The Cellar
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24600)

Fair&Balanced 03-30-2011 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719686)
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

You may not be required to join, but you may have to pay dues unless you are in a right to work state.
Again, you ignore the fact that dues for workplace related activities and voluntary contributions for political purposes are separate and distinct.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 01:25 PM
Quote:
What is the Taylor Law?
The Public Employees Fair Employment Act (Taylor Law), passed in 1967, oversees public employee labor relations
in New York State, and has had a profound effect on the way that public school districts and their employees interact.
Changes in the Taylor Law since 1967 have consistently provided more negotiating power for bargaining units.
What are the Taylor Law’s major provisions?
All NYS public employees may organize into units and negotiate employment agreements with their public employers,
who are obligated to bargain with them on conditions of employment.
Employee units may vote to be members of state or national unions.
Employees cannot be forced to join a union, but the union must
represent them. Any contract negotiated between the unit and
its employer includes all employees, even non-union members.
Even employees who choose not to belong to a union have
a union fee (agency fee) deducted from their pay. Public
employers must deduct this fee from paychecks for the union.
http://www.mcsba.org/reports/FAQs_fi...0for%20web.pdf

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 719689)
Again, you ignore the fact that dues and voluntary contributions for political purposes are separate and distinct.
But they are not. It all goes into one pot. And in the case of Wis. the unions do not have to disclose where the money goes. It is private info.

Fair&Balanced 03-30-2011 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719692)
But they are not. It all goes into one pot. And in the case of Wis. the unions do not have to disclose where the money goes. It is private info.
The federal law requires that they be maintained in separate accounts, even if collected jointly.

I'm still looking for evidence (cite) that the funds go "into one pot" and that unions are not separating the funds.

I would assume that if the unions in WI were breaking the law by maintaining dues and voluntary contributions in one pot, the Republicans in the state would be all over it and waving the evidence for all to see rather than the circuitous route they took to break the union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719679)
Obviously this is a big issue or why would the Unions try to fight so hard to defeat prop 75 in Calif?

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_n...f/entire75.pdf
I am not familiar with prop 75, but on a quick read, I think the opposition in large part is to the requirement for annual member sign-offs, rather than the existing contract agreement that the sign-off be at each new contract (3-5 years), which was a major issue in WI as well.

Pico and ME 03-30-2011 01:53 PM
I don't know it public sector is different from the UAW, but political contributions and union dues deductions are separate on my husbands checks. And the political contribution is totally voluntary.

And, of course unions support the political party that supports workers. If the republicans would consider it, then they could get some of that money too.

glatt 03-30-2011 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719686)
you may have to pay dues unless you are in a right to work state.
True, but this article, and you, and I are specifically talking about Florida, which is a right to work state, and these dues are voluntary. For Republicans to place burdens in the way of voluntary contributions to unions in Florida is a dirty trick. Plain and simple.

Republicans on the Supreme Court worked hard to open the floodgates of unlimited corporate donations to the Republican party, and now they are trying to shut down the Florida union donations to the Democratic party. (And everywhere else.) It's dirty politics.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pico and ME (Post 719698)
I don't know it public sector is different from the UAW, but political contributions and union dues deductions are separate on my husbands checks. And the political contribution is totally voluntary.

And, of course unions support the political party that supports workers. If the republicans would consider it, then they could get some of that money too.
And so really tell us... if your husband suddenly said, no longer will I give monies to the political arm would anyone care?

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt (Post 719704)
.... and now they are trying to shut down the Florida union donations to the Democratic party. (And everywhere else.) It's dirty politics.
And I completely support that. I do not, however, consider it "dirty" politics anymore than those who support the idea the taxpayer dollars should be diverted to a single party.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 719693)
The federal law requires that they be maintained in separate accounts, even if collected jointly.

I'm still looking for evidence (cite) that the funds go "into one pot" and that unions are not separating the funds.

I would assume that if the unions in WI were breaking the law by maintaining dues and voluntary contributions in one pot, the Republicans in the state would be all over it and waving the evidence for all to see rather than the circuitous route they took to break the union.


I am not familiar with prop 75, but on a quick read, I think the opposition in large part is to the requirement for annual member sign-offs, rather than the existing contract agreement that the sign-off be at each new contract (3-5 years), which was a major issue in WI as well.
Again, reflux, you are trying to make a case against something that is a well known fact. Certainly through your Lobbying efforts you know that "card check" is a hugely controversially issue. I understand that you may not want to bring it up at this point, but it really is important to the issue at hand. But as a former Lobbyist you owe it to the rest of us to own up to the real issues at hand. Taxpayer dollars are being funneled to a single party... in this case the Demoncrats, without the general consensus of the group.

Please explain how "Card Check" works in the UAWA and how the employee has complete control to opt out of "Card Check"... Thanks

Bullitt 03-30-2011 09:22 PM
SB 5 passed the house and senate here in Ohio tonight. Up for signing into law on Friday it looks like.

infinite monkey 03-30-2011 09:33 PM
Yep. Glad I'm not in a public union. Bullit, didn't they make SOME concessions for police officers and firefighters?

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 719865)
Yep. Glad I'm not in a public union. Bullit, didn't they make SOME concessions for police officers and firefighters?
I thought all you college workers were in the Union....

infinite monkey 03-30-2011 09:39 PM
Nope. State college. No union. Not even faculty. In fact, where I used to work the faculty was union but not administrative personnel. It's up to the institution.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 719871)
Nope. State college. No union. Not even faculty. In fact, where I used to work the faculty was union but not administrative personnel. It's up to the institution.
Well just let me :lol2: at that comment. Well done Shaw!

infinite monkey 03-30-2011 09:44 PM
Gee thanks. I think. ;)

Bullitt 03-30-2011 09:45 PM
Yes, public safety workers can negotiate over equipment. Whoopdee fucking doo. Not staffing though. Having 3 guys at a fire is dangerous and downright criminal to force into being in the first place. Having one medic in the back of the ambulance instead of two can cost a life. Sending a cop alone to a dangerous neighborhood could get him killed. Waiting for additional help because not enough resources were available to send in the first place costs lives and property.
It's bullshit.
Take away my new squad and give me back the old one with 300k miles on it. Staffing is way more important than equipment. I'll keep my old ratty turnout gear if it means having a guy to come get my ass if I go down.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 09:49 PM
All over that. But you have free will as well.

Go. Don't go. A moral issue for sure.

In the end change is forced by those decisions.

I take no side on either issue.

I say to you that through action, you have the power to effect change.

Unions have nothing to do with that and they are not your friend.

Bullitt 03-30-2011 10:02 PM
Public safety workers rarely have the option to choose go or don't go. If there are reports of people in a burning building, even if its some drug addict rapist, we go. Even if the call is for a bad neighborhood where ambulances get broken into for morphine during calls and medics get shot at, and you beat the cops there, we go. Medics in east Cleveland get issued body armor. We're called to act, so we act. Holding our services hostage to force change is immoral at best.
The unions are corrupt, no getting around that. But if we want something to change we need a unified voice. Not many other avenues right now, let alone any that are as widespread.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt (Post 719891)
Public safety workers rarely have the option to choose go or don't go. If there are reports of people in a burning building, even if its some drug addict rapist, we go. Even if the call is for a bad neighborhood where ambulances get broken into for morphine during calls and medics get shot at, and you beat the cops there, we go. Medics in east Cleveland get issued body armor. We're called to act, so we act. Holding our services hostage to force change is immoral at best.
So please tell us. Eliminate this portion fo the the discussion.

1. Do YOU HAVE A CHOICE to join the Union or not?

2. Do YOU HAVE Card Check when you join, to agree to divert your income to a Union PAC or not? Do you really have a choice?

I completely respect what you do but be honest. If a new worker came in and said, "fuck that, I do not want to be part of the union, and I do not want my due to go to the Demoncratic Party." Could they do that without peer pressure or someone preventing them from full participation in the collective bargaining agreement?

I do not want you to take sides. I only want your honest answers.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt (Post 719891)
Public safety workers rarely have the option to choose go or don't go. If there are reports of people in a burning building, even if its some drug addict rapist, we go. Even if the call is for a bad neighborhood where ambulances get broken into for morphine during calls and medics get shot at, and you beat the cops there, we go. Medics in east Cleveland get issued body armor. We're called to act, so we act. Holding our services hostage to force change is immoral at best.
The unions are corrupt, no getting around that. But if we want something to change we need a unified voice. Not many other avenues right now, let alone any that are as widespread.
Bro, I have the utmost respect for you and what you and your bro's do, but be honest about the unions and the pressure that you are put under to 1. Join; 2. And contribute to PAC's; or 3. Have no control over where your Union dues go to support a political candidate.

Cheers. The Merc

Fair&Balanced 03-30-2011 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719841)
And I completely support that. I do not, however, consider it "dirty" politics anymore than those who support the idea the taxpayer dollars should be diverted to a single party.
What you call taxpayer dollars is also workers' salaries.

I am still astounding that you are denying workers the right to do what they wish with their salaries simply because they are public employees and dont share your political views.

And, you are the second person to raise the redux (or reflux?) question, the other in a pm.

I am not that person.

Bullitt 03-30-2011 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 719893)
Bro, I have the utmost respect for you and what you and your bro's do, but be honest about the unions and the pressure that you are put under to 1. Join; 2. And contribute to PAC's; or 3. Have no control over where your Union dues go to support a political candidate.

Cheers. The Merc
Thanks. I'm not a union guy by any stretch. I understand the base purpose of representing the interests of the worker, but they really are too bloated for their own good. The fear is that this bill's attempts to neuter the unions will just hurt the working man instead.

TheMercenary 03-30-2011 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced (Post 719894)
What you call taxpayer dollars is also workers' salaries.
Bull shit. They are taxpayer dollars.

Quote:
I am still astounding that you are denying workers the right to do what they wish with their salaries simply because they are public employees and dont share your political views.
And I am still astounded that you would defend a bunch of people that have been taking the taxpayers to the bank for so many years while the rest of us are out of work, paying our fair share of benefits, and contributing to our retirement funds that had nothing to do with the taxpayer sucking up the bill for all of our benefits, and in some cases to the tune of 100% of all our benefits! Wow! what a great deal! I pay not a God Damm thing into my future but the tax payer foots the Bill! Wonderful!....



Quote:
And, you are the second person to raise the redux (or reflux?) question, the other in a pm.

I am not that person.
We know who you are ass hole.

TheMercenary 03-31-2011 11:08 PM
Quote:
After years of being harassed by the purple people beaters, one company has finally said ENOUGH.

In a press release issued Thursday, Sodexo USA announced that the company has filed a civil lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act., accusing the union of engaging in an “illegal campaign of extortion.” The lawsuit representing Sodexo is Hunton & Williams – the same firm SEIU and its allies have accused of launching a “dirty tricks” campaign against them in retaliation for their anti-Chamber of Commerce campaigns. (more on that after the jump)

One of the largest food services and facilities management companies in the world, Sodexo is the provider of choice for most schools, universities, companies, hotels, prisons and other facilities that outsource their cafeteria and food catering operations, and for those that outsource industrial cleaning services. SEIU has been incessantly battering Sodexo since 2007, in its desire to unionize some of its nearly 400,000 employees, many of them hotel and food service workers. Exacerbating the tensions was a longstanding turf war between SEIU and UNITE HERE over hotel and casino workers, which often spilled over into SEIU’s antics prior to the settlement the warring unions reached this past summer.

Sodexo USA has filed the lawsuit in an attempt to halt the over-the-top harassment from SEIU, alleging that many of the acts are very serious and outside of the normal realm of union tactics, including acts of ” SEIU blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from Sodexo USA and harm the company.” [emphasis added]
Aside from some of its usual corporate smear campaign tactics, certain organizers in the SEIU subscribed to some especially nasty, and frankly repulsive, tactics:
http://biggovernment.com/libertychic...s/#more-244504

Spexxvet 04-01-2011 08:05 AM
There really needs to be a general strike in this country.

Happy Monkey 12-08-2015 10:57 AM
Walker's Wisconsin hits new heights of corruption.
Quote:
Wednesday's ruling was supposed to be a straightforward decision on a motion to reconsider, in light of additional evidence that Walker and his allies had violated the campaign finance laws that the Court upheld in July.

The Court denied that motion, but then (in a lengthy unsigned opinion) went further, rewriting its July decision to fire the Republican Special Prosecutor who had led the investigation, Francis Schmitz, making it harder for him to challenge the justices' conflicts-of-interest by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
...
The Court rewriting its decision and firing Schmitz might be viewed not only as the majority protecting their biggest financial supporters and Scott Walker, but also as an effort to protect themselves.

That's because the Court's four-justice majority was elected to the bench with at least $10 million in spending from precisely the same groups accused of coordinating with Walker, and precisely the same groups that were under investigation in the John Doe--namely, Wisconsin Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.

xoxoxoBruce 12-08-2015 11:07 AM
Reaffirming the Judicial system is just as corrupt as the legislative system, largely because of the Citizens United ruling, which came from where? Why the corrupt system feeding itself, of course. It's not their fault though, all monsters devour knights and maidens for breakfast, just doing what comes naturally.

The fault lies squarely on the voters..

Happy Monkey 12-08-2015 11:16 AM
Who had more chances than most to reverse course.

I love Wisconsin - my dad's family is from there - but they really did bring this on themselves.

xoxoxoBruce 12-08-2015 11:22 AM
But the strangest thing is most people , whether they agree with this or not, don't realize they are being fucked. It's just a political battle detached from their little world. :facepalm:

classicman 12-08-2015 04:40 PM
From an alternate perspective

Happy Monkey 12-08-2015 05:51 PM
It's not really an alternate perspective, it's a different issue (trying to figure out costs) that mentions the firing of the prosecutor in passing.

xoxoxoBruce 12-08-2015 06:13 PM
Yeah, sounds like a hey look at this $100,000 spent on the investigation, and ignore the $10,000,000 to elect the 4 judges, who just happened to reverse the decision they made in July.

fargon 12-08-2015 07:17 PM
The man is corrupt to the bone. He trades tax money for campaign contributions, while the state roads are crumbling. If he don't go to prison I will be surprised.
I voted for him the first time. I don't know how he managed to get elected the last two times.

xoxoxoBruce 12-09-2015 01:22 AM
Because only the party matters, you don't expect them to vote for the Nigerian gun grabber's side, do you? :rolleyes:

fargon 12-09-2015 05:32 AM
Who is the Nigerian gun runner?

xoxoxoBruce 12-09-2015 08:37 AM
Grabber, not runner.

fargon 12-09-2015 10:24 AM
Sorry my bad.

xoxoxoBruce 12-09-2015 04:36 PM
It's OK, as long as he gets the blame for anything and everything that's bad in the world. Hangnail? Obama's fault. Tornado? Obama's fault. Dog's pregnant? Obama's fault. ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.