Thousands protest Wisconsin anti-union bill

[estesbob]

Let me try to get this straight. You equate collective bargaining rights, and unbalanced budgets?

ATB

There is an inherent conflict of interest with public employee unions and collective bargaining. They spend millions of dollars getting their chosen candidate elected and then negotiate their salaries and benefits with a public official they helped elect. And of course a public official, giving his “business” has no profit motive is much more likely to give in to demands as it is not his money he is committing.

Barack Obama And Democrat congressmen and Senators know this which is why they had steadfastly refused to extend collective bargaining rights to Federal Employees. It is interesting that they accuse state governors of union busting for not wanting to extend to their employees what they themselves refuse to do so.

 

[seekerz]

There is an inherent conflict of interest with public employee unions and collective bargaining. They spend millions of dollars getting their chosen candidate elected and then negotiate their salaries and benefits with a public official they helped elect. And of course a public official, giving his “business” has no profit motive is much more likely to give in to demands as it is not his money he is committing.

Barack Obama And Democrat congressmen and Senators know this which is why they had steadfastly refused to extend collective bargaining rights to Federal Employees. It is interesting that they accuse state governors of union busting for not wanting to extend to their employees what they themselves refuse to do so.

Kind of like the conflict of interest that we see when rich lobbyists get ‘their’ candidates elected and these ‘owned’ candidates then turn around and make or change laws that will benefit said lobbyists’ industries regardless of the benefit (or lack of it) to the people at large? Why is such behavior only wrong for unions?

BTW, thanks for illustrating that this is purely about breaking Obama’s support base rather than about about balancing budgets. Time was when politicians had the testicular fortitude to stand up and fight regardless of the opponent. Now, they delay announcing their aspirations while their strongmen try a little arm-twisting on the opposition. Then they find it baffling that they can’t win in a ‘fair’ fight…

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Kind of like the conflict of interest that we see when rich lobbyists get ‘their’ candidates elected and these ‘owned’ candidates then turn around and make or change laws that will benefit said lobbyists’ industries regardless of the benefit (or lack of it) to the people at large? Why is such behavior only wrong for unions?

BTW, thanks for illustrating that this is purely about breaking Obama’s support base rather than about about balancing budgets. Time was when politicians had the testicular fortitude to stand up and fight regardless of the opponent. Now, they delay announcing their aspirations while their strongmen try a little arm-twisting on the opposition. Then they find it baffling that they can’t win in a ‘fair’ fight…

You got it! It’s pure partisan politics, nothing more.

 

[estesbob]

Kind of like the conflict of interest that we see when rich lobbyists get ‘their’ candidates elected and these ‘owned’ candidates then turn around and make or change laws that will benefit said lobbyists’ industries regardless of the benefit (or lack of it) to the people at large? Why is such behavior only wrong for unions?

Congress does not set the wages and beneifts of business owners, There is no inhernet conflict there

BTW, thanks for illustrating that this is purely about breaking Obama’s support base rather than about about balancing budgets. Time was when politicians had the testicular fortitude to stand up and fight regardless of the opponent. Now, they delay announcing their aspirations while their strongmen try a little arm-twisting on the opposition. Then they find it baffling that they can’t win in a ‘fair’ fight…

It is all about balancing the budget-which can not be accomplished with out of control govt spending and unfundred mandates.

 

[estesbob]

You got it! It’s pure partisan politics, nothing more.

So tell us why Obama says that opposing collective bargaining for State employees is union butsing but is OK for him to oppose it for federal Employees? It really would be helpful if you could explain this.

 

[bbarrick8383]

You got it! It’s pure partisan politics, nothing more.

You should do something about that beam in your eye.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So, you feel that government (public) employees are some how inferior to private sector workers. Or, do you feel that all employees are inferior. That none of them deserve the right to bargain collectively?

ATB

No. Public sector employees should not have collective bargaining rights because their employers (the taxpayers) are not effectively allowed at the bargaining table. The unions ensure that pro-union politicians are put into office who then cater to whatever the union demands are. Public employees should not be given any benefit that is superior to the people who actually pay their salary. In private sector employees have to contribute to their own retirement, then so should public sector employees. same goes with tenure, salary, and other benefits.

 

[seekerz]

So tell us why Obama says that opposing collective bargaining for State employees is union butsing but is OK for him to oppose it for federal Employees? It really would be helpful if you could explain this.

Oh that’s easy: he’s being the quintessential politician - Walker might learn something from his subtlety when he’s done being the big bad governor.

Like LCMS No More said, it’s all politics. Only thing I really don’t get is why not allow the unions to play too, everyone else is…

 

[seekerz]

No. Public sector employees should not have collective bargaining rights because their employers (the taxpayers) are not effectively allowed at the bargaining table. The unions ensure that pro-union politicians are put into office who then cater to whatever the union demands are. Public employees should not be given any benefit that is superior to the people who actually pay their salary. In private sector employees have to contribute to their own retirement, then so should public sector employees. same goes with tenure, salary, and other benefits.

Your post confuses me. I thought public officials were elected to represent taxpayers? If they can’t do their job, which includes sitting at the bargaining table and hammering out contracts, then fire them and elect those who can., but to throw out the bargaining table…?! Kind of like the neighborhood kid who takes his glove and stomps away home because the other kids can pitch and he can’t. Ridiculous. At the very least, those incompetent public officials who are scared of a bargaining table should vote themselves a pay cut!

 

[ChadS]

Congress does not set the wages and beneifts of business owners, There is no inhernet conflict there.

You’re right, they don’t set the wages for business owners, but Congress can sure affect their bottom line when certain sets of regulations get eased or eliminated thereby making it easier and less costly to do certain things that might not necessarily be beneficial for the public but sure is great for a business.

ChadS

 

[seekerz]

Congress does not set the wages and beneifts of business owners, There is no inhernet conflict there

There is a conflict because actions of Congress affect the profits made by businesses. Come on now…

It is all about balancing the budget-which can not be accomplished with out of control govt spending and unfundred mandates.

Out of control government spending sounds like a government-created problem so why take aim at the unions? What are these governments afraid of? Are they afraid they can’t hold their own in face to face negotiations?

 

[estesbob]

Out of control government spending sounds like a government-created problem so why take aim at the unions? What are these governments afraid of? Are they afraid they can’t hold their own in face to face negotiations?

Again why does Obama think it is bad to deny collective bargaing for Dtate Employees but good to deny it to federal Workers?

Labor costs is a sizeable component of Govt costs. If you are working for someone who is broke you have to expext to have you pay and benefits cut.

 

[estesbob]

You’re right, they don’t set the wages for business owners, but Congress can sure affect their bottom line when certain sets of regulations get eased or eliminated thereby making it easier and less costly to do certain things that might not necessarily be beneficial for the public but sure is great for a business.

ChadS

But they dont sit downand dirtectly bargain with their representatives . Unions do -and end up bargaining not only with thosre they put in ofccie but with people who have no personal econimic stake in the benefits they are giving. Do you disagree with Obama that federal workers should not be allowed collective bargaining?

 

[gamewell45]

No. Public sector employees should not have collective bargaining rights because their employers (the taxpayers) are not effectively allowed at the bargaining table.

Not true. Your elected representative effectively is “you” at the bargaining table; much like the union rep’s represent the union member at the bargaining table. It’s a fair and equitable system which has worked well for decades.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Your post confuses me. I thought public officials were elected to represent taxpayers? If they can’t do their job, which includes sitting at the bargaining table and hammering out contracts, then fire them and elect those who can., but to throw out the bargaining table…?! Kind of like the neighborhood kid who takes his glove and stomps away home because the other kids can pitch and he can’t. Ridiculous. At the very least, those incompetent public officials who are scared of a bargaining table should vote themselves a pay cut!

I cannot imagine, as articulate and well-thought as I know you are, can be that ignorant of our current political system.

You really think that our elected public officials represent the people who elect them? Seriously? They represent the special interest money that pays for them to get elected. In the Democrats case, unions. In the Republican’s case, corporations. The taxpayer is caught in the middle and gets screwed at every turn. That’s that the Tea Party is all about. Taxpayers who are tired of getting screwed by politicians for special interest money.

 

[ChadS]

But they dont sit downand dirtectly bargain with their representatives . Unions do -and end up bargaining not only with thosre they put in ofccie but with people who have no personal econimic stake in the benefits they are giving. Do you disagree with Obama that federal workers should not be allowed collective bargaining?

If you ask me the backroom deals made by corporations with politicians to maintain plausible deniability sounds way more sleazy and corrupt than unions sitting down face-to-face with representatives to hash out agreements. Is there really a difference if a union donates money that helps get a politician elected compared to the same money given by corporate donations to a similar campaign? It doesn’t seem like it, yet one is called free speech and another is seen as criminal.

ChadS

 

[Alan55]

No. Public sector employees should not have collective bargaining rights because their employers (the taxpayers) are not effectively allowed at the bargaining table. The unions ensure that pro-union politicians are put into office who then cater to whatever the union demands are. Public employees should not be given any benefit that is superior to the people who actually pay their salary. In private sector employees have to contribute to their own retirement, then so should public sector employees. same goes with tenure, salary, and other benefits.

Your argument doesn’t make much sense. The employer is the state or local government, whose officials represent the public. To insist that each and every member of the public must have a seat at the bargaining table is absurd.

People are attracted to the public sector, despite generally lower salaries, because of better benefits and the perception of greater job security. Let’s see how easy it is to hire and retain good public employees when the economy improves. The desire for a short-term solution to the budget crisis will make it much more expensive to hire and retain public sector employees down the road.

 

[gamewell45]

You really think that our elected public officials represent the people who elect them? Seriously? They represent the special interest money that pays for them to get elected. In the Democrats case, unions. In the Republican’s case, corporations. The taxpayer is caught in the middle and gets screwed at every turn. That’s that the Tea Party is all about. Taxpayers who are tired of getting screwed by politicians for special interest money.

It’s a system that you, nor I and/or the so-called Tea Party can ever change. Its all based on leverage and influence whether we want to admit it or not. It’s best to work within the system and make it work for your needs be as they may. Capitalism 101.

 

[seekerz]

Again why does Obama think it is bad to deny collective bargaing for Dtate Employees but good to deny it to federal Workers?

Asked and answered: Obama’s being a politician: having his cake and eating it too.

If you are working for someone who is broke you have to expext to have you pay and benefits cut.

It all depends on who the boss is and who the worker is. For example, if I was boss or worker on Wall Street, I would have no such expectation - actually the opposite. I could use the fact that the country needs me to get the economy going to negotiate even larger benefits for myself and my company. If I were a politician working for a ‘broke’ state, I would not expect cuts in my personal salary or that of my chosen staff - as recent events have shown us, I could even increase salaries for those I choose since it’s not my fault the taxpayers are broke. If I were a plumber or car mechanic or insurance agent working for a Wisconsin public servant, I would definitely not accept their salary/benefit cuts as a reason to pay me less…So when you get right down to it, the only people who have to accepts salary/benefit cuts are those who have no choice and when those people also do not have a unified representation to ensure that they are not unfairly taken advantage of (e.g. that pay/benefits get better in times of economic prosperity)…you can be sure that of all the aforementioned, these workers are going to get dumped on, big time…

 

[estesbob]

If you ask me the backroom deals made by corporations with politicians to maintain plausible deniability sounds way more sleazy and corrupt than unions sitting down face-to-face with representatives to hash out agreements. Is there really a difference if a union donates money that helps get a politician elected compared to the same money given by corporate donations to a similar campaign? It doesn’t seem like it, yet one is called free speech and another is seen as criminal.

ChadS

Why does Obama oppose the same rights for federal Workers? Is he not as guilty of Union Busting as Governor Walker.?