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.

 

50 State Solidarity Rallies Planned... High Noon 02/26/11

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Well, I gotta admit that was a damn good answer and yes, it does sound a little like extortion. I never said that all unions are "corruption free," only that workers should not be denied their right to organize and be represented in the collective bargaining process. At this point, it's more than evident that the whole issue in Wisconsin is about whether or not the workers retain those rights, as the wage and pension issues have already been conceded to by the unions.

At the moment, I'm not sure just how I would have approached the elevator problem you described, I'm gonna have to give it some thought. The one thing I can assure you of is that, where the is a will, there is a way. I know this to be true from my own experience as a union negotiator for many years. Even though I represented the union, it wasn't always management issues that I had to figure a way to overcome. Quite often, I had to figure a way to get the union workers that I represented to understand that their current method of doing something could indeed be counterproductive to their own best interest.

Of course one has to keep in mind that this is a "two way" street we're walking down, for instance; If I had to pay for "stand by" employees while other more qualified workers did the work, I think I would consider participating in some form of educational training in order to bring those "stand by" employees back into the fray, thereby eliminating the need to bring in "more qualified" workers in the first place, a practice that was counterproductive to your own best interest. The contract that my union operated under clearly stated that the union must provide fully qualified personnel to perform the required work at hand.

You might also consider employing someone with better negotiating skills to deal with the union, Just a thought.




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


A walkout is a form of protest in a situation being played out.


The people elected them to do their Constitutional duty. This requires them to vote on legislation. If the Republicans had walked out of Congress, and refused to be present for the vote on Healthcare, would you still have considered this merely a protest? Or would it have been considered what it is -- turning one's back on democracy. Further, what about all of the people that voted the Republicans into office in Wisconsin? They won by a majority vote. Are you saying that the people in Wisconsin that elected those officials have no right to have the outcome they voted for?


Why should they play a game that is rigged from the start by outsiders?


If you have proof of voter fraud in Wisconsin, please present it.


Humans of conscience, will act in accordance with their conscience. A job is but a means to earn a living. At times, money isn't everything. Dignity is, and more so for representatives or legislators elevated to their status as leaders of the community.


In case you haven't noticed, these Senators are still getting paid. If they feel that strongly, they should resign.


Their walkout is a protest to the travesty of the bill that is totally against the very sacred Constitution that they had sworn to uphold, unlike those who play the game effetively manipulating the media with other minions and the weak minded.


The Constiution does not guarantee collective bargaining rights, nor does it guarantee a lifetime of benefits and pensions. And if you think that these Senators have not been playing the same game, manipulating the media and weak minded, then you haven't been paying attention.

Here's how democracy works:

We vote for officials to lead us in the direction we want to go. This ends up being the direction that the majority chooses. Once these officials take office, should they not fulfill these promises, or attempt to lead, in this case the State of Wisconsin, in a completely different, undesired direction, they get voted out during the next election.

Once they are replaced, new legislators take control and have the ability to change and undo the previous administrations' decisions.

Nowhere does it include the right to flee the State you represent until you get your demands met.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by logicalthinking
 

This is rude, but from your avatar you look like you're about seventeen.

Live a little longer before you decree that the middle-class workers in America should have no rights at all, except to labor for a pittance in some multi-billionaire's sweatshop or mansion.

Learn a little more history of labor in this country, and the life of the average American during and after the Gilded Age. Read Jacob Riis' "How the Other Half Lives" (it's an easy read and has lots of pictures). He was depicting, literally, half of the total population of the United States at that time. See the movie "Harlan County USA" (it was made in the seventies I believe but is still totally relevant today. It is available on Netflix).

Read a little more history of the middle and working classes in America and less Ayn Rand. Then come back to me and try to spout your ruling class, corporate propaganda.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

The people elected them to do their Constitutional duty. This requires them to vote on legislation.


Could you please cite the specific articles of the Constitution, (Federal or State) that "requires them to vote on legislation?" I'm a big fan of CSPAN and I see senators as well as congressmen and women that fail to vote on legislation on an almost daily basis and for a variety of reasons. And did I mention that they, (those senators and congressmen & women) all have lifetime healthcare and pension benefits?


