Who's Crazier: Charlie Sheen or the Left?

[Dr.Who]

Yes it was purly about attacking Unions overall unless of course they supported Walker...then they where saved.

you suck at this guessing thing

Or it as about the budget and the only way to make cuts to the budget was to weaken the unions who were standing in the way. Meanwhile, unions that were not standing in the way or that represented people who were not grossly overpaid could be ignored. I have not checked to see if this is the best explanation but we could easily check the various facts:

Did the teachers union stand in the way? Despite their statements to the contrary I think they did and would.

Did the exempted unions not stand in the way? I don't know.

Did the exempted unions represent people who were not grossly overcompensated? I don't know.

If the answer to the above three questions is yes then I would take that explanation over the one that says Walkers big agenda was all about unions and not about the budget.

 

[PLC1]

Or it as about the budget and the only way to make cuts to the budget was to weaken the unions who were standing in the way. Meanwhile, unions that were not standing in the way or that represented people who were not grossly overpaid could be ignored. I have not checked to see if this is the best explanation but we could easily check the various facts:

Did the teachers union stand in the way? Despite their statements to the contrary I think they did and would.

Did the exempted unions not stand in the way? I don't know.

Did the exempted unions represent people who were not grossly overcompensated? I don't know.

If the answer to the above three questions is yes then I would take that explanation over the one that says Walkers big agenda was all about unions and not about the budget.

The teacher's unions had already agreed to cuts. Eliminating collective bargaining was about power, not about money.

 

[Dr.Who]

The teacher's unions had already agreed to cuts. Eliminating collective bargaining was about power, not about money.

Did they agree? OR was it lip service? Have the unions in other states followed through on so called agreement or has the result been failing budgets and layoffs?

Yes, it was about power - the power to stop the unions from completing their mission to accept no cuts. Was it also political - about the power to stop unions who are mostly liberal? I have yet to see any conclusive evidence either way/

For now, what I know is that anyone can present a picture that makes it look like the other guy is all bad and the truth is often very elusive.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Did they agree? OR was it lip service? Have the unions in other states followed through on so called agreement or has the result been failing budgets and layoffs?

Yes, it was about power - the power to stop the unions from completing their mission to accept no cuts. Was it also political - about the power to stop unions who are mostly liberal? I have yet to see any conclusive evidence either way/

For now, what I know is that anyone can present a picture that makes it look like the other guy is all bad and the truth is often very elusive.

did they or did they not? its pretty easy..yes they did.

truth is very easy sometimes...unless you don't like it, then you make it "complicated" or just lie...

 

[PLC1]

Did they agree? OR was it lip service? Have the unions in other states followed through on so called agreement or has the result been failing budgets and layoffs?

Yes, it was about power - the power to stop the unions from completing their mission to accept no cuts. Was it also political - about the power to stop unions who are mostly liberal? I have yet to see any conclusive evidence either way/

For now, what I know is that anyone can present a picture that makes it look like the other guy is all bad and the truth is often very elusive.

The truth here is not elusive. The truth is that the governor, with support of the GOP, stripped the employees of the right to collective bargaining. The truth is that the employee has no power at all without collective bargaining. The truth is that the middle class is declining in this country, and that the decline in the power of unions is one major factor in that decline.

Sometimes, the truth is elusive. That is not the case here.

 

[dahermit]

...The truth is that the middle class is declining in this country, and that the decline in the power of unions is one major factor in that decline...

As shown by the fact that there was no middle class save for the few specialized craftsmen before there were unions and the fact that the ultra-rich have gotten richer and poor have gotten poorer since the decline(starting with the decertification of PATCO by Ronny), of the unions.

Anti-union people should review the history of worker in various industries like coal mining, merchant marine, and other sweat shops prior to unions. Left without union opposition, management is rapidly reverting to pre-labor movement excesses.

 

[GenSeneca]

The truth is that the middle class is declining in this country

By what measure?

 

[Dr.Who]

did they or did they not? its pretty easy..yes they did.

truth is very easy sometimes...unless you don't like it, then you make it "complicated" or just lie...

The unions said they would be willing to accept cuts. But they have a long history of implying that they are willing to cooperate and then fighting tooth and nail for every single concession. The unions had no contract yet, we have no way of knowing if they would or would not have agreed to the cuts when the final contract was actually signed. But based on what has happened in other states they would not have easily accepted any cuts at all.

History supports the notion that the unions never intended to go along easily with any cuts at all, jut like the dem legislators never intended to vote on the bill.

From NPR:
"Quite frankly, the Democrats kept leading us on. They kept implying that maybe we'll be back tomorrow, maybe we'll be back tomorrow, if only we negotiate a little," Grothman said. "And finally Gov. Walker did negotiate with them and they rejected all his compromises and it became more and more apparent they were not sincere in coming back tomorrow."

 

[Dr.Who]

The truth here is not elusive. The truth is that the governor, with support of the GOP, stripped the employees of the right to collective bargaining.

Yes, the unions were stripped of a legal right that they should never have been given in the first place. They were a privileged group and now they are just like everyone else. In most other states unions do not have the special rights that wisonsin unions had.

The truth is that the employee has no power at all without collective bargaining.

