Neither is a crook. Unethical and self serving - yes. But not the #1 crook.

The 'crook' (if one exists) were top management of many (ten) years earlier. When bills come due, those most guilty parties are long gone.

To understand problems (ie excessive pensions), instead, view (identify) people who promised those pensions by doing what corrupt leaders do. Ignore the numbers. Had they been doing their jobs, spread sheets (financial accounting) would have said back then that pension plans were unreasonable. Crooks routinely ignore actuarials. Instead, they used ‘creative accounting’. Same techniques were also used by the mafia and General Motors. And also by Chavez in Venezuela

Conflict is between a current government and its employees. But the crooks were a Governor and congressmen ten or more years earlier. Almost nobody here is discussing the most guilty.

Well, a solution is to fix this problem by making everyone pay - heavy. Every single person in WI should suffer because they did not blame the previous governor and Congressman. Being a citizen who remains ignorant means that citizen deserves the pain. Includes raising taxes. Instead, this Governor is taking a cheapshot advantage rather than address the problem where it must be solved. Every citizen should see tax increases and less government services.

Basic economics. Money games used to create economic growth (ie tax cuts to the rich) means economic forces force punishment years later. Instead, this Governor wants to punish others. To protect his elite supporters. That is not being a crook. But it is similar to a crook. And not something that a true or ethical leader would do.

Was he a priest before elected Governor? Maybe he thinks unions are being childish. It would explain his actions.

And that, folks, is the catch with democracy. People very often elect whoever tells the most pleasing lies, and then feel that they have been cheated when the impossible promises don't come true, and blame the incumbent.

Uday, don't expect too much from freedom.

Maybe is better to say "don't expect too much freedom".

While we're talking about Kochs, if this doesn't bring Pie back, I don't know what will.

The 1.2619 dimensional Koch curve, one of the simplest of fractals.

Attachment 31264

Not a lawyer, but here's a thought. Since the Supreme Court has granted personhood to organizations, can't the affected unions sue the state using the equal protection clause to argue that they are being treated differently than other unions?

But you think like one.;) That's a nice tactic to try.

Not what they did. They said that organizing together does not negate the freedom of speech that individuals have. If a person can freely speak, then 100 people under the banner of an organization can also speak.

Well the original precedent didn't go that far, but with some expensive lawyering, it might be stretched a bit. Interesting idea.

I have, amusingly, watched internet Libertarians who support corporate personhood then slam unions because they are using "collective bargaining" to get their way.

No joke. Apparently when management do it, it's different. For reasons that do not concern you, untermenschen. Maybe they're under the impression that the John Galt-esque CEOs and political leaders bargain personally, on their own, against hundreds of highly trained, yet fundamentally lazy, union negotiaters?

Public Sector Unions are paid with taxpayer dollars. Before taxes are paid on that income the union dues are subtracted and given to the union bosses who then take that money and use if lobbying and buying Democratic politicians more than 90% of the time. This is a problem. The Democratic politicians in turn give the unions anything they want and have set them up with unrealistic benifit packages that are now breaking the bank. The estimated unfunded pensions of public sector unions are in the billions, billions the states don't have. Not sure of the collective bargining issue as a personal matter, but public sector unions only represent 7% of the total workforce in the US. Time for a change.

It doesn't matter what the ultimate source of the income is. When you work, you get paid by your employer. Whether the employer gets its money from consumers or taxpayers, it's still income for the employer, and they still have their obligations to their employees.

The Republicans want to have it both ways. They want to have their income stream, the corporations, protected. The partisan Supreme Court guaranteed that by granting person-hood to corporations. Now the Republicans want to take the income stream away from Democrats. That's why they are attacking the unions.

You can try to dress this up in any other terms you choose, but this is a simple political power slug fest where the Republicans are trying to destroy the Democrats any way they can. It's not about balancing any budget. The governor said that in his own words in the prank phone call.

That would all be good if the empolyee was not mandated to work for the union and they could chose to join or not. But in this case there is no choice. And there is no choice if dues are subtracted before they are paid, which go to the union.

I guess I don't see much of a difference there either. There is nothing preventing corps from giving to the Dems, or people like Soros who is ignored when they try to demonize the Koch bros. It is all the same bs, different side of a coin.

Regardless of what that idiot said in a phone call it does not diminish the issue of public sector unions and the financial burden of unfunded pension plans which are estimated to be in the billions.

The media have been very careful not to distinguish between regular unions, who seem to be doing just fine, and the public sector unions who make up only 7% of the workforce. And this whole issue is just about public sector unions. I am not anti-union myself but I do think the time has come for some changes when it comes to the burden of local and state government and tax dollars that go to pay for perks like 100% benifits with no contribution from the employee. You are not going to get a lot of sympathy from the masses of unemployed or under employed or from non-union workers who make up the majority of taxpayers.

I guess if people say "corporate personhood" enough times, it makes it true? Again, that's not what the Supreme Court ruled. They made a very narrow ruling on free speech, and when and how it can be limited by federal law. In this case, they ruled that if 1 person has the right to speech, 100 people together as an organization also have that right.

I have no objection to collective bargaining. The right to negotiate for salary, the right to refuse to work for less than a certain wage, those are deeply important, fundamental rights in a capitalist marketplace.

I object very strongly to the protected status that unions have under our current system. They are allowed to form mandatory local monopolies over a company's labor force, and then use that monopoly to void the employers right to hire workers at a wage determined by the labor market.

If we are going to preserve the fundmental right to not work unless the terms of hiring are satisfactory to the worker, then we must also preserve the fundamental right not to hire unless the terms of hiring are satisfactory to the employer. It is unfair to enter negotiations where the rights of one side enjoy protected status under the law and the rights of the other do not.

I was pretty sure when this first started that there would be the typical lacking of support for the 'union' in this fight. Well of course, msm followed suit, but that's expected considering their fealty to their corporate paymasters. But I figured it would be like Merc expresses...the average working stiff would not waste any sympathy on them. A few years back that would certainly have been the case. But polls are actually starting to say otherwise. There seems to be more solidarity for these workers and unions in general. I may have to change my pessimistic outlook now.

Yes, I am somewhat heartened by the general support for, not just unions, but non-cop non-firefighter government workers' unions! Walker picked the unions that one would think would get the least sympathy, and people still saw through that cynicism.