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

[Richard L]

In my opinion, the problem with government employees being unionized is more of a political issue. Politicians are the ones negotiating with the union and can be swayed to give into union demands to get reelected. When a new guy gets elected as governor he is stuck with the budget restrictions for union salaries, pensions and healthcare negotiated with his predicessors.



It's really not much different than any politician getting in bed with big business or being offered support for his candidacy by any group that lobby's him....That's the whole problem with politics in this country now. That's the problem we are having with Medicare, Social Security, etc...more money is being paid out now than is coming in and that deficite is growing every year.



I say Hurray for Walker to stand up agains the unions and let them pay like the rest of us do.



...Rich

 

[TrainTrac]

And if the unions go away, those benefits achieved by the unions will erode and eventually disappear, IMHO.



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.

I would tend to disagree, especially in today's age of instant information. Back in the early part of the 20th century when unions were forming and seeking to improve working conditions, wages, etc., you didn't have the internet, blogs, or every Tom, Dick, & Harry with a cell phone/camera to instantly share information. So it was easier for employers to keep employees in the dark, and for the rest of the public to be kept in the dark about poor conditions, wages, etc. That's not so much the case today. Not only that, but employers are under much more gov't oversight/scrutiny than they were back in those days.

Just as environmental and conversation groups are losing clout.

And the reason that this is happening, is that they've largely become home to Communist/Socialist activists. Most environmental/conservation groups call for solutions involving greater gov't intervention into the private lives of citizens. Not many groups offer up private sector solutions. The American public is beginning to see this finally, so that's why these groups are losing clout.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Train Trac gets it.



Think of what Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle" did 105 years ago and how it changed working conditions in the meatpacking industry.



That was over 100 years ago when few could read, nonetheless purchase books or read the newspaper.



Exploitation of the worker (or the citizen) will simply never be like it was, or of the scale it was in the past.



Knowledge is power.



TJR

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Here:



In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, were a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, were more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.



Given this reality, its important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.



You dont have to love unions, you dont have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that theyre among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years which it has thats to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.



And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.



Theres a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of Americas oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.



Anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesnt.

 

[Bill V]

To those of you bashing the Senators who have left Wisconsin to prevent the vote, I'm curious--



(And I'm not trying to bash you via this question, or to pick a fight--I'm honestly trying to simply learn more about whether you see the example I'm about to give as being different in some way or not, and if so, why.)



Do you feel the same way about politicians who have used spoken filibuster to stop various legislation in the past?



Politicians both to the left and to the right have used this tool in the past to prevent the passage of legislation which they feel is improper and/or injust, by bringing the legislative process to a halt.



Is that tactic "cowardice", "bullsqueeze", or any of the other descriptors you've used to describe what has happened in Wisconsin? If no, what do you see as the difference?



From my standpoint, it appears that what the Wisconsin Senators have done is simply another form of filibuster. In fact, by pure definition, the Wisconsin Senators are filibustering--the term is commonly thought to apply only to long speeches used to delay legislature, but it technically can apply to any legislative delay tactics. And I see both as valid forms of political action.

 

[Richard L]

Filibusters and just walking away from a critical vote are the same. People vote those people into office to do a job. When they are out numbered they resort to filibusters or just going on vacation so there will not be a legal quarum to vote on a bill. In either case it wastes taxpayers money.



I think the rules should be changed to disallow filibustering in any form. This country was founded on voting for officials to represent them, not to run away and hide. That's why nothing is getting done and the few bills that do get through were rushed and not properly thought out or funded...it's just the majority party cramming their bills down the minority party's throat....and then they say it was all non-partisan politics that got the bill through.



...Rich

 

[Les]

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.

Bill, they won't disappear, we are such a nanny state Obama is now telling us what to eat and when to eat it.

That's the problem we are having with Medicare, Social Security, etc...more money is being paid out now than is coming in and that deficite is growing every year.

Rich, may be true about Medicare, but this is the first year SS will pay out more than it earns. Of course Congress and Clinton stole the money to balace the budget, but who's keeping notes.



And Frank, as long as you are going to lift someone's comments, the least you can do is give them credit. But maybe that's the union way of having an opinion.

 

[TrainTrac]

Bill V said:

To those of you bashing the Senators who have left Wisconsin to prevent the vote, I'm curious--





Do you feel the same way about politicians who have used spoken filibuster to stop various legislation in the past?



From my standpoint, it appears that what the Wisconsin Senators have done is simply another form of filibuster. In fact, by pure definition, the Wisconsin Senators are filibustering--the term is commonly thought to apply only to long speeches used to delay legislature, but it technically can apply to any legislative delay tactics. And I see both as valid forms of political action.

I don't see any similarities at all. At least in the case of a "spoken filibuster", legislators are employing a clearly defined procedure that has been voted and agreed upon as an allowed legislative tactic/procedure within the given legislative body. Not so with the WI Dems bailing out on their sworn duties and hiding out in another state. The very least they should be doing is being there to have the courage of their convictions to cast a vote, even if they know that they'll be on the losing side. Or, if they don't actually have the spine to vote how they really feel, they could just do like Obama did more often than not in the Senate and vote "present".



@Frank: Ditto what Les said. Give credit to the column from where you cut/pasted your last post rather than plagiarizing NY Times columnist/economist/admitted Liberal Paul Krugman and attempting to pass it off as your own independent thought.



It's completely ludicrous anyway, whether you or Krugman said it. To say that unions are "counterweights to the power of big money" is totally horse-crap. Unions (specifically the SEIU) were some of the biggest contributors in the last several elections. So don't believe that they're looking out for the "little guy". The unions are just as much about power and big money as anyone else.

Over the election cycle, the SEIU contributed $16.5 million to get Obama elected, and $85 million for the election in general, part of the $450 million all unions gave to get Democrats elected.



<A HREF="http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/452198/200812081907/The-New-Beast-Of-Big-Labor.aspx">The New Beast Of Big Labor</A>

 

[Collin Lyon]

Filibuster and AWOL are totally different. Filibusters have a chance to get voted down. The WI democrats are derelect of their duties, IMO. If they take any salary while AWOL, they are stealing. Hopefully, they won't put in for mileage reinbursement while they are out.

 

[Johnny O]

The WI Republicans need to pass a bunch of GOP boilerplate just for kicks. They don't need the Dems in order vote on non-spending bills I hear. I heard they're going to vote on a voter ID bill. That should get the Dems back in a hurry. Ban abortion while your at it just to make the Dems crazy.

 

[TrainTrac]

More to illustrate that Krugman is full of crap when he says that unions are "counterweights to the power of big money":



Top spenders in the 2009-2010 election:

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BI593_AFSCME_NS_20101021210401.gif">

Sources: <A HREF="http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2010/10/22/pretending-the-union-money-doesnt-exist/">Pretending The Union Money Doesnt Exist</A>, <A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories">Campaign's Big Spender </A>



[quote]"When overall PAC expenditures are considered this election cycle, six of the top 10 are labor union PACs. They are: the Service Employees International Union; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Teamsters Union; American Federation of Teachers and the Laborers Union," he said.



<A HREF="http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/surprise-six-top-10-overall-pac-spenders-are-union-groups">Surprise! Six of top 10 overall PAC spenders are union groups</A>[/quote]



Unions aren't "counterweights to big money", unions [b]are[/b] big money.



And FYI, those evil, greedy, rich corporations gave more money to the Obama campaign than to the McCain campaign in the 2008 election.



[quote]Corporate money favors Obama over McCain

Washington Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks, Contributing Writer



Date: Friday, June 20, 2008, 8:18am EDT



Barack Obama is winning the race for big business money over presidential rival John McCain.



Wall Street and the banking sector have given $19 million to Obama compared with $12 million to McCain through the end of May, according the Center for Responsive Politics and Federal Election Commission. Hedge funds, mortgage lenders, investment banks and private equity firms, which have been hit by the subprime mortgage and housing market crisis, are included in that group.



The trend holds true for a number of other industries, which are contributing more campaign funds to Obama, but flips on a few other business sectors:



* Communications, electronics and technology: Obama, $10.2 million; McCain $2.3 million.

* Construction: Obama, $2.1 million; McCain, $1.8 million.

* Health care, drug companies: Obama, $6.6 million; McCain, $2.5 million.

* Transportation: McCain, $988,000; Obama, $609,000.

* Energy: McCain, $1.4 million; Obama, $1.1 million.

* Agriculture: McCain, $1 million; Obama, $834,000.



Obama said Thursday he would opt out of public financing system for the general election race. Corporate support for Obama comes despite the Democrat's stance opposing business positions on key issues. For example, Obama wants to scale back free trade agreements, opposes new offshore and



Alaskan oil drilling, wants to roll back tax cuts that have helped some business sectors, and favors pro-union measures to help organizing efforts.



McCain sides with businesses on free trade, preserving recent tax cuts and wants more leeway for offshore drilling, although he still opposes activity in an Alaskan preserve. He also wants to cut U.S. corporate tax rates by 10 percent.



McCain does go against business interests on some issues opposing total elimination of the federal estate tax and a ban on prescription drug imports.



<A HREF="http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/06/16/daily66.html">Corporate money favors Obama over McCain</A>[/quote]

 

[Bill V]

This country was founded on voting for officials to represent them, not to run away and hide.

Actually, this country was founded on doing what is necessary to protect the people's rights from being disallowed by tyrannical government. And in this case, that involves an out-of-state filibuster.

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

I favor the public employees ability to unionize- if its good for pro athletes, then why not for teachers or firefighters? This is about the govs massive ego and his unwillingness/inability to compromise.

Corporations favored Obama because they like to bet on the winning team...and get their backs scratched in return ala the health care reform bill...

Physicians are not allowed to unionize- that stinks.

 

[Les]

Actually, this country was founded on doing what is necessary to protect the people's rights from being disallowed by tyrannical government. And in this case, that involves an out-of-state filibuster.

Bill V, so trying to balace a budget is being a tryannical government. No wonder this country is turning to sh!t, people can't see the obvious.

 

[Bud Williams]

I favor the public employees ability to unionize- if its good for pro athletes, then why not for teachers or firefighters?

Taxes generally do not fund Professional atheletes, there is a huge difference.

I'm not against public sector unions to a point, but if they go on strike, they lose their jobs.

plain and simple. We can't lose any more ground in education, and if the public sector trash collectors strike, fire them and have prisoners pick up trash. Police, fire and other emergency professionals i believe, are not allowed to "strike". They have an occaisional "blue flu", but not to a "massive" level.



People have been under the impression that teachers are not paid well, and that is why the education system is not performing to levels of other industrialized countries.

This is not true these days. Teachers are paid pretty well for all the time off and pensions benefits they get. They are not being held accountable in most parts of the country.

Not saying they have an easy job, it's one of the toughest jobs around, I wouldn't like to deal with the kids these days, the ten percenters that do not want to learn, make it virtually impossible for them to teach the rest of the class. Most of the problems start at home.



These Democrats, that fled the state, should be impeached for job abandonment.

Just plain cowardly, how they went into hiding...the people in WI should be pissed about this.

especially if state funds were involved.

 

[Johnny O]

I favor the public employees ability to unionize- if its good for pro athletes, then why not for teachers or firefighters?

Because you have a monopoly on both sides and no limit on the amount of money the govt can pay out and collect in taxes (until they go bankrupt). It is not a competitive atmosphere like a private sector business. Public sector unions negotiate their contracts with the same public officials they helped to elect and donate money to.



Speaking of firefighters, in exchange for union support a former mayor of Pittsburgh gave the firefighters union a contract so lucrative that it is bankrupting the city. A state or local govt can keep raising taxes to pay what the unions want but little by little high taxes chase residents away and you need to raise taxes yet again on less and less people.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I am all for public employees unionizing, as long as I, the consumer of their services and the person that pays their wages through their taxes, can opt out of paying for, or otherwise using their services (or maybe get a vote on their benefits?). If I could do that, then we have an analogy with athletes and the private sector.



However, barring that, then govt emps can't have it both ways. Govt employees, teachers included, have some of the most secure, best pensioned jobs out there. Something probably has to change here.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Because you have a monopoly on both sides...

How do you figure? The government, as an educational institution, is not a monopoly, in that a) private education exists, and b) politicians are (in theory) accountable via elections. And while I agree that the presence of a union makes competition less likely, it isn't technically a monopoly, as I understand it.

Bill V, so trying to balace a budget is being a tryannical government.

Les, if your frequently-demonstrated lack of ability to read is the result of a public school education, then I might soon be forced to concede some of your point regarding the condition of our education system in general!



For the last time--I'm all for trying to balance the budget. I'm all for playing hardball with the unions and demanding financial concessions. But those can be done WITHOUT RESTRICTING THE UNION IN THE WAY WALKER IS PROPOSING. The union has already agreed to all the financial concessions Walker has asked for. As such, THIS HAS NOTHIGN TO DO WITH BALANCING THE BUDGET. If it was, Walker would accept the financial concessions and walk away. Busting the union results in no additional improvement to the budget deficit whatsoever!

 

[Johnny O]

Bill V....There is only one government employer, be it Federal, state, or local for each job. There is only one union that the government has to negotiate with for each job.



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. If you're a teacher you're only going to work for one school (probably) and only one union is going to represent you (per school). If you're a city worker there is only one city government in the city.



(Bill V gets busy looking for exceptions, no matter how minute.)



Main thing is that public employee unions have simply become a means to recycle tax dollars into the coffers of the Democrat party. We here at Union House will donate generously to your campaign in exchange for you giving us a lucrative contract, paid for by the taxpayers. If you don't, we will donate to your opponent in the next Democrat primary who will give us what we want because we own him instead. The former mayor of Pittsburgh should be in jail for doing exactly that with the firefighters union, but when you're a Democrat it's different.

 

[Les]

Les, if your frequently-demonstrated lack of ability to read is the result of a public school education, then I might soon be forced to concede some of your point regarding the condition of our education system in general!

Bill V, what I see here, is people, such as you, that are completely misguided regarding the condition of our financial state. This just shows how self-absorbed most people tend to be. Don't you realize YOU pay these pensions and wages and the fact that WI is over 3.6 billion in debt, and Ohio is over 8 billion in debt. 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.



And as far as my ability to read, your opinion regarding your desire to live in a nanny state is well known and documented.



If you're so smart, what's you answer.