Shame, shame, shame
My column for the Daily News is online. It’s called, “Shame, shame, shame.”
“And everywhere you look, on every factory and dormitory, in every stairwell and atrium, are suicide nets.”
Disturbing tales of a non-unionized workforce
http://news.yahoo.com/trip-ifactory-nightline-gets-unprecedented-glimpse-inside-apples-001926196—abc-news.htmlPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 0833 hrs
“Disturbing tales of a non-unionized workforce” - IN CHINA. Try to stay on topic. Union bosses “buying” Dem candidate for the potential recall. Union money has been greasing the palms of the left for years and you can’t deny it.
Time for the truth to come out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 0849 hrs
Yes, I’m sure Wisconsin government workplaces would look like a Chinese factory, were it not for rapacious public-sector unions.
Except for a century of federal labor standards legislation (OSHA, etc.). Plus civil service protections for most government employees.
That must be why most federal employees’ job security is so great that employees in many gov’t agencies are more likely to die of natural causes than to get laid off.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-18-fderal-job-security_n.htm
Wisconsin government employees had no collective bargaining rights at all before 1959. So, were there suicide nets in government workplaces in 1958?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 0858 hrs
Sure would be hard to make those arguments against Tom Barrett. After all, he was knifed by the Milwaukee police and firefighters union in 2010 and was pointedly told by unions not to run in the recall. Certainly a more elusive target than Falk.
As someone who has some sympathy with what Walker did to the unions and opposes him on almost everything else—crackdown on voting, crackdown on small breweries, crackdown on mass transit, crackdown on wind turbines, crackdown on political protest, raising taxes on the poor, expanding private school vouchers, presiding over dirty redistricting, bad hiring judgment as Milwaukee County executive, agreeing to accept a free vacation from a Koch imposter—Barrett sounds like my guy.
Speaking of unions, when will will Walker finish the job and bust the police and firefighters unions. Anyone think it’s unseemly that the State Patrol, which got special treatment in Act 10, serves as Walker’s bodyguards?
Posted by Northern Pike on February 21, 2012 at 0925 hrs
Albigensian: If you want to read about labor before 1959 there are plenty of books in the library; I might recommend Kohler on Strike: Thirty Years of Conflict. It proves very interesting material because Walter J. Kohler, Sr. was a Wisconsin governor, who like Walker opposed unions. The book recounts two strikes, the first of which resulted in the National Guard opening fire and wounding 49 people, two fatally.
But I imagine you like, Sleddawg007, do not believe in looking at facts, such as what our leaders and companies did in the past or what they are now doing overseas. Rather you seem to prefer to take them at their word. Forgive me for resting my arguments in fact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 0946 hrs
Well NP, with the death threats Walker (and most likely the rest of his family) receives, it’s probably a good thing he’s got some bodyguards that are actually willing to do the job. Unlike the Capitol police or the Madison police (who were *also* exempt from Act 10, but you knew that, right?).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1021 hrs
Unlike the Capitol police, the State Troopers endorsed Walker and expressed gratitude for getting excluded from Act 10.
I’ll repeat my question: When will Walker finish the job? And what does say about his integrity that he doesn’t?
Posted by Northern Pike on February 21, 2012 at 1029 hrs
I don’t know. It says to me “I’d rather have someone, at least, that might try to keep the loons from killing me or my family”. You know, the loons on your side there NP.
Besides, I don’t *care* who they endorsed, jackass. Isn’t it the JOB of the capitol police and the MPD to actually, you know, enforce the law? If they aren’t doing their jobs, the entire lot of them ought to be fired.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1044 hrs
I guess I’d ask the question: What does it say about the integrity of the capitol police and the MPD that they refuse to do their jobs?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1048 hrs
” Isn’t it the JOB of the capitol police and the MPD to actually, you know, enforce the law?”
The ONLY excuse I ever heard from Walker supporters for exempting the police is that there would be nobody to enforce the law if police weren’t exempted. They actually insinuated the police would not, you know, enforce the law.
Do YOU have an explanation for why the police were exempted, jackass?
Posted by Northern Pike on February 21, 2012 at 1201 hrs
Bret, I’ll give you a great chance to shoot me down because I am not going to bother to look it up as I am already relatively certain of the answer. Did any of the ‘30 years of conflict’ involve public workers(on the side of the unions)? I will bet not.
Public unions and private unions are an apples and oranges comparison. If you need help with the vast chasm of differences let me know and I will detail them, citing such union proponents as FDR et al. Assuming you do know at least some of the differences, your comment above is specious and not at all ‘based in fact’. Amazing how so many libs think they float when they have no legs to stand on.
NP, what is your point? You think you can convince anyone here that Walker is not in some way related to JC? You need a lot more conservative cred before that has a chance in heck of happening. Yes, Walker’s reasoning for exempting those unions is monetary based. Oooo, big surprise. Does Walker have honor? He is a politician.
That said, raising taxes on the poor? They don’t pay taxes.
Crackdown on political protest? Really? Funny, but I don’t recall the slew of people going to jail for heckling special olympics, actually assaulting Robin Vos, sending death threats to the Governor, much less all the legislation cracking down on political protest.
Crackdown on wind turbines? Sorry the PETA people took care of that long ago. Can’t have any birds dying now can we?
Crackdowns on mass transit that has been proposed to date and increasing the voucher program? Yea!
Even the ‘dirty’ redistricting happens by whomever is in power. It happens every time, big deal.I’ll give you the bad legislation on voting laws and the anti-microbrewery legislation. That is a relatively small price to pay for the dismantling of public unions, IMO, though.
We had to sit through the Chicago sized corruption of Doyle. Though I voted independent in the last Gubernatorial election and I most likely will in the next, I encourage every indy to vote Walker in the recall. Besides the fact that he will cost us less than a Dem replacement, Reps were voted in to get their chance to fix things. These recalls are total BS. He has done nothing to warrant the recall (that every politician in America has not equally earned).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1203 hrs
‘Bret’ suggested that I read “Kohler on Strike: Thirty Years of Conflict.” But I already have (although it was some time ago).
I also read, “The Kohler Strike; union violence and administrative law” by Sylvester Petro.
I found the second far more convincing than the first- in no small part because it had cites for just about every fact it asserted.
BUT, I did read both perspectives. Did you?
And, BTW, do you see no difference between private and public sector unions?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1556 hrs
No, I don’t see a meaningful difference between private and public sector unions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1601 hrs
Bret,
FDR saw a big difference between private and public sector unions. FDR was adamantly against public sector unions.
Is it appropriate that it takes local governments, on average, tens of thousands of $$$, and many months, to discipline or fire an employee not adhering to the standards and requirments of the government job?
Should the taxpayers be taking it the shorts when the government cannot just fire an employee?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1713 hrs
To Tureqas: “That said, raising taxes on the poor? They don’t pay taxes.”
Baloney. They pay taxes every time they buy deodorant. Or buy a pack of underwear. Or get a haircut. Or purchase a clunker car so they can get to their $9 an hour job. Or when they fill their gas tank.
The poor DO pay taxes, which means the right wing can sleep better at night.
Posted by Northern Pike on February 21, 2012 at 2151 hrs
Piker,
You are right on that, BUT
when Tommy Thompson did the sales tax rebate to give some of that money back to the poor who pay those taxes, the Democrats opposed it!
If a proposal to repeal sales taxes and other value added taxes that add cost to any product supply chain, progressives would scream bloody murder against repealing those taxes!
So let’s analyze who is really in favor of the poor…and it is not Democrats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2012 at 0819 hrs
NP, really? What is the proposal by Walker to raise the sales tax? I would probably still argue first that he is then raising taxes on everyone if I were you, it would be more effective. I know that of course the poor pay sales taxes and other fees. What makes your statement stupid is that Walker is not raising the sales tax. Arguing that fees are going up? Look at the budget again. Overall only 2 fees are going up, the rest are going down. The 2 fees increasing are secondary education and auto registration fees. If your point was that ‘increasing taxes on the poor’ meant that auto registration fees were increasing…wow. Got anything else? I give you, too, a chance to shoot me down. Is there a proposal by Scott Walker to increase the state sales tax? I did not look it up.
