Democratic senators bail ship

[scootrd]

Compromise to the left means let me have my way! No matter that the other side just won the election, They are still suppose to let the liberals have their way through compromise!
  Now when they win the election, they believe in no such thing! In the words of Obama, elections have consequences! He Then pushed through bunches of left wing laws with no input from the Republicans! The left wants us to compromise away our country!

As Ronald Reagan spoke above , its not a left or right issue . it's an up or down issue.
And the Corps and elites are running the show and buying our politicians.

There are far left , and far right. I argue the Majority of our population are some where sane and in the middle
some a little left of middle , some a little right of middle ...but middle and moderate none the less. But what is
going on here is exactly what TM7 posted , it's class warfare and an up or down tug of war against the middle class.

Stripping collective Bargaining is just another tool of the elites to influence 2012 elections and push their own agenda's above the common mans , it has nothing to do with balancing any budgets.

The Koch brothers have contributed over 34 million to union busting organizations
They have spent over 10 million on lobbyists and campaign donations - 
yep..  I'm sure they have our best interests at heart .

. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
 - George Bush

[Cabin4]

Scoot,
You keep going from the specific case in Wisconsin to general principals espoused by famous people that are directed at the general course of politics, not union negotiations. Of course compromise is part of any negotiation process. You and TM mistakenly think, this current negotiation with the union is singular in nature. It is NOT. It is historical and the negotiation is always on-going. You think Walker is the only one who needs to give in. The unions need to give in as well, for once The Tax payers have never had a place in the negotiation and now they do. We are not going to look at this in the terms of Just Today, it’s about the whole package.

The unions have had the game rigged for years. They have had it ALL their way, their abusive way, their corrupt way  far too long. Now it’s time to compromise, yes. The unions should give in the name compromise, in the art of politics, ect. Your own words, the words of Regan and Jefferson. It is time for retroactive compromise.

[Buckskin]

And the Corps and elites unions are running the show and buying our politicians.

There are far left , and far right. I argue the Majority of our population are some where sane and in the middle
some a little left of middle , some a little right of middle ...but middle and moderate none the less. But what is
going on here is exactly what TM7 posted , it's class warfare and an up or down tug of war against the middle class. I agree, most are in the middle and most right of the left wing nutbags and those so accustom to being protected by the union want collective bargaining restructured.

Stripping collective Bargaining is just another tool of the elites unions to influence the 2012 elections as they have done for decades and push their own agenda's above the common mans , it has nothing to do with balancing any budgets workers rights.

The Koch brothers have contributed over 34 million to union busting organizations
They have spent over 10 million on lobbyists and campaign donations - 
yep..  I'm sure they have our best interests at heart .

That's all well and good, but a quick tally (I'm sure I missed some) of union donations to the donkeys form 1989-2010 was about 524 million. Yeah, I'm sure they have our best interest at heart.  By the way your evil Koch donated 11 million with 10% going to donkeys...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

All that money was taken from union workers and given to the donkeys without their consent.  Don't talk to me about bought politicians....

[scootrd]

Now it’s time to compromise, yes. The unions should give in the name compromise, in the art of politics, ect. Your own words, the words of Regan and Jefferson. It is time for retroactive compromise.

They did , They agreed to all the fiscal concerns the legislature asked for, there is nothing stopping walker from balancing his budget now (and make up for that corporate welfare deficit he himself (maybe not created) but contributed towards and exacerbated.

What they don't agree with is the stripping of collective bargaining.
But the Walkers of the world want no compromise. They want it all
on the backs of the working class.

Aas previously stated ...

I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for....... If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

Ronald Reagan
At least Indiana leaders exhibited some common sense.

All this is nothing more than Radical (not all, just radical ) conservatives doing the bidding of Big Corps. The rest of the Sheeple can follow the big corps down the rabbit hole , cause as I stated they obviously have your best interest in mind and not their own personal bottom line.  I guess it really doesn't matter , we are all going to be Chinese in the end anyways. The Jobs aren't coming back no matter how may tax breaks you give 'em then try to make up for deficits on the backs of the workers.

