The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2011, 05:49 PM   #31
Urbane Guerrilla
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,674
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.
__________________
Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.
Urbane Guerrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2011, 06:01 PM   #32
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
The unions yielded the budgetary issues. That's a moot point.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2011, 08:26 AM   #33
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
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.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2011, 06:06 AM   #34
Fair&Balanced
Operations Operative
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
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.
Quote:
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/f...orporate_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.

Last edited by Fair&Balanced; 03-16-2011 at 06:47 AM.
Fair&Balanced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2011, 09:55 AM   #35
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced View Post
The suggestion that union members cannot "reserve the right to choose who that money should go to" is a myth.
Incorrect.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
From everything I have read, the public is on the side of the unions on this one...
Then you would be mistaken again.

Quote:
....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.

Quote:
...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.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2011, 10:31 AM   #36
Fair&Balanced
Operations Operative
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 495
*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.
Fair&Balanced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2011, 10:54 AM   #37
Fair&Balanced
Operations Operative
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 495
Which side does the public support?

Quote:
...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...ml?_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/2011-0...-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.
Fair&Balanced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 10:52 AM   #38
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
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.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 11:14 AM   #39
Fair&Balanced
Operations Operative
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
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.
Fair&Balanced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 09:20 PM   #40
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
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.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2011, 07:46 AM   #41
Fair&Balanced
Operations Operative
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 495
I dont know how to say it any other way that to again refer to the Federal Elections Campaign Act:
Quote:
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/f...orporate_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.

Last edited by Fair&Balanced; 03-18-2011 at 08:28 AM.
Fair&Balanced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2011, 09:26 AM   #42
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Union equates lavish benefits to black civil rights

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...#ixzz1GxfFBvQv
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2011, 09:47 PM   #43
richlevy
King Of Wishful Thinking
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 6,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
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.
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!
I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama
richlevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 09:11 PM   #44
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
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.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:29 AM   #45
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
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/...,1209569.story
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.