I took that screen shot from the live feed, which is over now, the bill having quickly passed upon coming up for its vote.
March 6, 2015
The Wisconsin state assembly debated all night on the right-to-work bill... and the vote just took place.
Here's my assemblyperson, Terese Berceau, speaking just moments ago, as the debate that began yesterday afternoon, was coming to a close...
I took that screen shot from the live feed, which is over now, the bill having quickly passed upon coming up for its vote.
I took that screen shot from the live feed, which is over now, the bill having quickly passed upon coming up for its vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
133 comments:
This time they didn't have to send State Troopers to bring them back to Madison and lose.
Wisconsin joins Indiana and Michigan in the 21st Century.
Its amazing the transformation in this state in 4 short years. From total union and Democrat control to unions and Democrats being totally emasculated.
Wisconsin being a right to work state is something I thought I'd never have a chance in hell of seeing or experiencing in my lifetime. Its a great day for Wisconsin.
Bob La Follette is rolling in his grave....
Both of them.
Both Bob La Follettes that is..
Over/under on how many minutes after Gov. Walker signs this bill will unions and Democrats sue in state court in Madison?
The Man With Two Graves
From a list of titles of B-movies that were never made.
This time they didn't have to send State Troopers to bring them back to Madison and lose.
Nope, not this time, since the bill doesn't deal with taxing or spending or borrowing, a "quorum" was not needed. Had the Democrats fled, the vote would have proceeded as scheduled without them.
Which is what the Republicans should have done while the fleebaggers were in Illinois - scheduled votes for every bit of legislation not dealing with taxing, spending, or borrowing that Democrats would naturally oppose.
@Michael the Magnificent, some Republican needs to hire you as a strategist.
As someone who lived in a RTW State for most of my life, I have to wonder, "What's the big deal?" Well, unless your paycheck comes from Union dues, I guess.
Which National Republican Party Platform will be enacted next?
From the list of movies that were made:
Dig Two Graves
Abortion, Madison Man. That is waiting to distract from the budget battle, like RTW was to distract from the budget committee hearings this week.
Headlines paid attention to RTW, so the long term care changes, etc all went to page 6 not front page.
What's to debate?
Either you're for freedom of association, or you're not.
With Democrats the answer is always, "We know what's best for you. Do as we say."
Minnesota will now be surrounded by Right to Works states.
Although Minnesota has benefitted in recent years relative to Wisconsin by having over-concentrations in areas like Health Care rather than Manufacturing... but why would any manufacturer want to start a business in Minnesota?
I am guessing that Missouri is the next one. They have a veto proof majorities in the legislature. It seems like RTW is the way to go there since they are a
Which National Republican Party Platform will be enacted next?
Hopefully all of them.
"Which National Republican Party Platform will be enacted next?"
Reconsideration of out-of-date regulations —especially on small businesses.
Hopefully all of them.
Given the machinations of that asshole Boehner, and Democrat's insistence of propping up their puppet we stand no chance of seeing them implemented federally any time soon.
Wow! Outlawing involuntary servitude. What a concept.
Call me a cynic, but I'm beginning to wonder if the whole Netanyahu visit, along with the accompanying boycott by a significant number of democrats, was all political theater staged solely for the purpose of distracting the proles long enough to do the bidding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
but why would any manufacturer want to start a business in Minnesota?
Manufacturing will go where the wages are lowest so perhaps WI will start luring some of those back from overseas now.
But MN is already going after the several hundred Wisconsin businesses and companies that are opposed to this new law and unfunded mandate.
Next up: Walker throws another bone to his out-of-state donors as the Republicans repeal the prevailing wages law.
madisonfella: "Manufacturing will go where the wages are lowest so perhaps WI will start luring some of those back from overseas now."
This is not always the case. Manufacturing will go where it yields the best ROI/Value as well as strategic objectives, which often depends on factors other than simply "lowest" wages.
But hey, whatever.
madisonfella: "But MN is already going after the several hundred Wisconsin businesses and companies that are opposed to this new law and unfunded mandate"
"unfunded mandate".
Hilarious.
More workers getting screwed. Yes!
If Hollywood ever does an "Annie Hall" remake, I think I see a good choice for the female lead.
More workers getting screwed. Yes!
Yeah, I *hate* being able to have a job without having to pay a union for permission.
I was just talking to a friend about how much it sucks that I get to keep all of my after-tax income.
madisonfella said...
but why would any manufacturer want to start a business in Minnesota?
"Manufacturing will go where the wages are lowest so perhaps WI will start luring some of those back from overseas now."
You have obviously never started or run a business. Your ignorance and stupidity is only matched by your certitude.
Jason said...
"Its amazing the transformation in this state in 4 short years. From total union and Democrat control to unions and Democrats being totally emasculated."
That is because their policies, even in blue Wisconsin, are deeply unpopular. The average american has noticed how the policies pushed by unions only enrich parasites, empower bureaucrats, and cost the entire community in lost productivity and freedom.
It will not matter soon who is elected. Unions are done and both sides will be racing to ditch them. The dockworkers on the west coast are working their way out right now.
Ms. Berceau is a tribute to Central Casting.
Jason said...
Its amazing the transformation in this state in 4 short years. From total union and Democrat control to unions and Democrats being totally emasculated.
Don't get too excited. Republicans are frogs that all too easily can revert to tadpole.
Can't help but notice how many "different" people only log in to make childish personal attacks and engage in name calling while never saying anything about the issue itself.
Now that it's pointed out, wonder how many of those "different" people will suddenly change their behavior.
madisonfella said...But MN is already going after the several hundred Wisconsin businesses and companies that are opposed to this new law and unfunded mandate.
Oh Heavens, states competing with one another based on terms set by democratically-elected representatives? States acting as laboratories of democracy (to coin a phrase)? Wherever are my smelling salts?! To the courts at once; everyone knows choice and competition are contrary to the spirit of America and its federal system--all must follow the dictates of those with whom I agree, local choice and state sovereignty be damned!
Is this another skull for Walker's throne, or was this already accounted for?
For the non-lawyers in the audience, like me, could someone run down the court-based legal options here?
What is the likelihood that a judge will issue an injunction of some kind preventing this law from taking effect? How long can that process drag things out? Is there any legal recourse for the state if the unions can find even one judge willing to issue such an injunction?
What comes next?
If the Unions hadn't pissed off the rest of the citizens, none of this would have happened.
madisonfella said...
Next up: Walker throws another bone to his out-of-state donors as the Republicans repeal the prevailing wages law.
3/6/15, 10:33 AM
If by wage laws, you mean minimum wage laws, why would any rational person be in favor of minimum wage laws?
All that does is force an employer to dedicate an excess amount of funds to payroll the would otherwise go to more productive things. If you approve of minimum wage laws, I ask that you honestly answer a simple question. Here is the question: If raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour is a good and proper thing and will benefit employees, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?
If raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour is a good and proper thing and will benefit employees, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?
If having a glass of red wine with dinner is a good and proper thing and will benefit your health, why not drink a whole case of it? And if two aspirins help your hangover the next morning, than why not take the whole bottle?
But I wasn't talking about minimum wage, rather prevailing wage - a policy which helps keep money for state building projects in the state rather than flow to out-of-state companies and workers. Yes, it is a form of protectionism but I'm okay with that when it involves tax dollars staying in the local economy.
"Wisconsin being a right to work state is something I thought I'd never have a chance in hell of seeing or experiencing in my lifetime."
Just as the collapse of the Berlin Wall signaled the end of the USSR, RTW in Michigan signaled the end of forced unionization.
Sure, it seemed amazing when Poland and then the Baltics escaped the Bear, but the die was cast when the Wall came down.
madisonfella said...
But I wasn't talking about minimum wage, rather prevailing wage - a policy which helps keep money for state building projects in the state rather than flow to out-of-state companies and workers. Yes, it is a form of protectionism but I'm okay with that when it involves tax dollars staying in the local economy.
3/6/15, 12:04 PM
I will let your wage non-answer be as you pointed out that was not your target.
To be on topic, so you think it is OK for the local government that has a responsibility to spend tax dollars well, should always select or just give preference to, local businesses that might be more expensive than alternate suppliers?
As long as it is just weighing local businesses somewhat better than non-local, I am OK with that. If a local supplier is 2x more expensive than a non-local, the government should not be forced to go with the more expensive option just because they are local.
What is the likelihood that a judge will issue an injunction of some kind preventing this law from taking effect?
If the original plan to exempt many of the private sector unions that traditionally donate to Republican party was passed into law then there most likely would have been legal challenges. As it stands now there isn't much basis for any case to be filed.
madisonfella said...
What is the likelihood that a judge will issue an injunction of some kind preventing this law from taking effect?
If the original plan to exempt many of the private sector unions that traditionally donate to Republican party was passed into law then there most likely would have been legal challenges. As it stands now there isn't much basis for any case to be filed.
3/6/15, 12:14 PM
Do you have a link to that original plan with the list of "unions that traditionally donate to Republican party" or just a list of such?
Thanks!
I will let your wage non-answer be
I did answer your question. Sorry it eluded you, but I'm not sure how to phrase it any more clearer.
If a local supplier is 2x more expensive than a non-local, the government should not be forced to go with the more expensive option just because they are local.
Prevailing wages are for labor, not supplies and parts.
madisonfella said...
I will let your wage non-answer be
I did answer your question. Sorry it eluded you, but I'm not sure how to phrase it any more clearer.
If a local supplier is 2x more expensive than a non-local, the government should not be forced to go with the more expensive option just because they are local.
Prevailing wages are for labor, not supplies and parts.
3/6/15, 12:21 PM
No, your wage answer was flippant and not a reasoned explanation. OK,I will make it simpler for you. If $10 is ok and many in Congress think it is, why no $15 or $20? What do YOU think the effect on individual businesses, low wage employees, and customers of said businesses would be if the minimum wage is raised to rates that are higher than is set by actual labor and market forces?
As to your other, a business can "supply" more than parts. It can "supply" services too and it was in that context, supplying services driven by labor, that I was referring to to keep it relevant to your comment.
just what this place wants...more freeloaders.
Do you have a link to that original plan
This new law was crafted behind closed doors, so there is no public link to the Republican's actual notes and plans in regard to it. However reports of their original intentions have been reported in both the conservative and liberal media.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/05/things-to-know-right-to-work-wisconsin/19951275/
http://whbl.com/news/articles/2014/dec/05/gop-leaders-support-right-to-work-legislation-disagree-on-timing/
http://dailyreporter.com/2014/12/04/senate-leader-to-pursue-right-to-work/
No, your wage answer was flippant and not a reasoned explanation
Your dismissal of the minimum wage as a whole because of "Why not $100/hr?" is flippant and unreasonable.
just what this place wants...more freeloaders
That's part of the plan. Not only does this new law let the parasites suck off the unions teat for free, if any tempers flare-up between the payers and the takers then the Republicans can scream about "union thuggery".
Scott Walker said he was going to "divide and conquer" and this is all part of that promise.
madisonfella said...
No, your wage answer was flippant and not a reasoned explanation
Your dismissal of the minimum wage as a whole because of "Why not $100/hr?" is flippant and unreasonable.
3/6/15, 1:00 PM
Actually no. I have detailed reasons for opposing all minimum wage laws. I was trying to plum the depth of those that take the opposing position and worded my question to try and get a clear answer. Something that did not include "living wage" or "greedy businesses" as part of the response.
Yeah, I *hate* being able to have a job without having to pay a union for permission.
Then bootstrap it and find different job. Or don't ask the union for benefits you don't want to pay for.
madisonfella said...
What is the likelihood that a judge will issue an injunction of some kind preventing this law from taking effect?
If the original plan to exempt many of the private sector unions that traditionally donate to Republican party was passed into law then there most likely would have been legal challenges. As it stands now there isn't much basis for any case to be filed.
3/6/15, 12:14 PM
Thanks for the links. Could not access the final link as it was behind a subscription wall.
The reports site "Fitzgerald also mentioned the possibility of exempting certain trade unions, citing their importance in training workers." That could be a possible reason to exempt some unions as trade unions do provide actual benefits to members but none of that made it into the final bill, right? So you are shooting at a "possibility" during early negotiations, not actual text in the final legislation?
Do unions support DRRAT (Displace, [Over-]Regulate, Replace, Abort, and Tax) policies? Then they are not friends of American workers and are, in fact, deceiving Americans and their [surviving] Progeny.
@Todd - please re-read my message of 12:14 PM. Your latest comment seems to indicate that you missed the first word ("If") of my response to the question asked.
When unions get out of the governments business, I'll support getting government out of the unions business. Until then, it's really fair game.
Unions acting like criminal protection rackets in extorting money from workers (If you want this nice job, you have to kick us down part of your wages)isn't a good idea and has led to some serious corruption and an entitlement attitude.
Then bootstrap it and find different job.
That is their usual advice
http://media.cagle.com/77/2015/03/03/160891_600.jpg
Private businesses need Scott Walker's big government to intrude into their affairs in order to force them to make the right choices. Not one Wisconsin manufacturer testified in favor of the right to work for less bill. But, oh well!
madisonfella said...
@Todd - please re-read my message of 12:14 PM. Your latest comment seems to indicate that you missed the first word ("If") of my response to the question asked.
3/6/15, 1:30 PM
You said "If the original plan...". I have seen nothing that said that was part of any plan. It was discussed. It was considered. It does not seem to have ever been "part of the original plan". If you had instead said, "Republicans discussed excepting certain unions..." you would be on firmer ground. Words matter.
Some of my lefty friend would say that when corporations get out of the governments business, they'll support getting government out of the corporation's business. Until then, it's really fair game.
Because in their eyes, corporations acting like criminal protection rackets in extorting money from consumers (If you want this item or service you have to kick us down part of your wages)isn't a good idea and has led to some serious corruption and an entitlement attitude. ("Too big to fail")
Both stances seem unreasonable to me. To claim that all unions or corporations are corrupt and evil due to the actions of a few is an emotional response rather than rational.
