Something important from Wisconsin that isn't Aaron Rodgers

[IBCoupe]

Bingo.

Ever hear of a lawyer's union? Yeah. Me neither.

The people that come to my hearings are, in general, ill-informed, unqualified, busybody ADVOCATES. And I've never been deterred by an "advoocate". That's kinda right up there with "Community Organizer", lol....

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... gs_office/

Lawyers, Doctors, and Nurses are professional employees, eligible for coverage under NLRA if they work for a covered employer. Most lawyers don't work in a situation like that, because most workers work for themselves or in a very small office, where it doesn't make much sense to unionize. It has nothing to do with being lazy or moneygrubbing.

[IBCoupe]

WHO defends someone JUST because they're your "friend"?

Unions don't, for exactly the same reason as the ACLU not doing so:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Not talking about as serious a matter as genocide, but it's the same operating logic.

[Cold_Zero]

It is ironic that you should invoke WWII era imagery. Speaker of the Indiana House Brian Bosma was on a local radio talk show and likened the situation in Indiana (of the Democrats fleeing to Urbana) with the seize of the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne. He kept inserting the word Democrat for the Nazis in the story. My response to the radio was (I know no one is really hears what I say when I talk to the radio) there was a lot more to lose at the Bastogne than at present. This isn’t the 101st Airborne facing down a much larger German Army.

[AZhitman]

Bingo.

Ever hear of a lawyer's union? Yeah. Me neither.

The people that come to my hearings are, in general, ill-informed, unqualified, busybody ADVOCATES. And I've never been deterred by an "advoocate". That's kinda right up there with "Community Organizer", lol....

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... gs_office/

Lawyers, Doctors, and Nurses are professional employees, eligible for coverage under NLRA if they work for a covered employer. Most lawyers don't work in a situation like that, because most workers work for themselves or in a very small office, where it doesn't make much sense to unionize. It has nothing to do with being lazy or moneygrubbing.

Thanks for the education. I was not aware there was such an organization. My point had nothing to do with laziness or "moneygrubbing" - My point was that those people know how to navigate the waters of life without Big Mama holding their hand along the way.

FWIW, I don't like the term "moneygrubbing". In fact, it reeks of jealousy and an entitlement mentality, like people who seek to increase their wealth are somehow wrong or bad for doing so.

Call me a "moneygrubber" all day long. The more I have, the more resources I can share, the more wealth I can spread, the more I can give, the more good I can do, and the better example I can set for others.

I'd make a great Jew if I weren't so descended from rock-throwing, sandal wearing, well-tanned, lean, angry stock.

(Side note: maybe Matt can speak to this, since his wife is a charge nurse, but I think nurses might be more likely to be organized than attorneys or doctors... I could be wrong... maybe I'm thinking of something else).

[AZhitman]

Unions don't, for exactly the same reason as the ACLU not doing so:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Not talking about as serious a matter as genocide, but it's the same operating logic.

That's cute and feel-good. I think I saw it on a bumper sticker on a Subaru Forester, in fact.

However, unless "they" is some monster-under-the-bed that I'm not familiar with, those days are past. We have laws in place that, for the most part, intervene on behalf of folks like Pastor Martin.

Facts and progress don't prevent folks from playing on our most primal of fears though... Oooh, Nazis.

Kinda like Obama talking about going on an ice cream date with your kids being snatched away by marauding racist thugs.

[R/T Hemi]

I have no problem removing the unions from the civil service sector. Typically, their jobs are more secure and not in need of unionization.

Regan had the correct approach to the Air Traffic controllers years ago. He fired them. Fair enough.

Here's an example of how absolutely ridiculous benefits have become to retirees.
A yearly bonus for being retired.

[AZhitman]

I concur 100%.

And +1 for reminding everyone of the Reagan Solution. Well done.

[audtatious]

(Side note: maybe Matt can speak to this, since his wife is a charge nurse, but I think nurses might be more likely to be organized than attorneys or doctors... I could be wrong... maybe I'm thinking of something else).

She's a RN

But, she is not part of a union. Yes, one exists but I don't believe her workplace has been forced to unionize yet. Regardless, she has no intention of joining a union as she believes she can represent herself well enough at the work place or can leave and go elsewhere if she chooses. The employer can change her pay, hours, vacation time, whatever they want (within the confines of the law) and it's totally up to her whether she stays there or goes elsewhere.

[AZhitman]

My guess is that her work ethic, her punctiliousness, and her professionalism negates the need for any outside interference in career management.

[audtatious]

That and her experience. If she feels what she has to offer is worth more than they are willing to pay then she will simply go elsewhere.

[audtatious]

EVIL EVIL REPUBLICANS

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2hgu_2NWpo[/youtube]

[IBCoupe]

My point was that those people know how to navigate the waters of life without Big Mama holding their hand along the way.

And my point is that the necessity of organization is determined by the circumstances of your employment, not of the quality of your character. You keep debasing people you don't know. Maybe it's just the way you're wording things, but it doesn't look like you're arguing because you disagree with unions; it looks like you're arguing because you don't like the people who want to unionize.

And I wasn't trying to invoke Nazism, and apparently that got in the way of the point I was making: that unions look out for their members not because they're friends, but because it keeps employers in line, operating on the theory that employees are human beings whose basic needs and desires are worth something.

Maybe most employers are wonderful, fair and generous people. Maybe employers treat their workers exactly as they deserve to be treated. Maybe unions aren't needed. But that kind of thought doesn't make up the bulk of your arguments, and it's pretty embarrassing.

[audtatious]

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communi ... 351386.ece

Unions do good for some people.....Prisoner may not agree as much.

[AZhitman]

it doesn't look like you're arguing because you disagree with unions; it looks like you're arguing because you don't like the people who want to unionize.

No, I actually feel a twinge of pity for them.

unions look out for their members not because they're friends, but because it keeps employers in line

For that, we have laws, policies, statutes, codes and administrative rules aplenty.

Maybe most employers are wonderful, fair and generous people. Maybe employers treat their workers exactly as they deserve to be treated. Maybe unions aren't needed.

Maybe so. Maybe not.

But that kind of thought doesn't make up the bulk of your arguments, and it's pretty embarrassing.

To turn a phrase, I don't see any justification or statistical rationale supporting their continued existence. Perhaps I was subconsciously trying to goad someone into going there.

I'm not sure how that can be embarrassing for you, though.

[bigbadberry3]

Forgot to mention that police and fire fighters are exempt from this.....

[Eikon]

EVIL EVIL REPUBLICANS

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2hgu_2NWpo[/youtube]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[IBCoupe]

For that, we have laws, policies, statutes, codes and administrative rules aplenty.

The Gubmint: Always There Right When You Need It, right?

To turn a phrase, I don't see any justification or statistical rationale supporting their continued existence. Perhaps I was subconsciously trying to goad someone into going there.

Because the individuals involved in those particular circumstances deem it necessary?

I'm not sure how that can be embarrassing for you, though.

'Cause I respect your comments, usually.

[audtatious]

Forgot to mention that police and fire fighters are exempt from this.....

Because, for the most part, they can't strike.

[IBCoupe]

It probably varies from state-to-state, but I believe most public workers don't have the right to strike.

[audtatious]

Usually Police, Fire, Ambulance and such have a no-strike clause because of the outcome of a full-out strike to the population. Usually those who are off duty will do the protesting and there is nothing wrong with that at all. If librarians or union secretaries strike, most people won't care

[IBCoupe]

Oh, I get the reasoning, but because public employees only have the right to organize through State statutes, there's no guaranteed right to strike, and I believe most, even librarians or secretaries, don't.

[audtatious]

Not sure. From what I can tell, at least in WI, only first responders (fire, police, etc.) can't strike.

