Democratic senators bail ship

[Cabin4]

 

You have to laugh. The socialists will do or say anything.

[45-70.gov]

at least  walker has a birth certificate

unlike some democrats  i won't name

[Cabin4]

 

At least workers in the private sector are willing/have been willing to sacrifice. Can't say the same for those state union workers. They would rob a homeless person if they could.

[scootrd]

You have to laugh. The socialists will do or say anything.

Never underestimate the power of a woman scorned.
If I was his PR guy , I would recommended him practicing the phrase...

No Comment.

[billy_56081]

WOW! The parasites are up to 15% of the needed signatures needed for a recall. Only a measly 85% left. Bet it don't happen. 

[scootrd]

WOW! The parasites are up to 15% of the needed signatures needed for a recall. Only a measly 85% left. Bet it don't happen. 

Billy, It;s really regrettable you not only don't understand the recall process, but also choose not to educate yourself in the process. They only need 25% within each district, and some only won their districts by just a little over 50%.
Additionally in some districts they are already over 50%

Its believed they will have required signatures by end of next week. 

in other words :

District     State senator       Winning % in 2008    Recall signatures required    
2           Robert Cowles       Unopposed           15,960    
8           Alberta Darling       50.5%                20,343    
10          Sheila Harsdorf      56.4%               18,816    
14           Luther Olsen       Unopposed              14,733    
18           Randy Hopper       50.05%               15,269    
20           Glenn Grothman       80.3%               20,061    
28           Mary Lazich            Unopposed        20,973    
32           Dan Kapanke       51.4%               15,588    

Just in case you would like to read up on the process :

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall_in_Wisconsin

[scootrd]

Saturdays Protest draws in excess of 70,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-26-wisconsin-saturday-rally_N.htm

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_19c56fb6-41d7-11e0-820b-001cc4c03286.html

[billy_56081]

They only have 15% of the signatures NEEDED!

[scootrd]

They only have 15% of the signatures NEEDED!

    Dems have now collected over 56,000 signatures supporting the recall drives, according to party spokesman Graeme Zielinski, after another surge in organizing activity over the weekend.  In other words, Dems are reporting they are nearly halfway to the finish line, with roughly three-fourths of the alloted time remaining.

I stand with Labor

[XD40SC]

The people who think big business will treat their employees fairly without unions are drinking the kool aid.

[DDZ]

The people who think big business will treat their employees fairly without unions are drinking the kool aid.

Why would someone need protection from a union if they performed their job well and was a good employee? Businesses need and want people that put forth an effort in their job, and when they get them they are going to treat them well. The only people that want and need protection from a union are the ones that think they need to just show up to collect a paycheck.
If someone thinks they are being treated unfairly or underpaid by their employer, they are free to move on to another job. Businesses are in competition for good employees that are valuable to them. If you make yourself valuable to the company you work for, you will be compensated for it.
The days of unions protecting laziness, and ineptness are coming to an end.   

[ironglow]

  Anyone with a modicum of life experience, shoiuld not be so naive as to think for one moment that either big business or unions are any paragon of purity.  Both are constructs of fallen man and thus subject to all the faults of fallen man; such as greed, hunger for power, ego, corruption. lying etc.
     First, the business bosses took advantage and exploited the workers.   Then, and  rightly so, workers united in self defense and improved their lot.  Then the unions started selecting all-powerful union bosses; carbon copies of those they were taught to hate; the big business bosses.
  Some union members were bright enough to see this progression long ago, and divorced themselves from it !  Others figured they wanted revenge on the big business bosses, or "tyrants" .... and thought " our big union bosses are OK...because they are OUR big bosses, or "tyrants" !
   In recent years, unions, operating on an international level, have assumed too much and have resorted to economic, mob and occasionally, physical terrorism...against those corporations or even individuals who do not want to join their club or take their orders from them.
  Bad enough, when these tactics are resorted to when dealing with private or shareholder corporations; however when these extortion tactics are used against the taxpaying public, Unions have gone a bit too far !
   ...And that's exactly what the mob scene in Wisconsin is all about !

[ironglow]

Saturdays Protest draws in excess of 70,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-26-wisconsin-saturday-rally_N.htm

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_19c56fb6-41d7-11e0-820b-001cc4c03286.html

  Hey Scoot;
    Big numbers and huge mobs do not necessarily equate with righteousness.  This tired old world has seen big mobs before, such as in Nuremburg in 1934.  The real indicator of the decency of the mobs involved, is not so much the amount of noise they make, but how they leave the area when they are done.  I wonder if Nuremburg was left neater and more orderly in 1934 than Madison on 3/12/ 2011..   Let's look for evidence..

[gypsyman]

XD, I've got some friends here in Ohio, that have worked for Honda for many,many years, and made a pretty decent living, without the benifit of a union. gypsyman

[Cabin4]

The people who think big business will treat their employees fairly without unions are drinking the kool aid.

The only people who think your employer will treat you well because you are in a union are the ones who have drunk the union thug cool aid.

I've never worked for a union based employer and always felt I was treated extremlly fair. One division of my previuos employer was union and that plant constantly had labor issues and union demands that fianlly put them under. I have over 40 employees working for me here and 20 are labor/non union. We treat them extremlly well and equal or better than any union labor job in a comparable market. Most labor jobs in this country are non-union and if it were not for global labor competition, labor would be doing much better. You big union supporters are blind to what going on, the cause of the decline in labor jobs and what it will take to fix it.

[magooch]

I think the unions are taking a huge gamble in Wisconsin by thinking that they can recall all, or enough Republicans so that the Dumycrats will once again control that state.  If they are successful, then what?  Eventually even the Dumbycrats are going to either have to raise taxes, or make drastic cuts and then they won't have the Republicans to blame.

It's pure foolishness to believe that unions can have their way with running business, government, or anything.  It's just not in their DNA to do anything but kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

[Cabin4]

I hope they go forward with the recall efforts. It will expose the unions as the greedy pigs they really are and just how much of a threat they are to the tax payers and the financial stability of our country.

[scootrd]

I think the unions are taking a huge gamble in Wisconsin by thinking that they can recall all, or enough Republicans so that the Dumycrats will once again control that state. 

I believe they only need to recall 3 to gain control (but I would need to further research ).
My assumption (and that's all it is ) is they will most likely put there priority efforts for against the following :

District     State senator       Winning % in 2008    Recall signatures required   
8           Alberta Darling       50.5%                20,343   
10          Sheila Harsdorf      56.4%               18,816   
8           Randy Hopper       50.05%               15,269   
32           Dan Kapanke       51.4%               15,588   

[XD40SC]

XD, I've got some friends here in Ohio, that have worked for Honda for many,many years, and made a pretty decent living, without the benefit of a union. gypsyman

There are big businesses that treat their employees fairly. In those cases there is no need for unions. There are some big business that don't treat their employees fairly. Those are the business that need unions. I have a friend that owns a small business and he treats his workers very fairly- his workers don't need a union and would probably be hurt by a union, but you have to agree that in some cases, unions are needed.

[dukkillr]

XD, I've got some friends here in Ohio, that have worked for Honda for many,many years, and made a pretty decent living, without the benefit of a union. gypsyman

There are big businesses that treat their employees fairly. In those cases there is no need for unions. There are some big business that don't treat their employees fairly. Those are the business that need unions. I have a friend that owns a small business and he treats his workers very fairly- his workers don't need a union and would probably be hurt by a union, but you have to agree that in some cases, unions are needed.

Work with me on this.  Lets say you work for a boss who doesn't treat his workers, "fairly".  Lets assume that the unfairness in question is not illegal.  Since I don't know what you consider "fair" we'll just have to assume that there is such a thing as legal unfairness. 

So, assume your boss is treating you "unfair".  We can assume that, since it's not illegal, you are free to quit.  We can also assume that if he is treating others "unfairly" they are also free to quit.  And, again, assuming there is no slavery involved, he will suddenly find that he has no workers because everyone has quit and refuses to work for someone "unfair".  Then, I suppose, we can assume that he would either become more fair, or raise his pay to attract workers who can set aside the "unfairnness" for a certain price, right?

But there’s a hitch, and I think we both know what it is.  “Fairness” is relative.  You might think it’s unfair that he doesn’t let you watch the NCAA tournament games while you work.  Another worker might think it’s “unfair” that they don’t get 6 weeks paid vacation like Company X does.  So who decides what is “fair” with the understanding that real fairness is codified already?  Well, obviously, the answer is that the market does.  Fair for migrant vegetable pickers  is different than fair for a doctor.  They have different skills, and different values to their employer, as well they should.  One can literally be replaced by driving to home depot, the other not so much.  And this is where your rub is.  You want “fair” for the doctor without actually being the doctor.  You don’t have his negotiating power, but you want his negotiating results.  That’s fine, but don’t act all indignant when those of us who pay for those things you want aren’t sure you’re actually worth it.  We’re not impressed with your artificially inflated bargaining position.  We’d love to let the market decide what you are worth, you’re afraid of that.  The question is, can you be honest enough to admit why?

[Cabin4]

XD, I've got some friends here in Ohio, that have worked for Honda for many,many years, and made a pretty decent living, without the benefit of a union. gypsyman

There are big businesses that treat their employees fairly. In those cases there is no need for unions. There are some big business that don't treat their employees fairly. Those are the business that need unions. I have a friend that owns a small business and he treats his workers very fairly- his workers don't need a union and would probably be hurt by a union, but you have to agree that in some cases, unions are needed.

My father in law was a Teamster for most his entire working adult life. All his employers during that time and the union treated him like garbage. I have friends who were in the local trade unions in Chicago. They all quit the union so they could be treated like humans with a non-union shop. I know more people that feel the unions and their employer treated them poorly than feel otherwise. All had been told by the unions that are being treated better that any non-union shop. That was until they went looking and ALL finally decided to leave the union.

Unions will do what is only good for the Union first. The union employees come second. The state union jobs are different and I do believe they get a whole lot more than if they were non-union. So in that regard, the state union has great leverage and has delivered a great comp package for their members. So great, that it has bankrupt the state. Its time they caved in for the sake of all the people in Wisconsin and quit being so damn selfish. Incidentally, we have the same scenario with GM. For years, those comp packages were so outstanding, its left the current workforce with the burden to pay for it and they have had to give it compensation so that GM can pay the ridiculous pension plans of the existing retired work force. New GM union line workers are making a fraction of what their retired co-workers made. Sooner or later, you have to pay up. Either the business goes out of business, the job gets off-shored or in the case of the state budget, you throw them so deep into the red you get the disaster Wisconsin has.

Isaac Newton said it best in his 3rd law of Physics: Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And all though he is referring to physics, the same is true in the Supply Chain of events which is actually physics. The Supply Chain refers to the physical supply chain, manufacturing, distribution, planning, finances, goods delivery, ect. Many union jobs are part of a supply chain of events. They call it a supply chain because every action has a reaction in the chain. Higher salaries have consequences when those salaries are out of line for the product and its target selling market and total delivery costs.

[XD40SC]

XD, I've got some friends here in Ohio, that have worked for Honda for many,many years, and made a pretty decent living, without the benefit of a union. gypsyman

There are big businesses that treat their employees fairly. In those cases there is no need for unions. There are some big business that don't treat their employees fairly. Those are the business that need unions. I have a friend that owns a small business and he treats his workers very fairly- his workers don't need a union and would probably be hurt by a union, but you have to agree that in some cases, unions are needed.

Work with me on this.  Lets say you work for a boss who doesn't treat his workers, "fairly".  Lets assume that the unfairness in question is not illegal.  Since I don't know what you consider "fair" we'll just have to assume that there is such a thing as legal unfairness. 

So, assume your boss is treating you "unfair".  We can assume that, since it's not illegal, you are free to quit.  We can also assume that if he is treating others "unfairly" they are also free to quit.  And, again, assuming there is no slavery involved, he will suddenly find that he has no workers because everyone has quit and refuses to work for someone "unfair".  Then, I suppose, we can assume that he would either become more fair, or raise his pay to attract workers who can set aside the "unfairnness" for a certain price, right?

But there’s a hitch, and I think we both know what it is.  “Fairness” is relative.  You might think it’s unfair that he doesn’t let you watch the NCAA tournament games while you work.  Another worker might think it’s “unfair” that they don’t get 6 weeks paid vacation like Company X does.  So who decides what is “fair” with the understanding that real fairness is codified already?  Well, obviously, the answer is that the market does.  Fair for migrant vegetable pickers  is different than fair for a doctor.  They have different skills, and different values to their employer, as well they should.  One can literally be replaced by driving to home depot, the other not so much.  And this is where your rub is.  You want “fair” for the doctor without actually being the doctor.  You don’t have his negotiating power, but you want his negotiating results.  That’s fine, but don’t act all indignant when those of us who pay for those things you want aren’t sure you’re actually worth it.  We’re not impressed with your artificially inflated bargaining position.  We’d love to let the market decide what you are worth, you’re afraid of that.  The question is, can you be honest enough to admit why?

Agree that fairness is in the eyes of the beholder.But I'm sure if the vast majority consider him unfair, than he probably is. Quitting and getting another job may be easier said than done. In these time, many are lucky to have a job. If it were me, I would work for that person as long as I could to supply for my family while looking for another job. Those who say you can always quit are forgetting it ain't always easy to find another job.And the unfair boss may realize that and not be willing to change.

