Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

[Bullitt]

Yes, public safety workers can negotiate over equipment. Whoopdee fucking doo. Not staffing though. Having 3 guys at a fire is dangerous and downright criminal to force into being in the first place. Having one medic in the back of the ambulance instead of two can cost a life. Sending a cop alone to a dangerous neighborhood could get him killed. Waiting for additional help because not enough resources were available to send in the first place costs lives and property.
It's bullshit.
Take away my new squad and give me back the old one with 300k miles on it. Staffing is way more important than equipment. I'll keep my old ratty turnout gear if it means having a guy to come get my ass if I go down.

[TheMercenary]

All over that. But you have free will as well.

Go. Don't go. A moral issue for sure.

In the end change is forced by those decisions.

I take no side on either issue.

I say to you that through action, you have the power to effect change.

Unions have nothing to do with that and they are not your friend.

[Bullitt]

Public safety workers rarely have the option to choose go or don't go. If there are reports of people in a burning building, even if its some drug addict rapist, we go. Even if the call is for a bad neighborhood where ambulances get broken into for morphine during calls and medics get shot at, and you beat the cops there, we go. Medics in east Cleveland get issued body armor. We're called to act, so we act. Holding our services hostage to force change is immoral at best.
The unions are corrupt, no getting around that. But if we want something to change we need a unified voice. Not many other avenues right now, let alone any that are as widespread.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Public safety workers rarely have the option to choose go or don't go. If there are reports of people in a burning building, even if its some drug addict rapist, we go. Even if the call is for a bad neighborhood where ambulances get broken into for morphine during calls and medics get shot at, and you beat the cops there, we go. Medics in east Cleveland get issued body armor. We're called to act, so we act. Holding our services hostage to force change is immoral at best.

So please tell us. Eliminate this portion fo the the discussion.

1. Do YOU HAVE A CHOICE to join the Union or not?

2. Do YOU HAVE Card Check when you join, to agree to divert your income to a Union PAC or not? Do you really have a choice?

I completely respect what you do but be honest. If a new worker came in and said, "fuck that, I do not want to be part of the union, and I do not want my due to go to the Demoncratic Party." Could they do that without peer pressure or someone preventing them from full participation in the collective bargaining agreement?

I do not want you to take sides. I only want your honest answers.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Public safety workers rarely have the option to choose go or don't go. If there are reports of people in a burning building, even if its some drug addict rapist, we go. Even if the call is for a bad neighborhood where ambulances get broken into for morphine during calls and medics get shot at, and you beat the cops there, we go. Medics in east Cleveland get issued body armor. We're called to act, so we act. Holding our services hostage to force change is immoral at best.
The unions are corrupt, no getting around that. But if we want something to change we need a unified voice. Not many other avenues right now, let alone any that are as widespread.

Bro, I have the utmost respect for you and what you and your bro's do, but be honest about the unions and the pressure that you are put under to 1. Join; 2. And contribute to PAC's; or 3. Have no control over where your Union dues go to support a political candidate.

Cheers. The Merc

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And I completely support that. I do not, however, consider it "dirty" politics anymore than those who support the idea the taxpayer dollars should be diverted to a single party.

What you call taxpayer dollars is also workers' salaries.

I am still astounding that you are denying workers the right to do what they wish with their salaries simply because they are public employees and dont share your political views.

And, you are the second person to raise the redux (or reflux?) question, the other in a pm.

I am not that person.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bro, I have the utmost respect for you and what you and your bro's do, but be honest about the unions and the pressure that you are put under to 1. Join; 2. And contribute to PAC's; or 3. Have no control over where your Union dues go to support a political candidate.

Cheers. The Merc

Thanks. I'm not a union guy by any stretch. I understand the base purpose of representing the interests of the worker, but they really are too bloated for their own good. The fear is that this bill's attempts to neuter the unions will just hurt the working man instead.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

What you call taxpayer dollars is also workers' salaries.

Bull shit. They are taxpayer dollars.

I am still astounding that you are denying workers the right to do what they wish with their salaries simply because they are public employees and dont share your political views.

And I am still astounded that you would defend a bunch of people that have been taking the taxpayers to the bank for so many years while the rest of us are out of work, paying our fair share of benefits, and contributing to our retirement funds that had nothing to do with the taxpayer sucking up the bill for all of our benefits, and in some cases to the tune of 100% of all our benefits! Wow! what a great deal! I pay not a God Damm thing into my future but the tax payer foots the Bill! Wonderful!....

And, you are the second person to raise the redux (or reflux?) question, the other in a pm.

I am not that person.

We know who you are ass hole.

[TheMercenary]

After years of being harassed by the purple people beaters, one company has finally said ENOUGH.

In a press release issued Thursday, Sodexo USA announced that the company has filed a civil lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act., accusing the union of engaging in an “illegal campaign of extortion.” The lawsuit representing Sodexo is Hunton & Williams – the same firm SEIU and its allies have accused of launching a “dirty tricks” campaign against them in retaliation for their anti-Chamber of Commerce campaigns. (more on that after the jump)

One of the largest food services and facilities management companies in the world, Sodexo is the provider of choice for most schools, universities, companies, hotels, prisons and other facilities that outsource their cafeteria and food catering operations, and for those that outsource industrial cleaning services. SEIU has been incessantly battering Sodexo since 2007, in its desire to unionize some of its nearly 400,000 employees, many of them hotel and food service workers. Exacerbating the tensions was a longstanding turf war between SEIU and UNITE HERE over hotel and casino workers, which often spilled over into SEIU’s antics prior to the settlement the warring unions reached this past summer.

Sodexo USA has filed the lawsuit in an attempt to halt the over-the-top harassment from SEIU, alleging that many of the acts are very serious and outside of the normal realm of union tactics, including acts of ” SEIU blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from Sodexo USA and harm the company.” [emphasis added]
Aside from some of its usual corporate smear campaign tactics, certain organizers in the SEIU subscribed to some especially nasty, and frankly repulsive, tactics:

http://biggovernment.com/libertychic...s/#more-244504

[Spexxvet]

There really needs to be a general strike in this country.

[Happy Monkey]

Walker's Wisconsin hits new heights of corruption.

Wednesday's ruling was supposed to be a straightforward decision on a motion to reconsider, in light of additional evidence that Walker and his allies had violated the campaign finance laws that the Court upheld in July.

The Court denied that motion, but then (in a lengthy unsigned opinion) went further, rewriting its July decision to fire the Republican Special Prosecutor who had led the investigation, Francis Schmitz, making it harder for him to challenge the justices' conflicts-of-interest by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
...
The Court rewriting its decision and firing Schmitz might be viewed not only as the majority protecting their biggest financial supporters and Scott Walker, but also as an effort to protect themselves.

That's because the Court's four-justice majority was elected to the bench with at least $10 million in spending from precisely the same groups accused of coordinating with Walker, and precisely the same groups that were under investigation in the John Doe--namely, Wisconsin Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Reaffirming the Judicial system is just as corrupt as the legislative system, largely because of the Citizens United ruling, which came from where? Why the corrupt system feeding itself, of course. It's not their fault though, all monsters devour knights and maidens for breakfast, just doing what comes naturally.

The fault lies squarely on the voters..

[Happy Monkey]

Who had more chances than most to reverse course.

I love Wisconsin - my dad's family is from there - but they really did bring this on themselves.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But the strangest thing is most people , whether they agree with this or not, don't realize they are being fucked. It's just a political battle detached from their little world.

[classicman]

From an alternate perspective