Wisconsin protest, a sign of things to come?

Billybob said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110219/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions


Protesters gather outside the state Capitol in Madison, Wis. on Saturday, Feb. 19, 2011.


[By TODD RICHMOND and DINESH RAMDE, Associated Press
MADISON, Wis. – A state Capitol thrown into political chaos swelled for a fifth day with nearly 70,000 protesters, as supporters of Republican efforts to scrap the union rights of state workers challenged pro-labor protesters face-to-face for the first time and GOP leaders insisted again Saturday there was no room for compromise.]


[Doctors from numerous hospitals set up a station near the Capitol to provide notes covering public employees' absences. Family physician Lou Sanner, 59, of Madison, said he had given out hundreds of notes. Many of the people he spoke with seemed to be suffering from stress, he said.]

Click to expand...

That first paragraph is crucial, and it's exactly what the TV news is missing. This is not about the give backs ( the unions have already agreed to those). It's about the governor's insistence that they give-up collective bargaining rights in the future. He can't take yes for an answer in other words.
Also, as Jeff said, no discussion of how they got into this mess in the first place.

Welcome to the Brave New World of Oklahoma courtesy of our Legislature. Let's forget about the years of service put in by teachers, law enforcement, first responders and those in government service. Screw them and their pensions.

Hobbes said:

On a somewhat related note:

There is a big push underway at the Oklahoma capitol to 'reform' the pension plans in Oklahoma.

"Reform" = eliminating pensions for all new employee hires and placing new employees in a 401K plan.
OPERS, TRS, Firefighters, OHP, and some other smaller systems.

The money saved by the state would go towards tax cuts.

Hopefully the elimination of new employees entering the pension plans wouldn't undercut their already precarious financial positions.
If it does, the state might be forced to pony up even more money at some point in the future.

It should be a huge boon to financial investment firms to manage all that 401k money though.

Click to expand...

Billybob said:

Like this...

Crime-ridden Camden, N.J., cuts police force nearly in half
January 18, 2011|By the CNN Wire Staff

[The mayor of crime-ridden Camden, New Jersey, has announced layoffs of nearly half of the city's police force and close to a third of its fire department.

One hundred sixty-eight police officers and 67 firefighters were laid off Tuesday, as officials struggle to close a $26.5 million budget gap through a series of belt-tightening measures, Mayor Dana Redd told reporters. The layoffs take effect immediately.]

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-18/...-force-police-officers-public-safety?_s=PM:US

Click to expand...

I'm not a police officer or firefighter. It seems to me that these are the last public employees that should be cut. I think it is just a political ploy when a local government reduces the police force or firefighters - puts more pressure on the public to increase taxes, etc. Why not layoff the two guys you always see watching the one guy digging the ditch.

Hobbes said:

On a somewhat related note:

There is a big push underway at the Oklahoma capitol to 'reform' the pension plans in Oklahoma.

"Reform" = eliminating pensions for all new employee hires and placing new employees in a 401K plan.
OPERS, TRS, Firefighters, OHP, and some other smaller systems.

The money saved by the state would go towards tax cuts.

Hopefully the elimination of new employees entering the pension plans wouldn't undercut their already precarious financial positions.
If it does, the state might be forced to pony up even more money at some point in the future.

It should be a huge boon to financial investment firms to manage all that 401k money though.

Click to expand...

I have no problem putting people who are not already in the system on a 401K plan.

However I have an extraordinary problem with the city or state, who is ALL of US by the way, deciding to change things mid-stream for an already-vested employee. The state/city/people promised this and they need to keep their promises.

For all of those who believe that unions are outdated, I offer the following non-union example:

My wife is a SALARIED employee by CONTRACT. A contract means a promise between the employer and the employee and both parties are bound by it. She makes no overtime if she works 60 hours instead of 40, which is most often the case.

When the snowstorm came, the bosses decided to shut down the office. The employees did not make the choice not to come.

Then when the employees returned to work, they were advised that they would not be paid for the days that the BOSSES closed the office.

What this amounts to is one-half of her weekly paycheck. Not enough to go to court over but plenty to dramatically affect our household. Not to mention, in a month she works more hours over 40 than she got in the days the office was closed.

The anti-union folks will say "get a new job" but where are those new jobs? Why don't employers have to follow the rules of the contract? Who enforces that?

In a non-union shop, the practical answer is NO ONE. The employer does exactly as he/she pleases if it's not enough to dispute in court and the little man is at the mercy of the big man.

A union keeps a greedy and unethical employer in check. Employers would do whatever the hell they wanted if it weren't for unions and proved it throughout history. Humans haven't changed their nature, so why would anyone believe that employers today would be more benevolent than in the past? I think this example clearly shows that some won't.

Even non-union shops benefit from the 40 hour work week, mandatory safety measures, and other rights won by unions.

I will be the first to admit that unions have been corrupt before and will be again. However, I would much rather err on the side of the worker than on the boss.

When workers are being laid off and companies are producing less and less, the bosses still have their cushy bonuses and big homes.

It ain't the worker that's bankrupting this country.

Michael Brown

And guess what, the Legislature is limiting your right to redress any harm done to you.

The problem here is that the working man has been conned into pushing the agenda of Corporate America. He is slashing his own throat and thanking his victimizer for the razor.

Finally this thread is making sense.

As long as this union, nonunion, Democrat, Republican nonsense keeps us fighting among ourselves we will continue to get screwed. Union doesn't always mean you our overpaid and lazy. I am union in the construcion industry and it is no piece of cake and guess what days my spoiled a** gets paid for?? NONE! Yes I make a decent living we are not all like the UAW! I see a lot of people driving around in 50k cars, I am not one of them.

I believe the state governments mismanagement of money is what got us here. Now everyone (us common people) is sitting here pointing the finger at each other for something we had nothing to do with. The governments are NOW trying every option to stay a float. It is us and them to me and that is the way more people should think. If I can't make ends meet who can I blame it on??

JB Books said:

The problem here is that the working man has been conned into pushing the agenda of Corporate America. He is slashing his own throat and thanking his victimizer for the razor.

Click to expand...

This.

I'm not sure how a guy or gal who makes 50 or 60 g's a year is the one who is bankrupting America.

Anyone who believes this is either buying the corporate line of BS or is one of the ones benefitting from the fleecing of the American laborer.

Hasn't anyone noticed how many politicians who rally around the anti-illegal immigration pulpit usually have a housekeeper or gardener or construction crew from Mexico?

They're suckering average Americans into fighting with each other and laughing all the way to the bank.

When we're bankrupt, those "pro-constitution" Republicans who are supposedly fighting for your Second Amendment rights will start selling those off too when they figure out that with guns, you can affect the process.

Don't let them bamboozle you with platforms that don't really do anything for average Americans but sound so sweetly appealing to our Patriotism and sense of self-reliance.

Michael Brown

Tinbender75 said:

Finally this thread is making sense.

As long as this union, nonunion, Democrat, Republican nonsense keeps us fighting among ourselves we will continue to get screwed. Union doesn't always mean you our overpaid and lazy. I am union in the construcion industry and it is no piece of cake and guess what days my spoiled a** gets paid for?? NONE! Yes I make a decent living we are not all like the UAW! I see a lot of people driving around in 50k cars, I am not one of them.

I believe the state governments mismanagement of money is what got us here. Now everyone (us common people) is sitting here pointing the finger at each other for something we had nothing to do with. The governments are NOW trying every option to stay a float. It is us and them to me and that is the way more people should think. If I can't make ends meet who can I blame it on??

Click to expand...

People always want to blame someone for themselves. That is why a station like MSNBC can survive. Blame the rich man. They never ask how they got rich. People don't want to work for it, they want a handout. This is how the Dems have always got votes. Give away other people's money and then tell the takers that the Reps are going to take away "their" money. I have not seen anyone talk about where all the new money is going to come from, they just want it.

I thought I might address Mr. Brown's statement of his wife not being paid for time off because of the snowstorm. I agree, it was not fair.

I have an employee I pay 50K a year for a 20K job. We paid her for 2 days of work during the snow storm that she was unable to make it. No thank you, not even a mention of the fact.

It does work both ways, Mr. Brown.

Biggsly said:

People always want to blame someone for themselves. That is why a station like MSNBC can survive. Blame the rich man. They never ask how they got rich. People don't want to work for it, they want a handout. This is how the Dems have always got votes. Give away other people's money and then tell the takers that the Reps are going to take away "their" money. I have not seen anyone talk about where all the new money is going to come from, they just want it.

Click to expand...

^^^^
This is a very eloquent sumation of the situation here.
Who are the poor? The people with too much money.
Who are the rich? The people with too little money.