Gov. Walker and WI's master plan

Page 38 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
That's a great conspiracy theory. Certainly, unions as organizations tend to support Democratic campaigns since Democrats tend to be more supportive of the working class. Government union memberships tend to be politically diverse, however, since their demographic is much more white collar than typical trade and manufacturing unions. I'd therefore love to see the DATA supporting your theory about government unions. It sounds suspiciously like typical, deceptive nutter propaganda.

lol, "tend to support" lol. That's like saying charlie sheen "tends" to do hookers and blow...
Unions are for UNIONS - and Democrats are for DEMOCRATS. To try to insuate that unions and democrats are "more supportive of the working class" is nothing but BS - they are for their own power and use the working class to gain power.
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
You got me there. That's why the Wisconsin public employees compensation is so far greater than their private sector peers. The former Democratic government shoveled virtually unlimited salary and benefits their way.



Oh, wait. Wut? The actual DATA shows their total compensation is slightly less than their private sector peers (for similar education)? The Democratic governor didn't fulfill their every desire? I'll be damned. I guess that means two things. One, Fear No Evil cannot read. Two, Fear No Evil is a nutter sock puppet.

But I suspect everyone already knows that.

Why not compare positions against Public vs Private. Degrees are not all the same, comparing against education is retarded.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
That's a great conspiracy theory. Certainly, unions as organizations tend to support Democratic campaigns since Democrats tend to be more supportive of the working class. Government union memberships tend to be politically diverse, however, since their demographic is much more white collar than typical trade and manufacturing unions. I'd therefore love to see the DATA supporting your theory about government unions. It sounds suspiciously like typical, deceptive nutter propaganda.

DATA found.

Balance of Power: Walker's union proposal could be major setback for state's Democratic Party

Of the nearly $7 million labor unions have contributed to state candidates in Wisconsin over the last six election cycles, 93 cents of every dollar has gone to a Democrat.

Among educators, it's 75 cents of every buck. For public employees, 73 cents.

The data compiled by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign for the State Journal starkly illustrate why the high-stakes battle between Republican Gov. Scott Walker and labor unions over the last three weeks is about more than budget shortfalls and bargaining.

"I consider organized labor to be the backbone of the Democratic Party," said Mike Tate, state party chairman. "Part of Scott Walker's strategy is to weaken the infrastructure of the Democratic Party."

Walker has proposed eliminating most collective bargaining for most public workers, including state and local government employees, and teachers.
His plan — approved by the Assembly but stalled in the Senate — also would make it harder for public unions to collect dues, require unions to hold annual certification elections and impose a host of other measures that unions and labor experts said would cripple public unions and potentially render them useless.

Walker and other Wisconsin Republicans won't acknowledge a motivation other than to help the state close a $137 million budget deficit in the current fiscal year and a projected $3.6 billion gap over the next two years.
However, conservatives have long complained about the ties between public employee unions and Democrats.

"What you have with this process is taxpayers' money going to fund a process where people advocate for more spending of taxpayers' money," Walker told the State Journal last week. "That's why for us it is a budgetary issue."
According to Democracy Campaign data, Walker's top donors in 2010 included those involved in manufacturing, construction and banking, while educators, civil servants and labor unions were among the groups least likely to contribute to his campaign.

Wisconsin is one of several states led by Republican governors who are seeking to reduce the cost of government by reining in public employee unions. Walker's proposals have sparked three weeks of historic protests attended by tens of thousands of people who say his plans threaten the existence of public employee unions.

The prospect of weakened public employee unions could shift the balance of political power in the state and the country, observers said. That's in part because it would come on the heels of last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling that lifts restrictions on campaign contributions from corporations, which mostly contribute to Republicans, and unions.

"If the unions are weaker and poorer, they obviously will be in a diminished political position," said Trevor Potter, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign lawyer and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. "In terms of money and volunteers, that adversely affects Democrats."

