quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: To me, it looks like you and Firefox are the ones twisting words. To me, "that would be outstanding" means "great! I accept!" which is definately unethical. I don't see anywhere in those four words where he is qualifying his acceptance that only if it is legal and ethical would he go. Can you show me which of the four words expresses that qualification?

To me, "that would be outstanding" is just political mumbo-jumbo. He didn't say yes; he didn't say no. The caller "thinks" he heard an favorable response, but really, what does "outstanding" mean?

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: You don't consider getting a reward from a lobbyist to be corrupt? EPIC ETHICS FAIL!!!!!

That's all you got?

That in itself is a FAIL...

quote Wis. governor warns of layoffs, talks to Democrats By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press Scott Bauer, Associated Press – 1 hr 46 mins ago MADISON, Wis. – Thousands of Wisconsin state workers were bracing for layoff notices Friday as Republican Gov. Scott Walker and absent Democrats remained in a standoff over a budget balancing bill that would also strip public workers of their collective bargaining rights. Walker said he would issue 1,500 layoff notices Friday if at least one of the 14 Senate Democrats doesn't return from Illinois to give the Republican majority the quorum it needs to vote. Senate Republicans voted Thursday to hold the missing Democrats in contempt and force police to bring them back to the Capitol. The legislation has led to nearly three weeks of protests — some attended by tens of thousands of union supporters — in and around the state Capitol, which was completely cleared of demonstrators late Thursday for the first time in 17 nights after a judge ordered the building closed during non-business hours. The final 50 or so protesters left peacefully about two hours after the judge's order, which also said the state unconstitutionally limited access to the building since Monday and ordered the state to grant greater access to the public by next Monday. "We decided it would be best for our image to leave tonight peacefully and come back tomorrow," said Matt Rowe, 21, of Madison, carrying an armful of blankets after he left the building. The protesters' dramatic departure capped a day full of developments, including Walker's threat of massive layoffs he said would be needed to make up for savings not being realized in the stalled bill. Walker says the bill is needed to ease a deficit that is projected to hit $137 million by July and $3.6 billion by mid-2013. His proposal comes up with the money for this year in part by forcing state employees to pay for half the cost of their pensions and twice their current health care premiums — concessions equivalent to an 8 percent pay cut. With the labor bill stalled, Walker said he has to issue layoff notices starting Friday so the state can start to realize the $30 million savings he had assumed would come from the concessions. The layoffs wouldn't be effective for 31 days, and Walker said he could rescind them if the bill passed in the meantime. All state workers, except those at prisons, state hospitals and other facilities open around the clock, would be potential layoff targets, he said. "I pushed it off as long as I could because I do not want to have layoffs," Walker said. While Walker said he is actively working with some of the Democrats in hopes of striking a deal, he told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that he won't compromise on the collective bargaining issue or anything that saves the state money. "I can't take any of that off the table," he said. "We cannot tear apart this budget. We cannot put this burden on local governments. But if there are other ways they are willing to work with us to find a pathway back, I think that's what people want." Democratic Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller confirmed there were talks with Walker, but he did not think they were close to reaching a deal. The statewide teachers union and state workers unions have said they would agree to the benefit concessions — as long as they retain collective bargaining rights. But Walker argues that move is necessary to deal with $1 billion in cuts to school districts and local governments that he proposed separately as part of his budget plan for the next two years. He says schools and local governments would have a tough time making the necessary cuts if they have to negotiate with unions. The Republican leader of the state Senate signed orders Thursday finding the 14 missing Democrats in contempt and allowing the chamber's sergeant at arms to use police force to detain them if necessary. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says his orders are binding only if the senators return to Wisconsin. Sen. Chris Larson said they hadn't done anything illegal and couldn't be arrested. "There are so many police supporting us, they might have a hard time finding one to bring us back," said Miller, one of the AWOL Democrats. The Wisconsin Professional Police Association, a union representing 11,000 law enforcement officials from across the state, released a statement from its director, Jim Palmer, slamming the resolution to go after the Democrats. "The thought of using law enforcement officers to exercise force in order to achieve a political objective is insanely wrong and Wisconsin sorely needs reasonable solutions and not potentially dangerous political theatrics," Palmer said. A memo provided by private attorney Jim Troupis, who was hired by the Senate Republicans and often works with the GOP, said the state Constitution gives them authority to act to compel attendance under its rules. Once the senators do return, Fitzgerald said they could face reprimand, censure or even expulsion.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 03-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: To me, it looks like you and Firefox are the ones twisting words. To me, "that would be outstanding" means "great! I accept!" which is definately unethical. I don't see anywhere in those four words where he is qualifying his acceptance that only if it is legal and ethical would he go. Can you show me which of the four words expresses that qualification?

I don't see where we are twisting any words. I tried to explain the way things work within the system here in Wisconsin and you seem to think it's opinion. Unethical? Yeah...sure....right. If it was legal and ethical I'm sure he'd go. I'D GO if I were him. But do you see him hopping onto a private jet and winging off into the sunset? Nope. You can speculate all you want but until he actually does something unethical you can't accuse him of being unethical. Oops...I forgot. The seriousness of the charge outweighs the actual facts of the case. Sorry....I forgot you were a liberal for a second ( how did THAT happen! ). Actions speak louder than words....especially for a politician.

Once again, you failed in your argument. Try again. State the facts and stop twisting the words to your liking...

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: To me, it looks like you and Firefox are the ones twisting words. To me, "that would be outstanding" means "great! I accept!" which is definately unethical. I don't see anywhere in those four words where he is qualifying his acceptance that only if it is legal and ethical would he go. Can you show me which of the four words expresses that qualification?

Let's learn English!
Lesson 34 the Conditional mood: The conditional mood (abbreviated cond) is the form of the verb used in conditional sentences to refer to a hypothetical state of affairs, or an uncertain event that is contingent on another set of circumstances. This mood is thus similar to the subjunctive mood, although languages that have distinct verb forms for the two use them in distinct ways. ex.:"That would be outstanding."

I know many of you will doubt me so try the whole article on the conditional mood at wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_mood Or did sneaky republicans construct the English language just to trick good honest Democrats?

Again I'm not arguing what was said. I'm arguing the context. You have to be very careful of what you say and how you say it when you are talking to a big time money man in either party.

Here's a hypothetical. Say some big money fundraiser were to offer something to President Obama, like oh I don't know how bout he offers to buy the empty lot next to Obama's home in Chicago, and then sell it to Obama at a very low price saving Mr. Obama tens of thousands of dollars.
Surely Obama wouldn't wuss out with "that would be outstanding" or, "that would be very generous of you" and then never actually take him up on the offer. Surely, he would chastise that fundraiser, lecture him on ethics and morality and not care if he never saw another dollar from him. Right?
No wait, he did accept that offer from Tony Rezko.

Here is a Democrat trying to get his cloths in his office. Maybe next time he will just show his ID and not try to push past the police.

http://www.wisn.com/video/27074185/detail.html

Speaking of honesty or lack of it.
Government e-mails reveal plot to stall budget repair bill
http://www.fox6now.com/vide...l-budget-repair-bill
Click on link to see video.
http://www.fox6now.com/news...acts,0,3750568.story
Government e-mails reveal plot to stall budget repair bill
Madison mayor tried to get bill stalled while he signed new contracts

quote Before protesters stormed the capitol, the mayor of the city of Madison tried to pull a fast one. The governor's budget repair bill was on the fast track, and Madison Mayor Dave Ciesliewicz was racing against the clock to pass new union contracts first. E-mails obtained by the FOX6 Investigators show that the mayor enlisted the help of State Senator Mark Miller. They both tried to convince the Secretary of State to hold up the bill by taking the maximum 10 days allowed by law before publishing the bill. They were trying to buy some time so they could ratify new contracts to protect workers from benefit cuts. Citizens for Responsible Government Rep. Chris Kliesmet says, "This suggests, and this is a harsh word, collusion. There is collusion between some politicians and public sector employee unions. Period." Kliesmet says collective bargaining require that there be two sides. It is impossible to have collective bargaining with only one side." Mayor Ciesliewicz says, "We ARE on the same side." The mayor admits they rushed contracts, but says the city negotiated in good faith. "That's the way collective bargaining works. It ought to be a negotiation, but at the end of the day we want to have good working relationships between labor and management here in Madison." According to the e-mails, Secretary of State Doug La Follette declined to delay publication of the law, but it all became a moot point when Senator Democrats fled the state to block the bill. Read the e-mails between Senate Minority Leader Mike Miller and Madison Mayor Dave Ciesliewicz. Chris Kleismet from CRG said it appears the 14 Senators orchestrated their trip to Illinois to buy time for unions all over the state to work out new deals. State Senator Mark Miller has yet to comment on this story.

quote Attempt to Recall Republican Senators In Wisconsin is Underway By Joshua Meeker Posted in: News In response to Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker and Republican Senators attempts to strip state union workers of their collective bargaining rights citizens of Wisconsin have decided to launch a recall effort of some of the Republicans involved. Once the recall initiative is filed the citizens will have 60 days to get the required amount of signatures necessary to have another election with the candidates recalled and Democratic candidates. This is presently seen as the best option to defeat the governor’s union killing bill as Republicans are in control of the state legislature. The amount of signatures varies from 15,000 for some senators to a little over 20,000 for others. The number of senators that must be recalled and defeated for this bill to be repealed is simply three, because Republicans control the Senate 19-14. Winning three seats would shift that balance to 17-16 in favor of Democrats. The citizens participating in the recall have 60 days to get the required number of signatures turned in. A recall of the Governor cannot take place until he has served at least a year in office. There is widespread belief that this recall effort can be successful with specific senators who won by very small margins. It is vital to the middle class that the unions remain a viable alternative for careers. They help provide greater job security by keeping employees from feeling along and isolated and basically afraid to speak out on their own behalf. They also are a check on private enterprises effectively running all over the middle and working class citizens of this country. Of course there is also the most important reason that this assault on unions, as President Obama put it, is happening in the first place. And that reason is simply that unions are the best way to contribute politically and organizationally to the Democratic Party in general. Republican members of government all over the country have been heard stating that unions are the last thing keeping the Democratic Party alive. Whoever prevails in Wisconsin and Ohio will likely be able to turn the tide all over the country in one way or another. The biggest question now is who wants it more and what are they willing to do to win?

doubt this is actually possible.....

quote "It is vital to the middle class that the unions remain a viable alternative for careers. They help provide greater job security by keeping employees from feeling along and isolated and basically afraid to speak out on their own behalf. They also are a check on private enterprises effectively running all over the middle and working class citizens of this country."

What a bunch of crap! The public-sector workers don't work for private enterprises. They have a level of job security the rest of us (union or otherwise) can only dream of. What liberal rag did this article come from?

Where were the protesters and Democratic senators when Wisconsin's manufacturing industries became ghosts of their past?

quote Originally posted by css9450: To me, "that would be outstanding" is just political mumbo-jumbo. He didn't say yes; he didn't say no. The caller "thinks" he heard an favorable response, but really, what does "outstanding" mean?

...and "outstanding" means WHAT to you? Meh?


Nice attempt at spin, but you need some lessons from Kristy Yamaguchi.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: It is my OPINION that collective bargaining rights are rights protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech and/or freedom of assembly.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: What the f*ck have you got???

The ability to hold a civil discussion with the opposing party at least.

edit: Honestly, its comments like this that make me want to take a page out of Jazzman's book and not post in political threads.

[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 03-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: The ability to hold a civil discussion with the opposing party at least. edit: Honestly, its comments like this that make me want to take a page out of Jazzman's book and not post in political threads.

Feel free.

BTW Quite the selective umbrage you show there. After Firefox's comments to me, I would think you would be chastizing him as well. Apparently, I thought wrong.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Facts? WHAT FACTS? It is your OPINION that collective bargaining rights are privilages. It is my OPINION that collective bargaining rights are rights protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech and/or freedom of assembly. This may one day be adjudicated in the courts. Until then, OPINIONS ONLY. My opinion is supported by the Constitution. What the f*ck have you got???

Well, I did a little looking around and found a quick little Wikipedia link....nothing special but it does explain the basics of " Collective-bargaining AGREEMENTS " Not rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

So....that's what I have. I have facts. You have opinion. Get it straight. Do a little research before making yourself look stupid....again. Maybe time for a civics lesson? Are you only 19 too? Collective bargaining is a right under the First Amendment? Heh....way to go there, sport. Pull out your personal copy of the Constitution and go over the Amendments and actually read what they say. You'll be very suprised, apparently. And that's not just an opinion.

My 'opinion' ( backed up with facts ) is supported by the Constitution. What have you got? ( without the childish addition )

Mark

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Facts? WHAT FACTS? It is your OPINION that collective bargaining rights are privilages. It is my OPINION that collective bargaining rights are rights protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech and/or freedom of assembly.

LOL!!!!!

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Facts? WHAT FACTS? It is your OPINION that collective bargaining rights are privilages. It is my OPINION that collective bargaining rights are rights protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech and/or freedom of assembly. This may one day be adjudicated in the courts. Until then, OPINIONS ONLY. My opinion is supported by the Constitution. What the f*ck have you got???

quote Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

quote From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...eedom_of_association In the international labour movement, the freedom of association is a right identified under international labour standards as the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain. Freedom of association, in this sense, is recognized as a fundamental human right by a number of documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Labor Organization Convention C87 and Convention C98 -- two of the eight fundamental, core international labour standards. 'Freedom of association' can also refer to legal bans on private contracts negotiated between a private employer and their employees requiring workers at a particular workplace to join a union as a term and condition of employment. Supporters of this sort of private freedom of association claim that the right to join a union incorporates a right not to join a union. In the United States, the term 'right to work' is more common for this type of law.

Isn't one of the things Walker is wanting to do is make it so that you don't have to join a union to work a specific job? That alone could be a death knell to collective bargaining.

quote From: http://www.democraticunderg...l&address=439x459830 **That protection is found in the National Labor Relations Act, which is constitutional, but is subject to the whims of Congress (as in the limitations imposed by the Taft-Hartley Act); and it does not apply to government employees or the employees of railroads and airlines. The constitutional rights to free speech and assembly don't necessarily cover collective bargaining - unfortunately.** **"In 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public-employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies." Federal employee unions may bargain with the federal agencies, but wages and benefits are not on the table. These are reserved to congressional action. Federal employee unions primarily insert themselves in defending against terminations and other disciplinary actions. Bargaining sessions on contracts pretty much deal with minor workplace practices.**

That last quote is 2 separate posts in that thread. Very interesting, that even members of the Democratic underground web forum don't even think that collective bargaining is a protected right.

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: That last quote is 2 separate posts in that thread. Very interesting, that even members of the Democratic underground web forum don't even think that collective bargaining is a protected right.

Cut that out! You can't let the truth get in the way of a good union-supporting thread!

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Feel free. BTW Quite the selective umbrage you show there. After Firefox's comments to me, I would think you would be chastizing him as well. Apparently, I thought wrong.

I just skimmed through the last few pages, but could you point out where he had to resort to cuss words (and circumventing Cliff's rules) to make his point?

edit: Though I guess I should apologize for my "assume" comment from awhile ago when you thought that Brad was a wealthy guy. "Sorry."

[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 03-05-2011).]

Why did the senators cross the road?

To get into Illinois.

Back on topic.
Gov. Walker: Obama Should Fix His Own Budget Crisis
http://www.newsmax.com/Head...al&promo_code=BCF9-1

quote In a Newsmax.TV exclusive interview, determined Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Friday began the legal notification process that could lead to 1,500 state employees losing their jobs in April. He also said that President Barack Obama should stay out of his state’s fiscal crisis and instead ought to focus on “the much, much graver budget crisis we have in our nation’s capital, which he’s failed to lead on.” The GOP governor said the jobs will be saved, however, if at least one of 14 AWOL Democratic state senators return to the state next week, which would allow the Wisconsin Senate the quorum it needs to pass Walker’s “budget repair bill.” Wisconsin has been mired in weeks now as thousands of union members, many of them bused in from neighboring states, march to protest the fiscal austerity measures that Walker maintains are necessary to rein in a $3.6 billion deficit. Among his proposals are limitations on unions’ ability to conduct collective bargaining, which would be limited to negotiating salaries. Unions would have no say in how much their members pay for pension and health benefits. Obama warned governors earlier this week that they should not “denigrate or vilify” state and local workers. Asked if Obama should interject himself in the labor battle that has seen tens of thousands of protesters descend on the Wisconsin state capitol building, Walker replies: “No he shouldn’t, for a couple reasons. One, we’re doing this to balance our budget, and the president of the United States should be focused on the much, much graver budget crisis we have in our nation’s capital, which he’s failed to lead on. “Secondly, the president really has no position talking about this, because what we’re asking for here is still more generous than what federal employees get. I think many people do not recognize -- I certainly hope the president was aware of it -- the fact that the federal employees do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits. “And in fact the average federal employee pays twice as much for their health insurance premiums as what we’re proposing in our budget repair bill,” Walker says. “So the reality is, it’s really quite ironic that the president would be criticizing us for something that is less restrictive, when it comes to collective bargaining, and less expensive, when it comes to healthcare, than what we are proposing here in the state of Wisconsin.” Walker tells Newsmax.TV that on Friday his administration sent out notifications to unions, as required legally, that some 1,500 workers may be laid off. “And in the next two weeks our departments all throughout the state agencies in Wisconsin government will be laying out the specifics as to which individuals,” Walker says. “And they’ll individually get their notices. But right now, we’ve started the first step to legally notify the unions of our intention to lay 1,500 people off who work for state government effective the first week in April.” The good news, according to Walker, is that those layoffs can still be avoided. He tells Newsmax that Wisconsin can save $30 million in the current fiscal year that ends June 30, if public employees begin to pay the “very modest pension contributions” that are called for in his budget-repair bill. Not saving the $30 million, he said, would be “the equivalent of 1,500 layoffs starting the beginning of April.” Walker tells Newsmax that state officials have been in close contact with “more reasonable senators” in the Democratic caucus whom he believes he can persuaded to return to the state. “I think now those reasonable senators realize that [the prospect of layoffs] was not a threat, that was just a reality, that may be exactly what they need to justify coming back,” Walker says. Fourteen Democrats left Wisconsin two weeks ago because by denying Republicans a quorum, they could delay a vote on Walker’s budget bill. If those senators return next week and the budget bill is passed, Walker tells Newsmax, the layoffs can be averted. On Thursday, the Wisconsin senate ratcheted up the pressure on the senators holed up in Illinois. It passed a resolution authorizing police to take the missing senators into custody and deliver them to the senate floor, if they are found inside Wisconsin. It declared the missing legislators are “in contempt and disorderly behavior.” “We’re hoping at some point,” Walker says, “rather than sticking together as a party, they decided to put their state and their constituents first, and not their party.” Walker tells Newsmax he is “cautiously optimistic” that the missing Democrats who have fled to neighboring Illinois will return to their duties next week. He says he has toured the 14 missing Democratic senators’ districts “to make the case with their constituents that no matter where they stand on our bill, they have a moral and legal obligation to come back to the capital and vote. I think after today’s notice of 1,500 layoffs, combined with the legal action of the state senate yesterday. It’s my hope that over the weekend some sanity will return down there, and they’ll be ready to come back to the Senate early next week. Walker also says that he has tried not to make the impasse in Wisconsin personal. “We haven’t lashed out at opponents. We haven’t personalized this debate,” Walker says. He adds that despite the raucous demonstrations against his plans to put Wisconsin’s fiscal house in order, he remains confident that he’s pursuing the course of action that is best for the people of Wisconsin. “The more I get out of the capital the better I feel about this,” Walker tells Newsmax. “I pointed out since Day One I’m not going to allow their loud voices to overpower the voices of the millions and millions of hardworking taxpayers.”

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-05-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Also BTW, collective bargaining is a right under the first amendment of the Constitution, the right to assemble.

Wow, that's really using your imagination. Just because you and friends assemble doesn't mean squat, collective bargining requires two sides to agree that there is something to bargin over. As your next post fully states.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Collective bargaining is not a dictatorship. The part you are blissfully ignoring, is that in a bargain, either side can say "no". Including the state government side.

Yep and this is why no state bargining should ever occur. The folks bargining for the people/taxpayer have little if any interest in the end result except getting re-elected. At least that's what seems to be happening in states where this occurs.
At least in this situation, the Governor is following through on his campaign promises, which, is what got him elected by the majority of voters in Wisconsin.

Similar to the ATC situation that President Reagan dealt with, the Governor of Wisconsin has some options, he has told those involved what would occur if nothing was done. The Dems are grandstanding which accomplishes nothing, you can't debate an issue or offer alternative solutions if you are not there. The governor should pull the trigger on this one and get it over with.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by Firefox: Well, I did a little looking around and found a quick little Wikipedia link....nothing special but it does explain the basics of " Collective-bargaining AGREEMENTS " Not rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining So....that's what I have. I have opinion You have opinion. Get it straight. Do a little research before making yourself look stupid....again. Maybe time for a civics lesson? Are you only 19 too? Collective bargaining is a right under the First Amendment? Heh....way to go there, sport. Pull out your personal copy of the Constitution and go over the Amendments and actually read what they say. You'll be very suprised, apparently. And that's not just an opinion. My 'opinion' ( backed up with facts ) is supported by the Constitution. What have you got? ( without the childish addition ) Mark

From your own source...

In 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public-employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies.

Good god, you don't even read your own source material. Talk about looking STUPID!!!

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Actually, freedom of assembly DOES mean squat, otherwise the Constitution wouldn't explicitely protect it.

I fully agree, but what's that got to do with any right to collective bargining? Specifically, bargaining between public employees and a government entity? The constitution in no way states or insinuates anything protecting in reference to collective bargaining.

I don't have a problem with unions, I have an issue with public employee unions. I simply don't believe public employees have any rights to hold the public hostage.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: From your own source... In 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public-employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies. Good god, you don't even read your own source material. Talk about looking STUPID!!!

Yeah....if you actually look at the context the 'right' was an executive order. It was a law that was put in place. Laws can also be taken away and that doesn't make it a Constitutional right which you have been arguing. You threw out your own argument again...

talk about lookung STUPID!!!

Maybe you need a civics class or something....

quote Originally posted by Firefox: Yeah....if you actually look at the context the 'right' was an executive order. It was a law that was put in place. Laws can also be taken away and that doesn't make it a Constitutional right which you have been arguing. You threw out your own argument again... talk about lookung STUPID!!! Maybe you need a civics class or something....

Hey now, be civil!

I just noticed that I make a mistake and I need to apologize. I spelled a word wrong and I'm deeply sorry.

*I* admit my mistakes.....

