Governor Walker of Wisconsin survived his recall election.

[Freeky]

I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW.  I was hoping to argue merits.  Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.

Yes.

See, Picklefucker, I learned a while back, when you regularly posted really vile personal insults while drunk, that there is no point in putting the effort into talking to you.  The last couple of times I was poking at you, I wasn't even doing it because of what you said way back when, I was (and am) calling you a dipshit because you are.  You post the most outrageously stupid and flawed logic, side with rich and/or white ppls (even if it's subconscious, you do) every single time something like that crops up, and some other third thing. 

Now before you ask me why I bother putting forth any time, I'll just come out and say it: It's probably got something to do with your opinions that you've made quite clear before, which have already been mentioned.

[Disco Pickle]

I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW.  I was hoping to argue merits.  Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.

Yes.

See, Picklefucker, I learned a while back, when you regularly posted really vile personal insults while drunk, that there is no point in putting the effort into talking to you.  The last couple of times I was poking at you, I wasn't even doing it because of what you said way back when, I was (and am) calling you a dipshit because you are.  You post the most outrageously stupid and flawed logic, side with rich and/or white ppls (even if it's subconscious, you do) every single time something like that crops up, and some other third thing. 

Now before you ask me why I bother putting forth any time, I'll just come out and say it: It's probably got something to do with your opinions that you've made quite clear before, which have already been mentioned.

Ah.  Understood.

Enjoy the circle jerk.

I'll go then.

There are other worlds than these.

[Freeky]

You do what you want, I'm just saying that you want me to starve and my monkey to get thrown into prison, essentially.  So yeah.

[Freeky]

And you aren't even nearly cool enough to be ripping off The Dark Tower, sir. 

[Phox]

Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Missed that part.

So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level.   That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive? 

It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.

You'll have to be more specific about this part:

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Missin' the point, Pickles, though, I can't say I'm surprised. But let me spell it out for you. It would be standard human decency for an employer (whether public or private) to pay their employees a fair living wage. This would include accounting for inflation, when it happens, wouldn't it?

The conspiracy theory is that the government accounts for inflation in public sector employees because it is aware of what inflation will occur, and thus compensates, as if to say that the government is deliberately out to cause inflation and elevate public sector employees above private sector employees. The mere notion is laughable, but if you have a less tinfoil hat explanation for your statement, then by all means.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Missed that part.

So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level.   That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive? 

It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.

You'll have to be more specific about this part:

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Missin' the point, Pickles, though, I can't say I'm surprised. But let me spell it out for you. It would be standard human decency for an employer (whether public or private) to pay their employees a fair living wage. This would include accounting for inflation, when it happens, wouldn't it?

The conspiracy theory is that the government accounts for inflation in public sector employees because it is aware of what inflation will occur, and thus compensates, as if to say that the government is deliberately out to cause inflation and elevate public sector employees above private sector employees. The mere notion is laughable, but if you have a less tinfoil hat explanation for your statement, then by all means.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

You do what you want, I'm just saying that you want me to starve and my monkey to get thrown into prison, essentially.  So yeah.

His libertard planet needs him. 

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

One voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".

Jesus fucking Christ.  He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/100108249.html

Not the teachers, their unions.  That very expensive event mentioned in the article was one of the reasons people (teachers included) wanted to limit the unions ability to do things just like that.

That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust.  You might want to google that.

To imply they've never done anything monumentally stupid or self serving that would cause people to turn against them, at the expense of not only their own members, but tax payers as well, is disingenuous.

Unions are, we know, evil and wrong.  For example, they set precedent for lazy, shiftless workers to have two days a week with which to lay about, not in any way assisting the bottom line.

Furthermore, they placed onerous "safety" restrictions on employers, causing them to install needless and pricey things like lights, guard rails, and equipment guards.

Lastly and most importantly, they forced companies to pay a living wage, either by the existence of a union at a workplace, or the terrorist-like threat of unionization.

Unions are COMMUNIST.  Organization is the province of management alone; workers should concern themselves only with the task at hand, not what compensation they may recieve or what risks they may face.  Organization among workers is an abuse of freedom of association, and they should all be beaten to death by Pinkerton agents.

As usual, you're completely missing the point. Sure there was a time when unions were vital to the betterment of the working class, but that time has long since passed. All those concerns you raised have been satisfactorily resolved. All sweatshops and worker abuse has been fairly off-shored. even poor people have iPhones, and the job creators are working hard to restore prosperity and the American way of life. The only thing hindering our progress now is greedy teachers, who think they shouldn't have to work for 1985 wages like the taxpayers footing the bill for their extravagance.

[Phox]

One voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".

Jesus fucking Christ.  He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/100108249.html

Not the teachers, their unions.  That very expensive event mentioned in the article was one of the reasons people (teachers included) wanted to limit the unions ability to do things just like that.

That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust.  You might want to google that.

To imply they've never done anything monumentally stupid or self serving that would cause people to turn against them, at the expense of not only their own members, but tax payers as well, is disingenuous.

Unions are, we know, evil and wrong.  For example, they set precedent for lazy, shiftless workers to have two days a week with which to lay about, not in any way assisting the bottom line.

Furthermore, they placed onerous "safety" restrictions on employers, causing them to install needless and pricey things like lights, guard rails, and equipment guards.

Lastly and most importantly, they forced companies to pay a living wage, either by the existence of a union at a workplace, or the terrorist-like threat of unionization.

Unions are COMMUNIST.  Organization is the province of management alone; workers should concern themselves only with the task at hand, not what compensation they may recieve or what risks they may face.  Organization among workers is an abuse of freedom of association, and they should all be beaten to death by Pinkerton agents.

As usual, you're completely missing the point. Sure there was a time when unions were vital to the betterment of the working class, but that time has long since passed. All those concerns you raised have been satisfactorily resolved. All sweatshops and worker abuse has been fairly off-shored. even poor people have iPhones, and the job creators are working hard to restore prosperity and the American way of life. The only thing hindering our progress now is greedy teachers, who think they shouldn't have to work for 1985 wages like the taxpayers footing the bill for their extravagance.

Damn straight, brotha man! Tell those fascist unionist pigs where to stick it!

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Disco, what the Hell are you talking about?

The Walker-backed bill proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually.[29][30] The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.

"Public sector unions." Not "Just the teachers union". Also, "collective bargaining rights over pension, health care, and raises", not "make sure they can't do something stupid about Viagra."

And incidentally, if union members thought the unions were being stupid, THEY COULD ELECT NEW REPRESENTATIVES.

What do you mean "could"? They still can. The baggers didn't take away the unions' right to come together and elect leaders to represent their interests...why that would be unconstitutional. No all Walker did was make those elections slightly less relevant than that of the PTA.

Why do you hate parent's rights, LMNO?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One voter, Roberta Komor of Wauwatosa, told Reuters that she had voted for Mr Barrett when he ran in 2010, but switched her vote this time, saying unions "need to learn about shared sacrifice".

Jesus fucking Christ.  He really did it, he convinced everyone that fucking teachers are the cause of our woes.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/100108249.html

Not the teachers, their unions.  That very expensive event mentioned in the article was one of the reasons people (teachers included) wanted to limit the unions ability to do things just like that.

That, and the unions very cozy relationship with WEA Trust.  You might want to google that.

To imply they've never done anything monumentally stupid or self serving that would cause people to turn against them, at the expense of not only their own members, but tax payers as well, is disingenuous.

Unions are, we know, evil and wrong.  For example, they set precedent for lazy, shiftless workers to have two days a week with which to lay about, not in any way assisting the bottom line.

Furthermore, they placed onerous "safety" restrictions on employers, causing them to install needless and pricey things like lights, guard rails, and equipment guards.

Lastly and most importantly, they forced companies to pay a living wage, either by the existence of a union at a workplace, or the terrorist-like threat of unionization.

Unions are COMMUNIST.  Organization is the province of management alone; workers should concern themselves only with the task at hand, not what compensation they may recieve or what risks they may face.  Organization among workers is an abuse of freedom of association, and they should all be beaten to death by Pinkerton agents.

As usual, you're completely missing the point. Sure there was a time when unions were vital to the betterment of the working class, but that time has long since passed. All those concerns you raised have been satisfactorily resolved. All sweatshops and worker abuse has been fairly off-shored. even poor people have iPhones, and the job creators are working hard to restore prosperity and the American way of life. The only thing hindering our progress now is greedy teachers, who think they shouldn't have to work for 1985 wages like the taxpayers footing the bill for their extravagance.

[Phox]

Disco, what the Hell are you talking about?

The Walker-backed bill proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually.[29][30] The bargaining changes exempted the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.

"Public sector unions." Not "Just the teachers union". Also, "collective bargaining rights over pension, health care, and raises", not "make sure they can't do something stupid about Viagra."

And incidentally, if union members thought the unions were being stupid, THEY COULD ELECT NEW REPRESENTATIVES.

What do you mean "could"? They still can. The baggers didn't take away the unions' right to come together and elect leaders to represent their interests...why that would be unconstitutional. No all Walker did was make those elections slightly less relevant than that of the PTA.

Why do you hate parent's rights, LMNO?

I like this fucker, here. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Missed that part.

So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level.   That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive? 

It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.

You'll have to be more specific about this part:

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Missin' the point, Pickles, though, I can't say I'm surprised. But let me spell it out for you. It would be standard human decency for an employer (whether public or private) to pay their employees a fair living wage. This would include accounting for inflation, when it happens, wouldn't it?

The conspiracy theory is that the government accounts for inflation in public sector employees because it is aware of what inflation will occur, and thus compensates, as if to say that the government is deliberately out to cause inflation and elevate public sector employees above private sector employees. The mere notion is laughable, but if you have a less tinfoil hat explanation for your statement, then by all means.

[BabylonHoruv]

Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Missed that part.

So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level.   That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive? 

It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.

You'll have to be more specific about this part:

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Rather than reducing the power and wages of public sector unions, increase the power of private sector unions, then private sector salaries will also keep pace with inflation.

[Cain]

Pickles, until you can link unions to the two macro trends of the last 30 years, increased indebtedness and median wage stagnation, you can whine all you want about how they are too powerful, or have frivolous demands or they place unfair constraints on employers.  But it won't actually matter a damn.

The percentage of government workers among the population at large is shrinking.  Both federally and locally. 

US structural spending has increased mostly due to bailouts (which, let us recall, were in the trillions, and some programs are still ongoing) and the increase in health spending.  A decreasing tax revenue, due to deficit-funded tax cuts, has led to a virtual collapse of tax revenue.

But of course, busting unions of public employees is going to help with that, right? 



This is why I'm not taking you seriously.  You can't even debate the real issues here.  Is the real issue that some union workers are overpaid?  Or is it that the US financial structure is utterly fucked, and going after unionists is nothing more than rank opportunism, and, even more unforgivable, rank opportunism which will have precisely no effect on the above issues?  Why, it does appear to be the latter.

Without fail, you can be depended upon to turn up, debate red herrings, misuse statistics and facts in general and, then, when no-one buys into your act, get drunk and start throwing insults around.

Oh, to be sure, there's a process to it, and in the meantime, you'll debate prettily and pretend to want to talk about the "real issues" and have a "proper argument", while avoiding anything that even remotely resembles those two things.

But, well, we've seen this enough times to know how it goes.  And we've seen it enough times to know what role you'll play in this little scenario.  So let's just skip to the good stuff, yeah?