Thousands protest Wisconsin anti-union bill

[TEPO]

The problem in Wisconsin is that there is no distinction between the “Union worker” and the “Radical Union worker”.

There seems to be a high level of radicalization there.

Those teachers are misusing the union, and giving all us other union members a bad name.

 

[TEPO]

Should any employees anywhere determine that they need to unionize and collectively bargain, then yes, even if that’s the Vatican. We’re talking lay, non-religious employees, of course.

I completely disagree. The purpose of the Union is to provide safe work practices and environment… Not to demand money.

I can’t imagine the Vatican demanding unsafe work practices from its employees.

 

[pnewton]

Collective bargaining and going on strike are not the same thing. You are equivocating between the two.

You are correct. I guess I was. I still won’t agree with your first paragraph though.

While we are talking about defining terms. It should be noted that it is not all collective bargaining that is being challenged. Wages is still on the table, so it is not a universal denial of collective bargaining or right to unions.

 

[new_User1357246]

But the teachers in Wisconsin(which is the topic of this thread) are subordinating the interests of the children to theirs. I don’t recall anybody dumping on the UFT or your wife. Again if you believe that teachers should put the interests of their students
before themselves why are you supporting these teachers in Wisconsin?

Are they though? Collective bargaining is, it seems, quite probably good for students. Only five states do not allow teachers to collectively bargain. Here is a list of the states, along with their ranks based on SAT/ACT scores of the students:

South Carolina - 50th
North Carolina - 49th
Georgia - 48th
Texas - 47th
Virginia - 44th

 

[JackQ]

I completely disagree. The purpose of the Union is to provide safe work practices and environment… Not to demand money.

I can’t imagine the Vatican demanding unsafe work practices from its employees.

Well, precisely (as to your second point), that’s probably why people there don’t unionize. But simply answering the question that way would have been rightfully considered a dodge.

With regard to your first point, what makes you think the purpose of a union isn’t to demand money? People deserve a fair wage for what they do, and there’s nothing wrong with demanding it.

 

[pnewton]

Are they though? Collective bargaining is, it seems, quite probably good for students. Only five states do not allow teachers to collectively bargain. Here is a list of the states, along with their ranks based on SAT/ACT scores of the students:

South Carolina - 50th
North Carolina - 49th
Georgia - 48th
Texas - 47th
Virginia - 44th

Not the figures I found, but I did find some neat resources.

Collective bargaining by state.
nctq.org/tr3/scope/#interactiveMap

ACT scores by state:
act.org/news/data/09/states.html

SAT by state:
commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/2010-sat-scores-by-state

Unemployment rate by state

bls.gov/lau/

 

[JackQ]

You are correct. I guess I was. I still won’t agree with your first paragraph though.

While we are talking about defining terms. It should be noted that it is not all collective bargaining that is being challenged. Wages is still on the table, so it is not a universal denial of collective bargaining or right to unions.

Well, it’s a severely emasculated right that will be left if this effort succeeds. There will be no bargaining about benefits, and the consumer price index will define the ceiling of the raise they can bargain for, unless the issue is put to the voters.

The reason why this is wrong, outside of the fact that it is just plain mean spirited, is the fact that unions will often bargain for benefits in lieu of raises. For example, let’s suppose a bargaining unit agrees that it will settle for a certain percentage wage hike in exchange for the government picking up the tab on the employee portion of the pension. A few years later the government decides that it will no longer pay the employee portion, and will now limit by the law the amount of raise the employees will get. It’s easy to see that the employees may not be able to make up the earlier wage concession, and could even end up losing money. What’s worse is that it has all been imposed by fiat. There’s been no dialogue, and no attempt to get both sides to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement. And what really makes this whole thing stink to high heaven, is that the very same legislature is working to eliminate capital gains taxes in the state by 2014. This is class warfare, pure and simple. The position taken by these actions is really quite extreme.

 

[CMatt25]

Fine That’s the way our democracy works. However the Democrat senators are trying to overturn the results of the election by running away and hiding rather than let the democratic process take its course

Or the Democratic senators are standing with their constituents and perhaps the majority now. Listening to the calls today of the majority of the people. Perhaps having concluded the 2010 midterm may not have been indicative of the majority when midterms often produce lower voter turnout than say the 2012 election might.

