Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Union-busting in Wisconsin turns volitile (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/165284-union-busting-wisconsin-turns-volitile.html)

Baraka_Guru 02-17-2011 12:29 PM
Union-busting in Wisconsin turns volitile
 
Union protests.
Absentee Democrats.
Police dragnets.

One volatile vote.

A bill is about to be passed to—among other things—ban collective bargaining for public workers in Wisconsin.

Help me out here. First, I'm a bit shocked at the hostility against unions in the U.S. I know there is a long history, but, in this day and age, it seems extreme to hobble a public worker's union like this.

Second, Democrats are a no-show. This stalls the vote. Police are searching for them. How does this work? What are the legal ramifications of this? What will happen?

What do you think of the current status of unions in the U.S. in general?

Quote:
Police Search for Senate Democrats Who Skipped Vote to Curtail Union Rights in Wisconsin

Senate Democrats in Wisconsin failed to show up Thursday for a vote on a "union-busting" bill that has prompted police officers to launch a dragnet for the missing lawmakers.

Republicans hold a 19-14 majority but a vote cannot be taken until at least one Democratic senator is present.

"It's kind of unbelievable that they're elected to do a job and they wouldn't show up to do it," Republican Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald told Fox News.

Fitzgerald said the apparent boycott may force the State Assembly to vote first on the bill. But he added that if police officers find the lawmakers, they will bring them back to the chamber for a vote.

"This isn't something I've ever seen in the state of Wisconsin," he said. "It's a very volatile situation right now but those people were elected to do a job and unfortunately they're not doing it. They're not representing the people of their district."

The bill has sparked a storm of protest for three days. Teachers marching at Wisconsin's Capitol Building in Madison shut down schools for a second day Thursday so they could demand collective bargaining rights that they say are essential to keeping kids in school.

Dozens of schools closed as a result of high absences as thousands of protesters, including students and teachers, marched on the Capitol building to demand state lawmakers strike down a bill that would require union concessions worth $30 million by July 1 and $300 million over the next two years.

The bill, which also bans collective bargaining rights for teachers, requires educators to contribute 5.8 percent to their pensions and 12.6 percent to their health care. Currently, educators pay 0.2 percent for their pensions and 4 to 6 percent of their health care costs.

"Our goal is not to close schools, but to instead to remain vigilant in our efforts to be heard," said Mary Bell, president of the 98,000-strong Wisconsin Education Association Council.

State lawmakers proposed the legislation as part of an effort to close a $3.6 billion budget gap, and say they expect it to pass and eventually reach the desk of newly elected Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

"This bill isn't about an assault on public employees. We have great public employees throughout the state, I have them in my district, hard-working folks," said Republican state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald. "What this is is about the budget. We're $3.6 billion in the hole. We're not going to raise taxes to solve it. We all ran, you know, this last election cycle on saying that we are going to cut government spending. ... Everybody is going to have to do their part."

But Michael Langyel, head of the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, said Walker and Republican lawmakers are asking public employees to give up more than everyone else.

"If people say the only way to solve this budget crisis is to take away from people who are working hard, they are wrong. We believe that we have a right to have a fair wage for our hard work. More importantly, the collective bargaining process allows us to positively impact school policy issues. We are the advocates for our students, and we will maintain our voice in defending our students," he told Fox News.

Langyel added that if Walker wants to balance the budget, he should force his friends to pay more.

"There are many people who support the governor who contribute nothing and pay nothing and are not contributing. This is the time to have fair taxation in the state of Wisconsin, where the friends of the governors do not get a free ride and the hard-working people have to carry the extra burden," he said.

Speaking Wednesday to WTMJ4 in Milwaukee, President Obama weighed into the debate, saying that making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain "seems like more of an assault on unions."

"I think it is very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends," he said. "These are folks who are teachers and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers."

It is important "not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees," Obama said.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan told Fox News on Thursday that he is "troubled by the current climate" but was hopeful for a good resolution. He added that everyone is going to have to compromise even as teachers perform "Herculean" work.

"We have to work together with them to give every child a chance for a great education and we need to work together and we need to prove outside the comfort zone but to vilify one group or demonize one group doesn't move us as a country that we need to go," Duncan said.

But Walker said the demands on public employees are "modest" compared with those in the private sector, and are meant to prevent a shutdown, which could result in 6,000 state workers not getting paid.

"We're at a point of crisis," the governor said, adding that he would call out the National Guard if needed to keep state operations, including prisons, running.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008, the average salary for an elementary school teacher was $51, 240 while middle school educators earned $50,950 and high school teachers earned $49, 400.

Wisconsin's measure would end collective bargaining for state, county and local workers, except for police, firefighters and the state patrol. Unions still could represent workers, but could not seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum. Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.

Republican-backed changes to the bill made by the state's Senate budget committee Wednesday would extend a grievance procedure to public workers who don't have one and require more oversight and put a deadline on changes.

Fitzgerald said despite the heated debate, and individual threats against lawmakers, the majority of Wisconsin residents approve of the bill.

"Although the protesters have been very rowdy, very one sided on what legislators are hearing, there's a silent majority out there that spoke on November 2, said, you know, we have to (head the state) in the right direction to put our fiscal house in order. So that's what we're going to do. It's very difficult but you know that's what we're set out to do and hopefully."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: Police Search for Senate Democrats Who Skipped Vote to Curtail Union Rights in Wisconsin - FoxNews.com

Willravel 02-17-2011 12:44 PM
This is a blatant attack on unions, which means an attack on workers' rights. It's entirely unacceptable. I keep trying to tell myself that it's not yet reached a point where a workers' revolution is necessary in the United States, but situations like this are starting to make me wonder if I'm just making excuses.

I think the time is fast approaching where a national strike will be necessary to wrangle power away from the corporate right and restore a balance of power. Unions cannot be allowed to die off.

roachboy 02-17-2011 12:59 PM
it's amazing the level of historical blindness that's been descended upon the land here in reactionary valley regarding unions. it's like people who sell their labor power for a wage have been convinced that being utterly powerless is the natural order of things, that it's bad to organize. collective bargaining---and a strongly unionized workforce---was the motor that allowed for the transformation in consumer banking that enabled access to mortgages for working people, then other debt-generating instruments.

because it guaranteed steadily rising wages. so people could acquire debt and have some hope of fucking paying it without being reduced to debt peonage.

the news-speak of the neo-liberal set...the various idiotic propositions concerning unions repeated ad nauseum by the corporate "yay capitalism" press since the reagan period...the lack of historical memory....ach.

the is an instance of class warfare american-style.

it's like the place has regressed to some pre-1848 notion of capitalism.

ASU2003 02-17-2011 01:06 PM
*They aren't going to raise taxes, except for the the public workers. Is what they should have said. (Although I think they should be paying more into the pension fund if they are going to get a lot back out.) Or will teacher salaries just increase 5%, so they will be able to 'choose' which 401k to invest in...

Scratch Wisconsin off the list of places I would want to live. And yes, the history of Unions is distorted, but I enjoy not living in a caste like society like India or being a wage salve in China. I'm not sure if the GOP/tea party wouldn't enjoy transforming America into that type of society, either knowingly, or as a survival of the fittest type of thing.

I just wish people saved a lot more money, so they could say screw this job, have fun finding hundreds of people and training them in the next week.

Craven Morehead 02-17-2011 01:12 PM
I had a conversation with someone whose office is across the street from the Statehouse this morning. He put the blame on years and years of poor financial management by the legislature. Told me that the newly elected governor and legislature ran on this platform last fall. He believes the public supports the actions being taken by the governor.

Here's an interesting perspective Unions want to overturn election result - JSOnline

dksuddeth 02-18-2011 05:28 AM
i can understand that people want to protect workers rights and all that, but why should we let the unions override good economic sense and control the state budgets?

mixedmedia 02-18-2011 05:57 AM
I can't help but find it a little ridiculous that the 'Republican Assembly Speaker' is accusing democratic lawmakers of not representing their constituents by not showing up for a lost cause vote that, obviously, most of their constituents would not support. I commend that collective action. It's refreshing to see democrats united and uncompromising, even if its only for a day.

Personally, I'm sick of thinking the word 'reprehensible.' This country is losing its collective mind. Honestly, I didn't foresee the level of crazy that would start taking over once Obama was elected. Instead of the country becoming more moderate, the political climate has become exponentially more alarming.

That's really all I have to say. News on the state level has been sickening since the new terms began in January, not the least of which here in Florida. I hate to think things like 'Americans are so stupid,' but I need someone to throw me a bone here. How can the devaluation of education, good health, clean environments and what is becoming the society with the widest income disparity in the first world ever be quantified as 'smart politics'? The problem with Americans is that they have no fucking appreciation for the future. They want what they want and the only good time for it is now, now, NOW!

Sorry to be all rant-y rave-y, but every day I give more serious consideration to packing up and abandoning this country once I am done with school. Why should I contribute my skills and hard work to a society that shares none of my values?

/end. sorry.

Fotzlid 02-18-2011 06:46 AM
Quote:
....Teachers marching... Dozens of schools closed as a result of high absences .....bans collective bargaining rights for teachers....head of the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, said Walker and Republican lawmakers are asking public employees to give up more than everyone else.....even as teachers perform "Herculean" work .....give every child a chance for a great education
Who wrote this article, a journalist or a hack for the teacher's union?

dogzilla 02-18-2011 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2873923)
Union protests.
Absentee Democrats.
Police dragnets.

One volatile vote.

A bill is about to be passed to—among other things—ban collective bargaining for public workers in Wisconsin.

Help me out here. First, I'm a bit shocked at the hostility against unions in the U.S. I know there is a long history, but, in this day and age, it seems extreme to hobble a public worker's union like this.

Second, Democrats are a no-show. This stalls the vote. Police are searching for them. How does this work? What are the legal ramifications of this? What will happen?

What do you think of the current status of unions in the U.S. in general?
What I gather from reading the articles is that the citizens of Wisconsin are fed up with government spending and voted in a governor and legislature that are about to cut spending. If that's what the voters wanted, then that is exactly what the government should do. Unions and their response of 'just raise taxes' is unacceptable.

It's about time somebody is willing to run government more like a business where you have to live within your budget.

I also read that so many teachers called in sick in some cities that schools were closed, resulting in essence in a strike, where that strike is illegal. Why aren't those teachers fined, jailed, or fired for participating in an illegal strike?

Unions are in decline in the US. Latest figures I saw for private sector were somewhere around 8% of the workforce and slightly higher for government.

Thanks to the union's history of violence, intimidation, fraud and some unions involvement with the Mafia, they deserve every bit of flack they get.

Anxst 02-18-2011 08:08 AM
I hadn't posted here because I've been down at the capitol marching for the last few days, when I wasn't at work or school.

The majority of teachers I've spoken too understand that the budget is a mess, and that concessions have to be made. They're generally willing to make those concessions.

They're not willing to give up the right to bargain for those concessions, instead of just being handed whatever their employer likes.

The bill in question removes the public workers unions right to negotiate collectively for anything other than wages, and wage bargaining is only allowed to within a certain price index set by a third party (I do not recall what the index is off the top of my head) unless allowed to do so by a public vote.

It also removes the unions ability to require members to pay their union dues, and makes it so all union members have to vote to keep the union in force yearly. If the union doesn't get a majority vote, it's dissolved.

That sounds like union busting to me, pure and simple.

I may be entirely wrong, but it seems to me this is a straight ploy by the republicans in this state to remove the democratic power base.

The republicans are funded, for the most part, by corporate business. They are the business party, in simple terms.

The democrats are funded by the unions. They're the worker's party (again, in very simple terms).

How this is part of a budget repair bill, I do not understand. While the budget may be in disarray, it's not caused by what we're paying our teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police. (BTW, the firefighters and police unions are exempt from all of the above in the bill.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://joshhealey.org/2011/02/17/class-warfare-in-wisconsin/
1. The deficit is a made-up crisis.
Like most states, Wisconsin is struggling in the recession, but the state government isn’t actually broke. The state legislature’s fiscal bureau estimated the state would end the year with a $121 million balance. Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit — but it is not because of an increase in worker wages or benefits. According to the Capital Times, it is because “Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for corporate and special-interest groups in January.” Nice. A man-made “crisis” as an excuse to push neoliberal cutbacks: Shock Doctrine, anyone?
I don't agree with the tone of the above, but his point is a sound one. Legislative mismanagement is the issue here. Doing this to our public servants won't fix it.

So, I march. I may head back there again today.

dippin 02-18-2011 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2874118)
i can understand that people want to protect workers rights and all that, but why should we let the unions override good economic sense and control the state budgets?
I guess libertarianism goes out the window when the law is to prohibit unions from doing something, huh?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874147)
Thanks to the union's history of violence, intimidation, fraud and some unions involvement with the Mafia, they deserve every bit of flack they get.
The "unions'" history of violence? Talk about re-writing history.

filtherton 02-18-2011 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874147)
It's about time somebody is willing to run government more like a business where you have to live within your budget.
Sorry to pick out one quote, but I find that the attitude expressed here is pervasive amongst some folks. I just want to point out that businesses frequently spend more than they take in, and that when they find that they need more income, they frequently raise their prices.

If the government were to truly start running like a business, we'd be taxed even more and see even less benefit because this would be the most direct way for a government to maximize its profits, which is what it would be attempting to do if it were running like a business.

It's ridiculous to expect the government to behave like a business- the two organizations serve different purposes.

dksuddeth 02-18-2011 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874233)
Sorry to pick out one quote, but I find that the attitude expressed here is pervasive amongst some folks. I just want to point out that businesses frequently spend more than they take in, and that when they find that they need more income, they frequently raise their prices.
say what? do you run or own a business?

filtherton 02-18-2011 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2874244)
say what? do you run or own a business?
Do you?

How many years did it take for Amazon to turn a profit? Has twitter started making money yet?

Want to know what my cell phone company does when they want more money? They raise their prices. So does my gas company.

dksuddeth 02-18-2011 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874248)
Do you?
yes, I have. and my experience tells me that if i'm losing money, raising prices is not going to cover it. one has to cut their expenses so that you're not spending more than you take in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874248)
How many years did it take for Amazon to turn a profit? Has twitter started making money yet?
I don't follow them, but i'm sure that they had quite a bit of capital cash from investors to follow through on their model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874248)
Want to know what my cell phone company does when they want more money? They raise their prices. So does my gas company.
want to know what happens to my cell phone and gas company when they raise prices higher than their competitors? they lose customers. then they lay people off. Its what they call reducing your expenditures.

filtherton 02-18-2011 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2874254)
yes, I have. and my experience tells me that if i'm losing money, raising prices is not going to cover it. one has to cut their expenses so that you're not spending more than you take in.
So? No business can spend more than it brings in. Aside from semantic issues, the real question here is whether accumulating debt is an acceptable way of bringing in money.

Quote:
I don't follow them, but i'm sure that they had quite a bit of capital cash from investors to follow through on their model.
You don't think they accumulated any debt?

Quote:
want to know what happens to my cell phone and gas company when they raise prices higher than their competitors? they lose customers. then they lay people off. Its what they call reducing your expenditures.
That's weird, my cell phone company just tacked on an extra $10 dollars to their data plans and it hasn't seemed to get in the way of their profit (as far as I can tell).

Really, though, my point in this threadjack was that businesses frequently utilize debt when it benefits them to do so. Our government is no different. Further, businesses are motivated by profit, and it would be massively stupid for us to motivate our government officials using profit.

Cimarron29414 02-18-2011 01:00 PM
filth-

Wisconsin has a constitutional amendment preventing unbalanced budgets. I believe that is why your suggestion of borrowing to cover the shortfall is not possible.

dksuddeth 02-18-2011 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874259)
So? No business can spend more than it brings in. Aside from semantic issues, the real question here is whether accumulating debt is an acceptable way of bringing in money.
there's no semantics here, wherever that came from. bottom line, if a business outspends itself, it goes out of business. as i stated earlier, if it's a publicly owned business on the stock market, there might be tons of capital cash available to maintain operations while a business alters their model, but a mom and pop business that raises prices to make up for lost revenue is only going to succeed as long as there's no competition and there is demand for their product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874259)
You don't think they accumulated any debt?
again, didn't follow them. but being big companies, i'm sure that, like other big companies, the amount of assets they had allowed them to get appropriate loans, up to a point. the governments of 46 states are very close to that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874259)
That's weird, my cell phone company just tacked on an extra $10 dollars to their data plans and it hasn't seemed to get in the way of their profit (as far as I can tell).
because you, and many others, didn't seem to mind paying that extra fee. if that fee caused thousands of their customers to move to another service, i'll bet that fee gets removed very quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874259)
Really, though, my point in this threadjack was that businesses frequently utilize debt when it benefits them to do so. Our government is no different. Further, businesses are motivated by profit, and it would be massively stupid for us to motivate our government officials using profit.
yes, those business' utilize their debt because they have the assets to do so through loans. our government has been doing that also and for far too long. it's catching up to them now and at a very bad time when the majority of the population demands no more raising taxes, but cutting spending.

as to governments using a profit model, i'm with you. governments of any sort in this nation are not constitutionally authorized to operate on a profit scale. they don't produce anything, they just consume.

filtherton 02-18-2011 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2874263)
filth-

Wisconsin has a constitutional amendment preventing unbalanced budgets. I believe that is why your suggestion of borrowing to cover the shortfall is not possible.
They should take a lesson from Minnesota and use complicated accounting tricks to pass the deficit a few years down the road *cough* Pawlenty *cough*.

Word on the street is that WI had a surplus until the current Gov came into office and started working his magic.

dk, all I'm saying is that if an organization with the motivations of a business was suddenly placed in a situation where it had all the power of the government, the situation would end very badly and debt would be the least of our problems (and would likely remain a problem given the capacity of the government to accumulate debt without consequence).

I understand the sentiment behind the idea that the government should be run like a business, however, I think it's an idea that falls apart when subject to any amount of scrutiny.

Willravel 02-18-2011 01:17 PM
This situation isn't complicated. Wisconsin's small budget problems were in no way caused by unions, but rather in large part to Special Session Senate Bill 2, which gives preferential tax breaks for health savings accounts, and Assembly Bill 7, which is a tax break for small businesses. These pieces of state legislation turned a state surplus into $120m deficit. Just like every other Republican in the past generation, this is about spending money without increasing taxes and then cutting workers' rights in the name of fiscal responsibility. Wisconsin Republicans are using this opportunity to achieve an ideological objective.

gooder 02-18-2011 02:34 PM
Part of the ongoing Republican Crime Organization at work. I have watched this developing all my working life. This is not some accident of fate happening here. This is another step in a long range plan to destroy every last vestige of unionism in America. Once you take that step back and look at it from that perspective a lot of things make sense. Unfortunately many people believe that unions are the enemy. It is not unions destroying the American economy it is Republican policy makers that work for the richest ones who create the most opportunities for themselves to have more power and to consolidate more and more of the wealth. What is happening now is the inevitable result of policy decisions that have been taking place steadily over the last 30 some years. No big surprise at all. The gaining of wealth has no conscience. When the people themselves remove the obstacles to their own financial destruction that shows me all the proof I need that the Republican Crime Organization will succeed. The historical facts that somehow get overlooked is the real results of this kind of out of control profiteering
are sad to the extreme. The results are: civil war, poverty, exploitation of all kinds, and ultimately we will have dictatorship. Thanks a lot Republicans.

dogzilla 02-18-2011 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2874233)
Sorry to pick out one quote, but I find that the attitude expressed here is pervasive amongst some folks. I just want to point out that businesses frequently spend more than they take in, and that when they find that they need more income, they frequently raise their prices..
And when business raise their prices to the point where they are not competitive, customers go elsewhere unless there's compelling reasons to keep doing business with the company.

I'm tech lead on a small team in the company I work for. My company is profitable. I have 6 people, including myself to get the work done. I've probably got enough work for 8 people. Management understands I have enough work for 8 people but they have no budget to give me 8 people. So I get to figure out how to live within the budget and decide what may not get done.

Government needs to be run like this kind of a business. Government employees work for the taxpayers. A large number of taxpayers in this country are fed up with high taxes and are demanding the government cut spending. If the government employees lose a few benefits, well, welcome to the real world.

dc_dux 02-18-2011 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874287)

Government needs to be run like this kind of a business. Government employees work for the taxpayers. A large number of taxpayers in this country are fed up with high taxes and are demanding the government cut spending. If the government employees lose a few benefits, well, welcome to the real world.
Government, at any level, is not in the business to make a profit.

dogzilla 02-18-2011 03:00 PM
[quote=dippin;2874227

The "unions'" history of violence? Talk about re-writing history.[/QUOTE]

Rewriting what history?

I worked as non-union office staff at a manufacturing company a number of years ago. The union at that company went on strike for four months. I still had a job to get to, and I was chased by pickets a couple of times because I dared to try to get to my job.

Then there's these references. Feel free to prove they never happened.

Union violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Examples of union violence include:
  • 2004 AFL-CIO push their way into a Republican field office in Orlando FL, breaking the wrist of one staffer. AFL-CIO member Van Church is unrepentant: "If his wrist was fractured, it's a result of his own actions in jerking the door the way he did."
  • 1999 - During protests by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 against a non-unionized workforce getting a contract, picketers threatened and assaulted workers, spat at them, sabotaged equipment, and shot guns near workers. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the union had engaged in "ongoing acts of intimidation, violence, destruction of property".
  • 1999 - During protests by Laborers' International Union of North America Local 310, picketers punched a worker, and threw coffee cups at workers.
  • 1999 - Members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120 were convicted of striking a worker, and imprisoning another one in a truck trailer.
  • 1998 - Teamsters Orestes Espinosa, Angel Mielgo, Werner Haechler, Benigno Rojas, and Adrian Paez beat, kicked, and stabbed a UPS worker (Rod Carter) who refused to strike, after Carter received a threatening phone call from the home of Anthony Cannestro, Sr., president of Teamsters Local 769.
  • 1998 - During the Communications Workers of America U.S. West strike a worker was threatened with a gun, and a manager was hit in the head with a rock.
  • 1990 - on the first day of The New York Daily News strike, trucks were attacked with stones and sticks. One union member was immediately arrested for transporting Molotov cocktails. Strikers followed replacement laborers and threatened them with baseball bats. Strikers then started threatening newsstands with arson, or stole all copies of the Daily News and burned them in front of the newsstands. Independent sources estimated over a thousand reports of threats. The newspaper recorded over two thousand legal violations. The Police Department, recorded more than 500 incidents. 50 strikers were arrested. Bombings of delivery trucks became common, with 11 strikers arrested on one day in October.
  • 1984 - Taxi driver David Wilkie was killed by NUM strikers while driving a non-striking worker during the UK mining strike
  • 1983 - Eddie York was murdered for crossing a United Mine Workers (UMW) picket line.
  • 1926 - Striking workers derail The Flying Scotsman train with over 100 passengers on board
Union Violence Victim Wins Settlement Against Teamsters Union | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Quote:
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have forced Teamsters Local 769 to pay a monetary settlement for its direct involvement in a bloody attack on Rod Carter during the 1997 nationwide Teamsters strike against United Parcel Service (UPS).
The SEIU and Union Violence: When will the violence stop, Mr. Stern? | RedState

Quote:
According to the Center for Union Facts, an average of nearly 300 incidents of (reported) union violence occur every year. In one example, a three-year strike conducted by the Teamsters against the trucking company, Overnite Transportation (now UPS Freight), produced 55 shootings and prompted the Teamsters to settle with the National Labor Relations Board by posting a four-page notice on the union’s website where the union agreed that (among other things):
“WE WILL NOT brandish or carry any weapon of any kind, including, but not limited to, guns, knives, slingshots, rocks, ball bearings, liquid-filled balloons or other projectiles, sledge hammers, bricks, sticks, or two by fours . . ..


---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2874291)
Government, at any level, is not in the business to make a profit.
No, but it has to live within the budget that taxpayers are willing to support. Obama and his buddies are discovering that now.

dc_dux 02-18-2011 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874295)
Rewriting what history?

I worked as non-union office staff at a manufacturing company a number of years ago. The union at that company went on strike for four months. I still had a job to get to, and I was chased by pickets a couple of times because I dared to try to get to my job.

Then there's these references. Feel free to prove they never happened.

Union violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Union Violence Victim Wins Settlement Against Teamsters Union | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation



The SEIU and Union Violence: When will the violence stop, Mr. Stern? | RedState
If you look objectively, I think you will find the list is much longer on the management side.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------


Quote:
No, but it has to live within the budget that taxpayers are willing to support. Obama and his buddies are discovering that now.
It goes beyond the scope of this particularly discussion, but conservatives seem to think that slashing state and federal budgets will solve the problem...with no adverse impacts (economic and social) resulting from those cuts.

It wont. Tax increases also have to be part of the mix and until the Republicans in state houses and Congress accept it, there will be no meaningful debt reduction.

FoolThemAll 02-18-2011 03:41 PM
Forget 'violent', Washington's state employees unions are just plain useless. They're seemingly in place simply to collect involuntary union dues. You know, because this wonderful safeguard for the 'rights' of workers is popular enough to need the force of law to retain its members.

ASU2003 02-18-2011 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2874291)
Government, at any level, is not in the business to make a profit.
This idea and the idea that government doesn't produce anything are two big problems in the Right's thinking.

I have no problem with the government making money, maybe it is collecting tolls, entrance fees at national parks, giving VIP tours to NASA/FBI/historic sites, collecting taxes and increasing the taxes if it will help save money by reducing gas, healthcare expenses, or environmental problems.

dksuddeth 02-18-2011 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2874299)
It goes beyond the scope of this particularly discussion, but conservatives seem to think that slashing state and federal budgets will solve the problem...with no adverse impacts (economic and social) resulting from those cuts.

It wont. Tax increases also have to be part of the mix and until the Republicans in state houses and Congress accept it, there will be no meaningful debt reduction.
tax increases on who? the people are tired of taxes being raised. raising a tax right now guarantees a loss in the next election.

---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003 (Post 2874311)
This idea and the idea that government doesn't produce anything are two big problems in the Right's thinking.

I have no problem with the government making money, maybe it is collecting tolls, entrance fees at national parks, giving VIP tours to NASA/FBI/historic sites, collecting taxes and increasing the taxes if it will help save money by reducing gas, healthcare expenses, or environmental problems.
government only consumes.

please show examples of where government makes profits?

dippin 02-18-2011 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874295)
Rewriting what history?

I worked as non-union office staff at a manufacturing company a number of years ago. The union at that company went on strike for four months. I still had a job to get to, and I was chased by pickets a couple of times because I dared to try to get to my job.

Then there's these references. Feel free to prove they never happened.

Union violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Union Violence Victim Wins Settlement Against Teamsters Union | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation



The SEIU and Union Violence: When will the violence stop, Mr. Stern? | RedState



---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------


No, but it has to live within the budget that taxpayers are willing to support. Obama and his buddies are discovering that now.

So in a couple of centuries worth of unionizing the "history of violence" is a murder and a broken wrist?

The fact is that there is really no comparison between the "violence" employed by unions and the use violence by the national guard and militias to bust unions. There is a reason why many of the cases of union busting have "massacre" in the name.

---------- Post added at 07:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

By the way, let's be clear here. This isn't about the importance of balancing a budget, this isn't about whether unions have problems or not, this isn't about big government vs small government.

It is about union busting and ideology. The budget shortfall didn't exist until the passing of further tax cuts, and the law isn't about just trimming back benefits or reducing spending. It is about making it illegal to bargain on benefits or to ever request a wage increase above inflation.

Let's stop trying to dress this bullshit up as some sort of libertarian small government deal. This government passed very targeted tax cuts and in order to pay for them they are not only changing benefits and all that, but also reducing workers rights. No matter what your view of unions is, there is no other way to describe this as something other than taking away the rights of some people. Oh, but the unions that endorsed Walker are exempt of all of this.

Derwood 02-19-2011 05:55 AM
Thanks, dippin.....no one here talks about the tax-cuts that Wisconsin just passed in January. So they cut taxes and then a month later panic about a budget shortfall? Doesn't pass the smell test.

"Solutions" to these budget issues always starts with bending the workers over, not cutting entitlements to businesses and campaign contributors.

mixedmedia 02-19-2011 06:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2874351)
By the way, let's be clear here. This isn't about the importance of balancing a budget, this isn't about whether unions have problems or not, this isn't about big government vs small government.

It is about union busting and ideology. The budget shortfall didn't exist until the passing of further tax cuts, and the law isn't about just trimming back benefits or reducing spending. It is about making it illegal to bargain on benefits or to ever request a wage increase above inflation.

Let's stop trying to dress this bullshit up as some sort of libertarian small government deal. This government passed very targeted tax cuts and in order to pay for them they are not only changing benefits and all that, but also reducing workers rights. No matter what your view of unions is, there is no other way to describe this as something other than taking away the rights of some people. Oh, but the unions that endorsed Walker are exempt of all of this.
needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

if there is any hope for this country remaining a 'beacon' of anything good in the world, folks will have to open their eyes and see.

Derwood 02-19-2011 06:53 AM
Koch Brothers Behind Wisconsin Effort To Kill Public Unions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

least shocking news of the day

Baraka_Guru 02-19-2011 07:01 AM
The blaming of unions is ironic in that the creation and administration of a labour union in the first place is usually the result of poor management.

dippin 02-19-2011 07:07 AM
The worst part is that this is such a blatantly political move that the 4 unions that endorsed Walker are exempt from this. Can anyone here defend that? This is clientelistic politics at its worse, the sort of stuff that you'd expect from mid 20th century Latin dictators. Tax cuts for one republican constituency, protections for the republican unions, and a major, major kick in the nuts for all the other unions that didn't endorse Walker.

dogzilla 02-19-2011 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2874351)

Let's stop trying to dress this bullshit up as some sort of libertarian small government deal. This government passed very targeted tax cuts and in order to pay for them they are not only changing benefits and all that, but also reducing workers rights. No matter what your view of unions is, there is no other way to describe this as something other than taking away the rights of some people. Oh, but the unions that endorsed Walker are exempt of all of this.
And what about the rights of the public to not have the government take so much of their income in taxes? The response attributed to unions in one article was that the state needed to increase taxes. That's idiotic.

Derwood 02-19-2011 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874487)
And what about the rights of the public to not have the government take so much of their income in taxes? The response attributed to unions in one article was that the state needed to increase taxes. That's idiotic.
Show me the part of the constitution that enumerates the "right of the public to not have the government take so much of their income in taxes"

dogzilla 02-19-2011 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2874488)
Show me the part of the constitution that enumerates the "right of the public to not have the government take so much of their income in taxes"
It's called the right to vote, as in voting out the politicians who don't understand the public is fed up with taxes. If the current politicians don't understand it, they will be replaced until we do get a government that understands that.

roachboy 02-19-2011 07:54 AM
for the life of me i cannot figure out how this one-dimensional petit-bourgeois view of taxation as taking-away-my-shit persists, even on the net which presupposes publicly funded electrical and mixed public-private telecommunications infrastructures, on computers that you would not have were it not for publicly funded railroad and highway systems, the consistency of which are conditions of possibility for the walmartization of commodity prices that this same one-dimensional view of the world would simply impute to a fact of nature or the Virtues of Exporting Captialist Exploitation to Places Where Labor Is Cheap. there's no way to move from this petit-bourgeois know nothing-ism coherent views of unions or states or redistributions of wealth. amazing.

Baraka_Guru 02-19-2011 08:07 AM
Taxes aren't even that high in Wisconsin.

dippin 02-19-2011 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874487)
And what about the rights of the public to not have the government take so much of their income in taxes? The response attributed to unions in one article was that the state needed to increase taxes. That's idiotic.
Except that the tax cut wasn't for the "public," but for a specific group of business. Just like the issues go beyond just cutting the current amount of benefits, but about completely eliminating any form of collective bargaining for the unions that didn't endorse this specific government.

No amount of hand waving will eliminate that. This sort of oversimplification of the good public interest versus the bad teacher is so stupid and misleading I can't keep repeating myself over and over again. But here it goes:

Quote:
Let's stop trying to dress this bullshit up as some sort of libertarian small government deal. This government passed very targeted tax cuts and in order to pay for them they are not only changing benefits and all that, but also reducing workers rights. No matter what your view of unions is, there is no other way to describe this as something other than taking away the rights of some people. Oh, but the unions that endorsed Walker are exempt of all of this.

But hey, how about we pass a tax cut for union employees, and to pay for that we take away from a core constituency of the republican party? After all, that would be essentially the same, except we'd be flipping the winners and losers based on their support last election.

Anxst 02-19-2011 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2874486)
The worst part is that this is such a blatantly political move that the 4 unions that endorsed Walker are exempt from this. Can anyone here defend that? This is clientelistic politics at its worse, the sort of stuff that you'd expect from mid 20th century Latin dictators. Tax cuts for one republican constituency, protections for the republican unions, and a major, major kick in the nuts for all the other unions that didn't endorse Walker.
The best part of that is that all four unions that did back Walker have been standing with the other unions and saying that this is a bunch of bullshit.

dogzilla 02-19-2011 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2874492)
for the life of me i cannot figure out how this one-dimensional petit-bourgeois view of taxation as taking-away-my-shit persists, even on the net which presupposes publicly funded electrical and mixed public-private telecommunications infrastructures, on computers that you would not have were it not for publicly funded railroad and highway systems, the consistency of which are conditions of possibility for the walmartization of commodity prices that this same one-dimensional view of the world would simply impute to a fact of nature or the Virtues of Exporting Captialist Exploitation to Places Where Labor Is Cheap. there's no way to move from this petit-bourgeois know nothing-ism coherent views of unions or states or redistributions of wealth. amazing.
I'd like to know where my publicly funded electricity and internet are. I get bills every month for both. I pay taxes for the highway and rail system, and when I buy a computer, part of price for that computer is to recover the taxes the railroad or trucking company paid.

When an individual's total tax bill, federal, state, and local is 40% or more of their income, it's time to say enough and start taking back. Or maybe I should just quit my job and let the government give me stuff.

Baraka_Guru 02-19-2011 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874596)
When an individual's total tax bill, federal, state, and local is 40% or more of their income, it's time to say enough and start taking back. Or maybe I should just quit my job and let the government give me stuff.
I know you're probably just kidding, but you suggest here that those in the highest income bracket should simply become destitute as a solution to earning too much money from a tax perspective.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to pay the highest income bracket in Ontario, which is closer to 46 or 47% when you combine federal and provincial income tax. It would mean earning more than 3.5 times my current salary. I'll take it. I'll take it instead of "free stuff" from the government.

dippin 02-19-2011 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874596)
I'd like to know where my publicly funded electricity and internet are. I get bills every month for both. I pay taxes for the highway and rail system, and when I buy a computer, part of price for that computer is to recover the taxes the railroad or trucking company paid.

When an individual's total tax bill, federal, state, and local is 40% or more of their income, it's time to say enough and start taking back. Or maybe I should just quit my job and let the government give me stuff.
I guarantee that your effective tax rate is not 40%. In fact, only the top 1% even get anywhere close to 40%. And the situation in Wisconsin wasn't created by a linear tax cut, but a very targeted one, which means that people are still paying the same. Which makes your point both false and irrelevant.

dogzilla 02-19-2011 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2874617)
I guarantee that your effective tax rate is not 40%. In fact, only the top 1% even get anywhere close to 40%. And the situation in Wisconsin wasn't created by a linear tax cut, but a very targeted one, which means that people are still paying the same. Which makes your point both false and irrelevant.
I looked up last years taxes. 12.2% federal income tax, 5.4% state income tax, 3.7% local property tax plus 15.3% for Social Security and Medicare gets me to 36.6%. Add in sales tax, gas tax, taxes buried in the costs of goods and services, and I'm within spitting range of 40%. I'm nowhere near the top 1% income group either. Time for the government to stop taking so much.

I read a number of articles that put Wisconsin's budget deficit in the $2 billion range last year. I attribute more of the curent problem to that than I do any tax cut.

Anxst 02-19-2011 08:54 PM
Oh btw, the unions all came and said they would compromise and give the Governor everything else he asked for, as long as they retained their collective bargaining rights for the future.

They were refused.

Biggest protests yet as pro-Walker side, larger union crowd meet peacefully - JSOnline

Sounds as if the budget isn't the issue here to me.

dippin 02-19-2011 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874621)
I looked up last years taxes. 12.2% federal income tax, 5.4% state income tax, 3.7% local property tax plus 15.3% for Social Security and Medicare gets me to 36.6%. Add in sales tax, gas tax, taxes buried in the costs of goods and services, and I'm within spitting range of 40%. I'm nowhere near the top 1% income group either. Time for the government to stop taking so much.

I read a number of articles that put Wisconsin's budget deficit in the $2 billion range last year. I attribute more of the curent problem to that than I do any tax cut.
I am not going to go into your specific situation as that would be rather pointless, especially since there would be all sorts of useless debates, such as taxable versus actual income and so on, and this is the internet.

But the tax foundation, hardly a pro tax think tank, estimates the total effective tax rate, by quintile, to be:
12.97% 23.21% 28.25% 31.32% 34.55%

So the richest 20% have on average a total tax rate, combining local, federal and state taxes of 34.55%. So again the 40% in taxes that individuals are supposedly paying is bullshit. And those figures are for 2004, and taxes are actually lower now.

In fact, as a percentage of GDP, total tax receipts at all levels of government were 24.8% in 2009, the lowest they've been since 1959.


Of course, as I said this whole thing is actually irrelevant, as the tax cut that put Wisconsin in the red again was a targeted tax cut and not a linear tax cut that affected everyone.

Ps: Sources:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf

ASU2003 02-20-2011 09:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anxst (Post 2874626)
Oh btw, the unions all came and said they would compromise and give the Governor everything else he asked for, as long as they retained their collective bargaining rights for the future.

They were refused.

Biggest protests yet as pro-Walker side, larger union crowd meet peacefully - JSOnline

Sounds as if the budget isn't the issue here to me.
Democrats need to learn how to do this. They need to start with a far left position and then come back a little.

Willravel 02-20-2011 10:10 AM
Many Democrats are corporatists, they have no interest with a bargaining position starting on the far left. Democrat is not a synonym for liberal.

Baraka_Guru 02-20-2011 11:31 AM
I keep forgetting that you guys don't really have social democrats, let alone a social democratic party.

Derwood 02-21-2011 05:52 AM
Tangential factoid:

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, and Virginia: 44th.

Wisconsin is ranked #2 in the nation

Cimarron29414 02-21-2011 06:54 AM
...

Derwood 02-21-2011 07:21 AM
I like this guy:

dogzilla 02-21-2011 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2874966)
Tangential factoid:

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, and Virginia: 44th.

Wisconsin is ranked #2 in the nation
That has as much to do with the quality of education as the high school in my hometown where the teachers do have collective bargaining and which lost its college certification a few years ago.

It's been proven time and time again that just throwing money at schools does not guarantee a quality education.

All collective bargaining is good for is extorting more money from the long suffering taxpayer.

roachboy 02-21-2011 07:37 AM
do you know what collective bargaining is?

Cimarron29414 02-21-2011 07:44 AM
Collective bargaining is a valuable tool. It allows many workers' salaries to be negotiated all at once, freeing up HR from endless meetings each year. I don't have a problem with it.

My problem is when the workers can strike when the negotiated wage is deemed unacceptable. We don't have to debate that part of it, as we won't change each other's minds. I just wanted to point out to Dogzilla that it isn't an "all bad" mechanism.

dogzilla 02-21-2011 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2874989)
do you know what collective bargaining is?
Yes I do. The union and management try to negotiate salary and benefits, with the union trying to extort more by threat of strike. All to frequently, government negotiators with no backbone cave in, rationalizing that it's only taxpayer money and there's more where that came from.

Derwood 02-21-2011 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2875000)
Yes I do. The union and management try to negotiate salary and benefits, with the union trying to extort more by threat of strike. All to frequently, government negotiators with no backbone cave in, rationalizing that it's only taxpayer money and there's more where that came from.
I suppose that anyone wanting to make a living wage with taxpayer money is the ultimate evil in your eyes

roachboy 02-21-2011 07:57 AM
why shouldn't workers be able to strike?
it's the only weapon that equalizes the relation to capital.
it's fundamental to union organization, even in it's reactionary sector-monopoly american form.
give up the right to strike and you give up the game.

dippin 02-21-2011 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2875000)
Yes I do. The union and management try to negotiate salary and benefits, with the union trying to extort more by threat of strike. All to frequently, government negotiators with no backbone cave in, rationalizing that it's only taxpayer money and there's more where that came from.
You do know that collective bargaining isn't restricted to government employees, right?

As for "trying to extort more" from the government, that applies to pretty much every facet of government spending, though I wouldn't call it extortion. As such, it includes all sorts of spending republicans do approve of, such as farm subsidies, business subsidies, military and police force wages and benefits, and the privatization, expropriation or licensing of any publicly owned resource for private businesses.

Finally, people who are really about "small government" should be consistent and demand that the same union busting rules they've been using be applied to businesses as well. But we know that won't be the case.

Baraka_Guru 02-21-2011 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2875002)
why shouldn't workers be able to strike?
it's the only weapon that equalizes the relation to capital.
it's fundamental to union organization, even in it's reactionary sector-monopoly american form.
give up the right to strike and you give up the game.
This is important. Just as management has the right to hire, fire, promote, demote, give shifts, take shifts away, give raises, cut pay, etc., unions should have the right to universally suspend the use of their labour. The threat of such an action often (but not always) remains their only recourse in the event of unfair or unreasonable management decisions. And this is where collective bargaining comes in, especially when there is a third-party arbitration.

Call this extortion if you will, dogzilla, but whatever it's called is to respond to management decisions that would otherwise amount to exploitation.

dogzilla 02-21-2011 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2875016)
This is important. Just as management has the right to hire, fire, promote, demote, give shifts, take shifts away, give raises, cut pay, etc., unions should have the right to universally suspend the use of their labour. The threat of such an action often (but not always) remains their only recourse in the event of unfair or unreasonable management decisions. And this is where collective bargaining comes in, especially when there is a third-party arbitration.

Call this extortion if you will, dogzilla, but whatever it's called is to respond to management decisions that would otherwise amount to exploitation.
There is another alternative.

If the individual worker thinks he is being mistreated, there is nothing in this country preventing him from looking for other work or being self-employed.

I've done this myself, where I used jobs in my early career as stepping stones to get where I wanted. When I saw that my opportunities at the company weren't what I wanted, I went elsewhere.

This worked well for me. Not once in 36 years of employment have I felt I needed any union.

Baraka_Guru 02-21-2011 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2875022)
There is another alternative.

If the individual worker thinks he is being mistreated, there is nothing in this country preventing him from looking for other work or being self-employed.
It's difficult to have to leave the state or public education to find another job as a teacher or other form of educator. And as far as I know you can't be self-employed and work as a teacher for the state of Wisconsin.

Quote:
I've done this myself, where I used jobs in my early career as stepping stones to get where I wanted. When I saw that my opportunities at the company weren't what I wanted, I went elsewhere.

This worked well for me. Not once in 36 years of employment have I felt I needed any union.
Good for you. I haven't needed unions either, but that's beside the point. This isn't about us.

It's as though you are arguing against the need for unions in the first place, which is a bit silly. Should I argue that the Declaration of Independence wasn't needed in the first place and that the American Revolution was a waste of lives and money? You guys should have become a constitutional monarchy like us. Rather bloodless.

Different situations, different outcomes.

dogzilla 02-21-2011 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2875002)
why shouldn't workers be able to strike?
it's the only weapon that equalizes the relation to capital.
it's fundamental to union organization, even in it's reactionary sector-monopoly american form.
give up the right to strike and you give up the game.
If companies had the unconditional right to hire replacement workers, then a strike might be fair. As it is, hiring replacement workers results in intimidation and harassment of the replacement workers far too many times.

dippin 02-21-2011 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2875030)
If companies had the unconditional right to hire replacement workers, then a strike might be fair. As it is, hiring replacement workers results in intimidation and harassment of the replacement workers far too many times.
The equivalent to a worker's right to strike is the lock out.

Also, employers already have the right to hire replacement workers. As for these instances of "intimidation and harassment," not only are they already covered by the law, but they are also far less common than management violations of workers' contracted rights.

flstf 02-21-2011 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2874987)
All collective bargaining is good for is extorting more money from the long suffering taxpayer.
This is what troubles me most about public employee unions. Many taxpayers who cannot afford health care and pensions for themselves are forced to use what little money they have to provide those benefits for others. Also, I thought most public employees were somewhat protected by civil service rules and laws. This seems to be quite a bit different than private sector union employees striking against stock holders.

I guess I have a problem with forcing anyone who cannot afford health care and pensions for themselves to pay for others in the public sector including our politicians.

ring 02-21-2011 11:49 AM
"This isn't just about public employees. What even a majority of the protesters don't know is that Walker's law would also place all of the state's Medicaid funding in the hands of the governor. State senator Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton -- one of the Dem law-makers who fled the state to block a vote on the bill -- told local media that this amounted to "substantial Medicaid changes" that put "the governor, all of a sudden... in charge of Medicaid, which is SeniorCare, which is BadgerCare ...and he has never once said what he intends to do” with those programs. But the provision led journalist Suzie Madrak to conclude that "the end game for all this is to defund state Medicaid programs and make it impossible to serve as part of the new health care safety net."

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews..._in_wisconsin/

I have computer troubles. I'm not sure if that link posted correctly.

roachboy 02-21-2011 11:57 AM
Quote:
Today 11:43 AM Little-Noticed Provision In Walker's Bill Could Reap Huge Gains For Koch Industries

The Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel reports:

While there has been significant attention devoted to the fact that Walker's 144-page budget repair bill would strip away collective bargaining rights for public employees, the site "Rortybomb" points out a less noticed provision that would allow the state to sell or contract out any state-owned energy asset in no-bid deals with private corporations. From the legislation (emphasis added):

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

It's unclear what "the best interest of the state" is.

But if this deal goes through, one of the companies that could stand to benefit significantly is Koch Industries. Koch already has several companies in the state, including a coal subsidiary, timber plants and a large network of pipelines.

During the 2010 election cycle, Walker received $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC, his second-largest contribution. The PAC also gave significantly to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn helped out Walker considerably in his race. Koch also contributed $6,500 to support 16 Republican legislative candidates in the state.

The Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity has also been standing with Walker throughout his budget battles, busing in Tea Party activists and launching the site, Stand With Walker. After the election, Walker and other Republican governors received guidance from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that is also funded by Koch dollars and has pushed anti-union measures.
Madison Protests Hit Largest Numbers On Saturday


this is about as venal as it gets, folks.
all this conservative horseshit about "fairness" and the other buzzwords that legitimate union-busting are simply figleafs.

the koch brothers want to get paid.

dippin 02-21-2011 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf (Post 2875069)
This is what troubles me most about public employee unions. Many taxpayers who cannot afford health care and pensions for themselves are forced to use what little money they have to provide those benefits for others. Also, I thought most public employees were somewhat protected by civil service rules and laws. This seems to be quite a bit different than private sector union employees striking against stock holders.

I guess I have a problem with forcing anyone who cannot afford health care and pensions for themselves to pay for others in the public sector including our politicians.
This is a red herring. If anything, it is a justification for progressive taxes. If you believe that the state should provide free education, then you are going to have to hire teachers, which means that the teachers will make more money than some folks in the state. Unless, of course, you make the teachers the worst paid occupation in the state (and we are not talking about any fat cats here, as the starting salary for WI teachers is just above 25k a year).

flstf 02-21-2011 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2875086)
This is a red herring. If anything, it is a justification for progressive taxes. If you believe that the state should provide free education, then you are going to have to hire teachers, which means that the teachers will make more money than some folks in the state. Unless, of course, you make the teachers the worst paid occupation in the state (and we are not talking about any fat cats here, as the starting salary for WI teachers is just above 25k a year).
I agree with much of what you wrote but I still think there is something wrong with forcing people who cannot afford health care and other benefits to provide them for others who make more. Many of us pay thousands in state and local taxes for the free education you mention.
Quote:
Wisconsin Teacher Salaries in Context
By Dan Collins on February 19th, 2011

On average, including benefits, Wisconsin teachers earn about $78k per year. I’m going to leave aside the “for nine months work” part of this, because I think it’s been hammered enough. The average household income in Wisconsin is about $52k per year. So, teachers earn about 1.5 times the average household income in Wisconsin when you factor in the benefits, and many of those households are two-income households.
Wisconsin Teacher Salaries in Context | POWIP

Willravel 02-21-2011 02:15 PM
The average teacher salary in Wisconsin is actually $46,390, not $78k. Starting salary is $25,222.

Cimarron29414 02-21-2011 02:44 PM
will,

I think the operative words are "with benefits" which can't be discounted.

dc_dux 02-21-2011 03:18 PM
The issue is not just about the cost of benefits that WI public employees receive...and which they have agreed to concessions.

The governor wants an end to collective bargaining. This is political, not economic.

Baraka_Guru 02-21-2011 03:20 PM
Does the average household income figure also factor in benefits?

flstf 02-21-2011 03:29 PM
I'm having a problem finding out the exact number for teacher compensation for the whole state but below is apparently the numbers for Milwaukee.
Quote:
Milwaukee, Wisconsin] MacIver News Service – For the first time in history, the average annual compensation for a teacher in the Milwaukee Public School system will exceed $100,000.

That staggering figure was revealed last night at a meeting of the MPS School Board.

The average salary for an MPS teacher is $56,500. When fringe benefits are factored in, the annual compensation will be $100,005 in 2011.

MacIver’s Bill Osmulski has more in this video report.

dc_dux 02-21-2011 03:50 PM
The Milwaukee teachers union agreed to health benefit concessions in their contract last year that will save taxpayers up to $50 million.

Teachers' union ratifies new contract - JSOnline

This is not about benefits, it is about ending collective bargaining and breaking the public sector unions.

ASU2003 02-21-2011 03:56 PM
$100k is like $50k in the 90's, $30k in the 80s, $15k in the 70s, $7k in the 60s,... It's just like home prices have gone up along with other prices because the value of the dollar has sunk.

Blame inflation, greed, gov. debt, and the fed....

Quote:
Wisconsin Teacher Salaries in Context
By Dan Collins on February 19th, 2011

On average, including benefits, Wisconsin teachers earn about $78k per year. I’m going to leave aside the “for nine months work” part of this, because I think it’s been hammered enough. The average household income in Wisconsin is about $52k per year. So, teachers earn about 1.5 times the average household income in Wisconsin when you factor in the benefits, and many of those households are two-income households.
That's not very fair if you include benefits in one group and not in the other...

I wish I was in an union to collectively bargain to get the summers off at my job, not to force teachers to work year round (even though they probably do).

dippin 02-21-2011 04:01 PM
I don't see what the average compensation for the most expensive city in Wisconsin is supposed to indicate, by itself. Without comparing to what similar qualified people make in that area, that number is meaningless and yet another red herring that might incite but is irrelevant.

Median income in Milwaukee is over 60k (trying to use the 2000 census data without adjusting for inflation is nothing short of dishonest). This in a city where only about 30% have college degrees. And if the average salary there is 56k for teachers, the median salary is likely much less. So the teacher in Milwaukee is still making less than the average college graduate there in terms of salary. In terms of compensation I don't know.

In any case, this is a digression. As already stated the teachers have already accepted the cuts. The whole thing is about a lot more than that. This whole attempt to paint the teachers as some sort of maharajahs living at the expense of the poor working class folk is an attempt to incite the base, without much substance behind it.

flstf 02-21-2011 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2875161)
This is not about benefits, it is about ending collective bargaining and breaking the public sector unions.
I think many would argue that breaking the public sector union in Wisconsin is mostly about benefits since I believe the bill in question now allows for collective bargaining for wages.

dc_dux 02-21-2011 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf (Post 2875167)
I think many would argue that breaking the public sector union in Wisconsin is mostly about benefits since I believe the bill in question now allows for collective bargaining for wages.
Not quite.

It impacts areas of collective bargaining other than wages, including eliminating dues check offs, requiring annual union certification, repealing bargaining rights for certain employees completely...

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says his budget-repair bill would leave collective bargaining “fully intact”

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...antsonfire.gif

This is worth noting again:
Quote:
Many state, local government and public school employees -- including those represented by the largest state workers union -- have said they would be willing to pay more for pensions and health insurance, as called for in a budget-repair bill introduced by Walker.
Governor calls the above a "red herring" and refuses to even consider any negotiation.

IMO, this is an attempt by Republicans to lessen the political influence of unions and it is not limited to WI. Its ok for those elected officials to be beholding to the Koch brothers, just not unions.

flstf 02-21-2011 05:16 PM
From your link above:
Quote:
Let’s return to Walker’s statement that under his changes collective bargaining remains intact.

To be sure, those rights would remain intact for the State Patrol and local police and fire department employees. They are exempt from any of the changes.
What the Governor has done here is obvious political posturing. If they really believe that breaking the public unions is necessary to control the budget then they should include all of them.

Derwood 02-21-2011 06:19 PM
Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey are expected to push their own anti-union bills soon

Willravel 02-21-2011 06:27 PM
I dare them to try this in California.

dippin 02-24-2011 08:37 AM
So someone prank called Walker posing as Koch himself.

Baraka_Guru 02-26-2011 07:27 AM
Apparently, the Wisconsin GOP grew too weary of all that democraticky debatey thing and decided to spring a vote, much to the ire of Democrats.

Quote:
Wisconsin GOP wins Round 1 over unions, but final victory still eludes

The Wisconsin GOP-led Assembly approved a bill Friday to sharply curtail the power of public employee unions. But the battle for public opinion, in Wisconsin and the nation, goes on, with the state Senate yet to vote.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / February 25, 2011

Wisconsin Republicans pushing a plan to end collective bargaining rights for most public workers took a big step forward early Friday. The state Assembly – the lower house of Wisconsin's bicameral legislature – finally passed the measure in a sudden vote after almost 60 hours of debate.

Assembly GOP leaders had warned they were tired of talking about the issue, but Democrats were startled by the abrupt move to a vote and reacted with fury.

“I am incensed. I am shocked,” said Rep. Jon Richards (D) of Milwaukee.

It’s not clear, however, whether this short-term victory for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans will translate into longer-term success, either in Wisconsin or in the larger national debate.

IN PICTURES: Wisconsin protest signs
In Wisconsin

Democrats from the state Senate – Wisconsin's upper house – remain on the lam, frustrating efforts to pass the union bargaining rights bill in that chamber.

Right now, both sides of the debate have pushed the volume on their rhetoric all the way up to “stun.” Governor Walker has dispatched state troopers to try to snag fugitive Democratic Senators from their homes, while thousands of drum-pounding protesters opposed to Walker’s efforts continue to jam the state Capitol complex.

Walker remains unapologetic about his role in the controversy, saying that if the budget bill – including the union-limiting measure – does not pass on Friday, he will be forced to begin laying off state workers.

“The 14 Senate Democrats need to come home and do their jobs, just like the Assembly Democrats did,” said Walker in a statement following the vote.
On the national scene

Republicans on Friday said Walker’s confrontational tactics would play well with national voters aware that government needs to cut everywhere in today’s era of fiscal austerity.

They point to a new Rasmussen Reports nationwide survey which finds that only 25 percent of likely US voters approve of Wisconsin Democrats dashing for the Illinois border to deprive their state Senate of a quorum, and 67 percent disapprove.

Even self-described Democrats are divided on this tactic, with 48 percent approving of the move, and 44 percent disapproving.

However, a new Gallup survey finds that while voters have ambivalent feelings towards public sector unions, they oppose depriving those unions of collective bargaining rights by a 2-to-1 margin, 66 percent to 33 percent.

When it comes to balancing state budgets, “The new poll broadly suggests that Americans are not anxious to see state workers take the brunt of the pain – either in terms of reducing their pay or eliminating their collective bargaining rights,” concludes Gallup analyst Lydia Saad.

Thus the Wisconsin battle's long-term effects on national voter attitudes remain unclear, whatever either side says.
Wisconsin GOP wins Round 1 over unions, but final victory still eludes - CSMonitor.com

Quote:
Wisconsin Dems shout 'shame' after union vote
By Matt DeLong

The Wisconsin Assembly passed a highly contested bill early Friday that would strip most public unions of most of their collective-bargaining rights. The budget plan by Gov. Scott Walker (R) has drawn tens of thousands of union supporters to protest at the State Capitol in Madison for the last two weeks. State Senate Democrats have refused to return to the Capitol to join the Republican Senate majority for a vote on the bill.

Apparently, the Assembly vote happened much too quickly for the Democratic representatives, who in the video below can be heard chanting "Shame, shame, shame" afterward.

TMJ4 explains what happened:
Shortly after 1:00 a.m., after more than 60 hours of debate on this, the Republicans quickly called for the vote, which ended all debate. [...]

The vote happened so fast, within seconds, that the bill pass with Republican voting for it, but while they were voting, Democrats kept yelling, "No! No! You can't do this!"

Republicans kept on voting, and within seconds, the bill had passed 51-17.
44 - Wisconsin Dems shout 'shame' after union vote


Meanwhile....

Factbox: Several U.S. states consider union limits | Reuters

dogzilla 02-26-2011 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2876948)
Apparently, the Wisconsin GOP grew too weary of all that democraticky debatey thing and decided to spring a vote, much to the ire of Democrats.
So how long should they allow debate? 600 hours? At some point it's time to move on and hold the vote.

It's also time for the members of hte party of NO to demand that their Senators return from hiding and vote on this bill.

Either that or the governor should declare their seats vacant and hold new elections since the current Senators are unwilling to do their job.

Baraka_Guru 02-26-2011 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2876977)
So how long should they allow debate? 600 hours? At some point it's time to move on and hold the vote.
Well, I'm not about to pull out some abstract number, but it should be expected to debate for as long as required to ensure all have had a chance to be heard. From what I've read, there were Democrats queued for commenting when the GOP decided to spring the vote on them, and it was over in a flash. Bad timing, and it looks like strong-arming.

I don't expect them to debate ad nausem, but this is clearly a big issue for the state, and if everyone has a say in it, then everyone should have their say, especially for something that includes conditions that have specious support outside of the Assembly GOP. It would seem that they would rather just have it over with and get their way. Better do it soon, or they might lose too much public support. Politics can be messy like that. That meddlesome public.

Quote:
It's also time for the members of hte party of NO to demand that their Senators return from hiding and vote on this bill.

Either that or the governor should declare their seats vacant and hold new elections since the current Senators are unwilling to do their job.
The senate thing is another issue. The whole thing has become messy.

A question (to anyone): There was a fairly recent ruling in a top Canadian court that considered collective bargaining a right protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. Is there a similar defense of it under any American document, including, but not limited to, the Constitution?

*The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to the Canadian Constitution much in the way the Bill of Rights is to the United States Constitution.

dc_dux 02-26-2011 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2876990)
A question (to anyone): There was a fairly recent ruling in a top Canadian court that considered collective bargaining a right protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms*. Is there a similar defense of it under any American document, including, but not limited to, the Constitution?

*The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to the Canadian Constitution much in the way the Bill of Rights is to the United States Constitution.
There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining.

The Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), enacted in the 1930s, guarantees the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively...but does not apply to the public sector or government employees at any level.

Willravel 02-26-2011 10:01 AM
What would a proper Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to collective bargaining for any worker, public or private, look like? Could it be enforced?

Baraka_Guru 02-26-2011 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2876995)
There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining.

The Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), enacted in the 1930s, guarantees the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively...but does not apply to the public sector or government employees at any level.
So there was a condition applied to the definition of "workers," with regard to government employees?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2877000)
What would a proper Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to collective bargaining for any worker, public or private, look like? Could it be enforced?
The Supreme Court of Canada decided that working towards a collective agreement is essentially done so under the freedom of association.

dc_dux 02-26-2011 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2877008)
So there was a condition applied to the definition of "workers," with regard to government employees?
The definition applied to "employers"
The term "employer" includes any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof...
National Labor Relations Act | NLRB

Baraka_Guru 02-26-2011 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2877010)
The definition applied to "employers"
The term "employer" includes any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof...
National Labor Relations Act | NLRB
Interesting. So the Act doesn't regard the government as an employer per se. Or maybe a "special kind of employer." Interesting indeed.

Willravel 02-26-2011 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2877008)
The Supreme Court of Canada decided that working towards a collective agreement is essentially done so under the freedom of association.
That's a fascinating perspective. Our freedom of assembly is generally considered an extension of the freedom of speech, which is about gathering together to express or discuss opposition to public policy without fear of censorship in cases like US v. Cruikshank and Hague v. C.I.O., but iirc, Thornhill v. Alabama held that the right for a union to picket, informing the public of issues protected by the First Amendment could not be prosecuted as it was protected under the right to peaceably assemble. I wonder if there could be some legal wiggle-room on that.

Baraka_Guru 02-26-2011 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2877013)
That's a fascinating perspective. Our freedom of assembly is generally considered an extension of the freedom of speech, which is about gathering together to express or discuss opposition to public policy without fear of censorship in cases like US v. Cruikshank and Hague v. C.I.O., but iirc, Thornhill v. Alabama held that the right for a union to picket, informing the public of issues protected by the First Amendment could not be prosecuted as it was protected under the right to peaceably assemble. I wonder if there could be some legal wiggle-room on that.
Our documents are somewhat related. The freedom of assembly hasn't been a big issue in many Canadian cases. In the past, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Alberta that the clause doesn't mean workers have the right to strike. However, in an earlier case, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court found that it does include the right to meet as part of a committee or as workers.

I'm kind of waiting to hear from the small-government proponents here with regard to this vote and its blatant "nanny statism." This is one thing that would lead me to agree with them. It has kind of thrown me for a loop how the government can essentially deny you the action that is a fundamental component of a labour union. It's mind-boggling.

Rekna 02-26-2011 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2876977)
So how long should they allow debate? 600 hours? At some point it's time to move on and hold the vote.

It's also time for the members of hte party of NO to demand that their Senators return from hiding and vote on this bill.

Either that or the governor should declare their seats vacant and hold new elections since the current Senators are unwilling to do their job.
So do you think all of the judges that are being held up for vote should get their vote? Did you have any problem with the endless filibusters that happened over the last two years?


If this bill does pass there is a good chance it will be overturned by the courts because the bill passed the house by one vote (the voting was cut short as soon as they had enough) and there is apparently video evidence of republicans voting for absent republicans. That sounds like a sham vote to me.

flstf 03-05-2011 04:06 PM
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/image...on_cartoon.gif

Baraka_Guru 03-05-2011 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf (Post 2879296)
[Funny but misleading comic.]
As much as 34% of companies with 100 or more employees have a traditional pension plan.
Jobs That Still Offer Traditional Pensions - US News and World Report

Quote:
[...]

The biggest myth is that our pensions are overly generous. Teachers pay about 90 percent of their own pension costs. Like other public employees, we do not participate in Social Security, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year because the state doesn’t contribute 6.2 percent of our salaries into that system.

On average, we pay 10 percent of our salaries toward our own pensions, the state pays 2 percent, and municipalities pay nothing. That’s a bargain for taxpayers. What’s more, our pensions are not extravagant, averaging $38,637 a year for teachers and school administrators.

[...]
The myths about unions - The Boston Globe

Quote:
[...]

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin's pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The fact is that all of the money going into these plans belongs to the workers because it is part of the compensation of the state workers. The fact is that the state workers negotiate their total compensation, which they then divvy up between cash wages, paid vacations, health insurance and, yes, pensions. Since the Wisconsin government workers collectively bargained for their compensation, all of the compensation they have bargained for is part of their pay and thus only the workers contribute to the pension plan. This is an indisputable fact.

[...]
The Big Myth in Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's Union-Busting Crusade - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Generally speaking, though, the comic does point out that perhaps the problem is that there aren't enough unions.

U.S. Corporate Profits Hit Record in Third Quarter - NYTimes.com
Wealth And Inequality In America

filtherton 03-05-2011 08:35 PM
Thanks, BG.

It is striking to me that the same people who will justify obscene levels of CEO compensation by claiming that high compensation is the only way to ensure top talent is retained can easily make exactly the opposite claim with regards to teachers: teachers suck, so lets cut their pay.

Baraka_Guru 03-05-2011 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2879330)
It is striking to me that the same people who will justify obscene levels of CEO compensation by claiming that high compensation is the only way to ensure top talent is retained can easily make exactly the opposite claim with regards to teachers: teachers suck, so lets cut their pay.
It's funny you should mention that.

Quote:
If the State of Wisconsin increased taxes on resident millionaires to take back just one-twentieth of the extra money they've been keeping in their pockets thanks to the Bush tax cuts, that would totally wipe out the need to slash teacher salaries under Walker's scheme. Totally.
In Wisconsin, it's teachers vs. millionaires - Ron Legro - Open Salon

filtherton 03-05-2011 09:16 PM
How does that old saying go?

Something about a wealthy person being able to hire half of the working class to kill the other half? I think it's probably evolved a bit since then. Now, they don't have to hire members of the working class, they just have to convince them that their interests are the same as the wealthy folks interests, that way, the working class will choose to off themselves (economically speaking, of course). Won't somebody please think of the millionaires!!!


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:43 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360