@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:When even the sycophant Republican pollster is showing you sinking, things are not good!
You are quite ignorant, so I here take the time to point out that the best way to keep the job approval ratings high during the first years in office are to say nice words and do nothing. Ya, these polls mean something, but not anywhere nearly what you surely thing that they do.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:When even the sycophant Republican pollster is showing you sinking, things are not good!
You are quite ignorant, so I here take the time to point out that the best way to keep the job approval ratings high during the first years in office are to say nice words and do nothing. Ya, these polls mean something, but not anywhere nearly what you surely thing that they do.
What point are you trying to make here? Because, I really can't figure it out from what you've written.
You made the same mistake that Walker, Hawk. You went all-in on this issue earlier in the thread, with bold pronouncements that 'America supports your position' and that the Dems would quickly lose. Turns out you are wrong on both counts, and now are left with nothing much more to do than sort of mutter and complain.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:You went all-in on this issue earlier in the thread, with bold pronouncements that 'America supports your position' and that the Dems would quickly lose. Turns out you are wrong on both counts, and now are left with nothing much more to do than sort of mutter and complain.
I am a self described radical leftist and union man who said that Walker very well might be able to pull off this power play. The reason being is that unions are very difficult to defend now. However,the point of my last post is that job approval rating s of 40% dont mean much right now, they could as easily be used to argue that Walkers is doing something right as that Walker is doing something wrong...and I am very sure that you have not lived enough to understand this.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:You went all-in on this issue earlier in the thread, with bold pronouncements that 'America supports your position' and that the Dems would quickly lose. Turns out you are wrong on both counts, and now are left with nothing much more to do than sort of mutter and complain.
I am a self described radical leftist and union man who said that Walker very well might be able to pull off this power play. The reason being is that unions are very difficult to defend now. However,the point of my last post is that job approval rating s of 40% dont mean much right now, they could as easily be used to argue that Walkers is doing something right as that Walker is doing something wrong...and I am very sure that you have not lived enough to understand this.
Lol, so you say that you can argue your point no matter WHAT any polling says.
I've certainly lived long enough to understand what's going on
here, Hawk.
Cycloptichorn
Are Wisconsin Republicans preparing to break with Walker?
By Greg Sargent
I don't know if these reports are true or not, and we should treat them with caution. But we now have two news outlets, one local and one national, claiming GOP defections from Governor Scott Walker may be in the works. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Conservatives in Wisconsin are getting nervous that three Republican state senators may defect on the collective-bargaining reform vote. It's still anyone's guess as to when that vote will take place because Democrats remain in exile to prevent the necessary quorum. But Republicans in the Senate hold a 19-14 majority, so GOP Gov. Scott Walker can afford to lose no more than two Republican senators on this pivotal vote.
On Wednesday, Republicans held a "unity" press conference that was attended by all but one senator, Dale Schultz. But a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showing that 62% of respondents oppose curtailing collective-bargaining rights for public-sector workers over health care, pensions or other benefits suggests that the GOP position may be losing some support among independent voters.
Separately, WEAU, an NBC affiliate in Wisconsin, reports that "four moderate Republicans are wavering and could break with the GOP and vote against Walker's budget repair bill."
I haven't been able to confirm either of these yet. But there are two points worth making. The first is that the drumbeat of polls showing strong opposition to Walker's rollback of bargaining rights may be starting to shift the landscape. The Journal report hints that Repubicans are growing nervous about opposition to Walker's proposals among independents. The key here is that public opinion on this standoff has caught a lot of people off guard.
Also: If the reports above are true, that could bear out the notion, articulated to me earlier today by a spokesman for the Wisconsin Democratic Party, that Republicans are well aware that Walker's impending layoffs could damage them more than Dems. Walker told the fake Koch on the prank call that he woud be ratcheting up the layoff threat to pressure missing Dems into returning. But Dems are refusing to budge despite the fact that the layoff threat is now very real. And there are indications that the layoffs could exacerbate the current public opinion dynamic, rather than turn it around. That may well be spooking Republicans who continue to stand by Walker.
UPDATE, 4:41 p.m.: I should have added that the drive to recall GOP senators has also picked up in the last few days. So you have pressure on numerous fronts.
2011
03
04
16
20
By Greg Sargent | March 4, 2011; 4:20 PM ET
Categories: Labor
Save & Share:
Previous: Mike Huckabee backtracks on Natalie Portman criticism, but it's too late
Next: Happy Hour Roundup
@BillRM,
Quote:I don't know if these reports are true or not, and we should treat them with caution. But we now have two news outlets, one local and one national, claiming GOP defections from Governor Scott Walker may be in the works.
an assertion that is contradicted by the Dems themselves...
Quote:"It looks like the only way we can kill this bill is to never come back," said state Sen. Robert Jauch, who is among the 14 Democratic lawmakers who decamped to Illinois to prevent a Senate quorum to vote on Walker's bill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030405713.html?hpid=topnews
The claim that the GOP will break is exactly the same as the claims that the Dems will break...it is all PR backed primarily with wishful thinking.
@hawkeye10,
He's so radically left that he always argues with the right.
Two male students came to school today wearing brand new t-shirts that identified them as union members. Different unions.
