Wis. GOP strips public workers' bargaining rights

[meesterperfect]

what a mess.
there's a lot to this story.
And these people were really going nuts.
mature adults?

One thing though.
Its a recession, a serious one.
I talk to people in new jersey and a lot of them are hurting.
seems the only ones there that aren't hurtin are the ones living off the government, theyre checks are guaranteed.

so to me i see this as nothing more than greed.
gimme more more more.
with the current situation they should be happy that they even have jobs.
And so they are asked to pay what? 12% towards their health insurance?
not get raises more than the adjusted inflation factor for a few years?
boo hoo.
Its greed, nothing more.

 

[Trident1]

what a mess.
there's a lot to this story.

One thing though.
Its a recession, a serious one.
I talk to people in new jersey and a lot of them are hurting.
seems the only ones there that aren't hurtin are the ones living off the government, theyre checks are guaranteed.

so to me i see this as nothing more than greed.
gimme more more more.
with the current situation they should be happy that they even have jobs.
And so they are asked to pay what? 12% towards their health insurance?
not get raises more than the adjusted inflation factor for a few years?
boo hoo.
Its greed, nothing more.

This is all about keeping them (unionistas) fat. They can go whine on the far side of the moon.

 

[Member2019]

Oh yes ...

I think it was a bulshit. The Gov. said day in and day out that it was about the state being broke. Then he fucks the union over by passing this thing that had nothing to do with the budget. Now yes the Pres. and Dems rushed through Healthcare, but they never LIED about it, they always said that it was healthcare. THe Gov. lied and that was wrong

Oh yes, Democrats never lie and Republicans are the only ones that lie.

Listen, I never said there aren't politics involved in this matter.

But one thing is for sure. A lot of people resonate with the Wisconsin governor's message, especially given the common Wisconsin state worker's benefit package. I'm not saying I agree with his overall plan. But that strategy just register with a lot of people in the private sector, let alone people in other states who don't remotely get the same level benefits.

Including even federal workers, who can't force collective bargaining.

 

[Stephen1956]

But do you support unions where you are forced to join? Do you support any organization that can take your money directly out of your paycheck and use it for PACs and other political activities, instead of requiring you to designate such?

No. My government took money out of my paycheck to fund a war in Iraq that I did not support. It seems like the same thing to me.
The more I listen to Ron Paul, the more I like him.
I may become a Libertarian.

 

[CunningStunts]

The more I listen to Ron Paul, the more I like him.
I may become a Libertarian.

It's the only logical system of government; otherwise, we just keep arguing over how to spend money we do not have until we ALL are broke and destitute. :2 cents::2 cents:

 

[Facetious]

Re: Wis. GOP strips public workers' bargaining rights



These benefits are so 'winning', they're unsustainable!
Perhaps the FLSA needs some tweaking.

Employee status under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Years of Service Non-Exempt Hours Earned
Each Year Exempt* Hours Earned Each Year
During first 5 104 120
5+ to 10 144 160
10+ to 15 160 176
15+ to 20 184 200
20+ to 25 200 216
25 and Over 216 216
* Some Exempt employees do not follow this table. Please contact the Bureau of Personnel and Employment Relations for specific position information.


PERSONAL HOLIDAYS: Employees are granted up to 36 hours (4-1/2 days) of personal holiday time each year.

LEGAL HOLIDAYS: Employees have nine paid legal holidays per year:

* New Year's Day (January 1)
* Martin Luther King's Birthday (Third Monday in January)
* Memorial Day (Last Monday in May)
* Independence Day (July 4)
* Labor Day (First Monday in September)
* Thanksgiving (Fourth Thursday in November)
* Christmas Eve Day (December 24)
* Christmas Day (December 25)
* New Year's Eve Day (December 31)

SICK LEAVE: Sick leave is earned at the rate of five hours per bi-weekly pay period. Less than full-time employees earn sick leave on a pro-rated basis. Maximum sick leave earned is five hours per bi-weekly pay period. Unused sick leave accumulates from year to year. Upon retirement, unused sick leave, including a certain amount matched by the State, may be converted to credits to pay health insurance premiums.

HEALTH INSURANCE: A variety of Health Maintenance Organizations, Preferred Provider Plans, and fee-for-service health providers offer coverage. Employees may obtain coverage within one month of starting work, but the State contribution toward premium is not effective until after six months of State employment under the Wisconsin Retirement System.

[....]
Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy

Last Revised: January 13, 2011



Protecting and promoting the health and safety of the people of
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/jobopps/BENEFITS.HTM

Why should the private sector taxpayers who only get 2 weeks maximum vacation time per year pay down the costs of the overly generous FLSA workers benefits? Hell, let's just start every public employee at a salary of $100/year no matter if the revenues are available for payroll or not, we'll simply raise taxes forever in perpetuity ad nauseam !

WRONG!

 

[vodkazvictim]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH HALF OF YOU FUCKERS!? YES TEACHERS DESERVE EXTRA PRIVELIDGES; FEW JOBS ARE MORE IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, :wtf: some twat who runs a corporation into the ground, gets massive government grants, treats his employees like shit - frequently in an illegal manner (while taking a fantastic wage himself), employs illegal aliens - thereby diminishing the native employment rates and breaking the law, damages the environment because it's cheaper to break the rules and do so than it is to obey the rules on environmental disposal, does no actual work while everyone below him works their arse off and then claims that his business is based offshore and dodges paying tax - giving back to the taxpayer a lot of the money that the money that he got in business grants, this type of person you detractors fucking worship, but someone who does the GENUINELY IMPORTANT job of providing the foundations for tomorrows society by educating the youth, you think they're bad for wanting some good treatment?
Seriously, you think teaching is easy? Teaching is fucking hard, do you know how kids behave these days? THEY DON'T! Teachers frequently have problems with stress.
Tell the parent that their kid has a problem and guess what, the parent blames you. Sometimes they physically assault you!
The assumption is that you can teach the unwilling.
This kind of attitude that the guy on top is king and everyone else is shit is WHY you're losing out to china, america. Seriously, the top guys do NO WORK, it's the workers like teachers that make a society work.

JESUS TITTY-FUCKING CHRIST AMERIDUH, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!
OK, forget union privelidges, you don't need them. By the way, I can fix you up with a nice little sailing job on a ship called the Amistad. Interested?

I mean, for fucks sake, Andy Ry's a teacher and despite that a right-winger, why don't you ask HIM if teaching is important (and difficult) and if teachers deserve privelidges? As he's not a raving leftist like me maybe you'll fucking listen instead of saying "Dayumn Commies dun't know sheeeeeeit, billy-bob." and trusting instead Fox news which reverses the statistics it publishes.

That guy asking why they don't teach just for the kids, what does he propose, that they teach for no money, just the love of the job? FUCKING FUCKTARD!

/rant.

 

[blakey]

if i can pick up on point about union power (as a bad thing) that has been mentioned several times above

- can anyone provide figures that show unions spend more lobbying washington
than wall street, banks in general and other big businesses do

i would think big business spends more (and has got better results for its backers of late)

also, of the money coming from the unions - i would suggest this tends to represent a larger number of us citizens
than that
being authorised and spent by boards of directors looking after their corporate interests

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I think it was a bulshit. The Gov. said day in and day out that it was about the state being broke. Then he fucks the union over by passing this thing that had nothing to do with the budget. Now yes the Pres. and Dems rushed through Healthcare, but they never LIED about it, they always said that it was healthcare. THe Gov. lied and that was wrong

The governor (and apparently a large share of Wisconsin voters) feel that restricting collective bargaining rights for most government workers is needed to keep spending in line and help to mitigate the burden on tax payers when a another economic downturn occurs.

 

[Member2019]

Going the other way ...

The governor (and apparently a large share of Wisconsin voters) feel that restricting collective bargaining rights for most government workers is needed to keep spending in line and help to mitigate the burden on tax payers when a another economic downturn occurs.

Now that's going the other way ... to the argument the Republicans are making.

I never said I agree with what the Republicans are doing. I was just saying, basically what you said here, is what gets people to listen to the Republicans. Because what the Republicans are doing is associating the cost of benefits for state workers with the shortfall in the budget. I actually do not like them doing that myself -- even though I'm strongly against "closed shop" states (let alone it's illegal in federal, which makes me laugh at the President's arguments, which are politically charged the other way).

