GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Governor Walker Takes On Democratic Interest Group*

by

In his piece on the union unrest in the Badger State, George Will sums up the essence of the problem of public employee unions, a problem which has tainted politics not just in Wisconsin, but also here in California:

Such unions are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself to do what it always wants to do anyway – grow. These unions use dues extracted from members to elect their members’ employers. And governments, not disciplined by the need to make a profit, extract government employees’ salaries from taxpayers. Government sits on both sides of the table in cozy “negotiations” with unions.

For those challenging the notion that Governor Walker is some kind of dictator, acting as a corporate shill or some such, Will reminds us that in his previous job, the Republican had had stand-offs with public employee unions, “As Milwaukee County executive, he had similar dust-ups with government workers’ unions, and when the dust settled, he was resoundingly reelected, twice.”  And was elected Wisconsin governor after those dust-ups.

Hey, Bruce, did you notice under whose portrait Walker sits for his interview?  Here’s a clue, Will finds that Walker’s “calm comportment in this crisis” reminds him of the actions of another noble Republican just about thirty years ago.  🙂

*whose politicking represents a clear conflict of interest .

Comments

  3. If Walker had said during the election… I will be a union buster… there would be NO Gov Walker now…. and you know it.

    So get off the honesty in politics whine… because as a Republican… you would have no idea what you are talking about.

  4. Hi Dan,
    One problem I have with Will’s commentary is that it wants to have its cake,and eat it to.

    After all, what is one to make of the argument that union dues are excessive (“we can do so much with that money, if we could spend it somewhere else on things we need for our home, etc…!!!”) whilst at the same time recognize (at least implicitly) that such dues actually were responsible for what they have gotten in wages and benefits. As an individual “who works at Sears,” said, they “would love to have” what he is offering the unions.” Will doesn’t seem or doesn’t want to connect those dots. After all, an interesting question is: Why doesn’t the worker at Sears have those benefits? Let me guess–they are not unionized?

    Also, as to this claim about recertification, Will conveniently drops out the fact that it requires the counting of all members, whether they voted or not)–as I addressed on another thread–that is a mighty high bar to cross (name me a US President who could cross that bar in recent memory?).

    Then there is this claim:
    “These unions use dues extracted from members to elect their members’ employers. And governments, not disciplined by the need to make a profit, extract government employees’ salaries from taxpayers. Government sits on both sides of the table in cozy “negotiations” with unions.”

    I agree that there is an incentive for unions and the officials they help elect to come to a cozy arrangement –but not too cozy, as governments need to appear before the electors on occasion. However, it is also the case that unions are not the only lobbying group in the political process; and that there are significant resources opposing their agendas (after all Walker was elected). So, as the US system operates, factions do play a role in mediating this issue.

    By the way, unions as a % of US workforce has steadily eroded over time, not grown. So, if a union’s main function is to grow, it is doing a lousy job of it…

  5. How come Walker is allowing collective bargaining, but only for the unions that supported him?

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_is_actually_being_propose.html

    Ezra Klein: “Walker proposes that the right to collectively bargain be taken away from most – but not all – state and local workers. Who’s left out? “Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.” As Harold Meyerson notes, THESE ARE ALSO THE UNIONS THAT HAPPENED TO BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF WALKER IN THE LAST ELECTION. Funny, that.”

    Walker is topping your favorite whipping boy for playing Monty Hall with the unions, Jerry Brown, with accommodations for HIS union supporters.

  8. “As Milwaukee County executive, he had similar dust-ups with government workers’ unions, and when the dust settled, he was resoundingly reelected, twice.” And was elected Wisconsin governor after those dust-ups….

    and after he was elected to his new job… a judge ordered the city hire back ALL the workers he fired trying to bust the union, saying there was not REAL Crisis THAT WARRANTED WALKER DOING THAT… and the city now has to pay them 500k in BACK PAY…

    good thing Walker got that new job before all that happened and the taxpayers of Milwaukee had to pick up the tab for him being a boneheaded fool huh?

    My bet is there would have been no third term for him after that.

  9. [union] dues actually were responsible for what they have gotten in wages and benefits

    Oh, please. As in: Please connect some dots yourself, as you advise Will to do. Please take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

    If forced union membership / forced union contributions / forced collective bargaining is responsible for getting employee compensation up to its currently levels, then it is also responsible for bankrupting the State of Wisconsin. Right? The one implication goes with the other. Furthermore, it is respnsible for reducing the number of jobs. It is about to be responsible for the thousands of teachers that Walker will now have to FIRE if his reform package doesn’t go through.

    Unions rarely, if ever, have a positive effect. If the law skews the playing field in the union’s favor – that is, if the force of law is used to make the union a monopoly or near-monopoly supplier of labor in labor market X, thus denying people their freedom to work and their rights of free association – then the union may succeed in raising compensation above market levels. In which case: It destroys jobs.

    Or, alternatively, if the union isn’t granted an effective monopoly by force of law and/or if the union decides to be moderate in its demands so as to preserve jobs: then it doesn’t raise compensation above what the market would pay; it’s only there for show.

    It’s the same with all monopolies / oligopolies. Either it’s backed by force of law, in which case it succeeds in extracting artificially/unjustly high rents at a net overall cost to society (i.e. hurting the rest of society in the process)… or it isn’t backed by force of law, in which case it isn’t really effective and therefore, the whole of society is better off.

  10. Wow, did Granny Goodness trot out that lie again? Debunked here

    And Paula, check here.

    See those words, the ones with lines under them? Those are called Hyperlinks. you can use them to link to sites that help explain your points.

    Of course, when you can’t back up your claims, as you’ve refused to do so far, then I guess they might be kind of daunting.

