It's funny watching halfwits on this board blur the line (intentionally or thru lack of intelligence) between private and public unions.
Neither are any good but one at least was 70 years ago

No question that rings true in Wis.

Last year the republicans took back complete control of state government,which was amazing when you consider Wis. has always been a democratic swing state. After the fall elections,the democrats left the state to avoid passing the new collective bargaining legislation,which eventually did pass.

During that process, out of state special interest groups(afl/cio) tossed serious money at the supreme court race to get a dem in,which failed.

And finally this recall attempt,which was also heavily funded by out of state special interest groups. The citizens have clearly spoken here.

Absolutely.
In a recall election the energy is always against the incumbent. The fact that this energy was snuffed out by the public is an amazing statement.

adios unions in wisconsin.

I would enjoy sitting at the democratic breakfast strategy meeting today. I can imagine their spirits are a bit down. :winkwink:

unions have become corrupt, in effect becoming a business themselves but this is not the fault of the unions but the fault of the people running them. they got greedy.

you can say unions are not needed, ect but get rid of all unions and how long will it be until worker rights start slipping away, one by one? 2,5,10 years? Maybe more but it will happen. Its time to give the unions back to the workers and use common sense when negotiating.

.. so the righties can remind us what idiots they are?

The recalls aren't over... this was just the senate, more are coming. (others already happened) And it's still a massive hit that it they have lost seats, enough that if a few more go with the election(s), it would give Dem's a super majority after the Presidential election.

Thinking the Dems lost on this is... well, silly. They just didn't win as big as they wanted.

Initially. Now because of LAWS.

I do not form my opinion of unions based on what ANYONE else has to say. I was a union member, shop steward, area steward and a VP candidate with 20+ years of service. Have you even been wiping your own ass for 20 years?

So, how much experience do you have working with unions? What union were you in? How long? What positions did you hold with them?


My mentor

They spent $31 million and they didn't get a supreme court justice,they had a recount and still lost..they did not get control of either house. Even if the last two recall elections go to the dems,they still won't have control.

I can appreciate looking at the glass and calling it half full. No matter how you want to spin it, the dems half full glass isn't as good as the repubs full glass.


edit...I am not talking about any national races. This is the state of Wis. and the mandates on unions rights to collective bargaining

Even if they lose the seats, do you really think they can reverse what Gov Walker did? Just the Unions blowing money to control the government, liken to the big business that everyone is against running the Governent.

The way the government should be run is thrown out the window for both

Most of the people against unions here probably are using nothing but anecdotal evidence at best as to whether or not unions are still needed. In fact. The whole reason wages are stagnant and workers have been taken advantage of is directly related to the loss of unions.

"Focusing on full-time, private sector workers, Western and Rosenfeld find that deunionization?the decline in the percentage of the labor force that is unionized?and educational stratification each explain about 33 percent of the rise in within-group wage inequality among men. Among women, deunionization explains about 20 percent of the increase in wage inequality, whereas education explains more than 40 percent."

http://www.newswise.com/articles/stu...age-inequality

You think corporations make people work 40 hours a week in non-sweatshop conditions because that's the right thing to do? Nice fantasy.

?The examination of the construction labor market and the facts concerning the postures of organized labor, unionized construction, and their political supporters, as well as of the cases in various states, demonstrate that the claimed advantages of government-mandated PLAs are not supported by factual evidence?

http://www.plawatch.com/studies

from the article:
inflated overall costs do not justify something that only accounts for 20-30% of wage inequality.

I personally don't care what direction it goes.... all I know is what I've read, and from what I gather, this was phase two, if they got it, it made it easier, if not - the fight was still on, and even if they got it, the fight would continue.

That's not half empty or half full of anything - that's just the way it is.

I think most of what he has done will be reversed at some point in the future and replaced with a more fair labor system that still gives people union rights but not under the same ideals they had before.

Walker is a corporatist... all he cares about is the same thing elite corps care about, more profits, less going out, period. He didn't make anything better, he simply introduced an entire new set of problems to deal with in the future rather than actually solving the issues of unions when he had the chance.

I fuck you all in the ass...

150 ways to get a job done for more money.

Problem with that is what the federal employee's have, they had their collective bargaining taken away by Carter.
Thats how long it's been, I don't see this changing right away.

I think this could be only the beginning of the end for unions in public sectors. I just think it's not going to work in a bad economy. The government has too many bills to pay and getting less back as the unemployment rate stays fixed at above 9% and the kind of money some local governments have to pay for illegal aliens. They have to cut somewhere and the only thing they can cut is the employees benefits. It sucks, but until we start cutting away all the things we pay for that we shouldn't, thats the way it's going to be.
I would rather spend the money to have half decent cops, good teachers and keep the parks clean. But instead, we are blowing money on things like Los Angeles County spending over 600 million dollars a year on illegal aliens. That does not include the hundreds of millions the state and county pay for educating illegal aliens as mandated by federal law. Which put the total around 1.6 billion, this is one county. FAIR puts it at 22 billion for the state.

if we would just deport democrats, illegal aliens, old people, unemployed people, & fat people, we can be a great country again.

No, just the illegal aliens that are sponging off the system, fucking over our schools.

Or did you not here about the kids that were sent home for wearing American Flags on Cinco De Mayo, the people celebrating were upset. Fuck Them.

We could send home everyone but the Native Americans, I would still be here

Says you. I'm sure most people you ask wouldn't mind getting an extra 30% if it meant being in a union which protected their rights. Unions also raise wages for non-union workers because they are able to argue for greater equity due to their ability to negotiate from a stronger point than individuals. Which is EXACTLY why large corporations like wal-mart hate them so much.

"Prior to the 1980s, productivity gains and workers? wages moved in tandem: as workers produced more per hour, they saw a commensurate increase in their earnings. Yet wages and productivity growth have decoupled since the late 1970s. Looking from 1980 to 2008, nationwide worker productivity grew by 75.0 percent, while workers? inflation-adjusted average wages increased by only 22.6 percent, which means that workers were compensated for only 30.2 percent of their productivity gains."

WOW they actually used to pay people for working harder. Imagine that.

"If American workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor productivity between 1980 and 2008?as they were during the middle part of the 20th century?average wages would be $28.53 per hour?42.7 percent higher than the average real wage in 2008."

That is the real reason large companies don't want unions. They would have to pay their workers more plain and simple.

http://www.americanprogressaction.or...actsheets.html

There is nothing more the democrats can do in Wisconsin to try and wrestle back control.
They have lost every battle. And that is with significant special interest money backing them.

Doesn't it seem odd that these poor downtrodden people were able to ante up over $30m for negative television ads. The local news is saying the dems outspent the republicans 10-1. Where did all that cash come from?

The tides are turning against bleeding heart liberals. And for those of us who actually pay the bills,it's about damn time.

I'm expected to have enough money in the bank to pay my bills. So should the state. And since Walker came to office the changes he has made has done just that. The state no longer is facing certain deficits.

That's the way it is...here.

Wisconsin Democrats will extend their recall battle into next year with an effort to oust Republican Governor Scott Walker, possibly on Election Day 2012, the state?s party chairman said today.

One day after falling short of a goal to recall three Republican state senators and gain control of the legislative chamber, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said he would like to see a signature-gathering effort to force a vote ?as soon as feasible.?

Continues here...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...t-failure.html

I'm so tired of hearing this crap. It's the "conservative" states that feed off the government trough much the same way a lot of scrappy independent businessmen wouldn't have a dime if it wasn't for no-bid government contracts provided through bought and paid for political appointments.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6126/...aa4087f07f.jpg

So yeah keep feeding from the liberal trough.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html

Unions didn't bankrupt the State.... the State bankrupted itself by making bad investments in a market filled with fraud.

They did a great job of blaming someone else for the problems they created.

It's sad you think it was liberals, it's sad you think the State solved its problems.

Yeah screw unions, I got mine HA! HA!
 

Unions have been around for centuries, they were called guilds.
The minimum wage is BS. The minimum wage, is what a family needs to realistically live on. Say, the Flintstones, the Simpsons, The Beaver Cleaver family. It takes at least $70,000+ a year for a family of 2-4 to live basic American Dream. The average worker in the US makes a lot less than $70K per year
Walmart, America's largest retailer has no unions.
Of course, those pesky employees keep suing, since the Great, Wonderful Walmart makes them clock out after 40 hours to avoid overtime. But then makes them work for free. That's Slavery.
Walmart has no health benefits, but new employees are instructed on how to apply for food stamps and Medicaid.
Walmart has no retirement plan. Since you can't afford to work at Walmart and eat, how are you going to afford a 401K?
I used to eat with some older guys. One who bad mouthed welfare every day. But the govt. paid him to grow Angora Goats, for our next World War II. Same place, at the bar were 2 guys always bitching about "welfare mothers," while bragging about how they were getting federal money to rehab some old buildings, into condos, no one would ever buy.
The UAW was created after GM & Ford pulled so much crap. You never knew from day to day if you would work. You just showed up at the gate and hoped for the best. It was up to the supervisor to let you in. Sometimes the only way you got in, was your wife did his laundry. Sometimes she had to fuck him. That or let your family starve.
Anybody who bad mouths unions is a lackey for the Kochs. Unions aren't perfect, but without them, employees in the US would be working in the same conditions as China.
That's the ticket, fire all adult Americans. Hire children and make them work 16 hours, 7 days a week. So what if the factory burns down with all locked inside. there's plenty more children as people keep making more.
Long as rich, white folk are safe in their mansions, who cares?

That's sad... as they aren't the real issue.

