Thousands protest Wisconsin anti-union bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynx said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gov Walker was elected to bring some sanity back to the great state of Wisconsin. The State cannot keep spending money they do not have, then have people go on strike demanding more, more, more, me, me, me!!😦

Once again, government employees should not have collective bargaining “rights.”

There is a big difference between works demanding more money that isn’t there, then striking to force the State to accept those demands, (extortion) and the state saying that we not only do not have any money, we are spending money we don’t have, so if you insist we will have to layoff employees. (common sense). Big difference. One side is demanding more from non-existent funds, and the other side is saying we can only pay enough employees that the money available allows.

As you point out, people can only strike as long as they have funds. Exactly! And the State of Wisconsin can only pay an amount that the available funds allow.

But unions don’t care about that. They demand more and everyone else be damned.

The State of Wisconsin, Gov Walker and the people that elected him, have the high moral ground. The unions have no grounds whatsoever.
 
Mickey_Finn said:
I think your mislead sir. We don’t work for the tax payers. We are employed to serve the tax payers. Very large difference there. As a firefighter, I don’t answer to the citizens. I answer to my fire chief. He answers to the Mayor. The mayor answers to the taxpayers, the michigan municipal league, the historic preservation society, the united bicycle riders, and many others. I wouldn’t last a day in his job. Nor he in mine.

ATB
Click to expand...
Wrong, friend! You work for the people that provide the money. And who provides the money? The taxpayers provide the money. You can say you “serve” the taxpayer if you want to, but when does the servant tell the master what he should be paid?

You answer to the fire chief. He answers to the Mayor and the Mayor answers to the taxpayers, and if the taxpayers don’t provide the funds, none of you have a job.

I’m not misleading anyone. The Mayor and the Governor and legislature answers to the taxpayers and the taxpayers said enough is enough. That’s why Gov Walker and the legislature are doing what they are doing. They are answering to the taxpayer.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Ummm, if I am a janitor at Oracle, I answer to the Facilities Manager. The Facilities Manager answers to the Plant Director. The Plant Director works for the CFO. The CFO works for Larry Ellison. For me to say that I don’t work for Larry Ellison is disingenuous at best. I may not have morning coffee with the man, but I am in his employ.

If you are a firefighter who works for the fire chief who works for the mayor who works for the taxpayer, YOU work for the taxpayer. That doesn;'t mean that every taxpayer in your state or municipality can walk in and boss you around, but they are your employers nontheless.
Click to expand...
You are trying to compare private industry (i assume oracle is a company of some sort) with public employment. Point of fact. The mayor cannot direct my activities any more than you can. I’m polite and professional towards the tax payers. But, I don’t take my orders from them.

Does that clear it up for you?

ATB
 
OBJECTIVE_TRUTH said:
Wrong, friend! You work for the people that provide the money. And who provides the money? The taxpayers provide the money. You can say you “serve” the taxpayer if you want to, but when does the servant tell the master what he should be paid?

You answer to the fire chief. He answers to the Mayor and the Mayor answers to the taxpayers, and if the taxpayers don’t provide the funds, none of you have a job.

I’m not misleading anyone. The Mayor and the Governor and legislature answers to the taxpayers and the taxpayers said enough is enough. That’s why Gov Walker and the legislature are doing what they are doing. They are answering to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...
My above posts cover everything here. Except the part where you claim I’m wrong. So, for the record, I’m right!

ATB
 
OBJECTIVE_TRUTH said:
Wrong, friend! You work for the people that provide the money. And who provides the money? The taxpayers provide the money. You can say you “serve” the taxpayer if you want to, but when does the servant tell the master what he should be paid?

You answer to the fire chief. He answers to the Mayor and the Mayor answers to the taxpayers, and if the taxpayers don’t provide the funds, none of you have a job.

I’m not misleading anyone. The Mayor and the Governor and legislature answers to the taxpayers and the taxpayers said enough is enough. That’s why Gov Walker and the legislature are doing what they are doing. They are answering to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...
Collective bargaining is not “the servant telling the master” what he should be paid. You should be disabused of this notion. Despite your beliefs that union representatives sit down and say “we want, we want” and management trembles and cowers in fear and hands over the keys to the vault; this is not what happens in the slightest. Each side in anticipation of the talks identifies for themselves things they want to negotiate or have changed. Some of the negotiations are hammered out quickly with no disagreements between the parties. Other things like wages and healthcare sometimes take longer. But traditionally its been a give and take where one side proposes one thing the other proposes something instead. When they both have a number they can live with they sign the contract. So in no sense of the word or even the process does a servant get to tell the master what he/she is paid.

ChadS
 
ChadS said:
Collective bargaining is not “the servant telling the master” what he should be paid. You should be disabused of this notion. Despite your beliefs that union representatives sit down and say “we want, we want” and management trembles and cowers in fear and hands over the keys to the vault; this is not what happens in the slightest. Each side in anticipation of the talks identifies for themselves things they want to negotiate or have changed. Some of the negotiations are hammered out quickly with no disagreements between the parties. Other things like wages and healthcare sometimes take longer. But traditionally its been a give and take where one side proposes one thing the other proposes something instead. When they both have a number they can live with they sign the contract. So in no sense of the word or even the process does a servant get to tell the master what he/she is paid.

ChadS
Click to expand...
Spot on!
 
ChadS said:
Collective bargaining is not “the servant telling the master” what he should be paid. You should be disabused of this notion. Despite your beliefs that union representatives sit down and say “we want, we want” and management trembles and cowers in fear and hands over the keys to the vault; this is not what happens in the slightest. Each side in anticipation of the talks identifies for themselves things they want to negotiate or have changed. Some of the negotiations are hammered out quickly with no disagreements between the parties. Other things like wages and healthcare sometimes take longer. But traditionally its been a give and take where one side proposes one thing the other proposes something instead. When they both have a number they can live with they sign the contract. So in no sense of the word or even the process does a servant get to tell the master what he/she is paid.

ChadS
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Mickey_Finn said:
You are trying to compare private industry (i assume oracle is a company of some sort) with public employment. Point of fact. The mayor cannot direct my activities any more than you can. I’m polite and professional towards the tax payers. But, I don’t take my orders from them.

Does that clear it up for you?

ATB
Click to expand...
Doesn’t overcome the fact that without taxpayer money, you have no job.
 
ChadS said:
Collective bargaining is not “the servant telling the master” what he should be paid. You should be disabused of this notion. Despite your beliefs that union representatives sit down and say “we want, we want” and management trembles and cowers in fear and hands over the keys to the vault; this is not what happens in the slightest. Each side in anticipation of the talks identifies for themselves things they want to negotiate or have changed. Some of the negotiations are hammered out quickly with no disagreements between the parties. Other things like wages and healthcare sometimes take longer. But traditionally its been a give and take where one side proposes one thing the other proposes something instead. When they both have a number they can live with they sign the contract. So in no sense of the word or even the process does a servant get to tell the master what he/she is paid.

ChadS
Click to expand...
Yea, and if they don’t get what they want, they walk out.
 
qui_est_ce said:
Yea, and if they don’t get what they want, they walk out.
Click to expand...
That, and there is a great deal of difference between the theoretical union collective bargaining process and the leadership of the unions, most of which have ties to organized crime and have very stong leanings toward Marxism. So when I say that an skeptical of any union activity, that is because I am dubious of anything that an avowed Marxist says or does.

AGAIN, this is not a finger pointed at the average union member, so please get off your high horses before you even climb on.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
That, and there is a great deal of difference between the theoretical union collective bargaining process and the leadership of the unions, most of which have ties to organized crime and have very stong leanings toward Marxism. So when I say that an skeptical of any union activity, that is because I am dubious of anything that an avowed Marxist says or does.

AGAIN, this is not a finger pointed at the average union member, so please get off your high horses before you even climb on.
Click to expand...
I’ve never been one who thought the unions were necessary in their day but have now outlived their usefulness. Most unions were started in violence and corruption. Their power comes from their ability to strong-arm people with lies and fear. What the SEIU did in Washington is typical of how unions wield their power… They combined with ACORN and stormed our office in a like manner. They were unbelievably crude and violent.

Unions are just as much in business to make money as any other corporation.
 
So now the Republicans are ignoring a restraining order from a judge and ordering the goons they’re exempting from this legislation to prevent the people from entering the Capitol building. Democratic rep. Nick Milroy was also assaulted by Capitol police when attempting to reach his office to retrieve personal effects.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
So now the Republicans are ignoring a restraining order from a judge and ordering the goons they’re exempting from this legislation to prevent the people from entering the Capitol building. Democratic rep. Nick Milroy was also assaulted by Capitol police when attempting to reach his office to retrieve personal effects.
Click to expand...
So you call the police goons?

They acted very well and detained an unidentified man who pushed an officer.

But I guess you will make up anything to try and change the truth.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top