Will Walker win?

[Armistead]

Most polls show his ratings starting to really tank. Dems still out of town.

I've never figured the reason of the legality of it, but why do politicians go out of state? Why don't they just stay home and not go to work. Sure there's a legal reason why, hard to believe they could be locked up for staying in state and not voting.

I honestly don't know who I'm for.

[Tribesman]

Most polls show his ratings starting to really tank.

.
Its because his "cost cutting" is just union bashing for the sake of it.
He took his mandate and then went way beyond it on an ideological crusade.

[Armistead]

Private run unions can do what they want, public unions do need to be line. Course with states being broke, it's cut cost or shed workers. States are cutting regarding the private sector, so I agree all should be in line.

Course if the GOP didn't let corporations run amuck, the middle class would be thriving and it wouldn't be an issue. It's possible unions will take off again in the future to fight corporate america running the middle class into poverty.

[Platapus]

While I accept that leaving the state is a legal political maneuver; and I recognize that both parties do it, I personally find it distasteful and not in keeping with the concept of an elected representative. :nope:

They are elected to represent the citizens and that means showing up and making the unpopular decisions.

Running away to prevent a quorum is dishonourable to me. :nope:

[gimpy117]

Im glad to see his ratings tank. you can't just get rid of collective bargaining and then slash corporate taxes without somebody getting mad.

[Freiwillige]

I am all for him, I hope he kicks the unions in the nuts!

Corporations raping from the top and unions raping from the bottom its amazing we average Americans get any scraps at all.

[gimpy117]

I am all for him, I hope he kicks the unions in the nuts!

Corporations raping from the top and unions raping from the bottom its amazing we average Americans get any scraps at all.

huh??? Unions give better wages for the people. the people who are complaining are the people at the top who think it hurts your bottom line

[tater]

Public employees should not be allowed to unionize at all.

They have a mechanism to demand better contracts, it's called the political system. Our elected representatives should be free to set salaries, and hire and fore at will. The current system allows them to in effect elect their own bosses, and the very people who decide what they get paid.

There is no balance at all, unlike in the private sector where if a union demands too much, they literally put themselves out of work as they cause their employer to fail (look at GM, the only reason this didn't happen was they were bailed out (make no mistake, the bailout was for the UNION (payback), not for GM)).

[Bubblehead1980]

Most polls associated with the WI teacher issue that suddenly show Walker's approval in decline and more support for the Union are skewed and giving a false picture of their support.The polls showed a split with a slight lead for Walker's plan then all of sudden a CBS poll showed different, NY times followed, like magically overnight the numbers change.They started sampling DEMOCRATS only. Can't find the link right now but also heard O'Reilly talking about it and believe it's true, CBS is in the tank for left wing, obviously.

I believe Walker will ultimately get what he wants, citizens know it is needed.

[Armistead]

Im glad to see his ratings tank. you can't just get rid of collective bargaining and then slash corporate taxes without somebody getting mad.

I don't think unions should be public, since the taxpayers don't get a vote in it, but with the corporate rape, we'll all have to get in a union to try and get benefits in the future.

[gimpy117]

true...policy should set public employees...but is he getting rid of collective bargaining for all or just public employees?

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZeKaEFHAlg&feature=feedu :up:

[tater]

true...policy should set public employees...but is he getting rid of collective bargaining for all or just public employees?

The WI bill is only for public employees. The news and unions don't want you to know that, perhaps, but that's all we're talking about. ONLY WI State employees, no one else.

[gimpy117]

:yawn: oh boy. and the conspiracy theories come out. "the unions don't want you to know"

[tater]

:yawn: oh boy. and the conspiracy theories come out. "the unions don't want you to know"

They protest as if this is an attack on ALL unions, don't they?

[August]

already addressed

[nikimcbee]

I think they should pass the bill, so they can find out what's in the bill.:up:

[gimpy117]

They protest as if this is an attack on ALL unions, don't they?

well to be honest, it's a start...and thats scary.

[Tribesman]

They protest as if this is an attack on ALL unions, don't they?
That is because it is, that is how these things work.

[tater]

That is because it is, that is how these things work.

Not at all, what the State should be able to do with employees of the people, and what they can do to private entities are entirely different, and should be.

I'm pretty conservative fiscally, and I think government employees should be disallowed unions entirely, but not private citizens. That said, I think there should be zero government involvement in unions at all. No regulations. If employees want to organize, so be it. If management wants to fire every single one of them for organizing... so be it.

[Tribesman]

Not at all
Look at any anti union legislation, measures are taken to really honestly only target one issue with one sector.....then they get applied across the boards.

No regulations. If employees want to organize, so be it. If management wants to fire every single one of them for organizing... so be it.

Yours is the very attitude which led to unions being created in the first place and it is the attitude which shows how important unions still are.
You are quite like several characters in Dickens novels with your views.

[tater]

Not at all. The government making regulations to protect unions is in fact taking sides. The government should be "colorblind" in this case.

Employers should absolutely have the power to fire at will. Unions can still exist in that context, but they'd need to actually bring something positive to the table—I know most union supporters hate that idea. As it is, unions are against management. They actively work to make the business they work for less competitive—they are like early colonialism, they seek to extract wealth from the company they work for, and who cares if they kill it.

Instead, they should be the pool of skilled labor. better than training someone off the street. "Hire us because we're BETTER." "We cost more, but we're worth it!"

That is an entirely legitimate model, but it would have to be true. Given that for many unions the reality is instead "we're lazy, and less productive!" I can see your point.

Regarding this legislation, it ONLY applies to State workers. It is not easy to move such legislation to the private secotr, and in fact may be impossible given other laws on the books. Federal workers to not have the rights of WI state employees. Even FDR didn't think government workers should unionize.

[Tribesman]

The government making regulations to protect unions is in fact taking sides.
Enough said:har:
I did hear the government was thinking of some consumer protection legislation, but a bright spark decided that would be taking sides:doh:

[Armistead]

Not at all, what the State should be able to do with employees of the people, and what they can do to private entities are entirely different, and should be.

I'm pretty conservative fiscally, and I think government employees should be disallowed unions entirely, but not private citizens. That said, I think there should be zero government involvement in unions at all. No regulations. If employees want to organize, so be it. If management wants to fire every single one of them for organizing... so be it.

I tend to agree. It's a great conflict of interest, ought to be against campaign laws. The public that pays the taxes has no vote. Big corporations on the right, unions on the left, most of us in the middle.

[gimpy117]

its tricky though, because these employees have a right to have fair jobs and wages...but they are public employees. Maybe an independent oversight board instead of a union?

[Armistead]

I understand, because most of the services they offer aren't based on competition or the market, they provide a service, not sell services or products like the private sector.

So they're jobs are based on who is willing to do them for the pay, obvious you pay less, you'll get less quality people. The problems with the unions is that you often get stuck with less quality and can't get rid of them.

I am in the camp that police and firefighters, people who put their lives at risk deserve good pay, but also aware a lot of people do these jobs for free. If all the volunteer firefighters quit, cost would go sky high. In some area their services save taxpayers over 50%. One of the reasons so many of these jobs pay less is the many people that are willing to do them for free.

Overall our elected officials set the guidelines and payrates, that system seems to work fairly well in non union government jobs.

My issue is with the GOP selling out to corps, what will balance that out...so far nothing. It's really the buildup of the mass corporate state that's created a dying middle class that can no longer pay public unions.
That and other mass spending that government shouldn't be doing.