So sad for Wisconsin today

[Anonymous]

Union "here is my crappy work product now pay me" Public "No".

[Anonymous]

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

How long do you think those protections will last without unions? As long as it takes a corporation to "lobby" (read: bribe) enough politicians.

Jeff is right. Laws change. There's nothing in the constitution about overtime, fire escapes, or making employment decisions for discriminatory reasons.

[Anonymous]

For those who think the Wisconsin Republicans are not praiseworthy, you might want to join the demonstration today at 5 pm down near Metro Center. It is in response to a big fundraiser these guys are coming to town for. Go to http://www.campaignmoney.org/march16 if you want to protest the corporate payoff for union-busting.

[Anonymous]

Wisconsin Democrat Senator proposes legislation to end the 20 vote quorum requirement:
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110315/APC0101/303160013/Wisconsin-Democrat-Tim-Cullen-Janesville-proposes-quorum-changes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin Democrat Senator proposes legislation to end the 20 vote quorum requirement:
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110315/APC0101/303160013/Wisconsin-Democrat-Tim-Cullen-Janesville-proposes-quorum-changes

nice try. even if democrats win recalls, republicans will leave the state and prevent quorum. congratulations, democrats...you lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin Democrat Senator proposes legislation to end the 20 vote quorum requirement:
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110315/APC0101/303160013/Wisconsin-Democrat-Tim-Cullen-Janesville-proposes-quorum-changes

nice try. even if democrats win recalls, republicans will leave the state and prevent quorum. congratulations, democrats...you lose.

They can't. If they leave the state, the same thing happens. Quorum is only required for spending bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Union "here is my crappy work product now pay me" Public "No".

translation:
Neanderthal - "Me hate union, only see in black and white"

[Anonymous]

Me hate union products. They unreliable don't perform well when tested.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

Jeff, I've never lived or worked under a union-negotiated contract. Am I understanding that if I were to move to a state with a teacher union, you don't think I should be able to teach in the public schools without joining a union and paying union dues? What about people who think their work experience, degrees, and professionalism should be all that's considered? I have enough confidence in my skills that I think I should be hired or not hired, based on whether or not a potential employer thinks I can provide what's needed in a particular teaching situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Me hate union products. They unreliable don't perform well when tested.

Ou probably couldn't tell me which products other than cars are made with union labor.

[Anonymous]

That is products in your own home.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, I've never lived or worked under a union-negotiated contract. Am I understanding that if I were to move to a state with a teacher union, you don't think I should be able to teach in the public schools without joining a union and paying union dues? What about people who think their work experience, degrees, and professionalism should be all that's considered? I have enough confidence in my skills that I think I should be hired or not hired, based on whether or not a potential employer thinks I can provide what's needed in a particular teaching situation.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the union is involved in the hiring process. It's not. The school administration will choose to hire you or not based on your qualifications for the job. Only after you are hired will you be expected to join the union. If that requirement is not acceptable to you, you should not apply for jobs in union shops. You wouldn't purchase a condominium and expect to use all the shared services but not pay your condo fee would you?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:That is products in your own home.

I'm going to make it easy for the person to whom you are challenging and provide some free advertising as well.

All American Clothing is an online store that specializes in American-made -- and frequently union-made -- clothing. Their selection is not that wide and their styles will probably not win many fans in the Beauty forum, but I've managed to find quite a few things there. For the first time since I was about 8 years old, I am wearing jeans that aren't Levis. I now have union-made jeans that I was surprised to find that I actually like better than Levis. I have sweatshirts, t-shirts, and socks. I've been very pleased with everything I've purchased. You can find All American Clothing here: http://www.allamericanclothing.com/

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, I've never lived or worked under a union-negotiated contract. Am I understanding that if I were to move to a state with a teacher union, you don't think I should be able to teach in the public schools without joining a union and paying union dues? What about people who think their work experience, degrees, and professionalism should be all that's considered? I have enough confidence in my skills that I think I should be hired or not hired, based on whether or not a potential employer thinks I can provide what's needed in a particular teaching situation.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the union is involved in the hiring process. It's not. The school administration will choose to hire you or not based on your qualifications for the job. Only after you are hired will you be expected to join the union. If that requirement is not acceptable to you, you should not apply for jobs in union shops. You wouldn't purchase a condominium and expect to use all the shared services but not pay your condo fee would you?

or better, work in Virginia which is a right to work state and they cannot force you to waste money on union dues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one has addressed these two points, namely that unions are the only means to protect long term benefits like pensions, and worker safety. The government doesn't do squat in either of these two areas.

Everyone bitches to high heaven about social security going broke because of mismanagement, yet they could care less if some guy who worked his whole life for a pension gets the benefit cut out from under him. And we seem to have really short memories when it comes to worker safety. That mine explosion was preventable, and you can bet the non-union workers did not raise a stink because they don't want to get canned.