Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The shorter hour concept was in place before Ford in many places (usually in areas of higher wage employment) while giving Saturday off was in industries whose workers were predominantly Jewish.
By 1927 at least 262 large establishments had adopted the five-day week, while only 32 had it by 1920.
The unions (around in some form or another, since the late 1800's) had pushed for the shorter work day and work week long before Ford.
I believe some mills in the northeast were the first to actually implement the 5 day week some decades before.
The more you post the more apparent your disconnect from reality becomes. The bill is in limbo because the democrats fleed the state. Not only are the teachers being paid to strike against the people who are paying them, but their politicians are being paid to flee the state and stay in motels like rats in their holes.
Cowards and thugs... your tax dollars at work!
Let's hope the gov cuts the funds to pay their staff. They're currently not needed, are they?
Do you notice a mass defection of teachers from unions in the past week?
What I am seeing is even people such as myself that are not huge fans of unions are unhappy that such an obvious ploy is beng used to bust the teachers and all other state worker unions and thus forcing me to take the side of justice and fair play. What the GOP is doing is the work of their handlers and it is obvious who they are. Gonna get real ugly but the elections in 2012 will correct the mistake made in the last elections, count on a voter backlash against the GOP like you have not seen in years.
Casper
You fail at the idea of "fail". Just accept you weren't aware of such dealings that the governor made and it would give me a reason to waste a few of my seconds to help you out, google it up. Here we go (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf - broken link).
Now, having read the document and understood its implications and targets, come back and tell me where you disagree with me.
Instead of just linking to a letter detailing the general fund revenue and expenditures, why not just come right out and state what tax cuts you're taking issue with and then use the proposed projections to back up your claims? Or are you incapable of making the point yourself?
I'm fully aware of Walker's proposed tax credits and cuts for businesses. They are expected to bring new businesses to Wisconsin by making their state much more business friendly in comparison to Illinois, who just hiked corporate income taxes to historic levels. Pretty smart proposal to court businesses from high tax states if you ask me. More businesses setting up shop in WI means more jobs for Wisconsinites, which means increased tax revenue for the state. I don't know why you need me to spell that out for you, nor do I understand how this is a tax cut for only the wealthy. Yes, tax revenues to the state of WI from corporations will decrease due to the legislation. However, when more businesses relocate to WI and hire people, tax revenues will go back up in the way of personal income tax. Not only that, but payments made for UE compensation will go down as the UE rate decreases. Win-win scenario.
Then there is the issue of eliminating the tax on HSA contributions. I'll assume that you're taking issue with this (primarily because you refuse to come out and take a stance on any specific legislation). Again, this is in no way targeted to the wealthy. Anyone can (and should) take advantage of HDHP's with HSA's. All this legislation does is to bring Wisconsin into line with federal law in the tax handling of HSA contributions. It was an unfair tax to begin with.
Quote:
One bill would essentially eliminate the state income tax for contributions to private Health Savings Accounts, which are used by people in high-deductible health insurance plans to make pre-tax donations to cover future health care costs. The 6.5-percent income tax credit would bring Wisconsin into line with federal law, which does not tax HSAs.
What I am seeing is even people such as myself that are not huge fans of unions are unhappy that such an obvious ploy is beng used to bust the teachers and all other state worker unions and thus forcing me to take the side of justice and fair play. What the GOP is doing is the work of their handlers and it is obvious who they are. Gonna get real ugly but the elections in 2012 will correct the mistake made in the last elections, count on a voter backlash against the GOP like you have not seen in years.
Casper
You are certianly looking through a different set of glasses than me and the people I know.
This is making Unions look even worse than they are, the thug tactics are showing through, support has diminished to zero.
The obivous ploy by the Unions and the Demorats fleeing, along with Obummers support, has sealed the coffin for the democrat party.
I guess things look different from the various sides of the fence.
I'm fully aware of Walker's proposed tax credits and cuts for businesses. They are expected to bring new businesses to Wisconsin by making their state much more business friendly in comparison to Illinois, who just hiked corporate income taxes to historic levels. Pretty smart proposal to court businesses from high tax states...
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result" - Einstein.
You were talking about fiscal issues that the current economy of the state is facing... is this how fiscal responsibility works? Create a hole, try to make sure it goes unnoticed and blame others? How many times we have to "been there and done that", to recognize the problem?
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.
Hmmmmmmmm Let's examine what the Unions do with their money in politics:
Schoolteachers may be "underpaid," but National Education Association bosses scraped up $13 million in union dues to spend on social and political causes.
The NEA's financial disclosure report for the 2009-2010 fiscal year showed that the union gave $250,000 to Florida's FairDistricts ballot initiatives (Amendments 5 and 6). The union also donated $203,500 to its Florida Education Association affiliate and $66,400 to the FEA Advocacy Fund.
Nationally, the NEA's $13 million contribution total was about half the amount it distributed last year, but more than in 2007-08, according to an analysis by the Sacramento, Calif.-based Education Intelligence Agency.
EIA noted that the union's donations ranged from $2.125 million to a California ballot initiative campaign, down to smaller grants to groups such as People for the American Way, Media Matters and Netroots Nation -- all left-leaning organizations.
Netroots Nation, which received $15,000 from the NEA, describes its mission as "amplifying progressive voices by providing an online and in-person campus for exchanging ideas and learning how to be more effective in using technology to influence the public debate."
Media Matters ($100,000) calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
People for the American Way ($64,538) was founded in 1981 by Hollywood producer Norman Lear, the late Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and a group of business, civic, religious and civil rights leaders "disturbed by the divisive rhetoric of newly politicized televangelists." The group frequently joins the ACLU in waging court battles against religious expression.
Among the NEA's list of 130 recipients, large disbursements went to other self-styled "progressive" causes: America Votes ($300,000), Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate ($200,000) and Health Care for America Now! ($450,000).
While NEA contributions continued the previous years' pattern of leaning to the left, a handful of more mainstream groups received funds as well. Among them: Baptist Center for Ethics ($20,000) and the Children's Defense Fund ($5,000).
Educational groups were sprinkled throughout the donation list, though social and political causes predominated -- including gay/lesbian organizations and more than a dozen minority advocacy coalitions.
Large chunks of union dues funded specific state political campaigns -- all of which called for more government spending.
In addition to the $2.125 million pumped into the campaign to maintain corporate tax rates in California, "Yes on 744" received $1.758 million to push for more teacher hiring in Oklahoma and the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, through "Coalition for Our Communities," received $625,000 in its fight to retain the state income tax.
In its analysis, EIA omitted FEA spending on media buys or payments to pollsters or consultants that had no obvious ideological component. Nor did the list include donations from the union's federal PAC, a separate entity funded through voluntary means.
Sunshine State News' request for comparable data from the Florida Education Association was not available by deadline
Click on the attachment below for the NEA's list of 130 recipient organizations.
</H1>
But the poster above is absolutely correct that Unions must separate political funds from Union due. They can get around this requirement as some Union officals have been prosecuted for funnelling money from Union due to political candidates.
Various advisory opinions of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) have
further clarified the proper roles of labor unions in federal elections. For example,
according to the FEC: a teacher’s union could pay for the expenses of interns
working in a Member of Congress’ mobile office as long as their activities were non-
political and exclusively related to the performance of the Member’s official duties;10
a labor union could circumvent political contribution requirements if it bought voter
poll results from a candidate’s campaign committee;11 a labor organization could not
pay for travel and living expenses of its members who were serving as delegates to a
national nominating convention;12 funds received by a labor PAC for the sale of
membership lists would be treated as a contribution to the PAC;13 a labor union’s
PAC funds could be used to pay the expenses of lobbying activities conducted by14
labor union officials; a labor union’s contributions to state and local candidates
should specify that such funds cannot be used for federal candidates;15 and a labor
union PAC can solicit employees of subsidiary corporations for contributions when
the corporate PAC solicits such employees even though the employees are not union16
members and the subsidiary corporation is not subject to a union contract.
FEC regulations also address the scope of a labor organization’s participation
in federal elections. Most notably, the regulations restrict those labor union
communications directed to the general public and to union participation in voter
registration and get-out-the vote-drives from containing express advocacy17 and
prohibit coordination with any candidate or political party. The revised regulations
permit a labor organization to make registration and get-out-the-vote (GOTV)
communications to the general public if such communications: (1) do not expressly
advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or candidates of a
clearly identified political party or (2) are not prepared or distributed with the
coordination of a candidate or political party (will subsequently be referred to as18
“coordinated†or “coordinationâ€). A labor union may also distribute to the general
public, official registration and voting information and forms and absentee ballots (if
permitted by applicable State law) provided that such distributions do not contain express advocacy and are not coordinated.19 A labor organization may donate funds
to State or local government agencies to help defray the costs of printing and
distributing these materials.20 Moreover, a labor organization may also prepare and
distribute to the general public the voting records of Members of Congress and voter
guides, provided that the these materials do not contain express advocacy and that
there was no coordination involved.21
FEC regulations also permit a labor organization to support or conduct voter
registration or GOTV drives aimed both at employees outside its restricted class22 and
the general public, provided that: (1) the labor organization does not expressly
advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or candidates of a
clearly identified political party; (2) the labor organization does not coordinate with
any candidate or political party; (3) the services are not primarily directed at
individuals favored by the labor organization; (4) the services are made without regard
to the voter’s political preference; (5) the workers conducting such services are not
paid only to register or transport voters supporting one or more particular candidates
or political party; and (6) at the time these services are provided, the labor
organization notifies, in writing, those receiving information or assistance regarding
registration or voting of the availability of these services without regard to a potential23
voter’s political preference. Finally, a labor organization may donate funds to
qualified nonprofit organizations to stage candidate debates.24
In United States v. Boyle, in 1973, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, in affirming the conviction of a labor union president for
consenting to unlawful contributions to federal candidates,
Another type of a union security agreement is the agency shop agreement
whereby the employees do not have to join the union or have full union membership
in good standing within thirty days, but must support the union by paying a sum of33
money equivalent to union dues in order to retain employment. Most agency shop
agreements provide for a service fee, which includes an initiation fee as well as certain
dues that are paid by full union members.
The Hanson Court noted that it is argued that the union shop agreement forces
employees into ideological and political associations that violate their freedom of
conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of thought
The shorter hour concept was in place before Ford in many places (usually in areas of higher wage employment) while giving Saturday off was in industries whose workers were predominantly Jewish.
By 1927 at least 262 large establishments had adopted the five-day week, while only 32 had it by 1920.
The unions (around in some form or another, since the late 1800's) had pushed for the shorter work day and work week long before Ford.
I believe some mills in the northeast were the first to actually implement the 5 day week some decades before.
Of course Jewish people always took Sat off. That's not what we are arguing here; ie religious holidays. We are establishing WHO instituted the common practice of the weekends off. It was NOT the unions as you stated unless you can PROVE it. Show how and which Union established the weekend off.
I showed you my evidence now you show your evidence. My source is History.com. What is yours?
From my source:
Manufacturers all over the country, and the world, soon followed Ford's lead, and the Monday-to-Friday workweek became standard practice.
Instead of just linking to a letter detailing the general fund revenue and expenditures, why not just come right out and state what tax cuts you're taking issue with and then use the proposed projections to back up your claims? Or are you incapable of making the point yourself?
I gave that, not him.
Quote:
I'm fully aware of Walker's proposed tax credits and cuts for businesses. They are expected to bring new businesses to Wisconsin by making their state much more business friendly in comparison to Illinois, who just hiked corporate income taxes to historic levels. Pretty smart proposal to court businesses from high tax states if you ask me. More businesses setting up shop in WI means more jobs for Wisconsinites, which means increased tax revenue for the state.
If that was the case, then every company would move to the Dakotas.
A company either wants, high quality workers or low wage workers.
They are not going to get both.
The first to leave the state will be it's educated work force.
[quote=stayinformed40;17982311]You are certianly looking through a different set of glasses than me and the people I know.I am sure we do see it differently.
This is making Unions look even worse than they are, the thug tactics are showing through, support has diminished to zero. The thug tactics I see being used are coming from the Pawn in the Governors Mansion.
The obivous ploy by the Unions and the Demorats fleeing, along with Obummers support, has sealed the coffin for the democrat party. Nope, in fact after the same sort of thing happened in Texas the Democratic Party got stronger, people understand who is being the bully here, it is not th unions or the Dems that had no say in the Bill other than to vote or walk, they walked. Not to worry they will return after making their point, but the focus will be onthe Repubs and their tactics. It is always good to expose the elected officials for who they really are and the voters will be reminded of it come election time.
I guess things look different from the various sides of the fence.I agree and at this point everyone is picking which side of the fence they want to be on, the one where people are allowed to bargain as a collective organization or the one where you do the will of Big Buisness and the Rich, I know where I stand and I know where you stand, the voters can descide in next elections, you may get a eye opening experience.[/quote]
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, tax revenues to the state of WI from corporations will decrease due to the legislation. However, when more businesses relocate to WI and hire people, tax revenues will go back up in the way of personal income tax. Not only that, but payments made for UE compensation will go down as the UE rate decreases. Win-win scenario.
