Egypt and Wisconsin

[Ravariel]

Not a lot of talk so far on this board abut the Union struggles in Wisconsin and the domino effect it could have around the country. I saw recently a picture that expanded my own view of the world and realized I had been falling into a rather specific American trope when thinking about world issues. Below is a picture of an Egyptian protester holding a sign in support of the Union battle in Wisconsin.

With all of their own troubles, and internal conflict over the last couple months, that they can, and do, spare the time to show support for a small (though nationally important) struggle of a state congress vs workers surprised me... and moved me. And then I wondered why I was surprised. Don't we, here at home, often show support of people's struggles against oppressive governments? Do we not, even with our own struggles, find the time to speak, and give on issues such as Tibet, Myanmar, Sudan, Egypt, Lybia and anywhere else that has a populus' uprising?

This shows that now, more than ever, the world is internationally aware and involved. No longer is it the "west vs the rest" when it comes to people showing other people support.

This should also humble those legislators in Wisconsin who want to destroy the power of unions, the very things that have made this country such a beacon of freedom and democratic power. Perhaps the unions need some scaling back of their influence. I know in Michigan they have caused some significant trouble (re: UAW and Teachers' Union), but basically dissolving them completely, especially after they have given you every concession you asked for (re: Wisconsin State budget) seems petty and counterproductive. You can imagine that if the Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate do end up getting the Dems back in-state and to the floor and pass this bill the repercussions will be immense. I suspect a large-scale strike of every union in the state would commence and grind the state to a standstill. When a country like Egypt shows concern for the workers of one of OUR states...? We should take notice, and be humbled by our lack of compassion for the reason and strength of our unions.

[Warforger]

Well we're more controlled by our media and bandwagons in terms of what to view. It's really hard not too. I sort of knew that Egypt was corrupt before because of accounts from there along with video's of torture (albeit one was pretty sick but funny as the police were shoving a pole up his ass) but nothing to make me completely hate the regime and it wasn't notable enough for me to remember Mubaraks name. Take for example Egypt, it's the most singled out one despite other big nations like Libya, Bahrain, Algeria and the place where it began Tunisia while Egypt gets more of the spotlight.

But the comparison on Fox and Friends between the Egyptian and Wisconsin protestors was a bit silly, it doesn't seem to be an insult logically (although you never know) and comparing people who don't like getting their benefits taken away to those who want freedoms is a bit different.

[lapis]

At 2/25/11 05:16 PM, Ravariel wrote: Below is a picture of an Egyptian protester

Eh, I don't want to say this, but that 'protester' looks like an American (or any other Caucasian) to me. How many ethnic Egyptians do you know that have that shade of brown hair? It might just be an American exchange student (AUC?) who just arrived or stayed during the protests. Just sayin'.

I know that an argument about this is sensenless because none of us can say anything conclusive about that guy's ethnicity but let's not get carried away by the assumption that he's an Egyptian who for some reason knows about those Wisconsin protests (Daily Show viewer? Without that show I wouldn't have heard about it and I'm going to guess that it's not really bigger news in Egypt than it is in the Netherlands).

[Ericho]

I think that if the protests in Egypt caused anyone else to come forward, it would have to be Libya. Those guys are right next to Egypt so if any country was influenced, it would be them. I doubt there is much correlation other than that there are probably people on either side who are able to relate their blights to other people on the spectrum. Hopefully, this will not erupt into riots like over in Egypt or Libya.

[Ravariel]

At 2/25/11 07:11 PM, lapis wrote:

At 2/25/11 05:16 PM, Ravariel wrote: Below is a picture of an Egyptian protester

Eh, I don't want to say this, but that 'protester' looks like an American (or any other Caucasian) to me. How many ethnic Egyptians do you know that have that shade of brown hair? It might just be an American exchange student (AUC?) who just arrived or stayed during the protests. Just sayin'.

Certainly possible, but he has some specific facial features that suggest that he at least has some middle-eastern or North African heritage. I would not be surprised if he was of mixed ancestry or at least had a student visa or some other connection to America.

I would guess that people in Egypt would only find out about the events in Wisconsin through the sources you suggest, and this may very well be completely staged. I don't suspect this is an issue that many are familiar with in Egypt, but the fact remains that the world is getting smaller and more interconnected. 10-15 years ago noone in Egypt (or the Netherlands for that matter) would even be able to find out what was happening in an individual state in the US, much less interested in doing so. Maybe this is me getting my hopes up, but perhaps this is an indication that the US can now share the load with some more nations around the world with respect to mutual support for workers rights and basic democratic ideals.

But at it's center mine is a message that the Wisconsin legislature (specifically the republicans, though the pussy-ass cowardly democrats aren't much better) is clearly in the wrong here and need to find another way to balance their budget.

[orangebomb]

At 2/25/11 07:17 PM, Ericho wrote: I think that if the protests in Egypt caused anyone else to come forward, it would have to be Libya. Those guys are right next to Egypt so if any country was influenced, it would be them. I doubt there is much correlation other than that there are probably people on either side who are able to relate their blights to other people on the spectrum. Hopefully, this will not erupt into riots like over in Egypt or Libya.

I highly doubt that will happen in Wisconsin, because compared to what is happening in Egypt and Libya, the budget situation in Wisconsin is a virtual walk in the park. Now, that doesn't mean that violence can erupt in the state capital of Madison, but I would imagine the worst case scenerio would be fisticuffs and the occasional brick thrown as someone.

Clearly the politicans in Wisconsin are probably some of the most arrogant assholes out there, especially when they try to find a way to blame their mismanagement of money over the years to the unions, and then blindside them by eliminating their right to collective bargin, cut pensions, etc. Probably one of the reasons why our school system is so fucked up right now, is because the teachers have to do a essential, but very unrewarding job of teaching students, and being paid peanuts, compared to your average politican.

[Warforger]

At 2/25/11 07:17 PM, Ericho wrote: I think that if the protests in Egypt caused anyone else to come forward, it would have to be Libya. Those guys are right next to Egypt so if any country was influenced, it would be them. I doubt there is much correlation other than that there are probably people on either side who are able to relate their blights to other people on the spectrum. Hopefully, this will not erupt into riots like over in Egypt or Libya.

How long have you been in touch? The revolution in Egypt was inspired by the revolution in Tunisia, which started this whole domino effect into Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Bahrain etc. The only reason anyone cares is because it spread the Egypt.

[Firerank9]

At 2/26/11 02:14 PM, Warforger wrote: The revolution in Egypt was inspired by the revolution in Tunisia, which started this whole domino effect into Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Bahrain etc. The only reason anyone cares is because it spread the Egypt.

Gotta disagree with you as to why anyone cares. I believe that the only reason the masses are still intrested in the Egyptian Revolution is because of Egypt's historical sinificance(spell check failed).

[All-American-Badass]

The least the democrats in the Wisconsin senate can do is come back to Madison and debate the collective bargaining rights that are on the table in the legislation. I think it's cowardly for them to bail the state to prevent any action.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/26/11 05:43 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: The least the democrats in the Wisconsin senate can do is come back to Madison and debate the collective bargaining rights that are on the table in the legislation. I think it's cowardly for them to bail the state to prevent any action.

The problem is that there will not be any debate. The way the bill was shoved through the Assembly shows this. Wisconsin Republicans are hell bent on removing the ability of public workers to have a say in their employment.

[adrshepard]

At 2/26/11 06:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The problem is that there will not be any debate. The way the bill was shoved through the Assembly shows this. Wisconsin Republicans are hell bent on removing the ability of public workers to have a say in their employment.

They did have debate; hours of it, during which democrats proposed something like 100 amendments and dozens of speakers. It accomplished nothing, so Republicans ended the debate after a long time, I think.
I don't really understand all this pro-union sentiment, either. Most of the "restrictions" on this bill just make the process more rather than less democratic. Workers would have a choice to join unions, unions would need annual votes to stay organized, and the public would have a say in compensation over CPI. Workplace conditions don't really apply to public sector employees ("We need a new break room, it's unbearable"). All that's left is health benefits, and frankly I don't see how intolerable it is that public employees should be subject to the same system of paying and providing benefits that any private company has to deal with.

[aviewaskewed]

Wow, Doc I find ourselves in a rare moment of being basically on the same page. NJ is being CRIPPLED by the corruption of it's state worker unions and teachers unions and whatever else. I think it's high time people start to realize union does not always mean good (which doesn't of course, conversely mean union equals bad) but these things should be done more on a case by case basis. Especially when you consider that in union shops workers are compelled to join the union as a point of working there or working there at a certain amount of hours. They are also then compelled to support all union policies and edicts publicly, even if they don't share those views.

Government saying "we need to cut some costs here" ain't always the bad guy in these debates.

[Warforger]

At 2/27/11 12:39 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Wow, Doc I find ourselves in a rare moment of being basically on the same page. NJ is being CRIPPLED by the corruption of it's state worker unions and teachers unions and whatever else. I think it's high time people start to realize union does not always mean good (which doesn't of course, conversely mean union equals bad) but these things should be done more on a case by case basis. Especially when you consider that in union shops workers are compelled to join the union as a point of working there or working there at a certain amount of hours. They are also then compelled to support all union policies and edicts publicly, even if they don't share those views.

Government saying "we need to cut some costs here" ain't always the bad guy in these debates.

The only real problem is that the richest people in America are only getting richer, while their employee's face the pink slip. Companies aren't always right in the sense that they claim that if a certain mode of production is banned like say slavery or safety regulations they say it will crash the economy, the mode of production is then banned and the economy does just fine.

I don't understand what the line of thinking is for cutting worker's benefits as that will only kill the economy even more though since now they have less money to spend.

[adrshepard]

At 2/27/11 01:52 AM, Warforger wrote: The only real problem is that the richest people in America are only getting richer, while their employee's face the pink slip.

Wouldn't it be worse if the richest people in America were getting poorer? Think about it. What does it mean if people with huge amounts of capital and assets can't make money in this economy? When rich people make money it doesn't mean they are exploiting anyone.

Companies aren't always right in the sense that they claim that if a certain mode of production is banned like say slavery or safety regulations they say it will crash the economy, the mode of production is then banned and the economy does just fine.

That's true, but this isn't just any company. It's the state government, funded by state taxpayers.

I don't understand what the line of thinking is for cutting worker's benefits as that will only kill the economy even more though since now they have less money to spend.

The money doesn't disappear. It stays with the taxpayer either through lower taxes or in government services that would otherwise have to be reduced. It's not going exclusively to higher profit margins like it might for a normal business.

[AccountableMasses]

Just surprised it hasn't gotten violent yet in the cheese head state..

[KemCab]

It would be kind of funny if the protests in Wisconsin got as bad as those in Libya.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/27/11 10:18 AM, adrshepard wrote: Wouldn't it be worse if the richest people in America were getting poorer? Think about it. What does it mean if people with huge amounts of capital and assets can't make money in this economy? When rich people make money it doesn't mean they are exploiting anyone.

Except when they make money by exploiting people, which is largely the case. They make millions of dollars on little work compared off of the millions who make almost nothing while bustier their collective ass. that sounds like exploitation to me.

The money doesn't disappear. It stays with the taxpayer either through lower taxes or in government services that would otherwise have to be reduced. It's not going exclusively to higher profit margins like it might for a normal business.

This "removing pay for some to save tax money for others" argument is flawed and total bullshit. You take the entire purchasing power (or a significant portion of it) from a small group of people to add money to three groups of people's pockets. The poor: This massive group will drain much of the money but end up not getting enough per person to really make an economic difference. The Middle: This group will get some money, but still not enough to make any noticable effect. The wealthy: This group will get enough to use and may actually put it back in the economy.

You've got two choices: Leave it with the workers who will most definitely use it and use it quickly in a fluid and direct manner. Or you can give it to the 'taxpayer' who will likely not get enough to really spend, or will get enough but will likely put the money in a slow method that will not directly aid the economy, or at least the local economy. Investing in stocks, beyond an IPO or a distribution does NOT help the economy.

[adrshepard]

At 2/27/11 11:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/27/11 10:18 AM, adrshepard wrote: Wouldn't it be worse if the richest people in America were getting poorer? Think about it. What does it mean if people with huge amounts of capital and assets can't make money in this economy? When rich people make money it doesn't mean they are exploiting anyone.

Except when they make money by exploiting people, which is largely the case. They make millions of dollars on little work compared off of the millions who make almost nothing while bustier their collective ass. that sounds like exploitation to me.

Being a CEO of a company is "little work?" Being a partner at a law firm is "little work?" Being a neurosurgeon is "little work?" What sort of person are you thinking of who exploits masses of people with no real effort?

The money doesn't disappear. It stays with the taxpayer either through lower taxes or in government services that would otherwise have to be reduced. It's not going exclusively to higher profit margins like it might for a normal business.

This "removing pay for some to save tax money for others" argument is flawed and total bullshit. You take the entire purchasing power (or a significant portion of it)

No, they're only talking about 7-8% increases.

from a small group of people to add money to three groups of people's pockets.

So you would be in favor of taking money from everyone and giving it to this small group of people simply because they will spend it? Why even have banks at all? Let's just pour everthing into consumption and let the government, rather than the citizens, decide what investment levels should be.

The poor: This massive group will drain much of the money but end up not getting enough per person to really make an economic difference.

Collectively they will make the most immediate economic difference because they will save the least amount.

You've got two choices: Leave it with the workers who will most definitely use it and use it quickly in a fluid and direct manner. Or you can give it to the 'taxpayer' who will likely not get enough to really spend,

They won't spend the money? You mean they will take the saved income from lower taxes, put it in a sack under the bed, and leave it there until they die? We're not talking about short-term economic boosts, here. It's about giving money back to the peope who actually earn it and letting them decide the best way to make use of it. Capitalism is grounded on the long term benefits of that arrangement.

These public sector employees are not working class laborers living hand to mouth. They have pensions and health benefits that last them decades after they retire. All this bill does is force them to decide if it's worth putting enough of their own money into it that has previously been taken by mandate from everyone else.

or will get enough but will likely put the money in a slow method that will not directly aid the economy, or at least the local economy. Investing in stocks, beyond an IPO or a distribution does NOT help the economy.

You're right, there's WAY too much money being held in savings right now. Why else would banks be lending like crazy the way they are now?
You're confusing short-term stimulus measures with long-term strategies for growth.

[Ravariel]

To get slightly back on point, I saw this today and it blew my mind a little bit.

US media is covering the protests in Egypt and Lybia more than the ones in Wisconsin, in what is a rather ironic reversal of the US media's usual M.O. of ignoring floods and earthquakes in favor of Britney's weave.

What do you think is behind this strangeness?

[adrshepard]

At 3/2/11 03:40 PM, Ravariel wrote: To get slightly back on point, I saw this today and it blew my mind a little bit.

US media is covering the protests in Egypt and Lybia more than the ones in Wisconsin, in what is a rather ironic reversal of the US media's usual M.O. of ignoring floods and earthquakes in favor of Britney's weave.

What do you think is behind this strangeness?

I don't think it's that strange. The Middle Eastern riots have violence and conflict, villains, drama, and significant national implications in terms of the oil supply and future cooperation with the US. The Wisconsin protests are just yelling and screaming day after day.

[SmilezRoyale]

Relative to their private sector counterparts, state sector employees are not by any means an under privileged group, they earn more on average and until relatively recently did not themselves pay toward their own pensions.

"Wisconsin's Gov. Walker says state workers should pay 5.8% of their pension fund up from 0% now. They should pay 12.5% of their health care up from about 6% they pay now. And he wants to stop the unions from deducting dues from workers pay checks. "

As far as collective Bargaining goes, I'm not exactly sure why the Governor intends to or intended to take away collective bargaining for the Unions if he believed that the Union was willing to concede these demands. I heard somewhere that they are afraid because the last time collective bargaining took place, it took 18 months, even with a democratically controlled Government.

To be honest, Governor Walker was a fool who tried to do the right thing by doing the wrong thing.

He should have let them collectively bargain, if the process took too long and the State Government took too long, he could more easily in these circumstances take the high ground and blame the Unions for the delay. If the State Government when in to shut down, all the better.

That is, if it really would have taken so long.

The point is, if you want to take power away from Unions, you have to turn the public against them.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/2/11 09:02 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Relative to their private sector counterparts, state sector employees are not by any means an under privileged group, they earn more on average and until relatively recently did not themselves pay toward their own pensions.

Could you please support this claim, as in my experience public job pay significatly less than their private equivilents. When making this analysis, make sure you realize that the government employs a much higher percentage of skilled workers than the private sector does. I get the feeling the claims that public workers make mroe than private forget this fact and thus make an improper analogy.

"Wisconsin's Gov. Walker says state workers should pay 5.8% of their pension fund up from 0% now. They should pay 12.5% of their health care up from about 6% they pay now. And he wants to stop the unions from deducting dues from workers pay checks. "

The first two are just fine. the last one seems like unneeded interference. If the workers decide that they want to garnish their pay in the form of mandatory dues, why should Walker care?

As far as collective Bargaining goes, I'm not exactly sure why the Governor intends to or intended to take away collective bargaining for the Unions if he believed that the Union was willing to concede these demands. I heard somewhere that they are afraid because the last time collective bargaining took place, it took 18 months, even with a democratically controlled Government.

I get the feeling he did this because he didn't believe that the Unions would bend to his demands. He made the threat, the Unions capitulated. Instead of taking the concession, he saw weakness and is trying to essentially strip the Unions of all power.

To be honest, Governor Walker was a fool who tried to do the right thing by doing the wrong thing.

Very true.

He should have let them collectively bargain, if the process took too long and the State Government took too long, he could more easily in these circumstances take the high ground and blame the Unions for the delay. If the State Government when in to shut down, all the better.

This combined with the massive tax cuts to the wealthy just prior to this fight have really turned a large amount of people against him.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 3/2/11 09:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Could you please support this claim, as in my experience public job pay significatly less than their private equivilents.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/22/are-pu blic-school-teachers-ove
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010 -03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Note that this pay differential does not include fringe benefits as well as non-quantifiables such as job security. For example, generally people are willing to accept lower pay for a job that tends to be 'more secure', and since federal agencies can operate like financial basket-cases for much longer than private agencies without shutting down, Federal employment is always more "Cushy" so to speak. A private sector employer of chemists might actually have to pay, for example, 115,000$ per chemist to be competitive with a 90,000$ per year chemist in the state sector to compensate for job security and for comparatively lavish fringe benefits.

Also keep in mind that the USA article states

"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds." - So this isn't just an averaging of all of the two sectors wages [or of the medians thereof], it is a profession by profession comparison.

Also keep in mind that, as said before, private sector employees pay the vast majority of their pensions themselves, whereas so-called 'public' employees pension's are predominantly tax payer supported. Thus private sector employees fund both their own pensions and the pensions of their civil [masters] servants.

"Wisconsin's Gov. Walker says state workers should pay 5.8% of their pension fund up from 0% now. They should pay 12.5% of their health care up from about 6% they pay now. And he wants to stop the unions from deducting dues from workers pay checks. "

The first two are just fine. the last one seems like unneeded interference. If the workers decide that they want to garnish their pay in the form of mandatory dues, why should Walker care?

Because the dues then go to fund political causes, and since it is practically impossible to work as a teacher without becoming part of the Union, you are obligated to pay for political causes you may or may not disagree with.

Of course there's a major contradiction in saying that 'the workers decide to garnish their pay in the form of mandatory dues' if they decide to do it it ceases to be mandatory. the dues are, at the core, involuntary just as the involvement in the Union is involuntary.

Just imagine if the government was spending some of your Tax dollars to subsidize the mises institute. www.mises.org

Of course there are alternative ways of fixing this problem without ending mandatory union dues. First, you could make union membership optional and due payments merely a requirement of voluntary membership; in the same way netflix fees are 'mandatory' only if you voluntarily agreed to accept their services. The problem with this solution is that it assumes union members wouldn't engage in fierce harassment of non-union members for the sake of uniform compliance.

The other alternative is to prohibit union dues fund political causes. The problem with this is that it prevents union members who do not have any problems with their union or its activities dispose of their property as they please. [ignoring the obvious root problems of state monopolies on services]

But as far as I am concerned, trying to force any worker into a collective arrangement is as thuggish as forcing any business into a collective cartel.

As far as collective Bargaining goes, I'm not exactly sure why the Governor intends to or intended to take away collective bargaining for the Unions if he believed that the Union was willing to concede these demands. I heard somewhere that they are afraid because the last time collective bargaining took place, it took 18 months, even with a democratically controlled Government.

Then he's an idiot who underestimated the Teachers Union.

The whole reason state sector workers got these pensions was to both artificially increase the earnings of the workers and to do so in a way that would not immediately pose an additional burden on tax payers.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/3/11 12:44 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/22/are-pu blic-school-teachers-ove
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010 -03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

While these are telling I still see two issues here. For one, this is Federal. It is well known among professions with large public sectors, that the Fed pays much better than the States do. Second, a great deal of those catergories have specific issues. Liek the medical ones. How many Federal Medical positions are the really? Not that many. Where are they usually located? Likely in urban areas where pay is quite high. Second with "lawyer" they have taken an entire industry and made as if it were one homogenous group. The Fed does not have equivilents to the unpaid public interest lawyers. Finally, with groups like statisticians, the best of those job exist in the government as the government has a higher need for statistician than the vast majority of the private sector.

While I question the accuracy the of the numbers, the benefits thing is definitely an issue.

Just imagine if the government was spending some of your Tax dollars to subsidize the mises institute. www.mises.org

There is a lot that the government spends money on that I don't approve of...

The other alternative is to prohibit union dues fund political causes. The problem with this is that it prevents union members who do not have any problems with their union or its activities dispose of their property as they please. [ignoring the obvious root problems of state monopolies on services]

These options are pretty good, but I would prefer that they be measures/inititives, rather than congressional fiat.

[Idiot-Finder]

Well there's something you should check out.

Guess there's no running away when it comes to having to vote on certain issues.

[Korriken]

At 3/3/11 08:37 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Well there's something you should check out.

Guess there's no running away when it comes to having to vote on certain issues.

that is.... comedic gold. perhaps one day the dems will want to vote on something and the republicans haul ass to.. hmm. if the dems went to Illinois... then the republicans would probably flee to Texas, and the dems will order the police to drag them back to vote.

Either way, it'll bring an end to the circus... for the time being. course, whether there will be hell to pay come election time, we'll see.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 3/3/11 03:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

While these are telling I still see two issues here. For one, this is Federal. It is well known among professions with large public sectors, that the Fed pays much better than the States do. Second, a great deal of those catergories have specific issues. Liek the medical ones. How many Federal Medical positions are the really? Not that many. Where are they usually located? Likely in urban areas where pay is quite high. Second with "lawyer" they have taken an entire industry and made as if it were one homogenous group. The Fed does not have equivilents to the unpaid public interest lawyers. Finally, with groups like statisticians, the best of those job exist in the government as the government has a higher need for statistician than the vast majority of the private sector.

Point taken. With respect to state versus federal workers, it's a bit tricky because different states likely have vastly different levels of pay. I imagine california state workers are better paid than new hampshire state officials.

Some of the holes you attempt to poke in the correlation, legitimate concerns, are dealt with in this report.

http://reason.org/news/show/public-secto r-private-sector-salary

Just imagine if the government was spending some of your Tax dollars to subsidize the mises institute. www.mises.org

There is a lot that the government spends money on that I don't approve of...

Well thankfully taxes are Voluntary and thus we can expect that state officials are thus very accountable with what that money is being spent on.

These options are pretty good, but I would prefer that they be measures/inititives, rather than congressional fiat.

How do you mean

[Camarohusky]

At 3/4/11 12:33 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Point taken. With respect to state versus federal workers, it's a bit tricky because different states likely have vastly different levels of pay. I imagine california state workers are better paid than new hampshire state officials.

Very true, but I doubt the pay is too much different when cost of living of the respective areas is taken into account.

Some of the holes you attempt to poke in the correlation, legitimate concerns, are dealt with in this report.

http://reason.org/news/show/public-secto r-private-sector-salary

I'm inclined to be skeptical of this report. This report makes blanket statments like that private workers inhernetly work harder and that the educational requirements of public jobs are inherently inflated.

Well thankfully taxes are Voluntary and thus we can expect that state officials are thus very accountable with what that money is being spent on.

I wish...

How do you mean

I don't feel that it is a Congress' place to tell their employees whether they should give money to the Unions. If the workers wish that the dues not be mandatory they could draft an initiative.

[Ravariel]

Well, with respect to Wisconsin's public employees, once you factor in the variables of age and education, they actually make almost exactly the same amount as the private sector (4% less, but that's negligible in my book). Public sector employees are, as Smilez' link said, are generally older, more experienced in their field and better educated, to see them compensated commensurately is no surprise. Also, the Wisconsin Unions have attempted to negotiate, basically saying they were willing to grant nearly every concession that the governor has "asked" for, while Walker told the Milwaukee Journal that he "[didn't] have anything to negotiate." The fact that of the top 5 campaign contributors in the last election, 3 were Unions and all heavily gave to democrats - the largest of which was the AFSCME, which is a public sector union - while the other two (Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's organization) were private and almost completely Republican, is one that makes the moves by these Republican Governors somewhat hard to take seriously as "budgetary."

Interesting context provided for Wisconsin here if you can see past the leftist tilt.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 2/25/11 05:16 PM, Ravariel wrote: This should also humble those legislators in Wisconsin who want to destroy the power of unions, the very things that have made this country such a beacon of freedom and democratic power.

SO employers not being able to fire their workers for NOT DOING THEIR JOBS = freedom?

what load of shit

Perhaps the unions need some scaling back of their influence

The truth about the NEA.

Really though, to compare the plight of those living under a brutal dictator with a bunch of mouth breathing over-paid teachers wanting more taxpayer money is absolutely laughable., and the guy holding that sign is a moron.