Good for WI

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,072
1,476
126
I have no problem with people who don't think enough of themselves wanting to join a group that they think will make their voice heard... however this is not what unions are today. They've become what they used to fight and have infact become anti-american and anti-freespeech. Try speaking out on something you have a different opinion on if you are in a union... yeah, that gets you pretty far. Forcing others to pay and/or join? yeah, that's american :rolleyes:

If you have a problem with states that force members to join a union or pay union dues, then change THOSE laws. Don't try to nueter unions and workers' rights simply because you know those people tend to not vote for your party. Partisan politics in this country is getting worse and worse and it's doing so while directly harming the lives of its citizens.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
If you have a problem with states that force members to join a union or pay union dues, then change THOSE laws. Don't try to nueter unions and workers' rights simply because you know those people tend to not vote for your party. Partisan politics in this country is getting worse and worse and it's doing so while directly harming the lives of its citizens.

nueter "workers' rights"? You mean like unions do when they form closed shops?
Wisconsin isn't a right to work state - I think this current legislation is a step in that direction. I wish they'd go further but until the union money power is curtailed, there is no way right to work will happen.

harming the lives of it's citizens? really? you really need to get out more...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That would have been the honest way for the governor to approach bargaining rights, instead of pandering to the police who typically vote Republican.

Saying all unions (except these ones that give me votes) must be busted is hypocrisy plain and simple.

If state workers having wage bargaining rights is bad for teachers then it's bad for firefighters too. If firefighters need the rights, why don't teachers?
I tend to agree with zsdersw that all unions should be included, but if you honestly can't think of any reason besides politics that people who run into burning buildings or confront armed felons might conceivably be treated differently from teachers or transit workers, it's time to admit that thinking is not your forte, dude. Besides which, as PCGeek pointed out, their right to collectively bargain for wages is not being threatened.

I think that as a rule benefits for public workers should not exceed the average of those taxpayers who pay their salaries. I would be against a hard salary cap though. I think wages for public workers, like benefits, should be in line with the state average adjusted for location and job function. A small town near here advertised a few years back for a city engineer; the position required a license and a minimum of five years' experience and paid $25K annually. That almost guarantees that their city engineer is completely incompetent, and while a salary cap can be set high enough to avoid that, any single salary cap high enough to prevent accumulation of dead wood would likely be too high to do any good whatsoever. Capping teachers in Madison at $50K for instance would guarantee that most people capable of earning more than that for nine months' work (which is Madison is probably a lot of people) would never become teachers there. Of course, it's also apparent that paying all teachers in Madison $150K would NOT guarantee that all or most teachers would be superior; accountability is generally opposed by unions (trade unions being notable exceptions) and there are few to no structures in place to evaluate teachers and purge the dead wood.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
1) I'm not suggesting anything. I was only pointing out the fact that they are not trying to take away Collective bargaining in its entirety. They want to place limits tied to the economy.
The benefits are part of their compensation, it's what they get for their work. I don't see letting them negotiate for part of their compensation as being fair.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
The benefits are part of their compensation, it's what they get for their work. I don't see letting them negotiate for part of their compensation as being fair.

Do non-union members negotiate their compensation?


I don't seem to remember being able to negotiate mine last year... but my review should be on Monday or Tuesday so maybe I'll get to negotiate it then... :rolleyes:
 

comptr6

Senior member
Feb 22, 2011
246
0
0
Do non-union members negotiate their compensation?

I don't seem to remember being able to negotiate mine last year... but my review should be on Monday or Tuesday so maybe I'll get to negotiate it then... :rolleyes:

You don't like your benefits? Tough! Stop complaining and go find a better job. You should be happy that you're employer is giving you them in the first place, and if you had WORKED and EARNED a better benefits package you would have it. You self-centered liberals need to stop expecting people to hand you things on a silver platter just because other people have them. That's socialism.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,669
2,424
126
I always knew CAD was a self-centered liberal socialist. Thanks for confirming it.

(PS - post above may confirm comptr6 is a new troll, not a returning one).
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,467
4,534
136
Do non-union members negotiate their compensation?


I don't seem to remember being able to negotiate mine last year... but my review should be on Monday or Tuesday so maybe I'll get to negotiate it then... :rolleyes:



Be sure to remind them of all the countless work hours you spend tirelessly blabbering on P&N.