Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

[YOUTUBE]WBnSv3a6Nh4&feature[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]Z3a2pYGr7-k&feature[/YOUTUBE]

According to Wisconsin state senator Tim Carpenter (D), Governor Scott Walker “will not talk, will not communicate, will not return phone calls.” That gave one liberal blogger an idea: “Who could get through to Gov. Walker? Well, what do we know about Walker and his proposed union-busting, no-bid budget? The obvious candidate was David Koch”–whose PAC donated about forty grand to Walker’s campaign, and who personally gave a million to the Republican Governors Association. So, posing as Koch, the blogger phoned the governor’s office, got through, had a twenty-minute conversation with Walker–and recorded the whole thing.

Highlights:

Walker and his allies plan to pass a rule holding that if state senators don’t show up for two consecutive days when the senate is in session, the chief clerk will block direct deposit and force senators to pick up their checks in person. The clerk plans to have the checks locked in the desks of legislators on the floor of the senate. “Beautiful,” replies faux-Koch.

The governor is investigating whether the unions are paying to put up the fourteen Democratic senators who have left Wisconsin, which might constitute an ethics-code violation “and may very well be a felony.” Misunderstanding the governor’s point, faux-Koch responds: “They’re probably putting hobos in suits. That’s what we do.”

“The other thing,” Walker says, “is I’ve got layoff notices ready. We put out the at-risk notices. We’ll announce Thursday, and they’ll go out early next week, and probably about five to six thousand state workers will get at-risk notices for layoffs. We might ratchet that up a bit too.” To which faux-Kock says: “Beautiful, beautiful. Gotta crush that union.”

Walker remains unfazed, going on to describe his plan to lure the fourteen Dems back to Wisconsin. While promising faux-Koch he won’t “cave,” Walker says he’s going to tell the Democrats he’s willing to sit down and “talk, not negotiate”–but only if all fourteen Democrats ”come back and sit down in the state assembly.” They “can recess it…but they’ll have to be back there.” Why? “We’re verifying it…but legally, we believe, once they have gone into session they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day and they take a recess, nineteen senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have a quorum because they started out that way.”

Walker reassures faux-Koch: “If you heard that I was gonna talk to them, that would be the only reason why…. Hell, I’ll talk to them. If they want to yell at me for an hour, I’m used to that. But I’m not negotiating–”

Faux-Koch: “–Bring a baseball bat. That’s what I’d do.”

Walker: “I have one in my office. You’d be happy with that. I’ve got a Slugger with my name on it.”

Faux-Koch: “Beautiful.”

Later, faux-Koch suggests they plant “trouble-makers” among the protesters, and Walker counsels against it–but not before admitting that “we thought about that.”

Near the end of the call, Walker shares a touching moment just before “we dropped the bomb.” Earlier this month, the governor and his cabinet were dining at his residence. Walker produced a photo of Ronald Reagan, explaining that the late president “had one of the most defining moments of his political career…when he fired the air-traffic controllers. To me that moment…was the first crack in the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism. Because from that point forward, the Soviets and the Communists knew that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a pushover.”

“Well, I tell you what, Scott, once you crush these bastards, I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time,” faux-Koch replies.

“That would be outstanding,” Walker says. “We’re doing the just and right thing for the right reasons and it’s all about getting our freedoms back.”

Link

Ah, but union political contributions ... those are as pure as the driven snow, right?

Do you really think a conversation between the union bosses and the dem representatives would be much different?

Not at all smooth. I'd love for them all to be recorded and played publicly.

smoothmoniker;713080 wrote:

Ah, but union political contributions ... those are as pure as the driven snow, right?

Do you really think a conversation between the union bosses and the dem representatives would be much different?

Is this that thing I hear about, "moral relativism"?

This is issue is just stupid. I've listened to both sides and have come to the conclusion that if everyone just stopped yelling and attacking each other they will realize that they could easily come to an agreement.

All the teachers I've talked too said they are willing to give up pay and benefits as long as they keep collective bargaining. Maybe I've missed something but I thought republicans were (more or less) for less government spending and less government control (getting rid of collective bargaining gives the government more control). Both sides seem too busy convinced the other is out to screw them over to listen to each other.

Scott Walker, and others, are just trying to make a statement by holding their ground and Wisconsin education will suffer.

Uday;713137 wrote:

Is this that thing I hear about, "moral relativism"?

Nope. It's that thing you hear about, "Hypocrisy".

piercehawkeye45;713148 wrote:

Maybe I've missed something but I thought republicans were (more or less) for less government spending and less government control (getting rid of collective bargaining gives the government more control).

They are more against unions than they are against "government control". And they aren't against "government control", they are against Democrats. Unions tend to support Democrats, except for police and firefighters, which he exempted. But they recognized that union-busting damages them, even if not (for now) aimed at them, so they're supporting the protests.

The unions made themselves political. Now, they're fair game for politics.

This Wisconcin Governor wants to destroy all unions except three. Exempt from his bills are three unions who endorsed him for Governor. This is not what an honest leader does. This is a classic example of self serving corruption by the Governor.

