Is the media delusional with its 'union counterattack' bs?

[ProfJohn]

So here is a typical article floating around the web
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisco...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDd2lzZGVmZWF0Y291
Wis. defeat could help launch counterattack on GOP

Are the people who write this stuff stupid? Have they forgotten that the unions have been fighting against the GOP for decades?

Did they forget that the NEA supports the Democrats 20 to 1 over the GOP?

Did they forget that 5 out of the 10 largest political donors are unions who give nearly 100% of their money to Democrats already?

Did they forget that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is the third largest political donor in the country and they give 98% of their money to Democrats?


Beyond that is interesting how the national media is ignoring all the money the unions gave to the 14 Democrats in Wis. who fled.

According to a newspaper study the 14 Democrats who fled received 18% of their total fund raising from public unions.
http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/unionG_022711.jpg

Meanwhile Gov Walker got $43,000 from the Koch brothers and it became an issue.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros."

With all that in mind just how are the unions going to "counter attack"?? Are they going to 99% of their money to Democrats now? Oh that will show them Republicans!!!!

The whole concept is just idiocy. The unions are already 100% on the Democrats side and I don't think what we have been watching is going to change anything. About the only outcome is that we now have a bunch of pissed off union workers. Long term though nothing probably changes come election day.

 

[Jhhnn]

What a deliberately obtuse troll.

While Union leadership has consistently supported Democrats, for good reason, rank and file members have often chosen to support repubs because of other issues- guns, taxes, faux patriotism, you name it.

Now that Repubs have attacked people's right to unionize effectively, the rank and file gets to see that they're next, that Repubs are on a class warfare crusade to wipe out unions entirely, which might just have a wee tendency to get them to reconsider, and to become more motivated...

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Why do Republicans hate the middle class?

It's like won't be happy until America is a plutocracy. What idiots are voting for these traitors?

 

[ProfJohn]

Why do Democrats hate the tax payers?

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Why do Democrats hate the tax payers?

Farmers don't hate their cows for giving them milk.

 

[ProfJohn]

Farmer also don't milk their cows till they die.

 

[Jhhnn]

Farmer also don't milk their cows till they die.

Corporate greed holders will, if they have other cows someplace else...

 

[Phokus]

Why do Democrats hate the tax payers?

Why do YOU hate the taxpayers? You cheerlead wallstreet bailouts and poo poo the teachers

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31373471&postcount=4

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31373502&postcount=6

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31373598&postcount=7

You think the only bailout was 25 billion dollars (it was trillions, you nincompoop). You literally know NOTHING.

 

[Zebo]

“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. 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 … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

“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 … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

FDR - 1937

 

[Zebo]

Edward Achorn: Why FDR opposed public unions
Print
Email
Mobile
Share on Facebook

Reader comments


By EDWARD ACHORN

Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2011

One of the most remarkable things about the standoff in Wisconsin is that it has reignited a debate rarely heard for the last half-century: Are public-employee unions in the public interest?

Interestingly, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democratic icon and strong champion of the labor movement, emphatically thought not.

A shrewd tactician who loved his country, FDR recognized that public-employee unions are a different breed.

"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he declared.
Op-Ed Logo
Click for Editorials & Op-Eds

In the private sector, management has a strong incentive to negotiate pragmatically -- the need to maintain a profit to stay in business. Customers have a choice of buying cheaper products and services elsewhere.

In the public sector, such restraints disappear. The employees -- through their campaign contributions and organizing activities -- often get to determine who sits on the other side of the negotiating table from them.

When politicians who owe their power to public employees conduct so-called negotiations with them, taxpayers are left utterly defenseless. Since government is a monopoly, citizens are not permitted to shop around for another one that negotiates better contracts and provides cheaper services. No, citizens must simply pay, under the threat of arrest and imprisonment.

Thus, politicians can give away the store, bank on the unions' support in the next election, and hand the bill over to someone else.

You.

We've seen the results of such one-sided "negotiations": early retirements, pensions with annual cost-of-living boosts, free health care for life. And while the politicians retain their power, and public-employee-union bosses get fat, private-sector workers find their quality of life steadily eroded by higher taxes that do little to provide basic services or help the neediest.

It's a perfect circle: Public-employee unions get increasing amounts of money from the taxpayers, and use it to defeat the taxpayers' interests.

Well, not perfect. The problem is that the victims eventually run out of money.

In state after state, responsible leaders from both parties are pointing out that these giveaways are unsustainable.

In Democratic Wisconsin last November, voters tried to shift gears, electing a Republican governor and legislators who promised to rein in the unions and their demands. This has led to massive protests by the losers. All 14 of the state's Democratic senators fled the state to deny their chamber a quorum, thus blocking the majority from enacting the people's will.

Similar clashes are erupting in Indiana and Ohio.

It's no wonder. Vast amounts of money and political power are at stake, and politicians can hardly abandon the special interests that provide them crucial dollars needed to win elections.

According to OpenSecrets.org, 13 of the top 21 "all-time donors" to elections between 1998 and 2010 were unions, and on average, they gave well over 90 percent of their donations to Democrats. This is big-time money, and it buys politicians.

Until Democrats reorient their party away from these interests, they will not be inclined to stand up to them. Indeed, they will help public employees wage war against taxpayers who are pleading for reform and relief, even if that war takes the form of personal attacks, intimidation and violent rhetoric. As Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., told cheering public employees at a rally last week: "Every once in awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary." (He later apologized for the remark)

Still, everyone has slammed into a wall of reality -- massive debts at the federal, state and local level; high unemployment; strapped taxpayers; gold-plated benefits for the government class that the private sector can't imaginably afford. This won't go away. The protests and efforts to quash representative democracy will only increase, and spread throughout the country. Something has to give. Let's hope it is not freedom and the rule of law.

FDR understood the end game. "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees," he stated.

He argued that the expressed will of the people, through elections, provides government employees the protections they need over time.

"The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress," FDR observed. The same is true in state legislatures.

Whatever happens next in Wisconsin, the financial nightmare confronting government at all levels promises that we're going to be hearing more of this debate in the months and years to come.

 

[prism]

“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. 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 … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

“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 … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

FDR - 1937

I think the biggest problem with this quote from 1937 is that IT'S FROM 1937.

 

[sportage]

Just imagine if Jimmy Hoffa were still alive.
There would be bloodshed over this.
A LOT of bloodshed.

 

[fskimospy]

So here is a typical article floating around the web
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisco...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDd2lzZGVmZWF0Y291
Wis. defeat could help launch counterattack on GOP

Are the people who write this stuff stupid? Have they forgotten that the unions have been fighting against the GOP for decades?

Did they forget that the NEA supports the Democrats 20 to 1 over the GOP?

Did they forget that 5 out of the 10 largest political donors are unions who give nearly 100% of their money to Democrats already?

Did they forget that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is the third largest political donor in the country and they give 98% of their money to Democrats?


Beyond that is interesting how the national media is ignoring all the money the unions gave to the 14 Democrats in Wis. who fled.

According to a newspaper study the 14 Democrats who fled received 18% of their total fund raising from public unions.
http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/unionG_022711.jpg

Meanwhile Gov Walker got $43,000 from the Koch brothers and it became an issue.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros."

With all that in mind just how are the unions going to "counter attack"?? Are they going to 99% of their money to Democrats now? Oh that will show them Republicans!!!!

The whole concept is just idiocy. The unions are already 100% on the Democrats side and I don't think what we have been watching is going to change anything. About the only outcome is that we now have a bunch of pissed off union workers. Long term though nothing probably changes come election day.

Hopefully this was explained to you by other people. Strange for you to post something calling it idiocy while putting so little thought into it yourself. Looks like another case of you allowing your extreme partisanship to cloud your ability to analyze a situation.

Unions are not monolithic in their voting patterns or their degree of participation and this issue appears to have galvanized the left. Overall, a dumb, dumb move on Walker's part. It's quite likely that he's screwed the GOP in his state over a symbolic issue. All of their poll numbers are tanking, and for what?

 

[Siddhartha]

So here is a typical article floating around the web
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisco...Ec2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDd2lzZGVmZWF0Y291
Wis. defeat could help launch counterattack on GOP

Are the people who write this stuff stupid? Have they forgotten that the unions have been fighting against the GOP for decades?

Did they forget that the NEA supports the Democrats 20 to 1 over the GOP?

Did they forget that 5 out of the 10 largest political donors are unions who give nearly 100% of their money to Democrats already?

Did they forget that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is the third largest political donor in the country and they give 98% of their money to Democrats?


Beyond that is interesting how the national media is ignoring all the money the unions gave to the 14 Democrats in Wis. who fled.

According to a newspaper study the 14 Democrats who fled received 18% of their total fund raising from public unions.
http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/unionG_022711.jpg

Meanwhile Gov Walker got $43,000 from the Koch brothers and it became an issue.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros."

With all that in mind just how are the unions going to "counter attack"?? Are they going to 99% of their money to Democrats now? Oh that will show them Republicans!!!!

The whole concept is just idiocy. The unions are already 100% on the Democrats side and I don't think what we have been watching is going to change anything. About the only outcome is that we now have a bunch of pissed off union workers. Long term though nothing probably changes come election day.

I read this as saying that the GOP's antilabor activities, and their pushing their social, economic, and cultural agenda would motivate, activate, and re-innervate individuals and groups that sat out or even voted GOP in the last federal election cycle.

 

[MikeMike]

I think the biggest problem with this quote from 1937 is that IT'S FROM 1937.

which means, work environments have become worse???

what exactly do you mean by that???

 

[1prophet]

I think the biggest problem with this quote from 1937 is that IT'S FROM 1937.

And that makes it not relevant because....?

 

[sandorski]

Delusional? Is calling Teachers "overpaid" at $48k/year while pleading for Banker/Financial Workers/Others who make $250k+/year as having a difficult time, sanity?

 

[wuliheron]

Why do Democrats hate the tax payers?

Oh no massa, we don's hate you! We love you! Please don't whip us no more!

 

[jteef]

Delusional? Is calling Teachers "overpaid" at $48k/year while pleading for Banker/Financial Workers/Others who make $250k+/year as having a difficult time, sanity?

taxpayer funded vs private (presuming you ignore the bank bailouts) the two are fundamentally different. Also this dispute is not about wages.

 

[Jhhnn]

taxpayer funded vs private (presuming you ignore the bank bailouts) the two are fundamentally different. Also this dispute is not about wages.

Ignoring reality, anything is possible.

 

[sao123]

taxpayer funded vs private (presuming you ignore the bank bailouts) the two are fundamentally different. Also this dispute is not about wages.

its all about wages...

A person should recieve his worth in wages regardless of wether he works for the private industry, or the taxpayer funded government.

A deisel mechanic who works for the DOT, should be paid the same as a deisel mechanic who works at ford. A Class A driver should be paid the same to drive for the DOT as hewould to drive for a freight company.
Network Engineers, HR Analysts, Accountants, Civil Engineers, etc should all be paid the same to do their trade, wether they work for the government, or for the private sector.

You morons think that there is some magic bullet, that because someone works for the government, they should automatically work for a reduced rate.

 

[rudder]

Delusional? Is calling Teachers "overpaid" at $48k/year while pleading for Banker/Financial Workers/Others who make $250k+/year as having a difficult time, sanity?

What does a private sector employee's salary have to do with anything? If I were a Wisconsin taxpayer, that would not matter. However that public sector $48K/year + healthcare + retirement benefits package (which add another $20,000+ to that 48K figure) pricetag would concern me.

The teachers salary should be whatever the taxpayers of Wisconsin can afford to pay. The problem is the rest of the state workers are also doing better than the general public in Wisconsin. Those taxpayers cannot support this budget.

It used to be an honor and a privilege to work for the government. Now it is the golden egg.

Unions have no place in the public sector.

 

[Red Dawn]

Time for those going to school to become teachers to consider another occupation if they don't want to become a target of the Right

 

[rudder]

“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. 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 … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

“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 … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

FDR - 1937

I think the biggest problem with this quote from 1937 is that IT'S FROM 1937.

Well you know those Air Traffic Controllers in 1981 had an obligation to assist the flying public. This what at a time when airliners did not have collision avoidance systems onboard like they do now. This is a great example of why government employees should not be allowed to strike. The quote is relevant to 1937, 1981, and 2011.

What part of public service do you not understand?

 

[wuliheron]

Time for those going to school to become teachers to consider another occupation if they don't want to become a target of the Right

Is there an occupation other then politician, soldier, or millionaire that isn't a target for the right?