And looking at more recent polling such as this one showing:

“By a 2 to 1 margin, voters across that state are either strongly opposed to Walker’s proposal or think that it goes too far”.

weac.org/news_and_publications/11-02-17/Poll_Voters_overwhelmingly_say_Walker_has_gone_too_far.aspx

 

[pnewton]

What’s worse is that it has all been imposed by fiat. There’s been no dialogue, and no attempt to get both sides to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement. And what really makes this whole thing stink to high heaven, is that the very same legislature is working to eliminate capital gains taxes in the state by 2014. This is class warfare, pure and simple.

I understand what you are saying, except I have to balance this one-sidedness with the knowledge that this is the public sector and one big difference between private and public employees is that public employees are subject to the electorate. This very issue was something the unions fought the governor on at the polls and they lost. We still live in a demoncracy. That is one of the problem with long term government contracts with workers. Voters should always have the ultimate say.

 

[a_priori]

Or the Democratic senators are standing with their constituents and perhaps the majority now. Perhaps having concluded the 2010 midterm may not have been indicative of the majority when midterms often produce lower voter turnout than say the 2012 election might.

And looking at more recent polling such as this one showing:

“By a 2 to 1 margin, voters across that state are either strongly opposed to Walker’s proposal or think that it goes too far”.

weac.org/news_and_publications/11-02-17/Poll_Voters_overwhelmingly_say_Walker_has_gone_too_far.aspx

Who did the poll? I’m probably obtuse and didn’t see it in your links. Thanks.

 

[Robert_Bay]

NOTICE

Please discuss the issues charitably.

Discuss the issues, not each other.

Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

 

[pnewton]

And looking at more recent polling such as this one showing:

“By a 2 to 1 margin, voters across that state are either strongly opposed to Walker’s proposal or think that it goes too far”.

Polls do not count, except the one in the voting booth. Also did you notice what WEAC stood for? Come on. It had to occur to you a possible bias, didn’t? Even the wording was loaded.

 

[CMatt25]

Who did the poll? I’m probably obtuse and didn’t see it in your links. Thanks.

I’m sorry you had trouble with my link. I had no problem finding more information about the poll in the link. But I’m not here to debate polls with you. I merely pointed one out showing overwhelming opposition to Walker’s efforts.

 

[CMatt25]

Polls do not count, except the one in the voting booth. Also did you notice what WEAC stood for? Come on. It had to occur to you a possible bias, didn’t? Even the wording was loaded.

I’m not so sure if people’s views are different or change since the last election results, that representaives should simply completely ignore their constituents calls, letters, protests, and current thinking.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry you had trouble with my link. I had no problem finding more information about the poll in the link. But I’m not here to debate polls with you. I merely pointed one out showing overwhelming opposition to Walker’s efforts.

But it is not overwhelming opposition.

Clarus’ nationwide study found that 64 percent of American people think state workers should not be able to join labor unions.

uk.ibtimes.com/articles/114185/20110218/unions.htm

The poll you showed with the loaded question was conducted by the Wisconson Education Association Council who say of themselves

The Wisconsin Education Association Council represents the public policy, labor and professional interests of its 98,000 members. WEAC is a strong voice for its members and for the 865,000 children in Wisconsin public schools.

 

[JackQ]

I understand what you are saying, except I have to balance this one-sidedness with the knowledge that this is the public sector and one big difference between private and public employees is that public employees are subject to the electorate. This very issue was something the unions fought the governor on at the polls and they lost. We still live in a demoncracy. That is one of the problem with long term government contracts with workers. Voters should always have the ultimate say.

Not everything is subject to the electorate. Jim Crow was supported by the majority at the time. There are certain standards of fairness that even public employees are entitled to enjoy. And do you really believe that existing employee contracts should be subject to revision by the electorate before the terms of the contracts expire? Do you realize that Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution prohibits the states from making any law impairing the obligation of contracts? True, politicians can be voted out of office, and that’s as it should be. But these folks aren’t politicians. They were just looking for a job, and found the one they have. Some of these people have been working at their jobs for twenty years, and you want to kick them in the backside now? These are real people, with real families, with real issues like medical expenses. Let’s not look at this thing like we’re dealing with something completely abstract.

 

[pnewton]

Not everything is subject to the electorate.

No, but this is. There are several states in which collective bargaining is not recognized and any contracts are considered void.
nctq.org/tr3/scope/#interactiveMap

These are real people, with real families, with real issues like medical expenses. Let’s not look at this thing like we’re dealing with something completely abstract.

That’s true, but real people with real families and real issues of medical expenses often have to pay a portion of their benefits. I always thought everyone did, until this Wisconsin news story came out. I am floored that they did not have to pay anything on their medical. Now if you are referring to the threat to fire 12,000, then yes, I agree that was highly improper.

 

[a_priori]

I’m sorry you had trouble with my link. I had no problem finding more information about the poll in the link. But I’m not here to debate polls with you. I merely pointed one out showing overwhelming opposition to Walker’s efforts.

Matt, I’m not debating polls. I simply don’t know who did it. It was an honest question. I saw who reported it. I didn’t see who conducted it.

 

[estesbob]

Or the Democratic senators are standing with their constituents and perhaps the majority now. Listening to the calls today of the majority of the people. Perhaps having concluded the 2010 midterm may not have been indicative of the majority when midterms often produce lower voter turnout than say the 2012 election might.

And looking at more recent polling such as this one showing:

“By a 2 to 1 margin, voters across that state are either strongly opposed to Walker’s proposal or think that it goes too far”.

weac.org/news_and_publications/11-02-17/Poll_Voters_overwhelmingly_say_Walker_has_gone_too_far.aspx

Building a Stronger Wisconsin is a Democrat Party front group. For instance in the 2010 elections they gave $95,000 to Democrat candidates , none Republican candidates. opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90012006

Unlike reputable polls there is no information given about the internals of this poll. We are not told what questions were asked n r are we told what the confidence level is there link , for instance, for more information about the poll leads to one line press release… wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=227236

What we do know is this is a proposal Gov. Walker put forth prior to the election and was widely debated. We do know that the teachers union warned if he was elected he was going to push for this proposal. Walker won. As Barack Obama reminded us so eloquently in 2008 , elections have consequences.

 

[JackQ]

No, but this is. There are several states in which collective bargaining is not recognized and any contracts are considered void.
nctq.org/tr3/scope/#interactiveMap

That’s true, but real people with real families and real issues of medical expenses often have to pay a portion of their benefits. I always thought everyone did, until this Wisconsin news story came out. I am floored that they did not have to pay anything on their medical. Now if you are referring to the threat to fire 12,000, then yes, I agree that was highly improper.

I don’t know what conditions the employees in those states work under, but (1) that some are mistreated doesn’t justify the mistreatment of others, and (2) the Popes have uniformly supported collective bargaining since Rerum Novarum, with no exception for public employees or Chinamen.

Yes many people pay for their own benefits. Many work without benefits at all. Are we aiming for the lowest common denominator here? I used to be a public employee. Only the employee’s coverage was paid for, and you had to pay for your dependent’s coverage yourself. The problem was, the ladies sitting in front of the typewriters, later computer screens, were paid a body effluence I dare not name on these forums. As a result, they couldn’t cover their dependents.

I sat on the County’s Health Insurance Review Committee. One day, the County’s executives raised a hue and cry about these rascal typists signing up for the health insurance just to take their kids to the doctor, then dropping the coverage. They were going to put a stop to it, by George! I thought I was in a room full of demons.

Health care expenses are the biggest reason for bankruptcies in this country. We need more health coverage, not less. Unfortunately, the political climate in our country today is such that many are being led blindly to savage their fellow citizens, indeed, to work against their own best interests in favor of the wealthy. I was hoping that the Catholics, at least, would rise above it, and place people over systems, work over capital. Alas, what has happened, I fear, is that the Party that claims the pro-life position has by that means dragged many Christians into political venality.