EWreckedSean: fracto73: A Dark Evil Omen: EWreckedSean: This is a law that allows the government some extra powers to resolve budgetary issues in school districts that are bankrupt.

Maybe they should pass a law that allows them to just not pay private contractors, instead. I'll bet that would save some money.


So contract with a company to pave the roads and when they finish the job pass a law nullifying the contract and allowing the gov't to pay them whatever they feel like?

I didn't see the word pension once in that article, since that seems to be what you are inferring.


I am implying that changing the terms of one contract is not terribly different than changing the terms of another contract. Either it is a valid way to relieve budget troubles or it isn't.

halfof33: Gee, we are letting bisexuals marry now?

protip: I am bisexual, and have been married for ten years.

A woman without a man is like a fish without a bisexual.

halfof33: PlatinumDragon: halfof33: PlatinumDragon: bugontherug: Haven't read the article, so I don't know if it mentioned that one of the two Republicans who voted to reject the petition is a partner in the firm advocating before him to reject the petition.

If SCOTUS judges don't need to recuse themselves in cases of blatant conflict of interest, neither does anyone else. Rule of law is for losers; winners do whatever it takes get elected, appoint their friends to sinecures and patronage positions, and dare the losers to do something about it. Might makes right.

Damn straight! OUTRAGEOUS!!!

"Another board member, Julie Matuzak, a Democrat, works for one of the unions participating in the petition drive, the News also reports."

...so you're proving my point? Or are you just expecting me to go "hurrrrrr dems do it must be ok"? BSABSVR?

Principles: Get some.

Hmm, why the butt hurt? I'm just pointing out another fact for your consideration, which you failed to mention.

Do facts bother you?

Facts have a pro-16.5 bias.

Wow, you seem to have less morals than a randy alley cat on 3 bowls of vodak and some high quality Nip.

Your family must be so proud of you, I imagine.

On Topic?

I really hope this latest outrage increases the number of people who turn out to vote out these democracy hating thugs. Of course, that result would be be a no-brainer if American media wasn't so highly concentrated and corporate in nature but who knows, it still might.

There really isn't a single good reason left to vote for a Republican these days.

And there are a shiat-ton of reasons to never vote for any of them again.

And that list seems to grow daily.

Good luck in November.

If you cant seek redress within the law, seek it outside the law.

GameSprocket: FTFA: "if we are wrong than [sic] Democracy is wrong"

How do you get a then/than [sic] in a written account of a verbal statement? Someone must have very exacting ears.

quatchi: Wow, you seem to have less morals than a randy alley cat on 3 bowls of vodak and some high quality Nip.

Your family must be so proud of you, I imagine.

On Topic?

It is curious how angry democrats in this thread get when I point out that a Democrat on the board also had a conflict.

Pointing out this:

"Another board member, Julie Matuzak, a Democrat, works for one of the unions participating in the petition drive, the News also reports."

means I have no "morals."

Gotcha, sport.

Petitions, still an utter joke.

magusdevil: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: EWreckedSean: Basically it allows the state to break collective bargaining agreements in school districts that are bankrupt, so the unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

Oh, so management is trying to change the contract everyone agreed on after it was signed. I guess the union should just go suck a lemon.

Of farking course they're fighting it. If the union doesn't fight that, WTF are they there for?

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the union gets theirs.

Darn right. Teachers should make as little as possible, even though they have advanced degrees. What possible consequences could come from hiring the folks who will work for the lowest salaries?

Which part of bankrupt is confusing to you?

The solution was already given to you: increase tax revenue. What part of that is confusing to you?

On who? Raise all the property tax rates for everybody in the district?

That's how it usually works. You don't get to make a series of bad deals then just screw one of the parties involved because you're bad at math.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: EWreckedSean: Basically it allows the state to break collective bargaining agreements in school districts that are bankrupt, so the unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

Oh, so management is trying to change the contract everyone agreed on after it was signed. I guess the union should just go suck a lemon.

Of farking course they're fighting it. If the union doesn't fight that, WTF are they there for?

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the union gets theirs.

Darn right. Teachers should make as little as possible, even though they have advanced degrees. What possible consequences could come from hiring the folks who will work for the lowest salaries?

Which part of bankrupt is confusing to you?

The solution was already given to you: increase tax revenue. What part of that is confusing to you?

On who? Raise all the property tax rates for everybody in the district?

That's how it usually works. You don't get to make a series of bad deals then just screw one of the parties involved because you're bad at math.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the property owners get theirs.

fracto73: EWreckedSean: fracto73: A Dark Evil Omen: EWreckedSean: This is a law that allows the government some extra powers to resolve budgetary issues in school districts that are bankrupt.

Maybe they should pass a law that allows them to just not pay private contractors, instead. I'll bet that would save some money.


So contract with a company to pave the roads and when they finish the job pass a law nullifying the contract and allowing the gov't to pay them whatever they feel like?

I didn't see the word pension once in that article, since that seems to be what you are inferring.


I am implying that changing the terms of one contract is not terribly different than changing the terms of another contract. Either it is a valid way to relieve budget troubles or it isn't.

Actually there is a considerable difference if you are talking about changing the contract for work already done versus future work.

Saying I'm going to pay you $25 an hour and then paying you $20 is one thing.
Saying I have paid you $25 an hour, but from here on out I can only afford $20 is a different thing altogether.

Iblis824: from the comments:



"They didn't follow the law, and they didn't get the petition approved before collecting signatures, which would have caught this violation of the law in time for it to be remedied. They have no one to blame but themselves."

Weaver95: And then Republicans wonder why nobody votes for them anymore...

Unfortunately a huge portion o the electorate are apparently deaf and illiterate, or maybe just stupid and, despite the 24 hour news cycle and having a large portion of all human knowledge easily available through handy search engines, manage to avoid gaining any knowledge of what is happening in the country. So they vote Republican.

magusdevil: EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: EWreckedSean: Basically it allows the state to break collective bargaining agreements in school districts that are bankrupt, so the unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

Oh, so management is trying to change the contract everyone agreed on after it was signed. I guess the union should just go suck a lemon.

Of farking course they're fighting it. If the union doesn't fight that, WTF are they there for?

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the union gets theirs.

Darn right. Teachers should make as little as possible, even though they have advanced degrees. What possible consequences could come from hiring the folks who will work for the lowest salaries?

Which part of bankrupt is confusing to you?

The solution was already given to you: increase tax revenue. What part of that is confusing to you?

On who? Raise all the property tax rates for everybody in the district?

That's how it usually works. You don't get to make a series of bad deals then just screw one of the parties involved because you're bad at math.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the property owners get theirs.

So help the students by raising their parents taxes?

EWreckedSean: fracto73: EWreckedSean: fracto73: A Dark Evil Omen: EWreckedSean: This is a law that allows the government some extra powers to resolve budgetary issues in school districts that are bankrupt.

Maybe they should pass a law that allows them to just not pay private contractors, instead. I'll bet that would save some money.


So contract with a company to pave the roads and when they finish the job pass a law nullifying the contract and allowing the gov't to pay them whatever they feel like?

I didn't see the word pension once in that article, since that seems to be what you are inferring.


I am implying that changing the terms of one contract is not terribly different than changing the terms of another contract. Either it is a valid way to relieve budget troubles or it isn't.

Actually there is a considerable difference if you are talking about changing the contract for work already done versus future work.

Saying I'm going to pay you $25 an hour and then paying you $20 is one thing.
Saying I have paid you $25 an hour, but from here on out I can only afford $20 is a different thing altogether.

Oh, ok. You can make whatever changes to the contract you want as long as you say "But I can only afford this much."

EWreckedSean:

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

How much bailout $$$ did Ford get?

EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: EWreckedSean: Basically it allows the state to break collective bargaining agreements in school districts that are bankrupt, so the unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

Oh, so management is trying to change the contract everyone agreed on after it was signed. I guess the union should just go suck a lemon.

Of farking course they're fighting it. If the union doesn't fight that, WTF are they there for?

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the union gets theirs.

Darn right. Teachers should make as little as possible, even though they have advanced degrees. What possible consequences could come from hiring the folks who will work for the lowest salaries?

Which part of bankrupt is confusing to you?

The solution was already given to you: increase tax revenue. What part of that is confusing to you?

On who? Raise all the property tax rates for everybody in the district?

That's how it usually works. You don't get to make a series of bad deals then just screw one of the parties involved because you're bad at math.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the property owners get theirs.

So help the students by raising their parents taxes?

Uh, yeah. As opposed to help the students by offering terrible salaries to teachers so the best teachers leave and only the worst teachers stay?

OtherLittleGuy: Iblis824: from the comments:

[images.wikia.com image 200x152]

"They didn't follow the law, and they didn't get the petition approved before collecting signatures, which would have caught this violation of the law in time for it to be remedied. They have no one to blame but themselves."

Bravo sir, Bravo.

EWreckedSean: Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.


Toyota Motor Corp., forecasting the first loss in 59 years, is seeking loans from the Japanese government as private investors demand up to 50 percent more in interest for the company's debt.

The company's financial unit may ask for 200 billion yen ($2 billion) in loans, public broadcaster NHK reported today, without saying where it got the information. Toyota Financial Services Corp. is in talks with state-owned Japan Bank for International Cooperation, said Toyota Financial spokesman Toshiaki Kawai without confirming the timing or amount.

NISSAN is seeking a further ¥100 billion ($1.36 billion) in emergency government loans designed to help Japanese firms cope with the global economic crisis, a report said today.

Nissan, which has so far borrowed ¥50 billion under the lending programme, has already informed the government-run Development Bank of Japan of its additional request, the Nikkei business daily said.

The Japanese car maker, suffering from a slump in the global car industry, is thought to be aiming to roll over part of its debt procured through commercial paper and other instruments, it reported.

Japan's largest leasing company, Orix Corp, is also seeking some ¥100 billion in the programme, while Japan Airlines is tapping the programme again for an additional ¥200 billion, the daily said.

The Government launched the low-interest rate loan programme for crisis-hit Japanese firms in December. It has recently raised the funding capacity from ¥2 trillion to ¥10 trillion due to a growing number of applicants.

It was not immediately possible to confirm the report.


TOKYO -- Honda Motor Co. said it is seeking a government loan to help shore up funds at its U.S. operations, becoming the latest Japanese auto maker to ask for Tokyo's help in doing business abroad

Is this guy ever right about anything?

EWreckedSean: fracto73: EWreckedSean: fracto73: A Dark Evil Omen: EWreckedSean: This is a law that allows the government some extra powers to resolve budgetary issues in school districts that are bankrupt.

Maybe they should pass a law that allows them to just not pay private contractors, instead. I'll bet that would save some money.


So contract with a company to pave the roads and when they finish the job pass a law nullifying the contract and allowing the gov't to pay them whatever they feel like?

I didn't see the word pension once in that article, since that seems to be what you are inferring.


I am implying that changing the terms of one contract is not terribly different than changing the terms of another contract. Either it is a valid way to relieve budget troubles or it isn't.

Actually there is a considerable difference if you are talking about changing the contract for work already done versus future work.

Saying I'm going to pay you $25 an hour and then paying you $20 is one thing.
Saying I have paid you $25 an hour, but from here on out I can only afford $20 is a different thing altogether.

I see where the consusion is... You don't know what the word "contract" means.

First they make a terrible law that says the state can appoint "emergency managers" to replace democratically elected officials, then they deny the hundreds of thousands of people petitioning for a referendum the right to even vote on the law. This is what Michigan gets for appointing a venture capitalist republican governor, and what America can expect if they decide to do the same. Their idea of small government is just having one tyrant to rule them all.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: EWreckedSean:

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

How much bailout $$$ did Ford get?

Actually you are correct, Ford didn't need one. My mistake.

halfof33: Philip Francis Queeg:
What Republican did it name, genius?

This one "genius":


meat0918: And something that is actually affecting me directly, the Republican that is running for Oregon's Congressional District 4 convinced his son to change party affiliations from R to D right before the primary deadline and now his son is running as a Democrat. They even share a campaign manager and funding sources.

Moran.

Here's your proof

"Matthew Robinson, 24, said Wednesday he's been considering a run against U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio since last summer, when he changed his voter registration from Republican to Democrat.
...
As for his political platform, Matthew Robinson said his views are "very similar" to his father's. He said he believes in balancing the federal budget, avoiding government bailouts to corporations, reducing regulations and taxes, and adopting a "more modest" foreign policy. He couldn't identify any major political difference between himself and his father.

Art Robinson drew criticism from DeFazio in 2010 for his denial of global warming and his attacks on the public school system. DeFazio ultimately beat Art Robinson by almost 11 percentage points, after each man spent more than $1 million campaigning.

....

Trent Lutz, executive director of the Oregon Democratic Party, said he isn't familiar with Matthew Robinson, who "is not someone who is active in our circles."

"We see no reason not to support Congressman DeFazio," he added. "We're 100 percent behind him."
"

Additionally

Despite your father's assurances that the two Robinson campaigns are separate, the campaigns share the same campaign manager, share the same address, Art Robinson has fundraised for you from his contributor list, and you share the same exact political views.

I mean, give me a farking break.

The kid has no chance, obviously. DeFazio is generally well thought of by both Democrats and Republicans here (well, the non-Tea Party Republicans). The Robinsons are, to put it bluntly, nuts.

This "We'll win by any means necessary" is bullshiat.

DQ'd because of Font size?

Fake Candidates?

Birth Certificates?

Let's stop all this shiat, please; for the good of the country.

magusdevil: EWreckedSean: fracto73: EWreckedSean: fracto73: A Dark Evil Omen: EWreckedSean: This is a law that allows the government some extra powers to resolve budgetary issues in school districts that are bankrupt.

Maybe they should pass a law that allows them to just not pay private contractors, instead. I'll bet that would save some money.


So contract with a company to pave the roads and when they finish the job pass a law nullifying the contract and allowing the gov't to pay them whatever they feel like?

I didn't see the word pension once in that article, since that seems to be what you are inferring.


I am implying that changing the terms of one contract is not terribly different than changing the terms of another contract. Either it is a valid way to relieve budget troubles or it isn't.

Actually there is a considerable difference if you are talking about changing the contract for work already done versus future work.

Saying I'm going to pay you $25 an hour and then paying you $20 is one thing.
Saying I have paid you $25 an hour, but from here on out I can only afford $20 is a different thing altogether.

I see where the consusion is... You don't know what the word "contract" means.

And I don't know what the word "consusion" means.

magusdevil: EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: EWreckedSean: Basically it allows the state to break collective bargaining agreements in school districts that are bankrupt, so the unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

Oh, so management is trying to change the contract everyone agreed on after it was signed. I guess the union should just go suck a lemon.

Of farking course they're fighting it. If the union doesn't fight that, WTF are they there for?

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the union gets theirs.

Darn right. Teachers should make as little as possible, even though they have advanced degrees. What possible consequences could come from hiring the folks who will work for the lowest salaries?

Which part of bankrupt is confusing to you?

The solution was already given to you: increase tax revenue. What part of that is confusing to you?

On who? Raise all the property tax rates for everybody in the district?

