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 shows rest of country the real union thuggery going on in this country

page: 15
40
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by angelwrangler
reply to post by robyn
 


Whoa Nelly...

The assumption Robyn is that you are informed on the law, regulations, civics and how our system works.

You are suggesting the teachers should show the students how to give up their rights by returning to work? I want my son's teacher to show him how to fight for his rights.


I should think your son's teacher's FIRST job would be to teach him his rights, not which of her rights he needs to agree with, or stand up for. HIS first right is to be taught. Teachers are for teaching the 3 R's, no? Reading, wRiting and aRithmatics? Isn't that why we pay property taxes? Secondly, it's up to YOU to teach him to "fight for his rights" because my understanding is that you are his parent. Who better to have his interests at heart than you?

So now that you have this boondoggle, now what? Who is going to negotiate with the public employee unions on behalf of the taxpayers? Who should we give that power to?


The problem is that a unionized government workforce by necessity cuts out the ability of the voter to affect government policy, government spending, and the dissemination of government services. The incestuous relationship between unions that become a patron of politicians and politicians that return that patronage only to start the cycle over again wholly undercuts the voter’s ability to direct government to their desires and needs through the ballot box in the normal way a democracy should work.
Source


Unions have outlived their usefulness. Public employees should never have been given the right to unionize, it makes no sense. We have learned the lessons taught by our forefathers re unions. Unions were about rights, which then became about money, which then turned into power. And everyone knows that power corrupts. THAT'S why the unions (in general) have been on a steady decline. And the Democrats know this, hence the big fight making this about worker's "rights". Democrats know that the writing is on the wall for unions in the private sector, that's why they are pushing so hard for public employee unions. It's not about "rights," this is about unions. Whether a public employee needs to unionize in the first place. Against whom are they unionizing? The very taxpayers who pay their wages.

You SHOULD be upset about your son's teacher, though. Your son's teachers, administrators and countless other bureacrats have seen to it that since the advent of the Department of Education, your child's education is sub par. Compared to third world countries! When you fall behind countries like Slovenia... come on, get real.

I put this quote on another thread, but I'll repost here, because I think it's a good indicator of what exactly these Teacher's Unions have done for your children...


Originally posted by Califemme
You're concerned about Fraud? You know what "numbers don't lie"? International Test Scores.

In 4th grade math, we rank 12th.
In 8th grade math, we rank 28th.
In 12th grade math, we rank 19th.

In 4th grade science, we rank 3rd.
In 8th grade science, we rank 17th.
In 12th grade science, we rank 16th.

Those teachers unions should give back their pay PLUS some.

The schools systematically let kids down. By grade 4, American students only score in the middle of 26 countries reported. By grade 8 they are in the bottom third, and at the finish line, where it really counts, we're near dead last. Its even worse when you notice that some of the superior countries in grade 8 (especially the Asians) were not included in published 12th grade results. They do not need 12 grades. [emphasis mine]
4brevard.com...


The time is long past for union busting. I applaud each and every governor who takes this fight to public sector unions. I say leave private sector unions alone, so long as they are negotiating on equal terms. And I am not a lone voice in this, there are many more like me; we used to be called the silent majority. I say used to, because we are no longer silent.




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Califemme
Who is going to negotiate with the public employee unions on behalf of the taxpayers? Who should we give that power to?

Speaking from experience? High level management and staff lawyers.


Unions have outlived their usefulness.

Speaking from experience? You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

Zip.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Teachers don't tip
oh well,
If you can't do
teach...

Look what they taught the people bossin' them around.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
And the irony here is that the collective bargaining agreement currently in place has cost TAXPAYERS $6,000,000 already because these bums decided to parade around the capitol.

I saw a news report this morning on FOX (yes, THAT Fox), where the reporter was trying to get more information about the doctor's notes being handed out at the demonstration. He interviewed someone passing these out as well as a recipient and let me tell you they were both buffoons. If they are any indicator at the type of people who make up the majority of demonstrators, then you folks in WI are hurtin.

See, I don't get it. You have an election. 60% + of the voters voted for this Governor and what he wanted to do. The MAJORITY of voters support him and his decision. Yet, a MINORITY is screaming, yelling, carrying on and, quite frankly acting like spoiled brats, at the capitol trying to overturn what the majority wants, while these pathetic excuses for state senators run and hide to avoid a vote.

Only in America.


edit on 22-2-2011 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
You have an election. 60% + of the voters voted for this Governor and what he wanted to do. The MAJORITY of voters support him and his decision. Yet, a MINORITY is screaming, yelling, carrying on and, quite frankly acting like spoiled brats, at the capitol trying to overturn what the majority wants, while these pathetic excuses for state senators run and hide to avoid a vote.
Only in America.

Might wanna check yer facts, there...

