Amber Alert!!!! - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2011-02-17 04:48 PM

Will anyone seeing any of the Democratic congressmen of Wisconsin please tell them to get back to work? The sergeant at arms and the police are looking for them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110217/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions;_ylt=AlwX_bVlhDkg2YgjqGWwdkl34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTJya2wwY2prBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjE3L3VzX3dpc2NvbnNpbl9idWRnZX RfdW5pb25zBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDOARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNwcm90ZXN0c3N3ZWw-

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

1 posted 2011-02-17 05:39 PM

Try the Clock Tower Resort in Rockford, Illinois.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

2 posted 2011-02-17 06:10 PM

Smart of them to get across the state line...of course, there IS extradition.

I like what they are showing about themselves and their party...

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

3 posted 2011-02-17 06:13 PM

Obama calls the proposed bull an assault on unions. I also like what it shows about him...

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

4 posted 2011-02-17 06:18 PM

The DNC is bussing in thousands of people to join the protests...I also like what it shows about them.

On a day that Harry Reid claims that the republicans want to shut down the government, the democratic congressmen in Wisconsin are shutting down the government. So much for what that says about HIM.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

5 posted 2011-02-17 06:36 PM

Mike,

I'm genuinely curious, is the shutdown in Wisconsin a unique event or is it a recognised political tactic that's been used by both sides in the past? If it's unique it certainly deserves to be looked at, unique events are by definition out of the ordinary and generally have interesting underlying causes. If, however, it's the standard way that the political process works in Wisconsin it's probably not so interesting.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

6 posted 2011-02-17 06:57 PM

I've checked as well as I could and have found no instances of where it has been used before. If it has, I will be as critical as I am now, regardless of which party used it.

My guess is that it was just one of those rules that got included in the state constitution, dictating that at least one member of each political party be present during votes to negate any one party of trying to railroad a law in behind the backs of the other.....sort of like what Obama did while finalizing the health care bill behind closed doors with the republicans and press shut out.

It's fairly senseless because they will have to come back sometime. With Obama's support, which they are getting now, I assume they are hoping it will be diffused before they come back.

Run away out of state and shut down the government....quite a tactic.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

7 posted 2011-02-17 07:01 PM

What is more interesting is that, if this bill were an Obama creation, it would be applauded. Since it has been labeled an anti-union bill by the president, however, it is cursed.

Obama's union connections are well-known and over 200,000 federal employees have been hired during his two years in office, quite a figure in light of rising unemployment.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

8 posted 2011-02-17 07:34 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if the Justice Department sues WI shortly.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

9 posted 2011-02-17 08:50 PM

Wow, I'm shocked, just shocked I tell you!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/DNC_playing_role_in_Wisconsin_protests.html

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

10 posted 2011-02-17 08:53 PM

Denise, the Justice dept is a little busy..
http://escapetyranny.com/2011/02/03/judge-rules-obama-admin-in-contempt-on-oil-drilling-ban/

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

11 posted 2011-02-17 08:55 PM

You are shocked, Denise??

“I’m disappointed that instead of providing similar leadership from the White House, the president has chosen to attack leaders such as Gov. Walker, who are listening to the people and confronting problems that have been neglected for years at the expense of jobs and economic growth,” Boehner said in a statement. “I urge the president to order the DNC to suspend these tactics.”

They have forgotten Arizona? So what's new?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

12 posted 2011-02-17 09:51 PM

unique events are by definition out of the ordinary and generally have interesting underlying causes.

I think the underlying causes are fairly obvious. The democrats know that the bill will be passed, since they are in the minority. Their only hope is to stall for time, knowing that Obama and the DNC will do everything possible to diffuse the situation in some way. That is exactly what's happening with the bussing in of thousands of protestors, the manning of phone banks, and the like. That is what's happening now. They will hide like little children, hoping for a "coast is clear" call.

This makes two states Obama basically has sounded the war bugles against. The states are getting a clear message - cross Obama and you better cross your legs. What is out of the ordinary is a president declaring war against states. Not sure that's happened since the Civil War.

So far Obama has shown that he doesn't care what the public thinks (stimulus, health care), he doesn't care what the courts say (oil drilling and health care) and he will go after any state he disagrees with or that disagrees with him.....Chicago politics.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

13 posted 2011-02-17 10:30 PM

I read somewhere today that the same judge in Louisiana just issued another order giving the Administration 30 days to start issuing the permits that have been applied for and to come into compliance with his previous rulings. We'll see what happens.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

14 posted 2011-02-17 10:38 PM

http://www.youtube.com/user/wisgop#p/u/3/71gsnLfsbbM

This video says it all.

Will the people who remarked that Palin's rhetoric and use of bullseyes were a contributing factor to the Tucson shootings please comment here?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

15 posted 2011-02-18 08:21 AM

.

What are the current tax rates
in Wisconsin? How do they compare
to surrounding states?

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

16 posted 2011-02-18 08:26 AM

Why not look it up, John?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

17 posted 2011-02-18 02:07 PM

.

I already have a pretty good idea
living just across the border. It's just
I keep hearing taxing the "rich" as a
solution and I wondered how much is being
taken already, (and just who the "rich" are),
in income, sales and other taxes
compared to Indiana for example.

Here in Illinois a family with $50,000
of taxable income will be paying $1,000
more in state income tax than it did before,
which means $1,000 less meat, shirts,
and shoes for little Bobbie, (and jobs
for whomever provided them).

.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

18 posted 2011-02-18 03:03 PM

I've had time to do some research - apparently a forced quorum break isn't a unique tactic in American politics, it's quite common in some areas although it's more rarely used the higher up the political ladder you get.

It's not unique but it's rare enough to be interesting.

Wisconsin state law dictates that 20 members, of any political denomination, out of the 33 members that make up the senate must be present to form a quorum from which a vote can be taken. On Thursday the 14 Democrat members failed to show along with two Republicans which meant a quorum wasn't attainable. State law dictates that if a quorum isn't attained the attending members will be locked in the chamber until the missing members can be brought to the chamber by the Sergeant at arms. That's because technically absent members can only be deemed absent if the senate is in session, when the Republicans adjourned and went home the absent members weren't absent anymore. Unfortunately, the law is slightly vague after that, it doesn't dictate any possible punishment for absentee members or clarify the methods, if any, that can be employed to force errant members to attend.

That's the boring technical stuff out of the way, now for the fun bits.

Are the absent Democrats committing a dereliction of duty?

The question has to be duty to whom? They were elected by a section of people to represent them in the state senate, presumably the same folk that are protesting against the proposed bill, in that respect aren't the absent Democrats truly representing the people who voted for them?

Should they be forced to attend?

I don't think so, if they're adamant that they want nothing to do with the vote and the people they represent don't want them to attend they shouldn't be forced to attend. The Wisconsin political system is resilient enough to deal with such an event. The Wisconsin Assembly, where the Republicans do have a quorum, can still vote on the bill and it's even possible to amend or suspend the quorum rule to accommodate the absent members.

Is this fiscal responsibility or union busting?

Probably a little bit of both. If fiscal responsibility and fairness were the main aim they'd have included all of the emergency service workers in the proposed bill and saved a bit more money and if it wasn't an attack on the unions they wouldn't be trying to remove the collective bargaining rights of the union members when it came to non-fiscal areas like working conditions. How much do you reduce the state deficit by removing the right to collectively bargain for safe working conditions?

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

19 posted 2011-02-18 05:15 PM

MADISON, Wis. â€“ Democrats on the run in Wisconsin avoided state troopers Friday and threatened to stay in hiding for weeks, potentially paralyzing a state government they no longer control.

Meanwhile, massive protests at the state Capitol entered a fourth day as demonstrators vowed to stay as long as was needed to get the concessions they want.

"Hell no, we won't go!" they chanted inside the Capitol as they banged on drums, sat cross-legged in the halls and waved signs comparing Walker to former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.

Thousands of teachers have joined the protests by calling in sick, forcing school districts â€” including the state's largest, in Milwaukee â€” to cancel classes.

Outside the Capitol, demonstrators marched in a procession led by Jesse Jackson, who said workers "should be at the table full-strength to solve the problem."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110218/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

20 posted 2011-02-18 05:47 PM

They were elected by a section of people to represent them in the state senate, presumably the same folk that are protesting against the proposed bill, in that respect aren't the absent Democrats truly representing the people who voted for them?

With all due respect, your presumption is only that....a presumption, unless you have a way to prove that their voters are the ones protesting and want the bill overturned. There could be many who voted for them who work in the private sector and are for the bill. The congressmen are not doing it for the people they represent. They are doing it for the unions and Obama, who is also for the unions. if we are going with presumptions, then I will presume that they could care less about the people of Wisconsin (those not union members). Besides there are thousands of protestors there who are not even a part of it, having being bussed in by the DNC, which is sleaziness to the nth degree.
They are not congressmen to represent only the people who voted them in. As soon as they are elected as congressmen, they are supposed to represent ALL citizens ofthe state.

. If fiscal responsibility and fairness were the main aim they'd have included all of the emergency service workers in the proposed bill

Not necessarily. There is a reason why they are called "emergency" services.

if it wasn't an attack on the unions they wouldn't be trying to remove the collective bargaining rights of the union members when it came to non-fiscal areas like working conditions.

The unions are definitely targeted simply because the unions are the ones to employ collective bargaining. The protestor are not screaming about no collective bargaining for safe working conditions. They are screaming about money. There are two interesting facts here.

First collective bargaining for salaries are exempt from the bill. Second, as far as the teachers are concerned, the average teacher in Wisconsin earns $89,000 per year in salary and benefits. The average non-union employee nation-wide is $61,000.00, salary and benefits. The bill would require the group making the 89,000 to contribute part of their earnings to help pay a small of their pension and 12% of their health coverage. Those against the bill argue that those making the 61,000 should continue to pay for the pensions of those making 89,000. Is there any wonder the non-union workers are against it? I know personally I have no one paying into my pension. If I don't save for it, that's my problem and yet union members claim they have the right to have others pay for their pensions.

They don't ask where the money is coming from. They just expect it. If the state is broke, they don't care about that, either. They just want it, presumably by just wanting it is sufficient enough to make it magically appear.

Obama made his speech last week saying "We must live within our means." Realistically he should be supporting this bill. His actions, along wiht the DNC's, show that his words are meaningless and false. He only talks the talk. The reason is obvious....he wants to do anything to appease unions. Anyone doing anything that could hurt unions is his enemy and he will go after them, as he is doing now. He is showing how two-faced he really is and where his actual priorities lie.

He also made a speech after the Tucson shooting how we must not engage in hateful rhetoric which can fuel violence. Apparently the folks in the video didn't get that message.

What did you think of the video, by the way?

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

21 posted 2011-02-18 06:04 PM

quote:
What did you think of the video, by the way?

The same as I thought about the other videos, from both sides, which were presented as evidence of dangerous rhetoric - pretty darn flimsy and a tad pathetic.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

22 posted 2011-02-18 06:13 PM

Thank you for not disappointing...

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

23 posted 2011-02-18 06:26 PM

BTW, what the federal employees would pay under the bill is 5.6% toward their pensions and 12.8% for their health insurance, both figures less than half of the national average.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

24 posted 2011-02-18 07:21 PM

The bill also gives them a no-layoff clause, which they don't have now.

So if they get their way and the bill fails, many of the protestors will be laid off as a way of balancing the budget.

You'd think they would want to keep their well paying jobs and cadillac insurance plans and pay a little bit more for their benefits rather than join the ranks of the unemployed, losing their paychecks and their health benefits.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

25 posted 2011-02-18 08:05 PM

quote:
5.6% toward their pensions and 12.8% for their health insurance, both figures less than half of the national average.

Interesting numbers, I like numbers, but they don't mean a great deal without the rest of the information.

When you say 'average' are you talking about mean, mode or median?

5.6% of salary for a pension. Is that a final salary pension or endowment and what are the agreed benefits?

12.8% of salary for health care - that sounds high, National Insurance in the UK is 11% and you get a pension thrown in to boot. Have you ever considered a single payer system?

Denise,

The clever folk may simply decide to re-locate to a state that offers better benefits and the really clever ones, if the education system survives, will probably avoid the public sector altogether, instead of teachers, police officers and fire fighters they'll all become bankers . That's how free markets work - if you offer peanuts you tend to end up with monkeys.

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

26 posted 2011-02-18 08:13 PM

I believe it is 12.8% of the cost of the healthcare premium that the State pays, not 12.8% of their salary, Uncas.

Most private sector jobs don't even offer pension plans any more. Asking the State workers to contribute 5.6% of their salary towards their pension isn't unreasonable. That's about what my pension plan contribution is, about the same as the local wage tax, a little bit higher than the state tax, an a lot lower than the federal tax.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

27 posted 2011-02-18 08:50 PM

quote:
I believe it is 12.8% of the cost of the healthcare premium that the State pays, not 12.8% of their salary, Uncas.

It's probably a moot point as the unions had apparently already accepted the health care and pension increases but do you know the total cost of the premium Denise?

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

28 posted 2011-02-18 09:07 PM

I believe I read that their plan costs the State about an average of $22,000 per year per employee. That must be a damn good plan. That's about 3x the cost of what my employer pays for my annual premium.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

29 posted 2011-02-18 11:52 PM

Obama at his finest...

WASHINGTON (AP) — In rapid-fire action Friday, the Republican-controlled House voted to strip federal money from President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and from Planned Parenthood and to bar the EPA from issuing global warming regulations.

Upping the ante in the budget faceoff, the Obama administration warned that workers who distribute Social Security benefits might be furloughed if congressional Republicans force cuts in government spending.

In a letter the Social Security Administration sent to its employees' union, agency officials said that while no decision about furloughs had been made, they were possible "given the potential of reduced congressional appropriations."

The letter was circulated by congressional Democrats, who said such cuts could mean shuttered Social Security offices and delayed benefit payments. The letter's distribution by Democrats underscored how the threat of jeopardizing Social Security payments is a potent political weapon.
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&rip_id=%3CD9LFF1E82%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS&src=facebook

In Obama-ese, that means "touch my health care and I'll make sure social security checks get delayed". Hey, it's the Chicago way....

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

30 posted 2011-02-19 02:20 AM

     It's the Republican way.  You take the money away and expect there to be no consequences.

     If you Republicans wanted to give us some budget room, you would have voted to suspend the tax cuts for the very very very wealthy.  Paying for that debt is very very expensive.  Very very very very expensive.

     Also paying for wars that weren't needed is very very expensive.  Paying for the various assaults on civil liberties, I wouldn't presume to estimate.  I wouldn't know how much of that particular budget actually gets published.  But I'd be thrilled to know how much of that money we have to borrow as well.

     The money to pay for all this, you'll notice, is coming out of the hides of the poor, the needy, the crazy, and the starving while the Republicans are protecting and even subsidizing the money of the extraordinary wealthy, or, as President Bush the Younger called them, "my constituency."

     (Did I get that quote right?  Would somebody correct that quote for me?)

     Apparently the religious Right hasn't enough of a problem with this to apply significant pressure.

     One clear exception to this deserves mention here.  The Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, a long term crusader for programs for the psychiatrically impaired, was reportedly heartsick at the cuts demanded in her state budget in that area, and apparently said so in clear terms.  While I have had significant problems with many of her other positions, I am happy to say that she seems to be acting here with real  compassion.

     I applaud her courage.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

31 posted 2011-02-19 07:24 AM

quote:
I believe I read that their plan costs the State about an average of $22,000 per year per employee. That must be a damn good plan. That's about 3x the cost of what my employer pays for my annual premium.

I think you may have misread the figure Denise. If the state is paying 22k per year into a pension plan the recipient would be receiving a pension large enough to buy a small eastern European town.

Based on that rate even a relatively poor pension scheme in the UK would return a lump sum of three quarters of a million dollars and an annual annuity of 100k if the recipient joined age 20 and retired at 65.

If you were to say the average paid out of the pension fund was 22k per member it'd sound more reasonable.

But I digress.

Instead of arguing over the increases in pension and health care contributions, which, as I've already pointed out, have apparently already been accepted by the unions, it might be interesting to try to work out why Walker believes these changes are necessary. It also might be worthwhile trying to work out what possible fiscal benefit could be gained by removing the rights to collective bargaining, banning the collection of union dues via the payroll system and forcing the workforce to vote on a yearly basis as to whether the unions should exist.Those three contentious issues seem to have sparked the protestations so the obvious question is:

How exactly do those three specific things reduce the deficit?

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

32 posted 2011-02-19 07:29 AM

Ah, there you are, Bob. I was wondering where you were.

As a man who has voiced on many occasions how you feel the right is the group that uses hate rhetoric and threats, I've been curious to know how you viewed the video here of the actions of the protestors in Wisconsin.Any thoughts on that...or the DNC's actions in this situation? I had assumed you just decided to stay away from this thread but, since you have now made your entrance here, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on it.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

33 posted 2011-02-19 09:30 AM

No, I was talking about the healthcare premium costs to the State per employee, Uncas, not what they pay into the pension plan for the employees.

I don't know how the other issues relate directly to the budget other than to maybe lend some stability going forward in not having to worry about future budgets being held hostage by expensive union demands.

I think people would love having the option to vote annually on whether to have a union or not. That would tend to make the unions more representative of the membership if they had to earn their vote every year. It might take away some of that 'abuse of power' syndrome that they tend to get.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

34 posted 2011-02-19 03:47 PM

GOP lawmakers accused Democrats of "irresponsible scare tactics," and said their proposed cuts would not affect benefits or force the Social Security Administration to close offices. Any furloughs "would result only if that decision were made by the administration," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said in a written statement.

So what we have is the president threatening to delay social security checks, causing hardships on the millions of elderly who need them to live, as a weapon against the republicans for going against him. That is simply the work of an educated thug. One can see just how much he cares for the welfare of those he is supposed to represent, not use s pawns in his power struggle game.

If Obama were a terrorist, he would be one using children and, in this case, the elderly, as human shields.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

35 posted 2011-02-19 04:04 PM

     When you ask for my comment on "the video," Mike, are you speaking of the one you reference in posting number 14 of this thread?

     If your answer is "yes," then you may have made a mistake in asking me for a response.  I watched the video, and I looked at the ending where it said it was done for the Wisconsin GOP, and I took it for was it was intended to be, a propaganda piece, produced not under the rules of journalism but under the rules of propaganda.

     This would be the way that you'd take a piece produced by or for the DNC, isn't it?  If you'd expect a piece like that to be other than preaching to the choir, I'd say your expectation would be too high.  And that's pretty much what I think about the Wisconsin GOP piece.

     I don't say that all the violent rhetoric ever spoken in the history of the United States was from the Right Wing.  I'm and old lefty, and I know better.  I had my share of quarrels with idiots who thought that violence was the answer and the only answer during the sixties and the early seventies.  I thought people who thought that way were stupid then and I think they're stupid now, and also wrong.

     Stupid wrong people can kill you just as dead as smart savvy and witty folks, I've come to notice, just as a bit of a parenthetical statement.

     The folks who were doing a lot of the talking about violence way back in the sixties and early seventies were frequently lefties, some of them folks I'd met in the SDS; but there were a sprinkling of Right Wing idiots, too.  You could go to a demonstration, a peaceful demonstration, and get badly hurt.  I remember this well.

     I compare this experience with the experience of the counter-demonstrators there, who also came to demonstrate, but additionally to break heads.  They were from the Right Wing.  The soldiers were busy elsewhere, like overseas, and some of them were right wing and some of them were left wing, and they did the best they could no matter what.  Mostly they were too busy trying to stay alive, those that were in harm's way, to worry much about each other.  That's what they've told me, over the years.  I always thought that made sense.

     But recently, over the past twenty years, say, I'd have to say that the violent rhetoric has pretty much been a right wing thing.  I know you don't see it that way, Mike, and I won't try to change your mind about it.  You've got your point of view.  But if I saw any sort of level of violent language or actions on the part of the left, I'd call it, the same as I did when I was a kid.  There is no SDS.  There's nothing like the SDS.  The Unions are very domesticated, even in comparison to the sixties, let alone in comparison to the thirties, or the turn of the century, while the rhetoric of the Right approaches that of Father Coughlin, though, thank goodness, it isn't anti-semitic.  As for Congressman Boehner suggesting that the President "order" the DNC to do anything, I think you know as well as I do exactly what a ridiculous piece of political rhetoric that was.  It's as Will Rogers said, right?  I'm not a member of any organized political party.  I'm a Democrat.

     I find Rush Limbaugh and his Right Wing talk show cohorts violent and inciting.  Among other things, they shout a lot, loudly, invading my personal space, and they get people very angry.  They have large audiences full of angry, shouting people.  They have rallies for for large numbers of angry shouting people.

     As you've pointed out, these audiences are much larger than Left wing audiences.  You suggest that this is because the Left Wing is irrelevent.  I would suggest an obvious alternative.

     The Right Wing is filled with Huge Numbers of Furious Shouting people who are on the edge of explosion all the time; and its leaders are trying to channel this energy to trample everybody else with the threat of violence.  They are riding the whirlwind.  They are trying to control a mob.

     So yeah, you'll find some off the wall rhetoric and signs and posters at left wing rallies from time to time, but the tone is generally more civil.  There is less talk about violence than the occasional right wing rally I've attended.

     (Right now, I notice that the Left wing rallies tend to focus on what the Right has already done, and the Right wing rallies focus on what the Left is going to do.  I wonder if this is a quirk of my own personal perception, something I'm merely seeing at this moment, or is there some actual truth to it?  I'd welcome observations from others on this point.  It's so very easy to make false comparisons and not be aware of doing it; and it's important to check them out with people who may disagree strongly.  A dose of reality can be very helpful in keeping a guy's feet on the ground.)

     Anyway, Mike, I'm not sure if this is the sort of answer you were looking for, but it's the answer that says everything I know about my own thoughts and feelings on the matter, and the one that's the closest to my truth.

My best

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

36 posted 2011-02-19 04:20 PM

Obama actually threatened to do that? That's unbelievable Mike, while it's entirely likely that the planned GOP cuts to the Social Security Administrations funding are likely to lead to furloughs for administration staff surely it's down to them and not Obama to break the bad news.

Why couldn't he wait for the Social Security Administration to do their own calculations and work out for themselves whether furloughs would be necessary? What the hell does Obama know about administrating social security! Leave it to the people on the ground for Jebus sake! If they think there are going to be furloughs they'll phone, or text, or they'll send a letter to the ways and means committee.

It's a crazy world Mike, do you have any idea why the Social Security Administration didn't just inform the ways and means committee by letter?

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

37 posted 2011-02-19 04:28 PM

Thank you, Bob. The video was presented for Wisconsin, yes...but they are referring to the insertion of Pelosi and Bill Maher to show just how ridiculous and two-faced their comments were. The footage of the protesters was real.

What answer was I looking for? Nothing that I should have expected, I suppose. Showing footage of people advocating murdering a supreme court judge and his wife, among others, I suppose I hoped I could get one liberal to say it was wrong. SHowing a march of liberals holding signs with comparisons to Hitler, Mubarek and using bulleyes on the Governor's face, I hoped I could get maybe on non-conservative to say that was wrong. I was obviously wrong to expect such a thing.

I will lower my expectations in the future

I do appreciate your taking the time to respond at least, Bob. Have a good day...

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

38 posted 2011-02-19 04:58 PM

quote:
I hoped I could get maybe on non-conservative to say that was wrong.

As a conservative do you think political rhetoric that includes violent metaphors is wrong Mike?

Or do you,like me, think it's ok?

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

39 posted 2011-02-19 05:01 PM

"If they think there are going to be furloughs they'll phone, or text, or they'll send a letter to the ways and means committee.
It's a crazy world Mike, do you have any idea why the Social Security Administration didn't just inform the ways and means committee by letter?"

In a letter the Social Security Administration sent to its employees' union, agency officials said that while no decision about furloughs had been made, they were possible "given the potential of reduced congressional appropriations."

The letter was circulated by congressional Democrats, who said such cuts could mean shuttered Social Security offices and delayed benefit payments. The letter's distribution by Democrats underscored how the threat of jeopardizing Social Security payments is a potent political weapon.

Why didn't they just inform the Ways and Means committee? I think the answer is fairly obvious. it wouldn't get the publicity or scare factor they want. Instead they sent it to the employees union and had it distributed by congressional democrats, who could use it as a political weapon.

Upping the ante in the budget faceoff, the Obama administration warned that workers who distribute Social Security benefits might be furloughed if congressional Republicans force cuts in government spending.

Why should they warn before knowing? The same scare tactic. This is not really unique, although it is for a president. Cities and counties have used it to get unpopular things passed. Pass our tax hike or we'll have to lay off police and firefighters! Are there other ways the could cut the budget to avoid tax hikes? Of course, but they know police and firefighters have the scare tactic feature and they use it to snap people into line. Now the Obama administration is using social security payments in the same way and for the same reason.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

40 posted 2011-02-19 05:18 PM

As a conservative do you think political rhetoric that includes violent metaphors is wrong Mike?

With the exclusion of advocating murdering someone or committing illegal acts...no, not really. I personally don't care if they use Hitler comparisons or say much of anything they want. I don't really care about any of the signs and banners they use in Madison. That's not my point.

The burr under my saddle is when the left attacks the other side for such actions while they do the same things themselves. In the video, I'll use Pelosi and Maher as examples. Throw in Reid, the ladies of the VIEW and half of Hollywood. Here, in our forum, we have people knocking conservatives for such behavior and yet avoid completely any showing of liberals doing exactly the same thing.

If someone wants to call it wrong, fine. If they want to call it immaterial, fine. I would just like to see it be considered equal for both side, not one's answer depending on which political party he is referring to.

You, actually, did make it the same for both sides in your response. I respect you for that.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

41 posted 2011-02-19 05:25 PM

Obama wasn't simply making an empty threat then Mike, he was reporting what the Social Security Administration were telling its employees.

I guess I owe him an apology.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

42 posted 2011-02-19 05:46 PM

You will see it as you will.

I'm sure Obama will be happy to accept your apology

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

43 posted 2011-02-19 08:25 PM

     To say that what Walker was doing was different would depend on how you framed it.  I don't think Walker merits such a comparison, but then I actually have some idea what Hitler did.  I have some notion of what we supported Mubarak in doing, and I don't know that the folks in that demonstration have much of an idea about that.

     The woman who made the statement about Hitler abolishing unions in 1933 was correct, and if she was limiting her comparison to that, then there are elements that hold, though the comparison is greatly overblown.

     Anybody who subscribes to assasination as a tool for political progress in this democracy deserves condemnation.  They have mine.  There are a range of right wing political supreme court justices that I do not like.  The solution is to work hard to elect more democrats to the presidency and to the senate.

     The violent rhetoric is still, in my opinion, overwhelmingly on the side of the right, which even supports the use of violence against American citizens if you listen to the rhetoric about police powers and what police should be able to do in the process of questioning suspects.  The Right doesn't even have a clear idea of what violence is.  How many times, for example, have I heard you minimize the violence involved in waterboarding or stress positions or various modes of treatment that the world as a whole defines as torture.

     This is, in fact, one of the major quarrels between left and right.  And in this discussion, the Right pretends that we are even talking about the same things.

     I'm nauseated by half the things that the Right Wing suggests are perfectly reasonable behavior, and so are most of those on the left.  To pretend otherwise is silly.  You and many other folks on the Right act as though you haven't defended various forms of torture in these pages in the not so distant past as being the only reasonable mode of behavior in the modern world.  And you act as though you haven't suggested that the left wing wasn't foolish for thinking such behavior and such thinking was wrong.

     It is wrong.  There are loonies on the left, but you won't as a rule find most left wingers taking positions such as the ones you've advocated, and such as the ones that spokespersons for your party have taken over the past five to ten years.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

44 posted 2011-02-19 09:11 PM

Your nausea is noted, Bob

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

45 posted 2011-02-19 10:11 PM

.

Wisconsin is required by their constitution to have a balanced budget.
They are looking at a 3.6 billion dollar deficit. The state already taxes
its people at a high rate. They don’t get to print money, (thereby devaluing
the money the prudent saved), so how are they going to fill the hole?

And I don’t want to hear about closing social security offices or taking
heaters out of school buses; not all, not even most of us, are that stupid.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

46 posted 2011-02-20 12:38 PM

Thank you, Mike. I am grateful.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

47 posted 2011-02-20 06:06 AM

quote:
They are looking at a 3.6 billion dollar deficit.

They aren't looking at the possible 3.6 billion dollar deficit for 2011\13 Huan, that budget doesn't actually exist yet and neither does any possible deficit. They're looking at the 137 million shortfall from the 2009\11 budget.

quote:
so how are they going to fill the hole?

The 137 million dollar hole or the possible 3.6 billion hole?

The 137 million dollar hole is easy, remove the idiotic collective bargaining stuff from the current bill under discussion and implement the financial parts only - both sides have already agreed that it needs to be done. The only thing holding things up are the non-fiscal elements.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

48 posted 2011-02-20 11:52 PM

John, how do you account for the differences in the figures that you are using from the figures that Uncas is using? Your figures appear to be thirty times larger!

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

49 posted 2011-02-21 12:20 PM

.

“Walker, a Republican, has said concessions are needed now from public employees to help balance a projected $3.6 billion shortfall in the next two-year budget and a $137 million deficit in the current budget. He said 1,500 state workers could be laid off during the next four months unless the bill is passed.”

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/B3/20110218/NJNEWS10/102180366/1207/NJNEWS14/40-000-DEMONSTRATE-UNION-BARGAINING-RIGHTS-Wisconsin-standoff-continues?odyssey=mod_sectionstori es

Just one of many sites talking about it,
or you can hear it on the radio...
.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

50 posted 2011-02-21 11:04 AM

.

"They aren't looking at the possible 3.6 billion dollar deficit for 2011\13 Huan, that budget doesn't actually exist yet and neither does any possible deficit."

And the train hasn't yet hit that bus on the tracks.

.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

51 posted 2011-02-21 03:13 PM

quote:
And the train hasn't yet hit that bus on the tracks.

Only at this point that particular train doesn't actually exist, nor does the bus, and they won't until the 2011/13 proposed budget is presented next Tuesday and discussed, amended and then voted on, prior to its implementation in July of this year.

The current issue is the projected 137 million shortfall in the 2009/11 budget. If you want to extend your analogy that's the train that has already hit the bus and is lying on its side adjacent to platform five and threatening to set the station on fire.

I don't mind talking about the current train wreck or the train wreck that may possibly happen at some point in the future, just as long as we don't get the two confused.

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

52 posted 2011-02-21 03:29 PM

.

"at some point in the future"

As you indicate starting "next Tuesday".

And you're wrong; the train and bus do exist.
Anyone who has ever been involved in a budgeting
process knows that.

.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

53 posted 2011-02-21 04:01 PM

quote:
And you're wrong; the train and bus do exist.

No they don't.

Anyone who understands budgets, who deals with them on a daily basis, will understand why.

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

54 posted 2011-02-22 08:02 AM

.

35 years

.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

55 posted 2011-02-22 01:34 PM

Then you should know better than to claim that there's a 3.6 billion dollar deficit in a budget that doesn't yet exist .

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

56 posted 2011-02-22 05:28 PM

.

If you're intelligent, you don't sit
and wait to get hit.

The whole idea of the budget process
is to see the train(s) and then plan
to do whatever not to be on the tracks
on arrival. That is so basic . . .
.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

57 posted 2011-02-22 09:16 PM

     Am I incorrect in my understanding that the unions in Wisconson in question have offered to cave on the financial part of the bargaining, as reported on Rachel Maddow last night?  And that the Republicans and the governor there have refused the offer?

     That would seem to make the issue one of the Governor's political determination to make an attack on collective bargaining, and not an issue of any sort of financial emergency at all, wouldn't it?

     Why then, would the police and fire unions, the unions that supported governor walker's run, be specifically exempt from the law under consideration?

     Clearly, it has little or nothing to do with money and everything to do with attempting to destroy any sort of democratic power base.  This also seems to make sense considering the legislation that the Rerpublicans have threatened to bring up in today's meeting without presence of the democrats is one that attempts to restrict voting rights, also according to Ms. Maddow.

     You might not like what Ms. Maddow says, or the way she says it, but her facts are generally pretty straight.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

58 posted 2011-02-23 12:58 PM

Well, considering how she was buffaloed lately by reporting a fake story on a trick website as truth, you may want to reconsider that comment, Bob

I'm glad the republicans are going ahead. If the democrats don't want to take part in the government and would rather hide in an out-of-state hotel, may they pass every bill they want. The dems will have no one to blame but themselves.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

59 posted 2011-02-23 03:48 AM

It's a shame that the House & Senate Republicans didn't commit dereliction of duty and flee the Congress during the Healthcare debates and votes. Can you imagine the uproar that would have ensued? A different tune would have been sung, from the top down, than the one they are singing now. Different strokes I guess.

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

60 posted 2011-02-23 02:13 PM

quote:
It's a shame that the House & Senate Republicans didn't commit dereliction of duty and flee the Congress during the Healthcare debates and votes.

They could have done that Denise, but as you are no doubt aware, Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution defines a quorum in both houses as a simple majority, so it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the vote.

There would have been less amendments though.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

61 posted 2011-02-23 04:38 PM

     But the Republican agenda here is to destroy collective bargaining for folks not willing to bow to government policy and, for Governor Walker, I think to destroy collective bargaining in general.  The police and fire unions may have a temporary reprieve, but historically, they do not always bow down to the pressure of the administration de jour.  In which case, they, too, would be open to attack.

     Republicans have a history of attacking expanded voter pools, as Mike and I have discussed in these pages from time to time.This is indeed the root of their quarrel with Acorn.  Acorn was successful in voter registration drives and hence almost intolerable to the RNC

     How is this the fault of the Democratic Party?  It's a good idea for them to take a stand someplace, and this is certainly a worthy place to do so.  While many folks are not thrilled with what they see as corrupt unions — I disagree with the characterization; I believe it's at least as unaccurate as "Thoughtless greedy capitalists" — there are a large proportion of the public that is strongly in favor of collective bargaining, and the Republicans may be doing themselves considerable political damage by attacking it.

     Opinion doesn't mean a moral imperative, of course.  I don't like it when Republicans say that public opinion is on their side, and I don't think that a Democrat saying the same makes the Democratic case more morally suasive.  In terms of the political calculus, howerver, it is relevent.

      Making the franchise more difficult to exercise seems anti-democratic, whether you capitalize the D or not.

     Blaming the Democrats is certainly one thing you could do.  The other might be to ask yourself why such restrictions would come up in the form of a bill at all, who proposed the laws, and what purposes such laws might serve.  The Democrats are fighting for their political lives here, and losing.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

62 posted 2011-02-23 04:41 PM

.

“Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they’ve acceded to many of their governor’s specific demands — that workers contribute to their pensions and health-care costs, for example. But they don’t want to lose the right to collective bargaining.

But that is exactly what they need to lose.

Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with friendly politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests, and, as we’ve seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government.”

“The labor-politician negotiations can’t be fair when the unions can put so much money into campaign spending. Victor Gotbaum, a leader in the New York City chapter of AFSCME, summed up the problem in 1975 when he boasted, “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.””

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260359/public-unions-must-go-jonah-goldberg?pa ge=1

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

63 posted 2011-02-23 06:00 PM

Republicans have a history of attacking expanded voter pools, as Mike and I have discussed in these pages from time to time

You may have discussed that, Bob. I don't recall that I ever have - and I've certainly never agreed to it..

I don't like it when Republicans say that public opinion is on their side,

Then you must not like the polls that verify those claims.

Blaming the Democrats is certainly one thing you could do.

Yep, I know it's become policially incorrect to actually lay claim where it belongs but it's refreshing to actually point out that the emporer is naked once in a while.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

64 posted 2011-02-23 08:57 PM

quote:

“Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they’ve acceded to many of their governor’s specific demands — that workers contribute to their pensions and health-care costs, for example. But they don’t want to lose the right to collective bargaining.

The Maddow people said all of the demands except for that of giving up the right of collective bargaining. How accurate that is as opposed to the National Review, I don't know. It seems that there is substantial agreement between the two, however, which is nice to see.

quote:

But that is exactly what they need to lose.

Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with friendly politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests, and, as we’ve seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government.”

     I don't think this is quite true.

     Yes, Equitable distribution of profits are indeed matters of negotiation in private sector negotiations with Unions.  But they are not in the public sector.  Pay raises, benefits and salaries are always important points of negotiations, public or private, and sometimes even more important in the public sector, because laws that often apply to private employers do not always apply to public sector employers, and there must be some method available to work out disagreements between the two parties to the contract.

     In fact, it appears that it is only the use of Unions that allows bargaining to be governed by contract, and the behavior on the part of the employer to be governed by anything other than political experiency.  Indeed, there is enough political expediency already in the behavior of the government towards its employees.  Civil Service regulations were a result of the early quarrels in this sort of matter, protecting workers from at least some degree of political exploitation, and protecting the country from a complete turnover in government jobs each time administration or party might change.

     Unions have gone some distance in providing at least some protections beyond those granted by the civil service.

     Salaries and benefits are not the only things unions and workers have gained through collective bargaining.

     Working conditions are a major point of contention between government agencies and workers.  Where possible, government employers have sought to increase the difficulty of working conditions and to create more dangerous working conditions for workers in government jobs as a means of instituting savings.  Fire fighters and police will frequently be able to tell stories about the difficulties created by not putting sufficient personnel on the job, with consequent increased risk for these folks.  Some schools are fully as dangerous as some police jobs, and the protections are much less serious for employees.

     Some folks on the right wing believe that an increase in class size to up to sixty students is not unreasonable, in the same way that some police jurisdictions have felt it appropriate to reduce the officers in a squad car from two to one.  I suggest that such things are dangerous for the workers involved and give a false impression of how dangerous some neighborhoods might be if sufficient policing were supplied.

     I can also suggest that the number of cases that some social workers are forced to take responsibility for is more than it is possible to actually process and deal with in a safe and protective fashion.  Children's services are very hard hit in this regard, and they have been for years.  The working conditions are woeful.

     I would further suggest that the government is fully capable of holding its own against union pressure, since all of these problems have been of reasonably long standing, through administrations of both parties.  The Unions could be criticized for not being more hard-nosed in looking out for their members, but you need to remember that we are talking about public sector unions here, and most of them have, by now, reached some sort of accomidation with the governments with which they negotiate.

     Blaming the fiscal plight of the states on the unions is pretty much straight rhetoric, near as I can tell.

     We've been creating and going through the single largest economic downturn since The Great Depression over the past ten years or so.  Any number of imprudent financial institutions have bit the dust, and a major housing bubble has burst.  A record number of people have been out of work and continue to be out of work.  Our manufacturing base is down.  We refuse to pass sufficient protective tarrifs to make sure that the rest of our manufacturing base has some sort of a fighting chance.  We have borrowed a huge amount of money to pay for a tax break to the very very very very wealthiest folks in this country, and even now struggle to pay that money back, while the congress has recently held up all business unless we agreed to continue that policy.

     Oddly enough, the fact that tax revenues are down is now greeted with terrible shock and rage by the Republican Right and the Ultra Right.  Clearly, the people to blame, they suggest to us, are the people who spend their time doing our scutt labor and putting their lives on the line for us; and the place where we need to make the correction is by attacking the slim margin that allows these folk, by and large, some margin of dignity and safety.  By making the lives of these folks more marginal and more dangerous, the net effect will; be to make government less useful, and we will be attacking some of the more useful functions the government serves.

     These has been done in the past by cutting police down, by cutting back fire-fighters, by not paying for infrasystem repairs, by not caring so well for our underprivilaged, for the endangered and at risk kids.  Already we have pretty much dismantled our public mental health system.

quote:

“The labor-politician negotiations can’t be fair when the unions can put so much money into campaign spending. Victor Gotbaum, a leader in the New York City chapter of AFSCME, summed up the problem in 1975 when he boasted, “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.””
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260359/public-unions-must-go-jonah-goldberg?pa ge=1

     That may in fact have been true in 1975.  I don't know.  Unions were certainly in much better shape at the time, and covered a much larger portion of the working public than they do today, didn't they?

     You'd have a way to go to convince me that such a thing might possibly be true today; just as you'd have to go quite a way to convince me that Ford was still president, both statements that might be made about 1970.

     How much money Unions can put into elections today is not what I see The National Review arguing, is it? Nor do they mention the amount of money, legitimate money, under current law, as is the union money, contributed to right wing causes by the Right Wing.  Is there something wrong with labor advocating in their interest, just as the Right Wing advocates in theirs?

     It sounds as though The National Review believes there is.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

65 posted 2011-02-23 09:53 PM

I didn't know that Uncas, thanks for the civics lesson.

Bob, Civil Service Regulations are in place to protect public service employees, if someone believes they were wrongfully disciplined, demoted or terminated. That's a level or protection not available to the private sector. More often than not, a terminated employee is reinstated by Civil Service Order, with perhaps just a suspension upheld. I've seen this numerous times in my past seven or eight years in the Personnel Department. Very rarely have I seen a dismissal upheld, even for what one would consider a more than valid reason.

Collective bargaining will remain in place for wage issues, safety and working condition issues, just not for benefits, to my understanding of the WI & OH situations. According to both governors this is critical in order for the local governments more freedom to make benefits decisions to balance their budgets without being held hostage by the unions over that issue because the states can no longer afford to bail out the local governments.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

66 posted 2011-02-24 01:42 PM

     As far as I know, Denise, Collective bargaining for government Unions in Wisconsin has been provided for in only two specific cases, according to Maddow; these are for the Two Unions that supported the governor's election bid, The Police and the Firefighter's Unions only.  All others are supposed to have collective bargaining rights terminated, despite their willingness to roll back salaries and benefits because of the currect economic difficulties.

     I can understand why this particular arrangement would have been attempted by the Governor and his party.  I believe they are trying to cut off sources of support for the Democratic Party, and this is surely an excellent way of going about it, at least pragmatically speaking.  Some of my objection is also on those purely political grounds.  I am, after all, a Democrat.

     But beyond that, I am also a guy who's seen what Unions can do to be helpful on occasion to working folk.  Not as much as I'd like, but enough to mitigate some of the more autocratic tendencies of Management in some of the more difficult companies and in some of the more oppressive bureauocracies.  The Unions do this very imperfectly, but even such clumsy interference seems to arouse remarkable rage in companies and in managements who do not wish to be held to account.

     And of course, there are some companies who see treating employees fairly and well as being in their own self interest, and who actively do so,  whose need for Unions may be non-existent.  For them a Union would simply be another layer of unnecessary management.  The older I get, though, the fewer of these I seem to see.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

67 posted 2011-02-24 01:54 PM

     States can no longer afford to balance their own budgets because we are in a fairly major recession, the largest economic downturn since the depression.  You can blame a lot of things for that downturn, including a housing bubble, and an enormous tax cut for the most wealthy of the very very rich which we have had to borrow money to pay for.  Unions, which have been shrinking in size and influence since the '60s, and which have been continuing to shrink during much of this downturn, are hardly the people to blame for it.  I'd say the repeal of some of the protections against banks making particular sorts of investments — law put in place to protect the public during the depression — would have considerably more effect.  Interest rates on credit of 25% and higher have certainly played a large part as well.

     You in particular may not use credit cards, but the American public in general has been drunk with them.

     Fees, fines and charges add to the profits of that rapacious industry.  And so on.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

68 posted 2011-02-24 02:20 PM

But why do public sector employees even need union representation for protection against being treated unfairly by their government bosses when they already have Civil Service Protections for that purpose, a layer of protection that the private sector doesn't have?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

69 posted 2011-02-24 05:49 PM

Bob, reports today said that the protesters are all chanting, "It's not about the money. It's about our rights."

As Ron pointed out, which happens to be true, collective bargaining is not a right. It's an entitlement. Even their chants are wrong..

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

70 posted 2011-02-24 09:31 PM

     Our handy dandy dictionary says:

en·ti·tle·ment
[en-tahy-tl-muhnt]  Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act of entitling.
2.
the state of being entitled.
3.
the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation.

en·ti·tle·ment
[en-tahy-tl-muhnt]  Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act of entitling.
2.
the state of being entitled.
3.
the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation.;

Wikipedia says

Or

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.
In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit[1]—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a "sense of entitlement").

[edit]Legal term

As a legal term, entitlement carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted.

     I emphasize:

quote:

"A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society."

How strictly do you want to apply the distinction?

In this case, I believe that the right was granted by the State as part of various contracts freely entered into by the State, and cannot be taken away except by due process. The quarrel here is not about money, remember, but about the right for Unions to bargain collectively for their members. Wasn't that's that sort of high-handedness that was part of our quarrel with the Brits in 1776?

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

71 posted 2011-02-24 09:47 PM

     Because not all government employees are civil service employees, would be one good reason, and those folks deserve some protection as well.  And because not all factors are covered by civil service regulations.  Civil Service protects job holders from politically motivated dismissal.  What other things do its regulations govern?  Sexual harrassment, workplace safety, misuse of services, arbitrary ruling and decisions?  I don't believe civil service does bargaining for wages, either; it merely trusts the government to provide a decent level of compensation.  What about medical care?

     If the workers as a whole have issues develop with the elected officials not covered in the standard civil service regulations, who speaks for them?

     There is not always a good relationship between the government workers and the government in power because the government doesn't always function in the interests of its employees.  The employees have a right to have their own collective interests represented against those in power and against whatever political stunts they may try to pull.  Many officials have an eye to reelection more than toward the smooth functioning of the government.  Government workers are frequently portrayed in an unflattering light.  Surely this must be deserved sometimes, but it can't be as deserved as the reputation of government workers suggests.

     Those are some quick and dirty reasons whyt I think that government workers need more protection than civil service supplies.  You, for example, if I understand your situation correctly, are underserved by both your union and by civil service, who should be pushing for better health care, pension rights and wages, especially when the state is in condition to afford them.  Perhaps I don't understand correctly, however.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

72 posted 2011-02-25 06:08 AM

I beleive that Civil Service protects all workers, with the exception of the Civil Service Exempt employees such as upper level management and elected officials.

I don't, in general, have a problem with the idea of what unions are intended to be. Ihave a problem with the reality of what they are.

Who should pay for a wage & benefits increase for me, if my union did actually push the issue with the city? The taxpayers have been hit hard enough in this economy and with those in charge constantly increasing taxes as it is.

Until the economy improves I don't think increases for public sector employees should be on the table.

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

73 posted 2011-02-25 12:04 PM

quote:
As Ron pointed out, which happens to be true, collective bargaining is not a right. It's an entitlement. Even their chants are wrong..

You're misquoting me, Mike. Badly. That is, in fact, the exact opposite of what I said.

quote:
"A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society."

That would not be my definition of a right, Bob.

An entitlement is something (you think) you deserve. A right is something you have, whether you deserve it or not. Most, in fact, don't.

FWIW, I also don't qualify "right" with any modifiers, specifically I don't care if the right has been legally recognized or not. The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant you the right to Free Speech, for example. It simply guarantees the right will be cost-free so far as government interference is concerned. Short of killing or maiming you, no one can take away your right to Free Speech. That's what makes it a right, not a privilege and not an entitlement.

quote:
Who should pay for a wage & benefits increase for me, if my union did actually push the issue with the city? The taxpayers have been hit hard enough in this economy and with those in charge constantly increasing taxes as it is. Until the economy improves I don't think increases for public sector employees should be on the table.

I don't know, Denise; the economy is in pretty bad shape. Maybe we shouldn't pay public employees at all? That would certainly save the tax payers a bundle, don't you think?

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

74 posted 2011-02-25 12:24 PM

Then whom do you suggest do the work of running a municipality, Ron? It's not easy work and no one is going to do it for free...not even me!

I don't see anything wrong with everyone in a society biting the bullet, wage and benefit-wise until the economy improves, public and private.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

75 posted 2011-02-25 02:22 PM

My mistake, Ron. I was recalling your comment "Collective bargaining is a right, not an entitlement." and got it confused. It was an honest mistkake and not intentionally meant to misquote you. My apologies....

Uncas
Member

since 2010-07-30

Posts 408

76 posted 2011-02-25 04:28 PM

The bit in the Bill that allows Walker to sell off State owned, power, heating and cooling plants without multiple bids or scrutiny by the Public Services Commission seems slightly ominous.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

77 posted 2011-02-25 05:24 PM

     If you want a review of civil service law and coverage, I believe there are different systems covering the Federal Government and the governments of the several states.  I found the law too extensive to offer a quick review, but here is a site that seems to cover a fairly extensive overview.
http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/field-oliver-p/civil-service-law/1/

     From a quick look, it appears that, no, not all government jobs fall under that category.  The primary initial concern with the system was and still appears to be that applicants are well qualified for the jobs they take.  This is established by examination.  It provides protections that make it difficult for politically motivated transfers, hirings and promotions to happen.  It limits the pay of these people, so that rewards are limited and cannot be seen as spoils or as a license on the part of the office-holder to steal.

     It does not appear to provide collective bargaining rights, and seems to keep the power for determining the appropriate pay level and benefits level out of the hands of the workers.  There are advantages in this and disadvantages as well.  I, for one,

am uncertain about allowing the rewards of my work to be established entirely by people with whom I may at some point have an adversarial relationship with.

     In brief, however, to reply to Denise, it does not appear that all employees of the government except administrators and elected officials are governed by the civil service.

     More specifically, in terms of personal experience, I know that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as at times specifically attempted to get around these protections by hiring “contractors” to do jobs that normally people in the civil service would fill.

     If Massachusetts can do it, I’d bet most other governments can and do do the same thing.  This is, in fact, much of the Republican platform in many states.  Talk about “privatization” means destruction of Civil Service protections for the voters and for the employees both, and opens the way to the return of the abuses of the spoils system that Civil Service was supposed to cure.  As Uncas points out, one of the provisions of the Wisconsin law that their governor and Republican legislature are trying to enact, is exemption from the system of competitive bidding.  Some may feel that the inclusion of such a provision in this law is purely accidental; I believe it is part of the same agenda that attempts to weaken collective bargaining in general for government employees.

     [Bold]Until the economy improves, I agree with Denise[/Bold] that an increase in pay and benefits of government employees is unwise.  Furthermore, it seems that the unions themselves have come to the same understanding.  It is on collective bargaining that they have been intractable, as, in my opinion, they should be.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.