Guess you missed this:Great idea, all the teachers in WI. should quit and get jobs at private schools. Wait that won't work, there's NOT ENOUGH PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO HIRE THEM ALL.OMG CAPS.
I thought it was implied, but...
Private schools probably wouldn't hire half of them anyway, but those that they did would have to perform to keep their jobs.
Which couldn't have been done had the Dems been there to do their job.The Dems did do their job. The republicans on the other hand, weren't willing to compromise on ANYTHING. Even when the unions were willing to concede on financial matters. All they asked was that collective bargaining be kept.
Losing elections have consequences.
That having been said, I seem to remember when the Dems won control of the house and senate, and didn't think too highly of comprimise then.They were going to "deem" that Obamacare had passed without a vote.
Double standard much?
Losing elections have consequences.
That having been said, I seem to remember when the Dems won control of the house and senate, and didn't think too highly of comprimise then.
They were going to "deem" that Obamacare had passed without a vote.Double standard much?
They tried to work with the republicans. A lot of stuff in the oh-so dreaded Obamacare package, came from the republicans. The so-called "DEATH PANELS" was a republican idea. The Republicans cried that the President wasn't consulting with them. So when he set a week aside to do just that, they cried about that. Obama's Healthcare plan is the same one that the republicans set forth as an alternative to the Clinton idea. It's also the healthcare plan of former Governor Mitt Romney, who made it law. At no point did teh President say it was his way or the highway.
No. I'm more liberal. I leave the double standards to conservatives and the republican party.
That's so cute. Let's have a meeting to discuss me voting Democrat from now on. I'll even listen.
How'dya think that'll turn out?
Just pointed out that that the democrats on both levels tried to compromise, but it's been the republicans who have been unwilling to do it.
Interesting view.
I suppose leaving and not voting at all is in the spirit of compromise.So, just deeming something to pass instead of voting is ok then, as long as you tried to compromise beforehand?
What about the Democrats that didn't want the bill either?
Interesting view.
I suppose leaving and not voting at all is in the spirit of compromise.
So, just deeming something to pass instead of voting is ok then, as long as you tried to compromise beforehand?
What about the Democrats that didn't want the bill either?Let's concentrate on Wisconsin for a moment. The Democrats tried to compromise on the legislation. They were willing to give Walker everything but collective bargaining. He kept promising to work things out, but then called a news conference and denounced everything.
Now let's look at what the democrats did on Obamacare. They heard the republicans complaining about hwo they weren't being listened to, but yet the Dems tried to get the Republicans to the table, the republicans kept coming up with one excuse after another. And then would cry that the democrats wouldn't listen.
Not so much an interesting view as much as paying attention to facts.
The collective bargaining is what the big deal was, unfortuantely.
There was nothing preventing next year all that had been done wouldn't be undone or made worse. So it wasn't much of a compromise.
The collective bargaining is what the big deal was, unfortuantely.
There was nothing preventing next year all that had been done wouldn't be undone or made worse. So it wasn't much of a compromise.
The republicans have been claiming that the collective bargaining part was FISCAL. What they did to pass it was NOT fiscal. The republicans violated state law.
One of the ideas that had been presented to the republicans by the unions was that they would put off collective bargaining for 2 years as well as make larger contributions. But the entire time Republicans said no. Essentially, the republicans kept saying "It's my way or the highway."
Would you keep trying to work with someone who says "We'll compromise as long as you do it my way"?
The democrats were willing to give the republicans what they wanted as long as collective bargaining was kept.
Fiscal, as in it was costing alot to maintain. Simply postponing it for 2 years wouldn't solve anything. They'd come back in 2 years and try to get it all back, and then some for the two years they so graciously didn't get anything.
Saying they'll give up things but keep the one caveat that can get it all back and then some isn't a good faith compromise. It's laughable.As far as the whining, they found a non-budgetary way to fix a budget problem. Again, losing elections has consequences.
So... Gov Walker and the Koch Bros are having a picnic by the shore, when they notice someone drowning 20 ft. out. After much discussion, they decide to "help" and throw him a 15 ft. line of rope. Unfortunately, the man still drowns.
One Koch looks at Walker and says "Oh well, you met him more than half way."
Again, losing elections has consequences.
