Ohio Voters Reject Public-Union Curbs

[scipio337]

I believe that was what was done in Wisconsin with their governor, and when he moved to curb collective bargaining, we were told it was wrong. So which is it?

I agree that the voting booth is the way to enact change, which is what happened in WI, and can happen in any state.

The problem is with public sector unions is that there is no hostile management to act on behalf of the taxpayer (as they do in the company interest in the case of public unions).

Most of the public service unions contribute (HEAVILY) to the very politicians who negotiate with the unions.

See AFSCME, SEIU, NEA, etc.

opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

You have union dues (indirectly paid by the taxpayer) collected and then donated to political campaigns to work against the interest of the taxpayer…rinse, repeat.

As Ann Coulter put it: “The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.”

 

[RACJ]

The problem is with public sector unions is that there is no hostile management to act on behalf of the taxpayer (as they do in the company interest in the case of public unions).

Most of the public service unions contribute (HEAVILY) to the very politicians who negotiate with the unions.

See AFSCME, SEIU, NEA, etc.

opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

You have union dues (indirectly paid by the taxpayer) collected and then donated to political campaigns to work against the interest of the taxpayer…rinse, repeat.

As Ann Coulter put it: “The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.”

No lefty here wants to broach my contention that thanks to government unions, thousands of good, decent people are negotiated out of their homes! The enemy is not some greedy capitalist, but those of us who are elderly and can't afford one nickel more in property taxes. To the SEIU's of the world, let the poor and the infirm of the world eat cake. The greed is all on the side of the government unions. :blush: Rob

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, the USA of the 1980’s, which allowed families and businesses to keep more of their own wealth, were enormously prosperous. Now that government spending is above 99% of GDP, we are in an economic downward spiral. Europe would be a Utopia if socialist thinking was correct, and people would have risked their lives to break INTO the old USSR, instead of OUT of it. Rob

Except of course, that government spending did not decrease during the 1980s. It actually increased. So we can’t look at the 1980s as an era of small government.

 

[human_being]

No we are not paying for a service as one does with a business. Patronizing a business is optional, paying ever increasing taxes is not.

If you are an employee of a business you get to choose the type of health care you want…usually there are 3 sometimes more options that vary in rates. The remainer of the premium comes from the business’ profit margin. I pay taxes so that I receive services like police, fire fighting, government etc. The problem arises in that the collective bargaining that takes place does so between parties with conflict of interest, namely politician’s campaigns that are supported by union dues. This is not rocket science. Sort of like having the fox guard the hen house.

You are paying for the working class and poor to have a voice in gov’t…Forget their pensions and salaries and know that the attack on public unions is not something tto save most people money…It is a plan to rid the country of the voice of the working class and poor…and this would be something very very ugly…The total union numbers are about 12%…6 being public, and 6 being private sector…Listen to Rand Paul on his anti union ads…for right-to-work…and he basically says it plain as day…they want to take the money that the dems have…which is mostlly union money…what kind of country will it be if the working class and th poor have no economic lobby or voice for them? Is this what the Church would want? Is this what the founders would want…A country where only people with money have a lobby? If they succeed in this…(and they are working on it in Eurrope also)…we will have a world run, not by the voiced of people…but by only the corporations and the very very wealthy…I doubt that the protests will remain peaceful when the masses have no economic say…It is ugliness on the GOP part…plain ugliness.

 

[human_being]

What I am trying to say is that maybe some should look past that cost of the pensions which you may think are high…and look at what they stand for…They are the group which sands up for the poor…The corporate lobby seeks profit and profit alone…they seek everything that they have in China…no regs, no labor union problems…no environmental regs…just pure profits is what they seek…the unions keep that in check…and I think people must look past those workers which they think cost so much and look at what the cost to the nation may be without the union lobby…You cannot posssibley believe that the corporations will make any legislations favoring the poor…No they will not…You must look at it as you are paying for the voice of the poor…and that is the unions…Not those who oppose them.

 

[shockerfan]

You are paying for the working class and poor to have a voice in gov’t…Forget their pensions and salaries and know that the attack on public unions is not something tto save most people money…It is a plan to rid the country of the voice of the working class and poor…and this would be something very very ugly…The total union numbers are about 12%…6 being public, and 6 being private sector…Listen to Rand Paul on his anti union ads…for right-to-work…and he basically says it plain as day…they want to take the money that the dems have…which is mostlly union money…what kind of country will it be if the working class and th poor have no economic lobby or voice for them? Is this what the Church would want? Is this what the founders would want…A country where only people with money have a lobby? If they succeed in this…(and they are working on it in Eurrope also)…we will have a world run, not by the voiced of people…but by only the corporations and the very very wealthy…I doubt that the protests will remain peaceful when the masses have no economic say…It is ugliness on the GOP part…plain ugliness.

So “right-to-work” rids the country of the voice of the working class? I think private unions are fine. Join if you want, or don’t join if you want. The idea of requiring someone to join a union in order to have a job is what most Republican’s have an issue with.
As far a public unions go, to me, it IS about pensions & salaries. Its about people being able to vote themselves more someone else’s money, to unsustainable levels. Last time I checked, there are a lot of municipalities, states, and the federal government that are operating in the red. Public unions acerbate the situation, by demanding better benefits and pensions that their private industry counterparts. Key word of the day: “Unsustainable”.

 

[scipio337]

What I am trying to say is that maybe some should look past that cost of the pensions which you may think are high…and look at what they stand for…They are the group which sands up for the poor…The corporate lobby seeks profit and profit alone…they seek everything that they have in China…no regs, no labor union problems…no environmental regs…just pure profits is what they seek…the unions keep that in check…and I think people must look past those workers which they think cost so much and look at what the cost to the nation may be without the union lobby…You cannot posssibley believe that the corporations will make any legislations favoring the poor…No they will not…You must look at it as you are paying for the voice of the poor…and that is the unions…Not those who oppose them.

Do you expect anyone to buy this class envy pablum?

What have public sector unions brought us? Teacher’s unions who give a whit less for the students (opposed to any type of merit pay or teacher accountability, because “we work for the teachers”), which only adds to our school system woes (it will work, if we only throw more money at it!!!) near bankrupt states, BILLIONS in unfunded liabilities, and an unsustainable model.

The “corporate lobby seeks profit and profit alone”, but what do you think the “union lobby” seeks? A car that runs on children’s laughter? No. They seek power and money, for themselves.

 

[human_being]

Do you expect anyone to buy this class envy pablum?

What have public sector unions brought us? Teacher’s unions who give a whit less for the students (opposed to any type of merit pay or teacher accountability, because “we work for the teachers”), which only adds to our school system woes (it will work, if we only throw more money at it!!!) near bankrupt states, BILLIONS in unfunded liabilities, and an unsustainable model.

The “corporate lobby seeks profit and profit alone”, but what do you think the “union lobby” seeks? A car that runs on children’s laughter? No. They seek power and money, for themselves.

It is not a matter of class envy at all. It is a matter of voice in gov’t…And the union voice seeks to represent the workers who actually live here…The corporate voice can represent people who live anywhere in the world…incuding China…and when you want to take the percentage from 12%-6%…which is this libertarian, corporatist type goal…You make a country with laws leaning to people who may not even live here…Do you think this is what the Founders wanted…I know 'class warfare is the cliche thing to say but it is not true… Feel free disenfranchis e the poor and working class so you can have them as slaves…eventually these corporate laws will have the majority here as peasant…and I highllly doubt that people who were born and raised american…will be peacefull protestors fopr very long…and if they do…It is a darned shame…

Whatever happened to “give to Ceasars what is Ceasars”.? Which woiuld be tax money…Yet so many even on this site justify things which are not at all what I would think the Lord meant…Hardened Hearts is what I would call it…FOXNEWS and the GOP think tanks take precedence over what I would think is pretty obvious…Now could somebody give me the canned justification as to why Catholics would be concerned about giving to Ceasar what is Ceasars? Go on stomp out the unions…Leave only the rich to make the laws…Take away any workers rights…Take the minimum wage…Have everybody work till death…take their healthcare…ship their jobs overseas…drop the minimum working age to whatever it is in China…Dump environmental regs…,…And feel really christian about it…Only businessmen and the college educaed are entitled to rule…To hell with the rest…Don’t ask my kids to fight your wars please.

 

[scipio337]

It is not a matter of class envy at all. It is a matter of voice in gov’t…And the union voice seeks to represent the workers who actually live here…

That’s entirely your opinion. “The Union” voice seeks to represent itself, and is no less self-motivated than a corporation.
human being:

The corporate voice can represent people who live anywhere in the world…incuding China…and when you want to take the percentage from 12%-6%…which is this libertarian, corporatist type goal…You make a country with laws leaning to people who may not even live here…Do you think this is what the Founders wanted…

That makes absolutely no sense. What on earth are you talking about?
human being:

I know 'class warfare is the cliche thing to say but it is not true… Feel free disenfranchis e the poor and working class so you can have them as slaves…eventually these corporate laws will have the majority here as peasant…and I highllly doubt that people who were born and raised american…will be peacefull protestors fopr very long…and if they do…It is a darned shame…

I’m not sure what your meaning is, but what you wrote certainly sounds like class envy.
human being:

Whatever happened to “give to Ceasars what is Ceasars”.? Which woiuld be tax money…Yet so many even on this site justify things which are not at all what I would think the Lord meant…Hardened Hearts is what I would call it…

You’re making some sense here. Are you making the assumption that just because we don’t favor the federal government taking our money to help the poor, at the point of a gun, and under pain of imprisonment, that we don’t want the poor helped? Not so, at all. We just differ on what the definition of “giving” is, and who is the best source of helping.
human being:

FOXNEWS and the GOP think tanks take precedence over what I would think is pretty obvious…Now could somebody give me the canned justification as to why Catholics would be concerned about giving to Ceasar what is Ceasars? Go on stomp out the unions…Leave only the rich to make the laws…Take away any workers rights…Take the minimum wage…Have everybody work till death…take their healthcare…ship their jobs overseas…drop the minimum working age to whatever it is in China…Dump environmental regs…,…And feel really christian about it…Only businessmen and the college educaed are entitled to rule…To hell with the rest…Don’t ask my kids to fight your wars please.

Your useless appeal to emotion aside (I’m college educated, AND a combat vet, btw), where is the justification that PUBLIC workers have the right to line the pockets of their “employers” with political donations? Where is the refutation that the states with the LARGEST budget defecits are the ones with the largest amount of public workers and unfunded public pensions?

I admire your intent, human, but while you accuse others of having a “hard heart” on this issue, I think you’re oblivious to the reality around you.

 

[RACJ]

Except of course, that government spending did not decrease during the 1980s. It actually increased. So we can’t look at the 1980s as an era of small government.

 In a very real sense we can. It IS true that liberals were in charge of the House during Reagan's terms, which caused social spending to rise, and there were needed defense increases,  but Americans were allowed to keep more of our own money and make our own decisions with the extra cash. Now, thanks to massive overt and hidden tax increases, and endless regulations, discretionary spending for all but the elite government class has been slashed. America is dying not b/c of too little government, but b/c of suffocating government.
 I swear, the re-election of Obama will consign our posterity to endless depression. You think that things are bad now..... :eek: Rob

 

[RACJ]

You are paying for the working class and poor to have a voice in gov’t…Forget their pensions and salaries and know that the attack on public unions is not something tto save most people money…It is a plan to rid the country of the voice of the working class and poor…and this would be something very very ugly…The total union numbers are about 12%…6 being public, and 6 being private sector…Listen to Rand Paul on his anti union ads…for right-to-work…and he basically says it plain as day…they want to take the money that the dems have…which is mostlly union money…what kind of country will it be if the working class and th poor have no economic lobby or voice for them? Is this what the Church would want? Is this what the founders would want…A country where only people with money have a lobby? If they succeed in this…(and they are working on it in Eurrope also)…we will have a world run, not by the voiced of people…but by only the corporations and the very very wealthy…I doubt that the protests will remain peaceful when the masses have no economic say…It is ugliness on the GOP part…plain ugliness.

 You want to talk about ugliness and greed, talk about government sector unions. We can't AFFORD to pay the pensions negotiated by school boards decades ago, period. Government workers make almost double that of the private sector now. 
 To show you how selfish and greedy the SEIU is, when the choice in Wisconsin was between everyone paying more for their OWN benefits, or laying off 10-15,000 employees, the SEIU said to hell with those on the bottom rung, we're protecting OUR largesse!  Government unions are destroying America. Rand Paul is a hero, with courage to spare. What say you about the folks who can no longer afford their property taxes, Human Being? Are THEY among the 99% that you so mightily care about? :shrug: Rob

 P.S. How dare you think that you are entitled to your piece of Caesar's riches? Would you enter a rich neighbor's home and just take it, as some OWS people suggest, or would you vote for another guy to do it for you? What is the moral difference?

 

[stinkcat_14]

In a very real sense we can. It IS true that liberals were in charge of the House during Reagan’s terms, which caused social spending to rise, and there were needed defense increases,

In other words government spending went up under Reagan, how does increased government spending result in a smaller government?

but Americans were allowed to keep more of our own money and make our own decisions with the extra cash.

Temporarily, since the rest of the money is borrowed. Cutting taxes and reducing government spending would be a true act of letting people keep more of their own money. Cutting taxes for one generation and making another one pay for it is a supreme act of selfishness.

 

[RACJ]

In other words government spending went up under Reagan, how does increased government spending result in a smaller government?
The more of the fruits of our labors we are able to keep, the more power individuals have. MORE tax revenue, MUCH more came into the treasury as a result of Reagan’s tax cuts, increase of the standard deduction and elimination of bracket creep. The problem was that thanks to vastly increased spending by the liberals, the deficits remained high. Wouldn’t you love to only have THAT “problem” now?

Temporarily, since the rest of the money is borrowed. Cutting taxes and reducing government spending would be a true act of letting people keep more of their own money. Cutting taxes for one generation and making another one pay for it is a supreme act of selfishness.

Again, revenues INCREASED after the tax cuts, just as JFK understood. I can assume that after $4T in increased debt over the past 3 years, you must be furious at Obama. Talk about debt that future generations will never be able to repay! Blessings, Rob

 

[stinkcat_14]

Again, revenues INCREASED after the tax cuts, just as JFK understood.

What did JFK understand? Actually, from 1981 - 1985 tax receipts adjusted for inflation didn’t change. They did increase after 1985 but by relatively modest amounts. Tax receipts grew much faster during the Clinton Administration when tax rates were higher.

I can assume that after $4T in increased debt over the past 3 years, you must be furious at Obama. Talk about debt that future generations will never be able to repay! Blessings, Rob

Why is Obama responsible for debt under his administration and yet when Reagan did the same thing he gets a pass? I find both of them morally irresponsible for their reckless spending without the moral compass to pay for it.

 

[RACJ]

What did JFK understand? Actually, from 1981 - 1985 tax receipts adjusted for inflation didn’t change. They did increase after 1985 but by relatively modest amounts. Tax receipts grew much faster during the Clinton Administration when tax rates were higher.

Why is Obama responsible for debt under his administration and yet when Reagan did the same thing he gets a pass? I find both of them morally irresponsible for their reckless spending without the moral compass to pay for it.

Wow. Clinton did have a GOP Congress after '94, but the dotcom bubble which occurred under the Sleaze in Chief will never be repeated. 
SC, if you haven't noticed, $1.4T deficits are larger than $200B deficits. The game is over, and if you want to give our posterity any chance of surviving in freedom, the radical leftist administration MUST be defeated. Obama is the most corrupt man ever to enter the WH. Solyndra is the tip of a deadly crony capitalist iceberg. Cash for clunkers, and its concomitant destruction of perfectly good autos, has resulted in used cars costing poor families THOUSANDS more for them. The shutdown of the Gulf and closing of coal mines have spiked energy costs and thrown tens of thousands out of work. He closed car dealerships that were still profitable! (Tyranny, methinks!) Lord, the arrogant ruler buzzed New York City! His endless vacations have cost billions and wasted millions of gallons of fuel. Did you know that he and Michelle fly separately?  
 Anyone who supports BHO after three years simply doesn't want to know the truth. :cool: Rob

 

[stinkcat_14]

Wow. Clinton did have a GOP Congress after '94, but the dotcom bubble which occurred under the Sleaze in Chief will never be repeated.
SC, if you haven’t noticed, $1.4T deficits are larger than $200B deficits. The game is over, and if you want to give our posterity any chance of surviving in freedom, the radical leftist administration MUST be defeated. Obama is the most corrupt man ever to enter the WH. Solyndra is the tip of a deadly crony capitalist iceberg. Cash for clunkers, and its concomitant destruction of perfectly good autos, has resulted in used cars costing poor families THOUSANDS more for them. The shutdown of the Gulf and closing of coal mines have spiked energy costs and thrown tens of thousands out of work. He closed car dealerships that were still profitable! (Tyranny, methinks!) Lord, the arrogant ruler buzzed New York City! His endless vacations have cost billions and wasted millions of gallons of fuel. Did you know that he and Michelle fly separately?
Anyone who supports BHO after three years simply doesn’t want to know the truth. Rob

Where did I mention anything about supporting BHO?

 

[incense]

Wealth creation includes any and everything that goes toward preparing, assisting and maintaining the ability of a person (from birth to death) to contribute to society by means of supplying or creating products/services. In particular, this includes education and health…

You are confusing the definition of “cost” with the definition of “wealth”. Roads, buildings, labor, etc., are all costs used to create wealth. They are red numbers. Losses. Wealth is a black number, a gain. If the costs exceed the wealth created, you get bankruptcy. So in a capitalistic system, the point is to keep your costs as low as possible to create as much wealth as possible.

If you want to argue that it’s kind or moral to give higher wages than the fair market, then you need to discuss the word “charity”, and whether charity taken at gunpoint is really moral. Government employee unions have no competition to keep their costs within the fair market, that’s why so many in history have been against government employee unions.

But you can look at the free market unions, UAW, and note that they drove GM/Delphi into bankruptcy too. Plus there’s some shenanigans about using the government PBGC to steal the pensions from the non-union workers to bolster the union pension. There’s some lawsuit and congressional investigation, and the PBGC is refusing to give info. So are unions feasible for even the free market? Not with GATT and NAFTA.

 

[RACJ]

It seems as if all unions are ultimately consumed with greed. They pick bullies as negotiators, and the only “concessions” that are ever made are offset by massive increases in pensions, which are unsustainable burdens that future CEO’s must face years down the road. The numbers don’t add up, and that’s why our entire country is facing cataclysm now. Thanks Liberals! Your posterity will be “thanking” you as well in years to come. :snowing: Rob

 

[RACJ]

Where did I mention anything about supporting BHO?

Who DO you support, then? I forgot the Fast and Furious atrocity, BTW, a scandal that alone would have gotten any Republican President impeached and convicted. :cool: Rob

 

[human_being]

You want to talk about ugliness and greed, talk about government sector unions. We can’t AFFORD to pay the pensions negotiated by school boards decades ago, period. **Government workers make almost double that of the private sector now. **
To show you how selfish and greedy the SEIU is, when the choice in Wisconsin was between everyone paying more for their OWN benefits, or laying off 10-15,000 employees, the SEIU said to hell with those on the bottom rung, we’re protecting OUR largesse! Government unions are destroying America. Rand Paul is a hero, with courage to spare. What say you about the folks who can no longer afford their property taxes, Human Being? Are THEY among the 99% that you so mightily care about? Rob

 P.S. How dare you think that you are entitled to your piece of Caesar's riches? Would you enter a rich neighbor's home and just take it, as some OWS people suggest, or would you vote for another guy to do it for you? What is the moral difference?

Is the bold print some kind of class envy…If the private sector workers were union in them same jobs…they’d probably make more…The intent on the attack of these public workers is class envy…The Koch brothers and co…want the middle class to turn on their equals in trade…they are taking advatage of the downturn in the economy and are putting the unemployed against the public workers…They have a right to a contract and what was signed…They have a right to collective bargain…They are not volunteers, elected , nor are they slaves…The koch brothers are on a mission to take the SAME amount of taxes you spend now…and privatize everything so they and their types can take it over…the taxes will not drop…only employee pay and benefits and rights will…The few benefit from the many…as is their usual game.