Massive protesting in Wisconsin (U.S.A.)

[Bill V]

Les, I've already answered it. I've already told you that I'm all for playing hardball with the unions to get financial concessions regarding pensions and wages to help reduce costs. I've also said that I'm all for making cuts (not refusing to pay as much for unchanged services, but actually receiving fewer services for reduced costs) to balance the budget.



But I also see "people, such as you, that are completely misguided regarding" what the union has agreed to, and what Walker is asking for. The union has already agreed to the financial changes Walker is demanding.

I have no problem keeping the unions,

Then why are you supporting Walker in this discussion??? The only difference between Walker's demands and what the union will agree to is Walker's demands that the union be effectively dissolved. There's no financial difference between the two positions whatsoever. If you truly "have no problem keeping the unions", as you claim, then you'd be supporting the union's side in this discussion!

 

[Bill V]

There is only one government employer, be it Federal, state, or local for each job.

Yes--but as I pointed out, in education, the government isn't the only employer. There are private educators as well.

If you're a state trooper you're only going to work for one state police force (in the state) and only one union is going to represent you.

Not an apples-to-apples comparison, for the same reason I gave above. Only governments have state troopers. Both governments and private entities have schools and teachers. And if you're not aware, Walker's proposal in Wisconsin specifically exempts police/law enforcement and firefighters from the union-busting demands. (Although people from both groups have been showing up at the capitol to protest in support of the affected unions.)

 

[Les]

Bill V, not misguided. Walker is not asking the the unions to be dissolved, but they will have reduced power. The membership will vote every year to recertify the union, if desired.

There's no financial difference between the two positions whatsoever. If you truly "have no problem keeping the unions", as you claim, then you'd be supporting the union's side in this discussion!

This was my response:

I have no problem keeping the unions, but only if they are prohibited from donating to political campaigns, and can only utilize dues for the benefit of its members.

The union is for the union only, and have become PACs with no regard for their membership. It's all about the $$$ and power.

 

[Johnny O]

With govt employee unions, it is still the govt on both sides of the bargaining table with no check on union demands...other than the voters...which is what we see now in Wisconsin. The majority of people in WI voted for this. It is what they want. Govt employees can be like everyone else. If you don't like the pay and benefits of your job, get another one. If the employer finds they cannot attract and retain people, then they will pay more.

 

[Tom Schindler]

If the employer finds they cannot attract and retain people, then they will pay more.

JohnnyO,



I really like you, but there is a flaw with your statement.



If an employer can not attract and retain employees, they will hire illegals (It is good for our economy:banghead or have it done in China.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, Caymen, Caymen...



Most that hire union employees today would never willingly and knowingly hire illegals. It is bad business...too much to lose.



Illegals, where hired, are hired mostly by small business. Small businesses aren't the target of unions...the pockets aren't deep enough.



As for shipping to China. That's legal. Most of the work that has been shipped to China has in no small part been shipped there BECAUSE of the BS of unions.



TJR

 

[Johnny O]

True, but I was speaking in terms of the government jobs where it is unlikely that they would hire illegal immigrants (the President excepted :grin: ) or outsource to China.



When I worked in a hospital, another hospital across town was paying surgical techs $4 more an hour than we were. We lost 14 surgical techs to them in two months. Result being that my hospital paid their surgical techs another $4 an hour.



If we can destroy the public employee unions over the next few years (the wailing and screaming would bring me great joy), if a school cannot attract and retain teachers with their pay scale, then they can pay more. If they do not have a problem with people leaving, then they are probably paying enough (however I do favor a plan for teachers to have portable pensions to make it easier to for them to change schools).



With public sector unions it's the same govt on both sides of the bargaining table.

 

[Bill V]

Regardless of your viewpoint on the protests, this is kind of funny...

 

[Bill V]

Another decently done song from/about the protests...

 

[Mark K 2]

Silly old GOP senate majority leader. Yesterday, he locked the doors of the capitol to keep people out, which is a violation of state statutes. The protestors went to court this morning to fight the lockout. Judge ordered to doors unlocked. However, the doors are still locked. This is getting better every day.

 

[Tom Schindler]

And look at the link below. Public sector employees may not be as overpaid as we have been brainwashed to think...





Tom