The humorous thing is in the end when no one makes a livable wage ...there is going to be nobody left that they can sell their wares to anyways.

Hey C4 a bit off topic .. just wondering why you think Koch industries has spent millions to fight EPA regulations through lobbyists and campaign contributions , and just recently our legislators on capital hill have voted to cut EPA funding?

 -  couldn't be because in 2000 Koch Industries was slapped with a $30 million civil penalty, the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal environmental law to resolve claims related to more than 300 oil spills from its pipelines and oil facilities in six states?

Fact is and this is on topic  -  Big Corps want to eliminate any barriers that give them free reign . Collective bargaining , inability to not pay any taxes, any oversight to adhere to regulations.  Walker and the likes are just the puppets doing the business of their corp elite puppet masters.  but hey I could be wrong , I'm sure they just the workers and the countries best interests at heart.

[dukkillr]

Scoot I think you are missing the point.  Actually I think some of the "Conservatives" here are also missing the point, at least as I see it.  In a free Capitalist society people should be paid, particularly by the government, what they are worth.  I do not represent big business, I do not have a room full of gold bars, but my intuitive sense of fairness has always been concerned about the idea that some people are given an unfair bargaining position at the table.  In this country, everyone should be paid what they are worth to their employer.

It isn't about evil rich men, it isn't about evil contributions to democrats, it's about fundamental fairness.

[XD40SC]

Scoot I think you are missing the point.  Actually I think some of the "Conservatives" here are also missing the point, at least as I see it.  In a free Capitalist society people should be paid, particularly by the government, what they are worth.  I do not represent big business, I do not have a room full of gold bars, but my intuitive sense of fairness has always been concerned about the idea that some people are given an unfair bargaining position at the table.  In this country, everyone should be paid what they are worth to their employer.

It isn't about evil rich men, it isn't about evil contributions to democrats, it's about fundamental

fairness.

What if the employer isn't fair and pays less than the workers worth because all the employer cares about is the bottom line. What are the workers to do to get a fair wage?

[Buckskin]

Quote of Scoot - The humorous thing is in the end when no one makes a livable wage ...there is going to be nobody left that they can sell their wares to anyways.

Now how is breaking unions (what 10% of jobs) going to make it so no one can make a livable wage?

Liberals are always trying scare tactics to fool the general public.

Fact is, if your good at your job, you don't need a union...

The only interactions with unions that I've had are when the union reps come on my job site and ask why I'm not using union labor...  I tell them because I have a timeline and a budget to meet... The last one I ran into asked why I was running a Bobcat even though I didn't belong to an operators union?  Told him "because it wasn't required where I rented it from".  Then they always threaten to picket, blah, blah, blah.

[scootrd]

Scoot I think you are missing the point.  Actually I think some of the "Conservatives" here are also missing the point, at least as I see it.  In a free Capitalist society people should be paid, particularly by the government, what they are worth.  I do not represent big business, I do not have a room full of gold bars, but my intuitive sense of fairness has always been concerned about the idea that some people are given an unfair bargaining position at the table.  In this country, everyone should be paid what they are worth to their employer.

It isn't about evil rich men, it isn't about evil contributions to democrats, it's about fundamental fairness.

in a perfect world I would agree, but you cannot stack the deck to buy your own brand of democracy.
The supreme court 5-4 ruling has now allowed Big business unabashed contributions without cap to political campaigns. What's going on now is the Koch's  (and I only use them as an example of all big corps) who most heavily contribute to Republicans want to ensure Unions are busted (who most heavily contribute to Dems) so there will be no challenge to them in 2012.

- in essence stacking the deck, and the Wisconsin state employees are just collateral damage in the larger fight. This has never been about balancing budgets, this is the corp agenda, and they do not have workers best interests in mind. .
As TM rightfully pointed out Wisconsin is a microcosm and the larger issue is a top bottom issue being waged pitting right an left against each other with the majority in the middle looking for balance .

If we want to fix it , overturn the ruling.


 -  just how I see it.

[Buckskin]

Scoot I think you are missing the point.  Actually I think some of the "Conservatives" here are also missing the point, at least as I see it.  In a free Capitalist society people should be paid, particularly by the government, what they are worth.  I do not represent big business, I do not have a room full of gold bars, but my intuitive sense of fairness has always been concerned about the idea that some people are given an unfair bargaining position at the table.  In this country, everyone should be paid what they are worth to their employer.

It isn't about evil rich men, it isn't about evil contributions to democrats, it's about fundamental

fairness.

What if the employer isn't fair and pays less than the workers worth because all the employer cares about is the bottom line. What are the workers to do to get a fair wage?

THEN THOSE WORKERS SHOULD FIND WORK ELSEWHERE!!!  If an employer doesn't pay a decent wage, guess what, probably not going to keep to many good workers.. I've never seen a shortage of people wanting to work for the government, when there is I will reconsider my opinion. 

[Buckskin]

in a perfect world I would agree, but you cannot stack the deck to buy your own brand of democracy.
The supreme court 5-4 ruling has now allowed Big business unabashed contributions without cap to political campaigns. What's going on now is the Koch's  (and I only use them as an example of all big corps) who most heavily contribute to Republicans want to ensure Unions are busted (who most heavily contribute to Dems) so there will be no challenge to them in 2012.

- in essence stacking the deck, and the Wisconsin state employees are just collateral damage in the larger fight. This has never been about balancing budgets, this is the corp agenda, and they do not have workers best interests in mind. .

 -  just how I see it.

You didn't look at that list of all time donor link that I posted did you.  Look at the top donor, Actblue, $54 million all to donkeys... Now look at all the corps that you so despise.  Nearly all of them give a good % to both sides.  The way I see it is that if the unions are controlled it will finally even out contributions.  Right now donkeys are bought and paid for by unions, period.  And if you look at that like there is no way you can honestly deny it..

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[dukkillr]

Scoot I think you are missing the point.  Actually I think some of the "Conservatives" here are also missing the point, at least as I see it.  In a free Capitalist society people should be paid, particularly by the government, what they are worth.  I do not represent big business, I do not have a room full of gold bars, but my intuitive sense of fairness has always been concerned about the idea that some people are given an unfair bargaining position at the table.  In this country, everyone should be paid what they are worth to their employer.

It isn't about evil rich men, it isn't about evil contributions to democrats, it's about fundamental

fairness.

What if the employer isn't fair and pays less than the workers worth because all the employer cares about is the bottom line. What are the workers to do to get a fair wage?

THEN THOSE WORKERS SHOULD FIND WORK ELSEWHERE!!!  If an employer doesn't pay a decent wage, guess what, probably not going to keep to many good workers.. I've never seen a shortage of people wanting to work for the government, when there is I will reconsider my opinion.

Right.  There is no such thing as an unfair employer.  He offers a pay and conditions that are either worth taking or they are not.  We have laws to protect people from abuses of the past.  Anything the union offers today is just artificial inflation of their worker's value.  If that weren't the case, there would be no one in the unions. 

Indeed this conversation has gone that way already.  We've heard from people who fundamentally believe that teaching is so hard that they deserve what they get paid.  And, of course, that is fine.  If that is the market rate for that skill, remove the artificial union protection and pay won't change a bit.  But we all know the truth on that don't we?

There is nothing unfair about being paid what you are worth to your employer.  That is what the economic system in this country is about.

[XD40SC]

It's easy to say get another job; however in this economy one is lucky to have a job. If I have to feed my family, I may work for an unfair wage just to keep food on the table. If employers payed what an worker was worth, there would be no need for mininium wage. To think all employers are more fair than all unions is being very unrealistic.

[dukkillr]

It's easy to say get another job; however in this economy one is lucky to have a job. If I have to feed my family, I may work for an unfair wage just to keep food on the table. If employers payed what an worker was worth, there would be no need for mininium wage. To think all employers are more fair than all unions is being very unrealistic.

You are right, there is no need for minimum wage.  Or rather, the minimum wage is not based in fundamental fairness.  There are people in the work force who are not worth $7.25 an hour.

If you will work for a given wage, that wage is not unfair.  Your situation in life is the demand you bring to the table, and it's not anyone's concern but your own.  I put off having kids and getting married until I was stable in life.  Does a 19 year old dropout with 3 kids some how deserve a better deal than I did at that age?  Nope.  We each had different situations, handled our lives differently, and are going through life with different needs and goals.  If he takes a job at 19 that I wouldn't have, there is nothing unfair about it.

I don't think all employers are fair, nor do I think all unions are unfair.  I think unions exist, within the law, to artifically inflate a person's compensation, above fair market value. 

[Dee]

Gosh dukkillr. I agree with almost everything in your last post. I wonder what's up with that?

[guzzijohn]

I am conflicted. Both Boeing (age discrimination) and Wal-Mart (womens' lack of  pay and advancement compared to males) lost this week to not continue these class action suits. In the Boeing case it was non union workers and of course Wally World is non union. Should these people have to quit (in the Boeing case they didn't have the choice to quit) because they are not happy apparently being screwed by the employer? Would a union prevented this?
GuzziJohn

[Dee]

No, the union would have forced the wages up, and then WalMart would have passed the cost on to the consumer.

[scootrd]

And lets not forget the YO-YO Representative David C. Burns (R – Whiting) trying to pass legislation to abolish Maine child labor laws, minimum wage protection, and the amount of hours a child can work on a school day. This should work to the Walmarts of the worlds advantage. layoff the 30 year old who costs more in wages and affects their bottom line more, then hire two high schoolers in the 30 year old place and pay them less than minimum wage.

of course this goes lockstep with Gov. Paul LePage's (R) removal of the labor-themed mural that he ordered removed from Maine Labor Department headquarters because it wasn't in line with with his "pro-business agenda". I guess a Mural depicting laborers doesn't belong in the department of Labor!!!

yep .. they have our best interests at heart. no need for any kind of unions as they are all passee. No wonder the Wall -marts of the world don't want a union.

It was the Labor unions that fought for child labor laws,  and eliminated child labor sweat shops,  and of course some right wing nut jobs would like to roll the clock back to "the good ole days".

But hey , lets all hang with Walker and Lepage , and Burns et al. They have our backs.. yeah right. Bought and paid for corporation puppet legislators with big business in their pockets and pulling the strings. 

[XD40SC]

Right.  There is no such thing as an unfair employer.
I don't think all employers are fair,

Man, now I'm confused???

[XD40SC]

I am conflicted. Both Boeing (age discrimination) and Wal-Mart (womens' lack of  pay and advancement compared to males) lost this week to not continue these class action suits. In the Boeing case it was non union workers and of course Wally World is non union. Should these people have to quit (in the Boeing case they didn't have the choice to quit) because they are not happy apparently being screwed by the employer? Would a union prevented this?
GuzziJohn

good point

[guzzijohn]

Quote from Dee:

No, the union would have forced the wages up, and then WalMart would have passed the cost on to the consumer.

So it is fine to not pay the female employees as much as males and not advance them like males to keep prices down at Wally World? If they lose the suit it will end up costing them wayyyyy more than if they had treated all alike which then those costs will have to be passed on.
GuzziJohn

[Buckskin]

Quote from Dee:

No, the union would have forced the wages up, and then WalMart would have passed the cost on to the consumer.

So it is fine to not pay the female employees as much as males and not advance them like males to keep prices down at Wally World? If they lose the suit it will end up costing them wayyyyy more than if they had treated all alike which then those costs will have to be passed on.
GuzziJohn

Hmmmm, now that you mention it. How many women do you see in the steamfitters, pipefitters, electrician, etc unions.... 

[guzzijohn]

Quote from Buckskin:

Hmmmm, now that you mention it. How many women do you see in the steamfitters, pipefitters, electrician, etc unions....

Probably not to many attractive ones.
GuzziJohn

[Buckskin]

in a perfect world I would agree, but you cannot stack the deck to buy your own brand of democracy.
The supreme court 5-4 ruling has now allowed Big business unabashed contributions without cap to political campaigns. What's going on now is the Koch's  (and I only use them as an example of all big corps) who most heavily contribute to Republicans want to ensure Unions are busted (who most heavily contribute to Dems) so there will be no challenge to them in 2012.

