Democrat COWARDS

[ariscus99 1]

While Walker wants the state workers to give up everything, including collective bargaining rights, I haven't heard him willing to make any personal sacrifices. How about giving up some of his salary and those in the state assembly too.

I did some calculations and based on the percentage he want state workers to give up - if he, those in the assembly, the money they get for staff and per diem were reduced the same - they could save about $545,000 dollars. It certainly would help. And that doesn't include eliminating mileage which they shouldn't get. I mean I never got paid to drive to my job.

But I haven't heard any such concession from him. Other governors in other states have taken pay cuts. Now it's time for him to put his money where his mouth is.

Great idea! And we can start by docking the pay 100% for the senators who decided to flee the state and not do the job they were elected to do! Good thinking CM! The last governor we had here in CA did it salary free. Another great idea would be to switch to a part time legislature with really drastic pay cuts, since our state lawmakers work even less than teachers do, why not switch to a part time and let them get second jobs.

Also Krugman's Nobel doesn't give him free reign to comment on anything and then to be left unchallenged. He's commenting on unions here, not strictly economics so it's not as if his Nobel makes him an expert on this topic. Bush went to Harvard and Yale; should we use that to determine whether he was right or wrong?

Anyways, Krugman overplays his hand by acting like unions are always playing for the good side against the mean rich people. They're not. They are advantageous to employees, and that's it. Unions don't do any favors to the rest of us (the consumers), and they certainly aren't good for business. We've seen this play out again and again in the auto industry and now public schools across the country. Unions aren't inherently bad; they serve the good purpose of making sure employees are treated decently. But that's old news now. Now, unions just grab for power like anyone else with money.

And yet . . . krugmans economics have been nothing but wrong - dead wrong. Why should any of us listen to anything the keynesians have to say? They were unable to predict the current crisis (like the Austrians have) and have been woefully impotent in implimenting any policy that has helped. And if someone who supposedly an "expert" doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground in his supposed area of expertise, why I should I listen to anything he has to say on any other subject?

[ariscus99 1]

On PATCO...again:

The Carter Legacy & the Era of “Union Busting”

According to the Left’s narrative, it was the PATCO strike, the replacing of strikers in the private-sector during the 1980s, combined with the Reagan-appointed National Labor Relations Board that has caused the decline of unions. However, this view is as misleading as it is simplistic.

Before Ronald Reagan stepped into the Oval Office, the American economy had suffered

nearly a decade of economic malaise. By June of 1980, the “misery index” had reached an all-time high and the Carter Economy had become an issue of the presidential campaign. By the time November 1980 rolled around, Carter’s stagflation had become a household word and Ronald Reagan became President. However, this did not happen before President Carter had set into motion the most fundamental shift in America’s regulatory environment that caused the most remarkable decline in union power since the 1947 passage of the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act.

[ariscus99 1]

From the krugman article;

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

The above demonstrates my point that the left doesn't really care about "fairness" or whatever; they just want to destroy America. Public sector unions are the exactly opposite of private sector unions. Early labor organizers thought that unions were needed because an individual worker had no bargaining power with an employer who owned the entire company, and so the owners were exploiting the workers, living high on the hog at their expense. Now, public sector employees are living high on the hog at taxpayer expense. The average salary for public sector employees is nearly $70,000 a year, compared with an average of $40,000 in the private sector. Public sector unions don't represent "the interests of middle- and working-class Americans." Instead, those public sector unions are extorting taxpayers to fund their sinecure jobs with their lavish benefits and pension programs. None of these people's lifestyles would be possible were it not for all the taxpayers getting up and going to work every day at private sector jobs. The protestors are protesting not greedy capitalist tyrants, but the taxpayers, those middle-class Americans who make their entire lifestyle possible. It's a disgrace and a perfect opportunity to get rid of public sector unions once and for all.

[ariscus99 1]

but he can't really go and advocate for something that he doesn't allow 2 million of his employees to participate in without looking a little silly.

And of course you have proof that it was President OBAMA who signed an executive order forbidding federal workers to strike. I didn't think so.

You know, I'm looking around, and I don't see obama giving them back their rights. Something he could advocate for, but has chosen not too, so yes I can say obama doesn't allow them to participate. Why is he not "hitting the street in comfy shoes" like he promised? Because he's a hypocrite and is trying to keep his head down. Unless you have a different explanation for yet another failed obama promise?

[ariscus99 1]

Talking about the same topic in another forum and this little gem came up, pretty good summation of what unions are really all about.

