SG Broadband Community

you go guys!

can't wait for the tractorcade on saturday.

Love,
Qwijib0

Funny to watch.. pro-union greed at its best!

Sava700 wrote:Funny to watch.. pro-union greed at its best!

Yes, how dare workers bargain together. The 'greedy' union had already conceded all the fiscal changes Walker wanted.

I need a little education on the subject in all honesty. I've been following it closely on the news, but I'd love to hear pros and cons from anyone regarding unions. I know back in the 70's my dad actually work for a couple unions, but hasn't been a fan since.

Any thoughts on the Wisconsin situation?

People have to give a little, all of us! Can we honestly afford to keep paying for everyone's pensions? There is not enough tax money to sustain period.
Riding around in a city truck picking up soda cans for $38.50 an hour means to me that a person is more than capable of contributing to a 401k like I do.

Qwijib0 wrote:Yes, how dare workers bargain together. The 'greedy' union had already conceded all the fiscal changes Walker wanted.

Leatherneck posted pretty much how I would have for your post, everyone has to give up a little here and it would appear the people that feel being a part of a union keeps them from being effected is just that. To restrict how you can bargain in the future leaves options for a constantly changing economy. You just can't Lock something in and say that is that when you have more money going out than coming in, just doesn't add up does it.

Leatherneck wrote:People have to give a little, all of us! Can we honestly afford to keep paying for everyone's pensions? There is not enough tax money to sustain period.
Riding around in a city truck picking up soda cans for $38.50 an hour means to me that a person is more than capable of contributing to a 401k like I do.

Right on..couldn't have said it better myself.

Leatherneck wrote:People have to give a little, all of us! Can we honestly afford to keep paying for everyone's pensions? There is not enough tax money to sustain period.
Riding around in a city truck picking up soda cans for $38.50 an hour means to me that a person is more than capable of contributing to a 401k like I do.

The Wisconsin public employees were already contributing 100% of their pension-- none of the pension fund came from taxpayers, it's all deferred compensation. In fact, public employees earn 4.8 percent less than their equally-educated private sector counterparts, retirement and benefits included. The story of one or two people gaming overtime to make an absurd hourly wage is a red herring.

You [and this is the royal you, everyone reading this thread] should not be asking "why do those public employees get better healthcare and retirement options?" You should be asking "why don't I?" It really is a shame to see everyone who is clamoring to strip these public servants of whatever they can to drag them down a notch because they've been screwed by the private sector.

Sava700 wrote:Leatherneck posted pretty much how I would have for your post, everyone has to give up a little here and it would appear the people that feel being a part of a union keeps them from being effected is just that. To restrict how you can bargain in the future leaves options for a constantly changing economy. You just can't Lock something in and say that is that when you have more money going out than coming in, just doesn't add up does it.

It's called a contract. if company A signed a contract with company B to provide labor, and then all of a sudden told company B 'sorry, we made a bad deal we're going to go ahead and not honor it", company B could take them to court and WIN. This situation is no different.

The union is the only way for workers to compete with corporate interests. Everybody, including myself, has heard anecdotes of unions doing stupid and self-interested things, and the general reaction is that unions have outlived their usefulness. Corporations also do stupid and self-interested things-- dos that mean they have also outlived their usefulness?

Roody wrote:I need a little education on the subject in all honesty. I've been following it closely on the news, but I'd love to hear pros and cons from anyone regarding unions. I know back in the 70's my dad actually work for a couple unions, but hasn't been a fan since.

Any thoughts on the Wisconsin situation?

Unions are the reason the middle class exists. Workplace safety, the 5-day workweek, sick days? All because of unions. As long as corporations have 'personhood' and are required to make every effort to turn profits for shareholders, unions are the only way for labor to achieve reasonable compensation and working conditions.

Qwijib0 wrote:It's called a contract. if company A signed a contract with company B to provide labor, and then all of a sudden told company B 'sorry, we made a bad deal we're going to go ahead and not honor it", company B could take them to court and WIN. This situation is no different.

The union is the only way for workers to compete with corporate interests. Everybody, including myself, has heard anecdotes of unions doing stupid and self-interested things, and the general reaction is that unions have outlived their usefulness. Corporations also do stupid and self-interested things-- dos that mean they have also outlived their usefulness?

I've seen both sides of how a Union and Company works, it's not in the best interest to give up your own voice to involve the voice of the majority of others. But a Union today is much much different than the Union of yesterday so you have to roll with the times. The purpose is to be able to restrict how a union can bargain a contract when it causes hardship on the publics needs cause as it stands now you have more money going out than coming in thanks to the conditions of the economy. What do you expect to happen in order to correct this...the state just start printing its own money to make up for it or grow a few money tree's??? People have the option to work else where if they don't feel they can give up what many others have already givin up. It's no surprise to anyone here that I'm against any type of labor union so I'm trying to keep my opinion centered with what all I've read and learned about the situation thus far.

I guess my biggest issue with all this is how those Democrats have tucked tail and run away when we are trying to have a democracy as it was meant to be.

Sava700 wrote:I've seen both sides of how a Union and Company works, it's not in the best interest to give up your own voice to involve the voice of the majority of others. But a Union today is much much different than the Union of yesterday so you have to roll with the times. The purpose is to be able to restrict how a union can bargain a contract when it causes hardship on the publics needs cause as it stands now you have more money going out than coming in thanks to the conditions of the economy. What do you expect to happen in order to correct this...the state just start printing its own money to make up for it or grow a few money tree's??? People have the option to work else where if they don't feel they can give up what many others have already givin up. It's no surprise to anyone here that I'm against any type of labor union so I'm trying to keep my opinion centered with what all I've read and learned about the situation thus far.

I agree we're in a financial mess-- mind you this mess is a result of poor decision-making by those who continue to have the wealth and are experiencing record profits. The point is that the public unions agreed to all the financial concessions. All of them-- retirement, wages, and healthcare. All they wanted to keep was their ability to collectively bargain.

Sava700 wrote:I guess my biggest issue with all this is how those Democrats have tucked tail and run away when we are trying to have a democracy as it was meant to be.

No, the democrats were preserving the last shreds of American Democracy. Despite what Walker and the GOP say, this was never about money. Well, not about a budget crisis. It's always been about 2012. The last big democratic donors are unions. Bust them, and the only money left for campaigns comes from republican donors and corporations (thanks, citizens united!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJdijPE ... r_embedded

No matter your political views, you must be ****ing furious that the party in power, under the auspices of a financial fix package (which they stripped of all the financial bits to pass without the quorum REQUIRED for financial legislation) is systematically dismantling the opposition party's means of funding itself, and in the crossfire are regular working folk.

If you're not even a little concerned about it, well, that makes me just a little sad.

Sava700 wrote:You just can't Lock something in and say that is that when you have more money going out than coming in,.

So why are you a fan of permanent tax cuts then? I can understand tax cuts when you have a surplus, but tax cuts when you are in a deficit? Or at war?

Qwijib0 wrote:
If you're not even a little concerned about it, well, that makes me just a little sad.

My only concern was what I spoke of already, police were sent to their homes yet they insisted on jumping state to avoid an open discussion and vote on critical issues. Instead doing this has cost the state alot of money for security around due to the protesters and countless other things due to the delay. I feel those that left the state should be held accountable for the costs and punishment concerning the circumstances in which they tucked tail and ran.

That's pretty much all I'm going to add to this conversation.

Sava700 wrote:My only concern was what I spoke of already, police were sent to their homes yet they insisted on jumping state to avoid an open discussion and vote on critical issues.

There was never going to be "open discussion". If the democrats had stayed, the vote would have happened anyway. By leaving, they forced the Republican hand that it wasn't fiscal because that's how they ended up passing it in the end.

Sava700 wrote:Instead doing this has cost the state alot of money for security around due to the protesters and countless other things due to the delay. I feel those that left the state should be held accountable for the costs and punishment concerning the circumstances in which they tucked tail and ran.

That's pretty much all I'm going to add to this conversation.

Oh yes, all that money because of the rowdy protesters and union thugs. Oh wait

http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2526

A press release, commending the protestors for "voicing disagreement over proposed legislation without violence". And that $7.5M figure for "damage" to the capitol? yeah, those numbers were not based in reality.

http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14186737

and even that number could go down. Curse those protestors for using non-damaging tape! how dare they respect their own capitol. You'll note that the repairs include landscaping fees. Yeah, I guess standing peacefully for days at a time could hurt the grass.

Sava700 wrote:
That's pretty much all I'm going to add to this conversation.

It would be nice to get you to explain your views on things when questions are asked as opposed to you making a statement and then running away.

Qwijib0 wrote:The Wisconsin public employees were already contributing 100% of their pension-- none of the pension fund came from taxpayers, it's all deferred compensation. In fact, public employees earn 4.8 percent less than their equally-educated private sector counterparts, retirement and benefits included. The story of one or two people gaming overtime to make an absurd hourly wage is a red herring.

You [and this is the royal you, everyone reading this thread] should not be asking "why do those public employees get better healthcare and retirement options?" You should be asking "why don't I?" It really is a shame to see everyone who is clamoring to strip these public servants of whatever they can to drag them down a notch because they've been screwed by the private sector.

Lets look at the difference between Government teacher pay vs Private teacher pay.

I personally dislike unions, but public sector unions need to go and go fast!

When unions were first created, they were done so out of a need to protect employees from the company. Now that they've served their purpose, the unions have become something that is a problem. Just like anything else that got involved in politics, the unions are, for the most part I believe, now corrupt and cause more problems than they solve.

People who needed unions? Coal miners and their families.

People who never should have needed them? Teachers, firefighters, and police.

If government was the answer to everything, these government-affiliated jobs wouldn't need a union.

JBrazen wrote:When unions were first created, they were done so out of a need to protect employees from the company. Now that they've served their purpose, the unions have become something that is a problem. Just like anything else that got involved in politics, the unions are, for the most part I believe, now corrupt and cause more problems than they solve.

Corporations are also corrupt. Should they be un-incorporated? In the last 30 years, middle class wages have stayed stagnant while corporate and executive profits have grown substantially. There seems to be a pervasive thought that corporations are going to look after their workers, and reward them for hard work without any pressure. Fact: corporations care about profits, not employee well-being. If the reverse were true, wages for the rest of us would have grown along with company profits. They haven't. Pension plans would still exist. They don't.

JBrazen wrote: People who needed unions? Coal miners and their families.

People who never should have needed them? Teachers, firefighters, and police.

If government was the answer to everything, these government-affiliated jobs wouldn't need a union.

Public sector unions exist for the same reason private-sector unions exist, to prevent a race to the bottom. Public sector employees deserve the same wage and working condition protections that any other wage-earner deserves. I believe that police and fire personnel should be able to bargain for and protect safety regulations. Teachers should be able to bargain for class sizes. And they all have the right to a living wage. Clearly public unions are overpowered with their below-average pay, and willingness to concede compensation when asked. Yes, sometimes poor employees get protected by union policies. The fact that sometimes the mechanism fails does not mean it is worthless.

And once again, I remind you that the discussion we're having is the wrong one. This is really about political posturing. The last big democratic donors are unions. Bust them, and the only money left for campaigns comes from republican donors and corporations. It's much easier to go after public unions first, so they're doing that.

JC wrote:Lets look at the difference between Government teacher pay vs Private teacher pay.

I personally dislike unions, but public sector unions need to go and go fast!

The only data available compares teacher pay with private sector employes with similar levels of education, the 4.8% less I linked earlier. The only real assumption we can make from this is that since private sector teachers fall in the "private sector employees" bucket, logically they make more than public sector teachers.

If they make less, it's most likely because they don't have the same level of education as their public-school counterparts. Walker's 'fiscal repair' bill removes some requirements for private school teachers, the result of which will increase the applicant pool to include poorer-qualified educators who will work for less. A race to the bottom in an industry whose purpose is supposed to be education, but will soon turn to profit.

Companies are in business for one reason PROFIT! No one is in business to make everyone equal. If an employee doesn't like his pay..... QUIT, and find something else. If some employee wants more, why not start your own company? They will soon realize it's not as easy as it seems.

With that said F&*K Unions!!!!!

I'll give you one guess on where I stand on unions.

They are bottom feeders who want and want and want more, c'mon 75 bucks an hour to build cars and trash collectors in NY are making 100K a year for removing trash.
Lets end ALL unions.

JC wrote:Companies are in business for one reason PROFIT! No one is in business to make everyone equal. If an employee doesn't like his pay..... QUIT, and find something else. If some employee wants more, why not start your own company? They will soon realize it's not as easy as it seems.

With that said F&*K Unions!!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of profit. But there's profit, and there's profit at the expense of everything else. Do you think that executives were 200%+ more productive than the other 95% of America over the past couple decades?

What happens when your employer decides that you are only allowed to work 35 hours per week to deny you benefits? And colludes with the business across the street to do the same thing?

Miggs wrote:I'll give you one guess on where I stand on unions.

They are bottom feeders who want and want and want more, c'mon 75 bucks an hour to build cars and trash collectors in NY are making 100K a year for removing trash.
Lets end ALL unions.

From the UAW's site, in whose best interest it is to inflate numbers, the highest union salary as of 2010 was $23/hour, $40.33/hour once all benefits are included. That's a before-tax take home pay of $49,000/year, hardly an obscene dollar amount.

As for your trash collectors-- the little digging I could do suggests that that number is close to accurate for some unionized workers. I'll agree with you, it's pretty outrageous and they should probably be taking home about a third of that. One outrageous example, however, hardly proves that all unions are bad.

JPMorgan, a company whose existence is continued because of public money, paid its bankers $370,000 last year. Should we end ALL banks?

2 sides to every coin. Yes the unions represented the workers and brought them through some pretty abusive times but we don't send 12 year old kids into coal mines anymore and I doubt we start any time soon. I am also the Son of a 32 year UAW man who called the union a necessary evil in that it did some good but he witnessed some really crappy things too. Drunks and druggies sleeping in the locker room with no disciplinary action day after day receiving the same pay, benefits and promotions as others because of "time".
It took me 5 years to get where I am with Comcast. In a union system it could and would have taken 20 years to get my position. I busted my butt as an older guy and it payed off.

I am not condemning workers who want a fair wage and to prosper, but in a climate of tax & spend it is possible to bargain your way right out the door!

Leatherneck wrote:2 sides to every coin. Yes the unions represented the workers and brought them through some pretty abusive times but we don't send 12 year old kids into coal mines anymore and I doubt we start any time soon. I am also the Son of a 32 year UAW man who called the union a necessary evil in that it did some good but he witnessed some really crappy things too. Drunks and druggies sleeping in the locker room with no disciplinary action day after day receiving the same pay, benefits and promotions as others because of "time".
It took me 5 years to get where I am with Comcast. In a union system it could and would have taken 20 years to get my position. I busted my butt as an older guy and it payed off.

I am not condemning workers who want a fair wage and to prosper, but in a climate of tax & spend it is possible to bargain your way right out the door!

No doubts that every union employee has stories of terrible co-workers. Much like any large enough collection of people, some dick will take advantage of the group. This time, however, the union bargained down and only wanted the right to bargain again when things improved. In the end, the legislation that passed only stripped them of their right to do that.

The workers who want a fair wage just happen to be public employees in this case, and they're being used as pawns in a game to defeat Obama in 2012.

Qwijib0 wrote:No doubts that every union employee has stories of terrible co-workers. Much like any large enough collection of people, some dick will take advantage of the group. This time, however, the union bargained down and only wanted the right to bargain again when things improved. In the end, the legislation that passed only stripped them of their right to do that.

The workers who want a fair wage just happen to be public employees in this case, and they're being used as pawns in a game to defeat Obama in 2012.

I'm not going to "argue" as I am genuinely concerned about the state of our individual states and country. How do you propose that we continue to fund pensions with tax dollars? A private company is different. There isn't enough coming in to keep the same amount going out. Certain groups have lived off the fat of the land and now that hog is skin and bones. It's just reality.

Leatherneck wrote:I'm not going to "argue" as I am genuinely concerned about the state of our individual states and country. How do you propose that we continue to fund pensions with tax dollars? A private company is different. There isn't enough coming in to keep the same amount going out. Certain groups have lived off the fat of the land and now that hog is skin and bones. It's just reality.

Well the first problem is that its still being promised to us all. This has been a known issue for at least 20 some odd years right? And nothing has happened to change it. Social security either needs a massive change or or needs to be cut so people can put the money to their own retirement plan. It still leaves an issue with paying for the people who are getting social security already, and those close to retirement that couldn't build up a plan on their own, but sitting around watching it fail isn't a great strategy.

Qwijib0 wrote:The Wisconsin public employees were already contributing 100% of their pension-- none of the pension fund came from taxpayers, it's all deferred compensation.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Informat ... System.pdf


Take a look at pages 24 & 43, who is responsible for paying Unfunded Accrued Liabilities?

cybotron r_9 wrote:http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Informat ... System.pdf


Take a look at pages 24 & 43, who is responsible for paying Unfunded Accrued Liabilities?

Yes, unfunded liabilities fall to the taxpayer. This would be a concern if the wisconsin retirement system was underfunded by state employees. But it isn't. Even during this recession the fund managers kept things in balance with no taxpayer dollars.

