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: 16
40
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
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.


Well, first of all, "they do what they are told to do by their bosses" is correct. BUT, who are the bosses? The bosses get "voted" in, don't they? And the money from the public employees is used then to fund the campaigns of "bosses" aren't they? Because they hope to keep getting the same bosses. Well, guess what? The boss' campaign lost this time and here comes the new boss! Enjoy!

Oh, AND, are you kidding me? I work in litigation and if you can find me ONE minimum wage employee being abused, I am sure an attorney could find MANY employees who have grievances, and would take the case 'pro bono' simply because they know they can sue, settle and be paid by the insurance company. Snap. Crackle. Pop. That's it. The HOOTERs restaurant chain was sued by a guy who said they wouldn't hire him as a waiter because he's a man, remember? In America, we call that discrimination. Do you know what happened to that lawsuit? One word. Settlement.

I personally know many of these types of attorneys and I can tell you that if they think they'll make a buck off it, they'd sell their own mother. Ever heard of Johnny Cochran? Gloria Allred? Mark Geragos?

Do you really want to get into an argument about what you think I know or don't know? heh... sigh.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

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


You. Are. Making. My. Point. For. Me.

Who's interest did the lawyers and management have in mind? The "company's" interest, no? And the company's interest is... what?!? PROFITS!! (unless of course, you worked for a non-profit)

Well, government organizations aren't supposed to make a profit.

Let me repeat that for those of you in the cheap seats...

Government organizations aren't supposed to make a profit.

Governments don't MAKE money. They TAKE taxpayer money. Can you hear me now?!?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
Ten percent work in unions. How are we able to not live in squalor us non union folks? Sounds like your wife chose the profession she's at and likes or she could go make 100K like you say. I don't see what your howling about. Fact is in the open marketplace you can be compensated for your individual talent and not have to drag the underachievers along with you. That is why unions are socialist. Spread the wealth. No thank you I'll achieve my own wealth and not force taxpayers to provide wealth for me.


Its called a standard of living,it wouldnt be as high without the unions and at one time when America was the great manufacturing center of the world it was a little higher than 10%. Maybe she should look into a charter school to teach so she can earn more in line with her education, but then again most of these schools cater to blue blood elitists, screw the working class education go where the money is after all an uneducated general population is what the government wants.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Califemme
 


Trust me, finding a pro bono lawyer isn't anywhere as easy as all that. I and a group of my colleagues tried for years to find one to help us clean up our union. Although all the ones we contacted told us we had a good class action case, none would take it without a substantial retainer. Eventually we prevailed but only after years of sacrifice and hard work. We never got to go to court to recover anything, but at least we forced the removal of the entire ruling regime.

I am very well aware of the flaws in unions, having fought them hard for several years, but to allow employers the power to dictate terms with no recourse will only lead us to feudal times.

What would you do if a legislature decided that legal fees were strangling business and passed a law that limited lawyers' fees to $25.00 an hour to help balance the state budget?

Would you support that?

It seems like a reasonable way to help balance the budget to me.
edit on 22-2-2011 by apacheman because: sp



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Califemme
Can you hear me now?!?

Oh, I hear you, but I believe the only thing we share is that neither of us know what you are talking about.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Califemme
 


Trust me, finding a pro bono lawyer isn't anywhere as easy as all that. I and a group of my colleagues tried for years to find one to help us clean up our union. Although all the ones we contacted told us we had a good class action case, none would tkae it without a substantial retainer. eventually we prevailed but only after years of sacrifice and hard work.

I am very well aware of the flaws in unions, having fought them hard for several years, but to allow employers the power to dictate terms with no recourse will only lead us to feudal times.

What would you do if a legislature decided that legal fees were strangling business and passed a law that limited lawyers' fees to $25.00 an hour to help balance the state budget?

Would you support that?

It seems like a reasonable way to balance the budget to me.


My first question is why wouldn't anyone take the case? I hate to "lead the witness" here, but which attorney wants to go up against a union without a big retainer? Have you seen pictures of the Wisconsin capitol building lately? I rest my case.

Secondly, I DO allow employers the "power to dictate terms terms with no recourse" when I, the TAXPAYER am the employer. Therein lies the difference. I don't care what private sector groups do, it's pretty American to have groups of people stand together for sports, work or leisure, regardless of race, wealth or culture.

As for your question re lawyers fees, I can tell you that since I'm not a lawyer, their fees mean absolutely nothing to me. Do I have a problem with the government coming in and dictating how much they can make? Why yes, yes I do, whether it's the maximum OR the minimum. Just because the max or min doesn't work for YOU, it doesn't mean it wouldn't work for someone else. I think the government needs to get out of people's business in the first place.

And while I'm giving this lesson, I think it's apropos to also school you on one last thing...

The government's ONE AND ONLY JOB is to protect it's citizens from enemies.

Foreign AND domestic.

Whether someone is trying to steal from me or hurt me, the government is supposed to lock up the bad guys and protect the good guys. The governments job is NOT to give out free s**t. Period.

And, how does limiting lawyer's pay affect the budget deficit?

edit on 22-2-2011 by Califemme because: I must.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Califemme
Can you hear me now?!?

Oh, I hear you, but I believe the only thing we share is that neither of us know what you are talking about.


Awesome, glad your hearing AND reading skills are in order.

So............................... did you unionize for a company who makes a profit or not? Because that sort of ties in my posts' points. I'm sorry if I've made this discussion so hard for you to follow along with me.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Califemme

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Califemme
Can you hear me now?!?

Oh, I hear you, but I believe the only thing we share is that neither of us know what you are talking about.


Awesome, glad your hearing AND reading skills are in order.

So............................... did you unionize for a company who makes a profit or not? Because that sort of ties in my posts' points. I'm sorry if I've made this discussion so hard for you to follow along with me.

No need to be condescending. I was a chief steward for a large public sector employer. Even though the question of making a profit is debatable, the institution is accountable to the taxpayer, and management had no compunction about screwing the employees in the process...ignoring the fact that it was squandering the goodwill that helped it to achieve excellence.
Most unions are the result of bad management, most grievances are the result of bad management, and it's no surprise that employers don't like independent arbitration because they generally lose.

Negotiations were nastier than my divorce...so any insinuation that we walked over the other side is nonsense. We scrabbled for whatever we achieved, and fair compensation is not cheating the taxpayer. Talk to somebody in labour...it's illuminating, but it takes guts to listen and threaten your preconceived notions.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

A Gentle Reminder




Please discuss the topic and not each other and:

MOD NOTE: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
edit on Tue Feb 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
How about this section of the "budget repair bill".




>>the department [of administration] may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount...



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by villagesmithie
How about this section of the "budget repair bill".




>>the department [of administration] may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

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

Well then, maybe you'd like to try this one on for size:


Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights
Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law. www.usatoday.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is, most Americans here in the United States have formed a negative opinion of unions, so, other than the union members themselves, many voters are happy to see power of unions decline.

I have personally been prevented from getting a job because a union wouldn't let me join---jobs were being saved for family members of current union members.

I've also been personally threatened at a factory where a union vote was coming.

And the biggest hurdle in US education has been holding the educators accountable; unions directly oppose merit-based pay, and even oppose uniform student assessments.

The declining popularity of unions, and the increasing view of them as drags on productivity are commonplace here in the states.

My own state, Texas, created half of all new US jobs last year. It's right-to-work ethic is seen by many other states as one source of that growth

Most of the in-country migration during this recession has been away from unionized states and toward non-union states.
edit on 23-2-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: quote, link problems

edit on 23-2-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Oh, you mean the liberal USAToday put out a poll that favors unions?

Go figure.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Oh, you mean the liberal USAToday put out a poll that favors unions?
Go figure.

Holdin' out for FOX are you?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Oaktree
 


Mass schools require you obtain 15 credits a year to uphold your licensure after you get the required Masters to be a teacher, sooner or later your going to have a cags or Doctorate.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   


Damn



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 




There we go, now we are getting to the real reason why there is so much excitement going on in Wisconsin!!
.

Wisconsin's power is already in the hands of corporations.
Has been for as long as I can remember.

WEC (Wisconsin Energy Corp.) is traded on the NYSE under the symbol WEC.

Been that way since long before Gov. Walker was even born.

Wisconsin_Energy_Corporation



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Oh, you mean the liberal USAToday put out a poll that favors unions?
Go figure.

Holdin' out for FOX are you?


...so here we go...

UPDATED: Fox Reverses Poll Results To Falsely Claim Most Americans Favor Ending Collective Bargaining
On Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed, along with an on-screen graphic, that a recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that "61 percent" of Americans are in favor of taking away collective bargaining rights from public unions. In fact, Fox aired the results of the poll completely backward: the Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans are opposed to taking away collective bargaining rights. mediamatters.org...





posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join