It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Readies National Guard Against Unions

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Black_Fox
 


I think he's doing this more or less just to irritate the teacher's unions. You have to know the backdrop of the story before making any assumptions about this.

He just got into office 2 months ago, he's a conservative who won against a long standing liberal. A liberal who destroyed the state of Wisconsin. He stole from the road funds among other things, in order to pay the teacher's salary increases each year while the other citizen's collected unemployment. Among many other things.... This is simply a long overdue payback.

Good for him, too bad the libby media is demonizing him.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The teacher's union in Wisconsin has abused the word union. Tell me another class of workers in the state who were getting raises and better benefits for the last 3 years???????? While the rest of us had all of our property, state and sales tax increase during the recession, you all benefited........This has been a long time coming, enjoy!!!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 




If they work for government, we are the company here, we are the boss. In my considered opinion, every Public Servant should make no more that a Private 1st Class in the Army does.
They provide their own insurance, and they answer to We the People.


But wait, what you are saying is: The government and banks messed up, so the commoners have to eat it? If you are employed, does your employer offer you a discounted insurance package (group)? I don't know about you and what you are involved in – but state employees STILL have to pay for their medical benefits... you act like they get these things for free. Union members STILL have to pay for their OWN insurance. What on earth are you talking about?

Again, another of the uninformed, making assumptions.

In your opinion – you believe public servants should make no more then a PFC? So, in essence – you condone people not making a living wage?

Lets look at what a PFC makes a month these days:


Applicable to E-1 with 4 months or more active duty. Basic pay for an E-1 with less than 4 months of active duty is $1,357.20.


Are you also suggesting that Police and Firefighters need the same scale?

Why would you base any government pay off of a PFC pay? That suggests that you don't believe our military is voluntary – as you would wish Public Servants to suffer the same hardships as being in the military. Your views soud very much like some wacked out repressive federalist ideology.

Flawed thinking from an old dying system that needs to be re-booted.
edit on 2/15/2011 by kroms33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


A "criminal enterprise" created and governed by the National Labor Relations Act. So, technically not criminal.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
About 5 years ago I started running contracts with different strike security/protection firms. It can be a very lucrative profession especially if you are selected for executive protection details. One particular strike I was on involving an aircraft manufacturer led to the demise of my career in this field.

I was approached by my employer and asked to lead a team of men to escort vehicles across the picket line. Anyone who knows anything about strikes knows that picket lines belong to the union posting them. Typically the courts will allow a picket line to hold each individual vehicle entering a facility for 30 seconds. this is considered acceptable in general.

Well the big wigs of this aircraft manufacturer decided that they didn't want their personnel waiting at all and implored my employer to find a way to expedite traffic through the line. Hence it was decided that a team would be put together that would escort each and every vehicle through the line.

I remember my initial response was a chuckle and "You're kidding", they were not. I flatly refused to be party to this team, let alone lead it. I was then questioned by the President of my employer as to my refusal in which I responded "I was under the impression that when you hired me you were looking for a professional". I t was suggested that perhaps I was scared, I was not and was reminded that should things get out of hand there are available "countermeasures" to which I replied "Why would you want to risk having to use them".

Long and short I was dismissed shortly there after and "blackballed" from every company out there in the field, all of which I was in good standing with. So a combined 15 years of experience in the field of security/law enforcement/executive protection with the USAF, Blackwater, FEMA and every EP company you can name all came to a screeching halt because I refused to infringe on the rights of union picketers and you ask me was it worth it, would I do it again? I can't honestly say that I would.

Never under estimate the abilities of powerful men, they can destroy you with a phone call. And never underestimate those doing their bidding, because the price of non-compliance can be more than most can bear. Remember I was blackballed, a Nat Guard could face court martial.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish


Let's see here; I'm going to enter into a legally binding contract with labor that guarantees a specific level of compensation for a specific job performed and now that you have performed the job, I've decided that I won't pay you the agreed upon amount and if you don't like it, I've got guardsmen who will shoot you. Now who does that sound like? A low life, lying assed republican, that's who. It's the republican/conservative movement that wishes to enslave America and the proof is in the pudding.


Good god man, read the article before you comment.

This has nothing to do with what was agreed to in the PAST. All past agreements will be honored.

This has to do with future bargining. They will only allow collective bargaining for wages on FUTURE contracts.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
This action will only pertain to State employees and state employee unions.

To date, unions have destroyed every industry they've taken deep root in.

They destroyed the steel industry, most manufacturing, and did wonders for the auto industry - where they haven't yet completed that destruction.

They've priced themselves out of the market.

Now it's time to go.


No cheap imports without tariffs are what destroyed these industries.

Educate yourself. The think tanks have brainwashed you on a grass roots level. Its called astro-turfing.

Before unions there was no middle class.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


to respond to your point, I will propose a few other questions:

What kind of idiot would allow his livelihood to be controlled by a large contingent of outside forces to the point that he has to pay another large group of outside forces to take care of and "protect" him like a little child?

My question underscores what I believe a lot of folks wonder about a "union"...Why would you intentionally choose to go into a line of work where you can be yanked around like a puppet on a string by either your management or by a bunch of moronic union thugs?

Yet another question arises: How do purportedly intelligent people decide to enter a line of work where they can be replaced like a cog in a machine, and then expect not to be treated like a cog in a machine?

To summarize, I hear a lot of these "union" folks saying that they have no real marketable skills that would allow them autonomy and self determination in a competitive economic environment, yet they expect to be treated as if they cannot or should not be subject to market forces.

Just wonderin'




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by MMPI2
 


A "criminal enterprise" created and governed by the National Labor Relations Act. So, technically not criminal.


Your response is a non sequitur.

Members of unions are known for individual and group activities that violate federal and state criminal statutes...thus, a criminal enterprise.




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by Flatfish


Let's see here; I'm going to enter into a legally binding contract with labor that guarantees a specific level of compensation for a specific job performed and now that you have performed the job, I've decided that I won't pay you the agreed upon amount and if you don't like it, I've got guardsmen who will shoot you. Now who does that sound like? A low life, lying assed republican, that's who. It's the republican/conservative movement that wishes to enslave America and the proof is in the pudding.


Good god man, read the article before you comment.

This has nothing to do with what was agreed to in the PAST. All past agreements will be honored.

This has to do with future bargining. They will only allow collective bargaining for wages on FUTURE contracts.


I don't believe that the governor and/or the state legislature has the right to limit collective bargaining to "wages" only. The right of workers to organize and participate in collective bargaining is well established not only in american law, but it is also the world standard which is clearly demonstrated in the following links;

The National Labor Relations Act; home.earthlink.net... In this excerpt from this link, the NLRA protects the right of private sector workers to organize unions.

"In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) covers most collective agreements in the private sector. This act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate, spy on, harass, or terminate the employment of workers because of their union membership or to retaliate against them for engaging in organizing campaigns or other "concerted activities" to form "company unions", or to refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union that represents their employees."

Collective Bargaining; en.wikipedia.org... It's clear in this short excerpt from this link that federal workers are protected under Kennedy's executive order issued in 1962.

"In 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public-employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies."

Even globally, the right of workers to organize into unions for the purpose of entering into collective bargaining agreements with their employers is established as a fundamental human right as indicated in this excerpt from the wiki link provided above;

"The right to collectively bargain is recognised through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organise trade unions as a fundamental human right.[3] Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers."

Even the state of Wisconsin, has a vast host of laws in place that specifically protect the right of their public sector workers to organize and negotiate for working conditions. Just scan this document and see how many you can identify;
legis.wisconsin.gov...

It time for people to wake up and admit to the fact that it's the corporations who have abandoned the states taking our jobs overseas and leaving our states to squalor in red ink. Working people are not the cause of our current dilemma and it's not the workers who are attempting to reverse established law that recognizes worker rights.

Call me a protectionist if you want to but this will not stop until we tax the living hell out of imported products made overseas in countries with a diminished standards of living. If we fail to do so, our own standard of living here in the U.S. will be reduced to that of an emerging nation in very short order. Of course, that's the corporate plan, which is to reduce America to a nation of "haves" and "have nots" where the "haves" dictate policy to the rest of us. This is exactly what they are attempting now, which is for the "haves" to reverse established law thereby reducing workers rights and the american standard of living.

These people who advocate that public sector union workers be paid no more than private sector non-union workers are ignorant to the fact that they, (private sector non-union workers) would not even be making what they are currently making if it were not for unions. The only thing that makes the non-union employer offer any raises whatsoever is due to the fact that they have to compete with union wages, at least to some degree, if they are to attract good workers from America's labor pool, otherwise all the good workers will migrate towards the higher paying jobs in their field. Almost every increase in this nation's minimum wage was predicated by unions being successful in negotiating wage increases for their workers. Go figure.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
i heard people were storming the buildings because their bargaining rights were being removed, it's a shame that in America people will fight for their life for baragining rights but not constitutional rights, and so that disinterested me from the case, but if the governor is calling in martial law this may get interesting.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
A millionare wanted to open a school. He would take half as much for each student as the public schools. Then he would make up any difference with his own money.


Unless I'm wrong, there's no law against establishing a private school. Churches and other groups have always done so, and so could this millionaire have done so. What is different in this case is the (global) rush to privatize (let private corp's have taxpayer dollars) govt functions, Private business feels it is entitled to govt dollars.

An acquaintance complained to me how he is sick of hearing his fellow businessmen rant about the need for less govt/lower taxes, yet they fall all over each other to grab govt contracts for their businesses.

reply to post by kroms33
 


Yes! Pressure must be applied (as was done in Tunisia and Egypt) to root out our own corruption. If not, the end will come as a whimper.


ATS thread, "Damn the country, Obama must fail!"



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


So this isn't criminal? Without unions this would be happening still in the US.

www.youtube.com...



edit on 16-2-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Excusing actual felony criminal activities of the unions by pointing out a social issue that was actually managed through the federal legislative process is another non-sequitur. It just doesn't work.

I appreciate the effort, but using this kind of stuff as pro-union propaganda is just not honest.





posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by MMPI2
 


A "criminal enterprise" created and governed by the National Labor Relations Act. So, technically not criminal.


Your response is a non sequitur.

Members of unions are known for individual and group activities that violate federal and state criminal statutes...thus, a criminal enterprise.



Members of corporate boards are known for the same type of crimes that you list above. Remember Enron or Tyco International? Better yet, why don't you take a look at this link and report back to me just how many members of unions you can spot.

en.wikipedia.org...

If we're going to outlaw something based on their past record of committing crimes that violate federal & state statutes, it would appear, based on the link provided above, that we probably should start by outlawing corporations and their influence on government.

Crime is not limited to any specific group of people, however,more often than not it is directly associated with Greed.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Again, I appreciate your effort, but the topic of discussion is labor unions, not corporate boards.

Your post is another good example of a non sequitur. If you were in a scored debate, you would have substantial points removed for this.




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Again, I appreciate your effort, but the topic of discussion is labor unions, not corporate boards.

Your post is another good example of a non sequitur. If you were in a scored debate, you would have substantial points removed for this.



O.K. let me try again, Crime was not invented by unions or corporations, it infected them just as it has virtually every known aspect of american business at one time or another. If you feel that unions should be outlawed because there have been criminals within their ranks in the past, then wouldn't the same philosophy hold true for corporations? Did I not provide ample proof of criminals within the corporate ranks? All I'm trying to point out is that you can't just selectively apply your philosophy of outlawing every element of society that has ever had a criminal within their ranks because that virtually includes every industry ever started.

With regards to scoring deductions for "non sequitur" statements in a debate, you may be surprised to discover that points also get deducted for ad hominem statements which I believe yours clearly was. Are you not stating that all unions are criminal organizations just because one was found to have a criminal element at one time?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I know how it is, man. I feel for you.

Defending the indefensible - labor unions - is a tough if not impossible task.

The problem is confounded by the fact that labor unions are relics of a by-gone era, and that politicians and policy makers are starting to understand that union ideology and their resulting behavior does infinitely more harm than good.




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I know how it is, man. I feel for you.

Defending the indefensible - labor unions - is a tough if not impossible task.

The problem is confounded by the fact that labor unions are relics of a by-gone era, and that politicians and policy makers are starting to understand that union ideology and their resulting behavior does infinitely more harm than good.



No need to feel for me, I'm not the one wearing blinders. This battle is not just happening in Wisconsin and it's far from over.

People worldwide, are waking up to the fact that unions are their only protection against corporate abuse. It was the strikes by organized labor in Egypt that ended up being the final catalyst that brought victory to those participating in the protest to remove Mubarak. These people were not protesting to protect corporate profits, they were protesting to demand social justice.

People in Mexico and China are beginning to organize and form trade unions because they are sick of the treatment being donned out by multi-national corporations. Like I said before, this battle is far from being over and I'm putting my money on the working people.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join