Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 10:36 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Exactly....The people have already turned against government unions, not only do we want government smaller, IE a lot of these folks not on the property at all, but they are greedy sons of bitches as well...It is the same dynamic that killed manufacturing unions, years upon years of bloat and greed, which the public rightly decided was not in our best interests.


I love the magic act here point to the evil welfare queens and the evil public workers and as the people are looking in that direction loot the public out of hundred of billions as in the Enron case or in the home mortgages bubble.


Absolutely correct. It wasn't unions or their pensions which caused the latest financial crisis, it wasn't unions who passed tax cuts for the rich - and everyone else - that added trillions to the debt while starving the government of revenues it needed just to break even. It was politicians, mostly Republicans, who refuse to consider any tax or any regulation to be valid.

And yet we are to believe that Americans are 'sick of unions and taxes.' Why not sick of unlimited greed for corporations? Not sick of taxing Hedge Fund managers at only 15% on the billions of dollars they earn? Not sick of Wall Street gambling away hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth - and walking away with a huge payout?

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 10:56 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Overall a less-than-convincing refutation of the central findings of the survey in question. Certainly not enough to suggest that Governor Walker of Wisconsin has lost the confidence of the majority of the voters who elected him, particularly considering that his recent actions and those of the Wisconsin legislature were entirely in keeping with the issues they campaigned on.

Cyclo appears to have two operating modes ; (1) to condemn posters for failing to offer "proof" of insights and forecasts they make (even those not amenable to such proof); and (2) to find fault with the proofs they occasionally offer.

All while offering NO information or proof to support his counter arguments.

I do not know how the political struggle - over the corrupt political nexus between public employee unions and the Democrats who use their political power to unionize public agencies by administrative fiat and later reward those unions & employees with unsustainable pay and pension benefits - will turn out. State and local governments throughout the country are facing serious financial crises based on the accumulated effects of this process and unrelated unfunded Federal mandates. The issues are coming to the fore in Wisconsin. New Jersey, Ohio and others, and others are still developing. Both sides on the political divide are doing what they can to advance their views.

The Republicans in Wisconsin have not backed down, and it seems clear the Democrat legislators in Wisconsin can't hide out forever. Over a year ago we saw a similar fiasco in Texas as Democrat legislatorrs fled that state to block legislative action on post census redistricting - a lot of sound & fury & public posturing, but the legislators eventually returned and the redistrictind was enacted as originally planned. I believe that will also be the result in Wisconsin, and I believe Cyclo understands that too.

The Democrats of course respond that these things did not cause the financial crises still developing. The real problem is that the Federal and State governments have not taxed their citizens enough. Presumably they advocate both steep tax increases by State & county governments as well as restoration of previous tax rates by the Feds. Good luck with that one !

Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 11:06 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Overall a less-than-convincing refutation of the central findings of the survey in question. Certainly not enough to suggest that Governor Walker of Wisconsin has lost the confidence of the majority of the voters who elected him, particularly considering that his recent actions and those of the Wisconsin legislature were entirely in keeping with the issues they campaigned on.

Cyclo appears to have two operating modes ; (1) to condemn posters for failing to offer "proof" of insights and forecasts they make (even those not amenable to such proof); and (2) to find fault with the proofs they occasionally offer.

All while offering NO information or proof to support his counter arguments.


This is a risible lie. ONE out of the two of us has offered any evidence to support their position, and that's me. You have offered and plan on offering none at all. Isn't that correct?

You've also slyly substituted the word 'proof' for 'evidence.' There's a big difference. I ask for you to provide evidence, not prove that your positions are true. I ask what factors lead you to believe what you do, not to prove that your positions are the end-all correct ones. You are exaggerating here for effect, but as you can see - it's failing.

Re: the biased Ras poll, Nate Silver is probably the most respected poll analyst in the country. On both sides of the fence. Your waving away of his conclusions is not compelling in the slightest. Not only that, but I've posted two other polls which directly contradict what you claim here - they both show that the public of WI does NOT support this plan.

Not only that, but Parados ably proved that you were perfectly incorrect regarding donations to the GOP from the oil and gas industry. No response from you.

Quote:
I do not know how the political struggle - over the corrupt political nexus between public employee unions and the Democrats who use their political power to unionize public agencies by administrative fiat and later reward those unions & employees with unsustainable pay and pension benefits - will turn out. State and local governments throughout the country are facing serious financial crises based on the accumulated effects of this process and unrelated unfunded Federal mandates. The issues are coming to the fore in Wisconsin. New Jersey, Ohio and others, and others are still developing. Both sides on the political divide are doing what they can to advance their views.


Yup. I predict that they will reach a compromise.

Quote:
The Republicans in Wisconsin have not backed down, and it seems clear the Democrat legislators in Wisconsin can't hide out forever. Over a year ago we saw a similar fiasco in Texas as Democrat legislatorrs fled that state to block legislative action on post census redistricting - a lot of sound & fury & public posturing, but the legislators eventually returned and the redistrictind was enacted as originally planned. I believe that will also be the result in Wisconsin, and I believe Cyclo understands that too.


Dude, you're correct that it was 'over a year ago,' but only slightly; it was over eight years ago. Little details....

I think the result in WI, as far as I can tell, will be:

1, a cut in pension and pay for the union in question, and

2, an uprising of Democrats in the state and a highly-motivated base next cycle.

Cycloptichorn

ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 11:06 am
@parados,
that's a useful perspective to get

thanks parados

parados wrote:

Quote:
Do you believe the political contributions of the Utility industry to Republicans is even within an order of magnitude of that of the AFSCME, the AFT, NEA and other public employee unions to the Democrats?

You are comparing gnats and elephants.

Only if you are calling the unions the gnats.

Unions to Democrats
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/19/unions-fuel-democratic-party-financially/
roughly 24 million

Electric utilities to GOP
Roughly 12 million
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01++&goButt2.x=5&goButt2.y=6

Oil and Gas
Also about 12 million.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01++&goButt2.x=0&goButt2.y=8

And that doesn't include the 180 million Electric utilities spent on lobbying while Oil and Gas spent 140 million.

So,.. Unions donated 24 million
Electric and Gas donated about 24 million
almost equal...

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/incdec.php?var1=2010q1&var2=2010q2
In the second quarter of 2010, unions spent 11 million lobbying and electric utilities spent 50 million..
I guess that makes it a factor of 5 for the utilities.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 11:14 am
@georgeob1,
I should also point out that you've made an error here:

Quote:
Overall a less-than-convincing refutation of the central findings of the survey in question. Certainly not enough to suggest that Governor Walker of Wisconsin has lost the confidence of the majority of the voters who elected him, particularly considering that his recent actions and those of the Wisconsin legislature were entirely in keeping with the issues they campaigned on.


I think this can be said to be verifiably untrue. Walker did NOT campaign on 'getting rid of the unions,' which is what this is all about. Instead, he decided to do this - and started talking about it for the first time - AFTER his election and he took office.

Note that the respondent here is no fan of unions and certainly no partisan against Walker:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/what-did-walker-campaign-on.html

Quote:

What Did Walker Campaign On?


22 Feb 2011 09:59 am

Last night, I heard on Fox News from Stephen Hayes that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker had run on a platform to end collective bargaining rights for public sector unions. I can find no evidence of this in the public record. It isn't on his campaign platform where he deals with "government spending and reform". It's clear that he vowed to slash pay and benefits for public sector unions. Here's an obviously liberal-leaning report that says
Quote:


Republican gubernatorial front-runner Scott Walker is vowing to cut state employee wages and benefits to help reduce state taxes on the wealthy.


But not end their collective bargaining rights on everything but wages. There's no reference to any such bid in the final gubernatorial debate. Here's another substantive piece on Walker's positions on public sector unions from before the election. Again no mention of collective bargaining. The same can be said about his State of the State address on February 1.

Why does this matter?

Because it seems to me that Walker has a case that democracy means he gets to fulfill his campaign promises. And it also seems to me that the public sector unions should concede much of what Walker is asking for in contributions to their pensions, healthcare etc. And here's why:
Quote:


Between 1958 and 1974, public teacher pay increased an average of 6 percent a year. After a bitter 1974 teachers’ strike in the small town of Hortonville that galvanized public unions, teacher pay increased an average of 7 percent annually for the next 16 years. It was also during this time that the state and local governments began paying the full amount of public employees’ pension benefits.

That very generous deal was doubtless helped by a very cosy relationship with the Democratic party which is in turn is largely financed by unions, often public sector ones. Hence the inherent tendency for such unions to over-influence their own compensation through the political process. There is an argument, especially after the Citizens' United ruling, that such special clout is necessary to counter-act the massive clout of business or people such as the Koch brothers. But in Wisconsin, it sure doesn't look to me as if the public sector unions have been struggling for the last few decades.

So I think Walker is absolutely right to target such benefits for cuts, given the outlook for the state budget, and the current strains on those in the private sector (although I think it's nuts simultaneously to reduce revenues at the same time). But I can also see, given the record of the campaign, why this radical new move - raising the stakes far higher - has prompted the response it has. If you campaign on one platform and then suddenly up the ante, you cannot cite democracy in your defense. And there is something bizarre about Republican commentators who cheered on Tea Party protests against a clear Obama campaign pledge - health insurance reform - suddenly decrying public protests against something a politician didn't campaign on.

Maybe I've missed something in the historical record. And if Hayes - or anyone out there - has evidence of a campaign pledge by Walker to end public sector union collective bargaining on benefits, please let me know. But going through this thoroughly, as long as the unions are prepared to make serious concessions on pay and benefits, I think Walker is over the line.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 11:43 am
More evidence that Unionism in States is not correlated with budget deficits:

Quote:
Unions and Budget Deficits

Do high unionization levels lead to state budget deficits, as some claim? John Sides shows that the answer is no:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/unionsanddeficits-thumb-475x345-321.png

Looking at this chart, what I think you would see is that unionization levels have a strong relationship to progressive taxation. New York, Hawaii, and Washington are all high-tax states, especially on rich people, while the non-union south has generally low levels of taxation and regressive tax structures. The conservative movement is financed by rich people whose primary interest in life is lower taxes. And on an intellectual level, the main wellspring of conservative economic policy ideas comes from people who believe that progressive income taxes are very economically damaging. A secondary intellectual inspiration is people like Greg Mankiw who believe that such taxes are an immoral imposition on a genetic elite. A key problem with this agenda is that higher taxes on rich people are a politically popular way to solve budget deficits. The solution is to create a dynamic in which political parties are entirely reliant on rich businessmen for their financing. Reducing labor unions to a state of political impotence will get the job done.


http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/02/unions-and-budget-deficits/

For anyone who is keeping track, this is called 'providing evidence for your positions.' It is the opposite of simply declaiming things to be true.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 11:56 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I've never been against unions; I was a union member myself, and understand the benefits of unions. What I'm against are the ridiculous retirement benefits of some government workers who happen to have unions.

It's not fair or fiscally responsible for governments to give one group of union members retirement benefits they "earn" after 30 years at work that extends way beyond the number of years worked at 85% to 90% of the pre-retirement pay with a lifetime of health insurance. Many of these benefits carry over to their spouse.

What's fair about that? I'd like to see a good argument for giving those people these benefits when the civilian work force must fend for themselves in addition to their social security - that they and their employers pay into. Social security doesn't pay 85% to 90% of their pre-retirement pay, and they must also pay a monthly premium for Medicare, and that's after working more than 30 years.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 12:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
More evidence that Unionism in States is not correlated with budget deficits
Your chart says nothing because no one has claimed that there is a correlation between union membership of state citizens and state deficit. The correlation claimed is between State EMPLOYEE union membership and cost of government operation. BTW, the on Average 36% of the state workforce is unionized.

You might want to work on making credible arguments if you desire to be taken seriously around here.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 12:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
And yet we are to believe that Americans are 'sick of unions and taxes.' Why not sick of unlimited greed for corporations? Not sick of taxing Hedge Fund managers at only 15% on the billions of dollars they earn? Not sick of Wall Street gambling away hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth - and walking away with a huge payout?

Life is not fair, and humans are not fully rational beings. This would be as good of time as any for you to learn this. A good thing for you to concentrate on here is the question of is this a good time for politicians from the right to take on state employee unions? I think that the answer is certainly yes it is. I dont agree with state employee union busting, I dont think it would have the degree of benefits that are claimed, and even if we could solve state budget problems depriving state employees of their right to organize I am not in favor of doing so. However, when the right claims that allowing state workers to unionize has been a 50 year mistake, that JFK should have never done it and that we need to move in the other direction I must admit that they have a pretty good argument.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 12:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a risible lie. ONE out of the two of us has offered any evidence to support their position, and that's me. You have offered and plan on offering none at all. Isn't that correct?

You've also slyly substituted the word 'proof' for 'evidence.' There's a big difference. I ask for you to provide evidence, not prove that your positions are true. I ask what factors lead you to believe what you do, not to prove that your positions are the end-all correct ones. You are exaggerating here for effect, but as you can see - it's failing.
Careful with your accusations of lies: they are offensive and make you look like a bombastic fool. You have, in your many past complaints, used both terms, "proof" and "evidence". It looks like you apply "proof" to others and "evidence" to yourself. In any event, I have offered ample evidence of the ongoing debate in Wisconsin: indeed it is all around us.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Re: the biased Ras poll, Nate Silver is probably the most respected poll analyst in the country. On both sides of the fence. Your waving away of his conclusions is not compelling in the slightest. Not only that, but I've posted two other polls which directly contradict what you claim here - they both show that the public of WI does NOT support this plan.
Oh ! The argument from authority. Rasmussen is surely wrong and your guy right. In the end we shall both see what unfolds in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Not only that, but Parados ably proved that you were perfectly incorrect regarding donations to the GOP from the oil and gas industry. No response from you.
Parados fudged the data. Oil & gas producers & distributors don't buy state powerplants. That compulsive nit picker's offerings are only rarely worthy of comment.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think the result in WI, as far as I can tell, will be:

1, a cut in pension and pay for the union in question, and

2, an uprising of Democrats in the state and a highly-motivated base next cycle.

Cycloptichorn
The union has already agreed to (more acccurately) the increases in employee contributions to pensions and health care. The remaining issues are the reduction in bargaining authority at all levels of state government and the recertifications of union status. Neither the Governor nor the legislature have indicated any wavering in their intent with regard to the pending legislation, and there is every indication they will prevail. This of course will embolden similsr forces in other sorely stressed states and add to the current momentum.

In effect you are feebly forecasting that Democrats will prevail in the next election - without offering any evidence to support that prediction.

I'll readily agree that elements of the Democrat base are energised - the evidence of that is amply visible. The question is more likely to turn on the attitudes of independent voters. They drove the last election. In that regard it is more than a little interesting that all this has arisen in Wisconsin - the home state of Robert LaFollette and the birth of the American progressive movement.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 12:54 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
This of course will embolden similsr forces in other sorely stressed states and add to the current momentum.

Two states are already writting bills with the intent to follow Wisconsin. I don't remember which ones, but I think Illinois was one.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 01:20 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Careful with your accusations of lies: they are offensive and make you look like a bombastic fool.


You stated that I provided no evidence at all for my position. That's clearly untrue, and you know it; therefore you are either confused or lying. Which is it?

Quote:
Oh ! The argument from authority. Rasmussen is surely wrong and your guy right. In the end we shall both see what unfolds in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states.


2 points here -

1, Nate Silver is a better authority on whether or not polls are accurate than either you or I. I read his reasoning and find it to be a compelling argument. Did you?

2, Ras' poll was a national one, using 'likely voters.' He can make his 'likely voter' look like whatever he wants in order to manipulate the results, because the details of what makes a 'likely voter' are not public. This is how Rasmussen drives opinions on the right-wing: by carefully creating biased polls and massaging the data even further to support opinions which bear little resemblance to ALL OTHER polling on matters.

Both polls taken IN WI since the events began to unfold show that the public does NOT support Walker's plan. So I would say that the body of evidence would show that the public doesn't support the plan.

Quote:
Parados fudged the data. Oil & gas producers & distributors don't buy state powerplants. That compulsive nit picker's offerings are only rarely worthy of comment.


Laughing But, that's not the claim you made. At all. He hooked your use of inaccurate terminology and reeled you right in. You should be more precise in what you say if you don't want to be caught out in inaccuracies.

Quote:

In effect you are feebly forecasting that Democrats will prevail in the next election - without offering any evidence to support that prediction.


I didn't predict that they would prevail. Please address the words I actually write, not the ones you invent.

Quote:
I'll readily agree that elements of the Democrat base are energised - the evidence of that is amply visible. The question is more likely to turn on the attitudes of independent voters. They drove the last election. In that regard it is more than a little interesting that all this has arisen in Wisconsin - the home state of Robert LaFollette and the birth of the American progressive movement.


Both polls of the state of WI so far show that independent voters are against the current plan. So, not sure how that fits into your projections.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 01:55 pm
Walker is now trying to directly threaten the Unions and workers into shutting up and accepting his power grab:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_551d34c2-3e8f-11e0-8f91-001cc4c03286.html

Quote:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker warns that state employees could start receiving layoff notices as early as next week if a bill eliminating collective bargaining rights isn't passed soon.

Walker said Tuesday in a statement to The Associated Press that the layoffs wouldn't take effect immediately. He didn't say which workers would be targeted.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/028123.php

Quote:
There can be no doubt as to the punitive nature of the policy here. Walker doesn't need to start laying off state employees, and the bill to gut collective bargaining rights has nothing to do with these workers' employment status.

This, in other words, is a thuggish threat -- give Walker the union-busting bill he wants, or he'll start making unemployment worse on purpose.

As far as the governor is concerned, the two are related, since the pending state legislation include benefit and wage "reforms," too. But Walker has a choice -- the unions would agree to his demands on compensation and benefits, if only he'd let them keep the collective bargaining rights state employees earned generations ago. That is, incidentally, an agreement that Wisconsin voters broadly endorse, and it could be approved quickly, making layoffs unnecessary and ending the protests.

But not only has Walker deemed this insufficient, he's now prepared to start handing out pink slips next week, just because he can.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 02:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Parados fudged the data. Oil & gas producers & distributors don't buy state powerplants. That compulsive nit picker's offerings are only rarely worthy of comment.


Laughing But, that's not the claim you made. At all. He hooked your use of inaccurate terminology and reeled you right in. You should be more precise in what you say if you don't want to be caught out in inaccuracies.
Nonsense. I was perfectly clear. That's what makes dialogue with Parados both unenlightening and ininteresting - I usually ignore him. I have operated on the assumption that your standards were better than his. Am I wrong? If so I'll adapt.

Cycloptichorn wrote:


In effect you are feebly forecasting that Democrats will prevail in the next election - without offering any evidence to support that prediction.


I didn't predict that they would prevail. Please address the words I actually write, not the ones you invent.
...
Both polls of the state of WI so far show that independent voters are against the current plan. So, not sure how that fits into your projections.

Cycloptichorn
[/quote]

These two statements appear to be contradictory. What do you mean?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 02:17 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
These two statements appear to be contradictory. What do you mean?


You wrote:

Quote:
In effect you are feebly forecasting that Democrats will prevail in the next election - without offering any evidence to support that prediction.


I'm not predicting that the Dems will prevail in the next election, but I can see both that the base is getting stirred up and that polling is showing that independent voters in WI aren't happy with Walker's plan at the moment. That doesn't bode too well for re-election chances.

It's a side-effect of trying to enact contentious legislation. Just ask Obama.

You wrote,

Quote:
I'll readily agree that elements of the Democrat base are energised - the evidence of that is amply visible. The question is more likely to turn on the attitudes of independent voters. They drove the last election. In that regard it is more than a little interesting that all this has arisen in Wisconsin - the home state of Robert LaFollette and the birth of the American progressive movement.


To which I responded,

Quote:
Both polls of the state of WI so far show that independent voters are against the current plan. So, not sure how that fits into your projections.


I should have been more clear. There have been a lot of claims that Walker is simply 'doing what he campaigned on' and that the majority of voters support that. But polling data doesn't seem to support that idea, and public reaction seems to be much stronger against the idea than for it. I don't know how any of that would lead one to believe that this will be a helpful thing for Republicans in WI - or for the national candidate who is going to need WI in order to beat Obama.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 02:41 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
independent voters in WI aren't happy with Walker's plan at the moment. That doesn't bode too well for re-election chances.

there is damn near unanimous consent to fix the state budget, and there is wide agreement that state workers are over compensated, so there is not much downside to going after the unions. You are imagining things.
parados
 
  5  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 02:46 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Parados fudged the data. Oil & gas producers & distributors don't buy state powerplants. That compulsive nit picker's offerings are only rarely worthy of comment.

I also included ALL unions and not just the public employee unions.
If you want to not include oil and gas then you can also subtract AFL, IBEW, UFCW, UAW and Teamsters from the total for unions.

AFSCM, NEA, and AFT donated about 8 million to the Democrats compared to the $12 million for the electrical utilities. But then, that's just me niggling about the truthfulness of your claims I guess.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 02:47 pm
@hawkeye10,
argumentum ad naseum.

Repeating this over and over and over will not make it true. Plenty of evidence has been brought forth in this and other threads that show that (1) Unions aren't the cause of the budget woes, and (2) getting rid of collective negotiation won't improve the budget.

A
R
T
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 02:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
But polling data doesn't seem to support that idea, and public reaction seems to be much stronger against the idea than for it
We dont have enough solid polling in the state to say anything conclusive, but we do have enough to say that nationally unions are not in a good place re public support.

Mostly likely there is not a lot of support for ending collective bargaining. It is far from clear that Walker thinks that this will be the end result when he is finished. Walker himself says that he is not out to bust the unions, which leads me to suspect that he will take full acceptance of his financial terms, which are massive, and claim victory. I seriously doubt that the purpose of threatening collective bargaining was to end collective bargaining.

Listen to his speech tonight...I bet we hear again that he is not anti union but that he is anti financial mismanagement.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 02:52 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Repeating this over and over and over will not make it true. Plenty of evidence has been brought forth in this and other threads that show that (1) Unions aren't the cause of the budget woes, and (2) getting rid of collective negotiation won't improve the budget
Irrelevant. The subject is politics and power.

However, you are wrong

Quote:
Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/opinion/22brooks.html?hp

It aint a lot, but every bit helps...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 06:28:53