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.

 

Columbus Ohio Next Battleground State Over Union Rights! (Mass Protest set for today)

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Columbus Ohio Next Battleground State Over Union Rights!!!


politics.blogs.foxnews.com

The next focus of demonstrators protesting collective bargaining reforms should be Columbus, Ohio where thousands, if not tens-of-thousands, of protestors are expected to gather Tuesday and shout their views about a controversial bill that puts labor unions in the crosshairs of a determined governor intent on salvaging his state's financial situation.

The protests should look and sound much like the ones from Madison, Wisconsin that have gripped the nation in the recent days and marries an uncomfortable economic reality with political opportunity.

"It's to put our children first. It'
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 2/22/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Well, it has started, with New Jersey and has spread. Good. It is time for the Democratic troft to be drained. These unions, they aren't for the common man/worker anymore.

They are staff with Left siding political hacks that funnel untold millions to the Democratic party. Many of them openly associating themselves with Leftist or worse causes/parties.

No, the Repbulicans have a great opportunity to make some real political change that-if they can pull it off-the whole Democratic political machine. Setting it back decades.

These Unions and their leaders have brought it on themselves. I guess they didn't think that they were included in the Obama message about how we all must cut back and suffer a little bit to make it work.


2011 & 2012 are going to be very interesting to watch.


politics.blogs.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I can understand Union's demanding better wages etc in Corporate Business.

But in the Government? Holy Cow!

They are essentially protesting for the "right" to "borrow more from the bank". Just so they can have nice comfy wages (way way higher than mine btw) on my taxpayer dime.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

It sounds to me like these folks want more spending. Rather than less.

I would have to call these people's thinking the problem, and not the solution.

If I am wrong, and these people are against govt wastefulness please oh please correct my fallacy.

No one has a "Right" to my tax $ honestly. Except maybe Me....



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
These PUBLIC unions are not doing themselves any favors. The spotlight is on them and their true colors are shining through. The taxpayers will no longer support them in the manner to which they have become accustomed to. Time for these specific unions to adapt or die.

If there is any civil unrest in this country that will compare to that of what we have seen in the Middle East, it will be at the hands of the unions and their leaders like this www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here is a sample of those who have unionized federal employment


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



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Anyways, Unions don't have rights. Only living beings have rights.

Organizations are not living beings, therefore any claim they have to "rights" is tenuous and short-lived at best. There is serious talk of repealing the laws allowing Corporations to claim rights. It's coming like a freight train.

These organizations are so perverse and backwards in their logic, that they even twist the meaning of protesting the government to stop it's abuses, into protesting the government to make even more abuses!

Maybe I should protest the protesters? Sounds good to me!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I can understand Union's demanding better wages etc in Corporate Business.

But in the Government? Holy Cow!

They are essentially protesting for the "right" to "borrow more from the bank". Just so they can have nice comfy wages (way way higher than mine btw) on my taxpayer dime.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

It sounds to me like these folks want more spending. Rather than less.

I would have to call these people's thinking the problem, and not the solution.

If I am wrong, and these people are against govt wastefulness please oh please correct my fallacy.

No one has a "Right" to my tax $ honestly. Except maybe Me....


I think you may wish to read this article from Reason.org (a libertarian thinktank).
a quote:


But according to a new study published by the Center for State & Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security, these aggregate compensation comparisons are misleading. The authors, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee economics professors Keith A. Bender and John S. Heywood, assert that state and local government workers are better educated and have more work experience, on average, than do private sector workers, so it is natural that their overall average compensation would be higher. "Thus," they conclude, "the fact that public sector workers receive greater aver­age compensation than private sector workers should be no more surprising than the fact that those with more skills and education earn more."

Furthermore, after attempting to control for such variables, they find that state and local government workers actually earn less than their private sector counterparts. According to the analysis, state government workers earn an average of 11.4 percent less than private-sector workers of similar education and work experience and local government workers earn 12.0 percent less. Due to the greater benefits received by public sector workers, the gap narrows when these benefits are factored in, to 6.8 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively. (Even this appears to underestimate the cost of the benefits provided government workers, as discussed below.)



Source

I have a dog in this fight as I work for a state "funded" university. (the quotes are due to the dearth of funding we actually get from the state anymore) That being said, their are two arguements here, the union issue (which I admit that I am ignorant about so I will stay out of it... mostly) and the compensation bit.

The union issue needs to be viewed from a more macro perspective. I find it unsettling that the major backers of the "let's break the backs of the unions" movement are billionaries who have made enormous profits off of outsourcing jobs from sectors whose unions were broken, such as manufacturing.

Compensation; dollar for dollar and comparing educational attainment, the public sector makes less money. Benefits are were there is any appreciable gain by the public sector.

I am sure I will be flamed for attempting to add cogent arguements in favor of workers rights so have at it.

Obs out
edit on 22-2-2011 by observer because: more typos.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Wow after skimming the article and reading a few post I can say I am shocked at the stance of the OP and some posters. Do you really think unions (Whose purpose is to make sure its members are not taken advantage of by the employer) should dissapear? Why don't we just devolve right back to serfdom? Eliminating unions would have absolutely abyssmal effects on rights of the common worker. The elimination of unions would be like re-segregating races, a complete backwards step in the evolution of equality. This video can help put it in prespective a bit (even though it is NBC :barf


www.disinfo.com... ampaign=Feed%3A+disinfo%2FoMPh+%28Disinformation%29



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by observer
 



Excellent reply.

Also, I may add, many jobs can't be rated or valued as many try to. The difference between, say a State Fraud Investigator and a private fraud investigator is too vast to even try to compare. They may have similar sounding titles but their work is vastly different and different things would have to be compared-IF they even could be realistically compared.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Those billionaires broke the backs of Corporate Unions. Totally different story.

The taxpayers are trying to break the back of the Govt Unions.

Govt does not operate on the premise of profitability like business does. It is suppose to operate on the premise of promoting the protection of liberty.
And if the public realize they are overspending and decide to vote in some budget cuts, why is the Union protesting the public's decree?

I made under 10,000 $ last year and still fed my two kids and wife.
Do you see me protesting? No....

So what gives people with a 40,000$ a yr salary + benefits the audacity to go protest demanding even more % of the government funding?
The school system is known world wide as a failure. We should lay off the entire Education department honestly. The pay cuts is nothing compared to what they really deserve. To be fired.

No wonder I'm so poor. I am being taxed to hell just to pay some lousy teachers a bloated salary while allowing them to give my nation's schools a dismal reputation globally.

Administrative workers need the biggest pay cuts of all. I have seen the average super intendants get paid like 200,000 $ +++ even in the poorest communities. Amazing isn't it? They fail yet get paid mega tax $$$ anyway.

I just find them arrogant, hypocritical, spoiled, and as control freaks.
They are the bureaucracy , they are the problem.
I want them all fired pronto!!

Call me overly simplistic.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
Wow after skimming the article and reading a few post I can say I am shocked at the stance of the OP and some posters. Do you really think unions (Whose purpose is to make sure its members are not taken advantage of by the employer) should dissapear? Why don't we just devolve right back to serfdom? Eliminating unions would have absolutely abyssmal effects on rights of the common worker. The elimination of unions would be like re-segregating races, a complete backwards step in the evolution of equality. This video can help put it in prespective a bit (even though it is NBC :barf


www.disinfo.com... ampaign=Feed%3A+disinfo%2FoMPh+%28Disinformation%29


Again.

There is a huge difference between unions in the PRIVATE sector where PROFITS are the central aspect, and unions in the GOVT/PUBLIC sector where tax payer funds are being wasted.

If you cannot see this difference, than you lack a fundamental understanding of what the root cause of the problem is on one hand, where as in the other circumstance we could argue this is not a vice but instead a virtue.

They are total opposites.

The Union at the airline company doesn't cause America to go into further debt with China.
But the Union with the Govt does.

See the difference??



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


I was hearing of this last night on local news, I live aboutm100 miles south of Columbus. People around here say that labor unions used to be a good thing, after all, this is coal miming country, but they also think that the labor unions, without any real checks and balances, have gotten so greedy that they hurt more than they help.
I have to agree. And I don't think that employees of the government, and the States, should have collection bargaining powers. They work for the People, after all, not some big wig corporation. I do believe Teachers, and Nurses, need a labor union, but police and other State employees do not. Just my opinion.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I personally believe public employees should not be able to unionize. I have no problems with unionized private workers except in cases like what happened with GM and Chrysler. It'll be at least a decade before I even consider a GM or Chrysler product due to the bailout of them and how the union benefited at the expense of the taxpayer. The Chysler/GM bailout is a perfect example that I'll use to back up why public employees should not be able to unionize. I was really pissed when Chrysler and GM were bailed out and over two hundred years of precedent in who gets what in a bankruptcy was thrown out to the benefit of the UAW. There are however other options in purchasing a car. I could choose between a Ford model (still union but not bailed out) or a locally made non-union foreign brand. When we were looking for a car I would not even entertain the idea of buying a GM or Chrysler product. I ended up choosing a Ford mainly on price and the fact that it wasn't bailed out by the taxpayer. The goods and services(mostly services) provided by public unions by and large do not have competitors that I can choose to do business with instead. The consumer/taxpayer has no other options in receiving the goods and services that these unions provide.

The other reason I'm against public unions is that I've seen tons of things in their pensions that piss me off.

Double dipping: This is where say a Cop/Firefighter/other union retires at some rediculosly young age (like early 40s) and then enters another unionized profession and in 15-20 years is drawing two pensions funded by the taxpayer.

End Loading: Union members working tons of overtime in their last 3 years so that the calculation for their pension is loaded up.

Screw the young: Unions exist to protect the older worker at the expense of the younger. "That young union guy who wants to works some overtime because of that new baby can't because some older members retiring in the next few years is padding his pension."

Work Rules: The few jobs where I've worked around union people were offensive to my work ethic. When I work my goal is to get the job done, I do like a break here and there along with a lunch, but my god. I've seen people criminaly negligent that should have been fired on the spot, sent home, and back in two days with a different job title.

It's truly a shame that this has turned into another left/right issue. The banksters aided by the upper echelons of union leadership and politicians have looted the pensions and now instead of holding them to account the public unions are wanting the taxpayer to bend over yet again and give them what they feel they are "entitled" to.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jefwane
 



nicely laid out and explained.

You are correct on many points/sides.

The problem is that it is a Left/Right Dem/Repub thing. Everything is now-a-days. Everything it seems is.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I couldnt agree more.

I just wish I could tell these people "welcome to the real world". Everyone else has had to deal with layoffs, paycuts, elemination of benifits, etc. Broke is broke. Govt. Unions, no. Not for that at all. Not for collective bargining power for them or anything else.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 



I find it hypocritical and ironic that the Tea Party and other conservatives that are always so in favor of "Freedom" and less govt. control;
want to take away the rights of some people to gather together, organize and work for their own best interest and inturn give government even more control over those citizens.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

Without my union representation, I would have no health insurance, no retirement and no recourse if I'm hurt on the job. AFTRA/SAG Kickinass for the working class.

This ploy by Walker could actually encourage Union enrollment as it could very well be interpreted as government seeking even more control over the proletariat. That's the way I see it.

Working people can see that this isn't really about busting public service unions; it's about the GOPs plan to bust all unions and give control to the government and Big business so they can have absolute control over the citizens and institute corporate fascism. www.fascismusa.com...

Is this what you want?
edit on 22-2-2011 by whaaa because: syntax



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Back in the day (yes, I'm old enough to be able to say that) if someone went into government work, it was for a higher cause than money. No public unions then (or at least, very few) and it was understood that you'd be working for less money. But money wasn't the focus. THE JOB, doing good for your state, your community, was the focus.
To call the public union a "union" is like calling Paris Hilton an actress. Yeah, she pays her dues, but does anyone really want to watch her?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
The propaganda machine for the Republican party is amazing, to get so many seemingly average Joes to side with them is perplexing to say the least.

The Republicans serve there corporate masters,and much of the money they are getting is coming from overseas. The Republicans have been in control for the majority of time for almost 40 years, and you like what they have done too America? You trust them to make the US a better place?? Fox News lies people!! Hasn't this been proven?

The Republicans have always tried to break up the unions and they are using the current economic crisis to do just that, you know the economic crisis that started under Republican leadership???

The last election saw the Republican side of the system rally against Obama so they flocked to the polls, even though the majority of these people are voting against there best interests....

This issue is and will motivate the Democrats to flock to the polls in the next election cycle, even without all the corporate and over seas funding....

The Republicans have been able to reduce the percentage of union members since 1980. In 1980 25% of the US workers were represented by a union today that is down to under 10%.

They are using this economy as a excuse to destroy even more rights of the people to save money, but no one is looking at the amount of money spent on defense or the Republican wars...

Walmart is one of the largest employers in the nation but most of there full time worker still must rely on public assistance to make ends meet, they are massively anti union. They are not interested in there employees making a livable wage or having good benefits, they are only interested in profit....And so is the Republican party.

I expect the protest to grow state by state.

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



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
What perplexes me the most is that people believe that either of the corporate controlled parties offer any answers to our current predicament. Our current administration had two years where it controlled both houses of the legislative and the executive branch, what did it accomplish? An extremely divisive and probably unconstitutional healthcare plan, a stimulus that was rife with fraud, reconfirming one of the architects of our current economic situation (Bernanke), and a couple of other pitiful accomplishments. Obama has been on his knees in front of people like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankefien as much or more than his predecessor. Eric Holder is IMHO the worst Attorney General in my lifetime. Trillions in losses that required trillions in borrowing to bail out and not a single prosecution of substance. They even dropped charges against Angelo Mozillo, CEO of Countrywide.

I don't doubt that Republicans would like to see the abillity to unionize diminished in all cases despite what they say. They are Republicans I know them. That still does not make me the least bit willing to defend any member of a public union. IMHO public employees should not be able to unionize period. By virtue of the fact that they work for a government they have more protections than people employed by a private entity anyway.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
It's sad that people will fight for their collective bargaining rights but not their constitutional rights. Why would you want collective bargaining rights? Nothing good ever comes out of a collective huddle. You are protesting in order to get into a communist system.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I work at a University. My position is not covered by a union.

I chose to work here partly because of the retirement benefits. However, there is an unfunded liability because the State of California has not put any money into the retirement system for a many years.

Currently the retirement system is being changed so that new hires will have to work longer and receive less. To me, if you reduce the compensation package, you will alienate the younger workers. So, we'll see people taking positions for a year of so to get some experience and then move to private industry where then can make 20 to 40 percent more money. That's right, my salary is less than if I chose the private industry path.

I worked for the private sector for a decade before I came to the university. When I started here, I took almost a 50% hit on my salary. I chose to work here partially because of the retirement package. Retirement packages are based on your year of hire. There have been two significant changes during my 25 years here and the third is coming in 2013or 2014. After that, it will no longer be worth working here.

It would be better to work in private industry and invest your own money for retirement.

BTW, not all employees double dip, or end load. That's a small group of people and I do think that this should be reigned in. I also think that there should be caps on retirement from public service.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join