The pillars of Democratic politics
Over the last 12 years, individuals and political action committees have donated at least $117 million to Democratic and Republican state political candidates in Wisconsin, according to the Democracy Campaign, which compiles the data listed on campaign finance reports filed with the state. The amount is likely larger because the group maintains records only on contributions of $100 and up. The figures also don't include independent expenditures or spending on so-called "issue ads," which don't advocate for a particular candidate.

Among Democrats, only lawyers have contributed more money to state Democrats than labor unions have, and unions more than any other group have given more disproportionately to Democrats, the data show.
Unions, lawyers, wealthy people and Internet donors are the pillars of Democratic politics, said Paul Maslin, a Madison-based political strategist and pollster who polled for Tom Barrett, Walker's Democratic opponent last year. Remove unions, and Democrats have a harder time getting elected, he said.
And Democrats don't rely only on union dollars. Unions are a source of campaign volunteers, engaging in everything from peer-to-peer advocacy to phone bank staffing, said Jason Sidner, political director for AFSCME Council 40, which represents 32,000 city, state, school district and private sector workers statewide other than in Milwaukee County.

Unions even supply Democratic candidates.
Mike Sheridan rose from Janesville auto worker and local union president to Assembly speaker until he was defeated in his re-election bid last year. Current Democratic members of the Legislature with union backgrounds include Sens. Spencer Coggs of Milwaukee and Dave Hansen of Green Bay, and Rep. Cory Mason of Racine.

Unions revitalized
Democrats, Republicans and outside observers agree that a political strength of labor unions is intensity.
Although corporations have always had more money to spend on politics than unions, they traditionally haven't done so, said Potter, the top lawyer for Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign who also defended the campaign spending law crafted by McCain and former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Middleton before the Supreme Court.
And now that they feel threatened in Wisconsin and elsewhere, union members are revitalized.

"They awoke a sleeping giant," Joe Wineke, who preceded Tate as state Democratic party chairman, said of Walker's administration.
Mike Recklies, a correctional officer in Walworth County and a member of Council 40, said he voted for Walker because he campaigned to balance the budget, opposes abortion and backs the concealed carry of weapons. But Recklies said he didn't expect fellow Republican Walker to propose measures that would harm his union, and now he won't back the governor in another election.

"No way, no how, and everybody that I work with who voted conservative or Republican said they'd pretty much never do it again," he said.
Jim Troupis, a lawyer for Republicans and conservative causes who backs Walker's plan, said public sector employees could emerge more unified if the proposal is enacted.

"Volunteer participation leads to real participation, so in many ways it can be a catalyst for greater strength," he said.

There's some good charts at that link too.

Whether you agree or disagree with Walker, you cannot dispute that the Democrats get a lot of money from labor unions, and Republicans do not.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out the logical link between Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions and union members, and unions and union members giving more money to Democrats.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
DATA found.

Balance of Power: Walker's union proposal could be major setback for state's Democratic Party



There's some good charts at that link too.

Whether you agree or disagree with Walker, you cannot dispute that the Democrats get a lot of money from labor unions, and Republicans do not.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out the logical link between Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions and union members, and unions and union members giving more money to Democrats.

And you'd be wrong to disagree that the repubs plans to bust unions is just to stop the flow of money to the dems, not to "fix" budget problems.

Bust unions, and you leave the big corps (Koch's) that funnel their money to repubs and repubs get back and retain their power, simple.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
And you'd be wrong to disagree that the repubs plans to bust unions is just to stop the flow of money to the dems, not to "fix" budget problems.

Bust unions, and you leave the big corps (Koch's) that funnel their money to repubs and repubs get back and retain their power, simple.

So you're okay with forcing people to join unions, and then having their wages automatically garnished to give money to Democrats? Gotcha.

You'd be wrong to disagree that fundamentally changing the way unions can "bargain" would help fix the budget.



