Thread: Anti-Union Bill Set to Pass In Wisconsin; Massive Protests Move Into Day 3

Originally Posted by Forplay

They are under contract to teach, and it's not going to sell very well walking off the job. This is Greece right here at home where the union is telling everyone we're not going to be part of the belt tightening. You other people are going to have to do that but not us union people, we're special. I don't see public opinion supporting the union / teachers in this case.

Did you bother to actually look at the numbers from above?

The teachers already tighten their belts disproportionately.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Fascinating...Rachel Maddow spends 14 min displaying her absolute best Glenn Beck imitation...except for one thing.....Beck advocates for people standing up for and taking responsibility for themselves to build a better America from the bottom up while Maddow preaches the need for Party rule.

Both are partisans and I take them as such. They make their living doing this...a highly paid one...and I count that into the equation too.

That being the case, Beck advocates for Beck first and foremost, and he has a machine to do so. He's made a mint doing what he does and he's part of the GOP media machine being such. Beck's 'advocacy' as you cited has to be viewed for what his paymasters want him to preach. It sounds good what you're quoting he says, but context is key.

Are Dems in favour of what he claims? It depends on the issue....the Dem issue, that is. Is it true that the GOP doesn't support that? Not so...depending on the issue, the GOP issue, that is. Is either of those two things necessarily good or bad or possible as a flat statement? It depends on the issue. Heck, the right answer is most often a hybrid of both things.

Both parties sell a product. There are people behind that product. Sometimes it's ideological, but certainly not always. That's because those with money and power and an agenda go to one of the two parties seeking support for that and they call the tunes because they pay for it.

Let's talk about unions given the topic. Can a union be described as something that reflects "people standing up for and taking responsibility for themselves to build a better America from the bottom up?" Sure they can. That's exactly why they were created in the first place.

Heck, right here in PA, they got their first big struggles getting going with the Molly Maguires, an Irish rebel group in the PA coal mines who had their union attempts smashed by the Coal Barons who oppressed them with horrible wages and conditions, etc. They got smashed by an alliance between the Coal Barons and the PA legislature who were pimped out to them. They even made a film years ago about them with Sean Connery:

YouTube - Violence in Coal Mining in the 1870s
YouTube - The Molly Maguires (trailer)
Molly Maguires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hollywood has even enjoyed using the horrible history of the PA Coal Baron, union-busting, labour abuse in turning them into horror films, e.g.,

YouTube - Wicked Little Things - Trailer
(using child labour in abusive situations)

YouTube - Silent Hill movie trailer
(using the Centralia mine fire and land and people abuse as its inspiration)

etc.

The US owes tremendous thanks to the unions for getting better labour laws and conditions for themselves and society and the forces of business can certainly be the same way today if allowed. For example, if you think the illegal immigration issue is an accident, and I know you don't, you get the idea how much they can want to screw you over for money and get political help doing so in exchange for money and support.

That said, I know unions can seek negative things too by requesting more than they should, or request toleration of things they shouldn't, etc. They can be involved in corruption too just like business owners and officers, etc. That stuff is fair game for monitoring and accountability too.

But, that's only because they are human organisations sticking up for their self-interests. That's no different whatsoever, though, from Big Business. And I needn't even mention that politicians are are pure as driven slush on doing the right things because you know that.

That's why my BS radar blips loud and bright every time I hear someone call politicians evil, Big Business evil, or Unions evil, etc. Once I hear that, I know I'm listening to a shill of one of them looking to maximise power over the others. They can all be right or wrong in what they seek in whole or in part and what's needed is the public evaluating any issue fairly and squarely between them to see what result is actually fair and square under the circumstance.

It takes the American public, though, to stop being such lackeys to the two parties and their machines to think for themselves. A Republican or Democrat or their machine apparatus can be on your side or fucking you over in what they want you to believe or do depending on what is their motivation. It's the same with any other organisation.

Originally Posted by lutherf

At stake not just in Wisconsin but in America as a whole is the ability of the American citizen to exercise their own will on their own terms for their own benefit. It's a matter of Freedom and it's a matter of Liberty.

Same as above. In laissez faire, that never worked out. That's because there is a vested interest in the strong to keep you weak. That way you pose no threat to the strong and instead serve them best. It's not only legitimate for the weak to seek strength in numbers...they must do so, or they will be weak or even reduced to the weak by the stronger.

Originally Posted by lutherl

Yes, there is a desperate struggle between the two largest political parties in this country for control of the political architecture we have constructed. There should always be such a struggle. It is, in fact, that struggle which allows the American people to express their interests and voice their concerns. If that struggle is EVER resolved into a "victory" by either of these parties or by any party yet to come it will be the end of our Republic.

Of course. If one can control the whole lot, that is the ultimate power over all.

If anything IMO, the US needs to significantly alter its legislative process so it's not reduced to the current two party system. That benefits the two parties, and the country is that close to the kind of control that reduces the American public to the machine that controls the government.

Why, for example, do the two parties spend so much time training Americans to treat the US Constitution--drafted in 1787 in much different times and circumstances and considerations--as like the Ten Commandments, or as the Muslim theocrats say the Qu'ran is the last word? The Bill of Rights and other rights-related stuff is very good, but the legislative manners produce loads of problems in limitations now. But you won't see the GOP or Dems telling you that. It's about control to get someone to think that way where they won't even consider change or thinking outside the tight paradigms they desire them to think.

