Wisconsin Public Workers Protest Governor's Proposal

reply to post by Oaktree


I'm in a union and if we organized a sickout- fired.
We even agreed to not strike in our contract.
There are good and bad unions, just like everything else in life. I believe sickouts are wrong too and I'm in a union, not a state union though. I'm just tired of being grouped with the bad unions, like we all conspire to bring the economy down.

reply to post by sbc650mike


i feel for you.


you are like a moderate muslum.

sort of.

This was originally posted as a reply to a member on GLP, but I feel I covered quite a great deal of information that may be useful in understanding this better so I have included the quote it responds to as well as the reply. I hope this clears up some misconceptions regarding what is currently occurring in Wisconsin...

[quote:Anonymous Coward 1063859]
The people protesting the cuts are mentally unstable. They have an abnormality of the brain that allows them to believe that a government can spend more than it takes in forever without any consequences. They are like children that want to eat nothing but candy all day. Eventually, the mature adult has to step in and say "No". Because of this mental imbalance, these protesters are a danger not only to themselves but also the decent and civilized people that go to work everyday and whose taxes pay their bloated salaries. The governor is doing his job, standing up for the taxpaying citizens of his state instead of the parasitic union special interests. Unions are parasitic scum that need to be broken up and dissolved.
[End quote]

I'm sorry, you seem to misunderstand how the world works so please let me correct you.


The people whom are for the dissolution of organized labor are the ones whom are mentally unstable. Yes, if the situation was black and white as you describe, and these people had overspent money they didn't have, and were personally responsible for this, then perhaps forcing "austerity" upon them is justified. Unfortunately, and I know this may upset some of the selfish people who look to displace their rage onto a certain population segment i.e. unions, teachers, govt. employees., etc. but these people are NOT responsible for this mess.

Here, let me try to make this more simple for those who may not comprehend this. Anyone who has EVER, at ANY time, paid attention or studied economics of "capitalism" at ALL realizes that in capitalism there are only 2 segments of the population. These two, are Capital and Labor.

Since the majority of the population has little to no capital or access to means of productions, they sell their "labor" at a price to be able to use said means of production. Thus, this segment of the population is able to survive.

Capital, the other faction in the equation, are those whom own the means of production and possess "capital" for which to invest. Thus, Capital, employs the use of labor so that it may continue to thrive.

Now, notice how each of those descriptions end. One ends to survive, and the other to thrive. Inherently, since profit (for those uneducated, true profit is an act of creation and addition of value, not a high-speed trading program) in this physical world is inarguably limited, when either side gains an advantage it comes at the disadvantage of the opposing class.

Now to the point. Economics is governed by another law known as 'supply and demand'. How S&D fit into the equation is where our story truly begins in terms of globalization. I'm sure anyone reading this forum has been paying attention for a decent period of time so it comes as no shock to hear "our" (see Their) media exclaim of the benefits of globalization.

And Yes, globalization does have benefits, but only for the capital class. Back to the concept of S&D. In a free market, prices and wages are set by the consumer and the market based on value, and this is where the agreed upon compensation between employee (Labor), and employer (Capital) is formed. As history as well as statistics has shown, wealth tends to aggregate toward a small percentage over time thus providing leverage for which capital may negotiate their prices.

Imagine a small city, and in this city are 100 people. Now out of these 100 people, only 5 belong the Capital class, and the other 95 belong to labor. Now what do you suppose happens, when all of the other 95 people, with no means of production (see manufacturing)are able to survive, eat, and afford shelter only by becoming employed through said Capital class. No problems yet right?

Next we'll add an extra dose of reality to our example by saying that these 5 Capital owners only have a need for 85 employees and not 95. (See Unemployment rate of approx 10%)[Or if you really read between the lines, they do have a need for atleast 90, but will pronounce in various 'owned' media publications how times have been rough for them so they can only hire 85] Well the employees begin offering their services to Capital for lower and lower rates, because as we can see their is a heavy demand for such employment if it the only way to SURVIVE and eat. Now what happens one year later to our town? Well, Capital, has gone through the city and has searched the lowest bidders, and then proceeded to explain to the unemployed if they will not lower their bid (Wages) to meet the reductions of other citizens, than they will remain unemployed.

Now the whole town is awash with chaos as wages continue to decrease through demand, but prices remain the same and the people who now have employment, don't have enough resources. They must now choose, will they eat, or will they have a place to live... and thats just the beginning...




While I admit the above story could have been slightly more articulate, you'll have to forgive me as I incinerated a few plants prior to opening and reading this thread.

Now, the real question... How can this time tested fact/tragedy of the economics of capitalism in which Capital, using shortages (real or artificial) to take advantange of and exploit labor, be prevented.

Well for those of you who still haven't gotten it, its called COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Now let me make this even more painfully clear. Here's how our example goes in our small town with COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (See unions). Well now, our 5 members of the Capital class have decided to go around town to find the lowest bidder so that their profit margins can be as high as physically attainable. Unfortunately, and to their suprise, Labor, as a society, rather than fighting amonst themselves, paid attention to what Capital did the last town they came through, and instead of fighting each other to see who can be paid the least, they decided to form a COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Agreement (See union).

All 95 of the towns people recognize the need to work and desire to do so. They also realize that capital maintains leverage while they are divided and competing amongst themselves, but should they be able to reconcile their (meaningless) differences with each other and if they ALL agree to REFUSE to work for any amount of $$ (money), less than said agreement, then the power of balance and leverage now swing in the opposite direction. Now Capital has two choices, let itself die (or as Gerald Celente likes to say, "take a hair cut" because production shuts down with out the needed labor input. Or Option 2, they agree to pay fair and reasonable wages. Now, while capital remains profitable(See Thriving), Labor, now has the resources it needs to not only afford shelter, food, and fuel, but now has capital of its own to use to invest in society, and perhaps escape the bondage known as wage- slavery. Now Labor AND Capital thrive!!

America, really the world, is like the above mentioned town. We have two choices, we can thrive together, or we can do as the poster I quoted and complain, blame, and displace our feelings of true cause of society's problems.

Sure its the "greedy teachers" or the "evil labor unions" or "those people who have a different skin tone or religion than 'us". Its all their fault.

Perhaps, rather than being critical of people whom have the spine and courage to stand up, shake off the chains of division and hatred, and truely fight for a better future, perhaps, you should rethink, whether or not you are the problem...NOT them.

One last point: The finances of all 50 states as well as the federal entity are beyond repair. Aside from a bankruptcy which clears the fiat debt heaped onto our society, there is little to nothing reduced benifits or spending cuts can do.

Yes, something must be done to fix our fiscal soundness. But, NO, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT the correct solution to force "austerity" on ANY segment of the population. We may have run into fiscal trouble, but our solution to this problem needs to come from an entirely different archetype.

For centuries, organized capital has exploited the divided common people and aggregated as much power and wealth as it could, from whatever source was easiest to take it from. Do you understand why the elite are referred to as INTERNATIONAL Bankers? Because they have no allegiance to any country.

Would you like to know why they are so eager to set up a one world government? Because they are AFRAID of the Power of the state (please do not associate our current fascistic regime with the word state, I am referring to "the state" as any free government that understands quite well the laws of economics and employs safeguards(and regulations) to level the playing field between capital and labor. The state is one of the only vehicles with enough wealth, resources, and power that can prevent the "Giant Vampire Squid" from sucking the life out of humanity.

Now second only to the state in power to protect citizens of the Labor class, are the unions. So if you want to erase one of the last vestiges of power that the Labor class has to defend itself, please feel free. But perhaps history may not agree with your interpretation of the solution.

So I rebuke you, and say that those fighting against the people protesting the cuts, are the ones whom are mentally unfit. No, it is not possible for a government or entity to spend more than it has forever, but asking the citizens of state to pay for this fiat "debt" is akin to this example.

Imagine a family, a father, a mother, and two sons sitting together around a dinner table (yes in America, I know this is a shocking concept that may be hard to imagine) discussing their new budget. As it turns out one of the sons recently placed some huge bets on a new gambling attraction in New York called Toxic MBS. Unfortunately he leveraged himself to the hilt prior to going and after losing, he now owes millions. Well like good parents they say, our child is "too big to fail" so we'll bail him out. And so they do, thus liquidating their retirement, 401k, IRA, and all other investments including a beach house and all of their property other than the house they live in.

The parents now have tough choices, as the amount they raised to cover the bad bets still was short of the figure necessary to clear the debt. They decide to take on emergency loans with astronomical interest, as there is no other way to raise capital, but they have no choice since those are all they are approved for. Now looking at their income statement and balance sheet, the family realizes they now have to cut back on their lifestyle drastically since the interest is so high on all of their loans.

Ok so what gets cut from the budget? Does dad cut his Martial arts classes? He swears they are for self-defense but the majority of the classes are really about aggressive and confrontational "interventionalism"?

Does mom cut her HomeYard Security Budget, which she swears prevents terrorists from destroying the garden, but she has no actual proof?

Ok well surely they wouldn't cut funding to little Johnny's music class would they? And they definitely wouldn't cut back on how much they pay for food for their children, not when they could cut back on just those two and have more than enough to at least temporarily alleviate the fiscal burdens, right?

Unfortunately though, The Answer, if you live anywhere in the western world is YES. The only items on the budget that are cut are ones whom affect the children. But hey who cares, we don't have to acknowledge their input, their just children, useless eaters really...

And that is what you are asking. You are asking the children of the American family (and please do not interpret that condescendingly, it is used only in relation to above story), to stop their education, and deal with "eating a little less", because they don't want candy, they just want to achieve atleast slightly above sustenance.


Conclusion: Read the REAL history of labor day. And since certain people seem to be incapable of understanding, I'll use your own example. Guess what? If you want to sacrifice your own and others well being and dissolve society's protection against exploitation, then please, LET ME BE THE MATURE ADULT and step in and say:

"NO"

once again democracy has failed the people, how long can we afford this system?

Hey I live in Madison and I can tell you for a fact that the number of people on Thursday was well over 10,000. between 10am and noon the average number of people at any given moment had to be at least 30,000+ and people were coming and going all day. The total number of people for the day has to number at least 100,000+

Off duty police ( in uniform) and firefighters were among the protesters, In fact the firefighters got in dress uniform and marched on the Capitol.The new governor actually approached the national guard in case he need to "suppress" the situation if local law enforcement wouldn't fight their own people.

The democratic members of the state government stayed home on Thursday too. Here is the kicker the state workers union has been working hand in hand with government for almost 40 years in Wisconsin, they even negotiated pay(and benefit) cuts and salary freezes over the last two years, that's why some of these people are so pissed.

Here is another little nugget: wisconsin welfare program's for the most part have no time limit, there are people that have 52 inch flat televisions and leather furniture and the state pays most or all of their rent , food and in some cases utilities. They even get vouchers for cab rides ( cab rides for god's sakes!). At one of the largest local liquor stores here in Madison the clerk was mentioning how many times people will come in and buy bottles of Grey Goose (expensive vodka) and Cognac and then use their food stamp card to buy 40 or fifty dollars worth of mixers and junk to go with it. Yeah go state money at work. It may be different else where but here almost 90% of these people that get state handouts are directly related to crime and other anti-social activities, and are generational: they live off of welfare and teach their children to live off of welfare FOR THEIR WHOLE LIVES .

So in a bad economy we should take money from the ones working and keep giving it to the ones that are almost totally anti-social and economically destructive?

Originally posted by Silverlok



So in a bad economy we should take money from the ones working and keep giving it to the ones that are almost totally anti-social and economically destructive?

Nope,we should fix it also. Unfortunately the poor abusing welfare had been given a pass for years,by prior governors,the last 8 years by Jim Doyle. People dont get it, NOTHING IS FREE! Unfortunately,you cant fix the budget by nailing the unemployed,or those on welfare. And those on welfare arnt getting a fraction of what those Government Unions Employees are getting.Looks like EVERYONE is getting something from the Government. Entitlements,Pensions,etc. The Taxpayer is getting it in the rear.

I don't know that I agree that the welfare programs are a fraction. The total number of dollars we are talking about shaving under the walker proposal is something like $300,000,000, a significant fraction of that could be translated from welfare reforms, another major problem is the cost of medical care.

The absolutely crazy skyrocketing of health care costs could easily be reduced for state employees if instead of insurance plans they implement state owned and operated health facilities specifically for state employees(something that could easily be grafted onto the state health paid badger care)...but shifting the money out of the deep pocket of big government and bigger PHARM is not something you are likely to see.

At any rate Walker's methods are simply archaic and outdated.Strong arming was great for various mafia's but it falls short as good governing goes. There are much better methods than the "change is hard get over it" method of running rough shod in the face of public opinion and possibly even welfare.

Remember; to get the horse to drink one needs only to get the horse to think that it's a good idea. the New Governor's method is ridiculously heavy-handed and is either frightfully naive (or possibly ego-centric), or blatantly deceptive (i.e. the real goal has nothing to do with "fixing" the budget or "helping" the economy FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON) . It's that simple....

( on the subject of saving money a simple review and then modification of how highway repair funding gets allocated and used would save the state hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Seriously if they freeway crews don't spend all the money allocated for the year they don't get as much next year...so jobs , oddly, always seem to spend all of their funding every time, from watching HOW this is done in this state the best description, managerially speaking, is called MILKING, of course wisconsin is known for milk right? so I am sure it's all good )