So sad for Wisconsin today

[Anonymous]

I'm just saying don't put your own money into union operations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just saying don't put your own money into union operations.

And I'm just saying that it's a silly criterion. Look at earnings, market share, expectations, etc, and don't get hung up on your political agenda. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Well now you are just being ignorant of bankruptcy law. Debt and employee obligations are always ahead of equity in bankruptcy. You can argue the bondholders, but there is no way equity ever goes to the front of the line in bankruptcy. And I have had my three equity positions wiped out in my lifetime due to bankrupted investments. That's the difference between debt and equity.

[Anonymous]

I am not pro-union...but see where they can benefit the workers...I would be happy to walk in a picket line for Walmart employees for instance.

Can someone explain

the following:

Why uniion dues has to be mandatory...if the employees still want a union why don't they voluntarily pay for it? Why does the union not have to show it's value?

There are many, many professions that do not have unions...some are better paid than teachers, police, etc while others are paid less...so why are unions necessary for this particular group and not for others?

Finally, if the taxpayers pay the salary..and the worker is forced to pay union dues...and the union uses most (or a substantial amount) of that $$ for political connections and PACs...how does that not rub you the wrong way?

My solution would be to give the workers the same salary...but take away the mandatory payment...and see who wins....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I am not pro-union...but see where they can benefit the workers...I would be happy to walk in a picket line for Walmart employees for instance.

Can someone explain

the following:

Why uniion dues has to be mandatory...if the employees still want a union why don't they voluntarily pay for it? Why does the union not have to show it's value?

Human nature is such that many people would be happy to obtain the benefits of a union without out making a financial contribution to that union. The irony is that after a union helps improve work conditions, people tend to think that, since their working conditions are good, they don't need a union. This is especially true when the current workers have no understanding of pre-union times. The only way for the union to "show its value" is to disband and allow conditions to deteriorate.

Anonymous wrote:There are many, many professions that do not have unions...some are better paid than teachers, police, etc while others are paid less...so why are unions necessary for this particular group and not for others?

It is not a question of being "necessary". Some professions better lend themselves to unionization, whether because of tradition or the nature of the workforce.

Anonymous wrote:Finally, if the taxpayers pay the salary..and the worker is forced to pay union dues...and the union uses most (or a substantial amount) of that $$ for political connections and PACs...how does that not rub you the wrong way?

If the union was the only group making political contributions, yes. But, it is not. Take the teachers' union. There are powerful groups that have ideological or financial interests in weakening public education. Those groups make political contributions. There are anti-tax groups that think government budgets should be cut (which would naturally affect government employee jobs or salaries). Those groups make contributions. The idea that politicians face no political pressure from any group other than unions is simply untrue. To the contrary, in difficult economic times, the easiest move for a politician to make is to cut public employee salaries. That's always a popular move. In fact, if you remember, one of the first "budget cutting" efforts by President Obama was to freeze the pay of federal employees. Obama received strong support from unions, but still found this move politically advantageous.

Anonymous wrote:My solution would be to give the workers the same salary...but take away the mandatory payment...and see who wins....

As I said above, plenty of freeloaders would be happy to get the same salary and benefits put not pay union dues. That's a no brainer. When others saw that happening, they would do it too. Eventually, there would be no dues payers and the union would dissolve. Only when the employees saw the resulting loss of rights would they realize the value of the union. But, then it would be too late.

Have you ever noticed that you rarely see anti-union efforts from members of the union? The anti-union pressure is always from management (which in some cases is the government) and non-unionized people. If unions sucked as bad as many think they do, there would be frequent efforts by members to decertify or disband them. You just don't see that happening.

[Anonymous]

Unions are like viruses that eventually kill the host company, organization , state budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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 .

Are you the "B.O." obsessed poster? You exhibit the same tendancy to focus on that which is totally irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Collective bargaining rights are one of the most important developments of the last century that allowed so many of us average Americans to grow up in the middle class, in nice neighborhoods, with good public education and a chance at college and a career.

Are you anti union people totally ignorant of history? Do you not understand that the rich and powerful, those with capital, have the ability to control and dictate wages, working conditions, and unfair rules for their workers? That these rich business owners are politically connected? Do you want to go back to the days of lords and serfs?

Wasn't your grandpa an immigrant like mine? Didn't he work at the local factory or plant? Didn't his unionized pay and benefits give your parents the leg up that allowed you to have the life you have today?

How many times do we need to have it proved to us that business is corrupt, that powerful individuals will use it to steal and pillage regardless of the consequences to society at large? Regulation and unions are one brake on unscrupulous greed.

You are a fool and you are doing your progeny a disservice if you shrug at the dissolution of unions.

[Anonymous]

true. there are no labor laws or civil service protections in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:true. there are no labor laws or civil service protections in place.

Correct -- except for what the unions managed to get passed.
back at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:true. there are no labor laws or civil service protections in place.

Correct -- except for what the unions managed to get passed.
back at you.

of course. the unions played a tremendous role in evening the playing field, and we should all be thankful for the 40 hour work weeks and many federal holidays. but all of that is now federal law, and the public sector has additional legally mandated civil service protections. the unions did their jobs well. now they are corrupt and fat and need to move on.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
of course. the unions played a tremendous role in evening the playing field, and we should all be thankful for the 40 hour work weeks and many federal holidays. but all of that is now federal law, and the public sector has additional legally mandated civil service protections. the unions did their jobs well. now they are corrupt and fat and need to move on.

For 50 years Wisconsin had a law allowing collective bargaining by public employee unions. Now it doesn't. Are you under the mistaken belief that laws never change? Are you under the even more mistaken belief that laws are are not more likely to change when the prime proponent of the law has been eliminated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:true. there are no labor laws or civil service protections in place. [/quote

When a company underfunds a pension plan for decades, and then decides to roll back important benefits for retirees, what government entity has historically stepped in to prevent this? As far as I know, the unions are the only ones who have done it. Someone who has worked a mine all their life and has wrecked their body doing it has to be able to count on the pension. And yet where is the government when these companies try to weasel their way out of it?

Where was the government when the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia was allowed to operate? They had a history of safety citations, and Massey Energy was disputing them. I think they had 57 citations in the month prior to the disaster. Was the government's safety inspection process sufficient to protect the miners? It's too bad that mine was non-union, because the union has the power to speak up. And here is exactly why United Mine Workers was created. If you are an individual scared of a safety issue, the company will just fire you when you complain. If a union brings a grievance, the company has to negotiate.

It's nice that as a conservative you have such trust that big government will protect us (ha) but the reality is oddly the opposite. The government watches while disasters unfold right before their eyes.

[Anonymous]

laws change, of course. just as the balance between left and right, or between management and labor, swings back and forth. Right now I think it is in balance. My opinion, clearly not yours. But I think my opinion reflects the mainstream consensus. So if laws were to change to restrict the labor laws I'd expect the pendulum to swing the other way and for voters to be rightly outraged. and again, collective bargaining for public sector unions is not universal. it is not the standard for the feds and for all 50 states, so its not such an established right as to be that outraged over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:true. there are no labor laws or civil service protections in place.

When a company underfunds a pension plan for decades, and then decides to roll back important benefits for retirees, what government entity has historically stepped in to prevent this? As far as I know, the unions are the only ones who have done it. Someone who has worked a mine all their life and has wrecked their body doing it has to be able to count on the pension. And yet where is the government when these companies try to weasel their way out of it?

Where was the government when the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia was allowed to operate? They had a history of safety citations, and Massey Energy was disputing them. I think they had 57 citations in the month prior to the disaster. Was the government's safety inspection process sufficient to protect the miners? It's too bad that mine was non-union, because the union has the power to speak up. And here is exactly why United Mine Workers was created. If you are an individual scared of a safety issue, the company will just fire you when you complain. If a union brings a grievance, the company has to negotiate.

It's nice that as a conservative you have such trust that big government will protect us (ha) but the reality is oddly the opposite. The government watches while disasters unfold right before their eyes.