As long as Cali has to sell its resources and buy back at a loss, it will always be screwed. Even if you removed every illegal and it cost the State nothing, the State would still be screwed. However, more border security, simply means that money will be moved, not saved and then add in the loss tax revenue, micro economy they do create, etc, even more lost. And the same real problems still in place....

I hope that they do. Let them tap their union coffers for another $40 million only to get shot down again. What you people don't understand is that Wisconsin hasn't broken the union. They have only stopped the ability of the public union to bargain collectively.

All of this is available online if you actually care about it.

As far as private unions, I was in one early in my career. Aerospace and Machinists. Every other year they struck the company. This company had over 1100 of the highest paid employees in the state. After the 10th strike in 20 years. They closed te plant.

It is very similar here in Wichita. We have people who aren't worth ten cents earning over $20 an hour and then striking over it. The people who do work carry the rest and nothing ever changes.

As an aside - never fly in anything Hawker Beechcraft has made in the past half decade because I am sure that my ex worked there between 2006-2007 and if she helped build it and you fly on it, you're just wrong. :1orglaugh

Unfortunately the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" can be applied to almost any situation. - from greedy politicians, to greedy union leaders.

The key is to keep balance. Government is necessary, but corruption is not. Same with unions. Balance is key.

Remove government completely and we will have anarchy. Remove unions completely and the corporate powers that be, will happily take away more of the people's rights, as the "people" will be further divided.

None of our problems can be solved without a balanced approach. Most issues are not as black-and-white as we wish they were.

Thank you for the interesting post....

this uneducated argument comes up often.
take NJ for example. You have a minority of successful people propping up the state and voting conservative and then you have the rabble in towns like camden, jersey city, trenton, etc. etc. leeching off of the system and voting democratic.
Your chart is an accurate lie.
a misstating of the facts to convey an inaccurate picture.

In that case I don't know what you mean by "a hundred years off."
The OP stated that the unions were directly responsible for the civil rights act of 1964. I showed that in fact their side, the left, tried to stop it. Please explain how that's a hundred years off.

The OP also claimed that the unions were responsible for the eight hour day standard. I mentioned that president Grant made tge right hour proclamation long before powerful unions existed. Please explain your comment.

Given the few words you said, I guessed that you meant I was confusing 1964 with 1866, that the left actually supported civil rights in '64. People who claim that simply don't know recent history, or wish it were different and claim their wishes as fact.

The fact that you even attempted to show dems were against it is, pointless, then referencing history a hundred years before, is even more pointless. That's was the point.

Moving on... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

"In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organized a general strike, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals. Labor movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836. Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842."

"....On May 19, 1869, Grant signed a National Eight Hour Law Proclamation."

78 after they first went on strike.... thank you unions!

remember reading that story about american military bombing striking unions.. in america..

The Flintstones, Cleaver post is excellent in that it makes so strikingly clear the heart if the disagreement. The poster says that minimum wage should support an average family. On the other side I recognize that I started at minimum wage when I read fifteen, working a job that taught me basics like showing up on time. By showing up and doing my job, I earned a raise within two months and two years later I was earning twice minimum wage. From where I sit, minimum wage is the MINIMUM for a minimally useful employee, probably a teenager just starting out. It's also the minimum cost to hire a drunk who calls in all of the time.

It seems to me that the sixteen year old and the lazy slob who doesn't bother to show up on time do not produce enough to support a family. If you need to support a family, you need to show up on time and learn your job so you'll be worth a lot more than minimum wage. Regardless of "right" or "wrong", the claim that minimum wage should support a family with a couple kids shows clearly where rhe underlying thinking differs.

I don't need a union to set my wage and I didn't need one when I was flipping burgers because I worked hard to be worth what I needed to earn. When I left one burger place, I had two other job offers within an hour.

I am curious, assume minimum wage were set high enough to support a family of four, say $20 / hour. Do you think teenagers would be paid $20 / hour to do work that's worth only $8, with companies losing money on every employee, or do you think that the young, the drunk and the lazy simply wouldn't be hired at all?

I know the answer for our company.

what story would that be?

It's insane how much more money you can make by being union. I knew a girl that got ~150/hr doing sheet metal because he was union. After he moved to an area without unions, he would have been doing 30/hr for the same work.

Thank you for clarifying. I believe I understand your point now. Your point is that a
local guild in Philadelphia was helpful to it's dozens of members long before the
modern age of powerful national unions and that was also before the eight hour day
was implemented nationally under Grant. I wonder how a few dozen Philadelphia
carpenters in the 1700s relate to the 11 million member AFL-CIO today. Should the
AFL-CIO get credit for what a few dozen Philadelphia carpenters did in 1791, because
they could both be called "unions"?

I wonder if small local unions would be as helpful today as they were around the
time the country was founded. Of course, I don't know what problems those small
local unions caused back then. Maybe they caused big problems, maybe not, I don't know.
Maybe that style of small local union would be more helpful today. I don't know.
Did the modern age of national mega-unions as a result of WWII ruin a good thing?