If the Republicans had walked out of Congress, and refused to be present for the vote on Healthcare, would you still have considered this merely a protest? Or would it have been considered what it is -- turning one's back on democracy.


They didn't have to walk out because they had a filibuster rule they could exploit to derail democracy and they did at every opportunity. thinkprogress.org... On top of that, they didn't even have the nuts to actually carry one out, all they had to do was to threaten one to get their way.


Further, what about all of the people that voted the Republicans into office in Wisconsin? They won by a majority vote. Are you saying that the people in Wisconsin that elected those officials have no right to have the outcome they voted for?


Yeah and what about all the people that voted for Obama and a democratic congress? Last I heard, they won by a slight majority too and for the last two years, the republican party has used every tool in their box to thwart every single piece of legislation brought before them. So what about those people, don't they deserve the outcome they voted for?


The Constiution does not guarantee collective bargaining rights, nor does it guarantee a lifetime of benefits and pensions.


It doesn't deny them either. Furthermore, you might be interested to know that the world views this issue differently as described in this little snippet from wikopedia;


en.wikipedia.org... International protection

The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize 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.[4]



Here's how democracy works:

Nowhere does it include the right to flee the State you represent until you get your demands met.


Again, it doesn't deny the right to flee the state either. The Wisconsin senators are not the first to employ this tactic and to my knowledge no one has ever been arrested or prosecuted for doing so. If no arrest have ever been made and none are planned, I have to assume that it's legal.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by lpowell0627

The people elected them to do their Constitutional duty. This requires them to vote on legislation.


Could you please cite the specific articles of the Constitution, (Federal or State) that "requires them to vote on legislation?" I'm a big fan of CSPAN and I see senators as well as congressmen and women that fail to vote on legislation on an almost daily basis and for a variety of reasons.


You're are confusing two different things. Attending the session, calling for debate, and delaying a vote until said debate is completed to the satisfaction of the members is not the same thing as failing to show for a vote at all because you are fleeing to another state. There are democratic policies in place that allow for fillibusters, debates, continuations, and compromises. However, to enjoy any of those, one must actually show up for work.


And did I mention that they, (those senators and congressmen & women) all have lifetime healthcare and pension benefits?


They do. All I said is that it is not a guaranteed right for anyone, including unions, per the Constitution and all current applicable laws.


If the Republicans had walked out of Congress, and refused to be present for the vote on Healthcare, would you still have considered this merely a protest? Or would it have been considered what it is -- turning one's back on democracy.



They didn't have to walk out because they had a filibuster rule they could exploit to derail democracy and they did at every opportunity. thinkprogress.org... On top of that, they didn't even have the nuts to actually carry one out, all they had to do was to threaten one to get their way.


Huh? They got their way? Healthcare passed in case you didn't get the memo....much to the dissatisfaction of almost every Republican in Congress. They did not derail democracy -- they embraced it and used it to attempt to prevent that particular legislation from passing. However, once those avenues were exhausted, they showed up and voted -- and subsequently lost...big time!


Further, what about all of the people that voted the Republicans into office in Wisconsin? They won by a majority vote. Are you saying that the people in Wisconsin that elected those officials have no right to have the outcome they voted for?



Yeah and what about all the people that voted for Obama and a democratic congress? Last I heard, they won by a slight majority too and for the last two years, the republican party has used every tool in their box to thwart every single piece of legislation brought before them. So what about those people, don't they deserve the outcome they voted for?


You are really off base. The Republicans now have majority in the House and are attempting to undo much of what was done the last two years. They wouldn't need to do any of this had they gotten their way intially. But they couldn't get their way because they didn't have the majority! You are beginning to make my entire argument for me.

The last two years, the Republicans fought within Congress to prevent certain pieces of legislation from passing. However, they were unsuccessful because the American people voted for a Democratic majority. Therefore one can assume that the majority of Americans at that time wanted Democratic policies in place in this country.

However, two years later, Republicans won a majoirty because people were unhappy / dissatisfied with what took place when Democrats had sole majority. Now, Republicans are attempting to undo some of what made the voters unhappy.

