WI striking unionized teachers could cost taxpayers $9 Million (salaries, accuse, health care)

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

He's trying to balance the budget and lay the framework for a solvent state for years to come. What has his dem predecessor done other than take the union's campaign contributions and kick the can down the road?

If there is nothing wrong with political sponsorship by corporations, as conservatives say and support the Citizen's United decision last year, why do they become a hypocrite when the same law allows unions to do the same? Why do YOU pick and choose?

Having said that, balancing the budget is a sham. Union busting is the real purpose. You don't try to balance the budget by giving tax cuts primarily targeted to the wealthy. Not even Bush would have claimed that.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by calibro1

The proposed bill is to end collective bargaining, in a state that introduced collective bargaining. Hence the protests. If it were only due to budget concerns, then why didn't we see the same level of protests in CA for furloughs and increased contributions?

Don't speak too fast , you might just get to see your thoughts come to reality quickly!

[jojajn]

Wait a minute!

No teachers are striking, are they?

Why is this statistic brought up?

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

If there is nothing wrong with political sponsorship by corporations, as conservatives say and support the Citizen's United decision last year, why do they become a hypocrite when the same law allows unions to do the same? Why do YOU pick and choose?

There is (something very wrong) when the teachers are FORCED to pay union dues, sometimes to fund political candidates that they do NOT support. If the teachers are allowed to decide for themselves to pay dues, then I have no problem with the unions using that money to back political candidates.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Having said that, balancing the budget is a sham. Union busting is the real purpose. You don't try to balance the budget by giving tax cuts primarily targeted to the wealthy. Not even Bush would have claimed that.

Cite where he gave tax breaks to only the wealthy.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

There is (something very wrong) when the teachers are FORCED to pay union dues, sometimes to fund political candidates that they do NOT support. If the teachers are allowed to decide for themselves to pay dues, then I have no problem with the unions using that money to back political candidates.

None of your problem, unless you are a part of the union. Just admit that you're into union busting.

Cite where he gave tax breaks to only the wealthy.

Three of them. Do you see them going to everybody instead? In any case, how do those tax cuts affect the fiscal solvency of the state? I will be looking forward to your idea on the subject.

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

None of your problem, unless you are a part of the union. Just admit that you're into union busting.

Have I once said that I'm in support of public employee unions? Nope. And yes, it is my problem when special interest groups are allowed to use money they forcibly extracted from hundreds of thousands of people to support democrats who in turn use my tax dollars to grant benefits and pay well in excess of what the private sector dictates.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Three of them. Do you see them going to everybody instead? In any case, how do those tax cuts affect the fiscal solvency of the state? I will be looking forward to your idea on the subject.

I'm not seeing your links, so no comment on that until you provide them.

[Wayland Woman]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

There is (something very wrong) when the teachers are FORCED to pay union dues, sometimes to fund political candidates that they do NOT support. If the teachers are allowed to decide for themselves to pay dues, then I have no problem with the unions using that money to back political candidates.


Cite where he gave tax breaks to only the wealthy.

It's against the law to use union dues to fund political candidates. Unions have CAP funds that are collected separately---they can't even go in the same bank account as the union dues---and union members are free NOT to donate to their CAP if they don't want to. No union member is forced to back political candidates.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

Have I once said that I'm in support of public employee unions? Nope. And yes, it is my problem when special interest groups are allowed to use money they forcibly extracted from hundreds of thousands of people to support democrats who in turn use my tax dollars to grant benefits and pay well in excess of what the private sector dictates.

You don't have to say it, when you're into blatant union-busting preaching and practices. And I can see why... it is because unions are political enemies. They've historically been seen as such by those who promote authoritarian governance, be it fascist or even Leninist.

I'm not seeing your links, so no comment on that until you provide them.

Are you really that clueless about the tax cuts? Or, are you just looking for redundant arguments? Tax cuts distributed off the state's is no secret, if you're a grown up to have looked for it yourself, or have come across those. I posted a whole link from state's office on Friday in another thread. There's a "search" function available for you to find my post if you must.

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

Have I once said that I'm in support of public employee unions? Nope. And yes, it is my problem when special interest groups are allowed to use money they forcibly extracted from hundreds of thousands of people to support democrats who in turn use my tax dollars to grant benefits and pay well in excess of what the private sector dictates.


I'm not seeing your links, so no comment on that until you provide them.

Gov. Scott Walker will sign a bill today (Feb. 4) to give Wisconsin businesses a tax break for every new job they create.

The Republican majority in the Legislature approved the deductions, which are part of the governor’s agenda for boosting the economy.

Companies would get a tax reduction of $92 to $316 for every job they create, depending on their size and tax brackets.

Democrats say the tax breaks are not big enough to encourage employers to add jobs, and the tax break will add $67 million to the state’s budget deficit over the next two years.

Law gives tax break for new jobs; Walker still pushes for stronger wind turbine location standards | Rivertowns.net | Riverfalls, Wisconsin

Many other links as well. Just google "Walker's tax breaks".

Also, after Walker killed 40,000 jobs by nixing the high speed rail, I heard this tax break created 10 new jobs! LOL!

Walker makes a mess and then tries to act like a hero by taking from the middle class to clean it up. Just as he is doing now with the budget mess he created!

[brien51]

Originally Posted by calibro1

I don't care to read it. I already know your position, I find it disgusting. I think that rather than doing away with unions there is a better solution.

I mean why did this not happen in other states with similar budget proposals that PASSED?

It's power play and it's frankly detrimental to the middle class.

This is the big lie. It is not "doing away with unions". The legislation merely gives the CHOICE to the union member to support the union through contribution of union dues. As it is now, these teachers have NO CHOICE. They MUST PAY UNION DUES. It is deducted from their checks beforee they see their take home pay. Then that money is distributed to political candidates that the crooked union bosses decide who it goes to in support of a political campaign. Those who fall in line for the big union handouts must support the Union agenda in DC. Only a politically naive person doesn't see the corruption here.

It is the Unions who are afraid if people have a choice to support their union economically or not, they will lose contributions. What is wrong with voluntary choice? This isn't union busting, it is levelling the playing field. It is the Union bosses who want to bully every member into contributing through FORCED contributions which makes them no better than mafia shakedown artists.


Union Corruption Update | National Legal and Policy Center

Union leaders are threatening an illegal strike.


Union Corruption | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

In October 2009, Donna Smith, a Botsford Common Nursing Home custodian, refrained from formal, full-dues-paying union membership from the SEIU Healthcare Michigan union.
Under Foundation-won precedent in the Supreme Court case Communication Workers v. Beck, the Court held that nonmember employees in states without Right to Work protections for its workers may still be forced to pay certain union fees as a condition of employment, but they do have the right to refrain from paying union dues spent for activities like political activism, lobbying, and member-only events.
Despite her being a nonmember, SEIU union officials continued to collect full union dues from Smith’s paycheck for 10 more months. In September 2010, Smith and SEIU union officials reached a settlement in which she received the difference of full union dues and the union fees that she is forced to pay for the union bosses’ so-called “representation.”

Many unions, and their leaders, are as crooked as a dog's hind leg.


Union Leader Fraud & Corruption (http://www.unionfacts.com/articles/crimeFraud.cfm - broken link)

Embezzlement, False Reports, Violence, And More
Most people don't know just how many crimes are committed every year through which union officials hurt their own members. The number of reputed and verified crimes is staggering. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the hundreds of indictments of union officials for violations of the Labor Management and Reporting Disclosure Act. According to the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), those crimes include “embezzlement, filing false reports, keeping false records, destruction of records, extortionate picketing and deprivation of rights by violence.” The OLMS notes:

In fiscal year 2005, OLMS completed 325 criminal cases. Indictments increased to 114, a 16 percent increase from FY 2001. The number of convictions dropped to 97. In addition, in FY 2005 court-ordered restitution amounted to $23,244,979.

That's $23 million in restitution ordered for victimizing union members and others.



[CENTER] Labor Racketeering Investigations FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Cases Opened105 125 124 135 103 Cases Closed109 130 144 115 107 Cases referred
for prosecution 57 74 66 87 88 Indictments161 218 181 260 322 Convictions92 154 120 143 196 Fines, restitutions,
forfeitures, & civil
monetary actions$ 42.5
million $ 105.9
million $ 27.9
million $ 36.5
million $ 187.9
million http://www.unionfacts.com/articles/images/spacer.gif (broken link)
Source: Department of Labor Office of Inspector General
[/CENTER]
Labor
Racketeering
The Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General oversees, among other things, cases of labor racketeering -- and it stays busy. Union officials have continued to earn their reputation for greed, corruption, and mismanagement of union dues.

In 2005, criminal charges and fines resulting from racketeering investigations hit five-year highs. During that time, more than 1,100 indictments have been issued, and more than $400 million in fines and restitution has been awarded. Many of these cases involve union officials failing to protect their members from unethical pension scams, but the OIG also reports that it saw a three-fold increase in the number of convictions in internal union racketeering cases between 1998 and

2004.

• According to a 2004 Zogby International poll, 71% of union members said the government ought to do more to protect union members from corrupt union officials, and that unions should be required to give detailed reporting of union finances to discourage abuse.
• According to the FBI, four of the last eight Teamsters presidents have been criminally indicted.

• Nearly 50% of the U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General's labor racketeering investigations involve pensions and employee welfare benefit plans.
• According to the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, “Schemes involving bribery, extortion, deprivation of union rights by violence, and embezzlement used by early racketeers are still employed to abuse the power of unions.”