Center for retirement research wrote: The Wisconsin Retirement System is one of the better funded plans in the nation,&#8221]

Leatherneck wrote:I'm not going to "argue" as I am genuinely concerned about the state of our individual states and country. How do you propose that we continue to fund pensions with tax dollars? A private company is different. There isn't enough coming in to keep the same amount going out. Certain groups have lived off the fat of the land and now that hog is skin and bones. It's just reality.

Pensions are not separately funded with tax dollars. The only connection is that it is taken from salary, which is taxpayer funded. It is 100% deffered compensation. If these employees did not have a pension, they would receive more in each paycheck and their 401Ks would be "taxpayer funded".

Qwijib0 wrote:Pensions are not separately funded with tax dollars. The only connection is that it is taken from salary, which is taxpayer funded. It is 100% deffered compensation. If these employees did not have a pension, they would receive more in each paycheck and their 401Ks would be "taxpayer funded".

O.K. then how do we balance the books so that our children's children aren't destitute? Do we all give in one way or another or do we rely on the politicians to just make it happen? I think their track record and wealth speaks for itself.

Leatherneck wrote:O.K. then how do we balance the books so that our children's children aren't destitute? Do we all give in one way or another or do we rely on the politicians to just make it happen? I think their track record and wealth speaks for itself.

We balance the books by not continuing to hand out tax breaks for corporations and individuals who can most afford them. The top 400 earners in the US last year, paid nothing close to the 35% percent tax bracket they're supposedly in, it's more like 16%. The corporate tax rate, also 35% is not even close to the effective tax rate-- US Corporations pay, on average, an effective 2.2% tax rate. Last year, GE and Bank of America paid no taxes. Corporations are not overtaxed, and continuing to hand them money will do nothing to create jobs or generate taxable income-- any new taxable profits will be cleverly hidden. The first step to fiscal responsibility is ensuring that businesses are good corporate citizens, and the wealthiest pay their fair share like the rest of us.

All that's been done so far is to use the recession-exacerbated deficits to take social programs away from those who need them most, and defund public education all while continuing to promote flawed taxing policy. The only beneficiaries of the current strategy are those who already hold the wealth. We're currently not "all in this together"-- the only people tightening belts are the ones without much left to tighten around.

Once we get our tax scheme in order, we can look at additional cuts or 'excessive' government employee salaries.

I also believe that our "leaders" have squandered billions upon billions of taxpayer's money on themselves and self interests. That worked for them until the piggy bank was emptied. Studying lesbian frogs, bees that fly backwards, funding art like $hit in a bottle, funding criminal leaders, paying unchecked contractors 100x a fair price, and on and on. So much money and so much waste for such a long time and now we can't even fund the very basics.

The REAL purpose of the teachers unions.

[video=youtube;OwxiRXqH_hQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwxiRXqH_hQ[/video]

Leatherneck wrote:I also believe that our "leaders" have squandered billions upon billions of taxpayer's money on themselves and self interests. That worked for them until the piggy bank was emptied. Studying lesbian frogs, bees that fly backwards, funding art like $hit in a bottle, funding criminal leaders, paying unchecked contractors 100x a fair price, and on and on. So much money and so much waste for such a long time and now we can't even fund the very basics.

Yes they have, themselves and special interests being wealthy Americans and corporate welfare.

The National Endowment for the arts' funding last year was $167M. The National Science Foundation got 6.9 Billion.

Compare that to the cost of the ongoing wars, including a $7B no-bid contract to halliburton, and subsidies for oil companies that are currently hovering at $4B.

You are not wrong that there is wasted money in government, but instead of going after things that everyone can agree on like poorly-negotiated contracts, the cuts are all affecting people who, coincidentally, have no money to lobby for themselves.

JC wrote:The REAL purpose of the teachers unions.

[video=youtube;OwxiRXqH_hQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwxiRXqH_hQ[/video]

I found a transcript, too. I'll go ahead and post it.

NEA Speech wrote: Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas]

He's right.

Wisconsin public schools are among the best performing in the country-- it's because their teachers DO have creative ideas and they DO care about children. That's not enough though-- because if merit and quality teaching were actual benchmarks used by legislators to determine teacher salaries, then we should be seeing an INCREASE in compensation being proposed, or at the very least not a decrease. It's only because they are a union, with financial backing, that they can fight for appropriate wages. Without the union they're left with only good ideas and hard work-- and that clearly wasn't enough in Wisconsin.