Workers rights stripped in Wisconsin. (Page 4)

chronology: David........... it is not that Americans are 'not joining Unions' it is that the type of jobs appearing in recent years in the Job Market in America are not jobs where Unions would be attractive to American workers. Most jobs now are not long term and pay wages a buck or two over Minimum wage. These jobs have high staff turnover ratio and workers who do stay in those jobs have little or no interest in making those workplaces a great place to work.

And David. Please tell us all just 'which' Union in the U.S. has stated it is in bed with the Communist Party. Is this Union you talk of an AFL/CIO Union? or a 'Cannabis Growers, Meth Cookers of America' Union?

LiptonCambell: I don't necessary disagree with you Chrono....but whats your point?

davidk14: .

Chrono asked: Please tell us all just 'which' Union in the U.S. has stated it is in bed with the Communist Party. Is this Union you talk of an AFL/CIO Union? or a 'Cannabis Growers, Meth Cookers of America' Union?

David responds: I posted the information on page 7, 3/4 of the way down the page.

.

davidk14: .

Chrono said: David........... it is not that Americans are 'not joining Unions' it is that the type of jobs appearing in recent years in the Job Market in America are not jobs where Unions would be attractive to American workers. Most jobs now are not long term and pay wages a buck or two over Minimum wage. These jobs have high staff turnover ratio and workers who do stay in those jobs have little or no interest in making those workplaces a great place to work.

David responds:

According to the US Census Bureau, 73.2% of Americans who are working earn $75k or less per year which according to you would be ripe for union activism. Those earning above $75k equals the balance (26.8%).

So for you to say, “…Most jobs [ in the USA ] now are not long term and pay wages a buck or two over Minimum wage” is totally inaccurate as well as your statement why Americans are not joining Unions is also totally inaccurate. Where are you getting your information from?

.

chronology: David. ....... it is no use telling you anything you just make sweeping statements and squish up everyone else's Posts and throw them in the Trash can. I wonder if you have any friends, in fact, I wonder if you have any neighbours. I have a feeling even Blind Men's seeing eye dogs cross the road when they see you coming.

davidk14: .

David. ....... it is no use telling you anything you just make sweeping statements and squish up everyone else's Posts and throw them in the Trash can. I wonder if you have any friends, in fact, I wonder if you have any neighbours. I have a feeling even Blind Men's seeing eye dogs cross the road when they see you coming.

David said: Forget the dog, a blind man can see that your sweeping statements are based on what? Where do you come up with this stuff without any facts to support your rhetoric? I asked you to provide us with where you got your information and you did not provide…again. Your insults are getting old and you really need find some new ones when you can’t answer simple basic questions.

.

LiptonCambell: I think those are valid questions chron;

Why aren't people voluntarily joining unions, if they're so great?
Why are people forced to join unions for certain companies? If they're so great, shouldn't they choose it?

the real slim DEEPy: its nice to be ablke to enjoy the wage/conditions/ammenities packages gained through unions without haveing to join (pay dues). that is why employees of union employers are required to join- the same reason why you are rewquired to buy health insurance according to the new law, to make it feasable to allow the benefits of the new healthcare law such as the abolishment of denial based on pre-existing conditions.

as much as it makes sense, to me it seems unconstitutional. if the employer chooses to go union shop, and the employer makes union membership a term of employment, then that is one thing. to, however, require that ALL in a company join a union after a 50+% employee vote in favor of such by the employees seems to fly against the concept of freedom of association. it is one thing for an employer to ask things of his subordinates, and a totlaly different thing to allow the whims of co-workers to dictate your actions.

freedom aof association is derived from freedom of speech, as the supreme court has determined that association is an essential part of expression- due to the concept of strength in numbers. if you are free to associate, ahould you also be free to NOT associate? "freedom" of association IS a freedom, not a requirement, is it not? it could be argued that forcing one to join a union by majority vote of co-workers forces some employees to express themselves in ways they DO NOT WISH- to send messages, through campaign contributions and strikes, with which they do not agree to send.

when you are in a union, and the union says "strike", you HAVE to strike, whether you agree with the reasoning behind the strike or not. you have to make union dusees, which are used in part to fund liberal poilitical campaigns through campaign donations. what if the employee paying the union dues does noit agree with the liberal adgenda?

Wampum6: That's hysterical----Chrono accusing David of making sweeping statements, that's Chrono at his stand-up best! On the other hand, that definition of sweeping is somewhere down the list of accepted definitions.

the real slim DEEPy: "When you consider the ENTIRE benefits packages of public workers, they make out with some $20,000 a year more, on average, than the public sector employee"

i meant to say $20,000 more than the PRIVATE sector employee. what is wrong with demanding better working conditions? well, they are already better than the taxpayers', when is good enough good enough? public servants reap the reward of having a clear concience for doing good deeds in their daily livelihood, full-time. we need not prople going into the public-service sector with money in the forefront of their minds, we need people gooing into such positions with doing good deeds in mind.

as far as the $7 and hour, i make 7.35 cooking pizzas. yes it would be nice if i were paid more, but im not about to DEMAND it. i am thankful that i have a job at all, right now...

when unions demand more than fair market wages, they create problems, ok... first off, it creates inflation. here are the stats: union workers in the us make 22% more than non-union workers. union states have 16% higher costs of living than right-to-woprk states. thus, the union workers come out 6% ahead, while the non-union workers in union states suffer from 16% higher costs of living. when you pay someone more than they earn, it causes inflation due to careless spending. if you do not earn a dollar, you cannot properly value that dollar, thus you spend it indiscriminately, adding to inflation through the law of supply and demand. this extra income is not shrewdley and carfully invested in the stock market or job-creating business endeavours, but largely spent on better food, imported consumer goods, larger houses and nicer cars, resulting in inflation in these specific areas- and EVERYONE needs food, consumer goods, shelter and transportation, so this inflation hurts the lower class and squeezes the middle class.

second, when you pay someone with little nr no skills more than fair market value, what will they do when they have lost that job, and have no other options than a $7 an hour job? do you think that auto workers making $50 an hour save for THAT rainy day? NO!!!! as i have already discussed, they spend the UNEARNED protion if their income on richer food, goods, bigger houses and more luxurious vehicles. they maximize their income and credit based on the $50 an hour wage, thus, when the plant closes and moves to mexico for cost-saving $7 an hour labor, they have no recourse to manage their financial state other than insolvency- bankrupcy. the housing crash actually begain in 2006, a full year before it was ever recognized, in michigan, where entire neighborhoods of union worker's' MCmansions went up for sale at once, due to plkant closings. supply and demand men=ns that the great supply of houses greatly reduced the value, and these homeowners were instantly both unemployed and underwater. now, if they had been happy working for $15 an hour, and never maxed out their credit at $50 an hour, they would be likely still be employed and still be living within their means. when you give someone more than they are worth, they maqx out their finances, and fail to save or plan for the inevitable rainy day when they are discharged and finally paid what they are actually worth...

third, it flies in the face of FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION when one is FORCED to join a union at the whim of their peers...

chronology: Deep. If I may say so, you sound very judgmental. Not all Americans with Maxed out Plastic did so by being reckless. It only takes a few Bills unexpected and peoples Home Account Filofax starts showing Red ink. I know a woman who is not dumb, but her teenage son ran up a $2000 phone Bill (he was calling Premium Rate Internet Help Lines and said he never knew how much they cost), and her Old Dog needed vets treatment that ran up another $3000 Bills, and there you go, her Card Bounced when she tried to buy Groceries.

Personally I do not agree with the 'Closed Shop' Union Rule, but understand why some workers insist on the CS. They as Union Members have won Rates of Pay and Holidays, it is only reasonable they expect new members of their workforce to contribute to the Brotherhood that won those privileges. There is an old saying, 'You cannot run with the Hunting Dogs, and sleep with the Foxes'.

Wampum, not only is your Grammar appalling, so is your grasp of words, 'hysterical', well only you could choose a word like that, what you probably meant was 'unreasonable'.

davidk14: .

Chrono,

Taking cheap shots at Wampum is just...cheap. Trying to deflect his message by taking cheap shots on grammar just shows your intellectual insecurities. It would be very easy for any of us to take huge shots at your grammar.

.

Wampum6: Thanks, David, but I have broad shoulders, and I know the capabilities and calibre of my grammar. Beyond that, I don't need, and won't accept the snide suggestions by Chrono. Hysterical is the word I chose, and for a reason. It fits! Enough said.

Malobear: MADISON, Wisconsin (Reuters) – Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker dismissed as "ridiculous" a request on Monday from the leader of absent Senate Democrats to meet and negotiate a compromise in their standoff over Republican plans to limit public sector union powers.
At a news conference in Madison, the new Republican governor who has sparked nationwide protests with his efforts to strip public sector unions of most collective bargaining rights, showed no signs of backing down.
The Wisconsin state Assembly has approved Walker's plan but all 14 Wisconsin Senate Democrats left the state for Illinois on February 17 rather than allow a quorum to vote on the measure. There has been a stalemate ever since.
Walker blasted the leader of Senate Democrats, Mark Miller, as an obstacle to getting a deal for some of the Democrats to return and vote on the proposal.
"We had progress and we thought we had the framework of a pathway home for those 14 Senate Democrats, but again, Senator Miller stood in the way," Walker said.
The proposals have touched off weeks of pro-union rallies at the Capitol Building in Madison and around the country to protest the changes which Walker said are needed to fix a state budget deficit.
Miller's letter had appealed to Walker and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald to sit down and reach a bipartisan solution to the differences.
But the Republicans were defiant, saying again that they would not change the core of the proposal to curtail public sector union powers. Areas of compromise would only be considered on matters to do with the state's budget for fiscal 2012 and 2013, they said.
Walker wants public sector unions to make increased payments for health care and pension benefits. But the most controversial proposal would limit public sector union bargaining to wages, and only up to the rate of inflation. Unions also would have to allow a vote of their membership every year to continue to represent workers.
On Friday, Walker issued notices warning state workers of mass layoffs in early April if Democrats do not approve the measures to curtail public sector union powers.
Most opinion polls show that while most Americans, and Wisconsin voters, believe that government workers should contribute more toward pensions and health care, they support collective bargaining rights for unions.
Wisconsin has become the center of national attention because labor unions fear approval of the restrictions could lead to other state doing so.
Ohio's Senate last week approved restrictions on public sector unions, and similar measures are under consideration in several other states including Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas and Idaho.

chronology: Malo. We have already established that Wisconsin workers pay for their own Health Care and Pensions already in the form of 'deferred payments'. Their Pension and Health Care plans are a part of their pay contract. If they are going to start paying out of their net Pay for Pensions, then that is a 'pay cut'. If Wisconsin insists on these payments being made, then the workers need a pay rise to replace lost benefits. Sounds mad.

And David, you make me laugh. Me taking 'cheap shots at Wamp' very funny. Coming from a guy who has spent practically every Post taking cheap shots at American workers and Federal Government.

And Wamp, 'Grammar' does not have 'capabilities'. You 'have' capabilities in using Grammar.

Wamp. On due consideration I take back the comment about 'capabilities'. For example a computer has 'capabilities', so does heat resistant paint have 'capability' in resisting heat, I suppose you could attribute 'capability' to Grammar in some of it's uses.

LiptonCambell: >>>And David, you make me laugh. Me taking 'cheap shots at Wamp' very funny. Coming from a guy who has spent practically every Post taking cheap shots at American workers and Federal Government.

Uhh.....this topic is -about- American Workers and the Government- so the fact that David has expressed a negative attitude towards it is completely on topic.

But your opinion of Wamp, and his grammar, however, is not what this topic is about.

So yea....

Malobear: Years ago(Late 1970s) Chrono I was in the Teamsters Union. Got paid good while I was working,but when they went on strike,there was no way I could walk the line and pay my bills. And if you crossed the line,you either got beat up or shot at. A few of my friends bore the wounds on their cars with bullet holes in them. One thing the union did do for me Chrono. Made me go back to school and learn something where I didnt have to be in no union.
Here ya go,Maybe you and Jack can sing along.

davidk14: .

Chrono said: “…Coming from a guy who has spent practically every Post taking cheap shots at American workers and Federal Government.”

David responds: First, I do not spend practically every post taking cheap shots at American Workers and the Federal Government. There are over 110 million Americans who work to provide for themselves and their families. Of these employees, about twelve percent feel they deserve more than the vast majority of workers. And of the 110 million employees who work to provide for themselves and their families, approximately 2 million are government unionized employees who are paid “by the 98%” of all workers. Wisconsin is in deficit spending this year by over 300 million dollars. They are looking at a $3.3 billion deficit for 2012. They see the writing on the wall. The people of Wisconsin voted in this governor and this legislature to do the job of bringing the budget in line. They do not want to see their state turned into another “California” where they currently owe $20 billion with unfunded liabilities of $100 billion.


Second, the federal governments spending is out of control. If by saying that is taking cheap shots, then it’s you who are in a state of denial. The federal governments spending is out of control and that is why the people voted in the Nov. elections to get people into the congress to get it under control however there are those still fighting to deficit spend. If that is taking cheap shots, then again it’s you and anyone else that believes in deficit spending, which are in a state of denial.

.

the real slim DEEPy: "We have already established that Wisconsin workers pay for their own Health Care and Pensions already in the form of 'deferred payments'. Their Pension and Health Care plans are a part of their pay contract."

what we have determined is that they take slightly lower ***taxable*** take-home pay to get MUCH better ***tax exempt*** retirement and health benefits. they are saving at least 5% of their "wages" on tax exemptions alone, getting AT LEAST 12-18% more employer-paid benefits than private sector employees, and makinbg perhaps 7% less in take home wages. forget the difference between non-wage benefits amounts between pubilc and private workers, and just consider that the TAX SAVINGS ALONE almost completely comopensates for the "reduction" in take-home pay.

If they are going to start paying out of their net Pay for Pensions, then that is a 'pay cut'. If Wisconsin insists on these payments being made, then the workers need a pay rise to replace lost benefits. Sounds mad.

12-18% better benefits and 5% in tax savings, minus 7% in lower wages and 9% in increased employee contributions to benefits means that the public workers are still coming out at least 1-7% better than private sector workers.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/leveling-the-paying-field-on-worker-wages-52653.html

so, the word servant offends you, how about employees? they are employees, the employees of the public. now, why should the employee make more than the public whom employs them. how does that top-heavy system make sense?

Outbackjack: Thanks for that David.I do generally appreciate it when you make the effort.Deep is a a good example.I disagree with what he says and believe that most of what he says is misinformed but at least I know they are his words.

It is a good question of why workers are not joining unions in the United States.

One of the main causes is definitely the mainstream media.The majority of the commentary is extremely negative towards unions which is exactly what the rich who sell newspapers and own T.V channels want to convey.The reasoning is obvious.They are large employers themselves and have unionists in their own workplaces.They also have a pathological hate for unions as they have their own memories of dealing with unions(Fleet Street printers unions are a great example).

One of the other problems is whenever you do get any half decent publicity about trade unions then it is usually when a factory or plant is closing and the union is fighting to make sure the unions get their entitlements.The media conveys a sense of its inevitable and that nothing can be done about it while the workers jobs are sent to Mexico/China.Afterall they dont want to recommend a positive or militant way to fight the Corporate fatcats.

Apart from being nothing more than one sided propaganda against the union movement it also feeds into the mindset in a very clever way when workers themselves are faced with the same problem in their own workplace.In conveys hopelessness and serves to disempower the workers from making a stand themselves.Even worse it can maninfest in the Thatcherite T.I.N.A approach(there is no alternative).

Another factor in the decline is the way society has become more effluen.....sorry I mean affluent lol.
Technology has become more available to more people because of cheap Chinese labour.Coupled with the fact that there are more companies competing with each other this has driven prices down allowing more households to own multiple gadgets.So a lot of people when they finally get home from their 10 shift that used to be an 8 hour shift just switch off and plug in to escape the real world.

In effect what I am saying is basically that this has played a part in our societies generally becoming more selfish.How many people in our big cities(even in Australia)know their neighbours?
How many people get involved in their local community or do volunteer work ?(they are probably to tired from overwork or there isnt enough time in the day anymore).

People today mostly want instant gratification because they have been taught that this is the way of the world.Cant afford the latest gadget/car/house?
Dont worry we will load you up and overbloat you with debt.Which will mean that you will need to work more hours to pay for.Meaning you will spend less time actually using those gadgets as you will be at work.
But dont rock the boat by joining a union or you might get sacked.Then your corporate masters (the banks) will come and seize that gadgets in lieu of payment and that wont look good in front of the Jones's.

Outbackjack: So in effect basically you have a form of serfdom that our parents and grandparents didnt really have.I have seen this firsthand.Before we were about to vote to strike at a workplace (yes Deep you get a vote on strike action)the people who didnt want to strike didnt disagree with the strike itself they were committed to too much debt.In one blokes words "If this goes for more than a week I could lose my car."

I will also add that a small minority of corrupt union officials dont help the cause either as the media are quite ready to shine a one billion candlelight spotlight on them at every opportunity.

As for the Communist party running unions thats just fanciful rubbish.I have been reliably informed a few years ago that there are less than a dozen members in my whole state and that none occupy any positions of authority in the trade union movement.

Deep.

"public servants reap the reward of having a clear concience for doing good deeds in their daily livelihood, full-time. we need not prople going into the public-service sector with money in the forefront of their minds, we need people gooing into such positions with doing good deeds in mind."

That would insinuate that all public workers should be doing it for altruistic purposes.Thats entirely unfair.Thats like saying you should never get a pay rise because it should be a joy to make pizzas for the masses and that you are a servant.

I do genuinely have sympathy for you if you are one of those workers who gets $7 an hour.Perhaps your employer is genuinely struggling(they will all tell you that anyway)but the next time your employer rocks up in a new S.V and complains that he needs to build a new garage or just jumps off the Queen Mary 2 after a round the world cruise then you may want to think about the dynamics of a small wealth distribution of wealth.Afterall a few bucks extra an hour is probably chicken feed to them and noone should have to work for $7 an hour.

As for inflation the biggest cause of that today is governments printing too much money so they can give trillions to their Corporate masters in the form of bailouts.I notice that you are very silent on the issue of bailouts or what I deem Socialism for the rich.You talk about the housing collapse but fail to mention that it was Wall Street trading in Ninja loans and Cfds that caused the main collapse.Housing bubbles come and go but generally they dont cause one of the biggest meltdowns in our financial markets ever by themselves.

$50 an hour??
I bet very very few autoworkers were actually earning this.

"If they are going to start paying out of their net Pay for Pensions, then that is a 'pay cut'. If Wisconsin insists on these payments being made, then the workers need a pay rise to replace lost benefits. Sounds mad."

How so?
What kind of a union official can stand up and say to his members that "I think you should all take a pay cut."
Its madness.
We pay them to better our pay and conditions not go backwards.

We do that and we give up everything our fathers and grandfathers fought for and pass nothing on to our children.

the real slim DEEPy: millions of americans have lost their jobs, but not in the public sector. the wisconsin public workers have a choice, allow their overall compensation be reduced by 6-9% or see lay-offs, like the rest of america has seen. how else do you propose to make up millions in the budget, sell off public buildings (thatcherite), raise taxes?


the truth is that public schools are funded by property taxes, and when you have falling property values and massive foreclosures, well, the property taxes just arent coming in like they did several years ago, thus the SCHOOLS are the ones hurting for funds right now. would it be better to consolidate schools (and sell off public buildings in the middle of a real estate decline), while keeping the same amount of teachers employed at the same compensation? should we stop providing students with new textbooks, or make them go without air conditioning/heating- for the benefit of the teachers? who are the schools about, the students or the teachers?

perhaps we should shift money in from other areas, and privatize public housing projects, cut off food stamps etc... there are so many places we could make cuts, but it is ultimately the schools' problem, and it is much better to take it out on slightly-over-compensated public employees than it is to take it out on the helpless children or the TRULY needy and impoverished who depend upon other government programs. the savings should be gleaned from whomever can best fare without them- the well-compensated public employees.

if you know where exactly to easily and harmlessly save 3 million dollars, speak up.

and DONT say "raise taxes". even new-kenesyianism, in the form of "Modern money theory" (the newest and most liberal economics theory outside of socialism) would never approve of a tax hike during a recession. sure, youve heard the conservative claim that rasinig taxes retards investment, and thus, deters job creation, but even the most liberal of economists has their own unique reason not to raise taxes- and, it directly relates to how liberal monetary policies are deliberately creating inflation:

in bad times, it is perferred to have inflation, according to liberal economists, because it makes cash look like a bad investment, and thus tricks individuals into investing their money in the stock market and/or business endeavours, thus creating jobs. liberal monetary policy is guiding the fed reserve and congress into purpously creating inflation through cash injections into the economy, to make the money lose value and thus look like a bad investment- to stimulate job-creating investment. the keneysian formula for job creation is for every 2% of inflation, unemployment will be reduced by 1%. seeing that injecting cash into the economy causes inflation, it also seemingly follows that withdrawing money from the economy would negate inflation. raising taxes, is said, by liberal economic theorists, to withdrawl money from the money supply, and thus negate the desired inflation needed to create jobs.

so, there. neither conservatives or liberals would reccomend raising taxes, so that leaves 2 choices, debt (putting the price of today on the heads of tomorrow) or cutting expenses. i also thought it would be nice to point out that BOTH the cited causes of inflation are directly caused by liberal policies. i will not even get into what is wrong with new-kensyianism and "modern money theory"- if you cant see the problems yourself, i dont know what to say.

Outbackjack: Or we could stop the trillions in bailouts for Wall Street?

davidk14: .

Outback said: The majority of the commentary is extremely negative towards unions which is exactly what the rich who sell newspapers and own T.V channels want to convey.The reasoning is obvious.They are large employers themselves and have unionists in their own workplaces.They also have a pathological hate for unions as they have their own memories of dealing with unions(Fleet Street printers unions are a great example).

David responds: You mean like NPR? The head of NPR and a senior management resigned today because they had been caught on tape slamming the Tea Party as 'racist' and the GOP as 'anti-intellectuals. Nation Public Radio, funded by the US Government using taxpayers hard earned money.

How about ABC? NBC? CSNBC? You’re kidding right? These folks are in the pockets of the democrats and Obama, the biggest supporters of unions. Pathological hate for unions? Not.


Outback said: As for the Communist party running unions thats just fanciful rubbish.

David responds: So this didn’t happen on Sunday, December 5 when the Communist Party USA was giving awards to a pair of labor leaders as well as Connecticut AFL-CIO head John Olsen, who not only gladly accepted these awards, but garnered “loud applause” when Olsen said he stands with CPUSA? You’re just saying this did not happen?

When this AFL-CIO head said “Anyone who stands with me for workers’ rights, I stand with them,” did not happen to loud applause as he acknowledged the Communist Party? This just did not happen?

And when this AFL-CIO head also said, “Not that long ago Americans openly rejected socialism and communism and now the communists are holding awards ceremonies and concerts in public high schools and openly honoring state labor leaders.” That this just did not happen?

Or is it that you cannot, no way, ever accept that this would actually happen?



Outback said: $50 an hour??
I bet very very few autoworkers were actually earning this.

David responds: I looked up on www.salary.com a Electronics Assembler starting wage in a auto manufacturing facility and here is what I found. With only a high school diploma, starting wage is $26.47 an hour or $55,050 per year. Once benefits are added, $71,345 per year or $34.30 per hour….starting wages. Within a few years, they are easily making over $55 per hour as a wage plus benefits.



Outback said: Or we could stop the trillions in bailouts for Wall Street?

David responds: Here is where the government said the end of the world was near and if they did not bail them out, the sun would not come up in the morning. It wasn’t business that wanted the bailout, it was the government so they could take control of these businesses. Most responsible economists said let businesses fail. Others will pick up the pieces and start over. And it was hundreds of billions, not trillions. The largest “bailout” was the $780 billion “Economic Recovery Program” which in one camp said did not work and in the other camp they say “it” would have been much worse since most of the money did not go to shovel ready jobs but to states to pay their payrolls and government expenses. Now the money is gone and states are as close to bankruptsy as they have ever been. They need to balance their budgets.

.

chronology: So David. After all that has been explained to you, you are still saying American Businesses employing tens of thousands of Americans such as GM should have been left to go broke, with cities like Detroit seeing thousands of families forced onto welfare? Tens of thousands of American families should have just lost their life savings when Banks collapsed during your 'cure' for Americas economy. You are still saying that was the way to go? You are still saying; 'we have to destroy America to save America'? Unbelievable.

And as David stands outside his new Hooverville Home in the Tent City outside Phoenix he can look at a newspaper he fished out of a garbage can and exclaim as he reads the news; 'Hey Guys, we ballanced the Budget'.