Private business support Wisconson protestors.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Private business support Wisconson protestors.

Hey you corporate class types, here is an example of a fellow greedy pig having a conscious unlike many in that class.

A PIZZA JOINT donated pizzas to the protestors. So not all business owners are pricks and can value the working class. While quite sure that they pay some of their workers minimum wage and no health care, this act shows that there are private businesses that seem to want to do the right thing. I would guess that this business would if it could do all those things the government does for it's employees if it could.

What stops private business from doing it is big business. Big business competes for profits, not consumers which explodes the pay gap, which prevents smaller businesses from doing the right thing, which some would do if they could.

So when people accuse me of hating all rich people or all businesses go fly a kite. This is a business that knows even their workers have rights. It is a business with a conscious.

And my understanding of the story is that the unions accepted the higher costs but merely didn't want their bargaining power taken away.

In the first amendment it says "the right to peaceably assemble". So it's ok for big companies to pool their money to break the backs of those who work for them, but it is not ok for the worker to do the same?

"We can't afford it" Said the governor, in which "bargaining power" has nothing to do with the budget. And on top of that he funded another tax cut which we also cannot afford which seems to amount to the same "cuts" he wants to make by killing the unions.

AND, even the unions who were exempt from this bill also supported the other protestors.

NOW we have a private business bravely and rightfully support the working class.

I think more and more people are getting wise to the corporate abuse that has rapped the public and falsely accuse those who point out the abuse of hating business owners.

KUDOS TO IAN'S PIZZA, A PRIVATE BUSINESS SUPPORTING WORKERS RIGHTS!

Supporting workers is not a bad thing and when you do, much of the government help people in the middle class and poor, would go away.

Granted this is about unions of government workers, but there was a day when there were far more private unions. Those big companies could not abuse their workers because of their right to assemble.

If I didn't hate cold weather, I would move to that state. I only hope this workers rights spreads even in the private sector so we can stop this abusive power the corporate class has over our government. Being rich is fine, being abusive to the rest of us is not.

KUDOS TO IAN'S PIZZA!

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 My only problem with

 My only problem with Unions is that they force all workers to join, even if a particular worker prefers to negotiate on their own behalf. Then after forcing that worker into the union they take their union dues and donate a good portion of them to politicians that the worker may or may not support. Also, I have a problem with the thuggish behavior that occasionally occurs when there is a strike and someone decides to cross the picket line. If a group of workers wants to voluntarily band together and use their collective power to peacefully negotiate better conditions or pay I have absolutely no problem with that. When they force their fellow workers to join them, I have a problem. 

 

That being said, concerning the issues arising in WI and now OH the states don't have the money to continue offering the cushy benefit packages. The benefits that these state workers receive are far beyond anything the vast majority of private workers receive. Both states are asking the workers to make small contributions to their health plan and pension plan (20% here in Ohio). Most private workers pay at least half of their health insurance, and many pay more. They also donate half of the money to their 401ks. I don't believe that government workers should get more or better benefits than their counterparts in the private sector who are paying their salaries. Especially since they get more days off.

 

I am not that familiar with the details of the WI law because I really don't care, they can do whatever they want. The proposed law here in Ohio has a few issues that I have problems with.

 

First, it gets rid of the pay tables and pays based on "merit", which in general I am a big fan of in private companies. The problem is that I do not trust the government. It is easy to see how political friends could be getting raises they don't deserve, while those who work hard get nothing. This seems to open a whole new door to corruption. 

 

Second, it makes it easier to fire government workers regardless of reason. I am kind of torn on this because as a business owner I know it is often necessary to fire people because they are doing a bad job regardless of how long they have worked for the company. For any business to run efficiently, someone has to have the power to fire dead weight. I think this provision could be easily amended to provide some kind of hearing process so that those who might be fired for purely political reasons would have a way to challenge their firing. I wouldn't want state workers in a position where they feel they can't participate in politics on a personal level because they would lose their jobs if the wrong person gets elected.

 

There is no doubt that the Republicans are seeking revenge on the unions. And I don't really feel sorry for the union bosses. For years they have clearly chosen their political side and not just on issues that directly affect their members. In that respect, they have brought it on themselves. I just hope that the result is not a highly politicized hiring/firing process where a worker is far more dependent on kissing the right ass than doing their job well.  

 

 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I am going to kick your

I am going to kick your Daddy Warbucks ass if you don't shut the fuck up! Ok, maybe not, bleeding is not my favorite sport. (running the other way)

Beyond, don't think I don't understand. When I talk about abuse of power, that CAN also happen with unions too.

This does not seem to be the same thing. The state workers DID consent to the cuts, what they are objecting to is giving up FOREVER, their bargaining power.

Yet this same governor wants to continue tax breaks for those who don't need it.

Why is it ok for the corporate class to "peaceably assemble" but not the workers?

Why is it ok for the corporate class to conflate the market to unrealistic prices that dont reflect real supply and demand through wild speculation? Why is it ok for the corporate class to hide their profits in over seas post office boxes?  Why is it ok for the corporate class to explode profits, ship jobs overseas and continue to pay minimum wage when the cost of living in gas, food and heath care keep going up?

If the middle class and poor are going to have to feel pain themselves then most certainly those at the top who can handle the most pain, have to stop bitching.

Checks and balances PREVENT abuse of power. Money equals power and it also has to have a check on it, unions are the way to prevent abuse of power. Unions should have checks on them to to prevent them from being corrupt as well.

But it IS lopsided and the one class that can do the most about it isn't.

If our goverment is going to go after "entitlement" programs, then it should also get rid of the tax breaks the rest of us fund for the top two percent. The corporate class need to do more for their workers, put people over profits, bring jobs back to America. Otherwise they cannot complain when the middle class and poor turn to the government to protect them.

Think about how many people would not use medicade or medicare or the emergancy room if the private sector were not charging so damned much. Imagine how much less we would be taxed if the middle and poor class made enough on one pay check to pay their bills. Think about how much money we could save on police if sallaries allowed parents to be at home with their kids.

If the corporate class gave directly to the workers, instead of accusing them of wanting to rob them, they WOULD have the government off their back because their workers would have what they need and there would be no need for the middle man(government) to get involved.

I keep telling you that it is lack of introspection, not what the individual wants. It is not what one wants, but what they do to get what they want.

PAY GAP AND COST OF LIVING, is lopsided and beyond a sustainable measure. A little inequity, like I said is needed in a healthy free market, but anything left to it's own devices, UNION OR BIG BUSINESS, with no check on it always has the power to become abusive.

ANYTHING left with no check on it will lead to monopolies and corruption. Mubarac, Kadaffy(sp) AND the Chinese Communist party are all WEALTHY, they wouldn't have power if they had no money.

A free market by itself is not enough, it also has to have a check on it as well, otherwise it becomes "every man for themselves" and you end up with a monopoly which leads to the political monopolies and dictators above.

I don't want workers to run the country by themselves and have a monopoly of power. But what we do have is one class with a monopoly of power on both parties. THAT has over conflated prices beyond the real cost and padded the profits through the "no rules" attitude the corporate class had used that has caused the pay gap problem.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond, Suzy Orman(sp) seems

Beyond,

Suzy Orman(sp) seems to be your type of person. I don't know what she thinks of national economics, but she certainly seems to have a good attitude about personal economics. I think her attitude would work well nationally.

"PEOPLE FIRST, MONEY SECOND, THINGS THIRD" She is rich and does shows advising people on if they can afford things or not.

What we have in the corporate class is "money first, things second, people third"

Take care of your workers and they will take care of you. Throwing crumbs at them is what we have now. It is why Egypt fell. It is why Stalin rose to power and why the Soviet Union fell. Why you think because we have a different form of government that that same thing cant or wont happen is absurd.

Revolts happen through out human history in both directions when you have lopsided power. If you want to avoid that then those who have the most power cannot have a monopoly on it and must take others into account.

