Something important from Wisconsin that isn't Aaron Rodgers

[IBCoupe]

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

And in all seriousness, we also have unions.

...based on what justification or statistical rationale?

The fact that they choose to do so is indicative of their belief that they should.

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.

Not so strange, if you consider the way sociopolitical movements work. Yesterday's liberals wanted life freed up, and then it was. Now today's liberals want it freed up more, and yesterday's liberals are called conservatives. What happened to yesterday's conservatives? They died; how else would you expect life to be freed up?

Imagine what my grandkids will be saying about me.

[szh]

BTW, in case it has not yet been posted, here is a reality check on why government labor union bargaining is out of control.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24956.html

The overhead costs are ridiculously high (all borne by the taxpayers, of course!). No business would ever survive like this ... no wonder the state government wants collective bargaining off the table!

I suspect (without knowledge, admittedly) that this is not uncommon in other states either, unfortunately.

Z

[szh]

EVIL EVIL REPUBLICANS

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

I want some "free hugs" from the girl in the background!

Z

[Cold_Zero]

BTW, in case it has not yet been posted, here is a reality check on why government labor union bargaining is out of control.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24956.html

The overhead costs are ridiculously high (all borne by the taxpayers, of course!). No business would ever survive like this ... no wonder the state government wants collective bargaining off the table!

I suspect (without knowledge, admittedly) that this is not uncommon in other states either, unfortunately.

Z

Z,
I have said it before and I will say it again, why did the other side of the bargaining process agree to the 74.2 cents for retirees? Just because someone asks for it, does not mean it has to be granted. Someone, be it the state or school district had to agree to the contract. And if it is in the contract, then legally it should be paid. No different than the contract I have with my mortgage lender. I fail to see why there is so much righteous indignation about these contracts. What leverage does the teachers unions have? Go on strike? In most states (at least Indiana) it is illegal for the teachers to go on strike. And when a contract is unresolved the bargaining typically goes on for years. Teachers and school districts go on teaching children, operate under the last negotiated contract and the next contract gets settled down the road.
And have you read some of these teacher contracts? I read the majority of my wife’s. They are downright boring! Which is why when Republicans in Indiana want to justify getting rid of collective bargaining rights for unions, they have to go out of state to provide their justification. They cherry pick contracts in New York or California to make their case against what is NOT going on in Indiana.

Here in Indiana, the compensation of Superintendents is now under scrutiny. While the news media is hammering the teachers unions for the teachers’ compensation and the Governor’s administration is calling teachers names, school districts are taking a look at their Superintendents’ compensation packages. I doubt that Governor Walker is zeroing in on Superintendent pay.

Regards,
bud

[IBCoupe]

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

And what, pray tell, Mr. Costrell, did they get back?

Opinion page on Wall Street Journal is opinionated.

[Cold_Zero]

maybe we need to stop treating the Non Profit schools like For Profit enterprises? I have lived on both sides of the fence For Profit and Non Profit in my current job. Even was a GSE at one point.

[stebo0728]

How could a government school profit? Any return on the profit line would just be a savings to the taxpayer right? Its interesting you bring that up though, as I was giving this some thought today, as well as listening to some opinion on talk radio. Consider this difference in union negotiation scenarios:

A) Private union negotiation table, what is being discussed? Though there are many ancillary issues, it all boils down to "how do we handle the profit the company is making". As in better profits means employees want better pay out of it, or a profit sharing shot, or whatever, but its dispersal of profit, ultimately, thats being negotiated. At the table are the company executives, and the employes (by proxy of their union representatives). Both invested parties have representation, direct quantifiable representation at the table.

B) Public sector unions negotiations. Again, ultimately, the bottom line is being handled, perhaps instead of "profit" lets say "budget appropriation". How is this chunk of money, whatever you care to call it, going to be appropriated internally, thats the question. However, how you have a disparity of representation. The officials in charge of the system are there, the governor perhaps, or state legislature representatives perhaps, and then again, the union representatives are there. However, now the real backers, the stockholders if you will, are not being represented. You can argue that they are because of their elected officials, but still there is a disparity, because in most heavily unionized areas, union friendly candidates win the day, therefore the largest chunk of the pie sits in the unions, and in the employees laps.

This plays alot into why Im and advocate of ending collective bargaining for public sector employees.

[stebo0728]

And some interesting stats:

* Since the recession began in 2007 the Imperial Federal Government of the United States has been adding employees at the rate of 9,000 per month, and the federal payroll has gone up by 10.5 percent.

* Federal workers now earn an average of $71,200 per year. Private sector workers earn about $40,331 per year.

* Fifty-two percent of all union members in this country work for the government.

* In 1960 31.9% of private sector workers and 10.8% of government workers were members of unions. In 2010 the numbers are reversed. 36.6% of government workers are union members while only 6.9% of private workers are. The survival of the union movement is completely dependent on government workers.

* There are three times more union workers in the postal service than there are in the automobile industry.

[IBCoupe]

1 - Substantiation, please. Beyond Boortz.com, or wherever you copied and pasted it from.
2 - And when you account for, I don't know, what job they're performing, and how long they've been doing it (also would happen to correlate between education and experience. Hm.) what do those statistics look like? Come on, Stebo. Weak sauce.
3 - Substantiation, please.
4 - 'Cause public unions weren't legalized 'til the 1970s, this makes sense. I'm surprised that it was as high as 10.8% in the 1960's. Also, unions have been on the decline in the private sector, and I really want substantiation for the last remark.
5 - So? Given how fantastically well the automobile industry is doing, is this really the comparison you (or whoever made these talking points that you've copied from the internet) want to be making?

[IBCoupe]

And, no, Stebo, that doesn't really explain why you're against public collective bargaining...

because in most heavily unionized areas, union friendly candidates win the day, therefore the largest chunk of the pie sits in the unions, and in the employees laps.

...because the union-friendly candidates still have to campaign.

[Cold_Zero]

All I know IBCoupe, is my inlaws tell me I need to ditch the Corporate world and go Club Fed.
Stebo, have you taken into account that a vast majority of Federal worker jobs are located in some of the highest per capita regions? Namely, Washington DC? I always wondered if that helps to contribute to their higher pay.

[IBCoupe]

It might have something to do with it, Cold. All I know is that Stebo's consistently presented retardedly unspecific statistics, without any context for interpretation, and has basically told me that any qualification of those statistics (e.g., that, on average, public workers have more education and experience than private workers) are simply distractions from the main point that THE AVERAGE INCOME OF ALL PUBLIC WORKERS IS HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE INCOME OF ALL PRIVATE WORKERS.

Republicans seem to just luuuuurve lying, in order to turn neighbor upon neighbor.

[audtatious]

All I know IBCoupe, is my inlaws tell me I need to ditch the Corporate world and go Club Fed.
Stebo, have you taken into account that a vast majority of Federal worker jobs are located in some of the highest per capita regions? Namely, Washington DC? I always wondered if that helps to contribute to their higher pay.

What does this have to do with Federal employees? Most Federal employees don't have collective bargaining capabilities anyway. There are also 29 states without collective bargaining. What's so special about WI? Why did Obama weigh in on WI when the feds don't have it? Why take a stand in WI when the proposal still gives more rights than what Fed workers (also public) even receive?

[Cold_Zero]

What does this have to do with Federal employees?

I think they want me to become one so:
1. I would move back to Maryland.
2. Make more money
3. I leave this caustic environment.

[audtatious]

But.....you would not have bargaining rights

But...if you moved we would not see you around here. Oh, never mind

[Cold_Zero]

I was waiting for that to come up in the conversation. We need to get together and hang out.

[audtatious]

Need a cookout setup at a "in between" location for this spring.....Didn't someone try and do that last year until everyone dropped out except for Maxhopper?

[stebo0728]

Im game, but GA is probably halfway from nowhere LOL

[audtatious]

It wasn't when I lived there....

[AZhitman]

More union shenanigans, this time in California... San Jose Councilman Constant wants to answer his own phone, but union rules require $70k/yr assistant to do it.

http://www.mercurynews.com/internal-aff ... ck_check=1

[srellim234]

There are no "shenanigans" here. The city signed a contract that specifies the procedures for eliminating jobs. The councilman failed to follow contractual procedure. The union wanted arbitration; the city wanted it to go to the PERB. The union won in court.

The core of the argument is regarding "...the city's 214-member Confidential Employees Organization, which contends the city was required to confer with the union before Constant decided to eliminate the position...". The court agreed. The position can still be eliminated but the proper procedure must be followed as per the contract that the city willing signed.

Yes, it's Mickey Mouse but no one held a gun to either sides' heads when the original contract was signed.

[IBCoupe]

There are no "shenanigans" here. The city signed a contract that specifies the procedures for eliminating jobs. The councilman failed to follow contractual procedure. The union wanted arbitration; the city wanted it to go to the PERB. The union won in court.

The core of the argument is regarding "...the city's 214-member Confidential Employees Organization, which contends the city was required to confer with the union before Constant decided to eliminate the position...". The court agreed. The position can still be eliminated but the proper procedure must be followed as per the contract that the city willing signed.

Yes, it's Mickey Mouse but no one held a gun to either sides' heads when the original contract was signed.

+1

Union bashing for the sake of union bashing is getting old.

[stebo0728]

There are no "shenanigans" here. The city signed a contract that specifies the procedures for eliminating jobs. The councilman failed to follow contractual procedure. The union wanted arbitration; the city wanted it to go to the PERB. The union won in court.

The core of the argument is regarding "...the city's 214-member Confidential Employees Organization, which contends the city was required to confer with the union before Constant decided to eliminate the position...". The court agreed. The position can still be eliminated but the proper procedure must be followed as per the contract that the city willing signed.

Yes, it's Mickey Mouse but no one held a gun to either sides' heads when the original contract was signed.

+1

Union bashing for the sake of union bashing is getting old.

Wow someone besides the "evil rich" are being bashed? Quite a change of pace

[audtatious]

Dear Governor Walker and Senator Fitzgerald:

Over the past several weeks we have witnessed an unprecedented public debate in Wisconsin over the value of
public workers and the importance of collective bargaining rights. I write today to offer to meet, in-person, as
soon as possible to resume discussions on how we reach a bipartisan solution to our differences on January
2011 Special Session Senate and Assembly Bill 11.

The working people of Wisconsin are deeply concerned about what the future holds for their families, and for
the great state they call home. Now more than ever they are counting on us as leaders to work together to
resolve our differences to move our state forward.

Since the bill’s introduction, public workers have come forward to offer economic concessions and Democrats
have offered a number of proposals to try to reach a bipartisan resolution.

I assure you that Democratic State Senators, despite our differences and the vigorous debate we have had,
remain ready and willing to find a reasonable compromise. To that end, I would ask that you or your authorized
representatives agree to meet with us near the Wisconsin-Illinois border to formally resume serious discussions
as soon as possible.

The people of Wisconsin are overwhelmingly supportive of us reaching a bipartisan, negotiated compromise.
Senate Democrats stand ready to do just that, we ask that you do the same.

Sincerely,
Mark Miller
Senate Democratic Leader

Reply?

March 7, 2011
Sen. Mark Miller
Parts Unknown, IL

Dear Senator Miller,

Thank you for your hand-delivered letter with an offer to meet, in Illinois, about the business and future direction of Wisconsin.

Let’s set aside how bizarre that is for a moment.

As you know, this legislation is designed to finally balance the state budget, prevent layoffs and create jobs in the real world. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed or underemployed Wisconsinites, and at least 1,500 more whose jobs are in the balance because of your media stunt. We all deserve better than this.

In the meantime, members of your caucus have been meeting with the governor’s staff, talking to the media, trying to find a way back to Madison, and contradicting your message in public. In case you don’t remember, you were present yourself at one of those meetings with the governor’s staff. Your grasp of reality, and control of your caucus as minority leader, continues to amaze me.

As you know, your opportunity to compromise and amend the bill was on the floor of the state Senate. As you know, you forfeited that right and opportunity when you decided to flee the state instead of doing your job.

Your stubbornness in trying to ignore the last election and protect the broken status quo is truly shameful. While we wait for you and your colleagues to finally show up, Senate Republicans continue to stand ready to do the job we were elected to do, here in Wisconsin. I hope you are enjoying your vacation, and your vacation from reality.

Sincerely,

Scott Fitzgerald

Senate Majority Leader

CC: Governor Scott Walker

[srellim234]

With a maturity level that low I'm surprised that Fitzgerald didn't challenge Miller to a winner-take-all game of "Go Fish" or "Hopscotch." No matter what your opponents have or haven't done that response is just plain childish.

[stebo0728]

Is it time for a Hamilton/Burr moment?

[bigbadberry3]

Faced!

Seriously though, grow up. You might not be effected (sp?) but thousands of people are.

[bigbadberry3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... lice-force

Weird parallels IMO....

[audtatious]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... lice-force

Weird parallels IMO....

I call BS. NJ has some of the strictest gun control laws there are so there is no way violent crime can be increasing just because there are less Police to protect us, even though the Supreme Court has concluded protecting us is not their job anyway.

What a tipsy world.

[bigbadberry3]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/09/bi ... 1&iref=BN1

Ok Mr. Walker show me the new 250000 jobs mk?