Battle of Wisconsin

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

The corporate donor is not an employee. A public sector union has access and interaction with their politician employers that even corporate donors do not enjoy.

so you feel bad about unions having more access? A union is an interest group, like AARP or NRA, it serves to better its members. A company is out for its own interest, out to make money. Unions Should have more access than than a company for just this reason, they are an association of citizens, not a business.

also, I can even turn that around...because a corporate donor is the same thing as an employee when the government is paying their contract. why do you think companies give money to senators in the first place? so the government trows them nice juicy contracts probably when they shouldn't.

Originally Posted by August

You sure you want to go there? "Union" and "Over Budget" are about as synonymous as it gets.

Unions do not belong in the public sector. End of story.

maybe in your mind. I bet you ignored all the cost plus contracts in Iraq, and all the buildings we built...but didn't actually build, or the Commanchie, the JSF, etc etc...

this is just one of those reactionary things whenever republicans get into office...they spin some yard that unions are ruining this country and go on a crusade to get rid of them. Why are they doing this? well duh, their buddies in the private sector want a piece of the Pie. But luckily for them politicians love to overpay private sector than they do public.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

also, I can even turn that around...because a corporate donor is the same thing as an employee when the government is paying their contract. why do you think companies give money to senators in the first place? so the government trows them nice juicy contracts probably when they shouldn't.

Thank you for proving my point Gimpy. A government official that gets caught unethically pandering to a company looses his seat and the company looses it's contract. Where are the ethics violations when it comes to pandering to public sector unions?

Also a private company that is hired by the government has competition to get and keep that contract. Public sector unions with mandatory membership have eliminated their competition and are scared to death they might not bet to keep their monopoly. That's why they oppose annual re-certification and voluntary union dues.

Bottom line is the unions are going to loose this battle. Fiscal realities cannot be ignored or shouted down, and the longer the Democrats continue to ignore it the worse it's going to hurt them next year.

I predict the Dems will abandon unions much the same way the GoP abandoned the religious right.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Thank you for proving my point Gimpy. A government official that gets caught unethically pandering to a company looses his seat and the company looses it's contract. Where are the ethics violations when it comes to pandering to public sector unions?

Also a private company that is hired by the government has competition to get and keep that contract. Public sector unions with mandatory membership have eliminated their competition and are scared to death they might not bet to keep their monopoly. That's why they oppose annual re-certification and voluntary union dues.

what about paying off the government don't you get? Look at the TARP bill for instance. Those companies didn't deserve a bailout for their crooked business...but they got it. Why? because congress was in their pocket. Again look at iraq. we were "unethically pandering" the whole time there did anyone lose their seat? no. even after countless millions were wasted.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

what about paying off the government don't you get? Look at the TARP bill for instance. Those companies didn't deserve a bailout for their crooked business...but they got it. Why? because congress was in their pocket. Again look at iraq. we were "unethically pandering" the whole time there did anyone lose their seat? no. even after countless millions were wasted.

Nice try but Iraq has nothing to do with public sector unions, TARP, or the price of tea in China. You are just casting randomly about hoping to muddy up the waters sufficiently that attention will be directed away from the excesses of public sector unions, but it just ain't gonna work.

What do you have against keeping public sector worker wage increases limited to cost of living unless approved by the voters?

What do you have against letting public sector workers decide whether they want a union to represent them?

Why do you support punishing a cash strapped town for using private plow trucks to take up the slack for the unions inability to get the job done in an emergency?

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Nice try but Iraq has nothing to do with public sector unions, TARP, or the price of tea in China. You are just casting randomly about hoping to muddy up the waters sufficiently that attention will be directed away from the excesses of public sector unions, but it just ain't gonna work.

What do you have against keeping public sector worker wage increases limited to cost of living unless approved by the voters?

What do you have against letting public sector workers decide whether they want a union to represent them?

Why do you support punishing a cash strapped town for using private plow trucks to take up the slack for the unions inability to get the job done in an emergency?

Because it proves that private companies can rip of the public just as much as "unions can" as long as they have elected officials in their pocket enough.

Look at my hometown for example. they built a new parking garage with no bidding for contracts. why? because the guy in charge was an old business buddy of the contractor in charge for the parking garage...and undoubtedly that cost the city of Traverse City a lot of money.

I'm not against saving money..but i am against the GOP busting unions for their own gain or because they want to help their buddies.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Because it proves that private companies can rip of the public just as much as "unions can" as long as they have elected officials in their pocket enough.

Look at my hometown for example. they built a new parking garage with no bidding for contracts. why? because the guy in charge was an old business buddy of the contractor in charge for the parking garage...and undoubtedly that cost the city of Traverse City a lot of money.

I'm not against saving money..but i am against the GOP busting unions for their own gain or because they want to help their buddies.

Yeah you are. You think it's perfectly ok for unions to rob the taxpayer because others are doing it too! That hypocrisy is why the Democrats did so badly last election and I don't see it changing for the next one.

Bottom line either the Democrats abandon the public sector unions or they will continue to loose power in the next election.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah you are. You think it's perfectly ok for unions to rob the taxpayer because others are doing it too! That hypocrisy is why the Democrats did so badly last election and I don't see it changing for the next one.

Bottom line either the Democrats abandon the public sector unions or they will continue to loose power in the next election.

I wasn't really saying two wrongs make a right...I was more pointing out how black and white your thinking is. You've boiled down shades of grey to:

Unions bad. Private sector good.

and somehow you've convinced yourself that only unions are the ones ripping off taxpayers while the truth lays somewhere in between. If the republicans really wanted to eliminate waste and balance the budget they would also look at waste in private contracts too. But they wont..why? because all this is all just union busting.