Anonymous Uncovers Corruption in Wisconsin Labor Dispute
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
If you put all of your faith in either side, you're a greater fool for it.Aeshi said:
But at least the e-thugs don't pretend that they aren't otherwise. Meanwhile, Corproations'll have you believe that they support the little guy - while forcing him to work harder for less pay, and taking away his ability to take care of himself/his family.
Averant said:
Jepp so you can't just classify anons as having been assholes. Also if you go public about beeing "an anon" your not really anon anymore. : p (with a real name or face)Patton662 said:
most people are just bored, and starting shit with random stuff using the internets is a really good way to pass time. Starting shit with a corporation is always a shurefire way to get some lulz.
Hilarious. Because I oppose a group of Public Sector Union thugs, I am an uneducated loon. Your logic is infallible.ReiverCorrupter said:
Alright, sarcasm aside, I realize that last (infraction-inducing) post was very vitriolic[footnote]Forgive me for complaining here, but I'd wage a tenner that if I was on the opposite side, I wouldn't have got that infraction. Just saying, the Article does seem a tad-bit sided towards the Unions[/footnote]. It's just that the strikes are enraging me to the point that a Cerebral Hemorrhage seems almost inevitable. People get at the Tea Parties for being violent and offensive- but as far as I know, the Tea Party movement don't carry around placards with death threats on them.
I was under the impression we were supposed to hold Public Sector employees to high standards?
The teachers are making students come to the protests, in exchange for extra-credits. They're making Doctors write out false sick notes to ensure they can get out for an essentially illegal strike.
Even FDR opposed Public Sector Unions, and for good reason. They are paid for by the taxpayer, and not even by the taxpayer's consent- they should not strike, because their wages aren?t provided by an entity using them for it?s personal gain, it?s paid for by the people. Public Sector workers are too vital to just go on strike- these regulations that prevent them from bargaining, and striking safeguard and help everyone.
Amen. You beat me to this one, but I couldn't have said it better myself. Nice to see there's at least one other anarchocapitalist here. (Although I kind of hate that term, because I'm an anarchist first and a capitalist second.)agnosticOCD said:
And to everybody else, google Murray Rothbard, he said it better than any of us could.
"The statement claimed that the billionaire brothers Koch are undermining the democracy of our country through funding organizations to protest against the state workers of Wisconsin who are fighting for their right to negotiate their contracts as a group. Anonymous believes Koch Industries is doing this in order to profit and not because of any interest in furthering the political process. As of press time, however, the Americans for Prosperity website is back online."
***First things First, just because the Unions claim they are pro-worker does not mean they are***
Well ok obviously very few people have the slightest clue of whats going on here.
The new budget bill WILL decrease the state workers union share of power as far as collective bargaining over BENEFITS. Not wadges. This applies to everyone except for police and firefighters. Basically state workers in Wisconsin, my home state get 2 weeks paid vacation, 15 paid sick days and other benefits that fit the bill for pregnant women but certainly not everyone in the Wisconsin system, on that note pregnant women also get about a month off with pay. Essentially the issue is that people would take a 2 week vacation, then call in sick 15 days in a row so they would end up getting a month off of work WITH pay. Not to mention the state is so far in debt it can no longer afford to pay for all of those sick days and vacation days where nothing gets done. The state also CANNOT raise taxes because weve been in a recession for 3 goddamn years, raising taxes on a state thats in a country thats been in a recession for that long is suicide. So the bill is so the Unions cannot get anymore benefits beyond what they already get for as long as this budget is implemented.
Now, the unions made that concession. They already agreed that the sick/vacation time needs to be lessened. But there second point is that the bill allows people to work for the state and not be in the union. The union wants to keep people in the union because they take money out of every paycheck in the form of something called union dues. These dues add up to 2,500-5000 dollars a year (in Euros that's 1,805- 3,610). A majority of these dues are given to the national office of these respective unions and THEN handed over to liberal politicians. For example Obamas election was almost entirely funded by these donations. So really the corporate greed in this scenario is in the Union.
As of today, 14 democrats have fled the state to avoid the vote. They don't have the power to stop the vote but if they dot show up and participate the vote simply cannot happen. The Governor, said that he will not make any more deals with the union (if you have seen the records for the last Governor you will understand why). And the 14 democrats whose campaigns were funded by unions will continue to hide over state lines (and have been for 2 weeks, with pay, hiding in Illinois with their hotel rooms being funded by Unions)
Liberals and democrats are funded by Unions (but the candidates chosen to receive funds are only chosen by the top echelon of the Union, the workers cannot control where there dues end up), Conservatives and Republicans are funded by businesses.
