What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I can take a pretty good guess.

First, because Trump lost the popular vote in those states by about 5 to 5.5 million votes, my guess is the petition would be summarily approved.

However, I bet he'd take a look at another petition at the same time.
The nukes are in the Midwest anyway, no need for a Death Star.

There is however, a rather large difference between the South wanting to secede because a black guy is President and the West Coast wanting to secede because Republicans want to install a Christian Sharia Empire.
 
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

The nukes are in the Midwest anyway, no need for a Death Star.

There is however, a rather large difference between the South wanting to secede because a black guy is President and the West Coast wanting to secede because Republicans want to install a Christian Sharia Empire.

NY (transport, finance) and CA (everything) may be the only positive cash flow states left in the US. If the two of them got together they could probably blackmail the rest of the US into anything.
 
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

No. A consumption tax unfairly targets the poor. It's just a clever way of rebranding a regressive tax.

Perhaps a wealth tax is the word you were looking for
 
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Isn't there an Amendment that prevents that sort of thing?

I don't see why. As far as everyone knows those assets don't even exist. You can't steal what doesn't exist.
 
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

And the other shoe dropped; Iowa decides to go full Wisconsin as the Stache's parting shot before going to China. He finally gets to settle his twenty year grudge with AFSCME.

Any public employee who voted GOP just screwed themselves and their co-workers. Great job, *******s.
 
And the other shoe dropped; Iowa decides to go full Wisconsin as the Stache's parting shot before going to China. He finally gets to settle his twenty year grudge with AFSCME.

Any public employee who voted GOP just screwed themselves and their co-workers. Great job, *******s.

They. Don't . Care.
 
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

And the other shoe dropped; Iowa decides to go full Wisconsin as the Stache's parting shot before going to China. He finally gets to settle his twenty year grudge with AFSCME.

Any public employee who voted GOP just screwed themselves and their co-workers. Great job, *******s.

Here's an article: http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/collective-bargaining-battle-is-joined-in-iowa-20170207

It's a pretty through arse-raping. Unless you're a cop or firefighter, of course; then you get fellated.
 
Any public employee who voted GOP just screwed themselves and their co-workers. Great job, *******s.

But Trump will singlehandedly save them! He's going to bring back jobs! The little guy will win!


Wait, no? That's now how any of this works? ;)
 
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

Here's an article: http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/collective-bargaining-battle-is-joined-in-iowa-20170207

It's a pretty through arse-raping. Unless you're a cop or firefighter, of course; then you get fellated.
B.S. The proposal is to make union negotiations for public employee unions operate under the same rules as private sector unions. And there is a good reason for excluding police and firefighters.

The general principle behind collective bargaining is that while one employee may have virtually no bargaining power against the employer, even if he threatens to withhold his labor, collectively all of the employees negotiating together do have some bargaining power. Each side presents their offers/demands. If an agreement can't be reached, the employees have the option of withholding their labor (going out on strike). I wholeheartedly agree with and support this system.

But what has happened in some states, like Iowa, is that public employee unions have successfully included into their law something called "interest arbitration." Interest arbitration works this way. Each side enters negotiations. An agreement can't be reached. One side, usually the employees, demand interest arbitration and an arbitrator is selected. The arbitrator then considers the last position of each party and decides which one shall be included into the contract. This puts public agencies into a very difficult position. They try to make good faith offers, usually a raise in wages of some %. But the employees are then "freerolling." Say they are offered a 3% raise. They can hold to a final position of say 6%. Worst case scenario is they get the 3%.

This doesn't exist in the private sector, at least as far as I know, although I think unions have tried to get it through Congress.

All Iowa is trying to do is to say to its employees, if you don't like our offer, you are free to go out on strike, just like any other union. And like any other employer, Iowa public agencies will have to weigh the harm of its employees striking for any length of time.

The reason police and firefighter are typically precluded from striking, and thus afforded the right to interest arbitration, is that as a matter of public policy we need our firefighters and police on the job.
 
B.S. The proposal is to make union negotiations for public employee unions operate under the same rules as private sector unions. And there is a good reason for excluding police and firefighters.

The general principle behind collective bargaining is that while one employee may have virtually no bargaining power against the employer, even if he threatens to withhold his labor, collectively all of the employees negotiating together do have some bargaining power. Each side presents their offers/demands. If an agreement can't be reached, the employees have the option of withholding their labor (going out on strike). I wholeheartedly agree with and support this system.

But what has happened in some states, like Iowa, is that public employee unions have successfully included into their law something called "interest arbitration." Interest arbitration works this way. Each side enters negotiations. An agreement can't be reached. One side, usually the employees, demand interest arbitration and an arbitrator is selected. The arbitrator then considers the last position of each party and decides which one shall be included into the contract. This puts public agencies into a very difficult position. They try to make good faith offers, usually a raise in wages of some %. But the employees are then "freerolling." Say they are offered a 3% raise. They can hold to a final position of say 6%. Worst case scenario is they get the 3%.

This doesn't exist in the private sector, at least as far as I know, although I think unions have tried to get it through Congress.

All Iowa is trying to do is to say to its employees, if you don't like our offer, you are free to go out on strike, just like any other union. And like any other employer, Iowa public agencies will have to weigh the harm of its employees striking for any length of time.

The reason police and firefighter are typically precluded from striking, and thus afforded the right to interest arbitration, is that as a matter of public policy we need our firefighters and police on the job.

Oh horse hockey, you bloviating worshipper of the Koch.

They are making wholesale changes, including removal of the merit protection system, removal of the ability to bargain for anything other than wages, and requiring majority vote certification of the union biannually. They're not just changing the arbitration rule.

All because Branstad has been trying to gut public unions for 20 years, and he finally has a friendly legislature to do it. It's a personal grudge for him, because they beat him in court after he signed a contract with them then tried to reneg on it. It's no surprise that they announced it one day after his paperwork got done to become ambassador to China, either.
 
Last edited:
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy

One of the kings of the gerrymander, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, has found religion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ed3e22-e962-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

Of course this 180 has NOTHING to do with a popular GOP governor who might win reelection and put a kibosh to any attempt by the real boss in MD (Mike Miller, Senate boss) to further the gerrymander.

Maryland is an unfortunate case. It gives multitudes of conservative states what little moral reservations they had to charge into full scale gerrymander mode themselves.

I think I can take a pretty good guess.

First, because Trump lost the popular vote in those states by about 5 to 5.5 million votes, my guess is the petition would be summarily approved.

However, I bet he'd take a look at another petition at the same time.

I still don't think so. I'm guessing conservatives and Trump would say 'no you don't', 'we will happily use muscle to ensure you don't', and 'we knew all along that all liberals were traitors'. The approach keeps the goods while accomplishing their main goals of discrediting their #1 global enemy, liberals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top