sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 11:45 am
@maxdancona,
Wow.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 11:47 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Hardly a different scenario than what occurred when the HCB passed in the Federal Congress. That one was 2,000+ pages and no one read it.


Bullshit - the Senate debated it in committee for MONTHS. This is just a ridiculous thing to say.

Quote:
You (and the guy in WI) are whining about the same stuff you did on a much larger scale. Hypocrisy makes you look foolish.


It was your side whining back then, remember? Guess that has been revealed as nothing more than a meaningless ploy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 11:49 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:


They were opposed to both the single payer and mandated insurance schemes as matters of principle.


Once again, bullshit! The mandate is a Republican idea that was pushed by Heritage and CATO back in the 90's. Senators on the Republican side pushed it as an idea to solve the problem - before the Dems got started on the idea. They it became 'tyranny' overnight.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 11:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
My point stands, unaffected by your sniping. I'll readily agree that the reasonable expectation is that at some point the state workers will vote out the union, and that undoubtedly is a part of the Republican plan. This is a process we call democracy, and it involves the periodic assent of the people (unionized public sector workers in this case) who are to be "represented" in labor relations and who are forced to contribute a portion of their pay to them. We require legislators to "recertify" their selection by the voters they represent. Why should union "representatives' be any different?

In exactly the same way the Democrats want to continue the forced unionization IMPOSED on the workers by an earlier state government, WITHOUT EVER CONDUCTING ANY VOTE by the workers themselves.

Anyway, it remains amusing to note the union bosses signals that they will yield on the benefic cost sharing issues (that affect the workers) if the government will only "negotiate" the legislation to remove the part that affects their sorry asses. It all sounds a bit like the blustering retreat rhetoric of Gadaffi's sons in Lybia.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 11:54 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

My point stands, unaffected by your sniping. I'll readily agree that the reasonable expectation is that at some point the state workers will vote out the union, and that undoubtedly is a part of the Republican plan. This is a process we call democracy, and it involves the periodic assent of the people (unionized public sector workers in this case) who are to be "represented" in labor relations and who are forced to contribute a portion of their pay to them. We require legislators to "recertify" their selection by the voters they represent. Why should union "representatives' be any different?


We certainly don't require elections every single year. And our elections don't remove the entire structure of the system with a failed vote. Your analogy is terrible.

I have an idea - let's turn your workplace into a similar situation! If the body of workers doesn't affirmatively vote to keep you in place every year, you'll be out on your ass. Sound like a situation you support?

Quote:
In exactly the same way the Democrats want to continue the forced unionization IMPOSED on the workers by an earlier state government, WITHOUT EVER CONDUCTING ANY VOTE by the workers themselves.


Perfectly in compliance with the law, and the workers have had opportunities to de-certify since then and chose not to.

Quote:
Anyway, it remains amusing to note the union bosses signals that they will yield on the benefic cost sharing issues (that affect the workers) if the government will only "negotiate" the legislation to remove the part that affects their sorry asses. It all sounds a bit like the blustering retreat rhetoric of Gadaffi's sons in Lybia.


I do detect some bluster here, George. But it's emanating from those who simply ignore details and make up rhetoric as they go along.

At least we've gotten to the heart of the matter, and you've admitted the truth: that this is about killing the union. It's not about money or a defict or anything else. It's an assault on unions, and you support that, because you detest unions and have a poor opinion of those who support them.

I repeat my earlier prediction in this thread: this whole thing is going to work out a whole lot worse for Walker then he or you bunch seem to think.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:06 pm
Quote:
Too Little, Too Late? Moderate GOP Floats Plan To Break WI Impasse

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) may be drawing a hard line on collective bargaining with thousands of his state's union workers, but there are signs that some state Republicans are willing to bend as the governing crisis deepens and accede to the Democrats' demand that unions be allowed to negotiate benefits for their workers.

What's not clear is if the Republican opposition to Walker's anti-collective bargaining stance is enough to bring the state Senate Democrats back and get the legislature back on track.

The Wall Street Journal reports that one moderate Republican, state Sen. Dale Schultz, has proposed changing the budget proposal supported by Walker slightly but fundamentally: instead of losing their collective bargaining rights in perpetuity, as the governor wants, they would only lose the right to negotiate for benefits through 2013.

Schultz' chief of staff sounded positively Democratic when discussing the proposal with the Journal.

"Dale is committed to find a way to preserve collective bargaining in the future," he told the paper.

But Democrats told the Journal that proposal is not enough to get them back to Madison from their hideouts in Illinois and places unknown.

"The collective bargaining language has to be removed altogether. Collective bargaining isn't a fiscal issue," state Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D) told the paper. "If it's OK to collectively bargain in 2013 why isn't it OK today?"

Though the Schultz plan may not be enough to get the job done, it's perhaps a sign that Walker's grip on his Republican colleagues in the Senate may be weaker than imagined. That could mean Democrats and moderate Republicans could work out a deal that gets the budget passed and meets the demands of the tens of thousands of workers camped out inside and outside the state capitol.


Polling over the weekend has shown that the majority of citizens are against Walker's plan. This will start to take its' toll on the elected Republicans and it will be interesting to see if cracks in the coalition show up.

I do like that less and less people are pretending that this has anything to do with money at all.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Polling over the weekend has shown that the majority of citizens are against Walker's plan
Have you got a poll name or a link??
plainoldme
 
  4  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:25 pm
My brother, a SPED teacher, asked me to spread this around:

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina -50th
North Carolina -49th
Georgia -48th
Texas -47th
Virginia -44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with it's collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country. Let's keep it that way.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
The only state wide polling that I have found is one from a "we ask America" which is not a reputable or even largely known firm.

http://weaskamerica.com/2011/02/18/weirdness-in-wisconsin/

but which includes this interesting line



Quote:
Earlier polling showed a large margin of support for Gov. Walker’s initiative, but the national reaction since then has been truly remarkable.


It would not surprise me if there are national polls that indicate that America is in favor of busting the municipal unions and thus running government cheaper, but I have not seen them.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have an idea - let's turn your workplace into a similar situation! If the body of workers doesn't affirmatively vote to keep you in place every year, you'll be out on your ass. Sound like a situation you support?
Sounds very familiar. We have a Board of Directors each representing various owner groups; management owners, outside investors, and the representative of our ESOP trust (employee stock ownership plan) which includes all employees. We have quarterly meetings (which take the better part of two days), and which ehaustively examine all aspects of current operations as well as plans for the next few years - with particular emphasis on our long-term financial stability. Our finances and compensation structures are very transparent, and we go to great lengths to relate our decisions ands current performance to their expected effect on our stock price - important since every employee owns stock and every manager has made additional investments from his/her own funds. The CEO and all top management serve at the pleasure of the Board and can be replaced at any time - there have been several instances of such actions in the past few years.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
In exactly the same way the Democrats want to continue the forced unionization IMPOSED on the workers by an earlier state government, WITHOUT EVER CONDUCTING ANY VOTE by the workers themselves.


Perfectly in compliance with the law, and the workers have had opportunities to de-certify since then and chose not to.
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with a description of exactly what were those "opportunities to de certify " on the part of state, county and municipal workers in Wisconsin?

I'll agree the unionization of sdtate employees in Wisconsin was indeed done in accordance with the law. However, the legal process involved was not the one mandated for the unionization of workers in the private sector. It was imposed by the state agencies.

If your argument is the state employees love their unions and believe they are getting good service for the money they are forced to pay, then why would you be concerned about recertification?
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:53 pm
@plainoldme,
amazing stats pom
but then again, down here in Dixie it's never been about
giving 'em a good education.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:58 pm
@panzade,
That Texas was on the list surprised me. The University of Texas at Austin is among the best state supported schools in the country.
BillRM
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 12:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
This will start to take its' toll on the elected Republicans and it will be interesting to see if cracks in the coalition show up.


There already is a gear up recall campaigns aim at enough GOP senators to change the balance of power in the state.

That going to hurt real bad if they get kick out of power before they get to redraw the districts base on the 2010 census.

Footnote Democrats tend not to vote in the same numbers as the fire up tea parties in an off year election but thank to this attack on the unions I have the feeling that any democrat that can even crawl to the poles over broken glass will do so not only for any recall elections but for the 2012 election.

Those states that ended up going for the GOP in the last election are likely going to bounce back with the force of a bungee jumping cord.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 01:00 pm
@BillRM,
Pretty visual description of things to come. May be spec, but I enjoyed it.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 01:20 pm
@plainoldme,
Texas is about to sink lower, education-wise, as they are preparing to slash the budget for education big time. This as people from other states come here in large numbers, needing to be added to the rolls.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 01:22 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgar, What's going to happen to the UofT? Our son works for them in Austin.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 01:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Don't know, specifically. Will look around.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 01:59 pm
Questions are starting to pop up in the media regarding various other unsavory portions of the bill as well.

Quote:
The lion's share of attention regarding Scott Walker's legislative proposal has been paid to the effort to revoke Wisconsin public employees' collective bargaining rights, but the 144-page bill (more reliable link here) is a far more exhaustive and inclusive list of the fundamentals of Republican politics in the 21st Century. Not many people have the time to plow through the whole bill but those who do will be rewarded with plenty of gems like this:

Quote:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).


If this isn't the best summary of the goals of modern conservatism, I don't know what is. It's like a highlight reel of all of the tomahawk dunks of neo-Gilded Age corporatism: privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism. Extra bonus points for the explicit effort to legally redefine the term "public interest" as "whatever the energy industry lobbyists we appoint to these unelected bureaucratic positions say it is."


http://www.ginandtacos.com/

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 02:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Do you find it unusual or dangerous for a state to decide to privatize (i.e. sell or contract out the operation of) electrical power genberating plants it owns?

A better question might be why the state is in the power generation business at all.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 02:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Sound like what they did to CA with the electric power in ripping off tens of billions from the citizens of that state all in the name of a "free market"
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 09:09:22