Looks like about 2/3rds of Wisconsin Public Workers... Didn't want their Union.

[cpwill]

bwAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011... Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.

A provision of the Walker law that eliminated automatic dues collection hurt union membership. When a public-sector contract expires the state now stops collecting dues from the affected workers' paychecks unless they say they want the dues taken out, said Peter Davis, general counsel of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission...

That, ladies and gentlemen, was what the fuss was all about - that and crap like forcing school districts to purchase overpriced health insurance policies from the union. It wasn't about the so-called "rights"; it's about the money.

The same thing happened in Indiana when Mitch Daniels allowed public workers to choose whether or not they wanted in, and the wide majority of them turned out not to as well.

Walker is likely going to win his recall. Let us hope that that sets the table for this basic reform to spread further across other states.

 

[haymarket]

The radical right wing war on workers continues unabated.

 

[cpwill]

Interesting. 2/3rds of public workers are radical right wingers?

 

[haymarket]

Interesting. 2/3rds of public workers are radical right wingers?

Is that some sort of Mad Hatter/Wonderland tea party logic?

 

[Thrilla]

The radical right wing war on workers continues unabated.

seems to me like the workers voluntarily bailed out of the union when they were allowed a little freedom.... imagine that.



... but i understand how upsetting that might be to authoritarians.... y'all don't like it people making their own choices in life.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The radical right wing war on workers continues unabated.

That "war" is not on "workers", it is on overly generous compensation and benefits packages supported by tax money to only SOME workers, suppported TOTALLY by the forced taxation of MANY other workers that get no such peachy compensation or benefits. It is a war on unjust income redistribution, gauranteed jobs for life and other union nonsense that has driven up the cost of public services for ONLY the benefit of public employees.

 

[cpwill]

Is that some sort of Mad Hatter/Wonderland tea party logic?

Well, the article discusses public workers leaving the union once granted the freedom to do so, and your response was to go on about right wing radicals. Unless you intend to admit upfront that you are now at the stage of senility where you mutter angrily to yourself, it would be rather logical to assume that your reply was in reference to the OP.

 

[haymarket]

People have an amazing capacity for making a temporary short term choice which they believe gives some some immediate benefit over a long term choice which they pay for but reaps them greater benefit in the long run. Part of that is human nature and part of that is the age we live in where everything is designed for the short term and today.

When the right wing enacted these laws, they knew this would happen. They also knew it had little or nothing to do with the actual workers support of attitude about the union but that short term goals would win out.

Think of it as the Wal Mart shopper who shops there to save short term pennies on toilet tissue and toothpaste knowing that it is THEMSELVES who lost the jobs actually making his stuff.

The right wing is not stupid about this. They have made a calculation that if a union worker can quickly save $500 bucks on union dues this year, many will do it. When the hammer comes down on them a few years down the road and they have a castrated and emasculated union which cannot protect or defend their interests and the light bulb goes off over their heads - it will be too late and the right wingers know it.

Machiavelli would be proud.

 

[Aberration]

Or the temporary short term choice was unions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

People have an amazing capacity for making a temporary short term choice which they believe gives some some immediate benefit over a long term choice which they pay for but reaps them greater benefit in the long run. Part of that is human nature and part of that is the age we live in where everything is designed for the short term and today.

When the right wing enacted these laws, they knew this would happen. They also knew it had little or nothing to do with the actual workers support of attitude about the union but that short term goals would win out.

Think of it as the Wal Mart shopper who shops there to save short term pennies on toilet tissue and toothpaste knowing that it is THEMSELVES who lost the jobs actually making his stuff.

The right wing is not stupid about this. They have made a calculation that if a union worker can quickly save $500 bucks on union dues this year, many will do it. When the hammer comes down on them a few years down the road and they have a castrated and emasculated union which cannot protect or defend their interests and the light bulb goes off over their heads - it will be too late and the right wingers know it.

Machiavelli would be proud.

Or perhaps the public workers just see reality, that a job with "good" pay and benefits lasting long enough to serve as a carreer is better than a job with "great" pay and benefits NOW, but soon apt to be cut, due to its ever escalating costs, leaving them with no pay, benefits or job at all. ;-)

 

[haymarket]

Or the temporary short term choice was unions.

That makes no sense on any level.

 

[Aberration]

That makes no sense on any level.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[haymarket]

Or perhaps the public workers just see reality, that a job with "good" pay and benefits lasting long enough to serve as a carreer is better than a job with "great" pay and benefits NOW, but soon apt to be cut, due to its ever escalating costs, leaving them with no pay, benefits or job at all. ;-)

Ah yes - the never ending race to the bottom where a small bowl of thin gruel is better than no gruel at all. :roll:

 

[haymarket]

Why am I not surprised.

You wrote the statement that made no sense. Perhaps you can tell us why?

 

[Aberration]

You wrote the statement that made no sense. Perhaps you can tell us why?

It made no sense to you. I am not in the position to be telling everyone why you fail to understand something that was so simple.

 

[ksu_aviator]

People have an amazing capacity for making a temporary short term choice which they believe gives some some immediate benefit over a long term choice which they pay for but reaps them greater benefit in the long run. Part of that is human nature and part of that is the age we live in where everything is designed for the short term and today.

And? Does that give you the power to make long term choices for them? Is this some form of justification for a totalitarian like government?

When the right wing enacted these laws, they knew this would happen.

Of course they did. They were voted in to power to do exactly what they did!

They also knew it had little or nothing to do with the actual workers support of attitude about the union but that short term goals would win out.

And? If the voters wanted this short term goal, shouldn't politicians do what they are asked?

 

[Dittohead not!]

bwAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!




That, ladies and gentlemen, was what the fuss was all about - that and crap like forcing school districts to purchase overpriced health insurance policies from the union. It wasn't about the so-called "rights"; it's about the money.

The same thing happened in Indiana when Mitch Daniels allowed public workers to choose whether or not they wanted in, and the wide majority of them turned out not to as well.

Walker is likely going to win his recall. Let us hope that that sets the table for this basic reform to spread further across other states.
[/FONT]

If the union is forcing them to purchase an over priced health insurance, then no wonder they oppose the union.

Do you think that means they don't want a union?

Without one, workers are powerless.

 

[haymarket]

It made no sense to you. I am not in the position to be telling everyone why you fail to understand something that was so simple.

But you still cannot explain it... even though you state it to be "so simple".

Perhaps this is like the "you just gotta believe" that kept Tinkerbell alive?

 

[Ockham]

If the union is forcing them to purchase an over priced health insurance, then no wonder they oppose the union.

Do you think that means they don't want a union?

Without one, workers are powerless.

I'm sure they'd like a union that's not out for themselves but actually want to help it's workers. Powerless? Yeah that's called management.

 

[haymarket]

If the union is forcing them to purchase an over priced health insurance, then no wonder they oppose the union.

Do you think that means they don't want a union?

Without one, workers are powerless.

In Michigan, unionized teachers have an auto insurance organization called MEEMIC. Their rates are among the lowest in the state.

 

[Aberration]

But you still cannot explain it... even though you state it to be "so simple".

Perhaps this is like the "you just gotta believe" that kept Tinkerbell alive?

Or perhaps I don't care to waste the effort to explain it to you.

 

[Dittohead not!]

In Michigan, unionized teachers have an auto insurance organization called MEEMIC. Their rates are among the lowest in the state.

Sounds like a great perk negotiated by the union.

Unions are hired and paid for by the people they represent. If the workers really want to get rid of the union, change to another union, or even go it alone, they have the right to do that. Unions try to keep their clients happy, just like any business has to keep it s clients happy. That's why it's not surprising that 2/3 want to get rid of a union that has imposed an insurance plan that has above market costs, and why it doesn't necessarily mean that they're willing to go it alone.

 

[haymarket]

And? Does that give you the power to make long term choices for them? Is this some form of justification for a totalitarian like government?



Of course they did. They were voted in to power to do exactly what they did!



And? If the voters wanted this short term goal, shouldn't politicians do what they are asked?

Totalitarian like government!?!?!?!?!? Are you being absurd to hopefully make some point? Because I do not see it.

One could question if people vote those into power and clearly envision what will happen. Why else would lies exist?

Politicians do what they want to do.

 

[haymarket]

Or perhaps I don't care to waste the effort to explain it to you.

Perhaps because you are unable to knowing that I do not count myself among the True Believers that worship before that same altar as you do?

 

[haymarket]

Sounds like a great perk negotiated by the union.

Unions are hired and paid for by the people they represent. If the workers really want to get rid of the union, change to another union, or even go it alone, they have the right to do that. Unions try to keep their clients happy, just like any business has to keep it s clients happy. That's why it's not surprising that 2/3 want to get rid of a union that has imposed an insurance plan that has above market costs, and why it doesn't necessarily mean that they're willing to go it alone.

Apparently you misread what I wrote. The unions MEEMIC insurance has rates far below other companies in the business who must make a profit.