Wisconsin senators pass no collective bargaining for public workers.

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 03-10-2011, 10:40 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Federal Government employees unions

Actually, JimJoe, Federal Government employees do have the right to belong to a union. There are several major unions such as American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). Government unions do not have the right to strike. They represent employees in disputes about job conditions, job performance ratings, and disciplinary procedures.

Employees are not required to belong to a union; it is entirely voluntary - and a non-union employee gets the same benefits as a union employee - and can even be represented by a union official at a hearing.

Labor Relations is a major part of the Federal Human Resources office in any government agency.

I am not saying they are not needed but as a former HR Officer, the union officials did block a lot of the programs that were for the good of the government. You probably will not find one HR employee who says they liked working with the unions.
  #17  
Old 03-10-2011, 11:20 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks for the info but..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbugs View Post
Actually, JimJoe, Federal Government employees do have the right to belong to a union. There are several major unions such as American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). Government unions do not have the right to strike. They represent employees in disputes about job conditions, job performance ratings, and disciplinary procedures.

Employees are not required to belong to a union; it is entirely voluntary - and a non-union employee gets the same benefits as a union employee - and can even be represented by a union official at a hearing.

Labor Relations is a major part of the Federal Human Resources office in any government agency.

I am not saying they are not needed but as a former HR Officer, the union officials did block a lot of the programs that were for the good of the government. You probably will not find one HR employee who says they liked working with the unions.
Thanks for the info but I note that those rights have little or nothing to do with wages and benefits which is what the problem is.
  #18  
Old 03-10-2011, 11:48 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have to be honest, I'm sitting here watching TV coverage at this very moment. From the videos, some of the people protesting in the cap don't look much like teachers to me at all. At least no teacher I've ever had.

They look more like scruffy rabble rousers who are protesting just for the fun of protesting. A group of young twenty somethings sitting on the floor pounding on 5 gallon plastic containers? Are they our teachers? Future teachers? Out of state union activists perhaps?

The capitol looks totally trashed to me... by "public" employees?

Regarding the bill that passed last night. I thought the democrats / unions liked the Pelosi / Reid style of legislation? Apparently not. Oh wait, they only like it when they do it.

Funny, one of the democratic senators who skipped town said and I paraphrase, if you value democracy you should be gravely concerned. Really? This coming from an elected official who ran out of state with 13 others to prevent a "democratic" vote?

Beam me up Scotty.
  #19  
Old 03-10-2011, 02:50 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
They look more like scruffy rabble rousers who are protesting just for the fun of protesting.
Just watching the news again and they showed a protester getting dragged away from in front of a door by the police.

You know what he yelled to the news camera?

"Hi mom, hi mom."

What the heck is going on up there?
  #20  
Old 03-10-2011, 03:55 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JUREK View Post
Richielion: My thoughts exactly. There is a difference in Public and private unions. I know when we ask for too much in the private unions I may just be out of a job. I remember some 15 years ago there was a chance that we would have to give up concessions or possibly have our plant close.
It never came to that point but I couldn't believe how many members were against concessions.
In the company I worked for the workers agreed to wage givebacks, and temporary suspension of pension credits, coupled with severely reduced pension contributions by the company, when they do resume. This was done so that the company could have a chance to recover and continue in the business which supports 25,000 families with another 11,000 on lay-off hoping to come back.

We can't go to the keepers of the public treasury and demand our compensation remains the same; while the house of cards is tumbling around us, like the workers in the public sector unions have long expected. Like you said, we had to work with the company to come to a solution with no relief coming from anyone but us.

The Democrats have long made promises to the Teamster's Union and almost never come through when it counts. The biggest one was former President Bill Clinton's arm twisting and back room dealing to get NAFTA passed, after promising us he would do the exact opposite while campaigning.

Now Democrat President Barack Obama has agreed to give Mexico the unlimited access of our roads for their trucking industry. Again a major blow to the transportation workers in America, and Teamsters in particular, who'll have to compete with vastly underpaid Mexican truckers.

I'm not arguing the merits of either affront to the Unions; only that it happened, and that it perpetrated against us by our so called "friends".
  #21  
Old 03-11-2011, 01:12 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's not about the budget. When the unions caved to the financial demands Walker made, he should have taken his victory. But that wasn't good enough for him.

I'm no fan of unions. I don't like the way that (especially public) unions can make it virtually impossible to fire someone for incompetency. But to take away the right to collectively bargain just seems wrong to me.

Heck, I just saw a clip of Ronald Reagan, from 1980, stating that where workers are not allowed to collectively bargain, tyranny is found.

I know some teachers locally - lived next door to one for many years. Many of the good teacher are frustrated to no end by the incompetents and burnouts who "game the system".

I'd love to see proper reform. To me that would be the best of both worlds and a compromise I could certainly live with.

Here in NH we offer the teachers a choice when it comes to cutbacks. You either give up certain things (like increasing the co-payments on health insurance) or a number of teachers jobs are eliminated to make up the shortfall. It's the union's choice. Shared sacrifice or targeted sacrifice. Apparently, in Manchester NH, the teacher's union is choosing targeted sacrifice.
  #22  
Old 03-11-2011, 01:35 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wait a second!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong View Post
It's not about the budget. When the unions caved to the financial demands Walker made, he should have taken his victory. But that wasn't good enough for him.

I'm no fan of unions. I don't like the way that (especially public) unions can make it virtually impossible to fire someone for incompetency. But to take away the right to collectively bargain just seems wrong to me.

Heck, I just saw a clip of Ronald Reagan, from 1980, stating that where workers are not allowed to collectively bargain, tyranny is found.

I know some teachers locally - lived next door to one for many years. Many of the good teacher are frustrated to no end by the incompetents and burnouts who "game the system".

I'd love to see proper reform. To me that would be the best of both worlds and a compromise I could certainly live with.

Here in NH we offer the teachers a choice when it comes to cutbacks. You either give up certain things (like increasing the co-payments on health insurance) or a number of teachers jobs are eliminated to make up the shortfall. It's the union's choice. Shared sacrifice or targeted sacrifice. Apparently, in Manchester NH, the teacher's union is choosing targeted sacrifice.
WAIT A SECOND!!
Why do teachers get to decide if the compensation goes down or there are fewer teachers?? That is crazy. Some of the best young teachers will be laid off to over pay the union protected seniority. COME ON.
The only logical response to excessive compensation in an economic crisis is reduced compensation.. not hurt the kids by getting rid of teachers to maintain the unreasonable compensation for some obtained through the incestuous relationships between unions and politicians. The public would be far better off with less compensation for teachers and more teachers!
  #23  
Old 03-11-2011, 02:03 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I get it....don't pay the teachers anything,they don't deserve a fair wage. They should not be allowed to negotiate anything unless it's to give something back that they earned in negotiations. Let those greedy teachers take what we the taxpayer give them which as we all know will be zero.
  #24  
Old 03-11-2011, 03:21 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wisconsin

Early on I was forced into two trade unions which both had practices that intentionally cut production while continuing to demand higher wages and benefits. Google where Americian students rank in the world and last I read it was 29th. When the auto industry collapsed the UAW was handed approx 30% of the stock. When the auto industry began making headway the UAW demanded all concessions back. I know because I was about to buy a GM product until I read that little diddy in the paper. The GM salesman acknowledged that GM was strapped with this burden

Someone mentioned Reagan in another post recall that he fired about 8000 air traffic controllers because they didn't understand the problem associated with collective bargaining. If you feel airport security is a problem now wait until the TSA chooses their union. I spent most my career in Human Resources and fought hard for employees but never did I ask them to slow down production. My main objection to public unions is that it is an oxymoron for public unions to demand collective bargaining. The previous New Jersey governor advocated for public unions and he was the guy who was suppose to be watching out for taxpayers. But as we all know union dues feed campaigns and guys like Corizine know that they need unions to be relected. So there is no one to watch out for the interests of taxpayers. The best result for everyone is that good teachers get paid based on their performance as do employees in all other industries. As an HR guy and long time operations manager I saw what happended when incomptent employees were not dealt with effectively. Not surprising was the fact that their co-employees complained the most because they were adversely affected by this poor performance. So I am pleased that Scott Walker has shown intestinal fortitude regarding this issue. If you get the Daily Sun Ann coulter's Sunday column effectively addresses this topic. finally I believe that teachers would do much better without a union,that is of course if they are competent.
  #25  
Old 03-11-2011, 03:51 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did I say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by waynet View Post
I get it....don't pay the teachers anything,they don't deserve a fair wage. They should not be allowed to negotiate anything unless it's to give something back that they earned in negotiations. Let those greedy teachers take what we the taxpayer give them which as we all know will be zero.
Did I say dont pay them anything did I?
How about they pay half their health care premium and half their retirement. Is that too much, considering most of the people who pay taxes to pay their salary have to pay ALL their health care and ALL their retirement, and they work 12 months instead of 9 months in the year, and they dont get off at 3pm, or get inservice days, and xmas vacation, and spring break, and all the rest.
JJ
  #26  
Old 03-11-2011, 04:05 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would love to see them rid of tenure as I am sure many of the better qualified teachers feel.
  #27  
Old 03-11-2011, 04:26 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JimJoe,if it is such a good gig,why doesn't everyone teach? Simple because most people cant, they are not talented enough and many of those that are find out the pays stinks,working conditions are awful and their BS degree and Masters are worth far more in the private sector.
  #28  
Old 03-11-2011, 04:26 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong View Post
It's not about the budget. When the unions caved to the financial demands Walker made, he should have taken his victory. But that wasn't good enough for him.

I'm no fan of unions. I don't like the way that (especially public) unions can make it virtually impossible to fire someone for incompetency. But to take away the right to collectively bargain just seems wrong to me.

Heck, I just saw a clip of Ronald Reagan, from 1980, stating that where workers are not allowed to collectively bargain, tyranny is found.

I know some teachers locally - lived next door to one for many years. Many of the good teacher are frustrated to no end by the incompetents and burnouts who "game the system".

I'd love to see proper reform. To me that would be the best of both worlds and a compromise I could certainly live with.

Here in NH we offer the teachers a choice when it comes to cutbacks. You either give up certain things (like increasing the co-payments on health insurance) or a number of teachers jobs are eliminated to make up the shortfall. It's the union's choice. Shared sacrifice or targeted sacrifice. Apparently, in Manchester NH, the teacher's union is choosing targeted sacrifice.
FDR was opposed to these public unions and for good reason !!!
  #29  
Old 03-11-2011, 04:58 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in...#axzz1GKY7O76e
Roosevelt was opposed to publicemployees striking which is far different than the issue of whether public employees should have the right to negotiate.
  #30  
Old 03-11-2011, 05:02 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There are some very good arguments on this thread and this whole thing needed to be looked at. I am not big on huge confrontations like the governor did, but it sure got everyone's attention.
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 PM.