Scott Walker recall takes an unexpected turn.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

BrainG, I didn't answer your question.
How do I know the emails were not subpoenaed? I guess if they were subpoenaed and Walker didn't turn them over, Barrett would be shouting that from the rooftops. He's not ,so they didn't. QED.

He wouldn't know either, not until the John Doe proceeding reaches indictment-stage.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

OK, Scott Walker is a big fat liar and soon the good people of Wisconsin will rise together and smote the foe that darkens their doorway. Better?

From your typing-fingers!

[Reginald Hobbes]

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

Quick question for ya. Who started the John Doe investigation?

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

John T. Chisholm, DA of Milwaukee County. And not even you believe it was because Walker asked him to do it.

You're right, it wasn't Walker. It was actually Tom Nardelli.

Chisholm, a Democrat, said the investigation was not initiated by his office but by Walker's then chief of staff Tom Nardelli. Nardelli told prosecutors that about $11,000 seemed to be missing from the annual Operation Freedom event at the Milwaukee County Zoo designed to honor military families.

Chisholm said Nardelli wanted the district attorney to look into the local Purple Heart group, which coordinated the event with the county and where Kavanaugh was treasurer.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Reginald Hobbes

You're right, it wasn't Walker. It was actually Tom Nardelli.

Thanks for that link! Whaddaya know! It has reached the indictment-stage!

MADISON, Wis. — A former close aide to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and a Walker appointee were arrested on embezzlement charges Thursday as part of an ongoing criminal investigation centered on people who served during Walker's tenure as Milwaukee County executive.

A third person, who worked six months for the state Department of Public Instruction until being fired Thursday, was charged with child enticement in a case the county prosecutor said was discovered while investigating the others.

The arrests of former Walker aide Tim Russell and Kevin Kavanaugh, Walker's appointee to the Milwaukee County Veteran Service Commission, come more than a year and a half after the investigation into county personnel began. The third person arrested, Brian Pierick, is Russell's longtime partner.

The charges against Russell and Kavanaugh involve embezzlement of money donated to help relatives of veterans killed or wounded in action. Some of the money was used to pay for a trip to Atlanta for Walker's staff member to meet with one-time presidential candidate Herman Cain, the complaint said.

<snip>

Walker said in a conference call with reporters that he was "extremely disappointed" with the charges against Russell and Kavanaugh. He also reiterated past assertions that he has not been contacted by prosecutors about the ongoing investigation.

Walker emphasized it was his then-chief of staff who alerted investigators to concerns about Kavanaugh's handling of money for the Purple Heart group, but said he had no idea Russell was allegedly doing anything illegal.

<snip>

Witnesses in John Doe investigations can be compelled to testify under oath about potential criminal matters but state law prohibits anyone involved in such secret proceedings from talking publicly about them.

Walker's spokesman Cullen Werwie and Milwaukee County Republican Party official Roseann Dieck have been granted immunity in the investigation, which already has resulted in one conviction.

William Gardner, president and chief executive officer of Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co., was sentenced to two years' probation in July after being found guilty of exceeding state campaign donation limits and laundering campaign donations to Walker and other Wisconsin politicians.

Walker's campaign returned the $43,800 in donations Gardner had given him.

So, Walker denies knowledge --therefore, he did not start the investigation or ask for it.

[Reginald Hobbes]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Thanks for that link! Whaddaya know! It has reached the indictment-stage!

That story is originally from January, so those indictments are old news.

So, Walker denies knowledge

of Russell, no mention of Kavanaugh.

--therefore, he did not start the investigation or ask for it.

And neither did Chisholm.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

You're right. A Governor of the United States would never lie.

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

The excluded middle,yes, thanks....

Rusty? Happy pulled a slow one on you. Governor of the United States? Take your time.

[BrainGlutton]

Editorial by E.J. Dionne:

Walker is being challenged not because he pursued conservative policies but because Wisconsin has become the most glaring example of a new and genuinely alarming approach to politics on the right. It seeks to use incumbency to alter the rules and tilt the legal and electoral playing field decisively toward the interests of those in power.

The most obvious way of gaming the system is to keep your opponents from voting in the next election. Rigging the electorate is a surefire way of holding on to office. That is exactly what has happened in state after state — Wisconsin is one of them — where GOP legislatures passed new laws on voter identification and registration. They are plainly aimed at making it much more difficult for poorer, younger and minority voters to get or stay on the voter rolls and to cast ballots when Election Day comes.

<snip>

But Walker and his allies did more than this in Wisconsin. They also sought to undermine one of the Democratic Party’s main sources of organization. They sharply curtailed collective bargaining by most public employee unions and made it harder for these organizations to maintain themselves over time, notably by requiring an almost endless series of union elections.

The attack on unions was carried out in the name of saving state and local government money. But there is a big difference between, on the one hand, bargaining hard with the unions and demanding more reasonable pension agreements, and, on the other, trying to undercut the labor movement altogether. In the wake of the recession, mayors and governors of both parties have had to demand a lot from their unions. For Democrats, this often involved unions that helped elect them to office.

That is one of the reasons the party is well-represented in the recall by Barrett: He has been a tough negotiator in Milwaukee, to the consternation of some of its public employees. In the Democratic primary, unions spent heavily on behalf of Barrett’s main opponent, former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk. Although labor is now fully behind Barrett, Walker simply cannot cast his opponent as a captive of the movement. No wonder the Republican is closing his campaign with a demagogic ad on crime in Milwaukee. Walker knows he can’t win the last swing votes he needs on the basis of his record and his stand on collective bargaining.

Walker seems to enjoy a slight advantage in the polls, having vastly outspent his foes up to now. Barrett, however, should have enough money to level the competition in the final days. This recall should not have had to happen. But its root cause was not the orneriness of Walker’s opponents but a polarizing brand of conservative politics that most Americans, including many conservatives, have good reason to reject.

[BrainGlutton]

BREAKING: MAJOR REVELATIONS IN JOHN DOE PROBE - Scott Walker Inadvertently Admits He is Under Investigation:

MADISON -- Following reports that Scott Walker’s criminal defense fund grew by $100,000 in May, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is today reporting major revelations in the John Doe criminal corruption probe, including Scott Walker’s mistaken admission that he is under investigation.

Scott Walker mistakenly admits that he is a target in the John Doe criminal corruption probe

Walker, in a rare moment of candor, stated to reporters that he would not use the criminal defense fund to pay for the legal defenses of his aides, who have been charged with crimes ranging from child enticement, to theft from veterans and the families of fallen soldiers, to misuse of taxpayer resources to illegally campaign for Scott Walker, and would instead use the funds for himself or his campaign.

Wisconsin law is very clear: an elected official can only establish a legal defense fund if they, or their agent, are under investigation for, charged with, or convicted of violations of Wisconsin’s campaign finance and election laws.

Nothing provides for an elected official creating a legal defense fund for the sole purpose of campaign compliance, assisting the prosecution or aiding an investigation, as Scott Walker claims he is doing.

Since he is not paying for the defense of an agent acting on his behalf, it is now clear that Scott Walker is under investigation.

[Jack Batty]

Or he created a slush fund under the guise of a defense fund. Either way, it seems he may be hoisted on a petard or two.

[Omg a Black Conservative]

You guys are really trying hard now, aren't you?

[BrainGlutton]

Walker diverts another $100,000 to his defense fund:

Gov. Scott Walker's campaign has transferred another $100,000 to the defense fund used to pay his pricey criminal defense lawyers in the lengthy John Doe investigation into activities during Walker's time as county executive.

Newly filed campaign reports show Walker's campaign transferred $70,000 to the Scott Walker Trust on May 3 and another $30,000 on May 17.

That bring the total the first-term governor has put in the defense fund to $160,000 in the past six weeks.

State law requires that the campaign get prior approval from donors before shifting their money to a legal-defense fund. Walker's campaign has declined to identify the contributors who OK'd the transfers.

<snip>

Walker is represented in the case by Milwaukee lawyer Michael Steinle and John Gallo, a Chicago attorney and former federal prosecutor.

Ciara Matthews, spokeswoman for the Walker campaign, said she had no comment on the transfers.

The spokesman for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Walker's foe in the recall election, repeated the point that Walker is the only governor in the U.S. with a defense fund.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

You guys are really trying hard now, aren't you?

We have to try harder, the other guy has the money.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Rusty? Happy pulled a slow one on you. Governor of the United States? Take your time.

"A Governor" "of the United states", not "The Governor of the United States".
He is not "A Governor"? Yes, he is.

His Governorship is not of the United states?

"of" Preposition: 1.Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole: "the sleeve of his coat".



Help me out on how you parced the sentence. Missing comma threw you?

[elucidator]

You know, if you're going to play the pedantic snot card, you really got to watch your spelling.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Originally Posted by elucidator

You know, if you're going to play the pedantic snot card, you really got to watch your spelling.

Yes sir.

[elucidator]

Nor eat at a place called "Mom's". Trusting naked bus drivers is, of course, right out!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Nor eat at a place called "Mom's". Trusting naked bus drivers is, of course, right out!

I don't trust clothed bus drivers! What are they hiding?!

[BigAppleBucky]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/155988635.html#

Gov. Scott Walker's former county spokeswoman has been granted immunity as part of the ongoing John Doe probe into activities during Walker's tenure as county executive.

***
McLaughlin was the communications director for Walker from 2007 to 2010, when he won his first term as governor. She is the 13th individual granted immunity in the case.

[Ludovic]

The only naked professional I trust is naked organ player.

[Jack Batty]

What's a stripper gotta do to catch a break around here?

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by elucidator

We have to try harder, the other guy has the money.

You know, I'm actually quite sick and tired of reading this line about how Walker is "buying" the excuse. In last year's recall election, Democrats and their backers outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million in the summer's recalls. The advantage for Democrats also was seen in outside spending, as they generated $18.6 million compared to $15.9 million for Republicans (though I suppose Democrats outspending Republicans is okay!).

Anyway, we all know that Democrats have the money to spend. The issue here, however, isn't Walker raising $30M or whatever it is; the issue is that Barret can't seem to raise any kind of real funding which is odd considering (1.) the recall was brought about by Democrats and (2.) Democrats spent a hell of a lot of money in last year's recall elections. So, again, instead of bitching, whining and moaning about the amount of money Walker is receiving, perhaps you should ask yourself why Barret isn't receiving the same level of backing from the supposed majorities who want Walker out.

[BigAppleBucky]

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opin...a4bcf887a.html

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

BREAKING: MAJOR REVELATIONS IN JOHN DOE PROBE - Scott Walker Inadvertently Admits He is Under Investigation:

Excluded middle.

There are other possibilities. Walker could be using the fund to pay for the defense of an aide that has not yet been named, but is being investigated. That is permissible, is it not? See http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/file..._pdf_97449.pdf

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opin...a4bcf887a.html

Let me help. The article says (with answers provided by me):

Gov. Scott Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett will face off tonight in the second -- and final -- debate of the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election campaign.

Barrett wanted more debates.

Walker did not. In fact, in the first debate last week, Walker was barely present -- declining to ask a question of Barrett, failing to respond to challenges from his opponent or questions from journalists on the panel.

Why is Walker so disinclined to debate? Apparently, the Republican governor, who has raised $31 million, compared to Barrett's $3.9 million, prefers to let his attack ads do the talking.

But Walker will face one more round of questions tonight. And it will be harder to avoid them, as one of the state's ablest broadcast journalists, Mike Gousha, will be asking them.

In case Gousha runs out of questions, here are a few he could toss Walker's way:

1. In October 2010, you told the Oshkosh Northwestern newspaper's editorial board that you would work with public employee unions and respect the bargaining process. Now you have said that you and your aides began developing legislation to strip away collective bargaining rights immediately after your election. Did you lie to the Northwestern's editorial board?

A: No.

2. In February 2011, you told the people of Wisconsin in a televised address that you were forced by a fiscal crisis to introduce a budget-repair bill that created dozens of new political positions for your cronies, proposed the sell-off of state assets and attacked the rights of public employees and teachers. Now, we learn that the drafting of elements of the legislation began months before the "crisis" developed. Did you lie to the people of Wisconsin?

A: No.

3. In April 2011, you told the U.S. Congress that you began developing your anti-labor legislation in response to actions by the unions. Now, you acknowledge that the legislation was being drafted before you had any interactions with the unions. Did you lie to the Congress?

A: No

4. In April 2011, in the same sworn testimony to Congress, you said that you had not spoken to anyone about using anti-labor legislation to punish or undermine political foes. Now we have a videotape showing you speaking months earlier to your largest political donor about using a "divide and conquer" strategy to undermine your political foes and to make Wisconsin "a completely red (Republican) state." Did you lie to the Congress about this as well?

A: No.

5. In last week's debate, when asked about health care programs (such as BadgerCare), you suggested that you are expanding them and providing them with unprecedented support. Yet, under your administration, more than 60,000 Wisconsinites have either been stripped of coverage or denied access to coverage for which they qualify. Did you lie in response to that question in last week's debate?

A: No.

6. Throughout the current campaign, you have been asked to answer basic questions about who is funding the criminal defense fund that has been established to help you respond to the John Doe inquiry into illegal actions by your aides and campaign donors. You have suggested that you cannot answer these and other questions related to the probe because of constraints placed on you by prosecutors and by state law. But veteran prosecutors and the state Government Accountability Board have suggested that you have a good deal of flexibility when it comes to answering these questions. Did you lie when you said you could not answer even basic questions relating to the John Doe probe?

A: No.

7. Throughout the current campaign you have been harshly critical of the use of the recall process to hold you to account. Yet in 2010, your campaign produced a video in which you hailed the recall campaign that cleared the way for you to become Milwaukee County executive as a hopeful expression of direct democracy. Did you lie in that video about your attitude toward recall elections? Or are you lying now that it is you who is being held to account by the people?

A: No.

And now a proposed question for his opponent:

Who are you again?

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Let me help. The article says (with answers provided by me):

Gov. Scott Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett will face off tonight in the second -- and final -- debate of the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election campaign.

Barrett wanted more debates.

Walker did not. In fact, in the first debate last week, Walker was barely present -- declining to ask a question of Barrett, failing to respond to challenges from his opponent or questions from journalists on the panel.

Why is Walker so disinclined to debate? Apparently, the Republican governor, who has raised $31 million, compared to Barrett's $3.9 million, prefers to let his attack ads do the talking.

But Walker will face one more round of questions tonight. And it will be harder to avoid them, as one of the state's ablest broadcast journalists, Mike Gousha, will be asking them.

In case Gousha runs out of questions, here are a few he could toss Walker's way:

1. In October 2010, you told the Oshkosh Northwestern newspaper's editorial board that you would work with public employee unions and respect the bargaining process. Now you have said that you and your aides began developing legislation to strip away collective bargaining rights immediately after your election. Did you lie to the Northwestern's editorial board?

A: No.

2. In February 2011, you told the people of Wisconsin in a televised address that you were forced by a fiscal crisis to introduce a budget-repair bill that created dozens of new political positions for your cronies, proposed the sell-off of state assets and attacked the rights of public employees and teachers. Now, we learn that the drafting of elements of the legislation began months before the "crisis" developed. Did you lie to the people of Wisconsin?

A: No.

3. In April 2011, you told the U.S. Congress that you began developing your anti-labor legislation in response to actions by the unions. Now, you acknowledge that the legislation was being drafted before you had any interactions with the unions. Did you lie to the Congress?

A: No

4. In April 2011, in the same sworn testimony to Congress, you said that you had not spoken to anyone about using anti-labor legislation to punish or undermine political foes. Now we have a videotape showing you speaking months earlier to your largest political donor about using a "divide and conquer" strategy to undermine your political foes and to make Wisconsin "a completely red (Republican) state." Did you lie to the Congress about this as well?

A: No.

5. In last week's debate, when asked about health care programs (such as BadgerCare), you suggested that you are expanding them and providing them with unprecedented support. Yet, under your administration, more than 60,000 Wisconsinites have either been stripped of coverage or denied access to coverage for which they qualify. Did you lie in response to that question in last week's debate?

A: No.

6. Throughout the current campaign, you have been asked to answer basic questions about who is funding the criminal defense fund that has been established to help you respond to the John Doe inquiry into illegal actions by your aides and campaign donors. You have suggested that you cannot answer these and other questions related to the probe because of constraints placed on you by prosecutors and by state law. But veteran prosecutors and the state Government Accountability Board have suggested that you have a good deal of flexibility when it comes to answering these questions. Did you lie when you said you could not answer even basic questions relating to the John Doe probe?

A: No.

7. Throughout the current campaign you have been harshly critical of the use of the recall process to hold you to account. Yet in 2010, your campaign produced a video in which you hailed the recall campaign that cleared the way for you to become Milwaukee County executive as a hopeful expression of direct democracy. Did you lie in that video about your attitude toward recall elections? Or are you lying now that it is you who is being held to account by the people?

A: No.

And now a proposed question for his opponent:

Who are you again?

And if he answered the questions that way there were seven more lies.

The best line in the debate: "I have a Police Department that arrests felons," Barrett said. "He has a practice of hiring them."

[elucidator]

Gotta admire the style, though. Direct and concise, without citation or proof or any of that other flowery rhetorical baggage.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Gotta admire the style, though. Direct and concise, without citation or proof or any of that other flowery rhetorical baggage.

"It is simplicity that makes the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiences."

-- Aristotle

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

And if he answered the questions that way there were seven more lies.

The best line in the debate: "I have a Police Department that arrests felons," Barrett said. "He has a practice of hiring them."

Yes, what a zinger. I guess people all over the state will be lining up to vote for Barrett now?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes, what a zinger. I guess people all over the state will be lining up to vote for Barrett now?

Of course people all over the state will be lining up to vote for Barrett, and for Walker. You need to work on your material, it's lame as an infected compound fracture.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Of course people all over the state will be lining up to vote for Barrett, and for Walker. You need to work on your material, it's lame as an infected compound fracture.

Well, I suppose the context -- that because of the "zinger," people who otherwise would not have done so are now planning to line up to vote for Barrett -- was lost on you.

That's ok. I will happily concede to you unquestioned dominance in the field of humorous campaign quips. I'll take the lead spot in "Accurately predicting winners of elections."

Walker will win. On balance, I'm happy to be lame in quips if that's the payoff.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Walker will win.

I'll take that bet, if you give me 7 points.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I'll take that bet, if you give me 7 points.

Sadly, a touchdown is closer than 7 percentage points, which is a landslide.

[Lochdale]

Notwithstanding Walker's potential criminal matters, it does seem that Wisconsin agrees with his agenda regarding the unions. Make no mistake, this is a massive blow to organized labour in Wis.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Lochdale

Notwithstanding Walker's potential criminal matters, it does seem that Wisconsin agrees with his agenda regarding the unions. Make no mistake, this is a massive blow to organized labour in Wis.

Yes, I agree. And I think the unions made it worse by this recall effort. Now there's a huge spotlight on the issue, a race that will dominate the news cycle instead of being one of several gubernatorial races. And I am quite pleased, obviously, with the result, which I hope will embolden other states to go after their public sector unions and realize similar savings, while the unions continue to react with ineffective, baffled fury.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes, I agree. And I think the unions made it worse by this recall effort. Now there's a huge spotlight on the issue, a race that will dominate the news cycle instead of being one of several gubernatorial races. And I am quite pleased, obviously, with the result, which I hope will embolden other states to go after their public sector unions and realize similar savings, while the unions continue to react with ineffective, baffled fury.

What have you got against labor unions? Serious question.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Walker retained the endorsement of the Milwaukee Journal which basically said he wasn't bad enough to recall. He lost the endorsements of the police and firefighters unions.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion...152111305.html

The Capital Times ripped the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal for doing that endorsement.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/m...9bb2963f4.html

In re-endorsing the controversial governor Sunday, the editorial proclaimed: “Walker's rematch with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was prompted by one issue: Walker's tough stance with the state's public-employee unions. It’s inconceivable that the recall election would be occurring absent that. And a disagreement over a single policy is simply not enough to justify a vote against the governor.”

Yup, it is not about anything else.

Oh, in the same newspaper was an excellent story describing how environmental inspections under Walker’s radically pro-business administration have dramatically decreased.

And, coincidentally, the lead editorial of The New York Times Sunday singled out Walker under the “equal pay” subheading in a piece headlined “The Campaign Against Women.”

In a more recent editorial the Cap Times scorched the right wing on their accusations of vote fraud.

Editorial: Why are Walker allies so rattled by early voting?

Read more: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opin...#ixzz1wfhBiBPS

Right-wing talk radio hosts are going wild with complaints about busloads of students and low-income citizens voting early in Milwaukee. Gov. Scott Walker has even echoed the line.

**snip**

But that's (**some facts**) unlikely to prevent Walker, Priebus and their media echo chamber from continuing to spew their bile.

They're going to need an explanation for the enthusiasm that this recall election has generated among Wisconsinites.

And, apparently, a lie will do.

[Lochdale]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes, I agree. And I think the unions made it worse by this recall effort. Now there's a huge spotlight on the issue, a race that will dominate the news cycle instead of being one of several gubernatorial races. And I am quite pleased, obviously, with the result, which I hope will embolden other states to go after their public sector unions and realize similar savings, while the unions continue to react with ineffective, baffled fury.

Agreed. This was the wrong fight at the wrong time.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What have you got against labor unions? Serious question.

Can I chime in?
Have you been on the buyer end of the deal when dealing with a union?

They have work rules that are crazy. Set up your own display at McCormick Place? Nope, that's a union job, you must pay through the nose to get it done.

Can I plug in my display? Nope, that will be $55 for a union electrican to do it.

Can the foreman help get the machine running again by bringing a wrench over to the mechanic. Nope, that's a grievance.

Hey, we caught this guy who made a nest of packing material in an out of the way spot so he can sleep on the job, can we fire him? Nope.

My brother in law is a union steward at Kohler. Even he says a good worker has no need for a union. The nest story came from him.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

They have work rules that are crazy.

Who is crazier, the union that demands them, or the employer who agrees to them?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

....My brother in law is a union steward at Kohler. Even he says a good worker has no need for a union. The nest story came from him.

Your brother in law? Well, that certainly settles that, the brother in law is the hydrogen bomb of anecdotal evidence. Too many for me, I fold.

So, no need for unions. Because the past is over, all that terrible shit that happened to working people in America, that's all over now, no need for unions. Heartless greed has been banished from our nation, has it? Now, the working man can rely on the Christian charity and morality of management and owners. Men who would never ever exploit another man for a few extra bucks.

Are there any unicorns in this story? I like it when there are unicorns in my fairy tales. Just no kissing. Don't like kissing books.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Heartless greed has been banished from our nation, has it?

Please explain to me how unions defeat heartless greed.

[Chronos]

They don't. In fact, the unions are motivated by their own self-interest, too. The point isn't that they defeat greed; it's that they balance it.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Who is crazier, the union that demands them, or the employer who agrees to them?

Who is crazier, the corporations that demand tax incentives, or the Governors who grant them?

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Originally Posted by Chronos

They don't. In fact, the unions are motivated by their own self-interest, too. The point isn't that they defeat greed; it's that they balance it.

So 11.8% of employees balance greed with unions.
The rest are victims of hearthless greed?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

So 11.8% of employees balance greed with unions.
The rest are victims of hearthless greed?

Some are.

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Some are.

From linked article “She was an undocumented Mexican immigrant "
Maybe she should go through the legal process of becoming a US citizen, then she could report the crimes of her boss.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What have you got against labor unions? Serious question.

Where do I start?

If this were 1910... nothing. To the contrary, unions were of great value in 1910.

Today, I feel unions are more parasitic than positive. Unions inflate the value of labor and reward mediocrity. They encourage support for labor as a principle in and of itself, not because they add value tothe product they produce. Unions focus on protecting the employment of their members, with seniority being the key criteria for reward, rather than job skill or ability.

I don't favor the elimination of unions, but I do favor their power being dramatically reduced, as long as their focus continues to be on rewarding the guy who's been there the longest.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Where do I start?

If this were 1910... nothing. To the contrary, unions were of great value in 1910.

Today, I feel unions are more parasitic than positive. Unions inflate the value of labor and reward mediocrity. They encourage support for labor as a principle in and of itself, not because they add value tothe product they produce. Unions focus on protecting the employment of their members, with seniority being the key criteria for reward, rather than job skill or ability.

I don't favor the elimination of unions, but I do favor their power being dramatically reduced, as long as their focus continues to be on rewarding the guy who's been there the longest.

Would you grant that employers have it in their interest to abuse employees for whatever they can get away with? And that unions are a way labor fights back?

It seems like wanting to do away with unions is like wanting to do away with environmental regulations or vaccines. "Why do I need vaccines? I've never even met anyone with polio!?!" "Why are there environmental regulations? The rivers are clean?!?!"

That is to say, it seems like hating unions is a symptom of not understanding that we're here where we are now, because of them. And getting rid of them will cause backsliding.

[Scarlett67]

For fuck's sake, people, this recall is not just about unions!!!

12 Reasons to Recall Scott Walker in 2012 (PDF)

http://www.unitedwisconsin.com/top-t...l-scott-walker

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by FE3O4ENAIL

Who is crazier, the corporations that demand tax incentives, or the Governors who grant them?

I made no claims regarding tax incentives, so I don't know what you are talking about. If you don't have an answer for my question, just say so.