So sad for Wisconsin today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:education is by far the most expensive budget item. the results are lackluster and the union most powerful/selfish/greedy. 180 workdays. jeez.

What does that have to do with this union issue? Teachers are paid by the counties. The state's money is mostly funding to those localities, and they have no control over who is hired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
education is by far the most expensive budget item. the results are lackluster and the union most powerful/selfish/greedy. 180 workdays. jeez.


What does that have to do with this union issue? Teachers are paid by the counties. The state's money is mostly funding to those localities, and they have no control over who is hired.

Hello, it is a state teacher's union....so even if the local districts do the hiring/firing, they have to abide by union's contract - state-wide. Education is by far the most expensive state budget item.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:education is by far the most expensive budget item. the results are lackluster and the union most powerful/selfish/greedy. 180 workdays. jeez.

But being able to reduce benefits for police and firefighters (especially retirement benefits) would save Wiscsonsin more money than just being able to reduce benefits for teachers and snow plow operators.

So if this bill was about reducing the budget deficit, as Walker claimed and as people seem to believe, then why didn't he include police, state troopers and firefighters in the bill?

[Anonymous]

Some union leaders say Mr. Walker’s exclusion of police and fire unions from the benefit cuts undermines his image as a cost-cutting Republican, because firefighters and police officers’ salaries and retirement benefits, such as pensions and health care, are often significant expenditures for local governments.

Those salaries and retirement benefits make up around one-third of the annual budget of most Wisconsin localities, said Dan Thompson, executive director of the nonpartisan League of Wisconsin Municipalities.

One of the provisions of Mr. Walker’s bill would require all public-employee union members except public-safety officers to contribute 5.8% of their pay to pensions. That would save most cities about 1% to 1.5% of their annual budgets, Mr. Thompson said. If police and firefighters had been included, it would have saved around 2% to 3%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703726904576192952699125170.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:trying to cut back on spending and grow the private sector.

I have another question for you.

In Walker's bill, CERTAIN unions (not police or firefighters) have now lost the right to have unions deduct union dues from those who wish to be members straight from their paychecks.
This was a convenience for the unions and losing this ability will cause some inconvenience and will probably mean fewer members for unions in the long run, human nature (procrastination) being what it is.

HOW was this move by Walker related in any way to balancing the budget?

If not letting unions deduct membership fees straight from people's paychecks somehow reduces the deficit, then why didn't Walker include police, troopers and firefighters in this move?

Cynics are arguing that the majority of teachers and public works and other unions vote Democratic, and that Walker is trying to reduce the power of the unions full of Democratic voters. But he is happy to let the Police and Fire Fighters Unions keep their easy access to members dues, because those unions supported him.

So please enlighten me as to why you think taking away unions ability to deduct membership dues from paychecks (or those who sign up as membvers) is a cost-cutting measure that Governor Walker had to impose? Why couldn't he give in on that point? Unions had already agreed to ALL the financial concessinos Walker wanted, as I am sure you are already aware.

[Anonymous]

Republicans seeing a CEO making 400x his employees: "That's ok, he earned it!"

Republicans seeing a teacher making $60,000 a year: "A horrible leech on society that is making us bankrupt!"

[Anonymous]

Exective employment contracts are capitalism. Labor agreements are socialism. How much do you have to pay a CEO just to have the privilege of firing him?

Total hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone else noticed that the Japanese disaster victims in the shelters look so much neater, in shape, well groomed, cleaner and more competant than the Wisconsin protesters. And that is after one of the most devistating events ever. No wonder they kick our ass in standardized testing and building things like automobiles .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weekends. Brought to you by Labor.

(pro-union girl here who is not in a union)

Unions were necessary once in our country, they are not anymore. There are enough federal and state laws to govern our rights.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Unions were necessary once in our country, they are not anymore. There are enough federal and state laws to govern our rights.

Why do you think those laws exist? What do you think will prevent them from being changed? As we have just seen, a fifty year old law can be changed in an afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weekends. Brought to you by Labor.

(pro-union girl here who is not in a union)

Unions were necessary once in our country, they are not anymore. There are enough federal and state laws to govern our rights.

Yes business seems to be very good at obeying the law.

[Anonymous]

Saw a poster earlier in the thread complaining about GM stockholders getting wiped out ... don't stockholders get wiped out in just about any bankruptcy??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw a poster earlier in the thread complaining about GM stockholders getting wiped out ... don't stockholders get wiped out in just about any bankruptcy??

Yes.

[Anonymous]

But so do Union employees and retirees. The whole company was bailed out for political patronage. It shows investors they sould never invest in unionized companies because they come last in line.

[Anonymous]

No in the new socialist republican party, banks' stockholders are not allow to stuffer losses. They are much to smart(and not unionized)to ever have to stuffer losses. That is why the "state" can to their aid.