "evil corporation"? - or wait, what evil corporation? Its against us!

  
  One of the checks and balance in the private sector is the threat of a union if you do not deal fairly with your employees. As for cost savings, when you give me a detailed analysis of how much is actually going to be saved as the result of eliminating collective bargaining in the public sector, then I will take you serious.
  
  As for queenies post, its just too stupid to respond to.
• O-Trap

  

  Bigdogg;711711 wrote:One of the checks and balance in the private sector is the threat of a union if you do not deal fairly with your employees.

  Actually, the threat is:
  
  1. Your qualified employees finding jobs elsewhere and leaving.
  -AND-
  2. You either get a flood of underqualified applicants to take their place (which you have to spend money training, and who probably won't have the output the others did even when they ARE trained), or you have a hard time getting any applicants at all.
  
  If you compensate your employees like they're high school students, guess what? Your employees are going to leave, and the only people who would work for you would be ... high school students, or people who only need that kind of income. IF by some chance you happen to get lucky and land someone qualified beyond the pay you're offering, you can bank on them leaving the minute they find something better.
  
  I have never once worked for a company that was worried about a union. I HAVE worked for companies that recognize that the job sucks, and that in order to avoid high turnover and underqualified employees, they have to compensate well.
  

  Bigdogg;711711 wrote:As for cost savings, when you give me a detailed analysis of how much is actually going to be saved as the result of eliminating collective bargaining in the public sector, then I will take you serious.

  It's hard to take a person "serious" [sic] when they:
  
  (a) Use an adjective where an adverb should be ... something most learn in high school.
  (b) Make completely unsubstantiated claims about the "dangers" of a lack of collective bargaining, when those dangers have yet to play themselves out anywhere in modern industry.
  (c) Show hipocrisy by asking for substantiated projections when they, themselves, have yet to present any substantial proof to back their own case.
  (d) All of the above.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "when you give me a detailed analysis of how much is actually going to be saved as the result of eliminating collective bargaining in the public sector, then I will take you serious. "
  
  If Queencitybuckeye's post is too stupid, how can I be smart? Do you actually understand that the U.S. has over $100T in unfunded obligations? A big part of this is bloated public sector comp and pensions, and again it isn't the "evil corporation" that is to be providing these funds, it is the neighbors paying income, sales and RE taxes. We are broke. I'm not a Democrat. I don't plan on voting Democrat for the near futures, but they have doubled down on their stupidity with this - it is almost as if they are TRYING to accelerate an economic collapse in the U.S. It is going to happen and it isn't politics, it is math which apparently our "smart" public servants can't grasp. If we can't pay them, they aren't getting paid. What exactly will it take for you to get this? China to sell all of their bonds? Hyperinflation? Stagflation? The next 10-20 years are really going to suck, but that's better than a complete collapse. When the private sector (read TAX BASE) has taken it on the chin for going on 4 years, it is unfathomably stupid for the public sector (read: RECIPIENTS OF THE TAX BASE) to expect improving benefits, if not the status quo. It really is a simple concept.
• Bigdogg

  Manhattan Buckeye;711732 wrote:"when you give me a detailed analysis of how much is actually going to be saved as the result of eliminating collective bargaining in the public sector, then I will take you serious. "
  
  If Queencitybuckeye's post is too stupid, how can I be smart? Do you actually understand that the U.S. has over $100T in unfunded obligations? A big part of this is bloated public sector comp and pensions, and again it isn't the "evil corporation" that is to be providing these funds, it is the neighbors paying income, sales and RE taxes. We are broke. I'm not a Democrat. I don't plan on voting Democrat for the near futures, but they have doubled down on their stupidity with this - it is almost as if they are TRYING to accelerate an economic collapse in the U.S. It is going to happen and it isn't politics, it is math which apparently our "smart" public servants can't grasp. If we can't pay them, they aren't getting paid. What exactly will it take for you to get this? China to sell all of their bonds? Hyperinflation? Stagflation? The next 10-20 years are really going to suck, but that's better than a complete collapse. When the private sector (read TAX BASE) has taken it on the chin for going on 4 years, it is unfathomably stupid for the public sector (read: RECIPIENTS OF THE TAX BASE) to expect improving benefits, if not the status quo. It really is a simple concept.

  
  If it was the status quo being suggested, then I would agree. Reforms are needed, and have already in many cases been made. Eliminating CB will do nothing about the $100T in unfunded obligations that you speak about. I still am waiting for for the numbers from you. I assume since you have not/unable to produce one creditable projection on the so called savings, our conversation is done.
• QuakerOats

  Bigdogg;711777 wrote: I still am waiting for for the numbers from you. I assume since you have not/unable to produce one creditable projection on the so called savings, our conversation is done.

  
  How many times do I have to post this ...... http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/26/senate-bill-5-saves-1-3b-study-says.html?sid=101
  
  And this is just the beginning and does not include any number of other potential savings.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;711864 wrote:How many times do I have to post this ...... http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/26/senate-bill-5-saves-1-3b-study-says.html?sid=101
  
  And this is just the beginning and does not include any number of other potential savings.

  
  The problem with the Dispatch is that they get 99% of their stories from Fox news and Bill O'Reily. You might as well re-name the paper, "Republican Propaganda Daily".
• Manhattan Buckeye

  This should be required reading for HS students:
  
  http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/11/3-essential-facts-about-the-cu
• Writerbuckeye

  

  sleeper;711880 wrote:The problem with the Dispatch is that they get 99% of their stories from Fox news and Bill O'Reily. You might as well re-name the paper, "Republican Propaganda Daily".

  
  Beyond ridiculous.
  
  The Dispatch is reporting a study by the state's Office of Collective Bargaining -- not making up shit and throwing numbers out there.
• sleeper

  

  Writerbuckeye;713194 wrote:Beyond ridiculous.
  
  The Dispatch is reporting a study by the state's Office of Collective Bargaining -- not making up shit and throwing numbers out there.

  
  [/sarcasm]
• sleeper

  

  believer;711379 wrote:Whenever Bigdogg's back is against the wall and he's in major fail mode, he always uses Fox News as a crutch. Nothing personal.

  queencitybuckeye;711483 wrote:It seems to be considered some sort of trump card used by the intellectually dull.

  sleeper;711880 wrote:The problem with the Dispatch is that they get 99% of their stories from Fox news and Bill O'Reily. You might as well re-name the paper, "Republican Propaganda Daily".

  [/sarcasm]
• O-Trap

  

  Writerbuckeye;713194 wrote:Beyond ridiculous.
  
  The Dispatch is reporting a study by the state's Office of Collective Bargaining -- not making up shit and throwing numbers out there.

  Sleeper was probably preempting the inevitable response.
  
  Reading through the threads, sleeper strongly supports the position that the Dispatch article seems to support as well.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I don't know which side infuriates me the most - The Repubs for backing down and cajoling the cowardly adolescent children rather than give them their spanking and grounding them or for the Dems putting forth a bill that says senators leaving the state to avoid voting should be illegal. Hyprocricy? Gutless? Elitist? Yep to all on both sides. I guess my expectations were WAYYYY too high. A pox on both of their houses.
  
  http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118016999.html