  14. Oh, Miss Dogma, Miss Dogma, please try and get your facts correct. Relying on Ezra Klein and Harold Meyerson for the facts on public employee unions would be akin to relying on Gary Bauer for the facts about homosexuality.

    Perhaps, these unions happened to be more supportive, but that’s because all the others were totally opposed. As has been pointed out by someone in the know, fire and police unions were not in bed with Republicans and actually campaigned against them and even opposed Walker.

    oh, and PS, once again, could you please, instead of attacking Republicans with left-wing talking points, actually address the point of the post, addressing the issue of the conflicts of interest posed by politicking public employee unions. Thanks!

  18. Barrett raked in more cash from the unions than Walker did, so HOW did Walker get more support? Or is that more liberal bullshit like a $460 billion deficit is “record deficits”, but $1.6 Trillion is not?

  23. No one give a rats butt about his resume, because they will never look at it… but will care about the 500k Trillions Walker Obama cost them… because they will look at that tax bill they are going to get because of him…

    Fixed that for you, Paula.

    Glad that you conceed that the Arbiter is biased towards unions though.

  29. Of the 314 (that’s THREE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN) “pubic safety” unions in Wisconsin that were exempted in the public-sector union legislation, exactly 4 (that’s FOUR) endorsed Walker.

    Four out of three hundred and fourteen.

  30. So now that Paula admits that the Arbitrator is, ahem, less than neutral, she moves the goal posts again.

    See, this is why we need new blood. Paula can’t back up what she says, but she can spin like no one’s business.

    Tully, Unfortunately Granny Goodness is immune to facts. in fact, she discourages people bringing facts, since she can’t bring any of her own.

  31. Hi TL,
    I checked out the link for Paula’s claim–I don’t see how it refutes her claim re what happened after Walker left. Is the evidence in the comments section?

    Hi ILC,
    “then it is also responsible for bankrupting the State of Wisconsin. Right? ” No. After all, one would need to look at what led up to this crisis. Can I grant that it has A role to play? Yes. But THE role? Please. Would you argue that the tax cuts enacted in January will have a short-run negative affect on the budgetary position? I think they will.
    Would you argue that Medicare costs are having an impact. Yes, I am sure you would. Are union pensions having an impact–yes. So address that issue without trying to roll-back bargaining rights. For Walker, this is really an ideological battle, not a fiscal one. Trying to roll back bargaining rights isn’t going to save the jobs of teachers by balancing a budget–increasing benefit contributions will help balance a budget and save teacher jobs.

    As for the claim of monopolistic powers of unions, one needs to balance this against the monopsonistic powers of some employers, and the oligopolistic shape of competition in many product markets in this country. So, as I said in a different thread:
    “Hi ILC,
    I’ll just say what I have said elsewhere:

    “So, unions, in working to uphold the interest of their members against larger bargaining units like corporations, work to bring part of the economic profits that corporations and large businesses make back into the pockets of workers. I grant that this COULD mean economic inefficiency in the economy. However, to the extent that a government or corporation squares off against a union as a monopolistic-monopsonistic bargaining unit; or, to the extent that governments and corporations act as oligopolies in their product markets–this is the extent that the power of a union is necessary to achieve some equality of outcomes for those firms workers in terms of the distribution of income. So, if unions are jacking up wages in an otherwise perfectly competitive environment, to that extent, they are working against the interests of the economy, and I do not support them.”

    A corporation with some monopsonistic power in the labour market doesn’t have to pass on all productivity gains to its workforce. Unions can help contest that inequity, if it exists.

  34. Says the woman who screams ‘fascist’ and ‘brownshirt’ and can’t back it up.

    It does look like I misread that initially, then again, since Paula was conceeding bias, looks like I wasn’t alone.

    I’ll do more digging when I get home.

  35. Cas,

    Paula claims that Gov Walker is a ‘union buster’ and hid it. Leaving the term ‘union buster’ aside, Gov Walker’s campaign and past clearly indicated how he’d cut costs, including weakening unions. (and clearly not all of them, we don’t see him interferring in private unions).

    But then again, Paula’s already claimed the US was a fascist nation before Mother Jones, so take her claims with a grain of salt.

  39. I don’t have to put words in your mouth Paula.

    You’re the one who said no one would care about his Resume, then went and looked at it. You’re the one who imagines that no one will do these jobs w/o a union, then try to ignore that Walker proved people would.

    You’re the one who said no one would have voted for Walker if he’d announced his attentions, he did.

    You’re the one who said that we were a Fascist nation before Mother Jones, I didn’t.

    Unlike you, I can admit when I’m mistaken. Unlike you, I’m grounded in reality.

  40. Richard Cohen, _Washington Post_ liberal and longtime union supporter, gets it:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/21/AR2011022103775.html

    It was one thing when unions went after giant corporations run by guys who played golf at restricted clubs. But when it comes to government workers, we are the boss and we pay the bill. To quote what Sam Spade told the woman he loved in the “The Maltese Falcon,” “I won’t play the sap for you.” When it comes to public-sector unions, my sentiments exactly.

  41. And because Paula will whine the ‘I said no such thing….”

    She said

    “The Union is the only thing that stand between the people and the Fascist…”

    So apparently the Fascists were in charge prior to Mother Jones, since there weren’t any Unions to stand between them. It was Richard Trumpka that liberated Europe, not the (non-unionized) soldiers who gave their lives. The American Revolution was Fascists vs. Facists. FDR was the world’s worst Fascist since he didn’t allow or support Federal employees to Unionize.

  42. >>>Governor Walker needs them to protect him from left-wing unionist death threats.

    Oh! He was Palinized! Huh?

