The WI Bill - Real Analysis

[trenchfoot]

no it can't when it comes to unions. please educate yourself. I'm sick of having to repeat this every time a union thread comes up.
http://www.nlrb.gov/
http://www.teamster.org/content/definitions-common-labor-terms
http://www.nrtw.org/

Start with those.

Well, it just so happens that I'm a Union Business Rep, and I've been one since the early 90's, and the way you use the word "exclusive" in the context I think you mean is that only one union will represent all of the teachers in a certain district, whereas some school districts, depending on their size, can have more than one union representation within that district.

I could also interpret your use of that word to mean that the union leaders could decide whether or not they would bargain to have a closed shop within their jurisdiction, or have union and non-union workers work side by side.

I could also interpret your use of the word to mean that the union leaders have taken it upon themselves to force the employees to choose them for representation, and not give the employees a choice as to who should represent them.

More examples can be brought up, and depending on what you actually meant to say, you could be correct or mistaken in your interpretation.

edit - When considering the jargon we use in this "business" if you will, your description seems unfamiliar and somewhat vague.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well, it just so happens that I'm a Union Business Rep, and I've been one since the early 90's, and the way you use the word "exclusive" in the context I think you mean is that only one union will represent all of the teachers in a certain district, whereas some school districts, depending on their size, can have more than one union representation within that district.

I could also interpret your use of that word to mean that the union leaders could decide whether or not they would bargain to have a closed shop within their jurisdiction, or have union and non-union workers work side by side.

I could also interpret your use of the word to mean that the union leaders have taken it upon themselves to force the employees to choose them for representation, and not give the employees a choice as to who should represent them.

More examples can be brought up, and depending on what you actually meant to say, you could be correct or mistaken in your interpretation.

edit - When considering the jargon we use in this "business" if you will, your description seems unfamiliar and somewhat vague.

Did you pay attention to the post I replied to? Hmm... if you were so knowledgeable you would have gotten it. I don't have time to or the will to rehash this same old thing time after time with people who don't understand that the Unions get to decide how they are structured. They certainly can and most often do form as exclusive, so they shut everyone out and cover all the workers. It's a power thing. And then they have the nerve(especially in a right to work state) to whine when someone dares not join the union and they claim they are "forced" to represent the non-union person. They chose it - they brought it on themselves.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Walker makes me sick. Give tax breaks and pay for them by stealing from the wages of people who cannot by law strike!

 

[FDF12389]

Walker makes me sick. Give tax breaks and pay for them by stealing from the wages of people who cannot by law strike!

A. Politics are that simple.
B. You're an idiot.


Ockham's razor strikes again!

 

[WackyDan]

Walker makes me sick. Give tax breaks and pay for them by stealing from the wages of people who cannot by law strike!

Yup.. You are an idiot. Facts are so hard to reason with for you.

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/sta...-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Once again a thread summary for the lazy:

Republicans: were for personal freedom except when we are not.

 

[PeshakJang]

Once again a thread summary for the lazy:

Republicans: were for personal freedom except when we are not.

Sounds a lot like the argument that is being made in Indiana by the pro-Unions and the Democrats.

We're for personal rights, except when it comes to choosing to be in a union or not.

That's literally their whole argument. They want to make sure people don't have the right to choose whether or not they join a union.

Ironing, isn't it?

PS - People have rights, not unions.

 

[JockoJohnson]

So much bitching and moaning about collective bargaining in this thread. The unions would not lose the ability to collective bargain for their wages---from what I understand. They would lose the ability (not RIGHT, someone said it earlier, unions don't have RIGHTS) to collective bargain for what brand of toilet paper goes in their bathrooms, what brand of coffee is in the break rooms. BOO-Fucking-HOO

 

[soundforbjt]

Sounds a lot like the argument that is being made in Indiana by the pro-Unions and the Democrats.

We're for personal rights, except when it comes to choosing to be in a union or not.

That's literally their whole argument. They want to make sure people don't have the right to choose whether or not they join a union.

Ironing, isn't it?

PS - People have rights, not unions.

Corporations thanks to the SC now the same rights as a person, should those be taken away? I doubt you'll agree with that.

As one person said, let them not have to join the union, just make them bargain for their own pay & benefits. That'd be fair, right?

 

[HumblePie]

After reading the OP and many of the posts here this is what all I have to say.

The bunk about the current GOP in WI "creating" the deficit crisis is just that. Bunk and FUD. Maddow tried to spread this and Politifact and other sources have both called it a pants on fire tactic and a complete lie. It all came from a memo from one of the chief financial officers for the state that lists at the top of the memo all the "surpluses" or income into the state before going into what is outgoing. If you read only the top of the financial report it does indeed look like a surplus and not a deficit. That like looking only at your paycheck every month without looking at the bills that come in the mail.

So WI does indeed have a budget deficit as of right now and if left uncheck will become a budget deficit crisis in a few more years. The current government is doing what it can to change that fact. And it is a fact.

Now, how the WI government is going about making this change is how it was elected to do so. There may be plenty of ways to correct the problem, but all of them would have someone that doesn't like it. That is a fact as well. Please some of the people all the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

So the current WI government has decided to go after public worker wages and benefits. It also has decided that doing so would not be enough because in the long term, whatever was changed would be changed back because of unions. So they are limiting the power of unions to a degree. This is what they were elected to do and so they are doing it. My opinion on how why is not of any concern. However, I will address the merits now of what I've reviewed of the bill and what it proposes.

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the limits placed upon unions except in TWO circumstance. First being, if you do not pay union dues you can still be part of the union. That to me is crap. If you want to be of the union and receive the benefits from the efforts of the union, you need to pay for it in some way. There is no free lunch. Two, limiting what the unions can ask for. If unions want to argue for a greater than inflationary wage increase then let them. However, the employer doesn't have to agree to it. This puts a nice check and balance on BOTH sides. No one group of people: unions, non-union employees, or employers are completely at the reigns of power or held over a barrel.

 

[comptr6]

Why is it you socialists are all for raising the taxes on the rich, regulating CEO pay and Wallstreet bonuses but now when a state is trying to cover a budget shortfall you're outraged that unions have to make sacrifices like everyone else. Is class warfare all you libtards understand?

 

[HumblePie]

Why is it you socialists are all for raising the taxes on the rich, regulating CEO pay and Wallstreet bonuses but now when a state is trying to cover a budget shortfall you're outraged that unions have to make sacrifices like everyone else. Is class warfare all you libtards understand?

Sigh, and much of what you spout in all 15 posts I've read from you has been just about been complete FUD as well. I'll ask the following question because I really think it pertains to you.

WWYBYWB??

You sir are an illogical partisan hack so far and your posts have been nothing more than accusations and troll posts at best.

Personally, I'm for the WI bill with a few changes as I've noted in my previous post. I do not think beyond that the bill is unreasonable. I do not have a problem with limiting the power of unions so long as those limits are proper. I do not see a problem with unions either as their intention for what they are suppose to be either.

 

[soundforbjt]

I think spidey made a new account or had his brother or cousin join. Notice the "We the People" refs.

 

[CitizenKain]

Why is it you socialists are all for raising the taxes on the rich, regulating CEO pay and Wallstreet bonuses but now when a state is trying to cover a budget shortfall you're outraged that unions have to make sacrifices like everyone else. Is class warfare all you libtards understand?

Spidey, post on your real account instead of your sockpuppet.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Sounds a lot like the argument that is being made in Indiana by the pro-Unions and the Democrats.

We're for personal rights, except when it comes to choosing to be in a union or not.

That's literally their whole argument. They want to make sure people don't have the right to choose whether or not they join a union.

Ironing, isn't it?

PS - People have rights, not unions.

You mean like corporations do?

Woops.