If you want to know whats in the bill you can read it online, its 144 pages.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf
***First things First, just because the Unions claim they are pro-worker does not mean they are***
Well ok obviously very few people have the slightest clue of whats going on here.
The new budget bill WILL decrease the state workers union share of power as far as collective bargaining over BENEFITS. Not wadges. This applies to everyone except for police and firefighters. Basically state workers in Wisconsin, my home state get 2 weeks paid vacation, 15 paid sick days and other benefits that fit the bill for pregnant women but certainly not everyone in the Wisconsin system, on that note pregnant women also get about a month off with pay. Essentially the issue is that people would take a 2 week vacation, then call in sick 15 days in a row so they would end up getting a month off of work WITH pay. Not to mention the state is so far in debt it can no longer afford to pay for all of those sick days and vacation days where nothing gets done. The state also CANNOT raise taxes because weve been in a recession for 3 goddamn years, raising taxes on a state thats in a country thats been in a recession for that long is suicide. So the bill is so the Unions cannot get anymore benefits beyond what they already get for as long as this budget is implemented.
Now, the unions made that concession. They already agreed that the sick/vacation time needs to be lessened. But there second point is that the bill allows people to work for the state and not be in the union. The union wants to keep people in the union because they take money out of every paycheck in the form of something called union dues. These dues add up to 2,500-5000 dollars a year (in Euros that's 1,805- 3,610). A majority of these dues are given to the national office of these respective unions and THEN handed over to liberal politicians. For example Obamas election was almost entirely funded by these donations. So really the corporate greed in this scenario is in the Union.
As of today, 14 democrats have fled the state to avoid the vote. They don't have the power to stop the vote but if they dot show up and participate the vote simply cannot happen. The Governor, said that he will not make any more deals with the union (if you have seen the records for the last Governor you will understand why). And the 14 democrats whose campaigns were funded by unions will continue to hide over state lines (and have been for 2 weeks, with pay, hiding in Illinois with their hotel rooms being funded by Unions)
Liberals and democrats are funded by Unions (but the candidates chosen to receive funds are only chosen by the top echelon of the Union, the workers cannot control where there dues end up), Conservatives and Republicans are funded by businesses.
If you want to know whats in the bill you can read it online, its 144 pages.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf
I honestly don't know enough of the details to argue one way or the other but, from what I understand, (although the unions may also be corrupt) the teapartyers are themselves fanatics, who seem to have a lot of corporate backing for a "grassroots" movement.CosmicCommander said:
I also know that the American education system is the laughing stock of the first world, so there might be something to the teacher's complaints. If the teachers don't protest then who will? Most parents have no idea, and do not care what their children are learning. They see report cards, and that's about it. They assume the value of the education is high, but the only ones who can really tell you that are the teachers. Honestly the only thing keeping America going right now is its large industrial-economic system; its people keep getting dumber and dumber. Even if you're not a fan of education for education's sake, it doesn't bode well for our competitiveness. We didn't even build CERN. So much for our leading edge in physics.
Mitch Daniel's ended collective bargaining in Indiana 5 years ago with an executive order. There isn't that much on it because it wasn't a very big deal.realslimshadowen said:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/28/134111630/indiana-gov-mitch-daniels-tough-on-budgets
There is a vast difference between public unions and private unions. When a private union wants more money who pays for it? The company hey work for. If they ask for too much the company goes broke. This is not the case of public unions. If they want more money for their members the taxpayer pays for it because government can't go out of business. There is no balance system in place to keep something like that in check. This is why FDR didn't include this for public unions in the Wagner act which gave the right for private unions to public bargaining. Also I just want to add that there are way more public unions nowadays than private unions.
They really aren't. Look up some Tea Party material, and see their views. And yes, Corporations support them- I don't see how that is bad.ReiverCorrupter said:
Protest =/= Strike
Teachers are too vital to strike, and we need to make sure they can always perform to the highest standards.
I agree, and a shake-up of the education system is needed. But that doesn't sanction strikes.
And now Americans are finally getting that waft of an unpleasant odor called "theocratic fascism". The corporations who own most of everything in America are getting what they want and they kowtow to a very vocal minority of organized religious people.
