What Wisconsin means (To the Unions)

I'm not totally against Unions, but I am happy to see the writing on the wall for the current union leadership going down. It is the current leadership of Unions that have created this backlash. They had best reinvent themselve quickly, or become a footnote in history.

I still support the smaller trade unions, but not the large ones.

www.washingtonpost.com...

A couple of paragraphs from the article.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012, will be remembered as the beginning of the long decline of the public-sector union. It will follow, and parallel, the shrinking of private-sector unions, now down to less than 7 percent of American workers. The abject failure of the unions to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) — the first such failure in U.S. history — marks the Icarus moment of government-union power. Wax wings melted, there’s nowhere to go but down.

Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, ¬AFSCME, the second-largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.
It was predictable. In Indiana, where Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) instituted by executive order a similar reform seven years ago, government-worker unions have since lost 91 percent of their dues-paying membership. In Wisconsin, Democratic and union bosses (a redundancy) understood what was at stake if Walker prevailed: not benefits, not “rights,” but the very existence of the unions.

People once thought of unions members as quality producers. Nowadays, when the mention of unions comes up, it seems that the central theme is money, not the product produced.

reply to post by TDawgRex

You think it such a great thing. Guess what the SOB has his sights set on now.

The state retirement system.

He screwed the workers. Now he's going to screw the retirees.

Yeah, he's a swell guy. Mostly his head.

At least Republicans won't blame historically small union sizes on unemployment rates.

Right?

Right...?

I fear I'm expecting too much.

We need to closely monitor economic conditions in these states that are dismantling union power. If the average people hurt or benefit as a result, we should implement policy nationally accordingly.

Can we at least use this to scientifically answer the question of whether or not unions were helping or hurting?

reply to post by nuclear12346

I agree that gov and private sector unions should be on par with each other.

What Walker did has brought the state workers below the level of private sector workers.

Its the same things the terrorists do...

Destroy the economy and the social support structure.. then lie to these ticking timebombs whose fault it is and send them off to suicide.

Ron paul says we should leave these people bleeding in the street if they didnt have some magic "rainy day" fund or insurance aganst the random desire for the rich to abuse the poor.

reply to post by disgustingfatbody


From what I understand, he is wanting to adjust the retirement system for future employees, not take away from those who have already contributed. They would be Grandfathered in.

However, under Governer Doyle, my Dads retirement was lowered for whatever reason, even he doesn't understand it. He tried to find out why, but it turned into a revolving door scenario. Eventually he said screw it as he invested well prior to all this.

My family is doing well under Walker's tenure.

Go to Janesville and ask the former employees of the GM plant how well the unions took care of them.

I'm all for Safety forces being paid well, but when you have other public unions raping the taxpayer...meh...not so much.

Originally posted by nuclear12346
At least Republicans won't blame historically small union sizes on unemployment rates.

Right?

Right...?

I fear I'm expecting too much.

We need to closely monitor economic conditions in these states that are dismantling union power. If the average people hurt or benefit as a result, we should implement policy nationally accordingly.

Can we at least use this to scientifically answer the question of whether or not unions were helping or hurting?

I cannot attest to the unions "scientifically" helping or hurting Wisconsin.

But I can attest to the current State Administration helping my family, who are by no means rich. But they producers and are reaping the benefits of having to pay lower property taxes and not having to join a union which they want no part of. IE: The Teachers union.

reply to post by TDawgRex
I still think this was much ado about nothing.

We're in a recession. People have to tighten their belts.

Public service unions should be excluded?
I think not.

They didn't get their way. This is a huge temper tantrum.

The sobbing, weeping, gnashing of teeth, rending of shirts, is all theatre for those who didn't get their way.

reply to post by beezzer

In the department I worked for seniority no longer means anything.

Example: OT used to be issued according to seniority. Now it is done by a lottery system generated by a computer program.

Ever been to a casino and played the slots?

Seniority should mean something. People invested their lives in a career and they got slapped across the face for their effort.

Walker blows.

reply to post by beezzer


I absolutely love their temper tantrums.

As it continues to alienate them from the rest of common sense folk.

As you said before, there are now laws to protect the worker. Unions are going the way of the Dodo if they don't reform. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
reply to post by beezzer

 

In the department I worked for seniority no longer means anything.

Example: OT used to be issued according to seniority. Now it is done by a lottery system generated by a computer program.

Ever been to a casino and played the slots?

Seniority should mean something. People invested their lives in a career and they got slapped across the face for their effort.

Walker blows.

Absolutely! I've worked for decades in a certain carreer field.

And to have it ignored by someone simply because they are in a union is frustrating.

reply to post by disgustingfatbody


Please be aware that this is not a personal attack.

Great! Seniority should mean nothing if you don't produce results. Just because you have been there years doesn't automatically entitle you to more money and benefits.

I knew a guy who earned $25.00 an hour parking cars at a local GM plant before they went belly up. Even he thought that was insane, but he still took the money.

All because he had seniority.

reply to post by TDawgRex

What does that have to do with OT?

Some of the hardest working guys I worked with were the senior staff. They weren't there because they had seniority. They were there because they'd made an investment in the employer.

And the employer let them down.

reply to post by disgustingfatbody


I understand, and having experiance with the public union, of which I was one, I found that many at the top of the chain (or near) often made scapegoats out of those who did produce results and earned their pay...and then some.

The people at the top of the union chain are just trying to protect their pay, at the expense of others, union or not. We're all expendable to them.

I will admit that there may be a couple of good people within the chain, but they are far and few.

Originally posted by nuclear12346
We need to closely monitor economic conditions in these states that are dismantling union power. If the average people hurt or benefit as a result, we should implement policy nationally accordingly.

NO WE SHOULDN'T!

The Federal Government has no business being involved in this. This is a State issue. Read the Constitution. It was intended to limit the powers of the FEDERAL government, not the States.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Unions have their place.. but for most people they don't want, need or care for their union. I remember when I was 16 working at a store where you had to be part of the Union. Not only did they steal money from my check that I didn't even want to give, they also placed stupid limitations on when and where I could work limiting my pay. I've never been a fan of unions... it seems like organized crime to me. Then, when they steal your money they donate to causes you don't even agree with. I also remember vividly a union my dad worked for had a big vote and Union members were attacking those they thought would vote against them, culminating in burning a guys house down.

I thought this quote was telling,for the up coming elections.

“President Obama's problem now isn't what Wisconsin did, it's how he looks each day—careening around, always in flight, a superfluous figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn't go to Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker's place, where the money is.”

-- Peggy Noonan, in a column for the Wall Street Journal, “What's Changed After Wisconsin.”

He didnt back the Unions,or his own Party.

This is symptomatic of the most serious problem that the Left has, in advancing its' cause. Namely, that the majority simply do not want what it is selling.

At least in Wisconsin.

In California, it's akin to a liberal's paradise. Unions everywhere. Most people on the government's tit.

There's nothing but children running the show.