This is what should be taking place in Wisconsin. The Democratic Senators should fight like hell for what they, and the people that voted them in, believe is the right course for Wisconsin. However, they are not fighting -- they are fleeing.

Again, if the people of Wisconsin are unhappy with what transpires with their current Republican majority, then they will have the opportunity to say as much come the next election. However, until that time, all senators need to actually go to work.


Here's how democracy works:

Nowhere does it include the right to flee the State you represent until you get your demands met.



Again, it doesn't deny the right to flee the state either. The Wisconsin senators are not the first to employ this tactic and to my knowledge no one has ever been arrested or prosecuted for doing so. If no arrest have ever been made and none are planned, I have to assume that it's legal.


They can't be arrested since Wisconsin legislation specifically states that only Wisconsin State police have the authority to arrest Senators. They do not have jurisdiction in Chicago. They only other bureau is the FBI and the Wisconsin legislation prevents them from having any authority either. It's a catch 22. Wisconsin state police can't cross state lines and they are the only ones with the authority to arrest / detain state legislators.

Lastly, here are the duties of state legislators:


As a legislative branch of government, a legislature generally performs state duties for a state in the same way that the United States Congress performs Federal duties at the Federal level. Generally, the same system of checks and balances that exists at the Federal level also exists between the state legislature, the state executive officer (governor) and the state judiciary, though the degree to which this is so varies from one state to the next.

During a legislative session, the legislature considers matters introduced by its members or submitted by the governor.

Note: This is a legislative session. The Governor has introduced legislation.


Businesses and other special interest organizations often lobby the legislature to obtain beneficial legislation, defeat unfavorably perceived measures, or influence other legislative action. A legislature also approves the state's operating and capital budgets, which may begin as a legislative proposal or a submission by the governor.


Lobby against....use the media to sway public opinion....all OK. But their job is to vote...to lobby...to fight....but being present is a requirement for all this to occur.


Under the terms of Article V of the U.S. Constitution, state lawmakers retain the power to ratify Constitutional amendments which have been proposed by the Congress and they also retain the ability to apply to the Congress for a national convention to directly propose Constitutional amendments to the states for ratification.


en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

Here is the Oath of Office that each Wisconsin Senator took:


Wisconsin Constitution Article IV states:

Oath of office. SECTION 28. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.


Source: www.redstate.com...

From the Wisconsin Constitution:


Article IV, §7
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. Section 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.



Article IV, §8
Rules; contempts; expulsion. Section 8. Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings, punish for contempt and disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, expel a member; but no member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause.


I provided the above so that when/if these Senators get expelled, everyone can already see that it is legal per Wisconsin's current Constitution.

The entire Constitution can be read at the link below and I encourage you and others to read it.

Source: nxt.legis.state.wi.us...$fn=document-frameset.htm$q=[field folio-destination-name:'IV,7']$x=Advanced#0-0-0-123




edit on 27-2-2011 by lpowell0627 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Two points, First; The reason that the health care reform bill is currently under constitutional review is because of the republican party and the private insurance lobby. It was they, who refused to allow a seat at the table for single-payer and/or public option representatives. IMO, the main reason that most people object to the current health care reform bill is due to the fact that they will be required to purchase insurance from a "Private Insurer." This is not the health care bill that the democratic "majority" wanted. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that any republican would oppose it even in it's current form, seeing how they are always preaching "personal responsibility" and all.

Second; How is that the Wisconsin is going to expel these absent senators when it would take a two thirds majority vote to do so? If they had that kind of a majority, they wouldn't need these 14 senators to make a quorum. Your dream of expulsion is just that, a dream.

I fully support the Wisconsin protestors & Fabulous 14 and I hope they stay out until they succeed in getting the bill withdrawn.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Two points, First; The reason that the health care reform bill is currently under constitutional review is because of the republican party and the private insurance lobby.


What does that have to do with not attending a session in order to prevent a vote at all? The Republicans are fighting this as hard as they can, but they are utlizing democratic processes to do it. You conveniently overlooked the main argument I made: which is that the Republicans at least had the decency to show up for the vote knowing full well they were going to lose. The specifics of the compromise and actual bill have little to do with your entire premise -- that the Wisconsin Senators are justified in fleeing.