Bret, a few differences between public and private unions:
1) Most importantly, a private union fights against rich owners trying to wring every last dime out of their workforce for the least possible compensation. Public unions ‘fight’ against all tax payers, rich. middle class, and poor.2) Owners and private unions are fighting over shares of a specific amount of money, the total income of the company. The unions cannot get 1 billion in compensation from a company that makes 900 million. End of story. Private unions can demand too much, and if they do, the company or the union or both will go under. As Phil Scarr so passionately argued, Governments cannot go broke. If that is true, there is no limit to what can be demanded and granted to a public union.
3) A private union sits across from the owners of the company, the other party with a direct stake in the pool of money concerned. A public union sits not across the table from the other interested party, the taxpayer. He sits across the table from elected officials around half of which, at any given time, received staggering amounts of financial support to be put in that position by the union. If you were part of a private union, would you be happy to hear that about half of the representatives on your behalf at the ‘table’ were just given a million dollar bonus by the owners for no reported reason? Would you then trust that they still bargained for you in good faith? That is what taxpayers face.
4) Private unions fought long and sometimes vicious battles to gain many things we take for granted today such as a 40 hour 5 day work week, mandatory breaks etc. These ‘worker rights’ were then turned in to law. As lawful employers, Government requires itself to follow those laws. Public employees have never been the ones that fought for necessary new laws. What does that leave them? It leaves them fighting for perks like tenure, earlier retirement than everyone else, guaranteed money for retirement rather than the volatile and dangerous markets that everyone else has to contend with, etc.
It also leaves them with a boatload of taxpayer cash to spend on getting more perks/money from the taxpayer(great for them, not so great for the taxpayer). There are other differences including the main one FDR cited about public workers doing jobs that should not ever be able to go on strike and other less tangible differences.
The only recourse the taxpayer has for the bargaining table is through elections. Not many politicians would have gone as far as Scott Walker, but the measures concerning collective bargaining was, I believe, a correct reading of the majority of people in WI. He sat down at the metaphorical bargaing table and did the best thing he could for 95% of people who pay taxes, he got rid of the table.
Bret, if after reading that you disagree and still think there is little difference, please cite your reasoning.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2012 at 1034 hrs
For the record, Scott Walker reduced the Homestead credit and the value of the Earned Income Tax Credit. While some of the EITC is refundable, there are still poor taxpayers with a state income tax liability who saw their taxes go up, not down.
I never said Walker was looking to raise the sales tax. I used the sales tax to refute the absurd notion that the poor don’t pay taxes.
Posted by Northern Pike on February 22, 2012 at 1332 hrs
No, I don’t see a meaningful difference between private and public sector unions.
There is a difference ... in the private sector, the management of a company and the union leadership negotiate the contract, and the lines of representation are clearly defined.
In the public sector, the government leaders, with some being Democrats and recipients of almost 100% of union campaign donations, negotiate with the union leaders, the contributors of said campaign donations—if Democrats are essentially sitting on both sides of the negotiating table, where are the taxpayers’ interests represented?
Posted by hsgbdmama on February 22, 2012 at 1409 hrs
Irrespective of whether someone works for a private company or a public entity they should have fair working conditions. A publicly elected body may make decisions to undermine working conditions in the same way manner as a privately elected body or individual private owner. Passing laws are helpful in curbing abuses against workers but are insufficient, because laws are frequently not written in the interest of the laborer, and/or are meaningless because the grieved party often lacks the power to enforce them. Unions are needed to protect the working conditions of both private sector and public sector workers, because unions can lobby lawmakers, organize political campaigns when legislators are intransigent, provide legal aide to workers who would otherwise be unable to enforce their rights in court, and collectively bargain for higher wages.
While opponents of public sector unions argue that unions are diametrically opposed to all other tax payers, the truth is that unions benefit everyone because it is by securing fair wages and working conditions that the general weal is best improved. Overworked, underpaid, and abused workers are less effective and contribute less the local economy than their fairly treated counterparts. When individuals put their own private interests, in this case lower taxes, above the general interest of our society, everyone loses.
Although much of the criticism of public sector unions is focused on wages, unions protect much more than just the monetary interests of workers. Unions protect workers from abuses of all sorts.
While there are laws that define certain types of behavior between supervisors and employees as illegal, without unions it is difficult for workers to enforce these laws. If a worker believes he was wrongfully terminated or harassed, hiring an attorney and proving the case in court is difficult. Obtaining a lawyer is expensive and a one-time lawyer is much less likely to mount a strong defense when he is paid regardless of whether he wins or loses and shares a membership to the same golf course as the defendants, who happen to have contributed to the judge’s campaign fund.
Public sector employees may attempt to settle a grievance by appealing to a higher authority, an elected official, or even run themselves in the next election, but these methods of redress are impractical. At best governing boards are unlikely to discipline the candidates they have selected because it will reflect poorly on their hiring decisions. At worst the governing boards elect their friends whom they stanchly defend. Even if the board is impartial, proving the matter will be difficult as the burden of evidence collection is placed on the worker and other workers will be reticent witnesses for fear of reprisal.
Unions on the other hand have attorneys on retainer who assiduously defend the rights of the union workers. The workers economic survival ensures the lawyers continued employment and he is therefore loyal to their interests. Unions keep data on previous actions taken by employers which can be used to defend the worker, and unions provide solidarity among the work force that enables them to protect themselves from an otherwise abusive system.
With the recent attack on public sector unions we are already seeing abuses. One of the school districts, I think it was New Berlin, required their employees to sign their contracts before the contracts were written and then added two additional working hours per week. The Slinger School District fired all but two of their custodians last school year and hired a new lower paid workforce through a private firm; subsequently they experienced thefts perpetrated by their new employees. I have talked to people in non-unionized charter schools who have gone months without being paid. Locally the critics of Walker within the schools now have cause to fear termination in their employment for holding locally unpopular political beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2012 at 1507 hrs
Bret,
You have any sources for your tales?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2012 at 1601 hrs
The only interesting thing I gleaned from Bret’s screed: what idiot would sign a contract before it was written?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2012 at 2120 hrs
And the other thing from his screed: if charter schools aren’t paying their employees for months, why haven’t we heard about it—this fits the drive by media template perfectly!
Posted by hsgbdmama on February 23, 2012 at 1008 hrs
I never said Walker was looking to raise the sales tax. I used the sales tax to refute the absurd notion that the poor don’t pay taxes.
And I knew as I wrote it that the poor do pay some forms of taxes, I was pointing out that ‘raising taxes on the poor’ was a misnomer and your refutation disingenuous. Fair enough.
Bret, your paragraphs 1 and 2 directly contradict one another. If private unions get the laws passed that help everyone, public unions are redundant in that respect. The Gov’t as passers of the law, follow it. Public unions have not been instrumental in a single piece of legislation that helped private workers that I know of.
3,4 and 5 reflect the same problems that a private sector worker has. ‘Higher ups’ are often cronies of the bosses or aggressive to save their company money which will most often favor judgments against the common worker. Misuses by a Gov’t hiring authority is as likely to happen and be as possible or impossible to fight as in a private company.
What 6 says is a fair point. Law bills can be a prohibitively expensive bar to pursuing legal action. However, what you are really saying here is that it is right and proper for Joe taxpayer to pay to retain high priced lawyers for their legal battles while there is no one to support Joe for the same circumstance and it is right and proper for Joe to pay the full salary of both sides of representatives at any bargaining table, even though one side will always be against his interests and the other will either be also against his interests or likely apathetic.
Last paragraph: Fully guaranteed benefits with funds in the open market are not abuses? Cadillac no bid insurance policies and tenure are not abuses? Early retirement is not an abuse? All of these ‘perks’ are the sum total of public union accomplishments. 40 hour work week? Nope, though the school unions got full year pay for 190 days of work at 40 hours per week.
Even if I believed the last line, wouldn’t that be an interesting shoe to be on the other foot? Anti-unionists have been discriminated, bullied, repressed and in their eyes extorted for decades in the school systems. I can name 3 good friends who have been teachers for 18+ years that can back my statement up too. Your vague anecdotal reference does not impress me.
However, I can see that at least you have coherent arguments and that is worthy of respect. I am sure you believe me to be as misguided I believe you are, but I can live with it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2012 at 1306 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 107
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:18 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).