- in essence stacking the deck, and the Wisconsin state employees are just collateral damage in the larger fight. This has never been about balancing budgets, this is the corp agenda, and they do not have workers best interests in mind. .

 -  just how I see it.

You didn't look at that list of all time donor link that I posted did you.  Look at the top donor, Actblue, $54 million all to donkeys... Now look at all the corps that you so despise.  Nearly all of them give a good % to both sides.  The way I see it is that if the unions are controlled it will finally even out contributions.  Right now donkeys are bought and paid for by unions, period.  And if you look at that like there is no way you can honestly deny it..

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Well Scoot??? No comment? Actually your silence says a lot...

[ironglow]

Quote from Buckskin:

Hmmmm, now that you mention it. How many women do you see in the steamfitters, pipefitters, electrician, etc unions....

Probably not to many attractive ones.
GuzziJohn

  That's probably true Guzzi...Liberal women do suffer when compared to conservative women..

      Take a look !..  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcgaxs_conservative-women-vs-liberal-women_news

   I guess we can understand why the libs look like that...all that bottled up anger...and 'anal retention'..

[XD40SC]

According to that- Muslim women and Amish women must be beautiful.

[Cabin4]

I think unions exist, within the law, to artifically inflate a person's compensation, above fair market value.

As is proof by the decline in union jobs. Business is not going to put up with unfair labor unions. They have a choice and they have a demand placed on them by growing global competitive pressures. State governments don’t have same pressure. They screw over the tax payers endlessly. The tax payers are a bottomless pit. Our countries financial situation is the PROOF. WE SPEND TO MUCH, WE DO NOT TAX TOO LITTLE.

[scootrd]

Well Scoot??? No comment? Actually your silence says a lot...

Actually Buckskin,
(And I'm not being rude just honest) ...I started pretty much just glossing over yours and Billy's  submissions now as I grew weary of reading them not finding much substance in any of the responses.  Just kept going round in a circle and quite frankly was probably just getting old for both of us. 

That said , If I get a chance I will go back and read over whatever it is you asked that must be of some importance  since I must have missed it first time round.  Sorry if I missed something new you contributed to the debate.

[Buckskin]

Well when you get a chance then...

 It is after all easier to gloss over things that dispute your views...

[scootrd]

Well when you get a chance then...

 It is after all easier to gloss over things that dispute your views...

why would I dispute (or even refute for that matter) my own views? 

[DDZ]

It's easy to say get another job; however in this economy one is lucky to have a job. If I have to feed my family, I may work for an unfair wage just to keep food on the table. If employers payed what an worker was worth, there would be no need for mininium wage. To think all employers are more fair than all unions is being very unrealistic.

You are right, there is no need for minimum wage.  Or rather, the minimum wage is not based in fundamental fairness.  There are people in the work force who are not worth $7.25 an hour.

If you will work for a given wage, that wage is not unfair.  Your situation in life is the demand you bring to the table, and it's not anyone's concern but your own.  I put off having kids and getting married until I was stable in life.  Does a 19 year old dropout with 3 kids some how deserve a better deal than I did at that age?  Nope.  We each had different situations, handled our lives differently, and are going through life with different needs and goals.  If he takes a job at 19 that I wouldn't have, there is nothing unfair about it.

I don't think all employers are fair, nor do I think all unions are unfair.  I think unions exist, within the law, to artifically inflate a person's compensation, above fair market value.

Exactly right!

Although I do think that all public unions are unfair, and the majority of others. In a union everyone's wages are the same in a certain pay grade, no matter what individuals bring to the table. Some are under paid and some are over paid. It should be up to the employer to decide who gets what. If you don't like it, go find another job, or educate yourself to make yourself more valuable to the employer.
Many unions make it hard for an employer to fire someone. If a employer doesn't think an employee is valuable to the business, they should be able to fire them. Any more for a employer to fire a union employee they have to be caught stealing, or committing murder. 
One exception is construction unions. Not sure how they are now, but when I worked construction in the 70's and 80's, if you didn't work, you were not there very long. Unions should at least require all their members to put forth an effort and do the best they can, but its all about protecting the useless. and inflating wages above what some employees are worth.