Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

I most certainly am a taxpayer, and I generally support unions.  Some of them are awful (like when the local automotive union somehow took over collective bargaining for grad students at my university...wtf...) but they're overall a good thing.  Eliminating them through legal action is downright fascist any way you slice it.

[Bouchart]

Quoting myself, but in addition, Wisconsin doesn't allow itself to go into debt.  Every budget must be balanced.  Any shortfall is projected, and not current.  This is why we have budget adjustment bills come towards the end of a session, to account for what actually happened with revenue.

Yes, this is true for every state in the union, I believe.

You have to remember I work in a non-partisan position, I get exposed to much more information than talking points.

Noted, and I thank you for your input here.  I follow financial markets closely (and no, I do not work in the finance industry).  Poor demographic trends in the U.S., coupled with underfunded public pension obligations and a crumbling municipal bond market make me believe that shortfalls and deficits across the country are far worse than projected.  Official projections for these sort of things tend to be overly optimistic.

By the way, I live in New York with the highly corrupt MTA and their union so I have a lot of bitterness towards them.  My mother also works in civil service (not in the MTA) and believe me I hear all sorts of stories about what goes on in these unions.

[Bouchart]

I most certainly am a taxpayer, and I generally support unions.  Some of them are awful (like when the local automotive union somehow took over collective bargaining for grad students at my university...wtf...) but they're overall a good thing.  Eliminating them through legal action is downright fascist any way you slice it.

I have no issue with unions in private industry- the Teamsters, for example, or the automotive workers union.  I believe they have every right to organize.  I wouldn't want to be a member of one, however.  Nor do I believe that union membership should be compulsory if you want to work in trucking or on an assembly line.

Unions in the public sector are another matter.  There's no "cost control" because union members can throw a significant amount of votes for a candidate that offers them enough goodies during negotiations.

[Sowelu]

Unions in the public sector are another matter.  There's no "cost control" because union members can throw a significant amount of votes for a candidate that offers them enough goodies during negotiations.

If you think a union can really swing enough votes just for that one purpose...well, then, maybe there's a significant enough population that thinks it's actually important.  It's not like every goddamn voter is a member of any one given union.  Besides, look at all the other single-issue economic things that people vote for.  People vote for people who will give them tax cuts.  People vote for candidates who endorse construction in the field they work for.  Etc.  Unions really don't change that.

Teachers' unions don't get pro-education people voted in.  People who think teachers should be fucking paid get pro-education people voted in.  So what if a lot of those folks decided to become teachers, and to join a union?  That doesn't make their political opinions any less valid.

[mainiac]

Nor do I believe that union membership should be compulsory if you want to work in trucking or on an assembly line.

"Right-to-work" states make it impossible for unions to have real bargaining power.  Saying you favor a right to work approach to unionization is saying that you favor having no significant labor organizations and pretty soon only 7% of the private workforce is unionized.  It's just hiding it behind a step of removal.  It's like how saying you favor cuts to local or state governments means you favor firing teachers.  You need to actually think through the consequences of your decisions.

[ed boy]

As of December 2010, Wisconsin's unemployment rate was about 7%.  But only 30% are taxpayers?

The official definition of unemployed is people who are willing and able to work, but do not have a job, hence the difference between the numbers.

[mainiac]

Sarcasm fail all over the place in this thread.

[Earthquake Damage]

The official definition of unemployed is people who are willing and able to work, but do not have a job, hence the difference between the numbers.

Allow me to introduce you to my derp.  He's not very herp.  In other words, touché.

I still very much contest the "all taxpayers and only taxpayers dislike public unions" bullshit.

[Urist Imiknorris]

It is a generalization, and is thus bullshit by definition.

[mainiac]

The silliness of that remark was pointed out rather quickly.

[darkrider2]

I just got in argument in my government class over this.

[Ampersand]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=government+surplus+by+country

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=oil+production+by+country

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=oil+consumption+by+country

All these wonderful debates about worker rights and compensation are good and all, but these are debates we would not be having if the USA and it's constituent states bothered to have budget that ends in the black, rather than the red. Of course, in America, our politicians have convinced us that the solution to every problem is for the government to cut it's primary revenue source, Taxes.

[Leafsnail]

Yes, and we like to call ourselves "taxpayers".

Uh... don't public sector workers pay taxes too?

[mainiac]

No, they just murder taxpayer babies and use their blood in rituals to the god of public unions.  That scares off the IRS.

[Zrk2]

No, they just murder taxpayer babies and use their blood in rituals to the god of public unions.  That scares off the IRS.

...But the IRS are public sector workers too!!!! /brain bleach required