It already worked. I hope he continues as well.
It was really nice of the deserters to leave the state and the left to make such a fuss.
You made Walker even more solid. I guess you guess are kinda like fluffers.
About 17% of the Walker voters say that recalls are wrong. Easily the margin of victory.
It will be interesting to see whether Chinese Corporations start making massive political contributions in the United States. Maybe the Red Chinese can take over without a shot being fired.
I’m sure once the people of the great state of Wisconsin get “the money shot” from Walker right in their face, they’ll agree 
.
It’ll be interesting to see how he’ll bring more jobs to the state, as well as more workers.
Personally, and I say this as a flaming liberal, I don’t think anyone was hoodwinked, and I don’t think the money mattered much. I think the Democrats are claiming it matters because they don’t want to acknowledge how much they’ve alienated Wisconsin voters.
It started a while back, kind of bipartisan with Dems and Republicans going tit for tat on violating campaign laws. You may remember Chuck Cvala.
More recently, it’s the Dems trying to shut down the legislature altogether, with elected representatives running away and hiding out of state to prevent a quorum and “stop” Walker’s legislation. That really pissed ME off. When you lose an election, you have to face the consequences of losing. That means you’re going to lose on most all votes while the other party as a super majority. What you SHOULD do is stand up, explain as best you can why you oppose whatever it is, and then watch and take careful notes about the negative consequences of the legislation. Educate the people, so they can make a better choice the next time. Or, resign if for some reason your conscience demands it. But don’t run away! That’s almost the equivalent of the Republicans threatening to shut down the government over the debt ceiling. I believe that if you are an elected representative you have an obligation to go to the legislature and VOTE, goddammit.
And now these recalls. I did a thread about it months ago. I didn’t like it then and I still don’t. We all knew Walker was a dick who would do all kinds of shit we hate – the details hardly matter. But now – instead of fighting him legitimately and legislatively, and perhaps regaining control of the legislature before the next election for governor, we now have a large population of people pissed off at the Democrats and not interested in listening to anything they say. And don’t even get me started on the privacy-invading veiled-threat mailing they sent out last week. I don’t know how many votes that cost Barrett – I considered not voting myself, but I do despise Walker sufficiently.
I think that’s the core mistake Democrats made – they really despise Walker and they imagine most people share that revulsion. And most people don’t. Or they did for a few weeks or months, but the anger couldn’t be sustained.
I’ll keep voting Democratic, because I believe they have better policies. But in Wisconsin at least, the party is seriously fucked.
No.
And if the state removed itself completely, I’d be fine with such provisions.
But when the government passes other laws that do things like mandate that employers cannot refuse to negotiate with the union – such refusal being an “unfair labor practice” under section 8 of the NLRA – then I’m in favor of laws to reverse those kind of advantages. You repeal the NLRA and I’m fine with repealing right-to-work laws. But not when the law already give favored status to unions.
Well, I certainly would vote for whichever candidate the Chinese are supporting.
The left got it in 2010.
They liked it so much they asked for more in 2012.
Tonight theyfinally got it.
Everyone is happy.
Sure it is. Their hands are tied by the NLRA. They can’t refuse to negotiate.
China probably wants to get paid.
Will dig it up (was in relation to the SCOTUS Citizens United decision). Basically they said that advertisement is overrated in its affect on voters. I think they are right.
Who do you see as the most malleable? That is, what type of person will be influenced by this ad blitz? What socio-economic group?
But that is not the same. They always have the option of refusing to agree to a contract that requires union membership for all employees.
He has two years to turn Wisconsin around. Wisconsinites may have voted for him because they were angered by the legislative desertion and the recalls, but now he has to produce. 2014 will be interesting, especially if he really forces his mandate.
First I’ll say this: irrelevant to this issue. I have repeatedly stated public sector unions are not the same at all as private sector unions. You have failed to address my specific question:
Do you think it was a problem that if I wanted to work for the State of Wisconsin as a public servant it was impossible for me to do so without being willing to give money to a political organization to which I am opposed?
I’ll answer for myself: yes, and every person who loves democracy should feel the same way. I don’t want all of our civil servants being only those who are willing to give money to labor unions and basically Democratic political movements.
Now, to answer the question that you asked me (without first answering my own), I definitely think that in many circumstances the government has every right to get between employee and employer and mandate or prohibit certain behavior.
It’s as old as contract law that contract law doesn’t trump the law. I can’t draw up a contract in which I give Bricker permission to stab me with a Assegai and then dispose of my body in a backyard bonfire that would inculcate Bricker from the multiple felonies he committed in following the terms of the contract. Regulating what contracts are valid or not between consenting parties isn’t a left/right issue, it’s a common sense issue. No one really thinks people should just be able to draw up any contract they want and have it accepted as valid by the legal system.
Sometimes on these forums I feel like liberals attack conservatives with an underlying assumption all conservatives are libertarian, Cato Society members who want no government involvement in anything ever. That’s not the traditional stance of the Republican party. The Cato wing is small and fringe. Some elements of the “Tea Party movement” have some of those beliefs, but even that isn’t typically of all of those Republicans. Finally, I’m personally not a Republican that believes government should never be involved in anything ever, and in truth I think people here exaggerate the number of Republicans who sign on with that view because it makes it easier for you to throw around ridiculous debate arguments.
The problem with you, Boyo is that you are far too reasonable. Most especially as it pertains to issues here, you’re willing to not toe the liberal line. You’re willing to call out “your side” when the evidence compels it.
If the left were dominated by people like you, I think conservatives would be in real trouble.
But we’re not.
That option is illusory. They can’t fire striking workers. Refusing to agree means shutting down the business, because the law forbids them to simply fire the guys that won’t work.
This is, in essence, the third bite at the cherry the unions have had on this issue. It’s over, they lost. Move on.
Dude … that isn’t the position of the “Cato Wing,” nor of libertarians. Nobody thinks that.
Yeah, right. Like that ever happens.
Not really, the original NLRA made it so you couldn’t refuse to negotiate and you couldn’t just fire all the striking workers. So the choice was “agree to this stuff” versus “lose your business.”
But anyway, your point is still irrelevant. For an employee, it is a mandatory condition of employment. Your focus on the union-employer relationship is a red herring to what the original point was. I could give fuck all as an individual employee if some union and a prospective employer came to some agreement freely and willingly, I think it’s unfair labor practices for me to be disqualified from working at a job unless I’m willing to join a union.
I’d feel the same way it say, there was a job that mandated employees be members of a specific social club or etc. Obviously such things aren’t any sort of widespread problem so there is no legislation to worry about.
Many economists who support Right-to-Work do so precisely because of what Bricker has said, the original incarnation of the NLRA made it so you had lots of closed shops because employers could not effectively avoid demands for a closed shop. This was having negative impacts on the labor market across the country, so the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 revised the NLRA to outlaw closed shops and union shops, and it then went on to give individual states the ability to further outlaw union security agreements if they so chose. In non-right-to-work states, while pre-1947 closed shops are, I believe, illegal nationwide, the “agency shop” essentially creates the same environment with minor tweaks to pass the wording of the statute. (I believe the tweak is an agency shop which is legal after Taft-Hartley allows you to technically work in an agency shop without being a union member, but you have to pay union fees…you’re just not formally considered a member if you choose to opt out.)
Low information voters. Not any particular side, or demographic. Just those voters who don’t read.