They take it even further with their media machines...the GOP ones don't even want you to think of ever voting for a Democrat or listening to them. They want you to back the GOP as being right on all the issues, root for them like you do a football team, believe in them, wrap them in 'truth, justice and the American Way' stuff, etc. And they'll incessantly spend their time vilifying the other side of the aisle to help inculcate that impression that they are absolutely wrong and evil. Heck, listening to them do it is like this anymore:

YouTube - WORLD WAR2, HJ School Subject: "How to recognize a jew."

That way, you don't own them...they own you, and you do and believe as they say. Beck is not a Nazi, but he sure spends his time comparing the Dems as Nazis, Stalinists, etc. It's the same for the Dem machine if they can achieve that, e.g., how many times was Bush framed that way, etc. If someone spends their time feeding off the FOX and MSNBC pundits or their other partisan websites, etc, all the time in a partisan fashion, then that's what they're going to get and become their lackeys as they intend.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Did you bother to actually look at the numbers from above?

The teachers already tighten their belts disproportionately.

they are making 100k on average I read..

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Most any place of business doesn't require medical documentation for sick leave. There are all SORTS of privacy issues - talk to any knowledgeable HR professional and he/she will give you an earful. Once you get to about a week, then you start dealing with short term disability insurance coverage, but that's about it.

ahhh so you dont work huh? If you did you would know that you cant call in sick three days in a row and not have to prove anything, especially when you are known to NOT be sick.

Originally Posted by CSA

they are making 100k on average I read..

Well, you read wrong. Average is just shy of $65K, with 15 1/2 years of experience. Starting is a hair over $30,000.

Originally Posted by CSA

ahhh so you dont work huh? If you did you would know that you cant call in sick three days in a row and not have to prove anything, especially when you are known to NOT be sick.

I've had a job since I was 14. I've called out sick for 3 days more than once (pneumonia is a motherfucker) and never once had to provide any documentation.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Really? That's the extent of supporting your claim that unions are responsible for the mess we're in? I find your argument less than compelling.

And that's important to me because...

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Those who have to work for a living don't just quit because we don't "like the terms of employment." We go find another job first. Gotta pay our bills ourselves - no trust funds to pay them for us, you know.

So, then yes, you do want to continue to be an ass. When I quit my job, I had found another job. I dont have a trust fund and never had. I pay all my bills. Im not sure you understand how a free market works.

Originally Posted by jviehe

So, then yes, you do want to continue to be an ass. When I quit my job, I had found another job. I dont have a trust fund and never had. I pay all my bills. Im not sure you understand how a free market works.

Oh, did you see a "you" in there (other than "you know")?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Those who have to work for a living don't just quit because we don't "like the terms of employment." We go find another job first. Gotta pay our bills ourselves - no trust funds to pay them for us, you know.

I don't.

So, who's being the ass? Maybe it's someone who formed their own seceded nation of ass.

Originally Posted by lutherf

So your argument is that if the union didn't exist that all those whom the union represents would suddenly become unable to express their own concerns and/or provide financial support to the candidate of their choice? That's pure, unadulterated bullshit. The TEA party is doing EXACTLY that right now all across the country and they have had an undeniable effect on the political scene......including disrupting the Republican party and keeping them from becoming a force against the people.

I'll concede the point, while noting that the Koch brothers funded a lot of the tea-party activities, and while major corporations weren't backing most of the tea-party candidates, it remains to be seen whether the tea partiers will a) be re-elected and b) stay true to their campaign claims.

You're right, without unions, the people still have a voice. The same could be said for corporations and their voice in politics. If we ban corporate influence in politics, the shareholders still have individual voices don't they?

The reason large organizations have so much political power is ultimately that individuals don't hire lobbyists. Giant corporations and organizations do. Remove the unions and most of the remaining lobbyists are the giant corporate-profit megalith types.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

And that's important to me because...

Hmm if you just want to throw claims out there without substantiating them in any way whatsoever, and you could care less if anyone is convinced by your claims and you could care less about anyone else's opinion, then why bother posting at all? To each their own I guess.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

The account I read states it takes away their right to use collective bargaining. Adjusting expenses... reasonable. Taking away collective bargaining? No way is that reasonable.

Agreed ! This protest is about stripping workers of the right to bargain over anything other than wages , teachers and other state workers would also no longer be able to negotiate for better pensions or health benefits , "Ptotesters say they know these are tough times and they have made it clear to the governor and legislators that they are prepared to do their part to help our state recover. This isn't about protecting pay and benefits – it's about protecting the right to collectively bargain . It is about exactly what the right complain about , giving power to the government and on removing it from the voting public . This is just a power more by the government to eventually eliminate unions . Unions have traditionally supported liberal minded candidates ( like the president ) and this is just another attempt to weaken the power of moderate to liberal minded candidates .

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Well, you read wrong. Average is just shy of $65K, with 15 1/2 years of experience. Starting is a hair over $30,000.

Yet you dont know shit about Wisconsin and its economic demographics.

65k is like 100k in Chicago, 30k is like 50k in Chicago.

Take a look at entry level salaries in other professions in cities like Green Bay. People are making 11k-15k, and 20k is cushy up there.

So dont even attempt to portray their salaries as humble because there not. Their salaries are twice what employees in other private sector industries make up there.

Take a look at what they make in cities like Kenosha where 65k is the fucking median.