    >>>Oh, Miss Dogma, Miss Dogma, please try and get your facts correct. Relying on Ezra Klein and Harold Meyerson for the facts on public employee unions would be akin to relying on Gary Bauer for the facts about homosexuality.

    Or like relying on Michelle Malkin or Glenn Reynolds or the rest of the grown up right-wing bloggers to whom you Gay Patriots and your fans so willingly and passively defer for your “facts.”

    Jeez. What a bunch of little Glenn Beck-bots.

    >>>>oh, and PS, once again, could you please, instead of attacking Republicans with left-wing talking points, actually address the point of the post, addressing the issue of the conflicts of interest posed by politicking public employee unions.

    Given the dearth of reliable facts you presented, I’m not convinced there is a conflict of interest other than Walker’s conflicting degrees of interest in one union or another ending up with collective bargaining rights.

  43. Granny Goodness again resorts to attacking the messenger when she can’t rely on facts.

    Granny Goodness lie.

    Reality.

    Of course if Granny wants to slam Glenn Beck (remember, she brought him up, not I) I’m sure she can debunk any statements he’s made on the topic.

    *insert crickets here*

  44. FACTS:

    Controversy grows over Governor Scott Walker’s union contract bill

    Written by Todd Richmond
    Associated Press

    MADISON — Republican Gov. Scott Walker wants to make sure just about everyone who works for the government can’t negotiate their working conditions — except for local police, firefighters and state troopers.

    Walker has introduced a bill that would strip public employees across the board — from teachers to snowplow drivers — of their right to collectively bargain for sick leave, vacation, even the hours they work. But nothing would change for local police, fire departments and the State Patrol.

    The bill smacks of political favoritism for public safety unions that supported Walker’s election bid last year and sets up new haves and have-nots in Wisconsin government, said Paul Secunda, a Marquette University professor who specializes in labor law.

    http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110214/APC0101/102140455/Controversy-grows-over-Governor-Scott-Walker-s-union-contract-bill

  45. Oh, and I assume that her smear of Palinized refers to the lie that she was ‘responsible’ for the AZ shooting. More lies from Granny Goodnes. Now being used to justify actual death threats.

    See Paula, take notes from Granny Goodness. She tries to change the topic when she’s being beat, but can’t escape her words.

  47. Oh good grief, Miss Livewire.

    There is a pic of Walker with one of Palin’s signature gun sights on it at the link to that silliness you call death threats. You girls get hysterical when they’re aimed at one of yours, and you call it democracy in action (or teabagging) when they’re aimed at anyone to the left of Atila the Hun.

  50. Hi TL,
    Sorry, I thought you were arguing with PB about this claim at #8: “and after he was elected to his new job… a judge ordered the city hire back ALL the workers he fired trying to bust the union, saying there was not REAL Crisis THAT WARRANTED WALKER DOING THAT… and the city now has to pay them 500k in BACK PAY…” I have no idea if it is true or not. Any ideas?

  52. *snore* GRanny Goodness again finds putting a target on a map as a death threat, but blows off putting a gunsight on a person.

    Keep on with the lies though Granny, I’ll keep debunking them.

    Paula, do we really have to trot out Democrat (and Gore contributer) Fred Phelps? Or maybe John Edwards? Or maybe point out who passed DADT?

    As for this sudden concern for the poor taxpayers of Milwaukee I’m sure you can point me to your writings of condemnation of the stimulus and the trillions in debt? i clicked on the link in your name it provided as little information as your posts.

  54. Live Wire either you misread the resume` or you were hoping I would not read it for myself…. there was no union collusion.

    Walker screwed up, got called on it and cost the people money… and he is trying to do it again…. and you will have the same results… only this tax bill wont be confined to the citizens of one city

  57. Ah yes. “It’s Bush’s fault”

    The classic sign of the hypocrite. Republican debts bad, Democrat debts an order of magnatude greater. good.

    And the city of Milwaukee chose not to appeal the Arbiter’s decision. Their desire not to pursue isn’t Walker’s choice.

    Keep trying though. You’re making me laugh.

  59. Aunti Dogshit is a damn liar:

    “One thing I want to get out is our union didn’t support him,” said Drath. While some smaller police and fire unions did endorse the governor, the two largest state unions representing them did not. “We both supported governor Walker’s opponent so to think that this is somehow a deal or a quid pro quo, there’s no basis for that,” said Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association.

    http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14059749

    Funny that.

  61. Oh, Miss Dogma, such a pleasure it is to read your comments, a constant reminder that shooting fish in a barrel can be a most amusing sport.

    You just can’t help yourself now, can you?

    You insult us, but even though you quote me on summarizing the point of the post, you fail to address it. Quoting the post to which you attach your comment, “Government sits on both sides of the table in cozy “negotiations” with unions.” Therein lies the conflict.

    Public union employees are paid by the state, with part of their salary siphoned off (by the state) to the unions who then use money (that they didn’t have to collect, but which was collected for them) to campaign for one political party and to lobby public officials.

    Now, do you see why they sit on both sides of the table.

    Oh, and, if my “facts” (as you put it) are wrong, you know, given their supposedly sketchy provenance, then the should be easy for you to dispute. But, you don’t address our points. You just call us names and make assumptions, most of which are easily shown to be false.

    That said, do hope all your angry venting does make you feel better.

  63. Paula, FYI, recession began in December 2007 after Democrats had been in control of both Houses of Congress for nearly a full year.

    Yeah, he’s to blame for this in part, but not for the downturn continuing well into the Obama Administration, more than two years after he left office–and offer a pricey stimulus that didn’t live up to its promise.

