wisconcin goes after the unions

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/police-search-for-us-state-lawmakers-as-fight-over-budget-intensifies-116417019.html

again it seems that perhaps some cant see the forest for the trees.

The unions are a hard target... the unionized workers... only sorta. But if you look at what they are looking at.. its all the stuff people hate about the unions. But if you really look at it, its either... take these concessions.. or 6000 of you no longer have jobs. I thoughts unions were all about protecting the group of people? does it not protect the group better for everyone to take a small bit of pain then for 6000 people to lose it all?



Under Walker's plan, state employees' share of pension and health care costs would go up by an average of 8 per cent.

Unions still could represent workers, but could not seek pay
increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless
approved by a public referendum. Unions also could not force employees
to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.

In exchange for bearing more costs and losing bargaining leverage,
public employees were promised no furloughs or layoffs. Walker has
threatened to order layoffs of up to 6,000 state workers if the measure
does not pass.

Maybe some people would rather lose their jobs than give in to the demands of an egotistical tyrant. There are still some people left that put their personal beliefs ahead of short term financial gain, as difficult as that may be for some to understand.

Seems quite reasonable...
Unions still could represent workers, but could not seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum. Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.

That egotistical tyrant was apparently ELECTED in a proper electoral process in Wisconsin. I understand his position was very well known by the voters.

But he is an egotistical tyrant?

grumpyrom wrote:Maybe some people would rather lose their jobs than give in to the demands of an egotistical tyrant. There are still some people left that put their personal beliefs ahead of short term financial gain. as difficult as that may be for some to understand.

I edited this for you in an effort to keep the tone more debate-like than confrontational.

grumpyrom wrote:Maybe some people would rather lose their jobs than give in to the demands of an egotistical tyrant. There are still some people left that put their personal beliefs ahead of short term financial gain, as difficult as that may be for some to understand.

Personal beliefs over the common good? Is that not in direct opposition to what unions stand for?

Sorry, I was implying that the personal belief's of the majority of those union members would likely be aligned. Therefore if they choose to walk away from the offered deal, and by virtue of that their jobs...most of them would be putting their beliefs before their own financial gain. Obviously not everyone of them would feel the same way, I was generalizing in regards to voting down the proposal/walking away from the offer.

Also relevant in this case would be the Democratic senators who are putting their personal beliefs on the line despite the possible legal implications of refusing to return to the Senate and thus blocking the ability of the law to move forward regardless of the consequences.

Sometimes personal beliefs can work collectively if peoples beliefs are aligned.

But aren;t the Dems stealing the will of the populace by refusing to do their jobs?


Looking at the "deal" offered I can certainly see how most employees would have difficulty swallowing the raise in payments they need to make towards benefits, they are virtually guaranteeing themselves significant raise by no longer being "forced" to pay union dues, BUT still getting a raise pegged at CPI. AND they get to keep their jobs.


I think the part that most people are getting increasingly ticked about the public sector workers is that they are "refusing" to take their part of the pain that the rest of the world is suffering right now. Several sectors have not had raises last year, and are not expecting raises this year. No raise for me, means I have no extra money to pay in increased taxes.

Perhaps though pegging to CPI is wrong. Peg to average public sector raises.

The pain that every one is taking except for those that caused the mess to begin with? Why shouldn anyone be forced into accepting that pain just because some are willing to voluntarily? What would have happened at all the companies that forced wage cuts on their employees if those employees all up and walked out? They likely would have changed their minds. But that takes courage and solidarity, it doesn't work on a singular level and that's what they took advantage of. How many of the affected sectors have recovered but yet they refuse to rehire and prefer to sit on cash rather than hire now that the few workers left have shown they can do the same with less and are willing to worl for less? The entire collapse was a scam and most fell for it willingly IMHO.

LOL sit on cash.. you keep believing that.

grumpyrom wrote:How many of the affected sectors have recovered but yet they refuse to rehire and prefer to sit on cash rather than hire now that the few workers left have shown they can do the same with less and are willing to worl for less? The entire collapse was a scam and most fell for it willingly IMHO.

We can't generalize across every sector in industry and business. The recession was genuine. The significant reduction in business as a result was genuine. The subsequent loss in jobs was inevitable.

In Canada they claim there have been something like 450,000 jobs created since the recession. Maybe that number is 250k? Can't recall.

One thing is certain IMHO: the auto sector was about to implode upon itself due to the impossible labour costs. There is no going back to the days of an auto-jockey earning $75k...

Maybe not every sector, but I personally believe that a lot of business' saw an opportunity to save big bucks by jumping on the bandwagon and either put their cap out to the government or look for concessions from their employess or both.

Seems reasonable to me. Agree he was elected on the platform, he won, get on with it.

Besides, government should not be a place where people aspire to make a career out of it. That little shift really needs to be addressed. When working for government is more attractive than working for the private sector, you just know there is a problem out there.

(I have always wondered why so many IT people work for government rather than the private sector, could it be the private sector is mor , whats the word, ...savage.

I look at IBM in town, at one time they had 5 floors at TD Centre, now they have barley half a flr on Edmonton St. Where did all those IT jobs go ....outsourced perhaps, contracted out....wonder what perks they are getting.

I do know, that most of the IT staff at the City who are retiring now at 55 are going to enjoy a secured lifestyle with the benefit they will be contracted back by the City. If you structure yourself properly you can make a good chunk of change with the pension plan being your safety.

Dean, what happens to your pension if the private IT company you work for goes belly up or is sold, outsourced out ? WEhat about an IT pro working at say, oh pick a large company, say Standard Aero, you really think that employee has it as good as same IT pro working at the City.

Note: an IT pro at the City almost left back in the heyday of the dotcom years, he stayed and is now a Director of some department at 65 Garry. An IT Pro......now a Director ? How does that happen ? What qualified him other than he could read the posting on the wall by the water cooler. How does a guy like Sheegl get elected and now one step away from being CAO of the City ??????


Yanks may wake up and get their house in order. Fat governments are inefficient and skew the reality.