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

[Don Pertz]

I think the SHOULD do away with Tenure, as there are some incompetent and character flawed individuals teaching. As it stands you can't fire a bad teacher.



Also, they have been bleeding the rest of the working class for years and the collective bargaining has gotten them to that point. They SHOULD be able to bargain for wages and benefits and that will remain, but , they should not be able to bargain for anything that directly affects the education of the students. That means working hours, length of school day, a new day off every year.



I also AGREE with the right to work. NOBODY should be forced to join a union. I Have also been union member and DID NOT have the ridiculous job protection rights that they have.



They do not bargain for a better education for your children, they bargain to make their life much easier and much better than most private sector workers. When the average wage of most Federal Workers is above 75,000.00 and the rest of us are paying for it and our average wage is less than half of that, something AIN'T right. You will soon be working your butt off just to serve the greed of people who don't give a damn about what you think. As long as there is more for them whenever their lifestyle requires it , they will continue.



These deficit problems have to be fixed, because in the end, it will cost us all everything we have or have hopes of having. We are in serious trouble and sticking your head in the sand or listening to a group who wants to spend more money foolishly will not solve our problems.



Just remember, WHENEVER YOU GIVE SOMEONE THE POWER TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, THEY WILL DO IT.



JMO Go ahead Flame on....



I have never been more afraid of our government than I am today!!

 

[Les]

Too bad Frank isn't as excited about getting 47% of wage earners to pay income tax, wouldn't have nearly the budget issues. You people in Wisconsin are paying these people's wages and don't have a clue. You should be glad someone recognizes the need for accountablity.

 

[Johnny O]

This doesn't sound like that "shared sacrifice" that the O-man was talking about a while ago.

 

[Richard L]

I don't particularly care for Unions because I think they demand far more pay and benefits for uneducated workers doing mostly unskilled labor. I agree that unions may play a more important role in certain businesses where there may be extreme danger or hazards present in those job...like miners, etc. The Unions should play a major role in maintaining a safe work place for their members, however they don't seem to do that.



As for unions for government employees, it seems pointless since the only weapon a union has is to strike and government employees are not legally allowed to strike. They only role unions play in government workers is to get higher pay and more benefits.



I don't feel that any union should have any control over the governements business.



As for Ronald Reagan firing school teachers? I certainly don't recall that, but he did fire all the Air Traffic Controlers who illegally went on strike. He gave them all a deadline to go back to work or they were in violation of their union contract and would be fired. When they did not go back to work, most of them were fired and new Air Traffic Controlers were hired. Even with many new Air Traffic Controlers in the towers for years, there was not much noticable difference in the relatively safe operation of our airports.



For years the autoworks demanded higher pay and benefits from the auto companies until they drove them to the brink of bankruptcy. The car companies had so much money tied up in pensions they could have never paid those pensions and stayed in business. The unions were only biting the hand that feeds them...but only because car companies allowed to do that for so many years.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

The car companies had so much money tied up in pensions they could have never paid those pensions and stayed in business.

Could have that been the fact that the auto industry paid bonuses to underperforming CEO's instead of paying into the pension plans?





Tom

 

[Bill V]

Bill V...but that is partly how govt budgeting should work. Assuming WI relies partly on a state income tax, when the income of the taxpayers goes down then the money received by the govt will go down too. I'm not aware that they governor is asking them to take less gross pay, only to kick in more for health ins and pensions, which will result in less net pay. "Skin in the game" I think Obama calls it.

Again, this is irrelevant, as the unions involved have already agreed to the cuts. Despite Walker's efforts to disguise it as being about the budget and dollars, that really has nothing to do with it.



If you want to feel that these people shouldn't be able to unionize, fine. I may not agree with you, but I can definitely respect that opinion. But no one should try to claim that this issue in Wisconsin is at all a budget-related conversation.

 

[TomT]

I thought Wisconsin was in Canada. :banghead:

 

[Les]

But no one should try to claim that this issue in Wisconsin is at all a budget-related conversation.

It completely is about budgets and money, it is also about reducing the effectiveness, not eliminating, collective bargaining.

 

[Mark K 2]

Maddow explains it all.



<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3T6qEyP2ViI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Les]

Mark K, what's you point?

 

[Bill V]

Bill V...but that is partly how govt budgeting should work. Assuming WI relies partly on a state income tax, when the income of the taxpayers goes down then the money received by the govt will go down too.

Yes--the money received by the government will go down in that situation.



But the government then needs respond to that income reduction in the same way an individual or family would respond when they have a money shortfall--either buy less goods, or find a way to increase the money coming in. You and I don't get to go into a grocery store and tell them, "My income recently dropped 20%, so I'm going to continue to take home just as many groceries as I've always gotten every week, but I'm going to pay you 20% less for them--and you don't get the right to have any say in it." If you want, you CAN go into the store, and say, "My income recently dropped 20%, can we negotiate a lower price for the items I need?" And they can then accept, refuse, or counter your proposal. But they get to be in on the negotiations.

I'm not aware that they governor is asking them to take less gross pay, only to kick in more for health ins and pensions, which will result in less net pay.

He's not asking them to take less gross "pay"--but he is asking them to take less gross compensation (combined pay and cash value of other benefits), which is the only legitimate way to assess one's "pay". And they've already agrees to accept those changes in pay/compensation. Which, again, renders that whole angle of the story to be moot.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen asked:

Could have that been the fact that the auto industry paid bonuses to underperforming CEO's instead of paying into the pension plans?

Someone thinking that for one to succeed others must fail (and vice-versa) might think such, and maybe high CEO contributed to some extent, but that's not the main contributing factor for sure.



Whether it be large companies in the steel or auto industries or large manufacturing companies that boomed during the 40s, 50s and 60s, the reality is that many such corporations structured pension programs during those decades of prosperity that couldn't be sustained for the long run.



The pension programs set up presumed continued growth in revenues and profits, year after year. The corporations that set them up assumed their businesses would continue to grow.



Essentially, pension programs were a pyramid scheme. So long as the business grew all was fine. However, when business growth stalled, and even worse, retracted, the pensions for past employees were unsustainable.



That is the reality of it.



There was no "lock box" for the money to be used to pay the pensions. Don't blame the CEOs that were at the helm as the ship sank because they built themselves a cushy lifeboat. Instead, blame those that built the ship in the first place...a ship that couldn't weather storms.



TJR

 

[Les]

Bottom line, people are tired of "seeing their taxes spent on a work force that is oversized, inefficient and in need of reform."

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les,



Agreed. But to me, this isn't a tax issue, its a union issue.



The only people not wanting unions busted, for the most part, are union members.



Most of the benefits that unions provide today (IMHO) are largely obsolete. Their member protection isn't needed to the extent that it once was due to OSHA and other orgs. Its training and accredidation programs can and are provided elsewhere through many other organizations. Ultimately unions have turned into one of the last, legal "pay to play" arrangements around. Members pay to be in, and those that use union employs pay more than they otherwise would (and have other restrictions and burdens than they otherwise would) for no other reason than "they have to."



There is a reason that many unions have a shaddy relationship in the past (and still do) with organized crime. Unions, are, by their nature, a shake down.



There are those here that say in one breath they just want a level playing field. Well, remove unions and that's about as level as it gets.



TJR

 

[Mark K 2]

Before the governor pulled a fast one and upped the ante, the workers had agreed to pay what he was asking for pension and insurance contributions. Hell... they were days away from reaching agreement. Right from the get-go of his announcement a week and a half ago, it was clear that Walker was hell-bent on busting the unions. The majority of Wisconsinites that are siding with the protesters (including many who voted for Walker) see him as the one who's not following political fairness and docorum. About half of the citizens don't blame the senators for taking off to Illinois. They might think it was a weaselly thing to do, but they also believe they had no logical alternative.

 

[Les]

Agreed. But to me, this isn't a tax issue, its a union issue.

TJR, I agree there is a union issue here, but it is a tax issue. That is what's paying for all this. It's time everyone has some "skin" in the game, the private sector did away with pensions years ago.

They might think it was a weaselly thing to do, but they also believe they had no logical alternative.

Mark K, this is BS and you know it. Running away from the problem doesnt' fix it. The economy has changed and big government is costing too much. It's time people paid their own way and quit relying on the 53% that pay all the bills.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les,



Again, I agree.



One thing though about teachers. Back when they were paid little and for the most part did a very good job (as the norm) I think pensions and summer vacations tended to round out the total package to make for a career that would be otherwise "not worth it" for most.



However, now, teachers get paid pretty well, and many simply stink. That, and as you said, pensions have become less than commonplace in the private sector.



The days of having one's cake and eating it too are pretty much over.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Running away from the problem doesnt' fix it.

They're not "running away from the problem". They're facing it head on, in the only way of facing it head on that is available to them. They're taking the one action available to them which supports the constituents who voted them to those positions.

 

[Bill V]

Most of the benefits that unions provide today (IMHO) are largely obsolete.

Yes--but that's because of the success of the union movement. And if the unions go away, those benefits achieved by the unions will erode and eventually disappear, IMHO. You point to things like OSHA as meeting those needs--but OSHA itself will likely lose much of their clout in the environment which is developing. Just as environmental and conversation groups are losing clout. I fully grant that the unions aren't needing to achieve/acquire as many worker rights as they did in the past--but they are necessary to maintain them.

 

[TrainTrac]

They're not "running away from the problem". They're facing it head on, in the only way of facing it head on that is available to them. They're taking the one action available to them which supports the constituents who voted them to those positions.

Bullsqueeze!:angry: They're not facing anything head on. If they were, then they'd be in the legislature casting their vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. That's what their constiutents elected them to do, not running out of state and hiding like childish cowards in an attempt to subvert the legislative process.:cry:



And I've not seen anything about this in the national news, but maybe it's been discuss more at the local or state level: Did these cowards tuck their tails and run and hide at state expense? Was their transportation/lodging paid for with state funds? Are they still drawing a salary during the period in which they're hiding? If so, then they're misappropriating/abusing state/taxpayer $$$ and should be held accountable. If nothing else they're derelict in their duties breaking their oath of office and should be recalled, impeached, or have some sort of disciplinary action taken against them in accordance with the WI constitution and WI laws.:soap: