Public Employee Unions Must Be Crushed !

[999969999]

It never had anything to do with budget balancing. The budget thing was a political face, as is common with all sly deals. Basically republicans will be able to take a big hit against democratic campaigning, while leaving theirs intact. It's a direct party assault to push elections their way in the future since $$ = elected.

Ah, perfect. Public employee unions use taxpayer money to pay their union dues to the union who then turns around and bargains for higher wages, higher salaries, more expensive benefits from government officials who then just turn around and ask for more money from the taxpayers to meet the organized crime, er I mean union demands. It's not that government official's money, it's not his company's profits that he's bargaining with, it's the taxpayers' money, so what does he care. He can just raise taxes or other fees to raise the money. It is NOT coming directly out of his pocket. So, the unions have figured out that voting for Democrats is the same thing as voting for a raise for themselves.


The 969 guy has basically admitted he's an idiot, and his entire conversation is based on unsubstantiated talking points. Why's everyone still entertaining the notion that he even has a point to debate?

That's right. Shut down any dissent. You wouldn't want to hear any other opinions out there, because you're an open minded liberal.

[999969999]

Are you happy with the way the republicans behaved?

Are you serious?! The yellow dog Democrats run away like chickens to avoid a vote that they will most certainly lose, and you see no problem with that. But when the Republicans, after waiting 3 weeks for the frightened Democrats to come back, decide to move forward without them, you cry foul?! The whole purpose of the quorum rule was to keep one side from having a sneaky vote without any warning to the other side. It wasn't like the Democrats didn't know about the vote. They had plenty of notice to show up for it and do their duty to vote, but because they didn't like the obvious outcome of the vote, they ran away to another state.




I don't see the will of the people being carried out here, I see dictatorship.


It was the will of the people. They voted in a Republican majority. It's called representative government. Elections do have consequences, even if you don't like the results of the election. I'm sorry your side lost the election. No wait. I'm not sorry. I'm glad your side lost the election. You need to accept it and stop whining about it.

And really, is it any worse than what your side did to us with Obamacare? The way they rammed that down our throats through the seldom used "reconciliation" method? Talk about dictatorship. Now, we're going to have to wait until Trump gets elected in 2012 to undo that horrible law.


Your original post was all about this being a fiscal necessity, Seems it had nothing to do with balancing the budget.

Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced.

[999969999]

I am torn between both sides of this argument. I would say 80% of people want something done about public service pay and pensions. The other 20% are public servants.

Exactly!


It now seems to be the practise in this country for public servants who do something wrong to be 'sacked'. their severance to include a massive 'payoff' plus a pension that the normal working person does not get for a wage. Something has to be done. It is our taxes that are paying for this. Refuse to pay those taxes and you go to jail(unlike big business).

I agree!

...

[devilsadvocate]

Are you serious?! The yellow dog Democrats run away like chickens to avoid a vote that they will most certainly lose, and you see no problem with that. But when the Republicans, after waiting 3 weeks for the frightened Democrats to come back, decide to move forward without them, you cry foul?! The whole purpose of the quorum rule was to keep one side from having a sneaky vote without any warning to the other side. It wasn't like the Democrats didn't know about the vote. They had plenty of notice to show up for it and do their duty to vote, but because they didn't like the obvious outcome of the vote, they ran away to another state.

This was sold as a fiscal need. If it wasn't fiscal why was it put in the budget and why wasn't it removed and placed in a separate bill before the democrats left? The budget would have been voted on and passed. If it is a fiscal need then it shouldn't have been voted on without the needed quorum

It was the will of the people. They voted in a Republican majority. It's called representative government. Elections do have consequences, even if you don't like the results of the election. I'm sorry your side lost the election. No wait. I'm not sorry. I'm glad your side lost the election. You need to accept it and stop whining about it.

Show me where any republican campaigned to remove collective bargaining. Show me any WI poll where more than 50% said they wanted to remove collective bargaining.

And really, is it any worse than what your side did to us with Obamacare? The way they rammed that down our throats through the seldom used "reconciliation" method? Talk about dictatorship. Now, we're going to have to wait until Trump gets elected in 2012 to undo that horrible law.

"My side"?

You really need to be consistent, If electing Republicans means everything they do, even if they didn't mention it when they ran, is "the will of the people", then the affordable care act must be "the will of the people". Democrats did run on health reform, I mean that was one of the biggies.

Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced.

The only reason they want to reduce public worker pay (which is actually on average 4.8% LESS than comparable private sector jobs with comparable educational achievement) is to cover the cost of the corporate tax cuts they are giving. If they hadn't given the tax breaks they wouldn't have had to make extra cuts elsewhere.
The only fiscal reason is to try to limit the only substantial donors of the democratic party election funds. This is using government to suppress their competition.

It's not just financial undercutting of their opponents they are using government positions to achieve. Across the country they are trying to make it harder for typical democratic voters to vote.

[Skiz]

Yes, it does. Now that the public employee union is in the process of being crushed, and their collective bargaining power will be destroyed, their salaries and benefits can be reduced to sustainable levels, so the budget can be balanced.

That is not entirely correct. The WI workers have not been entirely stripped of their collective bargaining rights, just some of them. They still have the right to bargain for things like salary, just not pension, dues, and benefits that are unpredictable costs for the future and difficult to budget.

[Skiz]

it's that my company does not give raises to management which exceed 5%, so union employees are always catching up to or pulling further away in pay.

Do you think that would be the case if you were in a union?

I'm of the view that your pay should have increased at the same rate as your employees. The fact that it did not, and you are paying for your own health care is actually an argument why unions should exist. It isn't that they are getting such a good deal that the company cannot afford to offer better pay and benefits- you are not protected, so the company takes advantage of you.

More union is not the answer.

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place. Call me crazy but having ALL employees paying a relatively equal percentage of their health benefits in order for ALL employees to receive raises based on a balanced scorecard consisting of performance, effectiveness, etc. seems mighty fair to me.

As a supervisor what do you actually generate by way of profit for the company?

Everyone pulls their own weight. A company does not successfully operate with mere rank and file.

But more directly, I generate a lot of money. I supervise (depending on current staffing) +/- 40 employees in a function known as Revenue Recovery. Our sole job is to capture lost revenue, and my district alone recovers millions of dollars every year, so yes, I'd say I generate quite a lot of profit.

[devilsadvocate]

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place.

What pickle and how was it the unions fault, are you talking about the company you work for or the topic subject?

Everyone pulls their own weight. A company does not successfully operate with mere rank and file.

That's not what I'm talking about. A mechanic fixes the car. The customer is paying to have his car fixed, not the person watching over the mechanic. The mechanic is the one generating money for the company. The other staff may be a needed part of a team, but they are not generating money.

But more directly, I generate a lot of money. I supervise (depending on current staffing) +/- 40 employees in a function known as Revenue Recovery. Our sole job is to capture lost revenue, and my district alone recovers millions of dollars every year, so yes, I'd say I generate quite a lot of profit.

You are going to have to clear this up. Are you in a debt recovery dept. or do you bring old customers back?

If it's the latter then you can claim your dept. (if not you specifically in your role as supervisor) generates revenue. If it's the first then that loss prevention not revenue generating.

[mjmacky]

That's right. Shut down any dissent. You wouldn't want to hear any other opinions out there, because you're an open minded liberal.

Wasn't my intention to shut down dissent, just putting perspective into play. "Open-minded liberal", I'm stuck between whether you think it's an insult or are being sarcastic, either way you're wrong. I'm an objective anarchist.

[Skiz]

What pickle and how was it the unions fault, are you talking about the company you work for or the topic subject?

Take your pick; it applies to both. :

That's not what I'm talking about. A mechanic fixes the car. The customer is paying to have his car fixed, not the person watching over the mechanic. The mechanic is the one generating money for the company. The other staff may be a needed part of a team, but they are not generating money.

That's just silly. I won't even entertain that logic.

You are going to have to clear this up. Are you in a debt recovery dept. or do you bring old customers back?

If it's the latter then you can claim your dept. (if not you specifically in your role as supervisor) generates revenue. If it's the first then that loss prevention not revenue generating.

Are you actually trying to tell me what my job is? You're incorrect on both assumptions.

My job is very intricate and not really something I want to get into in this thread or any other.

[megabyteme]

I'm of the view that your pay should have increased at the same rate as your employees. The fact that it did not, and you are paying for your own health care is actually an argument why unions should exist. It isn't that they are getting such a good deal that the company cannot afford to offer better pay and benefits- you are not protected, so the company takes advantage of you.

More union is not the answer.

We wouldn't be in this pickle if it were not for the union in the first place. Call me crazy but having ALL employees paying a relatively equal percentage of their health benefits in order for ALL employees to receive raises based on a balanced scorecard consisting of performance, effectiveness, etc. seems mighty fair to me.

Your company is not paying you, or the union employees, based on profits. Without the unions, your company would be abusing you AND them. Union membership does not guarantee poor performance from employees, but non-union employees almost universally equates to abuses by companies. The fact that union members are working for the same company as you, and have received better treatment than you, indicates that your company will never be any more fair than it is forced to be.

If union members were required to pay for their benefits, it would not mean a reduction in your dues, nor an increase in your pay- simply an increase in company profits. Would this make you any happier? You may think you are on the same side as the company, but when it comes to profits, you are NOT on their side- you are simply a salary to pay (a cost who would be replaced if a cheaper/more efficient alternative became available). If you think you are on their side, ask for a bigger cut of those profits, then tell me which side you are on...