Mark the poor speller

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I fully agree, but what's that got to do with any right to collective bargining? Specifically, bargaining between public employees and a government entity? The constitution in no way states or insinuates anything protecting in reference to collective bargaining. I don't have a problem with unions, I have an issue with public employee unions. I simply don't believe public employees have any rights to hold the public hostage.

Amendment #9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

My opinion is that amendment #1 applies to collective bargaining, because it is people's right to assemble, to petition for their grievances (be it against the government or against corporations), but it could also be construed under amendment #9.

So, you would prefer that public employees should be at the mercy of the government, when it comes to the issue of bargaining for wages and benefits?

"Please sir, can I have some more?"


"NO!!!"

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Amendment #9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. My opinion is that amendment #1 applies to collective bargaining, because it is people's right to assemble, to petition for their grievances (be it against the government or against corporations), but it could also be construed under amendment #9. So, you would prefer that public employees should be at the mercy of the government, when it comes to the issue of bargaining for wages and benefits? "Please sir, can I have some more?" "NO!!!"

That a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution and I don't believe any courts have agreed with that liberal interpretation, at least, not in any right to work states. Yes, I do prefer that public employees be at the mercy of their employers, the taxpayers.

You keep stating that they have rights no, they do not have that right. The only folks that have collective bargaining rights are those granted that by their employer. If an employer chooses not to participate in collective bargaining, the workforce can choose to accept what is being offered or to not accept and move on with life somewhere else. The employer must also be prepared to either pay a wage scale sufficient to retain good employees or be prepared to accept lesser employee retention and/or lesser employees. If the group (union) as a whole wish to risk their positions with the employer, the employer is endowed with the power to do the same and move on with life and find other employees who are willing to do the job.

I have been a Production Manager in industry, I have dealt with both good union leadership and bad union leadership. I have always dealt with both in an honest manner and have always retained knowledge that no matter what else happens, the ship is mine to steer. A few years ago when the union I was dealing with threatened to go on strike, I told them exactly what the truth was, if they choose to go on strike, they would not be replaced, the business would be relocated. That was an option the company had. Wisconsin may not have that option but, they do have the option to reduce the number of employees to meet budget constraints. The union does not have a say in this, the Governor and legisture has the power. Like it or not, the voters elected these folks to do the voters will.

I have also been a state employee, my wife is a state employee, performance is what drives promotion and pay. State employees in right to work states have excellent benefits, decent pay scales and processes in place that make their positions very desirable and very secure. It's almost impossible to fire a state employee even when the evidence is overwhelming, I know, I've seen this multiple times. There is no need for a union and no right to bargain, the state wants to retain its good performers. Teacher Unions is another fallacy, I've never seen any correlation between a teacher's union and their product (students) where pay and seniority or tenure was tied to a quality product, only tied to teacher longevity and economics. That's not saying there aren't a bunch of good teachers but, they don't have any more right to a union and bargaining power than the kids working at Dairy Queen. School boards want to hire good quality teachers, many times teacher's union only get in the way.

When a person chooses to go into public service, they work for more than just money and benefits but, it does not appear to be that way in Wisconsin. Just my opinion but, having been a state employee and a private business manager, that's the real deal.

Again, I am not against Unions, I am totally against public employee unions. I read today that industry union membership is down over the last twenty years but pubic union membership is up over the same time frame. What that tells me is the taxpayer's have not been getting their money's worth from their elected leaders or their work force. It's time for a change, a change we can believe in.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: That a very liberal interpretation of the Constitution and I don't believe any courts have agreed with that liberal interpretation, at least, not in any right to work states. Yes, I do prefer that public employees be at the mercy of their employers, the taxpayers. You keep stating that they have rights no, they do not have that right. The only folks that have collective bargaining rights are those granted that by their employer. If an employer chooses not to participate in collective bargaining, the workforce can choose to accept what is being offered or to not accept and move on with life somewhere else. The employer must also be prepared to either pay a wage scale sufficient to retain good employees or be prepared to accept lesser employee retention and/or lesser employees. If the group (union) as a whole wish to risk their positions with the employer, the employer is endowed with the power to do the same and move on with life and find other employees who are willing to do the job. I have been a Production Manager in industry, I have dealt with both good union leadership and bad union leadership. I have always dealt with both in an honest manner and have always retained knowledge that no matter what else happens, the ship is mine to steer. A few years ago when the union I was dealing with threatened to go on strike, I told them exactly what the truth was, if they choose to go on strike, they would not be replaced, the business would be relocated. That was an option the company had. Wisconsin may not have that option but, they do have the option to reduce the number of employees to meet budget constraints. The union does not have a say in this, the Governor and legisture has the power. Like it or not, the voters elected these folks to do the voters will. I have also been a state employee, my wife is a state employee, performance is what drives promotion and pay. State employees in right to work states have excellent benefits, decent pay scales and processes in place that make their positions very desirable and very secure. It's almost impossible to fire a state employee even when the evidence is overwhelming, I know, I've seen this multiple times. There is no need for a union and no right to bargain, the state wants to retain its good performers. Teacher Unions is another fallacy, I've never seen any correlation between a teacher's union and their product (students) where pay and seniority or tenure was tied to a quality product, only tied to teacher longevity and economics. That's not saying there aren't a bunch of good teachers but, they don't have any more right to a union and bargaining power than the kids working at Dairy Queen. School boards want to hire good quality teachers, many times teacher's union only get in the way. When a person chooses to go into public service, they work for more than just money and benefits but, it does not appear to be that way in Wisconsin. Just my opinion but, having been a state employee and a private business manager, that's the real deal. Again, I am not against Unions, I am totally against public employee unions. I read today that industry union membership is down over the last twenty years but pubic union membership is up over the same time frame. What that tells me is the taxpayer's have not been getting their money's worth from their elected leaders or their work force. It's time for a change, a change we can believe in.

Yes, my opinion may be imaginative in that it has the virtue of never having been tried in court. At this moment, it does not make it any less valid than anyone else's opinion. It is a legal theory, nothing more.

Can you list any court decisions stating that unions (public or private) have no right to collective bargaining? I think this would be news.

As for your arguments against public employees having the right to collective bargaining, it sounds like a good case for electing better representatives, as opposed to abolishing public employees' unions' rights to collective bargaining. If you are not getting your "bang for the buck" from your elected officials, time to vote for different ones. Or maybe run for office yourself.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I read today that industry union membership is down over the last twenty years but pubic union membership is up over the same time frame.

Yes, in fact there was a link posted recently here on the forum; union membership reached an all-time low in 2009 and for the first time public unions represented more than 50% of the total. The irony is that the AFSCME and the teacher's unions have somehow managed to get the private-sector unions like the sheetmetal workers to march on their behalf in Madison, because, well, "they're all our union brothers". LOL If I was in an actual private sector union, I'd refuse to go march.

quote Originally posted by Ramsespride: Is this YOU speaking or are you standing up for Republicans? You ARE a republican supporter right? Look at this: Do you all (republicans) really think that you are right? Do you all think that standing up for the Republican mindset is right because you are a republican? Think for yourself for once and dont give in and be a mindless drone! I mean ****! I am being ignored by those that will sit there and cluck their tounges and hemmm and haw over the protesting because that is the way an ignorant prick operates. Ignorant prick= Republican. That aughta cause a firestorm

OMG! This is the post that I missed!!! 6 pages ensued and I totally missed all of them until after the fact!

Man... this was the post that started it all... the goodbye threads, the somber apologies... wow.... this post was history in the making.


I'd just like to point out for reference, that it's generally considered "blue collar" (to use a socialist term) to use the word "rich" when referring to someone's wealthy. "Rich" is how you describe chocolate, or gravy or something... "financially wealthy" is how you describe someone that has money.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter