WI Dep't Of Corrections & State Employees bilk the taxpayers per Collective Bargaining

[TimBSky 0]

Quote

What do you not understand about the "top 10"?

There are far more corporations than labor unions. Most of the unions in the list have workers in many different corporations or organizations. If we were to combine AT&T with all other telecommunications companies or Goldman Sachs with all other financial institutions, we may be able to come up with a similar comparison but not likely. Since most of the unions represent workers from many different corporations or organizations, comparing an aggregate (unions representing employees from many corporations) to a single corporation is not an accurate comparison. A more accurate comparison would be to compare all union contributions to all corporate contributions but I'm not sure that could even prove your point that unions are worse, or even that corporations are worse. The total amount of money contributed may be more from corporations or may be more from unions but with the data provided, and the way that it's presented there is no way of knowing for sure. Plus, I'm not sure that it even matters. Either way, it wouldn't change my view that that we shouldn't eliminate the influence of one without eliminating the influence of the other.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think the government (tax payers) should post an available job at a specific salary with cost of living increases and job benefits and that should be it. If you don't like the job, you do not have a right to pressure the tax payers by threatening strikes etc. If you find the job unacceptable, you are free to persue another job either with the government or with a private business. You do not have a "right" to bargain (blackmail) for wages higher than the tax payers can afford or are willing to pay.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The total amount of money contributed may be more from corporations or may be more from unions but with the data provided, and the way that it's presented there is no way of knowing for sure.

If you'd actually LOOKED at the data, you'd see that the businesses 'hedge their bet' by donating to both sides; 45D/55R for ATT, 50/50 for Realtors and 61D/37R for Sachs. Lawyers donated 90% Dem and the unions were even higher - that dog won't hunt.

Quote

Plus, I'm not sure that it even matters. Either way, it wouldn't change my view that that we shouldn't eliminate the influence of one without eliminating the influence of the other.

In the top 10, the breakdown is 299.7 million (81% of total) to Democrats, and 66.7 million (18% of total) to Republicans.

Looking at the entire list (140 entities), 59.3% of the total goes to the Dems (1.293T) vs 39% to the Reps (858M)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

What do you not understand about the "top 10"?

There are far more corporations than labor unions. Most of the unions in the list have workers in many different corporations or organizations. If we were to combine AT&T with all other telecommunications companies or Goldman Sachs with all other financial institutions, we may be able to come up with a similar comparison but not likely. Since most of the unions represent workers from many different corporations or organizations, comparing an aggregate (unions representing employees from many corporations) to a single corporation is not an accurate comparison. A more accurate comparison would be to compare all union contributions to all corporate contributions but I'm not sure that could even prove your point that unions are worse, or even that corporations are worse. The total amount of money contributed may be more from corporations or may be more from unions but with the data provided, and the way that it's presented there is no way of knowing for sure. Plus, I'm not sure that it even matters. Either way, it wouldn't change my view that that we shouldn't eliminate the influence of one without eliminating the influence of the other.

Dude

this is the top ten contributions list

Period

Not the top ten unions contributions list

This is the top ten of all contributors

Unions just happen to be at the top of the list

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TimBSky 0]

Quote

Looking at the entire list (140 entities), 59.3% of the total goes to the Dems (1.293T) vs 39% to the Reps (858M)

Thank You.

So, eliminating the influence of unions would effectively only impact Democrats while eliminating the infuence of both unions and corporations would impact Democrats and Republicans although it would have a greater impact on Democrats. I have no problem with the second scenario even though it would diminish fundraising more for Democrats than Republicans.

Just to clarify, I don't see this as a Democrat versus Republican issue but more as a labor versus corporation issue.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Looking at the entire list (140 entities), 59.3% of the total goes to the Dems (1.293T) vs 39% to the Reps (858M)

Thank You.

So, eliminating the influence of unions would effectively only impact Democrats while eliminating the infuence of both unions and corporations would impact Democrats and Republicans although it would have a greater impact on Democrats. I have no problem with the second scenario even though it would diminish fundraising more for Democrats than Republicans.

Just to clarify, I don't see this as a Democrat versus Republican issue but more as a labor versus corporation issue.

when it comes to private sector unions I agree with you

Public sector is a whole different thing

Look into it

It is not a good scenario

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TimBSky 0]

Quote

Public sector is a whole different thing

Agree.

When it comes to teachers, police, firefighters, and prison guards, it's in society's best interest to have a well trained workforce. I think that, as taxpayers we tend to underestimate the cost of such a workforce. When my wife gets laid off from her counseling position, which will happen again this year, she goes back to teaching high school math. The requirements to teach high school math are a Bachelors's degree in Mathematics or pass the CSET in Mathematics plus a teaching degree (after looking at the material for the CSET, I'd opt for the Bachelors's degree). When we got married, she owed $30,000 in student loans. Before all of the teacher layoffs, there was a shortage of math teachers (I'm not certain whether this is still true). I don't see how taking away pay, benefits, collective bargaining rights, etc... is going to bring in highly qualified people to these positions. I think the role of unions, minus the corruption of politicians, in negotiating pay and benefits can have a positive effect on convincing people to train for these positions. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that's been negotiated because I don't. But negotiation takes two or more parties and I don't think eliminating one party (unions) is the answer. I think we'll just have to disagree about whether unions should have a right to exist in the public sector.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Public sector is a whole different thing

Agree.

When it comes to teachers, police, firefighters, and prison guards, it's in society's best interest to have a well trained workforce. I think that, as taxpayers we tend to underestimate the cost of such a workforce. When my wife gets laid off from her counseling position, which will happen again this year, she goes back to teaching high school math. The requirements to teach high school math are a Master's degree in Mathematics or pass the CSET in Mathematics plus a teaching degree (after looking at the material for the CSET, I'd opt for the Master's degree). When we got married, she owed $30,000 in student loans. Before all of the teacher layoffs, there was a shortage of math teachers (I'm not certain whether this is still true). I don't see how taking away pay, benefits, collective bargaining rights, etc... is going to bring in highly qualified people to these positions. I think the role of unions, minus the corruption of politicians, in negotiating pay and benefits can have a positive effect on convincing people to train for these positions. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that's been negotiated because I don't. But negotiation takes two or more parties and I don't think eliminating one party (unions) is the answer. I think we'll just have to disagree about whether unions should have a right to exist in the public sector.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

You are welcome and thank you too

but I think those like your wife will be much better off with out a union

Unions stiffel the good ones

That said
Public sector employess can not be unionized

Too many conflicts

Oh
I am not sure where you got the specifics you responded to me with but, they came from some one other than me and they deserve the thanks for the data

I am many times too lazy to provide that level of into for others. I can and do get it for myself, I figure others can do the same

In any event, I can not take the credit for it

Thanks to he/she who provided it. (I have yet to go back through the thread to see who did)

I hope those who are important to you get the rewards they have earned

Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln