Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 10:34 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

I think they mostly try to clarify based on facts, though, so I'll probably continue to use them as a resource for fact checking. I usually check the links they provide to back up their claims anyway. Do you think they have a political bias favoring one party over the other? I haven't seen much of that...yet.


I haven't seen much of that yet either, but they have been... a little fuzzy on some of their pronouncements over the years.

Regarding this one, it is true that the non-unionized states score very poorly on standardized tests; just not quite as poorly as what the 'facebook post' they referred to listed. That could be due to out-of-date information or a variety of factors they discussed in their writeup.

However, they go on to say this:

Quote:
And there is at best limited evidence that unionization played a causal role in shaping differences in test scores.


The problem with this is that the original post never made an affirmative claim that this was true. Politifact is 'fact checking' claims that were never made. Instead, the post is claiming the OPPOSITE is true: the taking away teachers unions does not lead to higher achievement, and that the statistics show that those states without Teachers unions generally have low levels of acheivement on these standardized tests.

Politifact got it completely backward. It's not valid to claim that someone is claiming the opposite of what they were claiming and then claim that their claims are false claims Laughing

Cycloptichorn
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 10:51 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Good post. I think you have it right, and if the end goal is just to make the statement that there is...
Quote:
...limited evidence that unionization played a causal role in shaping differences in test scores.

...then perhaps they don't think readers will be critical of what exactly the original claim was.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 11:30 am
http://www.wisdems.org/news/press/view/2010-06-double-talker-scott-walker-latest-walker-flip-flop-hi

Quote:
Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) praised the Assembly’s action in a statement. However, the Assembly Republicans’ late-night procedural shenanigans fly directly in the face of commitments Walker made on the campaign trail, where he promised to end late-night votes because “nothing good happens after midnight”:

He promised to sign legislation if elected governor that prohibits the Legislature from voting after 10 p.m. or before 9 a.m.


“I have two teenagers and I tell them that nothing good happens after midnight. That’s even more true in politics,” he said in a statement. “The people of Wisconsin deserve to know what their elected leaders are voting on.”


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 11:31 am
What I haven't been able to figure out is the simple fact that many conservatives-Republicans work for unions in this country. Why are they silent? Are they intimidated by their own party?
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 12:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

What I haven't been able to figure out is the simple fact that many conservatives-Republicans work for unions in this country.


Because you would be accepting a lie.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 02:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

What I haven't been able to figure out is the simple fact that many conservatives-Republicans work for unions in this country. Why are they silent? Are they intimidated by their own party?
It is, in fact, very easy to figure out - no mystery at all. What fraction of union members may be Republicans I don't think any of us knows. However, I'm sure there are many.

Remember that in most states membership in a labor union is not voluntary - it either goes with the job or is a prerequisite for getting it in many cases. A few unions function as medieval guilds, handing down membership from father to son or daughter and to friends exclusively in what is in practice merely a government-sanctioned monopoly on a restricted field of jobs - several construction trade unions in new York function on that basis. In most states teachers and government employees have no choice about union membership - if you want the job you must join the union and pay the stipulated dues - no choice enters the proposition at all.

Of course all of this gives a new meaning to the "collective bargaining rights" mantra endlessly reported by union hacks. There are no such rights. What they are referring to is the legally sanction privilege of a monopolistic forced relationship in which unions get to extract money from workers to bribe politicians and put the remainder in their pockets.

In these circumstances it is easy to understand that some union members don't agree with the political views of their unions and simply go along because they have no choice in the matter. Moreover the unions are adept at using everything from gentle social pressure to outright intimidation to maintain "solidarity".
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 02:18 pm
I am one of the, at least former, Republicans forced by the state of CA to pay union dues and consider myself a friggin union member.

Something I would NEVER do of my free will.

Agree with George completely.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 02:31 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
In these circumstances it is easy to understand that some union members don't agree with the political views of their unions and simply go along because they have no choice in the matter. Moreover the unions are adept at using everything from gentle social pressure to outright intimidation to maintain "solidarity"
I am more impressed that according to one poll nearly 20% of union members think that the union does not help them AT ALL. I would love to see a poll question "Do you think you get good value for your money with union dues?". From my time in a union shop I think that would end up somewhere near a 50/50 proposition.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 02:46 pm
I don't think unions should be compulsory and that should along with some other changes should be looked at and changed. However, there is still no good reason to deny workers their collective bargaining rights so that they don't have a voice at the table. Furthermore, I don't see how denying collective bargaining for most government employees but keeping it for others has any effect on balancing the budget in Wisconsin when unions had nothing to do with their budget problems in the first place.

Quote:
Of course, the fact that public-employee pensions didn't cause a meltdown at Lehman Brothers doesn't mean they're not stressing state budgets, and that the pensions they've been promised don't exceed what state budgets seem able to bear. But the buildup of global capital that overheated the American housing sector and got packaged into seemingly riskless financial products that then brought down Wall Street, paralyzing the economy, throwing millions out of work, and destroying the revenues from state income and sales taxes even as state residents needed more social services? The answer to that is not to end collective bargaining for (some) public employees. A plus B plus C does not equal what Gov. Scott Walker is attempting in Wisconsin.

In fact, it particularly doesn't work for what Walker is attempting in Wisconsin. The Badger State was actually in pretty good shape. It was supposed to end this budget cycle with about $120 million in the bank. Instead, it's facing a deficit. Why? I'll let the state's official fiscal scorekeeper explain (pdf):

More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).


In English: The governor called a special session of the legislature and signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues (among other things). The new legislation was not offset, and it helped turn a surplus into a deficit [see update at end of post]. As Brian Beutler writes, "public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda."

But even that's not the full story here. Public employees aren't being asked to make a one-time payment into the state's coffers. Rather, Walker is proposing to sharply curtail their right to bargain collectively. A cyclical downturn that isn't their fault, plus an unexpected reversal in Wisconsin's budget picture that wasn't their doing, is being used to permanently end their ability to sit across the table from their employer and negotiate what their health insurance should look like.

That's how you keep a crisis from going to waste: You take a complicated problem that requires the apparent need for bold action and use it to achieve a longtime ideological objective. In this case, permanently weakening public-employee unions, a group much-loathed by Republicans in general and by the Republican legislators who have to battle them in elections in particular. And note that not all public-employee unions are covered by Walker's proposal: the more conservative public-safety unions -- notably police and firefighters, many of whom endorsed Walker -- are exempt.


source
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 02:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, That's because most union workers of today have already gained many benefits that now exists because of the unions. Many labor laws exist today because of unions.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 03:15 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

I don't think unions should be compulsory and that should along with some other changes should be looked at and changed. However, there is still no good reason to deny workers their collective bargaining rights so that they don't have a voice at the table. Furthermore, I don't see how denying collective bargaining for most government employees but keeping it for others has any effect on balancing the budget in Wisconsin when unions had nothing to do with their budget problems in the first place.


Lots of confusion on these points. The Wisconsin law under such scrutiny would indeed limit the bargaining power of public employee unions in negotiating work rules only - but would leave the rest intact. Given that the employer in this case is the government, it appears that what the union wants with respect to work practices is by definition an intrusion on the rights and responsibilities of officials elected by the people - at least that is the case put forward by the Governor. Beyond that there is nothing in the law that would remove the so called "collective bargaining rights of the public employee unions or their members - notwithstanding their loudly voiced claims to the contrary.

The real issue here appears to be the requirement that the unions' status as the representative of the public employees be renewed each year in an election by the workers themselves. Right now the unions in question have a permanent monopoly and a permanent government mandated right to seize about 1-2% of the wages of the government employees they "represent" , no matter what any of them may choose personally. This is certainly a nice deal for the union bosses, but it is very hard to see any real justice or equity in it.

In the 22 states in this country with 'right to Work' laws unions are permitted to organize workers and claim a mandate for employers to negotiate with them about pay and working conditions - just as in all the other states. However, the union is prohibited only from making union membership a precondition of emmployment and prohibited from collecting dues without the consent of the individual worker. Labor leaders all term this as "a denial of collective bargaining rights" , something that, in fact, is a bald lie.

The proposition that the union had nothing to do with the budget situation in Wisconsin is made laughable when one looks at the trends over time of the major cost factors in the state budget. Wisconsin faces very high unemployment and increased economic competition, partly a result of the long-term decline of union dominated industries in the state and partly a consequence of the current recession. The state needs to make itself more competitive in many ways and to stimulate new economic activity. Controlling the runaway cost of the state government is a major part of the solution. The flow of enormous sums of money to public sector unions has created powerful political forces that have accelerated cost growth and limited options to reduce it. The unions want more taxes to sustain higher public labor costs and increase their revenues and power. If they get their way the state will find itself in a downward spiral of decreasing economic activity; increasing tax rates; decreasing tax receipts; and growing debt.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 03:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Do you want to argue that unions are obsolete?? I certainly dont think so, as the holders of capital always will push to exploit labor. I also think that the degenerating income position for families, the decimation of the middle class, the increasing wealth stratification, and the failure to regulate low skill easily exploitable illegal immigration all point to workers NOT having the power that union membership once promised and once delivered. Globalization has altered the labor supply and demand curve to make workers demands for a fair share of equity in the society wealth mute. Government is perhaps the one and only industry where the labor can not be exported, but it is paid for mostly by citizens who have had their needed labor exported and thus can no longer pay the bills. This also insures that government labor union members will not get a lot of sympathy as they get their shafting.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 03:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
You have posed the problem in a way that precludes any solution. Is that your intent? Perhaps the real problem is a bit different from your description.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 03:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
You're doing it again; your making assumptions that I never even suggested.
You're always looking for arguments by changing what was originally implied.

Why don't you go and chase somebody else; you're a ******* bore.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:01 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Is that your intent?
to describe the nature of the problem. THere is a solution, it is to empower free will and to allow individuals to control their domains. I argue else where that we need to depower government and return power to the citizens, when I argue that we need to reestablish borders and allow those with-in those borders to control what goes on inside those borders I am likewise arguing for returning power to the citizens. It is the same idea on different scales..I am in charge of me...my family is in charge of of our family...my city is in charge of my city, America is in charge of America.

The real problem is that because we were scared (in many cases manipulated with fear) we threw in with the corporate class when they pushed to eliminate borders and governments control of wealth, because we had this dream that we would all be one happy family and there would be no more conflict...we would finally have peace. But this is not so, what we got was even more paranoia and fear as we saw that we were losing control over our lives, and as we watch the thugs steal increasing amounts of the wealth with us powerless to stop them because we hand handed over the power we once had. The government made it all worse when having given up working for the citizens and instead becoming an agent of the corporate class and this given up regulating power and wealth it moved on to finding new work, for instance regulating what we eat, how we have sex, and what we think. We can't even believe what we want to believe any more, nor say what we want to say, nor make our lives what we want our lives to be, because we gave away our sovereignty in the search for peace, which we never got. Enough with that, it was a bad idea.

This fight over government unions is a lot of deck chair rearranging, and we know how it will end up because one side has most of the power and the other has little, because one side has the money and the other side is trying to continue to get paid at the old rate. Union members can appeal to the citizens for protection but the citizens are broke and have already gotten the shaft, there will be little sympathy forthcoming...
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:09 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Of course all of this gives a new meaning to the "collective bargaining rights" mantra endlessly reported by union hacks. There are no such rights.


Wow - you really believe this? I think that if you examined the underpinning of collective bargaining - the right of citizens to self-assemble - you'd reconsider your position, as it is a natural and inevitable extension of that right.

You know who disagreed completely with your position? Ronald Reagan. He famously referred to Unionism and the right to belong to a trade union as "one of Humanity's most elemental rights."

Your screeds on this matter represent the most one-sided accounts of Unionism possible. I don't think we could have better avatar of the Management Position possible here at A2K.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You're doing it again; your making assumptions that I never even suggested.
You clearly said that the law already demands much of what unions are trying to promote, the inference is that unions are obsolete.....I made no assumptions. Following the chain of your reasoning is not chasing you either. It looks to me that you dont like the implications of your own argument, it which case dont shoot the messenger.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
Very confuesd and confusing. Are you advocating the restoration of "government control of wealth"? as in
Quote:
... we threw in with the corporate class when they pushed to eliminate borders and governments control of wealth, ...[/quote ]

This doesn't at appear to be at all compatable with
Quote:
THere is a solution, it is to empower free will and to allow individuals to control their domains. I argue else where that we need to depower government and return power to the citizens...


I infer you want more tariffs and legal restraints on the flow of capital - all to limit the outsourcing of work to cheaper climes. I suggest you study the history and real consequences of past attempts by governments to deal with external competition by such methods. The results weren't what was intended - disaster was the usual result.

I believe you need to think and study a bit more.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:27 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Very confuesd and confusing. Are you advocating the restoration of "government control of wealth"? as in


The government now is controlling wealth now so there is hardly a need to restoration the problem is that the control now is being used to take wealth away from the middle class with government help and move it to the upper class.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:30 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

The government now is controlling wealth now so there is hardly a need to restoration the problem is that the control now being used to take wealth away from the middle class with government help and move it to the upper class.

Your thought processes are as flawed as your grammar.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 03:59:28