Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers (1 Viewer)

[Mario Kart]

As of right now AP has Kloppenburg up by 235 votes with just Lake Mills left to count, but there should be a recount(it isn't automatic). It needs to be requested within 3 days.

According to other reports... an automatic recount will occur if the "official" count is less than a 7,000 vote margin. Therefore, it looks as if there will be a recount without either candidate asking for one.Geez.

 

[Schlzm]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

That is how they are supposed to work, though there is plenty of evidence, especially in public sector unions, that this isn't always the case since the union heads never seem to feel the pain of those they claim to support. Also framing all union members as middle class or all middle class as union members is dishonest and doesn't hold up in the debate all that much. Schlzm

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

That is how they are supposed to work, though there is plenty of evidence, especially in public sector unions, that this isn't always the case since the union heads never seem to feel the pain of those they claim to support. Also framing all union members as middle class or all middle class as union members is dishonest and doesn't hold up in the debate all that much. Schlzm

Exactly right. And when teacher's unions do things like sue school districts, it becomes very clear that they're only interested in one thing. Because a law suit does nothing to protect this middle class tax payer. In fact, I get doubly hosed, since my tax dollars go to cover both the school district's costs, and the union's costs.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

That is how they are supposed to work, though there is plenty of evidence, especially in public sector unions, that this isn't always the case since the union heads never seem to feel the pain of those they claim to support. Also framing all union members as middle class or all middle class as union members is dishonest and doesn't hold up in the debate all that much. Schlzm

Of course it isn't "always" the case. There are dishonest, corrupt people in every sector and in every walk of life. But overall, how can we argue that evil "union bosses" aren't working effectively on behalf of the union workers they represent, while at the same time arguing that these same evil "union bosses" have been SO EFFECTIVE in negotiating benefits and pay for union workers that those benes and salaries need to be scaled back to get in line with private workers?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

That is how they are supposed to work, though there is plenty of evidence, especially in public sector unions, that this isn't always the case since the union heads never seem to feel the pain of those they claim to support. Also framing all union members as middle class or all middle class as union members is dishonest and doesn't hold up in the debate all that much. Schlzm

Exactly right. And when teacher's unions do things like sue school districts, it becomes very clear that they're only interested in one thing. Because a law suit does nothing to protect this middle class tax payer. In fact, I get doubly hosed, since my tax dollars go to cover both the school district's costs, and the union's costs.

Who are the teacher's unions suing school districts on behalf of?

 

[Schlzm]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

That is how they are supposed to work, though there is plenty of evidence, especially in public sector unions, that this isn't always the case since the union heads never seem to feel the pain of those they claim to support. Also framing all union members as middle class or all middle class as union members is dishonest and doesn't hold up in the debate all that much. Schlzm

Of course it isn't "always" the case. There are dishonest, corrupt people in every sector and in every walk of life. But overall, how can we argue that evil "union bosses" aren't working effectively on behalf of the union workers they represent, while at the same time arguing that these same evil "union bosses" have been SO EFFECTIVE in negotiating benefits and pay for union workers that those benes and salaries need to be scaled back to get in line with private workers?

They have been very effective, too effective in fact, in their ability to grasp and retain some of the best for themselves and those under them to the tune of bankrupting counties and cities. However the second there is the need for any cut to keep the entire system up and functioning the heads sacrifice the body and it seems in the overwhelming majority of cases would rather let the entire system collapse before conceding any of their slice of pie.Schlzm

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

That is how they are supposed to work, though there is plenty of evidence, especially in public sector unions, that this isn't always the case since the union heads never seem to feel the pain of those they claim to support. Also framing all union members as middle class or all middle class as union members is dishonest and doesn't hold up in the debate all that much. Schlzm

Of course it isn't "always" the case. There are dishonest, corrupt people in every sector and in every walk of life. But overall, how can we argue that evil "union bosses" aren't working effectively on behalf of the union workers they represent, while at the same time arguing that these same evil "union bosses" have been SO EFFECTIVE in negotiating benefits and pay for union workers that those benes and salaries need to be scaled back to get in line with private workers?

They have been very effective, too effective in fact, in their ability to grasp and retain some of the best for themselves and those under them to the tune of bankrupting counties and cities. Schlzm

Oh BS, with regard to the bold.

However the second there is the need for any cut to keep the entire system up and functioning the heads sacrifice the body and it seems in the overwhelming majority of cases would rather let the entire system collapse before conceding any of their slice of pie.

Again, more conservative BS. The unions did in fact make many concessions. You're just spewing basic republican talking points that are factually incorrect.

 

[Schlzm]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

That is how they are supposed to work, though there is plenty of evidence, especially in public sector unions, that this isn't always the case since the union heads never seem to feel the pain of those they claim to support. Also framing all union members as middle class or all middle class as union members is dishonest and doesn't hold up in the debate all that much. Schlzm

Of course it isn't "always" the case. There are dishonest, corrupt people in every sector and in every walk of life. But overall, how can we argue that evil "union bosses" aren't working effectively on behalf of the union workers they represent, while at the same time arguing that these same evil "union bosses" have been SO EFFECTIVE in negotiating benefits and pay for union workers that those benes and salaries need to be scaled back to get in line with private workers?

They have been very effective, too effective in fact, in their ability to grasp and retain some of the best for themselves and those under them to the tune of bankrupting counties and cities. Schlzm

Oh BS, with regard to the bold. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/23/us-economy-california-county-rescue-idUSTRE66M4AD20100723

However the second there is the need for any cut to keep the entire system up and functioning the heads sacrifice the body and it seems in the overwhelming majority of cases would rather let the entire system collapse before conceding any of their slice of pie.

Again, more conservative BS. The unions did in fact make many concessions. You're just spewing basic republican talking points that are factually incorrect.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/union-19k-teacher-layoffs_n_836309.html

 

[Statorama]

If the unions end up owning the Supreme Court, I don't know how this law gets passed.

 

[humpback]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

The bolded is where you're wrong- sure, most union members are also members of the middle class, but I'm pretty sure there are far more members of the middle class who are not members of a union. So yes, they've done a good job bargaining for their members, but that isn't necessarily good for the middle class as a whole.

 

[Schlzm]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

That is how they are supposed to work, though there is plenty of evidence, especially in public sector unions, that this isn't always the case since the union heads never seem to feel the pain of those they claim to support. Also framing all union members as middle class or all middle class as union members is dishonest and doesn't hold up in the debate all that much. Schlzm

Of course it isn't "always" the case. There are dishonest, corrupt people in every sector and in every walk of life. But overall, how can we argue that evil "union bosses" aren't working effectively on behalf of the union workers they represent, while at the same time arguing that these same evil "union bosses" have been SO EFFECTIVE in negotiating benefits and pay for union workers that those benes and salaries need to be scaled back to get in line with private workers?

They have been very effective, too effective in fact, in their ability to grasp and retain some of the best for themselves and those under them to the tune of bankrupting counties and cities. Schlzm

Oh BS, with regard to the bold. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/23/us-economy-california-county-rescue-idUSTRE66M4AD20100723

However the second there is the need for any cut to keep the entire system up and functioning the heads sacrifice the body and it seems in the overwhelming majority of cases would rather let the entire system collapse before conceding any of their slice of pie.

Again, more conservative BS. The unions did in fact make many concessions. You're just spewing basic republican talking points that are factually incorrect.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/union-19k-teacher-layoffs_n_836309.html

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.Schlzm

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

The bolded is where you're wrong- sure, most union members are also members of the middle class, but I'm pretty sure there are far more members of the middle class who are not members of a union. So yes, they've done a good job bargaining for their members, but that isn't necessarily good for the middle class as a whole.

My post was poorly worded - I obviously didn't mean to imply that every member of the middle class is a union member. My point was that most union members are middle class folks.

 

[tommyGunZ]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

 

[Schlzm]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayor’s finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

 

[tommyGunZ]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayor’s finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

1 article from 1991? Really? C'mon Schlzm, you're better than that.I want some evidence that systemically, on a broad level, "union bosses" are bankrupting state budgets, as was posited earlier in this thread.

 

[dfwboiler]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayor’s finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

This is true in union and non-union work forces though.. and is all too common.I remember taking a pay cut, and at the same time the CEO took a 20% paycut... off of his base salary. Nevermind the $30-40 million in bonuses he made. I think his paycut was like 300k for the year. I wonder how he made it through the year.

 

[Schlzm]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayor’s finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

This is true in union and non-union work forces though.. and is all too common.I remember taking a pay cut, and at the same time the CEO took a 20% paycut... off of his base salary. Nevermind the $30-40 million in bonuses he made. I think his paycut was like 300k for the year. I wonder how he made it through the year.

Of course this happens, however aside form the current bailouts most private company heads don't receive their money through the tax system.Schlzm

 

[dfwboiler]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayor’s finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

This is true in union and non-union work forces though.. and is all too common.I remember taking a pay cut, and at the same time the CEO took a 20% paycut... off of his base salary. Nevermind the $30-40 million in bonuses he made. I think his paycut was like 300k for the year. I wonder how he made it through the year.

Of course this happens, however aside form the current bailouts most private company heads don't receive their money through the tax system.Schlzm

I'm still waiting for the Senators to vote themselves a pay decrease and to have them pay into their medical insurance.

 

[Schlzm]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayors finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

1 article from 1991? Really? C'mon Schlzm, you're better than that.I want some evidence that systemically, on a broad level, "union bosses" are bankrupting state budgets, as was posited earlier in this thread.

Specific to this thread

The executives who run Wisconsin’s public sector unions have responded to the passage of Governor Scott Walker’s anti-worker bill by rushing to put in place contracts that impose all of the bill’s demands for financial concessions on the state’s 375,000 teachers, nurses, city workers and other public employees.

The officials are doing so because contracts that begin before the law goes into effect are exempt from the requirement that public sector unions hold annual recertification elections and the elimination of automatic dues deduction from workers’ paychecks.

In other words, the union executives are moving swiftly to protect their own financial sustenance, while imposing draconian pay and benefit cuts inspired by the Walker bill. These include a sharp increase in worker contributions to insurance and retirement costs, which amounts to a $4,000 cut in annual take-home pay for the average public employee.

This reveals the fundamentally opposed interests of workers, on the one side, and the union apparatus and entire political establishment on the other.

A partial analysis of union financial filings with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor demonstrates the class chasm separating workers—who earn an average $51,000 a year—from the union officials who purport to represent them.

In reviewing the figures one should keep in mind that the listed salaries are augmented by thousands, if not tens of thousands, more in expense accounts, perks, salaries of spouses and other family members also on the union payroll and compensation from other positions on union, corporate or government bodies.

* Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin Public Employees Union (WPEU), took home nearly $162,000] in 2008, the last year for which documents are available. At least five other WPEU executives made upwards of $100,000.

* The state American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees management boasts 19 members who made more than $100,000] in 2009, including chief executive Rick Badger, who made $133,000.

* Gerald McEntee, the national president of AFSCME, pocketed almost $480,000 in 2009, according the Center for Public Integrity.

* Mary Bell’s Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) union distributed the most to its non-elected staff. Bell took home $173,466 in 2008, according to the WEAC’s IRS 990 form. She was second among union management. Executive Director Dan Burkhalter was paid $242,807. Four other executives were paid nearly $190,000, and another was given $165,112.

* WEAC’s parent organization, the National Education Association, has 31 headquarters officers and employees who earn more than $200,000 in pay and benefits. The president, Dennis Van Roekel, received $397,721 in salary and benefits.

* Rose Ann De Moro, the executive director of National Nurses United, who was brought to Wisconsin to promote “progressive” unionism—and who has been heavily promoted by the pseudo-left International Socialist Organization—makes $293,000 per year. Her family income totals $435,000 if you add the salary of her husband, Robert, a “researcher” for the same organization.

* AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka made at least $283,340 last year; American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten made $620,000 from two jobs in the same union. There are literally thousands of union officials who make over $100,000 per year, and, as of 2008, almost 100 who took home more than $400,000.

Many of those individuals are the first to run out in front of cameras and scream about the destruction of the middle class or class warfare or even institutionalized slavery. All the while they do everything in their power to avoid having to give up anything at all.Schlzm

ETA: Union costs per state

 

[dfwboiler]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayor’s finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

1 article from 1991? Really? C'mon Schlzm, you're better than that.I want some evidence that systemically, on a broad level, "union bosses" are bankrupting state budgets, as was posited earlier in this thread.

Specific to this thread

The executives who run Wisconsin’s public sector unions have responded to the passage of Governor Scott Walker’s anti-worker bill by rushing to put in place contracts that impose all of the bill’s demands for financial concessions on the state’s 375,000 teachers, nurses, city workers and other public employees.

The officials are doing so because contracts that begin before the law goes into effect are exempt from the requirement that public sector unions hold annual recertification elections and the elimination of automatic dues deduction from workers’ paychecks.

In other words, the union executives are moving swiftly to protect their own financial sustenance, while imposing draconian pay and benefit cuts inspired by the Walker bill. These include a sharp increase in worker contributions to insurance and retirement costs, which amounts to a $4,000 cut in annual take-home pay for the average public employee.

This reveals the fundamentally opposed interests of workers, on the one side, and the union apparatus and entire political establishment on the other.

A partial analysis of union financial filings with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor demonstrates the class chasm separating workers—who earn an average $51,000 a year—from the union officials who purport to represent them.

In reviewing the figures one should keep in mind that the listed salaries are augmented by thousands, if not tens of thousands, more in expense accounts, perks, salaries of spouses and other family members also on the union payroll and compensation from other positions on union, corporate or government bodies.

* Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin Public Employees Union (WPEU), took home nearly $162,000] in 2008, the last year for which documents are available. At least five other WPEU executives made upwards of $100,000.

* The state American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees management boasts 19 members who made more than $100,000] in 2009, including chief executive Rick Badger, who made $133,000.

* Gerald McEntee, the national president of AFSCME, pocketed almost $480,000 in 2009, according the Center for Public Integrity.

* Mary Bell’s Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) union distributed the most to its non-elected staff. Bell took home $173,466 in 2008, according to the WEAC’s IRS 990 form. She was second among union management. Executive Director Dan Burkhalter was paid $242,807. Four other executives were paid nearly $190,000, and another was given $165,112.

* WEAC’s parent organization, the National Education Association, has 31 headquarters officers and employees who earn more than $200,000 in pay and benefits. The president, Dennis Van Roekel, received $397,721 in salary and benefits.

* Rose Ann De Moro, the executive director of National Nurses United, who was brought to Wisconsin to promote “progressive” unionism—and who has been heavily promoted by the pseudo-left International Socialist Organization—makes $293,000 per year. Her family income totals $435,000 if you add the salary of her husband, Robert, a “researcher” for the same organization.

* AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka made at least $283,340 last year; American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten made $620,000 from two jobs in the same union. There are literally thousands of union officials who make over $100,000 per year, and, as of 2008, almost 100 who took home more than $400,000.

Many of those individuals are the first to run out in front of cameras and scream about the destruction of the middle class or class warfare or even institutionalized slavery. All the while they do everything in their power to avoid having to give up anything at all.Schlzm

ETA: Union costs per state

Chief Executives, Presidents, executives making 100k plus is a surprise?

 

[Schlzm]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayor’s finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

1 article from 1991? Really? C'mon Schlzm, you're better than that.I want some evidence that systemically, on a broad level, "union bosses" are bankrupting state budgets, as was posited earlier in this thread.

Specific to this thread

The executives who run Wisconsin’s public sector unions have responded to the passage of Governor Scott Walker’s anti-worker bill by rushing to put in place contracts that impose all of the bill’s demands for financial concessions on the state’s 375,000 teachers, nurses, city workers and other public employees.

The officials are doing so because contracts that begin before the law goes into effect are exempt from the requirement that public sector unions hold annual recertification elections and the elimination of automatic dues deduction from workers’ paychecks.

In other words, the union executives are moving swiftly to protect their own financial sustenance, while imposing draconian pay and benefit cuts inspired by the Walker bill. These include a sharp increase in worker contributions to insurance and retirement costs, which amounts to a $4,000 cut in annual take-home pay for the average public employee.

This reveals the fundamentally opposed interests of workers, on the one side, and the union apparatus and entire political establishment on the other.

A partial analysis of union financial filings with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor demonstrates the class chasm separating workers—who earn an average $51,000 a year—from the union officials who purport to represent them.

In reviewing the figures one should keep in mind that the listed salaries are augmented by thousands, if not tens of thousands, more in expense accounts, perks, salaries of spouses and other family members also on the union payroll and compensation from other positions on union, corporate or government bodies.

* Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin Public Employees Union (WPEU), took home nearly $162,000] in 2008, the last year for which documents are available. At least five other WPEU executives made upwards of $100,000.

* The state American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees management boasts 19 members who made more than $100,000] in 2009, including chief executive Rick Badger, who made $133,000.

* Gerald McEntee, the national president of AFSCME, pocketed almost $480,000 in 2009, according the Center for Public Integrity.

* Mary Bell’s Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) union distributed the most to its non-elected staff. Bell took home $173,466 in 2008, according to the WEAC’s IRS 990 form. She was second among union management. Executive Director Dan Burkhalter was paid $242,807. Four other executives were paid nearly $190,000, and another was given $165,112.

* WEAC’s parent organization, the National Education Association, has 31 headquarters officers and employees who earn more than $200,000 in pay and benefits. The president, Dennis Van Roekel, received $397,721 in salary and benefits.

* Rose Ann De Moro, the executive director of National Nurses United, who was brought to Wisconsin to promote “progressive” unionism—and who has been heavily promoted by the pseudo-left International Socialist Organization—makes $293,000 per year. Her family income totals $435,000 if you add the salary of her husband, Robert, a “researcher” for the same organization.

* AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka made at least $283,340 last year; American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten made $620,000 from two jobs in the same union. There are literally thousands of union officials who make over $100,000 per year, and, as of 2008, almost 100 who took home more than $400,000.

Many of those individuals are the first to run out in front of cameras and scream about the destruction of the middle class or class warfare or even institutionalized slavery. All the while they do everything in their power to avoid having to give up anything at all.Schlzm

ETA: Union costs per state

Chief Executives, Presidents, executives making 100k plus is a surprise?

Not at all if their districts are solvent and can afford those salaries. However these are not private sector jobs. In the majority of cases in states that are not right-to-work the individuals working in the fields those heads overlook are forced to pay part of their salary. Also when was the last time you saw a report that a private sector CEO was doing this; American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten made $620,000 from two jobs in the same union. I am sure he is more than willing to layoff some of the teacher sunder him before ever imagining possibly giving up one of his cushy positions. Schlzm

 

[tommyGunZ]

Chief Executives, Presidents, executives making 100k plus is a surprise?

Exactly. Most of these top salaries aren't even anywhere close to some of the bonuses of Wall Street Executives, yet I doubt we'll hear Schlzm complaining that the bonuses of Wall Street Executives are bankrupting America. We need pension reform in many/most states. Virtually everyone agrees with this. The problems start when fear mongering folks like Schlzm start shouting ridiculous claims of how "unions" are bankrupting states. It's pure nonsense.

 

[dfwboiler]

TGz, You aren't seeing that what I am talking about is the the union members get screwed while the heads remain unscathed, even with the very inconsequential consessions they offered in Wisconsin. They claim to be the high holy defenders of the middle class while they rush to layoffs and cuts of those exact middle class workers to ensure the heads are not the ones feeling the pinch. Many of these administrations are overly bloated with multitudes of unnecessary administrative overhead who never seem to be the targets of the drummed up outrage at tightening the belt when they should be.

Schlzm

I'm open to this idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? Simply pointing to educational layoffs isn't enough.

Here is one union rep that understands the problem.Admin cuts save money

Saying that everyone has to share the pain, Mayor Angel Taveras announced Thursday that he has cut five administrative jobs in the School Department, for a total savings of almost $500,000.

There was a ray of good news amid the bleakness: the school budget shortfall is now estimated at $28 million, not $40 million as estimated by the department last week. But the mayor’s finance review panel cautioned that the school numbers are based on a number of variables, including state and federal aid, state requirements for the basic education each district must provide and efforts to consolidate schools.

Old but indicative of the persisting mindset about education nationwide.

On hundreds of campuses across the Los Angeles Unified School District, it is hard to escape the reality that school budgets have been slashed to the bone.

Principals can no longer afford to hire enough substitute teachers, teachers run low on supplies, classrooms are filled to overflowing, and "extras" such as field trips have virtually disappeared.

Untouched were such luxury items as the chauffeur-driven cars available for school board members and the six-figure salaries for district administrators--expenditures that draw the ire of students and teachers wilting in classrooms without air-conditioning and of parents asked to ante up money to hire music teachers the district can't afford.

I am sure I could keep searching to bring out more evidence but the facts are always right out front during any debate of this type. The heads roll out the workforce in an attempt to gain sympathy for all those hard working individuals just trying to put food on the table while those same heads never see a reduction, freeze, furlough, or any other fallout.Schlzm

1 article from 1991? Really? C'mon Schlzm, you're better than that.I want some evidence that systemically, on a broad level, "union bosses" are bankrupting state budgets, as was posited earlier in this thread.

Specific to this thread

The executives who run Wisconsin’s public sector unions have responded to the passage of Governor Scott Walker’s anti-worker bill by rushing to put in place contracts that impose all of the bill’s demands for financial concessions on the state’s 375,000 teachers, nurses, city workers and other public employees.

The officials are doing so because contracts that begin before the law goes into effect are exempt from the requirement that public sector unions hold annual recertification elections and the elimination of automatic dues deduction from workers’ paychecks.

In other words, the union executives are moving swiftly to protect their own financial sustenance, while imposing draconian pay and benefit cuts inspired by the Walker bill. These include a sharp increase in worker contributions to insurance and retirement costs, which amounts to a $4,000 cut in annual take-home pay for the average public employee.

This reveals the fundamentally opposed interests of workers, on the one side, and the union apparatus and entire political establishment on the other.

A partial analysis of union financial filings with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor demonstrates the class chasm separating workers—who earn an average $51,000 a year—from the union officials who purport to represent them.

In reviewing the figures one should keep in mind that the listed salaries are augmented by thousands, if not tens of thousands, more in expense accounts, perks, salaries of spouses and other family members also on the union payroll and compensation from other positions on union, corporate or government bodies.

* Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin Public Employees Union (WPEU), took home nearly $162,000] in 2008, the last year for which documents are available. At least five other WPEU executives made upwards of $100,000.

* The state American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees management boasts 19 members who made more than $100,000] in 2009, including chief executive Rick Badger, who made $133,000.

* Gerald McEntee, the national president of AFSCME, pocketed almost $480,000 in 2009, according the Center for Public Integrity.

* Mary Bell’s Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) union distributed the most to its non-elected staff. Bell took home $173,466 in 2008, according to the WEAC’s IRS 990 form. She was second among union management. Executive Director Dan Burkhalter was paid $242,807. Four other executives were paid nearly $190,000, and another was given $165,112.

* WEAC’s parent organization, the National Education Association, has 31 headquarters officers and employees who earn more than $200,000 in pay and benefits. The president, Dennis Van Roekel, received $397,721 in salary and benefits.

* Rose Ann De Moro, the executive director of National Nurses United, who was brought to Wisconsin to promote “progressive” unionism—and who has been heavily promoted by the pseudo-left International Socialist Organization—makes $293,000 per year. Her family income totals $435,000 if you add the salary of her husband, Robert, a “researcher” for the same organization.

* AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka made at least $283,340 last year; American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten made $620,000 from two jobs in the same union. There are literally thousands of union officials who make over $100,000 per year, and, as of 2008, almost 100 who took home more than $400,000.

Many of those individuals are the first to run out in front of cameras and scream about the destruction of the middle class or class warfare or even institutionalized slavery. All the while they do everything in their power to avoid having to give up anything at all.Schlzm

ETA: Union costs per state

Chief Executives, Presidents, executives making 100k plus is a surprise?

Not at all if their districts are solvent and can afford those salaries. However these are not private sector jobs. In the majority of cases in states that are not right-to-work the individuals working in the fields those heads overlook are forced to pay part of their salary. Also when was the last time you saw a report that a private sector CEO was doing this; American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten made $620,000 from two jobs in the same union. I am sure he is more than willing to layoff some of the teacher sunder him before ever imagining possibly giving up one of his cushy positions. Schlzm

Private sector just has CEOs sit on each others Board of Directors to OK pay raises, etc. for them.Not saying what Weingarten is doing is right, but I don't know what the two jobs are, and how much each one pays.

 

[Schlzm]

Chief Executives, Presidents, executives making 100k plus is a surprise?

Exactly. Most of these top salaries aren't even anywhere close to some of the bonuses of Wall Street Executives, yet I doubt we'll hear Schlzm complaining that the bonuses of Wall Street Executives are bankrupting America. We need pension reform in many/most states. Virtually everyone agrees with this. The problems start when fear mongering folks like Schlzm start shouting ridiculous claims of how "unions" are bankrupting states. It's pure nonsense.

Call it whatever you want tommy, but I have only presented facts and backed them up throughout this debate while yourself and many of your compatriots repeatedly fail to do so while more than eagerly engaging in your very own fear mongering and misrepresentation. Schlzm

 

[humpback]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

The bolded is where you're wrong- sure, most union members are also members of the middle class, but I'm pretty sure there are far more members of the middle class who are not members of a union. So yes, they've done a good job bargaining for their members, but that isn't necessarily good for the middle class as a whole.

My post was poorly worded - I obviously didn't mean to imply that every member of the middle class is a union member. My point was that most union members are middle class folks.

Agreed that most union members are probably middle class, but do you mean to imply that what's good for union members is good for the middle class as a whole? I'm not sure that's the case at all.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Private sector just has CEOs sit on each others Board of Directors to OK pay raises, etc. for them.Not saying what Weingarten is doing is right, but I don't know what the two jobs are, and how much each one pays.

I guarantee Schlzm has no idea what Weingarten does either - he's just taking pot shots.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Chief Executives, Presidents, executives making 100k plus is a surprise?

Exactly. Most of these top salaries aren't even anywhere close to some of the bonuses of Wall Street Executives, yet I doubt we'll hear Schlzm complaining that the bonuses of Wall Street Executives are bankrupting America. We need pension reform in many/most states. Virtually everyone agrees with this. The problems start when fear mongering folks like Schlzm start shouting ridiculous claims of how "unions" are bankrupting states. It's pure nonsense.

Call it whatever you want tommy, but I have only presented facts and backed them up throughout this debate while yourself and many of your compatriots repeatedly fail to do so while more than eagerly engaging in your very own fear mongering and misrepresentation. Schlzm

Your "facts" don't support your arguments. And I haven't misrepresented anything.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think it's now pretty clear that the Senators here are no different. They are beholden to their union bosses, and are only interseted in perserving union power.

My only wish is that the middle class, the folks that are going to pay for this crap either way, would wise up to this. Neither side has our best interests in mind, despite the rhetoric.

Don't union bosses work on behalf of union workers (i.e. middle class folks) to advance the interests of union workers?Isn't the argument that unions have benefits and pay exceeding that of the average private worker? Wouldn't that mean that "union bosses" have in fact been extremely effective negotiators and have done an outstanding job bargaining for the rights of union workers?

The bolded is where you're wrong- sure, most union members are also members of the middle class, but I'm pretty sure there are far more members of the middle class who are not members of a union. So yes, they've done a good job bargaining for their members, but that isn't necessarily good for the middle class as a whole.

My post was poorly worded - I obviously didn't mean to imply that every member of the middle class is a union member. My point was that most union members are middle class folks.

Agreed that most union members are probably middle class, but do you mean to imply that what's good for union members is good for the middle class as a whole? I'm not sure that's the case at all.

I don't know whether unions as a whole are "good" for the middle class as a whole. That's a difficult question to measure and issue to frame.

 

[RCon]

Private sector just has CEOs sit on each others Board of Directors to OK pay raises, etc. for them.Not saying what Weingarten is doing is right, but I don't know what the two jobs are, and how much each one pays.

I guarantee Schlzm has no idea what Weingarten does either - he's just taking pot shots.

I don't know if Schlzm knows what Randi Weingarten does, but he clearly doesn't know what gender she is.That said, given what I know of her from her previous position as head of the NYC teachers' union, I think she's utter slime.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Private sector just has CEOs sit on each others Board of Directors to OK pay raises, etc. for them.Not saying what Weingarten is doing is right, but I don't know what the two jobs are, and how much each one pays.

I guarantee Schlzm has no idea what Weingarten does either - he's just taking pot shots.

I don't know if Schlzm knows what Randi Weingarten does, but he clearly doesn't know what gender she is.That said, given what I know of her from her previous position as head of the NYC teachers' union, I think she's utter slime.

Do tell.

 

[RCon]

Private sector just has CEOs sit on each others Board of Directors to OK pay raises, etc. for them.Not saying what Weingarten is doing is right, but I don't know what the two jobs are, and how much each one pays.

I guarantee Schlzm has no idea what Weingarten does either - he's just taking pot shots.

I don't know if Schlzm knows what Randi Weingarten does, but he clearly doesn't know what gender she is.That said, given what I know of her from her previous position as head of the NYC teachers' union, I think she's utter slime.

Do tell.

Without getting specific (partially because I'm too lazy to look for links tonight), I found her to be the epitome of the stereotypical corrupt, kickback-taking, "to hell with the kids or the city", politicians in her pocket, "evil" union boss. All those exaggerated stories you hear about greedy teachers' unions perfectly willing to sell out the students well being if it benefits the union? Probably based on her.Tough call between her and Toussaint as worst union head in NYC.

 

[cr8f]

Walker claimed this is election is Madison's fault(because they are out of touch with the rest of the state) but the 4 counties at the top of the state are all rural. Ashland county voted for Kloppenburg almost as much as Madison did.

The east side of the state went highly for Prosser and the rest had the correct vote.

 

[snogger]

Chief Executives, Presidents, executives making 100k plus is a surprise?

Exactly. Most of these top salaries aren't even anywhere close to some of the bonuses of Wall Street Executives, yet I doubt we'll hear Schlzm complaining that the bonuses of Wall Street Executives are bankrupting America. We need pension reform in many/most states. Virtually everyone agrees with this. The problems start when fear mongering folks like Schlzm start shouting ridiculous claims of how "unions" are bankrupting states. It's pure nonsense.

Tell that to Milwaukee in 2016 when the benefits due to Union members will be 4 Times their current budget.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Walker claimed this is election is Madison's fault(because they are out of touch with the rest of the state) but the 4 counties at the top of the state are all rural. Ashland county voted for Kloppenburg almost as much as Madison did.

The east side of the state went highly for Prosser and the rest had the correct vote.

We know you aren't bright and when you post stuff like this it just reaffirms it. Go do the math and see what percentage of votes came from Madison/Dane county for Kloppenburg compared to those 4 small rural counties in Northern Wisconsin.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Chief Executives, Presidents, executives making 100k plus is a surprise?

Exactly. Most of these top salaries aren't even anywhere close to some of the bonuses of Wall Street Executives, yet I doubt we'll hear Schlzm complaining that the bonuses of Wall Street Executives are bankrupting America. We need pension reform in many/most states. Virtually everyone agrees with this. The problems start when fear mongering folks like Schlzm start shouting ridiculous claims of how "unions" are bankrupting states. It's pure nonsense.

You mean like the fear mongering going on with the Dems in Washington over the budget battle.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

This is better than the promotion, though I'm still interested in how he landed the $62k gig in the first place.

I've seen your posts. You're not this dense. You know how he landed this gig.

I know what my first guess would be. I like to call it white-man's-affirmative-action.

What concerns me more is that fact that changes with this new legislation about public employees is turning a number of positions into appointees by the governor. Bad policy if this is the type of appointments you can expect from him. Sounds like there could be plenty of heck-of-a-job-Browny moments in store for Walker.

Hulsey noted that the recently approved law that made collective bargaining changes converts 37 top agency attorneys, communications officials and legislative liaisons from civil service positions to jobs appointed by the governor.

Link

 

[snogger]

Any hope Walker reads this piece.. PLEASE???

......................................

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi says it'll all be hung up in courts for, oh, weeks, months, eons.

Or, she said, lawmakers could just pass the law again. So why don't they?

Republican legislative leaders give several good reasons. They contend the Democrats' claim that their schedule didn't follow the open meetings law is bogus. The law, Republicans point out, says the Legislature sets its own rules on public notices, and in this case lawmakers followed those rules. "From the principles standpoint, we know we haven't done anything wrong," said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon).

This isn't a trivial point. "Separation of powers" means neither courts nor Legislature are superior to the other. On principle, no lawmaker wants to let courts gain the habit of vetoing laws they don't like.

Republicans cite another bad habit: If lawmakers concede the case by starting the bill over (complete with bucket-banging mobs and 61-hour debates), it will encourage Democrats to haul every piece of Walker's agenda into court the moment it passes. From voter ID to the next budget, "they're going to try anything and everything to tie up this legislation," said Fitzgerald.

Yes, they probably will. Democrats, more combative in the age of a president who talks of bringing guns to a knife fight, will not accept any controversy they've lost as settled. Of course they'll sue.

But that, said Marquette University political scientist John McAdams, is the flaw with the notion that repassing the bill will just encourage legal challenges. The Democrats don't need encouragement. If it works, they'll do it anyhow.

Keeping the state solvent is far more important than winning an argument about bulletin boards. Just reintroduce the bill, defy the mobs, sit out the threats and insults, and vote again. Strife is guaranteed anyhow. You might as well win it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is time to put the legislation back on the table. Give them the 24 hour notice they claim wasn't given before, re-vote on it.

I don't buy the argument from the left that it wouldn't pass.

Anyone who voted yes last time will vote yes this time or get left in the dust by their party and their voters.

Voting "no" now isn't going to win any votes from the other side the next election and will certainly cost you any votes from your own party that you had before.

If, after a new vote, the democrats decide to sue yet again, let them.

But this time they will have to come up with something better than "procedure wasn't followed".

 

[timschochet]

Any hope Walker reads this piece.. PLEASE???

......................................

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi says it'll all be hung up in courts for, oh, weeks, months, eons.

Or, she said, lawmakers could just pass the law again. So why don't they?

Republican legislative leaders give several good reasons. They contend the Democrats' claim that their schedule didn't follow the open meetings law is bogus. The law, Republicans point out, says the Legislature sets its own rules on public notices, and in this case lawmakers followed those rules. "From the principles standpoint, we know we haven't done anything wrong," said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon).

This isn't a trivial point. "Separation of powers" means neither courts nor Legislature are superior to the other. On principle, no lawmaker wants to let courts gain the habit of vetoing laws they don't like.

Republicans cite another bad habit: If lawmakers concede the case by starting the bill over (complete with bucket-banging mobs and 61-hour debates), it will encourage Democrats to haul every piece of Walker's agenda into court the moment it passes. From voter ID to the next budget, "they're going to try anything and everything to tie up this legislation," said Fitzgerald.

Yes, they probably will. Democrats, more combative in the age of a president who talks of bringing guns to a knife fight, will not accept any controversy they've lost as settled. Of course they'll sue.

But that, said Marquette University political scientist John McAdams, is the flaw with the notion that repassing the bill will just encourage legal challenges. The Democrats don't need encouragement. If it works, they'll do it anyhow.

Keeping the state solvent is far more important than winning an argument about bulletin boards. Just reintroduce the bill, defy the mobs, sit out the threats and insults, and vote again. Strife is guaranteed anyhow. You might as well win it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is time to put the legislation back on the table. Give them the 24 hour notice they claim wasn't given before, re-vote on it.

I don't buy the argument from the left that it wouldn't pass.

Anyone who voted yes last time will vote yes this time or get left in the dust by their party and their voters.

Voting "no" now isn't going to win any votes from the other side the next election and will certainly cost you any votes from your own party that you had before.

If, after a new vote, the democrats decide to sue yet again, let them.

But this time they will have to come up with something better than "procedure wasn't followed".

Dennis Prager made this very same argument yesterday. Putting aside all considerations other than political tactics for the governor, I agree with you. But it won't happen, because politicians are cowardly. They don't like this talk of recall. They already put their necks out there for Walker, and now they're terrified to do it again. There's a reason they did it rather "underhand" in the first place. If you're expecting these guys to have the courage of their convictions, think again. They would much prefer to have the courts battle it out. (Frankly, I'm betting that at least some of them wouldn't even mind if it got overturned in the courts at this point- that would kill the recall idea, and they could tell their more rabid supporters, "Hey we tried!").

 

[snogger]

Any hope Walker reads this piece.. PLEASE???

......................................

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi says it'll all be hung up in courts for, oh, weeks, months, eons.

Or, she said, lawmakers could just pass the law again. So why don't they?

Republican legislative leaders give several good reasons. They contend the Democrats' claim that their schedule didn't follow the open meetings law is bogus. The law, Republicans point out, says the Legislature sets its own rules on public notices, and in this case lawmakers followed those rules. "From the principles standpoint, we know we haven't done anything wrong," said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon).

This isn't a trivial point. "Separation of powers" means neither courts nor Legislature are superior to the other. On principle, no lawmaker wants to let courts gain the habit of vetoing laws they don't like.

Republicans cite another bad habit: If lawmakers concede the case by starting the bill over (complete with bucket-banging mobs and 61-hour debates), it will encourage Democrats to haul every piece of Walker's agenda into court the moment it passes. From voter ID to the next budget, "they're going to try anything and everything to tie up this legislation," said Fitzgerald.

Yes, they probably will. Democrats, more combative in the age of a president who talks of bringing guns to a knife fight, will not accept any controversy they've lost as settled. Of course they'll sue.

But that, said Marquette University political scientist John McAdams, is the flaw with the notion that repassing the bill will just encourage legal challenges. The Democrats don't need encouragement. If it works, they'll do it anyhow.

Keeping the state solvent is far more important than winning an argument about bulletin boards. Just reintroduce the bill, defy the mobs, sit out the threats and insults, and vote again. Strife is guaranteed anyhow. You might as well win it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is time to put the legislation back on the table. Give them the 24 hour notice they claim wasn't given before, re-vote on it.

I don't buy the argument from the left that it wouldn't pass.

Anyone who voted yes last time will vote yes this time or get left in the dust by their party and their voters.

Voting "no" now isn't going to win any votes from the other side the next election and will certainly cost you any votes from your own party that you had before.

If, after a new vote, the democrats decide to sue yet again, let them.

But this time they will have to come up with something better than "procedure wasn't followed".

Dennis Prager made this very same argument yesterday. Putting aside all considerations other than political tactics for the governor, I agree with you. But it won't happen, because politicians are cowardly. They don't like this talk of recall. They already put their necks out there for Walker, and now they're terrified to do it again. There's a reason they did it rather "underhand" in the first place. If you're expecting these guys to have the courage of their convictions, think again. They would much prefer to have the courts battle it out. (Frankly, I'm betting that at least some of them wouldn't even mind if it got overturned in the courts at this point- that would kill the recall idea, and they could tell their more rabid supporters, "Hey we tried!").

Not buying it that they want it to fail.Fitzgerald already said that if the current bill is not passed they will add it to the next budget bill.

I think it is, as the author states, the Republicans have it stuck in their minds that what they did was within their rights and want the court system to show it.

at this point, as the author again points out,

Politically, said McAdams, there's little upside for Republicans to stick out the fight in court. Being right in the argument doesn't resonate with most voters who instead just see a government mired. Better to repass the law, moot the court and allow local governments to start making budgets.

So stop stomping your foot down saying "We are right" and just re-pass it again.

Lost the fight, but win the battle.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Any hope Walker reads this piece.. PLEASE???

......................................

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi says it'll all be hung up in courts for, oh, weeks, months, eons.

Or, she said, lawmakers could just pass the law again. So why don't they?

Republican legislative leaders give several good reasons. They contend the Democrats' claim that their schedule didn't follow the open meetings law is bogus. The law, Republicans point out, says the Legislature sets its own rules on public notices, and in this case lawmakers followed those rules. "From the principles standpoint, we know we haven't done anything wrong," said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon).

This isn't a trivial point. "Separation of powers" means neither courts nor Legislature are superior to the other. On principle, no lawmaker wants to let courts gain the habit of vetoing laws they don't like.

Republicans cite another bad habit: If lawmakers concede the case by starting the bill over (complete with bucket-banging mobs and 61-hour debates), it will encourage Democrats to haul every piece of Walker's agenda into court the moment it passes. From voter ID to the next budget, "they're going to try anything and everything to tie up this legislation," said Fitzgerald.

Yes, they probably will. Democrats, more combative in the age of a president who talks of bringing guns to a knife fight, will not accept any controversy they've lost as settled. Of course they'll sue.

But that, said Marquette University political scientist John McAdams, is the flaw with the notion that repassing the bill will just encourage legal challenges. The Democrats don't need encouragement. If it works, they'll do it anyhow.

Keeping the state solvent is far more important than winning an argument about bulletin boards. Just reintroduce the bill, defy the mobs, sit out the threats and insults, and vote again. Strife is guaranteed anyhow. You might as well win it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is time to put the legislation back on the table. Give them the 24 hour notice they claim wasn't given before, re-vote on it.

I don't buy the argument from the left that it wouldn't pass.

Anyone who voted yes last time will vote yes this time or get left in the dust by their party and their voters.

Voting "no" now isn't going to win any votes from the other side the next election and will certainly cost you any votes from your own party that you had before.

If, after a new vote, the democrats decide to sue yet again, let them.

But this time they will have to come up with something better than "procedure wasn't followed".

Dennis Prager made this very same argument yesterday. Putting aside all considerations other than political tactics for the governor, I agree with you. But it won't happen, because politicians are cowardly. They don't like this talk of recall. They already put their necks out there for Walker, and now they're terrified to do it again. There's a reason they did it rather "underhand" in the first place. If you're expecting these guys to have the courage of their convictions, think again. They would much prefer to have the courts battle it out. (Frankly, I'm betting that at least some of them wouldn't even mind if it got overturned in the courts at this point- that would kill the recall idea, and they could tell their more rabid supporters, "Hey we tried!").

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

It is all about attacking the base of their opposition - never had anything to do about balancing the budget.

 

[snogger]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

Hard to muster up a HUGE rally if they only give the 24 hour notice as they did before.Sure, they will get a lot of demonstrators, but not enough that should keep them from doing their job.If that is what is keeping them from re-voting then, IMO, they are just as cowardly as those that ran away to another state.

 

[snogger]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

It is all about attacking the base of their opposition - never had anything to do about balancing the budget.

Tell that to Milwaukee.They are looking at a budget in 2016, because of the sweet deals given to the Unions, that is 4 Times their current budget.Not blaming all of that on just the Unions, as the School board let it through. But the Unions need to be reeled in or the state will be joining California in a budget crisis that can't be easily fixed.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

It is all about attacking the base of their opposition - never had anything to do about balancing the budget.

Tell that to Milwaukee.They are looking at a budget in 2016, because of the sweet deals given to the Unions, that is 4 Times their current budget.Not blaming all of that on just the Unions, as the School board let it through. But the Unions need to be reeled in or the state will be joining California in a budget crisis that can't be easily fixed.

And the unions did give in to cuts into their compensation package, but this just was not enough for Walker. The GOP wanted to break the back of the union for political reasons.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

It is all about attacking the base of their opposition - never had anything to do about balancing the budget.

Tell that to Milwaukee.They are looking at a budget in 2016, because of the sweet deals given to the Unions, that is 4 Times their current budget.Not blaming all of that on just the Unions, as the School board let it through. But the Unions need to be reeled in or the state will be joining California in a budget crisis that can't be easily fixed.

We're screwed in Milwaukee either way. Police and fire make up 65% of our public payroll and they are exempted from his collective bargaining provisions.

 

[snogger]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

It is all about attacking the base of their opposition - never had anything to do about balancing the budget.

Tell that to Milwaukee.They are looking at a budget in 2016, because of the sweet deals given to the Unions, that is 4 Times their current budget.Not blaming all of that on just the Unions, as the School board let it through. But the Unions need to be reeled in or the state will be joining California in a budget crisis that can't be easily fixed.

And the unions did give in to cuts into their compensation package, but this just was not enough for Walker. The GOP wanted to break the back of the union for political reasons.

I agree they gave into the cuts... For now.In the long run that would have changed. By keeping Collective Bargaining "as was", they would just return in 2 or 3 years when the next contract was up and renegotiate to get those cuts, plus more added back in.

 

[snogger]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

It is all about attacking the base of their opposition - never had anything to do about balancing the budget.

Tell that to Milwaukee.They are looking at a budget in 2016, because of the sweet deals given to the Unions, that is 4 Times their current budget.

Not blaming all of that on just the Unions, as the School board let it through. But the Unions need to be reeled in or the state will be joining California in a budget crisis that can't be easily fixed.

We're screwed in Milwaukee either way. Police and fire make up 65% of our public payroll and they are exempted from his collective bargaining provisions.

Yep.. and it was WRONG for them to be excluded.. But politically helped Walker in a sense that some people don't think Teachers do enough to get the pay they do get.. I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE.. Just wanted to make that clear

But if he included Police and firemen Unions I guarantee he wouldn't have had the votes. It was a political move and nothing more and I disagree.

Need to follow Ohio and others.. It is either ALL need to change or none.. But picking and choosing who is affected is wrong.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Tell that to Milwaukee.

They are looking at a budget in 2016, because of the sweet deals given to the Unions, that is 4 Times their current budget.

Not blaming all of that on just the Unions, as the School board let it through. But the Unions need to be reeled in or the state will be joining California in a budget crisis that can't be easily fixed.

So the projected 2016 budget deficit has nothing to do with revenue shortfalls due to tax cuts/breaks, and is 100% due to the union negotiated compensation packages for teachers, firefighters, police, etc? It just seems overly simplistic to assign all budget woes to one source.

 

[timschochet]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

It is all about attacking the base of their opposition - never had anything to do about balancing the budget.

Tell that to Milwaukee.They are looking at a budget in 2016, because of the sweet deals given to the Unions, that is 4 Times their current budget.Not blaming all of that on just the Unions, as the School board let it through. But the Unions need to be reeled in or the state will be joining California in a budget crisis that can't be easily fixed.

And the unions did give in to cuts into their compensation package, but this just was not enough for Walker. The GOP wanted to break the back of the union for political reasons.

I agree they gave into the cuts... For now.In the long run that would have changed. By keeping Collective Bargaining "as was", they would just return in 2 or 3 years when the next contract was up and renegotiate to get those cuts, plus more added back in.

See, this is the part that you really don't get, IMO, Snogger. If the compromise had been accepted, it would have so weakened union morale that their ability to keep collective bargaining, on paper, would have been meaningless. The unions would not have been able to return in 2-3 years and re-negotiate because they wouldn't have had the political clout to do so, whatever "powers" they might have on paper. You had the chance to serve the unions a major defeat; instead, you simply made them more powerful.

 

[snogger]

There's also the fact that the first time they submitted this bill it caused the largest pro-labor demonstration in modern American history. I don't think Walker, the Fitzgeralds or the Kochs have the stomach to go through that again. If it wasn't obvious before, it should now be clear to all that this isn't about the budget in Wisconsin, but about the ideological ego of our new governor and his benefactors.

It is all about attacking the base of their opposition - never had anything to do about balancing the budget.

Tell that to Milwaukee.They are looking at a budget in 2016, because of the sweet deals given to the Unions, that is 4 Times their current budget.Not blaming all of that on just the Unions, as the School board let it through. But the Unions need to be reeled in or the state will be joining California in a budget crisis that can't be easily fixed.

And the unions did give in to cuts into their compensation package, but this just was not enough for Walker. The GOP wanted to break the back of the union for political reasons.

I agree they gave into the cuts... For now.In the long run that would have changed. By keeping Collective Bargaining "as was", they would just return in 2 or 3 years when the next contract was up and renegotiate to get those cuts, plus more added back in.

See, this is the part that you really don't get, IMO, Snogger. If the compromise had been accepted, it would have so weakened union morale that their ability to keep collective bargaining, on paper, would have been meaningless. The unions would not have been able to return in 2-3 years and re-negotiate because they wouldn't have had the political clout to do so, whatever "powers" they might have on paper. You had the chance to serve the unions a major defeat; instead, you simply made them more powerful.

Not buying it.. Had the compromise been accepted and passed, they would have returned to the Unions members telling them. "don't worry.. We will get it back in two years when Collective Bargaining is back up".As you and i discussed and agreed on, walker should have agreed to the concessions but with a caveat that collective Bargaining would also be locked down for the next 3 to 5 years. At the same time, the Democrats were handed a MUCH better deal than what is currently being held up in the court systems. Both sides offered some concessions, but neither one wanted to budge and that is the mess we are stuck in.