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.

 

Wis. GOP bypasses Dems, cuts collective bargaining

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


That's unethical and the way they went about it was illegal according to one of WI's laws.

The unions were willing to compromise on pay, pensions, etc. Collective bargaining was the only essential request, which for some reason Walker couldn't allow. That's all nice and dandy for a business but our government is not a business. I'd say that red tape causes the most inefficiency in government and not unions. I guess a lot of things would be more efficient with those pesky rights out of the way.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
So...it was never really about the budget.


+1 for the Plutocracy.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Am I surprised the GOP pulled something?

Nope.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


I'll tell you privatization helps.

You take 2 dozen data centers and give them to a services firm. You pay them a flat fee for a 10 year contract to run them. In that contract you stipulate the currency of the technology, refresh rates, service levels, etc. You transfer the staff to the private firm, taking them off your books and making them the private firm's problem.

The private firm, having a fixed fee contract has every incentive to consolidate and drive efficiencies into the infrastructure because it increases their margins. They do that and the government gets better service without the headache of the staff. They are abstracted from the care and feeding of the infrastructure, they can likely eliminate hundreds of individual contracts.

In short, it saves money in the same manner that it does for a private firm. There is a reason that HP, IBM and the rest are massive firms. They are massive firms because their value proposition makes sense.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Throwback
 


You're right. The government is not a business and not run like one and that is exactly what this is all about.

The unions through their nonsensical collective bargaining rules are what creates the red tape. The two can not be divorced.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I'm pretty sure that's not sure, but whatever. Point is the Republicans' move was unethical, illegal, and NOT made in the interest of the people. That is what government is supposed to do. Serve and protect it's people. Taking away rights doesn't achieve any of that except for maybe 1% of the population.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
All I can say is that I hope that the TRUE grass-roots "working-class"; the members of which have been so blatently targeted by the latest measure of "union-busting" by the GOP, answer this travesty of disregard for established Wisconsin State law with solid resistance to blatant Corporate lobbyist railroading ( directed at both parties, BTW ).



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Throwback
 


To the extent that it only helps 1% of the people implies that 99% of the people work for the government. Are you happy that you're paying, what is it now, 30% than the private sector for a like job? I'm not. Are you happy that its relatively impossible to make structural changes in how areas of the government are run due to work rules enacted through collective bargaining? I'm not. Are you comfortable with the massive innefficiencies that exist in the government at all levels that are sucking your tax dollars dry? I'm not. Are you happy with the general level of neglect in things like our parks, librarys, etc because governments are strapped from having to pay the extortion pressed on them by public employees? I'm not.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitch303
reply to post by MindSpin
 


He was voted into office by the people for his platform, he is doing the job he said he would.


You and the people that starred your post must be big supporters of Obama implementing Obamacare then. Afterall, he was voted into office by the people for his platform. Or does this sort of justification only go one way?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Our Democratic Senators have been awol for over three weeks now.
Their leaving had nothing to do with "giving people time to actually read the bill".

They are all politicians, and as such, this is about money.

My belief is that the Senators were down in Illinois trying to figure out just who was going to finance their next election campaign, what with the AFSCME money gone.

Anyone that thinks politicians actually care about the people is a fool.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
So,The Koch brothers got their bill passed.I guess as long as both sides are pandering to their bases nothing else matters.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


The bailouts cost each person $100,000. Why didn't the Koch brothers lobby against that?

The real problems in government aren't caused by a teacher taking a 15 instead of 10 minute break. The REAL problems and waste are caused by politicians like Walker taking in big money from these billionaires.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
They probably have bosses that make them work for #ty pay and benefits. They probably don't have adequate sick pay/vacation pay. They probably work more overtime than what's legally allowed (and their boss likely bribes the gov't to look the other way). They probably face retaliation if they even think of challenging their employer.

If you enjoy that kind of crap, more power to you.

But don't trample on the rights of other Americans to organize and fight for good benefits, pay and equity!

Who doesn't want a fair wage? Collective bargaining exists for that sole purpose!


I don't personally know many union people, so I don't get to discuss such matters. Perhaps someone can help explain this to me. And please, don't take this in a condescending way, I am genuinely trying to understand the opposing view on this.

There are natural rights and legal rights. This issue clearly falls under legal rights, and as such any legal right can be taken away by the ruling authority. In this instance, ethics and legality can be debated.

In this day and age, we have OSHA, ADA, EEO etc that set rules for businesses regarding equality, hours, compensation etc. Much of this thanks to early private unions. However, it seems that now, unions have used their positions of power not simply to make things safer, healthier or fair, but instead to strong arm employers to win favors for their members and influence politics.

That being said, what has been taken away that prevents these people from organizing to fight for good benefits, pay and equity? Let's consider a situation. BigCompany Inc makes widgets. It pays its employees $2 above minimum wage, to work 40 hours a week, gets 2 weeks unpaid vacation and that is all. Everyone employed there knew the pay and benefits/lack of before agreeing to become and employee. The fact that they agreed to the wage and the hours makes everything about this fair. If the company makes a huge profit and the boss/board decide to give a million dollar bonus to the top guy or top 3, and nothing to anyone else, that is poor leadership and management, but not unfair. If the workers want a raise, they can go ask for it individually, or someone can suggest everyone get a raise. If they don't like the wage, or lack of benefits, one or all of the employees can stop working there.

I really have a hard time understanding the 'fair wage' argument. How is it unfair if both parties agreed to the wage?

And workers can collectively/majority bargain without a union, simply by all agreeing to do/not do something. It doesn't require dues, a paid position or any other administrative costs, or political involvement.

Please help me understand the logic, because I cannot see it.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 




The bailouts cost each person $100,000. Why didn't the Koch brothers lobby against that?


They did, quite vigorously.



Americans for Prosperity opposes the most recent Senate version of the bailout legislation, which added pork-barrel special-interest provisions,




We will also continue to argue strongly that this financial crisis is the result of flawed government policies and not a failure of a free market supposedly run amok. With that in mind, we will dedicate the coming weeks, months and years to supporting reforms that strengthen economic freedoms while fighting against those who will no doubt try to use this crisis to promote their long-held desires to dramatically expand the size, reach, and cost of the federal government




The most important lesson in this crisis is that there are consequences to government policies that distort lending standards in order to promote other social goals, and to overly accommodative monetary policy that creates asset bubbles. Fannie and Freddie were government designed institutions whose design necessarily transferred risk to taxpayers while allowing profits to go to private shareholders, encouraging them to grow to a dangerous size with dangerous consequences. They should be expeditiously privatized as part of any ultimate solution to the current crisis.

americans for prosperity



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Top 10 percent control 2/3rds of all the wealth. The wealthy are dismantling the country and demanding tax breaks and government give away subsidies. When they fail or make mistakes they expect the US taxpayers to bail them out. They corrupt our political process and commit criminal theft and the only thing they want is MORE! One out of four children in the United States now lives in poverty and the wealthy want their foodstamps to finance their tax cuts. Time to make a stand.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Good once they strip us of our rights they can finally bring back our industries back from China and pay us all $3 an hour.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I can't help but cheer the governor of Wisconsin, and hope his efforts spread to other areas of government nationwide. Finally the GOP is responding to the desires of their own base.

Unlike most of the voices at ATS, I am middle-aged. Until the mid 1990's, all my work experience was in blue collar, wage jobs like farming, construction, law enforcement, etc.

My personal experience of unions is that they are extensions of the mafia. I have twice been threatened with harm if I didn't join the union. Once during a strike (so I wouldn't be getting any union checks, but would be expected to support the strike anyway), and once as a new hire after a strike had ended. Both times I went and found another non-union job. The one time I tried to join a union (pipe-fitter) I was told that there weren't enough jobs to go around, and so they weren't letting "you young fellas" join unless you had a dad or uncle already in the union.

My mother worked as a teacher, and finally got a refund check from her union when it was caught giving member dues to the democrat candidates in her state. The union told her that if she were "patriotic," she'd mail the check back to the union---definitely implying that she'd lose her job if she cashed the check the court had awarded the whole class action lawsuit.

So, based on my personal experience, as a willing worker who was shut out, threatened, and excluded by unions; and now as an investor who knows unions mean unprofitable companies, I am GLAD to see corrupt union power being diminished.

The GOP doesn't have to fear any backlash from me. In fact, I'll be more liable to support them in the future.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


If they made said money legally, are you just mad that they have more? Does money influence politicians? Of course. But, is that the fault of money, or the politician? With few exceptions, these uber rich made their money by providing a good or service to someone or had an idea that made them wealthy. If people are so opposed to the rich having money, they don't have to trade their money for the others good or service.

Numerically speaking, I am below the poverty line, but can't understand some of the argument against rich people making money.

The funny thing to me, is that when people complain about the wealthy, its always a business man they are referring to. Do you ever see someone saying Kobe Bryant should have his pay cut or taxed 90%, or that P Diddy is screwing the people of the hood by making soo much money off of them buying his over priced CD.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Do you know there are 400 people in this country that have more wealth then 50% of the population? I don't hate people like Pdiddy or Koby I hate people like David Koch and Steve Jobs.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
some one plz help me to understand this was it illegal what they did or did they just find a loophole that prolly existed in the first place for something just like this im a bit confused hah thanks for the help people




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join