    We didn’t need a stimulus. We needed what Bush was alleged to have done, but failed to do — deregulate the economy while regulating the government-sponsored players (i.e., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) acting with a relatively free hand and a ready ability to reach that hand into the federal purse.

  64. Cas asked:

    By the way, unions as a % of US workforce has steadily eroded over time, not grown. So, if a union’s main function is to grow, it is doing a lousy job of it…

    This has been a long trend in union membership. If I remember correctly, many members of the ACL-CIO were very upset about the lack of union growth under the leadership of the ACL-CIO and bolted the confederation in 2005(ish). Many ended up joining the SEIU, making them the new powerhouse in all things union. The SEIU had promised to be much more aggressive in union recruiting and demonstrations, which is why we see them everywhere. They also heavily pushed the “card check” agenda, which to me, is as undemocratic as can be. The reality – those who joined them completely miscalculated the reasons why unions are dying, and even with the more aggressive SEIU approach, union growth continues to decline.

    PS. I can’t claim to be an expert here, but I’ve been a long time listener of Pacifica Radio, and heard about the slip in real time. Even though the political leanings of most of the programing there is at odds with mine, I love to listen to it. It give you a perspective of what others outside your political sphere are thinking.

  67. >>>*snore* GRanny Goodness again finds putting a target on a map as a death threat, but blows off putting a gunsight on a person.

    I didn’t, hon. You did.

    >>>Aunti Dogshit is a damn liar:

    Language, Miss ThatGayConservative. There are more than one union, Miss namecaller for lack of an actual argument.

    http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110214/APC0101/102140455/Controversy-grows-over-Governor-Scott-Walker-s-union-contract-bill

    “The Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Wisconsin Professional Firefighters Association, the two largest rank-and-file unions for police and firefighters, endorsed Democrat Tom Barrett during the campaign.

    “Walker collected endorsements from the Milwaukee Police Association, the West Allis Professional Police Association, the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters and the Wisconsin Troopers Association during his campaign. And on Tuesday the governor announced he had hired Steven Fitzgerald, father of state Senate and Assembly majority leaders Scott and Jeff Fitzgerald — two figures Walker needs to advance his agenda through the Legislature — as State Patrol superintendent.”

    Even your man in the NYT, David Brooks, calls out Walker for the inequitable application of his policy – it favors Republicans:

    “The foundation of this unwritten constitution has to be this principle: make everybody hurt. The cuts have to be spread more or less equitably among as many groups as possible. There will never be public acceptance if large sectors of society are excluded. Governor Walker’s program fails that test. It spares traditional Republican groups (even cops and firefighters). It is thus as unsustainable as the current tide of red ink.”

    Those would be the same cops and firefighters who backed Walker, backed as in the way Dr Blatt describes California unions backing Jerry Brown, before slipping him into their pocket and having their way with him.

    >>>> You just call us names and make assumptions, most of which are easily shown to be false.

    Now, who did I call a name and when did I use the kind of profane language, as has been directed at me? Not to mention the silly assumptions that some of you have made about me.

    You people really need to work on your manners and hospitality.

  69. Even your man in the NYT, David Brooks, calls out Walker for the inequitable application of his policy – it favors Republicans

    Both of you are absolutely right. So here is what I suggest should happen to fix this oversight: have at least 1 Democrat state Senator return to Wisconsin and propose an amendment including all public unions in this bill. Believe me, you won’t have much disagreement from most non-liberals on this.

  72. If it is true that the Wisconsin Senate can pass all non-budget bills with a simply majority being present, here’s a list of ideas I propose the state GOP start with:

    1. Abortion. Parental notification, waiting periods, etc.
    2. Arizona-style immigration bill.
    3. Voter ID.
    4. Health Care Freedom Act opposing Obamacare.
    5. Concealed carry permits on college campuses.

    These and a few others are bound to lure the Dems back. If not, at least some good legislation will be enacted with their obstructionism.

  74. Ok, we now know Paula’s divorced from reality. 400K debt bad, few billion bad. 1.4 Trillion… GREAT!

    Granny Goodness… Of course you won’t accept Gov Walker’s reasoning you’ve shown reason and Granny don’t belong in the same sentence.

  76. 71: As I read more about the Koch brothers, I wonder how much they’re influence is guiding these elections. I read an article today that today marks 5 years since Clarence Thomas last asked a question in session at the Supreme Court, but I realized he didn’t have trouble speaking at a secretive conclave in CA sponsored by the Koch brothers. I find things like that much more troublesome than unions contributing to campaigns.

  77. Wisconsin is just a border skirmish. The real fight with unions is in Washington, D.C.

    If the unions lose in Wisconsin, and in other states, the conservative candidate for POTUS in 2012 will have a very strong, and publicly acceptable plank of busting the federal government’s unions to run on.

    The unions loitering about the US government are nothing like state unions. The employment-for-life, the wages and benefits, and above all: the Power! is on a scale that state unionistas can only dream of. CIA, DOJ, DOS, even DOD – the bureaucrats form a state within a state, and are untouchable, unaccountable, and uncompetent.

    America could enjoy accountability from its public servants again. Things like timeliness, customer service, even actionable intelligence that accurately advises on decisions of war.

    Heady stuff, I know. But Wisconsin is just a border skirmish.

  79. Yes, union’s have been too “successful” in getting benefits and salary raises for their members. Walker is right there, unions need to make cuts like the rest of us. And no, union membership should not be forced upon public employees. However, taking away their right to collectively bargain under the guise of saving taxpayers money is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst.

    If walker really wanted to save people money, do what Christie did, the right way. Negotiate with the unions, if they don’t give in, fire the necessary amount of employees to reduce the budget.

