Elected Officials

[GeoFisher]

Two things:
1) What's going on in WI has nothing to do with balancing their budget. The unions have already made the financial concessions being asked for, so that's a non-issue. What it's about is eliminating the Democratic Party's biggest power base, the unions. It's a power-grab.
2) Regardless of #1 and whether or not you agree with the legislation, what those senators are doing is just plain wrong. I personally disagree with this piece of legislation, but I disagree even more strongly with the tactics being used to block it. If you feel passionately that a piece of legislation is wrong, you seek to undo it once it's passed, you don't paralyze your government so that it can't be passed in the first place.

I think it is more than a power grab. Even if the unions give up concessions, with the next contract they will have every OPPORTUNITY to SCREW the taxpayers. UNLESS the union is busted. Not about power....it is really about fairness. Be VALUABLE and you will be paid what you're worth. You said it a couple nights ago.....you provide a value for your company. When you or I no longer provide that value.......we're GONE. That is how it should be.

Later,

Geo

[Chubminnow]

You provide a value for your company. When you or I no longer provide that value.......we're GONE. That is how it should be.

That's how it's been for me the past 31+ years.

[lroberts]

I think it is more than a power grab. Even if the unions give up concessions, with the next contract they will have every OPPORTUNITY to SCREW the taxpayers. UNLESS the union is busted. Not about power....it is really about fairness. Be VALUABLE and you will be paid what you're worth. You said it a couple nights ago.....you provide a value for your company. When you or I no longer provide that value.......we're GONE. That is how it should be.

Later,

Geo

You say "the union" must be busted.....which one??? All of them??? Do you really want the government and the rich/powerful to be able to control everyone like that???

[Hlleonard]

You say "the union" must be busted.....which one??? All of them??? Do you really want the government and the rich/powerful to be able to control everyone like that???

-- There are a lot of people who believe unions are evil and detrimental to the country ...The Corporations have done a great job of butchering the unions over the last several years, I know several people who are working for 10 dollars an hour who are anti-union ...These folks don't seem to be capable of seeing that their lifestyle has been reduced while the rattle snakes at the top have enjoyed a boon to their financial standing since the unions have become weaker ...If the wage earners in this country get pushed to the point of allowing the unions to start regaining strength again then we will start seeing improvements to our economy and the living standards of work-a-day people ...Unions do have some of the bad qualities several of the posters continually point out but the truth of the matter is they are good for the economy in general.

[DJD]

-- There are a lot of people who believe unions are evil and detrimental to the country ...The Corporations have done a great job of butchering the unions over the last several years, I know several people who are working for 10 dollars an hour who are anti-union ...These folks don't seem to be capable of seeing that their lifestyle has been reduced while the rattle snakes at the top have enjoyed a boon to their financial standing since the unions have become weaker ...If the wage earners in this country get pushed to the point of allowing the unions to start regaining strength again then we will start seeing improvements to our economy and the living standards of work-a-day people ...Unions do have some of the bad qualities several of the posters continually point out but the truth of the matter is they are good for the economy in general.

With all due respect I just can't see how they are good or productive for the economy. The case in Wisconson isn't about big Corporations and Unions it's about tax payers and Unions....at least thats what I see.

Unions have always been a very small part of the working force. So I don't see how they had much impact on the economic downfall. To me that was failed policies by self serving do-gooders in Washington. Spending more than we have is always a problem and ignoring problems the way those fartknockers do is never the way either.

I actually agree that the unions had a time when they were needed but to me that was back when options for employment were few and work place standards sukked! Coal miners, auto/truck, manufacture, steel and others benefited but to me thats done. We now have so many gubment agencies that can shut a work place down in a heartbeat and prolly have 10 money grubbing lawyers for every person in this country to represent them.

Business owners are held to so many restrictions now that you can't verbally, mentally, financially or even hint of abuse on an employee. Plus if you even get close to discrimination either by pay, race, religion, sex or position your guilty until you can prove otherwise. Just try and fire someone without just cause and see what the labor department and lawyers will do to you.

I'm just asking what real benefit they serve and can it be done better without them?

[lroberts]

With all due respect I just can't see how they are good or productive for the economy. The case in Wisconson isn't about big Corporations and Unions it's about tax payers and Unions....at least thats what I see.

Unions have always been a very small part of the working force. So I don't see how they had much impact on the economic downfall. To me that was failed policies by self serving do-gooders in Washington. Spending more than we have is always a problem and ignoring problems the way those fartknockers do is never the way either.

I actually agree that the unions had a time when they were needed but to me that was back when options for employment were few and work place standards sukked! Coal miners, auto/truck, manufacture, steel and others benefited but to me thats done. We now have so many gubment agencies that can shut a work place down in a heartbeat and prolly have 10 money grubbing lawyers for every person in this country to represent them.

Business owners are held to so many restrictions now that you can't verbally, mentally, financially or even hint of abuse on an employee. Plus if you even get close to discrimination either by pay, race, religion, sex or position your guilty until you can prove otherwise. Just try and fire someone without just cause and see what the labor department and lawyers will do to you.

I'm just asking what real benefit they serve and can it be done better without them?

Almost all of those things that you just stated happened because of unions protecting workers, and if unions are demolished many of those rights (not all) could disappear. Many people that are not part of a union have benefited from them in in a cursory way....whether it be monetarily or workplace safety or what have you. The states such as Wisconsin are saying that the unions helped cause this economic downturn and that the way to fix it is take their power away.......and downgrade wages of state workers. These people make up the middle class and have been the ones who have been most effected by the bad economy. So fix that problem by making it worse for them??? That doesn't make sense. Find someway to take away tax breaks away from companies that make billions or stop spending money on stupid earmarks that don't benefit the masses!

[Hlleonard]

With all due respect I just can't see how they are good or productive for the economy. The case in Wisconson isn't about big Corporations and Unions it's about tax payers and Unions....at least thats what I see.

Unions have always been a very small part of the working force. So I don't see how they had much impact on the economic downfall. To me that was failed policies by self serving do-gooders in Washington. Spending more than we have is always a problem and ignoring problems the way those fartknockers do is never the way either.

I actually agree that the unions had a time when they were needed but to me that was back when options for employment were few and work place standards sukked! Coal miners, auto/truck, manufacture, steel and others benefited but to me thats done. We now have so many gubment agencies that can shut a work place down in a heartbeat and prolly have 10 money grubbing lawyers for every person in this country to represent them.

Business owners are held to so many restrictions now that you can't verbally, mentally, financially or even hint of abuse on an employee. Plus if you even get close to discrimination either by pay, race, religion, sex or position your guilty until you can prove otherwise. Just try and fire someone without just cause and see what the labor department and lawyers will do to you.

I'm just asking what real benefit they serve and can it be done better without them?

I have to admit I know very little about the pay scale of the folks who work for the government and are paid by tax dollars so I will refrain from voicing an opinion about these folks ...I do agree that unions were not expressly responsible for the wages of most working folks, I do however believe that even non-union pay scale was affected by union wages in the past ...I believe most companies/corporations will pay the least wage or salary that they can get by with to get the job done ...There are a few of you fellas who post here that have been fortunate in that you have acquired the training/experience to earn a good living in your chosen career, not everybody has the ability or the will to do what you have done and I congratulate you but that doesn't strip the folks who choose to work in more mundane jobs of the right to earn a living without needing public assistance ...If employers voluntarily paid their employees a decent wage then unions would not be necessary and neither would illegals who have affected pay scales a great deal, Employers will pay an illegal half the wage to get a job done just because he can ...Most Americans don't wish to live 10 or 20 in a trailer or house the way these folks do, If a company owner or operator wants their work force to live that way then they are doing a great disservice to our way of life.

[DJD]

I have to admit I know very little about the pay scale of the folks who work for the government and are paid by tax dollars so I will refrain from voicing an opinion about these folks ...I do agree that unions were not expressly responsible for the wages of most working folks, I do however believe that even non-union pay scale was affected by union wages in the past ...I believe most companies/corporations will pay the least wage or salary that they can get by with to get the job done ...There are a few of you fellas who post here that have been fortunate in that you have acquired the training/experience to earn a good living in your chosen career, not everybody has the ability or the will to do what you have done and I congratulate you but that doesn't strip the folks who choose to work in more mundane jobs of the right to earn a living without needing public assistance ...If employers voluntarily paid their employees a decent wage then unions would not be necessary and neither would illegals who have affected pay scales a great deal, Employers will pay an illegal half the wage to get a job done just because he can ...Most Americans don't wish to live 10 or 20 in a trailer or house the way these folks do, If a company owner or operator wants their work force to live that way then they are doing a great disservice to our way of life.

You hit the nail on the head with illegals in the work force. Man that has a huge impact on construction. We have spots in town that have 15-20 mexicans hanging out in the mornings waiting for rides and anyone who wants cheap labor. I would guess they are illegal but I don't have proof.

We can thank our politicians for that...both parties and all levels of gubment!

I was handed a shovel when I first worked for an electrical contractor in Florida and that lasted about a month! Heck with that! I found my way to wiring emergency lights and trimming out buildings which lasted about a month and then I quit to start working with a systems contractor installing clocks, intercom, fire alarm and fiber.....best move I ever made!

This was back in the late 80's early 90's. I was making $5.75- $7 an hour. Man it was tough but we made it.