That's how it usually works. You don't get to make a series of bad deals then just screw one of the parties involved because you're bad at math.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the property owners get theirs.

So help the students by raising their parents taxes?

Uh, yeah. As opposed to help the students by offering terrible salaries to teachers so the best teachers leave and only the worst teachers stay?

Do you have any proof that this will cause a mass exodus of teachers from these districts? And if you do, how does that compare to the teachers not getting pay checks or having their checks bounce because the district is out of money?

EWreckedSean: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: EWreckedSean:

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

How much bailout $$$ did Ford get?

Actually you are correct, Ford didn't need one. My mistake.

Not even close to the biggest mistake in that sentence.

magusdevil: EWreckedSean: fracto73: EWreckedSean: fracto73: A Dark Evil Omen: EWreckedSean: This is a law that allows the government some extra powers to resolve budgetary issues in school districts that are bankrupt.

Maybe they should pass a law that allows them to just not pay private contractors, instead. I'll bet that would save some money.


So contract with a company to pave the roads and when they finish the job pass a law nullifying the contract and allowing the gov't to pay them whatever they feel like?

I didn't see the word pension once in that article, since that seems to be what you are inferring.


I am implying that changing the terms of one contract is not terribly different than changing the terms of another contract. Either it is a valid way to relieve budget troubles or it isn't.

Actually there is a considerable difference if you are talking about changing the contract for work already done versus future work.

Saying I'm going to pay you $25 an hour and then paying you $20 is one thing.
Saying I have paid you $25 an hour, but from here on out I can only afford $20 is a different thing altogether.

I see where the consusion is... You don't know what the word "contract" means.

Apparently you don't understand what the word "bankrupt" means, especially when it comes to enforcing contracts.

magusdevil: EWreckedSean: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: EWreckedSean:

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

How much bailout $$$ did Ford get?

Actually you are correct, Ford didn't need one. My mistake.

Not even close to the biggest mistake in that sentence.

EWreckedSean: Do you have any proof that this will cause a mass exodus of teachers from these districts?

[facepalm.psd]

Philip Francis Queeg: EWreckedSean:
Is this guy ever right about anything? ...

I think he may have once said water is wet, but then he disagreed in another thread so it cancels out.

EWreckedSean: fracto73: EWreckedSean: fracto73: A Dark Evil Omen: EWreckedSean: This is a law that allows the government some extra powers to resolve budgetary issues in school districts that are bankrupt.

Maybe they should pass a law that allows them to just not pay private contractors, instead. I'll bet that would save some money.


So contract with a company to pave the roads and when they finish the job pass a law nullifying the contract and allowing the gov't to pay them whatever they feel like?

I didn't see the word pension once in that article, since that seems to be what you are inferring.


I am implying that changing the terms of one contract is not terribly different than changing the terms of another contract. Either it is a valid way to relieve budget troubles or it isn't.

Actually there is a considerable difference if you are talking about changing the contract for work already done versus future work.

Saying I'm going to pay you $25 an hour and then paying you $20 is one thing.
Saying I have paid you $25 an hour, but from here on out I can only afford $20 is a different thing altogether.


Not really. By the time the contract is settled and work has started the contractor has already been turning away other, possibly more profitable, work. Even if the contractor can walk away at the time the contract is voided they will have lost work opportunities.

EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: EWreckedSean: Basically it allows the state to break collective bargaining agreements in school districts that are bankrupt, so the unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

Oh, so management is trying to change the contract everyone agreed on after it was signed. I guess the union should just go suck a lemon.

Of farking course they're fighting it. If the union doesn't fight that, WTF are they there for?

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the union gets theirs.

Darn right. Teachers should make as little as possible, even though they have advanced degrees. What possible consequences could come from hiring the folks who will work for the lowest salaries?

Which part of bankrupt is confusing to you?

The solution was already given to you: increase tax revenue. What part of that is confusing to you?