ANY monopoly of power, be it political party, religious party, or class party, is BAD. Right now we have a class monopoly that has continued to erode the check and balance of the anti-trust laws that prevent the abuse of power.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well Brian, what I am

 

Well Brian, what I am seeing on the news is that Ian's pizza is not doing this out of the goodness of their corporate heart. And yes, they are a chain of restaurants.

 

What happened is that they fed a few of the protestors with leftovers rather than throw stuff in the garbage. Then the twitter effect kicked in and now anyone who wants to can call the place and buy a gift certificate to be used to feed the protestors. Apparently, they have taken donations from as far away as Antarctica.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: My

Beyond Saving wrote:

 My only problem with Unions is that they force all workers to join, even if a particular worker prefers to negotiate on their own behalf. Then after forcing that worker into the union they take their union dues and donate a good portion of them to politicians that the worker may or may not support. Also, I have a problem with the thuggish behavior that occasionally occurs when there is a strike and someone decides to cross the picket line. If a group of workers wants to voluntarily band together and use their collective power to peacefully negotiate better conditions or pay I have absolutely no problem with that. When they force their fellow workers to join them, I have a problem. 

 

AZ is a right to work state.  You have the right to work, and the right to join a union - or not.  So you have mixed (aka open) shops.  One of my high school teachers was non-union when many others were union.  She took her lawyer with her to negotiate salary and benefits privately before the school board.  A lot of people of all opinions dislike this set up.  Those used to closed shops think all workers should stand together.  Those who think all unions should be banned don't think anyone should belong to any union.

What happens - and there was a study on this years ago, I haven't looked for it today - in open shops the union is kept in check by the non-union workers.  If the union doesn't offer what the workers want, they just quit.  Management is kept in check by the union.  Pay and benefits are not arbitrarily cut and you don't have big swings in employment.  And the employees actually - overall - have higher wages and benefits, union and non-union.

Personally, I like this kind of set up.  I have never belonged to a union, but I don't think I would like to be forced to belong to keep my job.  I also don't like being employed and compensated at the whim of an employer.  And don't tell me go get a different job if I don't like the one I have - my 2 year anniversary of being unemployed looking for work is next week.  I just got turned down for 3 job apps last week.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:AZ is a right to

cj wrote:

AZ is a right to work state.  You have the right to work, and the right to join a union - or not.  So you have mixed (aka open) shops.  One of my high school teachers was non-union when many others were union.  She took her lawyer with her to negotiate salary and benefits privately before the school board.  A lot of people of all opinions dislike this set up.  Those used to closed shops think all workers should stand together.  Those who think all unions should be banned don't think anyone should belong to any union.

What happens - and there was a study on this years ago, I haven't looked for it today - in open shops the union is kept in check by the non-union workers.  If the union doesn't offer what the workers want, they just quit.  Management is kept in check by the union.  Pay and benefits are not arbitrarily cut and you don't have big swings in employment.  And the employees actually - overall - have higher wages and benefits, union and non-union.

Personally, I like this kind of set up.  I have never belonged to a union, but I don't think I would like to be forced to belong to keep my job.  I also don't like being employed and compensated at the whim of an employer.  And don't tell me go get a different job if I don't like the one I have - my 2 year anniversary of being unemployed looking for work is next week.  I just got turned down for 3 job apps last week.

 

 

And that is exactly the kind of system I think should be adopted everywhere. If conditions are bad enough that a strike is really necessary, the union should have no problem gathering a large enough group that a strike will have the desired effect. But it also allows people with certain talents and abilities to get the wages they are worth and prevents unions from running companies into the ground by demanding benefits that are unreasonable or unsustainable. Personally, I would never join a union but I can understand why some people might want to. I simply hate it when people use force to make other people go along with whatever they think is a good idea. If an idea is so great, you should be able to convince people to willingly get on board.

 

@Brian

Notice that in the case of both big unions and big business abuse almost always comes from their ties to the government. Big government abuses regardless of who has the power of it, that is why I am always against big government. Remove government coercion and you remove 90% of the problem. Let unions and business have their fights without government weighing in on one side or the other unless one side becomes violent. Again, I have no problem with the union, I have a problem with unions using government power. Same thing goes for any business.  

 

I have read several of her books. Suzie Orman wouldn't approve of the risks I took to make money but in general she offers good advice. In my experience the few people who actually save money are WAY too conservative when it comes to investing it and Suzie Orman, Dave Ramsay and Clark Howard all encourage people to save money, but suggest they should invest it conservatively. They are great for helping people get out of debt but if your goal is to make serious money, you have to take big risks. By advising people to be conservative they help those people maintain a middle class lifestyle but prevent them from becoming true capitalists. That is why I have been threatening to write a book. Many people work to get out of debt but have no idea what to do with cash other than buy crap. Most personal economists stop at "congratulations you're debt free". They don't answer "What now?" This has lead to people who save money putting it away for retirement, which is a complete waste of cash and relies on mutual fund managers and government policies in the future, I'm not sure which is less trustworthy. 

 

As for the list I would have to say- experiences first, people second, things third and money is simply a tool to make it easier to obtain the first three. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  I also don't

cj wrote:

  I also don't like being employed and compensated at the whim of an employer.  And don't tell me go get a different job if I don't like the one I have - my 2 year anniversary of being unemployed looking for work is next week.  I just got turned down for 3 job apps last week. 

 

Random idea CJ, perhaps you could deal at a players club, all dealers are volunteer and are paid by tips so getting the job is fairly easy (just know the rules) and hours are very flexible. A decent dealer can turn around $15/hr in tips, a great dealer can do $25/hr+ if the stakes are high enough. Just a thought, I know there are a few poker clubs around Portland and probably one right next to the University you are going to.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cj

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

  I also don't like being employed and compensated at the whim of an employer.  And don't tell me go get a different job if I don't like the one I have - my 2 year anniversary of being unemployed looking for work is next week.  I just got turned down for 3 job apps last week. 

 

Random idea CJ, perhaps you could deal at a players club, all dealers are volunteer and are paid by tips so getting the job is fairly easy (just know the rules) and hours are very flexible. A decent dealer can turn around $15/hr in tips, a great dealer can do $25/hr+ if the stakes are high enough. Just a thought, I know there are a few poker clubs around Portland and probably one right next to the University you are going to.  

 

Thanks, I'll have to look in to it - in a few days.  My husband is in the hospital again.  This time I really am going to apply for disability for him.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
So suppose these workers get

So suppose these workers get what they want. It can only be funded with massive tax increases. So business and wealthy people leave the state and country. Then what?

What is wrong with making teachers compete in the free market for their pay and benefits same as everyone else? And if our education system we're paying for is so great, why is their such a shortage of doctors and nurses that is driving up the cost of their healthcare? Why are their so many chonic unemployed while jobs go unfilled for lack of educated workers? We're paying for a system that has failed us are we not?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So suppose these

EXC wrote:

So suppose these workers get what they want. It can only be funded with massive tax increases. So business and wealthy people leave the state and country. Then what?

What is wrong with making teachers compete in the free market for their pay and benefits same as everyone else? And if our education system we're paying for is so great, why is their such a shortage of doctors and nurses that is driving up the cost of their healthcare? Why are their so many chonic unemployed while jobs go unfilled for lack of educated workers? We're paying for a system that has failed us are we not?

 

You have to admit I have lots of experience looking for a job.  Uneducated?  Not hardly.  But I am not qualified - I'm under qualified, over qualified, or I don't have 5 years experience in a software application rev whatever that has only been released for 2 years.  Yeah, they can't find someone who has 5 years of experience in a software rev that has been out for 2.  Woe oh woe, there are not enough qualified workers in the US.  Total bull.

I refuse to lie to get a job.  Period.

Why is there a chronic shortage of doctors and nurses?  Try being overworked for one.  My husband is in the hospital - again - this time with a heart attack.  The cardiologist saw him at 10 pm, and had been at the hospital since 8 am.  Do you want to work those kind of hours?  For how much in student loans? 

