T1B

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:28 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote: The deal Walker is trying to ram through now is essentially the same deal as far as the increased employee contributions, but also strips their right to collective bargaining.

Yes and no. The police and fire unions will still retain their right to collectively bargain, and state worker's salaries will be pegged to the Consumer Price Index and cannot be increased above this mark without public referendum. But if the state's broke, why is this such a bad deal? Would it be better to permanently lay off 6,000 state workers instead?

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:33 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:What is your reason for being so stupid?

"I'll take, 'What is answering a Midget Sale post' for $200, Alex."

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:36 pm**

Truman wrote:Would it be better to permanently lay off 6,000 state workers instead?

Why are you lying? The union has already said they would give up the monetary concession necessary to not have that happen.

Do you lie as a reflex or do you do it consciously?

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:37 pm**

Truman wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:What is your reason for being so stupid?
"I'll take, 'What is answering a Midget Sale post' for $200, Alex."

Nice white flag you stupid cowardly fuck.

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:41 pm**

Truman wrote:So how do we go about creating the robust conditions you speak of?

Print money like a motherfucker!

sin,

CforC

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:51 pm**

Truman wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote: The deal Walker is trying to ram through now is essentially the same deal as far as the increased employee contributions, but also strips their right to collective bargaining.
Yes and no. The police and fire unions will still retain their right to collectively bargain, and state worker's salaries will be pegged to the Consumer Price Index and cannot be increased above this mark without public referendum. But if the state's broke, why is this such a bad deal? Would it be better to permanently lay off 6,000 state workers instead?

It would be better to negotiate in good faith. If the current contract was so horrific for the state, the state needs to improve its negotiating skills, not try to crush the unions. Then there's this:

MADISON, Wis. -- The executive board president of the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association has issued a statement on the organization's website expressing regret for the endorsement of Gov. Scott Walker in the governor's race.

In a post dated Feb. 16, Tracy Fuller writes, "I am going to make an effort to speak for myself, and every member of the Wisconsin State Patrol when I say this … I specifically regret the endorsement of the Wisconsin Trooper's Association for Gov. Scott Walker. I regret the governor's decision to 'endorse' the troopers and inspectors of the Wisconsin State Patrol. I regret being the recipient of any of the perceived benefits provided by the governor's anointing. I think everyone's job and career is just as significant as the others. Everyone's family is just as valuable as mine or any other persons, especially mine. Everyone's needs are just as valuable. We are all great people!!" The full statement can be found at http://www.wlea.org.

The statement was posted during a week in which tens of thousands of people descended on the Capitol building to protest Walker's budget bill that would curtail union rights for most public employees.

Walker's bill would strip state and local government employees, including teachers, custodians and game wardens, of their ability to collectively bargain everything except their wages.

But the measure carves out a special exemption for local police officers, firefighters and the Wisconsin State Patrol.

Critics said the move amounts to political payback for unions that support Walker and could create a schism between government workers.

During his campaign for governor, Walker was endorsed by the Wisconsin State Troopers, as well as the Milwaukee Police and Firefighters associations and the West Allis Professional Police.

In all, five public employee unions endorsed Walker, and four of the five are completely unharmed by Walker's budget repair bill, WISC-TV reported. Walker has denied that the unions are getting political payback.

Some police would lose union rights under the bill, including Capitol and University of Wisconsin police. Walker said their work can be covered in the event of a slowdown, while local protection can't.

When asked why union rights should be any different for police, fire and state inspectors, Walker said that overall there is a different expectation.

"Currently, we've had a long tradition and when it comes to fire and police service in the state of Wisconsin. Statutes are very different when it comes to whole series of rights and responsibilities," Walker said.

Walker's proposal for unions has spawned massive protests in Madison. Sunday is the sixth consecutive day that protests have been held at the Wisconsin Capitol against Walker's bill.

Police said nearly 70,000 people converged on the Wisconsin Capitol on Saturday to join in protests over the Republican bill.

According to the Madison Police Department, 60,000 people gathered outside the building with another 8,000 inside on Saturday -- easily the largest crowd yet as the protest stretched through its fifth day. The demonstration was far more intense on Saturday, though, as hundreds of tea party supporters staged a counter rally outside the Capitol.

Police spokesman Joel DeSpain said there were no arrests. He refused to say how large the tea party contingent was, but union supporters clearly outnumbered them.

