Discussion: All Things Union

[Marx]

Unions give money to both sides? Rofl. Unions are the strong arm of the DNC. It is wrong when corporations buy politicians and it is wrong when unions do it too.

...which makes all of the GOP governors attempting to bust them up all the more transparent.

 

[Handsome Rob]

So is the greedy Rich who have been in power since the industrial revolution..the system needs a purge...

So we need to purge the system of both the rich and unions?

 

[Handsome Rob]

...which makes all of the GOP governors attempting to bust them up all the more transparent.

But wouldn't that make the Democrats' endless defense of the unions equally as transparent?

 

[Handsome Rob]

2) Walker considers billionaire special interests to be confidants on public policy by telling him all of his secret strategies for the Senate Democrats and thinks it would be "Outstanding" to have a "good time" with David Koch when he comes to Wisconsin. This highlights the horrifying connection between big monied, organized special interests and politicians.

You mean like the connection between SEIU and the Obama administration?

What's the difference between a corporation giving to a Republican campaign and a union backing a Democratic one? Both are hoping to have their interests genuflected to by the candidate should (s)he win.

Same reason an average citizen gives $20 to a campaign--different results, of course.

 

[chaseter]

...which makes all of the GOP governors attempting to bust them up all the more transparent.

I fail to see the severity of this. Breaking up entities that steal people's money to give to DNC campaigns to get politicians elected doesn't sound like the end of the world to me.

 

[Handsome Rob]

More violent rhetoric from the left . . .

Democrat Urges Unions "To Get a Little Bloody When Necessary"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...r-protests-get-a-little-bloody-when-necessary

To his credit, he did apologize later. But, when is the left going to shed their violence-laden cries? Will it have to get the point where someone gets killed?? Oh, the humanity!!

 

[Matt]

Really? That soon after the Giffords shooting? Imagine if Palin said it....

 

[Kelly]

aaaaarrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhh we had gone SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG without mentioning her name, HER THREAD IS ON THE SECOND PAGE......

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTT....

 

[Kelly]

POLL: 61 PERCENT OF AMERICANS OPPOSE ATTEMPTS TO STRIP BARGAINING UNITS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ose-stripping-govt-workers-bargaining-rights/

Rasmussen Poll: American Voters Support Wisconsin GOP Gov. Walker Over Unions by a 48% to 38% Margin


http://scaredmonkeys.com/2011/02/21...-gov-walker-over-unions-by-a-48-to-38-margin/

 

[Handsome Rob]

Really? That soon after the Giffords shooting? Imagine if Palin said it....

Personally, I think the whole "violent rhetoric" is being blown way out of proportion. We've been describing politics in militaristic/violent terms long before the Palin "sux dummy" (as 'Dox so hilariously noted in one of his posts) or the modern Tea Party ever came along.

If we want to be consistent, we should be decrying news anchors when they refer to particular "battleground states" or when anyone in politics uses the word "campaign," as that has its origins in warfare. Crosshairs targeting which districts to try and win for Republicans? No different.

But you are right: If Palin had said it, it would have brought so many howls of condemnation and "teh Teabaggers is teh violence evil!" comments from some of the leftist posters. This? I'd be surprised if I hear anything more condemning than "It's wrong when either side does it" from those same individuals.

 

[Matt]

aaaaarrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhh we had gone SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG without mentioning her name, HER THREAD IS ON THE SECOND PAGE......

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTT....

I'm sorry. I just meant that if she said something like that hell would break loose....but a Democrat says it, and its okay.

 

[Kelly]

That's life....not reading or hearing her name, is a good life....

 

[metr0man]

Rasmussen Poll: American Voters Support Wisconsin GOP Gov. Walker Over Unions by a 48% to 38% Margin


http://scaredmonkeys.com/2011/02/21...-gov-walker-over-unions-by-a-48-to-38-margin/

The distinction between the two polls is "agree more" vs "stripping the bargaining rights" outright.

On many issues, Americans have, thankfully, been able to make the distinction between "I don't like/support this" and "it should be banned outright". Take abortion for instance. pro life vs pro choice will give you one result, both sides pretty close to each other. Yet, ask about stripping abortion rights by reversing Roe v Wade, gives you a different result, in which a strong majority of people oppose reversing RvW... a chunk of those people are clearly pro-life.

The poll you posted actually says little about stripping collective bargaining rights (the five questions are on rasmussen's site)

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided.

The two polls taken together come up with a clear result. The people support Walker on the fiscal issues specifically but don't support him on killing collective bargaining rights as a whole. The sane, moderate, bi-partisan compromise here is to:
a) accept the union's concessions on the fiscal issues (health-care benefits payment, etc etc)
b) leave their general collective bargaining rights intact

 

[DACrowe]

You mean like the connection between SEIU and the Obama administration?

What's the difference between a corporation giving to a Republican campaign and a union backing a Democratic one? Both are hoping to have their interests genuflected to by the candidate should (s)he win.

Same reason an average citizen gives $20 to a campaign--different results, of course.

I'd be very worried if SEIU has that kind of direct influence over any president. There is a bit of unions siding with Democrats and while that organization is very beneficial it is not nearly comparable in scope to the amount of money and power Goldman Sachs, the Koch Brothers or just Wall STreet in general can flex in our system.

 

[redhawk23]

what about tech companies...no unions there and they usually have the highest standards

Google, Apple, Microsoft?

the workers of those companies are in an extremely small pool for one thing, not as easily replaced, and also those specefic companies operate very differently than others.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I'd be very worried if SEIU has that kind of direct influence over any president. There is a bit of unions siding with Democrats and while that organization is very beneficial it is not nearly comparable in scope to the amount of money and power Goldman Sachs, the Koch Brothers or just Wall STreet in general can flex in our system.

Well, let's see:

Andy Stern boasted to the Las Vegas Sun in May 2009 that the SEIU "spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama--$60.7 million to be exact--and we're proud of it."

Andy Stern used to be President of the SEIU. After the election, he resigned and was appointed to the President's fiscal commission. Direct influence? Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but what would you say if Chevron had spent $60 million getting Bush elected, and then the CEO had resigned to go work for him?

And "a bit of union siding with Democrats." Are you kidding me? Go to this link (Open Secrets) and look at the top donations from 1989 - 2010. Look at the donations:

SEIU (95% to Democrats vs. 3% to Repubs)
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (98% D vs. 1% R)
Laborers Union (92% D, 7% R)
Teamsters Union (93% D, 6% R)
National Education Association (93% D, 6% R)
Carpenters and Joiners Union (89% D, 10% R)
UAW (98% D, 0% R)

If that is what constitutes "a bit," then I guess you could say that when it comes to demographics and voting patterns, blacks do "a bit of siding with Democrats."

 

[dnno1]

Well, let's see:

Andy Stern boasted to the Las Vegas Sun in May 2009 that the SEIU "spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama--$60.7 million to be exact--and we're proud of it."

Andy Stern used to be President of the SEIU. After the election, he resigned and was appointed to the President's fiscal commission. Direct influence? Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but what would you say if Chevron had spent $60 million getting Bush elected, and then the CEO had resigned to go work for him?

And "a bit of union siding with Democrats." Are you kidding me? Go to this link (Open Secrets) and look at the top donations from 1989 - 2010. Look at the donations:

SEIU (95% to Democrats vs. 3% to Repubs)
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (98% D vs. 1% R)
Laborers Union (92% D, 7% R)
Teamsters Union (93% D, 6% R)
National Education Association (93% D, 6% R)
Carpenters and Joiners Union (89% D, 10% R)
UAW (98% D, 0% R)

If that is what constitutes "a bit," then I guess you could say that when it comes to demographics and voting patterns, blacks do "a bit of siding with Democrats."

So what? If Republicans supported unions, they would give to them as well. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Republicans don't support unions. Just keep in mind that although unions gave the majority of their PAC money (something like $60 million) to Barak Obama's campaign in the last presidential election, John McCain also got some money (about $3 million) as well. If he would have supported labor and their causes, he could have reveived more. It's not like they don't or wouldn't give money to Republcian campains.

 

[chaseter]

b) leave their general collective bargaining rights intact

So that we are back to where we started in 20 years

They are lucky to even have had that ability. Being in a public employee union is mandatory. If you don't want to be in a union, they don't hire you. The government collects unions dues by holding an amount out of the government worker's paycheck and those funds then go to elect DNC politicians. It is out of your hands. You have no choice. You then are given the exact pay as someone that wants to coast through life. Collective bargaining in my opinion has only led to complacency. Why go above and beyond when it doesn't matter? That is why the private sector will always trump the public sector in every single aspect. The government rewards failure.

Collective bargaining should be eliminated and instead of blowing that money on unions to elect politicians, use that money for yearly reviews. Reward the teachers that go above and beyond. Set a base salary and then allow for a percentage raise based on their reivew. Same for cops, same for firefighters, etc.

Eliminate pensions. Time for a 401k like the rest of us. The city will match a percentage or up to a certain amount yearly. You can then choose how you want your retirement to be invested or you can let the city do it for you.

The only advantage a government worker should have over the private sector is job security. We will always need teacher, firefighters, and cops. Great! You are guaranteed a job for your working life as long as you perform well. I am fine with that. I respect our public workers and they deserve job security for choosing to be a public servant. They don't deserve to be paid half of their yearly salary 30 years after they retire. They don't deserve the ability to elect politicians and then make sweetheart deals with them.

Lastly, the last stone set in place should be laws protecting workers from unjust firings. Now we already have most of those already in place at the federal level but State laws should be a little more in depth.

 

[DACrowe]

Well, let's see:

Andy Stern boasted to the Las Vegas Sun in May 2009 that the SEIU "spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama--$60.7 million to be exact--and we're proud of it."

And I've heard the Koch Brothers spent just $30 million on a governor's race. Now that Citizens United has opened the floodagtes we'll see who corporate America outright buys. The SCOTUS's decision was a 5-4 partisan split for a reason.

[quote[/quote]Andy Stern used to be President of the SEIU. After the election, he resigned and was appointed to the President's fiscal commission. Direct influence? Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but what would you say if Chevron had spent $60 million getting Bush elected, and then the CEO had resigned to go work for him?[/quote]

I see your point there. Kind of like how Hank Paulson, former Goldman CEO, became Secretary of the Treasury under Bush and then he bailed out everyone except Goldman's biggest competitor, Lehman Brothers. I know where you're coming from.

And "a bit of union siding with Democrats." Are you kidding me? Go to this link (Open Secrets) and look at the top donations from 1989 - 2010. Look at the donations:

SEIU (95% to Democrats vs. 3% to Repubs)
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (98% D vs. 1% R)
Laborers Union (92% D, 7% R)
Teamsters Union (93% D, 6% R)
National Education Association (93% D, 6% R)
Carpenters and Joiners Union (89% D, 10% R)
UAW (98% D, 0% R)

If that is what constitutes "a bit," then I guess you could say that when it comes to demographics and voting patterns, blacks do "a bit of siding with Democrats."

"A bit" was a wrong choice of words. Obviously the unions are on the side of the Democratic Party and are an important base to Democrats. However, my point was their donations and political clout compared to corporate America, particularly the financial sector, is dwarfed. Walker is union busting and trying to take marching orders from David Koch because at the end of the day they view unions as a major ally to Democrats who if they break, they can weaken the Democratic Party. Meanwhile as they argue we cannot afford money for low income kids to go to college, poor people to afford heating, non-abortion planned parenthood options for single mothers or unions to have collective bargaining....the one thing Republicans say we can afford and not do without is permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent and gaping tax loopholes in the corporate tax system to never be closed.

I think it is safe to say they have their own special interests. Ones with more money and power was my original point.

 

[chaseter]

Corporate America buys GOP politicians so it's okay for unions to buy DNC politicians. More of the 'they do it so we do it'. That is the exact reason why public employee unions were created, to get politicians re-elected. They were born out out of corruption. It's a wonderful country we live in.

 

[Franklin Richards]

So the DNC needs to surrender and just let the GOP run things.

 

[BlackLantern]

again...because unions do it under the guise of "we look out for the workers"

chases point is that both sides are equally corrupt and broken, but only the GOP gets the heat, the unions get a free pass in the court of public opinion

 

[dnno1]

So that we are back to where we started in 20 years

They are lucky to even have had that ability. Being in a public employee union is mandatory. If you don't want to be in a union, they don't hire you. The government collects unions dues by holding an amount out of the government worker's paycheck and those funds then go to elect DNC politicians. It is out of your hands. You have no choice. You then are given the exact pay as someone that wants to coast through life. Collective bargaining in my opinion has only led to complacency. Why go above and beyond when it doesn't matter? That is why the private sector will always trump the public sector in every single aspect. The government rewards failure.

Collective bargaining should be eliminated and instead of blowing that money on unions to elect politicians, use that money for yearly reviews. Reward the teachers that go above and beyond. Set a base salary and then allow for a percentage raise based on their reivew. Same for cops, same for firefighters, etc.

Eliminate pensions. Time for a 401k like the rest of us. The city will match a percentage or up to a certain amount yearly. You can then choose how you want your retirement to be invested or you can let the city do it for you.

The only advantage a government worker should have over the private sector is job security. We will always need teacher, firefighters, and cops. Great! You are guaranteed a job for your working life as long as you perform well. I am fine with that. I respect our public workers and they deserve job security for choosing to be a public servant. They don't deserve to be paid half of their yearly salary 30 years after they retire. They don't deserve the ability to elect politicians and then make sweetheart deals with them.

Lastly, the last stone set in place should be laws protecting workers from unjust firings. Now we already have most of those already in place at the federal level but State laws should be a little more in depth.

The budget crisis in Wisconsin was manufactured. It had nothing to do with unions. The unions were even willing to accept cuts to both benefits and to wages in order to keep the budget under control, but yet the governor wouldn't renegotiate. Walker turned down government funding for high speed rail that could have meant 10,000 new jobs and an increase in state revenue by at least $52 million a year in income tax revenues. He also gave out tax breaks that only served to reduce revenues by more than $100 million a year. Had he taken the government funding and not given out tax breaks, there would have been no budget crisis. You can blame that on the union no can any other state. What causes budget shortfalls is lower revenue and that can be in the way of tax cuts or higher unemployment, not people seeking to collectively bargain their wages and benefits.

 

[chaseter]

Because in 10-20 years they will be back to where they started when the Democrats take back control and unions collectively bargain for what they have now. Wisonsin doesn't need f-ing high speed rail for the last time. What an idiotic waste of tax payer money.

Unfunded pensions and public employee unions relations to state debt is not a GOP talking point. 60 minutes for ****'s sake did a piece last year on the fiscal woes states have because of public unions. It's time they were put in check and that time is now.

Campaign finance reform would alleviate most of this crap anyways from unions and the DNC and corporations and the GOP.

 

[BlackLantern]

I can tell you, at least here in the northeast, there is very little love for unions as they have caused companies to pull up stakes and go elsewhere

I have a friend who is a plumber (part of the union) had to leave the union to find a job because no one is hiring union....he's been unemployed for over a year