WI Gubernatorial Recall

[green]

I don't want to get dragged into a stupid argument with ideologues, so I'll keep this short.

There are benefits to organized labor that some choose to ignore. I worked in a union sheet metal shop for a little while, and it wasn't a coincidence that local businesses turned to us when they needed high quality, custom work (especially if they had stainless steel jobs). There were plenty of non-union shops to choose from, but they mostly did ****ty, low-skill work around town (we got plenty of calls to fix their mistakes when ignorant business owners hired these shops to do more intricate work).

This is largely due to economies of scale created by organized labor. With all the union shops in the area pooling resources to train their new employees, we were much more proficient. Further, with a more rigorous screening process to enter an apprenticeship, and a more honest, cooperative workplace (along with great benefits creating an incentive to work hard), good people were hired and stayed on.

Does it work this way all the time? Of course not, but organized labor isn't the cosa nostra in all cases either.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume green doesn't have nearly the same misgivings about the ridiculous amount of collusion among business owners and executives.

There is nothing wrong with that. I have no problem with people who do a better job getting paid more. It is what America is. The problem is to accomplish what you described, you argue that unions are the only way. This is not true. If there were no unions, you could still go out, make a name for yourself, charge more for better work and be wildly successful. You don't need a union to do this. My problem is the union forcing themselves on the market which drives up costs for everyone and artificially inflates the market.

Unions are very anti-capatalistic and very monopolistic. Look at education. Our quality of teacher has fallen because there is a monopoly on teachers and the unions control the monopoly. Instead of taking advanced math, science and English courses, our teachers in training are taking "how to make a fat kid not feel bad about being fat but instead blame republicans" courses.

 

[GVC]

you argue that unions are the only way.

Uh, no I didn't. I argued that unions are one way to take advantage of economies of scale (among other things).

My problem is the union forcing themselves on the market which drives up costs for everyone and artificially inflates the market.

Eh? There were plenty of non-union shops in town. We competed with them.

Unions are very anti-capatalistic and very monopolistic.

I think you might find, if you actually cared to look, that corporations are rife with collusion, and thus fit the same descriptors you've used for unions.

I'm convinced you didn't even read my post. Bravo, moron. Done with this.

 

[One Brow]

Look what has happened in WI once Walker allowed unions to be voluntary:

Are we supposed to be surprised that people are choosing short-term gains over longer-term gains? Corporations count on people making short-sighted choices.

 

[One Brow]

Unions cry if their members are asked to take a pay freeze for one year let alone any of the other concessions that I mentioned.

That's what they are supposed to do, and why they can be equalizers. One individual can't make a difference the way an organized group can.

 

[Scat]

Are we supposed to be surprised that people are choosing short-term gains over longer-term gains? Corporations count on people making short-sighted choices.

At least they have a choice now.

 

[Stoked]

So you mean they're like the mafia in a good way?

Look, I'm not here to discuss the history of unions - not interested. But I do find it humorous that people leaving the union after gutting it makes you think that particular union was no good to begin with.

I can't spell it out for you any better than that.

I think people are leaving it for a number of reasons. Some because it was gutted and some because they did not want to be in the union to began with. You both know nothing is so black and white.

 

[One Brow]

Unions are very anti-capatalistic and very monopolistic.

So are corporations.

Look at education. Our quality of teacher has fallen because there is a monopoly on teachers and the unions control the monopoly. Instead of taking advanced math, science and English courses, our teachers in training are taking "how to make a fat kid not feel bad about being fat but instead blame republicans" courses.

The non-union school that operate under the same rules as the public schools (typci8ally charter schools) do not perform any better at teaching children, overall (some are better, some are worse). It is therefore illogical to blame unions. I do not expect that to stop you from doing so.

 

[One Brow]

At least they have a choice now.

Better to choose to be lower middle-class than be forced into the middle-middle-class? Hmmmm...

 

[Scat]

Better to choose to be lower middle-class than be forced into the middle-middle-class? Hmmmm...

It's still a choice, no?

 

[Stoked]

It's still a choice, no?

No damnit no! They know what is better for you and how you should be living than you do. Accept it and do what you are told!

 

[JimLes]

If there were no unions, you could still go out, make a name for yourself, charge more for better work and be wildly successful. You don't need a union to do this.

All well and great if you have a job in the private sector. I don't. My management are politicians. They get elected, and need to get reelected roughly every 3-5 years. I would be at the mercy of their whims and fancies without a union.

 

[green]

All well and great if you have a job in the private sector. I don't. My management are politicians. They get elected, and need to get reelected roughly every 3-5 years. I would be at the mercy of their whims and fancies without a union.

So, now you force them to make policies the benefit you and hurt me?

 

[green]

All well and great if you have a job in the private sector. I don't. My management are politicians. They get elected, and need to get reelected roughly every 3-5 years. I would be at the mercy of their whims and fancies without a union.

This is called life. Most corporations turn over their CEO every 3-5 years. EVERYBODY GOES THROUGH THIS. Do a good job, and you will keep it...most of the time. It's not fair, it's life.

 

[JimLes]

So, now you force them to make policies the benefit you and hurt me?

How does the bargaining power of teachers hurt you, exactly? Am I taking away your ability to open your own schools? Does your private-sector boss give you a pay cut because I got a new collective contract and a raise?

And hell yes I want policies that benefit me and hurt you? What am I supposed to do? Want policies that benefit you and hurt me? The way general population thinks of us teachers, just be happy I don't wish harm upon you.

 

[Stoked]

How does the bargaining power of teachers hurt you, exactly? Am I taking away your ability to open your own schools? Does your private-sector boss give you a pay cut because I got a new collective contract and a raise?

And hell yes I want policies that benefit me and hurt you? What am I supposed to do? Want policies that benefit you and hurt me? The way general population thinks of us teachers, just be happy I don't wish harm upon you.

1. Teacher unions lobby against vouchers. That takes away my ability to potentially send my child to a better school.
2. Teacher unions (unions in general) make it next to impossible to fire bad employees. In your teacher example that makes it more likely that my child gets a bad teacher.
3. Unions (and all unions) get involved in things outside "collective barganing". Such as politics. They organize protests at people homes and places of business. If I am a business owner they are protesting I am losing business.
4. Mandatory particiaption (not all unions). Why should I be forced to give money to people that do not necesarily represnt me. If I want to I can if I do not I should not be forced.

4 ways Unions can "hurt" me. Unions have their benefit but, in my opinion, that use is outwieghed by the harm they are causing becasue of the people running them.

As for the way the general populace views teachers...well maybe, just maybe, there is a reason teachers are viewed that way. Your bullish, over aggresive unions. For evidence of this go no father than the California teachers unions.

 

[green]

1. Teacher unions lobby against vouchers. That takes away my ability to potentially send my child to a better school.
2. Teacher unions (unions in general) make it next to impossible to fire bad employees. In your teacher example that makes it more likely that my child gets a bad teacher.
3. Unions (and all unions) get involved in things outside "collective barganing". Such as politics. They organize protests at people homes and places of business. If I am a business owner they are protesting I am losing business.
4. Mandatory particiaption (not all unions). Why should I be forced to give money to people that do not necesarily represnt me. If I want to I can if I do not I should not be forced.

4 ways Unions can "hurt" me. Unions have their benefit but, in my opinion, that use is outwieghed by the harm they are causing becasue of the people running them.

As for the way the general populace views teachers...well maybe, just maybe, there is a reason teachers are viewed that way. Your bullish, over aggresive unions. For evidence of this go no father than the California teachers unions.

This is where unions have been ruined. Unions were set up to protect good employees. They are now set up to protect their own, and at a very high cost. Being against vouchers is ridiculous. Vouchers are a much better option for kids, especially kids in cities where public schools are failing (again, in part, due to bad teachers being protected).

The biggest problem with unions are their politics. This whole WI thing was started because unions bullied their forced members into signing petitions to get the election redone. It is one thing to make sure you aren't being over worked (and taking a sick day then working 40 hours, but collecting overtime is not overworked), paid fairly (having full health, retirement, and competitive pay with equivalent "private" jobs is not being paid fairly, especially when the "private" worker is paying for all of it. Union/government workers definitely can pay some of their health care/retirement/etc) and good working conditions. That is not what unions are doing (don't believe me, read what unions were receiving in WI, and how much better the state AS A WHOLE is doing now that the unions have been squashed).

 

[JimLes]

1. Teacher unions lobby against vouchers. That takes away my ability to potentially send my child to a better school.

Because, of course, education would work much better if people with money could send all their kids to one school, and all the poor, troubled kids would be at another. That's equality, right there.

2. Teacher unions (unions in general) make it next to impossible to fire bad employees. In your teacher example that makes it more likely that my child gets a bad teacher.

Teachers are actually quite easy to fire. The standard of personal conduct we are held to is pretty strict, even for professionals. When was the last time you read about a stock broker being fired because he was in a porno movie?

4. Mandatory particiaption (not all unions). Why should I be forced to give money to people that do not necesarily represnt me. If I want to I can if I do not I should not be forced.

Because you want to be a teacher, and as such you ought to probably fulfill whatever conditions the teachers' organization sets. It's no different than the Bar, the Medical Association, etc.

 

[green]

Because, of course, education would work much better if people with money could send all their kids to one school, and all the poor, troubled kids would be at another. That's equality, right there.

Already happening. It is called private schools. Vouchers at least give kids a chance to go to private schools. Right now, they have no choice.

Teachers are actually quite easy to fire. The standard of personal conduct we are held to is pretty strict, even for professionals. When was the last time you read about a stock broker being fired because he was in a porno movie?

Completely irrelevant example. I care if a teacher is in a porno because they are molding KIDS. Stock brokers usually have no involvement with kids...unless you count 18 year old girls with daddy issues.

Because you want to be a teacher, and as such you ought to probably fulfill whatever conditions the teachers' organization sets. It's no different than the Bar, the Medical Association, etc.

Again, bad example. Those associations aren't FORCED. If you don't want to be a part of it, you don't have to.

 

[Stoked]

Because, of course, education would work much better if people with money could send all their kids to one school, and all the poor, troubled kids would be at another. That's equality, right there.



Teachers are actually quite easy to fire. The standard of personal conduct we are held to is pretty strict, even for professionals. When was the last time you read about a stock broker being fired because he was in a porno movie?



Because you want to be a teacher, and as such you ought to probably fulfill whatever conditions the teachers' organization sets. It's no different than the Bar, the Medical Association, etc.

No they are not. Can they be fired? Yes but it is not "easy" . Your whole arguement there is that you want the people shaping the minds and outlooks of our future to be the same as stock brokers? No thanks. I'd prefer my teachers to be morally better than a stock broker.

I should not have to fill any "conditions" set by a teachers union, just the ones set by government.

Now, again, I am not "anti-union" per se but I do not like the over aggressive ******** that they do either. They have their place but they, in my opinion, have abandoned that place and are going crazy.

 

[Scat]

Because, of course, education would work much better if people with money could send all their kids to one school, and all the poor, troubled kids would be at another. That's equality, right there.

Right now only well-to-do parents can send their kids to private school. Vouchers would at least give less wealthy parents the opportunity to send their child to a private school. It gives parents' choices. It's my tax money paid to the govt for my child's education. Why do I have to spend it based on your dictates?