pBills Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Robert Reich is completely right here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-coming-shutdowns-and-_b_826029.html I do love how Gov. Walker has he is doing all of this in order to fix the budget crisis. YET, when the unions agree to and give concessions (basically meeting his requests) that's still not enough. He needs to destroy the workers right to collective bargaining. Scumbag!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Robert Reich is completely right here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-coming-shutdowns-and-_b_826029.html I do love how Gov. Walker has he is doing all of this in order to fix the budget crisis. YET, when the unions agree to and give concessions (basically meeting his requests) that's still not enough. He needs to destroy the workers right to collective bargaining. Scumbag!! He's agreed to allow them collective bargaining for wages though. Why do you think that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 There's no doubt that government budgets are in trouble. The big lie is that the reason is excessive spending. Public budgets are in trouble because revenues plummeted over the last two years of the Great Recession. They're also in trouble because of tax giveaways to the rich. Must be All You Can Eat Red Meat Day at the HuffPost. So to put it in more personal terms, if you take a pay cut and now can't pay all your bills, the problem is not that you've got too many bills but rather that you no longer have the means to pay them. The only way to fix the problem is to increase your income, and since you can't do that, the answer is to take the money from those who you deem DO have more money so you can pay your bills. Genius. Nobel Prize stuff right there. Why, it's downright Presidential thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 He's agreed to allow them collective bargaining for wages though. Why do you think that is? He should not dictate what they are allowed to collective bargain for. Kind of defeat the purpose if you ask me. He should just stand up and say that his refusal to talk / negotiate has nothing to do with budget, it's ALL about union busting. Why lie about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) He should not dictate what they are allowed to collective bargain for. Kind of defeat the purpose if you ask me. He should just stand up and say that his refusal to talk / negotiate has nothing to do with budget, it's ALL about union busting. Why lie about it? Walker's refusal to talk/negotiate? That's rich. Who's that group holed up in that bunker of a Chicago hotel? Edited February 23, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Walker's refusal to talk/negotiate? That's rich. Who's that group holed up in that bunker of a Chicago hotel? The Party of no? no fiscal restraint No guts No show. He should not dictate what they are allowed to collective bargain for. Kind of defeat the purpose if you ask me. He should just stand up and say that his refusal to talk / negotiate has nothing to do with budget, it's ALL about union busting. Why lie about it? That was what he was elected to do. What part of that don't you understand? The people that pay the bill asked that the bill be reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) In my book, Walker is taking the lead against the blood sucking union bosses! I just hope the rest of the governors follow along. Edited February 23, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Even if all they get is to stop the automatic union dues deductions, that would be great victory. Stop automatic deductions, and you'll see just how much the members really love their unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Walker's refusal to talk/negotiate? That's rich. Who's that group holed up in that bunker of a Chicago hotel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 He should not dictate what they are allowed to collective bargain for. Kind of defeat the purpose if you ask me. He should just stand up and say that his refusal to talk / negotiate has nothing to do with budget, it's ALL about union busting. Why lie about it? You didn't answer my question. Why do you think he is allowing them to bargain collectively for wages but not benefits? Don't just come back with your usual crap. Actually think about his reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I have a friend who says public employees deserve their pensions. And of course she and her husband travel the world on thiers. But I asked her why. And she said that the public sector employees are paid less. I told her that there are studies that show that when you throw in all the benefits public employees actually make more. I said how about this. In the name of equality why don't we pay the public employees more per year but remove their pensions. This would allow them to fund their own pensions just as most of the private sector. That would greatly reduce the tax payers obligations to pay for this very long retirments (some as long as 40 years or more). Her reply? Crickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I have a friend who says public employees deserve their pensions. And of course she and her husband travel the world on thiers. But I asked her why. And she said that the public sector employees are paid less. I told her that there are studies that show that when you throw in all the benefits public employees actually make more. I said how about this. In the name of equality why don't we pay the public employees more per year but remove their pensions. This would allow them to fund their own pensions just as most of the private sector. That would greatly reduce the tax payers obligations to pay for this very long retirments (some as long as 40 years or more). Her reply? Crickets. They are so happy with what they earn they don't even know what private sector employees make, they never look for a new job. Any place I have ever worked, most people are checking the want adds and looking for better pay. In the government unions they just elect a new boss and they get a raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 He should not dictate what they are allowed to collective bargain for. Kind of defeat the purpose if you ask me. He should just stand up and say that his refusal to talk / negotiate has nothing to do with budget, it's ALL about union busting. Why lie about it? Actually, I think that's absolutely what he should do. Politicians and labor unions have scratched each others backs without any kind of oversight for far too long. I don't see another way to do it and actually protect the public from the graft that is bankrupting us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Walker's refusal to talk/negotiate? That's rich. Who's that group holed up in that bunker of a Chicago hotel? The group held up outside of the state is doing the right thing. Do you not understand that if the minority democrats came back the bill would be hammered through with NO negotiations? Guess that part passed you by huh? I have a friend who says public employees deserve their pensions. And of course she and her husband travel the world on thiers. But I asked her why. And she said that the public sector employees are paid less. I told her that there are studies that show that when you throw in all the benefits public employees actually make more. I said how about this. In the name of equality why don't we pay the public employees more per year but remove their pensions. This would allow them to fund their own pensions just as most of the private sector. That would greatly reduce the tax payers obligations to pay for this very long retirments (some as long as 40 years or more). Her reply? Crickets. For many of these people pensions are their 401(k). They live paycheck to paycheck. So for them to say that would be willing to pay more towards their pension and other benefits, I think is a very good concession. Actually exactly what the Gov. asked for. Of course he will not listen until they lose collective bargaining as well. I am SO proud of the union members around the country gathering and protesting Walker and others like him. Unions have given and will give concessions... that is a proven fact. These republicans are looking to kill the unions and ultimately the major supporter for Democrats. Do not be fooled to think that it's ALL about the budget. It's not. Edited February 23, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) I have a friend who says public employees deserve their pensions. And of course she and her husband travel the world on thiers. But I asked her why. And she said that the public sector employees are paid less. I told her that there are studies that show that when you throw in all the benefits public employees actually make more. I said how about this. In the name of equality why don't we pay the public employees more per year but remove their pensions. This would allow them to fund their own pensions just as most of the private sector. That would greatly reduce the tax payers obligations to pay for this very long retirments (some as long as 40 years or more). Her reply? Crickets. During the Wisconsin fun, one of the Union reps argued that the reason they deserve their benefits is because these people have chosen to "serve the public," as if they are volunteers at a homeless shelter. Imagine invoking sympathy because you're a government worker? And she did it with utmost sincerity too. Take a second to think about that : she thinks that working for the government is some kind of servitude that deserves a rich karmic reward. Unreal. Walker is a hero. More govs are going to need to follow his lead. Edited February 23, 2011 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) The group held up outside of the state is doing the right thing. Do you not understand that if the minority democrats came back the bill would be hammered through with NO negotiations? Guess that part passed you by huh? For many of these people pensions are their 401(k). They live paycheck to paycheck. So for them to say that would be willing to pay more towards their pension and other benefits, I think is a very good concession. Actually exactly what the Gov. asked for. Of course he will not listen until they lose collective bargaining as well. I am SO proud of the union members around the country gathering and protesting Walker and others like him. Unions have given and will give concessions... that is a proven fact. These republicans are looking to kill the unions and ultimately the major supporter for Democrats. Do not be fooled to think that it's ALL about the budget. It's not. Explain why they need collective bargaining. I have no bargaining power. I have a benefits package that has been offered to me by my employer. If I don't like it I don't take the job. If something better comes along I move along. I have a great benefits package and that's why I've been with my current employer for 10 years. Also the flaw with public sector CB is that they (the unions) give money to the people they're bargaining with. Don't you think that's quite a conflict of interest. That's like me telling my employer "hey, if you pay me $300k per year I'll kick in $40k to you. However if you pay me $400k I'll kick in $50k" And Republicans are not trying to kill the unions you nimrod, they're trying to prevent their states from going bankrupt. Edited February 23, 2011 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Explain why they need collective bargaining. I have no bargaining power. I have a benefits package that has been offered to me by my employer. If I don't like it I don't take the job. If something better comes along I move along. I have a great benefits package and that's why I've been with my current employer for 10 years. Also the flaw with public sector CB is that they (the unions) give money to the people they're bargaining with. Don't you think that's quite a conflict of interest. That's like me telling my employer "hey, if you pay me $300k per year I'll kick in $40k to you. However if you pay me $400k I'll kick in $50k" And you are lucky your employer offers you such benefits. Thank a union for that. I love the mentality if you don't like it get a new job. Yeah, the market is great for that. Why is a 3% tax increase on the richest considered "socialism" but a 14% pay cut on the middle class is "doing your part?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 During the Wisconsin fun, one of the Union reps argued that the reason they deserve their benefits is because these people have chosen to "serve the public," as if they are volunteers at a homeless shelter. Imagine invoking sympathy because you're a government worker? And she did it with utmost sincerity too. Take a second to think about that : she thinks that working for the government is some kind of servitude that deserves a rich karmic reward. Unreal. Walker is a hero. More govs are going to need to follow his lead. Gov Brown here in CA has made some reductions to the public employess benefits here. There is not rioting in the streets here. Hmmm, why not? Oh that's right, he's a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) During the Wisconsin fun, one of the Union reps argued that the reason they deserve their benefits is because these people have chosen to "serve the public," as if they are volunteers at a homeless shelter. Imagine invoking sympathy because you're a government worker? And she did it with utmost sincerity too. Take a second to think about that : she thinks that working for the government is some kind of servitude that deserves a rich karmic reward. Unreal. Walker is a hero. More govs are going to need to follow his lead. And what galls me is that they say it as if appliance repairmen, ditch diggers, department store cashiers, and airplane pilots don't "serve the public." Edited February 23, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 And you are lucky your employer offers you such benefits. Thank a union for that. I love the mentality if you don't like it get a new job. Yeah, the market is great for that. Why is a 3% tax increase on the richest considered "socialism" but a 14% pay cut on the middle class is "doing your part?" No I thank my employeer for wanting to attract and maintain quality employees. I really don't think unions had anything to do with that. It's not 1850 anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts