As a poor, government-employed (though non-union) Wisconsin parent, I support Walker. While I do support the ability to form unions, I don't support them in government operations. First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, government operations have a monopoly of near monopoly over many of their aspects (police, fire, education, road work/plowing). A strike, work slowdown, or walkout in one of these fields has a far greater effect than in something like an auto plant or a grocery store. My senior year in high school, the teachers did a work slowdown and refused to give any help to students outside of class like they had in the past. I dread something like that in the future for my son.

/not a troll

it all spends the same

qorkfiend: ArkAngel: First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected.

The exact same reasoning can be applied to government contracting. Costs are borne by the taxpayer, politicians decide the fate of contracts, etc. Are you similarly against privatization of government functions?

Depends on the function, but often yes. The military, for instance, should avoid contractors if at all possible. Though I must admit, I was more referring to the conflict of voting blocks, rather than donations.

A Dark Evil Omen: ArkAngel: I've been a far right shill as long I've been on fark, but take me seriously!

That's some serious concern trolling but the Internet proves how much of a lying fark you are. Besides, even if any of that was honest, the solution is to demand the government negotiate fairly. You do realize that the public employees union agreed to every demand made by the state government, right?

Yes I was trolling for laughs in that instance (notice the shark reference?), but just because I don't like unions doesn't mean I can't support their legality. I'm the same with gay marriage and illegal drugs. I support their legalization but would not take part in them myself.

ArkAngel: As a poor, government-employed (though non-union) Wisconsin parent, I support Walker. While I do support the ability to form unions, I don't support them in government operations. First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, government operations have a monopoly of near monopoly over many of their aspects (police, fire, education, road work/plowing). A strike, work slowdown, or walkout in one of these fields has a far greater effect than in something like an auto plant or a grocery store. My senior year in high school, the teachers did a work slowdown and refused to give any help to students outside of class like they had in the past. I dread something like that in the future for my son.

/not a troll

So those bastard teachers refused to work extra, unpaid, hours because they didn't like their contract, so you support the right of the government to be able to fire them if they ever refuse to work for free ever again?

Walker should ask Russell Pearce how well out of state support worked for him.

DozeNutz: qorkfiend: ArkAngel: First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected.

The exact same reasoning can be applied to government contracting. Costs are borne by the taxpayer, politicians decide the fate of contracts, etc. Are you similarly against privatization of government functions?

Do you know how the bidding process works? I'm not talking Halliburton and shiat like that where they were hand picked, I'm talking Waste Water Treatment plants and Bridges and that sorts. The government comes out with a project, and they put it up for bid to see who can construct the building the cheapest/cost-effective. This is the best choice for both the taxpayer IMHO, instead of having preset wage controls on workers pumping up the projects price.

You know how I can tell you've never been involved in the bidding process, especially at the local level???

CheetahOlivetti: Walker should ask Russell Pearce how well out of state support worked for him.

My thunder. You stole it.

Russell Pearce compiled a lot of money during his recall campaign. Almost all of it was from out of state donors. He lost. This does not bode well for Walker in Wisconsin.

Pearce, the dick bag, is trying to get back into the Republican Party and politics by creating a new post within the party just for him. The dude has never worked in the private sector and I think he can't stand being out of power. The GOP here should kick his ass to the curb and let him rot in the summer sun.

Guidette Frankentits: Scott Walker Slams Out-Of-State Money In Wisconsin Recall While In Washington For Fundraiser (link)

He's also done that in FL, TX, AZ, KS, and others I can't remember at the moment. On the day the petitions were turned in he was out of state at a fundraiser for his campaign. At this fundraiser he derided the recall effort because they received some out of state funding.

/DNRTFA
//Know more than I need about Walker, and my mind's made up

A Dark Evil Omen: Cletus C.: Step aside, Cheeseheads. This is bigger than you.

Yep, we need to sweep aside the last remnants of labor organization so we can really get down to the business of destroying the middle and working classes.

I was reading 'Hard Times' and '1900' recently. I don't know how anyone can dismiss the absolute need for labor representation.

Philip Francis Queeg: ArkAngel: As a poor, government-employed (though non-union) Wisconsin parent, I support Walker. While I do support the ability to form unions, I don't support them in government operations. First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, government operations have a monopoly of near monopoly over many of their aspects (police, fire, education, road work/plowing). A strike, work slowdown, or walkout in one of these fields has a far greater effect than in something like an auto plant or a grocery store. My senior year in high school, the teachers did a work slowdown and refused to give any help to students outside of class like they had in the past. I dread something like that in the future for my son.

/not a troll

So tell, us about the pay cuts and benefit cuts you've demanded for yourself to benefit the taxpayer. Tell us about the longer hours you demanded to work to benefit the taxpayer. Tell us that you've demanded that your raises be subjected to a referendum of the voters.

You're doing all those thing, right?

I'm a crossing guard. My pay was cut 40 cents an hours this year and I work only 10 hours a week. I earn no benefits.

A Dark Evil Omen: gulogulo: ArkAngel: Yes I was trolling for laughs in that instance (notice the shark reference?), but just because I don't like unions doesn't mean I can't support their legality. I'm the same with gay marriage and illegal drugs. I support their legalization but would not take part in them myself.

Don't hurt yourself stretching like that. You tried to come off moderate and reasonable, but your back pedaling now is patently transparent.

Google for "site:fark.com ArkAngel unions". Most of it isn't relevant but there's some nice anti-labor invective to be found.

As I already said, I don't like unions. I don't think government employees should be unionized. But private sectors unions should be legal, though I would do my best to avoid being in one.

gulogulo: ArkAngel: Yes I was trolling for laughs in that instance (notice the shark reference?), but just because I don't like unions doesn't mean I can't support their legality. I'm the same with gay marriage and illegal drugs. I support their legalization but would not take part in them myself.

Don't hurt yourself stretching like that. You tried to come off moderate and reasonable, but your back pedaling now is patently transparent.

I always consider myself a reasonable person. While I am firm in my beliefs, I always try to see where the other side is coming from (t makes arguing against it easier). I can see why the unions and many people oppose Walker. Were I in one (which I probably will be later in life), there's a good chance I would see it differently. And while I do troll on occasion, I don't troll to anger. I troll to make people laugh. None of my trolls would invoke the political equivalent of Poe's Law. My trolls are obvious and blatant.

KarmicDisaster: ArkAngel: As a poor, government-employed (though non-union) Wisconsin parent, I support Walker. While I do support the ability to form unions, I don't support them in government operations. First, since the costs are borne by taxpayers instead of a private business, there is far less incentive to cut costs, ensure success, or be eliminated if no longer useful. Second, since politicians often decide the fates of the union contracts, it creates a conflict on interest for those who are trying to get elected or re-elected. Finally, government operations have a monopoly of near monopoly over many of their aspects (police, fire, education, road work/plowing). A strike, work slowdown, or walkout in one of these fields has a far greater effect than in something like an auto plant or a grocery store. My senior year in high school, the teachers did a work slowdown and refused to give any help to students outside of class like they had in the past. I dread something like that in the future for my son.

/not a troll

a) Only about 25% of public workers were in a union before this even started, you are demonizing and punishing the 75% that were not union members. Almost like you want to encourage them to join a union or something.

b) Teacher strikes were frequent and horrible back in the 1970's before teachers unions. See Cuba city. After the unions strikes have been almost non existent and certainly far far less frequent. Not sure when your experience was or why you think going back to the good old days would be better.

One reason teacher strikes are less common now is that 37 states don't allow them to strike.

Then there was this gem last week where Walker turned down $11 million from the Federal government to fund healthcare initiatives for the poor and elderly. You can't make this up. He cut funding for healthcare for the poor because he claimed we could not afford it. Then the federal government tries to help us and he turns it down and cuts healthcare programs anyway, while still claiming we can't afford it. He stated that he did this because it will make his case stronger when he refuses to implement "Obamacare." (new window)

Don't Troll Me Bro!: You can't make this up. He cut funding for healthcare for the poor because he claimed we could not afford it. Then the federal government tries to help us and he turns it down and cuts healthcare programs anyway, while still claiming we can't afford it. He stated that he did this because it will make his case stronger when he refuses to implement "Obamacare." (new window)

What is this I don't even.

/facepalm

KarmicDisaster: ArkAngel:

One reason teacher strikes are less common now is that 37 states don't allow them to strike.

I'm not talking about other states, I'm talking about Wisconsin.

Illegal here, too.

WhiskeySticks: ArkAngel: I'm a crossing guard. My pay was cut 40 cents an hours this year and I work only 10 hours a week. I earn no benefits.

With all the jobs Gov Kochgobbler has "created", why not find a new one that pays more with benefits?

I went unemployed for almost two years during the Doyle administration. I got my job about two months after Walker took office. While I in no way think he was responsible for creating the job, I know my city went to hell economically under Doyle's watch.

Guidette Frankentits: Scott Walker Slams Out-Of-State Money In Wisconsin Recall While In Washington For Fundraiser (link)

theorellior: Don't Troll Me Bro!: You can't make this up. He cut funding for healthcare for the poor because he claimed we could not afford it. Then the federal government tries to help us and he turns it down and cuts healthcare programs anyway, while still claiming we can't afford it. He stated that he did this because it will make his case stronger when he refuses to implement "Obamacare." (new window)

What is this I don't even.

/facepalm

The way I understand it is that he turned down the money is the same as when he turned down the railroad money - because the costs to the state in the future would not be sustainable. I don't know much about the subject, so I can't clarify if he is correct or not, but that is my understanding.

Isitoveryet: wait a minute, we pay crossing guards!?

i thought those were parents who volunteered to keep kids safe at crosswalks.

really?

what is that, a 10 hour work week?

Yep. One hour in the morning, one in the afternoon. I'm not sure you could get enough volunteers in some of the weather we have.

Here's my corner (new window)

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Then there was this gem last week where Walker turned down $11 million from the Federal government to fund healthcare initiatives for the poor and elderly. You can't make this up. He cut funding for healthcare for the poor because he claimed we could not afford it. Then the federal government tries to help us and he turns it down and cuts healthcare programs anyway, while still claiming we can't afford it. He stated that he did this because it will make his case stronger when he refuses to implement "Obamacare." (new window)

That's because he's a douchebag, as is anyone who supports this piece of trash. He is un-American and should be deported to Mexico.