Q: Why hasn't either side passed a law limiting the amount any single group, person, organization can donate to a political campaign to $100? Would that not take care of the corporate/union donation problem?
A: Both sides are corrupt.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
And you'd be wrong to disagree that the repubs plans to bust unions is just to stop the flow of money to the dems, not to "fix" budget problems.

Bust unions, and you leave the big corps (Koch's) that funnel their money to repubs and repubs get back and retain their power, simple.
But Walker's plan doesn't bust the union. Public employees would still be free to group together to fund Democrats, just the state wouldn't bear the expense of deducting and distributing the money from the employees to the union. Public employees would still be free to have the union negotiate for their wages, just not other things like pension and health insurance payments, sick days, personal days, etc.

This is always hard for progressives to grasp, but things can exist even if government does not fund them.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
So you're okay with forcing people to join unions, and then having their wages automatically garnished to give money to Democrats? Gotcha.

You'd be wrong to disagree that fundamentally changing the way unions can "bargain" would help fix the budget.



Q: Why hasn't either side passed a law limiting the amount any single group, person, organization can donate to a political campaign to $100? Would that not take care of the corporate/union donation problem?
A: Both sides are corrupt.

1) If they want the job there, join the union, they're free to work elsewhere.
You don't expect a workplace to change just because you work there do you?

2) There are many other ways to "fix" the budget that don't require basically "busting" unions and hurting the middle class even more. Who wants to have a union when it has no power left?

3) I agree, both sides are corrupt. You'd never get either side to agree with this logical solution, not when the rich control the government.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,524
126
* * *
Q: Why hasn't either side passed a law limiting the amount any single group, person, organization can donate to a political campaign to $100? Would that not take care of the corporate/union donation problem?
A: Both sides are corrupt.

In January, 2010 the US Supreme Court held far less restrictive donation limits than you propose to be an unconstitutional restriction upon a purported corporate right of free speech that the Court created in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court it would be futile for the legislature to pass your porposal.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
1) If they want the job there, join the union, they're free to work elsewhere.
You don't expect a workplace to change just because you work there do you?

2) There are many other ways to "fix" the budget that don't require basically "busting" unions and hurting the middle class even more. Who wants to have a union when it has no power left?

3) I agree, both sides are corrupt. You'd never get either side to agree with this logical solution, not when the rich control the government.

1) That's a valid argument in the private sector, but not in the government sector because it's so damn big. If you're a welder, you can try to find a non-union shop at a private company. But if you want to be a public school teacher in Wisconsin? A firefighter? A police officer? You can't unless you join the union. Are you seriously suggesting that people move to a different state if they want to be a non-Democrat-funding cop?

What's wrong with giving people the CHOICE of making a campaign contribution, instead of mandating it by law? I don't like huge corporate donations either, but at least they're not mandated by law. (except for that whole bailout thing, effff that)

2) The public unions would still has the power to collectively bargain for wages, and has the power to sway its members' votes. That's far from being powerless.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
In January, 2010 the US Supreme Court held far less restrictive donation limits than you propose to be an unconstitutional restriction upon a purported corporate right of free speech that the Court created in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court it would be futile for the legislature to pass your porposal.

I skimmed the Wiki entry on that case. It seems to apply only to corporations airing ads independently during campaigns, not to directly donating money. Am I wrong?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
DATA found.

Balance of Power: Walker's union proposal could be major setback for state's Democratic Party



There's some good charts at that link too.

Whether you agree or disagree with Walker, you cannot dispute that the Democrats get a lot of money from labor unions, and Republicans do not.
Nor did I dispute that. Do you think you're somehow refuting me? That was my second sentence: "Certainly, unions as organizations tend to support Democratic campaigns since Democrats tend to be more supportive of the working class."

I challenged the rest of Werepossum's comments which I believe to be fallacious. I asked for DATA to support them. For example, you repeated some of those same fallacies:

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out the logical link between Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions and union members, and unions and union members giving more money to Democrats.
Proof? We've already seen a study linked in this thread refuting the propaganda that Wisconsin public employees are paid outrageously high compensation. That alone suggests this "sky is falling" crying about "Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions" is more propaganda than reality. What is your factual basis for claiming otherwise, rather than your emotional feeling it must be true?

