Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

so it begins? the battle of wisconsin


  • Please log in to reply
342 replies to this topic

#1 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:23 PM

http://socialistwork...-line-wisconsin

Analysis: Aongus

#2 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:26 PM

But they're all the same? Doesn't matter Dem or Rep?

#3 bigtoddy

bigtoddy
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,227 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:29 PM

http://socialistwork...-line-wisconsin

In short, Walker wants the destruction of public sector union thug special interests in Wisconsin.


I'm all for the people, peoples rights, and the power of us collectively. This is a misguided temper tantrum being thrown by public sector unions because the faucet to their trough has finally been cut off. We're all in this together, unless you're in a union, then its me me me.

I support Walker on this issue. Seriously, they're crying because they have to *gasp* pay for half of their retirement and *gasp* 12% of their health insurance. Go out and get a job that doesn't suck at the teet of the American taxpayers and see how it is and then see what they have to say about their 12% contribution.

#4 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,668 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:36 PM

But they're all the same? Doesn't matter Dem or Rep?


The dude just happens to be a repub. Besides, they all shake hands and read the same material behind closed doors. The old good cop, bad cop trick. Agenda remains the same...

#5 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:39 PM

You're wrong if you think any Democratic governor would do this.

#6 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:40 PM

bigtoddy,

do you believe public sector employees should not have the right of collective bargaining?

#7 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:45 PM

bigtoddy,

do you believe public sector employees should not have the right of collective bargaining?


How about the voters of the state decide? The voters are ultimately the employer, they pay the wages.

I don't think many citizens from the private sector would vote against public employees paying for half of their retirement.

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,668 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:45 PM

You're wrong if you think any Democratic governor would do this.


Flat out wrong?
That's an awfully large shoe to fill, Dan.

But the argument is moot on both sides because unless I feel obliged to go dig up a demo that has done similar shit, I cant refute.

#9 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:47 PM

The dude just happens to be a repub. Besides, they all shake hands and read the same material behind closed doors. The old good cop, bad cop trick. Agenda remains the same...



this

dan...prove it wrong

a democrat would never sign the patriot act into law...a democrat would never support a troop surge... a democrat would never cut pell grants...a democrat would never bail out wall street...a democrat would never...ugh...nevermind :lol:

#10 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:49 PM

How about the voters of the state decide?

Decide whether they should be entitle to collective bargaining?

What has been proposed is that these employees not have the right to bargain collectively.

#11 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:51 PM

How about the voters of the state decide? The voters are ultimately the employer, they pay the wages.

I don't think many citizens from the private sector would vote against public employees paying for half of their retirement.



well maybe they should unionize too?:dunno:

#12 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:52 PM

Decide whether they should be entitle to collective bargaining?

What has been proposed is that these employees not have the right to bargain collectively.


I think it's fine. I'm anti-union. I thought they were a good thing for improving worker safety and labor laws, but that's about it.

Every employer I've worked for has had increases in my health insurance contribution. I don't think workers should have the right to argue against that. What they do have is a right to go work somewhere else if they're not happy.

#13 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:52 PM

I read the first two sentences. Get a grip. The second sentence couldn’t be more false.

I was in “the union” when I started at the state. What is funny is that you were forced to be in the union, and forced to pay dues. Yet, the union didn’t do anything to advocate workers with the exception of represent them when the shitty lazy ones who should have been fired years before finally got fired.

There is no need for a union of public employees. They serve no one but the employees of the union.

#14 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:53 PM

I think it's fine. I'm anti-union. I thought they were a good thing for improving worker safety and labor laws, but that's about it.

Now unions exist merely to pay the board.

#15 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:54 PM

this

dan...prove it wrong

a democrat would never sign the patriot act into law...a democrat would never support a troop surge... a democrat would never cut pell grants...a democrat would never bail out wall street...a democrat would never...ugh...nevermind :lol:

Ummm who would say that a democfrat would not support a troop surge, or the wall steet bailout (which was a Bush plan)

Again, saying they're the same thing because there are some areas where they are is silly. It's like saying violent murderers are the same as pacifists ... because hey, they both eat, they both drink, they probably have both lied once in their life, they probably have both had haircuts.

There are big huge differences between most democratic and republican politicians. Yes, they're both politicians... you noticed.

#16 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:57 PM

Decide whether they should be entitle to collective bargaining?

What has been proposed is that these employees not have the right to bargain collectively.


and that's the problem...what good is a union without a leg to stand on? do i think unions are more corrupt and self-interested than they need to be? yeah...but they protect their workers...if your workplace doesn't have a union you can be canned without reason, the bosses dictate what they accomodate you with, and noone has your back if you have a grievance of any sort

do unions need reform in general? you bet they do. are working people better off without unions? i worked in a union and now i work without one...i'd take union corruption over working under dictator-like conditions without guaranteed protection any day

#17 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 06:59 PM

and my understanding is that Wisconsin has a budget surplus

#18 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:00 PM

Ummm who would say that a democfrat would not support a troop surge, or the wall steet bailout (which was a Bush plan)

Again, saying they're the same thing because there are some areas where they are is silly. It's like saying violent murderers are the same as pacifists ... because hey, they both eat, they both drink, they probably have both lied once in their life, they probably have both had haircuts.

There are big huge differences between most democratic and republican politicians. Yes, they're both politicians... you noticed.


their differences are trivial in the grand schem of things

#19 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:02 PM

I guess you consider this trivial?

#20 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:04 PM

I guess you consider this trivial?


not at all, but i would never be so naive as to say "a democrat would never do this"...that's just silly

#21 nancykind

nancykind

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 15,670 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:15 PM

aw crap. i'm with halfstar on this one. :undecided: :tongue1:

#22 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:27 PM

You don't believe people should have the right to collectively bargain? :huh:

#23 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:30 PM

aw crap. i'm with dan on this one :lol:

#24 bigtoddy

bigtoddy
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,227 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:43 PM

You don't believe people should have the right to collectively bargain? :huh:


No. If this is what it comes to, then no. The unions are corrupt and have become part of the problem. I believe that it is a worse situation now with the special interest thuggery that unions promote than without. Unions have served their purpose, they do nothing now but serve the special interests of the small few who are in the union, they protect bad workers and do nothing to promote excellence in work. If unions can't play fair and know when enough is enough, then it is better to not have any at all. All things considered, I (and most people who work hard and are reasonably intelligent) would fare better without than with a union. Unions disincentivize cooperation, and hard work and replace it with "not my problem, pay me" attitude.

Maybe we should go back to the days of the trade guilds? Then you'd have to work for someone for nothing for years before you were even allowed to have a paying job, no matter the skill level.

#25 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:47 PM

Unions disincentivize cooperation, and hard work and replace it with "not my problem, pay me" attitude.


100% true in union hotels in Boston.

#26 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,668 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:50 PM

Yep, I was in the food union when a manager of a produce dept. in a supermarket. The only thing the unon ever did was protect lazy piece of shit workers and create lazy as the standard. Hard work was not recognized, only the protection of the losers. Kang'd.

Dare I say it, I'm with :halfstar: on this one.

#27 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:54 PM

People have every right to form unions if they want. But they shouldn’t be able to strong arm those who just want to go to work and do a good job.

#28 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:58 PM

Maybe we should go back to the days of the trade guilds? Then you'd have to work for someone for nothing for years before you were even allowed to have a paying job, no matter the skill level.


OR we can go back to the days of blacklisting strikers...maybe lift the minimum wage? hell, 7 day work weeks? we can just cut workforces in half and just give each person 2 more jobs to do within their job? why pay health benefits? there's no union to guarantee them so why should people get em? etc etc...workers need unions...maybe they need to be reformed, but without them we're slaves

#29 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 07:59 PM

[quote name='halfstar']People have every right to form unions if they want. But they shouldn

#30 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:00 PM

Why are unions needed? So that union board members have jobs and it is more difficult to fire shit employees? I guess so....

#31 bigtoddy

bigtoddy
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,227 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:03 PM

I am much better off in a non union position than I ever was in the union. I'd much rather take the risk (and reward) than the lowest common denominator.

#32 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,513 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:06 PM

OR we can go back to the days of blacklisting strikers...maybe lift the minimum wage? hell, 7 day work weeks? we can just cut workforces in half and just give each person 2 more jobs to do within their job? why pay health benefits? there's no union to guarantee them so why should people get em? etc etc...workers need unions...maybe they need to be reformed, but without them we're slaves


I have never been in a union and have never had to do any of the above.

#33 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:10 PM

Why are unions needed? So that union board members have jobs and it is more difficult to fire shit employees? I guess so....


so the workers are protected, simple as that

if your job is secure and your bosses treat you right on their own, then you don't need one

say if you work at wal-mart, starbucks, ups, are a city worker, etc., and your boss gives you what he feels you deserve despite making shit tons of profits, can fire you without reason or warning, doesn't offer benefits, considers 20 hours a week full-time, pays minimum wage, etc...then you need a union

#34 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:12 PM

I have never been in a union and have never had to do any of the above.


i'm not in a union either...where i work we need one...bad...and everyone agrees, but they're afraid of getting fired if they get caught organizing

again, it depends where you work...if the boss treats you right, you never needed a union to begin with

#35 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:15 PM

I have never been in a union and have never had to do any of the above.


also, you can thank unions and organized labor for why you never had to do any of the above

#36 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:17 PM

say if you work at wal-mart, starbucks, ups, are a city worker, etc., and your boss gives you what he feels you deserve despite making shit tons of profits, can fire you without reason or warning, doesn't offer benefits, considers 20 hours a week full-time, pays minimum wage, etc...then you need a union


If that is your case you need more skills. If the limits of your skills are such, then you have reached your earning potential.

Why should people be paid more than they are worth? Just because? The easier it is to replace you, the less you are worth.

#37 sure-ur-rightdancer

sure-ur-rightdancer
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,430 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:17 PM

say if you work at wal-mart, starbucks, ups, are a city worker, etc., and your boss gives you what he feels you deserve despite making shit tons of profits, can fire you without reason or warning, doesn't offer benefits, considers 20 hours a week full-time, pays minimum wage, etc...then you need a union


why should unions get it better than the rest of us?

shit pay..check, boss that doesn't give a shit...check, corporation making bank bc of my work...check, working tons of hours with no over time (salary'd)... check, fired whenever.... most definitely check and considering that half the people I know are now "independent contractors" w 1099s no benefits... check!

I am without a doubt anti-union (and for the record I have been in one - teachers union -- personally I think that teacher's unions are just about single handed ruining America's schools and are responsible for the (lack of) education provided in millions of public schools in the US)

I say welcome to the real world

#38 beerzrkr

beerzrkr
  • VibeTribe
  • 716 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:20 PM

You don't believe people should have the right to collectively bargain? :huh:


Show me how this stops collective bargaining. To say or insinuate that this does away with unions is a lie.

#39 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,513 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:33 PM

also, you can thank unions and organized labor for why you never had to do any of the above


:rolleyes:

of course

Edit: I have never had a good experience with unions. I have worked with many and they all sucked.

#40 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:34 PM

why should unions get it better than the rest of us?

shit pay..check, boss that doesn't give a shit...check, corporation making bank bc of my work...check, working tons of hours with no over time (salary'd)... check, fired whenever.... most definitely check and considering that half the people I know are now "independent contractors" w 1099s no benefits... check!

I am without a doubt anti-union (and for the record I have been in one - teachers union -- personally I think that teacher's unions are just about single handed ruining America's schools and are responsible for the (lack of) education provided in millions of public schools in the US)

I say welcome to the real world


ummmm...what? i don't see how those 2 paragraphs go together...if you're getting screwed like that, you need a union, or just sit back and take it, because getting screwed that hard is better than a union

#41 Goose

Goose
  • VibeTribe
  • 605 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:45 PM

Why are unions needed? So that union board members have jobs and it is more difficult to fire shit employees? I guess so....


I'm on a union board and don't get a salary for it, 99% percent of the time I spend working is purely volunteer. Same with shop stewards, all volunteer, I don't think they are doing it for the free sandwiches at meetings. The President, VP, Treasurer etc. do get a salary.

If there's a shit employees and management goes through the proper procedures it's easy for them to fire someone. But just like the real world that you are in there are some idiots in management who are quicker to violate labor laws. It's sort of like if your boss walked up to you and said "I'm firing you for no reason other than to give my lazy shit son-in-law your job" you would hire a lawyer and go to civil court, a union member would get a lawyer from the union and go into arbitration.

#42 sure-ur-rightdancer

sure-ur-rightdancer
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,430 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:47 PM

I think unions (from my personal experience w teacher unions --- obviously I can't attest to their benefits in the past) today protect weak workers while preventing good workers from getting what they are due

I rather fight for myself (or just quit my job and get one somewhere else) than pay someone who has their own agenda to "fight" for me

#43 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:47 PM

Show me how this stops collective bargaining. To say or insinuate that this does away with unions is a lie.

I can't say that I've read the actual legislation, but every report I've read on the content of the bill says it strips collective bargaining from most public workers.

If that's incorrect could you point me to a source?

#44 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:54 PM

I'm on a union board and don't get a salary for it, 99% percent of the time I spend working is purely volunteer. Same with shop stewards, all volunteer, I don't think they are doing it for the free sandwiches at meetings. The President, VP, Treasurer etc. do get a salary.

If there's a shit employees and management goes through the proper procedures it's easy for them to fire someone. But just like the real world that you are in there are some idiots in management who are quicker to violate labor laws. It's sort of like if your boss walked up to you and said "I'm firing you for no reason other than to give my lazy shit son-in-law your job" you would hire a lawyer and go to civil court, a union member would get a lawyer from the union and go into arbitration.


Well, then the union employees are getting paid.

A business owner should be able to fire whoever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want. They should not be forced to "keep a file" while the shit employee continues in destructive behaviour until "a strong case can be made".

#45 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:55 PM

Unions are prohibitive to productive employees.

#46 bigtoddy

bigtoddy
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,227 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:57 PM

Well, then the union employees are getting paid.

A business owner should be able to fire whoever they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want. They should not be forced to "keep a file" while the shit employee continues in destructive behaviour until "a strong case can be made".


Yes, and likewise you should be able to leave a job as you feel so fit. If you feel like you've gotten the shaft from your employer, go get another job. Its not like we're all fighting over laborer jobs here.

#47 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,901 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:58 PM

Unions are prohibitive to productive employees.

That assertion does not hold up to studies.

Of course it depends on the situation. When done right (cooperation) union shops have far better productivity stats.

#48 bigtoddy

bigtoddy
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,227 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:01 PM

Why do public sector workers need civil service and collective bargaining? shouldn't the laws be enough to protect the workers? Why do they need to push for more? If you let them keep pushing, pretty soon there'll be HS dropouts making $90,000 a year screwing lugnuts on cars? Oh wait, unions already bankrupted the auto industry in America. (Yes, their executives also can take 50% of the blame on that one, but 50% go to the unions)

#49 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,513 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:01 PM

That assertion does not hold up to studies.



Sources?

#50 halfstar

halfstar
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,070 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:03 PM

Sources?

If employers didn't have to pay too much for shitty employees, they would pay more for good ones.