|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 2, 2012 8:25:37 GMT -5
A statement from scott walker "We’re going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is we’re going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions. Because you just divide and conquer." Destroy public unions now and they can finish the rest later. Great, let them split and defeat us. It's in this video at about 26 minutes; the first 35 minutes of the video are informative of what is influencing legislation. Anyone who cares about who is influencing our politicians behind closed doors will be interested in this. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 2, 2012 10:22:24 GMT -5
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501(c)(3) American organization composed of conservative legislators, businesses and foundations which produces model legislation for state legislatures and promotes free-market and conservative ideas. According to the organization's website, members share a common belief that "government closest to the people" is "fundamentally more effective, more just, and a better guarantor of freedom than the distant, bloated federal government in Washington, D.C." The organization has been described as a "collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators."
ALEC provides a forum for corporations, foundations and legislators to collaborate on "model bills"—draft legislation which provide examples of language that can be adopted in actual bills. The model bills are then used as resources for ALEC's legislative members, and are used in an estimated 200 laws passed per year. ALEC has produced model legislation on issues such as reducing corporate regulation and taxation, tightening voter identification rules, streamlining or minimizing environmental protections (depending on how one looks at it), and promoting gun rights. ALEC also serves as a networking tool among state legislators, allowing them to research the handling and "best practices" of policy in other states.
BusinessWeek wrote that "part of ALEC's mission is to present industry-backed legislation as grass-roots work."ALEC's role in drafting and distributing model legislation through its lawmaker members became public knowledge as the result of a Freedom of Information Act filing. "Liberal advocacy groups such as Common Cause questioned(..and PBS/Bill Moyers) ALEC's non-profit status, alleging that the Council engaged in lobbying. ALEC responded by denying that it engaged in lobbying, and arguing that liberal groups were attacking ALEC because "they don't have a comparable group that is as effective as ALEC in enacting policies into law."
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 2, 2012 12:47:33 GMT -5
Walker actually supported the locked out NFL reps / union.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 2, 2012 15:37:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 2, 2012 16:18:08 GMT -5
Denial....not just a river in Egypt.
If someone personally dislikes Walker that's their option but his success or failure in office should be judged on its merits if he actually made improvement or did more damage to the states economy.
Its funny Walker won by a much larger margin ( %) in the recall over the main election.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 2, 2012 17:59:24 GMT -5
Again, you dodge reality. During the time period that walker was pushing to end collective bargaining you stated this was just an attack on public, not private, unions. Either you were duped, or you think you are contributing to the cause by misleading people. At best you showed you will take up the conservative/libertarian argument regardless of reality at the cost of your own credibility.
Since you brought up Alec, let's look at that. Your copy/paste:
" a "collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators."
I know you are for corporate rule but handing legislation over to organizations that are sometimes run by a nation (think china) is insane. Your argument for this is absurd yet you will take up the torch of conservatism no matter what. A few are working to monopolize our nation, maybe you should try considering something a little bigger than yourself like your nation as a whole.
Your copy/paste:
"they don't have a comparable group that is as effective as ALEC in enacting policies into law."
This statement is dead accurate. We do not have millions to influence politics. If we are going to allow money to determine our nation's future we could just go ahead and end the farce of a democracy for an oligarchy or dictatorship. Money should not be allowed to influence politics. Period.
I will let go of what little democracy we have left for the average person right after Marcus gives up his guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 2, 2012 19:01:40 GMT -5
I will let go of what little democracy we have left for the average person right after Marcus gives up his guns. The election and recall was democracy in action and it worked. You just do not like the results. Need a little cheese to go with the wine..... |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 2, 2012 19:48:35 GMT -5
Still avoiding the issue brought up and trying to end the conversation by pissing the other person off. That's about as pathetic as creating multiple accounts and having a conversation with yourself.
A person that talks to themself is considered crazy... is it the same if they do it online?
If you want to continue the original conversation let us know where you stand on the conservative attack on public AND private unions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 2, 2012 20:03:52 GMT -5
I will let go of what little democracy we have left for the average person right after Marcus gives up his guns. The election and recall was democracy in action and it worked. You just do not like the results. Need a little cheese to go with the wine..... And allowing the rich to manipulate our government is not democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 2, 2012 20:05:21 GMT -5
Still avoiding the issue brought up and trying to end the conversation by pissing the other person off. That's about as pathetic as creating multiple accounts and having a conversation with yourself. A person that talks to themself is considered crazy... is it the same if they do it online? If you want to continue the original conversation let us know where you stand on the conservative attack on public AND private unions. Since its not my post I assumed you were referring to the person that posted it but I do think your comment is a bunch of BS. Walker (if that's the topic) was elected by the people of Wisconsin to address the states budget shortfall. A bunch of people did not like his approach and attempted to make it a "war on labor" and unions. The voters did not buy that BS either and let him finish his term and hopefully will judge him then. There is a HUGE difference in public funded unions and self or private funded. The public on the taxpayers dime and the UAW on retail sales of consumer goods. Auto workers gave up a LOT under the watchful eye of our union and no one took to the streets. The Wisconsin state workers took to the streets and lost. The only threat to UAW membership is the members itself and the endless line of people that will line up outside the plant to work your job for less and not any union can protect against those two things. You do not understand that concept so keep beating the drums against an imaginary enemy. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 2, 2012 20:56:24 GMT -5
"attempted to make it a "war on labor" and unions. The voters did not buy that BS"
In his own words his intent was to "divide and conquer" then you try to claim someone else "attempted to make it a war" is denial. Call it a war or an attack bottom line he wants to end collective bargaining all together. The voters did not see the war because they had the wool pulled over their eyes.
"The only threat to UAW membership is the members itself"
The biggest threat to union membership has been the constant attack since taft-hartley to degrade unions ability to negotiate on behalf of labor. Then anti-labor points out "oh look the union isn't dong anything for you, maybe you should stop paying dues and save a few bucks" which weakens unions even further. If we want to see unions useful again we need to remove legislation that has unions locked down - not defund them.
Maybe it's time we created our own c3 tax exempt non-lobbying group to write legislation for us. Oh wait, that's right were not rich enough to wine and dine legislators.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 2, 2012 21:40:12 GMT -5
Let me clarify my last statement. You are correct that members are a threat to their own union when they accept conservative propaganda on unions/labor/collective bargaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 2, 2012 22:20:20 GMT -5
As I have said before and i will say it again, forced membership in any organization does not say much for recruiting new members or how those members will react when given a CHOICE to remain a member or opt out. Many of those teachers voted with their feet and walked away. Good luck trying to shift that blame to someone or something else. Quote- While public sector unions are commonplace today, liberal heroes like Franklin Delano Roosevelt once considered the idea of government unions “unthinkable and intolerable” because “it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” capoliticalnews.com/2012/05/31/when-given-a-choice-54-leave-wisconsin-unions/ |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 3, 2012 2:11:55 GMT -5
Roosevelt - despite your belief that he walked on water, he was only human and this comment shows it. Not only was this possible, but it happened during a time that America became the most powerful nation on the planet all the while allowing public employees to share in the prosperity from their blood, sweat, and tears (like it or not, leading the way for the rest of the workforce).
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 3, 2012 3:42:07 GMT -5
As for "walkers welfare queens" (that is appropriate conservative lingo for people who bilk off the system right?), how many of those would tear the door down to pay duess if they knew they would no longer receive those services for free?
Stop and think about it. A group of people pass a piece of legislation requiring an organization that was intended to protect the quality of life for workers to provide their services for free. What does that tell you about their views and goals for our quality of life? How much propaganda have they been exposed to in order to accept the conservative view that their standard of living is too high?
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 3, 2012 19:44:01 GMT -5
A group of people pass a piece of legislation requiring an organization that was intended to protect the quality of life for workers to provide their services for free. What does that tell you about their views and goals for our quality of life? How much propaganda have they been exposed to in order to accept the conservative view that their standard of living is too high? Well captain obvious you are missing the obvious. Since I am assuming you are speaking directly about right to work laws, that simply gives the employee the CHOICE to belong to a union or not. Choice, what a concept. Private sector union have only themselves and its members to worry about. If its members are pleased with the service they receive then they both will have a cozy relationship. If those same members feel short changed or not served well for the dues spent I would see them opting out. Trying to shift that decision or blame to a group or someone else that is in no way responsible is laughable. If what you originally suggest is true then explain why the right to work states have better jobs and economies? www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-claim-that-right-to-work-states-get-more-good-jobs/2011/09/29/gIQAGsP17K_blog.htmlI do not wish the UAW to disappear but IMHO they have become more self serving then serving the individual members. Trying to guarantee your existence by simply electing politicians that attempt to pass laws limiting choice is the wrong way to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 9, 2012 13:37:09 GMT -5
During the attack on wisconsin public unions the argument was "they were public unions," therefore it was ok to take away their right to negotiate for anything meaningful. Now, you're pretending that you and your republican leaders actually care about the average person, and their freedom to choose what is best for themselves.
That contradicts your belief, and the republicans, that people are too stupid to make their own decisions, like voting. Your beliefs are contradictory. Bottom line this agenda has other purposes which would appear to be for the purpose of de-funding workers unions by "dividing and conquer" tactics.
Right to work states do NOT have better jobs or economies. A quick google and a headline with your search results is not always accurate. Your link states the exact opposite of what the title says. Your boy, you know the one with a "sterling" record, was given two pinochios for that statement.
Tip - read the articles before you link and prove yourself wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 10, 2012 13:13:55 GMT -5
During the attack on wisconsin public unions the argument was "they were public unions," therefore it was ok to take away their right to negotiate for anything meaningful. Now, you're pretending that you and your republican leaders actually care about the average person, and their freedom to choose what is best for themselves. That contradicts your belief, and the republicans, that people are too stupid to make their own decisions, like voting. Your beliefs are contradictory. Bottom line this agenda has other purposes which would appear to be for the purpose of de-funding workers unions by "dividing and conquer" tactics. Right to work states do NOT have better jobs or economies. A quick google and a headline with your search results is not always accurate. Your link states the exact opposite of what the title says. Your boy, you know the one with a "sterling" record, was given two pinochios for that statement. Tip - read the articles before you link and prove yourself wrong. The Wisconsin state employees union was made the same essentially as the federal employees union in a sense that they would have similar bargaining rights. This was largely a response to balance the states failing to sustain the benefits paid out. Question for you master brain- Since the Wisconsin state workers threw a fit and lost why is it no federal employees are having similar fits ? Wisconsin's proposal was more generous than the federal workers. tinyurl.com/6zgkdbxPaste~ "Well, our proposal is less restrictive than the federal government is today," Walker said. "Under Barack Obama, he presides over a federal government where most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for benefits, nor for pay. So what we're asking for is something less restrictive than what the federal government has." |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 11, 2012 3:32:51 GMT -5
If a member wants out of paying union dues them they should not get union Benifits.For so called right to work to be fair and honest this has to happen.To say you can opt out of union and still get all the Benifits its 100 percent union busting.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 11, 2012 3:35:40 GMT -5
Im pro union but I can't be a one issue voter.I don't agree with democrats on 95 percent of everything else they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 14, 2012 3:24:14 GMT -5
During the attack on Wisconsin public unions the argument was "they were public unions," therefore it was ok to take away their right to negotiate for anything meaningful. Now, you're pretending that you and your republican leaders actually care about the average person, and their freedom to choose what is best for themselves. That contradicts your belief, and the republicans, that people are too stupid to make their own decisions, like voting. Your beliefs are contradictory. Bottom line this agenda has other purposes which would appear to be for the purpose of de-funding workers unions by "dividing and conquer" tactics. Right to work states do NOT have better jobs or economies. A quick google and a headline with your search results is not always accurate. Your link states the exact opposite of what the title says. Your boy, you know the one with a "sterling" record, was given two pinochios for that statement. Tip - read the articles before you link and prove yourself wrong. The Wisconsin state employees union was made the same essentially as the federal employees union in a sense that they would have similar bargaining rights. This was largely a response to balance the states failing to sustain the benefits paid out. Question for you master brain- Since the Wisconsin state workers threw a fit and lost why is it no federal employees are having similar fits ? Wisconsin's proposal was more generous than the federal workers. tinyurl.com/6zgkdbxPaste~ "Well, our proposal is less restrictive than the federal government is today," Walker said. "Under Barack Obama, he presides over a federal government where most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for benefits, nor for pay. So what we're asking for is something less restrictive than what the federal government has." Federal employees typically have better pay and benefits than the equivalent private sector and state jobs. Why would federal employees have a fit? The claim that "Wisconsin's proposal was more generous " is misleading by making it sound as if they have better pay and benefits. Besides if this was done to "balance the states failing to sustain the benefits paid out," why would they end bargaining just to be more "generous?" Again, you contradict yourself by pretending that reducing what unions can bargain for is being generous. The phrase walker used was "less restrictive." There is a big difference between "less restrictive" and "generous." The claim that feds should be "having similar fits" and that Wisconsin is more "generous" are not supported by reality, or the article that was linked. |
|
