Walker is doing the job he was elected to do

[JayHawk]

^Shainski, are you trying to convince me that 1) unions supported Walker when 2) they knew ahead of time he was going to bust all the unions?

If you're going to lie, at least try to tell a believable lie.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[shainski]

oh, and one more thing you might find interesting.

The opponent to Walker was Milwaukee Mayor, Tom Barrett.

And to balance his city budget, Barrett used these same fixes offered by the new legislation. The unions are none-too-enamored with him either right now.

http://mediatrackers.org/2012/01/unions-barrett-has-been-doing-the-bidding-of-walker/

 

[CoolBlue71]

As Governor of Wisconsin, was sucking off the Koch brothers a part of the job description for Scott Walker?

Or is this something you would do, chance1?

 

[JayHawk]

Another interesting read that lays out the different sides much better...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/us/19union.html

 

[JayHawk]

SO it makes you wonder if Wisconsin is headed towards bankruptcy now or if it is on the track to a better future?

It would seem the Republican version is a permanent fix where as the democrat version of strangling the unions just allows them to come back to the table when the wheat gets high again.

 

[Jack Springer]

As Governor of Wisconsin, was sucking off the Koch brothers a part of the job description for Scott Walker?

Or is this something you would do, chance1?

Union benefits were sucking money from the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

 

[palemale]

There were very few unions that actively supported Walker - some police and firefighter unions did. I have no interest in lying to you. I live here.

And you are going too far when you say he was "busting all the unions". The only unions that had any impact were the public unions.

Compared to most other states and even the federal government - Wisconsin public unions had far more that they could collectively bargain for.

And many of the unions were able to get themselves benefits that went under the radar. One of the most egregious was the create of their own insurance company for health insurance that charged far more than competing bids from other insurers. But in many localities, the unions insisted on their own captive company.

I'm just telling you that a lot of residents were disgusted with the government controlled by the democrats. I'm not saying that they are in love with the republicans. But if the democrats hope to win, they better offer something better than what was given to us the last eight years.

The only unions that supported Walker, the police and fire fighter unions, were the only unions not affected by the legislation. Of course, police and fire fighter unions typically are the unions with the richest health and retirement benefits. Don't you realize that what Walker was really after was curtailing the political influence of the unions that tended to support Democrats? Otherwise, if it was really about health and retirement benefits, wouldn't the legislation have included police and fire fighter unions? Or are they the only union members who shouldn't have to pay more for their benefits?

 

[chance1]

The only unions that supported Walker, the police and fire fighter unions, were the only unions not affected by the legislation. Of course, police and fire fighter unions typically are the unions with the richest health and retirement benefits. Don't you realize that what Walker was really after was curtailing the political influence of the unions that tended to support Democrats? Otherwise, if it was really about health and retirement benefits, wouldn't the legislation have included police and fire fighter unions? Or are they the only union members who shouldn't have to pay more for their benefits?

so your point is if they included police and fire fighters you'd be ok with it?

how do you respond to the union using their own insurance co. - that charged more - shainski ref this and my article did as well - very slim shady indeed

this is not politics - it's business - it's attempting to reduce costs and picking the most egregious examples of excessiveness - and fixing it - for the benefit of the taxpayer

like shainski

 

[chance1]

As Governor of Wisconsin, was sucking off the Koch brothers a part of the job description for Scott Walker?

Or is this something you would do, chance1?

how big are the Koch brothers dicks?

and no I wouldn't

how big?

 

[Yngbldhwk]

Looks like with > 1 million sigs, Gov. Walker is in a dogfight to stay in office - that's clear.

There's been a lot of "shouting" by progressives about just what Gov. Walker has done

Bottom line is that the power of public employee unions is crippling cities and states across the country - and most all responsible governors have responded by attempting to make pension reform, hiring/firing practice reform, etc. - IN ORDER TO HELP THE CITIZENS OF THEIR STATES

So what has Gov. Walker done that's made him the devil of the Main Stream Media?

He's made public employees pay more to their health and pension benefits (pension was previously zero paid in by employees)

He has taken benefits away from the bargaining process - and made only wages bargain-able

He has ended mandatory dues collection - guess what unions do with those dues? support cronies in political positions to back their position

Bottom line is Wisconsin is better off - schools are doing better - with LESS jobs loss than the union claimed would happen - and savings on things like health insurance that previously the unions managed (badly I might add)

Maybe Walker is not a saint

But this is a witch hunt

At the expense of the taxpaying public - THAT WOULD BE YOU (you get my drift)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...s_unseat_wisconsin_gov_rfV85DwJt50n8UrkIhC16H

Chance1: Sorry, you are wrong on a few points.

State workers paid 100% toward their pensions. It's totally deferred compensation, meaning if they decide they want to take $200 a month out of their paycheck and put it towards their pension funding, they can do so... and they take $200 less per check in take-home pay.

State workers in WI were not overpaid when the budget was prepared and aren't overpaid now. A recent study showed they were actually underpaid by about 5%, compared to other states. I don't have the link at hand, but I can find it if you'd like.

It's simply not possible to take $834 million out of a school system -- public or private -- and not see huge, negative effects, and I think you know that.

And this isn't even talking about Mr. Walker's methods. He could have sat down and talked with the Teacher's union reps. They were willing to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits. Yet he never met with them once. He simply proclaimed that he had nothing to negotiate and ended any discussion before it could even start. (Actually, he had plenty to negotiate with. He could have made the changes temporary, or promised them no layoffs for a two-year budget cycle). Why didn't he do anything to soften the blow, just a little? Because he loves dividing people and creating controversy. Once again, it gets him publicity. Don't you find that behavior a little pathologic, especially in someone who's supposed to govern an entire state?

 

[Kulindahr]

And this isn't even talking about Mussolini's methods. He could have sat down and talked with the Teacher's union reps. They were willing to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits. Yet he never met with them once. He simply proclaimed that he had nothing to negotiate and ended any discussion before it could even start. (Actually, he had plenty to negotiate with. He could have made the changes temporary, or promised them no layoffs for a two-year budget cycle). Why didn't he do anything to soften the blow, just a little? Because he loves dividing people and creating controversy. Once again, it gets him publicity. Don't you find that behavior a little pathologic, especially in someone who's supposed to govern an entire state?

I agree it's pathological.

 

[Yngbldhwk]

so your point is if they included police and fire fighters you'd be ok with it?

how do you respond to the union using their own insurance co. - that charged more - shainski ref this and my article did as well - very slim shady indeed

this is not politics - it's business - it's attempting to reduce costs and picking the most egregious examples of excessiveness - and fixing it - for the benefit of the taxpayer

like shainski

It is politics, but it's most definitely not business. Government and business are two different entities. They have different goals and use different methods. Government -- at least in the form it's been practiced in this country -- can't be run like a business, shouldn't be and never will be.

Government exists to do the things that business can't or won't do. An example: there is no for-profit health insurer that would agree to provide medical insurance for all people over 65 years of age, regardless of preexisting conditions. They simply could not make a profit. And that's why Medicare was created; not to make a profit but to do something private industry couldn't do, and thereby raise the quality of people's lives.

The internal checks and balances in American government -- the same factors that make the legislative process move more slowly than business -- are also the things that make government participatory and open to public oversight.

Even if you could make government operate like a business, what business or model would you choose? Enron? WorldCom? Bear Stearns? Lehman Brothers? Kodak? Circuit City? You can see where this is heading...

I'm a little older than most of the people on this board. One thing I've noticed is that American government, or what used to be called Civics, doesn't seem to be taught in high school as much as it used to be. Right around the time the teaching of the subject began to decrease, the idea of holding government to the standards of business started to crop up. When I was in high school, the idea of forcing one institution to be like another would have seemed absurd, because basically it is.

 

[JayHawk]

And this isn't even talking about Mr. Walker's methods. He could have sat down and talked with the Teacher's union reps. They were willing to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits. Yet he never met with them once. He simply proclaimed that he had nothing to negotiate and ended any discussion before it could even start. (Actually, he had plenty to negotiate with. He could have made the changes temporary, or promised them no layoffs for a two-year budget cycle). Why didn't he do anything to soften the blow, just a little? Because he loves dividing people and creating controversy. Once again, it gets him publicity. Don't you find that behavior a little pathologic, especially in someone who's supposed to govern an entire state?

See this is another falsehood.

The unions weren't budging an inch and then Walker was elected and then he stated his policy intent and THEN the unions were all of a sudden ready to bargain and help out.

Walker simply decided that the people of Wisconsin shouldn't have to bully the public unions into helping the state stay out of bankruptcy. The fix should be permanent. Now it is fixed.

 

[Yngbldhwk]

See this is another falsehood.

The unions weren't budging an inch and then Walker was elected and then he stated his policy intent and THEN the unions were all of a sudden ready to bargain and help out.

Walker simply decided that the people of Wisconsin shouldn't have to bully the public unions into helping the state stay out of bankruptcy. The fix should be permanent. Now it is fixed.

JayHawk: So basically you're faulting the unions for trying to negotiate? I guess I don't see the virtue of that.

WI wasn't bankrupt. Mr. Walker inherited a budget deficit, to be sure. So did most of the governors that came before him, Republicans and Democrats. The difference is how they approached fixing it.

 

[maxpowr9]

so your point is if they included police and fire fighters you'd be ok with it?

how do you respond to the union using their own insurance co. - that charged more - shainski ref this and my article did as well - very slim shady indeed

this is not politics - it's business - it's attempting to reduce costs and picking the most egregious examples of excessiveness - and fixing it - for the benefit of the taxpayer

like shainski

Funnily enough, public unions in MA got cut across the board and no group was spared. The Globe made a stink about it for a day but realized it was a waste. The biggest problem with public unions are the double dippers: ones who still work for the union while collecting pension. There was a story in MA a while back about some sheriff killing himself because he got caught double dipping...
article here.

DiPaola’s name had burst into the news in the past week, when the Globe reported that the longtime sheriff had hatched a scheme that would have allowed him to collect a $98,500 annual pension at the same time he earned a sheriff’s salary of $123,000. After reporters confronted him, DiPaola abandoned his plans to take advantage of a loophole in pension law and said that, instead, he would resign in January.

Before you QQ over his salary, it is a city of 60k+ people. It's crap like this that kills the public union system. Again, a few bad apples spoil the lot. If the state actually went after the union workers who pulled these kind of stunts, the shortfall may be a bit less.

If you actually want to talk about corrupt unions (quasi-private) run amok, look at the MBTA. They have a debt load of over $8 billion which is more than some states' entire debt load and some of the oldest trams in the country too that need to be replaced. There's at least a corruption charge every month.

 

[hermanding]

Unions have had a place and still do. I am in favor of them and also for right to work. Yes, that is possible. I hear people say to get rid of unions. I don't think so. That is one of the things that has been done when dictatorships take hold, along with silencing the press. Unions have some swallowing to do on having been overfed at the trough. But, there should he no laws against them.

 

[chrisrobin]

Unions have had a place and still do. I am in favor of them and also for right to work. Yes, that is possible. I hear people say to get rid of unions. I don't think so. That is one of the things that has been done when dictatorships take hold, along with silencing the press. Unions have some swallowing to do on having been overfed at the trough. But, there should he no laws against them.

I am in favor of them and also for right to work.

POINT OF ORDER: Please be careful! The right to work means the right to get screwed. A contemporary example of "doublespeak". See Orwell's 1984. A "right to work" state has all but eliminated unions.

In addition to the petulant Democrats in Wisconsin not voting, Snot Wanker was elected because he sold the State a bill of goods. Republicans who voted for him thought they were getting an updated version of former Gov. Tommy Thompson. They were wrong. The Wanker lied. Consider the recall movement an interesting form of "buyer's remorse."

A million-plus pissed-off Badgers is very awe-inspiring and has restored my faith in this country (well, sort-of).

 

[chrisrobin]

I think it's pretty clear that today ..................

Maybe clear in your estimation.

But the IDEA of unions was to PROTECT workers
not bring municipalities to their knees

The only one that seemingly is on his knees is Gov. Wanker, sucking some prime Koch. Serious gag-reflex only can be found among Wisconsin voters. The recall ballots were delivered to the state capitol via armed guards (voluntary). I wonder why?

 

[White Eagle]

In addition to his union busting he also is responsible for bringing in a voter ID, restricting voters, which could potentially disenfranchise tens of thousands of state residents.
The man is a dictator wannabe.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15382...walker_vote?akid=8157.102503.yuOLTG&rd=1&t=15

In These Times / By Roger Bybee

Wisconsin Recall Elections a Sure Thing, but New ID Law May Undercut Anti-Walker Vote
Wisconsinites' efforts to protect democracy—in the workplace and through the ballot—are rapidly escalating on two key fronts.
January 20, 2012

Wisconsinites' efforts to protect democracy -- in the workplace and through the ballot -- are rapidly escalating on two key fronts. The state will soon witness major election and legal battles to combat Walker-supported laws limiting the rights of public workers and restricting voting booth access. Laws passed in 2011 virtually eliminate public-employee bargaining rights and restrict voting to those with approved IDs, which could potentially disenfranchise tens of thousands of state residents.

"First you take away workers’ rights, then you change the laws so that it’s hard for them to vote you out of office," said Scot Ross, director of One Wisconsin Now, a progressive media-focused group.

 

[palemale]

so your point is if they included police and fire fighters you'd be ok with it?

how do you respond to the union using their own insurance co. - that charged more - shainski ref this and my article did as well - very slim shady indeed

this is not politics - it's business - it's attempting to reduce costs and picking the most egregious examples of excessiveness - and fixing it - for the benefit of the taxpayer

like shainski

My point about Walker's exclusion of the fire fighters' and police unions is that Walker was not motivated by policy in curtailing union rights, he was concerned with politics and attacking the unions who typically did not support him or Republicans. Those two unions traditionally have the costliest benefits of all public employees, yet Walker didn't touch them.

I didn't see any cite to reporting that the unions used their own insurance company, so it's difficult to comment on that accusation since there, at this time, is no evidence that the charge has any basis in reality.