His bills are examples of a politican working for a poltiical agenda and his own glory. Not working for his state and citizens.

If he really wanted to after the problem, then previous politicians who gave away the state would be forced to pay for all their mismanagement. And put before the national press to apologize for being so corrupt. We don't hold the actual criminals to task. Because spread sheets are only reporting ten years later what those previous governors and WI State Congressmen did.

tw;713237 wrote:

His bills are examples of a politican working for a poltiical agenda and his own glory. Not working for his state and citizens.

And this is something new?

smoothmoniker;713150 wrote:

Nope. It's that thing you hear about, "Hypocrisy".

Classicman is a union supporter?

As your friend Uday understand it, moral relativism is define as:

"moral relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective."

So is okay or not so bad for Governor Walker to be a crook, because unions are also crook. So it is a matter of what side you are on, not anything to do with principles?

Nope, both are wrong. It's hypocrisy to only point out the wrongness of the other side.

smoothmoniker;713346 wrote:

Nope, both are wrong. It's hypocrisy to only point out the wrongness of the other side.

So is morally wrong to talk about one person without mandatory equal time for others?

KOCH!


Jim, where are you?

Uday;713326 wrote:

So is okay or not so bad for Governor Walker to be a crook, because unions are also crook. So it is a matter of what side you are on, not anything to do with principles?

Neither is a crook. Unethical and self serving - yes. But not the #1 crook.

The 'crook' (if one exists) were top management of many (ten) years earlier. When bills come due, those most guilty parties are long gone.

To understand problems (ie excessive pensions), instead, view (identify) people who promised those pensions by doing what corrupt leaders do. Ignore the numbers. Had they been doing their jobs, spread sheets (financial accounting) would have said back then that pension plans were unreasonable. Crooks routinely ignore actuarials. Instead, they used ‘creative accounting’. Same techniques were also used by the mafia and General Motors. And also by Chavez in Venezuela

Conflict is between a current government and its employees. But the crooks were a Governor and congressmen ten or more years earlier. Almost nobody here is discussing the most guilty.

Well, a solution is to fix this problem by making everyone pay - heavy. Every single person in WI should suffer because they did not blame the previous governor and Congressman. Being a citizen who remains ignorant means that citizen deserves the pain. Includes raising taxes. Instead, this Governor is taking a cheapshot advantage rather than address the problem where it must be solved. Every citizen should see tax increases and less government services.

Basic economics. Money games used to create economic growth (ie tax cuts to the rich) means economic forces force punishment years later. Instead, this Governor wants to punish others. To protect his elite supporters. That is not being a crook. But it is similar to a crook. And not something that a true or ethical leader would do.

Was he a priest before elected Governor? Maybe he thinks unions are being childish. It would explain his actions.

And that, folks, is the catch with democracy. People very often elect whoever tells the most pleasing lies, and then feel that they have been cheated when the impossible promises don't come true, and blame the incumbent.

Uday, don't expect too much from freedom.

ZenGum;713377 wrote:

And that, folks, is the catch with democracy. People very often elect whoever tells the most pleasing lies, and then feel that they have been cheated when the impossible promises don't come true, and blame the incumbent.

Uday, don't expect too much from freedom.

Maybe is better to say "don't expect too much freedom".

While we're talking about Kochs, if this doesn't bring Pie back, I don't know what will.

The 1.2619 dimensional Koch curve, one of the simplest of fractals.

[ATTACH]31264[/ATTACH]

Not a lawyer, but here's a thought. Since the Supreme Court has granted personhood to organizations, can't the affected unions sue the state using the equal protection clause to argue that they are being treated differently than other unions?

richlevy;713419 wrote:

Not a lawyer,

But you think like one.;) That's a nice tactic to try.

richlevy;713419 wrote:

Since the Supreme Court has granted personhood to organizations ...

Not what they did. They said that organizing together does not negate the freedom of speech that individuals have. If a person can freely speak, then 100 people under the banner of an organization can also speak.

Well the original precedent didn't go that far, but with some expensive lawyering, it might be stretched a bit. Interesting idea.

I have, amusingly, watched internet Libertarians who support corporate personhood then slam unions because they are using "collective bargaining" to get their way.

No joke. Apparently when management do it, it's different. For reasons that do not concern you, untermenschen. Maybe they're under the impression that the John Galt-esque CEOs and political leaders bargain personally, on their own, against hundreds of highly trained, yet fundamentally lazy, union negotiaters?

Public Sector Unions are paid with taxpayer dollars. Before taxes are paid on that income the union dues are subtracted and given to the union bosses who then take that money and use if lobbying and buying Democratic politicians more than 90% of the time. This is a problem. The Democratic politicians in turn give the unions anything they want and have set them up with unrealistic benifit packages that are now breaking the bank. The estimated unfunded pensions of public sector unions are in the billions, billions the states don't have. Not sure of the collective bargining issue as a personal matter, but public sector unions only represent 7% of the total workforce in the US. Time for a change.

TheMercenary;714486 wrote:

Public Sector Unions are paid with taxpayer dollars.

It doesn't matter what the ultimate source of the income is. When you work, you get paid by your employer. Whether the employer gets its money from consumers or taxpayers, it's still income for the employer, and they still have their obligations to their employees.

The Republicans want to have it both ways. They want to have their income stream, the corporations, protected. The partisan Supreme Court guaranteed that by granting person-hood to corporations. Now the Republicans want to take the income stream away from Democrats. That's why they are attacking the unions.

You can try to dress this up in any other terms you choose, but this is a simple political power slug fest where the Republicans are trying to destroy the Democrats any way they can. It's not about balancing any budget. The governor said that in his own words in the prank phone call.

glatt;714498 wrote:

It doesn't matter what the ultimate source of the income is. When you work, you get paid by your employer. Whether the employer gets its money from consumers or taxpayers, it's still income for the employer, and they still have their obligations to their employees.

That would all be good if the empolyee was not mandated to work for the union and they could chose to join or not. But in this case there is no choice. And there is no choice if dues are subtracted before they are paid, which go to the union.

The Republicans want to have it both ways. They want to have their income stream, the corporations, protected. The partisan Supreme Court guaranteed that by granting person-hood to corporations. Now the Republicans want to take the income stream away from Democrats. That's why they are attacking the unions.

I guess I don't see much of a difference there either. There is nothing preventing corps from giving to the Dems, or people like Soros who is ignored when they try to demonize the Koch bros. It is all the same bs, different side of a coin.

You can try to dress this up in any other terms you choose, but this is a simple political power slug fest where the Republicans are trying to destroy the Democrats any way they can. It's not about balancing any budget. The governor said that in his own words in the prank phone call.

Regardless of what that idiot said in a phone call it does not diminish the issue of public sector unions and the financial burden of unfunded pension plans which are estimated to be in the billions.

The media have been very careful not to distinguish between regular unions, who seem to be doing just fine, and the public sector unions who make up only 7% of the workforce. And this whole issue is just about public sector unions. I am not anti-union myself but I do think the time has come for some changes when it comes to the burden of local and state government and tax dollars that go to pay for perks like 100% benifits with no contribution from the employee. You are not going to get a lot of sympathy from the masses of unemployed or under employed or from non-union workers who make up the majority of taxpayers.

Kaliayev;714248 wrote:

I have, amusingly, watched internet Libertarians who support corporate personhood then slam unions because they are using "collective bargaining" to get their way.

No joke. Apparently when management do it, it's different.

I guess if people say "corporate personhood" enough times, it makes it true? Again, that's not what the Supreme Court ruled. They made a very narrow ruling on free speech, and when and how it can be limited by federal law. In this case, they ruled that if 1 person has the right to speech, 100 people together as an organization also have that right.

I have no objection to collective bargaining. The right to negotiate for salary, the right to refuse to work for less than a certain wage, those are deeply important, fundamental rights in a capitalist marketplace.

I object very strongly to the protected status that unions have under our current system. They are allowed to form mandatory local monopolies over a company's labor force, and then use that monopoly to void the employers right to hire workers at a wage determined by the labor market.

If we are going to preserve the fundmental right to not work unless the terms of hiring are satisfactory to the worker, then we must also preserve the fundamental right not to hire unless the terms of hiring are satisfactory to the employer. It is unfair to enter negotiations where the rights of one side enjoy protected status under the law and the rights of the other do not.

I was pretty sure when this first started that there would be the typical lacking of support for the 'union' in this fight. Well of course, msm followed suit, but that's expected considering their fealty to their corporate paymasters. But I figured it would be like Merc expresses...the average working stiff would not waste any sympathy on them. A few years back that would certainly have been the case. But polls are actually starting to say otherwise. There seems to be more solidarity for these workers and unions in general. I may have to change my pessimistic outlook now.

Yes, I am somewhat heartened by the general support for, not just unions, but non-cop non-firefighter government workers' unions! Walker picked the unions that one would think would get the least sympathy, and people still saw through that cynicism.

And Walker still is not going to have a balanced budget in the long term without the unions' yielding, or without shrinking the State establishment until it is in line with revenue -- and that is going to put some few unions' members right out of work. Not wholly their own fault, but are they doing what's necessary to right things? There are those who say no, and point to evidence.

The unions yielded the budgetary issues. That's a moot point.

Do you really think that this fight between the unions and Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin was about collective bargaining? If you do, you're sadly mistaken. The real issue was something called a dues check-off, not collective bargaining. What is a dues check-off? That's a system whereby your employer, in this case the government, deducts union dues from your paycheck before you actually get paid. The dues are then forwarded to the union. Unions, of course, love this because they know that sometimes people just aren't all that thrilled about paying their union dues; especially when those dues get close to $1000 a year as they do for some Wisconsin teachers.

Virtually all of the media coverage in Wisconsin has been about collective bargaining. Scott Walker wanted to take the collective bargaining rights away from government workers on all issues except basic pay. The unions, and the Democrats who supported the unions, would love for you to believe that this was the real issue. It was not. The real issue was how union dues would be collected.

Under the law before Gov. Walker signed his new bill last week, the union dues were collected by the employer -- the government. Now the workers will get to make up their own mind whether or not they want to pay the union dues. That is because they're going to have to write a check for these dues every month, every quarter, or however they pay them. What really troubles the union leaders is the fact that about 50% or more of union members have clearly indicated that they would rather not be paying union dues, and, in fact, would rather not be union members at all. Now is their chance. In these tough economic times, many of these government union members can find a lot better things to spend their money on than union dues. They know that their jobs are protected by the Wisconsin civil service system. They also know that, generally speaking, they're making more than their counterparts in the private sector. The new law provides that they will pay what amounts to a pittance toward their health care, and they're going to be paying towards their own retirement just as private sector workers do. So all-in-all they know that they don't have it quite so bad. So, for many of them, paying dues will be problematic.

This presents a big problem for the union leaders, and an even bigger problem for Democrats. The problem for the union leaders is obvious. Most of them earn salaries in the six figure range -- salaries that come from union dues. Without the government collecting these union dues from the workers, the union leaders may find the financial cupboard running a bit bare. That puts their fat paychecks in, you should pardon the expression, the crosshairs. But there's an additional problem. Union leaders also derive a huge amount of power from how they decide to spend union dues. Were talking about political campaign donations here. Surveys during the midterm election process of 2010, showed that Wisconsin government union members pretty much split their vote between Democrats and Republicans. The union leaders weren't quite so bipartisan. Wisconsin government employee unions made about 93% of their campaign donations to Democrats. This might sit well with the union members who supported the Democrats, but remember about half of them supported Republicans. These might be the very union members who will rethink this idea about paying union dues, especially if they can't control how those dues are spent. So now you see why this is a huge problem for Democrats as well. You can also understand why The Community Organizer mobilized his Organizing for America volunteer squad to head to Wisconsin for the purpose of promoting and beefing up the demonstrations.

It's really a shame that the ObamaMedia won't explain why these union leaders are much more concerned about dues check-off than they are about collective bargaining. The collective bargaining argument was quite easy to sell to the public during the controversy. Trying to protect the dues check-off system wouldn't have been quite so easy. Even the government educated American dumb masses get it every once in a while.

Bortz 14Mar11

It is unfair for the government to collect taxpayer funds paid to the government union and give them to a single party for support in general elections. The individual should be able to reserve the right to choose who that money should go to. Make a law that prevents public sector unions from giving money to PACs or in support of elections and they may get more support. Until then this is going to end. Many states are following the suit of WI and are not having half the battle that is being orchestrated by the Obama Administration and Democratic party on behalf of that 15% of the total Union work force in WI. They are spinning this as is it a Labor issue and they will fail again in the next national general election as these facts are discussed in the wider issue of the use of tax dollars in support of public sector Unions.

TheMercenary;716740 wrote:

Bortz 14Mar11

It is unfair for the government to collect taxpayer funds paid to the government union and give them to a single party for support in general elections. The individual should be able to reserve the right to choose who that money should go to. Make a law that prevents public sector unions from giving money to PACs or in support of elections and they may get more support. Until then this is going to end. Many states are following the suit of WI and are not having half the battle that is being orchestrated by the Obama Administration and Democratic party on behalf of that 15% of the total Union work force in WI. They are spinning this as is it a Labor issue and they will fail again in the next national general election as these facts are discussed in the wider issue of the use of tax dollars in support of public sector Unions.

The suggestion that union members cannot "reserve the right to choose who that money should go to" is a myth.

The Federal Election Campaign Act and laws in many states prohibit unions from using general funds (dues) for political campaigns. They can create PACs for voluntary contributions from members.

Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Corporate_Union

It seems to me that union members should have the same rights as any Americans to voluntarily give to a PAC of their choice.

The extremist (and misleading) libertarian views of Neal Bortz from your post are not shared by most Americans.

From everything I have read, the public is on the side of the unions on this one, recognizing that the unions have demonstrated more concern for the middle class and working poor than Republican governors and legislators who are ready to cut numerous programs that go beyond the union's direct interest or the issue of dues check-offs and to the heart of millions of people living from paycheck to paycheck, while the wealthiest taxpayers and corporations get more tax breaks.

more:
On average, less than 3% of your state taxes support public employee pensions and the payback is significant, as I noted elsewhere:

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=716231&postcount=54

The spin? The unions agreed to contribute a greater share of pension/health care costs even before the governor signed the bill. The Republican Leader of the Senate in WI made it clear that this fight was not about balancing the state budget, but busting the unions simply because union members lean towards voting Democratic.

Fair&Balanced;716862 wrote:

The suggestion that union members cannot "reserve the right to choose who that money should go to" is a myth.

Incorrect.

It seems to me that union members should have the same rights as any Americans to voluntarily give to a PAC of their choice.

You would be mistaken. The money is automatically deducted from the payroll.

The extremist (and misleading) libertarian views of Neal Bortz from your post are not shared by most Americans.

Libertarian is not extremism. Although many would state that it is a branch of the conservative views, Bortz is a popular commentator on current events and does not affiliate with any particular party, which is why he is so popular.

From everything I have read, the public is on the side of the unions on this one...

Then you would be mistaken again.

....recognizing that the unions have demonstrated more concern for the middle class and working poor than Republican governors and legislators who are ready to cut numerous programs that go beyond the union's direct interest or the issue of dues check-offs and to the heart of millions of people living from paycheck to paycheck, while the wealthiest taxpayers and corporations get more tax breaks.

Straw man argument. This is not about all Unions. This is about public sector Unions which represent only 15% of all Unions but also represents a major portion of States unfunded monies that will be owed to support the retirement and health benefits.

...busting the unions simply because union members lean towards voting Democratic.

I have no problem with that when it is tax payer monies being funneled to one particular party, well over 90% of the funds.

*shrug*

I dont intend to debate the facts or the law with you.

And the law is clear, unions "may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections..."

PAC contributions, while they may be deducted from their payroll, are voluntary.

IMO, Wisconsin and other states have overplayed their hands on this and will see the backlash, which has already begun.

Which side does the public support?

...a majority of Americans say they oppose efforts to weaken the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions and are also against cutting the pay or benefits of public workers to reduce state budget deficits, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=1&emc=na

By a modest margin, more say they back Wisconsin’s public employee unions rather than the state’s governor in their continuing dispute over collective bargaining rights. Roughly four-in-ten (42%) say they side more with the public employee unions, while 31% say they side more with the governor..
http://people-press.org/report/709/

Americans reject Republican efforts to curb bargaining rights of unions whose power they say is dwarfed by corporations, a Bloomberg National Poll finds.

As battles rage between state workers and Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio, 63 percent don’t think states should be able to break their promises to retirees

Sixty-four percent of respondents, including a plurality of Republicans, say public employees should have the right to bargain collectively for their wages.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/americans-oppose-republican-attack-on-unions-in-poll-divided-over-benefits.html

These attacks against public employees union do not have public support and they, in fact, have galvanized workers, both union and non-union.

Once the law is changed there is little they can do other than vote in new people and then lobby to have the rules changed back to what they were before.

Polls don't mean shat. It is the weakest form of statistical measure.

As I stated earlier, you and others will have a hard time convincing all those people out of work or who contribute a significantly greater portion of their earnings to pay their benefits, or who have little to no benefits at all. And that is the majority of all workers in the US. Union workers make up a small amount of the work force and public sector unions make up an even small number of the total.

TheMercenary;717089 wrote:

Once the law is changed there is little they can do other than vote in new people and then lobby to have the rules changed back to what they were before.

Polls don't mean shat. It is the weakest form of statistical measure.

As I stated earlier, you and others will have a hard time convincing all those people out of work or who contribute a significantly greater portion of their earnings to pay their benefits, or who have little to no benefits at all. And that is the majority of all workers in the US. Union workers make up a small amount of the work force and public sector unions make up an even small number of the total.

Thank you for no longer insisiting that it was incorrect when I stated that contributions to union PACs are voluntary.

I never suggested, nor do I support, taxpayers paying a larger share of pension/health care cost for public employee unions. The workers in WI agreed to pay more of their own pension/health care costs and I thought that was certainly appropriate.

I do support the right of those workers to bargain collectively as do a majority of Americans, by any recent measure.

And I certainly support the right of any workers, including public employees, to participate in the politicial process by VOLUNTARILY contributing to the party or candidate of their choice.

I really hope you dont want to take that away simply because they may support a party or candidate that may not be of your choosing.

You fail. Union members get no say in where the PAC dollars, as directed by the unions, dollars go.

The problem remains, Taxpayer Dollars are being used to support one political party.

I dont know how to say it any other way that to again refer to the Federal Elections Campaign Act:

Corporate and Union Activity

Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Corporate_Union

Unions are prohibited by law from using dues to support the PAC.

The law refers to PACs as “separate segregated funds” because money contributed to a PAC is voluntary and kept in a bank account separate from the general union treasury.

You are confusing mandatory dues to a union for general, non-political activities with voluntary contributions to a union PAC. Perhaps your confusing arises from the fact that both the union dues and PAC contributions may be collected as part of one check-off or payroll deduction....but then they must be segregated by law.

afterthought:

If you are suggesting that public employees should not have the right to VOLUNTARILY contribute to the candidate/party of their choice, whether through a union PAC or a direct contribution, because their salaries are paid by taxpayers, I would strenuously disagree.

If a union member would prefer to not support the union PAC and instead, contribute to a different candidate/party, they have that right. I will say it again, PAC contributions by union members are voluntary.

Every worker, public or private, should have the right to participate in the political process by contributing to a candidate/party of their choice.

I'll give you this. One change that did result from the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case last year (a terrible decision IMO) is that unions (and corporations) can now use general funds for political advertising, but still cannot use those general funds to contribute directly to a candidate/party.

Given that corporate PACs outspend union PACs by about 3:1, the playing field still significantly favors corporate interests over workers interests.

Union equates lavish benefits to black civil rights

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/03/union-equates-lavish-benefits-black-civil-rights#ixzz1GxfFBvQv

TheMercenary;717285 wrote:

Union equates lavish benefits to black civil rights

Actually, there is a very involved discussion to be had about the rise of the black middle class and it's role in civil rights. Conversely, there can be a similar discussion about the erosion of the middle class and the loss of said rights.

Hey, as long as the erode or eliminate the power of the Public Sector Unions I am good with whatever they come up with. Those people have been sucking on the teat for a long time.

TALLAHASSEE -- The Florida House delivered a major blow to public employee unions Friday, approving a bill that would ban automatic dues deduction from a government paycheck and require members to sign off on the use of their dues for political purposes.

Democrats and Republicans fought over the legislation for just under two hours. Democrats and labor unions have accused conservatives of "union-busting" and said the bill was more about political payback than public policy. Unions have typically been big backers of Democratic candidates.

Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Lake Mary, the House sponsor of the legislation, said this was simply the state's movement to get out of the dues deduction business and let the unions take care of it.

"It's a bill that empowers membership of labor unions," Dorworth said.

The measure, HB 1021, passed by a 73-40 vote, with three Republican lawmakers siding with the Democrats.

Florida is a "right to work" state, which means a worker is not forced to join a union. But many public employees do so, and state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions.

Democrats argued that Republicans are simply trying to take out their political opponents.

"It's about silencing the opposition. That's not democratic," said Rep. Richard Steinberg, D-Miami Beach.

During the last general election cycle, the statewide teachers' union gave more than $3.4 million in campaign contributions, mostly to Democrats. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees doled out nearly $1.4 million, much of it directly to the state Democratic Party. And the AFL-CIO and other labor groups gave hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

For the past few weeks, labor groups have been actively campaigning against the bill and testifying against it in legislative committee meetings, but the Republican majority was largely united in pushing the bill through the House.

"This bill aims to do nothing more than silencing dissent," said Florida Education Association President Andy Ford. "The lawmakers who voted for this bill have signaled their desire to use the power of government to single out and attack the hardworking men and women who serve Florida in public employment."

The Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, has one more committee stop before it makes it to the floor.

Republicans have denied Democrats' accusations that the bill is a political attack, saying the legislation was designed to get government out of the political process since it would no longer be collecting dues for organizations that sometimes do political work. And people who decide they don't want their dues used for political purposes can say no, Republican lawmakers argued.

"If you want your money --your money-- you get to keep it," said Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R-Miami.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/fl-bill-bans-automatic-union-dues-20110325,0,1209569.story

Florida is a "right to work" state, which means a worker is not forced to join a union. But many public employees do so, and state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks.

So it's simply a voluntary deduction from the paycheck that is administered by the employer, the government.

Since it's voluntary, it's clear that the Republicans are doing this as a dirty trick to try to siphon money from the Democrats.

I support the stopage of "voluntary deductions" because in the end you know that they are not really voluntary. And public sector unions still exist in Right to Work states. Same in GA where I live. If the government is the employer, and tax dollars come from the payroll, then you are basically taking tax dollars from all persons and giving it to one party, of which the unions overwhelmingly support only Dem canidates and causes. The government should not be involved in this. Let the individuals contribute after they have the money deposited in their own bank accounts.

TheMercenary;719647 wrote:

I support the stopage of "voluntary deductions" because in the end you know that they are not really voluntary.

Cite please?

The article says they are voluntary. You say they aren't. You need to back that up with a cite.

glatt;719653 wrote:

Cite please?

The article says they are voluntary. You say they aren't. You need to back that up with a cite.

The law requires that PAC contributions be volunatry and any check-offs be separated from dues.

I too would like to see a cite where unions have broken the law.

"Florida is a "right to work" state, which means a worker is not forced to join a union. But many public employees do so, and state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions."

Certainly you guys are not foolish enought to think that the pressure by unions which dominate a work place are truely voluntary? In many places you can't even get a job unless you belong to the union.

Fair&Balanced;719658 wrote:

The law requires that PAC contributions be volunatry and any check-offs be separated from dues.

I too would like to see a cite where unions have broken the law.

"....state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions." Wow. Really, how do they separate that?

TheMercenary;719672 wrote:

"....state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions." Wow. Really, how do they separate that?

I think I explained earlier how dues and voluntary contributions can be checked-off at the same time, then separated, as required by law.

And you still have not provided a cite that any actions by public unions have broken the law.

Fair&Balanced;719673 wrote:

I think I explained earlier how dues and voluntary contributions can be checked-off at the same time, then separated, as required by law.

And you still have not provided a cite that any actions by public unions have broken the law.

Who says they had to have broken a law? I stated I am against the state employer taking tax dollars out of the paychecks before the employee is paid and sending that to the union bosses.

Under the current labor laws of nearly half of the states, government union officials have been explicitly authorized to force all public employees in a workplace to pay union dues or be fired, as long as a majority of their fellow employees (among those expressing an opinion) support unionization.

Such forced-unionism laws, which Big Labor is now fighting furiously to keep on the books in the face of increasingly intense public opposition, actually trample on, rather than protect, employees' freedom to make personal decisions about unionism.

Union monopoly bargaining, which is encouraged in the public sector under the labor laws of more than 30 states, denies employees who don't want any union the freedom to negotiate directly with their employer.

Forced unionism is not a case of "majority rule." The fact is, when a majority of workers oppose unionization, the pro-union minority, whether they constitute 49% or 1% of the work force, retain the freedom to join and pay dues to a union. But workers who oppose unionization are, whenever they are in the minority, denied freedom of choice about which private organizations they financially support.

Federal courts have upheld coercive labor policies like monopoly bargaining and forced-dues payments on the dubious theory that they might foster labor peace, despite acknowledging that these policies infringe on public employees' freedom of association. Walker's proposal significantly moves toward eliminating these infringements.

No U.S. court has ever questioned the prerogative of state governments to prohibit public-sector forced union dues and monopoly bargaining. In a 1974 ruling upholding the constitutionality of North Carolina's public-sector monopoly-bargaining ban, a U.S. District Court explained:

"All citizens have the right to associate in groups and to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision-making process."

Union officials and others who share their view that public-sector monopoly bargaining and forced union dues are good public policy have every right to continue resisting the efforts of reform-minded Wisconsinites and their counterparts in other states.

But advocates for the forced-unionism status quo have no plausible grounds to claim that they are defending public employees' "rights." They should drop the pretense.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=565192&p=1

TheMercenary;719677 wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=565192&p=1

Mandatory payment of dues is not the same as voluntary contributions for political purposes.

It is really not that hard to understand.

If you claim those contributions are not "voluntary," provide a cite that proves your point.

Obviously this is a big issue or why would the Unions try to fight so hard to defeat prop 75 in Calif?

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf

Fair&Balanced;719678 wrote:

Mandatory payment of dues is not the same as voluntary contributions for political purposes.

It is really not that hard to understand.

If you claim those contributions are not "voluntary," provide a cite that proves your point.

I have.

TheMercenary;719676 wrote:

I stated I am against the state employer taking tax dollars out of the paychecks before the employee is paid and sending that to the union bosses.

But the employee asked the employer to do that.

I ask my employer to put some of my paycheck in my 401k, some of it in checking, and some of it in savings. It's a request I made of my employer. These employees are making a similar request of their employer. It's voluntary. And the Republicans are putting a stop to it, because some of those funds are going to oppose them. The Republicans are claiming it's so people can choose what they want to do with their money, but these are people who have already chosen. The Republicans are just putting barriers in their way.

TheMercenary;719681 wrote:

I have.

You did?

Where did you cite any facts that voluntary contributions are, as you suggest, not really voluntary?

Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?

Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

You may not be required to join, but you may have to pay dues unless you are in a right to work state.

TheMercenary;719686 wrote:

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

You may not be required to join, but you may have to pay dues unless you are in a right to work state.

Again, you ignore the fact that dues for workplace related activities and voluntary contributions for political purposes are separate and distinct.

What is the Taylor Law?
The Public Employees Fair Employment Act (Taylor Law), passed in 1967, oversees public employee labor relations
in New York State, and has had a profound effect on the way that public school districts and their employees interact.
Changes in the Taylor Law since 1967 have consistently provided more negotiating power for bargaining units.
What are the Taylor Law’s major provisions?
All NYS public employees may organize into units and negotiate employment agreements with their public employers,
who are obligated to bargain with them on conditions of employment.
Employee units may vote to be members of state or national unions.
Employees cannot be forced to join a union, but the union must
represent them. Any contract negotiated between the unit and
its employer includes all employees, even non-union members.
Even employees who choose not to belong to a union have
a union fee (agency fee) deducted from their pay. Public
employers must deduct this fee from paychecks for the union.

http://www.mcsba.org/reports/FAQs_files/2009%20Q&A%20-%20Taylor%20Law-%20for%20web.pdf

Fair&Balanced;719689 wrote:

Again, you ignore the fact that dues and voluntary contributions for political purposes are separate and distinct.

But they are not. It all goes into one pot. And in the case of Wis. the unions do not have to disclose where the money goes. It is private info.

TheMercenary;719692 wrote:

But they are not. It all goes into one pot. And in the case of Wis. the unions do not have to disclose where the money goes. It is private info.

The federal law requires that they be maintained in separate accounts, even if collected jointly.

I'm still looking for evidence (cite) that the funds go "into one pot" and that unions are not separating the funds.

I would assume that if the unions in WI were breaking the law by maintaining dues and voluntary contributions in one pot, the Republicans in the state would be all over it and waving the evidence for all to see rather than the circuitous route they took to break the union.

TheMercenary;719679 wrote:

Obviously this is a big issue or why would the Unions try to fight so hard to defeat prop 75 in Calif?

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf

I am not familiar with prop 75, but on a quick read, I think the opposition in large part is to the requirement for annual member sign-offs, rather than the existing contract agreement that the sign-off be at each new contract (3-5 years), which was a major issue in WI as well.

I don't know it public sector is different from the UAW, but political contributions and union dues deductions are separate on my husbands checks. And the political contribution is totally voluntary.

And, of course unions support the political party that supports workers. If the republicans would consider it, then they could get some of that money too.

TheMercenary;719686 wrote:

you may have to pay dues unless you are in a right to work state.

True, but this article, and you, and I are specifically talking about Florida, which is a right to work state, and these dues are voluntary. For Republicans to place burdens in the way of voluntary contributions to unions in Florida is a dirty trick. Plain and simple.

Republicans on the Supreme Court worked hard to open the floodgates of unlimited corporate donations to the Republican party, and now they are trying to shut down the Florida union donations to the Democratic party. (And everywhere else.) It's dirty politics.

Pico and ME;719698 wrote:

I don't know it public sector is different from the UAW, but political contributions and union dues deductions are separate on my husbands checks. And the political contribution is totally voluntary.

And, of course unions support the political party that supports workers. If the republicans would consider it, then they could get some of that money too.

And so really tell us... if your husband suddenly said, no longer will I give monies to the political arm would anyone care?

glatt;719704 wrote:

.... and now they are trying to shut down the Florida union donations to the Democratic party. (And everywhere else.) It's dirty politics.

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.

Fair&Balanced;719693 wrote:

The federal law requires that they be maintained in separate accounts, even if collected jointly.

I'm still looking for evidence (cite) that the funds go "into one pot" and that unions are not separating the funds.

I would assume that if the unions in WI were breaking the law by maintaining dues and voluntary contributions in one pot, the Republicans in the state would be all over it and waving the evidence for all to see rather than the circuitous route they took to break the union.


I am not familiar with prop 75, but on a quick read, I think the opposition in large part is to the requirement for annual member sign-offs, rather than the existing contract agreement that the sign-off be at each new contract (3-5 years), which was a major issue in WI as well.

Again, reflux, you are trying to make a case against something that is a well known fact. Certainly through your Lobbying efforts you know that "card check" is a hugely controversially issue. I understand that you may not want to bring it up at this point, but it really is important to the issue at hand. But as a former Lobbyist you owe it to the rest of us to own up to the real issues at hand. Taxpayer dollars are being funneled to a single party... in this case the Demoncrats, without the general consensus of the group.

Please explain how "Card Check" works in the UAWA and how the employee has complete control to opt out of "Card Check"... Thanks

SB 5 passed the house and senate here in Ohio tonight. Up for signing into law on Friday it looks like.

Yep. Glad I'm not in a public union. Bullit, didn't they make SOME concessions for police officers and firefighters?

infinite monkey;719865 wrote:

Yep. Glad I'm not in a public union. Bullit, didn't they make SOME concessions for police officers and firefighters?

I thought all you college workers were in the Union....

Nope. State college. No union. Not even faculty. In fact, where I used to work the faculty was union but not administrative personnel. It's up to the institution.

infinite monkey;719871 wrote:

Nope. State college. No union. Not even faculty. In fact, where I used to work the faculty was union but not administrative personnel. It's up to the institution.

Well just let me :lol2: at that comment. Well done Shaw!

Gee thanks. I think. ;)

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.

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.

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.

Bullitt;719891 wrote:

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.

Bullitt;719891 wrote:

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

TheMercenary;719841 wrote:

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.

TheMercenary;719893 wrote:

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.

Fair&Balanced;719894 wrote:

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.

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/libertychick/2011/03/20/seiu-hit-with-rico-lawsuit-blames-hunton-williams-and-koch-brothers/#more-244504

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

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.

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..

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.

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. :facepalm:

It's not really an alternate perspective, it's a different issue (trying to figure out costs) that mentions the firing of the prosecutor in passing.

Yeah, sounds like a hey look at this $100,000 spent on the investigation, and ignore the $10,000,000 to elect the 4 judges, who just happened to reverse the decision they made in July.

The man is corrupt to the bone. He trades tax money for campaign contributions, while the state roads are crumbling. If he don't go to prison I will be surprised.
I voted for him the first time. I don't know how he managed to get elected the last two times.

Because only the party matters, you don't expect them to vote for the Nigerian gun grabber's side, do you? :rolleyes:

Who is the Nigerian gun runner?

Grabber, not runner.

Sorry my bad.

It's OK, as long as he gets the blame for anything and everything that's bad in the world. Hangnail? Obama's fault. Tornado? Obama's fault. Dog's pregnant? Obama's fault. ;)