The WI Bill - Real Analysis

[fskimospy]

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?

Because extortion requires the action to be unlawful, and having a strike is not unlawful.

 

[charrison]

Because extortion requires the action to be unlawful, and having a strike is not unlawful.

Theft of services is unlawful. That is in effect what a striking school teacher provides. It is not like taxpayers are going to refund for services not provided.

 

[PeshakJang]

Because extortion requires the action to be unlawful, and having a strike is not unlawful.

–verb (used with object) 1. Law . a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

b. to take illegally by reason of one's office.



2. to compel (something) of a person or thing: Her wit and intelligence extorted their admiration.


Doesn't need to be an illegal action.

 

[LegendKiller]

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.

www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445&h=04a63

By the strictest definition of extortion being "illegal", no, they aren't obtaining anything illegally. However, they are coercing higher pay through various methods.

 

[fskimospy]

–verb (used with object) 1. Law . a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

b. to take illegally by reason of one's office.



2. to compel (something) of a person or thing: Her wit and intelligence extorted their admiration.


Doesn't need to be an illegal action.

You're right. So I looked up the actual US code on extortion and it says this:

"the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."

I'm interested to see how teachers going on strike fits into that definition.

 

[PeshakJang]

You're right. So I looked up the actual US code on extortion and it says this:

I'm interested to see how teachers going on strike fits into that definition.

Kidding? That is basically exactly what they are doing... to a T. No, they won't get charged with extortion, because that requires a criminal component... but that aside, that is exactly what they are doing.

 

[fskimospy]

www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445&h=04a63

By the strictest definition of extortion being "illegal", no, they aren't obtaining anything illegally. However, they are coercing higher pay through various methods.

Your link isn't working for me. There's nothing wrong with coercing higher pay, that's what everyone does when they bargain in business every day.

 

[fskimospy]

Kidding? That is basically exactly what they are doing... to a T. No, they won't get charged with extortion, because that requires a criminal component... but that aside, that is exactly what they are doing.

Which do you define going on strike as: force, violence, fear, or official right?

 

[PeshakJang]

Your link isn't working for me. There's nothing wrong with coercing higher pay, that's what everyone does when they bargain in business every day.

And in the private sector, there's nothing wrong with the employer reducing your pay, reducing your benefits, and not welcoming unions into his or her business.

If you want the rights, you take both sides of the coin.

 

[fskimospy]

And in the private sector, there's nothing wrong with the employer reducing your pay, reducing your benefits, and not welcoming unions into his or her business.

If you want the rights, you take both sides of the coin.

When did I ever argue otherwise?

 

[PeshakJang]

Which do you define going on strike as: force, violence, fear, or official right?

Fear. Fear that if their demands are not met, they will shut down public services, paid for by the taxpayer. Same reason a private employer would fear losing your added value if you threatened to quit unless you were paid more. Public union simply has a lot more leverage due to their special position in society, which they have abused for far too long.

And depending on what protests you look at, violence. They are protesting the private residence of the governor.

I really hope they are given an ultimatum. Back at work on Monday, or not at all.

 

[PeshakJang]

When did I ever argue otherwise?

That's what the protests are over... at least in the minds of the protesters... most of whom were just told to show up with a sign.

 

[LegendKiller]

Your link isn't working for me. There's nothing wrong with coercing higher pay, that's what everyone does when they bargain in business every day.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

That isn't what goes on in business every day.

Unions existed to mitigate employers mistreatment of workers. Unless you can definitively prove that Wisconsin is mistreating its workers, then the union's lust for taxpayer funded exorbitant benefits is an asymmetrical coercion through CB (extortion). To say that any of these workers are mistreated is laughable considering they are isolated from economic issues through CB, long-term contracts and pensions, none of which 90% of the country has.

Mistreatment my ass.

 

[fskimospy]

Fear. Fear that if their demands are not met, they will shut down public services, paid for by the taxpayer. Same reason a private employer would fear losing your added value if you threatened to quit unless you were paid more. Public union simply has a lot more leverage due to their special position in society, which they have abused for far too long.

And depending on what protests you look at, violence. They are protesting the private residence of the governor.

I really hope they are given an ultimatum. Back at work on Monday, or not at all.

So you believe that private employees threatening to quit without a raise are committing extortion, just without the criminal component?

 

[Red Dawn]

Theft of services is unlawful. That is in effect what a striking school teacher provides. It is not like taxpayers are going to refund for services not provided.

And while the teachers are on strike they aren't going to receive any compensation.

 

[charrison]

And while the teachers are on strike they aren't going to receive any compensation.

And while the teachers are on strike, tax dollars are still be collected and education is still not being given. Not mention extra cost associated with missing work/day care for kids that need to be watched when they are not in school.

Red if the teacher go on strike, they are going to lose big time. I expect them all to fired on short order if they go on strike as most parents do in fact care about their kids education.

 

[Red Dawn]

Fear. Fear that if their demands are not met, they will shut down public services, paid for by the taxpayer. Same reason a private employer would fear losing your added value if you threatened to quit unless you were paid more. Public union simply has a lot more leverage due to their special position in society, which they have abused for far too long.

And depending on what protests you look at, violence. They are protesting the private residence of the governor.

I really hope they are given an ultimatum. Back at work on Monday, or not at all.

Now if it was a pledge they take to serve and protect like in the Armed services then they should be obligated to work but they haven't made that pledge so if Gov Wanker wants to fire them so be it, let him try and replace them.

Of course Governor Wanker can nip this in the bufd by pulling the clause in the biill that forbid Unions Workers from Colletive Bargaining for fringe benefits.

 

[Red Dawn]

And while the teachers are on strike, tax dollars are still be collected and education is still not being given. Not mention extra cost associated with missing work/day care for kids that need to be watched when they are not in school.

Red if the teacher go on strike, they are going to lose big time. I expect them all to fired on short order if they go on strike as most parents do in fact care about their kids education.

Yeah especially if they have to shell out of their own pockets to have someone watch their little bastards while they are busy at work

 

[charrison]

So you believe that private employees threatening to quit without a raise are committing extortion, just without the criminal component?

Yes it is extortion, higher taxes or we will not educate you kids.

If the teachers want to go on strike fine, but provide parents with vouchers from tax dollars otherwise not spent on striking teachers, so they can make sure the kids are getting their needed education.

But I am sure you are not interested in that idea either.

 

[charrison]

Yeah especially if they have to shell out of their own pockets to have someone watch their little bastards while they are busy at work

The problem is, they have already shelled out the money for this service.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes it is extortion, higher taxes or we will not educate you kids.

If the teachers want to go on strike fine, but provide parents with vouchers from tax dollars otherwise not spent on striking teachers, so they can make sure the kids are getting their needed education.

But I am sure you are not interested in that idea either.

They are not spending any money on the teachers while they are striking, striking employees are not paid.

 

[charrison]

They are not spending any money on the teachers while they are striking, striking employees are not paid.

Listen a little closer.....

Taxes are still being collecting for a service not rendered.....

and for that reason parents are left with little option for making sure their kids are getting the education they are supposed to.

Obviously you think the right to strike is more important that providing a very important service that is also a govt monopoly.

 

[Red Dawn]

The problem is, they have already shelled out the money for this service.

Well if it turns out to be a situation where they teachers strike hold Gov Wanker for the moneys collected while they were on strike. I bet that asshole finds a way to spend it, account for it and blame the teachers for it.

This guy would make a snail seem like it had dry skin that's how utterly slimy he and his supporters are.

 

[charrison]

Well if it turns out to be a situation where they teachers strike hold Gov Wanker for the moneys collected while they were on strike. I bet that asshole finds a way to spend it, account for it and blame the teachers for it.

This guy would make a snail seem like it had dry skin that's how utterly slimy he and his supporters are.

They have a 3B gap to fill, the money is already spent. That is what this is all about. Something has to give and it appears the taxpayer are not willing to fill the gap so something has to go.

 

[fskimospy]

Listen a little closer.....

Taxes are still being collecting for a service not rendered.....

and for that reason parents are left with little option for making sure their kids are getting the education they are supposed to.

Obviously you think the right to strike is more important that providing a very important service that is also a govt monopoly.

So then your beef is with the state government, not the teachers. The teachers aren't getting the money, the state government is now collecting your taxes and not paying them. Glad we got to the bottom of this.