Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

[pirate]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Liberal profs is hardly a new idea. That wasn't your experience in school?. Heck, I'd venture a guess that a majority of public high school teachers are liberal also

The faculty hockey team always skates a man down cause they can't find anyone to play right wing.


I agree with you, next to no santa, the world being round, death and taxes comes college professors being decidedly liberal...maybe I had a few less liberal profs in finance since we had to talk about actually making money (there I said it....let Elizabeth Warren and the Profit Haters try to stop me!!).

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

That's a good point. What about those 37 profs that voted against unionizing. Maybe they needed to run and hide in another state to be heard and have their rights upheld.

Their money will be taken from them to subsidize liberal political campaigns via the union, but Scooby likes to see that kind of thing apparently. I've never understood the opposition to allowing each person to choose whether to join or not, other than that unions wouldn't be quite as powerful if they couldn't claim to have all of a given group as members and be able to take money from all those people for their political purposes. But, really, that's no excuse for what is really little more than legalized theft.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Their money will be taken from them to subsidize liberal political campaigns via the union, but Scooby likes to see that kind of thing apparently. I've never understood the opposition to allowing each person to choose whether to join or not, other than that unions wouldn't be quite as powerful if they couldn't claim to have all of a given group as members and be able to take money from all those people for their political purposes. But, really, that's no excuse for what is really little more than legalized theft.

1. Because if you work for a union shop you get the benefits that the union provides no matter what. That's why you join no matter what.
2. You do have a choice. DON'T WORK FOR A UNION SHOP. It's really that simple.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Isn't Wisconsin required to have a balanced budget, like all states other than Vermont? If so, what's all this talk about Wisconsin being in the red for many years and them not balancing their budget? I understand there's accounting nuances and all, but big picture I assume they have to be roughly in balance each year like most states.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Isn't Wisconsin required to have a balanced budget, like all states other than Vermont? If so, what's all this talk about Wisconsin being in the red for many years and them not balancing their budget? I understand there's accounting nuances and all, but big picture I assume they have to be roughly in balance each year like most states.

Why? Minnesota was never balanced while Pawlenty was in office. He used every single account trick and gimmick he could come up with to avoid having to balance a budget. He literally took money from school districts by withholding payments to them, etc.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I'm glad you just equated a lobby with a "news organization." You made my point for me, thanks.

It's especially helpful in helping you avoid the 800 pound gorilla in the living room. You're welcome.

Help me out here, what is it liberals always say when socials complain about media content? Oh yes, "If you don't like it, change the channel." I'm not so sure it's accurate to suggest that Fox's activities are without precedent, given the Dan rather episode.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

1. Because if you work for a union shop you get the benefits that the union provides no matter what. That's why you join no matter what.
2. You do have a choice. DON'T WORK FOR A UNION SHOP. It's really that simple.

So, don't work in the trade you know. Yah, that's a simple one. Get a new career. Or move to a state that has right to work rules. No problem. Anybody can do that overnight and at no cost. I really can't grasp how you think sometimes.

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

1. Because if you work for a union shop you get the benefits that the union provides no matter what. That's why you join no matter what.
2. You do have a choice. DON'T WORK FOR A UNION SHOP. It's really that simple.

Using that same argument, why do you need collective bargaining? Let the employer set their own benefits, conditions, hours, etc just like every private industry in existance and if you don't like it, don't work there.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Their money will be taken from them to subsidize liberal political campaigns via the union, but Scooby likes to see that kind of thing apparently. I've never understood the opposition to allowing each person to choose whether to join or not, other than that unions wouldn't be quite as powerful if they couldn't claim to have all of a given group as members and be able to take money from all those people for their political purposes. But, really, that's no excuse for what is really little more than legalized theft.

Boy, I'm reluctant to wade into this mess and have been too busy to know as much detail as many on here but I will say that, despite the bizarre tactics all around, I don't disagree that state workers, union or not, shouldn't have benefits that are so dramatically different than what you'd see for their neighbors working in the private sector. I'll try to find the article from last weekend but when I read about the disparity in what is paid in and what is returned in benefits and pension between the WI union and the average WI resident I felt differently than I did when I started the article.

edit : earlier in the week I posted something about 30k state workers in WI, just read that it is 300k. A huge corporation like Citi or BAC doesn't have 300k people working for them and they are on multiple continents, with thousands of locations etc. How on earth could it take 300k people to run a state?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Why? Minnesota was never balanced while Pawlenty was in office. He used every single account trick and gimmick he could come up with to avoid having to balance a budget. He literally took money from school districts by withholding payments to them, etc.

You missed my reference to accounting nuances (which are sometimes big nuances). But, those only go so far, as many states are finding out after using them for a few years. But, big picture, states are required to balance their budgets. I mean, that's pretty common knowledge, if you take the time to google it for a minute or two.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Using that same argument, why do you need collective bargaining? Let the employer set their own benefits, conditions, hours, etc just like every private industry in existance and if you don't like it, don't work there.

Do you have any idea why unions were created in the first place?? Any?? Any at all????

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The great accomplishment of corporate officers is to use the corporate handouts for all businesses to elect Republican politicians, even though at least a few of the officers aren't Republicans. An even bigger accomplishment is to get all the taxpayers of a state (in this case, Wisonsin) to contribute to Republican candidates through corporate tax cuts and handouts, even though roughly half of hte population voted for someone else, so we instinctively know not everyone in Wisconsin votes Republican.

Clever but baloney. But then you knew that, didn't you? Just hankering for the New Deal, aren't we?

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Do you have any idea why unions were created in the first place?? Any?? Any at all????

Sure, but do they still serve that original purpose or is it even necessary? That is up for debate. I'm simply using the argument that you provided.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Boy, I'm reluctant to wade into this mess and have been too busy to know as much detail as many on here but I will say that, despite the bizarre tactics all around, I don't disagree that state workers, union or not, shouldn't have benefits that are so dramatically different than what you'd see for their neighbors working in the private sector. I'll try to find the article from last weekend but when I read about the disparity in what is paid in and what is returned in benefits and pension between the WI union and the average WI resident I felt differently than I did when I started the article.

I'm not familiar with Wisconsin wages and benefits, private sector vs. state workers. I'd guess it varies somewhat from sector to sector. But, if it's true that a lot of state workers are getting paid more than a similar worker in the private sector, I agree with you.

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I'm not familiar with Wisconsin wages and benefits, private sector vs. state workers. I'd guess it varies somewhat from sector to sector. But, if it's true that a lot of state workers are getting paid more than a similar worker in the private sector, I agree with you.

If I remember correctly, the actual wages isn't where the disparity comes in. You factor in all the benefits they get, and it isn't even close.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Do you have any idea why unions were created in the first place?? Any?? Any at all????

Some of us have moved ahead in time from 100 years ago or so. But apparently not all of us.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

If I remember correctly, the actual wages isn't where the disparity comes in. You factor in all the benefits they get, and it isn't even close.

That sounds likely.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Except in right to work states. And except for the fact they get to vote for their union leaders and otherwise get to give input into what their union leaders should be doing at the local union meetings.

But this is exactly why I hate the GOP right now. I am not a union man, and yet the absolute hardline, no holds barred stance taken by the tea party idiots and their ilk has got me siding with the unions on this. For the love of god, stop the derp.

". . .they get to vote for their union leaders?" Tell that to Jock Yablonski.

And the number one legislative priority for unions is so-called "card check," which would eliminate the secret ballot for potential union drones. Sounds pretty democratic to me.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/us/26salaries.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

The Times’s analysis found that, overall, median wages for state workers exceeded that of private-sector workers in all but three states — Indiana, Missouri and New Hampshire. Those overall numbers, however, can be deceptive. State workers tend to be more highly educated than those in the private sector: more than half of state workers possess college degrees, compared with just over one-quarter of those in the private sector. Researchers have also said that states tend to employ few high school dropouts.

“Because the public sector is much more likely to be highly educated, we would fully expect them to earn more on average because of that, just like we would expect somebody with a master’s degree to earn more than somebody with a high school education,” said Keith A. Bender, an economics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who has studied public- and private-sector compensation.

When workers are divided into two groups — those with bachelor’s degrees and higher and those without — a very different pattern emerges. State workers with college degrees earn less, often substantially less, than private-sector workers with the same education in all but three states — Montana, Nevada and Wyoming.

Appears to me it's a mixed bag and people are being lied to.

I also liked this part.

The education split complicates choices for policy makers. An across-the-board pay cut for state workers in a place like California, which is confronting a $26.6 billion budget hole, for example, would help bring workers without college degrees, whose median wages exceed the private sector’s by 35 percent, more in line with the private sector. It would impose, however, a steeper wage penalty on state workers with college degrees, whose median wage is 12 percent below the private sector’s.

Sounds to me like we're attacking the wrong problem again. But hey, screw it, screw the middle class they deserve it.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/us/26salaries.html?partner=rss&emc=rss




Appears to me it's a mixed bag and people are being lied to.

I also liked this part.



Sounds to me like we're attacking the wrong problem again. But hey, screw it, screw the middle class they deserve it.

It's a mixed bag only if you look at wages. It's pensions and medical benefits, future unfunded mandates, that tip the balance generally in favor of public sector unions and enable the union goons and their compliant political hacks to kick this can down the road.