Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[Aeson]

...and only unions could possibly have anything more than status quo bias... um... yah!

You're just ignoring reality Kuci. We have a union here who has popular support of the voters and they're still taking a hit. Yet you try to pretend that future generations can't possibly break up unions if they want to.

[Aeson]

And the most inane part of it all is you want to overturn the will of the voters NOW in a SURE THING so that perhaps down the road voters won't have a difficult job DOING THE SAME THING IF THEY WANT TO.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, unions represent people in the workplace- but they also campaign on a host of other issues too- and they have done since their inception. Issues like extension of the franchise, women's rights, education for workers, moral welfare, anti-slavery campaigns and so on.

Which, if any, of those things are prevented under the new Wisconsin state of affairs? Consider that the relevant issue is the collective bargaining power of a union wrt wages and benefits, not the actual existence of the union per se.

Hoho. Is this the Royal or the Papal 'We' you're using ?

This is the "you, me, and all the other voters" 'we'. Were you really too dumb to see that?

Yes, because local government employers only do what's right and good for their workers, and never obey the dictates of party thinking...

Ah, so you are suggesting that the voters really want to provide public workers with generous pay and benefits, but without giving those public workers the ability to extort the government, the elected officials will ignore that desire? That's an... interesting theory, though stupid.

'The voters'- those mysterious beings who are never, according to this line of thought, supporters of unions or supporters of collective bargaining. Surely some voters must exist who are also members of unions and support the right of those unions to bargain collectively ?

This strawman is rather strange, since I've addressed it repeatedly.

Ah. So not doing what voters want is good, if you agree with it. I think we get the message...

Not doing what the voters want is good, if the benefits of it are greater than the benefits of democracy

How, therefore, could the 'majority' of voters in Wisconsin possibly have supported this measure, when it wasn't even presented to them publicly, nor was it the subject of a state-wide referendum ?

1) Why do you need the scare quotes around 'majority'? Come on, that's just awful writing.

2) Did I claim that the majority of Wisconsin voters support removing the union's collective bargain rights? Have I done so anywhere? I don't believe so. Why do you insist on attacking straw men instead of actual arguments?

'Subverting the future will of voters' ? Have you perfected time travel, or are you offering yourself up as some kind of infallible oracle ?

If the Wisconsin legislature ratified a constitutional amendment proscribing future sessions from amending or repealing any laws already on the books, that would also be "subverity the future will of voters". Where in this do I need an appeal to perfect predictive ability?

But don't forget- you assured us:

Sometimes, subverting the will of the voters is a good thing

Of course, only if Tribune Kuciwalker agrees with it.

This is a weird type of attack. Obviously, antidemocratic measures like a Constitutional guarantee of free speech would never be passed unless a majority of people supported them, at least at one point. Since I'm not actually a Tribune I can't pass them on my own. But there's no reason I shouldn't offer my opinion on which ones are worth subverting the principle of democracy (free speech) and which aren't (teacher pay). Thus, accusing me of presumption in voicing a political opinion is a bit odd.

Again, only if we accept your limited and biased definition of what a union is, and what it is for. Odd how trade union members and creators have managed to pre-empt you on that. Guess your time machine can only take you into the future, to unerringly discern the will of future voters....

To recap, the issue at hand is the collective bargaining power of a union, not the existence of an association. I deeply apologize if this confuses you.

I love how you speak for majority of us. I missed out on when you were voted Dear Leader and Most Beloved Employer though.

I missed out on when you moved to Wisconsin.

[Kuciwalker]

And the most inane part of it all is you want to overturn the will of the voters NOW in a SURE THING so that perhaps down the road voters won't have a difficult job DOING THE SAME THING IF THEY WANT TO.

Walker is just trying to cut their pay. I want the union gone so we actually start firing them.

[Aeson]

I want the union gone so we actually start firing them.

You should stick with that. It's much better than trying to pretend that we must counteract the will of the voters now so that we don't accidentally-maybe counteract the will of the voters in the future.

[C0ckney]

And I refuted that, multiple times. Creating a union that has the ability to extort the state by striking is quite a bit different from simple status quo bias.

no, you provided an argument against that, which i and any right thinking person would reject because it bears no relation to reality. as aeson alluded to earlier, behind all kinds of laws are people and organisations that make their removal or change problematic or politically difficult. therefore all these laws, by your logic, are subverting the will of future voters.

the only difference is that you are trying to paint these as a benign 'status quo bias' while treating the unions as nefarious entities.

[Wezil]

Molly - It may have been a better discussion if you weren't about a month late. I have no intention of walking you through the issue we have already gone through. I suggested in my last post that you read the thread. I see you still haven't done so.

[Jon Miller]

This was interesting:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/03/taxation_policy_2?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/mt/appropriatingthesurplus

I know there are a lot of factors though.

JM

[Krill]

If we substitute "NHS employee's" for "doctor's" in my post, does it change the answer?

I'd love it if I, a lowly support worker with an honours degree in Chemistry from a fairly prestigious university, could negotiate for a higher wage than someone that finished high school with 5 GCSEs' at age 16 and just got a job. Can I? No. Can a doctor negotiate their wage? Yes, through various methods of treating X patients per annum and other means.

[DaShi]

Doctors have tons of ways of increasing their salaries. One of the most popular involves forming groups of providers that keep patients in network and increase bargaining power over payers.

[molly bloom]

Which, if any, of those things are prevented under the new Wisconsin state of affairs? Consider that the relevant issue is the collective bargaining power of a union wrt wages and benefits, not the actual existence of the union per se.

I'm not suggesting any of them are. I'm addressing your claim that:

As I pointed out on page 1 or 2:
The purpose of a union is to prevent exploitation of workers by employers.

A union is an organised association of workers for the protection of their common interests.

One of their aims may be to prevent exploitation of workers by employers- be they private or public. Luckily, unions do not have to rely on your very limited definition of their purposes or aims.

This is the "you, me, and all the other voters" 'we'.

I thought it might be the ' egotism We' , where you presume to speak for 'all the other voters'.

Were you really too dumb to see that?

Evidently not as dumb as the person who can't see they're being lampooned...

Ah, so you are suggesting that the voters really want to provide public workers with generous pay and benefits

What's generous in terms of current pay and benefits in Wisconsin ? Could you perhaps provide some idea of scale, so we can arrive at something concrete ?

but without giving those public workers the ability to extort the government

Hmm. To extort means to gain or draw out by compulsion or violence. What acts of violence are you suggesting that unions are threatening to carry out ? How are they planning to compel the government to accede to their (unspecified) demands ?
Apparently in this fashion :

State employee unions made $100 million in concessions in December to ease the budgetary strain, said Bryan Kennedy, president of the state chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. But Walker's response has been "to eviscerate our most basic rights" and "end labor peace in Wisconsin."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...71A7FP20110211

Yeah, agreeing to $ 100 million in concessions is extortion...

That's an... interesting theory, though stupid

Well you thought it up, not me. Don't presume to put words in my mouth or invent theories for me.

This strawman is rather strange, since I've addressed it repeatedly.

No, your posts just keep reiterating that verbal tic, like Wezil's.

Not doing what the voters want is good, if the benefits of it are greater than the benefits of democracy

Yet more waffle.

1) Why do you need the scare quotes around 'majority'?

In the grown-up world, they're called inverted commas. I use them when necessary. Such as when I'm talking about the will of the 'majority' of the voters in Wisconsin. Remember democracy- that form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people, collectively ?

So as I asked you- when did the Governor of Wisconsin present his plan to the voters of Wisconsin to strip public unions of their right to bargain collectively ?

Come on, that's just awful writing.

Oh please.
People in glass houses...

Why do you insist on attacking straw men instead of actual arguments?

Because your posts don't constitute arguments- at least not arguments backed up by facts, and not ludicrous definitions and hyperbolic claims, like these:

the only possible purpose is therefore to subvert the will of the voters

giving those public workers the ability to extort the government

The will of the voters... oh yes, and

subverting the will of future voters.

That's funny. To overthrow or pervert the (unspecified) choice of an (unspecified) group at some (unspecified) time. Is it possible to be more vague and emotive than that ?

This is a weird type of attack

Not given this statement:

Not doing what the voters want is good, if the benefits of it are greater than the benefits of democracy...

See, I'm still operating under the belief that you imagine you're talking for

"you, me, and all the other voters" .

Somewhat presumptuous.

[QUOTE] [To recap, the issue at hand is the collective bargaining power of a union, not the existence of an association. /QUOTE]

And ? Given your posts' misleading definition of what a union is for and what it does, I thought it best to offer some clarity on the subject.

I deeply apologize if this confuses you.

Someone who writes naive drivel like this shouldn't patronize:

Therefore, if our policy goal is to not exploit them, all we have to do is not exploit them.

The thought of Chairman Kuciwalker...

I missed out on when you moved to Wisconsin.

I moved there about the same time you were elected to speak for :

"you, me, and all the other voters"

[molly bloom]

Molly - It may have been a better discussion if you weren't about a month late.

Yes, I'd have been able to highlight the flaws in your posts that much sooner.

I have no intention of walking you through the issue we have already gone through.

Shame. I'll try to live with the heartbreaking disappointment.

I suggested in my last post that you read the thread.

And I suggested that you provide evidence that:

Democrats are bought and paid for.

and that

that the Democratic Party in Wisconsin simply does the bidding of the public sector unions

Wezil

To quote someone you know fairly well:

I see you still haven't done so.

[Wezil]

You would be a classic NDP'er in this country Molly.

Full of verbiage but saying nothing.

[Guynemer]

You guys missed the M beast.

[Wezil]

He's like Moby in that he won't give you an honest discussion.

In a thread specifically talking about the relationship between government and public sector unions he claims there is no difference between public and private sector unions. Circling around this silly point endlessly ensures you never actually get to the real issues. It's why I say he's quality NDP.