borge007 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Right on. I still don't know why the resident lefties on this forum don't get it. Yer so smart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Removing collective bargaining is one of the tools municaplities and school districts can use to get their budgets in line. Walker has not provided an estimate because won't unleashed the full budget until March. But even if he doesn't provide an estimate then, does it really matter? Ending collective bargaining is the right thing to do. Let me ask you this: If you have a Democrat on one side of the table and a union lackey on the other negotiating over wages, benefits, etc... that are being paid for by the taxpayers, who represents the taxpayer? Certainly not the Democrat. How does removing collective bargaining balance a school districts budget? By allowing them to change the terms of employment at will? If you don't feel that the person conducting negotiations on behalf of the taxpayer represents the best interests of the community as a whole then I suggest you run for that office yourself or work to get someone else elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Yer so smart Good or bad, I can't trust a word you say since you and YC were busted earlier in this thread for fabricating the facts. Sorry, pal, but you lose again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Wisconsin Union-Busting Concealing a Koch Brothers Power Grab? Thomas Content at The Wisconsin Sentinel is reporting that a little-noticed section in the rest of the bill (the part that will get passed once one side or the other relents on the union issue) allows Walker to sell state owned power plants at pennies on the dollar. It bypasses the public utility commission oversight, specifying “no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary” SENATE BILL 11 AN ACT relating to: state finances, collective bargaining for public employees, compensation and fringe benefits of public employees, the state civil service system, the Medical Assistance program, sale of certain facilities, granting bonding authority, and making an appropriation SECTION 44. 16.896 of the statutes is created to read: 16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (. What does selling off state assets for no-bid contracts and no public (I.E.- TAXPAYER) oversight have to do with limiting union benefits? If it is "all about the budget" then why eliminate public oversight in regards to selling off state assets paid for by taxpayers? I am sure it is just simple conincidence that this is in the legislation . . that the Koch brothers financed Walker's campaign . . and that the Koch brothers are involved in such industries. The quote below is from Forbes magazine . . Koch owns a coal company subsidiary with facilities in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan; six timber plants throughout the state; and a large network of pipelines in Wisconsin. While Koch controls much of the infrastructure in the state, they have laid off workers to boost profits. At a time when Koch Industries owners David and Charles Koch awarded themselves an extra $11 billion of income from the company, Koch slashed jobs at their Green Bay plant: Officials at Georgia-Pacific said the company is laying off 158 workers at its Day Street plant because out-of-date equipment at the facility is being replaced with newer, more-efficient equipment. The company said much of the new, papermaking equipment will be automated. [...] Malach tells FOX 11 that the layoffs are not because of a drop in demand. In fact, Malach said demand is high for the bath tissue and napkins manufactured at the plant. You really have to wonder how long it will take for Tea Party devotees to realize just how badly they are being used. -sigh- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 How does removing collective bargaining balance a school districts budget? By allowing them to change the terms of employment at will? If you don't feel that the person conducting negotiations on behalf of the taxpayer represents the best interests of the community as a whole then I suggest you run for that office yourself or work to get someone else elected. Companies change terms of employment at will all the time in the private sector - it's called "your job has been eliminated" or "you've been downsized". I also can't for the life of me understand how you can't figure out how removing collective bargaining saves money. Uhhhm...We did get our people elected last November - Scott Walker and all the other Republicans that took over the legislature and the Governorship and they are doing what we elected them to do. Sorry you don't like it but we did just follow your advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 What does selling off state assets for no-bid contracts and no public (I.E.- TAXPAYER) oversight have to do with limiting union benefits? If it is "all about the budget" then why eliminate public oversight in regards to selling off state assets paid for by taxpayers? I am sure it is just simple conincidence that this is in the legislation . . that the Koch brothers financed Walker's campaign . . and that the Koch brothers are involved in such industries. The quote below is from Forbes magazine . . -sigh- I also heard the Koch brothers are part of a a small group of people who control most of the free world. They call themselves "The Pentablet", and it's made up of The Pope, The Koch Brothers, The President, Snookie (from Jersey Shore) and DMD. I think you're on to something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Companies change terms of employment at will all the time in the private sector - it's called "your job has been eliminated" or "you've been downsized". I also can't for the life of me understand how you can't figure out how removing collective bargaining saves money. Uhhhm...We did get our people elected last November - Scott Walker and all the other Republicans that took over the legislature and the Governorship and they are doing what we elected them to do. Sorry you don't like it but we did just follow your advice. So....you are ok with a superintendent walking in to a classroom and telling that teacher that you now have 35 students instead of 25, for no extra pay? I can't understand how you fail to see that a stable environment is needed in public schools. Education of the next generation should be one of the most important issues we face as a country and not a political football. What did you elect them to do? Stick their noses into local issues like school budgets? So much for limited government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I also heard the Koch brothers are part of a a small group of people who control most of the free world. They call themselves "The Pentablet", and it's made up of The Pope, The Koch Brothers, The President, Snookie (from Jersey Shore) and DMD. I think you're on to something. I cant wait for you to demonstrate how selling off TAXPAYER assets with zero oversight in no bid contracts relates to eliminating collective bargaining and reducing union benefits. Since you are an avid defender of the everyman taxpayer an all . . G'ahead. I will wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 So....you are ok with a superintendent walking in to a classroom and telling that teacher that you now have 35 students instead of 25, for no extra pay? I can't understand how you fail to see that a stable environment is needed in public schools. Education of the next generation should be one of the most important issues we face as a country and not a political football. What did you elect them to do? Stick their noses into local issues like school budgets? So much for limited government. The teacher could quit anytime he/she wants if that happens - just like it happens in the real world where most of us don't have the false protection of a union. I'd say, take the 35 kids and in the meantime polish up that resume and then quit