[zoneouddy]

Gee, I dunno, I've been working for evil corporations for all of my life without union support, haven't had a single right stripped from me nor a single bad working condition, and I did it all without a union or a collective bargaining agreement. Oh wait, that's impossible right? That I get paid a fair wage that's equitable to both parties AND have the existing work standard legislation to protect me can't possibly happen.

Who do you think fought to get you those good working conditions, fair wages, and laws ensuring they don't get ripped out from under you? Could it, perhaps, be the Labor Movement and Unions?

[Meenepek]

Some of you posters are a joke. Are you all getting paid by oil tycoons too? What do you gain from a monarchy where workers lose all their rights? Reminds me of the poem The Hangman. I honestly feel sorry for the fools that cheer when others lose their freedoms at the expense of milliionaires and big business.

Anybody that thinks the Democratic senators left the state to avoid doing their job is laughable. They made real sacrifices in leaving their homes. It wasn't a vacation. Whether you agree with what they did, it's stupid to think that it was the easy way out. It's also clear that many of the republicans disagreed with what walker was doing too.

Agreeing with FDR about the limits of public employees makes us corporate tools?

[Enladalusange]

So he separated out all those hated positions from the budget and passed them without the Dems. That isn't caving.

[Tibaveriafark]

Who do you think fought to get you those good working conditions, fair wages, and laws ensuring they don't get ripped out from under you? Could it, perhaps, be the Labor Movement and Unions?

Sure, but what have they done in the past 50 years? All I've seen is a net loss of middle class jobs, less job security, stagnant pay, and dwindeling benefits. Meanwhile, public workers lock down pay raises, large pensions, good benefits, and ironglad job security--often without accountability. So it seems like one could argue they are sapping our resources and bringing down everyone else's standard of living.

[BWJfEkOB]

Who do you think fought to get you those good working conditions, fair wages, and laws ensuring they don't get ripped out from under you? Could it, perhaps, be the Labor Movement and Unions?

I don't deny that. But that argument literally holds NO water whatsoever in current times. Just because something worked well in the past doesn't mean it can't be terrible in the future. There are thousands of examples where an organization is around and does a whole lot of good for while, and then when you leave it around too long it starts hurting more than it's helping. Unions are a classic case of this. Unions were formed to get good working conditions, and fair wages because the working populace needed some sort of recourse against corporate tyranny. The government listened, legislated, and now those protections are built into our system. Now instead of working to fix unjust practices and create a safe and stable work environment, public unions view the government, the very organization which created and enforces those protections, as an enemy they need to collectively strongarm into giving them more money.

[Qdkczrdi]

I don't deny that. But that argument literally holds NO water whatsoever in current times. Just because something worked well in the past doesn't mean it can't be terrible in the future. There are thousands of examples where an organization is around and does a whole lot of good for while, and then when you leave it around too long it starts hurting more than it's helping. Unions are a classic case of this. Unions were formed to get good working conditions, and fair wages because the working populace needed some sort of recourse against corporate tyranny. The government listened, legislated, and now those protections are built into our system. Now instead of working to fix unjust practices and create a safe and stable work environment, public unions view the government, the very organization which created and enforces those protections, as an enemy they need to collectively strongarm into giving them more money.

Let's ignore the fact that in Wisconsin the unions had actually agreed to cut their pay as the governor had asked.
Let's also ignore the fact that countless studies show that when you consider salary, benefits, and education level, that union workers are either paid a little bit less or a little bit more than nonunion workers... but the studies agree that they are paid relatively on par.

You talk about how you as the tax payer pays the union's salary. So what? The union worker provides you a service. You should be paying their salary. It doesn't make you any more educated to decide what that salary should be. It's laughable how people have turned unions (and specifically teachers) into the everyday scapegoat. We didn't cause any of the problems in the country, and just because our organization has allowed us not to suffer as much as everybody else, doesn't mean we should be held directly responsible.

Just remember that when everything is doing great and you are getting your 10,000 yearly bonus, the union worker is still getting their cost of living wage increase. Being in a union means you don't get the highs or the lows... of course the affluent republican senators bought out by big sleezy corporations with campaign funding will try to destroy the middle class, but the rest of the public is supposed to unite against them and vote them out for representing the interests of only a few.

It's the ignorance of the general public (that doesn't realize that 21st version of the republican party is serving the interest of VERY FEW PEOPLE) that makes this so frustrating for most intelligent people. Maybe some of the people on this board are rich or as*es, but most intelligent people should see that busting unions is horrible for the poor and working class... including those not in a union.

[hauptdaunnila]

The thing that really gets under my skin with this whole issue is that I think every side is wrong.

The unions are looking to protect their power and the money coming in. With about 30,000 members between teachers and state workers, each paying about $1000 per year in dues. Your talking 30mil these unions are taking in per year. No wonder they are fighting to stay on the money train. I don't believe for a moment that the unions have the best interests of their members in mind.

The Dems, get huge campaign contributions from the unions. I don't believe they are making a moral stand on an issue, they are making a financial stand. And leaving the state in order to prevent state business is the lowest of the low in my opinion.

The Repubs say they are worried about the budget, but I highly doubt this. I think this is a thinly veiled attempt to make a move towards more privatization of state services. Its great business to take public moneys and put it in corporate hands.

In the end, I don't think any of the parties involved with this fight actually give a **** about the workers or their families.

[acissombiapse]

So he separated out all those hated positions from the budget and passed them without the Dems. That isn't caving.

Yes it is. He repeated hundreds of times that CB was not going to get excised and considered separately, or make any changes at all to what he submitted and was passed in the House. He caved.

[Anatolii]

You talk about how you as the tax payer pays the union's salary. So what? The union worker provides you a service. You should be paying their salary. It doesn't make you any more educated to decide what that salary should be. It's laughable how people have turned unions (and specifically teachers) into the everyday scapegoat. We didn't cause any of the problems in the country, and just because our organization has allowed us not to suffer as much as everybody else, doesn't mean we should be held directly responsible.

I'd be careful here. It's not quite that easy. Government creates a lot of needless rules and regulations. Lots of unneeded or counterproductive programs. On top of that overstaffing.

[Enjknsua]

The thing that really gets under my skin with this whole issue is that I think every side is wrong.

The unions are looking to protect their power and the money coming in. With about 30,000 members between teachers and state workers, each paying about $1000 per year in dues. Your talking 30mil these unions are taking in per year. No wonder they are fighting to stay on the money train. I don't believe for a moment that the unions have the best interests of their members in mind.

The Dems, get huge campaign contributions from the unions. I don't believe they are making a moral stand on an issue, they are making a financial stand. And leaving the state in order to prevent state business is the lowest of the low in my opinion.

The Repubs say they are worried about the budget, but I highly doubt this. I think this is a thinly veiled attempt to make a move towards more privatization of state services. Its great business to take public moneys and put it in corporate hands.

In the end, I don't think any of the parties involved with this fight actually give a **** about the workers or their families.

Actually, I don't see a problem at all with privatization of government services. For example, I don't have any problem with sending trash collection out to bid.

Yes it is. He repeated hundreds of times that CB was not going to get excised and considered separately, or make any changes at all to what he submitted and was passed in the House. He caved.

I'm not gathering what the problem is with passing it as separate legislation from the budget.

[statistica]

I don't deny that. But that argument literally holds NO water whatsoever in current times. Just because something worked well in the past doesn't mean it can't be terrible in the future. There are thousands of examples where an organization is around and does a whole lot of good for while, and then when you leave it around too long it starts hurting more than it's helping. Unions are a classic case of this. Unions were formed to get good working conditions, and fair wages because the working populace needed some sort of recourse against corporate tyranny. The government listened, legislated, and now those protections are built into our system. Now instead of working to fix unjust practices and create a safe and stable work environment, public unions view the government, the very organization which created and enforces those protections, as an enemy they need to collectively strongarm into giving them more money.

Tell that to the families of the miners who worked for Massey. Gov't regulations really did a lot to help them. They were cited more than a thousand times over a few months for safety violations, but the laws have no teeth. And thanks to Reagan helping to bust up and castrate the UMWA in the 80's, they had no union representation.

I agree that gov't pencil pushers and teachers aren't in mortal danger due to working conditions. But to claim unions serve no current use at all is ridiculous.

[meridiasas]

Let's ignore the fact that in Wisconsin the unions had actually agreed to cut their pay as the governor had asked.
Let's also ignore the fact that countless studies show that when you consider salary, benefits, and education level, that union workers are either paid a little bit less or a little bit more than nonunion workers... but the studies agree that they are paid relatively on par.

I don't know what studies you mean, but as you state that does not take into account pension (in Cali median pension is $66,000 per year, and teachers can retire at age 55) and job security. Do you know what value a parent would put on never being fired, ever? That is a lot of guaranteed income and that does not exist in the public sector. The bottom line is that they have a great deal, and to continue to demand raises or decline to pay part of the benefits in a time of austerity is absurd.

Additionally, the unions did not agree to concessions until the collective bargaining rights were in danger of being stripped away. I do think that Walker overplayed his hand.

[EscaCsamas]

I don't know what studies you mean, but as you state that does not take into account pension (in Cali median pension is $66,000 per year, and teachers can retire at age 55) and job security. Do you know what value a parent would put on never being fired, ever? That is a lot of guaranteed income and that does not exist in the public sector. The bottom line is that they have a great deal, and to continue to demand raises or decline to pay part of the benefits in a time of austerity is absurd.

Additionally, the unions did not agree to concessions until the collective bargaining rights were in danger of being stripped away. I do think that Walker overplayed his hand.

[MormefWrarebe]

Tell that to the families of the miners who worked for Massey. Gov't regulations really did a lot to help them. They were cited more than a thousand times over a few months for safety violations, but the laws have no teeth. And thanks to Reagan helping to bust up and castrate the UMWA in the 80's, they had no union representation.

I agree that gov't pencil pushers and teachers aren't in mortal danger due to working conditions. But to claim unions serve no current use at all is ridiculous.

The legislation has plenty of teeth, it just wasn't properly enforced. Frankly I think Massey should be heavily fined for all of the violations, and whatever division of government was in charge of enforcing the law should be severely reprimanded. But unions can do as much as they damn well please because nothing of what they do is going to be effective whatsoever if the government doesn't enforce the legislation.