Anyone following what's going on in Wisconsin?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

I basically agree with the legislators but, it is wrong for them to exclude the firemen, local police and state police. It should be done across the board.

Why are they excluded? They voted for the governor.

Since ballots are secret, nobody knows who the firemen and policemen voted for. There is, on record, that out of the 314 police and firefighter unions in the State only FOUR endorsed him. The rest supported his opponent.

I think that I recall his rationale for not including the police and fire workers in the cuts is that he knew there would be resistance and possible strikes and blue flue type of reasons not to show up for work, and that their service was too critical to have that happen. May be a lame reason, don't know, but the reason is not because the police and fire workers supported him.

[jzskins]

Have taught in New England for 38 years, 26 in Massachusetts.

A non-ending war since 2001 has gutted our taxbase and put government spending into the ozone. I respect and admire the active duty people who go above and beyond to carry out their missions. Do we need to bash Unions to bail out the politicians?

My association pays 25% of health care and I do not have a Cadillac plan.

Just a working shlep, looking to fish.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by jzskins

Have taught in New England for 38 years, 26 in Massachusetts.

A non-ending war since 2001 has gutted our taxbase and put government spending into the ozone. I respect and admire the active duty people who go above and beyond to carry out their missions. Do we need to bash Unions to bail out the politicians?

My association pays 25% of health care and I do not have a Cadillac plan.

Just a working shlep, looking to fish.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by jzskins

Have taught in New England for 38 years, 26 in Massachusetts.

A non-ending war since 2001 has gutted our taxbase and put government spending into the ozone. I respect and admire the active duty people who go above and beyond to carry out their missions. Do we need to bash Unions to bail out the politicians?

My association pays 25% of health care and I do not have a Cadillac plan.

Just a working shlep, looking to fish.

Some people would rather lump all of you in one pile, and make guesses about figures.

[TheSpecialist]

Seems Connecticut is not in the top 30 on Forbes list....
Table: Who Pays America's Highest Property Taxes? - Forbes.com

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Seems Connecticut is not in the top 30 on Forbes list....
Table: Who Pays America's Highest Property Taxes? - Forbes.com

I have said that CT has one of the highest total tax rates in teh nation...

The Tax Foundation - State and Local Tax Burdens: All Years, One State, 1977-2008

In the drop down box that says "select your state", if you pick CT, you can see my state's tax rank (1 is highest). Since 1995, CT's tax rank has always been in the top 3. As high as those tax rates are, it's not NEARLY enough to pay for what the unions demanded, as we have massive unfunded liabilities for healthcare and retirement benefits to public employees.

Seems to me that if we have high tax rates, and still not nearly enough to pay for those benefits, that the benefits must have been very rich indeed. Please tell me where I'm wrong?

[179]

To bad you failed to add up all the other perks you get along with the near $300.00 a day (for 7 hours of work). Lets see here every and any holiday off, two weeks off for Christmas, another week in Spring and usually a 5 day weekend for Thanksgiving. Lets not forget the long Easter weekend. Don't forget the 10 weeks for summer vacation (are you telling me there is nothing these teachers could be doing at the school for this time, hell they are being payed for it) Now lets look at the Pension, what's the going rate for RI after 25 years 60%-80% of your best years gross, for the rest of your life all on the tax payers dime. Lets talk about medical, maybe not the best plan but a very good plan for little or nothing out of your pocket. How about the workday, starts at 8:00am most wrap up by 3:00 at the latest.

Now lets say we have a bad teacher in the mix, maybe verbally or physically assaults the children, maybe has a drinking or drug problem, maybe preaches her/his political views in the classroom, maybe sexually assaults a student, can we fire that teacher, hell no they have union protection. I know only 3 teachers in RI and each of them have been lifelong drug addicts, do you think the school department would do drug testing, no because the union says we can't.

And with all the above, these folks still feel the need to strike, complain, riot, and hold our kids hostage for more, Well you will never get pity from me, what you would get from me if I could do it would be a kick in the ass right out the front door, then I would hire somebody from the real world who would actually appreciate the job.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by 179

I know only 3 teachers in RI and each of them have been lifelong drug addicts, do you think the school department would do drug testing, no because the union says we can't.

Wow.
that certainly is indicative as the profession as a whole.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Wow.
that certainly is indicative as the profession as a whole.

don't think that's what he said, he simply pointed out one(or three) example(s) of unions/policies protecting members that should not be in the profession

there were just posts stating that " (they)firefighters and police voted for the governor" of Wisconsin and "paid into his war chest"

your comment would be more appropriately directed to those blanket statements "as a whole" than to clearly anecdotal comments about the influence of the union which allows the types of things stated to continue

[RIROCKHOUND]

Unbelievable?