Second; How is that the Wisconsin is going to expel these absent senators when it would take a two thirds majority vote to do so? If they had that kind of a majority, they wouldn't need these 14 senators to make a quorum. Your dream of expulsion is just that, a dream.


I have treated you, and your opinions, with respect. I ask that you do the same and not put words into my mouth.


I never claimed to want them to be expelled, nor did I give my personal opinion as to whether or not they should be. All I did was provide the facts, per Wisconsin's Constitution, that the Governor has the right at this point to move forward with expelling these Democrats. Whether or not he does is up to him and as someone from a different state, I could care less.


I fully support the Wisconsin protestors & Fabulous 14 and I hope they stay out until they succeed in getting the bill withdrawn.


As is your right. However, I choose to support the actual Constitution and the requirement that demands public servants to actually go to work. I refuse to support any politician -- Democrat or Republican - that exploits Democracy and merely throws a hissy fit.

Lastly, you know what is most ironic about this entire scenario?

If these protesters weren't protected by unions they would never be permitted to miss work, and subsequently close entire districts, for days on end. Those of us in the private sector would have lost our jobs on day 2 of not showing up for work...possibly day 3 if the boss really liked us.
edit on 28-2-2011 by lpowell0627 because: Because feeling and fleeing are not the same word.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


So, we American taxpayers are going to have a rally to support government workers making twice what I'm making out of the taxpayer's pocket? And this is being organized by a multi-billion dollar financier, George Soros? Wow! And they were talking about the Tea Party?


EDIT: Just saw this was 2 days ago. Dang! I missed it!

edit on 2/28/11 by Ferris.Bueller.II because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Yeah and you wouldn't be making half of what you're making if it were not for unions. I think it's just hilarious that the people who complain about union workers making more than they do are the very same ones who won't stand up for themselves, hence they find themselves in the situation they're in.

You should be complaining about politicians passing out tax breaks to corporations and the ultra rich because that's why we're realizing these budget shortfalls and it's not the fault of organized labor. Here in Texas where I live, we are a "right-to-work" state, like the one governor Walker is attempting to create in Wisconsin, and we currently have a 27 billion dollar deficit, go figure.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


I have no gripe against unions in general, as long as they are in the private sector. My gripe is with unions in the public sector where their only function is to siphon as much money as possible from the taxpayer's pocket. If you want to claim public sector unions protect workers' rights, then why do we have all these laws and other public sector workers and offices to do exactly the same thing?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

What does that have to do with not attending a session in order to prevent a vote at all? The Republicans are fighting this as hard as they can, but they are utlizing democratic processes to do it. You conveniently overlooked the main argument I made: which is that the Republicans at least had the decency to show up for the vote knowing full well they were going to lose.


Not attending a session happened to be the only tool in the box, for the Wisconsin democrats, that is equivalent to the filibuster in the U.S. senate. I'm sure that if they had the option to filibuster in the Wisconsin state senate, they would have opted to do so and unlike the republicans, I believe they would have actually filibustered and not just threatened to do so.


I have treated you, and your opinions, with respect. I ask that you do the same and not put words into my mouth.


Sorry, I guess I read more into your statement than was actually there.


Lastly, you know what is most ironic about this entire scenario?

If these protesters weren't protected by unions they would never be permitted to miss work, and subsequently close entire districts, for days on end. Those of us in the private sector would have lost our jobs on day 2 of not showing up for work...possibly day 3 if the boss really liked us.
edit on 28-2-2011 by lpowell0627 because: Because feeling and fleeing are not the same word.


That's precisely why they need the union. Anyone that would fire their workers for standing up for their rights is really not worth working for. I remember someone saying to the people who complain about losing their jobs to illegals; "Look man, if you lost your job to an illegal, it probably was a piece of crap job to begin with."



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


With the Citizen's United supreme court decision, there is no longer any difference between the private & public sectors, they are one in the same. Not even sure they weren't prior to that decision. Big corporations now run our government the same way they run their companies.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join