I also pointed out that unlike normal trade and manufacturing unions, government employees tend to be more white collar and more politically diverse. I'd like to see DATA showing that these employees give disproportionately to Democrats, and that this is materially affected by their compensation changes under Democratic management compared to Republican management.

Finally, I already stipulated that unions (as opposed to employees) tend to contribute more to Democrats than Republicans. Given the pugnacious stance Republican governors like Walker have traditionally taken against their workers, this shouldn't surprise anyone. You and Werepossum both seem to insinuate that increased employee compensation translates into increased campaign contributions to Democrats. Do you have any DATA demonstrating there is a material correlation between the two, e.g., something greater than that seen from the populace as a whole?

My guess is this is just more of the same emotionally-charged propaganda the right likes to spread when they don't have substantive attacks. It keeps their faithful obediently outraged and drowns out any attempts at the intelligent and productive discussions that likely won't go their way. Of course I may be wrong, and I welcome good DATA that supports your allegations.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Why not compare positions against Public vs Private. Degrees are not all the same, comparing against education is retarded.
Maybe, but it's far less retarded than comparing generally well-educated, white collar public employee compensation against the average compensation of all Wisconsin workers ... which is what Walker and his apologists keep trying to do. News Flash: white collar professionals get paid more than the high school drop-outs working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds! No shit?

If you have better DATA making the comparison you suggest, why don't you present it instead of just throwing stones?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Maybe, but it's far less retarded than comparing generally well-educated, white collar public employee compensation against the average compensation of all Wisconsin workers ... which is what Walker and his apologists keep trying to do. News Flash: white collar professionals get paid more than the high school drop-outs working at Wal-Mart and McDonalds! No shit?

If you have better DATA making the comparison you suggest, why don't you present it instead of just throwing stones?
I could agree with that except for one thing; all tax-paying Wisconsin workers are paying for the public employees. Is it really fair to force those high school drop-outs, with no health insurance or pensions and no means to get any, to not only pay public employees' salaries but also pick up their health insurance and even their retirement? Is it moral to insist that public employees have a right to force private sector employees to pay for their health insurance and their retirement off the top, before the private sector employees pay for their own health insurance and retirement? Progressives and liberals tend to look at government spending as something that just comes from a magic cupboard, when in reality that is money taken from those hard-working high school drop-outs and college grads and from those wealthy or not-so-wealthy people who employee them.

Personally I think it is fair to compare apples to apples. When deciding if public employees are properly compensated, compare their salary and benefits to all equivalent private sector employees. Compare government school teachers to private school teachers, compare government cafeteria workers to private sector cafeteria workers, and so on. But when setting that portion of benefits picked up by the state taxpayers, I think it's fairest to compare all government employees' benefits to all those state taxpayers. Otherwise you are using the armed might of government to force taxpayers to buy for public sector employees things they cannot afford for themselves.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
Nor did I dispute that. Do you think you're somehow refuting me? That was my second sentence: "Certainly, unions as organizations tend to support Democratic campaigns since Democrats tend to be more supportive of the working class."

I challenged the rest of Werepossum's comments which I believe to be fallacious. I asked for DATA to support them. For example, you repeated some of those same fallacies:

Proof? We've already seen a study linked in this thread refuting the propaganda that Wisconsin public employees are paid outrageously high compensation. That alone suggests this "sky is falling" crying about "Democrats voting to give more taxpayer money to unions" is more propaganda than reality. What is your factual basis for claiming otherwise, rather than your emotional feeling it must be true?

I also pointed out that unlike normal trade and manufacturing unions, government employees tend to be more white collar and more politically diverse. I'd like to see DATA showing that these employees give disproportionately to Democrats, and that this is materially affected by their compensation changes under Democratic management compared to Republican management.

