Sheez with the misinformation already. It wasn't a union busting bill, it was a scaling back of certain aspects of collective bargaining, to get rid of the sweetheart deals. Who can blame the man for wanting to get rid of that.

Heck collective bargaining is illegal in some states.

 

I agree that it's kind of strange how the law was passed. Illegal? I think that it's for the courts to decide.

I'm not so sure that it's a "union busting bill" that they passed. I understand that it does limit what the unions can bargain for collectively, with the people seeking their votes. I don't believe that it takes away all of the bargaining ability that the unions have.

If you really think about it, you cannot do anything close to what the unions can do. If you work in the private sector, you can ask your employer for better pay, more sick time, cashing in accrued sick time, more vacation time, cashing in accrued vacation time, better health care at the businesses expense, but that employer has to make the choice based on how much revenue your position generates for the business. In the public sector, you don't have to do a good job to get more benefits, you just have to pay your union dues, and vote for who they tell you to vote for.

It's not right that these unions can collectively bargain with the people who are seeking votes at the expense of the tax payers.

I believe that the legislature could have passed this law without using the manuvers they did, if a group of legislators hadn't held the process hostage. I'd be pretty pissed if I voted for someone who would then refuse to do the job I voted for them to do.

These people chanting in the state house are making a mockery of the legislative process. Teaching the kids to do the same is just shameful.

 

might want to check how "union busting" the bill really is.

One of the items, the state is not going to deduct union dues direct from the check, it is now up to the employee to pay the union dues directly.

The other items, paying 10% more for the health care and paying 5% ( total ) for the pension, which is paid to the employee until the day they die, with law based COLA included.
Class size and work load is not removed from collective bargaining.

The only concession that was talked about ( it was offered, never inked - media coverage leaves off the part that the concession was offered ) ) was the increase in pension contributions.
Nothing on the health care coverage cost increases, and the state unions would not give on the union dues being paid by the employee vs. the way it was ( is ? ) with them being deducted just like taxes.

Wonder why leaving paying union dues up to the employee is that big of a deal for the unions ?

Anyone catch that ID passed a similar bill, and even included that state union employees cannot hide behind tenure anymore ?
The other items with ID is contracts are 1 year in length ( no more 2,3 or 5 year raises ) along with the dues and additional contribution from the employee for cost increases to pension and health care. Same applies, class size and work load are still part of the process ( for the teachers ).

Some states are trying to add that going on strike is no longer an option ( just like the unionized FD & PD are ). OH, and IN are the next on the list.

Even CA is figuring out that they cannot keep paying out as they are, less they turn into IL.

IL has become the poster child of what not to do with state unionized employees, less that state have $ 8B in past due bills on the desk in AP, and an empty check book to go with it.

 

Are you serious? Even after all this you can't stop with your passive aggressive shots?

What does my post topics have anything to do with you or what you write about?
Nothing at all.
For you to even mention them is your snide attempt at continuously busting my *****.

I didn't realize you were the 'thread police' now and everything gets judged by you as to what is worthy or not.

Yes sireeee! Every doom and gloom thread you post is so riveting and thought provoking and people should bow down to you.

Get over yourself already, some topics are just for fun and laughs and not every thread (like yours) has to be doom and gloom and "Oh god, the world is ending, these progressives' are doing us in.

The truth is you come across like you want an honest debate but you don't, it's smoke and mirrors, you just want to push your own twisted fear mongering agenda and get everyone up in arms and a panic, and you call me a pot stirrer.

Now I'll be the bad guy again because I was forced to defend myself.
Hey weren't you just talking about bullies? The irony.

You're a bitter and angry little man-child and its time to grow up. Seriously, please just leave me alone.

 

That's a very GOOD idea Habs, you should be left ......ALONE!

 

From one who knows

 

Some might see this as exploitation. Others seem to believe that it's ok to use kids as political props.

Huffington Post-Arizona's Shock Doctrine? Children Call Out Legislators on Immigration Bills Defeat

Is this a case of desperate times require desperate measures, or is it wrong to use young children as props?

 

stop?! more like turn it around and cancel the disney land trip!

 

This is one of those questions that will never be answered.

The bill does have an impact on children, but do the children really understand what they are doing ?

Given the thread title should answer that question, the part that can never be answered, is what is the content that is being taught by the parents ( everyone has an opinion of what is the right thing to teach children, I guess teaching them anything well in this day & time is better than nothing ).

Generally speaking children usually have similar political views to their parents, due to being raised in that environment and having similar values and beliefs.
The part where just being in the environment of the views / opinions and becoming part of the views is a question I have.
Does it allow the child to develop views independent of their parents later in life ?
I can see both sides of the fence on this, use religion as an indicator ( any one, nothing specific - which is not part of the question ).
Some children follow exactly the religious patterns learned in life ( attending a place of worship, regularity, etc ) while others rebel against it, and go the other way ( change religion or stay away from it all together ).

I will say I was at a demonstration when I was a kid ( grade school ) that picketed the teachers that were on strike.
Did I "fully" understand why I was there ? In hind sight, I still cannot say I did, it was a case of getting back to school.
Why we should go back to school, I recall not wanting to make up the days at the end of the school year, as we had to do.
What was the cause of the strike, I do know it was over pay raises so I would say my parents wanted us back to school, so the cost on the property taxes was not as high ( sign the contract and get back to work, i.e. the raise would be more in line with the budget ).
So to me and my parents the end desired end results were the same goal, but the reason to get to that point were different. I do recall dad asking me and my sister if we wanted to do it ( it was a question, that part I recall very vividly - as having a say in what the signs should say ), it was not an order and both of us were very excited to be a part of this.
I did not understand until 3 or 4 years later how gov services were paid for ( yes dad started me on the hard cold facts of life at an early age ).

I guess I could say I was part of the angry hateful Tea-Part back in the 70s.

 

wittom your the reasonable guy! the bill strips collective bargaining, they didnt have to do that, they gave pension and healthcare consessions which was what was needed to balance the budget. here in michigan i believe that rick snyder gave tax breaks to big business, and to pay for it he got rid of tax breaks for the poor? im not entirely sure its just off the top of my head but thats definetly not fair
i heard that walker was actually going to meet the unions halfway, then he did that? its a quick change of heart i guess
and every public worker except police and firefighters and maybe one more group get to keep their rights? they supported walker so thats probably why

 

Only recall the Teachers union offering to pay the additional money toward pension, the additional health care costs were not offered. The amount was different than what the budget needed. The other state unions I do not recall anything being inked either ( just took a quick look, it is the offer as well ).

The bill that was passed, had nothing to do with budget items, that is how it got to be voted on. BTW there is still collective bargaining. One of the items that the union does not like, the employees' union dues are not withheld by the state anymore, it is up to the employee to pay them ( or not ). Why do the state unions have an issue with this ?

So something that you made up is not fair, guess you only have yourself to blame for that then, considering you are the one that made it up....

You heard ?? Got any facts to support this ?

No, here you go guessing again.

Police and Fire departments are not state unions ( like the state employees and the teachers union ) they are national unions for the things that a union really needs these days, problems with employers and a place to consolidate pensions and health benefits. This is for the departments that are union, not all departments are unionized.
Police & Fire are exempt from going on strike ( unlike the other state unions ), and actually the work schedule part of collective bargaining ( the part teachers and state workers got to keep ) the FD & PD have little say in it.

When it comes down to it, the state unions were going to be made to look more like the PD & FD, and the teachers were the most vocal about not wanting this.

You might want to do some research on the topic, less you look like you are just pontificating about how things work. State of WI web sites is a good place to start....

 

Ok to the michigan thing, read this, its what the governer proposed

http://www.freep.com/article/2011021...ugh-decisions-


your absolutly right when you say that they dont lose all of their rights to collectively bargain, they can still bargain for base pay, but no other compensation measures. but all local police, fire, and state patrol are exempted from the changes. the bill is not entirely bad, sorry to offend you
http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journa...=177&prid=5622


i cant speak for the governer trying to meet the unions halfway, as i tried looking for the report typed and on the internet, and i cant find it. I saw it on a newscast, so it was probably speculation. so your right.

as to the police and firefighters being exempt,

http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journa...=177&prid=5622

it says that local police, fire department, and state patrol are exempt from the changes in bargaining rights.


not trying to be an *** some stuff I have herd and other things i have seen. yeah im young, 16, but I enjoy politics and stuff and thanks for making me dig stuff up, its a good debate haha ill learn

 

The small business seems to be for sole proprietor companies with gross receipts of 350K or less.
This person ( an independent contractor like an electrician or Plumber ) still has to pay State income tax. It is not like it is tax free income, just the same as a person working a normal job ( 6% vs 5% I think is the state income tax ), so it stops a person that is in business for themselves being punished with 1% additional tax ( or at least that is what the new tax would be under the plan ).
The NOV-2010 change was focused on gross higher than 350K under Gov Granholm. The working poor are loosing a tax credit.
All of this is a 2 year plan at the moment, none of it is passed into law yet.
Not 1 place did I see anyone getting tax relief in the MI gov web site, everyone pays. <- Wrong state abrev here in 1st post

This is an item the Unions did not want to give on
This no longer makes begin a union member a condition of employment for state jobs, where today the state of WI is the one pulling the union dues.
This leaves the choice up to the individual to be part of the union.
Unions do not like it when people have a choice in the membership, it can erode membership ranks very quick, by individual choice.

Keep in mind, the URL above is not the one that is being taken to court, due to the WI Secretary of state refusing to sign it into law.
This is the bill that some of the state representatives made a mockery of the process and ran away.

The FD & PD unions are not a state union, and not all cities have union departments. Raises are by the individual city or county, and the contract is not a contract like the state employees.
Kind of hard to include FD & PD in the same bucket, considering they do not have the same plan to start with.
Have not verified it, another thread quoted that there are 340 ( or 304 ? ) union Fire & police departments in the state of WI. I only found ~ 35 on the major national FD & PD union lists.
There are more than 340 Fire & Police departments total in the state of WI, this means not all of them are union ( again hard to blanket include all Fire & Police Departments when not all of them are union ). Again they cannot hold the taxpayer hostage by going on strike until they get what they want today. The bill is to make all state employees on par with the Fire & Police.

ID already passed a similar bill, that is awaiting a gov signature on it, there is no anticipation that it will be held up ( gov is on the side of the state representatives on this action ).
Don't hear about that one too much, the media focus is on WI & IN.
OH is in the process of doing the same thing, and the whole Gov in NJ thing is forgotten about already.

The media will only focus on creating a population that is polarized against each other, not the real focus, state government trying to pull the state budgets out of the toilet that the previous state gov drove it into.

IL is the poster child of what not to do with state employee costs and budgets. The state raised income tax for everyone 66%, and put in place a 2% spending increase cap, all the while services are going to be cut.
Pay more and get less, unless you are a unionized state employee. If this is the case, free for all on raises and no need to contribute to a failing pension system. 2018 is the target for the IL state pension to go bust, and 5 years after that the pension fund will be empty. The 66% income tax increase is not taking that into account, that is just for raises and to cover the increase in health care costs.
Top it off, some state representatives are trying to have any changes to the state union employee pension ( i.e. additional contributions by the employee ) declared unconstitutional by the IL constitution. Got to love that, they can tell the tax payers, would love to help you out, but it is unconstitutional to do so. They will leave off the part, that they are the ones that got it addressed as such.
And some wonder why Portugal can borrow money cheaper than the state of IL, and they are a messed up country.

 

I see the peaNUT gallery is still occupied, by at least one!

 

Which is 100% more than the "peas" in your "gallery".