Do wealthy people and business owners really leave a state that raises taxes?  Where is your data.  What I remember is this is not true.  Picking up and moving costs money - for a large corporation, probably more than the increase in taxes.  The ones that move "on principle" are usually just shooting themselves in the foot.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Do wealthy people

cj wrote:

Do wealthy people and business owners really leave a state that raises taxes?  Where is your data.  What I remember is this is not true.  Picking up and moving costs money - for a large corporation, probably more than the increase in taxes.  The ones that move "on principle" are usually just shooting themselves in the foot.

Yes. Although, WI has been extremely anti-business for years, so those that are going to go have probably already left. More importantly, businesses that are expanding and can build anywhere, and taxes play a larger role in determining where to build. When you raise taxes, you won't see a rush of people and businesses moving away (unless it is a really huge increase), but it certainly plays a role on where that person or business will go if they are moving anyway. And when a large factory does decide to move it is a long process, often taking years to find a new location, build the new factory and transfer production. So you might not see a mass exodus but over time attrition will reduce the amount of businesses in the state.

 

The economic statistics that are ran often show "See, businesses aren't leaving" because they are ran right after a tax is implemented. Then five years down the road the state finds itself losing or not developing new businesses. It generally looks like a slow leak rather than a exodus, and is then blamed on "the economy" rather than government policy. Funny though that states that are business friendly suffer less from "the economy" than those that are clearly anti-business. It isn't an accident that business friendly states such as South Dakota, Wyoming and Oklahoma continue to have growing economies despite the national recession and really low unemployment rates. Business friendly policy attracts businesses, who would have guessed? 

 

But the idea that the "rich" are going to be paying the taxes in the Wisconsin situation is absurd. These government workers are paid almost 100% through property taxes and the majority of the property tax burden falls on the middle class. So they are not talking about raising taxes "on the rich", by and large it will be higher taxes on the working class. Rich people hire lawyers to challenge their property appraisals, average Joe doesn't.

 

Anyway, sorry to hear about your husband. I wish the two of you the best.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So suppose these

EXC wrote:

So suppose these workers get what they want. It can only be funded with massive tax increases. So business and wealthy people leave the state and country. Then what?

My understanding is that the unions are ok with rolling back benefits (which effects the state's budget); they are not ok with losing bargaining power (which has no direct effect on state budget)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:My

Kapkao wrote:

My understanding is that the unions are ok with rolling back benefits (which effects the state's budget); they are not ok with losing bargaining power (which has no direct effect on state budget)

The bargaining power doesn't have a direct effect on this years state budget, but it does have a large effect on future years and more importantly, has a huge effect on local budgets. Also, collective bargaining is NOT being eliminated for wages, it is being eliminated for benefits. Unions will still be able to negotiate for wages and the only difference there will be that wage increases that are above inflation will have to be approved by voters. So instead of simply paying off politicians, the unions will have to appeal to the voters to get what they want.

 

The other big change in the WI law is that public employees will be granted "right to work" privileges. Which means that public employees will have a choice as to whether or not they want to join the union. I suspect that is the real reason the union leaders are so pissed off. Their cash cow is going to shrink because a lot of public employees will probably find something better to do with their union dues. Right now, the dues are taken directly from their paycheck and given to the unions whether they like it or not as a condition of employment. If you can't see the blatant corruption and conflicting interests there you are living in a fantasy world.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Beyond Saving wrote:The

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
The other big change in the WI law is that public employees will be granted "right to work" privileges. Which means that public employees will have a choice as to whether or not they want to join the union. I suspect that is the real reason the union leaders are so pissed off. Their cash cow is going to shrink because a lot of public employees will probably find something better to do with their union dues. Right now, the dues are taken directly from their paycheck and given to the unions whether they like it or not as a condition of employment. If you can't see the blatant corruption and conflicting interests there you are living in a fantasy world.

 

A good point. If I was working in a closed union shop and I had the chance to give myself a raise like that, I might well be tempted to do so. Certainly, I can think of other uses for that money. I tend to suspect that this is what has union organizers panties in a twist but they will not say it because they don't really want people to think about where the money actually is going.

 

Let's say that union dues drop by 30% (I don't have an actual number on this but it has happened so seldom in the past dozen or so years that I don't think there is a good set of numbers to be had). So what does that mean for unions? Less money to pay for needed administrative costs? Hardly.

 

What really happens with unions is that dues are inflated well beyond what they need to stay in business. I don't mean that union organizers are making as much money as CEOs though I suspect that they do. Really, union dues are inflated to the point where unions can bank crap loads of cash for a couple of years until there is an election which is of interest to them. Pretty much, one where there is a union friendly incumbent facing a strong challenger or a union friendly challenger going up against a weak or retiring seat holder who is less friendly to the unions.

 

Then we see the real game that is going on here. If it takes five years for such an election to come around, the union has all those dues plus investment interest to pump into PAC type advertising.

 

You know all of those flyers you get in the mail every alternate October telling you how some dude is appalled by how little your school teachers are paid and what he will do about the matter with your vote? Did you know that those are paid for by the mandatory payroll deductions of already well paid teachers?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:
The other big change in the WI law is that public employees will be granted "right to work" privileges. Which means that public employees will have a choice as to whether or not they want to join the union. I suspect that is the real reason the union leaders are so pissed off. Their cash cow is going to shrink because a lot of public employees will probably find something better to do with their union dues. Right now, the dues are taken directly from their paycheck and given to the unions whether they like it or not as a condition of employment. If you can't see the blatant corruption and conflicting interests there you are living in a fantasy world.

Was this addressed towards me? Surely you have me confused with someone else... say, some AFL-CIO douche? If you think I consider unions to be "clean", you are mistaken.

However, is the corruption limited to merely unions? Scott Walker has threatened to block Medicaid payments towards nursing homes and massive layoffs, while contemplating illegally placing disruptors amongst a peaceful protest. All the while, the primary catalyst for this bill happened to be major campaign donors Charles and David Koch. It seems Walker has no problem holding the well-being of others hostage for political leverage on his pet bill. It really is a crying shame, because I happen to be a big fan of right-to-work laws.

Also, while I have no doubt that Right to Work is the bane of every closed shop imaginable, is it a cause for these protests? The data I have says 'no'.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:You have to admit I

cj wrote:

You have to admit I have lots of experience looking for a job.  Uneducated?  Not hardly.  But I am not qualified - I'm under qualified, over qualified, or I don't have 5 years experience in a software application rev whatever that has only been released for 2 years.  Yeah, they can't find someone who has 5 years of experience in a software rev that has been out for 2.  Woe oh woe, there are not enough qualified workers in the US.  Total bull.

The education system didn't teach you or me to be entrepreneurial. So obviously it has failed us. One of the reasons why is that teachers have never worked in the private sector.  So I would say your education failed you when it comes to the real world. This system of letting juvenile adults that don't really want to work in the real world and want to take half the year off become 'profession teacher' has failed society.

Also, all the people I've know that could not find work in the recession refused to move for work.

cj wrote:

I refuse to lie to get a job.  Period.

Why? You don't believe you'll burn in hell for it. You also don't think corporations are morally any good, so why care about it?

 

cj wrote:

Why is there a chronic shortage of doctors and nurses? 

Well here's a good reason why:

American high schools catch 'Glee' effect

So students are spending hours a day just getting high on music instead of studying science to address the health-care crisis. But now we're supposed to jack up taxes to pay for these teachers' health care and pensions.

 

cj wrote:

Do wealthy people and business owners really leave a state that raises taxes?  Where is your data.  What I remember is this is not true.  Picking up and moving costs money - for a large corporation, probably more than the increase in taxes.  The ones that move "on principle" are usually just shooting themselves in the foot.

 

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2011/01/lower-taxes-lower-spending-rig.html

Also businesses in high tax states/countries are going to be at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. Instead of moving they just close and lay off workers.

 

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca