Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: can supporters of public sector unions explain this?

Posted 2 years ago on June 15, 2012, 7:24 p.m. EST by slizzo (-96)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

One of the lesser-known reforms put into place by Scott Walker in Wisconsin was end of mandatory union membership and dues collection.

As a result, approximately 50% opted out.

If public sector unions are so necessary and useful, why would half opt out?

bonus question: why are public sector unions necessary in the first place? do these people really need protection from the same awful people leftists and statists want to control health care?

thanks in advance to any and all level-headed and reasoned responses. also, thanks in advance to all mouth-foaming angry and hateful responses. I enjoy good info and good comedy equally.

191 Comments

191 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

It's called the "free rider dilemma." People know that as long as unions exist there will be people fighting for their benefits. Why pay into a system when others will be doing all the paying for them. I believe that right to work states free ride off of unionized states. The states with unions fight for higher benefits, while the right to work states compete with the union states but with out the workers paying their dues. The free rider dilemma is a common occurrence in political matters. Who would pay their dues if they don't have to, duh. That is why I don't buy the line that taxes should be voluntarily paid because then no one will pay their dues.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2054) 2 years ago

I live in a right to work state. I can tell you many people opt out of unions because they're just plain stupid.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

People will pay for something they perceive to be valuable. That's a fairly basic rule of economics. Most people are ok with paying a reasonable amount of taxes. No one seriously thinks taxes should be voluntary.

btw..."duh"??

[-] 2 points by Vairants (4) 2 years ago

"People will pay for something they perceive to be valuable."

Not if they can get it for free. As long as there is a union fighting for ALL workers' rights, the non-union workers benefit. That is what he meant by the free rider dilemma. The non-union workers would be freeloading off the benefits won by the unions.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

So nonunion workers who are satisfied with their employment situation and oppose public sector unions on the same grounds as FDR are somehow obliged to support public sector unions?

That's bullshit.

OTOH, I do think all workers owe a debt of gratitude to private sector unions for the rights they fought for decades ago. But the fight has been won, most of what the unions worked for are now codified into law. Child labor isn't coming back. Seven day work weeks aren't coming back. Women CEOs are commonplace. Company towns aren't coming back. Unfortunately, progs can't accept the win and move on to something else because that would end the big money racket they have going on. Working for equal rights for gays and ending the drug war doesn't come with the same kind of perks, pay and power to hand out jobs as those vital personal freedom issues so they get put on e back burner. Instead, seeing the demise of the necessity of private sector unions, the went after public sector employees. Talk about a cash cow! Huge campaign contributions, tons of free labor to work the phones and canvass neighborhoods, and then when they win the election for their guy they all pretend to collectively "bargain" with their friend across the table. The person whose future political fortunes rest with the public sector unions. The result is the unsustainable fleecing of the middle class taxpayer on an epic level.

Public sector unions have got to go.

In the 247 replies on this page, NO ONE has explained why FDR was wrong to oppose them. I wonder why.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

It is a right wing argument proposed many times over. Let the rich pay what they believe is fair. It is not my fault you are not up on the arguments that are made by right wingers.

And you are wrong, people don't pay what they perceive to be valuable they pay what is offered. Why do you believe WALL MART stores are always packed? We all know Wall mart sells shitty goods, but because they are cheap goods, they are the ones that get bought. Give someone a choice to cop out, and nine times out of ten they will do it. Do yourself a favor and pay attention to people around you, and you'll see that i'm right.

When ever a person is given a choice, a person will take the path of least resistance. Free riding off of others when there is no consequences, is the path of least resistance. If you are given a choice to receive valuable services without paying, what do you think you would do? And your rule of economics is a farce at best a talking point at worst.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

It's beyond ridiculous. It isn't serious. And no, I am not up on the most radical, fringe, and utterly absurd arguments made by people no one pays attention to. Why it matters to you is anyone's guess.

I heard 4 ows leftists say we should get rid of money entirely, but I won't try to make a point on the back of something so absurd and try to claim it is anything but fringe nonsense. I'm just not that desperate to make a point.

That people will pay for value isn't exactly my opinion. But if you want to ignore economic realities that have existed for centuries, go for it.

Adding the choice of not paying misses the point. I am talking about voluntary actions.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

It sounds good what you propose, until you put it to practice. If everyone were stand up gents, then what you say makes sense. But when you factor in human nature, your little pipe dream becomes a utopian fantasy. Cool, we live in a voluntary society. then I opt out to every thing that brings me discomfort. Wow, I could get use to this.

Also, the argument of volunteering to pay taxes is one that is aired on fox news all the time. Now, i believe fox news is radical and self serving, but I am a minority when it comes to this thought.

If i give you a choice to make ten dollars an hour or twelve, what do you think you will choose? People make short term choices that are advantageous to them without evaluating long term repercussions. Why do you believe the economy is tanked, no one thought long term. that is where the coercive force of gov't comes into play. It is coercive for gov't to tell me I can't smoke weed, drive drunk, murder people or cheat on my taxes. So are you saying these rules should be made voluntary?

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

What do you think I proposed? I think you may have misread that.

Never once heard voluntary tax paying on fox. Got any links that can show this to be something other than fringe insanity?

[-] 0 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

"Got any links that can show this to be something other than fringe insanity?"

Read the response. There is your answer.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Nope. Not there.

Question about your ID, if you will. What about the1000s of African American murder victims killed by other African Americans every year? Where's the outrage for them? Why no marches? Why no t-shirts and slogans for them? Politicizing a murder to move forward a false narrative in order to help a politician's career...how low does it get?

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

It matters what color the finger on the trigger was! I mean, like, can't you see the difference? Killing other blacks is a rite of passage in some areas, but when white people do it, especially in self-defense, that's march-worthy!

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Way to piss all over MLK's dream of a colorblind society. Good job.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

We are talking about the act of having a choice to pay for something or free riding. I am using taxes as an analogy for paying union dues. sorry I was not more precise in my explanation. The reason that Indiana public workers chose to opt out of paying union dues is because they were given the choice to get something for nothing, which is a human characteristic to choose the path of least resistance.

See, right now the rich are given a choice to pay for the national debt that they are most responsible for, but we are seeing that they are choosing to pass the bill down the ladder. I don't fault them, it is human nature, I just wish those who will get stuck with the bill, would stop fighting for them to receive the bill. that just seems irrational. Same thing with unions. Though i understand how well divide and conquer works, I just wish the middle class were a little wiser than they are. But hay, what's you going to do? besides laugh at the middle class that are fighting against their self interests, I am left powerless. I guess I should just get comfortable being working class 'cause I am not paying the bill that the wealthy brought to our nation. Shit, I did not benefit from war in the middle east, easy credit of the last decade, and sub prime loans so why should i fight for the rights of those who are prospering from the debt incurred by our federal government. Trickle down economics made a lot of people rich so they are the ones who should be stuck with the bill.

Also, when Warren Buffet said it was a shame that he paid less taxes than his receptionist, what was rebutted by the right? I know it is easy to forget when it serves you purpose, that, too, is human nature.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

So you have nothing to show me that using taxes as an analog to voluntary tax is a viable comparison? I didn't think so, since it is fringe and no one would ever take it seriously.

If Indianans thought the union was worth it, they'd pay. We disagree on that, but I think you ignore the consumer economy most of the developed world lives and has thrived under to reach your conclusion.

How do you figure the wealthy are responsible for the national debt? You do know the top 1% pay well over a third of all income taxes, don't you? And the top 10% pay about 70%.

Politicians are to blame. They get elected on lies and have avoided saying no to anyone with their hand out, from regular people to corp welfare.

Buffet makes his money on his dividends, 15%. his secretary gets a salary, taxed at approx 28-33%. his comparison wasn't valid, but it sure fooled a lot of misinformed people. Of course the media didn't make this distinction, guilt-ridden fake lefties most of them are,

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Wow, I quit. You prove my point. It was a great author who wrote when a person's life style is at odds with grasping a point they will suffer from cognitive dissidence, or so i paraphrase. So for that reason, I see that I'm wasting my time debating you, and the only way for me to get justice is to fight you in the political arena. America is the land of the rich, for the rich, and people will bend over backwards to defend the rich.

You may blame the politicians, but i blame the people who brought those politicians to power. That is where we will continue to differ in opinion, and, again, that is human nature. See you on the battle field.

Maybe, this is a truth that the Founders never grasped. Debate is futile when you know you are right. The political process is the only way I see compromising ever happening, and to those who want gov't off their backs, are either too rich to be effected by social inequality or too stupid to realize the lack of gov't does not change human nature; it just leaves a power vacuum that will be filled by the most ruthless and well situated in society, and unless you are uber rich, you are not the one who will prosper from a neutered gov't. It is in my self interests to defend unions because I'm not naive enough to believe that my employer will pay me a sustainable wage out of the goodness of his heart. If that were the case, we would have never created gov't in the first place.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

What do you know about my lifestyle? Oh, right. Nothing. But since you live in a binary thinking world of your own making, I can't reason you out of something you weren't reasoned into in the first place.

Your own unhappy lot lot in life would surely be improved if you spent half the time you currently spend obsessing over what other people have on making yourself more valuable to someone's business. But its much easier to bitch and moan than work, so your prospects are dim.

Blaming someone other than the people who swore an oath to the people to not do what they do...I've asked dozens of ows supporters to defend that silliness and I have yet to hear anything close to reasonable.

It's not that your not naive enough, it's that you buy this class warfare propaganda so strongly you can't imagine that anyone else has a different experience than you do.and no one serious expects anyone to get paid what they want out of the goodness of someone's heart (so childish), bur rather cmmensurate with their worth. How's your worth stacking up lately?

[-] 1 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

Do you mean to imply that by making yourself more valuable to someone's business you'll necessarily be rewarded? Judging by the fact workers' pay has remained essentially flat over the last few decades despite large increases in productivity and corporate profits there doesn't seem to be a very strong correlation between workers' value to a company and workers' compensation.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

And there you go again with yet another all-or-nothing, binary take on a topic.

I wish this all was as simple as you seem to believe it is.

<eye roll>

[-] 0 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

There's nothing binary about looking at all the data points of productivity and pay over the last 30 years and coming to the conclusion that there is no correlation between the value a worker provides and the wealth they are rewarded with. This isn't binary thinking, it's deductive reasoning. For you to assert that one's compensation is solely a function of yheir skill level is binary thinking.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Wrong, and you missed the point. You deny reality because it doesn't ALWAYS work the way it almost always does. Currency fluctuations happen. Some people get screwed. Life isn't fair. All that said, make yourself more valuable, work hard, and you'll get ahead. That's how it works.

[-] 1 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

Looking at productivity vs wages it's readily apparent that your basic premise is incorrect. Over the last thirty years productivity (the value of the employee to the firm) has increased 80% while wages have increased 10%. If increased worker value resulted in better compensation those two numbers should at least have some kind of correlation. What's telling is that this divergence (productivity vs pay) began at the same time as the conservative war on unions. I'm not ignoring reality, the data is well established; you, on the other hand, are pushing a mythology of hard work being rewarded when the facts just don't back it up.

[-] 0 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

A more apt analogy might be that of health insurance. If enough people pay insurance premiums, an individual can rely on those people's premiums to maintain the healthcare system while avoiding any financial responsibility themselves. This free rider dilemma is covered in any Econ101 class. This is the reason highway tolls are not voluntary as well as the rationale for government spending on infrastructure; even if an individual never uses the highway they still benefit through the more efficient movement of goods and people as well as reduced congestion on secondary roads. The basic premise is that while there is collective incentive to maintain highways with tolls (lower tolls for everyone) any individual has no such incentive and benefits by riding for free (who cares what the toll is if you can hack your EZ Pass and ignore the toll completely). As far as Buffet's capital gains, people aren't misinformed, they object to someone earning their livelihood through capital manipulation being treated more favorably than someone who earns their living through a salary. To stretch the point, why shouldn't a college graduate be able to classify all future earnings as a return on investment (tuition) and pay the lower capital gains rate on that income? To say that the comparison is invalid assumes some fundamental difference between these two types of income which I just don't see. I think it is safe to assume that if the situation were reversed hedge funds and PE firms would pay enormous salaries and working class employees would find quickly find themselves being paid in stock options.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Regarding the tax code, I have no issue with making all income the same and no more than 3 tiers, maybe 2.

I also have no issue with classifying tuition as an ROI. But that is a separate issue. To go over the problems with the utterly insane tax code could take years!

[-] 0 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

Regarding the tax code, I said nothing about moving away from progressive tiers. I do not agree at all. Also, tuition would be the investment. Future income would be the ROI in that hypothetical, relegating all income of college graduates to the capital gains rate. I wasn't advocating this, just illustrating a point.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I didn't say you were for it. And I am not surprised to see you want to punish success. Govt is like a fire and money is its gasoline. The more it has, the more it wastes. The current tax code is a joke.

[-] 0 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

I would say corporatism is a fire and the future is its fuel.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

it's called don't force me to join just to get the job. Anytime you see the use of force it's an indication of evil . REJECT the use of force !

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

If you don't want to pay your dues, don't take the job. See, free choice is still live and well.

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

forced union dues is not freedom - it's force. free to choose to join or not to join is freedom. really ? you freaks really believe union is not thuggish extortion? I was in two unions so I speak from experience.

[-] 4 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

For starters, you have a pretty expansive definition of force. Secondly, what is less free: being required to accept a union's terms as a condition of employment or being required to accept an employer's terms as a condition of employment? Unions are democratic, allowing employees to influence the terms of their employment, while corporations are controlled by investors who seek to define the terms of others' employment.

[+] -4 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

you are not required to accept anything an employer offers you. Move along. make your own way. No one is forcing you to do anything. Unless it is a union shop, a public school, social security, medicare. No one is forcing you to accept any job on any terms. if you dont like it - find another way to feed yourself.

[-] 5 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

That's exactly my point. Noone is forcing you to take that job at the union shop or to teach in a public school. If you don't want to pay dues, move along and find another way to feed yourself.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

you are forcing me to join the union if I accept an offer from a company where there is a union shop. Interesting - in Wisconsin they recently made the union optional and people are opting out. Membership plummeting. All reinforced by the recent recall election of Gov Walker which failed. The only way unions succeed is by the use of force. The day of government force is coming to an end. Wait till November - Clean sweep coming to the GOP so maybe we can cut back the Leviathan

[-] 3 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

It's not really that interesting. It's the classic free rider problem, even if they stick the rest of the union with the dues, they'll still benefit.

[-] -3 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

so force them to join. doesn't sound like freedom to me. actually - never mind - keep occupying and see where it gets you.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

I think I will.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You know you are starting to sound like a liberal. Get over it, life is not fair. If the working class is forced to take minimum wage jobs to survive, then why do the professional class get to cry about fairness? You are forced to pay union dues for the same reason I am forced to work for shitty wages, and the rich are forced to pay lobbyists. it is what it is. If you don't work together and fight for political rights for your class, then others will do it in your leave, and force you to live with the consequences. Keep eroding the coercive force of gov't and the private sector will coerce you in the government's absence. And that, my friend, is a fact of human nature.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

you are NOT forced to work for shitty wages. you can shop your skills around. if yo are not worth shit who's fault is that ?! Get a life already! If I am an employer - I seek the highest skills for the job at the lowest cost. Are you telling me you would not do the same?

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You do see how highest skill and lowest cost are counter-intuitive. You pay the least amount that you can get away with, and gov't comes in to make sure you are not exploiting your work force in order to maximize your profits. Plain and simple. If you had two workers in front of you, you'd take the one that asked for the least amount of wages and when the unemployment rate is ten percent, you would leverage the person who asked for less even further. You love to talk about human nature, but for some reason you forget this aspect.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

and - whats the problem? I might not choose the lowest wage person if the one asking for more can convince me he is worth it. When the economy is booming the tides shift. Dont you remember the late 90's & 2000's when labor was scarce and people jumped from job to job for more money? I do.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

However, you ARE forced to pay onerous tuitions to become "qualified" for more highly compensated positions. If it is reasonable to require a degree for a position (an outlay in lieu of future benefits), why is it unreasonable to require dues (an outlay in lieu of future benefits)?

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

go to a state school, trade school, community college. no one is forcing you to do anything. it is up to you to feed yourself any way you see fit.

[-] 1 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

Regardless of the educational institution, it still requires an investment as a condition of employment for some positions just as an investment in union dues is a condition of employment for some positions.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

and what - you should have someone else pay for it? it's bad enough already with the subsidies. why do you think tuition is so high to begin with? govt subsidies. same as anytime you subsidize anything. why should education be any different? you want tuition to come down - get the govt out of subsidizing it.

[-] 1 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

The conversation was about requiring union dues not government subsidies, but I guess while we're on the topic... The problem isn't government subsidizing students, it's government subsidizing private lenders (allowing them to reap the interest if the loan pays off and pass the buck if it doesn't).

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

the problem is the subsidy period. you are subsidizing the cost which gives incentive to the schools to raise tuition since there is more money out there. Wake up already. What about union dues being forced on employees? obviously people don't want it when they are free to choose.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

You've yet to show the fundamental difference between requiring a prospective employee to have a degree and requiring a prospective employee to pay dues.

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

requiring an employee to have a degree is up to the discretion of the employer. paying dues is by use of force. Unless you are in a right to work State. Wisconsin just made union dues a choice - look what happened - membership dropped by 50%.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

So the employer has the discretion to require whatever they want and that is not force yet if a union requires something that is force? If they made tolls voluntary I would hazard a guess that at least 50% of people would stop paying them. The fact that people would opt not to pay while still gaining the benefit (through other drivers paying higher tolls or other union members paying higher dues) is the definition of the free rider problem. It's individual self-interest vs. collective interest. It is rational for everyone to pay because everyone benefits through lower tolls, etc. across the board, but for any individual it is rational to opt out because they can still gain the benefit by shifting costs onto others.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

the boss has the job he needs you to do. he has his money invested in the company. he does what he needs to do to turn a profit. if he can get away without hiring anyone he would do it. you are an unwanted bi-product of production. As soon as you can be automated you will be. That is the reality of the world. Work around it. If you want to keep chasing capital out of the country keep pressuring employers.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Workers are NOT by products of production. They are required for production (until the automation or outsourcing occurs) We don't need to chase capitol out. Corps do it naturally to get the lowest worker cost and best tax treatment. I think we should stop chasing business by lowering taxes and expecting lower worker pay and benefits. Just tell business/capitol you either do things our way (hire americans, keep assets, and HQ here) or you cannot do business here. We still have the greatest middle class market on the planet! The Chinese are right behind us and may one day overtake us but we have a crazy developed consumer mentality that will always make us most attractive to sell to. Americans will buy any plastic crap you throw at them. So force corps to be patriotic and loyal to American workers and help the middle class by taking back the money/home value that the 1%. criminals stole from us. That'll do pig. That'll do.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

So we should just sit down, shut up and let capital run the show? It's consumers' disposable income that drives demand, but conservatives are too short-sighted to see that gutting the middle class will result in a loss for everyone even if it may earn some short term profits.

[-] -2 points by Growup5 (-84) 2 years ago

You're making too much sense. See, to be a proper liberal, you first must become utterly helpless.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

Apparently to be a conservative you have to be a rude a**hole.

[-] -1 points by Growup5 (-84) 2 years ago

To be a liberal, you must surrender the capacity to reason and take responsibility. Once you figure out that you aren't completely helpless, you'll have a better life.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and when a raise is needed or better benefits.. the right to organize and fight instead of just being forced to accept or quit is not freedom? im sure you say the same thing on the opposite side. if you dont like the job.. quit.. if the job doesnt offer benefits quit, if the job doesnt pay enough .. quit. but you dont think thats fair for union membership? if you dont like the union .. quit. or dont take the job. how is that any different from what you are saying?

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

no it is not freedom - it is extortion. Or if union membership is voluntary and you are free to choose - fine. but that's generally not the case. Force is used to get your way - antithetical to freedom.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

if union membership free to choose is fine thats good. but non union members should not get the benefits of the union. for instance.. higher pay, benefits ect. a person could choose to be non union and work along side someone that makes 10 more an hour. i would agree with that.. there could be union jobs and non union in the same workplace that way and everyone would be happy.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

it should be up to the employee period. Stop the use of force. Public school = force, social security = force, medicare = force unions = force. without choice you are not free - you are a subject on the road to serfdom.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

if it should be up to the employee then what is the problem with unions?? they are the employees! you contradict yourself. or are you saying.. the people that are too scared to strike, go without pay, stand in the freezing rain for weeks and gain some rights, higher pay and benifits.. should also receive those perks without striking, going without pay and standing in the freezing rain for weeks?

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

employees are forced to join the union as a condition of employment. what if a want to work for a company where there is a union? the employer wants to hire me. should I be forced to join the union if unions are against everything I believe in? If I'm not in the union the employer doesn't have to pay me the same as the union members. Isn't that my choice & that of my employer?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

absolutely .. if your fine with 8 bucks an hour for the same job as a union member is paid 16 bucks an hour of course. no problem and you will make the employer very happy. but should that diminish the rights of the union worker to negotiate? or the right of any worker so inclined to form a union or join one?

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

what skills are you bringing to the table for 16 bucks an hr?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

what ever is required for a particular job. what difference does that make?

[-] -1 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

it makes all the difference! That's where you are clueless lol!!! lets see your resume for the 16 bucks an hr you expect to earn. wow ! your commie professors really did a number on you lol! what a tragedy. This explains a lot.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

there are all types of work being done . things being produced, services being rendered . you would have to be more specific. but it doesnt matter.. what matters is that as a non union member.. you would be willing to do the same job for half the pay and benefits.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

they are necessary because without them.. people will soon( in the next 20 yrs or so) be teaching for less money than a secretary makes, barely any benefits, and no retirement . but thats ok.. you want your grandkids taught by people that cant even afford to pay a mortgage, buy a new car, or dress decently.( thrift store quality dress up clothes) you know.. the type you are making fun of today.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

How do you know that? You don't. But you have revealed how comically cynical you are about everyone else. If only everyone else was as caring as you. But since they aren't, teachers will make shit money and have no benefits. Laughable.

Who am I making fun of? Are you feeling ok?

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

no i know that cause before unions that was the case.. theres no reason to think it will not revert to the same scenario without unions.. what do you think, unions came about for no reason? for no cause? that people were being treated fairly and paid reasonably and they just decided one day.. hey.. lets all get together and sqeeze the boss? check some freeking labor history before you rant.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

To be clear, I am only talking about public employee unions. I think you are talking about unions in general.

There is every reason to think it won't revert to the pre-union days. You don't think social norms change in 50 years? 50 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Now the idea of it wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. That's one example. Do you also believe we are thisclose to child labor and 7-day work weeks? We're not. Why can't progressives accept it when they win, when they succeed? IMO it is because then they'd have to give up the racket so many righteous causes have turned into.

Tell me, was FDR some kind of evil fascist? He knew public employee unions were a very bad idea. He knew the inherent conflict of interest when those who helped get someone elected would be the ones they "bargained" with.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

those issues were addressed by government laws.. not unions. unions are what get you decent pay, retirement benefits, health insurance, .. these are the exact things that are being cited as the cause of the demise of cities across the country.. therefore.. without the union.. these will be reduced or eliminated from normal compensation packages and there will be nothing the workers have to say about it. so.. the good ones, the smart ones, will not accept these thankless jobs.. they will be left for the desperate, the secondary, the uncommitted. those that cant do anything better. im not saying they will become barbaric, just that people that want to teach or be firefighters or policemen and are good enough to do so.. wont be able to afford to without unions

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

So all you have is predictions of doom that do not pan out when you look at public employees in states where they aren't unionized.

Btw, most of what you think "were addressed by govt laws" were made laws because of unions. And they aren't going away. What is going away is ridiculously unsustainable retirement benefits. How is that a bad thing?

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

Again you are ignoring the free rider problem. The unionized employees drive up the pay of the non union employees. An education graduate can choose any state they want to look for work; if state A offers heathcare, pensions and decent pay, state B must offer a similar package or risk only attracting those employees that state A declined to hire.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Im not ignoring it, I just don't think it will have the effect you do moving forward. Without collective bargaining, which groups bad teachers with good ones and drags the good ones down, teacher quality and pay is likely to go up.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

I don't see how eliminating public unions is going to entice more talent into those jobs.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Can't say I'm surprised to hear it.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

I was hoping you'd explain how taking away workers power would make someone more inclined to take the job.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I was hoping you'd understand that a dedicated, passionate and supremely competent employee is harmed when his or her career and compensation ascendancy is weighted down by being lumped in with careless, ignorant/arrogant and incompetent co-workers who know they can't be fired and acts accordingly.

[-] 3 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

Firstly, there's no reason you can't have merit pay AND collective bargaining. Second, if I understand your point, you're complaining about how much these union employees make on the one hand and advocating higher pay for all the stellar employees who could get the job if only we could fire those incompetent union employees. How does this help municipal budgets? You'd have to raise taxes even more to pay all these dedicated, passionate employees you're talking about.

[-] 3 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

I'd take the inefficiencies of collective bargaining over the injustice of at will employment any day. As a concrete example, the last round of layoffs in the non-union shop my mother works at resulted in a suspiciously high concentration of people with medical issues being let go but without a union to fight for them these now unemployed people can't afford to fight it themselves.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Some people like to stand on their own and many do just fine. Is that a bad thing?

If it is suspicious, they should take it to a lawyer and seek justice if their suspicions turn out to be true. There are a shitload of attorneys who do this kind of work every day and a lot of them will do it pro bono or no contingency.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Get rid of the dead weight, pay the good ones better, no longer the need to add extra pay to make up for the compulsory union dues, budgets come out ahead.

[-] 2 points by Vairants (4) 2 years ago

"lumped in with careless, ignorant/arrogant and incompetent co-workers who know they can't be fired and acts accordingly."

Just a few posts above you complained about someone ELSE being comically cynical. Do you read your own posts?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Comically cynical would be to declare that they are ALL "careless...etc"

You know, like the typical ows mouth-breather constantly declares "ALL rich, conservative, business owners, etc etc etc..." as the same.

There are plenty of good public employees. They don't need a union, the dead weight does to stay employed while not giving a fuck and the leadership does to hand out jobs to friends and family.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

it seems naive to think it will stop there. the states without unions only compensate approximately equal because they know they will not get any one to work for them otherwise. when the union states start reducing and eliminating compensation. so will the others. like i said before.. unions began for a reason

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

So there is a fear people will move from SC to CA for public union benefits? I think that is naive.

I agree they started for a reason. In the private sector. And the abuses have ended. I have no issue with private unions, that's not my business. but public unions are not even necessary. Who are they being protected from? Were is the evidence they were being abused in the first place? Explain how FDR was wrong.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

not just people.. good people. the best people are the ones that will move. in states with unions.. cops are paid about 50k enough to live.. in states without unions, cops are paid about 12 bucks an hour. who do you think is out there in uniform? without unions. wages will fall and you will get what you pay for.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Can you back that $50k vs. $12/hr assertion?

In Vegas, the Venetian hotel is nonunion. They have no problem attracting workers, and many are paid more than competing strip properties. I know, I worked there for a very short time.

[-] 2 points by grimblecrumble (63) 2 years ago

What kind of pension did they offer?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

401k. At employee orientation, they show a laughably heavy-handed video on union evil.

Can you back the $50k vs $12/hr?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21545) 2 years ago

People don't want to pay the dues because they don't want to pay the dues. Maybe they can't afford to pay the dues. More likely, however, is that they want something for nothing. They think they can avoid paying the dues and still maintain their union protection. Hmm. They may regret that decision.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

When Walker gutted the Union by removing the right to collective bargaining he started a slow bleed out of the Union. It's not surprising this resulted. Walker's sole intention is to destroy the Union completely. Into oblivion. He has drawn blood and the bleeding won't stop unless the Union can regain the rights that have been ripped from them.

Do you comprehend?

The Puzzler

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Do I comprehend? Sure, why wouldn't I? Your opinion why this happened is reasonable.

Your crystal ball watching...thanks for the laugh. What else, he eats puppies, right? However did the well-educated, seemingly reasonable folks in WI vote for Walker in even higher numbers and with an even larger margin of victory? Could it be they aren't as paranoid as you?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

No. What the exit polls pointed to was many voters did not think the recall itself was warranted so they voted against the recall for that reason alone. They did not consider the issue of the Unions in their vote. So, you can not say the fact that Walker was not recalled, is due ONLY to voters revolting against the Unions, that would be twisting the truth. The exit polls clearly show it was not the over-whelming case for keeping $$$Scott$$$Walker$$, at all. I think the money trail is a better clue $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Round two?

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

When the general population is too braindead to think for themselvs, follow the money (the tv commercials)...

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

If the population is that braindead, what does that say about the job performance of the teachers there? You sure you want to go with this hypercynical line of, ahem, reasoning? you seem to be making the case that the educators in WI are grossly overpaid.

And nothing was stopping all the big $ democrats from donating, nothing at all.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I dont blame the teachers as much as blame the overall culture in this country. We just dont value education.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

So you blame the teachers partially. Oh, that's so much better.

As for the culture, if anything, we overstate the need for higher education (specifically college). We act like every C student must go to college when so many would be better off learning a trade and making a much better living than the misguided fools who get Sudanese literature and womyn's studies degrees.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

It doesnt matter how good the teacher is when the society doesnt value education.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Then how do you account for the millions of people who aren't braindead? The Rhodes scholars, the innovators, the inventors, the researchers? How do all these millions of highly intelligent people thrive in such an anti-education environment?

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Of course not ALL are useless.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

All truthers are.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Your love of media sound bites and slogans is very telling of your baseling for political dialogue.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Truly, and primed for the brainwashing. ANd there's those rich egomaniacs loving to fill in those voids for us. Why think when they can do that for us. It's easy street and it all does fit so nicely, like a dream (but it's really a nightmare).

Somewhere along the way, we forgot there was this thing called truth.

Whatever.............................

Just

Puzzlin

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

See my response to hchc.

So easy to fall back on that lameness. When leftists and statists get what they want, "the people have spoken."

When they don't get what they want, everyone's an idiot.

So silly.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I believe in a Republic. What do you believe in?

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Who said that, you?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Exit polls are notoriously unreliable. Exit polls said this race was close. It wasn't. So maybe you cite them because you want to believe what you ought to know isn't so.

They money spent does not calculate the value of on the clock union workers canvassing and working the phones, so the gap wasn't nearly as wide in money spent if that is included. We're talking hundreds of thousands of man hours.

btw, all the $ symbols...adorable.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter, the exit polls and the actual vote is all we got. From their you may speculate as much as you wish. Since we already can hear that heavy conservative narrative playing in your head over there we know if we say the sky is blue you'll say it's red. Scott Walker is a tool. That's my top hit of the moment. So, convince your self he's your new fearless leader. Maybe he'll be president some day (LMFAO)

Any way you cut it, he's a Tea Party favorite and personally the Tea Party is no favorite of mine. I believe they are terribly misguided and I will work against them at every turn I can. I did have the utmost pleasure in conveying a piece of my mind to a TPer in person about a year ago. Their support was pathetic and frankly there were only about six of them. Our crowd was right about 20,000 in a venue to see Obama. This about the time when TP stopped protesting in the street anywhere. They can't astroturf the numbers any more. Thankfully for the dems they will significantly damage the grand ole party before they leave that one and fade to black.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"It doesn't matter, the exit polls and the actual vote is all we got."

And one counts and the other hardly means shit. So it does matter.

Now you're getting personal and playing mind-reader. How cute.

You must think you're not making your case very well.

[-] 2 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

"You must think you're not making your case very well."

He's not the only one LOL

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

He will try making a move on the private sector unions now.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

LoL, how did you know....

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is the game plan. He is a CorpoRat Shill.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

unions need to save money to support workers during long strikes

if the unions aren't striking, the money becomes idle

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Yeah, I'm sure it's in the same lockbox the social security trust fund is in.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I would figure unions have their own account for it

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Right. There's the genovese account, the gambino account, the lucchese account, the bruno account, the columbo account, the Chicago outfit account, the decavalcante account, the marchese account. They all have their own accounts of union money.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

Yoonyenz are the enemy of oligarchs.

Due to massively unbalanced ownership of the mass media, worker's unions have been demonised and vilified.

Simple searches of the history of worker's unions will tell a completely different story.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

The urban dictionary defines slizzo as: Scum of the earth,Genderless selfserving individual,who is incapable of compassion,empathy and any natural human logic or emotion.In other words just your average run of the mill scab.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

The Teachers Unions are the best lobbyists the middle class has. They fight for our kids. They fight for the parents to be able to take care of the kids. They are very damned smart and they speak well in front of a crowd. I can't afford a lobbyist. But the teachers fight for me anyway.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I think it would be helpful to have a strong PTA ( change it to a Public Teachers Association though ) - forward issues of education and keep unions reasonable. Unions should be non-profit and as such should not have corporate style pay/benefit packages - and as membership increases cost should go down due to the larger support base. Just like taxes should with a larger support base. Just like any costs should with a larger support base.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

They are non-profit.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

FTFY...

"The Teachers Unions used to be the best lobbyists for the middle class has. They used to fight for and teach our kids. Theyused to fight for the parents to be able to take care of the kids. They were very damned smart and they spoke well in front of a crowd before they became radically politicized. Now they can afford a lobbyist. So the teachers don't fight for me in any way."

much more accurate.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

SLIZZO Defined by the Urban Dictionary: "Scum of the earth,C--t,W---e,Genderless self serving individual who is incapable of Compassio n,Empathy,and any natural human Logic or Emotion." As I have said A Conservative Scab!

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Did anyone order pizza yet?

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1307) from Fredericksburg, TX 2 years ago

“Davy Crockett broke with Jackson over the Cherokee relocation to OK. [Trail of Tears] After several terms in congress as a Democrat from Tennessee, he defied Jackson and the TN delegation to vote against further persecution of the defeated Native Americans. That cost him his political career. He left America to reinvent himself and recover. He's reported to have said to TN, “You can go to hell. I'm going to Texas.”
“When he got there he was told he could take land for himself if he joined the insurrectionist militia, made up of other illegal immigrants to Mexico, in the rebellion. He joined, not realizing that their hidden agenda was to bring the plantation system and slavery to Texas. Slavery had already been outlawed by Mexico. Thus the need for the ante bellum rebellion. Does that throw some light on the states' rights, private property, cult of individuality and personal freedom issue for you? It's been perverse since its promotion, in defense of slavery, by John C. Calhoun in the 1820s.” Derived from: How Does That Work? https://www.createspace.com/3852916 I hope this throws some light on the origin of the folly of anti union sentiment and the Tea Party supporters of Walker cited.

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Exactly. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. I am a 99%er who SUPPORTED the govenor limiting the power of the special interests.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

This fixation on the rights of public sector unions shows me many people are motivated by jealousy. Obviously there are many people who want these jobs and can't get them. The movement behind this is the Tea Party and it's obvious they are corporate tools. It's funny how the TP wants to go after the public unions at the same time they desparately want to be on the government payroll as politicians.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

What's much funnier is you think thats an illustrative comparison.

It isn't. Pols aren't unionized. As for jealousy, ows would kill to be as effective as the tp.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

The only thing the TP may accomplish is limiting the power of public unions. That's it. Ows isn't the TP and has no interest in becoming them.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

TP has helped elect 60+ politicians at the federal level. Hundreds and hundreds at the state and local level.

But, yeah, they're only good at limiting public sector unions. Keep denying reality. Ows is awesome at that.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Do you have data on this? I'd like to read about it from the source.

Do you also support getting rid of collective bargaining rights? I definitely think people should be able to opt out of a union. But I don't think they should be dismantled. And I also think collective bargaining rights are a huge step in the direction of freedom.

I am a member of a private sector union and I definitely support them and have seen benefits.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Google it. Not too hard to find.

As for collective bargaining, I am for eliminating public employee unions altogether. They are not necessary. At all. FDR was right.

Private sector unions are up to the workers. Many are good, some are bad, some are unbelievably corrupt (ILA comes to mind).

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Maybe the members who opted out needed to save the amount of dues they would save. every dollar matters in these desperate times. Maybe some were conservative. maybe some decided they didn't need the union anymore since they already got pretty good benefits from union efforts. Maybe some felt the union was dead and would soon be gone. Maybe some were just shortsighted or ignorant in general. I'm sure there are other possibilities as well. Why do you think? In any event whatever the reason I believe they will rue the day because I know unions help workers and corps exploit workers who aren't unionized. So there.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Good answer until you reverted to a child at the end. "so there"?? What's that about?

Btw, if unions helped workers, why would half leave?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Didn't I just answer that? And I believe I asked my own question of you. Why do you think they have opted out?

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I think they left because they never wanted to be in in the first place. It was compulsory and as soon as it wasn't, they stopped. By and large, teachers are smart people. They know corruption and self-serving leadership when they see it. Some may have known about WEA Trust, the cash cow I believe the protests were really designed to protect. Once that overcharging monster was tamed and local govts could negotiate with them, rates dropped dramatically. This went a long way to balancing the budget.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But I thought the budget was still not balanced?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Correct. They have a surplus now.

IOW, it worked. So all that seems to be left for the left to complain about is what they assume will happen. Not the strongest argument.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You don't like the left do you?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I love the left when they do what they do best: fight for personal freedom. I wish they'd do a lot more of it. It is the left's economic and (for the most part but not always) foreign policy that I strongly oppose, especially the economics. They simply do not work, they oppose human nature, and they foster class warfare.

I'd like the left a lot more if they went all out to end the drug war, get fully equal rights for gays, focused more on corporate welfare, restored the 10th amendment, stopped obsessing on xians while ignoring every other religion's abuses (I'm an atheist). Stuff like that.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Fosters class warfare"?. havn't the classes been at war through out all history. And haven't the lower and middle class usually been on the losing side (like now!)?

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Yes.Always at war.Except in the early forties when we had bigger fish to fry.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

These days the 1% have strangled the economy with their greed, and selfishness. Somethings got to give!

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Don't hold your breath .Sorry to say it but Americans have become the most apathetic people on the planet.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It is true. But things can change. OWS is a small light in the darkness. But I have to be positive. People always wake up eventually. Hopefully it won't have to get so bad that there is violence. That would be worse.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

OWS is the straw that stirs the drink.That is why there is so much repression directed at them.Problem is once the jeni is out of the bottle it is almost impossible to put back in.It will not happen overnight ,but it is evolving.This is why the dirt bags are so adamently trying to discredit us at every step.They use many tactic but Greed is there only motivation.Good Luck.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

to those running to discredit

The thin ice.Pink Floyd.The Wall.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

At war? No. Tension? Of course, that's human nature. It's the severity and the rhetoric that tears at national unity and childishly assumes all "the rich" are evil, bad, cheaters, etc.

It's indefensible. And when you hear it now from left wingers who ARE very wealthy (politicians, media whores, entertainers), it's all the more sickening. If they had an ounce of integrity they'd send millions over and above their tax bill. But they don't. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't think all rich are evil. In fact there are many "millionaires for the 99%". The problem is that it was the rich who crashed the world economy and didn't suffer at all. In fact in 2010 the rich captured 93% of all wealth created. Meanwhile the middle/working class has struggled, and sacrificed for the last 3 years. You don't care about that? You support the 1% over your owb class?

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

The difference is I blame the political leaders who allow what you described. OWS, for the most part, does not. They make excuses for the scum who take bribes and allow themselves to be bought. when this started, I spent a great deal of time on these boards making that case. I was shocked by the excuses made for politicians.

I could care less how rich someone else gets until it effects the national interest. When it does, and that is debatable on a per case basis, the law is supposed to fix it, the law doesn't because it is in bed and beholden to them. Both parties. But the pols take the oath and are charged with keeping the playing field level. It is a political failure. When elites break the rules, pols do next to nothing. I blame them.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I blame all politicians who have implemented laws that help the 1% and hurt the 99%. The difference between us maybe that I think the pols aren't at the head of this criminal enterprise. They ARE bought off. By the real criminals in charge. The corp 1%. They have bribed all pols to rig the tax/regulation laws to benefit the 1% and hurt the rest of us. That isn't an excuse for the pols. They are guilty of being bought off and for implementing right wing wacko policies that are atthe center of our problems. So pols are just tools of the real criminals.

[-] -2 points by delayedgrat (-157) 2 years ago

Trust me, this forum has descended into nothing but lockstep support of the Democratic Party.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

BS - this forum is transforming into recognizing that government is fucked-up and that anti-people politicians must go - all of them - out!!!!!!!!!!!

The protest of WallStreet was a great start to pointing out the ILLs of this country and in extension the World. The very visible greed corruption and crime running rampant that threw us all down.

This led to the recognition of the very real support that government gave to corporate entities to ruin our world and continues to give.

This has brought many to the realization that we need to stand together to force change - healthy prosperous change - or if we do not we will truly be in a living hell.

This has spurred outreach and education to grow awareness to grow unity to grow opposition to the death of democracy to push for health and prosperity for all.

[-] 0 points by delayedgrat (-157) 2 years ago

Public Employee Unions have damaged the economy as badly as Wall Street sharks but i have not seen one liberal poster here decry the damage they are inflicting on the tax payer.

Here is what needs to happen: 1) outlaw public employee unions

2) separate public risk from private profit

3) end leveraged institutional investing. If Goldman Sachs wants to buy credit default swaps, they do it with real money,their own, held in a bank, no more borrowing.

4) all FDIC insured banks can only invest in government bonds.

this is a starting list

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I believe in the good unions have done for the common worker.

Unions have made many strides forward for the health and prosperity for ALL - even the non-union workers.

The rights that unions have struggled for are rights that all workers should have.

A living Wage.

Access to and ability to afford good health care.

A workplace condition that is not detrimental to the worker.

A work week that does not separate one from life or family.

Cooperation and support to continue growing as business technology grows.

The ability to own a home.

The ability to save money.

All this and more should be every workers right.

That being said.

In this country - founded on the principles of Democracy - with the recognition that every person was created equal - with the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unions should not be necessary.

With a government of by & for the people - there should be no strife between classes.

With a government truly working for the people public and private employees should receive the same treatment and considerations.

This is what this forum is about or should be about in my opinion.

Educating the people - educating the government.

Uniting all in outreach education and the sharing of awareness.

We need to all work together for a healthy and prosperous world for ALL.

This will take effort and dedication as the system as it is currently run will fight the change even though it is good for all.

Find and support all of the Bernie Sanders ( male/female ) of the world - people who believe in people and get them into office.

Does not matter what social system you live in if it does not support the people it will fail - fast or slow - from within or from without or both - the society will fail.

Unite and together we can have a healthy world - for ALL.

[-] -1 points by delayedgrat (-157) 2 years ago

Without your being able to recognize the danger of public employee unions (and this blind spot extends to all of OWS,) the movement is fatally wounded. Private unions are a good thing.

Most of what you posted fals into the range of feel good non specific kinda cheerleading. I appreciate your enthusiasm but it doesnt outline the mechanics.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is where your perception betrays you as the frame work the grid - the layout of what needs to be done and how it needs to be done is all through this forum.

Public unions are a symptom of what needs fixing. There should be no need for public or private unions - that is the point as well.

You limit yourself when you can not see the good information that is shared all through this forum and realize that these are the pieces to the puzzle and the mechanics is education outreach and joining together in common cause.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

are you gonna threaten DKA as well?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25218) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Already been there - this is the one who threatened to expose and discredit me. Is also a big bot user/attacker if I rememberize correctly.

Claims to be a Jefersonian - but not a democrat.

Do you think that means that he owns a string of laundromats?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yeah, except it's mostly the libe(R)tarians and (R)ight wingers that keep bringing it up.

Kind of like thrashy and his obsession with lizard people.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

It seems that way. I don't see how debating about Obama for the upcoming election helps either side.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You missed that whole , he destroyed collective bargaining, part of the equation.

You always did miss some part of the equation slizz.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I didn't miss it, I asked about something specific and that wasn't it.

How did you miss that?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

What's this Slizzo's guessing game???

Are you a child Slizzo? How old are you?

Your certainly not a prolific writer are you?

Answer my questions if your serious about your posting.

The Puzzler

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Answer your question? Ha! Answer mine first.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

SO.... how serious are you then?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I looked again and yepperz, you surely missed it entirely.

Why would you lie about thing like that?

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"yepperz"

ows intellect on parade.

"lie"

hilarious.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Which describes how you missed the most important fact, how?

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Can Scabs explain why they are Scabs.Can Scabs explain why they are the Benadict arnolds of the working class.Can they explain why they would betray there fellow men for thirty pieces of silver.Can they explain there hatred of working people who have formed unions to protect themselves.Why are they envious of there fellow workers.Are they just conservative paid trolls.Why do Scabs hide behind computer screens and a line of police.Has any one ever seen a Scab runing his mouth alone in a bar.The reason why you do noty is that they are Cowards who hide.Just like this piece of crap Slizzo.Evan his name has a scab ring to it.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Hilarious! Literally lol-ing.

So no ideas on why half dumped their own useless, corrupt union? What a shock, what with all that intellectual firepower on display. ILA guy? Or AFSCE? They're usually the most emotionally unhinged.

Nice rant, lunatic.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

You are just another turd in the big crapper .False assertions and lies of a coward.You are a propagandist that would do well in a1930's state such as Germany.Lyers figure and figures lie.Sorry scab people will not buy into your low wage low benifit dream for the American workerThe Scab a low life that has no regard for his fellow citezens.A modern day Judas A weak man that finds it easier to scab than fight against greed.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Got any more cliches, clichebot? Are you so f'n blind you don't see how union management is just as, if not more, corrupt as any corporation or govt? What kind of pollyanna sucka are you, anyway? Union leadership exploits the shit out of their drones and they count on braindead, clueless clowns like you to tow the line with all the fury and rage of a teenage girl who didn't get those cha-cha boots for Xmas.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

You must have a cheet shet of Scab talking points.Last I looked you anti American Cowad America is a UNION!

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Wrong, dummy, it's a Republic,

That corrupt, top-heavy, exploitative and obsolete organization you defend is the union.

Why don't you explain why FDR was wrong to oppose public sector unions? Or would you rather continue the lie and pretend public sector unions are no different than private sector unions?

Other than their rank corruption, I have no interest in private sector unions. That's between the workers and the companies. But the fleecing of the middle class taxpayer to afford higher pay, more expensive benefits (ever hear of WEA Trust?), and utterly absurd retirement benefits is over, as it should be. There is no justification for public sector unions in the first place. FDR was right. The conflict of interest is obvious. Public sector union overreach was stomped in WI and this moronic state constitutional amendment in MI will go down in flames similarly. Public sector unions got in bed with the elected slime in govt and now they pay the price.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

You lie you are not against unions but working people.You thimk you must destroy unions but it is the people that you want to hurt.And as a true coward you do it behind your computer.Never in public because you would find your comfort zone not all that comfortable Scab.As for your B.S tak\lking points I could care less because we know what kind of scum you are.And wrong Dummy it has become an empire of corporations the Republic has rendered inept.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I worked in an ILA union shop for 4 summers while I was a student. I was as honest to the people there as I am now. So take your silly fantasies about me and stick 'em. I saw no show jobs, no work jobs, one person punching 25 time cards at 5pm while 24 people were already home, rampant drug abuse among "connected" guys, stealing nearly everything that wasn't nailed down....corruption beyond fiction. But hey, that's their deal" it was a private company dumb enough to do business with gangsters, so fuck 'em.

But you keep ranting like a cunt and avoid explaining why FDR was wrong about the inherent conflict of interest with public sector unions. That unanswered question you keep ducking and dodging like the chickenshit you are is glaring in your face. Pretend it isn't there, little man, and keep ranting here.

Bitch.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I guess I will see you on the ol labor battlefield some day.I will spot you by the yellow streak down your back when you turn to run.You should have more respect for women .You know your mommy was one.Teamsters #282

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Oh, now I can see your point. So that's why you think FDR was wrong about public labor unions. Well, with logic and reason like that, who can argue?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

No argument just fact.You are a coward who attacks working people from behind a computer.Now go back under your rock.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Fact? What fact have you farted out of your mouth?

So, you were saying about FDR?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

The usual response from a anti American Coward.Enemy of the working man.Scab that he is .Old yellow egg sucking dog.Who eats his own vomit.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Only someone who hates himself can be such a miserable turd living in Hawaii. I feel sorry for you.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people trying to put us down

just because we're still around

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Stop in and look me up someday.I will even buy you a drink.With a cheery on top!

[-] 1 points by vvv0619 (19) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

He should have mentioned your mom!