False. Every employee still has his individual right to negotiate. Furthermore, while unions do not have a special law giving them the right to strike they can still call a strike any time they want to. What they don't have is the ability to drag out collective bargaining negotiations longer than the peace talks in Viet Nam.

The truth is that the middle class is declining in this country, and that the decline in the power of unions is one major factor in that decline.

I don't know that they are declining. And we do know that some of the middle class are becoming upper class - so I don't see that as a problem. I would blame the economy mostly for those middle class who are becoming lower class. And the poor economy is largely due to america not being as competitive as it once was and that is largely due to wages that are too high compared to the rest of the world.

Sometimes, the truth is elusive. That is not the case here.

Sorry, still elusive.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The unions said they would be willing to accept cuts. But they have a long history of implying that they are willing to cooperate and then fighting tooth and nail for every single concession. The unions had no contract yet, we have no way of knowing if they would or would not have agreed to the cuts when the final contract was actually signed. But based on what has happened in other states they would not have easily accepted any cuts at all.

History supports the notion that the unions never intended to go along easily with any cuts at all, jut like the dem legislators never intended to vote on the bill.

From NPR:
"Quite frankly, the Democrats kept leading us on. They kept implying that maybe we'll be back tomorrow, maybe we'll be back tomorrow, if only we negotiate a little," Grothman said. "And finally Gov. Walker did negotiate with them and they rejected all his compromises and it became more and more apparent they were not sincere in coming back tomorrow."

They agreed to the cuts, walker said he would not negotiate over and over...then passed the bill ...with none of the financial cuts.....the guy who said they thought about putting fake protesters in the crowd to cause trouble, ...but yea it was the unions and Dems that lied when they agreed to all cuts so long as they got to keep Collective bargening rights....over and over in front of evryone....they where the ones to not be trusted and liers ( even though you never gave them a shot to prove it)

All walker had to do was have the bill changed...and if they came back they could all vote against it, it would pass and it would be over. had walker Changed the bill to what the Unions had agreed to and the Dems and they did not come back....it would be pretty clear they lied...and then you just change the bill back....it would have been simple...only one problem....they where not lieing.

 

[PLC1]

By what measure?

Declining real wages, mostly. That, and a lot fewer jobs providing a living wage.

I bought my first house in 1969. It was a three bedroom one bath on 1/3 of an acre, and cost $13,900. My salary at that time was $10,000 per year. Now, try applying those figures to modern salaries and cost of living, and see if wages have kept up.

 

[dahermit]

False. Every employee still has his individual right to negotiate. Furthermore, while unions do not have a special law giving them the right to strike they can still call a strike any time they want to. What they don't have is the ability to drag out collective bargaining negotiations longer than the peace talks in Viet Nam.

Evidently you are not aware of what an "at will employee", is. The only "right" that they have to negotiate is, "take it or leave it", be it wages, equal treatment, equal pay for weomen, working conditions, working hours. If they try to negotiate, they "negotiate" out the door.
"At will employees" do not have any recourse...they can be fired without cause. And in the case of one of my former places of employment, people ( good, workers), who are "let go" because of the lack of work are never re-hired when work picks up...they are replaced with new employees who are hired in at the starting wage. This results in middle-aged people with families who are again forced to find entry level (and pay), positions, resulting in the loss of homes, etc. That is one of the reasons that the middle class is disappearing.

 

[Dr.Who]

Evidently you are not aware of what an "at will employee", is. The only "right" that they have to negotiate is, "take it or leave it", be it wages, equal treatment, equal pay for weomen, working conditions, working hours. If they try to negotiate, they "negotiate" out the door.
"At will employees" do not have any recourse...they can be fired without cause. And in the case of one of my former places of employment, people ( good, workers), who are "let go" because of the lack of work are never re-hired when work picks up...they are replaced with new employees who are hired in at the starting wage. This results in middle-aged people with families who are again forced to find entry level (and pay), positions, resulting in the loss of homes, etc. That is one of the reasons that the middle class is disappearing.

I have been an at-will employee and your understanding of it is seriously mistaken. And at-will employee can ask for a raise, better hours, better benefits, anything. If he is valuable he will get what he wants. That is the nature of negotiation for everyone.

But the unions members are not at-will employees. They already have a contract that says they can only be fired for cause.

And as an employee who is not an at-will employee they can still negotiate for anything they want. They may or may not get it depending on their value as an employee. If they are indeed worth what they ask for then they can always quit and go to another company who will be glad to have them while giving them a better deal and the previous employer will lose. Everyone is paid what they are worth.

In the case of your former company it is obvious that a new employee paid at starting wage is more valuable than a seasoned employee with more skills who earns more - NOT. That or maybe those employees who were not hired back simply were not as valuable as they thought they were.

Why were middle aged men looking for entry level work? Did they not add any skills to their resume? The purpose of entry level work is to get an opportunity it learn skills and a trade so one can qualify for better work as one gets more experience. If those men learned anything while working at entry level jobs then when they got laid off they could search for better jobs elsewhere. The fact that they could only get entry level work means that they did not learn anything as their wages went up and they employer was right to lay them off and hire lesser paid employees.

Those middle aged men who no more skills than an entry level worker did negotiate.
They just did so badly because they failed to get more skills and they thought they deserved more than they really deserved.