Words matter
I would say that discussing and considering how a bill will be written is all part of making a plan, but obviously you strongly feel otherwise.
I'm opposed to corporatism too. Neither party opposes corporatism as it is a source of bribes for favors. We agree on something it appears.
but at least the GOP is going after union corruption. Now if the Dems would actually go after corporatism instead of stuffing cash in their own pockets while talking big we'd be getting somewhete.
Yup....fightin Union corruption...that's what it's all about.
This is all about fighting union corruption. And freedom for workers!
Hey Garage. Serious question... What's your goal on this site. Is it to entertain? Or to persuade?
Because your typical entry is two or three words, followed by "LOL!!!".
And one of the words is either "Walker","Unions",or "Servers".
If you spend 5 hours a day here, why not invest in a complete paragraph now and again. Why not lay out a complete theory with some backup?? This is what I believe, this is an example of where it worked, and this is the downside... But here is why it can work.
Otherwise, why play. There are about 5% here who seem to agree with you, and 80%who will never agree with you. Why not try to engage with the 15% of the others who are looking for insight from others and perhaps can be persuaded.
Because as one of the 15%, I skip right over most of your stuff a nd look for the funny laslo and the Reverent dude, who I almost always disagree with, but sometimes say, hey, I am wrong and maybe I need to rethink th i s out.
Never happens with you or cookie, but at least I admire the heck out of cookie because he at least patiently explain his view and is respectful. Well at least to all but the ass that constantly calls him names.
And by the way, the ass that refers to people as "short bus" makes some of us who love kids that - for no fault of their own just happen to ride the short bus - feel like reaching thru the internet and strangling his sorry ass.
Don't call someone short bus. It's just mean.
And that's all I have to say for the next couple of months...
A Daily Reader.
Then bootstrap it and find different job.
Wait, you mean it is possible to find jobs without the help of Democrats? This totally clashes with what the California government has told me.
Or don't ask the union for benefits you don't want to pay for.
Heh, "union benefits".
Wait, you mean it is possible to find jobs without the help of Democrats?
Sure. Knock yourself out. Since approx 90% of jobs are non-unionized finding a non-unionized job shouldn't be difficult at all.
Sure. Knock yourself out. Since approx 90% of jobs are non-unionized finding a non-unionized job shouldn't be difficult at all.
Awesome! So why would anyone want to be forced to join a union? I mean, I see why union bosses and people owned by union bosses would want it, but why would the other 90% of us want to get fucked over?
The right to work for lower wages and less bargaining power is an achievement for which all Americans (and especially the Republicans who made it happen) should be proud.
Awesome! So why would anyone want to be forced to join a union? I mean, I see why union bosses and people owned by union bosses would want it, but why would the other 90% of us want to get fucked over?
Freedom means the right to be a free-rider!
Freedom means the right to be a free-rider!
You're a bit confused. Union members are the free-riders and leeches of the workforce. They are parasites that exist solely to grab as much money as they can from people who aren't members.
That's why the unionized professions, e.g. teachers, government employees, teamsters, etc -- are the ones famous for corruption and incompetence.
No competent and intelligent worker needs unions, or ever has.
So why would anyone want to be forced to join a union?
Nobody is forced to join a union in any state. Right work or not. Before this law in Wisconsin nobody was forced to join a union. after, same thing. The ultimate freedom.
The GOP liars in the Wisconsin legislature were asked repeatedly to name one worker who is/was forced to join a union in Wisconsin. Predictably, they could not name one person, after repeatedly whining that workers were being forced to join union. Ignorant, or lying. (Both)
You're a bit confused. Union members are the free-riders and leeches of the workforce. They are parasites that exist solely to grab as much money as they can from people who aren't members.
That's why the unionized professions, e.g. teachers, government employees, teamsters, etc -- are the ones famous for corruption and incompetence.
No competent and intelligent worker needs unions, or ever has.
This revisionist bullshit merits about as serious response as does holocaust denial. The proposition (that you take for granted) that collective bargaining wasn't what led to humane working conditions, livable working hours (instead of the 72-hour week standard previous), and better wages, is utter nonsense - and requires your alternative, ostensibly superior explanation for how those things that unions provided (and that non-dues paying workers leech off of) came about.
You can't provide that, because it doesn't exist, you flat-earther.
Nobody is forced to join a union in any state. Right work or not. Before this law in Wisconsin nobody was forced to join a union. after, same thing. The ultimate freedom.
I like how you describe being unable to work in a career because you won't join a union as having "ultimate freedom".
It makes me wonder what all the whining was about during the 60s and 70s. Women *had* the ultimate freedom to be secretaries or teachers... what was all that nonsense about being denied jobs? :)
No competent and intelligent worker needs unions, or ever has.
You hear that, heavy machine operators! If unsafe working conditions or accidents at the end of your exhausting, 65+ hour workweek is not sufficient reward, then you were just incompetent or unintelligent, says pseudonymous internet know-it-all, "Revenant!"
Carrying around as much condescension and false knowledge as you do must be quite a burden. I bet you've never worked a day of difficult physical labor in your life.
I suggest you air your opinions in a pub frequented by said physical laborers, and show how competently and intelligently you avoid the well-deserved ass kicking you will subsequently endure for saying such insulting bullshit.
The proposition (that you take for granted) that collective bargaining wasn't what led to humane working conditions, livable working hours (instead of the 72-hour week standard previous), and better wages, is utter nonsense
I love how Democrats desperate to justify the existence of unions always have to reach back a minimum of 75 years to identify the last useful thing a union supposedly did -- and even then their argument turns out to be bullshit.
I started out as an hourly worker. The mandatory overtime law didn't help me -- it fucked me over. It meant that instead of being able to work a 50 or 60 hour week (and thus make 25 to 50 percent more money, I was capped at 40. As a low-skilled employee, I was worth $7/hr but wasn't worth the overtime premium the company was required to pay. I even told my boss he didn't have to pay me overtime, but sadly he wasn't willing to risk fines and sanctions just to help a 19-year-old make ends meet.
So that was my first exposure to the wonders of labor law: getting fucked out of thousands of dollars of income. Now, of course, I'm a salaried professional, and exempt from those laws. 40-hour work week? Heh, I think I worked weeks that short back in the 90s, maybe.
As for worker safety, laws improving working conditions started passing generations before the labor movement, and continued passing long after the labor movement died away to its current impotent state. Crediting the labor movement for something that both preceded and followed it is obviously silly.
You hear that, heavy machine operators! If unsafe working conditions or accidents at the end of your exhausting, 65+ hour workweek
The nice thing about free markets is that if you think your job is too hard and doesn't pay well enough, to can choose a new one.
One time that I recall I didn't go right to work. I got off the wrong exit on the Palisades.
I had to foot the bill.
I love how Democrats desperate to justify the existence of unions always have to reach back a minimum of 75 years to identify the last useful thing a union supposedly did -- and even then their argument turns out to be bullshit.
Oh, well pardon Monsieur!
Some of us might think that use of the word "ever", as in:
"No competent and intelligent worker needs unions, or ever has,"
might have actually extended back to at least, oh, say the past 75 years. When much of the most serious foundations of these cultural and economic arguments were being worked out in the first place.
But I guess you wouldn't be one of them. Instead, you're just "competent and intelligent" enough to believe that "ever" means "recent history only" and that the most serious and resolved arguments of modern history regarding labor in industrial economies are footnotes that are best forgotten. Allow corporatism to begin anew and be done with our acknowledgement that unequal bargaining power involving a group with nothing left to lose is oppressive.
"Manufacturing will go where the wages are lowest so perhaps WI will start luring some of those back from overseas now. "
Actually, wages are not the real test for any but the most primitive manufacturing, which China has been losing to Indonesia and Indonesia losing to Bangladesh.
Significant manufacturing has been coming back to the US or to Mexico which has set up plants along the border.
For example.
For years, the U.S. has ceded more and more of its manufacturing to lower-cost corners of the global economy. No one expects the U.S. to again make most of the electronic gadgets, tools, toys, furniture, lighting and other household products that tally more than $500 billion a year in imports.
But some companies contend the U.S. has renewed its attraction. Wages are stable, for example, while China’s have soared. The U.S. energy boom has reduced natural gas prices and kept a lid on electricity costs. Plus, more companies want to protect designs from overseas copycats, keep closer tabs on quality control and avoid potential disruption in supply chains that span oceans.
As China’s cost advantages shrink, the U.S. has the potential, with investments in automation, to retrieve a share of such imported household products as TVs, vacuum cleaners and toasters, said Hal Sirkin, a Chicago-based senior partner at Boston Consulting Group. U.S. firms will do it “not to be patriotic,” he said, “but because they can make money.”
Any shift, no matter how small, may well depend on the experience of such companies as Thorley, which plans to begin selling its new infant car seat later this year.
Unions are definitely not a help in this area. When the Japanese built their car plants in the US, they expected them to be unionized and were surprised that workers rejected unions. The Obama NLRB has tried to tip the scales with new regs but workers are not stupid. Detroit is there as an example.
A few big companies have returned some production to the U.S., including Whirlpool Corp. , hand mixers; Caterpillar Inc., excavators; and Ford Motor Co. , medium-duty commercial trucks.
But many U.S.-based designers of consumer products over the past two decades have grown comfortable contracting with overseas manufacturers. Some doubt they can get the same expertise, efficiency and flexibility in the U.S.
Now, if unions will just stay in blue states...
The nice thing about free markets is that if you think your job is too hard and doesn't pay well enough, to can choose a new one.
The nice thing about being a snotty, internet-theoretician is pretending that options are more abundant, plentiful and accessible than they really are for the vast majority of people who lack the means you assume of them.
You could opt out of joining any union before this new law in Wisconsin, in any career field. It's a total canard peddled by liars. One way to know that is when Republicans talk about labor laws and "worker freedoms".
As for worker safety, laws improving working conditions started passing generations before the labor movement, and continued passing long after the labor movement died away to its current impotent state. Crediting the labor movement for something that both preceded and followed it is obviously silly.
Your problem is that your long on possibilities, short on reliable probabilities.
My guess is (and I dare you to find me a historian who disagrees) is that there was a tiny bit of "progress" on the worker safety front prior to and after the decline of the power of the labor movement, and a whole lot of actual progress made when it was at its height.
Because, you know, some of us don't assume cultural and economic history occurs in vacuums, cleanly separated from each other. Although perhaps you might.
Prevailing wages are for labor, not supplies and parts.
And are as variable as any other commodity.
The GOP liars in the Wisconsin legislature were asked repeatedly to name one worker who is/was forced to join a union in Wisconsin. Predictably, they could not name one person, after repeatedly whining that workers were being forced to join union. Ignorant, or lying. (Both)
3/6/15, 4:52 PM"
So what is the problem? No one is being forced to join a union with right-to-work and no one is forced to quit a union either. So besides making silly remarks garage what is it about right to work that drives you crazy?
So besides making silly remarks garage what is it about right to work that drives you crazy?
No one has to drive garage anywhere. He's close enough to crazy he can walk.
Rhythm and Balls doesn't ned to walk. He's already there.
"Or don't ask the union for benefits you don't want to pay for."
Per Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan, the benefits are created by the work of the woker and accrue to him. If he wants to pay a union to "help" that is his or her decision. Choice! Our bodies ourselves!
One thing I am unclear on. Does this right to work apply to public employee unions as well as private employee unions?
Garage writes;
You could opt out of joining any union before this new law in Wisconsin, in any career field.
Great, then this law won't accomplish anything and it's a big waste of time.
At least we agree on something and this law codifies it. Workers should be able to opt out of joining any union, in any career field.
Free to opt in, free to opt out. Not unlike religious freedom.
After we get done talking about the joys of forced unionization and the declining productivity in union shops due to sclerotic overtime and regulatory rules we can discuss why manufacturing jobs keep leaving the US.
I know it totally ruins a conversation when you point out that capital efficiency and return on investment have something to do with it. But we have a 15$ minimum wage in Seattle. Workers paradise! Of course the inevitable results from this policy are lower employment and higher prices. Progress would be getting progressives to admit that.
---The right to work for lower wages and less bargaining power is an achievement---
Yeah, I read this and think of my union steward physically manhandling me the first time he saw me.
Losers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6DMyRqO-O0
I got tired of scrolling through all the comments about "workers fighting for jobs with lower wages".
Wages are subject to the laws of supply and demand as well. It's interesting that the same people who are in favor of artificially inflating wages are the same folks in favor of artificially inflating the labor pool. And the same people who are in favor of Keynesian economics, artificially inflating a fiat currency, and in favor of the Fed's ZIRP strategy.
You people really don't see any interconnection do you?
Madisonfella said:
Manufacturing will go where the wages are lowest so perhaps WI will start luring some of those back from overseas now.
Nope, not hardly. Manufacturing will go where costs are lowest. Labor is only one of the many costs of manufacturing. In many cases, as plants automate more and more, not even the most important cost.
It is why IBM and other companies are bring manufacturing back to the US from overseas. Sure, labor in India may be 50 cents a day but the overall costs may be double what they would be, even with $20/hr labor, in Wisconsin or elsewhere in the US.
John Henry
OT but speaking of automation, there is a big industrial robotics show in McCormick Place Chicago week after next. If you are interested in this stuff, it would be worth driving down for.
I'll be there prowling the floor ogling the cool technologies such as 3D machine vision.
http://www.automateshow.com/ for registration, conference and other info.
John Henry
garage,
You keep saying that nobody was ever forced to join a union even before RTW.
Could you explain what you mean? If this were true, then why are people like you complaining about RTW passing?
Or do you mean that people were not forced to become "members" of a union and pay "dues" but were forced to accept union representation and pay agency or representation fees? Fees which just coincidentally turned out to be the same dollar amount as the dues members paid.
And the advantage to doing that is? All the costs, economic and otherwise, without any say in the operation like voting for officials.
Yeah, that sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
I think you are being disingenuous on this. Since you have been disingenuous on pretty much everything else over the past years, this is no surprise.
John Henry
You tools are a trip.
Here's the WSJ, that bastion of communist propaganda, informing America of the lower wages borne of the "right to work for less" policies.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324296604578179603136860138
Enjoy. And keep pretending to fight for the middle class.
Apes.
Nothing the denial of a few facts can't fix, eh? Just like every cause Rpublicans embrace.
Same as it ever was.
More.
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/143975666.html
http://www.wrongforeveryone.com/more-facts-on-right-to-work/
Wow.
You guys are really anti-worker and anti-decent wage.
Just stunning. The contempt you have for the American worker is really something else.
"Well, it's worse than that, because it allows existing union contracts to be thrown out in court if they include dues-paying provisions. At the end of the day, the purpose of RtW laws is to outlaw collective bargaining agreements. It's not just about dues, it's about forbidding unions from establishing an exclusive contract with an employer.
This might, at least, seem like a reasonable legislative reform (if your singular goal is to discourage exclusive contracts) except non-compete clauses are growing increasingly routine as part of hiring practices. And non-competes do what union contracts do, except on behalf of the employer. Competing firms can't poach employees with offers of higher salaries when the employees operate under a non-compete.
So it sets up a beautiful double-standard, in which employers have a legislatively dictated edge when negotiating salaries."
Link.
You guys should just make your party's slogan, "FUCK the American worker!"
It would be more honest.
Is there a single thing you guys are capable of not fucking up? Now fighting to lower the wages of the lowest bracket of hardest working income. Getting on board with finding newer and ever more clever ways of fucking America up seems to be what you live for.
Just move to China already.
The butthurt is palpable.
R&B's: "Nothing the denial of a few facts can't fix, eh? Just like every cause Rpublicans embrace."
"If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan. Period."
Barack Obama: Republican.
Now fighting to lower the wages of the lowest bracket of hardest working income.
You know what lowers the wages of the lowest bracket of hardest workers the most?
Illegal immigration.
Jason: "The butthurt is palpable"
R&B is psychotically depressed and angry over the existence of medical doctors and the acceptance by society at large of the competence of doctors over pharmacologists.
Further, R&B is utterly whacked out about Sarah Palin actually being the biological mother of her own children.
Everything else is downstream of these.
One can always rely on a good blood-sucking vampire like Dragola to change the subject. And to confuse a prediction with a whole cadre of partisans denying the facts after the data's become available.
But hey. He's got some free campaigning assistance to provide. He's a political whore and addressing the facts of how he wants to fuck over your wages can't concern him in the slightest.
Dragola can suck Michael K's dick all he wants. Michael K. lacks competence in what he spoke of.
Michael K. might have projected authority, but that's only convincing to buttwhore lackeys like Dragola. The rest of society and the business we work in know how to identify and gauge competence and appropriate credentials. That's probably why leeching consultants like him don't really figure into health care as much as they do in other industries. Too many people who actually know what they're talking about and don't need his ring of mealy mouthed flashy nonsense to be oohed and awed by.
Dragola's too stupid to know that the training of doctors is too extensive to pretend specialization doesn't matter. He might think he lives in the 19th century frontier, with one "know-it-all" country doctor - but that's because he's a rotting relic.
Only a fool thinks a surgeon's qualified to make competent judgments of the sort that would concern an internist.
Dragola would get a proctologist and a urologist to perform his brain surgery, but that's because his understanding of anatomy led him to think his brains are actually in his ass.
His is the rare case where he might actually be right.
BTW, precisely WTF is "psychotic depression"?
Methinks Dragola must have gotten confused when his psychiatrist told him that he's both psychotic and depressed, and combined them into a new, novel diagnosis.
Dragola can be the obstetric consultant on how one takes an airplane flight from Phoenix to Alaska after her water breaks.
His field must be one where honesty is a detriment.
Oh Dragola? Where did you go?
Frantically at the drawing board, practicing more new and improved bullshit to recite?
Will the client buy it? How far can you stretch the truth, pretend you're providing something of value, and and get the audience to believe it?
These are the professional quandaries that concern Dragola to no end.
Anyway, getting back to the topic of killing unions (although it does relate to Dragola's contempt for expertise), here's a great documentary on how the quality of Boeing's Dreamliner went down through a corporate move to shortchange the union-led experts in their WA plant, undermining them with the whizbangs in the anti-union Charleston plant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49EY6dOQzgw
http://www.ibtimes.com/boeings-internal-war-seattle-engineers-point-finger-south-carolinas-shoddy-work-787-dreamliner
"Or don't ask the union for benefits you don't want to pay for."
No one's asking for anything except for Tony Coconuts and his meathead "assistant business managers" to get the fuck out of the workplace and go back to the union hall to await the parade of oppressed workers clamoring to be allowed to pay them for their capable representation.
Curious George said...
Losers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6DMyRqO-O0
Inspiring
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/world/middleeast/iraqi-forces-said-to-near-isis-held-tikrit.html?_r=0
I just wanted to make sure every Lefty in here had a union card before they commented.
I know this one hurts, guys, but let's not forget:
1. No more than 3 comments per thread
2. Don't engage with blog commenters or management without proper representation
3. I'm here for you
-Tony Coconuts
Oh my God...he's a Palin truther?
I never thought I'd say this....he's worse than Crack Emcee.....
RecChief said...
I got tired of scrolling through all the comments about "workers fighting for jobs with lower wages".
Wages are subject to the laws of supply and demand as well. It's interesting that the same people who are in favor of artificially inflating wages are the same folks in favor of artificially inflating the labor pool. And the same people who are in favor of Keynesian economics, artificially inflating a fiat currency, and in favor of the Fed's ZIRP strategy.
You people really don't see any interconnection do you?
It's not that they can't see the interconnection. It's that they don't understand the basic concepts. They believe that in economics, as in their other world views, that nothing is fixed. That all concepts are relative. When you say things like;"The laws of supply and demand." They are thinking that this law is a relative condition and is subject to the manipulation of their philosophy. Like saying gravity is optional.
Yeah, Chris.
Show of hands.
How many people posting here actually work with your hands?
Typing doesn't count.
Low wages are theologically ordained! There are divine economic rules saying they have to be that low! (Like heavily lobbied pro-corporatist legislation, for instance). Take your request for benefits and better conditions and more competitive pay up with the Lords of Economic Corporate Priesthood and their masters at ALEC.
I missed the part where Adam Smith went on about the necessity of public servants being bribed with the prospect of cushier jobs as lobbyists if they do their future masters' bidding.
I actually don't know what the truth is about why Palin would travel on a 6+ hour flight from Phoenix to Alaska after, as she claims, her water broke and childbirth was imminent. Any Palin lovers here care to explain that one? Or is it, as with all things vagina, something you guys just don't know all that much about?
That's 'Tony Coconuts' to you Rusty, and a man with my record of vainglorious blog commenting and illustration of principle here at Althouse clearly works with his hands all day long.
I think we might be illustrating the same principles here, though, in terms of incentives, labor markets, supply and demand, and voluntary choice.
'One of my business associates sez you wuz rewiyarin' those new condos after 5 pm...'
Soros Stooge: "This revisionist bullshit merits about as serious response as does holocaust -"
Comparing Rev's excellent analysis to holocaust deniers is akin to fumbling in your own endzone BEFORE the kickoff.
Nice move, libtard.
garage mahal said...
The GOP liars in the Wisconsin legislature were asked repeatedly to name one worker who is/was forced to join a union in Wisconsin. Predictably, they could not name one person, after repeatedly whining that workers were being forced to join union. Ignorant, or lying. (Both)
Under current Wisconsin law, union contracts can require non-union workers to "pay a share of union costs for collective bargaining and other services."
Suddenly the straw man takes a different shape. Paying the union for unwanted services is even worse than forcing union membership status - especially since one of the other fees is for union political activity.
Why is this even a question? It seems that any other law violates one's constitutional rights of free assembly.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Low wages are theologically ordained! There are divine economic rules saying they have to be that low! (Like heavily lobbied pro-corporatist legislation, for instance). Take your request for benefits and better conditions and more competitive pay up with the Lords of Economic Corporate Priesthood and their masters at ALEC.
No, but if you want a raise you could take it up with your employer.
I actually don't know what the truth is about why Palin would travel on a 6+ hour flight from Phoenix to Alaska after, as she claims, her water broke and childbirth was imminent
How about after four previous births, she knew her body better than you do?
Low wages are theologically ordained! There are divine economic rules saying they have to be that low!
No...there are economic reasons why minimum wage, untrained, unskilled and manual labor jobs have low wages.
You get better wages by acquiring skills and knowledge and making your labor more valuable.
You want to know the one thing that would improve wages and working conditions for low income people in the United States the most?
End illegal immigration and enforce the rules against hiring illegal immigrants.
But the Left will never agree to that.
Wow. The level of ignorance, outrage, fervency, crappy critical thinking skills and intellectual dishonesty among the libtards in this thread is magnificent to behold.
Jason said...
Wow. The level of ignorance, outrage, fervency, crappy critical thinking skills and intellectual dishonesty among the libtards in this thread is magnificent to behold.
Yep. And it would be funny but people just like them are in Washington making policy.
It's nice to see that R&B's is finally getting his overwrought emotions sufficiently in check to allow for reasoned commentary.
LOL
Post a Comment