[Chubminnow]

I believe Don is right in what's going on in Wisconsin in that what's going on up there isn't about big Corporations and Unions, it's about tax payers and Unions. The thing is they're running out of money FAST, and they (the government) need to stop the bleeding. I feel that unions have no place in government. Electrical workers Union, U.A.W. and others that's fine, if they want to have their unions and if people want to work for them that's fine too, but having a teachers union? Naw...I don't think it's right, not right at all! Heck...every school board employee pays union dues to the teachers union don't they, whether they're a teacher or not, janitor's, kitchen workers, you name it...engineers at facility planning units are part of it too I believe. If teachers get raises then so do the folks at the main facility, it works the other way around to, no raise for teachers = no raise for the folks in engineering.

And then....what's all this stuff about a government employee being able to buy x-amount of years of their retirement? I know there have been folks who worked for the government their entire working career and was able to retire in their 40's!!...ok, if you have pen and paper write this down....Let's say employee A retires in their 40's, now we gotta hire employee B to replace them. Employee B retires in their 40's too, so we gotta hire emplyee C. It looks to me like at some point the government is paying retirement benefits for employee A, employee B and also paying a wage for employee C who now fills in for employee B all before employee A hits the "official" retirement age of 65. That means for a period of time the tax payer is stuck with paying for three people to do one persons job. It's this kind of ridiculous benefit packages that is a major reaason why this country doesn't have any money. Forget all about all of those extravagant retirement and benefit packages for government workers, unionized or not, throw it out the window!

As for other unions, Electrical workers, sheet metal workers, auto workers, etc...if they want to have unions that's fine. If they can have unions AND compete with company's and corporations that are non-union, that's GREAT, have at it!

Someone here mentioned something about unions being the reason for many non-union workers having benefited from them in a cursory way....whether it be monetarily or workplace safety, etc. I do not dispute that either, it's probably true. But on the flip side of the coin...the price of union made goods have driven a very large percentage of jobs over seas.

[Chubminnow]

If employers voluntarily paid their employees a decent wage then unions would not be necessary and neither would illegals who have affected pay scales a great deal, Employers will pay an illegal half the wage to get a job done just because he can ...Most Americans don't wish to live 10 or 20 in a trailer or house the way these folks do, If a company owner or operator wants their work force to live that way then they are doing a great disservice to our way of life.

I gaurantee you that a nice sized percentage of the Mexicans you see ARE definitely illegal. And you're correct in that employers will pay a mexican half what a jobs really worth just because he can.

Now...let's throw this into the equation...how many young legal white boys (or black) do you see at an employers door looking to get hired for one of these jobs the mexicans do? Usually not very many. I don't know the pay scales of various construction jobs either....but I wonder what a "decent wage" per hour would be for a guy who hangs and finishes drywall? Lot of young folks out there don't have the attitude of work-work-work and then work some more, gain knowledge and skill and put in their due's so to speak...they want to walk before they crawl.

Oh well...these dag gone topics on government, unions, mexicans etc tend to make me rant....Hey Ironrobert or whatever your name is...don't go blasting me if I wrote something I have no knowledge of cause I never claimed I knew anything to begin with...it's just like everything else in my life...I've learned by doing and being involved. One of my moto's has been to not open my mouth much and let'm "think" I'm stupid instead of opening my mouth and letting'm "know" I'm stupid, lol...

[roughriderbill]

In my opion I think the worst thing is a teacher union and tender if a teacher is not up to teaching and doing it in a way that keeps the intrest of the sudents get them out. I went to parent teacher conf. and my sons teacher ask me what grade I wanted for her to give him, of course I told her give him what he earns not just give him an A or B to keep him on the football team thats what is worng. Be able to get the bad out and keep or bring in new more talented teachers, union or not be able to get the lazy ones out JMO.

[lroberts]

"Heck...every school board employee pays union dues to the teachers union don't they, whether they're a teacher or not, janitor's, kitchen workers, you name it...engineers at facility planning units are part of it too I believe. If teachers get raises then so do the folks at the main facility, it works the other way around to, no raise for teachers = no raise for the folks in engineering."

This is not true.....a teachers union is just that....for teachers. Administrators, school board members, and maintnance/engineers/utility workers are not included. Also, there is a strict rule on when you can retire with full benefits. Anytime you retire early you lose a big portion of it. A teacher can "buy out" some years of service in some corporations, but it is very costly and the corporation actually comes out ahead.....why you ask....because they go hire a person right out of college and can pay them the lowest salary on the scale. Teachers Unions actually have very little power, compared to private sector unions. Teachers (tenured or not) can be fired with just cause. Lack of performance, incompetence, or insubordination are all causes for dismissal....and it does happen.

Chubminnow.....I call it as I see it. You were saying things that led me to infer you thought you knew what you were talking about....and you were off base. Its not personal, I'll try to be more contructive in my criticism next time.