tosberg34 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 because it is not about saving money....fitzwalker has even said so but you guys don't ever seem to remember that part. Of course it's about saving money. Switching away from WEAC insurance alone is a huge money saver. You don't seem to remember that part either. What don't you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 because it is not about saving money....fitzwalker has even said so but you guys don't ever seem to remember that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 http://www.postcrescent.com/article/201107...aukauna-changes Wow 10 paid sick days while only working a partial year?? No wonder they could go party it up in Mad town. Not being paid for snow days. Merit pay for staff - Have to agree here!!!! The best part was the following quote - "I worry about the mental and physical health of our members," Oh and Ground Chuck - yep after all these disgusting things being done nobody wants to teach under such harsh conditions - 400 applicants for an open position - I guess some people still want to teach the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I sure wouldnt be happy if my take home pay was reduced by over 8% all of a sudden. 400 applicants? I am surprised there arent more . . . . this economy aint all that great. But then again . . how many of them are QUALIFIED applicants? This is one small district. How it plays out over the whole state will be interesting indeed . . . . the best part IMO is cutting the insurance being through WEAC. However that is a temporary fix depending on the health of the group in question and doesnt necessarily result in multi-year savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I sure wouldnt be happy if my take home pay was reduced by over 8% all of a sudden. 400 applicants? I am surprised there arent more . . . . this economy aint all that great. But then again . . how many of them are QUALIFIED applicants? This is one small district. How it plays out over the whole state will be interesting indeed . . . . the best part IMO is cutting the insurance being through WEAC. However that is a temporary fix depending on the health of the group in question and doesnt necessarily result in multi-year savings. Dude where you coming up with 8% reduction in pay??? 400 applicants is a lot - this is Kaukauna we are talking about - we recently had an opening for one of these so called private sector professional jobs that these teachers are saying make so much more and had nowhere near 400 applicants and a lot were very very qualified. Heck maybe some of the MPS teachers that are very qualified that are getting laid off strictly due to SENIORITY are applying? It is just more and more whining - I am mean the mental anguish must be unbearable!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Dude where you coming up with 8% reduction in pay??? 400 applicants is a lot - this is Kaukauna we are talking about - we recently had an opening for one of these so called private sector professional jobs that these teachers are saying make so much more and had nowhere near 400 applicants and a lot were very very qualified. Heck maybe some of the MPS teachers that are very qualified that are getting laid off strictly due to SENIORITY are applying? It is just more and more whining - I am mean the mental anguish must be unbearable!!!! Lets see . . . . 2.6% more for health insurance plus 5.8% of pension contributions= 8.4% correct? I never said a reduction in pay, I said a reduction in "take home pay". Now I dont have the figures for home much more a 2.6 in insurance contributions is, perhaps less than 2.6 of overall wages. But it is a minimum of 5.8% of wages, and will raise from there depending on how much the insurance raise is. Thank God you arent one of the applicants, as reading is clearly not your strong suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Lets see . . . . 2.6% more for health insurance plus 5.8% of pension contributions= 8.4% correct? I never said a reduction in pay, I said a reduction in "take home pay". Now I dont have the figures for home much more a 2.6 in insurance contributions is, perhaps less than 2.6 of overall wages. But it is a minimum of 5.8% of wages, and will raise from there depending on how much the insurance raise is. Thank God you arent one of the applicants, as reading is clearly not your strong suit. Dude - they are paying themselves the 5.8% guaranteed plus probably a guaranteed return until they die and then the spouse gets it. I will give you the 2.6% but the 5.8% is going to go right back in the pocket. I guess 2.6% to save jobs is just way too much. Oh the humanity - 2.6% will cause me just physical and mental pain boo hoo whine whine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Lets see . . . . 2.6% more for health insurance plus 5.8% of pension contributions= 8.4% correct? I never said a reduction in pay, I said a reduction in "take home pay". Now I dont have the figures for home much more a 2.6 in insurance contributions is, perhaps less than 2.6 of overall wages. But it is a minimum of 5.8% of wages, and will raise from there depending on how much the insurance raise is. Thank God you arent one of the applicants, as reading is clearly not your strong suit. Great. So now they are getting closer to what everyone else pays in the real world - but they still only work 9 months out of the year. Edited July 13, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Dude - they are paying themselves the 5.8% guaranteed plus probably a guaranteed return until they die and then the spouse gets it. I will give you the 2.6% but the 5.8% is going to go right back in the pocket. I guess 2.6% to save jobs is just way too much. Oh the humanity - 2.6% will cause me just physical and mental pain boo hoo whine whine They are still reducing their take home pay by oer 5% . . how can you argue this? Put it this way, would you be upset if your take home pay was reduced over 5% all of a sudden? If you would be in any way annoyed or upset, then according to your standards you would be "whining". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 They are still reducing their take home pay by oer 5% . . how can you argue this? Put it this way, would you be upset if your take home pay was reduced over 5% all of a sudden? If you would be in any way annoyed or upset, then according to your standards you would be "whining". It did happen to me - I used to be a salary person AND get overtime - I worked a ton of hours - all of the sudden we did not get OT - our whole department and others all took a hit - we understood it happened during a down year and we understood why it needed to be done. It happens in the REAL world - something you liberals tend to not understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 It did happen to me - I used to be a salary person AND get overtime - I worked a ton of hours - all of the sudden we did not get OT - our whole department and others all took a hit - we understood it happened during a down year and we understood why it needed to be done. It happens in the REAL world - something you liberals tend to not understand. WOW! So you were not upset in the slightest about taking a pay cut? You cheerfully said "no problem! I love getting less money!" and went about your way? Not one hard feeling about it at alll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 WOW! So you were not upset in the slightest about taking a pay cut? You cheerfully said "no problem! I love getting less money!" and went about your way? Not one hard feeling about it at alll? You just don't get it do you? I think all you really care about is arguing. Of course I was not happy - would I have liked to keep getting paid? Absolutely!!! Did all the people that lost this take home pay organize a meeting and whine and complain that our morale would be hurt? No!!! Did we say that this would hurt us physically and mentally? NO!!! Did we call radio stations and write letters to newspapers saying nobody is going to want to do this job if you continue to treat us like dirt? NO!!!!! We understood that yes it sucks but when a company is doing bad you sometimes sacrifice - I also think that all of us taking this cut in pay saved at least one person from being laid off - in my mind that was worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I agree. We should all sacrifice as much as possible so our companies will make excess profits that will never be shared with it's employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I agree. We should all sacrifice as much as possible so our companies will make excess profits that will never be shared with it's employees. My best friend WAS an employee at Facebook. He is 41 years old and is now retired. I guess he is just one of those evil rich people. Man that company is just downright evil and treats people horribly!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) You just don't get it do you? I think all you really care about is arguing. Of course I was not happy - would I have liked to keep getting paid? Absolutely!!! Did all the people that lost this take home pay organize a meeting and whine and complain that our morale would be hurt? No!!! Did we say that this would hurt us physically and mentally? NO!!! Did we call radio stations and write letters to newspapers saying nobody is going to want to do this job if you continue to treat us like dirt? NO!!!!! We understood that yes it sucks but when a company is doing bad you sometimes sacrifice - I also think that all of us taking this cut in pay saved at least one person from being laid off - in my mind that was worth it. Better to take a pay-cut than get laid off or let go. Can't pay the bills with no job - but you could still pay them with a 5% pay-cut. Besides, in the real world your whining and crying (or walking off the job) would have gotten you fired as well. Edited July 13, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 looks like all the fake Dems lost. just love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 looks like all the fake Dems lost. just love it! Just curious - do you think the Fake Dem tactic was wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Just curious - do you think the Fake Dem tactic was wrong? Clearly it was. BTW, if they lost, who won? Edit: Never mind, just read the article on Yahoo. Edited July 13, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Clearly it was. BTW, if they lost, who won? I agree that it was wrong and I could have went out and voted for one of these fake dems and chose not to because it is wrong. I would also be curious if Yukon thought that the 14 senators leaving the state was wrong - both similar but one seems to be OK to a lot of people??? ALL of these recall elections are wrong and the incumbent should win ALL of them. Walker was voted in by the people and if he does not produce he will be voted out by the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I agree that it was wrong and I could have went out and voted for one of these fake dems and chose not to because it is wrong. I would also be curious if Yukon thought that the 14 senators leaving the state was wrong - both similar but one seems to be OK to a lot of people??? ALL of these recall elections are wrong and the incumbent should win ALL of them. Walker was voted in by the people and if he does not produce he will be voted out by the people. Well, that will be up to the people, won't it? I have no idea how GOP or Dem leaning these districts are traditionally but if the Dems win three, it will be a disaster for Walker and an object lesson for BOTH parties that going too far from the center is not a good idea. Neither will learn from it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Well, that will be up to the people, won't it? I have no idea how GOP or Dem leaning these districts are traditionally but if the Dems win three, it will be a disaster for Walker and an object lesson for BOTH parties that going too far from the center is not a good idea. Neither will learn from it though. See this is where I disagree with you. These recall elections are not the way this should be handled - these senators are not being recalled because of the actual senator - these recall elections are being USED to shift the power - the general elections are what should determine this. This is just setting a bad precedent just like the 14 senators running away from the job they were elected to do - the stupid republicans running fake dems is also a bad precedent. Give Walker his time - it actually looks like some of the things he is doing are working - if he does not get Wisconsin on track and create jobs then he will get his but ousted and the next general election will swing to the Dems - recalls is NOT the correct way to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 See this is where I disagree with you. These recall elections are not the way this should be handled - these senators are not being recalled because of the actual senator - these recall elections are being USED to shift the power - the general elections are what should determine this. This is just setting a bad precedent just like the 14 senators running away from the job they were elected to do - the stupid republicans running fake dems is also a bad precedent. Give Walker his time - it actually looks like some of the things he is doing are working - if he does not get Wisconsin on track and create jobs then he will get his but ousted and the next general election will swing to the Dems - recalls is NOT the correct way to do this. Again, if Walker and his ilk (and this applies generally) started earlier and took things slower, there wouldn't be recalls. The complete failure to work together, accelerating since 1980, has entrenched both parties further and further apart so that when change does come, it is always violent and radical instead of gradual. The recalls are a result. FWIW, we are going to be in deep doo-doo here to your west very soon due to the total intransigence of the GOP, who will pay in spades at the ballot next year. They are completely unable to compromise in any way. Major mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Again, if Walker and his ilk (and this applies generally) started earlier and took things slower, there wouldn't be recalls. The complete failure to work together, accelerating since 1980, has entrenched both parties further and further apart so that when change does come, it is always violent and radical instead of gradual. The recalls are a result. FWIW, we are going to be in deep doo-doo here to your west very soon due to the total intransigence of the GOP, who will pay in spades at the ballot next year. They are completely unable to compromise in any way. Major mistake. Well then with your logic I guess anything goes - these fake Dems are OK because it was the recalls that led to this tactic - the recalls are OK because it came as a result of Walker going too fast - the senators leaving is OK because the repubs did not work together enough - what Walker is doing is ok because of the 80's and on and on and on. I guess you can argue where it all started but Walker was elected and is doing things that may get his butt booted but all the crap happening in between is nonsense - he was elected to a term and should get that time - these senators were elected to terms and should get the time they deserve - this is a crock of crap and if it was the other way around the liberals would be screaming bloody murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I agree that it was wrong and I could have went out and voted for one of these fake dems and chose not to because it is wrong. I would also be curious if Yukon thought that the 14 senators leaving the state was wrong - both similar but one seems to be OK to a lot of people??? ALL of these recall elections are wrong and the incumbent should win ALL of them. Walker was voted in by the people and if he does not produce he will be voted out by the people. The Dems leaving was distasteful, but still absolutely legal by using a parlimentary trick. The Repubs putting up "fake" candidates to buy their incumbents more time to campaign is also legal, and also very distasteful. It shows that the right is just as sneaky and scummy as the left in Wisconsin . . . what a shocker. If the right is so universally beloved in WI and everyone adores Scott Walker and his regime, then why do they need to "buy time" and waste taxpayer dollars by forcing these elections with fake candidates? I thought that the righ CARED about the WI taxpayer? Methinks the right knows they overextended, and now they have to deal with recall elections becasue listening to and working with the other party was just too much to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Well then with your logic I guess anything goes - these fake Dems are OK because it was the recalls that led to this tactic - the recalls are OK because it came as a result of Walker going too fast - the senators leaving is OK because the repubs did not work together enough - what Walker is doing is ok because of the 80's and on and on and on. I guess you can argue where it all started but Walker was elected and is doing things that may get his butt booted but all the crap happening in between is nonsense - he was elected to a term and should get that time - these senators were elected to terms and should get the time they deserve - this is a crock of crap and if it was the other way around the liberals would be screaming bloody murder. If Walker was so beloved, then why would there be enough signatures and support for a recall? If they lose, I guess that they DONT represent their districts very well, now do they? Two results out of this 1.) The republicans get recalled, and the will o the people prevails. It also shows that people are upset with the ham-handed way this whole situation was handled. 2.) The republicans win, and then Walker gets a boost by acceptance of his agenda at the polls again. But being against a recall election just because "your" party might lose seats is hilarious. It is part of the political process, and really isnt all that easy to do. You REALLY need a lot of support to initiate and execute a recall of an elected official. Being this far along means there is a LOT of unhappy people . . and that goes for the Dems that are up for recall as well. I still think that if Walker actually campaigned on ending collective bargaining, then he never gets elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts