Fuck its silent in here.......

[Brownie]

Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's.  Running like scared little bitches in Wisconsin when they lose elections. Really the best you can do is flee the state and are shocked when they vote and your not present? WTF did you think was gonna happen the Tea Party and the GOP was gonna throw up their hands and go awwwwwww those crafty little liberals got us again.....lets compromise!

State Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin's 73rd assembly district.  He was on America's Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin.  Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others.  The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?  The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions.  But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn't want to be part of a union could find other work.

Get that? You'll be forced to donate to a party that you don't support, and you'll like it!

Nice scam you guys got going on, too bad its about to come crashing down.

Read the Pew numbers...congratulations on losing the Rust Belt for a generation.

It's certainly made Mitch Daniels unelectable in Indiana. Hell, Scott Walker said he was going to do this and he not only got elected, but they gave him a Republican statehouse.

The automakers were ultimately done in by unsustainable defined benefits given to their employees. I don't blame the unions for that. They bargained for the best possible deal, and the private corporations gave it to them. Oops.

Management should drive as hard a bargain as the unions drive. In the private sector, weak management loses profitability (hard-headed management loses good employees).

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting? Federal employees can't bargain for their benefits. It's a good thing too, because the feds will likely be asked to fund different states' pensions.

[Chuck to Chuck]

It's certainly made Mitch Daniels unelectable in Indiana. Hell, Scott Walker said he was going to do this and he not only got elected, but they gave him a Republican statehouse.

The automakers were ultimately done in by unsustainable defined benefits given to their employees. I don't blame the unions for that. They bargained for the best possible deal, and the private corporations gave it to them. Oops.

Management should drive as hard a bargain as the unions drive. In the private sector, weak management loses profitability (hard-headed management loses good employees).

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting? Federal employees can't bargain for their benefits. It's a good thing too, because the feds will likely be asked to fund different states' pensions.

I believe he said he was going to do this after eh got elected.

[Gilgamesh]

Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's.  Running like scared little bitches in Wisconsin when they lose elections. Really the best you can do is flee the state and are shocked when they vote and your not present? WTF did you think was gonna happen the Tea Party and the GOP was gonna throw up their hands and go awwwwwww those crafty little liberals got us again.....lets compromise!

State Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin's 73rd assembly district.  He was on America's Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin.  Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others.  The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?  The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions.  But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn't want to be part of a union could find other work.

Get that? You'll be forced to donate to a party that you don't support, and you'll like it!

Nice scam you guys got going on, too bad its about to come crashing down.

Read the Pew numbers...congratulations on losing the Rust Belt for a generation.

It's certainly made Mitch Daniels unelectable in Indiana. Hell, Scott Walker said he was going to do this and he not only got elected, but they gave him a Republican statehouse.

The automakers were ultimately done in by unsustainable defined benefits given to their employees. I don't blame the unions for that. They bargained for the best possible deal, and the private corporations gave it to them. Oops.

Management should drive as hard a bargain as the unions drive. In the private sector, weak management loses profitability (hard-headed management loses good employees).

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting? Federal employees can't bargain for their benefits. It's a good thing too, because the feds will likely be asked to fund different states' pensions.

I think Mitch had problems with the right-flank before this; however, that said, this doesn't help.  Collective bargaining rights are polling around a consistent 60%.

However, I don't recall Walker campaigning on rolling back collective bargaining rights.  I certainly remember him campaigning on the pension and health insurance issues, but not the collective bargaining aspect.

That said, there are two possibilities now that this thing has passed.  Either we assume arguendo that the collective bargaining aspects of the bill were fiscal issues, in which case the WI legislature just "passed" an illegal bill, or Walker has been lying the entire time and the collective bargaining rights were merely just an attempt to weaken the public sector unions, not fiscal measures to balance the state's books.

Should be interesting going forward.

[Eli]

This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

[Chuck to Chuck]

This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

Very Yellonesque.

[Bort]

This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

I went to public school in South Carolina and, just as sure as Jesus made America 6000 years ago for white gentiles to create a New Jerusalem, I did just fine on the SAT.

[Brownie]

This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

But teachers would still be able to collectively bargain for wages and such. As for Mitch, collective bargaining for state workers went away at the start of 2005, and he won re-election in 2008 -- even when the state went for Obama. Daniels' legislature is now trying to make Indiana a right to work state, and that has union hackles up.

That said, there are two possibilities now that this thing has passed.  Either we assume arguendo that the collective bargaining aspects of the bill were fiscal issues, in which case the WI legislature just "passed" an illegal bill, or Walker has been lying the entire time and the collective bargaining rights were merely just an attempt to weaken the public sector unions, not fiscal measures to balance the state's books.

Should be interesting going forward.

Yes, it is a fiscal issue, but it's not a fiscal bill. A bill that incorporates concessions from state workers is a fiscal bill. The scaling back of CB rights for state employees is insurance to keep the state from sliding back into a budget crisis.

What would be interesting is to see if the unions would initiate a wildcat strike. Sure, the state could fire them all, but would they be willing to? Of course, that entails a certain amount of risk for the union. Unions abhor risk. Risk is for non-union private sector suckers.

[Eli]

This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

Very Yellonesque.

If I were Yellon, I would have also explained that I didn't include a photo in my post out of respect for Luis Salazar's family.

[Brownie]

This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

Very Yellonesque.

If I were Yellon, I would have also explained that I didn't include a photo in my post out of respect for Luis Salazar's family.

Very true.

[R-V]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

[Quality Start Machine]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

On a related note, any guesses on how many billions are spent on both sides in 2012?

[Brownie]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

[R-V]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

[Brownie]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

You restrict what governments have the ability to offer any group. In the case of collective bargaining with elected officials, there is a bit of a conflict of interest in the negotiation, no?

Simply put, every worker in the world should have one thing in mind when negotiating compensation, be it individually or collectively: How can I maximize my compensation for the minimal amount of output required? That's the goal of every union. (If it's not the goal, the union bosses should be savagely attacked by their members.)  Management should be interested in getting the maximum (both in quantity and quality) production for minimal compensation. How each side values its tradeoffs is one thing, but when management decides leaving money on the table isn't so bad, the union is going to win the negotiations going away.

[R-V]

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections. I agree.

I've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

You restrict what governments have the ability to offer any group. In the case of collective bargaining with elected officials, there is a bit of a conflict of interest in the negotiation, no?

Simply put, every worker in the world should have one thing in mind when negotiating compensation, be it individually or collectively: How can I maximize my compensation for the minimal amount of output required? That's the goal of every union. (If it's not the goal, the union bosses should be savagely attacked by their members.)  Management should be interested in getting the maximum (both in quantity and quality) production for minimal compensation. How each side values its tradeoffs is one thing, but when management decides leaving money on the table isn't so bad, the union is going to win the negotiations going away.

So how do you limit the influence of corporate donors?