Vitriolic Rhetoric in Wisconsin

[GVC]

Does cheaper production raise the consumer's standard of living? Don't lower production costs and economic advancement go hand in hand? The money doesn't just vanish. Factoring only one side of the equation is amazingly slanted.

Of course. I was just responding to what seemed like a rather one sided statement with another one sided statement.

 

[PearlWatson]

I have never in my life seen anyone try to make the claim that unions only get their members what the company would be willing to offer anyway.

That is complete BS.

I have worked several union jobs, and every single one of them paid better, with better benefits, than the non union jobs in the same field.

Funny that the sticking point in Wisconsin is the right to collective bargain. The union workers have already agreed to accept whatever cuts the governor wants to impose, they just want to keep the union intact.

If the union is worthless, why is that a sticking point for either side, let alone both sides?

Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

Does this answer you question?:

Meanwhile, public employee unions have become perhaps the dominant force in our political life. They extract dues from their members which go to fund the candidacies of politicians who will pay public employees even more money. The unions' ill-gotten clout has created a vicious cycle; at the same time that government units are going broke, public employees are now far better paid than their private sector counterparts, while enjoying better benefits and ridiculous job security.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Does this answer you question?:

Meanwhile, public employee unions have become perhaps the dominant force in our political life. They extract dues from their members which go to fund the candidacies of politicians who will pay public employees even more money. The unions' ill-gotten clout has created a vicious cycle; at the same time that government units are going broke, public employees are now far better paid than their private sector counterparts, while enjoying better benefits and ridiculous job security.

And you think the thousands of people (workers- teachers, firemen, police officers, etc) protesting in order to keep their unions intact care about that (contributing to a campaign) more than the right to negotiate a future collective bargaining agreement?


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Another thing...

Lower production cost does not mean more production, cheaper goods, etc.

More often than not, cheaper production costs just means a bigger salary and bonus for the executives, and possibly a dividend for the shareholders.

For example, Apple didn't lower their prices when they started sending work overseas. Neither did Microsoft.

Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[cowhide]

Link?
His tax cuts don't even go into effect in this years budget, knucklehead.

Why does it matter when the tax cuts go in affect? The governor is asking teachers to take a pay cut even though he has passed a tax cut for big business. The same business (Koch industries) who contributed to his campaign. Of course he isn't going to have the tax cuts this year but they are coming even though the State is broke. Sounds a little fishy to me.

 

[PearlWatson]

And you think the thousands of people (workers- teachers, firemen, police officers, etc) protesting in order to keep their unions intact care about that more than the right to negotiate a future collective bargaining agreement?

That?

 

[SaltyDawg]

That?

Let me rephrase...

You think the thousands of teachers, policemen, firemen, etc, who have already agreed to all of the cuts in pay, benefits, etc, but continue to protest because they want to keep their right to collective bargain...

You think they only care about collective bargaining so they can contribute to some politician's campaign?

And we won't even get into your claim that government workers are far better paid than private workers.



Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

 

[GVC]

And you do not understand economics if you think it is company profits that drive the economy. It is directly the wages paid and the amount of those wages that people choose to spend.

If nothing is produced, how do you spend a wage? Clearly, it is not wages that directly stimulate economic growth. What a stupid assertion.

 

[candrew]

Can you prove that if your dad was not in a union that he wouldn't have had those benefits anyway?

Besides that, you obviously haven't worked in industrial jobs much yourself in the past 15-20 years. I realize I didn't make it clear above, as I was not really talking directly about the unions in that particular post. But I never meant that people in unionized jobs don't get any benefits at all. And I wasn't talking about actual "health insurance" benefits. What I meant was that unions in America rarely get their constituents anything more than the companies would offer anyway.

I never did a Cost-Benefit Analysis for my Dad and you're right that I've never worked in any industrial jobs. However, I can tell that I've lived in an area with a heavy union presence (NY and NJ) and I've also lived in an area with no almost no union influence (Texas). Blue collar workers do much, much better in NY/NJ than they do in Texas. From what I've seen, this is not debatable. I have a friend in NYC who drives a bus for special needs children. He is a union worker - he is by no means well off; but he makes a living wage, has good benefits, a pension and owns his own home. He makes more than triple what the same worker makes in Austin, Texas for the same exact job which has no benefits and no pension. Granted, you have to consider the cost of living between NY and Texas and yes there are no state taxes in Texas - but take all that into consideration and it's still not even close.

We are also seeing large companies moving plants out of the country or even state to state, partly to avoid the impact unions have on the bottom line.

Perhaps this is the rhetoric you might hear on Fox News. And yet your own link illustrated the number of union workers has dropped dramatically in the past 30 years. While the number of corporations that have moved some or all of its operations over seas in the same time span has gone up exponentially. Why is that?

Everyone seem to view companies as evil but that is where the jobs come from. Companies pay the wages that drive the economy. And when profits are scarce and wages are at risk, unions do not help matters.

In some cases you may be right; but in this particular case in Wisconsin you're wrong. The unions have made concessions the past 2 years and have agreed to all cuts proposed by Gov. Walker this year as well. The sticking point is the right to collective bargaining.

 

[PearlWatson]

Let me rephrase...

You think the thousands of teachers, policemen, firemen, etc, who have already agreed to all of the cuts in pay, benefits, etc, but continue to protest because they want to keep their right to collective bargain...

You think they only care about collective bargaining so they can contribute to some politician's campaign?

Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.

Your question: If the union is worthless, why is that a sticking point for either side, let alone both sides?

I guessed with this question you were asking why both sides care more about "collective bargaining" than teachers having to contribute to their health care and pensions.
I'm not sure who you consider to be the sides, but I was answering why the Democrats care more about the union than the teachers the union supposedly represents.
The Democrats both state and nationally are supporting the unions side with money and protesters. Why are they doing that? Because they care about teachers personally? No, they already threw the teachers under the bus. They just don't want to give up the mandatory dues they provide, and the power they have to elect their candidates.

Not all teachers want to be in the union, especially if they are Republicans. I heard an interview with a Wisconsin teacher who said her complaint with the union was that even though she didn't want to join it she still had to pay 80% of the union dues. She also complained that her forced union dues went to support candidates that she didn't agree with. Why doesn't she get a choice on whether to pay union dues to a union she doesn't want to be a part of?

 

[Scat]

Maybe the fine politicians of WI should actually care about the students.

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g

 

[PearlWatson]

Maybe the fine politicians of WI should actually care about the students.

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g

Last I heard the teachers were in charge of reading proficiency.