This is the beginning of a NR article. Sorry, I couldn't open the rest:
Last December, I asked a prominent K Street Republican what he thought his party’s top priority would be following its successes in the midterm elections. He didn’t mince words. “Public employee unions are going to get hosed, and they deserve to get hosed,” he told me. So, I wasn’t exactly surprised when Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio put the public unions in their states on a hit list. Not merely by trying to cut their wages and benefits, which several Democratic governors are also trying to do, but by trying to snuff out their very existence.
The governors themselves insist that, in depriving the unions of the right to bargain for their members, they will make it easier to balance state budgets. Never mind that the unions themselves have agreed to a pay and benefit cut, and that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker accompanied his bid to abolish collective bargaining with state business tax cuts of about $120 million. Of course, it’s possible that the governors believe that, in the future, they will be in a better position to reduce costs if they don’t have to bargain with unions. Still, it’s more likely that they’ve been motivated by an additional consideration.
@hawkeye10,
The way I see it, the democrats have nothing to lose by staying away which will cause walker to force them back and then a vote which has turned very unpopular will be forced through by republicans. This will play well in the 2012 elections. Only certain republicans are against union’s altogether. People might be against some of the aspects of it but not the right to have unions and bargaining right altogether.
Quote:Over the past few weeks, right-wing legislators have unleashed a torrent of radical legislation upon the American electorate designed to gut collective bargaining rights and attack the middle class. As these conservatives have launched their assault, a Main Street Movement consisting of ordinary Americans fed up with living in such an unequal country has fought back.
Conservatives have sought to malign this movement by claiming that it is simply defending the parochial interests of labor unions, who they claim are imposing huge costs on taxpayers with little benefit. Yet the truth is that America’s public and private unions have been one of the major forces in building a robust and vibrant middle class and have fought over the past century to improve the lives of all Americans in a variety of ways. ThinkProgress has assembled just five of the many things that Americans can thank the nation’s unions for giving us all:
1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.
2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: As ThinkProgress reported earlier in the week, the relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.
3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.
4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”
5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”
source
@revelette,
Quote:The way I see it, the democrats have nothing to lose by staying away which will cause walker to force them back and then a vote which has turned very unpopular will be forced through by republicans.
Politicians that can't work together to advance the best interests of the people will suffer disrepute, both sides. Look at Congress with its less than 20% approval rating, at how few any more expect good ideas to come out of Washington, and how we cashier Washington pro's at election time frantically looking for competence.
Both sides have an interest in getting past this, even as they know that what ever happens will piss off a significant number of citizens.
@plainoldme,
There is no "right" in our Constitution, or that of Wisconsin, for designated private corporations (labor unions) to have exclusive, monopolistic control of bargaining with state and local governments for the pay and benefits of enployees. That is a privilege conferred on them by the state to exercise only to the degree and in the manner that the state specifies. The individual employees have the rights here, and they can exercise them by refusing the work if they don't like the compensation. They can also engage in political action, as they indeed have done, to influence the public and the state legislators to accept their demands. The public and their elected representatives can, in turn, either accept or reject the demands of the workers.
@georgeob1,
And it also works in the reverse; the electorate can have a recall or not reelect them in subsequent elections. I would think that the voters are more powerful than their elected officials.
@cicerone imposter,
Of course. However what public employee unions call their "right to collective bargaining" is in fact a state sanctioned (and removable) authorization to forcibly collect dues (generally about 1.5% of total salary) from the employees without their consent, as a precondition of employment, and the equally monopolistic entitlement to represent them in contract negotiations. In addition for many of the Wisconsin public employees, the union also has a state sanctioned exclusive right to operate the health insurance scheme paid for by the state, without any competitive bidding among other insurers. It's a very sweet deal for the union.
@georgeob1,
If any state takes away the rights to unions, I'm pretty sure many conservatives will also be angry, and will make every effort to repeal any law that takes away unions.
@cicerone imposter,
I do hope that you are right but my studies of the conservative religion {ideology} seems to show that there will not be many that share your point of view but there could be a few and I wonder if some of these few are looking out for their best interest in 2012
@reasoning logic,
You are correct. Latest polls show you are spot on!
@cicerone imposter,
Like I said I do hope you are right and maybe I am wrong but were not the polls close like within 10%? I would think that is the difference of those who are interested in being reelected in 2012!
I do realize that I could be wrong as I have not been fallowing closely but I do think that we have a serious problem with a conservative religious ideology that is promoting and paid for by the conservative right.
@cicerone imposter,
I don't think that anyone is talking about "taking away (employee's) rights (to form) unions" Even the 22 syates with right to work laws that probibit union contracts that make membership in the union a precondition for employment, allow unions to be created and negotiate for the workers under lawful conditions. I believe the issue in Wisconsin has only to do only with the rules governing unions representing state employees. Even Federal law doesn't allow unions to negotiate pay and benefits for Federal workers - these are deemed to be core functions of government that are not negotiable with anyone. It appears that is the position the Wisconsin governor and the majority of the state legislature are taking too.
@georgeob1,
On the flip-side of federal employees, they all fall under minimum wage laws, and they must also compete for the best and brightest like everybody else if they want a skilled labor force. I also believe the feds only allows contracts that meets prevailing union wages and benefits.