Finally, I already stipulated that unions (as opposed to employees) tend to contribute more to Democrats than Republicans. Given the pugnacious stance Republican governors like Walker have traditionally taken against their workers, this shouldn't surprise anyone. You and Werepossum both seem to insinuate that increased employee compensation translates into increased campaign contributions to Democrats. Do you have any DATA demonstrating there is a material correlation between the two, e.g., something greater than that seen from the populace as a whole?

My guess is this is just more of the same emotionally-charged propaganda the right likes to spread when they don't have substantive attacks. It keeps their faithful obediently outraged and drowns out any attempts at the intelligent and productive discussions that likely won't go their way. Of course I may be wrong, and I welcome good DATA that supports your allegations.

Did you actually read the article? The numbers are pretty plain and I even put some of them in boldface.

"Tend to support Democratic campaigns" is such an understatement as to be intentionally misleading. That's like saying gravity "tends" to make things fall some of the time.

You have a quote from the WI Democrat party chairman saying that "I consider organized labor to be the backbone of the Democratic Party."

The DATA you asked for is right in front of you. If you can't draw logical conclusions from that, there's no point in arguing.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I could agree with that except for one thing; all tax-paying Wisconsin workers are paying for the public employees. Is it really fair to force those high school drop-outs, with no health insurance or pensions and no means to get any, to not only pay public employees' salaries but also pick up their health insurance and even their retirement? Is it moral to insist that public employees have a right to force private sector employees to pay for their health insurance and their retirement off the top, before the private sector employees pay for their own health insurance and retirement? Progressives and liberals tend to look at government spending as something that just comes from a magic cupboard, when in reality that is money taken from those hard-working high school drop-outs and college grads and from those wealthy or not-so-wealthy people who employee them.

Personally I think it is fair to compare apples to apples. When deciding if public employees are properly compensated, compare their salary and benefits to all equivalent private sector employees. Compare government school teachers to private school teachers, compare government cafeteria workers to private sector cafeteria workers, and so on. But when setting that portion of benefits picked up by the state taxpayers, I think it's fairest to compare all government employees' benefits to all those state taxpayers. Otherwise you are using the armed might of government to force taxpayers to buy for public sector employees things they cannot afford for themselves.
Sorry, that argument is a non sequitur. It's full of emotion, but divorced from reality.

The bottom line is "fairness" has nothing to do with it. It is ultimately Economics 101: Supply and Demand. The State of Wisconsin needs a certain number of qualified people to deliver its services. In order to attract those resources, it must compete with other employers in the area. In order to be competitive, it must offer compensation -- salary plus benefits -- and working conditions that make it attractive to a sufficient number of qualified people.

Many prospective workers find government employment inherently more attractive than private sector employment due to the perceived better working conditions and greater job stability. That's a plus for the State of Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin also offers better than average benefits. That's another plus. Wisconsin salaries, however, are reportedly notably lower than their private sector peers. That's a minus. Put this all together and it sounds like the State of Wisconsin has struck the appropriate balance it needs in order to attract a sufficient number of qualified workers. Not competitive on money alone, but competitive overall when looking at total compensation -- salary plus benefits -- and presumably better working conditions.

That's what it's all about. Supply and demand.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Did you actually read the article?
No. You quoted 15 paragraphs. That seemed like plenty. If those 15 paragraphs didn't support your argument, perhaps you need to learn to focus your arguments and quote more selectively.


The numbers are pretty plain and I even put some of them in boldface.

"Tend to support Democratic campaigns" is such an understatement as to be intentionally misleading. That's like saying gravity "tends" to make things fall some of the time.
Who cares? Sorry, your semantics games are a diversion. I qualified my stipulation with "tend" because, unlike gravity, it is NOT an absolute. Instead of belaboring things we already agree on, focus your arguments on those things we don't.


