One Down 7 to go - Hopper up for Recall

[lpast]

Do you feel the same about athletes, actors, artists, writers,........Charlie Sheen getting millions for a half hour sitcom and now millions just for talking nonsense?

To a degree but all of the above work on their own and have to perform or they dont work.

Ceo's on the other have locked in contracts where they make millions even when they fail and in some cases give themselves raises when they fail.
The CEO of Goldman Sachs is a perfect example of that...the companies numbers went down across the board and they took taxpayer bailout money and his pay was doubled.
AIG who just about started the bailout ball rolling got billions in bailouts and then gave huge bonus' to the CEOs and top executives...
Seriously whos kidding who here, even the most conservative knows they are ridiculously overpaid in many cases...These are NOT BUSINESS OWNERS that put their arse on the line and their treasure to create a business, they are people that walked in the door got a huge contract and get paid even if they fail and many instances get bonus's on top of it.
We accuse liberals of being dishonest many times and they are...this blind devotion to ceo's and the defense of everyting they do is absurd, theres tons of evidence to show different but its ignored

 

[SheWolf]

Your a fool and I refuse to exchange with a fool

 

[lpast]

I agree good post

 

[justabubba]

Thats a fairytale most of the investors dont have a clue...theres a handful of people that have any inkling of whats going on...and the investors couldnt do a th ing about it anyway in most cases

more than a bit of irony in that post, since it epitomizes cluelessness

news flash: shareholders are the business owners. you have been unable to explain why the compensation they pay their CEOs deserves to be of more concern to you than to the folks who actually pay the CEO salary and benefits

 

[Barbbtx]

To a degree but all of the above work on their own and have to perform or they dont work.

Ceo's on the other have locked in contracts where they make millions even when they fail and in some cases give themselves raises when they fail.
The CEO of Goldman Sachs is a perfect example of that...the companies numbers went down across the board and they took taxpayer bailout money and his pay was doubled.
AIG who just about started the bailout ball rolling got billions in bailouts and then gave huge bonus' to the CEOs and top executives...
Seriously whos kidding who here, even the most conservative knows they are ridiculously overpaid in many cases...These are NOT BUSINESS OWNERS that put their arse on the line and their treasure to create a business, they are people that walked in the door got a huge contract and get paid even if they fail and many instances get bonus's on top of it.
We accuse liberals of being dishonest many times and they are...this blind devotion to ceo's and the defense of everyting they do is absurd, theres tons of evidence to show different but its ignored

I don't have a blind devotion to CEO's. For the most part, I don't think it's any of my business how much someone is paid.
The ones who took bailouts AND huge bonuses are our business. However, it was Chris Dodd who made them possible to the dismay of the taxpayers.

 

[lpast]

I don't have a blind devotion to CEO's. For the most part, I don't think it's any of my business how much someone is paid.
The ones who took bailouts AND huge bonuses are our business. However, it was Chris Dodd who made them possible to the dismay of the taxpayers.

It should be as much your business when a company that makes 14 billion and doesnt pay one dime in taxs instead gets a tax credit as the what public workers make.

I dont care what CEOs make, I think you misconstrue my position. I care about what they take from workers to enhance themselves.

Barb theres more working class republicans than there are rich ones...rich republicans on thier own couldnt elect a candidate to dogcatcher.

I am against this attack on workers...Not the attack on unions. I fully realize unions support and give millions to mostly democrats. I am against agency shop laws forcing employees into joining unions. I am against unions being allowed to take out political attack ads....

 

[lpast]

more than a bit of irony in that post, since it epitomizes cluelessness

news flash: shareholders are the business owners. you have been unable to explain why the compensation they pay their CEOs deserves to be of more concern to you than to the folks who actually pay the CEO salary and benefits

Cluelessness huh..lol...most investors in big corps are lots of little guys whos pensions invest in the corp or mutual funds...you think all investors are BIG investors that sit in at board meetings...lol...ok

 

[ptif219]

Indeed. I usually lean conservative. But I will not support any candidate or political party which engages in union busting.

The famous lines from Pastor Martin Niemoller come to mind:

So the unions are more important than the financial burden on the taxpayers. All Wisconsin really did was limit the amount of a raise. I think all states should be the same as the feds. The feds union can not bargain on raises that is how Obama could freeze fed wages

 

[justabubba]

So the unions are more important than the financial burden on the taxpayers. All Wisconsin really did was limit the amount of a raise. I think all states should be the same as the feds. The feds union can not bargain on raises that is how Obama could freeze fed wages

clearly, you have missed it
limiting the amount of compensation of state employees is NOT all that was done via the legislation pushed thru in wisconsin
the unions agreed to such compensation limits; had that been all the republicans were seeking, that was conceded early on
what was pushed thru was the termination of union representation ... such that the contract terms between management and labor were unilaterally abrogated

 

[Henrin]

clearly, you have missed it
limiting the amount of compensation of state employees is NOT all that was done via the legislation pushed thru in wisconsin
the unions agreed to such compensation limits; had that been all the republicans were seeking, that was conceded early on
what was pushed thru was the termination of union representation ... such that the contract terms between management and labor were unilaterally abrogated

But we are the management and they are the labor and we had no players on the field. How are we represented? The problem wasn't just money in the budget, but the future outlook of the situation, and the representation of the people in the deal.

Do you honestly think its fair to bargain with owners that have no representation at the table? Would you even call that bargaining?

 

[justabubba]

But we are the management and they are labor and we had no players on the field. How are we represented? The problem wasn't just money in the budget, but the future outlook of the situation, and the represenation of the people in the deal.

there is never a labor-management contract negotiated where management and labor are not both represented at the table. additionally, both sides executed the contract:

ARTICLE XV
GENERAL
SECTION 1: Obligation to Bargain
15/1/1 This Agreement represents the entire Agreement of the parties and shall
supersede all previous agreements, written or verbal. The parties agree that the
provisions of this Agreement shall supersede any provisions of the rules of the
Administrator and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission relating to
any of the subjects of collective bargaining contained herein when the provisions of
such rules differ with this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that, during the
negotiations which resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and
opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any subject or matter
not removed by law from the area of collective bargaining, and that all of the
understandings and agreements arrived at by the parties after the exercise of that
right and opportunity are set forth in this Agreement. Therefore, the Employer and
the Union, for the life of this Agreement and any extension, each voluntarily and
unqualifiedly waives the right, and each agrees that the other shall not be obligated
to bargain collectively with respect to any subject or matter referred to or covered in
this Agreement, or with respect to any subject or matter not specifically referred to
or covered in this Agreement, even though such subject or matter may not have
been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the
time that they negotiated or signed this Agreement.

as can be seen, labor and management agreed that the contract shall be binding, and those items not addressed in the signed contract could not be unilaterally established
http://oser.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=6865

 

[Henrin]

So the politician getting money from the union represents the people. I would love to see you go to a table to bargain with people that are paying you to get their way. To put it simply if you like pretty much anyone else on the planet you will not really bargain but give unreasonably.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So the politician getting money from the union represents the people. I would love to see you go to a table to bargain with people that are paying you to get their way. To put it simply if you like pretty much anyone else on the planet you will not really bargain but give unreasonably.

Union members are people too

 

[cpgrad08]

Union members are people too

I want the facts on that. =)

 

[Henrin]

Union members are people too

So? What is the reason for this post? I'm not aware of it? Look, I'm aware they are people, and I'm aware the politicians are people, but I'm also aware that there are supposed to be two teams here and the owners, aka everyone else, is not supposed to have no representation at the table.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So? What is the reason for this post? I'm not aware of it? Look, I'm aware they are people, and I'm aware the politicians are people, but I'm also aware that there are supposed to be two teams here and the owners, aka everyone else, is not supposed to have no representation at the table.

I found it interesting that you made a distinction between union members and the people.

 

[justabubba]

So the politician getting money from the union represents the people. I would love to see you go to a table to bargain with people that are paying you to get their way. To put it simply if you like pretty much anyone else on the planet you will not really bargain but give unreasonably.

you got your wish
as a federal employee, representing the union, i sat at the bargaining table across from the people who signed (authorization for) my paycheck
this is the nature of the union. the union rep - while a rep - has the same authority as the manager
but when not acting in a representative capacity that individual is a subordinate employee, often to the same manager with whom he just negotiated
because of this, the reality is that an employee who becomes an officer of the union will often kill their own career

now, management gets to select who represents it during negotiations, just as the union gets to select its own representative(s)
there are some enlightened managers (and unionists) who recognize that the organization works best when labor and management can cooperate. my experience was this often resulted in interest based bargaining instead of traditional bargaining

the management representative sits at the bargaining table recognizing that whatever it concedes to labor will come at a cost to management. that is especially true in traditional bargaining situations. less so, when interest-based bargaining results

as i have expressed previously, the real gripe that the reich wingers have, if they find the resulting contract objectionable, is with the individuals the government of wisconsin selected to represent management
similarly, union members who wind up with a bad contract outcome have only their own representatives to blame
this anger against unions and union members is misplaced
it should be redirected toward the politicians who were found to have made poor management hiring decisions

 

[Henrin]

How does that discredit what I said?

Just because you shift blame where I already put it, btw, and explained the process to me like I'm five years old doesn't mean you taught me anything or proved me wrong.

 

[Henrin]

I found it interesting that you made a distinction between union members and the people.

The interests are different, the sides are opposite. There is a distinction.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The interests are different, the sides are opposite. There is a distinction.

union members are a subset of the people.

 

[Henrin]

union members are a subset of the people.

Again, so what? This line of argument of yours has no where to go and is completely meaningless. I'm sure you are aware that people get split up into groups, and even if you are against it, in this cause it happened when the union split off from the people and started to demand things from them. It wasn't people like myself that did it or is responsible for it. Me saying the reality of the situation and treating it like a reality is me understanding the situation and treating it accordingly. You appear to believe that everyone is the people here and even if there is clearly more than one part of the people in play and they clearly aren't on the same side that because they are originally from the same team that its unfair to treat it as if they aren't. Well I'm sorry, but that is how it is when you create splits and teams. Unions are their own group with their own interests, sorry.

If we treat them like we are them and we aren't the boss, in which we clearly are, does that mean we supposed to allow them to get whatever they want and bankrupt the country and all its states(I know they gave in this but without a power shift they will get it back pretty quick)? if we are going to be the bosses and allow government workers to have unions we have to keep in mind affordability and we have to keep in mind our budget. Treating business like a lollipop is no way to run a business and treating a government the same is no way to run a government.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Again, so what? This line of argument of yours has no where to go and is completely meaningless. I'm sure you are aware that people get split up into groups, and even if you are against it, in this cause it happened when the union split off from the people and started to demand things from them. It wasn't people like myself that did it or is responsible for it. Me saying the reality of the situation and treating it like a reality is me understanding the situation and treating it accordingly. You appear to believe that everyone is the people here and even if there is clearly more than one part of the people in play and they clearly aren't on the same side that because they are originally from the same team that its unfair to treat it as if they aren't. Well I'm sorry, but that is how it is when you create splits and teams. Unions are their own group with their own interests, sorry.

If we treat them like we are them and we aren't the boss, in which we clearly are, does that mean we supposed to allow them to get whatever they want and bankrupt the country and all its states(I know they gave in this but without a power shift they will get it back pretty quick)? if we are going to be the bosses and allow government workers to have unions we have to keep in mind affordability and we have to keep in mind our budget. Treating business like a lollipop is no way to run a business and treating a government the same is no way to run a government.

I guess I will just spell it out for you instead of playing around then. The faulty assumption on your part is that it is unions vs the people when it is logically impossible because unions are part of the people. In reality, the argument is between those who support unions (which will likely include those who are union members as well as sympathizers) and people who do not support the unions. By saying its unions vs the people you are falsly making the people who are against the antiunion legislation to be a minority by your rhetoric when objective polling has shown that to not be the case when one looks at how approval ratings have dropped for Walker and the state Republicans.

 

[lpast]

The argument that owners need a fair playing field is nonesense, they own the field, its their field, the workers are trying to get a fair share from owners that want to keep it, for example.

At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives’ compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CEO pay soars while workers' pay stalls - USATODAY.com

The owners and boss's represent themselves and just take what they want with no opposition, its the workers that need the ability to negotiate without being dictated too. To make a statement that the People in charge that hold all the marbles have no representation is beyond ludicrous

Its as ludicrous as stating Police Officers are a dime a dozen, when statistically 89% of applicants to be Police Officers cant make the cut.

 

[Henrin]

Will you please stop mentioning CEO's as if they are owners? CEO's are employees with contracts with raises in them before hand. Try to remember that.

 

[Henrin]

I guess I will just spell it out for you instead of playing around then. The faulty assumption on your part is that it is unions vs the people when it is logically impossible because unions are part of the people. In reality, the argument is between those who support unions (which will likely include those who are union members as well as sympathizers) and people who do not support the unions. By saying its unions vs the people you are falsly making the people who are against the antiunion legislation to be a minority by your rhetoric when objective polling has shown that to not be the case when one looks at how approval ratings have dropped for Walker and the state Republicans.

Oh jesus. So basically you don't understand that you are actually not part of the unions. If you agree with them or not does not make you not part of owners side. Its still you again them as they are still using your money. Its pretty basic stuff going on here, why you must muddy it up is beyond me. If you accept your part in the play is all on you. You refusing your part is just going to allow the union and politicians to use you.

You do know you would be the worst business owner ever, right?