Mayor Snorkum
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 317
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Perhaps the non-union employee should look into how the union employee elevated themselves to having decent wages, adequate retirement, nice housing, enough food for their families, health insurance, etc. and strive to achieve that level, rather than trying to bring that group down to the non-union level of bare subsistence.
all of which he could have sat down and negotiated over, and possibly, had gotten more in the way of concessions than he planned on....i had no problem with him asking them to pay more for their retirement/medical, but pray tell, why did he see fit to have to make them 'certify' every year? certification is an internal union matter, with provisions set up for decertification votes if enough of the membership wanted to be rid of the union....and not why not have the government collect the dues? that is standard procedure in most union contracts that the employer collect the dues and mail a check to the union every month...?? union busting, plain and simple.
You mean, the level everyone else in the state is working to, and the level which the unions are making it more difficult if not impossible for all the other workers in the state to achieve because the unions are bankrupting the states?
for the representation, a fair price to have a voice.
That post seems a little socialist in nature
It certainly has class envy in it
I've heard that WI teachers pay over 1000 annually in union dues. divided by 12 = $83.00. I think it would annoy the hell out of me to have to write an $83.00 check every month.
Socialism...the religious belief disguised as ideology that property does not exist and that all workers should possess in common their places of employment and their women.
No, nothing socialist in what I post.
Certainly nothing envious shown about people who resort to mob violence when told they're harming their state and the state needs to remove their illegal power to corrupt politicians becuase they're bankrupting the state by their excesses.
The following letter is being sent out from Wisconsin Unions/THE MOB to Wisconsin Business Owners.......
Taking "Put the money in the bag.....or were gonna shut you down" to a whole new level.
This ****ing disgusts me.....these power hungry union slobs are a disgrace to this country......and piss poor excuses for Americans. A Union of little thug dictators.......its no wonder they prostitute for The Democrat Party and The Kenyan Tyrant. Birds of a feather....
.
.
.
.
We need to be careful to not have an unbalanced approach to unions. Their existence is needed, but their existence needs proper reforms.
There is no point in striving to be the world's #1 economy if our people are living in squallor and can't make ends meet. Unions ensure that work environments are safe and that wages are competitive. Where they fall short is in blocking desperately needed reforms to businesses and the public sector.
A new balance is needed between employers, unions, and government. The status quo isn't working anymore. Unions have used their power to maximize personal gain, often for no rational reason other than making more money.
It was unions that built the middle class
Those dirty capitalists trying to make as much money as they can. Dont they know they should share the wealth to the non union members
Those dirty capitalists trying to make as much money as they can. Dont they know they should share the wealth to the non union members
The former right to bargain collectively suffers further decline.
One of the goals seems to be limiting the amount of money union donate to political campaigns, something that has been removed from Corporation
So companies get to buy the politicians, but not unions
union shops bring up the wages of non-union shops that do similar work in their area, that is a benefit to those in non-union shops, and as a whole, thanks to unions, benefits are better for everyone.
i know many here , the hardcore 'conservatives' are happy with the way wisconsin turned out, but rest assured, that battle isnt over by a longshot...why are those hardcore 'conservatives' happy with what happened? because they see it as a crippling blow to the democrats, that will hurt them financially come the next election.
if these 'conservatives' were honest in public, they would admit that what walker did was union busting, and had very precious little to do with 'balancing the budget' as walker claimed
i think you are thinking of the 1920's. that's when we saw the birth of the middle class. union membership growing and peaking has actually been typically associated with lower growth and higher unemployment, which harm the middle class. the corporatist National Industrial Recovery Act, for example, held wages and prices at 25% above their market levels, resulting in high unemployment and collapsed standards of living.
glad to help
the governor overstepped by a country mile...simple union busting is all this was.
According to statistics the period of least income inequality (strongest middle class) was from 1944 to 1980.
This is specious reasoning, as it's not about wealth, but quality control. Jobs are a privilege, not a right. If people aren't performing they should be fired or at least held back. Unions are making it so that people can coast through the seniority ladder with no merit to justify it, and at the same time get increasingly higher salaries.
The union battles right now are about state budgets vs. union employees, so it's about money in this case, but the battle has been brewing for a while. They want to have their cake and eat it too and that's just not the way the economy works sometimes.
Jobs are not a right of course
The ability to sell your goods or services is. If you choose to combine the selling of your labour along with other people within the same employer you should be able to. If you and your associated decide to hold out on providing your service to the company it is their right. If you and your associates make a contract with the employer that they will only use the services provided by you or your associates that is a right
Having the government mandate that Dell has to use Intell chips along with AMD computer chips is a violation of Intel and of Dells rights to form contracts. If at the end of said contract the buyer of said goods or services does not want to purchase those goods or services (in this case labour) by all means dont buy those services.
Overall in a capitalist system everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. Greed is good, is it not. What I object to is the method of trying to limit the union. If the gov of wisconsin tried just to actually drive a hard bargin and lower compensation I would be fine with that. He took a cowards way out because he does not have the stomach to lock out the union as a means to drive down compensation costs
You are complaining about how much a certain group of people are making over what typical people earn. When people did this against the bankers and other highly paid executives it was called socialism. You want them to make what everyone else is making (spread the wealth baby) which sounds darn socialist
What about corporations ability to corrupt politicians, they typically have far more money to buy off politicians then unions
We need to be careful to not have an unbalanced approach to unions. Their existence is needed, but their existence needs proper reforms.
There is no point in striving to be the world's #1 economy if our people are living in squallor and can't make ends meet. Unions ensure that work environments are safe and that wages are competitive. Where they fall short is in blocking desperately needed reforms to businesses and the public sector.
A new balance is needed between employers, unions, and government. The status quo isn't working anymore. Unions have used their power to maximize personal gain, often for no rational reason other than making more money.
Thanks for your opinion! :sun
According to statistics the period of least income inequality (strongest middle class) was from 1944 to 1980.
Doesnt matter who is the employerSocialism is an act of theft. If people are abusing the power of government to unconstitutionally limit the salaries and compensations earned by others, then they're accomplices in that theft.
The problem with your argument is that bankers aren't employed by the government.
And this is where the socialism comes in. People in free markets are not paid what they are worth, they are paid what they can get for their services (excluding min wage laws of course). Next thing you will want sports athletes to have their salaries limited and those of upper managementPublic workers are employed by people who, by some strange magic, earn the median wage. The government employees aren't doing anything special, in most cases they're mediocre performers. No reason why, just because they managed to extort closed shops and kick back millions of dollars to the politicians who are supposed to be representing the people's interests, not the unions, they should be thought of as "deserving" those extorted higher wages.
They should get what ever they can negotiate for from the employer. Paying what they are worth is darn similar to paying what they need (communism)There's no reason whatsoever a government employee should be getting paid statistically more than the serfs laboring away to pay the taxes to fund the union member's paycheck, pension, and perks.
The defining phrase can be found from the mouth of an old, old Republican.
The government is "by the people, of the people, and for the people".
Not "for the unions".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?