You have a quote from the WI Democrat party chairman saying that "I consider organized labor to be the backbone of the Democratic Party."

The DATA you asked for is right in front of you. If you can't draw logical conclusions from that, there's no point in arguing.
OK, so you ignored everything I said to repeat yourself. That proves exactly what you proved before ... nothing except the one thing I already stipulated in the second sentence of my original post: unions give more to Democrats than Republicans. We get that.

Now, do you have DATA to address any of the challenges I raised, or are you sticking with, "I feel it's true so it must be so?" If the DATA I seek is somewhere in your link, kindly post it instead of the 15 paragraphs of redundant deflection.
 
Last edited:

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
Sorry, that argument is a non sequitur. It's full of emotion, but divorced from reality.

The bottom line is "fairness" has nothing to do with it. It is ultimately Economics 101: Supply and Demand. The State of Wisconsin needs a certain number of qualified people to deliver its services. In order to attract those resources, it must compete with other employers in the area. In order to be competitive, it must offer compensation -- salary plus benefits -- and working conditions that make it attractive to a sufficient number of qualified people.

Many prospective workers find government employment inherently more attractive than private sector employment due to the perceived better working conditions and greater job stability. That's a plus for the State of Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin also offers better than average benefits. That's another plus. Wisconsin salaries, however, are reportedly notably lower than their private sector peers. That's a minus. Put this all together and it sounds like the State of Wisconsin has struck the appropriate balance it needs in order to attract a sufficient number of qualified workers. Not competitive on money alone, but competitive overall when looking at total compensation -- salary plus benefits -- and presumably better working conditions.

That's what it's all about. Supply and demand.

If it's all about supply and demand, then why are the union's needed? Or is your position they are not needed in the first place?
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
If it's all about supply and demand, then why are the union's needed? Or is your position they are not needed in the first place?

This, exactly.

If its all about supply and demand than why should the state only be allowed to employ people that agree to be apart of a union and give a large amount of their salary to the union?

If the state wants to hire non-union employees or say to the current union employees that you must now start contributing X amount percentage to your healthcare or pension or theres the door ---> than why can't it do so?

If the state believes that it can't find qualified applicants with its current wages+salaries then it can appeal to the taxpayers to give them more funds to raise wages or benefits beyond the usual CPI increases.

Unions are fine, but no government protection or special benefits.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
This, exactly.

If its all about supply and demand than why should the state only be allowed to employ people that agree to be apart of a union and give a large amount of their salary to the union?

If the state wants to hire non-union employees or say to the current union employees that you must now start contributing X amount percentage to your healthcare or pension or theres the door ---> than why can't it do so?

If the state believes that it can't find qualified applicants with its current wages+salaries then it can appeal to the taxpayers to give them more funds to raise wages or benefits beyond the usual CPI increases.

Unions are fine, but no government protection or special benefits.
Another non sequitur. The unions are part of the "supply" side of the equation. And once again, as has been pointed out innumerable times, the Wisconsin employees did agree to the requested concessions. To continue to act as though they haven't is dishonest.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Another non sequitur. The unions are part of the "supply" side of the equation. And once again, as has been pointed out innumerable times, the Wisconsin employees did agree to the requested concessions. To continue to act as though they haven't is dishonest.

How are the unions part of the supply side when everyone the employer employs must be part of the union? This gives the union monopoly over the supply of workers to the government.

I never said they didn't agree to the concessions. I know they did. You missed the point I was trying to make about the forced unions.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Another non sequitur. The unions are part of the "supply" side of the equation. And once again, as has been pointed out innumerable times, the Wisconsin employees did agree to the requested concessions. To continue to act as though they haven't is dishonest.

Negative on both accounts.

Unions are not on the supply side- they are in the middle- a middle layer of management.

They did not agree to the requested concessions. Also, it should be noted that they wouldn't have agreed to as much as they did if Walker didn't push for as much as he did.

Also note(to prevent the "compromise" canard) that Walker has been in negotiations so the idea that he's no willing to compromise is BS.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Sorry, that argument is a non sequitur. It's full of emotion, but divorced from reality.

The bottom line is "fairness" has nothing to do with it. It is ultimately Economics 101: Supply and Demand. The State of Wisconsin needs a certain number of qualified people to deliver its services. In order to attract those resources, it must compete with other employers in the area. In order to be competitive, it must offer compensation -- salary plus benefits -- and working conditions that make it attractive to a sufficient number of qualified people.

Many prospective workers find government employment inherently more attractive than private sector employment due to the perceived better working conditions and greater job stability. That's a plus for the State of Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin also offers better than average benefits. That's another plus. Wisconsin salaries, however, are reportedly notably lower than their private sector peers. That's a minus. Put this all together and it sounds like the State of Wisconsin has struck the appropriate balance it needs in order to attract a sufficient number of qualified workers. Not competitive on money alone, but competitive overall when looking at total compensation -- salary plus benefits -- and presumably better working conditions.

That's what it's all about. Supply and demand.
Umm, bullshit. Supply and demand work thusly: Hey, we can't keep qualified teachers, transit workers, etc. We need to raise our pay and/or benefits until we can attract enough qualified teachers, transit workers, etc.

Instead, Wisconsin's system is: We have plenty of qualified teachers, transit workers, etc. And lots more people want in. But the union demands more personal days, better benefits, and higher pay. We'll give it all to them, and in return they'll give us campaign donations, volunteer campaign workers, and rent-a-mobs every time we have a political problem. Hey, it's not OUR money!

Right now jobs are at a premium and Wisconsin has more teachers, transit workers, etc. than it can afford to pay. Neither side disputes these facts, only the best remedies. If the Wisconsin system had anything to do with supply and demand, salaries and benefits would be plummeting due to an oversupply and an underdemand. But the public employees' union, like most unions, is specifically about short-circuiting supply and demand in order to obtain for its members compensation that supply and demand would not provide. If unions did not deliver compensation (in working conditions, benefits, and wages) that supply and demand would not provide, there would be no unions; they would serve no purpose for their dues.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Umm, bullshit. Supply and demand work thusly: Hey, we can't keep qualified teachers, transit workers, etc. We need to raise our pay and/or benefits until we can attract enough qualified teachers, transit workers, etc.

Instead, Wisconsin's system is: We have plenty of qualified teachers, transit workers, etc. And lots more people want in. But the union demands more personal days, better benefits, and higher pay. We'll give it all to them, and in return they'll give us campaign donations, volunteer campaign workers, and rent-a-mobs every time we have a political problem. Hey, it's not OUR money!

Right now jobs are at a premium and Wisconsin has more teachers, transit workers, etc. than it can afford to pay. Neither side disputes these facts, only the best remedies. If the Wisconsin system had anything to do with supply and demand, salaries and benefits would be plummeting due to an oversupply and an underdemand. But the public employees' union, like most unions, is specifically about short-circuiting supply and demand in order to obtain for its members compensation that supply and demand would not provide. If unions did not deliver compensation (in working conditions, benefits, and wages) that supply and demand would not provide, there would be no unions; they would serve no purpose for their dues.
You're parroting partisan dogma instead of attempting an honest understanding of how the employment market works. Yes, in today's economy there is an oversupply of workers. That means many qualified candidates seeking employment. Demand is low, supply is high, and prices (compensation) tends to drop. That is exactly what we've seen in Wisconsin, where teachers agreed to accept cuts.

Yes, unions do attempt to shift the supply & demand curve in their favor by bargaining as a relatively powerful group rather than largely powerless individuals. So what? This simply levels the playing field a bit with large employers who usually have the advantage. The bottom line remains that in spite of all the huffing and puffing and hysteria about how Wisconsin unions are making employees rich ... the DATA shows otherwise, a fact none of you have been willing to address. Until you can, your cries are empty partisan noise. It's really that simple.