Is it over for the unions?
 

Is the Wisconsin situation the beginning of the end for big labor?

you need to borrow charlie's time machine if you want to ask about the beginning of the end. unions have been losing members and influence for the last 40 years.

If I can borrow the time machine, I'm stopping off in 2005 and putting a couple of Giacomo-Closing Argument-Afleet Alex-Don't Get Mad superfecta ticktets in on the Derby. :D

February 2011: "Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s efforts to bust unions in his state are backfiring. Not only is public opinion against Walker, his actions are galvanizing Wisconsin workers. Last week, in defiance of Governor Walker, faculty at UW-La Crosse voted overwhelmingly (249-37) in favor of joining the American Federation of Teachers."

:tro:

that'll get him!

What will "get him" appears to be lying to his constituents repeatedly and flagrantly.

There is a more overarching theme, however, and that is that Walker appears to be singlehandedly turning Wisconsin back to true solid blue before the 2012 election (athough there is discussion Fitzgerald went off on his own, frustrated with Walker)

I'm a bit surprised GOP at the federal level haven't stepped in to calm him down and save the PR for the party. The rest of the GOP governors abandoned Walker publicly a couple weeks ago. Christie notably backpedaled furiously on his union busting. Indiana went ahead, and there are massive protests there, and in Ohio, which have escaped the attention of our superficial media.

It's all about 2012 Congressional and Senate control.

Private unions have been losing membership over the years and have decreased in strength because too many companies have gone out of business as a result of union demands.

The public unions have been gaining in strength because the government ain't going to go out of business. But, now that the taxpayer is paying the bill, that might all change.

Collective bargaining is a 50-50 proposition. It is pure, libertarian, self-interested capitalism at it's finest. Each side comes to the table looking out for it's own financial self-interests.

You must also blame the companies for being terrible businessmen, bargaining and agreeing to pay for things it turns out they could not afford, as their bad business decisions about their companies caused their companies to lose money.

Blaming the unions because businessmen sucked at being businessmen doesn't really fly.

The government is worse at attempting to run a business only they're not going to run out of money because they'll just keep taxing to pay for their over spending.

That's why the best run governments (cities, towns, villages, etc) hire professional managers to tend to the budget and business, while the elected officials do politics.

I recall that some of the newer young policemen of the town I grew up within wanted to unionize. Now, these police and firemen had always been well-paid, with good benefits. As this town grew, the money grew, it was well-managed, and everyone benefited: everything was well-funded: great schools, great parks, great public works, great public servants w/good equipment. So nobody saw the need for a union.

Finally the cops who wanted to unionize, got to unionize. The cops who didn't, did not. The union cops bargained their own agreement, even while management was telling them they would get more in the end if they didn't collectively bargain. They didn't believe it. Three years later, the police and fire who didn't collectively bargain, but just depended upon regular COLA and raises, were earning about $2,000 a year more per pay grade than the union guys.

Unions literally saved the lives of thousands of workers and enabled them to provide for their families. Over time, unions have become less responsive to their members and more political. That needs to change but there will always be a need for unions as the myth of "trickle down" will never become a reality without the ability of workers to stand up to the rich.

except when there is no business or businessmen at the table.

Wisconsin is busting public employee unions not private unions.

When you have public union workers 'bargaining' with union backed politicians there is more stealing than bargaining going on and the private tax payer is on the hook. There is no motivation to cut but rather grow. There is no production just consumption. Government should hire private companies willing to bid on everything from education to janitorial work. Walker is a hero to his constituents now. He wasn't going to ever win your type over anyway. So refreshing to see a politician follow thru on promises.

So things actually work without unions? and sometimes for the better? So why the argument so much for unions to be able to collectively bargain?

You can't honestly believe this can you? The teachers union uses union dues to contribute to the campaigns of democratic politicians and then in turn the politicians pay them back when it comes to collective bargaining. If you are talking about private unions that is a different story and up to the companies/businesses to make their own decisions. However with public unions the employer is the public and the people in charge are the politicians. Why not eliminate the ability of the union to contribute any money to either political party and then see what happens?

And that's not the union's fault, is it?

Scott Walker is owned by the Koch Brothers. Are you ignoring that? Did the Citizens United ruling mean anything to you?

This springs' current Republican fad of demonizing teachers and teachers unions is beyond absurd. Wiphan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what percentage of Wisconsin's budget is tied up in pensions and salary. You know, so we can calculate all the savings from union busting.

Because people have the right to collectively bargain. You know, that Constitution thingy ...

The nice thing is, and a few of the teachers will realize this now, the lack of collective bargaining leaves a spot open for individual bargaining. No longer will good teachers (a rare and amazing thing in this world) be lumped in with those that wound up teaching. They will be able to shine and be properly rewarded based on their merits and not those, or lack thereof, around them. Good employees want NOTHING to do with unions. Not anymore.

Wow, what an over simplification....and I reject the hypothesis that good teachers are rare. As a whole teachers are among the best that society has to offer.

Good people for sure. I hold nothing personal against the group. I remember the good teachers from my education, of the many that I have had, very few stick out as good. Those that do are a rare breed. A great teacher is not common despite what people might want to believe. Greatness is not more common in a noble profession just because it is noble. It is an art.

I disagree. Good and great teachers are the norm. Bad teachers are rare.

You have to hand it to the Republicans - they sure are good at building straw men and demons out of kindergarten teachers :zz:

Bad schools are the norm in this country, period. Money does not make a school any better, ask Newark, NJ, worst and most expensive. Good teachers are not common, great teachers are very rare. It must be nice to have gone to a school that promotes that type of thinking, I did not, I doubt most Americans had that opportunity. I know where I come from, this is not the case at all. My Kindergarten teacher was excellent, by the way.

Strange belief. Have any stats to back that up?

The paper.:)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_793185.html

We hear about bad schools, more political fodder but even the bad schools have wonderful teachers...many factors are involved, resources and parental involvement for example.

Unless of course, kids are just getting dumber.

I agree parents are no better than schools. Whole different debate there with no real solution, sadly. Good luck regulating that mess. Full circle here but, should not those "wonderful teachers" be rewarded based on their own merits? Or just lumped in with everyone else.

That's not what you said. You said "Bad schools are the norm". Got any stats on that? Because what you posted didn't have much to do with your assumption.

Oh, wait! Okay, I see, we're just going with, "because I think that". Got it ;)

Good thing Walker just stripped out that school budget in Wisconsin (in his regular budget), even preventing local towns from getting that money back for their schools through local tax increases. No money to schools, and Walker doesn't care what your town thinks or wants to spend on your own local schools - he hereby renders you unable to do a thing about it. And good the Republicans in the House are trying to do the same. Because we need to take that money away from our overachieving schools, and give it as corporate tax breaks! Because money doesn't have anything to do with educational quality. Nope. Nothing at all. Those teachers just need themselves and students. Maybe a roof. But that's not a requirement.

Again, overly simplistic! Parents are less involved, poverty is a pervasive element where hopelessness compromises the child's ability to learn in many ways, discipline, language issues in an increasing non-English speaking society etc

Agree that teachers should be rewarded based on merit but without a union how exactly does that happen?

This is not what I think. As I said earlier, unless kids are not as smart as they used to be. It must be, at least partially, the fault of the school system. The current curriculum in schools does not promote competition among students at a young age. Kids are pushed along and pushed along until they are so far behind they are pushed out. Graduation rates should be enough of an example. Particularly in cities where big dollars are spent.

Are you aware of the W Bush program, "No Child Left Behind"?

Well, anyway, the Republicans are cutting all the funding to schools they can, on both the federal and state levels. Enough of those greedy elite teachers, living the rich life! Good luck to us!

Jon Stewart had a funny program on this very subject the other day

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...-diane-ravitch

And, BTW, there is evidence that students are not as smart as they could be, due to diet. But it's been determined that wanting better nutrition in our schools, as the First Lady proposes, is a communist, socialist plot. NOBODY has a right to force our schools to serve more nutritious food! This is America!

Do you have a boss?

I do and I do my job very well. My performance is tied directly to my salary. The better I do my job the more money and concessions I ask for.
My co-workers are more highly educated than I am but not as talented. Therefore they are not as well rewarded.

what he said

of course not that's why ALL GOV contracts bar the justice department and defense should be open for lowest bid? Save OUR money?

I don't understand what that has to do with unions and who is at the bargaining table, but I agree. Although I don't think lowest bid should always being the deciding factor (controversy over Lockheed using prison labor to assemble some Patriot missile parts for example)

I learned this today (Washington Post):

:tro::tro:

try it with the ibew..lights out:D