We’re part of the booosh’s goon squad. You know, the one that did 9/11.
Just because you keep saying something doesn’t make it true. How can I stop you in your tracks when you haven’t gone anywhere yet?
Hello Mr. oblivious; you are ignoring on purpose that, specially in times like this, unions in the private sector are less prevalent.
Somewhere there’s a teenager’s room where yesterday Assi, The Bohdi, UncaThomas, and superslug were sitting around wondering how they are going to pay for college. Suddenly, Mickey Rooney (I forgot to mention Mickey Rooney was there too) exclaimed, “I’ve got it, kids! Let’s put on a show! In the old SDMB!” And the rest is history.
From Time Magazine’s editorial:
And you would be able to find where is this is related to collective bargaining? It is clear that as for efficiency Amanda Ripley mentions Colorado.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2055204-5,00.html
And there it is clear where the efficiency comes from: “pension reforms–including caps on annual cost-of-living adjustments for current and future retirees. The state also passed a groundbreaking law tying teachers’ job security to measures of students’ progress, including test scores.”
Guess what? Most if not all has been granted in Wisconsin by the unions, the Imperial Walker is going also for the collective bargaining rights.
Here’s the thing, genius–Nobody wants to join a union. That is, nobody wakes up one day and says, “Gee, I want to join a union, what kind of career would lead to this?”
No. People join a union in order to protect them from their employer. It’s as simple as that–the employer has the power over the employee–the union helps give the employee a say in how they’re treated.
Your whole “wanting to join a union” thing is either trolling or ignorance. (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and not listing outright retardary as a cause.)
How is it against the public interest?
When both the employees and the arbitrators are paid from public money it can not be in the public interest.
In fact, what we are talking about is a self-perpetuating machine where the unions pay millions of dollars to elect union friendly politicians who in turn grant pay and benefit increases to ensure future support.
How could that arrangement possibly be good for the public?
Precisely. And actually, it’s even more important for public employees to be in a union than private employees. Here’s why:
I work for a private company. My work is seen by the people who pay my salary. They know if I’m doing a good job. They know if they don’t pay me a certain amount I might quit, and that would be bad for them, because they rely on my work to make money for them. There is a connection between my work and their benefit.
My wife is a public school teacher. Her work is not seen by the people who pay her salary. Her work is seen by her students and, somewhat indirectly, by their parents. But she’s paid by the taxpayers via the elected officials and the school board.
The taxpayers make up most of the community; parents of school-age kids are a smaller part. So it would often be to the advantage of a politician to pander to the taxpayers as a whole at the expense of the parents. In other words, a politician could get a lot of votes by both cutting taxes and school expenses to the extreme. In fact, the more he cut the more votes he would get. The thing is, the politicians have no incentive to keep the schools funded at all, because any funding costs taxes, and any taxes means fewer votes.
Parents would be outraged of course, but they have no political power. The only really strong political pushback against this extreme cost-cutting are the teacher unions.
Instead of refuting with a “No”, why not explain why allowing public employees to collude to acquire levels of benefits and salaries that are not generally seen in the private sector…
As that is counteracted by the millions used by greedy corporations that pay to get people like Walker elected, I wonder why you are complaining.
The reality is that layoffs are happening even with unions in place, and that means less services for the people. That is not good for the public.
Wow, I will give you one thing, you surely have an interesting imagination. You just go on convincing yourself that I am (and obviously anyone’s viewpoint who differs) and convincing yourself that you are great. It makes it all the more fun when I can debate something and you can just spout foolishness as though it backs up your point.
Because they are losing them or being cut nowadays and in the concessions already granted to Walker? (Are you really following the news?), once again, it is the bargaining and other rights that Walker is also trying to remove, and for that even the Police and Firefighters (that were not affected by the changes imposed or negotiated) are coming to be against Walker.
We’re seeing what happens when Koch Industries pays millions of dollars to elect a union-hostile hack. How are provoking these massive protests in the public interest? Or gutting the unions? Looks like Walker is diametrically opposed to the public interest (for the sake of some very specific private interests), and hence the protests and extreme behavior.
Here’s where I see the disconnect. Walker’s campaign turns out to be a propagandistic lie. He was supposed to bring all these jobs to the state and balance the budget. Now that the election is over, looks like he is done listening to the people for one. For two, he is pulling a hugely transparent bait-and-switch by proposing to sell the state’s power generating infrastructure- with no bidding- while simultaneously cutting wind power proposals. Hmmm, I wonder who benefits if they acquire half-price power plants along with a job-killing energy monopoly? When the Great Lakes are among the best places in the country for offshore wind! Clearly the public interest has gone in the dustbin.
And then the bait-and-switch away from fiscal concerns to an assault on civil rights, namely stripping the unions of their collective bargaining power. Nobody from your side has been able to make a clear case how gutting the unions balances the books- especially since Walker’s actions appear to have deliberately unbalanced the books, apparently for the express purpose of fomenting a crisis to take advantage of in this way.
Then there is the back-and-forth about Obama the Liberal and his contrasting, heroic conservative resistors. Let’s recall Obama’s campaign for a second. His agenda could not have been more clear if he had shouted it from rooftops. Health care reform. Ending tax breaks for the wealthy. Stay in Afghanistan. Those were the big points IIRC. People voted for him based on how he behaved and what he said, and once elected, he followed through on what he said. Sort of, HCR got watered down and the tax hikes got postponed, mainly because Obama actually tries to take his detractors seriously and forge compromised.
Walker’s campaign? He’s done an about-face as should be clear to anyone who has followed this thread, let alone lives in WI. The only defense for him is to attempt to frame this as Liberals v. Conservatives, and say that the Conservatives won, so now it is time to unilaterally enact a conservative, civil-rights stripping agenda. This elides the fact that people in Wisconsin were voting for jobs and balanced books, not some abstract conservatism-is-the-true-religion bulldozer which conveniently moves all power to things like Koch Industries and strips the people of any power to do anything about it. Union-busting wasn’t mentioned.
This is why conservatives will be eternally viewed as morons. The government got packed with conservatives based on lies backed by millions from the industries who will benefit from those lies. Once the election is over suddenly the will of the people is ignored. Forgotten. Walker won’t even negotiate, not even with people who offer everything he wants for his economic agenda. That is not how democracy is meant to work.
Walker is operating in bad faith. Conservatives can’t see that because bad faith is their MO. Again, this is why conservatives appear to be morons.
So, moronic defenders of Scott Walker, do please provide a cite that disputes the assertion that Walker precipitated this crisis with unnecessary tax cuts and corporate giveaways. Provide a cite that demonstrates teachers are getting a ‘free ride’.
I anxiously await your next iteration of subject-changing bullshit. Hell, I’d be pleased if you could even cite that Obama is a liberal, or somehow back up the claim that Wisconsin’s specific issues are all about liberal v. conservative.
“It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to.”
No one even bought them a cake. 
Piffle, so far you are talking like if the unions had not given any concessions regarding benefits so far. That is just showing ignorance and demonstrating actual foolishness.
Suryani,
That very argument is flawed. Teachers do have some ways to measure performance. One is called the standardized test, which I feel is slightly flawed, and the other is called the performance of the student body as a whole. The public can and do see it and when they see consistently failing schools, they begin to express their anger by questioning the teachers ability.
The simple fact of the matter is this. Teacher’s unions and arbitrators are both paid from the public coffers as stated superslug. When they (the unions) want more pay, they go before an arbitrator that is paid for by the public. The public government selects the arbitrator and the union will agree if the arbitrator is seen as friendly to unions. The kicker here is that the unions pay large sums of money to influence politicians. So, to pay the unions back for their electoral support, the arbitrator to be used is often a bit to friendly and the result is unrealistic compensation that the unions receive for their members.
It is flat out extortion. The unions give the politicians money because they KNOW they will get something in return.
Walker has a very specific role to play, and it is the elimination of the right of collective bargaining of most public employees. Concessions are a guarantee, because the state can not continue to fund the salary and benefit packages at current levels. Something will have to give, and you can bet it will be in the form of layoffs. What Walker is trying to do, is eliminate the problem for the future and that problem is the union. Instead, Walker wants the public to decide what teachers are paid. Imagine that, the public gets to decide what the public does wth it’s money. Novel concept.
Keep up with the labels, it makes your argument so much better.
As I have said before, the concessions were coming whether the union agreed or not. The budget shortfall would have guaranteed layoffs. The problem is in removing the unions collective bargaining right to eliminate the problem of unrealistic compensation packages being paid to public service employees.
And, as I said before, Walker’s plan allows the public to decide what teachers are paid. Imagine that, the public gets to decide what the public does with it’s money.
It really is a novel concept allowing the public to decide what they get to do with the money and how much public workers are going to be paid.