...when given a detailed description on the current dispute between labor and the Republicans in Madison, Wisconsin voters tend to side with the unions. Here's what the detailed question in the AFL-CIO-sponsored survey sounded like:

"As you may know, Governor Scott Walker recently announced a plan to limit most public employees' ability to negotiate their wages and benefits. The plan cuts pension and health care benefits for current public workers, and restricts new wage increases unless approved by a voter referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year, with wages frozen until a new contract is settled. In addition, Walker's plan also changes rules to require collective bargaining units to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union, stops employers from collecting union dues, and allows members of collective bargaining units to avoid paying dues. Law enforcement, fire employees and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from the changes."

When given that read on the situation, 52% of respondents said they don't favor Walker's scheme. Just 42% said they favor it. tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...


So...that would appear to change things a tad. And of course, the whole story seems a little supressed when outlined by the Right (what an interesting oxymoron, that):

The Truth Behind The Anti-Union Assault
...a closer look at Wisconsin's deficit reveals Walker's budget woes don't stem from workers' collective bargaining rights. The claim that public employees must sacrifice their bargaining rights to balance this year's budget is misleading as there is no obvious relationship between union membership and state budgets. Indeed, "the biggest savings Walker is proposing for the current budget have nothing to do with public employees. His bill proposes to save $165 million this year by simply refinancing state debt." But the $3.6 billion deficit Walker is apoplectic over is actually exacerbated by his own tax cuts. pr.thinkprogress.org...



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Califemme
 


Well said.
In the words of Nancy Pelosi "We won the election."
Gov. Scott Walker is calling the shots.
The people of Wisconsin have spoken.
The liberals/progressives who are hiding out at the Clock Tower Resort do not like what the people
have said so.......run to Illinois!
Label Gov. Scott Walker a Hitler and then hope for the best?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Califemme
Who is going to negotiate with the public employee unions on behalf of the taxpayers? Who should we give that power to?

Speaking from experience? High level management and staff lawyers.


Unions have outlived their usefulness.

Speaking from experience? You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

Zip.


See, Johnny, I find it quite laughable that all of a sudden you think "high level management and staff lawyers" should handle the negotiation for the taxpayers.

What does you "experience" tell you when, two parties come to a negotiating table and only one party has a stake in the negotiations? Why would a manager or lawyer try haggling with unions on our behalf?
Remember what happened to the bankers? CEOs? You think they like protestors outside their homes scaring children?

See, it's funny, because on the one hand, I'm telling you that you don't need unions, because in this day and age all you need is a lawyer if you think you are being treated unfairly, and on the other hand, you sit here and tell me that unions need to negotiate with management and lawyers. What a tangled web we weave, Johnny.

Ever heard of Gloria Allred? You don't need a union. And, THAT is from MY experience!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Califemme
 


Siiigh.


Um, lawyers and high-level staff are precisely who handles such negotiations now. They do what they are told to do by their bosses, because it's their job to do so. Who do you think does?

Your suggestion that a single employee hire a lawyer is acceptable as long as you can explain exactly, with links, where someone who makes minimum wage is going to find a private lawyer to represent them. Where do yuo think the hourly wage floor would be to be able to hire someone who charges three figures an hour who can successfully fight lawyers who make four?

You really don't know what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Yep, I trust those AFL-CIO surveys.

Not tainted at all.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Yep, I trust those AFL-CIO surveys.
Not tainted at all.

Once the partisan venom is removed from the issue, only the facts remain. The poll provides the question and the results. Seems pretty clear to me. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Califemme

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Califemme
Who is going to negotiate with the public employee unions on behalf of the taxpayers? Who should we give that power to?

Speaking from experience? High level management and staff lawyers.


Unions have outlived their usefulness.

Speaking from experience? You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

Zip.


See, Johnny, I find it quite laughable that all of a sudden you think "high level management and staff lawyers" should handle the negotiation for the taxpayers.

What does you "experience" tell you when, two parties come to a negotiating table and only one party has a stake in the negotiations? Why would a manager or lawyer try haggling with unions on our behalf?
Remember what happened to the bankers? CEOs? You think they like protestors outside their homes scaring children?
See, it's funny, because on the one hand, I'm telling you that you don't need unions, because in this day and age all you need is a lawyer if you think you are being treated unfairly, and on the other hand, you sit here and tell me that unions need to negotiate with management and lawyers. What a tangled web we weave, Johnny.
Ever heard of Gloria Allred? You don't need a union. And, THAT is from MY experience!

I have negotiated public sector contracts, and I have represented the rank and file on the shop floor. I do believe I have a much better idea of what I am talking about. And I don't believe the Canadian labour experience differs that much from yours...except we spell it right.

edit on 22-2-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: if you're gonna cite spelling, you'd better get it right...lol



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Califemme
 


Steps are being taken to recall the dems who fled the state of Wisconsin.
Recall the AWOL
It's about time.
This should wake them up.
Did they think the state government would mail their "paychecks" to the Clock Tower Resort?


Ex

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


The collective bargaining tool is just so th unions can have a voice at the bargaining table.
Well, unless you want those folks that Walker gave the tax break to ,
( funny how it's exactly the same amount he now says Wisconsin is in debt)
to be telling labor ( which , would be happening if his measures go into effect)

I can get this work done for 25 cents....you can have a job and be grateful for 26 cents.

Republicans are just angry because Democrats watched them in congress last term
( the party of NO) with the pics of Obama as Hitler..learned and now put Walker on that same poster.

Ain't Karma a Bit** !!!

ps...sorry for the runon sentence
edit on 2/22/2011 by Ex because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex
 


Yeah, and it's o.k. for these demonstrators (a.k.a. democrats) to refer to this governor as Hitler, but when it was assumed that the Tea Party was doing that towards Obama, old Nancy was crying on cue.

Give me a break with your double-standards.

Public sector unions have got to go.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Public sector unions have got to go.

Then who will take care of the interests of the employees?
Do you assume every manager is competent? Or honest? What about unpaid overtime, bullying, favoritism, unfair or unhealthy labourpractices? Who will negotiate on behalf of the employees? Or is that gone, too?

Ask a public sector steward what kind of grievances they service...it might just open your eyes.
Meanwhile, how about tracking down the lawmakers and bankers that put you in this fix in the first place by allowing jobs to go overseas and eroding the tax base...and putting the squeeze on them?

Or is it simply that much easier to harass your neighbour?


Ex

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Public unions do NOT have to go!!
Tax breaks for the wealthy do,
I do not want a United States Of Corporations in charge of the middle class!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex
 


Yep, long overdue in my opinion.

Join the rest of us who don't get special treatment.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Ex
 

Yep, long overdue in my opinion.
Join the rest of us who don't get special treatment.

So they have you convinced that a living wage and a good benefit package in exchange for your work is 'special treatment'?

There's your problem...low self esteem!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Califemme

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Califemme
Who is going to negotiate with the public employee unions on behalf of the taxpayers? Who should we give that power to?

Speaking from experience? High level management and staff lawyers.


Unions have outlived their usefulness.

Speaking from experience? You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

Zip.


See, Johnny, I find it quite laughable that all of a sudden you think "high level management and staff lawyers" should handle the negotiation for the taxpayers.

What does you "experience" tell you when, two parties come to a negotiating table and only one party has a stake in the negotiations? Why would a manager or lawyer try haggling with unions on our behalf?
Remember what happened to the bankers? CEOs? You think they like protestors outside their homes scaring children?
See, it's funny, because on the one hand, I'm telling you that you don't need unions, because in this day and age all you need is a lawyer if you think you are being treated unfairly, and on the other hand, you sit here and tell me that unions need to negotiate with management and lawyers. What a tangled web we weave, Johnny.
Ever heard of Gloria Allred? You don't need a union. And, THAT is from MY experience!

I have negotiated public sector contracts, and I have represented the rank and file on the shop floor. I do believe I have a much better idea of what I am talking about. And I don't believe the Canadian labour experience differs that much from yours...except we spell it right.

edit on 22-2-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: if you're gonna cite spelling, you'd better get it right...lol


Johnny, please try to see what I'm saying here. Who's best interest did you have at heart when YOU were negotiating? Did you have mine? Did you say "no, we [union fellas] don't need 1.5 hour lunches" or did you try and get 1.5 hour lunches for your union members? (I'm not saying this is what you did, I'm just trying to get you to understand the point of my post)

Imagine I'm the negotiator for the taxpayers... Who will try as hard as me to keep costs down? You? High level managers? Staff attorneys? High level managers and staff attorneys will continue "negotiating" for how long? Until the government runs out of money? We're there now. The only people capable of representing taxpayers in union demands are... wait for it... TAXPAYERS!!

Do you get me now bad speller?!?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Califemme
Johnny, please try to see what I'm saying here. Who's best interest did you have at heart when YOU were negotiating? Did you have mine? Did you say "no, we [union fellas] don't need 1.5 hour lunches" or did you try and get 1.5 hour lunches for your union members? (I'm not saying this is what you did, I'm just trying to get you to understand the point of my post)

Imagine I'm the negotiator for the taxpayers... Who will try as hard as me to keep costs down? You? High level managers? Staff attorneys? High level managers and staff attorneys will continue "negotiating" for how long? Until the government runs out of money? We're there now. The only people capable of representing taxpayers in union demands are... wait for it... TAXPAYERS!!

Do you get me now bad speller?!?

Honestly? We were all proud of the institution that we served. Those who negotiated against us were top level management and high-end lawyers...tough and nasty. We fought for job security and a fair increase in wages. They purposely negotiated us into a completely untenable position, and walked out. They didn't come back to the table til it was apparent we'd go out on legal strike. We called their bluff. But you know the one point that they absolutely refused to negotiate? A ban on bullying in the workplace!

You all forget that a good employer does not get a union. And that a collective agreement is just that...a mutually agreed upon set of rules for the workplace. And a deal ought to be a deal...especially when it wasn't the unions that killed the economy. Go after your lawmakers, not your neighbours. Anything else is a race to the bottom and you all lose.

Just to point out...we have a higher rate of unionised workers in Canada...and we don't have the housing foreclosures. The dots are there if you care to connect them



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join