So ... is it true, what the Republicans say? Well that depends.

Education is the primary cost of almost every, decently populated state. Only states with small populations will have larger transportation costs, although those are largely subsidized by the federal government. The second largest varies, although law enforcement is significant, but not remotely as significant as education (4-5x typical, sometimes 10x or more). How much can actually be saved by cutting benefits?

I've been watching things happen in cities and towns near where I live. Everyone is having a budget shortfall because of property taxes. It's not like "greedy unions" caused the problem, the housing market caused the problem, because revenue is way down as states and municipalities rely on that income. It's bad enough for the federal during a recession, because income taxes are down. But states? They are hit harder with reduced real estate taxes, although those with income tax revenues also down is the double-whammy. And unlike the federal, their expenses are pretty fixed.

I mean, the US federal budget for DARPA and defense-related R&D covers things like the Pacific Tsunami net and humanitarian things. I don't think people realize just how much the US "defense" budget is actually humanitarian-related, and not men and weapons. The US can cut those and shift things around, just like they have done on the F-22 and F-35 as of late -- the USAF is reeling, but it's cut massive amounts of production costs (although the $100B or so of prior R&D has been lost in the reduced "economies of scale" of making less). States can't do that. They are so much more "on a budget" than the US federal, period, end-of-story, virtually no play.

So it's really the fact that states and municipalities are trying to cut expenditures. And it comes down to this ...

Either benefits and/or pay gets cut, or people lose their jobs. That's basically what it boils down to, regardless of contracts. Governments can't declare bankruptcy like corporations do, although they can default on their bonds. The bond market will go to crap if they do, and the trend is already starting -- although nothing on major state levels (although California and Illinois are about to test such).

I've seen this already happen in some cities, even DC. Their are lawsuits and the results are -- basically -- people lose their jobs instead of just taking cuts.

In Wisconsin, everyone is still getting cost-of-living/inflationary increases. I know lots of states that aren't doing that, and haven't done that, for 3+ years now.

So while the Republicans are trying to "deliver the message" that even I believe "needs to be delivered" (and Obama needs to be smacked, he's gone beyond the "W. mess" on spending), I do not agree with taking on unions. However, it's proving popular with some, especially voters in the private sector.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Re: Going the other way ...

Now that's going the other way ... to the argument the Republicans are making.

I never said I agree with what the Republicans are doing. I was just saying, basically what you said here, is what gets people to listen to the Republicans. Because what the Republicans are doing is associating the cost of benefits for state workers with the shortfall in the budget. I actually do not like them doing that myself -- even though I'm strongly against "closed shop" states (let alone it's illegal in federal, which makes me laugh at the President's arguments, which are politically charged the other way).

So ... is it true, what the Republicans say? Well that depends.

Education is the primary cost of almost every, decently populated state. Only states with small populations will have larger transportation costs, although those are largely subsidized by the federal government. The second largest varies, although law enforcement is significant, but not remotely as significant as education (4-5x typical, sometimes 10x or more). How much can actually be saved by cutting benefits?

I've been watching things happen in cities and towns near where I live. Everyone is having a budget shortfall because of property taxes. It's not like "greedy unions" caused the problem, the housing market caused the problem, because revenue is way down as states and municipalities rely on that income. It's bad enough for the federal during a recession, because income taxes are down. But states? They are hit harder with reduced real estate taxes, although those with income tax revenues also down is the double-whammy. And unlike the federal, their expenses are pretty fixed.

I mean, the US federal budget for DARPA and defense-related R&D covers things like the Pacific Tsunami net and humanitarian things. I don't think people realize just how much the US "defense" budget is actually humanitarian-related, and not men and weapons. The US can cut those and shift things around, just like they have done on the F-22 and F-35 as of late -- the USAF is reeling, but it's cut massive amounts of production costs (although the $100B or so of prior R&D has been lost in the reduced "economies of scale" of making less). States can't do that. They are so much more "on a budget" than the US federal, period, end-of-story, virtually no play.

So it's really the fact that states and municipalities are trying to cut expenditures. And it comes down to this ...

Either benefits and/or pay gets cut, or people lose their jobs. That's basically what it boils down to, regardless of contracts. Governments can't declare bankruptcy like corporations do, although they can default on their bonds. The bond market will go to crap if they do, and the trend is already starting -- although nothing on major state levels (although California and Illinois are about to test such).

I've seen this already happen in some cities, even DC. Their are lawsuits and the results are -- basically -- people lose their jobs instead of just taking cuts.

In Wisconsin, everyone is still getting cost-of-living/inflationary increases. I know lots of states that aren't doing that, and haven't done that, for 3+ years now.

So while the Republicans are trying to "deliver the message" that even I believe "needs to be delivered" (and Obama needs to be smacked, he's gone beyond the "W. mess" on spending), I do not agree with taking on unions. However, it's proving popular with some, especially voters in the private sector.

Property taxes were a huge problem in many Blue states before the economic downturn. They were often the Number one issue for Republicans in Northeastern states.

It took the downturn to finally get enough non-voters and socially liberal voters to swing Republican to get anything done about it.

Even Jerry Brown of California is looking like a fiscal conservative with his steep budget cuts.

Why is that? Because California voters are taxed enough already and much of the middle and upper middle class tax base is considering moving and plenty have done so already.

 

[ragincaucasian]

remember, the Nation is flat broke...everything has to be cut.....public service workers, corporate-leveraging by labor class....NPR.....anything that serves the citizen has to be rexamined...













but we suddenly have the money to launch $55M+ worth of cruise missles over the weekend.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Going the other way ...

Because California voters are taxed enough already and much of the middle and upper middle class tax base is considering moving and plenty have done so already.

Agreed. Even the Germans have recognized that there's nothing to be gained in revenue by increasing taxes. It's self-defeating.

Increasing taxes doesn't allow increased spending. It's like trying to cool a house by leaving the refrigerator door open. And what's worse is you're still bringing in external power to run the refrigerator, far more waste than not doing it.

 

[Trident1]

remember, the Nation is flat broke...everything has to be cut.....public service workers, corporate-leveraging by labor class....NPR.....anything that serves the citizen has to be rexamined...













but we suddenly have the money to launch $55M+ worth of cruise missles over the weekend.

What's your alternative? More fucking taxes? I know the Douchecrats love taxing the fuck out of the middle class(the one's who can least afford it). The states are broke, to bring in business you need to lower taxes, create incentives for companies to set up shop no drive them away.
It's incredible how stupid and ignorant the leftists are to simple economics.

 

[ragincaucasian]

either we're broke........or we're not.

it seems we're broke for some things...........but party like wanton whores in other areas.

meaning....the justification for cutting many of these citizen-serving costs is bullshit

 

[Member2019]

but we suddenly have the money to launch $55M+ worth of cruise missles over the weekend.

Actually, the US federal defense budget is not nearly as big, percentage-wise, over the last decade -- despite the wars. Also remember a lot of defense is R&D, and benefits.

Entitlements have taken over. First it was W., now Obama.

$55M over a weekend is nothing compared to the billions of man-power and benefit costs. Seriously, people need to keep that in perspective.

That and the US Constitution that says "provide defense" and only "promote welfare." Defense is actually the primary reason for a federal government, not entitlements.

Entitlements are traditionally done by states. But even if we gutted the US defense budget, the US couldn't even cover its interest now, let alone the state shortfalls.

I honestly don't think people read the US federal budget, let alone state budgets. The boomers are retiring, housing prices are not going back up and the revenues are not coming back as a result.

Cutting is the only way -- across the board. Cutting defense, which should be done in proportion, still won't make a dent on its own.

 

[Member2019]

either we're broke........or we're not.
it seems we're broke for some things...........but party like wanton whores in other areas.
meaning....the justification for cutting many of these citizen-serving costs is bullshit

Payroll and benefits, unlike the US federal, are huge items in US state budgets. People need to stop thinking of the US federal and US states as the same. With property taxes often being their primary revenue source, something's gotta give in the states.

Either they cut benefits or they layoff people. They are already cutting in other areas as well, but it's not uncommon for 80% of expeditures in US states to be payroll-related. This has already happened in several municipalities, including DC. The DC non-sense was rather fun to watch because even the courts were throwing up their arms as it's lose-lose -- either people lose some benefits or some people lose their jobs.

The "straw that broke the camel's back" in Wisconsin is that the union (singular) in Wisconsin was unwilling to negotiate. As much as I agree people have contracts, in the corporate world, whether you think it's right or not, corporations can go bankrupt and restructure debt. Governments can't exactly do that, at least it's never been done in modern history, for an US state. Right now the bond markets are still safe investments compared to others, and doing such will destroy it. That's the big fear.

The US states have been putting off the inevitable for years now as real estate has gone to shit. They are finally facing the reality that it's not coming back any time soon. So this is the "final last measure" for many states.

So the Republicans in Wisconsin finally just said, "enough," and went their route. I'm not saying I agree with it, but with all the Baby Boomers retiring in the US, and so few Gen-X to replace them, some retiring people need to get real. I don't like how the Republicans handled this, but to say "forced union membership" is faultless is to ignore the last 30 years. It's destroyed US corporate enterprises, caused corporations to move manufacturer to other states, let alone other countries. Now it's doing the same in the few state governments where a specific union has a monopoly on your paycheck, and forces you to contribute to specific political parties and activities.

Once US states start going bankrupt, it's going to be serious. As much as the Republicans in Wisconsin are doing no favors, the monopoly union in Wisconsin is crying wolf. They are still guaranteed pay raises based on inflation. That right there tells me that this is not about "fair," but "control." They don't want to give it up. And like most unions with monopolies on an employer over the last 30 years, they do not represent what is best for the employer-employee relationship. So the Republicans finally said, "okay, fuck you, you're done, that's why we were elected in."

Ironically, as much as the left-biased US "big 3" media talk about "recalling" Wisconsin representatives, there are as many Democrats (8) as Republicans (8) up for recall now! That just re-reminded me how much the US "big 3" media is left-biased. I actually read both left and right publications to ensure I'm not getting omitted information.

The "monopoly unions" have undone all of the good unions were created for in the first place. But that's what happens when you take the Right of Assembly, the individual right to join together for a common good, and force everyone[/] to join, use their money for political activities, and otherwise employer a group, regardless if people want to individually. You get a non-balance where one group entity acts independently, ignoring not merely just the employer -- the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin -- but the employees, who will lose their jobs as a result.

That's why I don't care for the "monopoly unions" any more than the Republicans in Wisconsin. Unions only work when they are not monopolies, and that's why I have no problem removing the collective bargaining laws in Wisconsin or other states that have destroyed their own economies with them. State economies that work don't have "monopoly unions," but they very much still have "unions," including for state workers.

 

[georges]

I'm very active in the biggest Dutch union and I'm also the union representative @ work. If you try to screw me or my co-workers we will come after you :nanner:

You think you are threat for someone? Someone who is an investor and who has an important number of shares in a firm has more power than you and if he wants to brings you and other unionists down, he will. You are a socialist, just face it.
I never trusted trade unionists, I always sided with the management staff and shareholders, if you know how to talk and deal with them, you are priviledged.

 

[Member2019]

Anti-monopoly, not anti-union ...

I'm very active in the biggest Dutch union

At least you have choice. In Wisconsin, they don't.

Most people against the Wisconsin union demands are not anti-union. We're anti-monopoly. American Libertarians like myself are very anti-monopoly, whether its corporate or government. We believe in individual right to choose, including what unions to join, what political parties part of your paycheck goes to, etc...

I honestly don't think people realize this is not about unions, but it's about a forced union -- especially non-Americans who would be utterly dumbfounded by our fucked up rules. Various US states enacted a lot of fucked up union laws some 40-50 years ago which have run just about every business out of their states. The last bastion of their non-sense is in the governments now, the only entity that hasn't left.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

either we're broke........or we're not.

it seems we're broke for some things...........but party like wanton whores in other areas.

meaning....the justification for cutting many of these citizen-serving costs is bullshit

Those missiles were bought a long time ago. It's not like Obama had an emergency session of Congress for authorization to purchase cruse missiles.

Everything needs to be cut.