    Taking away their ability to collectively leaves them unprotected employees of the government. Considering how evil many of you think government is, I don’t know why you would want to subject anybody to that.

  80. Taking away their ability to collectively leaves them unprotected employees of the government.

    BS. The proposed collective bargaining reform only applies to benefits. Workers are still covered by civil service protections written into Wisconsin Law.

    Ironic that the hack who begins by calling Governor Walker a liar plays pretty fast and loose with the facts.

  81. I didn’t call him a liar. And I’m not playing fast and loose with the facts, I know that it applies to benefits only. It still doesn’t change the fact that they’d be subjected to the healthcare benefits packages the government sees fit, with no right to collectively negotiate.

    Sounds kind of scary to me, wouldn’t want those “death panels” popping up in Wisconsin with workers unable to avoid em.

  82. #79: “Taking away their ability to collectively leaves them unprotected employees of the government. Considering how evil many of you think government is, I don’t know why you would want to subject anybody to that.”

    AJ, clearly one of the most important and basic issues in this debate has gone completely over your head. Public employee unions by definition create the evil of politicians colluding with unions to buy votes and contributions with taxpayer funds. There is no protection for the taxpayer in the arrangement which is why benefits owed to public employees is now bankrupting states and local government entities across the US.

    The assertion that public employees need to be “protected” from exploitation by their government employers also reveals another inconsistency in the liberals’ arguments. They insist that the only way to “fix” the healthcare system is for the entire system to be turned over to the government because it will remove the profit motive and its inherent corruption. Of course, that assumes the government is inherently benevolent and the only entity capable of administering a fair system. So, is the government inherently benevolent or inherently exploitive of its employees? Liberals want it both ways.

  84. Hi VK,
    “why Democrat don’t simply run on restoring mandatory collective bargaining and mandatory union membership in 2012”

    Let me take a stab at this: Because it is not a winning strategy.

    “BS. The proposed collective bargaining reform only applies to benefits. Workers are still covered by civil service protections written into Wisconsin Law. Ironic that the hack who begins by calling Governor Walker a liar plays pretty fast and loose with the facts.”

    Bargaining rights include more than wages and benefits VK. They include work rules and how the job is structured. Hence, when Walker says that he wants to strip all bargaining rights apart from wage setting, that is an AWFUL LOT OF STUFF that just got taken outside the purview of unions. You may like this, but don’t call it: just benefits. It isn’t.

  85. [T]aking away their right to collectively bargain under the guise of saving taxpayers money is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst. – Comment by AJ — February 22, 2011 @ 9:54 pm – February 22, 2011

    I didn’t call him a liar. – Comment by AJ — February 22, 2011 @ 10:28 pm – February 22, 2011

  86. Because it is not a winning strategy.

    Translation: The taxpayers and voters are on the side of reforming the union’s collective bargaining “rights,” but the Democrats are on the side of the special interests (i.e. Unions).

  87. That point isn’t going over my head at all. Unions, corporations and other entities are allowed to fund candidacies of people they want elected. It’s called Democracy. If illegal collusion is going on, prove it and have the offending parties arrested.

    I’ve said that I don’t agree with requiring people to be a part of unions. In that sense, yes requiring that government money be given to unions is an issue I believe. But stripping workers of the ability to collectively bargain hurts them overall. Give them the choice. If they want to be a part of a union, pay dues and negotiate for their pay and benefits, then they should be allowed to do so.

    If the system is broke, fix the system, don’t do away with it completely.

  88. Taking away their right to collectively bargain under the guise of saving taxpayers money is disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst. – Comment by AJ — February 22, 2011 @ 9:54 pm – February 22, 2011

    I didn’t call him a liar

    One I never said he lied. I said it could be a lie “at worst”. But twist words as you like.

    Two, saying someone lied is different from calling them a liar. Everyone in their lifetime has told a lie at one point or another, that doesn’t necessarily make them liars, unless that’s what you’re stating. It tends to be used as a term that implies habitual behavior.

  89. #87: “That point isn’t going over my head at all. Unions, corporations and other entities are allowed to fund candidacies of people they want elected. It’s called Democracy. If illegal collusion is going on, prove it and have the offending parties arrested.”

    Yes, aj, it HAS gone over your head. The collusion involved is an inherent LEGAL aspect of the public employee union/government relationship because they are bargaining with the taxpayers’ money and there is no one involved in the negotiations that has any incentive to protect the taxpayers. Instead, the only incentives present are for the union to get the sweetest deal possible and the government to give it to them in exchange for votes and political contributions.

    You DON’T get it.

  91. Hey VK,
    “Bargaining rights include more than wages and benefits VK. They include work rules and how the job is structured. Hence, when Walker says that he wants to strip all bargaining rights apart from wage setting, that is an AWFUL LOT OF STUFF that just got taken outside the purview of unions. You may like this, but don’t call it: just benefits. It isn’t.”

    What say you?

  92. Hi Sean A,
    FYI: these tests use the following categories: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Advanced. The article says: “cannot read proficiently.” That is not the same as saying that the students are illiterate, though it sounds exciting to say that. In terms of proficiency, when you check the document (it’s large): Wisconsin got 32%. Illinois got 30%; CA 20%; Maryland 31%; Texas 25%; Ohio 33%; Michigan 31%; NY 30%; SC 23%; NH 35%; MA, VA, PN, 37%; CT 38%;

  94. Yes, aj, it HAS gone over your head. The collusion involved is an inherent LEGAL aspect of the public employee union/government relationship because they are bargaining with the taxpayers’ money and there is no one involved in the negotiations that has any incentive to protect the taxpayers. Instead, the only incentives present are for the union to get the sweetest deal possible and the government to give it to them in exchange for votes and political contributions.

    You DON’T get it.

    The government has obligations to the tax payers, they’re the one protecting the tax payers. If the budget is out of control, then like Christie did, simply cut pay.

    If you don’t require public employees to be part of the union, then the money being used to negotiated isn’t tax payers money, it’s the teachers because they have a choice in the matter.

    If the negotiations are illegal, then why have unions been allowed for as long as they’ve been around? You’d think the SCOTUS would have gotten to it by now..

    Corporations pay candidates in order to get what they want. Tax cuts, lax regulations or other deals are then given to them in order to raise campaign money for more votes for those candidates. The government is giving them potential revenue in the form of tax cuts. Who exactly is protecting the tax payers there?

  95. #92: Cas, I consider any 8th graders being unable to “read proficiently” a disgrace and a total failure on the part of their teachers.

    But the real issue is that liberals don’t believe such tests should have anything to do with determining teacher compensation. If you believe the same (and I’m sure you do) your commentary on the statistics and what they mean is totally irrelevant.

  96. well, i am personally shocked (!!) to see that a “right-to-work” state like texas, which doesn’t allow collective bargaining, actually has a lower level of reading proficiency than wisconsin. i thought that if we got rid of all those mean teachers unions, then all our education worries would disappear.

  97. #96: ” i thought that if we got rid of all those mean teachers unions, then all our education worries would disappear.”

    No one is saying that and you’re making a stupid argument. Correlation does not equal causation. Higher student performance is not because of collective bargaining. However, low student performance is a strong argument that teachers are not entitled to the lavish compensation packages that collective bargaining typically guarantees them.

  98. #94: “The government has obligations to the tax payers, they’re the one protecting the tax payers.”

    Uh, NO, clueless. The reason a majority of states and local government entities are facing insolvency RIGHT NOW is due to a failure of government to protect the taxpayers (in favor of securing union support and political contributions for reelection campaigns).

    “If the budget is out of control, then like Christie did, simply cut pay.”

    Yes, we all saw how “simply” that was done and how “simply” it’s being done in Wisconsin. Union contracts are multi-year arrangements precisely to PREVENT newly-elected governors from altering the deals no matter how dire the budgetary consequences will be. The unions’ position is always the same–raise taxes to pay for our sweetheart deals.

    “If the negotiations are illegal, then why have unions been allowed for as long as they’ve been around? You’d think the SCOTUS would have gotten to it by now..”

    AJ, I said above that the problem with the arrangement is that it is LEGAL. I never said it was illegal. Were you educated in the Wisconsin public schools?

    “Corporations pay candidates in order to get what they want. Tax cuts, lax regulations or other deals are then given to them in order to raise campaign money for more votes for those candidates. The government is giving them potential revenue in the form of tax cuts. Who exactly is protecting the tax payers there?”

    Corporations paying lower taxes is NOT a threat to taxpayers because none of their money has been obligated to be handed over. In contrast, the benefits and salaries promised to government employees DOES implicate the taxpayers’ money because it is their money that is being used for the payouts.

    AJ, you really are dense.

  99. Unions are one of many reasons that Governments across the country are in trouble financially. Christie proved it could be done through negotiations and Walker could achieve the same thing through negotiations as well.

    And it seems that you have a problem with “tax payer” money being used to fund campaigns. Should teachers not be allowed to vote or support candidates financially because they’re public employees?

    Tax cuts aren’t promised or obligated “on paper”, you’re right. But billions of dollars in government contracts and other methods of giving corporations deals do obligate tax payers from the start. Corporations are free to donate what they want to who they want. If corporations are able to do that for their own benefit, then the unions should be as well in order to protect the worker.

  100. #99: “Corporations are free to donate what they want to who they want. If corporations are able to do that for their own benefit, then the unions should be as well in order to protect the worker.”

    If you have a problem with a corporation donating to a political candidate or party, you don’t have to work for that corporation or buy its products. In contrast, every public school teacher in Wisconsin is required to be a member of the union, required to give up $700-$1000 in dues, and has no choice about the union giving all of their political contributions to the Democratic Party and other liberal organizations they may not support.

    There’s no comparison. You’re full of it.

    “Tax cuts aren’t promised or obligated “on paper”, you’re right.”

    I know.

    “But billions of dollars in government contracts and other methods of giving corporations deals do obligate tax payers from the start.”

    AJ, what you’re talking about ACTUALLY IS ILLEGAL and there are laws to deter and punish those kinds of conflicts of interest. But politicians obligating the taxpayers to ridiculous union benefits? Not so much.

    FAIL.

  101. If you have a problem with a corporation donating to a political candidate or party, you don’t have to work for that corporation or buy its products. In contrast, every public school teacher in Wisconsin is required to be a member of the union, required to give up $700-$1000 in dues, and has no choice about the union giving all of their political contributions to the Democratic Party and other liberal organizations they may not support.

    Did you even read what I said? I said I don’t believe that union’s should be mandatory, I agree with that part of the bill. What I was saying is that unions aren’t the problem, the way they are currently structured is the problem. Making teachers pay into the unions leads to an apparent conflict of interest.

    Theres a law against giving a contract to a company that donated money to your campaign? Any company that donated significant amounts to a presidential campaign, through it’s own entity or it’s chief officers, would then be ineligible for a federal contract? Does such a law exist?

    There may be laws in place for certain situations, but in reality that’s now what happens. The closer you are to people in power, the more you donate to their campaigns, the more taxpayer money, lax regulations and other “sweetheart deals” you’ll get.

    Without unions or big corporations, neither party would survive financially. That’s one of the reasons the tea party is up in arms, because “wall street” is running this country and getting bailouts while the people get nothing. Blame the unions all you want, but they’re a small fraction of the problem with government in this country. Don’t hurt public employees simply because they work for the government.

  102. Hi Sean A:
    “Cas, I consider any 8th graders being unable to “read proficiently” a disgrace and a total failure on the part of their teachers.”
    Its not a great situation, I agree, though I am not so quick as you to apparently place all the blame on teachers. There are a lot of good teachers out there working under extremely difficult conditions.

    Also, I guess that means that you take back the claim that such students are illiterate, right, as being, you know, hyperbole?

  103. @97: i was being sarcastic. my point, since you apparently have trouble reading between the lines, is that maybe the educators in wisconsin actually know what they’re doing, and walker should maintain the status quo, especially since his alternative involves embracing a system of failure.

  104. There are more than one union, Miss namecaller for lack of an actual argument.

    Indeed. As shown in the data from earlier, Auntie Dogshit, there are more than one union. Further, it showed that Barrett benefited the most from them. I even asked you how Walker benefited the most, but you totally ignored that and held up one of your sheets of toilet paper opinion pieces as proof.

    Nevermind that I provided you proof that Barrett made more money, benefited from more union support AND showed union members stating, on the record, that your TP opinion pieces are WRONG, you still make the claim.

    I’ve backed up my argument. You’ve got shit tickets.

  105. What say you?

    Workers should have the choice whether to be represented by a union or not. If they are willing to negotiate their benefits outside the collective, they should be free to do so.

    An end to ALL collective bargaining would do a lot to both save taxpayer money and to put accountability into the teaching profession. It would be a lot easier to clean deadwood out of the teaching profession without unions protecting blatantly incompetent teachers. But that’s not what Walker is proposing.

  107. nope, i was using the information provided by sean a., which shows that only 25% of texas students scored proficient on some standardized exam. not really sure why you’re introducing extraneous info regarding ACT and SAT scores. deflect much?

  108. >>>… said one of the ugliest-spirited, most hateful and stupid people ever to presume to comment on GayPatriot. Comment by ILoveCapitalism

    Presume to comment? You flatter yourself, Miss.

    Remarks like “ugliest-spirited, most hateful and stupid” is just typical of how you quislings and your fellow cons have lowered public discourse.

  109. Look, Granny Goodness is projecting again.

    And Chad, I wasn’t bringing in ‘extraneous info’ I was asking if you were referring to the study I linked to, then showing that the study I linked to was flawed.

    Maybe if you’d read my post, instead of looking to attack, you’d realize that.

  113. Ok Chad. See this symbol? ? it’s called a ‘question mark’. In addition to being the motif of the Riddler, it denotes a question. Your comment here doesn’t reference Sean’s post.

    Since your comment doesn’t reference what poll you were citing, I asked if you were citing a specific set of data and provided a link to it. I then provided links to the flaws in the data.

    Nowhere did I ‘debunk you’ (though you are doing an excellent job of beclowing yourself). I simply asked a question, then pointed out the flaws in the data if you were referring to the data at the posted link.

    You may not have noticed, but several posters will often make statements without any information backing them up. There is no way to know if you were referencing another post, or just pulling stats out of the hat.

  114. I guess that means that you take back your claim at #80 that AJ ” plays pretty fast and loose with the facts,” at least in this one instance, right?

    Not at all. AJ is a complete weasel who consistently says something, and then insists that he meant something other than was actually said.

    Nothing in my previous post is inaccurate or contradicts any position I have previously taken.

  115. Hi VK,
    “Nothing in my previous post is inaccurate or contradicts any position I have previously taken.”

    “BS. The proposed collective bargaining reform only applies to benefits. ”

    OK, then since this is factually incorrect, let me know how you reconcile this with your claim? Work rules, work rules ….

  116. It is accurate in the context of refuting AJ’s false assertion that public employees were being stripped of all their rights by the proposed reforms. In fact, the reforms are quite modest in scope, and do not remove the protections public employees have by statute.

    Nice try at cherry-picking. Better luck next time.

  117. Admittedly, I haven’t read much of anything on how the proposed reforms would affect work rules, but if that is also included in the legislation, that is awesome! Because work rules are often the most onerous parts of union contracts and lead to huge inefficiencies.

    Fresh out of college, I worked for a state agency for about a year. At one point, they moved our cubicles from one side of a building to another. So, we who were moving picked up our computers, packed up our office supplies boxes, and carried them to our new work area on the other side of the same floor of the same building.

    But then, some union thug filed a grievance, because under their collective bargaining agreement, moving “office equipment” was a union job. We had to take all of our stuff back to our previous area. Three weeks later, the unionized thugs finally moved our things over to the new cubicles for us.

    Unions are grossly in need of reform; only an idiot would argue otherwise.

  118. Not at all. AJ is a complete weasel who consistently says something, and then insists that he meant something other than was actually said.

    Nothing in my previous post is inaccurate or contradicts any position I have previously taken.

    If you actually read what I wrote instead of twisting it and interjecting your own thoughts and comments, then I wouldn’t have to clarify. I say what I mean, and then you interpret it to say what you think it should say based on your anti liberal talking points. No one is weaseling anything here except for you.

    Case in point, calling Walker a liar and saying “he’s being disingenuous at best and lying at worst” are two very different things. It’s not my fault you fail to understand that.

  120. When you say someone is uttering falsehoods, that is all you’re saying. You allow that they might be misguided or mistaken.

    When you say someone is “lying”, you say that they utter falsehoods knowingly, with intent to deceive. Kind of like when Clinton wagged his finger in the camera and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.

    When you say someone is “a liar”, you say that they lie habitually. But, what is habitual lying? If a person is willing to lie once, they are likely willing to lie again. So to accuse a person of lying even once, is to suggest or imply (at least) that the person is “a liar”.

    It is my experience that a person who relies on a defense of “I said X was lying not that he was a liar” usually understands that, and meant to insinuate (while avoiding responsibility for saying it outright) that X is “a liar”.

  121. It is my experience that a person who relies on a defense of “I said X was lying not that he was a liar” usually understands that, and meant to insinuate (while avoiding responsibility for saying it outright) that X is “a liar”.

    Such a person would be, IMHO, a weasel.

  122. Hi VK,
    Sorry, you lost me with the: “It is accurate in the context of refuting AJ’s false assertion that … ” . Either its actually accurate (all on its lonesome as a claim) or it isn’t. If you refute a un-fact (all CB affected) by uttering another un-fact (only CB benefits affected), whatever the “context,” that doesn’t make it cherry-picking to point it out, it just makes it an un-fact. It just means its a minor blooper. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging it as such and moving on… If it is that important to you to defend, no worries.
    I’ll leave it be.

  123. ILC,

    I was not trying to insinuate that he is a liar at all. I made that point very clear, but V the K wants to believe what they want. I never said he was lying either, I said it might be may be being disingenuous or lying.

    So saying someone might be lying is somehow calling them a liar, that’s their logic. I understand the difference of someone telling one lie and someone lying habitually,i.e., being a liar. Not trying to insinuate anything at all. If I thought he was a liar, I would have called him a liar. I didn’t, I said what I meant. However people want to infer that is their own issue.

  125. Hi VK,
    I looked up the link–thank you; it was very helpful. What do you think of this quote, http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Wisconsin_Assembly_Bill_11,_the_%22Scott_Walker_Budget_Repair_Bill%22_%282011%29#Collective_Bargaining, visited 23 February 2011?

    For my use of “work rules” put in the bills use of “conditions of employment.” Admittedly, “conditions of employment” is a very wide term. Still…

    “Under current law, municipal employees have the right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and conditions of employment … and state employees have the right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and conditions of employment …. This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of base wages. In addition, … any general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index.”

  126. I said it might be may be being disingenuous or lying.

    That makes no sense, because “disingenuous” means (or implies a form of) lying.

    dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
    adj.
    1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating

    The word goes to the matter of intent. To utter a falsehood with insincere intent is to utter a falsehood with intent to deceive, i.e., to lie.

    So no matter how you slice it, aj, you said Walker was lying. Which, if true, would then tend to make him “a liar” even if you couldn’t bring yourself to say that last part outright.

    Your original distinction, “disingenuous at best and a flat out lie at worst”, is, shall we say, “disingenuous at best”.

  128. Hi ILC,
    “dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
    adj.
    1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating”
    Yet, it does not say–“lying” in the definition you have used.. Why is that? I ask, not so much to defend aj, but as a philosophical question. For example, would you consider the fine Jesuit technique of equivocation lying?

    Can one have the intent to not be honest, and still not lie? Perhaps the distinction involved is one of being “totally honest.”

    I went checking online, and it had a nice example I will share with you about a possible difference between lying and being ingenuous:
    “Something disingenuous need not be a lie. For example, I could say that you should join my gym because it’s a great gym and you’ve been saying you want to lose weight, and it’s veyr conveniently located next to your office. Even if that’s all true, it’s still disingenuous if I would like you to join because they’ll give me a $500.” Excuse the typos, they are original. http://ask.metafilter.com/32147/Why-disingenuous-instead-of-liar

    What do you think?

  129. What do you think?

    Are false statements involved, or not?

    Only true statements can be disingenous, in the sense you illustrate above. “Disingenuous false statement” might be one valid definition of “lie”.

    If Walker’s statements have been *truly* (so to speak) disingenuous and thus in no way lies, then… we have arrived at a very cheap, backhanded way of acknowledging that Walker’s statements are true. The alleged disingenuous motive is, at that point, “making sh*t up” and just a way to cover up truth with insinuation.

    To return to AJ’s original statement:

    taking away their right to collectively bargain under the guise of saving taxpayers money is disingenuous

    No, actually. Walker *cannot* reform Wisconsin’s budget in time without allowing for local, non-collective bargaining over benefits. It’s a necessary part of the package. Walker has explained this in many statements. AJ is either mistaken (perhaps having chosen not to listen?), or is perhaps smearing Walker.

  130. (continued) ”s motives. AJ’s follow-up words in that statement:

    [or is] a flat out lie

    are a smear. Then, when AJ is confronted about the smear, the defense is ‘I never called Walker a liar’, which is technically a true statement – but perhaps “Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating” – thus, disingenuous in the sense you illustrated.

  131. This matrix might clarify things, or summarize:

    1) True statement, made sincerely == Truth.
    2) False statement, made sincerely == Mistake; wrong information.
    3) True statement, made calculatingly/insincerely == Disingenuous, in the sense you illustrated.
    4) False statement, made calculatingly/insincerely == Lie.

  132. Hi ILC,
    “1) True statement, made sincerely == Truth.
    2) False statement, made sincerely == Mistake; wrong information.
    3) True statement, made calculatingly/insincerely == Disingenuous, in the sense you illustrated.
    4) False statement, made calculatingly/insincerely == Lie.”

    Sounds reasonable to me, but I am sure someone can come up with something sometime to mess with it!

  134. Hi ILC,
    “But you can’t?”
    As with all things philosophical, it is a question of how much time one wants to devote to analyzing it, to look for special cases! But for right now, I am happy with your formulation, thank you.