WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I am not going to take it as a given that concessions were made.

Then you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. You quoted a site critical of the unions that noted concessions were made. Now you dispute this site? What reason did the site have to lie? If concessions were not made why would Walker not dispute the reporting of those concessions?

I'm sorry WC but I find this disingenuous to say the least.

[RandFan]

Reality Check: Wisconsin Unions Have Already Agreed to Major Concessions

Top leaders of two of Wisconsin's largest public employee unions announced they are willing to accept the financial concessions called for in Walker's plan, but will not accept the loss of collective bargaining rights.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Won’t Take Union Concessions

Wis. governor rejects union offer of concessions for bargaining rights

All lies? Really?

[RandFan]

You are STILL refusing to answer my questions while you demand I answer yours. Bad form. Bad faith.

[Roadtoad]

I don't like Walker, and all the times I spent in Wisconsin hauling loads told me he had few fans. I have serious problems when the chief executive of any political entity rolls over and allows the end of collective bargaining, a right which was paid for with the blood of workers. (And, no, I'm really not engaging in hyperbole here. Look it up.)

It's a dangerous precedent for anyone to set, and creates some serious problems for everyone, including non-union workers who may have genuine grievances with their employers. I have a strong expectation that any leader would understand this and uphold something so basic.

That said, I read through the documentation and the links. Walker is linked, but I've yet to see where this activity can be directly connected to any order issued by him. It's a wait and see thing right now.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Then you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. You quoted a site critical of the unions that noted concessions were made. Now you dispute this site? What reason did the site have to lie? If concessions were not made why would Walker not dispute the reporting of those concessions?

I'm sorry WC but I find this disingenuous to say the least.

It's quite obvious what the goals of the unions are whether or not concessions were made.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I don't see how they could be anything else. Walker could have accepted the concessions, right?

Unknown. Did the concessions offered actually solve the budget problem?

Quote:

Walker said he would listen but he wouldn't change his mind. Walker did nothing to try to preserve the rights of union workers, or do you have evidence that he did?

Quite a number of people (mostly Rep voters) don't agree that public unions -- teachers, police, firefighters, SEIU -- have the same rights non-public unions have and should continue to have.

per FDR:

http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyr...ent-union.html

Walker is in good company, unless you've thrown FDR under the bus too.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Reality Check: Wisconsin Unions Have Already Agreed to Major Concessions

Top leaders of two of Wisconsin's largest public employee unions announced they are willing to accept the financial concessions called for in Walker's plan, but will not accept the loss of collective bargaining rights.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Won’t Take Union Concessions

Wis. governor rejects union offer of concessions for bargaining rights

All lies? Really?

So they agreed to unspecified "financial" concessions, and there was no written proposal.

What about other issues, like work rules? Hours? Age of retirement? Etc etc etc.

Here in Chicago the schools have a $700 million budget deficit, nearly half the kids don't graduate from high school, and the Chicago Teacher's Union is demanding a 30% pay raise (25% next year, 5% the next) and smaller class sizes. This is the kind of crap Wisconsin is trying to avoid.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's quite obvious what the goals of the unions are whether or not concessions were made.

Let's assume the worst of the unions. Corrupt and wanting power and money. Even granting the worst for arguments sake, it doesn't justify what Walker did. That said, I don't buy the narrative of only the worst for unions.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So they agreed to unspecified "financial" concessions, and there was no written proposal.

What about other issues, like work rules? Hours? Age of retirement? Etc etc etc.

Here in Chicago the schools have a $700 million budget deficit, nearly half the kids don't graduate from high school, and the Chicago Teacher's Union is demanding a 30% pay raise (25% next year, 5% the next) and smaller class sizes. This is the kind of crap Wisconsin is trying to avoid.

You still are not addressing my questions. Those are not going to go away.

• Walker offered no counter proposals.
• Walker did not negotiate at all.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Unknown. Did the concessions offered actually solve the budget problem?

Had Walker negotiated and offered counter proposals and brought up these concerns then you would have something worth discussing.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Let's assume the worst of the unions. Corrupt and wanting power and money. Even granting the worst for arguments sake, it doesn't justify what Walker did. That said, I don't buy the narrative of only the worst for unions.

I'm living it here in Illinois, where we're tossing the sick out of nursing homes and are late in paying $9 billion to state vendors so we can continue to make pension payments to retired union members. The pensions which, btw, are underfunded by $80 billion because the unions have the power to make the state agree to contracts and rules it cannot afford.

Maybe you don't buy it, but if the proof is in the pudding we're swimming in pudding here in Illinois.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I'm living it here in Illinois, where we're tossing the sick out of nursing homes and are late in paying $9 billion to state vendors so we can continue to make pension payments to retired union members. The pensions which, btw, are underfunded by $80 billion because the unions have the power to make the state agree to contracts and rules it cannot afford.

Maybe you don't buy it, but if the proof is in the pudding we're swimming in pudding here in Illinois.

I'm happy to grant you all of that but it does nothing to address my argument.

I've shown you that the unions offered concessions. If you could show me that Walker offered a counter proposal or was willing to negotiate with the unions then I would be happy to accept that perhaps Walker had no other option.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm happy to grant you all of that but it does nothing to address my argument.

I've shown you that the unions offered concessions. If you could show me that Walker offered a counter proposal or was willing to negotiate with the unions then I would be happy to accept that perhaps Walker had no other option.

I think Walker wanted to get rid of public sector unions as a corrupting political force, and the only way to do that is take away their collective bargaining rights. I really don't see room for concessions there.

I fail to see why public sector unions should have collective bargaining rights, it gives them too much power over the people who "negotiate" their contracts. Federal workers don't have collective bargaiuning rights, neither do the public employees in about half of the states. This is about lessening the influence of public labor unions so government can go about looking after the best interests of the citizens, and not just the unions that own them thanks to the power of collective bargaining.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I think Walker wanted to get rid of public sector unions as a corrupting political force, and the only way to do that is take away their collective bargaining rights. I really don't see room for concessions there.

EXACTLY! Thank you. Thank you. Walker's arrogance was that only his opinion mattered. No one else. No need to negotiate in good faith. Just act unilaterally. That's what makes him a scoundrel. Liberals have been known to do this also and it pisses me off. There are no absolutes. Just trade offs for various philosophies. We live in a society and in the very least elected leaders should consider the opinions of the opposition and try to negotiate compromise.

Quote:

I fail to see why public sector unions should have collective bargaining rights, it gives them too much power over the people who "negotiate" their contracts. Federal workers don't have collective bargaiuning rights, neither do the public employees in about half of the states. This is about lessening the influence of public labor unions so government can go about looking after the best interests of the citizens, and not just the unions that own them thanks to the power of collective bargaining.

• The power of business corrupts business.
• Since weakening of unions the gap between rich and poor has only grown.

As one who grew up despising and hating unions I can say I came to my current position only through the facts that unions gave American workers much of what they enjoy today. We are in serious danger of losing that. And that is not in the best interest of anyone. Not even the rich.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I don't like Walker, and all the times I spent in Wisconsin hauling loads told me he had few fans. I have serious problems when the chief executive of any political entity rolls over and allows the end of collective bargaining, a right which was paid for with the blood of workers. (And, no, I'm really not engaging in hyperbole here. ... )

Back in the bad old days of AFL-CIO-Teamsters, yup, blood was spilled. Public service employees ... I suspect is hyperbole.

Quote:

Look it up.)

Go right ahead; cites for your assertion.

Quote:

It's a dangerous precedent for anyone to set, and creates some serious problems for everyone, including non-union workers who may have genuine grievances with their employers. I have a strong expectation that any leader would understand this and uphold something so basic.

We can agree to disagree.

Quote:

That said, I read through the documentation and the links. Walker is linked, but I've yet to see where this activity can be directly connected to any order issued by him. It's a wait and see thing right now.

This foofarah? Wait and see is the only option imo too.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I think Walker wanted to get rid of public sector unions as a corrupting political force, and the only way to do that is take away their collective bargaining rights. I really don't see room for concessions there.

Balderdash. He just wants the unions gone. The unions are certainly lesser corrupt than are those politicians bought and paid for by vermin like the Koch roaches.

Unions are our first line of defense against deals like Il Duce's sale of state assets to his owners.

[AlBell]

read it, dammit.

never again.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Go right ahead; cites for your assertion.

We can start with the Pullman Strike...

And continue with the Haymarket Riots.

Just two for now.

Note, I'm not taking a side here, but a reminder is due that the right to collective bargaining has been a long ride.

[leftysergeant]

I think the little snot wants the unions gone because their first loyalty is to the beneficiaries of government (like working people) rather than to Il Duce.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Back in the bad old days of AFL-CIO-Teamsters, yup, blood was spilled. Public service employees ... I suspect is hyperbole.

Possibly. Used to be a Teamster, and was galled in learning that one local actually had its own arsenal of weapons. (Wish I could find the article in Teamster publications that cited the Independent Review Board's decision to boot the head of the local and some of his staff.)

Originally Posted by AlBell

We can agree to disagree.

Agreeably, I note. That's welcome. I'm not always right.

Originally Posted by AlBell

This foofarah? Wait and see is the only option imo too.

Methinks it's the best option. Others would beg to differ.

[AlBell]

At the time of Pullman, train employees were not public employee union types, rather industrial.

Haymarket may have had public employee union members involved. I don't know.

fyi: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/134017...orkers-History

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

EXACTLY! Thank you. Thank you. Walker's arrogance was that only his opinion mattered. No one else. No need to negotiate in good faith. Just act unilaterally. That's what makes him a scoundrel. Liberals have been known to do this also and it pisses me off. There are no absolutes. Just trade offs for various philosophies. We live in a society and in the very least elected leaders should consider the opinions of the opposition and try to negotiate compromise.

• The power of business corrupts business.
• Since weakening of unions the gap between rich and poor has only grown

Why should everything be a compromise? If an idea is bad, shold we compromise on an idea that is just half as bad? And if you're going top claim a relationship between the decline in unions and the income gap you need to do better than merely showing correlation. You have to show causation.

Did the income gap in heavily unionized industries, such as auto manufacturing, not increase in this time period? If it did, how can you claim union membership could have prevented income gaps?

Originally Posted by RandFan

As one who grew up despising and hating unions I can say I came to my current position only through the facts that unions gave American workers much of what they enjoy today. We are in serious danger of losing that. And that is not in the best interest of anyone. Not even the rich.

So? Those days of gross employer are gone, and they're not coming back. Workplace safety, discrimination, etc. is enshrined in law. Union membership is declining because unions simply can't offer what they used to be able to offer. Today, most union members are public sector employees demanding and getting contracts that would have bankrupted private institutions.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Balderdash. He just wants the unions gone. The unions are certainly lesser corrupt than are those politicians bought and paid for by vermin like the Koch roaches.

Unions are our first line of defense against deals like Il Duce's sale of state assets to his owners.

So you want corrupting public union intereests to balance corrupting business interests.

Meanwhile, the rest of us (the 90%) get screwed.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So you want corrupting public union intereests to balance corrupting business interests.

Meanwhile, the rest of us (the 90%) get screwed.

Balderdash. Unions are democratic institutions. Corporations are not.

Elected officials who let the unions run wild can be removed and a new administration can restore order.

Not much we can do one way or another about the Koch roaches.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why should everything be a compromise? If an idea is bad, shold we compromise on an idea that is just half as bad?

Bad is an opinion. Certainly many people don't think it is bad. I don't think it's simply a bad idea. On the contrary.

Quote:

And if you're going top claim a relationship between the decline in unions and the income gap you need to do better than merely showing correlation. You have to show causation.

I think the negative correlation is much stronger (societies without unions are negatively correlated to income equality).

Quote:

Did the income gap in heavily unionized industries, such as auto manufacturing, not increase in this time period? If it did, how can you claim union membership could have prevented income gaps?

I would say it's the degree of the growing gap. Unionized industries typically have a much higher wage.

Quote:

So? Those days of gross employer are gone, and they're not coming back. Workplace safety, discrimination, etc. is enshrined in law. Union membership is declining because unions simply can't offer what they used to be able to offer. Today, most union members are public sector employees demanding and getting contracts that would have bankrupted private institutions.

Assertions. Even if I grant you the premises the unions can offer better wages and protect against ever decreasing benefits and job insecurity.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So? Those days of gross employer are gone, and they're not coming back. Workplace safety, discrimination, etc. is enshrined in law. Union membership is declining because unions simply can't offer what they used to be able to offer. Today, most union members are public sector employees demanding and getting contracts that would have bankrupted private institutions.

And we have republicons trying to repeal minimum wage laws and over-turn "job-killing regulation." Don't even try to tell me that they would not legislatively do away with neary everything the unions have gotten us so far.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I think the negative correlation is much stronger (societies without unions are negatively correlated to income equality).

Where is your evidence?

Originally Posted by RandFan

I would say it's the degree of the growing gap. Unionized industries typically have a much higher wage.

You haven't shown the income gap is less in unionized industries vs. non-unionized industries.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Assertions.

Yes, every claim you have made in this post is an assertion without any evidence being offered.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Even if I grant you the premises the unions can offer better wages and protect against ever decreasing benefits and job insecurity.

They may offer better wages for some, but they offer lesser wages to others. Not all employees are equal.

And it has been shown that unions can only protect against decreasing benefits and job insecurity in the short run. If the company cannot remain competitive it disappears, along with the benefits and job security. This fact provides a check on private sector unions, unfortunately there is no such check on public sector unions.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You haven't shown the income gap is less in unionized industries vs. non-unionized industries.

Do you claim that unions do not offer higher wages than non-union ones? You seem to be arguing two sides of this issue. On one hand the benefits of unions make companies less competitive and the other there is no evidence that these benefits exist.

Quote:

If the company cannot remain competitive it disappears, along with the benefits and job security.

Evidence that unions prohibit companies from being competitive?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by RandFan

If it were and Obama broke the law I would support his prosecution. Do you support the prosecution of people who break the law?

I share your disdain for Gov. Walker and really want to see him recalled, but I have to wonder whether or not there is solid evidence that he broke any laws. I wouldn't be surprised, but then that is my personal bias, and that's not evidence.

Remember folks: the man is innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think he's even been charged with anything yet. Let the investigations and the wheels of justice turn, and we'll see what happens.

Bottom line: Walker is enough of an asshat, in my opinion, to justify recalling him. No need to speculate needlessly regarding legal matters.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I share your disdain for Gov. Walker and really want to see him recalled, but I have to wonder whether or not there is solid evidence that he broke any laws. I wouldn't be surprised, but then that is my personal bias, and that's not evidence.

Remember folks: the man is innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think he's even been charged with anything yet. Let the investigations and the wheels of justice turn, and we'll see what happens.

Bottom line: Walker is enough of an asshat, in my opinion, to justify recalling him. No need to speculate needlessly regarding legal matters.

Thanks. I've conceded that I know of no evidence that Walker has broken any laws.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Balderdash. Unions are democratic institutions. Corporations are not.

Wow.


No.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

Possibly. Used to be a Teamster, and was galled in learning that one local actually had its own arsenal of weapons. (Wish I could find the article in Teamster publications that cited the Independent Review Board's decision to boot the head of the local and some of his staff.)



Agreeably, I note. That's welcome. I'm not always right.



Methinks it's the best option. Others would beg to differ.

I'll go out on a limb here, and assert that the issues on unions and Wisconsin are not based on ethics of "public sector unions" being good or bad, and they are not based on "unions being good or bad".

They are simply based on the current and future estimated debt to the unions for benefits being unacceptable in this financial climate. Then and only then, various arguments are used to justify "changing the deal".

I'm okay with that.

[BenBurch]

You're OK with people being denied the right to negotiate?

If so, I think we should deny corporations the right to negotiate too. Government doesn't need to pay $5 Billion for each new stealth fighter; We should just pay $50 million and tell the contractors to "suck it up."

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Do you claim that unions do not offer higher wages than non-union ones?

Not necessarily. They mat get more benefits instead. They may get more restrictive rules as to how an employee can be fired.

Originally Posted by RandFan

You seem to be arguing two sides of this issue. On one hand the benefits of unions make companies less competitive and the other there is no evidence that these benefits exist.

So assume a non-union company executive makes $10 million, and his average employee makes $30k. Now suppose a union company executive makes $10 million, but his average employee makes $40K.

Is the gap of $9,970,000 really significantly different than a gap of $9,960,000? Does that address your concerns about an income gap? Change all the charts you like to throw out there?

Originally Posted by RandFan

Evidence that unions prohibit companies from being competitive?

They certainly can. GM is a prime example. Then there's Eastern Airlines and US Steel. The US steel industry as a whole was crippled by union contracts that prevented them from automating and adopting modern practices that produced better steel with fewer employees.

Do you dispute this?

At any rate, like I already said the risk of driving a company into bankruptcy puts a check on union power in the private sector. No such check exists in the public sector, until you get to truly catastrophic results like what's happening in Greece or Illinois.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You're OK with people being denied the right to negotiate?

Who's being denied the right to negotiate?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So assume a non-union company executive makes $10 million, and his average employee makes $30k. Now suppose a union company executive makes $10 million, but his average employee makes $40K.

I'm entirely at a loss as to how this addresses the point at hand. My only point is that union wages are on average higher. That's it. The gap is only meaningful if incomes for the lower wages are shrinking while the wages for the upper classes are rising. If both are rising but the upper classes are rising at a faster rate then no one gives a damn.

Quote:

They certainly can.

"Can" is not the point and not in dispute. A union don't mean that a company can't or won't be able to be competitive.

Quote:

No such check exists in the public sector...

Oddly enough there are public sector unions around the world without the respective govts going bankrupt. Perhaps it's not as automatic as you suggest. But you argue against yourself. The check was the threat of stripping rights. Right? Wouldn't that bring a union to the bargaining table to know that they could lose their rights?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Who's being denied the right to negotiate?

"Collectively".

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

You're OK with people being denied the right to negotiate?

If so, I think we should deny corporations the right to negotiate too. Government doesn't need to pay $5 Billion for each new stealth fighter; We should just pay $50 million and tell the contractors to "suck it up."

Actually, this isn't all that bad an idea. I've thought for years we were spending way too much for a fighter jet, much less some of the ships our Navy uses. $500 hammers indicate far more is wrong than most people want to admit.

That said, what I find disingenuous is the perpetual assertion that there is no waste at all in social programs. This is disturbing on so many levels, and when I heard years ago that Hazel Mahone of the Grant School District blew $1 Million on redecorating her office, at a time when we were looking at new bond measures to build schools that were badly needed, (and still wound up buying temps), it became outright nauseating. (Both she and her assistant were terminated, though the assistant couldn't understand why: He'd only spent $500,000 on his office makeover. Grant is now part of the Twin Rivers District.)

One of the reasons we insist on Government sticking to doing what it must is because it does not do it efficiently. Social programs used to be the purview of churches and civic groups like the Lions Clubs and the Rotary. That these entities ultimately became as corrupt and racist as the entities that replaced them is probably not surprising at all.

And this gets to the biggest gripe I have in our nation's social order: Churches aren't churches anymore. You might as well close your prayers saying "FORE!" rather than "Amen," simply because the internal politics and holy roller mindset run counter to what the Bible itself has said most Christians are to be doing with their time. That we're being smothered with messages regarding "end times" demonstrates just how evil and stupid the whole exercise has become.

To get back to the OP (finally), until we know more, I'm reserving judgement. I'm angry with Walker: No one has the right to limit who can negotiate, and I've seen this time and again with banks and individuals, not to mention employers and employees. (Most of us would call this bad faith.)

At the same time, I think there's too much here that offends the olfactory. Let's see where this probe goes.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm entirely at a loss as to how this addresses the point at hand. My only point is that union wages are on average higher. That's it. The gap is only meaningful if incomes for the lower wages are shrinking while the wages for the upper classes are rising. If both are rising but the upper classes are rising at a faster rate then no one gives a damn.

Your exact quote was "I would say it's the degree of the growing gap. Unionized industries typically have a much higher wage."

And the "degree of the growing gap" is virtually identical. The CEO of UAW-represented Ford Motors, Alan Mulally, gets $55 million or so a year in compensation. Does that degree of gap concern you?

Originally Posted by RandFan

"Can" is not the point and not in dispute. A union don't mean that a company can't or won't be able to be competitive.

It certainly is, your attempts to push me into absolutes will fail. Show me someone who deals in absolutes, and I'll show you an ideologue. I'm certainly not an ideologue. Unions and corporations are run by human beings with all the diversity of opinions and personalities that comes from being human, absolutes do not apply to human behavior. We are not robots.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Oddly enough there are public sector unions around the world without the respective govts going bankrupt. Perhaps it's not as automatic as you suggest. But you argue against yourself. The check was the threat of stripping rights. Right? Wouldn't that bring a union to the bargaining table to know that they could lose their rights?

There you go again, calling on your wingman Mr. Straw.

And history shows that sometimes nothing will bring unions to the bargaining table. Eastern Airlines employees went on strike even as the company was hurtling unchecked towards bankruptcy and insolvency. The UAW at GM didn't agree to concessions until their bailout (which was conditioned on it) and even those apply only to new hires. There's another thing with unions, they know that newer employees willl get fired before those employed longer will. So it's not uncommon for those union members with seniority to throw those with less seniority under the bus and out of their jobs rather than concede any of their pay or benefits to keep everyone employed.

And didn't I mention earlier that the Chicago Teachers Union (whose members starting pay is $50K) is demanding a 25% pay raise next year and a 5% raise the year after that despite the schools facing a deficit of over $700 million? Does that sound like they are being reasonable to you?

In the public sector when unions become too powerful you get Illinois. You keep ignoring the problem of public employee unions getting so powerful they control the people with whom they negotiate contracts.

Walker didn't break up the public employee unions, he just made them less powerful.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Does that degree of gap concern you?

Only if the standard of living for the lower classes is falling.

Quote:

Does that sound like they are being reasonable to you?

Given that they were willing to give him the concessions, that was reasonable.

Quote:

The UAW at GM didn't agree to concessions until their bailout (which was conditioned on it) and even those apply only to new hires.

GM is private sector. I thought we were talking about public sector? I thought private sector had a check? I'm not an absolutist. I don't claim unions cannot result in failed business. But then neither can business. Workers are having to live on less and less. One way to reverse that trend is collective bargaining. It's not perfect but it is effective.

Quote:

And history shows that sometimes nothing will bring unions to the bargaining table.

Walker's actions brought the unions to the bargaining table but he didn't want to bargain. He just wanted to unilaterally strip them of bargaining rights. Sorry you don't like the results of this discussion but your claim that there is no checks is demonstrably false. At the end of the day you can't have it both ways.