Thousands protest Wisconsin anti-union bill

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

Who are you trying to kid? It is accepted that public employees get paid more, are harder to fire, and get benefitts that no private sector employer could ever offer their employees.

My post is confusing because you apparently don’t understand the ire of the average taxpayer who understand perfectly well that his/her interests are NOT being represented by their elected officials. Those officials represent the special interest money that gets them into office, most notably unions, corporations, and investment banks.

 

[estesbob]

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

…

So Barrack Obama and the Democrat congress are union busters just like governor Walker? So why arent Union protetsotrs picketing the White House. And why the sudden outrage from liberals about a situation they have supported for years at the Federal level?

 

[seekerz]

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.

If that’s the case then what gives Gov Walker the moral authority to make the changes he seeks on behalf of taxpayers? If he’s not there representing them, then whose interests is he representing? In other words, what makes him better than the union bosses and not just a another remote-controlled puppet? Why might the tea-party be more tolerant of Walker than of the union bosses if everybody is somebody’s guy?

 

[gamewell45]

Who are you trying to kid? It is accepted that public employees get paid more, are harder to fire, and get benefitts that no private sector employer could ever offer their employees.

Scott, I work in private sector and I can honestly tell you that I am paid well over what a person in the public sector would make performing the identical type work; I have better benefits and job security; the only thing they have that might be greater then what I have is that I currently pay 3% into my pension fund (tho’ it can be argued that they are paying 100 cents on the dollar since it is all deferred compensation anyhow) and I can retire at 55 if I want compared to many who have to work until they are 65.

Its highly unlikely that I would be willing to work in public sector because they just don’t pay enough nor are their benefits close enough to what i’m currently enjoying.

 

[estesbob]

If that’s the case then what gives Gov Walker the moral authority to make the changes he seeks on behalf of taxpayers??

The authority was given him by the people of Wisconsin. Since he is merely adopting the same poolicy towards Public Employee Unions that Barrack Obama and the Demcorats do towards Fedearl employees i am wondering why all the outrage from the Left?

 

[seekerz]

So Barrack Obama and the Democrat congress are union busters just like governor Walker? So why arent Union protetsotrs picketing the White House. And why the sudden outrage from liberals about a situation they have supported for years at the Federal level?

Oh, I never said he was a union buster, he just takes advantage of people’s love for their unions while not doing anything in particular to increase unionization or union power. The secret to success as a politician is not to rock the boat unless you see treasure down below that’s greater than what’s in your hold. Walker just hasn’t learned that yet or maybe it’s fool’s gold he spies in the depths…

 

[seekerz]

The authority was given him by the people of Wisconsin. Since he is merely adopting the same poolicy towards Public Employee Unions that Barrack Obama and the Demcorats do towards Fedearl employees i am wondering why all the outrage from the Left?

Follow the thread my friend. I was responding to a poster who though it ludicrous that I believed public officials are elected to represent taxpayers. I was simply saying that if this is not in fact the case, Walker’s authority should be questioned.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If that’s the case then what gives Gov Walker the moral authority to make the changes he seeks on behalf of taxpayers? If he’s not there representing them, then whose interests is he representing? In other words, what makes him better than the union bosses and not just a another remote-controlled puppet? Why might the tea-party be more tolerant of Walker than of the union bosses if everybody is somebody’s guy?

Because, at least superficially, it appears to the TParty that he is acting in their interests. Time will tell. I don’t trust any politician, regardless of which animal is their mascot.

 

[seekerz]

Because, at least superficially, it appears to the TParty that he is acting in their interests. Time will tell. I don’t trust any politician, regardless of which animal is their mascot.

Oh, that clarifies a lot. I don’t see much trustworthiness in a guy afraid to sit down and negotiate, but I suppose the TP has its criteria. It would interest me to know how they intend to neutralize the effect of the corporations once Walker’s done gutting the unions…

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Oh, that clarifies a lot. I don’t see much trustworthiness in a guy afraid to sit down and negotiate, but I suppose the TP has its criteria. It would interest me to know how they intend to neutralize the effect of the corporations once Walker’s done gutting the unions…

I reiterate, time will tell. If he proves to be a corporate stooge, throw him out and put someone who will do a complete job.

 

[OBJECTIVE_TRUTH]

Now you equate bargaining collecitvly with extortion? Let me ask you this. Is it extortion to threaten layoffs to force concessions?

ATB

Every worker faces the threat of layoffs. Bargaining collectively as a government employee, then going on strike when you don’t get what you want and shutting the schools down, certainly could be called extortion. I notice the union doesn’t go on strike during the summer, but waits until the school year has started, the kids be darned.

Government employees belonging to a union, is absurd for all the reasons I listed.

 

[lynx]

I reiterate, time will tell. If he proves to be a corporate stooge, throw him out and put someone who will do a complete job.

By that time it will be too late. If there’s no one with enough collective will and money to lobby against a corporation they will not be removed or limited. I can guarantee to you, this is all a political game about propping up big business and crushing unions to limit democrat political power. The concessions by the Union were already agreed to, this is no longer a budgetary issue.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

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

He may be, but I’m curious as to a couple of details.

Is it true that ALL Federal Workers are denied collective bargaining rights? If not all, who? If only some are allowed to collectively bargain, when did this begin? Who was President at the time? Did any group have collective bargaining rights only to lose them later? Which President decided to deny these right?

 

[lynx]

Bargaining collectively as a government employee, then going on strike when you don’t get what you want and shutting the schools down, certainly could be called extortion.

They could, but remember even striking has a price. People can only strike for as long as they have the funds. Now, even if people strike, their employer could just threaten to lay them all off anyways. This is about as similar an extortion tactic as striking. Lets look at the WI negotiations to see how these ideas turned out. Well, the unions agreed to the budget cuts as well as 2 years without collective bargaining. This was rejected at the expense of the budget. How was this situation handled? The governor tried to illegally remove or shut in protesters from the state capital. news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/28/capitol-police-blocking-access-to-building/ Walker is only in this to crush political opposition and prop up millionaire constituents.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

By that time it will be too late. If there’s no one with enough collective will and money to lobby against a corporation they will not be removed or limited. I can guarantee to you, this is all a political game about propping up big business and crushing unions to limit democrat political power. The concessions by the Union were already agreed to, this is no longer a budgetary issue.

It may fix things in the short term, but unless something is done to curtail the power of unions on a more permenent basis, this problem WILL pop up again in the future.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

It may fix things in the short term, but unless something is done to curtail the power of -]unions/-] working people banded together for a common cause on a more permenent basis, this problem WILL pop up again in the future.

Just made a change so you can see what you’re really saying.

 

[estesbob]

He may be, but I’m curious as to a couple of details.

Is it true that ALL Federal Workers are denied collective bargaining rights? If not all, who? If only some are allowed to collectively bargain, when did this begin? Who was President at the time? Did any group have collective bargaining rights only to lose them later? Which President decided to deny these right?

The answers are yes,all,it has always been this way,no, FDR.

 

[lynx]

He may be, but I’m curious as to a couple of details.

Is it true that ALL Federal Workers are denied collective bargaining rights? If not all, who? If only some are allowed to collectively bargain, when did this begin? Who was President at the time? Did any group have collective bargaining rights only to lose them later? Which President decided to deny these right?

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/02/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-most-federal-emplo/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining#United_States

Basically, collective bargaining varies from state to state, and is limited in the fed. So, most if not all fed employees cannot collective bargain for pay, but they can for benefits and work conditions.

 

[estesbob]

My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades “has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships.” Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Franklin Roosevelt August 16, 1937

 

[lynx]

It may fix things in the short term, but unless something is done to curtail the power of unions on a more permenent basis, this problem WILL pop up again in the future.

I’m all for curtailing union power, but at the same time the same curtails need to be made against corporations with huge amounts of influence. The playing field needs to be leveled equally across the board. Walker’s actions only crush the opposition, the union and democrats, there is no middle ground.