User Panel
They TRY to keep big business from getting too far out of line.....too bad they give support to politicians that support the far left. They should get in the middle, and just focus on the working class.
Far left and far right are represented, too bad for the middle majority. |
|
Quoted:
They TRY to keep big business from getting too far out of line.....too bad they give support to politicians that support the far left. They should get in the middle, and just focus on the working class. Far left and far right are represented, too bad for the middle majority. View Quote |
|
Typical stupid response......another one of the 30,000+ useless posts.
|
|
Quoted:
They TRY to keep big business from getting too far out of line.....too bad they give support to politicians that support the far left. They should get in the middle, and just focus on the working class. Far left and far right are represented, too bad for the middle majority. View Quote Without those evil "big businesses" there wouldn't be many jobs, union or non-union. Those damned capitalists. Those "big businesses" began as someone's capitalist idea. Did you ever ask yourself WHY unions support the far left? The far left support socialist ideals, and a union is a socialistic concept... "power to the workers" and all that crap. They're made for each other, that marriage won't change. |
|
|
Quoted:
Of course not. It's a fucked up system stacked on top of many other failurea. I bet if unions ran farms things would be fixed right up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet, you all keep arguing with him...... Haven't really heard any arguing, just a bunch of childish name calling. For instance, do you "jerks"( from above posts) really think that government subsidies for ethanol is good for this country? I'll be waiting for a answer to this question. Of course not. It's a fucked up system stacked on top of many other failurea. I bet if unions ran farms things would be fixed right up. Hmm... if we could figure out a way to unionize every last illegal in the country... I might be all for that. |
|
Quoted:
Haven't really heard any arguing, just a bunch of childish name calling. For instance, do you "jerks"( from above posts) really think that government subsidies for ethanol is good for this country? I'll be waiting for a answer to this question. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet, you all keep arguing with him...... Haven't really heard any arguing, just a bunch of childish name calling. For instance, do you "jerks"( from above posts) really think that government subsidies for ethanol is good for this country? I'll be waiting for a answer to this question. What about all of the questions you have been asked? You have yet to answer a single one. You have just parroted the same bumper sticker slogans over and over and have yet to provide any substance to your argument. |
|
Quoted:
Hmm... if we could figure out a way to unionize every last illegal in the country... I might be all for that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet, you all keep arguing with him...... Haven't really heard any arguing, just a bunch of childish name calling. For instance, do you "jerks"( from above posts) really think that government subsidies for ethanol is good for this country? I'll be waiting for a answer to this question. Of course not. It's a fucked up system stacked on top of many other failurea. I bet if unions ran farms things would be fixed right up. Hmm... if we could figure out a way to unionize every last illegal in the country... I might be all for that. Fixing illegal immigration wouldnt be too bad, and would actually lead (over ten to twenty years) to a much higher wage standard for everyone. You would think unions would support that instead of the "come one come all" party. Mandatory registration deadline with a twenty year citizenship path, any violent/sexual/repeat criminals immediately deported. Countries will accept their citizens back or 100% of the taxpayers costs to deal with them will be subtracted from equipment/training/financial support provided that year. Have the big army secure the southern border instead of going to JRTC/NTC. End refugee visas, business' with H1B employees get four years before they pay significant yearly fines per employee into SSI. Immediate deportation of illegals with no court process needed but a rubber stamp. Streamline and correct immigration and citizenship process so that people of good health and societal value can come here and produce instead of consume. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
And the people who support Obama...including Unions. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cheap labor coming over the border.....who wants that? Apparantly, Obama does. And the people who support Obama...including Unions. For the sake of intellectual honesty, I will freely admit there's a bunch of people on the "other side" pulling for illegals/amnesty too, certain industries, business groups etc. However, there's a few points to consider. - When businesses do this, it's not an example of how "Capitalism sucks", or "See? The Free Market sucks too!" It's not either of those things. It's Corporatism. That is when a business entity tries to exploit the government to get special favor, or carve out a niche for itself. And who made the government so big in the first place for it to become such an attractive host for such parasites? (Hint. Not the Republicans...) - Businesses are desperate for the illegals to fill low level agricultural, service-sector, and construction/manufacturing jobs, because our own "native" underclasses can't/won't/don't work because of the welfare state. Which is yet ANOTHER largely Democrat-built institution. |
|
Quoted:
Of course not. It's a fucked up system stacked on top of many other failurea. I bet if unions ran farms things would be fixed right up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet, you all keep arguing with him...... Haven't really heard any arguing, just a bunch of childish name calling. For instance, do you "jerks"( from above posts) really think that government subsidies for ethanol is good for this country? I'll be waiting for a answer to this question. Of course not. It's a fucked up system stacked on top of many other failurea. I bet if unions ran farms things would be fixed right up. Small businessmen and business women run farms. Families run farms. Some farm workers have Unions, interestingly, there are about 50,000 mexican farm workers on strike now, millions in produce rotting in the field. For farm operators back in the day there was the Farmer's Union (movement), I guess today's model is the Farmer's Co-op. I got this list of Wiki: Almond Board of California American Egg Board American Lamb Board Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board Cattlemen’s Beef Board Christmas Tree Promotion Board Cotton Board Dairy Management Inc. Mushroom Council National Honey Board National Watermelon Promotion Board National Peanut Board National Pork Board National Processed Raspberry Council Popcorn Board U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council United Soybean Board United States Potato Board some of the checkoff programs in which Producers are required to pay "dues" by law. |
|
Add up all of the information from opposing sides posted above, and the end conclusion is that this country is fucked.
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Why do you refuse to answer questions? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Add up all of the information from opposing sides posted above, and the end conclusion is that this country is fucked. Why do you refuse to answer questions? Because It's Bush's Fault™ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Add up all of the information from opposing sides posted above, and the end conclusion is that this country is fucked. Why do you refuse to answer questions? Because It's Bush's Fault™ I thought it was Walker's fault. I can't keep up. |
|
|
Quoted:
I thought it was Walker's fault. I can't keep up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Add up all of the information from opposing sides posted above, and the end conclusion is that this country is fucked. Why do you refuse to answer questions? Because It's Bush's Fault™ I thought it was Walker's fault. I can't keep up. Herbert Walker Bush? Oh wait...wrong Bush...... Or is it? |
|
|
Can anyone point me in the direction of Koch money? There is apparently millions (pronounced billions on WPR) floating around for evil conservatives.
Since I'm an evil conservative I would like some Koch money. If someone can send me a phone number or email I would appreciate it. |
|
Quoted:
Can anyone point me in the direction of Koch money? There is apparently millions (pronounced billions on WPR) floating around for evil conservatives. Since I'm an evil conservative I would like some Koch money. If someone can send me a phone number or email I would appreciate it. View Quote It's all here in evil Ozaukee County. Since we're an evil conservative strong-hold, the evil Koch Brothers entrust us with it. Walk up to any friendly yet evil citizen in Cedarburg, Mequon, Saukville, Grafton or Port Washington and just ask for a handful. |
|
Quoted:
It's all here in evil Ozaukee County. Since we're an evil conservative strong-hold, the evil Koch Brothers entrust us with it. Walk up to any friendly yet evil citizen in Cedarburg, Mequon, Saukville, Grafton or Port Washington and just ask for a handful. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone point me in the direction of Koch money? There is apparently millions (pronounced billions on WPR) floating around for evil conservatives. Since I'm an evil conservative I would like some Koch money. If someone can send me a phone number or email I would appreciate it. It's all here in evil Ozaukee County. Since we're an evil conservative strong-hold, the evil Koch Brothers entrust us with it. Walk up to any friendly yet evil citizen in Cedarburg, Mequon, Saukville, Grafton or Port Washington and just ask for a handful. Nice. I was looking at land in ozaukee. Sounds like a good place to live. |
|
Quoted:
Nice. I was looking at land in ozaukee. Sounds like a good place to live. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone point me in the direction of Koch money? There is apparently millions (pronounced billions on WPR) floating around for evil conservatives. Since I'm an evil conservative I would like some Koch money. If someone can send me a phone number or email I would appreciate it. It's all here in evil Ozaukee County. Since we're an evil conservative strong-hold, the evil Koch Brothers entrust us with it. Walk up to any friendly yet evil citizen in Cedarburg, Mequon, Saukville, Grafton or Port Washington and just ask for a handful. Nice. I was looking at land in ozaukee. Sounds like a good place to live. As long as you don't belong to a union or vote democrat, you're good to go. Otherwise, you'll be very lonely. |
|
Good and Evil? Really???
It is what it is, MONEY, what "it" represents is power, POLITICAL power. What is good or evil about Koch Money can be said just as emphatically about Union Money and vice versa. The REALITY is our Representatives are supposed representing their constituency, not rich individuals. "You people" are so busy fucking with your fellow working man you don't feel the 1%'s hand up your ass. |
|
Quoted:
Here we go again with this guy. Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. Answer any of these questions. I bet you won't. You never do. View Quote Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? I'll be the huckleberry. ;) It's the law. Union shop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.[1] Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general. United States[edit] The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (also known as the Taft-Hartley Act) made the closed shop illegal in the United States. Subsequently, the Union Shop was also deemed to be illegal.[11][12][13] The Supreme Court in Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), also held that a union member may resign from the union at any time without notice, thereby enabling the worker to work during a strike without being subject to sanctions from the union.[13] Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay an agency fee.[14] The agency fee is only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and in providing services to all represented employees, but not, with certain exceptions, to the union's political activities or organizing employees of other employers. Additional restrictions apply to unions covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and unionized governmental employees. The NLRA requires that employees must be given at least 30 days from the date of hire to join the union before they may be subject to being fired for failure to join the union or pay dues; shorter periods apply in the construction industry. The RLA gives employees 60 days to join the union. The union cannot, however, require that an employee become a member "in good standing" — that is, do more than pay dues or their equivalent. While a union shop agreement that, by its literal terms, requires an employee to become a member in good standing might appear to be unlawful on its face and therefore unenforceable, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts have uniformly interpreted such clauses to require no more than what the law permits (such as payment of dues). Under United States labor law, a private sector union can expel a member from the union for any number of reasons, so long as it provides the member with the minimum due process required by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and does not do so for reasons prohibited by law (such as the member's race or protected political activities within the union). The union cannot, on the other hand, use a union shop agreement to require an employer to discharge a member for failure to maintain membership in good standing unless that member has been expelled from the union for failure to pay uniformly required union dues and fees. If the union expels a member for some reason other than failure to pay dues, it effectively terminates any right it might have had to demand that the employee pay dues thereafter or request that the employee be discharged for failure to do so. The NLRA imposes additional requirements before a union can invoke a union shop agreement clause to require an employer to fire an employee who has failed to pay dues. While the union does not have to give the individual employee the sort of trial-type hearing required by the LMRDA to expel a union member for other reasons, the union must give the employee a detailed written explanation of the amount of delinquent dues that the employee owes and how those dues were calculated, and allow the employee a reasonable opportunity to pay those delinquent dues and fees before it asks that the employee be fired. In addition, the union must give all employees roughly the same opportunity to cure any delinquencies before requesting discharge; if the union gives one employee two weeks to pay delinquent dues, it must do the same for all others. The union is not, on the other hand, required to withdraw a request that an employee be fired for failure to pay delinquent dues if the employee makes the payment after the deadline but before the employer has effected the discharge. A union may owe back pay to employees who have been fired without these procedural protections; the employer may be liable if it effects the discharge when it knew or should have known that the union had not complied with the minimum requirements of the NLRA. Under the NLRA, the union may demand payment only of those dues for periods when an employee was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that contained a valid union shop agreement. A union shop agreement may not be made retroactive to a period prior to the execution of the agreement. The union may not demand that an employee be fired for failure to pay extraordinary assessments that are not part of regularly, uniformly imposed dues. The LMRDA sets standards for the procedures that the union must follow when asking members to approve an increase in dues. Union-represented employees covered by a union shop agreement may ask the NLRB to hold a "deauthorization election" to allow all bargaining unit employees to vote to determine whether the clause will continue to remain in effect. No such procedure exists under the RLA. Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? It seems like all I've heard my whole adult life (45 years) is anti Union myth and rhetoric, and Union busting politics. In my opinion, the (Unions) are still here despite that. Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. I was unable to find any numbers or 'census' in past RTW States that support that statement. |
|
Here's the rub .
A million bucks in the pocket of a politician is a million bucks. ONE million from one person. or One dollar from million people. All the laws passed over the years SHOW that the millions are losing the political battle. The "million" people will soon figure out that money isn't enough. When the millions figure out that their VOTE trumps their MONEY, we are truly fucked. |
|
Quoted:
Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? I'll be the huckleberry. ;) It's the law. Union shop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.[1] Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general. United States[edit] The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (also known as the Taft-Hartley Act) made the closed shop illegal in the United States. Subsequently, the Union Shop was also deemed to be illegal.[11][12][13] The Supreme Court in Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), also held that a union member may resign from the union at any time without notice, thereby enabling the worker to work during a strike without being subject to sanctions from the union.[13] Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay an agency fee.[14] The agency fee is only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and in providing services to all represented employees, but not, with certain exceptions, to the union's political activities or organizing employees of other employers. Additional restrictions apply to unions covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and unionized governmental employees. The NLRA requires that employees must be given at least 30 days from the date of hire to join the union before they may be subject to being fired for failure to join the union or pay dues; shorter periods apply in the construction industry. The RLA gives employees 60 days to join the union. The union cannot, however, require that an employee become a member "in good standing" — that is, do more than pay dues or their equivalent. While a union shop agreement that, by its literal terms, requires an employee to become a member in good standing might appear to be unlawful on its face and therefore unenforceable, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts have uniformly interpreted such clauses to require no more than what the law permits (such as payment of dues). Under United States labor law, a private sector union can expel a member from the union for any number of reasons, so long as it provides the member with the minimum due process required by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and does not do so for reasons prohibited by law (such as the member's race or protected political activities within the union). The union cannot, on the other hand, use a union shop agreement to require an employer to discharge a member for failure to maintain membership in good standing unless that member has been expelled from the union for failure to pay uniformly required union dues and fees. If the union expels a member for some reason other than failure to pay dues, it effectively terminates any right it might have had to demand that the employee pay dues thereafter or request that the employee be discharged for failure to do so. The NLRA imposes additional requirements before a union can invoke a union shop agreement clause to require an employer to fire an employee who has failed to pay dues. While the union does not have to give the individual employee the sort of trial-type hearing required by the LMRDA to expel a union member for other reasons, the union must give the employee a detailed written explanation of the amount of delinquent dues that the employee owes and how those dues were calculated, and allow the employee a reasonable opportunity to pay those delinquent dues and fees before it asks that the employee be fired. In addition, the union must give all employees roughly the same opportunity to cure any delinquencies before requesting discharge; if the union gives one employee two weeks to pay delinquent dues, it must do the same for all others. The union is not, on the other hand, required to withdraw a request that an employee be fired for failure to pay delinquent dues if the employee makes the payment after the deadline but before the employer has effected the discharge. A union may owe back pay to employees who have been fired without these procedural protections; the employer may be liable if it effects the discharge when it knew or should have known that the union had not complied with the minimum requirements of the NLRA. Under the NLRA, the union may demand payment only of those dues for periods when an employee was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that contained a valid union shop agreement. A union shop agreement may not be made retroactive to a period prior to the execution of the agreement. The union may not demand that an employee be fired for failure to pay extraordinary assessments that are not part of regularly, uniformly imposed dues. The LMRDA sets standards for the procedures that the union must follow when asking members to approve an increase in dues. Union-represented employees covered by a union shop agreement may ask the NLRB to hold a "deauthorization election" to allow all bargaining unit employees to vote to determine whether the clause will continue to remain in effect. No such procedure exists under the RLA. Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? It seems like all I've heard my whole adult life (45 years) is anti Union myth and rhetoric, and Union busting politics. In my opinion, the (Unions) are still here despite that. Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. I was unable to find any numbers or 'census' in past RTW States that support that statement. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Here we go again with this guy. Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. Answer any of these questions. I bet you won't. You never do. Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? I'll be the huckleberry. ;) It's the law. Union shop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.[1] Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general. United States[edit] The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (also known as the Taft-Hartley Act) made the closed shop illegal in the United States. Subsequently, the Union Shop was also deemed to be illegal.[11][12][13] The Supreme Court in Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), also held that a union member may resign from the union at any time without notice, thereby enabling the worker to work during a strike without being subject to sanctions from the union.[13] Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay an agency fee.[14] The agency fee is only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and in providing services to all represented employees, but not, with certain exceptions, to the union's political activities or organizing employees of other employers. Additional restrictions apply to unions covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and unionized governmental employees. The NLRA requires that employees must be given at least 30 days from the date of hire to join the union before they may be subject to being fired for failure to join the union or pay dues; shorter periods apply in the construction industry. The RLA gives employees 60 days to join the union. The union cannot, however, require that an employee become a member "in good standing" — that is, do more than pay dues or their equivalent. While a union shop agreement that, by its literal terms, requires an employee to become a member in good standing might appear to be unlawful on its face and therefore unenforceable, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts have uniformly interpreted such clauses to require no more than what the law permits (such as payment of dues). Under United States labor law, a private sector union can expel a member from the union for any number of reasons, so long as it provides the member with the minimum due process required by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and does not do so for reasons prohibited by law (such as the member's race or protected political activities within the union). The union cannot, on the other hand, use a union shop agreement to require an employer to discharge a member for failure to maintain membership in good standing unless that member has been expelled from the union for failure to pay uniformly required union dues and fees. If the union expels a member for some reason other than failure to pay dues, it effectively terminates any right it might have had to demand that the employee pay dues thereafter or request that the employee be discharged for failure to do so. The NLRA imposes additional requirements before a union can invoke a union shop agreement clause to require an employer to fire an employee who has failed to pay dues. While the union does not have to give the individual employee the sort of trial-type hearing required by the LMRDA to expel a union member for other reasons, the union must give the employee a detailed written explanation of the amount of delinquent dues that the employee owes and how those dues were calculated, and allow the employee a reasonable opportunity to pay those delinquent dues and fees before it asks that the employee be fired. In addition, the union must give all employees roughly the same opportunity to cure any delinquencies before requesting discharge; if the union gives one employee two weeks to pay delinquent dues, it must do the same for all others. The union is not, on the other hand, required to withdraw a request that an employee be fired for failure to pay delinquent dues if the employee makes the payment after the deadline but before the employer has effected the discharge. A union may owe back pay to employees who have been fired without these procedural protections; the employer may be liable if it effects the discharge when it knew or should have known that the union had not complied with the minimum requirements of the NLRA. Under the NLRA, the union may demand payment only of those dues for periods when an employee was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that contained a valid union shop agreement. A union shop agreement may not be made retroactive to a period prior to the execution of the agreement. The union may not demand that an employee be fired for failure to pay extraordinary assessments that are not part of regularly, uniformly imposed dues. The LMRDA sets standards for the procedures that the union must follow when asking members to approve an increase in dues. Union-represented employees covered by a union shop agreement may ask the NLRB to hold a "deauthorization election" to allow all bargaining unit employees to vote to determine whether the clause will continue to remain in effect. No such procedure exists under the RLA. Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? It seems like all I've heard my whole adult life (45 years) is anti Union myth and rhetoric, and Union busting politics. In my opinion, the (Unions) are still here despite that. Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. I was unable to find any numbers or 'census' in past RTW States that support that statement. Perhaps it's time for a change. Furthermore, to address your last line.....This is just an example. http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2014/12/100-fewer-wisconsin-school-district-unions-seek-recertification-under-act-10/ December 1, 2014 [Madison, Wisc...] In elections that ended last Tuesday, government workers voted to decertify 25 school district unions that sought recertification. Plus, 100 fewer unions than last year chose to seek recertification. Last year, 408 units sought recertification. This year, the number was down to 305. Under the 2011 Act 10 reforms, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) is required to hold annual recertification elections for unions associated with school districts. Unions must attain "yes" votes from 51 percent of eligible union members to continue serving as an authorized collective bargaining unit - making a non-vote essentially a vote against union recertification. This year's elections occurred from November 5th to 25th and 305 unions filed for recertification. Of the 305, 25 unions lost their recertification votes. Workers cast their votes using a telephone voting system managed by WERC. The Appleton Area Substitute Teachers Association was the largest union to lose its recertification vote. Only 122 of the 270 members (45 percent) voted in favor of the union. Members of the Elkhorn Education Association - the district's main teachers' union - also voted to decertify in this year's election. This was the second largest union to lose a vote, only gaining support from 43 percent of members. A union representing engineers at Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) also lost its vote. IUOE Local 420 received 45 percent of the vote from eligible members, resulting in decertification. If a union chooses not to seek recertification or loses it recertification vote, it can no longer represent employees at the bargaining table. Since Act 10 went into effect, public sector unions are only allowed to negotiate base-level pay, which cannot exceed inflation. More than 80 unions lost recertification votes during last year's elections, which may have led to fewer unions seeking recertification this year. In 2013, 408 unions filed for recertification. That number dropped by more than 100 this year to 305. Most major Wisconsin school district unions that filed for a recertification vote garnered more than 51 percent of their members' support. Members of unions representing teachers at MPS and Madison's schools both voted to approve their collective bargaining units. 14820 union recert text box.pngWhile a majority of unions that sought recertification gained more than 51 percent of support in their elections, a large number of union members chose to vote against or not vote for their collective bargaining unit. In total, 14,820 union members did not vote in favor of recertification. This could spell bad news for unions. The amount of bargaining units even trying to recertify dropped by more than 25 percent since last year and thousands of public union members all across Wisconsin did not vote in support of being represented by their union. Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) - the state's largest teachers' union - President Betsy Kippers claimed, "Wisconsin education unions are alive and well." But, it seems that WEAC may be trying to hide its quickly fading support from members. According to reports, about half of WEAC affiliates did not even try to get recertified this year. Kippers tried to neatly portray this year's elections as a success for unions, but other union bosses have cranked up the rhetoric in the past. Before last year's recertification elections, a local union boss compared them to communist China. "Gov. Walker and his Employment Relations Commission are taking a page right out of the playbook of communist China, making a complete mockery of the idea of fair elections," said Boyd McCamish, Executive Director of AFSCME Council District 48, at the time. McCamish was clearly against the recertification elections and spoke out against the timing, which fell over Thanksgiving break. However, the reason for the timing was because Dane County Judge Juan Colas tried to delay the elections. The Supreme Court overturned his decision last year and the elections took place from November 29th to December 19th. This year's recertification elections saw fewer fireworks as union bosses tried to prolong the status quo. But according to the results, it seems many union members are headed in a different direction. |
|
|
Quoted:
Perhaps it's time for a change. Furthermore, to address your last line.....This is just an example. http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2014/12/100-fewer-wisconsin-school-district-unions-seek-recertification-under-act-10/ December 1, 2014 [Madison, Wisc...] In elections that ended last Tuesday, government workers voted to decertify 25 school district unions that sought recertification. Plus, 100 fewer unions than last year chose to seek recertification. Last year, 408 units sought recertification. This year, the number was down to 305. Under the 2011 Act 10 reforms, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) is required to hold annual recertification elections for unions associated with school districts. Unions must attain "yes" votes from 51 percent of eligible union members to continue serving as an authorized collective bargaining unit - making a non-vote essentially a vote against union recertification. This year's elections occurred from November 5th to 25th and 305 unions filed for recertification. Of the 305, 25 unions lost their recertification votes. Workers cast their votes using a telephone voting system managed by WERC. The Appleton Area Substitute Teachers Association was the largest union to lose its recertification vote. Only 122 of the 270 members (45 percent) voted in favor of the union. Members of the Elkhorn Education Association - the district's main teachers' union - also voted to decertify in this year's election. This was the second largest union to lose a vote, only gaining support from 43 percent of members. A union representing engineers at Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) also lost its vote. IUOE Local 420 received 45 percent of the vote from eligible members, resulting in decertification. If a union chooses not to seek recertification or loses it recertification vote, it can no longer represent employees at the bargaining table. Since Act 10 went into effect, public sector unions are only allowed to negotiate base-level pay, which cannot exceed inflation. More than 80 unions lost recertification votes during last year's elections, which may have led to fewer unions seeking recertification this year. In 2013, 408 unions filed for recertification. That number dropped by more than 100 this year to 305. Most major Wisconsin school district unions that filed for a recertification vote garnered more than 51 percent of their members' support. Members of unions representing teachers at MPS and Madison's schools both voted to approve their collective bargaining units. 14820 union recert text box.pngWhile a majority of unions that sought recertification gained more than 51 percent of support in their elections, a large number of union members chose to vote against or not vote for their collective bargaining unit. In total, 14,820 union members did not vote in favor of recertification. This could spell bad news for unions. The amount of bargaining units even trying to recertify dropped by more than 25 percent since last year and thousands of public union members all across Wisconsin did not vote in support of being represented by their union. Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) - the state's largest teachers' union - President Betsy Kippers claimed, "Wisconsin education unions are alive and well." But, it seems that WEAC may be trying to hide its quickly fading support from members. According to reports, about half of WEAC affiliates did not even try to get recertified this year. Kippers tried to neatly portray this year's elections as a success for unions, but other union bosses have cranked up the rhetoric in the past. Before last year's recertification elections, a local union boss compared them to communist China. "Gov. Walker and his Employment Relations Commission are taking a page right out of the playbook of communist China, making a complete mockery of the idea of fair elections," said Boyd McCamish, Executive Director of AFSCME Council District 48, at the time. McCamish was clearly against the recertification elections and spoke out against the timing, which fell over Thanksgiving break. However, the reason for the timing was because Dane County Judge Juan Colas tried to delay the elections. The Supreme Court overturned his decision last year and the elections took place from November 29th to December 19th. This year's recertification elections saw fewer fireworks as union bosses tried to prolong the status quo. But according to the results, it seems many union members are headed in a different direction. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here we go again with this guy. Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. Answer any of these questions. I bet you won't. You never do. Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? I'll be the huckleberry. ;) It's the law. Union shop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.[1] Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general. United States[edit] The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (also known as the Taft-Hartley Act) made the closed shop illegal in the United States. Subsequently, the Union Shop was also deemed to be illegal.[11][12][13] The Supreme Court in Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), also held that a union member may resign from the union at any time without notice, thereby enabling the worker to work during a strike without being subject to sanctions from the union.[13] Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay an agency fee.[14] The agency fee is only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and in providing services to all represented employees, but not, with certain exceptions, to the union's political activities or organizing employees of other employers. Additional restrictions apply to unions covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and unionized governmental employees. The NLRA requires that employees must be given at least 30 days from the date of hire to join the union before they may be subject to being fired for failure to join the union or pay dues; shorter periods apply in the construction industry. The RLA gives employees 60 days to join the union. The union cannot, however, require that an employee become a member "in good standing" — that is, do more than pay dues or their equivalent. While a union shop agreement that, by its literal terms, requires an employee to become a member in good standing might appear to be unlawful on its face and therefore unenforceable, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts have uniformly interpreted such clauses to require no more than what the law permits (such as payment of dues). Under United States labor law, a private sector union can expel a member from the union for any number of reasons, so long as it provides the member with the minimum due process required by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and does not do so for reasons prohibited by law (such as the member's race or protected political activities within the union). The union cannot, on the other hand, use a union shop agreement to require an employer to discharge a member for failure to maintain membership in good standing unless that member has been expelled from the union for failure to pay uniformly required union dues and fees. If the union expels a member for some reason other than failure to pay dues, it effectively terminates any right it might have had to demand that the employee pay dues thereafter or request that the employee be discharged for failure to do so. The NLRA imposes additional requirements before a union can invoke a union shop agreement clause to require an employer to fire an employee who has failed to pay dues. While the union does not have to give the individual employee the sort of trial-type hearing required by the LMRDA to expel a union member for other reasons, the union must give the employee a detailed written explanation of the amount of delinquent dues that the employee owes and how those dues were calculated, and allow the employee a reasonable opportunity to pay those delinquent dues and fees before it asks that the employee be fired. In addition, the union must give all employees roughly the same opportunity to cure any delinquencies before requesting discharge; if the union gives one employee two weeks to pay delinquent dues, it must do the same for all others. The union is not, on the other hand, required to withdraw a request that an employee be fired for failure to pay delinquent dues if the employee makes the payment after the deadline but before the employer has effected the discharge. A union may owe back pay to employees who have been fired without these procedural protections; the employer may be liable if it effects the discharge when it knew or should have known that the union had not complied with the minimum requirements of the NLRA. Under the NLRA, the union may demand payment only of those dues for periods when an employee was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that contained a valid union shop agreement. A union shop agreement may not be made retroactive to a period prior to the execution of the agreement. The union may not demand that an employee be fired for failure to pay extraordinary assessments that are not part of regularly, uniformly imposed dues. The LMRDA sets standards for the procedures that the union must follow when asking members to approve an increase in dues. Union-represented employees covered by a union shop agreement may ask the NLRB to hold a "deauthorization election" to allow all bargaining unit employees to vote to determine whether the clause will continue to remain in effect. No such procedure exists under the RLA. Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? It seems like all I've heard my whole adult life (45 years) is anti Union myth and rhetoric, and Union busting politics. In my opinion, the (Unions) are still here despite that. Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. I was unable to find any numbers or 'census' in past RTW States that support that statement. Perhaps it's time for a change. Furthermore, to address your last line.....This is just an example. http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2014/12/100-fewer-wisconsin-school-district-unions-seek-recertification-under-act-10/ December 1, 2014 [Madison, Wisc...] In elections that ended last Tuesday, government workers voted to decertify 25 school district unions that sought recertification. Plus, 100 fewer unions than last year chose to seek recertification. Last year, 408 units sought recertification. This year, the number was down to 305. Under the 2011 Act 10 reforms, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) is required to hold annual recertification elections for unions associated with school districts. Unions must attain "yes" votes from 51 percent of eligible union members to continue serving as an authorized collective bargaining unit - making a non-vote essentially a vote against union recertification. This year's elections occurred from November 5th to 25th and 305 unions filed for recertification. Of the 305, 25 unions lost their recertification votes. Workers cast their votes using a telephone voting system managed by WERC. The Appleton Area Substitute Teachers Association was the largest union to lose its recertification vote. Only 122 of the 270 members (45 percent) voted in favor of the union. Members of the Elkhorn Education Association - the district's main teachers' union - also voted to decertify in this year's election. This was the second largest union to lose a vote, only gaining support from 43 percent of members. A union representing engineers at Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) also lost its vote. IUOE Local 420 received 45 percent of the vote from eligible members, resulting in decertification. If a union chooses not to seek recertification or loses it recertification vote, it can no longer represent employees at the bargaining table. Since Act 10 went into effect, public sector unions are only allowed to negotiate base-level pay, which cannot exceed inflation. More than 80 unions lost recertification votes during last year's elections, which may have led to fewer unions seeking recertification this year. In 2013, 408 unions filed for recertification. That number dropped by more than 100 this year to 305. Most major Wisconsin school district unions that filed for a recertification vote garnered more than 51 percent of their members' support. Members of unions representing teachers at MPS and Madison's schools both voted to approve their collective bargaining units. 14820 union recert text box.pngWhile a majority of unions that sought recertification gained more than 51 percent of support in their elections, a large number of union members chose to vote against or not vote for their collective bargaining unit. In total, 14,820 union members did not vote in favor of recertification. This could spell bad news for unions. The amount of bargaining units even trying to recertify dropped by more than 25 percent since last year and thousands of public union members all across Wisconsin did not vote in support of being represented by their union. Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) - the state's largest teachers' union - President Betsy Kippers claimed, "Wisconsin education unions are alive and well." But, it seems that WEAC may be trying to hide its quickly fading support from members. According to reports, about half of WEAC affiliates did not even try to get recertified this year. Kippers tried to neatly portray this year's elections as a success for unions, but other union bosses have cranked up the rhetoric in the past. Before last year's recertification elections, a local union boss compared them to communist China. "Gov. Walker and his Employment Relations Commission are taking a page right out of the playbook of communist China, making a complete mockery of the idea of fair elections," said Boyd McCamish, Executive Director of AFSCME Council District 48, at the time. McCamish was clearly against the recertification elections and spoke out against the timing, which fell over Thanksgiving break. However, the reason for the timing was because Dane County Judge Juan Colas tried to delay the elections. The Supreme Court overturned his decision last year and the elections took place from November 29th to December 19th. This year's recertification elections saw fewer fireworks as union bosses tried to prolong the status quo. But according to the results, it seems many union members are headed in a different direction. Act 10 essentially killed collective bargaining for Teachers outside of basic wage negotiation, has nothing to do with "Private Sector Unions" and the impact of RTW legislation. Maybe something more like this: union membership in right to work states "Republican Party" in power over 4 years, Wisconsin middle class shrinking, job growth dismal, taxes going up, roads and bridges wearing out, etc etc. etc. and it's all the Unions fault. It IS time for a change. |
|
Quoted:
Act 10 essentially killed collective bargaining for Teachers outside of basic wage negotiation, has nothing to do with "Private Sector Unions" and the impact of RTW legislation. Maybe something more like this: union membership in right to work states "Republican Party" in power over 4 years, Wisconsin middle class shrinking, job growth dismal, taxes going up, roads and bridges wearing out, etc etc. etc. and it's all the Unions fault. It IS time for a change. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here we go again with this guy. Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. Answer any of these questions. I bet you won't. You never do. Why should anyone be forced to be in a union? I'll be the huckleberry. ;) It's the law. Union shop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.[1] Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general. United States[edit] The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (also known as the Taft-Hartley Act) made the closed shop illegal in the United States. Subsequently, the Union Shop was also deemed to be illegal.[11][12][13] The Supreme Court in Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), also held that a union member may resign from the union at any time without notice, thereby enabling the worker to work during a strike without being subject to sanctions from the union.[13] Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay an agency fee.[14] The agency fee is only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and in providing services to all represented employees, but not, with certain exceptions, to the union's political activities or organizing employees of other employers. Additional restrictions apply to unions covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and unionized governmental employees. The NLRA requires that employees must be given at least 30 days from the date of hire to join the union before they may be subject to being fired for failure to join the union or pay dues; shorter periods apply in the construction industry. The RLA gives employees 60 days to join the union. The union cannot, however, require that an employee become a member "in good standing" — that is, do more than pay dues or their equivalent. While a union shop agreement that, by its literal terms, requires an employee to become a member in good standing might appear to be unlawful on its face and therefore unenforceable, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the courts have uniformly interpreted such clauses to require no more than what the law permits (such as payment of dues). Under United States labor law, a private sector union can expel a member from the union for any number of reasons, so long as it provides the member with the minimum due process required by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and does not do so for reasons prohibited by law (such as the member's race or protected political activities within the union). The union cannot, on the other hand, use a union shop agreement to require an employer to discharge a member for failure to maintain membership in good standing unless that member has been expelled from the union for failure to pay uniformly required union dues and fees. If the union expels a member for some reason other than failure to pay dues, it effectively terminates any right it might have had to demand that the employee pay dues thereafter or request that the employee be discharged for failure to do so. The NLRA imposes additional requirements before a union can invoke a union shop agreement clause to require an employer to fire an employee who has failed to pay dues. While the union does not have to give the individual employee the sort of trial-type hearing required by the LMRDA to expel a union member for other reasons, the union must give the employee a detailed written explanation of the amount of delinquent dues that the employee owes and how those dues were calculated, and allow the employee a reasonable opportunity to pay those delinquent dues and fees before it asks that the employee be fired. In addition, the union must give all employees roughly the same opportunity to cure any delinquencies before requesting discharge; if the union gives one employee two weeks to pay delinquent dues, it must do the same for all others. The union is not, on the other hand, required to withdraw a request that an employee be fired for failure to pay delinquent dues if the employee makes the payment after the deadline but before the employer has effected the discharge. A union may owe back pay to employees who have been fired without these procedural protections; the employer may be liable if it effects the discharge when it knew or should have known that the union had not complied with the minimum requirements of the NLRA. Under the NLRA, the union may demand payment only of those dues for periods when an employee was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that contained a valid union shop agreement. A union shop agreement may not be made retroactive to a period prior to the execution of the agreement. The union may not demand that an employee be fired for failure to pay extraordinary assessments that are not part of regularly, uniformly imposed dues. The LMRDA sets standards for the procedures that the union must follow when asking members to approve an increase in dues. Union-represented employees covered by a union shop agreement may ask the NLRB to hold a "deauthorization election" to allow all bargaining unit employees to vote to determine whether the clause will continue to remain in effect. No such procedure exists under the RLA. Don't you think that if unions are so great, then people will just stay in them? It seems like all I've heard my whole adult life (45 years) is anti Union myth and rhetoric, and Union busting politics. In my opinion, the (Unions) are still here despite that. Why are unions putting up such a fuss? Probably because they know they will lose their members in droves. I was unable to find any numbers or 'census' in past RTW States that support that statement. Perhaps it's time for a change. Furthermore, to address your last line.....This is just an example. http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2014/12/100-fewer-wisconsin-school-district-unions-seek-recertification-under-act-10/ December 1, 2014 [Madison, Wisc...] In elections that ended last Tuesday, government workers voted to decertify 25 school district unions that sought recertification. Plus, 100 fewer unions than last year chose to seek recertification. Last year, 408 units sought recertification. This year, the number was down to 305. Under the 2011 Act 10 reforms, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) is required to hold annual recertification elections for unions associated with school districts. Unions must attain "yes" votes from 51 percent of eligible union members to continue serving as an authorized collective bargaining unit - making a non-vote essentially a vote against union recertification. This year's elections occurred from November 5th to 25th and 305 unions filed for recertification. Of the 305, 25 unions lost their recertification votes. Workers cast their votes using a telephone voting system managed by WERC. The Appleton Area Substitute Teachers Association was the largest union to lose its recertification vote. Only 122 of the 270 members (45 percent) voted in favor of the union. Members of the Elkhorn Education Association - the district's main teachers' union - also voted to decertify in this year's election. This was the second largest union to lose a vote, only gaining support from 43 percent of members. A union representing engineers at Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) also lost its vote. IUOE Local 420 received 45 percent of the vote from eligible members, resulting in decertification. If a union chooses not to seek recertification or loses it recertification vote, it can no longer represent employees at the bargaining table. Since Act 10 went into effect, public sector unions are only allowed to negotiate base-level pay, which cannot exceed inflation. More than 80 unions lost recertification votes during last year's elections, which may have led to fewer unions seeking recertification this year. In 2013, 408 unions filed for recertification. That number dropped by more than 100 this year to 305. Most major Wisconsin school district unions that filed for a recertification vote garnered more than 51 percent of their members' support. Members of unions representing teachers at MPS and Madison's schools both voted to approve their collective bargaining units. 14820 union recert text box.pngWhile a majority of unions that sought recertification gained more than 51 percent of support in their elections, a large number of union members chose to vote against or not vote for their collective bargaining unit. In total, 14,820 union members did not vote in favor of recertification. This could spell bad news for unions. The amount of bargaining units even trying to recertify dropped by more than 25 percent since last year and thousands of public union members all across Wisconsin did not vote in support of being represented by their union. Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) - the state's largest teachers' union - President Betsy Kippers claimed, "Wisconsin education unions are alive and well." But, it seems that WEAC may be trying to hide its quickly fading support from members. According to reports, about half of WEAC affiliates did not even try to get recertified this year. Kippers tried to neatly portray this year's elections as a success for unions, but other union bosses have cranked up the rhetoric in the past. Before last year's recertification elections, a local union boss compared them to communist China. "Gov. Walker and his Employment Relations Commission are taking a page right out of the playbook of communist China, making a complete mockery of the idea of fair elections," said Boyd McCamish, Executive Director of AFSCME Council District 48, at the time. McCamish was clearly against the recertification elections and spoke out against the timing, which fell over Thanksgiving break. However, the reason for the timing was because Dane County Judge Juan Colas tried to delay the elections. The Supreme Court overturned his decision last year and the elections took place from November 29th to December 19th. This year's recertification elections saw fewer fireworks as union bosses tried to prolong the status quo. But according to the results, it seems many union members are headed in a different direction. Act 10 essentially killed collective bargaining for Teachers outside of basic wage negotiation, has nothing to do with "Private Sector Unions" and the impact of RTW legislation. Maybe something more like this: union membership in right to work states "Republican Party" in power over 4 years, Wisconsin middle class shrinking, job growth dismal, taxes going up, roads and bridges wearing out, etc etc. etc. and it's all the Unions fault. It IS time for a change. We will have to disagree as to what the problem is. |
|
I wouldn't assume that I could change anyones mind on this board, or even think that I have one iota of knowing what that person really thinks that I could change...
Whatever the problem iwith politics, working people should get the respect they deserve no matter what their Union or political affiliations. |
|
I see some BS chain emails going around about about comparisons between Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The truth is, MN has outperformed WI since 1999, a trend that has been growing, stabilized in the recession and began accelerating in '09/10, which is coincidentally before either Act 10 or Governor Walker. One might conclude that there are reasons beyond simple politics that are causing this. |
|
Quoted:
I see some BS chain emails going around about about comparisons between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The truth is, MN has outperformed WI since 1999, a trend that has been growing, stabilized in the recession and began accelerating in '09/10, which is coincidentally before either Act 10 or Governor Walker. One might conclude that there are reasons beyond simple politics that are causing this. View Quote Oil shale from their western neighbor? |
|
Quoted: I see some BS chain emails going around about about comparisons between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The truth is, MN has outperformed WI since 1999, a trend that has been growing, stabilized in the recession and began accelerating in '09/10, which is coincidentally before either Act 10 or Governor Walker. One might conclude that there are reasons beyond simple politics that are causing this. View Quote Has MN outperformed WI in skilled, moderate to high paying jobs? Those "emails" also imply that businesses voluntarily move where labor is more expensive and more problematical. That makes me suspect they are what is known as "lies" here in WI. May be different in MN. |
|
Quoted:
Importing lots of cheap Somalian labor (and gangs, and gang violence that go with them) might have something to do with it. Has MN outperformed WI in skilled, moderate to high paying jobs? Those "emails" also imply that businesses voluntarily move where labor is more expensive and more problematical. That makes me suspect they are what is known as "lies" here in WI. May be different in MN. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I see some BS chain emails going around about about comparisons between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The truth is, MN has outperformed WI since 1999, a trend that has been growing, stabilized in the recession and began accelerating in '09/10, which is coincidentally before either Act 10 or Governor Walker. One might conclude that there are reasons beyond simple politics that are causing this. Has MN outperformed WI in skilled, moderate to high paying jobs? Those "emails" also imply that businesses voluntarily move where labor is more expensive and more problematical. That makes me suspect they are what is known as "lies" here in WI. May be different in MN. MN is just the "1990's economy" in microcosm. Strong in spite of the local mn.gov policies, not because of it. |
|
Who is Dr. Paul Craig Roberts?
Why does he have so many long videos on YouTube? You are an idiot if you watch one of them......Don't say I didn't warn you. "Decline of the U.S. Economy" is a really bad one. |
|
Quoted:
MN is just the "1990's economy" in microcosm. Strong in spite of the local mn.gov policies, not because of it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see some BS chain emails going around about about comparisons between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The truth is, MN has outperformed WI since 1999, a trend that has been growing, stabilized in the recession and began accelerating in '09/10, which is coincidentally before either Act 10 or Governor Walker. One might conclude that there are reasons beyond simple politics that are causing this. Has MN outperformed WI in skilled, moderate to high paying jobs? Those "emails" also imply that businesses voluntarily move where labor is more expensive and more problematical. That makes me suspect they are what is known as "lies" here in WI. May be different in MN. MN is just the "1990's economy" in microcosm. Strong in spite of the local mn.gov policies, not because of it. Maybe Wisconsin will create 250,000 jobs in spite Governer Scott Walker's policies. |
|
Quoted:
MN is just the "1990's economy" in microcosm. Strong in spite of the local mn.gov policies, not because of it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see some BS chain emails going around about about comparisons between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The truth is, MN has outperformed WI since 1999, a trend that has been growing, stabilized in the recession and began accelerating in '09/10, which is coincidentally before either Act 10 or Governor Walker. One might conclude that there are reasons beyond simple politics that are causing this. Has MN outperformed WI in skilled, moderate to high paying jobs? Those "emails" also imply that businesses voluntarily move where labor is more expensive and more problematical. That makes me suspect they are what is known as "lies" here in WI. May be different in MN. MN is just the "1990's economy" in microcosm. Strong in spite of the local mn.gov policies, not because of it. Maybe Wisconsin will create 250,000 jobs in spite of Governer Scott Walker's policies. |
|
Minnesota has more fags than Wisconsin......isn't it the fag Capitol of the Midwest?
|
|
|
Quoted:
Divide and conquer. What part of that do you not understand. This country is a union.....a weak and getting weaker union.....it is almost as divided as in the 1860's. I like it when a group all pulls in the same direction. I went to work at a union shop because of the higher pay, got good training, worked there 35 years. Now I am retired, have a nice pension. Parts of our plant had non- union departments.....and shortly after another company bought the company it was closed. The non- union employees got screwed out of their company pension. My union worked out good for me, for 35 years and counting. View Quote Divide and conquer is EXACITLY what our current liar-in-chief has been doing since he was first elected, or haven't you noticed that? In case you haven't heard...he claims to be a democrat. Of course he claims many things. Most of which can't be verified because his records have been sealed. |
|
|
Quoted:
Divide and conquer is EXACITLY what our current liar-in-chief has been doing since he was first elected, or haven't you noticed that? In case you haven't heard...he claims to be a democrat. Of course he claims many things. Most of which can't be verified because his records have been sealed. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Divide and conquer. What part of that do you not understand. This country is a union.....a weak and getting weaker union.....it is almost as divided as in the 1860's. I like it when a group all pulls in the same direction. I went to work at a union shop because of the higher pay, got good training, worked there 35 years. Now I am retired, have a nice pension. Parts of our plant had non- union departments.....and shortly after another company bought the company it was closed. The non- union employees got screwed out of their company pension. My union worked out good for me, for 35 years and counting. Divide and conquer is EXACITLY what our current liar-in-chief has been doing since he was first elected, or haven't you noticed that? In case you haven't heard...he claims to be a democrat. Of course he claims many things. Most of which can't be verified because his records have been sealed. Not sure if serious. His records have been sealed? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.