Wisconsin Up 17 Spots as Business-friendly State, is it Due to Conservatives?

[Kal'Stang]

walker was claiming poverty, the unions stepped up to the plate, agreed to the economic concessions that walker was seeking, walker could have stopped and claimed victory here, and all would have been well in wisconsin.. instead, walker refused to sit down with the unions, and take the time to get the concessions signed off on, making this totally political....walker went beyond the concessions, telling the unions they were not allowed to bargain on anything economic again...why kal? the unions made the concessions when the state is supposedly hurting, why shouldnt the unions be able to bargain to gain some of those concessions back if and when the state is rolling along great? and why did walker take it upon himself to interfere in union politics, pushing for making them recertify every year? how is that helping his state economy? if someone is unhappy with the union and wishes to decertify, there are procedures in place for them to get a vote for decertification...again, this is helping the state budget....how...??? also, not having the state take out union dues and mailing a check to the unions? exactly how does this help the state economy? this was nothing but politics and very little to do with helping wisconsin's economy/budget.

Lots of questions here. So here goes...

You: telling the unions they were not allowed to bargain on anything economic again...why kal?

You: the unions made the concessions when the state is supposedly hurting, why shouldnt the unions be able to bargain to gain some of those concessions back if and when the state is rolling along great?

Me: These two questions can be answered with the same answer/question. What good would it do to get the budget balanced if the very things that helped ruin the budget were still in place?

So lets say that the contract agreed to all the cuts for one year. (sorry don't know how long the contracts last) The state starts getting a balanced budget. Only the next year the unions decided that since the state is doing so well that they should demand more pay the next year. So what was once a good thing (the cuts) are over ridden and the benefits that they had are wiped out due to the demand for more the following year.

Just putting a bandaid on the problem does not fix the cause of the problem. Would you put a bandaid around the knife sticking in your arm? Or would you pull out the knife and use stitches?

You: and why did walker take it upon himself to interfere in union politics, pushing for making them recertify every year? how is that helping his state economy? if someone is unhappy with the union and wishes to decertify, there are procedures in place for them to get a vote for decertification...again, this is helping the state budget....how...???

Me: I'm not really sure how this process works before Walker or after, so I can't comment on it.

You: also, not having the state take out union dues and mailing a check to the unions? exactly how does this help the state economy?

Easy answer: It saves the state money in time, workers time and pay when they could be doing something else instead. It saves the state money in ink and paper and postage also.

Besides, why should the state take the time to do something which shouldn't even be thier job? Why should a golf club resort require the state to collect membership dues? (note the "golf club resort" are unions")

 

[Barbbtx]

I'm going to make a shameless plug for my candidate here. He's the only one who stood by Walker during the protests. Hmmm...maybe a Cain /Walker ticket?

 

[ptif219]

nu uh. he also wants them to pay for a tiny portion of their benefit package, placing him a little right of the devil if i'm reading the thoughts from the left correctly.

you mean he wants it to be like what the rest of the country gets rather than a Cadillac package?

 

[ptif219]

I think you missed the point. CEO's would not be CEO's without the common workers.

Common workers would not have a job if CEO'S did not make a profit

 

[Kal'Stang]

Common workers would not have a job if CEO'S did not make a profit

The circle of life man. It is a symbiotic relationship. However a case could be made that CEO's need workers more than workers need CEO's. After all, the workers could just open up a mom and pop shop.

 

[xpiher]

This has nothing to do with contracts being honored. When a teacher gets hired, they are covered by the contract in force and effected by future contract changes after it expires. You actually think that a first-year teacher is guaranteed a full pension? You don't understand pensions.

If "the next contract a year later" cuts the pension in half, that teacher is "paid" what it would cost to fund a full pension for the first year he worked, and future benefits are funded at the new contract's promise -- in my example, 50%. A first-year contract is not a lifetime commitment. Neither is a 10-year or 20-year. But the district does have to "buy out" the teachers as I indicated above.

Thats how contracts WORK. So you don't believe those contracts should be honored then.

Common workers would not have a job if CEO'S did not make a profit

Theres a difference between making a profit and raking everyone over the coals while doing it. Thats what the big business community wants to be able to do. They only care about profit. Thats the evil maximum warned by the inventor of capitalism, and why he said the community must be involved and informed. Never trust any law coming out of the busniess community's mouth, they aren't on your side, its not in their interest to be on your side - its counter productive to their very existence.

If only we listened.

 

[ptif219]

The circle of life man. It is a symbiotic relationship. However a case could be made that CEO's need workers more than workers need CEO's. After all, the workers could just open up a mom and pop shop.

With no workers where would the products come from? You view would not work. The workers need the job.

 

[ptif219]

Thats how contracts WORK. So you don't believe those contracts should be honored then.




Theres a difference between making a profit and raking everyone over the coals while doing it. Thats what the big business community wants to be able to do. They only care about profit. Thats the evil maximum warned by the inventor of capitalism, and why he said the community must be involved and informed. Never trust any law coming out of the busniess community's mouth, they aren't on your side, its not in their interest to be on your side - its counter productive to their very existence.

If only we listened.

Wrong the unions are out of control and hold companies hostage. The democrats support this because of all the money and votes the unions get them by over charging it's members

 

[xpiher]

Wrong the unions are out of control and hold companies hostage. The democrats support this because of all the money and votes the unions get them by over charging it's members

Do you even know who I was paraphrasing?

 

[maquiscat]

But hey! Here's a compromise that I would consider to be a good one...I'm sure Walker would agree. IF what the Unions say is true and they want collective bargaining rights because of safety issues, work condition issues etc etc then I would be quite happy to support keeping THOSE issues available to be bargained about.However on the flip side any bargaining for how much union employee's are paid, thier pensions, insurance etc etc would not be available to be bargained about. This way all the issues that they claim is what bargaining is actually about (ie not about the money) can be addressed and yet all of the things that collective bargaining rights are NOT about (ie money) can be done away with. And we can just tie raises and such to cost of living raises. This will still address all safety issues and yet will, in the long run, help keep the state from going into the hole.

Didn't I already note that the bill still left these rights in place? Maybe I need to go back and look at the bill again or something, but I would have sworn that it only removed the collective bargaining right for fiscal issues.

walker was claiming poverty, the unions stepped up to the plate, agreed to the economic concessions that walker was seeking, walker could have stopped and claimed victory here, and all would have been well in wisconsin.. instead, walker refused to sit down with the unions, and take the time to get the concessions signed off on, making this totally political....walker went beyond the concessions, telling the unions they were not allowed to bargain on anything economic again...why kal? the unions made the concessions when the state is supposedly hurting, why shouldnt the unions be able to bargain to gain some of those concessions back if and when the state is rolling along great?

Again, a point I thought I already addressed. Maybe I'm confusing my threads, but for the record. The unions refused to sit down with Walker until AFTER the election when they saw that he had the votes in the legislature. Then they started talking fiscal cuts while trying to get the lame duck session to pass some last minute contracts.

also, not having the state take out union dues and mailing a check to the unions? exactly how does this help the state economy? this was nothing but politics and very little to do with helping wisconsin's economy/budget.

The money saving points that Kal gave aside, are you saying that each member shouldn't have to see and feel how much they are forking over to the unions? It's the same principle as why income taxes are taken out instead of people paying it themselves. If you have to actually write that check and watch that money go away, you're going to demand that it is well spent and pay attention to what the union is doing.

 

[Badmutha]

Badmutha lowering taxs on oil corps so they wont gouge us is as much wishful thinking as me getting 6 young gorgeous women to be my groupies...lol

All it takes to get them out of here is the belief they will make an xtra buck...

Which would be akin to saying you would leave the country for an extra dollar..........

.......of course maybe the decision would be easier for you.........if government was seizing 50% of the fruits of your labor.
.
.
.
.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Didn't I already note that the bill still left these rights in place? Maybe I need to go back and look at the bill again or something, but I would have sworn that it only removed the collective bargaining right for fiscal issues.

If you did I must have missed it. Thanks though, I haven't read the bill personally. So, since it only removed the collective bargaining right for fiscal issues and left the rest intact...well...kind of obvious huh?