The greatest lie ever taught to American children, IMO, was that America defeated fascist Nazi Germany. They didn't. It became fascist America and ever since the Kennedy assassinations, the people have long sat docile and apathetic, too divided to forge any kind of movements of the kind that is moving the Middle Eastern areas to help themselves or others. But there is still hope for America, if 9/11 proved anything - it's that when the American people set aside their differences and join together with the courage to go beyond themselves and their own desires and the love to protect what is precious, there is nothing they cannot accomplish.
The greatest lie ever taught to American children, IMO, was that America defeated fascist Nazi Germany. They didn't. It became fascist America and ever since the Kennedy assassinations, the people have long sat docile and apathetic, too divided to forge any kind of movements of the kind that is moving the Middle Eastern areas to help themselves or others. But there is still hope for America, if 9/11 proved anything - it's that when the American people set aside their differences and join together with the courage to go beyond themselves and their own desires and the love to protect what is precious, there is nothing they cannot accomplish.
Well, one of the areas I swing well to the left on is unions and collective bargaining.
The problem here is that Unions are based around the threat of force and violence. People tend to forget about all the huge battles and riots that took place to allow such things to come into being. This entire problem is caused by the simple fact that workers are not currently willing to take the risks nessicary to stand up for themselves. "OMG, I might go to jail", and "Violence is wrong" are the kinds of sentiments that have lead to this kind of problem, as unions are based around the idea that they can't arrest everyone, and even if they did get the people involved/ringleaders it's a bit too late if they burned down the businesses, and/or killed the people in charge. The basic attitude being "this business operates on our terms, or there will be no business".
The governor can outlaw the whole collective barganing thing because he has no fear of any kind of retaliation. The police aren't going to refuse to come to work, the corrections officers aren't going to just open all the doors of the prisons and let everyone go while they head home to drink coffee, and teachers aren't going to firebomb the schools where they work. With unions operating totally within bureaucracy and administration, they have no real power, after all an administration is not going to do something that is against it's own interests without a reason. The whole point of going to a negotiating table is simply put that the costs in terms of lives and damage is highly unpleasant, after all the workers want to work, earn money, and live normally, thus there is room to negotiate between the entire "we work on your terms" and "we kill you and destroy the business" extremes. Strikes for example can be quite nasty and violent, but have their root of power in that the people who are striking and costing the business money by not working could be out there with molotovs, guns, and baseball bats.
It's one of those systems where without the fear at the root of the system, it increasingly falls apart. The thing is with a union that nobody who runs a business or even a goverment benefits from orgaznized labour or bargaining, for it to work they literally have to be terrified of it.
I wish Anonymous luck, but really what they are doing doesn't matter much since if the workers are going to benefit their employers (state or private) have to be scared of them in a very real sense, not afraid of some internet terrorism.
Do some research into the history of unions, and some of the battles fought where businesses brought in mercenaries like what the "Pinkertons" were back then (still around as an investigation/security company) and similar things. Now compare what started the unions to what you see now, and ask yourself why an employer should even bother to listen to them, the potential costs aren't a big deal with all the methods of bringing in replacement workers and so on. Heck, there are programs to bring temp workers in from other countries in shifts, which elimitate the whole intimidation factor on scabs and such, since the guys bucking the unions will just go back to their country of origin when more come in and never have to worry about retaliation.
So basically the people in Wisconsin (on any level) need to either start using force,or get used to the way things are now.
You're right to call me out on my choice of words here; what I should have said is that it's wrong to assume that all libertarians are apologists for corporations and individuals like the Koch brothers. This is simply not the case. I first heard about the Koch brothers' corruption in Wisconsin through a libertarian website, lewrockwell.comdmase said:
As for the candidates I vote for, why do you assume that I vote for any of them? In fact, I do vote, when there is a candidate I feel should get my vote, when there is not such a candidate I do not vote. Furthermore, the candidates I do vote for are ones that have little to no chance of winning. For myself and many others, voting for these candidates is only one way of getting our ideas heard, and not an attempt to win a hopelessly one sided game.
Also I think it bears mention that although he seems to be better than most of them, Ron Paul is a Republican, not a libertarian. I think you're probably right about most of the Tea Party candidates, though.
Well, that's fine then. But somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that there won't be a shake-up anytime soon, especially when people are in power who seem to want to privatize everything... which I presume would ultimately include roads, utilities and education. Though I'm sure the Koch brothers would make lots of money, so it isn't all bad. Laissez faire education... hmmm... could work I guess.CosmicCommander said:
I mean on new info. Normally ed is simply the place to go, but they don't really update on news like this.qeinar said: