namelesstavern.net

Not public unions, public employee government unions. There are no issues with regular unions. There are no regular union changes in any of the state bills. Regular union leaders battle shareholders for better benefits which is as it should be. The problem is when government union workers lobby and get their local government to give them obscene benefits by sending millions of dollars in campaign contributions their way. All of these fights are being done at the local/state level, and aren't really national issues. Federal union government employees cannot collectively bargain. At the state level they tend to be more devastating due to the turnover of politicians and the fact once you promise someone something, especially pension wise, it's tough to go back. Essentially, most states are trying to do what you recommend and close the loophole.

New York City has policemen retiring in their mid 40s with 100k pensions guaranteed for the rest of their lives. There are tons of other examples similar to this. It's tough for cities to support their constituents needs when many of them pay half their tax base due to political public union promises. This is an extreme example but many cities are in dire straights financially due to promises made by elected officials who are helped to be elected by strong union support.

Unfortunately power, be it from corporate lobbying or union lobbying is notoriously difficult to fix. Politicians love to promise things and reward their friends, but those bills end up on the middle class backs. The problem with our two party system is while they use wedge issues to generate cash, collectively they are going to protect their money sources. The real fix is for constitutional amendments to fix a lot of the loopholes at the federal level, but it takes a lot to get those passed.

Unions for public or private, it's all semantics. The only difference is you think the government doesn't bargain fairly in one case and gives up too much.

The pension isn't a good argument. Those people pay into that pension their entire careers. Didn't Bush spend on the pension surplus? Now that people have paid for it, you want to take it away from them? Now that doesn't seem fair.

As a teabagger do you not have a problem with market interference? How is this not exactly what you want to stop?

I'm not quite sure why you are bringing Bush <Federal level guy> into a state pension discussion. I think you are missing a lot of the arguments, and the laws in Canada are far different from here.

Most public government employees contribute nothing to their pensions and get guaranteed checks for life after retirement. Most states have cumbersome rules. Here, I'll throw a 'far right' link here for you to check out. This in a nutshell explains the problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/busin ... nsion.html

Wisconsin elected a guy based on his platform of reforming the CBA and balancing their state budget. Likewise for other states. That seems pretty fair and democratic to me. Fair elections and their consequences have nothing to do with market interference. At least not in my country.

There introducing legislation that blocks people from bargaining fairly on the CBA. That is interference. If this was happening in the private sector you and Glenn Beck would already be staging a rally. Why is it acceptable just because it's in the public sector?

I doubt government employees at the state level pay nothing into their pensions. I have a feeling you don't know how things work either. Do you have any experience dealing with public servants?

What legislation are you talking about? Provide some examples and some issues and I'll be glad to discuss them.

Read the link I posted above from the NY Times, too. Then feel free to bring your boy Sean Penn and his canned responses back to the discussion table, comrade.

Don't get into a semantic argument over this. Maybe you haven't heard of a bill going around Wisconsin which is preventing public servants from fairly bargaining? Some people have been talking about it.

Would you accept such a bill in the private sector? Of course not. Why the double standard? Because you don't think people in the public service deserve the right to a CBA?

It doesn't matter what you or I think. The governor of Wisconsin was elected based on promising to limit union expenses and reign in the budget. If the people of Wisconsin don't like the law, they can recall him or vote him out next election cycle. Ditto for the legislature there. I was fine with the filibuster tactics the Dems in Wisconsin used. I likewise was amused the GOP there found a workaround.

If you really want to be angered, I suggest you learn about 'Right to Work' states in America. Wisconsin is union heaven compared to those.

Lyion wrote:It doesn't matter what you or I think.

We're on the internet. Nothing we say or do matters.

It certainly does.

It might result in us finding out... What Flink does for a living.

Lyion wrote:Fair elections ... in my country.

where? i don't see any fair elections happening in MY country. a fair election, to me, requires the following: more than two options, limited campaign spending, disallowed corporate contributions, and accessibility for all.

the two-option media blitz funded by business interests is a total fucking farce

I can't really argue against that, Brin.

America is the land of the golden rule. Those with the gold, make the rules.

Lobbying is terrible
You can see it starting to invade Canadian politics now too

True democracy can never work on a large scale

Realistically you need a benevolent dictatorship to oversee everything

Technically, isn't Canada still subject to the crown of England? There you go, just have Prince Chuck take over.

Pure democracy isn't fair. It's why America is a repubilc and not that.

What I'd personally like to see is more decentralization of power. I honestly almost wish the U.S. would break into several countries and have each run it's own affairs.

I don't want perfection, just something first world, fair, and with more opportunities and less cronyism. All things considered, it could be a lot worse for us.

Lyion wrote:What I'd personally like to see is more decentralization of power. I honestly almost wish the U.S. would break into several countries and have each run it's own affairs.

i totally agree. we have enough differences in lifestyle, race, language, hobbies, popular sport, etc., to be like 15 different countries. tryin to reign it all in under one massive banner doesn't make any sense to me

Lyion wrote:Technically, isn't Canada still subject to the crown of England? There you go, just have Prince Chuck take over.

Charles gave up the right to the throne when he divorced Diana.

William is next in line

Tikker wrote:Lobbying is terrible
You can see it starting to invade Canadian politics now too

True democracy can never work on a large scale

Realistically you need a benevolent dictatorship to oversee everything

You know, I always believed this myself and people gave me looks like I was out of my fucking mind to even suggest it.

Lyion wrote:
What I'd personally like to see is more decentralization of power. I honestly almost wish the U.S. would break into several countries and have each run it's own affairs.

Really? Then the part of the country that has the working class union boys would control North America. Ya know, those of us with all the technical skills, resources, waterways, and population to tell the rest of North America to fuck off.

Lyion wrote:I honestly almost wish the U.S. would break into several countries and have each run it's own affairs.

holy shit, i never even thought of that

the problem with that is Omaha and Lincoln are fairly centrist strongholds - could go either way depending on who spends the most campaign money

our third district is both literally and figuratively "everyone else" and is deeeeeeeeeep red as far as politics is concerned

in the current configuration, this means NE means fuck-all on a national level

but if the US were to break up? LinOma would prob split off and join iowa while the "everyone else" contingent became part of kansas







and seriously, fuck kansas

The issue is if you have smaller countries you have less power and corruption and more of a need to cooperate and compromise.

Our state governments have issues, but they are nothing compared to the rampant corruption, abuse of power, and outright obscene bureaucracy that exists at the Federal level.

Tuggan, I hate to tell you the working class union states like Michigan and Ohio are the ones in the biggest trouble. The hardest working, most skilled class of people we have in America currently sneaks across the Mexican border, works for peanuts, and often sleeps in refugee conditions while keeping our country afloat and displacing the middle union class en masse. I think if our country were a dozen autonomous small entities we could afford to not have anyone in squalor, and at the same time disrupt the fact most of our countries wealth flows into the lawyers and hedge funds hands and actually goes to those it should fairly.

California would probably do quite well as an independent nation, I expect. (Though it wouldn't surprise me if a balkanization of the US resulted in a California/Oregon/Washington bloc rather than a solo California.) After all, California by itself would have the 8th largest GDP of any nation in the world if it were an independent nation.

Oh, there'd have to be many changes, including a complete re-work of the tax codes, etc. Anyway, if there were such a balkanization, I suspect the biggest powerhouse sub-nations to emerge would be the California/Oregon/Washington triplet, and probably a Northeast bloc, with a big chunk of New England, including at least Eastern NY and eastern PA. The Midwest would get by, but would probably depend on food exports for their national income. Most of the South would end up being just a step or two up from being a 3rd world nation in effect, I think. Texas (plus maybe OK) would be alright, largely due to oil revenues. The Mountain West would turn into one great big armed "Leave us the fuck alone" camp.

-Arlos

The Mountain West would turn into one great big armed "Leave us the fuck alone" camp.

That sounds like my kind of place.

bump for the obvious reason :p

I don't really get how someone can opt out of a union. So let's say there's a public sector union and they have a CBA amongst the union and its employees, will those not belonging to the union, to save a few dollars on each pay, not receive the same benefits or will they just fix them at the same wage. Would those not in a union just have to adhere to what ever wages the government sees fit to give them?

I think I totally stayed out of this thread and I'm necro-quoting here, but

Most public government employees contribute nothing to their pensions and get guaranteed checks for life after retirement.

Uh, where? The link you posted is about one state, and it's not even the state that this thread is focused on, and it's certainly not true at the federal level, so...

Lyion has no idea what he's talking about in this thread. Just about everything he said is wrong. Likely bought into some lies he heard on some conservative talkshow or something.