Post Reply
Page 5 of 96  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 96 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Wisconsinites take to the streets
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 1:07PM #41
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Feb 17, 2011 -- 11:44AM, Do_unto_others wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 9:52AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


This should be done in every state in the union. Unions are killing the taxpayers. If the governor wants to make sure the people support this bill, he should point out this fact:


Under the bill, public employees in the Wisconsin Retirement System would pay about 5.8% of their salaries toward pensions, up significantly from 0.2%, Werwie said. And state workers would pay for 12.6% of their monthly health care premiums, up from between 4% and 6% percent.


To actually make members pay for a respectable portion of their pension and health care, what a novel concept!


On, Wisconsin, On, Wisconsin!





I don't have a problem with asking workers to contribute to their pension plans, but WHY o WHY do you keep ignoring the fact that the lawmakers "would keep the provision to remove collective bargaining rights."!!!


Or are you in favor of McJobs for ALL? Try making mortgage payments/rent/medical bills/groceries et al on part-time McWalMart jobs - even if you have THREE of them.




Your assumption is wrong on its face. Toyota workers aren't union, and they make the same wages as union GM. Why do you assume that the end of unions would mean "mcjobs" for anyone.


Collective bargaining simply protects the worst at the expense of the best, because that is what unions want. Plus the onerous rules that are put in place to either fire the incompetent, or absurd work rules cost taxpayers money that can't be supported in this economy. It also kills jobs, has today, will tomorrow.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 1:10PM #42
amcolph
Posts: 17,166

Feb 17, 2011 -- 12:55PM, Girlchristian wrote:


...yet the union is willing to fight against doing so and would rather risk 6,000 people losing their job.






 


Because their jobs are all they have to put on the line.


 


People will work for surpisingly little money if you treat them decently.  Behind every labor-management dispute I have ever been personally involved with or known anything about which seems to be about money,


there were always deeper issues concerning working conditions and management attitude.


One of the biggest failings of the union movement is its willingness to settle for wage and benefit increases to allow management to avoid dealing with these issues.


That is why some union workers (the UAW, for example) are paid way over the mark for the kind of work they do, compared to the rest of the economy.


Teachers--as my own brief and unpleasant experience in the public schools has helped to inform me--are generally treated like dog poop.


Now they are threatened with a cut in the old take-home?  No wonder they are in the streets.


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 1:21PM #43
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,043

Feb 17, 2011 -- 1:10PM, amcolph wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 12:55PM, Girlchristian wrote:


...yet the union is willing to fight against doing so and would rather risk 6,000 people losing their job.






 


Because their jobs are all they have to put on the line.


 


People will work for surpisingly little money if you treat them decently.  Behind every labor-management dispute I have ever been personally involved with or known anything about which seems to be about money,


there were always deeper issues concerning working conditions and management attitude.


One of the biggest failings of the union movement is its willingness to settle for wage and benefit increases to allow management to avoid dealing with these issues.


That is why some union workers (the UAW, for example) are paid way over the mark for the kind of work they do, compared to the rest of the economy.


Teachers--as my own brief and unpleasant experience in the public schools has helped to inform me--are generally treated like dog poop.


Now they are threatened with a cut in the old take-home?  No wonder they are in the streets.


 




So, the union members are willing to risk the jobs of 6,000 people simply because that's all they have to bargain with? How do you think those 6,000 people will feel when they lose their job because the collective didn't want to make some sacrifices?


Like i've said, my company recently said that they were going to have to increase the amount we each paid towards our health insurance. We didn't protest or yell and scream that it's not fair, simply because we all recognize that EVERYONE is having to make sacrifices right now. We each simply decided that we could either pay or find another job and no one chose to find another job. Does it suck? Sure, I could use that money back, but it's the right thing to do for the company and for all of us. No way could I sit back and refuse to pay that increase knowing it meant someone else might get laid off.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 1:29PM #44
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

Feb 17, 2011 -- 8:22AM, Christianlib wrote:


Republicans hate workers, and the Constitution.  In that order.





They sure do!


I think they refer to them as the: no donation part of the nation.

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 1:36PM #45
MMarcoe
Posts: 15,884

Feb 17, 2011 -- 1:07PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 11:44AM, Do_unto_others wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 9:52AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


This should be done in every state in the union. Unions are killing the taxpayers. If the governor wants to make sure the people support this bill, he should point out this fact:


Under the bill, public employees in the Wisconsin Retirement System would pay about 5.8% of their salaries toward pensions, up significantly from 0.2%, Werwie said. And state workers would pay for 12.6% of their monthly health care premiums, up from between 4% and 6% percent.


To actually make members pay for a respectable portion of their pension and health care, what a novel concept!


On, Wisconsin, On, Wisconsin!





I don't have a problem with asking workers to contribute to their pension plans, but WHY o WHY do you keep ignoring the fact that the lawmakers "would keep the provision to remove collective bargaining rights."!!!


Or are you in favor of McJobs for ALL? Try making mortgage payments/rent/medical bills/groceries et al on part-time McWalMart jobs - even if you have THREE of them.




Your assumption is wrong on its face. Toyota workers aren't union, and they make the same wages as union GM. Why do you assume that the end of unions would mean "mcjobs" for anyone.


Are you referring to Toyota factories in Japan or here in the US? Because in Japan, there is not the discrepancy between boss pay and employee pay that there is here in the US. Also, companies just do a better job of taking care of their employees in Japan. I think that's why Toyota doesn't need unions in Japan.


Collective bargaining simply protects the worst at the expense of the best, because that is what unions want. Plus the onerous rules that are put in place to either fire the incompetent, or absurd work rules cost taxpayers money that can't be supported in this economy. It also kills jobs, has today, will tomorrow.


I agree that unions often go overboard. That's what Orwell's Animal Farm hinted at. That's what happened at General Motors. But you have to understand that without unions, employers will simply screw their employees for all they're worth. Does the right wing not understand this fact? 


We need a good balance between labor and capital, and it seems NEITHER wing appreciates that.





 

There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 2:02PM #46
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Feb 17, 2011 -- 1:36PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 1:07PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 11:44AM, Do_unto_others wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 9:52AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


This should be done in every state in the union. Unions are killing the taxpayers. If the governor wants to make sure the people support this bill, he should point out this fact:


Under the bill, public employees in the Wisconsin Retirement System would pay about 5.8% of their salaries toward pensions, up significantly from 0.2%, Werwie said. And state workers would pay for 12.6% of their monthly health care premiums, up from between 4% and 6% percent.


To actually make members pay for a respectable portion of their pension and health care, what a novel concept!


On, Wisconsin, On, Wisconsin!





I don't have a problem with asking workers to contribute to their pension plans, but WHY o WHY do you keep ignoring the fact that the lawmakers "would keep the provision to remove collective bargaining rights."!!!


Or are you in favor of McJobs for ALL? Try making mortgage payments/rent/medical bills/groceries et al on part-time McWalMart jobs - even if you have THREE of them.




Your assumption is wrong on its face. Toyota workers aren't union, and they make the same wages as union GM. Why do you assume that the end of unions would mean "mcjobs" for anyone.


Are you referring to Toyota factories in Japan or here in the US? Because in Japan, there is not the discrepancy between boss pay and employee pay that there is here in the US. Also, companies just do a better job of taking care of their employees in Japan. I think that's why Toyota doesn't need unions in Japan.


Collective bargaining simply protects the worst at the expense of the best, because that is what unions want. Plus the onerous rules that are put in place to either fire the incompetent, or absurd work rules cost taxpayers money that can't be supported in this economy. It also kills jobs, has today, will tomorrow.


I agree that unions often go overboard. That's what Orwell's Animal Farm hinted at. That's what happened at General Motors. But you have to understand that without unions, employers will simply screw their employees for all they're worth. Does the right wing not understand this fact? 


We need a good balance between labor and capital, and it seems NEITHER wing appreciates that.





 




Toyota workers in TN make as much hourly as GM workers. GM workers have a much better healthcare plan (or I should say had) the union runs the healthcare plan now, and is telling retirees that the plan is unsustainable and they need retirees to absorb many additional costs)


 


Where did you come up with the last statement? Most Americans are not union outside the public sector, and aren't being screwed by their company. Does Google need a union? How about Facebook? It is the need to attract talent that keeps a company from screwing the help so to speak. If I don't do a good enough job, they take their talent elsewhere.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 2:18PM #47
MMarcoe
Posts: 15,884

Feb 17, 2011 -- 2:02PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Where did you come up with the last statement?


That last statement of mine is just a wide-sweeping generalization. To me, it seems the Rs are too quick to damn unions, and the Ds are too quick to protect them, with neither side seeing the need to fine-tune them where necessary.


Most Americans are not union outside the public sector, and aren't being screwed by their company. Does Google need a union? How about Facebook?


As for Google and Facebook, give them time. They might outsource their labor to the Third World, where workers will end up getting screwed for sure.


It is the need to attract talent that keeps a company from screwing the help so to speak.


That's true some of the time, but not all the time.  


If I don't do a good enough job, they take their talent elsewhere.


Employees don't always take their talent elsewhere. Sometimes, they don't have the means to go anywhere else. It would be nice to live in the kind of world you describe, but unfortunately, we don't. Should we just dump large number of unproductive people onto the streets? I dunno. The workplace and the marketplace for labor are just too imperfect.





There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 2:31PM #48
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Feb 17, 2011 -- 2:18PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Feb 17, 2011 -- 2:02PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Where did you come up with the last statement?


That last statement of mine is just a wide-sweeping generalization. To me, it seems the Rs are too quick to damn unions, and the Ds are too quick to protect them, with neither side seeing the need to fine-tune them where necessary.


Most Americans are not union outside the public sector, and aren't being screwed by their company. Does Google need a union? How about Facebook?


As for Google and Facebook, give them time. They might outsource their labor to the Third World, where workers will end up getting screwed for sure.


It is the need to attract talent that keeps a company from screwing the help so to speak.


That's true some of the time, but not all the time.  


If I don't do a good enough job, they take their talent elsewhere.


Employees don't always take their talent elsewhere. Sometimes, they don't have the means to go anywhere else. It would be nice to live in the kind of world you describe, but unfortunately, we don't. Should we just dump large number of unproductive people onto the streets? I dunno. The workplace and the marketplace for labor are just too imperfect.









Ah, well like I said in an earlier post, unions cost jobs, but if you want a private sector one, go ahead. Public ones should be banned.


Those third world workers choose to work there or no. If I choose to work at something that doesn't pay me much, rather than say, farm, that is my choice. I assume that those workers know enough about their own lives to make the decision as to whether their lives are better or not. If we are talking slavery, then I am on your side.


We simply disagree on your next point. If I work for a real SOB, it is my responsibilty to find a new job, not just hang around because. Which gets to your last point. If one is too lazy to take your talent elsewhere, that is not societies fault, it is yours.


How far in your opinion, should we go for "unproductive" people, as you call them. I wouldn't go far at all. Make them productive, and watch them succeed on their own. If they fail, start over again, most entrepreneurs are just this way.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 2:47PM #49
vra
Posts: 6,397

Feb 17, 2011 -- 12:55PM, Girlchristian wrote:


 However, that "force" means that unions are not a democracy as you state...


Such as in this case, MANY people in this country are being asked to pay more towards their insurance and yet the union is willing to fight against doing so and would rather risk 6,000 people losing their job.



As far as the first item is concerned, then are you also saying that America is not a democracy as well?  After all, I'm pretty much forced to pay taxes on that which I feel is wrong.  "Democracy" does not mean there's an absence of force as we are forced to do a great many things and not do some others. 


Also, we really have to keep our eyes open to what works versus what doesn't.  I can have all the pie-in-the-sky dreams I want, but that doesn't mean all of them are going to work.  Open shops are used to bust unions, as we've seen over and over again.  Closed shops do represent all of their constituents and are an example of democracy in action.


As far as the latter paragraph is concerned, I've seen quite a few unions take some serious concessions in recent years to make certain that they don't destroy the company or the governments.  The UAW gave serious concessions up after the loans, and union employees in a local city near where I live in the Lower just voted to take a 10% pay cut plus an increase in their co-pays in order to help the city and keep more jobs for their workers.   

Unions do not always do the right thing, much like businesses and governments don't aways do the right thing.  But because a business may not do what's best, do we try and get rid of it?  If a governmental body doesn't always do the right thing, do we get rid of that? 


Unions are not dictatorships and they certainly don't always get their way.  On two separate occasions, I actually fought against my own union leadership and prevailed.  Once was a strike vote whereas I noted that the fiogures didn't add up, so I gave a presentation that ended up having the majority see it my way and voted against the leadership (needless to say, that leadership was pissed-- and that's the kind word for it).  On a second occasion, I defied the union on a strike and went in because I strongly felt I could not in due conscience support what I believed was a reckless decision.  The irony is that the strike was broken, and yet we ended up settling for close what the logical compromise would have suggested anyhow.  Even though the union leadership in both cases weren't at all happy with me, thy came to understand that I simply had to do that which I felt was the right thing to do, and by-gones became by-gones.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2011 - 3:06PM #50
Father_Oblivion
Posts: 11,196

Feb 17, 2011 -- 9:52AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


This should be done in every state in the union. Unions are killing the taxpayers. If the governor wants to make sure the people support this bill, he should point out this fact:


Under the bill, public employees in the Wisconsin Retirement System would pay about 5.8% of their salaries toward pensions, up significantly from 0.2%, Werwie said. And state workers would pay for 12.6% of their monthly health care premiums, up from between 4% and 6% percent.


To actually make members pay for a respectable portion of their pension and health care, what a novel concept!


On, Wisconsin, On, Wisconsin!




Workers are taxpayers. Unions are composed of workers. To say unions hurt taxpayers is absolutely absurd.


Unions hurt the bottom line of greedy capitalists, and to say otherwise simply helps the greedy at the expense of those who actually work and earn (rather than shift around 'assets' to make money the easy way). 

The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction...
Neil Gaiman
'American Gods'

‎"Ignorance of ignorance, then, is that self-satisfied state of unawareness in which man, knowing nothing outside the limited area of his physical senses, bumptiously declares there is nothing more to know! He who knows no life save the physical is merely ignorant; but he who declares physical life to be all-important and elevates it to the position of supreme reality--such a one is ignorant of his own ignorance."
- Manly Palmer Hall
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 96  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 96 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook