Charles Woodson and Wis. Protesters

YoKramer

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
319
Reaction score
29
Location
Charlotte, NC
From what I understand on the topic (not getting much attention here in Charlotte) the Unions CB isnt being taken away just changed correct? Still able to CB for pay just not retirement and medical. So why does everyone make the argument that the Unions are being stopped from CBs.
 

LombardiChick

Win or lose, I love this team.
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
654
Location
PLANET EARTH
From what I understand on the topic (not getting much attention here in Charlotte) the Unions CB isnt being taken away just changed correct? Still able to CB for pay just not retirement and medical. So why does everyone make the argument that the Unions are being stopped from CBs.

You're generally correct, though it would be more accurate to say that the only thing they'll be able to collectively bargain is salary - because I think the bill takes away their ability to CB all other details, like the terms of their working environment. (Please correct me, someone, if I'm mistaken.) The bill would require them to contribute a slightly larger amount to their own healthcare and pension funds, to avoid layoffs.

Also, as I understand it: Wisconsin's state constitution requires that lawmakers balance the state's budget.

Even some liberals, like the cartoonist whose work I posted a page or two back, think the teachers unions are being hysterical.

One side note: I've recently read that even FDR - generally a hero to the left - was against collective bargaining for public employees. Perhaps we're seeing one reason why.
 

fettpett

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
928
Reaction score
200
Location
Exile in SW Michigan
You're generally correct, though it would be more accurate to say that the only thing they'll be able to collectively bargain is salary - because I think the bill takes away their ability to CB all other details, like the terms of their working environment. (Please correct me, someone, if I'm mistaken.) The bill would require them to contribute a slightly larger amount to their own healthcare and pension funds, to avoid layoffs.

Also, as I understand it: Wisconsin's state constitution requires that lawmakers balance the state's budget.

Even some liberals, like the cartoonist whose work I posted a page or two back, think the teachers unions are being hysterical.

One side note: I've recently read that even FDR - generally a hero to the left - was against collective bargaining for public employees. Perhaps we're seeing one reason why.

yep, FDR wrote this letter:
Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service

August 16, 1937

Mr. Luther C. Steward
President, National Federation of Federal Employees
10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Very sincerely yours,

[Franklin Roosevelt
President United States]
 

jkrelt

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
109
Reaction score
13
You're correct, YoKramer. The CB would be restricted to just pay. However, this is a pressing issue because it is viewed as an unjust political power play; only diminishing worker rights of unions that did not support Walker for Governor (nurses, teachers, etc...) while protecting rights of unions that gave him campaign funding (police & firefigheters) but more importantly, it is also expected to create a domino effect across the nation; for example, in states like Ohio where the legislature has just proposed to effectively end CB for state workers:

On Tuesday morning in Ohio, protesters from across the state began arriving in Columbus, as the state capital braced for the arrival of huge crowds of pro-union demonstrators. The legislature has planned new hearings on a bill that would effectively end collective bargaining for state workers and dramatically reduce bargaining power for local workers, like police officers and firefighters.
NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/us/23wisconsin.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
Why are we broke? Ask the Liberals why we pay so much in taxes and why we're broke. Their answers are AMAZING.

we dont pay that much in taxes if you look at things historically. Obama wants to go back to clinton era tax levels and people think thats crazy.

How soon people forget that we paid over 90% in the 50s for the top bracket.
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
we dont pay that much in taxes if you look at things historically. Obama wants to go back to clinton era tax levels and people think thats crazy.

How soon people forget that we paid over 90% in the 50s for the top bracket.

Right, but there were all kinds of tax loopholes and legal shelters that brought that percentage down to a much more reasonable level. Now those loopholes and shelters are closed, so a 90% model wouldn't work.

The problem isn't with the amount of taxes we pay so much as how that money is managed and the level of entitlements it's created. The Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, for example, was never meant to be permanent. With more money going out than going in, it's insolvent in it's structure and is currently one of the biggest drains on our tax resources to date.
 

LombardiChick

Win or lose, I love this team.
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
654
Location
PLANET EARTH
Wow...Democrats in Indiana have left their state now, rather than vote on their budget. It's as if they can't accept the results of the 2010 election. Not good.
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
Every state has lost money gambling in interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, etc. just like the federal government. It is the reason we are where we are. It isn't isolated.

Walker's actions are more like putting a tourniquet on a wound instead of a bandaid. Eventually the limb dies with a tourniquet.

And public workers unions are a limb that need to die.
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
You're correct, YoKramer. The CB would be restricted to just pay. However, this is a pressing issue because it is viewed as an unjust political power play; only diminishing worker rights of unions that did not support Walker for Governor (nurses, teachers, etc...) while protecting rights of unions that gave him campaign funding (police & firefigheters) but more importantly, it is also expected to create a domino effect across the nation; for example, in states like Ohio where the legislature has just proposed to effectively end CB for state workers:

On Tuesday morning in Ohio, protesters from across the state began arriving in Columbus, as the state capital braced for the arrival of huge crowds of pro-union demonstrators. The legislature has planned new hearings on a bill that would effectively end collective bargaining for state workers and dramatically reduce bargaining power for local workers, like police officers and firefighters.
NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/us/23wisconsin.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Or it's a smart, strategic move. There's no way he could afford to have police and fire fighters go on strike, so go after the battle you can win now, and then go win the next one later.

What he needs to do is pass a law that says it'll illegal for public workers to walk off the job, and doing so will get you fired. Then he can use that leverage to go after the firefighters and police officers.
 

LombardiChick

Win or lose, I love this team.
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
654
Location
PLANET EARTH
we dont pay that much in taxes if you look at things historically. Obama wants to go back to clinton era tax levels and people think thats crazy.

How soon people forget that we paid over 90% in the 50s for the top bracket.

People don't want to have to find extra money for government right now, and I don't blame them.

A couple of questions for anyone who cares to answer (not looking for a debate, so I won't challenge any answers - just curious what people think): What percentage of your income do you think is reasonable to pay in taxes? What should Tax Freedom Day be in your state? (This refers to the day of the year you've worked in which your tax burden is satisfied. How many days per year do you think it's reasonable to work to support government?)
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
Right, but there were all kinds of tax loopholes and legal shelters that brought that percentage down to a much more reasonable level. Now those loopholes and shelters are closed, so a 90% model wouldn't work.

The problem isn't with the amount of taxes we pay so much as how that money is managed and the level of entitlements it's created. The Ponzi scheme known as Social Security, for example, was never meant to be permanent. With more money going out than going in, it's insolvent in it's structure and is currently one of the biggest drains on our tax resources to date.

there still are all kinds of tax loopholes and shelters today. always has been loopholes.

Lets put it this way, its alot easier for me to find loopholes and pay less as I have been more successful than when I was a working stiff.

Reguardless of what you think I think most people agree the tax code needs to be simplified.
 

fettpett

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
928
Reaction score
200
Location
Exile in SW Michigan
there still are all kinds of tax loopholes and shelters today. always has been loopholes.

Lets put it this way, its alot easier for me to find loopholes and pay less as I have been more successful than when I was a working stiff.

Reguardless of what you think I think most people agree the tax code needs to be simplified.

Fair Tax, simple and we know how much comes in each year, prices fall wages go up, income goes up.
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
there still are all kinds of tax loopholes and shelters today. always has been loopholes.

Lets put it this way, its alot easier for me to find loopholes and pay less as I have been more successful than when I was a working stiff.

Reguardless of what you think I think most people agree the tax code needs to be simplified.

Oh, no argument from me that the tax code needs to be simplified. I see no reason why we shouldn't go to a flat taxing system, rather than a progressive system, and call it good.

And yes, there are still all kinds of loopholes and shelters for people to stash money, but not nearly as many as there used to be.
 

Calhoun Lambeau

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
93
Reaction score
12
Location
Menasha, WI
Full disclosure- I *HATE* unions. I think they're corrupt, vile leeches who really serve no purpose in today's society other than to extort business until they bleed them dry.

I think you have this wrong.

"I HATE corporations. I think they're corrupt, vile leeches who really serve no purpose in today's society other than to extort society until they bleed them dry."

There's a reason why 90% of our society has remained financially stagnant over the past 30 years. Corporations have taken over, squashed private sector unions, made record profits, slashed pay/benefits. I mean the writing's on the wall, all the rules favor big business, it's all about the bottom line, the middle class is dying while companies are making a killing paying pennies for manufacturing. But of course, the unions are evil. Unions are hardly perfect, good and bad, but come on, corporations are bamboozling this country and laughing all the way to the bank while most of this country is scrimping for everything. It's a ******* joke.
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
I think you have this wrong.

"I HATE corporations. I think they're corrupt, vile leeches who really serve no purpose in today's society other than to extort society until they bleed them dry."

There's a reason why 90% of our society has remained financially stagnant over the past 30 years. Corporations have taken over, squashed private sector unions, made record profits, slashed pay/benefits.

I mean the writing's on the wall, all the rules favor big business, it's all about the bottom line, the middle class is dying while companies are making a killing paying pennies for manufacturing. But of course, the unions are evil. Unions are hardly perfect, good and bad, but come on, corporations are bamboozling this country and laughing all the way to the bank while most of this country is scrimping for everything.

It's a ******* joke.

No, pretty sure I have it right. I will side with corporations over unions every single day of the week.

Do me a favor, and don't try to correct me, ok?
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj7ZHrYL28M&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - When is the last time you saw such a CEO[/ame]
 

Calhoun Lambeau

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
93
Reaction score
12
Location
Menasha, WI
No, pretty sure I have it right. I will side with corporations over unions every single day of the week.

Most of the time I side with private companies as well, I work for a non-unionized company and wouldn't support a union for it, but things are becoming way too one-sided. We can't rely on the government to help even the scale because private companies fund their campaigns and essentially run this country.

It seems as though there's nothing helping the average worker out anymore and that we should just have to trust the companies we work for...it's a little unsettling watching one side win all the time.
 

PackCrazed4

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Messages
563
Reaction score
130
Location
Chicago Native on loan to Tallahassee, FL
we dont pay that much in taxes if you look at things historically. Obama wants to go back to clinton era tax levels and people think thats crazy.

How soon people forget that we paid over 90% in the 50s for the top bracket.


Yes, but we were also in a much better position economically in the 90s. The majority was financially stable (or, well, at least on the surface they were) and the unemployment rate was in the minimal 3-5% margin. Ask any economist and they will tell you that raising taxes during a recession is political and economical suicide.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top