The governor said that the moves are necessary to better contend with the state's fiscal problems and he can't negotiate with the unions since the state has nothing to offer. The bill's supporters said public workers must make sacrifices to help balance the state's budget. The state has a projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

However, the measure's opponents said that they believe the bill is an attack on middle-class families.

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:58 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
Truman wrote:Would it be better to permanently lay off 6,000 state workers instead?
Why are you lying? The union has already said they would give up the monetary concession necessary to not have that happen.

Do you lie as a reflex or do you do it consciously?

I think we're done here. Kill yourself, Loser.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41664858/ns/us_news-life/

What the bill would do

1) Eliminate collective bargaining rights for most public workers. So while unions still could represent those workers, they would not be able to seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum.

2) Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.

3) Local police, firefighters and state troopers would retain their collective bargaining rights.

4) Public workers would have to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage. That represents an average of 8 percent increase in state employees' share of pension and health care costs.

In exchange, public employees were promised no furloughs or layoffs. Gov. Scott Walker has threatened to lay off up to 6,000 state workers if the measure does not pass.

Estimated savings

$30 million by July 1 and $300 million over the next two years to address a Republican-projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

Background

The proposal marks a dramatic shift for Wisconsin, which in 1959 was the first to pass a comprehensive collective bargaining law for public employees and was the birthplace of the national union representing all non-federal public employees.

When voters last year elected Gov. Walker, an outspoken conservative, along with GOP majorities in both legislative chambers, it set the stage for a dramatic reversal of the state's labor history.

National significance

New Republican governors and legislatures in other states have proposed cutting back on public employee costs to reduce budget shortfalls, but Wisconsin's move appears to be the earliest and most extensive.

Source: Associated Press and Reuters

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:19 pm**

Just a couple of things, Truman. He doesn’t have to lay off 6,000 workers, that’s just a threat to get what he wants. Secondly, the decision whether to eliminate workers bargaining rights or not has no effect on the budget. He pulls that out of there, the Democrats come back to the Capitol, and the budget gets passed. This is all about union busting. Period.

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:42 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Just a couple of things, Truman. He doesn’t have to lay off 6,000 workers, that’s just a threat to get what he wants. Secondly, the decision whether to eliminate workers bargaining rights or not has no effect on the budget. He pulls that out of there, the Democrats come back to the Capitol, and the budget gets passed. This is all about union busting. Period.

"Mmmmm.......Mmmmmm...mmmmmmmmmmmm!"

Sin, tards like Truman, Whitey

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:43 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Just a couple of things, Truman. He doesn’t have to lay off 6,000 workers, that’s just a threat to get what he wants.

Correct. And he has already pledged that he would not do so once the Wisconsin Senate passes the bill.

Secondly, the decision whether to eliminate workers bargaining rights or not has no effect on the budget.

But it has plenty effect on the actual bill itself, since language eliminating most collective bargaining for state workers AND balancing the budget is written into the body of the bill. The Union is looking for a re-write – and that ain’t up to the Governor, unless you guys do things differently up there.

He pulls that out of there, the Democrats come back to the Capitol, and the budget gets passed. This is all about union busting. Period.

If Walker is such an asshat, then how in the hell did he get elected in the first place? Either Barrett was a real tool… Or the Wisconsin electorate is.

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:48 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Lemme guess, Screw: Because you can.

I'd ask if you have anything of value to contribute to the discussion, but I see you're busy...

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:50 pm**

Truman wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Just a couple of things, Truman. He doesn’t have to lay off 6,000 workers, that’s just a threat to get what he wants.

Correct. And he has already pledged that he would not do so once the Wisconsin Senate passes the bill.

There is a word for that. It is called extortion.

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:52 pm**

So Walker's actions are unprecedented...

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:11 pm**

Truman wrote:So Walker's actions are unprecedented...

Not hardly. Unprecedented would be you Republisheeple not bleating the party line about unions.

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:11 pm**

88 wrote:And you use the word "extortion" to characterize the governor?

Yes I do. He is using a ginned up crisis as a pretext to punish his political enemies.

Posted: **Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:47 pm**

Nice try at the "two wrongs make a right" apple 88.

You do realize I am not a member of the Obama administration nor am I involved with any individual member of Obama's team? So any attempt on your part to defend this douchebag Walker by citing something a former Obama Chief of Staff said is utterly fucking retarded. How about you stick to defending Walker's made up budget crisis?

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:26 am**

Moving Sale wrote:
smackaholic wrote: You do it by providing the conditions(sic) for a robust economy. You don't do it by just making everyone a union employee.
Our economy was at it's most robust when unions were strongest you corporate dick sucking sheep.

so fukking what. it was strong for a few reasons. Part of it was the fact that the rest of the world layed in ruins (post WWII).

Also, we did not have crushing regulatory restrictions or an out of control legal system where all economic decisions were based on where or not they'd be sued.

Are you implying that if we went to across the board unionization, things would improve?

They wouldn't.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:59 am**

14 Wisconsin senators have fled the state

P _ S S _ _ S

Buy a vowel?

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:19 am**

poptart wrote:
14 Wisconsin senators have fled the state

P _ S S _ _ S

Buy a vowel?

nope, i'd like to solve it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:19 am**

Goober McTuber wrote:Just a couple of things, Truman. He doesn’t have to lay off 6,000 workers,

So how do you balance the budget? What is your plan? Keep in mind that Walker wasn't elected to raise taxes and increase government spending.

Wipe your nose and suck it up, you whiny bitch. You lost. Deal with it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:20 am**

BSmack wrote:
88 wrote:And you use the word "extortion" to characterize the governor?
Yes I do. He is using a ginned up crisis as a pretext to punish his political enemies.

And this is not happening in other states as well?

As those are ginned up crisis's also ? or has government finally hit that wall of " No more fucking money morons !"

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:51 am**

It is a false crisis.

Gov asked for money from the unions. They relented.

So why does the governor need to take away their right to collectively bargain? The financial aspect has already been agreed upon.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:04 am**

It's funny, it's a re-enactment of the British economy from the 1950's onwards, only crammed into the space of ten years. You're now entering 'Thatcher' phase.
Employers will start having fire drills and when everyone's outside, management will lock the doors and throw the belongings of the workers out the window.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:36 am**

I'm digging some of these signs:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/19/ph ... e-warning/

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:08 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:It's funny, it's a re-enactment of the British economy from the 1950's onwards, only crammed into the space of ten years. You're now entering 'Thatcher' phase.
Employers will start having fire drills and when everyone's outside, management will lock the doors and throw the belongings of the workers out the window.

That is funny, except not for the reasons you imagine.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:20 am**

Hey, the manufacturing centre was gutted, now it's the service sector's turn. There's nothing new under the sun, it's all been done before, the British economy is more advanced than America.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:27 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:Hey, the manufacturing centre was gutted, now it's the service sector's turn. There's nothing new under the sun, it's all been done before, the British economy is more advanced than America.

Really?

rubs hands

When do we start throwing the medical industry under the bus?

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:35 pm**

88 wrote:
BSmack wrote:There is a word for that. It is called extortion.

When clacking out that post, did you pause to consider that 14 Wisconsin senators have fled the state to prevent a bill from being voted upon in the senate? Think about that for a second. The People of the State of Wisconsin elected a governor and a group of senators to represent them. A majority of the senators want to pass a bill restricting the ability of labor unions to collectively bargain on some aspects of public contracts. The governor is inclined to sign the bill. And, to prevent the will of the People from being reflected in a new law, a minority of senators have fled the state to prevent a quorum. And you use the word "extortion" to characterize the governor?

Dude, you have a fucked up way of thinking on most things. But this one may take the cake. Do you suppose that if the People of Wisconsin really didn't like the new law, they could toss every one of those who voted for it out of office and get a new batch of people in there to restore whatever it is that you think the People of Wisconsin want to provide for their public servants?

Walker didn't run on a union busting platform. As for recalling the recently elected, it's a distinct possibility. But it does take time.

Bizzarofelice wrote:It is a false crisis.

Gov asked for money from the unions. They relented.

So why does the governor need to take away their right to collectively bargain? The financial aspect has already been agreed upon.

Precisely.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:11 pm**

You do realize that you're not required to work for the government?

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:20 pm**

Goober,

As the employer of the government, the people vote on what the government should get paid and what benefits they get. I'm not sure about Wisconsin, but in Indiana, if you want kickass benefits, you work for the people. We have $1 insurance here for governement workers. Every chance I get, I vote to make the government tit-suckers pay more of their own benefits since we can't vote most of them out of a job.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:20 pm**

The workers here already agreed to pay more of their pension and health care costs. It was agreed to months ago. This is just an effort to crush the union. And just wait. There’s a lot more in that bill that’s just coming to light as people get a chance to read through it.

There’s a reason why the unions were formed in the first place. To protect workers from unfair labor practices. Over the years here, government workers on average have seen their paychecks shrink compared to the private sector. They traded a little less pay for better benefits. Now the governor wants to cut their benefits while eliminating their ability to trade for better pay.

I understand, you guys are quite happy to see an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. You’ve got to be lapping this up. The more I think about it, the less concerned I am about the Democrats returning and seeing this bill passed. The people of Wisconsin have already had a peek behind the curtain and seen what their “leader” really looks like. I believe there will be a rather sudden and severe backlash in this state, sooner rather than later.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:45 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:I understand, you guys are quite happy to see an end to the ever-widening gap between the gives and the give-nots.

fixed.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:55 pm**

Sirfindafold wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:I understand, you guys are quite happy to see an end to the ever-widening gap between the gives and the give-nots.

fixed.

Go fuck yourself, you intellectual gimp.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:04 pm**

Sirfindafold wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:I understand, you guys are quite happy to see an end to the ever-widening gap between the gives and the give-nots.
fixed.

It has always fascinated me to see those with greater means characterized by dittotards as the "givers." You know, as if the sweat off ones brow given whilst working for an honest living is not "giving."

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:53 pm**

Hi, remember me? I'm the nice Irish boy who made TEN BILLION dollars by shorting the toxic bonds which I had deceptively sold to banks! Ha Ha ...and it was all legal. Fuck the schmucks who actually work...let's take away their collective bargaining rights...Hoo hoo....oh man...!!!

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:49 pm**

Can the state really take away collective bargaining rights?

Seems to me the Union is still there. It's members are free to go to the state and say we want X.

The state is free to say OK or GFY, knowing that the union can then strike if they choose to. And the state is free to then decide that replacnig them is not feasible and give into their demans or make a counter offer.

This is what bargaining is.

It is how negotiations work in the private sector. It should be no different in the public.

If there is one part of this thing that bugs me a bit, it is the exemption for firefighters/cops. Seems like ever since 9/11, we have transformed this group into some sort of deity. And save me the bit about them being underpaid. They may be in some parts, but they sure the fukk aren't here. Most of them have the pension plans that are based on highest three years INCLUDING OT. And these fukkers play that rule like a stradivarius. There are hartford cops that retire at 20 years with 70K pensions, starting day one. Imagine that. 42 years old and you ain't gotta work a lick for the rest of your life if you don't feel like it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:53 pm**

One other little thing I don't hear brought up much is the fact that many of these public sector union hacks are exempt from the social security racket.

Wonder if I can tell uncle sam I want out too? I already got my 10 years paying in so I'll still get the basic pension.

Yeah, that'll happen, right around never.

I seriously doubt there is a single private sector fukker in the country that is given that option.

Posted: **Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:59 pm**

I can't speak for Wisconsin but state workers in Iowa cannot go on strike or have a "blue flu" epidemic.

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:06 am**

Goober McTuber wrote: There’s a reason why the unions were formed in the first place. To protect workers from unfair labor practices.

And I agree that unions were and still are quite necessary, even for those not in a union job like myself.

But to some extent they've gone beyond the reason they were formed, that of protecting workers, and are now more concerned with protecting the union leadership and playing politics. I'm not saying that's what's happening in Wisconsin right now, just that it does happen.

Over the years here, government workers on average have seen their paychecks shrink compared to the private sector. They traded a little less pay for better benefits.

Perhaps, and I won't argue that point because it doesn't really matter. They know or should know what they signed up for and are free to walk at anytime.

But one thing they do have that many or most of the private sector doesn't is job security. If you're in the private sector and not in a union, your employment can be terminated at any moment without cause. I've seen it happen to many of my longtime coworkers over the past few years though there was plenty of cause... the company didn't have the money to pay them anymore.

I don't really see state government or even the Fed being any different. When tax revenues go down, expenditures must needs follow, either by cutting wages and benefits or just eliminating the function of that job altogether. In my companies case, it's meant that one person now has to do job of what 3-4 people used to do but at a lesser volume.

Posted: **Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:22 am**

T1B

Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests

Re: Madison protests