So next year when the Gov decides, healthcare goes to 26% for the teachers, AND his corporate tax cuts go into effect, it wouldn't be a valid discussion that the tax cuts were not a good idea... ?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Unbelievable?

So next year when the Gov decides, healthcare goes to 26% for the teachers, AND his corporate tax cuts go into effect, it wouldn't be a valid discussion that the tax cuts were not a good idea... ?

If and when healthcare goes to 26% for teachers, they STILL HAVE IT BETTER THAN THE REST OF US WHO PAY 30%.

Geez...

Teachers need to stop framing this debate in terms of "what did I get last year", and ask themselves "what would I get anywhere else working 80% of a full-time job?"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Unbelievable?

So next year when the Gov decides, healthcare goes to 26% for the teachers, AND his corporate tax cuts go into effect, it wouldn't be a valid discussion that the tax cuts were not a good idea... ?

if, when, might.......nothing to do with you initial contention or the current discussion

[detbuch]

It used to be that state and municipal jobs were coveted because of the security and better benefits they provided, even though the pay was less than in the private sector. The slightly less than average salaries, at the time, were more than compensated by the lifetime job security, better pensions, and superior health care packages.

Unionization was discouraged, and strikes were illegal. The payoff was a stable, secure, source of income and life style.

At about the 1960s unionization and strikes by state and municipal employees began to be accepted by some states. Union leaders know how to bargain hard and understand incremental gains. Backed by the liberalized thinking of the era, there was a view that the public sector required more preparation for entry, and was so much more responsible for the well-being of society, that comparative wage scales needed to be more equalized. It made no sense that factory laborers made more than teachers (never mind that it took lots of overtime or seniority to make it so). And if you wanted better teachers, and police, and firefighters, and administrators, you, obviously, had to pay them more. The hue and cry at the time was that the falling quality of educational outcome, for example, was mostly due to the poor pay of teachers. If we wanted the best and brightest to teach our kids, we must be willing to attract those "best" away from the private sector by paying them more. Overlooking the obvious irony that those wanting the pay increase were admitting that they were not the "best and brightest" and, according to their logic, must be the problem, what actually happened was the private sector outbid them in the ensuing wage war for talent. So the existing pool of, apparently not the "best and brightest," wound up getting the better wages, and nothing changed except for the price of the ticket--which steadily rose with every ensuing three year negotiation.

The same results occurred throughout the rest of the public sector. Now we have unionized public workers bargaining under the premise that they not only deserve the better pensions and bennies than the private sector that pays for it which they used to get but also the better pay. All the discussion of whether they deserve it or not is dwarfed by whether that premise can be afforded.

[JohnnyD]

Seems about right:

[The Dad Fisherman]

From Lawyers.com about Unions.....Strictly Informational

Your New Job and Joining a Union - Lawyers.com

When starting a new job there are several decisions you could be faced with. One of these involves whether or not to join a union. Groups of employees have the right to form unions in order to bargain collectively with employers and to protect their rights. Unions thrive in every level of society and encompass many different types of jobs, including manufacturing, teaching, and film production. When faced with the decision to join a union, make sure you know your rights.

It is illegal to coerce you to join a union. This can be a thin line. It is true that a union cannot force you to join. However, you might find that it is clearly in your best interest to join. Actors cannot get roles in major motion pictures unless they are part of the Screen Actor's Guild or they can somehow convince the production company to pay a fine for using a non-union actor. While no one can force you to join a union there may be practical considerations that make it very difficult to not join if you want to work in a particular industry.

You are always covered by a union's collective bargaining. Whether or not you choose to become a union member, the collective bargaining will benefit you. You will receive all the same benefits as a union member except for any that are designated as solely member benefits. However, if the union gets better pay and better benefits, it is for all employees union or not.

Even though you may not be forced to join a union it is possible you may be forced to pay dues. Some states have passed Right to Work laws which prevent educators and others from being forced to pay union dues when they are not union members. In states that have not passed one of these laws educators and others may not be forced to join the union, but they will be forced to pay the union fees.

A union cannot charge excessive dues. The dues charged by a union can't be too high.

The union can't force an employer to punish a worker for not being a union member. Once again this can be a tricky point. You cannot be penalized by an employer who has already hired you, but, depending on your industry, you might find it difficult to find work.

It is illegal for a union to use threats, intimidation or violence.

A union must bargain with an employer in good faith. A union is not allowed to make demands so unreasonable that they know there is no way the employer could ever capitulate. There must be actual effort to work something out that both sides can agree to.

Remember, it is your choice whether or not you join a union. Get the facts beforehand about what benefits membership will give you and whether or not you will be required to pay dues regardless of whether you join.

[scottw]

also...from National Right to Work

Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.

Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an "agency fee.") Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

From Lawyers.com about Unions.....Strictly Informational

Your New Job and Joining a Union - Lawyers.com

When starting a new job there are several decisions you could be faced with. One of these involves whether or not to join a union. Groups of employees have the right to form unions in order to bargain collectively with employers and to protect their rights. Unions thrive in every level of society and encompass many different types of jobs, including manufacturing, teaching, and film production. When faced with the decision to join a union, make sure you know your rights.

It is illegal to coerce you to join a union. This can be a thin line. It is true that a union cannot force you to join. However, you might find that it is clearly in your best interest to join. Actors cannot get roles in major motion pictures unless they are part of the Screen Actor's Guild or they can somehow convince the production company to pay a fine for using a non-union actor. While no one can force you to join a union there may be practical considerations that make it very difficult to not join if you want to work in a particular industry.

You are always covered by a union's collective bargaining. Whether or not you choose to become a union member, the collective bargaining will benefit you. You will receive all the same benefits as a union member except for any that are designated as solely member benefits. However, if the union gets better pay and better benefits, it is for all employees union or not.

Even though you may not be forced to join a union it is possible you may be forced to pay dues. Some states have passed Right to Work laws which prevent educators and others from being forced to pay union dues when they are not union members. In states that have not passed one of these laws educators and others may not be forced to join the union, but they will be forced to pay the union fees.

A union cannot charge excessive dues. The dues charged by a union can't be too high.

The union can't force an employer to punish a worker for not being a union member. Once again this can be a tricky point. You cannot be penalized by an employer who has already hired you, but, depending on your industry, you might find it difficult to find work.

It is illegal for a union to use threats, intimidation or violence.

A union must bargain with an employer in good faith. A union is not allowed to make demands so unreasonable that they know there is no way the employer could ever capitulate. There must be actual effort to work something out that both sides can agree to.

Remember, it is your choice whether or not you join a union. Get the facts beforehand about what benefits membership will give you and whether or not you will be required to pay dues regardless of whether you join.

a funny but 100% true story. In a former job, our business cards had to have the GCIU logo in the corner to state that the cards were printed by a union. One of my team visited a union shop and did not have the logo, they had a great meeting and at the end he handed him his card, they saw there was no logo and rudely escorted him out of the building. Its a scam, give your business to union shops or else we wont do business with you.

[Jackbass]

What is happening in WI is a sign of the times. We more than likely will not see anything like that here in MA because much of our economy is union based and no pol is going to bite the hand that feeds them. More and more though people are getting fed up with going to work every day or lookinog for work every day and supporting a public machine that does little to support them and theirs. We feed the government money to pay salaries and social programs that constantly run askew and just simply don't make sense. Anytime there is any type of budget deficit the same tired argument is rolled out. The first thing they say they are going to cut is education. Then elederly services and then you will hear about how there won't be enough money to put gas in the firetrucks and police cars. Not one politician evertalks about reducing their support staff. Or God forbid here in MA we take away the AAA that welfare recipients get for free or the flexible spending money for things like tobacco and alcohol. My wife is a teacher and I am glad she is because without her overinflated salary of 80k a year plus benefits and extras I would be on welfare and I work 60 plus hours a week keeping a business barely afloat to make sure my employees have paychecks and I can continue to pay my taxes and contribute to unemployment insurance. I now am beginning to see an upswing and could hire people but because I can't predict where the people will be working in six months I choose to work 70 to 80 hours a week instead. Because if I for hire these people and need to lay them off in six months it will cause another increase in my unemployment insurance which could potentially bankrupt me. If the teachers in WI have a problem with the increase in Co pay and loss of collective bargaining tell them to go find another job that pays them to work 6 hours a day 180 days a year and covers 80 percent of their health insurance for them and their families while pulling down an above average salary. I would be willing to bet they will be happy to return to work.

The days of the private sector handing out 100,000 plus dollar jobs is gone. The private sector is absorbing this recession and there needs to be concessions on both sides. It is getting a bit ridiculous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

What is happening in WI is a sign of the times. We more than likely will not see anything like that here in MA because much of our economy is union based and no pol is going to bite the hand that feeds them.

definitely...or suffer the consequences


Event Description:

The National AFL-CIO, several International Unions and others have called for actions around the country. April 4, 1968 was the day in 1968 when Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis where he had gone to support sanitation workers fighting for a voice at work.

Please join the Greater Boston Labor Council, Boston Teachers Union, Jobs and Justice, Massachusetts AFL-CIO, MTA, 1199SEIU, and SEIU State Council to stand in solidarity with workers in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire and other states fighting corporate politicians seeking to destroy collective bargaining.


closing statement at the rally:

‘And to the Republican party of Massachusetts, if you think this is gonna happen here, it is going to be over thousands of dead people’s bodies.’


I love the Obama era of civility

[RIROCKHOUND]

Unions bad.
Cronyism bad.

Unless it is a key lobbyists son, and then it's only bad when people call you on giving an unqualified crony a job... oops

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Unions bad.
Cronyism bad.

Unless it is a key lobbyists son, and then it's only bad when people call you on giving an unqualified crony a job... oops

moral relativity jibberish...that's great

[RIROCKHOUND]

I can't beleive in this day and age, the Gov (and his STAFF!) fell for this...
pretty funny, even though he really didn't say much of anything controversal....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I can't beleive in this day and age, the Gov (and his STAFF!) fell for this...
pretty funny, even though he really didn't say much of anything controversal....

yes, Murphy is a very funny guy and the newest darling of the unions and the left media


................................
The Wisconsin chapter of the AFL-CIO has released a new television advertisement that highlights portions of a recorded prank call conversation between Gov. Scott Walker and a liberal writer impersonating industrialist David Koch.

Since the prank call, the Koch impersonator has been identified as Ian Murphy, a liberal writer from Buffalo, N.Y.

MSNBC‘s Lawrence O’Donnell seemed happy to shine to the limelight on Murphy Wednesday evening during a primetime interview. However, the left should be wary in crowning Murphy as their new hero. Murphy’s writings at his Buffalo Beast publication are downright despicable. In one article, titled “F**k the Troops,” Murphy unleashes a tirade against American service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as rapists who “volunteer to murder people.”

(Warning: excerpt contains graphic language.)

So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo #^&#^&#^&#^&ing hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.



The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bull#^&#^&#^&#^& need to stop s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?

What service are they providing? I don’t remember ordering 300,000 dead Iraqis—although I was doing a lot of heavy narcotics back in ‘03. Our soldiers are not providing a service to the country, they’re providing a service to a criminal administration and their oil company cronies. When a mafia don orders a hit, is the assassin absolved of personal responsibility when it’s carried out? Of course not. What if the hit man was fooled into service? We’d all say, “Tough #^&#^&#^&#^&, you dumb Guido,” then lock him up and throw away the key.

As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-csXwhja3yn...rphy_small.jpg
..............................................

But despite his amazingly radical views, CNN also heaped praise on Murphy Thursday:


Given his new-found popularity in leftist circles for “duping” Gov. Walker, will anyone on the left bother to condemn his disparaging remarks?

[RIJIMMY]

disgusting. But hey! Lets rail on that crazy dummy Palin!!!!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

disgusting. But hey! Lets rail on that crazy dummy Palin!!!!

no, this is just what the left refers to as "critical thinking"....or maybe he was "taken out of context"


he sounds a lot like many of Obama's close friends and advisors

[The Dad Fisherman]

How about railing on Both of them.....or is that really not an option.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How about railing on Both of them.....or is that really not an option.

Dad, can you honeslty compare them? I guarantee the guy that did this prank was on ALL media outlets and no one mentioned this past article and his disgust for our troops. However every opportunity to ridicule Palin is exploited at every turn. Go ahead an rail on both of them, but I have no doubts this country would be in 1000X better shape if we had more people like Palin and less like this liberal arsewipe.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Dad, can you honeslty compare them? I guarantee the guy that did this prank was on ALL media outlets and no one mentioned this past article and his disgust for our troops. However every opportunity to ridicule Palin is exploited at every turn. Go ahead an rail on both of them, but I have no doubts this country would be in 1000X better shape if we had more people like Palin and less like this liberal arsewipe.

That really wasn't my point....it was more just a general...why do we have to pick One over the other...thats all.

I think tthe guy is an ass myself....I was just kinda generalizing. Palin is definitely a better person than that ass hat.....

It just seems that we always have to Pick one OR the other in everything....why can't it be both was kinda my point

[scottw]

like a buffet....

[JohnnyD]

Don't that in Massachusetts would get you put in prison.