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.
Are you kidding me? Are you living in a bubble or do search engines not work for you?
You can find any number of speeches and quotes in articles to support what no one else has tried to dispute. Many disagree with his stance, but no one except you doubts that it is his stance.
"There are 69,000 state employees," Walker said. "The wages and benefits that any public sector employee gets are much, much better than the private sector."
Walker says that goes for local government employees, too. The state, he says, needs to demand reform and can do so because a significant portion of the state budget flows to those local governments.
"Benefits are what kill us," Walker said. "We're heading down the same path as Chrysler and GM, where you have legacy costs that you are just incapable of sustaining."
Walker says he does not view wage-and-benefit reform as a radical proposition but as a reasonable expectation, especially when it comes to health and retirement benefits.
"They are completely out of whack with the people who are paying the bills right now, the taxpayers," he said."
Not ONE word about Union Busting in what you posted or in the link.
You get an F as in Fail.
NEXT!
Casper
Your own article says he wants to cut money--not that he wants to take away collective bargaining rights. They're NOT THE SAME THING. The unions have agreed to every single concession he's asked for, and here we are. This isn't about money any more--it's about tricking the voters and bringing in a right wing ideology that moderates and liberals don't want.
becaue PUBLIC unions are not supposed to have barganing...period
National Labor Relations Act ("Wagner Act"),Congress enacted the landmark Act in 1935 - the Magna Carta of the American labor movement. It excluded federal, state and local employees. It created the National Labor Relations Board to enforce the rights of labor.
even FDR said so
"""Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."""...FDR 1937
and you want to know WHY it is a problem to have 'collective barganing' in the PUBLIC SECTOR............The problem is there is no REAL "collective bargaining." ......Public sector unions are a client of a Democratic bureaucracy that wants their vote. The taxpayer - the "employer" - isn't a player in the bargaining process.....
.even look at your local school budget vote...it has NOTHING to due with the PAY/benefits of the teachers..you vote on 1/10th of the entire budget.....
Your own article says he wants to cut money--not that he wants to take away collective bargaining rights. They're NOT THE SAME THING. The unions have agreed to every single concession he's asked for, and here we are. This isn't about money any more--it's about tricking the voters and bringing in a right wing ideology that moderates and liberals don't want.
He has said that pensions and benefits are the problem. I linked to one pre-election article and statement. There are others.
This is about eliminating collective bargaining for benefits and pensions, not wages. No one is tricking anyone.
Funny how Democrats were fine when they elected Obama, who along with a Democrat Congress foisted an unpopular health care law on us in record time with little debate or amending. That was fine. Guess it's a double standard in WI and the sore loser, run away coward thing is a bit much too.
I am glad to see the righties are dropping the Lie that this was all about the budget, it was about breaking the unions as the people have said all along. I love it when the right-wingers out themselves, they are gonna feel if hard when election time rolls around.
Casper
Walker's plan to reduce state and local government expenses was known publicly back in August. The teachers threatened a protest at that time. Nevertheless, the tapped out WI taxpayersoverwhelmingly elected Walkerto get the public employee unions off their backs.
No, it isn't. Walker was elected by an overwhelming majority to do EXACTLY what he's doing. I've already posted the link to the August 2010 newspaper article stating such.
No you did not, sad to see you guys chasing your tails, no not really, I Love watching you guys trying to catch your tails, FYI the Nation is watching.
Casper
1. Nobody ever said public employees should not have benefits. It just does not seem right that they have 74 cents in benefits per dollar of compensation, TRIPLE the average of the private sector employees who pay the taxes that provide the benefits.
2. The solution is not to raise private sector benefits to unsustainable levels. I am the CEO (I also take out the trash) so I know full well that the cost of benefits comes out of the finite pool of value generated by employees, based on their usefulness to the company (and indirectly, to the rest of society.) Unlike public sector employees, for me, "benefits" are not some money-tree by which I or my union can carve out value I did not earn.
My response:
1. As a spouse of a public school teacher in Florida, they don't have that wonderful of benefits and since she just started teaching, we'll see that pension only if she works for 30+years (if ever now lol). So while I agree with you that some of the northern states have it way better than some, especially us in Florida, I cannot agree with your entire point. Public employees also pay taxes and therefore are paying into the tax system as well.
2. With all do respect but the CEO's that I'm talking about do not take out their own trash. It's also shameful that the CEO's of the companies I'm taking about value obscene profits over livable wages and health care for employees. I'm all for a CEO like you getting wealthy, but not at the expense of your employees. That too would be as unfair as the taxes you are being robbed of to pay these greedy teachers and government workers. If you are not this CEO than excellent, but the companies I'm talking about make billions while the workers make min wage with no bennies.
Your own article says he wants to cut money--not that he wants to take away collective bargaining rights. They're NOT THE SAME THING. The unions have agreed to every single concession he's asked for, and here we are. This isn't about money any more--it's about tricking the voters and bringing in a right wing ideology that moderates and liberals don't want.
The Progressive train has left the State where it started.
In 2006, would you ever thought, Wisconsin would have a Conservative majority? My how times have changed. The great experiment has proved to be a slow, long road to hell.
It is time to go back to where it all failed and try something different.
The people of Wisconsin, spoke loudly on Nov. 2nd, 2010.
Your own article says he wants to cut money--not that he wants to take away collective bargaining rights. They're NOT THE SAME THING. The unions have agreed to every single concession he's asked for, and here we are. This isn't about money any more--it's about tricking the voters and bringing in a right wing ideology that moderates and liberals don't want.
Hm, I didn't know the union agreed to stop dues deduction from paychecks.
And I didn't know that the union agreed to mandatory membership.
Your own article says he wants to cut money--not that he wants to take away collective bargaining rights. They're NOT THE SAME THING. The unions have agreed to every single concession he's asked for, and here we are. This isn't about money any more--it's about tricking the voters and bringing in a right wing ideology that moderates and liberals don't want.
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.
