Walker v. Public Employees

[Gaspar]

Once again you ignore the fact that not all union contracts are based solely on seniority. Understandable, given how inconvenient that fact is to your world view, however.

The point is and remains that there is a significant power imbalance in the employer/employee relationship, especially in larger companies. It's not at all infrequent that employees are fired because of a personal vendetta on the part of a supervisor, rather than any performance issues. Unions help to make things like that less likely.

So unions exist because of vindictive firing?
I thought is was unhealthy working conditions, unequal pay, and lack of benefits?

I had the whole thing wrong.  Forgive me.

[Red Arrow]

That some abuse a process does not lessen the need for such a process.

Flip side is try to get rid of a union employee for anything less than criminal behavior.

[Red Arrow]

So unions exist because of vindictive firing?
I thought is was unhealthy working conditions, unequal pay, and lack of benefits?

I had the whole thing wrong.  Forgive me.

Your are just 100 years behind the times.  Try to catch up.

[custosnox]

Flip side is try to get rid of a union employee for anything less than criminal behavior.

I've done it.  Granted it took a LOT of doing, and was just this side of criminal behavior, but it can be done.

[Red Arrow]

I think firing an employee, union or not, should be among the last choices.  Everyone should be given a chance to improve.  Losing the investment a company has in training etc by firing an employee on a whim is foolish.  Someone who will not try to improve is another story. 

[nathanm]

So unions exist because of vindictive firing?

I'm glad you have better sense than to read the Constitution the way you read my post. To paraphrase the Ninth: "The enumeration in my post of certain reasons shall not be construed to deny or disparage any others that may exist." Or put another way, a single example does not define the limit of one's position.

[Gaspar]

I'm glad you have better sense than to read the Constitution the way you read my post. To paraphrase the Ninth: "The enumeration in my post of certain reasons shall not be construed to deny or disparage any others that may exist." Or put another way, a single example does not define the limit of one's position.

Krap!  I thought we just shot down all the other examples. 


Perhaps I can find an easier to understand analogy from Spongebob.

[Gaspar]

LOL! 

On yesterday's CBS early show. . .

Chris Wragge of CBS is calling the Union Protests in Wisconson "The Tea Party of The Left" and political analyst John Dickerson agrees, "...this is the energizing moment on the Left, progressives and unions have always been together....It's about the threat to their benefits."

I just heard it mentioned again in the office.

Do they really want this to be the liberal mantra going into the elections?

[RecycleMichael]

According to Graham, the unions sure knew something like this was going to happen. Something put that notion in their collective heads. Now, if Graham is mistaken, please prove it.

Don't trip while backpedaling so fast.

You said, "...they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing."

When I asked you to prove your statement, you said someone else claimed he meant that.

Does that strategy work for you? Make wrong statements, then when called to tell the truth, claim someone else said it and then ask the challenger to disprove the third party statements?

Remind me not to hire you as my attorney.

[we vs us]

LOL! 

On yesterday's CBS early show. . .

Chris Wragge of CBS is calling the Union Protests in Wisconson "The Tea Party of The Left" and political analyst John Dickerson agrees, "...this is the energizing moment on the Left, progressives and unions have always been together....It's about the threat to their benefits."

I just heard it mentioned again in the office.

Do they really want this to be the liberal mantra going into the elections?

Now THAT'S an excellent question.  Pros of a lefty Tea Party-style movement:  activism, voter turnout, engagement, constant primarying of longtime Democrats.  Cons:  radicalism, inability to control the fringe, whackadoodle policy prescriptions, constant primarying of longtime Democrats.

There's no doubt that the left (or really, anyone left of the Tea Party) has a major enthusiasm gap right now.  The results of the midterms bear that out. Finding some sort of animating cause would really change 2012's dynamics.

[Gaspar]

Now THAT'S an excellent question.  Pros of a lefty Tea Party-style movement:  activism, voter turnout, engagement, constant primarying of longtime Democrats.  Cons:  radicalism, inability to control the fringe, whackadoodle policy prescriptions, constant primarying of longtime Democrats.

There's no doubt that the left (or really, anyone left of the Tea Party) has a major enthusiasm gap right now.  The results of the midterms bear that out. Finding some sort of animating cause would really change 2012's dynamics.

I don't disagree that they need motivation, and a new cause to rally around, but do they really want to turn to the Unions?

As we saw in the last election, the public is fed up with spending and is pushing back against regulation and dependence systems.

Granted, this is the polar opposite, so it sounds attractive for contrarians , but is the union mentality where the liberal/progressive movement sees their future?

[guido911]

Don't trip while backpedaling so fast.

You said, "...they elected this governor who ran on just what he is now doing."

When I asked you to prove your statement, you said someone else claimed he meant that.

Does that strategy work for you? Make wrong statements, then when called to tell the truth, claim someone else said it and then ask the challenger to disprove the third party statements?

Remind me not to hire you as my attorney.

First, it was your damned question I was trying to answer. I gave you two sources that you apparently take issue with and suddenly I'm somehow being misleading. Did you even bother listening to Graham? I did. Now, I asked you to disprove what Graham said. Crickets. Must be nice living in the bleachers with the others who cannot play the game or are simply losers.

Jeez. Spare me your self-righteous BS in the last sentence of your pathetic rant.

[Breadburner]

First, it was your damned question I was trying to answer. I gave you two sources that you apparently take issue with and suddenly I'm somehow being misleading. Did you even bother listening to Graham? I did. Now, I asked you to disprove what Graham said. Crickets. Must be nice living in the bleachers with the others who cannot play the game or are simply losers.

Jeez. Spare me your self-righteous BS in the last sentence of your pathetic rant.

He is quite the hypocrite.....

[we vs us]

Indiana Democrats getting in on the act. 

Looks like I was only a state away.  I thought Ohio would be next.

[guido911]

Indiana Democrats getting in on the act. 

Looks like I was only a state away.  I thought Ohio would be next.

I saw that. I read where one blogger is calling these representatives of the people "fleebaggers". Heh, kinda funny. I'll stick with cowards. In other news, it appears the Wisconsin cowards' underground bunker has been located.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116672439.html?page=1

What is your take on this strategy of a party shutting down government when a special interest group that supports it throws a temper tantrum?