(Confirmed!) We're hearing that police have joined the rally in WI after being asked to disperse th

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Ungrateful huh? Well I'm glad you know so much about me. I know the history of unions buddy, I don't need to be lectured by you. Go back and bury your head in the sand, all will be fine.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Its not a free market if you are saying labor cant collectively bargain.

Corporations are unions of capital. Unions are unions of labor. In a free market either both are allowed or neither.

Ok so collective bargaining basically means right to be in a union? I'm trying to learn about this crap.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

$100,000's? A teacher? LoL, yea ok buddy. Try more like $35,000-47,000

Compensation is more than just someone's salary. Would you rather take a $40,000 a year job with an additional $30K in benefits or a $60,000 a year job with no benefits at all?
Boondock's $100K assertation is entirely accurate:
maciverinstitute.com... nsation-tops-100kyear/

A good teacher with a stellar graduation rate is well worth the investment. Too bad the average teacher these days doesn't qualify. If they did qualify, one would have to assume that they would welcome performance based compensation rather than fight against it at every turn. (Look at the venom from the teacher unions against that proposed component of the original No Child Left Behind Act.)

reply to post by mayabong


I remember being part of a union while i was working at six flags. Only one department had a union and it was for safety, and safety only.... the only reason why unions existed in the first place; to protect workers.

I disagree with how strong unions are, and how influential some have become. sometimes you have to snip these unions.... but you cant get rid of them completely. they need to be reformed in some way shape or form so it protects the worker, and benefits both employer and employee... in the case for Wisconsin... its broke and needed some kind of reform.

Maybe these protests will lead so some kind of reform where both parties can meet in the middle. I didn't like how the rep and democrats handled the situation.

reply to post by searching4truth


By supporting the union insted pf performing their duty........speaks volumes.
Hey, we all here aare entitled to an opinion, this isn't a union.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Hypocrite....

It's called free market when the Corporate structure wants to cut healthcare, retirement, institute longer work days and unhealthy working conditions and you're fired if you don't comply but...

It's Union thuggery when the workers complain.

reply to post by mayabong


Collective bargaining is like "united we stand and divided we fall."

It means that in a city, if the workers gather together into a unit, and form a union, they they have more market power to go in and set the price of their labor, and working condition.


If they all go in one by one, they just have to take what the company offers them, or leave. When a whole area is unionized, the company has less leverage, less power to set the price of labor and working conditions.

A "free market" which you will hear many people toss around almost as if they understood it, is one in which market forces act to set the price of labor. Not monopolistic powers, not the government, but the market itself.

Now what many "free market" champions will not tell you is that they dont want a free market. The want government to implement all sorts of policies to keep the cost of labor low. This includes manipulating the supply of labor (immigration policy) and government interference in unions.

Corporations are unions. They understand that to grow in size allows you more market power. It allows you to become a price setter rather than a price taker. They simply dont want labor to have the same exact rights they do, to form unions to gain market power and have more control over price.

Its pure hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Its not a free market if you are saying labor cant collectively bargain.

Corporations are unions of capital. Unions are unions of labor. In a free market either both are allowed or neither.

Well, we have Anti-trust and Anti-Collusion laws on the books that restrict the "unions of capital" strongly. This is why professional sports are exempt from trust laws... their player unions have grossly more power than any union ever should, therefore Congress permits a high degree of leniency in regards to the trust laws. We are not talking about a corporation here, either. We are talking about tax payer dollars being held hostage by public worker unions to the degree that the states cannot balance their budgets outside of cutting huge swaths of non-union shielded sectors, most of which are a lot more difficult to trim from and, dare I say fully replace than the unionized positions are.

I mean really, is it more detrimental to the long term economic health of a community to be forced to put important infrastructure upkeep and maintenance projects on the back burner, exacerbating and worsening the problem rather than fixing it as needed, or is it more costly in the long run to replace an overpaid ditch digger, underperforming teacher, or self important traffic cop? Eliminate the laws protecting only the unions and you can protect BOTH the infrastructure and programs and the workers who actually deserve their paychecks every two weeks.

www.cityofmadison.com...

Just some press releases from the Madison Police Department, while we wait for the response as to why they joined the protesters.

CHIEF WRAY RESPONDS … …. TO REPORTERS' QUESTIONS The Madison Police Department is getting many calls regarding responses Chief Noble Wray has made to media in the past 24 hours. The following is what was sent to inquiring reporters: Greetings, In response to direct questions yesterday from Isthmus and Wisconsin State Journal reporters, the MPD released the following statement Wednesday afternoon: "The men and the women of the Madison Police Department train for crowd situations where an agitator or provocateur may try to create safety risks for citizens and officers. During the demonstration around the Capitol Square no such situation has arisen. Crowd behavior has been exemplary, and thousands of Wisconsin citizens are to be commended for the peaceful ways in which they have expressed First Amendment rights." Today, Chief Noble Wray would like to add the following to our response: " I spent a good deal of time overnight thinking about Governor Walker's response, during his news conference yesterday, to the suggestion that his administration ‘thought about' planting troublemakers among those who are peacefully protesting his bill. I would like to hear more of an explanation from Governor Walker as to what exactly was being considered, and to what degree it was discussed by his cabinet members. I find it very unsettling and troubling that anyone would consider creating safety risks for our citizens and law enforcement officers. Our department works hard dialoging with those who are exercising their First Amendment right, those from both sides of the issue, to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure they can demonstrate safely. I am concerned that anyone would try to undermine these relationships. I have a responsibility to the community, and to the men and women of this department - who are working long hours protecting and serving this community - to find out more about what was being considered by state leaders." Noble Wray

First, correction to my previous post he is a Chief not a Sheriff, my mistake.

Second, in all of his releases he applauds all those involved for maintaining order and civility. He seems very pleased with the way things had unfolded thus far. What he is not pleased about, is that governor discussed intentionally and covertly breaking that peace and wanted to turn it dangerous. At this point, I believe that Chief Wray may very well want to send Walker a message of his own.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander



Thanks for the long reply and you helped me understand things a little better. I wish everyone the best and hope that they can come to a compromise. These are tough times ahead for all states I think and the country.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Wow, so you source the most conservative, union/teacher bashing people in our city to make your point?

Are there teachers in our district that are under achieving? Yes.
Do all of them deserve these great benefits when they are performing poorly? No.
Should we fire or lay off some of them? Yes.
Is it their fault our education system is failing? No.

It is our societies wasteful, corrupt, and greed enhancing economic policy that has allowed for these problems to occur. Are we to continue running around in circles pointing fingers at each other, or are we to see there is something larger that is causing all of our problems? That is my point. Bashing teachers, unions, parents, or board members, does us no good when they are subjects of the same flawed societal systems as we are.

www.wkow.com...

Any chance those inside reporting the police joined the protests were confused?

Inside the Capitol, state prison guards reportedly led a march through the building, chanting "Recall Walker." The protesters have been allowed to sleep in the Capitol every night since the protests began. Police say Saturday is the last night that will be allowed.

To the untrained eye a bunch of prison guards may easily be confused for the police department.

Originally posted by whaaa
hypocrite

OK hey, let's play that game for awhile.

It's called "Democracy" when the Democrats flee the state to prevent the duly elected representatives of the people of Wisconsin from doing the job they were sent to do, including protecting the future of Wisconsin by not allowing the state to go so far into debt their credit rating drops to slightly above Greece. It's called "Democracy" when the same democrats are heavily compensated and donated to by union leaders who, in turn, make their fortunes off the backs of the same workers they supposedly care about and want better lives for via mandatory union dues. It's called "Democracy" when the actual act of democracy (taking a vote among the elected representatives) is blocked.

It's called "facism" when steps are taken to actually take a legal vote among the representatives. It's called "facism" when they attempt to stop the out of control spending. It's called "facism" when the representatives attempt to assist the tax payer back into a standing position, back them away from the barrel the unions bent him over, and get his pants back up around his waist and properly buckled.

Yeah, clearly that game works both ways...

reply to post by searching4truth


Yea I was down there earlier and I don't think any police were joining the protest in the sense that they are off-duty holding signs and chanting, but the police and the protesters are at least on very good terms right now. I know the chief is trying his best to make sure the protests can continue on in a peaceful manner for as long as they feel the need. Tomorrow they will be removed from the Capitol but expect demonstrations outside to continue on.

So I take it they are protesting a vote that is pending yeah? Didn't they pass something yesterday?? Does it go for another vote somewhere? I heard the Dem's were hiding out. Is it possible to vote, if there are members that aren't present?

Would love it if someone would answer these questions so I can deny ignorance.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


No one is advocating for more "out of control spending"!

They are trying to hold onto whatever protection they have, knowing what is to come will challenge their ability to produce for their family!

How can you hate on that? Sure, we are in over our heads in debt and the future seems bleak, and suffering is bound to come, but how can you blame these people for trying to negate some of that suffering? You would do the same if you were in their shoes, know that.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
[
Well, we have Anti-trust and Anti-Collusion laws on the books that restrict the "unions of capital" strongly.

And the same economic forces have been chipping away at those laws, allow companies to grow in size so that the "too big to fail" argument could be used to undermine the "free market" by bailing companies out the invisible hand should have WOULD have erased right out of that market. Capital does not want a free market. It wants a market rigged so it can benefit. Thats why it has been buying policy for the last 40-50 years or better.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
their player unions have grossly more power than any union ever should, therefore Congress permits a high degree of leniency in regards to the trust laws.

Because its hard for capital to manipulate the market of "genetically gifted athletes." We just dont have that kind of skill yet, so supply is low, and price is high. And it just breaks their greedy little hearts.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6 We are talking about tax payer dollars being held hostage by public worker unions to the degree that the states cannot balance their budgets outside of cutting huge swaths of non-union shielded sectors, most of which are a lot more difficult to trim from and, dare I say fully replace than the unionized positions are.

Then perhaps state governments should have considered all the spending they were doing on behalf of industry. All the tax incentives, etc. Corporations and businesses need infrastructure, every bit as much as the average person does, maybe they should consider paying more for it.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I mean really, is it more detrimental to the long term economic health of a community to be forced to put important infrastructure upkeep and maintenance projects on the back burner, exacerbating and worsening the problem rather than fixing it as needed, or is it more costly in the long run to replace an overpaid ditch digger, underperforming teacher, or self important traffic cop?

Globalization and NAFTA themselves were horrible for our economy. And busting unions and destroying what little is left of the American workforce is not going to do anything to make it better. I sense your scorn for the blue collar worker, and it is undeserved. Blue collar workers produce most of the real value America has.

The average worker shouldnt have to pay just because governments have been so in bed with corporations and other economic powers that they cant tax properly to pay for the services they provide. Besides, you must have read the thread. Unions have offered to cut pay. At stake here is the simple FACT that that isnt the issue. Its not really about budgets. The budget is what is being used to take away the right of labor to collect together and use their size to bargain. Its an excuse. Just like 9-11 was an excuse to start a war that has cost America trillions of dollars as a freebie giveaway to oil companies and defense contractors.

Make the oil companies reimburse us for the use of our military to secure their profits. Use that money for the infrastructure.

reply to post by mayabong


Madison.com

Search around, you have a lot to work with.

reply to post by ugie1028


Damned that's great!

Does my old heart good. I tip my hat to the cops and firefighters and ems who although exempt, are standing up against this idiot governor who caused the very crisis he cites as a reason to cut benefits.

And even though the protesters and unions have agreed to the cuts, he still insists on ending collective bargaining.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


The funny thing here is I don't disagree with much of what you just posted.
The bailouts were horsecrap, NAFTA should have been aborted from the womb of America's mind long before it crowned, Globalism is a scourge upon the Earth. The government has a long history of malappropriating tax payer money.

I do not disagree here, man.

I don't hate blue collar workers at all. Hell, I better not because my entire family was composed of them. Times were different then, however. I grew up in a right to work state. I value hard work, not union connections. I do blame unionization as contributing to the eventual death of America's production sector, though NAFTA and globalization put the final nails into the coffin. Detroit was dead long before NAFTA... Detroit's certificate of death should read "Massive stroke caused by $40 an hour paid to the guy who installs the windsheild wiper blade on the cars rolling off the line."

As for the worker suffering because of the bad choices of the government, I'd be more likely to agree with you there if it wasn't for the fact that EVERYBODY is suffering because of the same. I won't shed any tears for folks who got raises last year and the year before purely because of their collective bargaining contract while 90% of the rest of the country's workforce saw either no raise, a decreased salary, or, worst of all, lost their job entirely. My God, based on the stock market crash and private 402(k) losses alone, the unionized government workers are sitting pretty with their guaranteed pension plans already. They may not "deserve" to feel this pain, but they damn sure have no right to expect the rest of society to feel any level of pain just so they can keep their bells and whistles while the rest of the machine crumbles to dust.