On who? Raise all the property tax rates for everybody in the district?

That's how it usually works. You don't get to make a series of bad deals then just screw one of the parties involved because you're bad at math.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

I'm gonna go with Ford didn't get any, and the government of Japan offers substantial subsidies to Toyota, Honda, and Nissan for their production there, also noting that all three of the Asian car manufacturers offshore their income (reasonably so) to Japan where they enjoy incredibly preferential tax treatment. So yes, there is a reason, in fact there are many, and no, unions aren't a particularly decisive factor in any of those reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer that unions are perfect by any means (especially in the public sector), but the math just isn't there for you on this one.

dracos31: Philip Francis Queeg: EWreckedSean:
Is this guy ever right about anything? ...

I think he may have once said water is wet, but then he disagreed in another thread so it cancels out.

And now the circle jerk starts. It would be funny if it wasn't so sadly predictable.

EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: EWreckedSean:

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

How much bailout $$$ did Ford get?

Actually you are correct, Ford didn't need one. My mistake.

Not even close to the biggest mistake in that sentence.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x316]

Neat picture, can you show me source... because I have a hunch that if we're including management in the hourly cost averages, we're not measuring quite what we think we're measuring.

EWreckedSean: dracos31: Philip Francis Queeg: EWreckedSean:
Is this guy ever right about anything? ...

I think he may have once said water is wet, but then he disagreed in another thread so it cancels out.

And now the circle jerk starts. It would be funny if it wasn't so sadly predictable.

Yes, multiple posters pointing out the multiple factual errors in your posts is sadly predictable.

firefly212: EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: EWreckedSean: Basically it allows the state to break collective bargaining agreements in school districts that are bankrupt, so the unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

Oh, so management is trying to change the contract everyone agreed on after it was signed. I guess the union should just go suck a lemon.

Of farking course they're fighting it. If the union doesn't fight that, WTF are they there for?

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the union gets theirs.

Darn right. Teachers should make as little as possible, even though they have advanced degrees. What possible consequences could come from hiring the folks who will work for the lowest salaries?

Which part of bankrupt is confusing to you?

The solution was already given to you: increase tax revenue. What part of that is confusing to you?

On who? Raise all the property tax rates for everybody in the district?

That's how it usually works. You don't get to make a series of bad deals then just screw one of the parties involved because you're bad at math.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

I'm gonna go with Ford didn't get any, and the government of Japan offers substantial subsidies to Toyota, Honda, and Nissan for their production there, also noting that all three of the Asian car manufacturers offshore their income (reasonably so) to Japan where they enjoy incredibly preferential tax treatment. So yes, there is a reason, in fact there are many, and no, unions aren't a particularly decisive factor in any of those reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer that unions are perfect by any means (especially in the public sector), but the math just isn't there for you ...

Does Japan have universal coverage, so health care costs are not borne by the manufacturers? If so, I'd really like to see that hourly labor costs chart with those costs removed from GM or added to Toyota.

EWreckedSean: dracos31: Philip Francis Queeg: EWreckedSean:
Is this guy ever right about anything? ...

I think he may have once said water is wet, but then he disagreed in another thread so it cancels out.

And now the circle jerk starts. It would be funny if it wasn't so sadly predictable.

Meh, if you didn't love the bukkake, you shouldn't have metaphorically laid out like that.

My guess is it'll be overturned in appeals very quickly.

Still, the audacity of the elections board in denying such an important petition on such a minor technicality is troubling to say the least. This is the sort of thing that can bring down governments if it happens too often.


Now what I am curious about is what would happen if the State kept appealing the decision until it got to the Federal Courts, then simply refused to comply when the Supreme Court upheld the decision (either by hearing it and finding against the State, or by refusing to hear it). How far would the Federal Government be able to go to enforce the order?

