ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 02:59 pm
@georgeob1,
It would be helpful if you provided something other than vapour to support your opinions here.

You may not agree with the conclusions drawn from proofs provided by others, but at least they're making the effort to support their opinions.

i.e.
Quote:
Parados fudged the data.


he didn't create the data

you could counter it with what you believe is the correct data

~~~~~~

It might be wrong of me, but I expect a higher level of posting from you than I do of some other posters. Not sure why.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 03:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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.

You just said the topic was the budget. Make up your mind.

hawkeye10 wrote:

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...

I was unaware that WI used NC's budget. If you wish to make a compelling case, stick to the state and the state's budget. try and change a few variables as possible if you want to show that this bill is legitimate.

Also, if collective bargaining only raises their salary by 5-6%, qualify how this is inappropriate.

A
R
T
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 03:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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.

The unions have already agreed to the proposed financial cuts.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 03:17 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
You just said the topic was the budget. Make up your mind.

To refresh your memory, this conversation started with you talking about the gov harming his reelection chances with this proposal, which is about politics not budget. I said that since the people want the budget in line and think that the state workers are over compensated that the gov is not likely to suffer political damage, the reason being is that even if the voters dont agree with his means they do agree with what he is claiming that he wants to accomplish.

Quote:
I was unaware that WI used NC's budget.
You seem to be particularly dim today...I am nearly certain that David Brooks was referring to academic studies done in NC and other places that show the effect of collective bargaining on the cost of government. If studies in several states show 5-6% increase in cost due to collective bargaining we can assume the situation in WI is similar, thus ending CB would decrease cost of government employee compensation 5-6%, which would be a good start. The current plan, which the unions are now ready to accept, would lower costs about 8% as the employees will now be paying more for pension and health, thus the taxpayers don't have to. A 13% whack at state employee costs would help the state budget a bunch, shrinking the workforce would help even more.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 03:21 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
The unions have already agreed to the proposed financial cuts.
Yes, but would they have done so if the Gov had not tried to get even more?? They are agreeing to every cent of financial give back the the Gov has requested, which tells me that he will let go of the collective bargaining issue and go to the voters with the claim that he is looking out for their interests, and they will love him for it. He should be able to get something that makes life harder for the unions to, perhaps the yearly recertification.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 03:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
Yet another poll showing that independents and voters don't support union-busting.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm

Quote:
The public strongly opposes laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions as a way to ease state financial troubles, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

The poll found that 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to one being considered in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.


Totally the opposite of what Hawkeye and others here are claiming. Not that anyone is particularly surprised by that, I'm sure.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 03:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Totally the opposite of what Hawkeye and others here are claiming.
You are confused again....no one here has claimed that the public supports union busting, or that this effort will succeed. I have said that this is an exceptionally good time to go after the unions, and I have also suggested that the Gov will declare that the financial givebacks represents victory in his effort and move on. I have further opined that it is unlikely that this gov will suffer political damage for trying to bust the unions, which is itself extraordinary, and goes to show how much has changed in american politics since the Great Recession
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 03:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

They are agreeing to every cent of financial give back the the Gov has requested, which tells me that he will let go of the collective bargaining issue and go to the voters with the claim that he is looking out for their interests, and they will love him for it. He should be able to get something that makes life harder for the unions to, perhaps the yearly recertification.

He's already said he will not let go of the issue and will veto any compromise bill.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 03:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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.


The other one that I know of was Indiana.

Was.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/mitch-daniels-calls-on-state-gop-to-abandon-union-busting-bill.php?ref=fpblg

Daniels is worried - and he should be - that the GOP base, with their thirst for blood, is going to wreck his ability to appear to be moderate in the upcoming election.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 04:00 pm
@engineer,
Ya, and this

Quote:
MADISON, Wis. – Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker warned Tuesday that state employees could start receiving layoff notices as early as next week if a bill eliminating most collective bargaining rights isn't passed soon.

Walker said in a statement to The Associated Press that the layoffs wouldn't take effect immediately. He didn't say which workers would be targeted but he has repeatedly warned that up to 1,500 workers could lose their jobs by July if his proposal isn't passed.

"Hopefully we don't get to that point," Walker said.

It could take weeks or even months to lay off workers under the terms of their current union contracts.


Meanwhile, Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald announced Tuesday the Republican-led chamber would pass its version of a bill cutting collective bargaining rights for most public employees. Fitzgerald said Republicans were elected to lead the Assembly in November to make deep cuts to state spending, and they will deliver on that pledge.

"When you talk about a compromise, no. We're going to make a reform," Fitzgerald said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

They talk like they have the ability to bust the unions, and technically they might, but it is a bad idea for many of the same reason David Brooks outlines
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/opinion/22brooks.html?hp

It took us decades of negligence to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out, bashing your political opponents is counter productive to progress over the long haul. Even if state worker unions are a bad idea and ending them is a good idea we should not be doing it without consent of the majority, which probably does not exist at the moment.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 04:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

Meanwhile, Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald announced Tuesday the Republican-led chamber would pass its version of a bill cutting collective bargaining rights for most public employees. Fitzgerald said Republicans were elected to lead the Assembly in November to make deep cuts to state spending, and they will deliver on that pledge.


Cutting collective bargaining rights on issues unrelated to pay has nothing to do with cutting spending. And everything to do with ideology.

Quote:
They talk like they have the ability to bust the unions, and technically they might, but it is a bad idea for many of the same reason David Brooks outlines
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/opinion/22brooks.html?hp


This is a typical piece-of-**** article from Brooks, a man who likes to pretend that he represents 'America' as much as some here do; with about as much evidence.

The most odious part of his piece, however is the title:

Quote:
Make Everybody Hurt
By DAVID BROOKS


'scuse me, Dave! You're not hurting here - you and your friends just received a massive tax cut, that you didn't need at all.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 04:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It may well have to do with ideology as you say, but most Americans are not aware about what unions are in concept. People can confuse unions with the high retirement benefits of the few.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 04:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
People can confuse unions with the high retirement benefits of the few.
they are being actively encouraged to confuse the issue by people who want to bust the unions. Also, the state managers conspired with the unions to produce pay agreements that were not in the best interest of the citizens, the state thus has every interest in passing off as much of the blame onto the unions as it can get away with.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 04:40 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

failures art wrote:
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.

hawkeye10 wrote:
Irrelevant. The subject is politics and power.

failures art wrote:
You just said the topic was the budget. Make up your mind.

hawkeye10 wrote:
To refresh your memory, this conversation started with you talking about the gov harming his reelection chances with this proposal, which is about politics not budget.

No. The conversation started with...
hawkeye10 wrote:
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.

Which was you claiming this bill had to do with the budget. You then switched gears to the nebulous terms "politics and power," for which if defined, I might actually agree. However, our dialog begins very much with you making the claim that...

hawkeye10 wrote:
...there is not much downside to going after the unions.


Get sorted. I have yet to comment on Gov Walker's re-election chances. You are all over the place.

A
R
T
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 04:43 pm
@failures art,
Well, it all makes a lot more sense if he knows the truth about you and I being the same person.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 05:08 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

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.


And yet the press is filled with stories of unfunded public sector pension had health care obligations that are concentrated in stated with public sector unions.

Gosh ! Perhaps we're all wrong !
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 05:17 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
And yet the press is filled with stories of unfunded public sector pension had health care obligations that are concentrated in stated with public sector unions.


Once more real real slow the unions are willing to have give backs and this is nothing short of a war on the middle class one sector at a time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The more things change the more they are the same it would seem.

0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 05:22 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

And yet the press is filled with stories of unfunded public sector pension had health care obligations that are concentrated in stated with public sector unions.

Gosh ! Perhaps we're all wrong !

You are because you are missing cause and effect. The reason the pensions are unfunded is that the governments involved did not fund them. Private companies are legally obligated to fund their pensions so they have been funding as they go instead of allowing the problem to build so they can cut taxes.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 05:54 pm
@engineer,
Most of the problems about funding government pension plans in California have been the over estimates of their return on investments even after 2008 while they decreased funding, and increased benefits. Bunch of incompetents running these programs should be charged with a crime based on their failure of fiduciary responsibility of "reasonableness."
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2011 06:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
California have been the over estimates of their return on investments
Well over a year ago I read that California assumptions on return could only be produced by buying junk grade bonds and not having any of them go tits up.....in other words it was fantasy from the get go....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 01:32:49