Wait...is that the sound of "compromise?" :P
Again, losing elections has consequences.Is that the sound of "compromise?" :P
No, but its the truth.
How many large corporations use unions?
Auto workers, yeah, but Citi-corp, or American Express? Or any other major financial corporation? Or even a large Technology Corp, like Microsoft? Google?
I know I'm quoting from a long way back, but AT&T still has a large unionized work force. I believe it is around 60-70% Communication Workers of America.
So... Gov Walker and the Koch Bros are having a picnic by the shore, when they notice someone drowning 20 ft. out. After much discussion, they decide to "help" and throw him a 15 ft. line of rope. Unfortunately, the man still drowns.
One Koch looks at Walker and says "Oh well, you met him more than half way."
So...people decide that twinkies in schools are a bad idea. They're unhealthy for the kids, and cost too much money to give each school kid their own twinkie. To compromise, the lunch folks decide to stop using metal silverware and use plastic utensils, as long as they get to keep the twinkies. Unfortunately, that's not a compromise.
So...people decide that twinkies in schools are a bad idea. They're unhealthy for the kids, and cost too much money to give each school kid their own twinkie. To compromise, the lunch folks decide to stop using metal silverware and use plastic utensils, as long as they get to keep the twinkies. Unfortunately, that's not a compromise.So... Gov Walker and the Koch Bros are having a picnic by the shore, when they notice someone drowning 20 ft. out. After much discussion, they decide to "help" and throw him a 15 ft. line of rope. Unfortunately, the man still drowns.
One Koch looks at Walker and says "Oh well, you met him more than half way."
{watches plane whoooosh by overhead}
So...people decide that twinkies in schools are a bad idea. They're unhealthy for the kids, and cost too much money to give each school kid their own twinkie. To compromise, the lunch folks decide to stop using metal silverware and use plastic utensils, as long as they get to keep the twinkies. Unfortunately, that's not a compromise.you make straw men for a living don't you?
I'm generally sympathetic to the union folks, but the analogy doesn't seem to me to be any kind of a straw man at all. Never mind the wrong or right of it, the point is, if collective bargaining is the central issue, then compromising on other tangential stuff is sort of irrelevant.
Also, it's well established that in any debate on the Interwebz, the first one who uses the phrase "straw man" automatically loses.
Alas, compromise is increasingly becoming a dirty word.
We have no one to blame for this but ourselves.
So...people decide that twinkies in schools are a bad idea. They're unhealthy for the kids, and cost too much money to give each school kid their own twinkie. To compromise, the lunch folks decide to stop using metal silverware and use plastic utensils, as long as they get to keep the twinkies. Unfortunately, that's not a compromise.you make straw men for a living don't you?
It's only a strawman if its not relevant.
Problem = collective bargaining.Attempted compromise = making concessions on everything but collective bargaining.
Compromise rejected.
So...people decide that twinkies in schools are a bad idea. They're unhealthy for the kids, and cost too much money to give each school kid their own twinkie. To compromise, the lunch folks decide to stop using metal silverware and use plastic utensils, as long as they get to keep the twinkies. Unfortunately, that's not a compromise.you make straw men for a living don't you?I'm generally sympathetic to the union folks, but the analogy doesn't seem to me to be any kind of a straw man at all. Never mind the wrong or right of it, the point is, if collective bargaining is the central issue, then compromising on other tangential stuff is sort of irrelevant.
Also, it's well established that in any debate on the Interwebz, the first one who uses the phrase "straw man" automatically loses.
+1
Both sides agreed that the budget needed to be balanced and that the union members needed to contribute more to their pension and healthcare. One side was willing to even forego collective bargaining until the states economy was better. But that wasn't good enough for the other.
The issue, then, seems to be that you two disagree as to what everything was about. Per Kryzbyn, collective bargaining trumps all these other considerations. You then assert that it's secondary to them. Until you can agree on the relative importance of components, any discussion of compromises or lack thereof is premature.
See, Republicans always claim that they're focused on fiscal issues, but their track record shows that these claims are totally false. And everyone knows that; it's no secret. Both parties spend money like spoiled sorority girls with daddy's credit card. It's what they do.
So when a Republican says "the problem is the budget shortfall," that's well-known doublespeak for "I want to ban something I don't like." In this case, collective bargaining, presumably. (The same way that when a Democrat says "the problem is the budget shortfall," that's code-speak for "give me more money.")
The republicans and the democrats wanted to balance the budget
This statement has never been true since Slick Willy surpised me during his second term; I don't see why it would be now. (See pithy edit above -- I was quite proud of it!)
It's what both sides were claiming.
Maybe I'm too cynical -- I usually don't believe any claim made by any politician, ever, as a matter of habit. And that holds doubly true if the claim involves fiscal responsibility. So I instead immediately start looking for what they're more likely to actually be after.
|
Of course this is all political, unions fund democrats and tell the members to vote for them. They are NOT for the workers, they are a political machine. I am not a republican either but i will be damned if my money would be taken from me to fund a politician i do not support under the LIE that it is for my own good.
So you don't like weekends then? 40 hour work week is for suckers? You for one welcome the fine shopping available at the company store...
"Budget shortfall" only because the Governor is having difficulty funding his new pet projects.
I'm sure the new corporate tax cuts didn't have an impact on the state's revenues, either. It's so easy to pin things on a scapegoat (unions).
Interesting analysis of the situation by Naomi Klein. Of course, now I'll be branded a left-wing ideologue...
And while the Republicans may not be building concentration camps, I find the underlying sentiments in this poem written by a German intellectual after WWII to be highly relevant:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
When they can take one group's rights away so quickly and easily, what's to stop them from doing the same thing to you later on?
Of course, if you're wealthy and a member of the elites, then you probably think there's no reason to worry...
Now some of the republicans are coming out and saying that the fight wasn't about just busting unions, but was more about making sure Obama couldn't get re-elected.
Yeah, I know.
Now that's democracy. Destroy your opponent's entire support base so that they can't raise the funds required to campaign against the corporate machine, so they can't have a voice and get re-elected.
Should the Democrats try to bankrupt all the corporations that back the Republicans? That would be ethical now, wouldn't it?
So the self-appointed world defender of freedom and democracy, with its two-party system will be reduced to a one party "democracy," if all goes according to the Republican plan... that sounds promising for everyone who isn't rich...
|
Of course this is all political, unions fund democrats and tell the members to vote for them. They are NOT for the workers, they are a political machine. I am not a republican either but i will be damned if my money would be taken from me to fund a politician i do not support under the LIE that it is for my own good.So you don't like weekends then? 40 hour work week is for suckers? You for one welcome the fine shopping available at the company store...
All of wich is done and over with. Do you like america or any other democratic governed nation? then why don't we keep having armed rebellions like what got us here????
Union WERE ONCE good idea, now a tool and nothing more. If they gave a damn about workers they would be lobbying laws to protect all workers not just protecting the non workers and ripping all off to send blank checks to the dems
|
|
Now some of the republicans are coming out and saying that the fight wasn't about just busting unions, but was more about making sure Obama couldn't get re-elected.Yeah, I know.
Now that's democracy. Destroy your opponent's entire support base so that they can't raise the funds required to campaign against the corporate machine, so they can't have a voice and get re-elected.
Should the Democrats try to bankrupt all the corporations that back the Republicans? That would be ethical now, wouldn't it?
So the self-appointed world defender of freedom and democracy, with its two-party system will be reduced to a one party "democracy," if all goes according to the Republican plan... that sounds promising for everyone who isn't rich...
As opposed to the democrat plan of a handfull of wealthy elites (them), a few union member paying to be part of their system and the rest of their supporters living off the blood and sweat of real americans trying to live the right way.
Both parties are evil, the quicker you realize this the quicker we can find solutions.
I think a distinction needs to be made regarding the difference between PRIVATE sector unions and PUBLIC sector unions. The Wisconsin debate is regarding Public sector unions.
Here is a witty but informative look at the difference. It may be somewhat biased, but it does hit the mark. YMMV...
Both parties are evil, the quicker you realize this the quicker we can find solutions.
Yeah, I can agree to an extent with you on that. So how then do we move beyond the bi-partisan system and find solutions that will be agreeable to the vast majority of the population? Given the ideological polarization that has occurred on both the left and right (I admit to having my own ideological bias), what kind of common ground can we hope to find? I can't help but despair that such a thing is possible...