when you find something better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Good or bad, I can't trust a word you say since you and YC were busted earlier in this thread for fabricating the facts. Sorry, pal, but you lose again. Wrong I'm not Rush or Glen or Sarah or Michelle, Etc, etc. Edited February 24, 2011 by borge007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The teacher could quit anytime he/she wants if that happens - just like it happens in the real world where most of us don't have the false protection of a union. I'd say, take the 35 kids and in the meantime polish up that resume and then quit when you find something better. Once again-you just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I cant wait for you to demonstrate how selling off TAXPAYER assets with zero oversight in no bid contracts relates to eliminating collective bargaining and reducing union benefits. Since you are an avid defender of the everyman taxpayer an all . . G'ahead. I will wait. I agree with you - I don't like the no-bid contract either, but where does it say he can sell it for pennies? Or is that just an assumption? What I think is really happening here is the left is trying to find anything and everything that remotely smacks of a conspiracy (or whatever) to try and derail this thing. It doesn't really matter if this were even removed because then they would find something else - so why not this? Nothing will EVER be good enough. Something about "no-bid contracts" and Jim Doyle rings a bell but I can't seem to place it. Hmmm...oh, that's right did he do it with Talgo during the whole Car-Speed Rail fiasco? Were you lamenting no-bid, no oversite contracts then? Edited February 24, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Once again-you just don't get it. Actually, it's been proven time and again in this very post that you're the one who doesn't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Wrong. Truth hurts, doesn't it, liar? Edited February 24, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The teacher could quit anytime he/she wants if that happens. You really don't know what you're talking about. Leaving during the school year, the teacher risks and most likely will lose their teaching credentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 You really don't know what you're talking about. Leaving during the school year, the teacher risks and most likely will lose their teaching credentials. Then suck it up and quit after the school year. Point is, there are ALWAYS choices. You either try and make the best of it or let it drag you down for the rest of your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The teacher could quit anytime he/she wants if that happens - just like it happens in the real world where most of us don't have the false protection of a union. I'd say, take the 35 kids and in the meantime polish up that resume and then quit when you find something better. Because that would be in the best interest of our kids? There is plenty wrong with our educational system, but that wouldn't help it. Our district is leaving 40 positions vacant this year. How is the union protecting those positions? It isn't.The school doesn't have the money so they aren't filling them. How, specifically, does collective bargaining impose a cost on the school districts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I cant wait for you to demonstrate how selling off TAXPAYER assets with zero oversight in no bid contracts relates to eliminating collective bargaining and reducing union benefits. Since you are an avid defender of the everyman taxpayer an all . . G'ahead. I will wait. You are right it has nothing to do collective bargaining but does it have to. It is all under the umbrella of the budget repair bill. The selling of the power plants in a piece of the budget repair bill and so is the collective bargaining issue. No where does it say he will sell for pennies - I believe what he is doing is protecting against not having to sell to highest bidder. Selling to highest bidder may not be in the best interest of the state. Another part of this bill that is not being mentioned much is that the bill gives Walker the ability to get a lower interest rate on the debt and by doing this saves WI 150 million. This deadline is Friday and if the Dems don't come back WI loses out on saving 150 million and Walker has said that will lead to layoffs. So not only are the 14 Dems breaking the law they are going to cost WI 150 million by playing the runaway game. These people should be ashamed of themselves but then again they are politicians and they have no shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Because that would be in the best interest of our kids? There is plenty wrong with our educational system, but that wouldn't help it. Our district is leaving 40 positions vacant this year. How is the union protecting those positions? It isn't.The school doesn't have the money so they aren't filling them. How, specifically, does collective bargaining impose a cost on the school districts? Cleary this is not about the kids - it's about money and power. Just like it is all the time - doesn't matter what side it is. Let's not fool ourselves thinking this is about the children as that excuse is tired, old and been beat to death by the left for the last bazillion years. It's NEVER about the kids - that's just a convenient excuse to try and cover up the real motive which is, of course, money and power. Here is a link that explains some of the cost savings. Here is another link as well. Edited February 24, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 There is no doubt that the current union contracts need to change. There is no doubt that Walker is a liar. And there is no doubt that each of them cares far more about their own self interests than the kids each is supposed to be serving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I agree with you - I don't like the no-bid contract either, but where does it say he can sell it for pennies? Or is that just an assumption? What I think is really happening here is the left is trying to find anything and everything that remotely smacks of a conspiracy (or whatever) to try and derail this thing. It doesn't really matter if this were even removed because then they would find something else - so why not this? Nothing will EVER be good enough. Something about "no-bid contracts" and Jim Doyle rings a bell but I can't seem to place it. Hmmm...oh, that's right did he do it with Talgo during the whole Car-Speed Rail fiasco? Were you lamenting no-bid, no oversite contracts then? Weren't you one of those ranting about the unions being "handed control" of GM? Yet you're cool with a public asset being sold off to a crony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 No where does it say he will sell for pennies - I believe what he is doing is protecting against not having to sell to highest bidder. Selling to highest bidder may not be in the best interest of the state. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Weren't you one of those ranting about the unions being "handed control" of GM? Yet you're cool with a public asset being sold off to a crony? Wait! You have inside knowledge that it is going to be sold off to one of his "cronies"? Maybe he's going to sell it to Al Gore? Seems to me you're being pretty presumptuous. I wasn't necessarily ranting about GM but I certainly wasn't happy. Edited February 24, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 There is no doubt that the current union contracts need to change. There is no doubt that Walker is a liar. And there is no doubt that each of them cares far more about their own self interests than the kids each is supposed to be serving. Fixed. Just what exactly did he lie about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Walker sure doesn't come off as an ethical fellow in that prank phone call he fell for . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts