Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Union Busting in Wisconsin


Jonsa

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am well aware of American labour union history, including the many government interventions to break up strikes. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Wisconsin National Guard in this affair as well.

Sorry comrade, but these are not Petrograd bread riots! ;)

What you have down in the USA is a police state not much different than those tinpot dictatorships you support through the barell of a gun. Hypocrites is what you are chump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC, that's what I like about you, you're an honest man, and of course that didn't contribute a thing towards the high (and very expensive to any economy) unemployment, which BOTH parties (and more importantly the general public) see as the #1 issue in both our countries...

Not to worry...it was far worse in the 1930's. Time to suck it up! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you could pick from several examples - the gun registry ?

Government policies and procedures lead to enormous structural inefficiencies in how they work and deliver services. THAT is why everything takes longer and costs more, not because their workers are lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS is my custom....we doesn't apply to Wisconsin. To your larger point, the answer is simple: changing economic performance / revenue and growing debt load. Maybe such things were never affordable at all! :)

Maybe not - let's see some numbers.

Tax Rates, State costs including payroll numbers and increase %s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you have down in the USA is a police state not much different than those tinpot dictatorships you support through the barell of a gun. Hypocrites is what you are chump.

That's fine by me.....Canada tried the same thing but was not nearly as "successful". Something about bad weather!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you could pick from several examples - the gun registry ?

That's an extreme example. If you look at all the services government provides, it's easy to cherry-pick instances where the wheels came off. But all in all, I think taxpayers get pretty good value for the orderly, prosperous society government helps to maintain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The union of today serves no purpose at all other then to make money for itself. We have labour laws in place today that weren't there before. Yes they were put in place due to unions which they have now outlived their purpose. We should look at outlawing them altogether now.

Is a labour law going to save you when you're abruptly put on the midnight shift so your boss's nephew can have yours? Is it going to protect you when they cut your salary or decide you have to work during your scheduled holiday, despite already having bought plane tickets? Is it going to help you when your boss harasses you? What about when your boss decides to suspend you for a week because he finds you guilty of doing something you didn't do? If you have a crappy, unergonomic work area which is hurting your back every day, is the government going to do anything about it? If you are now ill and so unable to work quite up to your old standard, is the government going to protect you or see you get shifted to another job within the organization? If the boss decides he doesn't like you and is going to give you all the crappiest assignments, and won't promote you because he doesn't like your politics is the government going to step in to help you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...and following your example, it was very controversial to invest Canadian and American taxpayer dollars into a failing GM, failing in no small part because of obligations created by unions and collective bargaining.

Don't blame collective bargaining if management agrees to ridiculously generous benefits, salaries and conditions. Blame short term thinking on the part of management.

It takes dozens of taxpayers to support the total compensation packages of public employees and their pensions.

In what way? It certainly takes a lot of taxpayers to support a bureaucrat doing his work at $60k per year. What of it? Does that mean his remuneration is unreasonable for the work he's doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a basic difference between those of us who believe in individual effort, diligence, right to work and support our families, and achieve success on our own merit and those who, due to whatever reason have to rely on someone else to get for them what they obviously unable or unwilling to EARN is that WE don't resort to name-calling, we don't rely on violence - actual or implied or threatened - and we look at the union boasters the same way as one would look at a buggy whip.

There was a time when a buggy whip helped one move, by cracking it over the horses in front of one's buggy.

What unions are doing today is nothing more than cracking a buggy whip over a union-built car that doesn't start. (Union built? Doesn't start? No surprise here!)

Perfect definition of OBSOLETE.

The blither blathering of a mindless yes man....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AS is my custom....we doesn't apply to Wisconsin. To your larger point, the answer is simple: changing economic performance / revenue and growing debt load. Maybe such things were never affordable at all! :)

Thankfully, multi-million dollar bonuses for CEOs and stock market whizkids are still easily affordable - even from non-unionized private sector banks and brokerage firms which would have gone belly up were it not for taxpayer support.

Edited by Scotty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't blame collective bargaining if management agrees to ridiculously generous benefits, salaries and conditions. Blame short term thinking on the part of management.

This is all quite irrelevant when there is no more money. The State of Wisconsin is not going to go deeper into the red just to keep the public unions so comfy, or their ability to keep it so comfy.

In what way? It certainly takes a lot of taxpayers to support a bureaucrat doing his work at $60k per year. What of it? Does that mean his remuneration is unreasonable for the work he's doing?

No, it means that the total compensation structure is unsustainable, regardless of what the public employee does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Scabs" also have self interest...and a stronger work ethic.

Not a stronger work ethic, just selfishness. Compare it to a soldier on the battlefield. All the rest of his platoon are charging the enemy, but he sits in a hole and waits for all the violence to be over, then runs over to join in the victory celebration and reap the rewards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully, multi-million dollar bonuses for CEOs and stock market whizkids are still easily affordable - even from non-unionized private sector banks and brokerage firms which would have gone belly up were it not for taxpayer support.

Let them fail! This is why public bailouts were so contentious. But that doesn't mean taxpayers have to accept being screwed by public union contracts. Change is good!

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a stronger work ethic, just selfishness. Compare it to a soldier on the battlefield. All the rest of his platoon are charging the enemy, but he sits in a hole and waits for all the violence to be over, then runs over to join in the victory celebration and reap the rewards.

I will run with your silly analogy and remind you that American and Canadian armed forces are not unionized, and for good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an extreme example. If you look at all the services government provides, it's easy to cherry-pick instances where the wheels came off. But all in all, I think taxpayers get pretty good value for the orderly, prosperous society government helps to maintain.

That's the first one that came to mind, and it proves my point that inefficiency and waste happens in government.

Is government too wasteful and inefficient overall ? I would say yes, but it's harder to prove. Also, government is a very large and heterogeneous beast.

I will submit this, however: government's chain of accountability is very long and complicated, which makes it very difficult to attach the end results to the person ultimately responsible. That person, or persons would ultimately be the voters. Ostensibly, you could say that a given department is accountable to the minister in charge. I don't think that those statements are controversial.

Now if you compare a private organization to government, you can see that government has a more complicated set of goals. Again, I don't think this is a controversial statement. But at the essence, business has to make money and government has to get re-elected.

That means efficiency takes a subordinate role to being popular, in broad terms. As such, I think that most could see how this arrangement would end up with a less efficient organization.

I think that there's also lots of anecdotal information (and likely reams of consultant reports too) about government waste. My own experience bears this out.

Does this mean that government workers are lazier than non-government workers across the board, or even generally ? No, that's not proven and - again - not my experience. What it means is that the management of government services is not as concerned with delivering programs efficiently as it is with appearing to be doing so to those members of the voting public who care about such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all quite irrelevant when there is no more money. The State of Wisconsin is not going to go deeper into the red just to keep the public unions so comfy, or their ability to keep it so comfy.

So the state will pay for tax breaks for corporations by taking the money directly out of the pockets of working class employees? And you find it odd people are upset about that?

No, it means that the total compensation structure is unsustainable, regardless of what the public employee does.

You've presented no evidence it unsustainable. Why is unsustainable now and wasn't twenty five years ago? What has changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found it very telling that, as one pointed out, they have exempted police and firefighters from this. It's a cynical move, and proof that this is not being done on principle but for political points. Quite gutless, in fact.

If the police and firefighters have any foresight, they should see what this could eventually mean for them and work to rule.

Most police,firefighters,ambulance etc are unionized....

But because thye are indeed an essential service,they don't have the right to strike.They do still negotiate collective agreements,however if their is an impasse in those negotiations,the process immediately goes to Binding Arbitration.

Ever wonder why there is rarely any labour problems with htose occupations???

Employers never want to go to Binding Arb hearings because it's a 50/50 crap shoot,and monetary awards usually end up being tripled and quadrupled after "things" get found out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will run with your silly analogy and remind you that American and Canadian armed forces are not unionized, and for good reason.

How does unionization affect the analogy? The scab still avoids the turmoil and discomfort, not to mention financial difficulties of the strike, yet reaps the rewards. Also, his absence from the picket line, indeed, his helping to support management makes the fight more difficult and costly for the remaining workers.

Indeed, my analogy was wrong. It would more like the soldier, instead of assaulting the position with his comrades, sneaks inside and helps man the defenses, and then afterward seeks to rejoin his comrades. Do you wonder they'd feel anger towards him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions have demanded themselves out of job. They are directly responsible for the exportation of jobs to China and India.

They are also responsible for NON-UNION, American/Canadian built Toyotas, Nissans, Mercedes's, Volkswagens and Hondas.

Ah! the unions are responsible for the decisions and actions of others.

The companies who directly decided to outsource labour, and who did so willingly, 100% from their own choice, are not responsible.

I think i'm starting to understand your stance: "personal responsibility" is not to be applied to the rich and powerful companies. Ye gods, no!

And, as we can see, the companies are very concerned with paying their labour a fair wage, without union help. Hell, workers in factories that make product for Walmart and Disney, in, say, Indonesia, can sometimes make enough hard cash after a 12 hour day to put a leaky roof over their heads. Everyone wins! :) If they want to eat, too, they should simply work two 12-hour a day jobs.

But of course--for those who worship wealthy and powerful people--the companies are not responsible for any of this...including for the below-subsistence wages they offer. No, hell, it's the unions' fault.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the state will pay for tax breaks for corporations by taking the money directly out of the pockets of working class employees? And you find it odd people are upset about that?

Tax breaks are used to incentivise corporate investment...even the unions support that!

You've presented no evidence it unsustainable. Why is unsustainable now and wasn't twenty five years ago? What has changed?

It wasn't 25 years ago either, but who's counting. Your "requests" for evidence are curiously absent any from yourself.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does unionization affect the analogy? The scab still avoids the turmoil and discomfort, not to mention financial difficulties of the strike, yet reaps the rewards. Also, his absence from the picket line, indeed, his helping to support management makes the fight more difficult and costly for the remaining workers.

Yup...that's the idea. Management knows that there is a tipping point when that strike line gets crossed by enough "scabs" wishing an honest days pay for an honest days work.

Indeed, my analogy was wrong. It would more like the soldier, instead of assaulting the position with his comrades, sneaks inside and helps man the defenses, and then afterward seeks to rejoin his comrades. Do you wonder they'd feel anger towards him?

Nope...your analogy fails to recognize the actual relationship of armed forces labor to their commitment and duty. It's not about fighting or defending "management".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...