Initially they would probably just call the State idiots and petty tyrants for subverting the will of the people, but I wonder if the Federal government would be willing to issue arrest warrants for any Michigan government officials directly responsible. If they resist arrest enough, perhaps the State could be theoretically declared "In rebellion" and be forcefully reduced to territory status by the US military.

Now of course it's highly unlikely things will ever go that far. I'd say there's a 90% chance they won't even fight it past the initial appeal, and the chances of them fighting a Federal ruling on the subject is almost nonexistent. But still, the mere fact they were willing to fight it even this far is troubling.

lennavan: Uh, if you think that's a complete rape of Democracy wait til you read they law the petition was trying to overturn.

Dude. You support these right wing assholes as much as any other shill on this site. They are your bedfellows. You know Republicans can't read.

qorkfiend: firefly212: EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: gimmegimme: EWreckedSean: thurstonxhowell: EWreckedSean: Basically it allows the state to break collective bargaining agreements in school districts that are bankrupt, so the unions are fighting it tooth and nail.

Oh, so management is trying to change the contract everyone agreed on after it was signed. I guess the union should just go suck a lemon.

Of farking course they're fighting it. If the union doesn't fight that, WTF are they there for?

Try and get this since it is confusing for you. These are for school districts that are BANKRUPT. I mean fark the students right, as long as the union gets theirs.

Darn right. Teachers should make as little as possible, even though they have advanced degrees. What possible consequences could come from hiring the folks who will work for the lowest salaries?

Which part of bankrupt is confusing to you?

The solution was already given to you: increase tax revenue. What part of that is confusing to you?

On who? Raise all the property tax rates for everybody in the district?

That's how it usually works. You don't get to make a series of bad deals then just screw one of the parties involved because you're bad at math.

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

I'm gonna go with Ford didn't get any, and the government of Japan offers substantial subsidies to Toyota, Honda, and Nissan for their production there, also noting that all three of the Asian car manufacturers offshore their income (reasonably so) to Japan where they enjoy incredibly preferential tax treatment. So yes, there is a reason, in fact there are many, and no, unions aren't a particularly decisive factor in any of those reasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer that unions are perfect by any means (especially in the public sector), but the math just isn't t ...

Japan has universal coverage, but so does Canada, where a great deal of GMs manufacturing is done (on the other end of the spectrum, Mexico also has a lot of GM manufacturing, they don't have universal coverage there, but GM also doesn't offer health benefits south of the border)... these random charts hyper-simplify a global business enough that an idiot can think he's figured out how to manage labor supply chains and international supply sourcing because he has a graph of one thing (and no actual indication of what that metric is). It's about as valid in the world of statistics as saying I'm an expert in swiss commodities markets because my house consumed more goods made in Switzerland than even the average swiss house last year (nevermind that it was all alcohol over the course of about one fantastic week).

Ned Stark: Blathering Idjut: My Freshman son's entire Geography class just got dinged on a test for answering TRUE to the question "Representative democracy is good for a Free Market." His teacher is a Libertarian who spends most of the class time showing them John Stossel videos.

Their are a hell of a lot of people in this country who don't like our system of government very much.

Representative democracy isnt good for a free market. That doesnt even seem controversial.

If you mean that there's an argument to be made that representative democracy can sometimes by nature impose limitations on the market by virtue of laws that protect citizens, keep them safe or provide fair wages for a fair days work then I suppose you're correct.

But if you're arguing, as my son's teacher is, that these issues far outweigh the benefits of a representative democracy- that is a better educated workforce, disposable income to keep the economy moving, a healthy workforce, a governmentally provided means of transporting goods and information and police, firefighters and soldiers to keep all of the above safe then I would say that yes, your position would be pretty controversial.

Also- as pointed out above - what system of government would be better? Because any answer to that question would be pretty un-American.

firefly212: EWreckedSean: magusdevil: EWreckedSean: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: EWreckedSean:

Unfortunately when you are dealing with unions math isn't always the issue. There is a reason GM/Ford/Chrysler needed bailing out and Toyota/Honda/Nissan didn't.

How much bailout $$$ did Ford get?

Actually you are correct, Ford didn't need one. My mistake.

Not even close to the biggest mistake in that sentence.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x316]

Neat picture, can you show me source... because I have a hunch that if we're including management in the hourly cost averages, we're not measuring quite what we think we're measuring.

Google Toyota versus GM labor costs, you'll find a million articles on it. It was a huge deal at the time that the major difference between the two companies was labor costs as most Toyota is not unionized.

firefly212: EWreckedSean: dracos31: Philip Francis Queeg: EWreckedSean:
Is this guy ever right about anything? ...

I think he may have once said water is wet, but then he disagreed in another thread so it cancels out.

And now the circle jerk starts. It would be funny if it wasn't so sadly predictable.

Meh, if you didn't love the bukkake, you shouldn't have metaphorically laid out like that.

I'm sorry, I keep making the mistake of thinking I can discuss issues with some of you like adults.

firefly212: This is what Michigan gets for appointing a venture capitalist republican governor, and what America can expect if they decide to do the same.

[facepalm.jpg]

First, Snyder was elected.

Second, the only time an emergency manager comes into play is when the city or school district is demonstrably insolvent. It takes many years of avoiding tough decisions for a city to get to that point; Snyder can't just wake up one morning and decide that he's going to appoint an EM.

The whole point of the emergency manager is to avoid any municipal bankruptcies by giving that person effective receivership of the city or district. It's a last resort, which is why Detroit's mayor tried so hard to get a consent agreement instead of an EM. (He pulled it off this time, but I wonder what happens next time, and there will be a next time.)

EWreckedSean: Google Toyota versus GM labor costs, you'll find a million articles on it. It was a huge deal at the time that the major difference between the two companies was labor costs as most Toyota is not unionized

Hey guess what folks? He's wrong. Again. Shocking isn't it?


Oct 1, 2007

UAW deal means GM labor costs closer to Toyota's

Less than two years ago, the gap between the labor costs for a car made by GM versus one made by Toyota stood at a staggering $4,000. Most of the extra costs GM suffered included payments for health care, unitary wages and inefficient plants. However, with the signing of last week's contract deal with the UAW, GM will shrunk the gap to a more reasonable $800 per vehicle.

According to Dave Cole, the Chief of the Center for Automotive Research, "GM is now reasonably close to Toyota" in terms of cost parity. The key now is how much of these savings are invested in new vehicles, reports Automotive News, because this will effect whether the new contracts are even ratified by the UAW

There are a lot of the usual right wing thread shiatters on this thread.

Counterpoint

Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.
Romney kills jobs.

Lost Thought 00: Either you represent your people fairly, or your people will murder you. There are really only 2 options.

Blathering Idjut: Ned Stark: Blathering Idjut: My Freshman son's entire Geography class just got dinged on a test for answering TRUE to the question "Representative democracy is good for a Free Market." His teacher is a Libertarian who spends most of the class time showing them John Stossel videos.

Their are a hell of a lot of people in this country who don't like our system of government very much.

Representative democracy isnt good for a free market. That doesnt even seem controversial.

If you mean that there's an argument to be made that representative democracy can sometimes by nature impose limitations on the market by virtue of laws that protect citizens, keep them safe or provide fair wages for a fair days work then I suppose you're correct.

But if you're arguing, as my son's teacher is, that these issues far outweigh the benefits of a representative democracy- that is a better educated workforce, disposable income to keep the economy moving, a healthy workforce, a governmentally provided means of transporting goods and information and police, firefighters and soldiers to keep all of the above safe then I would say that yes, your position would be pretty controversial.

Also- as pointed out above - what system of government would be better? Because any answer to that question would be pretty un-American.

You seem to be implying that servicing the free market is the point of government and that being better for the market is grounds enough to call one system better than another. I disagree.