Agreed. What people dont understand is that labor is a competative market too. People want hard workers and WILL pay them what they are worth. I've had a job at a union place and skirted joining. I got paid MORE than the union guys. How? My job required working with other companies and when i went there and busted my ass they offered me jobs..I'd threaten to leave and get a raise to stay. The people trying to hire me actually had a meeting with the union to see if they could bend the rules and pay me more than the unions starting rate so they could hire me. (eventually offered to hire me with a automatic 19 years seniority)

Unions suck...they are a place for lazy people to hide. The only thing a union has ever done for me is try to lower my pay. I eventually quit when the union tried to force me to join, take a pay cut to fit my "seniority" and charge me back dues (still owe the teamsters several k). How's that for looking out for the workers? they're looking out for themselves. Luckily i was about done with that phase of my life anyway but I could have been out a great job that helped me get through college with nice savings and no debt all thanks to the "help" of the union. Thanks but no thanks.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You know, I'm looking around, and I don't see obama giving them back their rights. Something he could advocate for, but has chosen not too, so yes I can say obama doesn't allow them to participate. Why is he not "hitting the street in comfy shoes" like he promised? Because he's a hypocrite and is trying to keep his head down. Unless you have a different explanation for yet another failed obama promise?

Obama has already said that while he understands states needs to balance budgets what is going on in Wisconsin just looks like an assault on unions. And I agree.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Also Krugman's Nobel doesn't give him free reign to comment on anything and then to be left unchallenged. He's commenting on unions here, not strictly economics so it's not as if his Nobel makes him an expert on this topic. Bush went to Harvard and Yale; should we use that to determine whether he was right or wrong?

Anyways, Krugman overplays his hand by acting like unions are always playing for the good side against the mean rich people. They're not. They are advantageous to employees, and that's it. Unions don't do any favors to the rest of us (the consumers), and they certainly aren't good for business. We've seen this play out again and again in the auto industry and now public schools across the country. Unions aren't inherently bad; they serve the good purpose of making sure employees are treated decently. But that's old news now. Now, unions just grab for power like anyone else with money.

The whole arguement that Walker makes is that the entire union represents an economic issue - including, and especially, collective bargaining. Therefore, when a nobel prize winning economist Krugman has an opinion on unions (and therefore on the economy that those on the right seem to think unions have such a huge influence on) then I think he has valid points.

Employers are advantageous to employers , that's it. Employers don't do the economy any favors when they don't pay their workers fairly and provide them benefits so that they can go out and buy the goods and services employers sell. Henry Ford knew that when he paid his workers more so that they could buy his car. Smart thinking. Walmart on the other hand provides its employees with in-service sessions about what government aid they can apply for since they are making crap wages and almost no benefits. So they can feed off the government teet, to use your analogy.

Actually you're wrong about the unions of today (in the 21st century). They are the ones who have made concessions and given pay cuts and benefit cuts - the auto workers did this. The teachers have done this elsewhere and now in Wisconsin. But that isn't enough for walker - he wants it all.

Also teachers all over the country took less in salaries yesterday for the promise of a larger pension in the future. Now they're told - sorry, because of the greed of wall street you can't have that pension we promised you. I know we came up with $800 billion to bail them out and then they gave their f**k-up CEO's bonuses, but there is no money for you.

And I guess that message should be greeted with - what? Joy? Acceptance? The willingness to compromise.

Ah, yes, it is the Wisconsin unions that have compromised and have given in to the economic demands but they should never, ever give up their collective bargaining right. Ever. It's a give and take from both sides, so that neither side has all the power. But walker wants all the power.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

From the krugman article;

The above demonstrates my point that the left doesn't really care about "fairness" or whatever; they just want to destroy America. Public sector unions are the exactly opposite of private sector unions. Early labor organizers thought that unions were needed because an individual worker had no bargaining power with an employer who owned the entire company, and so the owners were exploiting the workers, living high on the hog at their expense. Now, public sector employees are living high on the hog at taxpayer expense. The average salary for public sector employees is nearly $70,000 a year, compared with an average of $40,000 in the private sector. Public sector unions don't represent "the interests of middle- and working-class Americans." Instead, those public sector unions are extorting taxpayers to fund their sinecure jobs with their lavish benefits and pension programs. None of these people's lifestyles would be possible were it not for all the taxpayers getting up and going to work every day at private sector jobs. The protestors are protesting not greedy capitalist tyrants, but the taxpayers, those middle-class Americans who make their entire lifestyle possible. It's a disgrace and a perfect opportunity to get rid of public sector unions once and for all.

The skill and/or education level for public service workers is often higher than that of the private sector worker in the same type of job. Don't we always push how important higher education is and how you will earn more over the lifetime than someone who doesn't have college? For example, in Ohio, more than half of state and local workers have college degrees, far more than in the private sector. However, among college educated workers, public sector employees earn about 5% less than private sector counterparts.

Your whole "public sector employees make much more than their private sector counterparts" is a myth I debunked in a previous post with facts.

I know a lot of union workers, private and public, and none of them is living high off the hog. They are just average, middle class people living a middle class life.

You are the biggest hypocrite of all - because you bash unions but still work in a union job. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that prevents you from quitting your job and either not working at all (and living within your means on one union salary) or finding a non-union job.

So, why don't you?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Great idea! And we can start by docking the pay 100% for the senators who decided to flee the state and not do the job they were elected to do! Good thinking CM! The last governor we had here in CA did it salary free. Another great idea would be to switch to a part time legislature with really drastic pay cuts, since our state lawmakers work even less than teachers do, why not switch to a part time and let them get second jobs.

Well, it starts with leadership at the top and that would be walker. So let's hear him say he will do this. I haven't heard it - I wonder why?

My state legislature is the biggest in the country and now both chambers and the governor are controlled by republicans. So they have the power to convene a constitutional convention to reduce the size of the legislature. They constantly yap about the size and cost of government and how they are the party of fiscal conservatives, but what are the chances they will do anything about the size of the legislature? Zero, zip, nil. Yeah, like they're going to give the people of this state, who overwhelmingly support a reduction in the size of our legislature, a chance to vote them out of a job. Just more republican hypocrisy.

But they'll be more than happy to take the ax to funding for schools, welfare, etc..

[Cleo's Mom 257]

When even a reporter for the republican cable news station "gets it" you have to know how blatant the union busting in WI and elsewhere is:

He also said that of the top 10 contributors to the last election 7 were corporate and went to republicans, the other 3 were unions and went to democrats, so, he said, it's easy to see why the republicans want to bust unions - they want the democrats to lose a big part of their base. It's not about collective bargaining or what carter did or how much teachers make or any of those other distractions (hey, look over there) - it's about busting unions and the democratic party.

Fox’s Shep Smith: Pretending Wisconsin Is About A Fiscal Crisis Is “Malarkey”

Smith’s conversation today with commentator Juan Williams would likely surprise loyal viewers of both Fox News and MSNBC. Shep’s repeated assertion that there is no longer a budget crisis in Wisconsin and that the battle in the state is all about politics and union-busting was most shocking because that’s the exact argument many of MSNBC’s commentators have made, and continue to be suggesting.

Shep suggested that the Democratic party could be in big trouble if their biggest donors, the unions, lose their power and summed it up as “bust the unions – it’s over.” Furthermore, Shep brought up the fact that the “Koch brothers, among others, were organizing to try to bust labor – it’s what big business wants to do.” Given that the Koch brothers contributed to the campaign of Wisconsin Governor Walker, Shep said people should not be surprised that now they want unions busted. Despite Shep claiming “I’m not taking a side on this, I’m telling you what’s going on,” Williams warned Shep that “just by telling the facts, you’re angering a lot of people.”

Oddly, it seems Shep’s unexpected disclosure of facts does give some credence to at least the Koch brothers component of Ed Schultz’s argument that the union showdown is part of a right wing “master plan.” However, given that Shep adamantly declared “to pretend this is about a fiscal crisis in the state of Wisconsin is malarkey,” it seems like Fox News’ participation in such a “master plan” isn’t what Schultz might have suspected

[ariscus99 1]

Quite simply because I love my job. I love helping people. I love the adrenaline rush of going into a burning building while everyone is running out. I love the comrade re of the fire house. I get to have a family of another 1000 people in my dept. knowing any one of them would lay down their life for me, and I would do the same for them. You son may understand, police have a similar feeling towards one another, but very few others understand the brotherhood that makes up firefighting. However, in the near future I will be leaving my "cush union job" to go back to school to pursue a career that I wont be forced into unionization(thank god).

Public sector employees with their benefits package do make more than their private sector counterparts, it's been shown several times, I'm fairly sure I've posted it at least once. The salary level in and of itself may be lower but not once benefits are factored in, as I have proved, with facts.

So your okay with the democrats from WI being docked 100% of their pay as long as they continue to flee the state and refuse to do the job they were elected to do?

Ah, yes, it is the Wisconsin unions that have compromised and have given in to the economic demands but they should never, ever give up their collective bargaining right. Ever. It's a give and take from both sides, so that neither side has all the power. But walker wants all the power.

So they shouldn't EVER? But it was okay for the democrats to force the federal employees to do so?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Something to think about...

> >

> > Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed

> it

> > illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

> >

> > South Carolina - 50th

> > North Carolina - 49th

> > Georgia - 48th

> > Texas - 47th

> > Virginia - 44th

> >

> > If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers,

> is

> > ranked 2nd in the country.

>

> > Below is the link to view all 50 states.

> > and the item from The Economist!

> > http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/states/USCHARTsat.html

> >

> > http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

> >

[ariscus99 1]

However 22 states are right to work states, and they are among the most economically sound states right now.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

However 22 states are right to work states, and they are among the most economically sound states right now.

Here is the list of the 22 states. Of them, Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi either have a negative general fund balance or they spend more than their revenues:

The following states have passed right to work legislation:

• Alabama
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• Florida
• Georgia
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Louisiana
• Mississippi
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Wyoming

[ariscus99 1]

Here's another way of looking at unions. Prof Hayek was simply brilliant!