[IBCoupe]

Might be the case, there. It's important to note that not having the right to strike doesn't mean you are legally prohibited from striking - it just means that the employer has every right to fire you when you do.

Also worth noting is that, though Wisconsin was the first State to legally give its public workers the right to collectively bargain, collective bargaining for public employees was happening for a long time before that in a number of States, they just didn't really call it that and it wasn't really official. That's not to say that it would happen that way now - the Governor seems dead set on getting unions away from the table altogether.

[audtatious]

I have not had time to go line by line through his budget plan and read the full limitations. Seems there are some but it also sounds like it's disingenuous to state he is completely ending collective bargaining.

I do find it comical that the Dems shoving HC down the GOP's throats while they screamed about it was OK to them yet the Dems are not OK with the GOP doing similar to their base at the state level (shoving something down their throats that they don't like). tit for tat (as stupid as it may be from either side)?

[IBCoupe]

It's not really disingenuous. He wants to eliminate collective bargaining for everything except wages, but he also wants to cap wages at the cost of living. In effect, he's only giving the union the power to ask for lower wages, for nothing in return.

I think the difference between Gov. Walker's budget and the healthcare law is that Republicans didn't like the substantive policy of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (but, really, only because it came from the Democrats - they loved the substantive policy in 1994), whereas in Gov. Walker's budget, he's seeking to fundamentally change the rules of governance, in addition to enacting substantive policy changes. He's trying to codify union concessions (the substantive policy), and also trying to make it so that unions aren't ever again in a position to make concessions/demands (the changes to the rules of governance).

[audtatious]

From a job-market perspective the end result may be fine. If union members don't like their pay then they can go to the private sector to find something that will pay them more. People who are happy with the pay will take the jobs. If nobody takes the jobs because the pay and benefits are low then the state will increase the pay scale until they have people willing to work for it.

The problem with the above? It takes power out of the Unions hands and puts it back in the employees hands and they don't want to see it happen.

[IBCoupe]

The problem with the above? I don't know if Wisconsin has enough teachers as it stands now.

That might be a fantastic solution for paper-pushers, but that's not who the public is screaming about (on either side of the issue).

[audtatious]

Guess we may well find out.

[AZhitman]

For that, we have laws, policies, statutes, codes and administrative rules aplenty.

The Gubmint: Always There Right When You Need It, right?

All snark aside, we have laws, policies, statutes, codes and administrative rules to protect employees.

To turn a phrase, I don't see any justification or statistical rationale supporting their continued existence. Perhaps I was subconsciously trying to goad someone into going there.

Because the individuals involved in those particular circumstances deem it necessary?

...based on what justification or statistical rationale?

I'm not sure how that can be embarrassing for you, though.

'Cause I respect your comments, usually.

[/quote]

Thank you - Likewise. I'm not intentionally trying to be difficult here.

It's maddening that "holdovers" from a bygone era (Unions, NAACP, NOW, etc) can be so entrenched and embraced by the younger generation (who's supposed to be 'progressive') while those of us who may have been around when those institutions made sense can actively call for their dismantling. Strange twist indeed.

[AZhitman]

The problem with the above? I don't know if Wisconsin has enough teachers as it stands now.

Doesn't matter. We have plenty of out-of-work teachers in other states. The beauty of our great republic? Free and unfettered access to all 50 states.

Side note: Here in AZ, teachers are well-compensated, and competency isn't a real high priority. During boom times, we were hiring teachers left and right - As soon as a classroom hit 31 students, BAM. Another FTE added.

Fast forward to the housing crisis, the economic downturn... Several suburban schools saw enrollments nosedive, even as previously-planned schools were being erected. Teachers' union has fought ALL reductions in force tooth and nail, costing our state dearly. Teachers with [statistically] no pupils were kept on payroll JUST to avoid the legal hassles. The teachers' union has shamelessly held the school boards of certain municipalities hostage. No sympathy here. Sorry.