Gov. Brown following in Gov. Walkers footsteps

[a777pilot]

Quick question: Didn't NY and/or MA this past summer limit public sector unions in those State?

 

[Craig234]

HELL YES!!! GO GOV BROWN!!!! I didn't vote for him, but if he does this, he'll be one peg up in my book!

So if you're in CA, you voted for the government-incompetent crook whose main plan was to be the first state to eliminate capital gains taxes on billionares like herself?

 

[a777pilot]

So if you're in CA, you voted for the government-incompetent crook whose main plan was to be the first state to eliminate capital gains taxes on billionares like herself?

Not possible. Texas does not have a state capitol gains tax. We do have lots of jobs compared to California.

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me that Brown said what he'd do if elected and he is doing it!

In fact, since '70 when he was running for Sec State until now he's always done what he thought was right regardless of the outcome to him personally... Even his stance against prop 13 as governor... He'd have made a good president but probably a one term one... folks can't deal with what may be best for them...

 

[Craig234]

Edit: removed. FYI, per moderator warning, editing a quote and marking it 'fixed' is not allowed if it changes what the user was saying.

 

[Lithium381]

Fixed.

You saying you have jobs is like a slave state saying they have low unemployment.

Texas does have one of the lowests COL in the nation....regardless of if people are on min. wage jobs it goes a lot further!

 

[Pneumothorax]

HELL YES!!! GO GOV BROWN!!!! I didn't vote for him, but if he does this, he'll be one peg up in my book!

Hmmm... You do realize this is just political pandering? His ideas will not make it past the SEIU lapdogs Steinberg and Perez. Those two are the ones who really run this state.

 

[alphatarget1]

Fixed.

You saying you have jobs is like a slave state saying they have low unemployment.

WTF are you bragging about? 19% of the CA population is uninsured. It ain't much better than Texas.

The difference between Texas and California is that lower income people, provided they make the right choices, have a chance to accumulate wealth. You can buy a house without having to make a boatload of money. Cost of living is low and there is plenty of growth.

CA, on the other hand, is ruled by liberal elites who could care less about the livelihood of the people that serve them. Liberal elites hate to admit it, but they despise poor people.

 

[Ausm]

Don't for get Ohio. There is a referendum on the ballot, 8 NOV. It's called Issue 2.

If the voters of Ohio vote "yes" on Issue 2, the State's new law to restrict and limit public sector unions in their collective bargaining and restricts public sector unions from striking, would remain in effect.

This could be an interesting vote to watch. Especially after the fight in Wisconsin and the fight brewing in California.

Ground Zero for the GOP attack on Unions looking forward to sending Scooter pack'in.

 

[a777pilot]

Ground Zero for the GOP attack on Unions looking forward to sending Scooter pack'in.

I thought Mr. Libby was in prison. Is he out?

 

[Craig234]

WTF are you bragging about?

If you could follow a simple point I might respond to something else you post.

He bragged about Texas. I pointed a number of things including that Texas has the *highest rate of uninsured*.

Who's bragging in that exchange? He is. You said I am. Clueless.

But now that you raise it, CA is a lot better than Texas about it. But you can research it.

 

[Craig234]

I thought Mr. Libby was in prison. Is he out?

Scooter Libby had any prison commuted by Bush. He never went for his crime.

 

[zsdersw]

If another state goes Wisconsin's route (and I hope they do) they should do it right and include police/firefighter unions in their collective bargaining reforms. Wisconsin got that part wrong by excluding those unions from the changes.

When the biggest personnel expenses for cities, counties, and townships are police/firefighters it's complete lunacy not to reign in their respective unions.

 

[WHAMPOM]

How do these proposed reforms relate to the Walker/Koch bros Legislation that passed in my State which eliminates 98% of the Collective bargaining rights for public employees?

Only for some, firefighters and police were not included, seems a bit unfair not to include Walke'rs supporters.

 

[Ausm]

Only for some, firefighters and police were not included, seems a bit unfair not to include Walke'rs supporters.

I agree 100% which also added to the hypocrisy but the best part was there were firefighters and cops protesting with the people who got the shaft.

 

[a777pilot]

Scooter Libby had any prison commuted by Bush. He never went for his crime.

Really? That's too bad.

 

[Darwin333]

I understand your point, but it isn't valid. No, the two aren't necessarily linked, and yes, there is a difference between what Brown has proposed and the Walker law. Brown's proposal would make mandatory changes to state pension rules. Public employees retain their collective bargaining rights, but by definition you can't bargain for something that is now illegal. The employees, however, retain their collective bargaining rights in general. The Walker law made changes to the pension rules *and* it eliminated most collective bargaining rights for state employees in general. In fact, the only collective bargaining right retained under Walker's law is the right to bargain over base wages, and then only to the extent of bargaining for CPI raises. Brown's proposal would make the pension changes stick but doesn't otherwise tamper with collective bargaining rights. It's what Walker should have done if he desired a pragmatic solution to the state's budget problem. Instead, he took an ideological approach of busting the unions, and now he is facing recall.

- wolf

Shrug, I kind of agree with him regarding public sector unions (note: NOT private sector unions). Even FDR, who laid the groundwork for huge increases in private sector unions, completely disagreed with unions in the public sector. There are a ton of reasonable and common sense reasons why they are a bad idea, not the least of which is that they are essentially "bargaining" with themselves and they can effectively shut down vital government services holding society hostage if their demands are not met, regardless if their demands are reasonable or not.

As proof I offer the fucked up state of public pensions that were never mathematically feasible but were granted anyway. It makes perfect sense that the politicians capitulated them when they made these bad deals, said politician would be long gone by the time the math caught up and in the meantime he gets support and funding from the unions he capitulated to.

I agree whole heartily with your right to unionize in the private sector but I do not believe that unions should be allowed in the public sector.

 

[Darwin333]

Everyone knows that differences exist between the Public/Private sectors and most understand what those differences are. What you are failing to do is provide even 1 good reason as to why Unions can exist in 1 and not the other, without resorting to Ideological assumptions and preferences.

FDR (yes, that one) said it very well:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

 

[Craig234]

FDR (yes, that one) said it very well:

Ya, that was in a context when FDR was greatly ensuring distributed wealth.

I'll make you a deal. When you support ALL the FDR policies so that the contexts are compearable, instead of public unions being a last bastion for workers, we'll make a deal.

When the 99% aren't being destroyed by the wealth, we can worry about public unions.

But at the moment, I suspect FDR would understand adjusting that position.

 

[DCal430]

I agree 100% which also added to the hypocrisy but the best part was there were firefighters and cops protesting with the people who got the shaft.

The biggest hypocrisy was when Obama has the nerve to crticize walker for this when the millions of federal workers who work under him have even fewer collective barganing rights. That is the real hypocrisy.

 

[fskimospy]

The biggest hypocrisy was when Obama has the nerve to crticize walker for this when the millions of federal workers who work under him have even fewer collective barganing rights. That is the real hypocrisy.

Please explain the hypocrisy. Did Obama pass the law to limit those rights? Did Obama come out in support of reduced federal bargaining rights, or did he do the exact opposite? Do you know what hypocrisy is?