You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 06:18:02 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Scott Walker, Union Buster  (Read 26767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #175 on: March 04, 2011, 03:16:17 PM »
Turnabout is not fair play. It's just vindictive. Putting forth your ideas and pushing an agenda legally is one thing. What Walker is going is at least questionable and skirting the edge of leaglity if he isn't breaking it outright.  Walker is doing far more damage to his cause and party than anyone else right now. It's as if he doesn't want the Republicans to win any elections there anymore.

Do you remember how much damage pushing the healthcare bill through did to the democrats for the last election? It wasn't that long ago.

Online ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #176 on: March 04, 2011, 03:53:25 PM »
Do you remember how much damage pushing the healthcare bill through did to the democrats for the last election? It wasn't that long ago.
Well, yeah.  That's part of the point.  Walker is six kinds of stupid for pulling the same sort of stunt that he's only just seen backfire for the other side.

Wait, what?

So they can't pass the measure they want to pass while these senators are out of state, but they can pass a different measure that criminalizes them?
They can, yes.  I don't know if other states have the same setup, but in Wisconsin, non-fiscal bills can be passed with a lesser quorum than those involving the state's finances.  The last I heard, though, there was still some discussion over whether or not that particular measure was legal.   Troopers are not normally able to cross state lines for this sort of thing, and the governor only has the authority to send out troopers under very specific circumstances, which aren't being met.  They're basically clear and present danger sorts of circumstances.

There's also talk of the Republicans pushing through all the gun laws they wanted while this is going on.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #177 on: March 04, 2011, 04:03:08 PM »
Oh, and the 'surplus' that Walker walked into? It doesn't exist. It was an excerpt from a memo that was taken out of context.

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

Maddow herself discussed the shortfall in the very episode they are criticizing. The discrepancy is because of one-time debts that Wisconsin owes - there's some ~250 million in one term payments they need to make.

Do you remember how much damage pushing the healthcare bill through did to the democrats for the last election? It wasn't that long ago.

No, a lack of focus on jobs is what hurt the Democrats. Sucking up to Joe Lieberman hurt the Democrats. Giving in to big banks hurt the Democrats. The fact that the health care plan is essentially the Republican plan hurt the Democrats. We need universal health care in this nation, not the Republican proposal. Democrats should have given Republicans the same treatment Republicans gave Democrats during the Bush era "You are no part of this discussion."

We needed - and still need - a new Works Progress Administation.

Democrats demoralized their own base, which essentially meant there was a seven point morale swing. If the Democrats did their job, the Republican party would have made effectively no gains, and even had significant losses in areas.

And now the Republicans are actively trying to sabotage the economy for their own political gain. Naturally, if they gain power again, they'll go straight back to ramping up deficit spending. "Deficits don't matter." <- Dick Cheney.

Since 1981, deficits only mattered when Democrats were in power.

Offline Revolverman

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #178 on: March 04, 2011, 04:07:09 PM »
They can, yes.  I don't know if other states have the same setup, but in Wisconsin, non-fiscal bills can be passed with a lesser quorum than those involving the state's finances.  The last I heard, though, there was still some discussion over whether or not that particular measure was legal.   Troopers are not normally able to cross state lines for this sort of thing, and the governor only has the authority to send out troopers under very specific circumstances, which aren't being met.  They're basically clear and present danger sorts of circumstances.

There's also talk of the Republicans pushing through all the gun laws they wanted while this is going on.

Thats... very weird. I would think all laws would require a super-majority of people present to pass.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #179 on: March 04, 2011, 04:41:42 PM »
We needed - and still need - a new Works Progress Administation.

Not only that, it needs to be more balanced than it has been.  The jobs that were lost in the recession were heavily weighted towards the higher wage industries ($19.05-$31.40 per hour).  The jobs that have been created in the past year have been weighted towards the lower wage industries ($9.03-$12.91 per hour) (source)  The people competing for these jobs are told they're 'overqualified', even if the guy applying doesn't think it's too menial for someone to sweep the streets.  If they even get in, then they still typically have to try to work a second job (meaning that one 'lost job' has to have two 'new jobs' to cover it). 

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #180 on: March 04, 2011, 05:07:41 PM »
Many states require a supermajority to pass budget measures

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #181 on: March 04, 2011, 06:19:37 PM »
Well, yeah.  That's part of the point.  Walker is six kinds of stupid for pulling the same sort of stunt that he's only just seen backfire for the other side.

Backfire? They got their bill pushed through and they're set for life. How is that a backfire?

Maddow herself discussed the shortfall in the very episode they are criticizing. The discrepancy is because of one-time debts that Wisconsin owes - there's some ~250 million in one term payments they need to make.

Quote from: Politfact
The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall. It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former [democrat] Gov. Jim Doyle. A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped. But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

[…]

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

Quote from: Vekseid
No, a lack of focus on jobs is what hurt the Democrats. Sucking up to Joe Lieberman hurt the Democrats. Giving in to big banks hurt the Democrats. The fact that the health care plan is essentially the Republican plan hurt the Democrats. We need universal health care in this nation, not the Republican proposal. Democrats should have given Republicans the same treatment Republicans gave Democrats during the Bush era "You are no part of this discussion."

Not going to argue that there were a lot of things contributing to the current situation, but I mentioned the healthcare bill because it seemed to have resemblance to the situation in Wisconsin. Isn't that what they did when they locked out the nation, including the media, and then used reconciliation -we need to pass the bill before we can know what's in it- to put it through?

Quote from: Vekseid
We needed - and still need - a new Works Progress Administation.

Democrats demoralized their own base, which essentially meant there was a seven point morale swing. If the Democrats did their job, the Republican party would have made effectively no gains, and even had significant losses in areas.

And now the Republicans are actively trying to sabotage the economy for their own political gain. Naturally, if they gain power again, they'll go straight back to ramping up deficit spending. "Deficits don't matter." <- Dick Cheney.

Since 1981, deficits only mattered when Democrats were in power.

And who proposes the federal budget? Which side has held majority the last six years?

Online ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #182 on: March 04, 2011, 07:06:59 PM »
Backfire? They got their bill pushed through and they're set for life. How is that a backfire?
It's a backfire because after this, Republicans won't get a majority in Wisconsin again for years, if not decades.  It'll really be a backfire if Walker manages to get himself arrested.  And the bill is not yet pushed through, in any case.

Offline Rhys

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #183 on: March 04, 2011, 07:27:37 PM »
Not to mention the fact that it has sparked support rallies in every state capital, pushed pro-union sentiment to what may be a record high and effectively killed similar labor bills in multiple Republican-governed states. If this isn't a backfire, I personally don't know what is.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #184 on: March 04, 2011, 07:31:52 PM »
Backfire? They got their bill pushed through and they're set for life. How is that a backfire?

If the recalls are successful (they're just now starting to gather signatures) then yes, Republicans in Wisconsin are going to be hurting. The party is pulling every short-term-gain long-term-loss strategy in the books. Will there even be a national Republican party in 2030?

Quote
Not going to argue that there were a lot of things contributing to the current situation, but I mentioned the healthcare bill because it seemed to have resemblance to the situation in Wisconsin. Isn't that what they did when they locked out the nation, including the media, and then used reconciliation -we need to pass the bill before we can know what's in it- to put it through?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed normally. Reconciliation was used for the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. A lot of the Reconciliation bill was good material - getting rid of the Cornhusker kickback, removing the middlemen in student loan programs, etc.

Republicans complaining about it are amusing. They used it several times themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29

Quote
And who proposes the federal budget? Which side has held majority the last six years?

Any side can propose a budget. What matters is what gets voted on of course.

Republicans had control through the end of 2006, then they lost the House in 2008, then the Senate and Presidency in 2008, and got back the House in 2010. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #185 on: March 04, 2011, 09:15:10 PM »
Either by action, inaction or a lack of proper priorities and a surplus of fiscal irresponsibility. Blaming one side over the other is rather silly considering there's been a growing shift in control over said responsibility.

The snipet of a quote you took may or may not have actually been said by Cheney.

Quote from: OnTheIssue
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.

O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due."

A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

The vice president's office had no immediate comment, but John Snow, who replaced O'Neill, insisted that deficits "do matter" to the administration.

So it looks like it's O'Neill's word vs. Cheney's.

This is just an opinion, but:

"This is why you can’t transplant collective bargaining from the private sector to the public sector. Even FDR, the Progressives icon for accomplishing so much of their agenda, clearly said that. There is no incentive for public sector union members to perform their work in the most efficient and effective way possible as they are limited (or at least are supposed to be) by the tax revenues generated by the level of government they work for.

It appears to have been lazy nefarious elected officials from both parties that lacked the intestinal fortitude to clamp down on the unsupportable demands for higher pay and benefits. That is where a leader has to step in and render the facts of budgetary constraints and offer viable alternatives relative to how much of a pay raise they can have commensurate with how much they have to contribute to their total benefits package including health insurance and pension contributions.

Public sector unions should be the first to have their collective bargaining privileges taken away permanently. Then public sector wage and benefits packages should be reset based upon current budgetary constraints including how much they contribute to paying for the benefits they derive."

Even without tax cuts, something like this was on its way. Wisconsin's Unemployment Rate was reported to have reached 7.5 percent by Wisconsin states government website. That's less people paying taxes. Tight budgets means the state can't support budget fluctuations incurred by a third party negotiator's decisions.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #186 on: March 04, 2011, 09:33:09 PM »
'Third party' is somewhat of a strawman. Union reps aren't some nebulous, shadowy figured dressed in black suits who show up whenever one of the employees cries out in fear and terror. They are the employees; union stewards are the workers. They share the environment, which is why they are often very effective at fixing what's broke. They aren't perfect by any means, but one thing they are very good at is calling shenanigans on management when they try to offer a crap deal to their employees.

I'm not sure what your experience has been with unions that you have the impression that they are separate and a third party, but you're misinformed if that's your assessment.

Also, I might add, the union members are the taxpayers. They contribute money just like everyone else. It's not like they get a free ride.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #187 on: March 04, 2011, 09:36:56 PM »
In addition, unionized employees have been making concessions.  Compare the wages of an autoworker pre-Recession to the new wages that Detroit is offering.  Compare the wages of an airline employee to those pre-Recession.  Now ask yourself what you'd do if someone cut your pay that much and gave you no recourse to negotiate.

Offline Rhys

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #188 on: March 04, 2011, 09:45:57 PM »
Also the assumption FDR made, and still being made, is inherently flawed. You shouldn't be basing your laws/rules off the idea that people aren't going to do their job. Especially when its been proven otherwise. Sure, there are bad... lets say teachers. And we hear about them a lot because bad things get a lot of publicity. But many, I'd even say most, public employees work their asses off just like people in other fields. The union doesn't make them lazy. It keeps them from being abused. The stereotype of 'they're lazy because they're unionized' and 'if they get unionized they'll get lazy' is frankly fairly ignorant.

Again, using teachers for the example, public employees have agreed to pay cuts and whatnot to fix the budget. They're willing to pay more on health and pensions. Other bills also have them working towards being evaluated on quality because they also want to get the people that don't work out of their fields.

Last but not least, I have to somewhat reiterate what Trieste said. The right keeps referring to the unions and 'the taxpayers'. Union members ARE taxpayers. They ARE the workers. There is no distinction to be made.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #189 on: March 04, 2011, 10:03:03 PM »
Assuming those same employees and industries will perform pristinely, without error or room for improvement, or that a lack of union protection means that they will be abused is as equally presumptuous and equally flawed.

Even with union or legislation power in place to protect the employee, connected and like industries, there's always room for error, slacking or a 'shoddy job.' Room for. Not rampant take over, like everyone seems to assume I've been saying. But the union and state decide who is or is not performing, not the public or (in this case) the students, the people most directly impacted by the service.

There is a distinction, the source of the revenue.

-Scott Place
"Got a question. If a compensation (pay, healthcare, sickleave, other benefits) for a public sector employee DOESN'T come from the taxpayers, where does it come from? Their pay checks come from an allotted budget, of which the school gets from the state. Am I correct so far? If so, why does it matter where the money goes when its source is the tax payer?"

-James Welsh
"Most states pay a percentage towards retirement and the employee pays a certain percentage. As for deferred compensation, I have that and it's a totally different item than a pension set up as a public employee retirement pension plan. The vacation, sick and comp. time are not paid for by the worker or the union it is paid for by the tax payer. And for health care the gov. pays a certain percentage while the employee pays another percentage. The taxpayers are ALWAYS involved in the paying and benefits of public employees, to say otherwise is a bold lie ! I should know I am a public employee."


Offline Rhys

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #190 on: March 04, 2011, 10:19:09 PM »
Unions were put into place because prior to having them workers WERE abused. It has a precedent based in historical fact. That was pretty much the entire point. Look at places that are anti-union and you'll often fine its because such businesses want to continue treating their employees like crap. Wal-Mart's just one example in the private sector. There are many more.

Frankly, I don't think the source of the revenue matters. What? Because taxpayers pay them they shouldn't have these rights? Why? Its not as if they've consistently abused them. Its not as if they're costing the state money that can't be made up elsewhere (as proven in Walker's own budget). Its not as if they're unwilling to accept pay cuts and pay more for health and pensions. The union members involved in this fight have been reasonable and trying to accommodate for the fiscal issues to insure that people, often people they don't know, don't get laid off. All they ask is to keep basic workers rights. And frankly, given that they do things like teach our children, keep our cities safe/clean, etc. I think they deserve those rights just as much as any private sector employee.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #191 on: March 04, 2011, 11:11:33 PM »
Are you going to seriously tell me that in the past 50 years there has been no legislative change or adjustment to ensure worker's rights are protected? That if the legislation is there, it, magically vanishes if a union isn't there to intervene, especially in the public sector? Collective bargaining is not a basic worker's right, no matter how much you want it to be.  Competitive wage, benefits and working conditions are and can be granted through legislation and independent investigation organizations intended to enforce that legislation. Perhaps even at less cost than factoring union dues into a salary.

Being employed is a privilege. This is why an employer can fire you for habitually under performing or grossly misrepresenting the employer's interests, as well as perform layoffs when economic conditions merit them without court intervention. It's also why the employer can set education and physical capacity requirements. There's legislation in place to prevent unmerited termination, avenues to sue corporations for wrongful termination, independent organizations to enforce occupational safety and health conditions, minimum wage and fair trade legislation in general, laws against overworking, etc. So states without unions have this and union states do not? Or that kind of protection goes away in the absence of a union?

If Wisconsin does not have these laws, the democratic representatives have either been living under rocks for the past 50 years or has purposely left them out so that the unions are the sole providers of such protections and thus remain in power.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2011, 11:44:21 PM by Lyell »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #192 on: March 05, 2011, 07:21:32 AM »
Are you going to seriously tell me that in the past 50 years there has been no legislative change or adjustment to ensure worker's rights are protected? That if the legislation is there, it, magically vanishes if a union isn't there to intervene, especially in the public sector? Collective bargaining is not a basic worker's right, no matter how much you want it to be.  Competitive wage, benefits and working conditions are and can be granted through legislation and independent investigation organizations intended to enforce that legislation. Perhaps even at less cost than factoring union dues into a salary.

No, collective bargaining is not a basic worker's right. Otherwise the schmucks working at McDonald's might actually have things like decent pay and benefits. McDonald's has been aggressively anti-union, going so far as to close down franchises that are in the process of unionizing. Do you think they're really do that if there were already legislation in place to protect their workers from them? Unions fill in the gaps that legislation leaves behind. Since you cannot legislate everything, this is necessary for a healthy working environment. Unions provide a grievance process wherein workers can express discontent with management's actions on a specific issue, among other things.

Being employed is a privilege. This is why an employer can fire you for habitually under performing or grossly misrepresenting the employer's interests, as well as perform layoffs when economic conditions merit them without court intervention. It's also why the employer can set education and physical capacity requirements. There's legislation in place to prevent unmerited termination, avenues to sue corporations for wrongful termination, independent organizations to enforce occupational safety and health conditions, minimum wage and fair trade legislation in general, laws against overworking, etc. So states without unions have this and union states do not? Or that kind of protection goes away in the absence of a union?

Yes, being employed is a privilege, but having that privilege doesn't mean that you should have to just bend over and take it when you get hired under a certain set of terms and then, two months later, the company decides they've been too generous and cuts them. The power is in the hands of the employers right now: people are desperate to get jobs and once they get them they're desperate to keep them. Most companies hire on an at-will basis, which means either side can terminate the contract at any time for any reason. Certainly someone isn't going to list in the little box, "Reason for termination: She didn't blow me" but these are the kind of things that happen, and are insanely hard to prove. Add on to it that the legal system through which most of these grievances would travel favors the rich (they are less impacted by having to take time off to appear in court, can afford better lawyers, etc) and you have a system by which management can get away with quite a lot. And, yes, there are companies that will beat their employees into the ground if it means more for the bottom line. Not because they are malicious but because the everyday workers are not always a reality to someone sitting in the head office a thousand miles away. Usually they are just numbers, and the numbers need to work harder so The Boss can take a nice trip to Aspen.

Mostly it's just greed.

If Wisconsin does not have these laws, the democratic representatives have either been living under rocks for the past 50 years or has purposely left them out so that the unions are the sole providers of such protections and thus remain in power.

Not everything is a spooky conspiracy, Lyell.

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #193 on: March 05, 2011, 09:13:50 AM »
Are you going to seriously tell me that in the past 50 years there has been no legislative change or adjustment to ensure worker's rights are protected? That if the legislation is there, it, magically vanishes if a union isn't there to intervene, especially in the public sector? Collective bargaining is not a basic worker's right, no matter how much you want it to be.  Competitive wage, benefits and working conditions are and can be granted through legislation and independent investigation organizations intended to enforce that legislation. Perhaps even at less cost than factoring union dues into a salary.

With out the teacher's association the protection from hot headed administrators and political activists is gone. People have a problem with tenure. The reason for tenure is to prevent a bad administrator from firing a good teacher who stands up to him. Now I am sure I am going to hear the protect the poor teachers too. The poor teachers are few and far between, seems to me a few bad apples but we will stereotype because of them. In reality all an administrator has to do is dot his I's and cross his T's to get rid of a poor teacher. It is done all the time but not published. My point is this what is next on the docket for Walker and his like? The removal of tenure laws.

Being employed is a privilege. This is why an employer can fire you for habitually under performing or grossly misrepresenting the employer's interests, as well as perform layoffs when economic conditions merit them without court intervention. It's also why the employer can set education and physical capacity requirements. There's legislation in place to prevent unmerited termination, avenues to sue corporations for wrongful termination, independent organizations to enforce occupational safety and health conditions, minimum wage and fair trade legislation in general, laws against overworking, etc. So states without unions have this and union states do not? Or that kind of protection goes away in the absence of a union?

Each one of these laws were established because of the unions. Do you not see people trying to legislate them out all ready? The right to bargain is the tip of the ice burg

If Wisconsin does not have these laws, the democratic representatives have either been living under rocks for the past 50 years or has purposely left them out so that the unions are the sole providers of such protections and thus remain in power.

(Edited for readability.  :-))
« Last Edit: March 05, 2011, 09:21:43 AM by Trieste »

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #194 on: March 05, 2011, 09:21:20 AM »
can afford better lawyers

Like ME!

Unions have a lot of power to negotiate working conditions that an individual doesn't have. I'm going to use just a single example from the hospitality/restaurant industry here in Pennsylvania. Now I don't know if you've ever worked ina restaurant, but it's hot, stressful, and often physically demanding with long shifts (often ten hours or more). Most places are non-union and those employees are not mandated to recieve any sort of break by law, unless they are 17 or younger - or a seasonal farm worker which is not part of this discussion. Now, I used to have as clients a few restaurants in which the employes were unionized. They had two ten minute break times and a half hour meal times if they were to work 8 or more hours in a day. between six and eight, one break and a meal, and four to six a break. Which do you think made fr happier employees? And let's face it, in a service industry, happy employees offer better customer service.

Oh, and while writing that, I thought of another instance. My firm was hired by a restuarant in which the owner, to avoid paying overtime, put all his employees on exempt salaried status, then had everyone work six days a week, minimum ten hours a shift. Was that illegal? Yes. Would that have happened if there was a union for those employees? Hell no. BTW, in the end, that owner lost his business when he was later taken to court by an ex-employee- none of his current employees sued because they were too afraid of losing their jobs. His employees were later awarded back pay, but I doubt they will ever collect on much, if any of it (on a personal note, I told him to settle out of court, but nooooo, what an idiot).

What I'm saying is, you're brushing off what unions do and saying they aren't needed. That may be the cae in certain industries sure, but you also discount corporate greed. Corporations are in it for the dollar and will take advantage of workers unless there are laws/contractual rules in place. And you can't regulate everything about working conditions through laws, just read some of the labor laws in your state, they're plenty convoluted enough without trying to regulate everything via the legislature.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #195 on: March 05, 2011, 05:04:37 PM »
With out the teacher's association the protection from hot headed administrators and political activists is gone. People have a problem with tenure. The reason for tenure is to prevent a bad administrator from firing a good teacher who stands up to him. Now I am sure I am going to hear the protect the poor teachers too. The poor teachers are few and far between, seems to me a few bad apples but we will stereotype because of them. In reality all an administrator has to do is dot his I's and cross his T's to get rid of a poor teacher. It is done all the time but not published. My point is this what is next on the docket for Walker and his like? The removal of tenure laws.

Each one of these laws were established because of the unions. Do you not see people trying to legislate them out all ready? The right to bargain is the tip of the ice burg

(Edited for readability.  :-))

Tenure started at colleges and universities to protect good professors but is hard to get, years of experience and ample professional work and is not an absolute protection from being fired just makes it hard if they execute freedom of academic opinion. There is no reason regular teachers should get this automatically after a few years with you can't fire me BS after that magic date.

If firing is an issue require an adminstrator have to get school board approval and streamline the process to that.

As for doing extra work like for clubs I agree with that issue parents and students should not get any extracurricular activites paid for by the school, have them find the money for anything from the art club to football and fund it with a stipend for the faculty involved suitable for the extra time as overtime pay. But grading papers and the like is part of the job.

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #196 on: March 05, 2011, 05:19:50 PM »
The extra curricular items are paid for as a stipend

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #197 on: March 05, 2011, 06:23:20 PM »
What I'm saying is, you're brushing off what unions do and saying they aren't needed. That may be the cae in certain industries sure, but you also discount corporate greed. Corporations are in it for the dollar and will take advantage of workers unless there are laws/contractual rules in place. And you can't regulate everything about working conditions through laws, just read some of the labor laws in your state, they're plenty convoluted enough without trying to regulate everything via the legislature.

 I can put my own foot in my mouth, thank you. Unlike some conservatives, I do not harbor starry-eyed illusions that bosses never exploit workers, and that workers never need represesntation or protection. This is not because of any residual liberal convictions but because —like any good conservative —I realize entrepreneurs are humans too and no human flaws will be alien to them.

The fact of the matter is, (yes, I did use the F word) the time of legal sweatshops and slave mines is over. Government organizations like OSHA provide enforcement for fair compensation, protection from unsafe work conditions, overworking, illegitimate pay practices, illegal termination and protection from retaliation for exposing such conditions (whistleblower). Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

I will not argue that most of this was brought to existence because of unions, but union protection is obsolete.

Sometimes, as discussed by Steven den Beste, an organization that outlives the problem it is meant to address will successfully reinvent itself. Far more commonly, the organization will artificially seek to perpetuate a problem in order to justify its continued existence and expansion, or try to inflate residual isolated problems into grand societal challenges . The UNRWA is a tragic example; an organization like SPLC a merely farcical one.

Robert Samuelson has a must-read article in the Washington Post. How much of the workforce do unions represent? Turns out, just 11.9% nationwide. In the private sector, this drops to just 6.9%, while in the public sector, 36.2% of workers are unionized. (These numbers, actually, imply that 17.1% of the American workforce works in the public sector.) In other words, as Samuelson argues, unions are becoming largely irrelevant in the private sector, and are essentially becoming a public sector phenomenon.

Ironically, Federal government employees (as distinct from state and local ones) have greatly curtailed collective bargaining rights: While labor unions that represent federal workers do have some collective bargaining rights, provisions in the Civil Service Reform Act passed under President Carter in 1978 restrict federal employees from using it for pay or pensions and federal workers cannot be forced into a union or required to pay dues.

Pournelle’s Iron Law states that any bureaucratic organization will eventually become dominated by people that work not for its stated ends, but for the organization for its own sake and for the sake of their own private bureaucratic empires.

Is everyone going to tell me that unions are immune from corruption?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #198 on: March 05, 2011, 07:23:24 PM »
Is everyone going to tell me that unions are immune from corruption?

No more than any individual branch of the federal government.  It's called 'checks and balances'.  Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements which regulate working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. 

Can you tell me what in that definition needs to be gotten rid of? 

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #199 on: March 05, 2011, 07:26:07 PM »
Would never say they are immune to corruption.  As far as reinventing itself you are right the NEA has. it is an association at the table working hand in hand with parents, school boards, states, feds in working on answers to improve our schools. Most if not all improvement committees have union leaders on them In order to change the system all stake holders have to buy into it. Of course most people think our schools are poor. Here is a strange statistic. Most people think that the national education system is not doing a great job, however when asked about their local schools most people will tell you the are doing an above average job to excellent. That is impossible. Yes there are poor school districts that need improvement but most are very good. These people working together have made them better, that is what the NEA has been working on during the years of labor peace that they now want to throw aside.