This whole thing is rather entertaining.
What did they expect though? Unions with their anti-Republican stance were on the losing side of the elections.
I hope that Democrats aligning themselves with hardline Unions like they are doing right now in WI will drive even more middle-class voters away from them.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
This whole thing is rather entertaining.
What did they expect though? Unions with their anti-Republican stance were on the losing side of the elections.
I hope that Democrats aligning themselves with hardline Unions like they are doing right now in WI will drive even more middle-class voters away from them. [/quote]
I think the Irony here is the Governor attacked the Unions that did not endorse him
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
This whole thing is rather entertaining.
What did they expect though? Unions with their anti-Republican stance were on the losing side of the elections.
I hope that Democrats aligning themselves with hardline Unions like they are doing right now in WI will drive even more middle-class voters away from them. [/quote]
I think the Irony here is the Governor attacked the Unions that did not endorse him
[/quote]
TBH, I have no idea which Unions endorsed the Governor, don’t see any “irony” in that scenario though, had it been otherwise - yeah it would’ve been somewhat ironic.
Fuck unions and fuck dems who hide under rocks. The only thing I’m “pro” anymore is pro-deadlift.
OK, so now I guess we will see what Gov. Christie from New Jersey would do.
NJ Unions are staging a protest in Trenton NJ on Friday to show support for Wisc. unions.
However, there is no vote yet, like in Wisc.
Can’t those dems get fired? They weren’t elected and paid to not show up.
The police and fire endorsed the Gov. they were miraculously exempt from the legislation banning collective bargaining
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The police and fire endorsed the Gov. they were miraculously exempt from the legislation banning collective bargaining [/quote]
Chess my friend, he knew he would need them when this shit jumped off.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
OK, so now I guess we will see what Gov. Christie from New Jersey would do.
NJ Unions are staging a protest in Trenton NJ on Friday to show support for Wisc. unions.
However, there is no vote yet, like in Wisc.
Can’t those dems get fired? They weren’t elected and paid to not show up.[/quote]
I think they can be recalled, or the governor can cancel their govt issue credit cards and make them pay out of pocket.
I can understand the point about the tax dollars funding what should be a private entity, point taken, my point was just that an employer cannot tell an employee what to do with the money they earned.
As far as the governor attacking only the unions that didn’t back him, not the case, I believe the police and fire were the only unions that backed him, and because of this, even though they are exempt, they have both rescinded their backing.
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[quote]Kansky wrote:
I can understand the point about the tax dollars funding what should be a private entity, point taken, my point was just that an employer cannot tell an employee what to do with the money they earned.
As far as the governor attacking only the unions that didn’t back him, not the case, I believe the police and fire were the only unions that backed him, and because of this, even though they are exempt, they have both rescinded their backing.
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[/quote]
I have no problem with what the employees do with their money, but the public sector union itself is an entity draining tax payers and then turning around and completely supporting something most of those tax payers wouldn’t with money taken from them, under terms they don’t actually get to negotiate.
Those dues should have been going to setting up pensions paying part of the benefits, things like that. Not backing politicians willing to rape the taxpayers more to buy the support of the unions.
[quote]Kansky wrote:
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[/quote]
This is what Dems hate to acknowledge. That Obama used his supermajority the same way Wisconsin is, but apparently the Kenyan was not initiating an assault on tax payers when he did it. People can be stupid, but not THIS stupid.
Hey Wisconsin Dems, you lost the election. Democracy is a bitch, especially when you lose in elections.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
I can understand the point about the tax dollars funding what should be a private entity, point taken, my point was just that an employer cannot tell an employee what to do with the money they earned.
As far as the governor attacking only the unions that didn’t back him, not the case, I believe the police and fire were the only unions that backed him, and because of this, even though they are exempt, they have both rescinded their backing.
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[/quote]
I have no problem with what the employees do with their money, but the public sector union itself is an entity draining tax payers and then turning around and completely supporting something most of those tax payers wouldn’t with money taken from them, under terms they don’t actually get to negotiate.
Those dues should have been going to setting up pensions paying part of the benefits, things like that. Not backing politicians willing to rape the taxpayers more to buy the support of the unions. [/quote]
Like I was saying, I agree completely that this cannot continue, they need to either pay more for health care and their pension, or take a pay cut to reflect those increases, I am just against taking away their collective bargaining agreement. Also, I do like portions of this bill, such as the union must recertify by vote, just every year seems unreasonable, also the exact contract length language I like, but also just one year at a time seems a little short sighted and has the possibility of turning into a situation like this every year.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Democracy is a bitch, especially when you lose in elections. [/quote]
Democracy is a bitch, which is why I don’t support mob rule.
[quote]Kansky wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
I can understand the point about the tax dollars funding what should be a private entity, point taken, my point was just that an employer cannot tell an employee what to do with the money they earned.
As far as the governor attacking only the unions that didn’t back him, not the case, I believe the police and fire were the only unions that backed him, and because of this, even though they are exempt, they have both rescinded their backing.
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[/quote]
I have no problem with what the employees do with their money, but the public sector union itself is an entity draining tax payers and then turning around and completely supporting something most of those tax payers wouldn’t with money taken from them, under terms they don’t actually get to negotiate.
Those dues should have been going to setting up pensions paying part of the benefits, things like that. Not backing politicians willing to rape the taxpayers more to buy the support of the unions. [/quote]
Like I was saying, I agree completely that this cannot continue, they need to either pay more for health care and their pension, or take a pay cut to reflect those increases, I am just against taking away their collective bargaining agreement. Also, I do like portions of this bill, such as the union must recertify by vote, just every year seems unreasonable, also the exact contract length language I like, but also just one year at a time seems a little short sighted and has the possibility of turning into a situation like this every year. [/quote]
The Union already concedes to the pay cuts but not to it’s right to collectively bargain
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
I can understand the point about the tax dollars funding what should be a private entity, point taken, my point was just that an employer cannot tell an employee what to do with the money they earned.
As far as the governor attacking only the unions that didn’t back him, not the case, I believe the police and fire were the only unions that backed him, and because of this, even though they are exempt, they have both rescinded their backing.
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[/quote]
I have no problem with what the employees do with their money, but the public sector union itself is an entity draining tax payers and then turning around and completely supporting something most of those tax payers wouldn’t with money taken from them, under terms they don’t actually get to negotiate.
Those dues should have been going to setting up pensions paying part of the benefits, things like that. Not backing politicians willing to rape the taxpayers more to buy the support of the unions. [/quote]
Like I was saying, I agree completely that this cannot continue, they need to either pay more for health care and their pension, or take a pay cut to reflect those increases, I am just against taking away their collective bargaining agreement. Also, I do like portions of this bill, such as the union must recertify by vote, just every year seems unreasonable, also the exact contract length language I like, but also just one year at a time seems a little short sighted and has the possibility of turning into a situation like this every year. [/quote]
The Union already concedes to the pay cuts but not to it’s right to collectively bargain
[/quote]
Because they know what they are about to lose. At first, they would not give in to paying into their pensions…until losing collective bargaining came up. Then they GLADLY said they would pay into their pensions and health care then.
Layoffs could begin as soon as next week, let’s see who has the stronger jaw.
Indiana Senate Dems also fled their state to avoid the same situation in Wisconsin. Ohio is starting to warm up too, $8 Billion dollar budget gap to fill.
Political Hiroshima.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
I can understand the point about the tax dollars funding what should be a private entity, point taken, my point was just that an employer cannot tell an employee what to do with the money they earned.
As far as the governor attacking only the unions that didn’t back him, not the case, I believe the police and fire were the only unions that backed him, and because of this, even though they are exempt, they have both rescinded their backing.
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[/quote]
I have no problem with what the employees do with their money, but the public sector union itself is an entity draining tax payers and then turning around and completely supporting something most of those tax payers wouldn’t with money taken from them, under terms they don’t actually get to negotiate.
Those dues should have been going to setting up pensions paying part of the benefits, things like that. Not backing politicians willing to rape the taxpayers more to buy the support of the unions. [/quote]
Like I was saying, I agree completely that this cannot continue, they need to either pay more for health care and their pension, or take a pay cut to reflect those increases, I am just against taking away their collective bargaining agreement. Also, I do like portions of this bill, such as the union must recertify by vote, just every year seems unreasonable, also the exact contract length language I like, but also just one year at a time seems a little short sighted and has the possibility of turning into a situation like this every year. [/quote]
The Union already concedes to the pay cuts but not to it’s right to collectively bargain
[/quote]
Because they know what they are about to lose. At first, they would not give in to paying into their pensions…until losing collective bargaining came up. Then they GLADLY said they would pay into their pensions and health care then.
Layoffs could begin as soon as next week, let’s see who has the stronger jaw.[/quote]
What that proves is this is not about the budget
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
I can understand the point about the tax dollars funding what should be a private entity, point taken, my point was just that an employer cannot tell an employee what to do with the money they earned.
As far as the governor attacking only the unions that didn’t back him, not the case, I believe the police and fire were the only unions that backed him, and because of this, even though they are exempt, they have both rescinded their backing.
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[/quote]
I have no problem with what the employees do with their money, but the public sector union itself is an entity draining tax payers and then turning around and completely supporting something most of those tax payers wouldn’t with money taken from them, under terms they don’t actually get to negotiate.
Those dues should have been going to setting up pensions paying part of the benefits, things like that. Not backing politicians willing to rape the taxpayers more to buy the support of the unions. [/quote]
Like I was saying, I agree completely that this cannot continue, they need to either pay more for health care and their pension, or take a pay cut to reflect those increases, I am just against taking away their collective bargaining agreement. Also, I do like portions of this bill, such as the union must recertify by vote, just every year seems unreasonable, also the exact contract length language I like, but also just one year at a time seems a little short sighted and has the possibility of turning into a situation like this every year. [/quote]
The Union already concedes to the pay cuts but not to it’s right to collectively bargain
[/quote]
Because they know what they are about to lose. At first, they would not give in to paying into their pensions…until losing collective bargaining came up. Then they GLADLY said they would pay into their pensions and health care then.
Layoffs could begin as soon as next week, let’s see who has the stronger jaw.[/quote]
What that proves is this is not about the budget
[/quote]
No, but it could be about future budgets and about right and wrong.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Kansky wrote:
I can understand the point about the tax dollars funding what should be a private entity, point taken, my point was just that an employer cannot tell an employee what to do with the money they earned.
As far as the governor attacking only the unions that didn’t back him, not the case, I believe the police and fire were the only unions that backed him, and because of this, even though they are exempt, they have both rescinded their backing.
I fully agree though that these are elected officials making and signing these bills, if they pass, they pass, democracy in action, hell, Obama passed that healthcare bullshit by shoving it through when Dems had the majority, can’t complain when the reverse happens.
[/quote]
I have no problem with what the employees do with their money, but the public sector union itself is an entity draining tax payers and then turning around and completely supporting something most of those tax payers wouldn’t with money taken from them, under terms they don’t actually get to negotiate.
Those dues should have been going to setting up pensions paying part of the benefits, things like that. Not backing politicians willing to rape the taxpayers more to buy the support of the unions. [/quote]
Like I was saying, I agree completely that this cannot continue, they need to either pay more for health care and their pension, or take a pay cut to reflect those increases, I am just against taking away their collective bargaining agreement. Also, I do like portions of this bill, such as the union must recertify by vote, just every year seems unreasonable, also the exact contract length language I like, but also just one year at a time seems a little short sighted and has the possibility of turning into a situation like this every year. [/quote]
The Union already concedes to the pay cuts but not to it’s right to collectively bargain
[/quote]
Because they know what they are about to lose. At first, they would not give in to paying into their pensions…until losing collective bargaining came up. Then they GLADLY said they would pay into their pensions and health care then.
Layoffs could begin as soon as next week, let’s see who has the stronger jaw.[/quote]
What that proves is this is not about the budget
[/quote]
Incorrect.
This is about budgets, because unions who are not willing to bargain will not adjust their pension/benefit packages to the flux of the economy. When the economy takes a shit, and unions demand more, and you give it to them rather than adjust, you turn into Krapifornia.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Indiana Senate Dems also fled their state to avoid the same situation in Wisconsin. Ohio is starting to warm up too, $8 Billion dollar budget gap to fill.
Political Hiroshima.[/quote]
Indiana is voting to become a Right-To-Work state, so employees can choose whether or not to join the union, Ohio is right there to, and Pennsylavania looks like it will be coming along soon.