You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:34:21 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 26781 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #200 on: March 05, 2011, 07:45:39 PM »
Well depends on how you define 'Good'. Thanks to 'No Child left behind' too damn many schools administrators/school boards think the best tactic is to teach the damn tests.  My brother, who I asked about the NCLB act when it was being pushed through, said that the approach was wrong and taht we needed to work to improve/assist the teachers rather than punish them for subpar students. Find ways to teach them, educate everyone. I have a mild form of dsylexia and if it hadn't been for a pilot program that took the time to TEACH me to reach and write after several years of subpar grades, I'd most likely have been a complete wash out. As it was a year after the program worked for me (I went from reading at a 1st grade level as a 3rd grader to reading at a 8th grade level) was killed as being 'wasteful'.

Problem is no one wants to make a frank assessment and admit that family needs to be involved. And that Education needs proper reform rather than pilot schools and such.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #201 on: March 05, 2011, 07:48:17 PM »
While private sector union numbers may have declined, I am of the opinion that a large part of that is because our economy has been shifting from a manufaturing to a service based economy. Many of the jobs created that are replacing the lost manufacturing jobs are not traditional union jobs and unions are still in formative stages in some of these industries, and actively prevented in others (walmart closing stores as soon as workers decide to unionize, etc). 

You say unions are becoming irrelevent because they are dwindling, I disagree. Their power may be decreasing, but they are just as relevant today than ever. Especially when real wages have declined over the past few decades for the average worker. The article I'm going to quote only mentions from 2003 onwards, others I've seen talk about from 1980 on.

"The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period." From http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html

It is no secret that when comparing union and non-union workers in the same industry, union employes generally fare better with wages and overall compensation, and with the stagnation of wages for the average worker, income for the richest reaching record levels, and corporate profits also breaking new records each quarter... I'd say a lot more workers need to start unionizing, especially in many more white collar industries.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #202 on: March 05, 2011, 08:03:57 PM »
In defense of the Walmart closings, Apple, I do not THINK they have done that in the US. The only closings of Walmarts that unionized was in Canada, or at least the ones that I have read about.

Of course that doesn't make it any less heinous in my opinion but I doubt they'd do the same state side. The media would murder them.

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 #203 on: March 05, 2011, 08:21:00 PM »
Not just Walmart. As I said in a previous post, McDonald's has fought unionization tooth and nail. (One account can be found here)

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #204 on: March 05, 2011, 08:29:53 PM »
Can you tell me what in that definition needs to be gotten rid of?

Completely missing the point, all of you. I'm not saying they're irrelevant because they're dwindling. Those same things are redundant in the face of government organizations that already provide them. I'm not saying they should be removed, I'm saying they're already provided by another source that's cheaper to maintain.

Except for the wage scales.

This ties in with anti-union sentiment. Most non-union employees and the federal union employees outlined previously aren't paid based on what someone else negotiates for them. They're paid according to individual merit, how much of an asset they are to the company,their job security is also based on the same principal.

In a union environment, a fresh, 6 year teacher could be awarded teacher of the year by the school board and still have a stronger chance of being laid off than a 20 year teacher squeaking by on the bare minimum performance rating. In a non-union environment, the likelihood of being laid off is reversed. Which seems fair to you?

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 #205 on: March 05, 2011, 08:32:32 PM »
Roight.

So this has sort of veered off of the topic of collective bargaining and Wisconsin. So it probably needs its own topic.

Feel free to make one.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #206 on: March 05, 2011, 10:23:07 PM »
I do not understand how a basic understanding of both sides of the issue at hand is off-topic. I have endured ridicule for my view and insinuation that I believe teachers do not deserve the same treatment as other lawfully protected employees. Clarifying my point and stance was necessary, seeing as misconceptions were made and words were put into my mouth.

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 #207 on: March 05, 2011, 10:24:53 PM »
There's no real harm to clarifying your views in another thread, though.

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 #208 on: March 05, 2011, 11:42:28 PM »
I asked my question because the very specific thing that Scott Walker is looking to do away with is collective bargaining.  I'm still not getting any answers why getting rid of a means of negotiation is a good thing, even in the post where my question was quoted.   

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #209 on: March 06, 2011, 12:34:24 AM »
I asked my question because the very specific thing that Scott Walker is looking to do away with is collective bargaining.  I'm still not getting any answers why getting rid of a means of negotiation is a good thing, even in the post where my question was quoted.   

The bluntest way to put it is he's trying to eliminate any organize and ESTABLISHED opposition to his moves. Everyone that didn't support him will get lined up and rolled over. It does puzzle me that he so blatantly refuses to accept concessions and peck away at the issue. He's got time and if things go the way they usually go..the media would have gotten bored and moved on.

Watch, if the cops and fireman unions move to support the teachers, he'll find a reason to curtail their powers as a group too.

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 #210 on: March 06, 2011, 01:00:14 AM »
I understand why Walker wants to get rid of it.  I'm trying to find out why the 'Unions Bad RAWR!' contingent in this thread seems to be just fine with the fact that all he's really getting rid of is a means of negotiating.  The unions have already conceded on all the other points that are being brought up as reasons that unions are bad.

I want to know what is so wrong with being able to sit down and talk about things that JUSTIFIES Walker getting rid of it in the minds of anyone other than Walker.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #211 on: March 06, 2011, 01:15:11 AM »
I understand why Walker wants to get rid of it.  I'm trying to find out why the 'Unions Bad RAWR!' contingent in this thread seems to be just fine with the fact that all he's really getting rid of is a means of negotiating.  The unions have already conceded on all the other points that are being brought up as reasons that unions are bad.

I want to know what is so wrong with being able to sit down and talk about things that JUSTIFIES Walker getting rid of it in the minds of anyone other than Walker.

Some men do not like facing competion/rivals/whatever across the table. The person that comes to mind most like Walker in outlook is Frank Lorenzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lorenzo), this man was describe as 'The most hated man in America' by Barbara Walters when he was riding the wave of hostile take overs of the airlines after deregulation was pushed thorugh. He did a LOT to destroy the big five (domestic) airlines of the US at the time as well as Pan Am.

He would be one of Walker's biggest supporters. They are a pair, but he was more subtle and indirect in some of his moves than Scott Walker is (at the moment anyway).


Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #212 on: March 06, 2011, 03:02:37 AM »
Some men do not like facing competion/rivals/whatever across the table.

This may be closest to the truth. It's no secret that a lot of union money goes into supporting democratic representatives. I hear some union reps have been threatening to pull support from those reps if they let Walker's bill pass. He may be after more than just collective bargaining but I hesitate to go into specifics for fear of being awarded a tin foil hat.

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 #213 on: March 06, 2011, 03:14:48 AM »
To quote the character of Stephen Hopkins in the movie '1776': "in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about."

Not buying 'we don't like facing them across the table' as a viable reason to get rid of collective bargaining.  I may not like some of the opinions I hear every day, but it's only through talking about them that I can hope to come to an agreement, or at least an understanding of where the other people are coming from.

Of course, if Walker doesn't care where the other people are coming from, that explains a lot.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #214 on: March 06, 2011, 03:27:24 AM »
I'm willing to bet it's not limited to not liking them. More like he'd rather not have what the unions can afford as competition for future policies, so he's trying to break up the support.

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 #215 on: March 06, 2011, 03:29:30 AM »
On that we can agree, but it doesn't make it right for him to do so.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #216 on: March 06, 2011, 06:10:14 AM »
In Scott Walker's defense, though I'll be the first to admit it's a weak one, taking away collective bargaining would give the state more freedom to adjust more rapidly in accordance with economic shifts, something that GM lacked.

Offline ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #217 on: March 06, 2011, 07:13:31 AM »
In Scott Walker's defense, though I'll be the first to admit it's a weak one, taking away collective bargaining would give the state more freedom to adjust more rapidly in accordance with economic shifts, something that GM lacked.
I touched on that briefly earlier, but let me expand on it now -- for the foreseeable future, at least, that won't happen, either.  Contracts are already in place for various public worker unions -- some approved before this whole mess began; others, like the ones for the employees of Dane County (where Madison is located), pushed through in early January when people started sensing trouble.

Between the two contracts, 1,300 workers (more than half of all county employees) have pay and benefits already established through 2014, and I'm guessing it would take some serious maneuvering to get that changed sooner.  Experts have already been pointing that out as one of the flaws in Walker's plan; namely, that with all the myriad of local governments out there, and the assorted contracts already in place, it's almost impossible to predict how much any government, state, county, city, whatever, might manage to save with the loss of collective bargaining, and it isn't likely that they'll be able to adjust much faster to changes, either.  I'm afraid the biggest thing they'll have to adjust to is higher unemployment as schools have to cut jobs.  :(

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #218 on: March 06, 2011, 07:21:45 AM »
  I'm afraid the biggest thing they'll have to adjust to is higher unemployment as schools have to cut jobs.  :(

Won't that mean more loss in (consumer) taxes?

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #219 on: March 06, 2011, 09:54:00 AM »
They all ready will have that. If each employee takes what amounts to an 8% pay cut in Kenosha county alone they figure it will cost the local businesses 1 million a month. That is before adding on the gas increase that will take more money away from the local business.

Wisconsin is a high tourism state as well. I can see unions boycotting it. Illinois brings a lot of business to Wisconsin and has given a lot of support to the labor movement including the Republican collar counties of Chicago.

Offline Kuroneko

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #220 on: March 06, 2011, 01:46:59 PM »
http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/20-lies-and-counting-told-by-gov-walker/

http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-WI-S1.htm

This sums up Gov. Walker, "Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
-George Orwell

Offline ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #221 on: March 07, 2011, 12:00:32 PM »
Some of the latest stunts:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103050009

Quote
Contrary to what Fox & Friends would have you believe, the AP reports that the necessary restoration of the Capitol's marble will be "very limited." Likewise, the Wisconsin State Journal notes that union leaders "consult[ed] with Capitol Police on policies that would tread as gently as possible on the century-old statehouse" and even used a specific kind of tape that police told them would be the "gentlest on the stone walls and railings."

However, these reports have done nothing to hinder the right-wing media's attempts to blame the protesters in Wisconsin for adding to the state's budget woes. This morning, Glenn Beck's website The Blaze continued to cite the $7.5 million estimate, claiming that cleanup costs "range from $347,500 to $7,500,000, depending on who you ask" (emphasis added)

A blogger for the Daily Kos toured the building herself and found no particular damage.


I've also been amusing myself by tracking the various mentions of the weekend protests.  You can tell if a source leans left or right by how they have the numbers.  Pro-Walker factions simply say that there were 70,000 people there, both for and against Walker.  Neutral to anti-Walker sources bother to mention that the split was 700 for Walker; 69,300 against.  The 700 were the group being bussed around the state by the Koch brothers, though their 10-city tour is over now, so I'm thinking that will be basically it for the counter-protesters.

Offline Jude

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #222 on: March 07, 2011, 04:32:35 PM »
I was listening to Laura Ingram the other day (I find ultra-conservative ridiculousness quite amusing, so sue me) and she mentioned the 7.5 million dollar clean up cost.  It sounded absolutely absurd to me, especially when she claimed that the majority of the damage was caused by the tape that the protesters have used to hold up their signs.  How anyone in their right mind could possibly believe, much less believe it strongly enough to report it on air, that tape (primarily) can cause 7.5 million dollars in damages is beyond me.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #223 on: March 07, 2011, 04:34:59 PM »
I was listening to Laura Ingram the other day (I find ultra-conservative ridiculousness quite amusing, so sue me) and she mentioned the 7.5 million dollar clean up cost.  It sounded absolutely absurd to me, especially when she claimed that the majority of the damage was caused by the tape that the protesters have used to hold up their signs.  How anyone in their right mind could possibly believe, much less believe it strongly enough to report it on air, that tape (primarily) can cause 7.5 million dollars in damages is beyond me.

Because it's the 'other side' that did it. If it was a tea party protest that was rumored to damage to that level she'd take the other outlook. (Even if the capital itself was a smoking hole in the ground worth of Sherman's march to the sea). And I'm sure that pundits on the other side would have made such claims.


Offline Jude

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #224 on: March 07, 2011, 04:45:18 PM »
She was actually talking about how supposedly they found live ammunition on the scene and how if live ammunition was found during a Tea Party Protest it would've turned into a giant spectacle.  The entire time she was ranting about that all I could think of was, "didn't some tea partiers bring guns to rallies?"