The WI Bill - Real Analysis

[Red Dawn]

I wish I had a say in what my compensation is. Unfortunately, I live in the real world. The only way I have a say in what my compensation is is to get a different job. I did.

BTW, this bill doesn't end collective bargaining for pay for union employees - just added benefits.

You negotiate and if you come to an impasse then you go seperate ways. Same thing with the Union, if they come to an impasse with the Government then they don't work for them and the Government can replace them.

 

[FuzzyBee]

You negotiate and if you come to an impasse then you go seperate ways. Same thing with the Union, if they come to an impasse with the Government then they don't work for them and the Government can replace them.

There's a difference between *me* walking away, and every employee in my company walking away, because some are dissatisfied with their pay/benefits.

 

[Red Dawn]

There's a difference between *me* walking away, and every employee in my company walking away, because some are dissatisfied with their pay/benefits.

And you think that they as a group shouldn't have the right to walk away?

 

[Michael]

I am anti-union and always have been.

In context, however, it is an obvious historical fact that unions came about because basic rights of workers were abused. No different than any other democratic movement, unions represented the people inside of them. The vast majority of the protective laws and workers rights that we enjoy in the USA (most of the Western world, actually) comes from the efforts of the unions and the political parties they supported.

In the case of public workers, there is a mixed basis for the need for unions. Because much of the pay from the workers comes from the public till and the public has shown throughout history that they vote against raising taxes on themselves, there is a good argument that government workers need some sort of collective bargaining. However, because of the nature of the way governments are run - not for profit, generally non-professional managers in charge, subject to fickle voters, etc. - over the decades and decades of bargaining the pay and benefits has become too tilted in favour of the union members.

I also think to argue that the law is not a "union-busting" law is naive. To argue that it does not cut pay is also naive.

Limiting the ability of a union to negotiate for nothing more than cost-of-living removes much of the reason for collective bargaining.

Making union employees pay for more of their retirement benefits and their health care is certainly a pay cut. I think it is more inline with standard practice outside the public sector (as a rule of thumb, employers pay 80% and employees 20% of health insurance, for example), but to say it is not a pay cut is a poor position to argue from.

The requirement that unions be subject to an annual vote is no different than most corporations having a board that is voted in every year. Union leaders should be subject to their members. I am not sure is an annual test is the best, but more than every 2 years is probably too long.

Finally, public unions have been a huge source of political backing for the Democrats for decades. I expect that, as normal political human nature, that Republicans will do what they can to curtail union power. There is pretty much no downside to it. The people protesting are not going to vote for them anyways.

Michael

 

[PeshakJang]

And you think that they as a group shouldn't have the right to walk away?

Nothing in this bill takes away that right.

The state also has the right to terminate them immediately.

 

[Red Dawn]

Nothing in this bill takes away that right.

The state also has the right to terminate them immediately.

The Bill takes away their right to negotiate for their fringe benefits as a group.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

why exempt certain unions? Why not try busting all of them at once?

 

[Red Dawn]

why exempt certain unions? Why not try busting all of them at once?

Becuase he'd get his ass kicked politically (and lose the contributions that they give him)

 

[PeshakJang]

The Bill takes away their right to negotiate for their fringe benefits as a group.

It doesn't take away their right to walk away.

They can walk away, just like they can now. The state can fire them, just like it can now.

It removes the right of the employer (being the local government) to provide certain benefits, which are paid for by the state government, or to barter over those benefits.

If the state is footing the bill, the government agency, be it state, local, municipality, etc., shouldn't be held hostage to the demands of the union representing its workers.

And honestly, again, if they think they are getting the shaft, they should look for a job in the private sector.

 

[PeshakJang]

Becuase he'd get his ass kicked politically (and lose the contributions that they give him)

I've yet to find a union in this country that gives more to Republicans than Democrats, by even the slimmest of margins. I would wager a bet that political contributions in WI from unions go to Democrats in the range of 95-98%.

 

[wirednuts]

It doesn't take away their right to walk away.

They can walk away, just like they can now. The state can fire them, just like it can now.

It removes the right of the employer (being the local government) to provide certain benefits, which are paid for by the state government, or to barter over those benefits.

If the state is footing the bill, the government agency, be it state, local, municipality, etc., shouldn't be held hostage to the demands of the union representing its workers.

And honestly, again, if they think they are getting the shaft, they should look for a job in the private sector.

the state is "footing the bill" because it agreed to by contract. and they have the money to "foot the bill", so its not like this is about trying to save money.

this is about corporate greed influencing politics. thats what the new-day republican party is. they are systematically trying to break apart the middle class. a few rich, a lot of poor and everyone is supposedly happy. 5% of the population in the united states holds 95% of the wealth.

 

[PeshakJang]

this is about corporate greed influencing politics. thats what the new-day republican party is. they are systematically trying to break apart the middle class. a few rich, a lot of poor and everyone is supposedly happy. 5% of the population in the united states holds 95% of the wealth.

These are the kind of idiotic arguments that lead to nobody taking the left seriously.

I could argue that the protests are not about protecting workers, but the unions that are afraid of losing their political power stirring up all sorts of lies, taking advantage of peoples' naivete, playing on emotions, and trying to do anything but have rational discussions about this.

The Democrats fleeing the state is evidence enough of the childish behavior going on. Unions busing in teachers from other states to protest something that has nothing to do with them. Hell, the PRESIDENT'S own political action group has been cheering them on, helping to organize, helping to protest... maybe if he tried to fix his own government instead of countering the state legislatures that are trying to fix theirs, he wouldn't be regarded as such an incompetent fool.

Either way, no matter. This is happening, and it is happening across the country. The Democrats' are losing power, losing influence, and losing what little credibility they had left.

 

[charrison]

And you think that they as a group shouldn't have the right to walk away?

When it involves something where the consumer has no choice(school, fire, police), no they should not have a choice.

Our schools are already failing, we dont need teachers walking off the job.

 

[Red Dawn]

When it involves something where the consumer has no choice(school, fire, police), no they should not have a choice.

Our schools are already failing, we dont need teachers walking off the job.

Oh but they have a choice, they can either send them to Private School or Home School them.

 

[Red Dawn]

These are the kind of idiotic arguments that lead to nobody taking the left seriously.

I could argue that the protests are not about protecting workers, but the unions that are afraid of losing their political power stirring up all sorts of lies, taking advantage of peoples' naivete, playing on emotions, and trying to do anything but have rational discussions about this.

The Democrats fleeing the state is evidence enough of the childish behavior going on. Unions busing in teachers from other states to protest something that has nothing to do with them. Hell, the PRESIDENT'S own political action group has been cheering them on, helping to organize, helping to protest... maybe if he tried to fix his own government instead of countering the state legislatures that are trying to fix theirs, he wouldn't be regarded as such an incompetent fool.

Either way, no matter. This is happening, and it is happening across the country. The Democrats' are losing power, losing influence, and losing what little credibility they had left.

Like the Republicans have credibility? Where is this beautiful being Walker's credibility? He goes after the teachers but leaves the Police and Firemen alone because they were big contributors to his campaign. Yeah a lot of credibility there boy:whiste:

 

[charrison]

Oh but they have a choice, they can either send them to Private School or Home School them.

It is not much of a choice to forced to pay school taxes and then not be able to send your kids to school because the teachers are on strike.

Give me a voucher and I will enroll in my kid in any school I want. That is choice, what you describe is a forced govt monopoly on education and it is failing badly.

 

[charrison]

Like the Republicans have credibility? Where is this beautiful being Walker's credibility? He goes after the teachers but leaves the Police and Firemen alone because they were big contributors to his campaign. Yeah a lot of credibility there boy:whiste:

Maybe he was afraid they would have sickout like the teacher are doing.....

 

[LegendKiller]

It is not much of a choice to forced to pay school taxes and then not be able to send your kids to school because the teachers are on strike.

Give me a voucher and I will enroll in my kid in any school I want. That is choice, what you describe is a forced govt monopoly on education and it is failing badly.

What's failing badly? I saw a study last week that showed that the US hasn't moved up or down on the quality of its education in about 50 years. We were never the most dominant country when it came to education, ever. The thought we were is a lie.

As far as these public workers. Fuck em. They take for granted what 90% of Americans don't have. They call economic-free retirement benefits, cheap healthcare, decent salaries for 9 months of work, economic-free work conditions and raises, "rights". They aren't rights, they are privileges.

It used to be that public employees were paid less than private ones because they had all of these nice perks. However, that situation reversed itself in the last 15-20 years as their unions pushed for ever expanding benefits and raises outside of inflation.

 

[charrison]

What's failing badly? I saw a study last week that showed that the US hasn't moved up or down on the quality of its education in about 50 years. We were never the most dominant country when it came to education, ever. The thought we were is a lie.

K-12 is failing. The cost per pupil has sky rocketed in inflation adjusted dollars, yet our results are not any better. And there are many public schools that are flat out failing.

I will agree our university/college system is still the envy of the world.

As far as these public workers. Fuck em. They take for granted what 90% of Americans don't have. They call economic-free retirement benefits, cheap healthcare, decent salaries for 9 months of work, economic-free work conditions and raises, "rights". They aren't rights, they are privileges.

It used to be that public employees were paid less than private ones because they had all of these nice perks. However, that situation reversed itself in the last 15-20 years as their unions pushed for ever expanding benefits and raises outside of inflation.

I will completely agree and I currently am a govt employee, but not for much longer.

 

[wirednuts]

I could argue that the protests are not about protecting workers, but the unions that are afraid of losing their political power stirring up all sorts of lies, taking advantage of peoples' naivete, playing on emotions, and trying to do anything but have rational discussions about this.

youre argue my points by spewing a bunch of meaningless garbage. of course this is about unions losing their political power. they lose that, they dont have power to protect themselves (WHICH IS THE WORKERS).

 

[wirednuts]

What's failing badly? I saw a study last week that showed that the US hasn't moved up or down on the quality of its education in about 50 years. We were never the most dominant country when it came to education, ever. The thought we were is a lie.

As far as these public workers. Fuck em. They take for granted what 90% of Americans don't have. They call economic-free retirement benefits, cheap healthcare, decent salaries for 9 months of work, economic-free work conditions and raises, "rights". They aren't rights, they are privileges.

It used to be that public employees were paid less than private ones because they had all of these nice perks. However, that situation reversed itself in the last 15-20 years as their unions pushed for ever expanding benefits and raises outside of inflation.

wrong. because the state isnt going broke because of these unions. in fact, the state isnt going broke at all so all of your argument is off the point anyway. this is about the people who teach your fucking kids for christ sake. the people to also teach those piece of shit neighbor kids that nobody likes. and an attack on this union is an attack on all unions in the state. money? no. control? yes. the republicans want full control, and that is very bad for hard working middle class people.

 

[LegendKiller]

wrong. because the state isnt going broke because of these unions. in fact, the state isnt going broke at all so all of your argument is off the point anyway. this is about the people who teach your fucking kids for christ sake. the people to also teach those piece of shit neighbor kids that nobody likes. and an attack on this union is an attack on all unions in the state. money? no. control? yes. the republicans want full control, and that is very bad for hard working middle class people.

The burden for ALL unions and their wages are borne by the taxpayers, regardless of whether Wisconsin is going broke or not is meaningless. It's incurring debt partly because of the unions and it needs to stop.

At this point the unions are extortionists. The state should not be beholden to negotiate with extortionists. Even FDR agreed with that.

 

[PeshakJang]

youre argue my points by spewing a bunch of meaningless garbage. of course this is about unions losing their political power. they lose that, they dont have power to protect themselves (WHICH IS THE WORKERS).

You're confusing unions with union members. Unions these days, as they exist, serve to push their own political agenda, similar to an organized political party, which may or may not coincide with what is best for their members. The reasons for which unions were originally organized seldom are not covered by modern regulations, legislation, and oversight.

Keep thinking that unions exist only to provide a fair working environment for their members though.

 

[fskimospy]

The burden for ALL unions and their wages are borne by the taxpayers, regardless of whether Wisconsin is going broke or not is meaningless. It's incurring debt partly because of the unions and it needs to stop.

At this point the unions are extortionists. The state should not be beholden to negotiate with extortionists. Even FDR agreed with that.

What are you basing your opinion of FDR's stance on public sector unions on?

The unions are not extortionists in any way, shape, or form. If you compare public union wages with private sector union wages, they are actually not that far apart. People who are too foolish to unionize in their own industries then turn around and complain about the great wages that more forward thinking people were able to negotiate.

It never ceases to amaze me how people simultaneously declare their desire not to be in a union because of how they want the ability to make more money on their own time, not a union scale. Then they turn around and freak out about how much money everyone makes in a union.

 

[charrison]

What are you basing your opinion of FDR's stance on public sector unions on?

The unions are not extortionists in any way, shape, or form. If you compare public union wages with private sector union wages, they are actually not that far apart. People who are too foolish to unionize in their own industries then turn around and complain about the great wages that more forward thinking people were able to negotiate.

It never ceases to amaze me how people simultaneously declare their desire not to be in a union because of how they want the ability to make more money on their own time, not a union scale. Then they turn around and freak out about how much money everyone makes in a union.

Lets see, the state has 3-4Billion budget gap. Govt goes to reduce cost, public unions throw a fit and threaten to teach the children. How is that not extortion?