[XD40SC]

You don’t have his negotiating power, but you want his negotiating results.  That’s fine, but don’t act all indignant when those of us who pay for those things you want aren’t sure you’re actually worth it.  We’re not impressed with your artificially inflated bargaining position.  We’d love to let the market decide what you are worth, you’re afraid of that.  The question is, can you be honest enough to admit why-
Is the above aimed at anyone person posting here, or is it a general statement?

[XD40SC]

XD, I've got some friends here in Ohio, that have worked for Honda for many,many years, and made a pretty decent living, without the benefit of a union. gypsyman

There are big businesses that treat their employees fairly. In those cases there is no need for unions. There are some big business that don't treat their employees fairly. Those are the business that need unions. I have a friend that owns a small business and he treats his workers very fairly- his workers don't need a union and would probably be hurt by a union, but you have to agree that in some cases, unions are needed.

My father in law was a Teamster for most his entire working adult life. All his employers during that time and the union treated him like garbage. I have friends who were in the local trade unions in Chicago. They all quit the union so they could be treated like humans with a non-union shop. I know more people that feel the unions and their employer treated them poorly than feel otherwise. All had been told by the unions that are being treated better that any non-union shop. That was until they went looking and ALL finally decided to leave the union.

Unions will do what is only good for the Union first. The union employees come second. The state union jobs are different and I do believe they get a whole lot more than if they were non-union. So in that regard, the state union has great leverage and has delivered a great comp package for their members. So great, that it has bankrupt the state. Its time they caved in for the sake of all the people in Wisconsin and quit being so damn selfish. Incidentally, we have the same scenario with GM. For years, those comp packages were so outstanding, its left the current workforce with the burden to pay for it and they have had to give it compensation so that GM can pay the ridiculous pension plans of the existing retired work force. New GM union line workers are making a fraction of what their retired co-workers made. Sooner or later, you have to pay up. Either the business goes out of business, the job gets off-shored or in the case of the state budget, you throw them so deep into the red you get the disaster Wisconsin has.

Isaac Newton said it best in his 3rd law of Physics: Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And all though he is referring to physics, the same is true in the Supply Chain of events which is actually physics. The Supply Chain refers to the physical supply chain, manufacturing, distribution, planning, finances, goods delivery, ect. Many union jobs are part of a supply chain of events. They call it a supply chain because every action has a reaction in the chain. Higher salaries have consequences when those salaries are out of line for the product and its target selling market and total delivery costs.

I agree . The teamsters is a bad union. My x-father-in-law was a teamster and had his pension stolen by the union. They are an excellent example of a union gone bad.

[dukkillr]

You don’t have his negotiating power, but you want his negotiating results.  That’s fine, but don’t act all indignant when those of us who pay for those things you want aren’t sure you’re actually worth it.  We’re not impressed with your artificially inflated bargaining position.  We’d love to let the market decide what you are worth, you’re afraid of that.  The question is, can you be honest enough to admit why-
Is the above aimed at anyone person posting here, or is it a general statement?

I was hoping you would answer, since it started with a quote from you.  But it would be fair to consider it a general question open to any pro-union reader.

[Dixie Dude]

For you union guys, this has NOTHING to do with big business.  This is the state government which is out of money.  Unions have to give here.  Taxpayers can't and won't go for more taxes period.  Enough is enough.  Unions have to give.  Everyone else in this country is hurting, business, private store owners, etc.  Government spending is out of control both at the Federal and in some states at the state level.  Only two ways out, more taxes, or less benefits, and more give by the unions.  Wisconsin is the most unionised state in the nation I think besides Michigan.  Public workers are that Pubic workers.  Teachers also.  They are paid by the taxpayers and producers.  1/3 of Wisconsins teachers sends their kids to private schools.  mmmm.  Their teachers get paid more than the national average, they get more retirement benefits than the national average.  Briggs and Stratton moved from Wisconsin to Alabama because of the union and right to work laws.  Harley has threatened to move at one time.  When business starts moveing out, and the state can't make enough in taxes, something has to give.  Unions have overreached in Wisconsin.  Businesses and factories can move to another state.  The state government can't move. 

[XD40SC]

You don't have his negotiating power, but you want his negotiating results.  That’s fine, but don’t act all indignant when those of us who pay for those things you want aren’t sure you’re actually worth it.  We’re not impressed with your artificially inflated bargaining position.  We’d love to let the market decide what you are worth, you’re afraid of that.  The question is, can you be honest enough to admit why-
Is the above aimed at anyone person posting here, or is it a general statement?

I was hoping you would answer, since it started with a quote from you.  But it would be fair to consider it a general question open to any pro-union reader.

I was worth what my local union and school board negotiated  I was worth.

[DDZ]

[/quote]
I was worth what my local union and school board negotiated  I was worth.
[/quote]

XD, you speak of fairness for the worker. Your local union tries to squeeze every red cent it can from the school board. The school board puts up a little fuss, then agrees to pay the union's demands to avoid a strike. Then the school district raises taxes on the public. It has happened many times. Where is the fairness to the tax payers?  Do you think the tax payers should just keep submitting to the union's demands? I and many others have had their fill of public unions, and its past time to put an end to them.

[dukkillr]

You don't have his negotiating power, but you want his negotiating results.  That's fine, but don’t act all indignant when those of us who pay for those things you want aren’t sure you’re actually worth it.  We’re not impressed with your artificially inflated bargaining position.  We’d love to let the market decide what you are worth, you’re afraid of that.  The question is, can you be honest enough to admit why-
Is the above aimed at anyone person posting here, or is it a general statement?

I was hoping you would answer, since it started with a quote from you.  But it would be fair to consider it a general question open to any pro-union reader.

I was worth what my local union and school board negotiated  I was worth.

That would be true, if they negotiated on a level playing field.  A level playing field is what the rest of us are asking for. 

I have absolutely no objection to people grouping themselves for the purpose of bargaining.  That is, at it's core, about freedom of association and one of the principles this country was founded on.  What I have a problem with is the laws created that provide artificial protections for these groups.  There should be no issues of "union labor law" because there should be no laws regarding the topic at all.  Those laws exist only to thwart the market forces that would otherwise influence the negotiations.  Unions should exist on their ability to bargain for their members based entirely on their worth as workers.

Look, lets go back to when I was 17.  I was a WSI instructor and worked with a relatively small group of instructors at several pools in the Kansas City area.  I was probably no more than 2 degrees of separation from any other instructor in the greater KC area.  If, during the middle of the summer, we felt we were being mistreated by an individual pool, we should absolutely work together to try and use our power to effect change.  That is the American way.  The rest of the American way is that the employer should be completely free to call our bluff and simply fire us all.  There should be no laws ever precluding that employer from firing us, at any time, for any reason.  Our skills on the open market are worth X, and the PIA factor of losing all your instructors in the middle of the summer is worth an additional value, Y.  If our request is worth less than x+y we get it, if it's greater than the sum, we get fired.  Simple.

But what if we've somehow managed to lobby a "WSI union"?  Now that PIA value is artificially inflated by the laws protecting those unions.  Rather than just being a valid collective bargaining risk, it's an arrangement distorted from market forces by laws meant purely to raise our Y value beyond it's actual value.  That increased Y value, or Delta Y, is passed on to the tax payers (in the case of public unions) and it seems some people are sick paying it.

While I won't speak for other anti-union guys on this site, this is the substance of my objection.  I would never begrudge someone trying to make more money or have better conditions.  Everyone should have the right to try and make their work world better.  But every job ultimately exists at discretion of a company or employer, and the counter balance to the pressure from workers should be the ability to terminate an at-will employee or their position at any time, for any reason.  That reality would bring the X and Y values back down to their actual fair market value.

[XD40SC]

I was worth what my local union and school board negotiated  I was worth.
[/quote]

XD, you speak of fairness for the worker. Your local union tries to squeeze every red cent it can from the school board. The school board puts up a little fuss, then agrees to pay the union's demands to avoid a strike. Then the school district raises taxes on the public. It has happened many times. Where is the fairness to the tax payers?  Do you think the tax payers should just keep submitting to the union's demands? I and many others have had their fill of public unions, and its past time to put an end to them.
[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As hard as it may be for some of you to believe- we had a great relationship between the local union and the school district. In my state the local union was made up of teachers on the staff. The teachers and school board members knew each other and worked very closely with each other. It was a very friendly environment. Many of us had several of the school board members as students.We taught them and their children. They knew first hand what we were worth.That's why we never had a problem settling our contracts.We always settled a year before the contract was over. To pose all unions as the bad creature from the dark lagoon taking advantage of the poor school board and members of the district isn't what I have ever witnessed. Maybe things work differently in other states or counties.We always felt the National Teachers union was worthless.