Madison Wisconson

OldSkool said:
Man what a go on this one.

Hey wake up. It's about collective bargaining. It's about the unions supporting politicians who support collective bargaining and now they are being dissed as dems run for cover under the onslaught of monitory shortfall and reform.


You can say what you want to about the police, fire personal and teachers but it's about the meritless promotion and pay of both good and bad in all unions funded by the state government.

BTW.. my wife was a teacher for 15 years in Wi. Hardest job you’ll ever have if you’re good at it.
Click to expand...
It's statements like this that irritate everyone else.
 
comsnark said:
You most certainly did tell me about Fox News.
I am sure if I had engaged that particular post it would have most certainly been a "reasoned discussion". But as I said above; the "Left of Far Right" types don't respond to every piece of bait.

Mike; you seem a bit extra touchy tonight! I didn't even mention that network by name, until this post. Although, I admit to very selectively quoting Scott in a subsequent response: I think at least he appreciated the humour. You shouldn't take things so personally!
Click to expand...

Com, I never will try to “bait you”, but I will challenge you if I think something posted should be rebutted. I wasn’t trying to appear “touchy” but I am certain I engaged a comment you threw out, but got no response back from you. Then you threw out a similar comment again. (I searched in vain to find that post:smt100) I feel if you want to throw out comments, back them up when challenged was the point I was making. There is nothing personal in any of this just a good airing of issues. Someday maybe you can show me your boating territory and we and I can try persuading you in person that we really are right on the right side.
:grin::smt043:grin:

MM
 
Mike; No worries.

If I recall the previous conversation correctly, we were engaged in another discussion and I didn't want to be further distracted (even if I did start a topic drift). Sometimes in the back-and-forth we can get a bit distracted.

I will split a six pack with you anytime. Politics, like boating and drinking, are hobbies of mine.
 
All this comes down to the question: Should public employees be allowed to unionize?

FDR said no, George Meany, the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O, said no, and I say no. Every election cycle the unions support candidates with cash and a ground game, then negotiate with the same candidates, now elected officials, for the goodies they want to build power and keep their rank and file happy. They also threaten more aggressive campaigns against their opponents when they are in power as a personal incentive against tough negations.

This is a vicious cycle, from the inception of government employees being allowed organize; they continue to get more and more from politicians. Every time the Dems have the majority they give more away to the unions, rarely can Repubs ever roll back these provisions when they regain power. Look at the cities controlled by Dems they are the one most likely to go bankrupt and it is mostly because of the above situation. NO ONE IS REPRESENTING THE TAXPAYER. This is one of the rare times politicians are looking out for the taxpayer.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...yees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
 
Behind all the smoke and mirrors of the last 10 pages: Mike hits the key question
"Should public employees be allowed to unionize".

That is a philosphical question.

A basic question of "Can a group of employees have a hired representative negotiate on their behalf to negotiate payments from the government". Not much different than "Can a group of businesses have hired representatives negotiate on their behalf to negotiate payments from the government".

I don't know the right answers regarding Unions in the public sector. On the one side; I am sympathetic to the arguments of "Unions take advantage of the government". On the other side; I am sympathetic to the argument "Unions protect government workers from the whims of capricious politicians".

Who is representing the taxpayer? Darned if I know. Do you really think the elected officials of Wisconsin are representing taxpayers? Or are they representing a collection of special interests? I could make a case that the unions represent workers. . .who are tax payers.

I mean seriously. Look at Wisconsin: Part of the budget plan is a serious of targeted tax cuts. Call it Business incentives. Call it Stimulus. I prefer to call it Special Interest Tax Breaks. Certainly, one can almost guarentee that the taxpayers are not entering the equation. Right? Isn't this is a microcosm of what is happening on the Federal level?

(don't get me started on what is happening with the Tea Party)
 
comsnark said:
Who is representing the taxpayer? Darned if I know. Do you really think the elected officials of Wisconsin are representing taxpayers? Or are they representing a collection of special interests? I could make a case that the unions represent workers. . .who are tax payers.
Click to expand...

Well certainly not the politicians beholden to and representing the unions. :grin:
 
comsnark said:
Behind all the smoke and mirrors of the last 10 pages: Mike hits the key question
"Should public employees be allowed to unionize".

That is a philosphical question.

A basic question of "Can a group of employees have a hired representative negotiate on their behalf to negotiate payments from the government". Not much different than "Can a group of businesses have hired representatives negotiate on their behalf to negotiate payments from the government".

I don't know the right answers regarding Unions in the public sector. On the one side; I am sympathetic to the arguments of "Unions take advantage of the government". On the other side; I am sympathetic to the argument "Unions protect government workers from the whims of capricious politicians".

Who is representing the taxpayer? Darned if I know. Do you really think the elected officials of Wisconsin are representing taxpayers? Or are they representing a collection of special interests? I could make a case that the unions represent workers. . .who are tax payers.

I mean seriously. Look at Wisconsin: Part of the budget plan is a serious of targeted tax cuts. Call it Business incentives. Call it Stimulus. I prefer to call it Special Interest Tax Breaks. Certainly, one can almost guarentee that the taxpayers are not entering the equation. Right? Isn't this is a microcosm of what is happening on the Federal level?

(don't get me started on what is happening with the Tea Party)
Click to expand...

Great question.

Here in NC government does not hire union employees as such. Governmental agencies hire contractors who hire union employees. In this manner it is private businesses that ultimately regulate wage and benefit packages not the government.

Here in Asheville NC we have had a few public transportation accidents with one ending in a fatality this year. The business that manages public transportation is completely liable and any legal action, while still naming Asheville in the law suit, will be ultimately levied on that management company. This keeps our government out of liability law suits and away from the employee negotiating table.

Of course I know there are areas that may pierce the veil such as police and fire agencies in NC however these do not use collective bargaining. Each agencies must stand on it's on and is accountable to it's own local governing body.

Recently we found that our counsel members were among the highest paid counsel member in NC when adding in benefits packages. Member were still receiving communication and transportation reimbursement for owned equipment and services that had long since been replaced with city owned equipment and services. After adjustment the annual budget was lowered by 12,000 USD per counsel member. That’s a significant amount for our local government.
 
MonacoMike said:
Well now it's spread to Indiana. :wow: The Dems went to Illinois to meet the Wisconsin legislators that are also AWOL. :smt021
Click to expand...

Are they all still staying at that Best Western?

Maybe, if they are, they need to move and spend a couple of nights at a Holiday Inn Express so they will feel up to getting back to do the job they were elected to do.
 
jason78 said:
Are they all still staying at that Best Western?

Maybe, if they are, they need to move and spend a couple of nights at a Holiday Inn Express so they will feel up to getting back to do the job they were elected to do.
Click to expand...

They will stay long enough to impress their union puppet masters. :grin:
 
. . . . by that you mean the taxpayers who would like to see the teachers of their children fairly compensated?

. . . as was already explained in this thread, the unions more directly represent the voters and taxpayers than the so called "fiscal conservatives" (or the "democrats" for that matter)

:grin:

(I am going to pour a tall one in your honor in a few minutes. Enjoy your evening!)
 
comsnark said:
. . . . by that you mean the taxpayers who would like to see the teachers of their children fairly compensated?

. . . as was already explained in this thread, the unions more directly represent the voters and taxpayers than the so called "fiscal conservatives" (or the "democrats" for that matter)

:grin:

(I am going to pour a tall one in your honor in a few minutes. Enjoy your evening!)
Click to expand...


My first thought was to let this thread die, and you have the last word, but, Naaaaaa, why stop the fun? :smt043

Are you absolutely sure they are not representing the #z$@%# that achieves these outstanding results? You know the ones that are supposed to educate our children but only graduate 43.1% of incoming freshmen in Milwaukee. Oh, surely not them? :smt021

This is old, but was from a comprehensive study of incoming freshmen. I know you will have criticisms especially since it came form that notorious conservative paper USA Today. :grin:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-06-20-dropout-rates_x.htm#grad
 
comsnark said:
. . . . by that you mean the taxpayers who would like to see the teachers of their children fairly compensated?

. . . as was already explained in this thread, the unions more directly represent the voters and taxpayers than the so called "fiscal conservatives" (or the "democrats" for that matter)

:grin:

(I am going to pour a tall one in your honor in a few minutes. Enjoy your evening!)
Click to expand...
I wonder what fairly compensated means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,118
Messages
1,426,558
Members
61,035
Latest member
Lukerney
Back
Top