If they ever get back to work, I'm wondering how schoolteachers who are supposed to correctly instruct young children in "civics" and "American Government" type classes will explain a group of members of Wisconsin's "legislative branch of government" being publicly described as "on the run" like a bunch of desperadoes form the 1800's ?

I am a union firefighter and our union meetings financial statements are read at every meeting. I do not know any union that does it any other way.

Easy, they will tell them that they were standing up for the rights of a minority and not supporting the voice of the magority like they were elected to do.

Well tony it wouldn't surprise me if the next step is to follow Texas's lead and force the teachers to teach from a conservative revisionist curriculum to try pushing them to the right before they can vote.

And you're counting your chickens before they hatch. There are several outcomes that could upset this. These bills will end up being contested in court. The courts have sided with unions over the government in the majority of cases. There could very well be voter backlash come '12 that puts democrats in a position for repeal. The unions could also stage a massive strike forcing the republicans to repeal it themselves.

Having been forced to join a union when I was 18 and pay $500 initiation fee by the second payday on the job,set a bad tone for me with unions.Having been in UAW,Teamsters,and AFGE,and having nothing EVER to show for it,cements my disgust for unions.AFGE was nothing more than an expensive dental plan.I'm STILL waiting for AFGE to return my call from 1995 when we were told to go home,the government's shut down. We didn't know if we'd be paid or not.We needed some kind of stupid code to file for unemployment(we didn;t know how long the shutdown would last),and ;"Your call is very important to us,we'll return it as soon as possible..."..never happened.State and public employees should not complain about having to pay a fair share of their benefits.I always heard that Feds had free healthcare.....Then reality set in when I became one.I'm retired now, and still pay $265 per month for healthcare,(Postal workers pay 1/3rd of that for same coverage)...and state workers pay 10% of that....I also pay $209 per month for my 'free' life insurance,as I've heard it called....AND I paid 12% of my pay VOLUNTARILY,towards my TSP retirement plan..(You know, the FREE one the Feds get?)..yeah we DO pay for it,nothing's free....time for an updated payment schedule for the rest .... Politicians who intentionally leave thier posts and get out of the state should NOT have a job to go back to. That is job abandonment.Tricare is getting to be too expensive an option after you leave the service,even as a disabled vet.As for the military getting paid a little more than 'private sector'.....I didn't see any civvies humping ammo with me,and being deployed away from thier families a year and a half at a time,when I was in....BOTH partys need to focus on the promises they made to us,and get back to work......US.Army Disabled Veteran

the unions are willing to work with the Governor and GOP to find an equitable compromise. The governor is not interested. He claims this is necessary to balance the budget in a state which is not in crisis, and meanwhile he is going to award no-bid energy contracts, and tax cuts to the wealthy.

When are people going to wake up and realize that the past 30 years have proved that tax cuts DO NOT WORK, all they do is allow the wealthiest people to keep more of their income, they do not create jobs (as evidenced by the past 3 years).

Having been a teacher and in need of defense from an unprofessional administrator, yes it's still needed. All it takes is an accusation from a disgruntled student and we're guilty until proved innocent, meanwhile the 60k or more that we spent on our education is a total loss because our career is ruined.

The groups the governor exempted from this, police and firefighters, voted for him...so those aren't essential services? they can bargain collectively, but teachers can't? seriously? the logic escapes me...

Yes, and I'll add that while I have the highest regard for teachers, teaching is a job. A paid position. Many who are out of work would gladly accept departing teachers' jobs. I haven't worked in two years, and I would gladly accept a teaching job, all benefits waived.

as for the AWOL Democrats, well, that speaks volumes about lack of candor, and shirking of job responsibilities. I'd gladly take any of their jobs, too. Fire them all.

To Ed Wolcott, I was a union officer for 14 years and every 3 months we audited our books and the results of the audits were read at the monthly union meeting under new business. Any member of a labor union has the right to ask to see the results of the audits.

Some of us don't work your 40 hour weeks and don't get any vacation nor sick time, so it's honestly hard to have sympathy with anyone who feels they are entitled to such for whatever reason.

That's a new one... "I'm not being exploited, you're just entitled!"

Sad, really.

This situation will go nationwide, and it will be a major part of the 2012 elections. Union thugs and dimocrat politicians attempting to cast this as an attack on the middle class are trying to make their thuggery look legitimate.

Taxpayers know that public employees are not part of a growing economy, they are part of the government that is bleeding-us-dry. They are a weight on the economy, a drag, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Public employees costs must be reduced - they do less and less for us, for more and more money - we cannot afford them. Taxpaers won't continue to support this "entitled" class with their outlandish benefits, their never-ending complaining, strikes, and the poor work product.

Sorry libs, we all know what's wrong, and we are going to fix this.

To aliveinsd,

I'm sure many would accept a teaching job, but how many would be good at it? I was preparing to be a college professor, and after a few months as a teaching assistant in graduate school got good at it, but I know enough to know I was never prepared to teach at the elementary or high school level.

Thank you for speaking out. Sure seems like there is an awful lot of misinformation about what the unions really stand for.

Recall all the democratic senators avoiding their job. That's job abandonment and they won't even qualify for unemployment.

Can you imagine the uproar if all the republicans left the country to hold up a vote on Obamacare? But since this agrees with the organizer in chief's agenda, he isn't saying a word.

Lie to your bosses, run away form your responsibilities, call in reinforcements from out of state who have no right to be in Wisconsin saying anything about Wisconsin's affairs, ignore what the majority voted for (overwhelmingly), and get away scott free form any punishment.

Be a Demoncrat. Teach the children how to beat the system.

dorothy, I haven't worked less than 50 hrs a week including Holidays , while you are off enjoying, in three years. Along with every other week we get to work a sixth day. Sorry but this is the real world today! There are NO jobs out there. When was the last time you had to go look for a job.

Unlike you and your union brotherhood I am now 57yrs old and will be working another ten years with NO pension when I retire, if I'm still alive!

...and even in an unscientific poll here on MSNBC (hardly anyone's bastion of right-wing conservativism), the unions are not winning. Nearly 27,500 votes cast, and half the folks say "It's unfair that public workers might pay less for their health care and pensions than their private sector counterparts just because a powerful union exerts its influence over legislators", and another 8.6% say "I don't think that workers in unions should have an unfair advantage when it comes to their paychecks."

Honestly, I'm shocked. Maybe all this "66% are in favor of the unions" crap is...well...crap.

You are correct in you assessment. There is nothing fair when it comes to memebrs being required to join a union and pay dues. Then members are told by these thugs that their dues are going to back an idiot democrat like obama and they have no voice in that choice. What happened to feedom? The only freedom these fascist commies support is their own or that of other loons.

As you say,this is hardly scientific. Latest poll I saw last week out of Wisconsin showed overwhelming opposition to this legislation...(Even the governor doesn't claim its only about 'going broke' since he's willing to extend more tax breaks to corporations: it's about priorities and who he thinks "deserves" state spending. I think most people get that this isn't purely about the budget, no matter where they stand on the issue. No need to pretend otherwise)

It's a little hard for me to look favorable on 'laborers' that want taxpayers to pay their way ... and then don't go to work.

I guanrantee you if I disapeared from work for 8 day's, I'd be looking for another job.

The compensation package of the average public worker is about 8% lower than the average private sector worker. So it is wrong to assume that public workers are somehow getting rich from their unions. You have to wonder how far behind they would be without union support.

I have a compromise. Bust the unions, but give all current public union employees an 8% increase to their compensation packages to bring them up to the same level as the private sector.

I haven't worked in two years, and I would gladly accept a teaching job

Why weren't you a teacher to start with?

Agree totally with Paul F (1.13) and Rob-LVNevada (1.19) that unions need go the way of the extinct dinosaurs. Whereas these were once a necessary, needed conscience and force for exploited workers at the hands of robber-barons, it's no longer necessary to exploit/extort the union workers for self-perpetuating dues to accomplish goals in the workforce.

After the super majority - and wait until after 2012 for a super-super majority - of Republican governors squash the union disease that inflates wages, benefit packages, and decreases overall productivity, America can rebirth its remaining industry with a more competitive workforce.

Does the U.S. worker lack the will to compete? No. The workers are now competing with wages and benefits that are hurting America's competitive edge.

wherescommonsense,

Did you ever hear of anything line a Lawer to defend you or sue the district for wrongfull treatment? That's what us non union folkes have to do. And we have to pay for it.

And don't give the the unions suppport in such a case is worth the cost of your dues. My wife is a teacher who had a student get out of line. She had to go in front of a judge. It all tured out well. But her so called teachers union was nowhere to be found.

It sure is funny how now, if you have better benefits than the other person you, are a commie, socialist, and every other thing. What happen to those capitalist ideasy thingy? It seems to me that if you are a public worker and you pay taxes, aren't you already contributing to those great benefits you are getting? I could be wrong....but I don"t think so.

Making the puzzle fit in GOP/unions standoff

The mainstream media wonder's why people think they are out of touch with headlines like this. Why is this a GOP vs Unions standoff? It isn't. It's a tax paying US citizen vs the Unions standoff.

Astonished said-

It's a little hard for me to look favorable on 'laborers' that want taxpayers to pay their way ... and then don't go to work.

I guanrantee you if I disapeared from work for 8 day's, I'd be looking for another job.

Both of those assumptions are missguided, I think. First of all, none of those guys go to "work" every day. Most state and federal representatives miss as many votes as they make. The only reason this one is in the news is because the Dems have boycotted as a block, and it's a high proflie issue.

Second, boycotting a vote is a procedural tactic that has been used throughout American history by individuals and groups alike. Back in 2009 Republican Senators boycotted a vote on a climate change bill in order to prevent a quorum--just like this case.

williewonka65,

Um, No. The taxes government workers pay came for the tax dollars already collected by the government from the private sector. They pay the workers with tax money and the workers are just giving the tax money back. In a way it really makes no sense to even tax the workers because the money is just getting traded back and fourth. The tax dollars collected from government workers in essence does to grow the governments tax revenue.

If the government didn't tax the income of the employees you could just reduce their pay by the amount of the tax and they would take home the same amount of money. It would also decrease the amount of tax needed from the private sector to fund the tax that the workers pay.

Hope that helps ya out.

I wonder if the teachers are telling their students that they are the ones who will be paying for their cadillac plans? I think not.

Cadilac plans? I know a teacher that retired last year after 23 years of service. She will receive 869.00 a month and 80% medical. Her rent is 550.00 a month since she is single and lives in a hole in the wall apartment. That leaves just 319.00 dollars a month for utilities, phone, gas, hygeine, clothing and any medical treatment she receives.

Must be a 1972 cadilac plan that's in the junkyard.

- Buster-858093 I wonder if you consider that your elected vote for their own pay raise with out your consent..or even telling you what they do. GRanted..there are many state workers that get much more in benefits that are charged off to the general public that should not be. But you can thank your own politicans for doing that..There is still a place for unions and as long as big business is making their millions...they will still complain, because they do want it all..MAny state employees receive the same types of benefits that the elected officals do...and they, the elected charge all that off to the tax payers...no one is jumping on that however, politicans either.

Sven, she makes it work, but it would be a lie to say she is on easy street.

I just wanted to point out that even though many people want to believe that all teachers retire with 100K tax free pensions, they are be mislead.

From the article: ""It's not so much the Democrats holding things up, it's really a matter of Gov. Walker holding things up," Erpenbach said." A compromise must be worked out. Last night's news playing the phone call of Walker talking to who he THOUGHT was a Koch, and being invited to "Cali" - well, Walker has no credibility left.

Dorothy,

do you really think that your work week will stay at 40 hrs

Yes I do because there is a federal law that states anything over 40 hrs a week for exempt employees is overtime.

BTW, consultants and 1090 workers put in a lot more than 40 hrs a week. At no charge too.

Mandt

Both of those assumptions are missguided, I think.

Actually I was talking about the teachers, etc. that walked out of the classrooms to do the protests.

But now that you bring up the Senators in WI. Their action really doesn't win any favors for me either.

P>I may have read something else in this story. The poli (TICS) ians who left the state to avoid a vote (are outnumbered and it can pass without them anyway)

Democrats, who are in the minority, don't have the votes to stop the bill once the vote occurs.

From what I read, they left after they were told they had a time limit to debate the 38 addendums.

Many still were sleeping when the deal to only debate 38 more amendments, for no more than 10 minutes each, was announced shortly after 6 a.m. The timing of the agreement means the vote could come as soon as noon Thursday.

We will strongly make our points, but understand you are limiting the voice of the public as you do this," said Democratic state Rep. Mark Pocan of Madison. "You can't dictate democracy. You are limiting the people's voice with this agreement this morning."

Im guessing 43 hours of debate and disagreement of the first few amendments meant the Executive Officer (the Poli (TICS) ian) in charge had to do his job making the lawmakers do their job in a timely tax saving manner. Instead grown adults elected in office would rather protest by running away like children on a playground instead of sitting in the trenches "battling" it out. I'm so glad my tax dollar is so very well spent.

I hope the people take to the streets. Carrying flags, and flashlights and microphones and take over the town square. Then wait for groups of anti-protestor thugs to show up, and wage a back and forth debacle, because I sure didn't get enough of that coverage from Egypt.

NYMike,

Cadilac plans? I know a teacher that retired last year after 23 years of service. She will receive 869.00 a month and 80% medical.

OK ... so this is separate from any savings, social security, etc. right? Well, let me see after 28 years in private business I get ... zip! Whatever I have saved (remember that's separate) and SS, that's it!

Man to me that 72 Cadillac is looking more like a BMW!

I'm sorry, I have to laugh at people who keep on thinking this is over an ideal about unions.

Republicans are trying to rip funding away from Democrats.

Democrats are trying to keep funding.

Everything else you hear is an excuse, after the fact. So go ahead and believe it if you want.

its just the unions/democrats way of holding the public hostage till they get their way, or else....

In the 1990s, the 800,000 employees who were furloughed in November and the 260,000 who sat idle in December received a total of about $1 billion in back pay even though they could not report to work, according to a report by the Office of Management and Budget.

(That was a relief to many employees, who were uncertain for weeks about whether or not they would ultimately be paid. Robert Tobias, who served as the president of the National Treasury Employees Union during the shutdown and now teaches at American University, said that his organization and other federal employee groups dispersed tens of thousands of dollars in loans to workers who were unable to pay their bills without receiving their paychecks on time.)

i am so sick of the union calling the shots for the working man, personally. when the union i was in was talking strike, the only think i wanted to strike against was the union its self. they were the ones i was p!ssed off at, i paid my dues, and at the time grossly over paid insurance, and at the time was happy with my pay outside of the union wanting more of it, and my employer to cover it.

see when the healthcare debate rolled into town, how many republicans left, forced concessions and so on? every time they did say they were going to do something dem's and supporters said shut up, sit back we won, and it went from the whitehouse, all the way here to the vine..... well here's the deal, democrat spending is way out there, unions thumbing the taxpayers, and so on, and it has to stop. Americans cant afford a system of i get it my way or else, on either side. its time to be responsible, AND accountable!

Paul F "Taxpayers know that public employees are not part of a growing economy, they are part of the government that is bleeding-us-dry. They are a weight on the economy, a drag, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution."

According to a recent study, the average federal civilian employee gets a total of about $123,000 per year in wages and benefits (thanks to huge pension benefits), which is more than DOUBLE that of EQUIVALENT private sector worker's jobs. According to the IRS, the average income tax paid by a middle class family is about $2,700 per year.

I've worked on both sides of this street. Until i became a union worker i also was brainwashed into thinking that union workers were lazy, overpaid and overly entitled. only to learn that because of the competivness of the union worker, non union employers have to bring up there wages, insurance, retirement plans, etc. Bust these unions and all workers (not the employers) will suffer with less wages, retirement plans and higher insurance costs or non at all.

And who's fault is it after 28 years you get zip? Sounds like bad planning to me.

Derek,

I'm sorry, I have to laugh at people who keep on thinking this is over an ideal about unions.

Republicans are trying to rip funding away from Democrats.

Democrats are trying to keep funding.

If what you say is true aren't Republicans are trying to stop funding Democrats with taxpayer's money?

I would have more respect for the Governor if he wasn't lying. He gave tax cuts to the rich and now wants the union to pay for it. The union has agreed to all the monetary requests. It is obvious he wants to break the unions that did not support him.

I am not necessarily pro union. I just don't see why he needs to take from the poor and give to the rich. If he did it for one union he should do it for all. The prank call is very telling.

republicans are like the bullies on the block...they only flex their muscle, until they get their gang of thugs together...all states that have a republican governor are going through hell, they want to turn the clocks back to pre-1960s. they have this allure to their voters, where they educate them in lies and they believe, or they tell them what they want to hear....

the issue they used to tap into the american peoples minds was the tobacco issue....supposedly to clean up the air and make people healthier...give the money from the tobacco settlement to "help the people"...was there a settlement...what happened? they took away people rights...and nobody uttered a word....now its the cell-phone use (anyone who uses a cell phone while driving can be ticketed)....these are issues that should be addressed in society...however, stop turning everything into a cash cow ...

how many people in governor walker's family are employed by the government of the usa and/or wisconsin..think about it...how many noncontract employees of wisconsin were employed by him or his cronies that got him into office....why do they run for these offices...why to reap the benefits...

@takes two,

try to peddle your lies someplace else man, i was in a union, and you think a union man can compete with someone from the private sector and keep up? keep dreamin pal.i was in 3 unions, and not one was different from the other... they all took your $, and make sure you stuck it to the company as hard as you could.

see thats the difference between me and you repubs and dems... democrats and unions believe and follow the mottostick it to the man for all he's worth, because theyre too f'ing lazy to get a job, or too ignorant to do what it takes to MAKE A JOB, other than round up people just like themselves who think well this guy here busted his bag real good to make a buisness from his own sweat and hard work, he should share with me, because im too f'ing stupid and ignorant and lazy to go out and make on my own.

meanwhile the guy who broke his azz making his buisness, doing what it takes has azzclowns like you, who think they deserve more than their worth, and trust me, you do, i dont care what union you are in. fact of the matter is, you cant hack working in the private sector, you'd have to work for once.

you call the Nobama the clown tax incentives something other than a joke? 1st off, i havent made under $1,000.00 in a month in so long, i think i was in the army when i made that on my monthly salary was the last time. back in 86. what employer when things go slow to where he has guys cleaning the shop for 8 hrs out of the day, gives an employer incentive to keep even 1 employee on for that little posh chump change? then the R&D joke! who gets that? should have been called the defence and pharmaceutical incentive, thats where all that $$ is going. oooh those are all union shops, along with all that infastructure, union! who's paying for all that? yup the mighty taxpayer who has so much $ its falling out our azzes. and talk about tax cuts for those who make UNDER $250,000.00 a year? you do realise that after that tax cut if you dont fall into it you pay out the azz right? then theres luxury taxes, and so on they pay, so dont come off like the rich man dont pay sh!t, cause they do. but you, you and YOUR ILK think everyone OWES YOU! tell ya what pal, the people of this country shouldnt have to pay you sh!t but bare minimum wage for public service, but some of you azz clowns in the public sector make way way way more than your worth. the only reason why you got that worth cause once your filthy greedy union got its foot in the door, it started holding the public hostage. Coal mine unions, mining unions, mail,transportation, teachers, you name it, it got that way, and who payed? the taxpayer did! all the way from the auto industry on up, who took the brunt of your so called fair wages? the consumer, the taxpayer! you didnt make out.... you didnt HELP the average worker, because of YOU, and the UNION, the cost diffrence was made up from where the source was, the buisness, and the consumer took the blow. that was untill the consumer says screw this! ill buy imported junk, at least i can afford to replace it when the hunk of sh!t breaks. thats the true effect on the consumer unions had. you didnt get more, cause what you THOUGHT you got more out of, costed you just that much more in the long run. starting with what? YOUR JOBS!

Justtelit:

And who's fault is it after 28 years you get zip? Sounds like bad planning to me.

Great point, my friend.

Remember the statement ... didn't say I didn't save anything ... only said that I had to do that myself and whatever medical benefits I need after retirement ALSO needs to come out of those savings.

Thank you for proving my point.

Svenlofson. The Republicans are just as guilty of keeping institutions in place that send taxdollars to them. Sorry if you think they are less guilty. I don't.

CAUTION: Men Leaning On Shovels

good point, was funny cause as soon as you said that riverdog, it reminded me of hiway 47 between boduel and black creek. 3 years ago, they all brand new asphalt, new bridges, did a really good job, looked nice and all. drove on it 2 years ago, still in great shape. was on it last summer, the whole road was ripped out all the way again from bonduel to black creek. to me tearing up a perfectly good road, to put in the same thing you had before makes as much sence as jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, chute on or not. yet going down the road, cause it was just opend that day, finally, saw 3 gtoups of workers, at least 5 each along that stretch, standing around flapping gums.... infastructure at its finest!

Every single one of us that has ever been an employee has benefited from the involvement of the unions. They helped improve wages, salaries, 401ks, pensions, healthcare, tuition refunds, working hours, holidays, etc., etc.... all the things we count as part of our great American experience. They're not perfect, but this would be a whole different country without them.

So as we watch the sun setting on the power of the unions and watch the Republicans drive stakes into their hearts, say goodbye to any possibility of maintaining the working class' fair share of the mega profits that the corporations make from their efforts.

They're driving the great divide between the haves and the used-to-haves.

hogwash!

look at history mostly with the mining and automotive, not to mention transportation, as wages went up, the cost of product did as well, and who pays for those products? sure we may have got a safer working enviroment, thats about it. present time there are more than enough labor laws state and federal level, we dont need a union.

The Democratic Wisconsin-14 are absolutely doing their jobs.

They are protecting workers' rights.

Keep it up.

Telling video of how the NEA wields its power in Congress...They pushed for the stimulus, Obamacare, Aid to the states to save teachers jobs......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ohqP5AIWc&feature=channel

How the children and schools are not the most important thing NEA is concerned with...It is collecting dues to impliment its agenda...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-piPkgAUo0w

skeptic-227981

The Democratic Wisconsin-14 are absolutely doing their jobs.

They are protecting workers' rights.

Keep it up.

yes, by all means DO keep it up! i would almost insist they do! shows just the spoiled mentality of the democrats, and the fleebaggers, as well, not to mention when the pink slips are handed out to see who all is going to be laughing in the UE line, lol. hey guess what!? you know that big whopping exstention of UEB's the dem's pushed thru? dont be surprised if those exdtentions started to get shorter and shorter as the clock starts ticking.... dont be so suprised when you find out what its like to be out there looking for work that isnt there, because the clown in the whitehouse had to dole all the job stimulous into failed infastructure and unions, leaving out the non union stiff in the cold, lol. oh ya!, by all means stay gone, and may you never come back, even for your check, lol.

So the party on NO don't like being told no, lol.

Fletch2-1565982 "I would have more respect for the Governor if he wasn't lying. He gave tax cuts to the rich and now wants the union to pay for it."

You must be talking about the incentives to get companies to actually stay and hire in Wisconsin instead of taking their companies to states that DO offer a better business climate.

I guess you think driving those 'greedy rich' businesses (and jobs) out of Wisconsin is a great strategy, but somehow I think it's shortsighted - unless you are a unonized public worker, in which case you think your taxpayer paid job is protected.

The Democrats rose from their seats and rushed at the Republicans shouting, "Shame!" as the Republicans exited the chamber.

"I'm incensed. I'm shocked," said Rep. John Richards, D-Milwaukee. "What a terrible, terrible day for Wisconsin."

what? want to talk about shame?? lets start with taking bribes to get the HCR bill CRAMMED down our throats? Lets talk about ruthless, crazy parrot spending on infastructure when there isnt enough tax dollars coming in to pay for it? Lets talk about ensuring the union locals got jobs when you left the non union joe's out in the cold, and tried to smooth it over by adding on UEB exstensions? Lets talk about all this work you are not doing to create job's? Fact is the bill was just passed. Fact is if you hadn't acted like a bunch of little babiess, went up to the podium and debated on it LIKE YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO, you might have came up with a good argument to vote it down! nope had to play the silly games, and you totally lost out.

yes i do realise there is 1 more hoop for this bill to jump thru...so what is it now, revolt, resort to "getting a little bloodied"? i dont exspect that to happen when the people you eleceted ran from a mere point to debate on it before the vote.

call in reinforcements from out of state who have no right to be in Wisconsin saying anything about Wisconsin's affairs

But you're OK with your governor cozying up to out-of-state billionaires and doing their dirty work. Fool.

Roy Wilson = best post on the vine concerning the number of families it takes to pay one Union Public sector job.

skeptic - the Democratic 14 ARE NOT doing their job. They ARE NOT PROTECTING the worker, only caving in to the UNION BULLIES who think they have the right to have whatever they want, regardless of whether the State can afford it or not. Remember, Union membership overall only constitutes 9.9% of working Americans. The Democrats are only protecting that 9.9%, not the 90.1% who are being screwed over by the Unions. They should be ashamed of themselves! It is more important to cow tow to those who dumped a bunch of money into their campaign funds then to do what is right for ALL THEIR CONSTITUENTS!!!!!

Oh, and to all those who keep coming up with the tired "what about the corporations that have been favored by legislators?" This is a talking point, nothing more. Please come up with something that is actually true.

Dems shove bills down our throats and its for the good of the country. But when a repub passes a bill because their state is going bankrupt and defaulting on bonds after years of dem control its time to impeach him. Your party is no different than the one you bitch about. Repubs are the the party of no you say? Atleast they stay and vote when knowing they dont have a chance instead of running away like a little child. Grow up.

Hey Bosslimo ... I'd rather be the Party of No that the Party of No-show!

It takes some stones to step into the batter's box and swing the bat instead of hiding in the club house until the opponent puts in a new pitcher!

This is the only way this disgusting creep Walker can operate. EVerything he does is underhanded and he needs to be recalled immediately. He is a filthy liar and cheat. If what he is doing is so right, why does he have to be so sneaky about everything. Pulling off a vote before the Democrats have a chance to vote is un-American. Anyone who wants the Koch Brothers calling the shots for the American workers and the rest of us better think twice.

I cannot wait until 2012. This is a perfect example of what is in store for us middle class if the Republicans are running the show, or should I say, if the Koch Brothers are running the show.

For what reason was my post #1.5 'collapsed by the community'?.I called nobody names,just told the truth as it affected me,and made what most people would call a rational,non-inflamatory post...censorship by who?///......Apparently 66 people somewhat agree with my thoughts......Please answer this.............US.Army Disabled Veteran

I have been self employed my hole life. I provided my family with health insurance, made my own contributions for retirement with no match from any employer, paid my self employment tax with no employer matching it. It can be done without sucking the public tax payer dry.

Thank god for the repubs for standing up for what has got to be done. The winnie dem's just showed their true colors. YELLOW!!!!

The fact that Walker admitted on TV in front of the nation that he was considering planting thugs to incite violence which could have harmed people and possibly killed people is another reason he should be recalled for ethics issues alone. This country does not need people like this governing anywhere. Let him go to Libya if that's how he wants to operate. he is not American. He does not govern for the people. He governs for the Koch Brothers and big business.

One example of a corporation that fought Union attempts by the employees is Wal-Mart. This is the same company that has been sued over and over for discrimination against women and minorities, making people wotk off the clock, not paying over-time and their famous sweatshops where they employed Chinese children.

Union's job is not only protecting the workers' interest. Union's job is to be the only competition the Corporate America has when it comes to Washington. Take Union away, and you will see what happens during the election time when the only money being pumped is for the candidates who only support the very interest of the Big Business.

Getting rid of Unions=no competition during the elections. It's that simple.

Take away Union lobbists, and all you have left is the Big Business lobbists.

I can't believe that some of you are willing to give the only checks and balances we have against the corporate machine and give 100% power to those who will not care about you but their bottom line.

justwonderin

For what reason was my post #1.5 'collapsed by the community'

it's not the end of the world. If you click on the +it will open right back for you!

What a crock this poll is! It's leading people to vote out of jealousy. Jealousy of people who have jobs that aren't in a Union and to people who don't have a job. Read it and you'll see. It's worded to get most people to vote against Unions. And don't say I'm for them, because I am indifferent about it. I live in a Right to Work State where Unions are not very strong or very good. I see no problems here so I imagine there would be no problems there as long as the Politicians treat the employees fairly. The problem I see is what if the Pols just want to make a point with their workers. That would be just wrong.

Has anyone noticed the simularities between this Gov. and Gadahfi? Neither of them will budge an inch and don't even want to discuss their problems.

ROY WILSON,

You must be talking about the incentives to get companies to actually stay and hire in Wisconsin instead of taking their companies to states that DO offer a better business climate.

You guys keep repeating that point like it's the only solution to unemployment! Tax cuts don't work - they didn't under Bush and they are not working now. Companies enjoy tax cuts WHILE they outsource or move to countries with no tax laws. Best of both worlds. Give tax cuts to those companies that create AMERICAN JOBS and not CHINESE JOBS!!!! Give tax cuts to those companies that move their production here. Give them 0% tax rate for all I care as long as they are creating provable jobs because jobs=income taxes=consumer spending=sales taxes.

Right now EVERYONE get tax cuts regardless where they send the jobs. they have the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS and they are laughing all the way to the bank!!!!

Right now, Americans have no jobs and pick up the tab for the tax cuts. Now take away any kind of bargaining power, lay them off from the public sector, and now you have a BIGGER pool of desperate people looking for a job. See what that does to the employees in the public sector that have been working for a company for too long and are making a decent amount of money -they will be substituted with a workforce that is willing to work for half the money and half the benefits. I see it all the time where I live -laying off the ones that make too much and then rehiring new ones for less. Another way to increase the bottom line AND to enjoy the tax cuts!

This is democracy at work- too bad the libs can't stand for that. Democrats DO NOT like the political process of majority rule.

Unions used to have a place in the labor force, but look at the steel industry- there is a reason they shut down and went offshore- janitors making $27 an hour. That was in the 70s; now that would be up around $45 an hour. Sounds logical to the unions......

One thing you DO NOT hear from the libs, is any plan to get Wisconsin or any other state out of the massive holes they are in. They just complain, complain, complain..... And want more money.

And while we are at it, how is Jerry Brown in Cal. doing anything differant than Walker? Thre's a "conservative" for you libs, right? Gotta be: he's cutting gov. workers rights and income...think hard now.

Anyone? Anyone?

Yeah so much to be jealous of the union worker!!!!

Hmm

Let me see I make twice as much.

Don't have to pay any union dues.

My benefits package from my company is very good.

Wait, wait I see one thing I am jealous of..... I have to actually perform my best every single day or else someone else can get my job. I see now I can't be lazy.

Quick Hit – as Walker proposed, literally

Post 1.57 Riverdog - congratulations that is your finest most erudite post I have had the misfortune to read, as in the Oz movie “if I only had a brain”. Vacuous at best my suggestion is to try a little harder next time, I know it is a strain but still you can do better, eh I hope.

Union workers make up a very small proportion of our private sector, and there is and has been a freeze of Federal work force in place for years now, with few exceptions. California is emblematic of nearly all states to my knowledge all states have a hiring freeze for years now and a reduction in total work force (read lay-offs) and a reduction in days worked per week as agreed to by those in unions.

This is an attack on the middle class and the standard of living of average American workers. The intention, only stopped by more prudent minds, of Walker to send in hired thugs to beat down those peacefully and legally protesting should be handled with an indictment to incite violence on public citizens. I think this should be a crime, if it is already not, for a person to conspire to inflict physical harm on private citizens. If I conspire to hire thugs to beat you to the ground I believe that is a crime in California even if the act is not perpetrated, I could be wrong but that is my understanding to go as far as Walker did is a crime.

America is changing right before our eyes and what is and what will be I look in wonderment. This collectively to bargain issue is both an attempt to weaken an already beaten down Democratic Party and condition Americans to a lower standard of living. The monitory conditions the unions agreed to but the issue is to break the union of workers, this is what is at play here and that is clear as can be. That is the issue.

A rising (wage) tide lifts all workers? I wonder?

The measure now goes to the Senate, where minority Democrats have been missing for a week, preventing a vote in that chamber.

Grow the F...up and get back to work. You don't show up for work, you don't have a job. Not willing to do your job, then you're fired.

I'm tired of these cry-babies politicians (both parties).

Rob-LVNevada

Some of us don't work your 40 hour weeks and don't get any vacation nor sick time, so it's honestly hard to have sympathy with anyone who feels they are entitled to such for whatever reason.

Let's see.

You're getting screwed, but instead of having a beef with the guy who's screwing you, you blame everyone who isn't getting screwed?

If your employer decides tomorrow that he can get your work done for a quarter an hour in Malaysia and offshores your job, are you going to be pissed at the people who still have jobs?

Your loyalties are seriously misplaced.

AntiZioNazi,

How proud should republicans be of a slime that took a phone call from someone pretending to be David Koch?

How proud should Democrats be of a President (notice I maintained respect for the position unlike you) that takes calls and office visits from George Soros, Andy Sterns, or Richard Trumpka?

... Governor Walker said nothing unseemly on the call. The fact that he thought about anything has nothing to do with taking action on it. Unlike the Pres who jumps into every state action that George, Andy, or Richard wants him to.

... Sorry ... get the guys back to work so they can really "create and save jobs" without borrowing more money from China.

Perserve

This is an attack on the middle class and the standard of living of average American workers. The intention, only stopped by more prudent minds, of Walker to send in hired thugs to beat down those peacefully and legally protesting should be handled with an indictment to incite violence on public citizens.

Please, your source for this inflamatory statement? Don't quote the taped call ... it wasn't there. A "thought" is not a "intention" nor any "conspiracy", my friend.

Yeah, I get it ... you disagree! That's it.

Two thumbs up I agree 100% could not have said any better. Anybody whom doesn't get this, really just don't get it.

It's priceless all the "conservatives" posting here mid-morning about how "hard" they work.

lulz ...

Compromise is a good word, and a better action. Walker won't make it as a politician in our democracy until he learns that. He's acting more like, well, Qadaffi. Or Mussolini. Not saying that the unions are perfect -- far from it -- but they do provide an important service to middle class workers. When you give millions in corporate tax breaks as Walker did, which directly go to the monied in the state, and then strip away collective bargaining rights from the middle class -- well, you're just not looking fair and balanced. You are stripping away a perception that there is hope for the middle class. You are taking the middle class one step closer to indentured servitude, effectively moving backwards. The rich will keep on getting richer, and the middle class will move closer to the "poor" column. This does not bode well for us as a people.

Wow, just look at all the posts above with conservatives just seething with jealousy because someone else negotiated a better deal them them. Look at them all stomping their feet and holding their breath like 2 year olds because "I don't have what he/she has so it needs to be taken away' mentality. Do any of you have any clue at all how completely obvious you are? Can any of you whine any louder of be any more self centered? Your parents failed miserably. They raised a group of selfish self centered cry babies that think they are entitled to what everyone else has without working or planning for it. To use your own words against you conservatives, get your asses to work and earn it. Stop crying like a baby because YOU made choices in your life that aren't quite as good as the choices others made. Stop expecting things to be handed to you. You bunch of whining freeloaders!

Unions are corporations--corporations of workers. They are just as bad as the companies that buy representatives and regulators through both legal and illegal means because that is exactly what they do; that is exactly what they have been formed to do. You cannot have it both ways, where one group of people collectively bargaining for better standards is evil (the corporations) but another group of people collectively bargaining for better standards is good (the unions). Both of these collectives are given more rights and benefits than the average citizen, which means that we have a society that is neither equal nor free. If all workers were unionized as one (meaning we all received the same benefits, rather than having educators in one union and firemen in another and service employees in yet another) and bargained at once with every corporation, then there would be at least a quasi balance of power, where every worker in the country benefited by the agreements reached with every corporation. Unfortunately because one of the largest employers in the US is the government, the government would naturally side with the corporations as an entity, while the government worker would naturally side with the union. And this would do absolutely nothing to curtail the illegal purchase of politicians and regulators who regularly benefit by the wants of those they are meant to be regulating. I suppose it is necessary for us to all realize that we are all only human, and we all only want as much as we can get (without getting caught).

The only way to solve this particular problem is for everyone involved to stop seeing only to the end of their own nose and start looking at the big picture. Perhaps there should no longer be campaign contributions (you don't get to buy ad space; if you want to run, you walk the streets and look constituents in the eye). Perhaps lobbying should be outlawed. Perhaps all government pay (federal state and local) should be based on the median income of the area in which a person is living/representing, which would naturally give government cause to look out for the benefits of every worker, not just those in a large collectives in order to secure votes. Perhaps regulations should be made only on the basis of impact on society and never on the basis of company bottom line (and the process of recalling politicians who fail to remember that their constituents are the people not the collective should be made easier). Perhaps everyone should be required to attain an education in ethics. Perhaps we should reinstate glass/steagal.

One thing I do know we have to do is we have to start building quality in America. We aren't going to stand on assembly lines and make cheap garbage. Those jobs are never coming back (and it would be unethical for us to try to bring them back because people in countries that are far less affluent than ours have become dependent on them). We need to find the American Italian Leather Sofa and Swiss Chocolate and English China. If we build quality goods that are beautiful and last, the world will buy them. Things will be better with our government budgets once we get that 10-20% of the population that is out of work to work again.

Every individual should be looking at their hometown seeing what is needed there. The banks aren't lending, so every community needs to be coming together to build businesses or to loan to each other to create businesses (it makes much more sense in this economy for you to earn ten percent on a loan that you know is helping to bring your community jobs than for you to bet on your investments in the market, especially when the market is all about skimming pennies in micro-trades). Until we stop fighting and start working together, we will not solve the problems. There are viable solutions. We have to be willing to work together to find them. That means we have to stop asking "What's in it for me?"

YouJustsaid,

Could it be that employers do allow employees breaks - even conservative leaning employees. And, let's not forget the employees who work second shift who haven't gone to work yet. Or, the third shifters who are probably just getting home from work.

It is rare than in this liberal web site most people do no support unions this days. Unions did help to have better conditions in the past , but now it is all about power and the greedy money . Unions don't do nothing for me than collect my dues and support corrupts politicians with my dues.

Rorschach-558483

You're getting screwed, but instead of having a beef with the guy who's screwing you, you blame everyone who isn't getting screwed?

You nailed it beautifully! That shows you the warped loyalty to the coprporate America. The very people that complain about how little they get from their employer (therefore everyone else should be brought to their level) are the same people who belive that the businesses are the victims. I would like to be the kind of victim that cries poverty while reports billions in profit. And these shmucks eat it up and work for less!

oskar,

Unions don't do nothing for me than collect my dues and support corrupts politicians with my dues.

you are very naive to think that.

first, you enjoy your job security BECAUSE of your Union. Take their power away and you will see how quickly you are replaces by some 21- year-old kid, fresh out of college, because he will be willing to work for half of what you make.

If you are so anti-Union, go work for Wal-mart. They will show you what a non-Union job is.No one is forcing you to keep your job, do they? Give it up then. Someone else will be happy to get it.

Bayllie wrote:

Rorschach-558483

You're getting screwed, but instead of having a beef with the guy who's screwing you, you blame everyone who isn't getting screwed?

You nailed it beautifully! That shows you the warped loyalty to the coprporate America. The very people that complain about how little they get from their employer (therefore everyone else should be brought to their level) are the same people who belive that the businesses are the victims. I would like to be the kind of victim that cries poverty while reports billions in profit. And these shmucks eat it up and work for less!

You are failing to take into account how much more you would be required to pay for goods and services if everyone were able to negotiate for better benefits. You are also failing to take into account the self-employed person's inability to be party to a collective, and the fact that many self-employed people (plumbers, electricians, HVAC techs, etc) compete with a slew of illegal workers (not all immigrants, but people who refuse to follow regulation) and in doing so can charge lower prices, thereby "screwing" the guy who is following the rules out of work.

We had a city worker in charge of planning call the other day because she had a day laborer try and fix her plumbing in her house, and he did a great deal of damage. You would think she, of all people, would know better than to use illegal labor. But there's nothing she can do. Remember that not all "bosses" trying to get the labor done cheaper are corporations.

this is what i dont get, so someone kind of i dunno, fix this for me ok?

basically, this bill, the unions were up for going along with what ever jobs needed to be cut, what ever pay cuts needed to be taken, whatever employee's had to put into pension out of their own pockets, union members, and THE UNIONS were ok with....there is no dispute on that, because its been in the news since the day this started. ALL THOSE SAME things, in a sence are in this bill, but, (correctme if i am wrong here), the employee pays the union dues out of their own packet, rather then having them taken off the payroll and mailed on behalf of the state, right? The embers have a collective right each year to as agreed vote to get a raise, be it the state is not in the red. (makes sence to me, why give/promise someone $ you dont have right?). hmmmm. maybe this part must be it..... annually, the employee's can vote as to weather or not to keep the union they have, or change, or do away with altogether? is that the one right there? the part giving you the right to decide what union you want to have if any? now, this vote as written in the bill will be taking place annually, contract or not. you get a raise if the state isnt in the red, contract or not, OH! WAIT! during the time be no agreement was reached by the end of the contract, the employee doesnt have to pay union dues, or back dues?

wow you know what, it sounds like you are getting more collective rights, than rights taken away. takeing $ out of your check to pay off the union on your behalf, should not be left up to the taxpayer, imo. if you dont WANT TO BE IN THE UNION, seems like you would now have that right. so what are you union drools crying for the union scabs about? your not going to loose out, you are gaining. your doing your part in saving your jobs in part (just in your own little part), by mailing out your OWN DUES. you dig out that little checkbook, write your exstortion fee amount where it belongs, sign it, and drop it off in the mail, with your OWN paid postage. what is the difficulty in that?

Lu,

You are also failing to take into account the self-employed person's inability to be party to a collective, and the fact that many self-employed people (plumbers, electricians, HVAC techs, etc)

if you ever look through the history of my posts, you will see that I always said that small business are being screwed by picking up the tax tab for the big business. They don't have the ability to file a 20 thousand page return to hide any income they may have. But this is a different issue. If you allow the big government to take away the union rights (as messed up as they are, they still protect the little people), it will drag everyone else's pay scale down. So yes, the self employed will also suffer because they always compete against the price of the next guy.

compete with a slew of illegal workers (not all immigrants, but people who refuse to follow regulation) and in doing so can charge lower prices, thereby "screwing" the guy who is following the rules out of work.

You are right about this also. Why do illegals have jobs? Because they are cheap labor and businesses continue to hire them to increase profits. The corporate world would rather pay a fine if caught because the fines are a joke compared to what they save on cheap labor that will never complain about anything to the Labor Department!

Persevere and several others have said:

This is an attack on the middle class and the standard of living of average American workers

This is a Union talking point and it is totally WRONG. Here's why..... The Unions have been obsessed with making all workers "middle class" workers, whether they did a job that commanded a middle class wage or not. So Unions have increased labor costs to corporations forcing them to pay workers more than their job merits. (In many cases, though not all.) Then they went further. They pushed and raised the bar repeatedly, until the corporations could no longer afford the Union mentality. When this became a problem, the corporations started sending jobs overseas to remain competitive in global market. See this is another part of the problem the Unions ignore. The United States is part of a GLOBAL MARKET, not just an AMERICAN MARKET. It is the goal of a business to STAY in business, so they made the changes necessary to stay in business. The Union's obsession with their concept of what worker wages MUST be has destroyed the middle class, nothing else. It was not the Union's mission to determine what constitutes being "Middle Class." Nor is their definition of "Middle Class" really what middle class is all about. Yet, this is what they have done, and it has not been to the benefit of the United States. Their actions forced the corporations to change to keep the business in business, not make all the workers "middle class." They could have paid all the workers a "middle class" wage, but then they would be out of business. Who benefits from that?!

Now we have our State and Federal Govt.'s that are deeply in the red, yet, the Unions insist that the status quo remain. They have done nothing to explain HOW the govt's are going to scrape up the money to maintain wage and benefit levels.

When are the right wing cry babies for once going to take some personal responsibility and get the job they really want? All I hear is whining about long hours and low pay and benefits. If you want these things so bad go get a union job and quit your belly-aching. If you don't want a union job, then you get what you get.

Why do you want the richest to never pay taxes, but the workers must give up what they have. The right has some seriously misplaced priorities.

bayllie "ROY WILSON, You must be talking about the incentives to get companies to actually stay and hire in Wisconsin instead of taking their companies to states that DO offer a better business climate".................Your response is ..."You guys keep repeating that point like it's the only solution to unemployment! Tax cuts don't work - they didn't under Bush and they are not working now."

Really? Let's look at the actual economic results before and after the Bush tax cuts that went into full effect in 2003 (based on fiscal year data from the Federal Government);

In the 3 years prior to the end of 2003, the economy grew by 11.96% (3.99% per year).
Three years later (2006), the economy had grown by 20.26% (6.75% per year).

In the 3 years prior to the end of 2003, government revenues actually SHRUNK by 11.99% (-4.0% per year).
Three years later (2006), the government revenues GREW by 35.0% (11.67% per year).
I guess this is what you might call "An inconvenient truth".

Of course, the Democrats took over Congress, the budget and spending at the end of 2006, and the rest is the 'history' that Pelosi and Reid left us to deal with.

"first, you enjoy your job security BECAUSE of your Union. Take their power away and you will see how quickly you are replaces by some 21- year-old kid, fresh out of college, because he will be willing to work for half of what you make."

I don't worry about job security as long I do my job. By the way , my wife works for Home Depot for more then ten years, a non union corporation , she don't need to worry about job security as long the company do business, and she do her job , she has no union but she enjoy health plan, retirement plan , vacation, free vaccine , discount to purchase stocks.

Yea, the same Job Security that keeps low-producing, incompetent workers employed instead of replacing them with better workers. Union enforced Job Security breeds laziness and no interest in pursuing excellence in one's work.

ROY WILSON-336103
you fail to mention that portion of the growth was due to a war. But The US National Debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP). Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council. In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further
inequalities in after-tax income." Guess what happened?

The total surplus in FY 2001 was $128 billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added almost $1.7 trillion—through budget deficits—to the national debt since then (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2007).

The number of people that collected unemployemnt benefits for one week or more in November 2008 neared a 26-year high. That number surged by 109,000 to 4,012,000 for the week ended November 8. The last time the figure was this high was for the week of December 12, 1982, when it reached 4,381,000.

Unemployment rate in January 2001, when Bush took over was roughly 4%. When left in in January of 2009, it doubled.

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

So yes, Roy, I guess this is what you might call "An inconvenient truth".

Bayllie wrote:

You are right about this also. Why do illegals have jobs? Because they are cheap labor and businesses continue to hire them to increase profits. The corporate world would rather pay a fine if caught because the fines are a joke compared to what they save on cheap labor that will never complain about anything to the Labor Department!

It is not just corporations that hire the cheap labor; it is individuals. You have to get out of that mentality that corporations are the "bad guy". Bad guys are the bad guys, and bad guys exist at all levels, both as employers and as employees. I'm not defending the corporations that do what is unethical, but there are many corporations that do not do what is unethical, and there is a tendency in the language to lump groups together when they don't deserve to be lumped in.

I guess I'm of the guns don't kill people, people kill people mindset. There are plenty of corporations out there that follow the rules and do right by their employees without requiring government oversight. The corporations that don't aren't bad because corporations are inherently evil--the people running things are evil. The excessive regulations that get put in place aren't put in place because the corporations are evil--the people running the corporations make those excessive regulations necessary because they fail to practice ethics. The fact of the matter is those excessive regulations make it more difficult for the people who are running their businesses ethically to continue in business and provide others with needed jobs, and meanwhile the bad people at the head of unethically run business merely look for the next way of getting around the regulations. This is an unending cycle, until the people in the government being paid to regulate actually do their jobs and come down on the businesses that aren't practicing ethics. Trouble is the people in government positions, or any position, are just as likely to be unethical as the people running those corporations that are deemed "evil".

Look at the healthcare laws that were recently passed. There is a whole lot of "we're going to regulate, but just not this guy," going on. Why? Because those people running those corporations were unethical and were able, because of their bargaining power (whether that was collective bargaining or financial bargaining) was able to give them greater sway. The unions were some of those that were among the "just not this guy" group.

There is obviously no such thing as equal. If there was an equal, we would all be born deaf and blind in third world countries, stricken with incurable diseases that cause great pain and suffering, to thirteen year old mothers who have no clue how or desire to raise us with values and fathers who have no intention of raising us at all unless it is to abuse us physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually, and just to make certain everything was really fair, we'd all have our shoes stolen right off our feet at least twice a day.

Honestly, I don't really want equality or "fair". No one does. We just all want what we want when we want it, which is why we are all in this situation together.

This is not about pensions or retirements. The union workers already gave that up. It is about collective bargaining rights. The right to assemble. If the republicans can take away the public sectors rights. Then they can easily take away the private sector.

I have worked for unions three different ones. One at a grocery store one at a Plant and one at a winery. All three had good pay and benefits. If someone chooses not to work for a union they have that choice.

I currently do not work for a union. But I know many republicans that still do. The right ought to be very careful about this issue. My grandfather worked for the same place for 41 years under a union. And he is a republican and has been for the longest.

All he can say about what WI is that its B.S. The republican party has changed. I tend to agree. Its all about the money. And striping away our freedoms one at a time.

joey,

don't confuse public and private unions, because they are very different. In private companies the boss is the stakeholdersand unions must negotiate salary and benefits with the people that own and run the company. In public unions, the taxpayers are essentially the boss, but very rarely have input into union negotiatios. The individuals that are negotiating with the public unions generally have no interest inrefusing union demands, especially when times are good. Puplic unions want more and they often times get it. Tax money is diverted from projects that benefit the residents of the state to pay for personal salaries and benefits, which often times also results in higher taxes.

Lu-1328381:

I read a lot of comments on here through various stories about Dem vs Rep, racism, gay rights and very seldom do I see such thought out and responsible comments made such as yours. Instead of blaming the opposition and yelling at each other, your comments are a breath of fresh air. I feel that some people in this world can still look at subjects objectively leaving their knee jerk emotions aside and posting in a manner that can and should benefit any reader of their comment.

I guess I am saying that I know we are all anonymous on here and what you say is less formal than if it were face to face, but it is nice to see some sort of civility in a digital world that has definitely lost that.

If it weren't so sad, and the governments so deep in dept, it might be funny. All of you private sector workers - pro union or not - this is all about government power. These "union workers" are not that in the same way you think.

They are the government. They are the reason governments are in so much debt. Don't feel sorry for the government. Don't worry that there won't be anyone there to provide necessary services. Just as politicians keep running to fill those positions, so will the rest who only have to apply for their positions. The day you start hearing about a shortage of government workers then...well that's not going to happen.

Cut all of the government that doesn't provide a greater benefit to the taxpayer than it takes.

Byl

When are the right wing cry babies for once going to take some personal responsibility and get the job they really want? All I hear is whining about long hours and low pay and benefits. If you want these things so bad go get a union job and quit your belly-aching. If you don't want a union job, then you get what you get.

zcually the only one i had heard literally crying about this are the union drools... comments were most of you were over paid, and by the amount of work MOST of you do, you are. who's crying? sounds more like you are. truth hurt a little?

joeyfromcali

This is not about pensions or retirements. The union workers already gave that up. It is about collective bargaining rights. The right to assemble. If the republicans can take away the public sectors rights. Then they can easily take away the private sector.

I have worked for unions three different ones. One at a grocery store one at a Plant and one at a winery. All three had good pay and benefits. If someone chooses not to work for a union they have that choice.

1st, it wouldnt surprise me if in california someone sneezes wrong, a union is formed. then again looking at california, i thiink if not mistaken #1 in the red. when your states own democrat govoner tried to cut spending the dems fought him tooth and nail. yet you also talked about how the public sector get raises and so on when it can afford it, when was the last time Cali wasnt in the red, and dems toot tooin' along in the $ train? personally, the union boss' were willing to toss anyone they could under the train to leave out a couple things and it had yes to do with collective gathering of thoughts and votes. the employee can vote to keep the union in, or toss it, as well if the contrats dont come to a close by the due date, employees dont have to pay dues or back dues. did i leave out its the employee's responsibility to mail in the dues, not have someone do it for them?

personally i think that is the big issue there, paying your own dues. that way instead of the taxpayer footing the bill to have the gov do it, they have to make sure their employees pay themselves. personally i want to see how that turns out. not sure, maybe it might be the union supporters might be afraid of the union scare tactics they use as pressure to geet their $$, lol. see how long it takes before union thugs start to show their true colors....lol.

Bustum hard you and the rest of you who havent put it together that teacher didnt start teaching in her twenties Duh Many of the teachers dont go into that career until their thirtys that what thirty and out looks like when you start late. I did too and was amazed at how little money Ill get for my service. Yes there are some teacher who seem to get over but generally the formula is 1 third your take home pay so that even if you made 80,000 your pension will be around 26k doesnt sound like that much, same formula for nurses!

Roy Wilson 336103

Fletch2-1565982 "I would have more respect for the Governor if he wasn't lying. He gave tax cuts to the rich and now wants the union to pay for it."

You must be talking about the incentives to get companies to actually stay and hire in Wisconsin instead of taking their companies to states that DO offer a better business climate.

Ok, so you believe in trickle down economics....I don't. Besides my point was that the governor is a LIAR. The union agreed to all the monetary requirements and if he needed so much money why didn't he include ALL the unions?

He should say he wants to dismantle SOME unions, rather than claiming he is trying to fix a shortfall.

I looked into this a little and the tax cuts that everyone on the left seem to be so wound up about are for:

1. the tax cuts went toward health savings accounts of employees

2. deductions for relocated businesses from other states to WI

3. exclusions for hiring new employees and creating jobs

The tax cut bills lowered projected tax revenues by $117 million

All of these things are for workers or the unemployed and are things that people on the left have been screaming for for months. Governor Walker is doing things to attract businesses to WI and to get businesses in WI to hire the unemployed.

Aren't these good things

How about we settle this? How about we agree that WI workers should have what federal workers have? Actually, that' the bill under discussion. Point of fact; Federal workers cannot bargain for wages and benefits, see WSJ article by Kimberly Strassel:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703530504576164822561737348.html

And this is after your great left wing champions; Barrack, Nancy, and Harry had 100% control of the government for the last two years! I wonder why they didn't push the bargaining chip to change it? Hey, another thing! Guess who passed the federal bill in the early 70's??? Why it was Jimmy Carter with ANOTHER Democrat House and Senate! Why those rotteny old ... wait a minute .... LIBERALS!! Here I thought we be blaming this whole thing on Bush by now, certainly Cheney!

Maybe however they did it (and have sustained it) because they realize the situation that states like WI has gotten themselves into?

Robert in Ohio, I well understand your point. It is true these incentives draw business to WI. But you left out one more. The right to collective bargaining will be taken away, so business will not have to worry about paying average wages. if you think removing collective bargaining in the public sector won't work its way to the private sector, you are nieve at best. That is the best incentive of them all. That money they would save is uncalculable.

This issue is NOT the concessions, the union has already agreed to them. The issue is the right to collective bargaining. If it were the right to bear arms there would be progressives and conservatives rioting in the streets. But, since it is an attack on middle class workers, oh well.

I am not above the law, neither are the politicians. But the politicians are trying to tip the scales of justice in favor of business. In so doing, pushing the middle class further toward the poverty side.

I hear republicans telling me how they appose handouts, you know, fend for yourselves attitude. Except when life throws a curveball and you need some help getting back on your feet, I would like some of the tax dollars I've paid to help me out, I'm all for fending for myself. Now, why is it that business seems to elude this fundamental value boasted by the conservatives? If a company moves to a state that offers incentives to do so, they, in essence have accepted a handout. This same phylosophy applies to any other incentive for business that adds up to be trillions of dollars worth of savings.

Now, you can say that you appose handouts but you need to apply this concept to individuals and companies (that have the same rights as individuals, btw).

In conclusion, it is hypocritical to say you are conservative and be so liberal to business.

Bosslimo,

If it were the right to bear arms there would be progressives and conservatives rioting in the streets.

Maybe, doubt it ... but only because it's in the Constitution as the 2nd ammendment. Labor codes are Laws as opposed to rights under the Constitution.

Bosslimo,

The public sector union members would have the same collective bargaining rights as the federal employees who are in public sector unions and they would be working without 1000's of their brother and sister members being laid off.

Ah, but for how long Robert in Ohio? Till the next bill is once again "forced down people's throat"? And the next? Well, since they ate that bill... here's another one. It will never end. You start giving into business you will become a slave to them.

I hear the cries of too much for too little against these union contracts but we ignore certain facts.

They were negotiated and AGREED upon. Not just agreed but legally binding agreement.

So, we say that the agreement is unrealistic. Let's not raise taxes on anything to make up for this mishandled agreement, we will make public union members pay for the mistake. By the way, since we have the majority, let's do away with collective bargaining too.

Your sense of smell isn't working if you don't smell a rat with that.

Incentives were given to business amounting to 137 million in expected revenue, balancing it with cuts from the middle class. Well, ok. The union agreed to the concession. Why go after collective bargaining?

Now, in essence, we will feed the business and starve the workers, not only of expected income, but also of thier collective bargaining, preventing them from negotiating in the future.

Now, please explain why all the liberal handouts to business. (Don't tell me so that business will move to WI, this same attack is going on across the country, which nullifies that thought process as business will eventually be able to move to any state with the same perk.)

Bosslimo

You answered all the questions you asked in your post

So I will simply say

Have a good evening as aI sign off for the night

Are we just angry that our work was outsourced to China? 9 out of 10 times you vote Republican; you vote for more outsourced jobs. How can you bit** about government employees, when you won't stand up for your right to collectively bargain for better wages! 7% of the private sector is unionized. No wonder they have seen their wages decrease, their benefits disappear, and have seen many of their jobs outsourced. Last time I heard, 3 major Republican senators want more outsourced work to go to Central and South America.

You want to see for yourself, were your jobs went, ask your Republican senators, if they favor more Free Trade Agreements. Call them today! If you want to end special interests influencing elections, Pass a constitutional amendment to end Private donations in Public elections.

It's about power. Just a few months ago, Mott's (apple juice) made headliens because the CEO wanted to reduce worker's wages even though the company made record profits. The CEO said it was because the workers wages were out of line withe those of their neighbors. No word, of course, on how the CEO was handling HIS paycheck.

From CBS:

(CBS) Labor Day 2010 finds a lot of American workers on the sidelines. The U.S. unemployment rate stands at 9.6 percent. There are five job seekers for every opening. And in many cases those who have jobs are being asked to take pay cuts even at healthy companies. CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano reports on a case in point in Williamson N.Y.

For more than three months, Michelle Muoio has been picketing the plant where she's worked for 15 years - Mott's apple juice in western New York.

Three hundred union members are locked in a heated dispute, symbolizing a new shift in the power struggle between management and labor in America.

Companies typically ask for labor concessions when they're losing money. But Mott's parent company, Dr. Pepper-Snapple -is making record profits of more than half a billion dollars a year. Yet workers are being asked to take a $1.50-an-hour wage cut - and a pension freeze.

"We need a fair share," said Mike Leberth, president of RWDSU Local 220. "If you're making half a billion dollars in profit after all expenses, we should share in that."

The company argues that Mott's workers earn far more than their counterparts in the area - an average of $19 an hour versus an area average of $14.

"When there's a situation when you have wages and benefits out of line with the local market and industry norms, however difficult it may be, it's something we have an obligation to address," said Tina Barry, the company's senior vice president for corporate affairs.

The fact is unions are losing their leverage. Membership dropped 10 percent in 2009, the largest decline in more than 25 years.

Labor experts say, generally, the longer a strike drags on, the more likely it is the company will get its way. But these workers say they'll continue to hold out until the company comes up with a better offer.

Replacement workers arrive daily, doing the jobs union members used to do. The company says it has no plans to re-open talks.

Holding out is hard for Michelle Muoio and her son Jaden.

"He didn't have a birthday cake, you know?" Muoio said. "You give up things."

She realizes this could be a lost cause.

"I'll stand out here and fight with everybody until the end and then I'll move on," she said.

The gov and his staff are going to pay as much or more than what the teachers are asking to pay.

Reason and Logic . . . NAFTA was signed into law by your beloved Bill Clinton. And plenty of Dems voted for it. So ask your buddies what happened.

"The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994. Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated: "…NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.”

And when passing that law ending Private donations in Public elections don't forget to include union donations. Only fair right?

IRMan And when passing that law ending Private donations in Public elections don't forget to include union donations. Only fair right?

Frankly politics would be a lot more honest and fair if NO private donations were allowed for public elections. And any and all corporations are considered private donations as well! If corporations were out of the game, I think Dems might be willing to take union donations out as well.

IR yes NAFTA was signed by Clinton, but the masters who made it happen are still mega corporations, which moved their plants to foreign nations. At least some Democrats, are willing to undo the plans like NAFTA. I haven't seen one Republican ever declare or vote against any bill with free trade in it. Maybe if President Obama wakes up and sees how his inaction is destroying our nation, he would finally fight to repeal these horrible things. Every trade deficit signals the decline of the US people.

Companies typically ask for labor concessions when they're losing money. But Mott's parent company, Dr. Pepper-Snapple -is making record profits of more than half a billion dollars a year. Yet workers are being asked to take a $1.50-an-hour wage cut - and a pension freeze.

"We need a fair share," said Mike Leberth, president of RWDSU Local 220. "If you're making half a billion dollars in profit after all expenses, we should share in that."

1st off, it was their PARENT companies that made the so called record profit, not that company its self. 2nd, why should you "share that"? what right do you have to it? if you dont like the wage you are making, go to a different company where you can make your own record profit. not to mention, being it is mott's, if not mistaken who hire migrant/immigrant workers, and yet that buisness in its entire made even a modest profit, even tho there might be a chance that part of the stimulous was paid for those workers for mott, doesnt matter? like SENNECA FOODS in Gillett Wisc. where yes, the federal government paid 1/2 the wages for the illegals to be bussed up here to work, leaving the rest of us to starve. go gov! all becauce some flea has people thinking people like myself cant do, or wont do that job, take your pick. that we all know is a down right lie, but hey what ya gonna do, burn the place down to the ground out of spite? nope, just dont vote in a welfare pimp for president when the next election rolls around.

All of you supporting the unions and bashing corporations for their profits, ask yourself this question:

Do the union leaders really care about the workers, or are they merely trying to increase membership to increase revenues to increase profits "off the backs of working people?"

Public union jobs are supported by your very own tax dollars, your union dues are paid by your very own tax dollars, your union is breaking the states in which you live. Can't you see the irony in your demands? You're demanding more while costing you more. That's pure idiocy.

TO POST 2.1

Start thinking for yourself! Jobs are leaving union states that have (collective stealing) to states that are right to work states! AT LEAST BE HONEST TO YOURSELF THEY ARE GOING BECAUSE THE UNIONS!

I have yet to hear of ANY politician willing to forfeit any of their pay or pay more for their benefits. Because of their position, they don't HAVE to forfeit anything. They only need to make sure the working class gets less and less. The unions in Wisconsin have agreed to pay more for their benefits but retain their collective bargaining, yet the Gov says "Only my way!" Hey Gov, are you living in the governors mansion? Do you have a driver? What about servants and assistants? Are any of your "aides" being asked to sacrifice at all?

There is a lot of talk about how these teachers are wrong and are sending the wrong message to the kids. Well, what message is the governor sending? He refuses to compromise. What dollar value does collective bargaining have on the budget? How much money will be saved if there is no collective bargaining? NONE. Wages and benefits is where the costs are and yet although the unions are willing to pay more for their benefits, the gov says NO. This governor is teaching the children to rule with a heavy hand and not allow for ANY compromise. Maybe he doesn't want to compromise out of fear that he will be asked to give up some of his cushy perks. Hey gov, don't sweat it! Your fellow political prostitutes would NEVER agree to giving up their perks.

I was raised in a "union" home yet I do not believe that ALL workers must join the union. If you do not wish to belong to the union, you should not have to join. Unions have been both good and bad for the country and to blatantly accuse them of being all bad is wrong.

Let me ask everyone something. If you decided that you did not like something your company was doing and you decided to just leave, what would happen to your job? Democrat and Republicans both have used this tactic and it is wrong. I am not pro-union, in my opinion (just my opinion) unions at one point and time were necessary, but have now long outlived their usefulness.

These are the politicians who are elected and expected to lead.

So unions have out lived their usefullness becasue there are laws? Well I guess since there are laws against stealing and killing, the locks on my front door and car have outlived their usefullness too...because NO ONE would break those laws right? I mean big companies would never refuse to pay overtime to employees working more than 40 hours in a week, or they will continue to pay for injuries sustained on the job, right???

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce contributed to and backs the Republicans and that Donoho guy who runs the chamber has stated several times that he thinks outsourcing our jobs is a good thing. He needs to move out of the country. What a jackass.

I am not pro/anti- union, however, the reason unions were started was to protect people from DYING in factories durring the industrial revolution. If anyone remembers their history, unions were started to help factory workers not lose limbs or lives or jobs and get paid more than a few pennies a day. Unions brought down the economy in Michigan long before the year 2000, that would be the automotive industry, the factory workers were unionized and made far better than what alot of ppl make, it got them laid off. There is a school in connecticut who laid off all of its teachers, where was the union there?? What about the children in WI now whose teachers are protesting??

I agree if i missed work for 8 days and didnt give notice i would not come back to a job. Those teachers need to do their job, let the union leaders do theirs....

Any teacher that took one of my children to demosntrations would go to jail. And when he/she go out, she/he would be tied up in civil suits for the rest of their life.

Yes, I know how those union people feel getting something shoved down their throats.

I felt the same way after the Obama Healthcare bill passed.........

Welcome to my world.

Reason and Logic

. . . NAFTA was signed into law by your beloved Bill Clinton. And plenty of Dems voted for it. So ask your buddies what happened.

Ignorance and blame-shifting abounds.

While it's true that Clinton did sign NAFTA, Clinton didn't create the agreement nor did he push for its passage. That goes to the GOP.

The following comes straight from conservative Heritage.org, from a tribute speech to Ronald Reagan, delivered by Arthur Laffer - the Godfather of trickle-down economics...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/the-four-pillars-of-reaganomics

Ronald Reagan wanted free trade more than anything. If you look at this issue today, in 1930, we passed-the United States passed with Herbert Hoover as President, and signed into law-something called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. That tariff put tariff duties on imported products at the highest level they have virtually ever been. It was the precursor of the Great Depression. If you follow that legislation, it goes through the House Committees and the Senate Committees, you can see the stock market collapses. Those tariffs were the highest they've been. Since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff passed, in this country we have reduced tax rates on traded products and Ronald Reagan was a major reducer of those taxes on traded products. In fact, it was Ronald Reagan, as you all know, who sponsored NAFTA. We couldn't get it passed, but we sponsored NAFTA. It took Bill Clinton to switch and go against his own party, against the unions, to push that through. But Ronald Reagan pushed for NAFTA and pushed for lowering tariffs. Today in the United States, customs duties per dollar of import are the lowest they have been in a thousand years because of Ronald Reagan-literally the lowest.

While I'm at it, and speaking of the effects of NAFTA on American jobs, also from the same speech:

The third one I want to touch on, because I remember Ronald Reagan being so strong on this issue, and it also has to do with the U.S. and the global economy, and I'm going to say it in my style tonight and I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings when I do, but it's immigration. Immigration is the life's blood of the U.S. economy. [Applause.]

Outsourcing is not new. Immigration is not new. Not only are these people the life's blood of America, they are, but let me just say to you tonight, on economic terms, the illegal immigrants are also the life's blood of this society. And I'm going to be hard core with you. They produce high quality labor at low cost and they cheat on their taxes. It doesn't get any better.

How'd you like that illegal-immigration hoo-rah coming straight from the conservative leadership?

Now who's been lying to you?

If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny. Look at all the cry babies crying about what public sector employees make/get in benefits. They all think it's perfectly ok to slap working US citizens with 5-10% reductions in pay because they aren't smart enough to realize that it's not the public sector being treated like royalty it's them being bent over by their private sector employers. However, they all cry in unison when the suggestion of a 3% tax increase on anyone making over 250K. Take a long hard look, this is what a brainwashed, ill informed, hysterical, scared and irrational person looks like.

lol @ Shellie-657180,

what dont you get Shell? what has you steamed? is it the part where employee's get to have a choice to keep the union every year? is it someone has to pay the dues themselves rather have the taxpayer pay to have them sent out and deducted? is it the part that states when the state isnt in the red, you then have an option to vote for a raise? way i see it the only thing in that bill pizzing off the unions, is the part where 1 time a year, those employees decide if they want to keep the union, and dont have to pay dues while it is being debated IF it runs past the point of when the contract exspires. union members are not loosing any rights the union didnt agree to, however the union its self lost it's right to stay in place, even if the employees dont want it anymore. so jump on your little union broom, and fly off somewhere else to cry boo hoo hoo! if the dems had come to the tabe, seriously, with serious intentions, and fact as to why the bill should not have been passed, there is a possibility this could have worked out differently, but they didnt. Theey created the "Fleebagger", they pizzed and moaned about everything but, bringing the issue at hand to the table and debateing it like they were elected to do! in all rights, those same democrats failed you, and miserably at that! so same peopl eyou elected to fight for YOUR RIGHTS, did nothing to defend you... they let you sink like a ship without a bottom. they could have put all the legitamate reasons out on the table in front of the nation to see, what did they do? they ran! they went to the podium, and cried about everything but the issue. The y bawled foul, because what did they have for facts to help you? nothing, and still by the looks across the nation, they have nothing , no solid decent reason on earth, other than the members who belong, who have been misled, into fighting with what?

whats that? i cant hear you? where's the real legitamate reason the nation needs to be unionised?

i know i didnt use spell check...my finga's is tired....

Let's remember that in our history, especially during times of war, it was immigration that did help in those efforts. We welcomed them in to our factories while our boys went off to defend the country. It wasn't just the wives and women that filled in the gaps. It was immigrants that we allowed to come in as well. When the war was over, we sent them back, only to open our doors to them again during the next world war. Work being sent over seas, is absolutely about the pocketbook of corporate America! Unions came in and began demanding more money and in time, it was better financially for the corporation to move. He can employ 10 people or more for the price of one labor union member seeking higher wages. You do the math, when you can get more productivity out of more people for the same price as one person, what do you think will happen? The bottom line, is that some people out there believe that they are entitled to being paid exorbitant wages for menial work. If we would stop with the primaddona mentality we might bring back the jobs that our country has lost.

If we had a government we would force our public corporations to pay our minimum wage wherever they go. That would bring some pigs back fast. Unfortunately the people have no government.

Banks, wall street and big corporations run America and they are destroying our country.They all love slave labor; So we have record profits and the big rich get richer. At the same time the middle class declines and poverty grows. That is a formula for disaster.

We are a divided people while the big money interest rapes us all. For example, the capital gains tax where most big money is made is only 15% and big thieving banks are still get billions in 0% loans to play the market and make foreign investments. This is insane unless you are a big banker or wall street billionaire.

Oil companies get billions tax free from the "oil depletion allowance." Insane!

We send billions in cash and billions in weapons to Israel. They enjoy free medical care, free education, 0% home loans and many benefits that are too good for Americans. Insane!

We are in bad need of a government. This one is owned and now they are placing all the burden of deficit reduction on the struggling middle class, while the rich go free. Insane!

When the ceo of Disney made 600 million in salary and God knows what in bonuses, he had children working in Haiti for 12 cents an hour. Insane!

If we don't come together against this corrupt financial and corporate system it will destroy us.

The problem we the people are facing here is not so much the union but the tricking excuse the Gov. of Wisconsin is using.This problem would not have been had the Bush tax not been extended.The politicans both republicans,and democrats,not all of them,but some in every party is pushing to take away the constitutional rights of the working class Americans......That's wrong, and should by all means be stoped.......WHY DID GOV. WALKER EXCLUDED THE POLICE,FIREFIGTHERS,AND STATE TROOPERS?think about that.........This man has no right to be in public office.....

bayllie "ROY WILSON, You must be talking about the incentives to get companies to actually stay and hire in Wisconsin instead of taking their companies to states that DO offer a better business climate".................Your response is ..."You guys keep repeating that point like it's the only solution to unemployment! Tax cuts don't work - they didn't under Bush and they are not working now."

Really? Let's look at the actual economic results before and after the Bush tax cuts that went into full effect in 2003 (based on fiscal year data from the Federal Government);

BR>Of course, the Democrats took over Congress, the budget and spending at the end of 2006, and the rest is the 'history' that Pelosi and Reid left us to deal with.

All these Liberal & Democrat responses have one thing in common, they change the subject and claim victumization by Business without a union. This is about Public Service Jobs, not about Capitalism or your dislike of Businesses and Republicans! It's about what Public Employees, paid for from the Taxpayes deserve as compared to what they currently get, that has bankrupted the country! These protesters and their political supporters are just trying to keep the staus quo! Should they be willing to do anything to keep their "phoney, baloney jobs"? No!

Eliminate the governor's pension, health plan, pay, reimbursement for expenses, and all other perquisites. That'll save some money.

Quick Hit – as Walker proposed, literally

Post 1.57 Riverdog - congratulations that is your finest most erudite post I have had the misfortune to read, as in the Oz movie “if I only had a brain”. Vacuous at best my suggestion is to try a little harder next time, I know it is a strain but still you can do better, eh I hope.

Union workers make up a very small proportion of our private sector, and there is and has been a freeze of Federal work force in place for years now, with few exceptions. California is emblematic of nearly all states to my knowledge all states have a hiring freeze for years now and a reduction in total work force (read lay-offs) and a reduction in days worked per week as agreed to by those in unions.

This is an attack on the middle class and the standard of living of average American workers. The intention, only stopped by more prudent minds, of Walker to send in hired thugs to beat down those peacefully and legally protesting should be handled with an indictment to incite violence on public citizens. I think this should be a crime, if it is already not, for a person to conspire to inflict physical harm on private citizens. If I conspire to hire thugs to beat you to the ground I believe that is a crime in California even if the act is not perpetrated, I could be wrong but that is my understanding to go as far as Walker did is a crime.

There is more than just a phone call and a thought of Walker to beat down innocent men and women, according to your source Walker was PLANNING working on the plan to make a workable plan to batter and assault peaceful protesters. Want evidence? Read up on this and remember there is much that is not revealed of how far Walker was willing to go but for more sound minds.

What does this tell you of his (crime) mind set regardless if he was stopped?

America is changing right before our eyes and what is and what will be I look in wonderment. This collectively to bargain issue is both an attempt to weaken an already beaten down Democratic Party and condition Americans to a lower standard of living. The monitory conditions the unions agreed to but the issue is to break the union of workers, this is what is at play here and that is clear as can be. That is the issue.

A rising (wage) tide lifts all workers? I wonder?

Reuseable Bag. Another whiner, "I don't get my fair share!" So what if Motts/Dr. Pepper makes millions, that's their job! If you don't like their practices, don't but their products. If you work for them and are unhappy, Quit! welcome to America! There is no right to have a job or to earn a certain amount of money, there is only the right to have this opportunity. By your logic if you happen to work harder and earn more than your neighbor, then you shold pay more for groceries and electricity and all of the other essentials.

This is what you people don't get! This is why we are losing jobs to China and Vietnamese, because all these people think "They Devserve" something. Hey I was not happy with my station in life, so I went out and improved my education and started my own business.

State (Public) Employees in other States DO NOT get the same benefits as the Teachers do in Wisconsin and we also have Unions. The State I live in that has Unions representing Public Employees sit down and discusses wages and benefits every year. We're different than WI. in that we realize there is only so much Tax dollar available and we barter on what can be afforded. In my State employees have not had a wage increase for 6 years, but in exchange we maintain our level of benefits. That said, in MD. we pay 30% of our health care (medical,dental,prescription) all have co-pays) and we also pay 5% bi-weekly for retirement which is matched by the state). To be vested in retirement you need 10 years and a full 30 years for Retirement. We have had furlough days that equal a 4% pay cut and some job reductions. However, we have some job security, job reductions are by attrition (jobs that are vacant by Retirement or resignations). I have 33 years, and while the pay doesn't even come close to the Private Sector, I have had job security and benefits for my family. Most people that complain about Public Employees would never work as a Public Employee when given the option because of the salary. But currently the Private Sector is suffering and those same people are out of work while public employees are still working. They believe that the Public Employee, who has worked for lower wages for years in exchange for benefits, should have their salaries reduced to support those in the Private Sector.

There is a term called "SPIKING". If you made $30,000 a year for 17 years but you made $60,000, in over time your last 3 years, your PENSION is $40,000 a year.

What the heck is "right or fair" about that? That's the problem with the UNIONS. They need to have a DO OVER!

Why should anyone receive more in their pension than they earned while they worked...I am not a right-winged person period, however I know fairness and the union "SWEETHEART SPIKING DEALS" are BS!

Persevere

Quick Hit – as Walker proposed, literally

Post 1.57 Riverdog - congratulations that is your finest most erudite post I have had the misfortune to read, as in the Oz movie “if I only had a brain”. Vacuous at best my suggestion is to try a little harder next time, I know it is a strain but still you can do better, eh I hope.

Union workers make up a very small proportion of our private sector, and there is and has been a freeze of Federal work force in place for years now, with few exceptions.

I stoped reading after that sentance.. IF you cannot understand that we are dealing with STATE Union workers, and not Federal Union workers in WI, then there is no way you can understand what is going on.

It's disgusting to see so many posts from people who are so stupid they resent state and municipal workers for getting benefits. If your house is burning or you or one of your relatives is being attacked and a fireman or cop comes to your rescue, would you begrudge them a pension even though they are people willing to risk their lives to protect you? BTW, who taught you how to read and write? From the ignorance shown by many posters, its obvious your teachers had a very hard job and it was impossible to teach you how to think logically or rationally.

The pie of the American economy has been re cut in the last thirty years so the rich have become super rich but the number of poor people is growing. I don't hate the rich but why should we let them steal every assett from our economy when they don't want regulations so they can contaminate our water and air and decimate our soil without any rules. And the way government is cutting employment, who will be there to help our communities?

No matter what few benefits you get on the private sector, without unions, your workplace would be a worse hell hole. If you don't believe me, ask any of the laborers across the world, wherever your previous job went, or somebody who is a survivor of the battles fought in this country to create the unions that helped make rules to make the workplace safe and give workers a living wage.

What's stupid is that State workers, or more accurately their unions do not recognize that in many States the well has gone dry. Hey, I appreciate many State workers and the jobs they do, but the problem is that the State has over hired, and can no longer support the generous compensation packages they doled out.

The problem with the "American Pie" is that everyone wants more and many think they deserve it. There has always been rich people and they always get blamed when people don't think they are getting their share. Sure some corporations are not very socially conscious, but that's always been the case.

Unions serve a purpose back in the early/mid 20th century by protecting workers and improving working conditions. Now there are laws and all unions tend to do is blackmail employers for more compensation.

The US standard of living has steadily improved over the last 100 years. Working conditions are among the best in the world overall and people from other countries still clamor here to try to be afforded the opportunities we have. Your comments regarding what a hellhole we are working in are completely idiotic.

From Todays WSJ

Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military). Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a "right to work zone." Federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues. Fact: Neither Mr. Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever acted to give their union chums a better federal deal.

Scott Walker, eat your heart out.

For this enormous flexibility in managing his work force, Mr. Obama can thank his own party. In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support

The typical boneheaded argument.

Support the rich corporations. Give them all the tax breaks they want. Eg give the oil companies their billion dollar welfare check. Why do you envy rich folks?

Bash the working class. They have more benefits, make more per hour and have a great pension plan. Why do they get to have these things that I do not have? Cut their pay and their benefits, take away what they have. I know I won't get anything, I just want them to have the same thing that I have. Why should they have more than me?

I am a true American when I say take from the poor and give to the rich....Only the rich is entitled to great benefits and welfare. Why? Because they are rich. How dare these working class people think they can get away great pay and benefits?

First they will break the unions. Then they will reduce the age for child labor. WI governor has a bill for no bid contracts, that way he can give them to his rich friends and small business will not stand a chance. If you check a year from now, you will see how many of these contracts were given to rich corporations.

You are correct. The GOP is scapegoating unions and illegal aliens for all the social ills that Wall Street and their con men purpetrated on the American and international peoples. Never in the history of this world has such unscrupulous and avarice addicts, like the Wall Street gang and some related corporations, perpetrated the redistribution of wealth from the working people to the pernicious weasels of Wall Street. Unprecedented for sure and still the gross negligence of the paper work is being uncovered yet no one is going to jail or being indicted on gross fraud, corruption, racketeering, and gross negligence. The GOP are scapegoating and turning the guilt of this massive fraud on the working class and that is not only audacious but evil in every sense of the word. Time to take down Wall Street and friends and their political advocates no matter which party they happen to be reside in.

Janet, 1000% correct!

No, we are trying to deal with a serious problem, a problem in which everyone has to sacrifice so the stae will not go bankrupt. I suppose you believe if the state does have to file for bankruptcy that the unions will bwenefit just like GM workers while others go without. Explain the fairness in that process. No you thugs care for no one but your greedy selves. I am a teacher and part of the middle class; however, I choose to stand with others who are suffering not those who are part of the problem.

"... we are trying to deal with a serious problem, a problem in which everyone has to sacrifice so the state will not go bankrupt."

Big money and big business has not sacrificed a single penny, foreclosed home, meal, tax, or financial gain. Until they start contributing - THEY ARE THE PROBLEM - get off the back of the working stiff!!

Skip, 1000% CORRECT!

Disagree with Jkevinm and Janet, who suggest that by dividing the American workers Wall Street and Broad Street, Democrats and Republicans, citizens and illegals, big business is conquering the working masses.

The root cause is an overpriced American workforce, primarily caused by the greedy unions who are in decline because people are finally realizing the unions benefit only themselves in Ponzi-scheme mentality. Republicans are finally blowing the whistle on what has been obvious for generations.

Once all workers are on an equal footing (wages, benefits) we will demand gov't strip the new robber barons of their accumulated powers and redistribute their wealth amongst the workers. A worker's rebellion of sorts, but gov't and Wall street won't be able to spin their stories differently any longer.

Look. This bill is a stupid idea for a number of reasons

1. Since the average public worker (union or not) makes 8% less than his private sector counterpart, what is the problem to be solved here? To pay underpaid people less than they are bing paid now?
2. Even if you believe #1 is justified because you buy into the soundbite that public workers don't work, they are still paying most of their middle-class compensation into the local business sector. Damaging their ability to do this is a very bad idea in the current economic climate.
3. Should this bill actually pass, it will be seen as an assault on the working class by a pro-big business Republican governor--class warfare comes to mind. It will be a political disaster for him, and and a thorn in the side of the Republican party nationally.

All this, and the ironey is that it will not appreciably help Wisconsin's 2011 budget issues.

BTW, Walker knows all of this. I'd wager he is hoping the thing never comes to a vote, or if it does that it fails. That way he gets the adoration of his base and the Tea Party without all of the negative political fallout from the working class nationwide.

Mandt

Dept of labor stats show Unionized public employees make about 25% more than non unionized.

Start over.....

mandt,

It will be a political disaster for him, and and a thorn in the side of the Republican party nationally.

I think you totally missed the point of the 2010 elections. I think not only will it not be a thorn in the Republican's side, it will be a huge boost. You just don't seem to understand that taking direct action to bring budgets under control is what people want. And, unless and until it can be shown that the changes he wants to make are somehow detrimental, it will likely be perceived as positive - especially since only 7% of the workforce is union.

2late2matter said:

Disagree with Jkevinm and Janet, who suggest that by dividing the American workers Wall Street and Broad Street, Democrats and Republicans, citizens and illegals, big business is conquering the working masses.

The root cause is an overpriced American workforce, primarily caused by the greedy unions who are in decline because people are finally realizing the unions benefit only themselves in Ponzi-scheme mentality. Republicans are finally blowing the whistle on what has been obvious for generations.

Respectfully 2late, that doesn't make sense. Only about 8% of private industry workers are unionized. 40% of public sector employees are unionized, but their income is about 8% below the national average for all workers.

Over the past ten years we have seen the gap between the highest income group and the middle class grow faster than ever before. Here are a couple of links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/28/national/main6907321.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

If you look at the data, it's crystal clear where our money is going, and it's not into the pockets of unionized public sector workers.

And if you were to take away the added compensation that private sector unionized workers may receive--since it is only 8% of the national average--we are really talking about a very, very small amount revenue.

Unionsd are guilty of many annoying things, but in the end, the impact of their presence and actions on American business and consumers is miniscule. And any politician, like Walker who makes it his platform to bust the unions is doing it to enhance his personal political standing with his base, and not for a fabricated moral or economic purpose.

Where does the nearly $500,000,000 that Unions have given the DNC the last three years come in to play??????

Maybe they should have put that money in their pension funds instead!!!!

The Wall St. bonuses are on Obama's back not the repubs. He gave them the billions of bailout dollars. Both Roosevelt and George Meany were against public employees unionizing. There must have been a reason. JFK tried to break the teamsters, and they're a private union.

I think the deal is quite fair. I pay 10% to my retirement and about 25% towards medical. They should not be allowed to collective bargain for benefits, for wages okay!

From one teacher to another.

1Hiram....$500 000 000 OH MY!! Reeeeally????

people fail to realise, the only thing a union has done good for the country is labor laws, nothing more. when you take a look at pay, when a union based company has to hike its wages, who pays for that? not the company. there's something some people fail to see in buisness, and that is a mandatory profit margin. there is a rule to buisness, you need to have a profit margine, it sets the pace for success, and failure. when you pay employees more, it takes from your profit. you raise the cost of product to the consumer to cover that loss. ok a buisness made lets say 1 million dollars, how much of that went into not just keeping the lights on, machines running, workman's comp insurance, but add in wages, pensions, over time, shipping, and the list goes on.

if a company is forced to raise its raises for instance,it takes from that profit margin, and what does the buisness do? raises the cost of its product to keep in step with that margin. if a buisness stays above that margin for a certain amount of time, it has a choice of exspanding, in most cases they do. at the same time keeping in mind there is that profit margin. they fall below it, like i said cost of product goes up, and in other cases people are out of jobs. you might as well add tax into the minus of profit too right? if you dont count your taxes you have to pay for profit, your being anal, and dont deserve to pwn a buisness, or just have $ to throw around.

however, dont take my word for it, do a search on the google for unions, and the coal industry, as well GM in 1936 i think it was are 2 good places to start. clearly shows that after the union organised, talked the employees into going on strike, soon to immediatly after cost of product went up. coal being a basic product in the 30's this had an immediate effect on the consumer, and these effects still happen today.

The union agreed to all cuts and monetary parts of the bill. What part of that

don't you understand? The reason they protest is Walker isn't willing to

leave the collective barganing RIGHTS out of that bill. Why? If he is

getting the monetary, budget part without a problem is he creating a

problem by cutting our peoples rights?

Joy5711 Get it straight. The unions are only losing their bargaining rights on benefits they still can bargain on wages. And the reason is that the benefits they get usually cost as much or more than the wages. And tell me where it is written that bargaining is a right? NOWHERE! Many states and even some Federal contracts do not allow collective bargaining of benefits, and some not even wages! The public sector unions in Wisconsin have been riding the gravy train for too long and cutbacks need to be made to get the budget under control. The last Dem administration had EIGHT years to do something and only piled up more debt. They even passed a bill raising taxes and that didn't help one bit so don't play the "raise taxes" issue.

It's about fairness between the public and private sector. Stop being greedy!

"the nearly $500,000,000 that Unions have given the DNC the last three years"

You got a source for that? When I look at the top donors since 1989 and add up their contributions strictly to Democratic candidates, I get about $542,000,000 together. But that's in the last 22 years. And the Republicans got comparable amounts from individual businesses. See here: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

@joy,

actually joy, the members are gaining rights. they still have a right to bargain for a raise, pending the economy, np right? they will be putting in for pension, and insurance right? np. the same things they agreed to they are getting right? np.

here is the problem however, in that bill it gives the emplyee's the right to vote on if they want to keep that union or not.how is that bad for the employee? it isnt. how is that bad for anyone outside of the union boss? it isnt. see, you guys THINK you are going to loose rights, you technically are not. the bill is made to go so if the budget isnt in the red (like it is now) you can vote for a raise, or for a chunk of the moon for anyone cares, and that makes sence to everyone. why give $ you dont have? however your right to keep the union in place, will be a right gained, and the unions dont want you to have that right. read the bill. the ONLY thing it has in that bill that the unions were not in agreement on was your right to take a vote every year, to decide the fate of the union representing you. it also means you can swap to a different union, it gives you a voteing right. HOWEVER.... all those OTHER RIGHTS the union was willing to toss you under the train for. they said it themselves, "willing to make any consessions". walker could can 50% of you if needed, and would the union care? could have said 25% cut in pay to keep everyone working, would the union care? nope, as long as they get your dues, they can care less. they care more about the $$ than they do the people. since when has anyone cared about anything and not wanted some kind of payday from it?

DrDrGimme

If a business owner wants to give his money to a political campaign, that's their choice. But a union takes dues and gives to a campaign without those who paid the dues having a say. How much could you $542,000,000 provided in jobs due to lower labor costs if they had not been collected as dues and spent on politics?

@Kevin thinking,

its all in the name you see, DrDrGimmie.... dont work for a raise, just gimmie a raise. rights other people have are not good enough, gimmie more rights than the next person. i dont want to pay for insurance like the hard working people, gimmie that insurance, at least with the least cost to me, even tho other people pay more. i dont want to work for my hourly wage, gimmie my hourly wage....

Kevin,

Have you missed somehow that labor is doing the same thing as every other donor, attempting to elect officials who agree with their position. When a corporation in which I have shares donates to a campaign you can bet your ass they don't ask me. Unions on the other hand have an agenda voted upon by their membership. Using the power of government to redistribute wealth upward has been going on since Reagan was elected and it has gone swimmingly. The middle class has contracted, poverty has grown, we have dropped to 18th in higher education, debt has exploded and the GOP and trickle down are directly responsible. In the recent midterms 7 of the top 10 donors were corporations giving almost exclusively to the GOP and Teaparty. Only 3 donated to Dems and schockingly they are the unions Republican governors are trying to break. Fiscal responsibility only pertains to the middle class working man and woman it sure as hell doesn't pertain to the corps. the governor gave tax breaks to.

jkh

Mandt - are you a paid Union troll? Your posts would very much seem to indicate it. First of all, start by quoting the truth concerning the difference in pay between Union and non-Union workers. I've seen you post in several vines with the same talking points, and no one believes you.

CAN YOU FIND WALDO IN THIS PICTURE? MUST BE A DEMOCRAT!!!! The union owns the democrat ( Communist) party. If anyone not in bed with these traitors left their job to hide they would be fired. You union commies woke the real American people up!!!!

yes lee, and the majority of those woke up sided with the union. You might have been better off being a little quieter.

IRMan - how about YOU get it right? They would be losing the ability to collectively bargain for pension, benefit AND working conditions. Additionally, the "crumb" left behind -- wage negotation -- has a cap on it. With little imagination, one can see how these provisions could spell disasterous.

lee-936758 - define "communism", please. I want to be sure we're debating actual socio-political terms, as opposed to FOX News interpretations.

willowbrook - glossing over your profile and posts, it appears the burden of evidence lies with you, as well, on a number of posts. Surely, as a member of the party that claims to have a higher moral standard, you wouldn't want to appear the hypocrite.

I mean, for all the name calling (union troll or uinion piad troll seemingly the flavor-of-the-day), you might be a bit silly looking calling people out for not citing facts when you -- yourself -- are guilty of the same oversight.

Megalodon-358694 - I'm wondering if you ever really found a contemporary exaple of a teacher's union striking and "shutting down" and entire state?

Your fear mongering is actualy becoming amusing.

Kevin-thinking - How many jobs could have been created for a fraction of the combined total of American CEO bonuses for 2010, hm? Hell, how many jobs would Scott Walker's over $9,000,000 in recieved contributions create or preserve?

http://www.followthemoney.org/database/uniquecandidate.phtml?uc=20394

DrDr

Wall Street Journal in mid Nov 2010. AFSCME is largest single donator to DNC.

$87,000,000 just for Nov 2010 to DNC.....source is their website. Remember Biden saying the Chamber of Commerce's $75,000,0000 was almost criminal.

Please, MSNBC, use your Freedom of Information Act to find what these Union Leaders are being paid off the backs of these people to stupid to realize the Union is taking the biggest chunk for themselves, giving it to politicians that pay them back and you the Worker, get the little bit in benefits! Should all Public Service People be FORCED to join the Union and Pay them, when they support only one Idiology (Socialism, instead of Capitalism)?

everyone has to sacrifice so the state will not go bankrupt

What hypocrisy! We're only doing this so the rich can stop paying their fair share of taxes. Period.

I looked into this a little and the tax cuts that everyone on the left seem to be so wound up about are for:

1. the tax cuts went toward health savings accounts of employees

2. deductions for relocated businesses from other states to WI

3. exclusions for hiring new employees and creating jobs

The tax cut bills lowered projected tax revenues by $117 million

All of these things are for workers or the unemployed and are things that people on the left have been screaming for for months. Governor Walker is doing things to attract businesses to WI and to get businesses in WI to hire the unemployed.

Aren't these good things

Anyone who thinks that public service unions don't have a detrimental effect on the state, look no further than the woes in California!

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely upset with how the massive banks have screwed us all, and how our politicians are bought and paid by them.

But there's nothing like a rising waterline to expose high-level cracks in a dam.

Public service unions and the agreements they make with state politicians goes by largely unnoticed until we have a revenue crisis.

The unions know that time is on their side, they bargain all sorts of agreements that guarantee them both safety and huge long-term benefits. In return, they concede short-run benefits and pour huge amounts of union dues into the campaigns of politicians that agree to their demands!

Well, the chickens have come home to roost. CALPERS is going to massacre California taxpayers and has many contemplating bankruptcy for the state!

We need to end all of this corruption, politicians don't care about the financial health of their region, they only care about re-election. Be it funding from big banks to keep the President appointing Fed Chairmen that will keep the Fed Rate low, or unions funding politicians that will agree to use taxpayer dollars to under-write pension obligations.

The multinational corporations in the private sector are screwing the American citizen, no doubt about it, but don't think that the public sector isn't out to take just as much of our money/productivity either.

Parasites! All of 'em

Seriously?...No, more like stupid. The reason Calpers is broke is because they invested on the toxic wall street stock that was guaranteed by a toxic insurance company. The California workers, just like workers in other states and around the world trusted the crooks on wall street and now the workers are being forced to tighten their belt while the banksters and wallstreeters feast on the trillions they sucked out of the world economy. And not one of them has even been arrested.

Stop hating other hard working middle class people and start clamoring for justice and at least a return of the money that has been stolen from the world economy.

P.S. You may think they don't work hard, but you think that you do, and they work harder than you, particularly with the lack of respect from slime like you.

I don't belong to a union and never will because I'm self employed, but I respect my fellow Americans and don't watch fox, two things you could not boast about.

a

2late2matter

The root cause is an overpriced American workforce...

Okay, then YOU take a pay cut.

What you're calling an "overpriced American workforce" turns around and puts that money right back into the American economy. Our economy has been 70% consumer driven. You buy a refrigerator, your neighbors buy refrigerators - the retailer makes money, pays HIS staff. The manufacturer (if they're even still in the US) makes money, pays HIS employees, the money recirculates. JOBS.

When you and your Republicans reduce us all to $10/hr service jobs, who's going to have enough to put back into the US economy?

The top 1 or 2% who actually can afford a refrigerator by then only need so many. That's a lot of lost business for the retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, isn't it? What about the associated jobs that go away?

There seems to be a whole lot here that you just don't get, 2late. If you haven't figured it out by now, trickle-down doesn't support a healthy overall economy. Making the wealthy wealthier doesn't "lift all boats" or provide jobs -- they take their oversized cut of the money pie and send it out of the country where they can hire people who'll work for a quarter an hour.

"its all in the name you see, DrDrGimmie.... dont work for a raise, just gimmie a raise. rights other people have are not good enough, gimmie more rights than the next person."

Making some biiiiig assumptions, aren't we Mega? And what, since you can't dispute my argument, you'll go with a personal attack? Whatever.....

"$87,000,000 just for Nov 2010 to DNC.....source is their website."

Still does not equal 500M in the last 3 years as was claimed previously.

NSNBC and FOX both reported the amounts and the "Viscous circle" of contributions Unions make to the DNC all weekend.

That $87 mil was just for Nov 2010 from ONE union. The SEIU spent $32 MILLION in Ar this past Nov for ONE candidate.

Don't go into denial over the truth.......pay attention and research.

Union are the DNC's money tree

"Union are the DNC's money tree"

And corporations are.........

1Hiram

Union are the DNC's money tree

DrDrGimmetheNews

And corporations are.........

You are both right. In either case, the productivity of the worker is being used to fund a monster that is not looking out for their best ineterests, their productivity is going towards feeding and growing the monster.

Be it large multinational corporations or public service unions.

At least with private unions, the union is dealing directly with the stakeholder's representatives (board-elected). If the executives agree to bad long-run decisions for the company, there's no one to bail out that company. Look at what happened in the airline industry! The UAW got lucky with automotive, but their legacy costs and job banking strategies nearly killed their employment and pensions!

Public sector unions pour HUUUUUUGE amounts of money into politics. California is owned and operated by the large public unions, and many of the politicians that are elected through the generous financing make decisions/appointments that are clearly to benefit the unions at the expense of the taxpayers

Like it or not, but I think that organizations that are not directly designated political activist non-profit should be barred from making any political financing, or indirect contributions, and all remaining organizations that are not barred should be prohibited from accepting any donations that are not from a living, human individual!

If the entity cannot legally cast its own vote in an election, it should be barred from making any donation or political contribution of ANY kind! Be it union or otherwise! And strawman contributions should be a felony with extreme and several liability with a minimum sentance of 25years for campaign finance violations

When Unions and Democrats sit down to bargain........there is no one representing the taxpayers rights of that State. Make your Stat a Right to Work State.

Best answer to this problem.

Look at how Obama screrwed the GM bond holders and GAVE the UAW more than they deserved. Payback for donations.

And when the corporations and the Republicans sit down.....

@ DrDrGimmetheNews,

I don't think 1Hiram is disagreeing with you. Not once did he bother to deny your assertion.

If anything, I think you are attempting misdirection rather than addressing the issue at hand.

This subject is not on corporations and their corrupting force over State/US-policy. This time it is on unions and their corrupting force over State/US-policy.

No one is denying your claim, but you seem to be desperately trying to avoid addressing the subject du jour =)

Read my comments throughout the thread. I'm suggesting we look at the big picture.

So you would be suggesting that the public service unions play no part in this, and that all blame should be rested only at the feet of the large corporations, banks, Fed and poor regulatory policies which each in kind have contributed to the foxes running the henhouse?

While I don't disagree that lessez faire fiscal policy doesn't work, that markets need oversight and policing against corruption, collusion and monopolization, I don't think that public service unions can just freely wash their hands of any wrongdoing.

This is not a 1-sided problem, and to try to insist that it is is the same logical fallacy of the people you are attempting to argue against.

No job, no spending, no spending - no business, no business ... Barter, poverty, lack of opportunity, regression... welcome to Post apocolpys America.

(brought to you by Omnicorp - "Life changes when Omnicorp steps in...")

The main point ...that most do not get....or have not been told....is that Gov. Walker only wants the Wi. State employees to have the SAME collective bargaing rights that ALL Federal employees currently have. Only wants to limit not totally take away as many believe.

Talking points for a possible solution :

1. Give the corporations and the unions equal footing when it comes to lobbying, very little. They use their collective dollars to override the desires of the voters.

2. This will sound socialistic, but set wage standards for every working person, CEO's down to the lowest paid employee. First, this would eliminate unions. If federal laws can protect and provide for appropriate wages and benefits, there is already OSHA for workplace safety, then the purpose of unions would go away. Second, if the executives have a standard wage package say between $200,000 to $500,000 a year with bonuses based on performance, there would be less of an opportunity to allow greed to overcome the sensibilities that a company needs.

3. Federal and state governments need to learn the true nature of their expenses and revenues. If you spend taxpayers money to get yourself solely reelected, then you probably shouldn't be spending it. Revenues, this mainly comes from individual taxpayers, if there is high unemployment rates, less revenues, average yearly wage per state is low, less revenues. I think you see where I'm going here.

Do I think any of this will happen? NO. Just throwing ideas out there.

So you would be suggesting that the public service unions play no part in this, and that all blame should be rested only at the feet of the large corporations, banks, Fed and poor regulatory policies which each in kind have contributed to the foxes running the henhouse?

Look at the growing disparities in income and wealth in this country over the past 30 years. Yes I am saying just that. The fiscal problems of the States are not a result of the union contracts, private or public. They are the result of twisted policies that favor the plutocracy. Laws that give tax breaks to selling off real assets build over generations, tax breaks for moving production off shore, tax breaks on shortterm capital gains that promote churning, short selling with no up-tick requirement or real holdings, etc. The government owned by the plutocrats has been redistributing the wealth of this country to the wealthy and powerful at least since Reagan put it into turbo.

There should be a penalty for moving off shore, as oppose to expanding off shore. Their should be a penalty on income disparity. Capital gains should be treated as regular income. Short term capital gains should be penalized or long term capital gains rewarded.

These policies would strengthen the middle class, lower upper class, and lower classes. This in turn would strengthen the tax base of the country, States, and localities. That would solve the budget shortfalls by dealing with the source of the shortfalls instead of finding a scapegoat and dragging us all down further.

Let us not race to the bottom.

@ TReed,

Wage standards for anything beyond a barebones minimum wage is unacceptable. Mexico uses such standards, and all it does is artificially creates a job shortage and encourages even more nepotism than comes standard in any economy. Additionally, a regressive law such as that is probably one of the reasons Mexico has more billionaires per capita than even the US!

@ Tim S.-560036,

I totally agree about the ever-increasing plutocracy in the US. It's a slow decline into the corporate-equivalent of feudalism.

But honestly, many large private/public unions are becomming surprisingly over-bearing as well, utilizing much of their dues to lobby and influence political decisions.

Perhaps the unions are reacting to an increasing corporate takeover in the public sector, that wouldn't surprise me. But the problem is that either way you look at it, as two behemoths clash, the people standing amongst them are going to get trampled.

If we want to right this ship, we need to re-ballast and get rid of what's making us top-heavy.

To get rid of the top-heavy, we need to both rid our regulatory agencies of the corruption and conflicts of interest and strengthen their control over the regulation and breaking apart of the monopolies and oligopolies that are strangling this country and selling our livelihoods for their own personal gain. A comprehensive, unrestrained audit of the Fed should also be in order!

To adjust the ballast, we need to make it illegal for non-voting entities from being able to make political contributions (be it direct or indirect) and lobbying of any kind and to any government entity or its agency. The only exception will be registered non-profit political activist organizations, but these organizations can only be funded by individuals, Unions and corporate interests will be barred from contributing ANYTHING! a violation of this (including, but not limited to strawman contributors, or dummy offshoot interest groups funded by corporations) should be considered a federal crime that will result in a $1million fine for every $500 dollars (or like-kind) contributed illicitly by the violating organization, AND the corporate veil should be pierced and the officers in charge of the contribution should also be found strictly and severally liable and face a minimum 10year prison sentance.

Lobbying and special interests are what has hijacked the government out of the hands of the people.

Seriously?,

Have you been reading my posts? :>)

I have posted repeatedly the same approach to campaign reform. With the addition that individual contribution limits be based on what 90% of the population can afford/year, or some similar standard. That only organizations that have no coercive ability in fund raising can be involved, no unions or corporations or industry groups. And that a limit on the total to all organizations have a top limit of say what 50% of the population can afford.

I have watched the corrupting power of money and power in all sorts of areas, including corporations and unions as they go from local entities to national and global. I have seen little on the human side that is redeeming and much that is perverting.

Tim S.-560036

Have you been reading my posts? :>)

Heheh, not all of them, sorry :) I've just been focusing on the ones within this narrow thread on this topic only. If you want to direct me to some of your other posts, go ahead and copy the post # on the bottom left of your entries that you'd like to direct my attention to and I'll read up

But I'm glad that there are more people with similar opinions as mine regarding this subject! Special interests are a major detriment to not just the US, but to all representative governments.

Corporations and Unions are NOT people. They are organizations that utilize the productivity of many to accomplish a particular goal. The people within these organizations do not all share the same opinions on all of the same subject matter, and thanks to natural job-friction combined with the current economy, jumping ship from a union or company because they fund a political angle/party that you disagree with is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

Politics come lower in rank to the health and welbeing of oneself and their family (to sane people anyway).

For that reason, alone, regardless of all of the others is why organizations not strictly formed by politically-likeminded individuals should be barred entirely from participating in politics!

Let the CEO's participate in politics
Let the board of directors participate in politics
Let the union-heads participate in politics
Let the workers participate in politics

But leave whatever wealth/influence that comes with one's organization(s) at the door. Politics needs to be a game of equal footing.

Favor-buying and interest group-lobbying will ultimately lead to revolt, revolution, and death. None of which is desirable for humanity's progress and the betterment of ALL human-kind!

TReed,

2. This will sound socialistic, but set wage standards for every working person, CEO's down to the lowest paid employee.

I don't think we have to set a specific wage. I think the same result can be accomplished less intrusively by setting a maximum disparity ratio. Say something like 1:10: 20 for lowest:average:top. The exact ratio is negotiable. This leaves flexibility between businesses and their relative success rates in the market, yet limits the disparity that is destroying this country.

Hiram,

The main point ...that most do not get....or have not been told....is that Gov. Walker only wants the Wi. State employees to have the SAME collective bargaing rights that ALL Federal employees currently have.

Then put into law the same restriction that federal employees have, pay is based on the going rate in the community. I don't see that guarantee in Walker's legislation.

Seriously?,

But leave whatever wealth/influence that comes with one's organization(s) at the door. Politics needs to be a game of equal footing.

I would only add, personal wealth. Level the playing field by reducing the influence of money. If this means passing an amendment that states "money is not free speech", then so be it. All monetary contributions to politics should be limited to promote a more equitable voice for all citizens in the political process. Equal is an unobtainable ideal.

I understand the motive, but if you remove the ability for CEO's, board members, union heads, and workers to contribute money - exactly how is it that politicians will have money to campaign? If you limit donations, then it becomes a question of who has the most money personally - that is a good way to end up with an aristocracy.

1. I am not prohibiting any PERSON from donating. I am limiting the size of any donation, even to oneself. The monies for campaigns is based on popular support of the citizens as a whole on as equitable a schedule as possible.
2. Any individuals right to free speech is unhampered. There is no limitation on your ability to stand on a soap box and peak to the public or post your thoughts on the internet. The only limitation is placed on it by the number of people that think it is worth listening to. The "free" should be put back into free speech.
3. What we have now is a plutocracy. An aristocracy of the moneyed. This does not work and is destroying this country.

Shellie asked this on another seed and I am curious ...........

Everyone is talking about public sector workers and their "bloated " salaries and "lavish" benefits and hysterically claiming that a tenured teacher making 70K a year (that's salary PLUS benefits) is an "upper" income therefore they believe it is perfectly fair to ask the public employees to take a pay cut of 5-10% to help with the states budget shortfall. (which by the way was created by giving more tax cuts to the upper crust).

Back up a few months and the same people who are screaming about public workers being overpaid and making "upper" incomes, were hysterical with their hair on fire over a proposed 3% tax increase on people making 250K a year or more. A few months back 250K a year was just an average middle class income to these screamers. But today, 70K a year is a bloated upper income to the very same people who screamed the loudest about the proposed 3% tax increase on 250K or more. Will one of you please explain the rationale behind this blatant contradiction.

Fletch2-1565982

Everyone is talking about public sector workers and their "bloated " salaries and "lavish" benefits and hysterically claiming that a tenured teacher making 70K a year (that's salary PLUS benefits) is an "upper" income therefore they believe it is perfectly fair to ask the public employees to take a pay cut of 5-10% to help with the states budget shortfall. (which by the way was created by giving more tax cuts to the upper crust)....

...Back up a few months and the same people who are screaming about public workers being overpaid and making "upper" incomes, were hysterical with their hair on fire over a proposed 3% tax increase on people making 250K a year or more.

I think you're painting with a bit of a broad stroke on this. These two groups are not the same.

I think the Bush II tax-cuts are terrible and part of an abysmal and failed fiscal policy that got the Republicans' asses handed to them in the 2008 elections.

At the very least, we need to go back to the Clinton tax-level...but ideally, we should refine and simplify the tax code considering how many large corporations pay almost nothing in taxes in the US.

I'm ALSO ticked at how many of the public service unions have such a death-grip on political activity...I personally think that public employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize considering that it poses such a serious conflict of interest against the voters and the politicians' obligations to them.

Historically, the public service unions have lobbied for things that both swell their ranks as well as rewarded politicians for short-sighted decisions.

The precise reason why public unionized workers have such cushy benefits and pension while having very low pay is a compromise between limited term politicians and union-leaders. The low(er) pay shows less of an impact on payroll expense that hits annually, which politicians love, which means that more public workers can seemingly be hired which the unions love.

However, in exchange, these unions required high-end benefits, very stable employment, and incredible pensions. Politicians agreed because the stable employment and pensions will be someone else's problem by the time it becomes an issue about meeting the obligations.

Whenever the pensions became insurmountable, politicians and unions would agree to "pension-holidays" which only meant that the state would owe even more in the long run in exchange for yet another short-run benefit to the current politicians.

Well, I don't think these unions (like the UAW) realized that with all of their clever and well timed negotiations that they would leave their host employer headed towards insolvency/bankruptcy. I also don't think that they anticipated that the employers would make decisions that would benefit them at the expense of the company/government.

Wrong on both counts I would say.

So you would be suggesting that the public service unions play no part in this, and that all blame should be rested only at the feet of the large corporations, banks, Fed and poor regulatory policies which each in kind have contributed to the foxes running the henhouse?

While I don't disagree that lessez faire fiscal policy doesn't work, that markets need oversight and policing against corruption, collusion and monopolization, I don't think that public service unions can just freely wash their hands of any wrongdoing.

The issue here is not that the Unions are on strike, trying to force the State to do something either illegal or immoral. What they are doing is holding the state, no not even the state - what they are doing is drawing a line in the sand against a figure head who has taken a bad situation ... which as a result of a long line of legislative mistakes, malfeasance and/or stupidity has gotten into a devastating cycle of mismanagement. Now, instead of actually addressing the problem, this Governor is attempt to use slight of hand, Magicians tricks to place the problem elsewhere.

The cause of the problem is simple - the state has not be taking in enough to off-set what it has been spending. Given the oft stated and widely quoted propensity for One of our bicameral major political parties to extol the virtues of lower taxes and de-regulation ... neither of which has been know to generate income for government... as the way to handle the short-fall.

Trickle down does not work, never has - when it has been instituted, it appears to work, for a while. Until the reserves are used up and Lo and behold... the state is broke? Funny that!

Tossing the baby out with the bath water will not solve anything - except maybe, if they succeed in breaking the unions - the next recession will be much worse, probably to the point that recovery will not be possible ... because there will be nothing, not even anyone to falsely blame it on.

The state bargained in "supposedly" good faith, the unions negoatiate gave some, and got some things in return. They are coming to the table recognising that there are issues they will need to re-negotiate, but that doesn't mean they have to capitulate on the only tool they have that gives them "any" bargaining power.

You can't fix anything if you don't have tools. And depending on the largess of the state to treat them fairly based only on merit and good will .... just look at the tactics being used now - not much faith in that changing if there were no unions.

The insolvency is not because of the unions... it because of over spending, for a long, long time on things the state didn't need and neglecting the things which were important. Just how many cost overruns have been paid out even when the contract was very clear that the contractor was responsible?

@Rorschach-558483 (#3.38)

There seems to be a whole lot here that you just don't get, 2late.

Seriously doubt the 'problem' is mine, as these appliances you mention are largely assembled or built in a foreign country already. And the 1-2% of the publics that indeed can "afford" a refridgerator probably encompass everyone reading these posts. Not all are Republicans - as you would suggest - yet are better able to understand the U.S. inflow and outgo equation better than you.

Perhaps you should stick to reading comic books, playing with action figures, and viewing reality TV. These won't do any more damage to your brain and perception than has already occurred.

@ Beoweolf,

Good points all around, +1 for you.

I think the major problem I have with public employee service unions is the inherent conflict of interest that arises when politicians, that are not necessarily bound to make smart long-term decisions for the state, will agree to numerous concessions with said unions in exchange for personal kick-backs and or some short-run concession that makes the politician look good for their term and the union(s) more powerful in the long-run.

Politicians are the real problem here...they are bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United is just the beginning I fear. But turning to the other side, it solves nothing to create another bribe-fueled behemoth to go toe-to-toe with corporate interests because it doesn't solve the inherent problem of politicians receiving funding from non-voting, non-living, unaccountable entities!

That is the heart of my concern in all of this.

As for your other points, all agreed! Lessez Faire is bunk, trickle-down is false, the Laffer Curve (reason for insane tax-cuts) is laughable at predicting anything below a 60% effective tax rate, and NeoCons have no understanding of public economic good and externalities.

I think it should be required that when a spending/cutting proposal be offered, it must be based on solid, verifiable and reproducable evidence that can be corroborated by multiple independent bodies before it can even hit the House's floor.

Seriously?

Damn, you sound 100 times more inteligent then the current idiots. You should run, got to suck less than what we have now.

@ TexRat,

Thanks =)

But there's no way I'd be able to generate the funding necessary to get in, and even if I did, I would be a threat to the status quo and would get black-balled on all of my proposals.

There's a reason why the most corrupt of politicians seem to get so much political backing and cooperation.

We aren't going to see major political shakedowns until the corruption gets so bad that the corrupt are forced en masse from office because regular people are driven to vote them out!

Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt would have never come to power on a ticket of trust-busting and pro-regulation if it weren't for the fact that consumers were practically sinking into feudalism and being poisoned by terrible sanitary conditions in meat-packing (read: The Jungle).

ps - BS

Please state your source for your statement about private sector being paid higher wages. Next you're going to say that private sector workers have a better retirement pension too.

Yeah yeah, and all the laws in place that protect workers mean nothing if there are no unions, right?

This is NOT the 1920's with no minimum wage, no work hour limits, and all but slavery in factories.

This is actually the 21st Century, where unions use their dues money NOT for pensions or to take care of their members (since the state and corporations already do that), but instead spend hundreds of millions of dollars to gain political power and to buy elections.

This garbage of calling up what happened 60-70-80 years ago and attempting to compare it to today is nothing except desperation.

If the pay for public sector jobs is so bad, why aren't large numbers of workers leaving the public sector for the private sector? Public sector employment is growing much faster than private sector employment.

People line up for blocks for a Walmart job and they line up for miles for a Government job. What's the draw? I bet the total government job package is much better than what they would get in the private sector.

According to ABC news earlier this week, public sector employees enjoy higher average earnings than their private sector counterparts, enjoy lower insurance costs and better retirement (at a lower cost). The one exception listed was a CPA and the private sector employee only averaged about $4000 per year difference.

I don't understand your logic. Please explain.

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
Bertrand Russell

Some interesting quotes from the conclusion, if you don't read that in its entirety:

When we make comparisons controlling for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability, both state and local public employees earn lower wages and receive less in compensation (including all benefits) than comparable private sector employees.

Governor Walker and others have said that unions are the source of excessive compensation. It is an interesting and provocative hypothesis, but its main premise has been refuted by the research reported in this study—state and local government employees are not excessively compensated. This finding has been replicated nationally by two studies (Schmitt 2010; Bender and Heywood 2010).

So based on Pupsicle's link, Shouldn't the public employee want the union to be fired?

Are you high? Private sector workers have NOTHING as it pertains to benefits! I know, I've been in the private sector my whole career. Many, like myself, have not received a pay raise in over 10 years despite inflation! Forget about ever taking a vacation! And yet part of my paycheck pays for the salaries and benefits of public workers and their lovely unions. Its time to level the playing field. Welcome to how the other half lives and has been living for some time!

@ JH No, private sector workers have terible pensions, in fact most have none. Most if not all private pension plans were replaced long ago by 401k plans. Public workers GAVE up wage increases to keep their pension plans.

@CherylLM .. Your logic is so screwed up, I'm really not sure what to say. Yes there are laws on the books to protect workers NOW! Just like there are laws on the books to protect peoples right to organize and join a union. Walker and the rest of the fascists, are trying to REMOVE the union laws, what makes you think they will stop there. There are already proposals by the newly elected tea-baggers to repeal child labor laws. BTW only a few craft unions ever had (and for the most part still do have) Union backed pension and health plans like the Teamsters have. In nearly every state and public and private sector, members have the OPTION to only pay dues to maintain the union and not to fund any political use. And I assume that your "...buy elections.." statement is about using union PAC money? How about the Kock brothers, and the fact that corporations are no longer limited (as PACs are) in how much they can contribute? Finally, no it is NOT desperation. It is history, it is education, it's common sense to look and see how things were, how things were made better, how they can be further improved.

@Oscar the Grouch... There reason is pretty simple. There are very few private sector jobs, most of them (mine included got shipped off to India, Mexico, Taiwan, and CHINA (where most of the crap at Walmart comes from). And just what is wrong with people wanting good benefits? Oh I sure you gave up a good job with benefits voluntarily to go to work part time at McDonalds for less than minimum wage to help the country get over it's economic problems. No? Oh your grouchy because your employer took away our health care, reduced our benefits and hasn't given you a raise, but those people over there have more. So your answer is take away theirs so they feel the pinch like you?

Oscar--Do you think things would go better without a union?

Kitt--the key word may be comparable--or the controlling factors...although I'd like to see studies that disagree. A related quote from the conclusion that may or may not apply to you directly, but which I think is thoughtful nonetheless:

"Possibly, a more important question for policymakers, rather than why highly educated public employees are unionized, is why relatively less educated and low-paid private sector employees are inadequately represented by unions."

Hey Kitt, you need to make a job change, I worked in the private sector for over 40 years and I got raises. It's not the fault of the labor unions that you are in a dead end job.

CherylLM You’re right, there is a minimum wage. And that is as low as the wages can be pushed down. That’s exactly what will happen. Can you afford to live on minimum wage and provide any kind of life for your children?

Walmart is the largest employer in the US. Most employees are not full time and have little in the way of benefits. THAT is the future the Corporate overlords would like to see. Cut pay and benefits as low as they legally can and have people so happy to have any kind of a job they won’t complain. Busting the public unions is just one step in the process of removing all power from the employees and transferring it all to the employers.

Actually Mike, my answer is why shouldn't the public workers share in the efforts to get us out of our current fiscal difficulties? My employer has cut my benefits and pay raises in order to stay solvent. Shouldn't public employees expect to make similar sacrifices in order to keep the Government solvent?

And its of interest to me because if the answer is no, the only way for the Government to remain solvent is to come after me for more money. If they don't feel the pinch like I do, then I just get pinched harder.

psrose, it's always the government worker that states the private sector earns more, but when I looked for a government purchasing job, the buyers (not managers) got paid 20,000 more then I did as purchasing manager in the private sector. Look at the government postings, you'll see that.

Pupsickle -

Oscar--Do you think things would go better without a union?

Yes I do. I am blocked from bidding on many jobs because I am not a member of a specific union. I could join the union, but the cost of entry is high and why would I give up my individual right to negotiate with my client? And why start over at the bottom of the seniority list when I have decades of experience?

PSRose, my wife is a Federal Employee, and even after 17 years of service, she gets paid crap (as a Paralegal she could easily make twice, if not more, working for a large law firm, especially with 17 years experience), and our share of the Health Insurance premium is over $800/month, so for the two of us, we're not saving any money on health insurance.

The one benefit she does get that accounts for her staying a Public Service Worker is the Pension. You see we have this odd notion that one day we'd like to retire and not be forced to eat dog food in order to do so.

PDX....what about a person's RIGHT to work?

Did you know that in Wisconsin that you can't work for the state unless you join the union and have your dues automatically taken out of your check?

You can be the most qualified person in the entire STATE for a job, but if you don't join the union, you can't work.

Why is it that I should be FORCED to join a union to be able to work for the government?

Where are the laws protecting me from that?

And michigan voter, since you would get "entitlements" along with that minimum wage, what is your problem?

My husband worked 60-70 hours a week for minimum wage when we were younger. We actually paid for our health insurance, our apartment, our utilities, our car, and our groceries and had money left over. We didn't go on "entitlement" programs, since we didn't need to, even though we qualified. The difference today is that people today on minimum wage want that nice new car, HDTV, satellite TV, internet, new computer, new furniture, and have someone pay for their homes, their energy costs, their medical bills, and any other costs that they don't want to pay themselves. And they sure don't want to work over 40 hours. Why heaven forbid you actually have to WORK to have what you want.

\

Oscar--Do you think your situation applies to everyone?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/wisconsin_public_unions

This is from "The Economist" also quoting studies. College educated workers in Government jobs typically earn less than their private sector counterparts with equal education and experience. In fact, even accounting for benefits the public sector earns less with the same education and experience. The only group of people that earn more than their private sector counterparts are the workers that have less education and many of those jobs are being contracted out now.

No I don't. But shouldn't my opinion be heard and considered along with everyone elses?

And thanks for the rational debate. Others on your side would do well to follow your example if their intent is to change others opinions.

Pupsicle, your comments regarding private vs. public sector wages and benefits need some objective evidence. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

psrose is completely wrong about his stating that the private sector earns more than thes teachers. Have you ever worked in a factory in most states or worked on a garbage truck or worked on a farm? Get a taste of reality and truthful information and stop being a part of the loney left.

Which comments? The quotes are taken from the conclusion of:

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

What issue/s do you take with them? Keefe mentions two other studies as well.

Sounds like some of the folks envying workers represented by unions could benefit from a good union.

This in false you tell me where you can find a job that pays you 55 thousand dollars a year for only 9 months of work a year plus the best benefits you could possibly get. i'll be waiting on that answer.

jrae,

If three dental hygienists organize and go after their dentist boss, or eight hair stylists go after their salon owner, or dozen bookkeepers go after the owner of their accounting firm for more than any of these "capitalist masters" can pay, then the company goes out of business! As have many, many, many US companies when subjected to the unreasonable demands and poor work ethic of their union workers.

Public worker unions, especially with collective bargaining, as many other sane and intelligent posters have explained, go after the TAXPAYERS' money, to confiscate the fruit of someone else's labor. The state does not go out of business, but has the endless power to tax and tax and tax to mollify the workers whose union dues--obtained from the taxpayers--go to support their political campaigns. I do not want to support any candidate of any party through government union dues!

I don't envy unions or think that government workers deserve no pension or health care. However, the times have changed and are very tough, and everyone is going to have to sacrifice. Government workers paying single digit percentages for lavish health and retirement plans simply can no longer be sustained.

"Government workers paying single digit percentages for lavish health and retirement plans simply can no longer be sustained."

Do you have proof to show that these workers make more, on the whole (benefits included), than the private sector?

Just go to the Dept of Labor website they have all the stats. Union public employees do make more then nonunionized.

Also FYI---the number of Federal employees making over $150,000 has doubled the last two years(Obama).

I believe people in both sectors should recieve insurance and retirement plans .Having worked in the private sector as a contractor I paid for my own. Where I have a problem , the public workers want insurance and retirement and they want me the tax payer to pay for it. I already pay your salary. Just seems a little greedy to me.

"Just go to the Dept of Labor website they have all the stats. Union public employees do make more then nonunionized."

"Where I have a problem , the public workers want insurance and retirement and they want me the tax payer to pay for it. I already pay your salary. Just seems a little greedy to me."

Considering that three studies (you can see my above posts) show that public workers make less (including benefits) than comparable private sector workers, what are you saying?

I believe there is a distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions. A public sector union basically bargains with politicians whose election campaigns they support. Kind of a conflict of interest.

As an aside to all of those bashing teachers, I'm sure there are good teachers and bad teachers, just as there are good and bad in all professions. When talking about the education problems in this country for some reason people blame teachers. I think we need to take a good look at ourselves and see who really needs to take responsibility for our education problems. In my opinion, I think parents share a lot, if not the majority of the blame. Have you seen what some of these teachers have to teach? How much time to they have to spend on discipline issues vs teaching? Look at the differences in the work ethics of the students in the countries that are currently outperforming us. Anyway, sorry to have gone off subject.

Prior to taking control of the Presidency, the Republican neo-cons talked about invading Iraq, but they needed an acceptable excuse, a big event, to sell the propaganda to the American people, which they then got on 9/11. They then bent themselves into a knot tying the two together even though they weren't. They then proceeded to provide trillions of dollars in tax breaks that predominantly went to billionaires and millionaires, cut taxes on oil companies who then went out and charged $4/gallon which enabled them to make record profits and pay no taxes. They then took a surplus, didn't pay for the wars we were engaged in, raided Social Security of any surplus, more than doubled the national debt, resisted any regulations on Wall Street who then proceeded to take down the entire economy. Only one problem, it started to unravel before they left office. We were going to go into a worse depression than the thirties. They panicked, gave away hundreds of billions dollars to support large corporations with no accountability, the same ones who's CEO's then complained when their tens of millions of dollar bonuses were taken away.
2008, Obama is elected, Republicans try to blame him for the economic meltdown, the next big event, to give cover to their lies, that being home buyers, unions, students, minorities, people who can't get healthcare, in general poor people, are to blame for the current sad state of affairs and therefore need to be foreclosed on, busted from organizing with huge cuts to their compensation, now and in the future, left unemployed while our countries infrastructure crumbles and we throw away a whole generation, left without decent schools and tools to compete globally, and left to die without health care or retirement.
You Republicans who can say the unions are greedy and not look at your corporate masters as being many times more greedy make me sick and I worry about the middle class in this country.
Mission Accomplished A-holes.

You're doin a heckava job Walker, I demand you take an immediate 25% pay cut.

pupsicle, the problem here is, it doesn`t matter how much the people who work for the government makes, it`s about the tax payers not being able to afford to pay those benefits anymore. Or, do you feel that this is not a problem? If so, please explain.

When the tax payers can not continue to pay for it, then where do you propose that the money comes from? Tax increase? Not hardly, but sure, if you want to see an uprising take place, and people do get hurt when things like that happens. But hey, as long as the union members are kept happy to H with the tax payers, right?

Only in America--

In light of decision making, I do think it is a good idea to look at how both are being paid. Public sector can sometimes leave for private sector, or public jobs could attract less-educated and/or workers who don't care about what they're doing. Then there's the problem of supporting oneself--if workers have to foreclose, skip loans, etc., this could have an effect on the economy. If people leave the state in search of a unionized and/or better-paying job, this also hurts the state.

So here's an interesting question for you. If we don't have enough money to cover governmental expenses such as paying for benefits that affect a large number of people.... Why are we giving out a huge tax break to those already wealthy and won't see their standard of living drop if they don't have the tax breaks. Incidentally, they won't put most of that money back into the economy. They'll save it instead.

I see several people on this forum complaining about public union workers not helping out by dropping their benefits. I would have to ask then... where was this complaining when tax breaks for the wealthy was on the table? The extremely wealthy can afford to give up their tax break to help the average American without effecting their survival. Where was all of the talk about helping the average American then?

so alot of you think teachers (public employees) make too much? Here is a link with teachers saleries from every state: http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state. Why don't you check for yourselves and get educated.

note you still must look up cost of living in those states and you will see that they are paid at the lower end of middle class.

The top 25% of earners already pay 86% of the tax revenue. There aren't enough of them to make a dent in the deficit. And they can hide their wealth in tax shelters when the rate gets too high, so you won't get much more. Why don't you ask all the rich Dems in Hollywood to help out and pay more. Or George Soros? He's got plenty extra.

joy57111 We are talking about the exorbitant benefits package teachers get in Wisconsin. You fail to mention that the teachers in Wisconsin get an average additional $25,000 a year in fringe benefits. How come you don't mention that? Cuz that's the issue Walker is talking about not the teacher's wages. Educate yourself before you trash anyone else.

IRMan--
I cited a report by Jeff Keefe earlier. Here is a quote from the article "Fox Business News' Eric Bolling says Wisconsin teachers get compensated nearly double those in private sector" that puts that "extra" $25,000 into perspective (comparable public sectors still make less, including benefits):

A report titled "Out of Balance" by two University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professors for the National Institute of Retirement Security, whose board is largely composed of representatives of public employee pensions, found that when "comparable earning determinants," such as education, are considered, state employees typically earn salaries 11 percent lower than their private sector counterparts. When you consider total compensation -- salary plus benefits -- the deficit dropped to 6.8 percent (because public employees generally get better benefits packages than those in the private sector).

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/23/eric-bolling/fox-business-news-eric-bolling-says-wisconsin-teac/

@ IRMan, you’re numbers are off base. When all taxes, state federal and local are taken into account, the top 20% take home 59.1% of the income and pay 64.3% of the taxes. The next 20% take home 18.9% and pay 18.9% of taxes. The next lower 20% take home 11.6% of the income and pay 10.2% of the taxes. Next lower 20% take home 7.1% of the income and pay 5% of the taxes. The bottom 20% take home 3.5% of the income and pay 1.9% of the taxes.

Your figure of 86% may be correct just for Federal income tax but then the top 25% take home well over 60% of the income. The top 25% are not carrying an inordinate amount of the tax burden with regards to the amount of income they take home.

Remember that dividend income is taxed at a lower rate and dividends are a much higher percentage of the income of that top 2% where some much weath and income are concentrated.

To Pat in SoCal,,,, your demand that Walker take a 25% pay cut is kind of hollow for these people who are trying to destroy the middle class. The Governor of Michigan is having his pay reduced to $1 per year to try and show that his only concern is the well-being of the state. I beg to differ with that. People like him, Walker, Daniels and their type are only concerned with power and making things better for the top 2% of the population.

CheryLLM, I don’t want entitlements I just want to work hard for a fair wage. That was a hard life experience for you and your husband when you were younger. Is that really the life you want for everyone who’s not in the top 5% of the income brackets? You think they should have to work that hard for their entire life? That’s where we would be without the unions and the threat of unionization. Corporations don’t pay decent wages and benefits because they are concerned about the welfare of the workers, they do it because it’s the lowest wage they can get away with and keep the employees. Take out the threat of unions and that wage can just be pushed down further and further because as individuals we have almost no power when dealing with an organization like a corporation.

Walker’s move to gut the bargaining rights is just a step in the direction of eliminating all unions.

And, you have to join the union to work there because the union bargains for the benefit of all the employees. If some were and some weren’t part of the union, then the ones who weren’t part of the union would benefit from the negations of the union without contributing to it.

Private sector workers have NOTHING as it pertains to benefits! I know, I've been in the private sector my whole career. Many, like myself, have not received a pay raise in over 10 years despite inflation! Forget about ever taking a vacation! And yet part of my paycheck pays for the salaries and benefits of public workers and their lovely unions. Its time to level the playing field. Welcome to how the other half lives and has been living for some time!

You are so totally working for the wrong company. Or maybe your attitude has something to do with your lack of advancement and compensation.

When you move a company offshore the wages are about $10.00 per day. Do you want to compete with those wages???

The corporations know that there are some jobs that can not be exported....they want to reopen plants in America but want to have no unions and pay low wages...

If the unemployment stays above 10% then people will be begging for work at low wages...
Is there a plan by corporations to level the worldwide income level?

I agree, the tipping point came from corporations with too much power to unions with too much power now it is back to corporations....

We need common sense negotiations at the City, State and Federal and corporate level.

Look at the trillions of dollars given to the financial sector due to fraudulent financial back room deals that the average taxpayer paid for..This is what collapsed most of the State and federal budget. Now there is a misdirection of focus on the average worker making them the scapegoats for the financial mistakes of the powerful...

Pupsicle, your citation is from the Economic Policy Institute, an organization which purports to be non-partisan, but clearly falls on the side against market fundamentals, and in fact describes itself as "progressive". I would not expect them to conclude any other way than how you claim.

Not convinced.

Regarding Economic Policy Institute, they are (according to their website)

"a nonprofit Washington D.C. think tank, [that] was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers."

That's what this is about--low- and middle-income workers.

They also say,

"EPI is typically cited in the media more than 20,000 times per year, including more than 15,000 mentions per year in print and online media,"

and

"In-house researchers maintain their standing in the academic community by publishing findings in prestigious peer-reviewed academic journals, like the American Economic Review and the New England Journal of Medicine."

What are your exact problems with the article? Do you have other research that points to different findings?

So when you cut union workers benefit to match those with less, what benefit do you gain?

Fletch2-1565982

So when you cut union workers benefit to match those with less, what benefit do you gain?

Lower government operating costs and potentially less of a burden on the taxpayer provided that the savings isn't blown on something else.

It will be blown on something else and the taxpayers are not carrying any burden.

Are you also saying that when the states spend too much, they should give the rich corporations a tax break and cut the pay of low and middle class workers to pay for it? Would you be willing to take a pay cut, so your company can offset the increase that was given to your CEO?

Fletch2-1565982

Are you also saying that when the states spend too much, they should give the rich corporations a tax break and cut the pay of low and middle class workers to pay for it? Would you be willing to take a pay cut, so your company can offset the increase that was given to your CEO?

Far from it.

• I want the savings to be spent on important public-works projects like updating, expanding and improving infrastructure like roads/power/telco/mass-transit.
• Have savings go towards areas that need improvement, such as better police coverage in crime-ridden areas, more funding for impoverished schools, expansion and adequate funding of emergency rooms, rehab clinics, colleges, etc.
• Savings should also be spent on scientific endeavors and advances in the public good (economic, social, environmental, etc.)

However, spending incredible amounts of taxpayer money to support the HUGE legacy costs of ramped up pensions, overblown overtime claims, ridiculously young retirement ages, etc. is a benefit to a select few at the expense of everyone.

If there wasn't so much fraud/abuse in the system, perhaps I wouldn't be so upset. But considering that investigations into overtime claims have churned up millions in fraud, the fact that many public-workers ramp-up_their_work in their work in their final 3-years to retire with huge pensions is just ridiculous.

We have problems attacking us from both the private and the public sectors. To argue that it is only a one-sided issue is not solving anything.

We need comprehensive reform in how the private sector and unions influence government decisions and elections if we want to stop this cycle of destruction which is taking down all but the most wealthy and connected.

I agree with most of your statements.

They are blaming the unions for using taxpayers money as if they do not pay taxes. They agreed that the pensions were part of their 'compensation' package, so it's therefore factored into their wages.

Besides the unions did agree to all the monetary requirements.

If their was that much fraud, they could have hired an auditor and then handle it. Why do they bring it up now if there was a problem? Because they are currying favor. So I doubt how truthful that claim might be.

I would to love to see what those "huge' pensions are.

Fletch2-1565982

...If their was that much fraud, they could have hired an auditor and then handle it. Why do they bring it up now if there was a problem? Because they are currying favor. So I doubt how truthful that claim might be.

When Unions are pivotal for many a politician to have the funds for re-election, it's hard to chase the fox out of the henhouse. The only reason why public service unions are being attacked now is because they by definition are in a more stable employment bracket than the private sector.

You are absolutely correct that going after these unions is to curry favor, but that is because there are enough mainstream voters that are pushing back at a very top-heavy and ridiculous overhead that is running out of reasons to stay as large, and are exersizing more political influence to keep themselves from being thinned out, which only exacerbates the anger against them, since this is counter to voter trend.

I would to love to see what those "huge' pensions are.

Follow the link regarding the wage-ramping in the final 3years of work...you'd see that the average is significantly higher compared to the private sector, almost 2x as much!

In aggregate effect-terms, look at how CALPERS, which numerous politicians promised taxpayer under-writing for their own benefit for decades has come home to bite Californians in the butt! They made a number of poor investment choices, and are now every left-leaning politician in the state has been pushing for higher taxes!

CA has one of the highest, if not THE HIGHEST tax rate of any other state, largely because of taxpayer obligations to fund these legacy costs!

Where are the union dues going?! Why are the dues covering the fringe benefits? Why is it that WI workers only at worst have to contribute 12% of their gross towards insurance, pay no SSI (but can collect), AND get a pension.

Find me a private sector job as secure that offers anywhere close to that pay and benefits and I could probably show you a failing company =p

What is really messed up about that is many State employees ignored the high dollar private sector positions and took jobs with the State specifically because the pension programs were much more solid and less risky than those in the private sector.

Now, since our private sector is having some bad times, it's time to take away the benefits that were promised to our State employees?

That is abominable.

@ Get real!-1414791

I don't think they should take away the current pension benefits promised to the state employees, that's a serious breach of contract.

What they should do is start layoffs and changing the pension-terms for any new employees so that the future legacy costs will be far lower.

When the payroll has been thinned out enough, those that remain can collect what they are owed in pension. Those that are laid off can join the throngs of the unemployed private sector workers.

That, or they can accept some massive, aggregate pay-cuts and higher insurance contribution rates (why it's not 50/50 is ridiculous) to avoid massive layoffs.

The reason why the pensions are so huge and stable compared to the wages is precisely because it is harder to renege on a contractual pension obligation than it is to layoff and have pay cuts, furloughs, and wage-freezes.

Combine the cushy pensions with making it difficult for the state to fire/layoff and hire and you've got a recipe for a very well entrenched workforce.

Politicians love it because in the short run, it is very low overhead, which voters like; unions love it because it still leaves their workers highly compensated, and more secure in the process.

Well, the strategy worked great during the rise and flourishing of the Baby Boomer generation hitting the workforce, but now they are retiring, and that can can't be kicked down the road any longer =(

...This is NOT the 1920's with no minimum wage, no work hour limits, and all but slavery in factories.

This is actually the 21st Century, where unions use their dues money NOT for pensions or to take care of their members (since the state and corporations already do that), but instead spend hundreds of millions of dollars to gain political power and to buy elections ...

That is one of the most asinine things written.

There is a reason the above mentioned things have been maintained - much like freedom ... its that eternalvigilance is the price paid to maintain it. Every Car wash guy, 7-11 night clerk and dish washer is paid minimum wage; only because of unions. There are still employers who are caught everyday... attempt to circumvent the current laws ... despite the reality of being caught.

Next thing we will hear is we don't need spare tires, because new tires are on the car. The only reason we have 40 hr work weeks as standard is because they are enforced and constantly defended. It wasn't that long ago and still continuing - where companies have reneged on Pensions when the company is sold or merged. The workers paid into those pensions, but they were liquidated leaving many of them destitute.

The tactic is so good, so insidious that now this Gov. wants to use it against state workers.

Yet, you will note - he does not touch the benefits of the Police, Firefighters or legislators? Curious? or Obvious!

If the pay for public sector jobs is so bad, why aren't large numbers of workers leaving the public sector for the private sector? Public sector employment is growing much faster than private sector employment.

People line up for blocks for a Walmart job and they line up for miles for a Government job. What's the draw? I bet the total government job package is much better than what they would get in the private sector.

Lets look at this from the other side of the coin.

As a State legislator, the hours are long, the pay is substially below that which a CEO, President or Vice-president of a private company can make - matter of fact, often, after a successful career in private industry many executives take on Government service - basically, as a hobby.

Recently, Meg Whitman spend over a 100 Million dollars trying to buy the Governorship of California ... get this ... her campaign was based on bringing financial accountability, Thrift into public services.

One of the richest women in the country, self-made, wanted to take a pay cut and paid handsomely for the privilege.

What that says is not that State workers are overpaid ... what it does signify is the Leadership is out of touch with the reality of living on a budget, in the United states. They are blinded to the fact that many of those workers were looking for stability, a steady income for their families to depend on, even if the pay is lower than what they could make in private industry. Some folks thrive on the Adrenalin rush of chasing a deal - Bankers, Stock brokers, etc. Look what the contributed to our economy. Others, much like the tale of the Rabbit and the Tortoise, Ant and the grasshopper ... prefer the slow and steady life ... are willing to take less pay - if it means a steady job.

Ask any of the Wonder Boys who graduate from our Top-flight Universities every year - just how much respect is given to the kid who turns down a job on Wall street for public service?

Our current president is roundly criticised by the Media for the fact that he choose Public service as his life's work and his character is constantly called into question because of it.

No way is Public service a dream job...unless you are willing to put up with the constant changes in direction - by ill-informed leaders who pop into public service then quit and go home when their failed policies are discovers. Someone has to stay, cleanup after the party is over and add stability to government.

Beo-

Thanks for saying so eloquently what I have been trying to say for a long time!

Whitman blew her chances big-time! People already knew that Brown was obnoxious, but Whitman took the mega-fail rout and didn't set herself apart from Schwarzenegger AT ALL...I especially loved the attack ad of her speech's similarity to Schwarzenegger's.

Not to mention that Whitman made a number of lies between her English and Spanish campaign ads.

I dislike Jerry Brown, but I couldn't stand Whitman because she showed little ability to be anything more than "Gov. Schwarzenegger II: The Revenge"

/I still wish Campbell would have won the primary...he was SOOOOO much better than Fiorina and probably could have beat Boxer.

//Is hoping that the redistricting will actually remove the jerrymandering (for a while at least)

-->sorry to trail off, you made a good point, I was just venting.

Walker never mentioned taking away bargaining rights, which have nothing to do with budgets. He is actually the coward.

Also, he neglected to mention the provision in his so-called budget repair bill that would allow Koch Industries and other private companies to purchase state-owne­d power plants in no-bid contracts. It allows the Walker administra­tion, without approval of the Public Service Commission and without a competitiv­e bidding process, to sell off or lease the state's several dozen energy plants to private companies. The state can sell the energy plants "with or without the solicitati­on of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state," according to the rather circular wording of this clause, which then concludes that "any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest."

According to Wisconsin campaign finance filings, Walker's gubernator­ial campaign received $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC during the 2010 election. The Koch's PAC also helped Walker via a familiar and much-used politicial maneuver designed to allow donors to skirt campaign finance limits. The PAC gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Associatio­n, which in turn spent $65,000 on independen­t expenditur­es to support Walker. The RGA also spent $3.4 million on TV ads and mailers attacking Walker's opponent.

In addition to the provision for opening the state for a privitization take-over with no-bid contracts, the republican goal is to destroy labor unions to remove election spending competition. It really is that simple. Seven of the top ten outside groups in 2010 spending are right wing groups created by and supported by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers and supported by corporations, billionaires, hedge fund managers, oil companies, etc.

Here are the facts on the top 10 outside campaign spenders in the 2010 midterm elections.

1. US Chamber of Commerce (right wing group); 2010 total spending $32,067,500

2. American Action Network (right wing group); 2010 total spending $26,088,031

3. American Crossroads (right wing group); 2010 total spending $21,553,277

4. Crossroads GPS (right wing group); 2010 total spending $17,122,446

5. SEIU (union); 2010 total spending $15,794,194

6. AFSCME (union); 2010 total spending $12,631,170

7. American Future Fund (right wing group); 2010 total spending $9,599,806

8. Americans for Job Security (right wing group); 2010 total spending $8,991,209

9. NEA (union); 2010 total spending $8,746,556

10. Club for Growth (right wing group); 2010 total spending $8,240,060

The conservative seven out of ten top ten groups outside spending in the 2010 elections total is $124,446,826; unions spent a total of $37,178,920.

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php#groups

This strategy to bust unions is right out of the republican playbook. The republican goal is to destroy labor unions to remove election spending competition. They plan to eliminate unions to take away the only goups that can compete in big money spending during elections even on a small scale with the right wing groups funded by the Koch brothers, corporations, billionaires, hedge fund managers, oil companies, etc. If there are no unions, all of the big money in politics would be right wing money.

thank you for actually showing some facts, while the middle east is fighting to have a voice and some rights. the states seem to be entering a dictatorship their wages are dropping and their voice is being taken away. absolute power corrupts.

why would the state even own power plants ? just saying.

Except that balancing a budget would not equal to 140 billion grant to corporations.

The big difference is that the private businesses took the money from their own pockets to donate whereas the unions took the money from other peoples pockets (union dues that are supposed to be for what - strike pay, health insurance, retirement) wait, those are already paid for by the taxpayers. What are the union dues for? Teachers and police are supposed to be professionals that don't strike and the taxpayers pick up the rest. Where is this money going? Do you suppose that the real issue is that the union leaders don't want the spotlight on them?