Union WERE ONCE good idea, now a tool and nothing more. If they gave a damn about workers they would be lobbying laws to protect all workers not just protecting the non workers and ripping all off to send blank checks to the dems
And this may be where our experiences/context differ. I live in Alberta, Canada (a province which has had a firmly entrenched conservative government for 40 some years, and where union density is the lowest in the country). We also arguably have the weakest employment-related legislation in Canada (where protection/rights of workers are concerned). Out here, the Alberta Federation of Labour does continually lobby the government to extend rights and protections to all workers, and not just unionized workers. They have lobbied to make the minimum wage a living wage, to extend occupational healthy and safety legislation, workers' compensation coverage and basic employment standards to agricultural workers (Alberta is the only province that denies those rights to agricultural workers, even the rate of disabling injuries and fatalities is far greater in agriculture than in any other industry in Alberta), etc. Exploitation is alive and well where I live.
I work for a charitable organization that helps workers (mainly non-union) understand and access the rights and benefits they are entitled to under law. And let me tell you, unions have never been more relevant. At least they can ensure that due process is followed in situations involving disciplinary action and termination. Non-unionized workers, especially in small to medium-sized enterprises, retail, and other blue collar and service jobs, and especially if they come from marginalized populations, are routinely canned in ways that contravene employment legislation.
I could go on to cite many other examples in which unions continue to play a critical role.
Yeah, I can agree to an extent with you on that. So how then do we move beyond the bi-partisan system and find solutions that will be agreeable to the vast majority of the population? Given the ideological polarization that has occurred on both the left and right (I admit to having my own ideological bias), what kind of common ground can we hope to find? I can't help but despair that such a thing is possible...
Both parties are evil, the quicker you realize this the quicker we can find solutions.
I wish more people thought this way. Seems like most republicans vote to keep the democrats out of control and most democrats vote to keep the republicans out of control. I personally dont understand how anyone could agree 100% with either party. I seriously dislike the 2 party system.
Back on topic.
I will indeed give 3 cheers to private sector unions. However, public sector unions are bad in my book, due to the whole conflict of interest thing I mentioned.
Yeah, I can agree to an extent with you on that. So how then do we move beyond the bi-partisan system and find solutions that will be agreeable to the vast majority of the population? Given the ideological polarization that has occurred on both the left and right (I admit to having my own ideological bias), what kind of common ground can we hope to find? I can't help but despair that such a thing is possible...
Both parties are evil, the quicker you realize this the quicker we can find solutions.
I wish more people thought this way. Seems like most republicans vote to keep the democrats out of control and most democrats vote to keep the republicans out of control. I personally dont understand how anyone could agree 100% with either party. I seriously dislike the 2 party system.
You forgot to mention that both republicans & democrats vote to keep any 3rd party from getting elected. Which is why we still only have a two party system.
|
|
Of course this is all political, unions fund democrats and tell the members to vote for them. They are NOT for the workers, they are a political machine. I am not a republican either but i will be damned if my money would be taken from me to fund a politician i do not support under the LIE that it is for my own good.So you don't like weekends then? 40 hour work week is for suckers? You for one welcome the fine shopping available at the company store...All of wich is done and over with. Do you like america or any other democratic governed nation? then why don't we keep having armed rebellions like what got us here????
Union WERE ONCE good idea, now a tool and nothing more. If they gave a damn about workers they would be lobbying laws to protect all workers not just protecting the non workers and ripping all off to send blank checks to the dems
Because they would never try to roll back benefits...
God forbid workers be able to negotiate on any kind of equal footing with employers and cut into profits.
I supposed by your logic the right to bear arms is out of date now as well.
|
|
I think a distinction needs to be made regarding the difference between PRIVATE sector unions and PUBLIC sector unions. The Wisconsin debate is regarding Public sector unions.
Here is a witty but informative look at the difference. It may be somewhat biased, but it does hit the mark. YMMV...
Incredible biased I would say. Equivalent too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sCyn_JViH4
If you sign a contract, and your employer will not fulfill your contract, who is at fault?
In each case the state wants to not fulfill an agreed to contract make with it's employees. In each case, the Public sector Union has agreed to concessions. In Wisconsin, the union agreed to all of the called for concessions, but not to De-certify.
By that logic, the government shouldn't be held to contracts made with contractors, I suppose?