Online Now 1630

Off-Topic

On this Board 726
Record: 1825 (5/20/2013)

Online now 1609
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Scott Walker for President

  • I cant stand people who dont understand business as such I cant stand a lot of Democrats. I can't stand people who think business concepts apply to everything, hence I dont liek pubs.

    Mr Tiffles7673 ●

  • If this is not about union busting then why is there still a stalemate? As I understand it, the unions agreed to all of the financial provisions in the bill. They just dont want to have their collective bargaining rights curtailed. As a business owner I'd hate to have to deal with unions but recognize that without unions the typical union type employee would get constantly rammed in the ass. These people usually don't have highly marketable skill sets or a wide range of employment options in their local market so they need some form of protection. I understand the business argument but I tend to side with the unions. Business and government just need to not agree to ridiculous and unsustainable terms when negotiating with them.

    Prolific

  • terps99 said...

    Why is this thread still continuing? There shouldn't be that much to disagree over here:

    Are teachers asking for particular benefits "free loaders" or "cheese eaters?" No. Is it illegal to cut benefits and/or make teachers pay more? No. Do tough economic times and/or changing circumstances suggest teachers should pay more? Yes, probably. Is it reasonable for teachers to be pissed about having to pay more, esp. when they feel that other public employees are getting a better deal? Yes, probably. Are people who rail against unions and/or public employees often doing so for political/partisan reasons rather than any principled reasons? Yes. Are unions sometimes counter-productive to their stated goals and not acting in the best long-term interests of their membership? Yes.

    The end.

    Yeah, this should definitely have shut down all debate in this thread.

    bkmalik ●

  • Prolific said...

    If this is not about union busting then why is there still a stalemate? As I understand it, the unions agreed to all of the financial provisions in the bill. They just dont want to have their collective bargaining rights curtailed. As a business owner I'd hate to have to deal with unions but recognize that without unions the typical union type employee would get constantly rammed in the ass. These people usually don't have highly marketable skill sets or a wide range of employment options in their local market so they need some form of protection. I understand the business argument but I tend to side with the unions. Business and government just need to not agree to ridiculous and unsustainable terms when negotiating with them.

    so you are a business owner and you would hate to deal with unions but recognize your employers need protection. A few questions for you:

    #1, would your employees be the ones who are mostly responsible for getting you your job/ownership of the company?
    #2, would your employees union dues be spent to make sure you remained the owner (and thus would remain the party negotiating the labor contracts)?
    #3, would you then be indebted to the union for getting you your management job, so you would be much more inclined to reward the union with higher-that-market benefits?
    #4, as owner/management, would you answer to stockholders or other equity interests? or are there no stockholders (really other than taxpayers) who can hold your management decisions in check?

    point is, public sector collective bargaining is MUCH DIFFERENT from your private sector analogy.

    BCiB ●

  • Prolific said...

    If this is not about union busting then why is there still a stalemate? As I understand it, the unions agreed to all of the financial provisions in the bill. They just dont want to have their collective bargaining rights curtailed. As a business owner I'd hate to have to deal with unions but recognize that without unions the typical union type employee would get constantly rammed in the ass. These people usually don't have highly marketable skill sets or a wide range of employment options in their local market so they need some form of protection. I understand the business argument but I tend to side with the unions. Business and government just need to not agree to ridiculous and unsustainable terms when negotiating with them.

    Unions are absolutely needed in private industry. Whether they are needed in the public sector is a different analysis (see link) and a closer call, IMO. At least there are reasonable arguments on both sides, unlike the private sector where, IMO, they serve as a counterbalance to overzealous management and are clearly needed. There's a reason that strong supporters of private unions, like FDR, wondered about there merit in the public sector.

    http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/blog/detail/why-private-sector-unions-are-much-different-than-government-unions

    Bradleyfan ●

  • Seems Indiana Democrats are joining in on the take-my-ball-and-go-home strategy;

    "INDIANAPOLIS—House Democratic lawmakers in Indiana have begun a de facto walkout in an effort to block a Republican-backed bill that would restrict private-sector union rights.

    Republicans arrived at the statehouse Tuesday morning to find no Democrats present, as protesters applauding the walkout could be heard inside the chamber.

    The strategy is possible because Republicans make up 60 of 100 House seats. Without any Democrats present, Republicans lack a two-thirds majority needed for a quorum to act on the bill."

    I'm curious, any Democrats on here support this tactic and/or think it is a good strategy?

    terpinnyc

  • I don't support it and think it could backfire as a national issue.

    As pure strategy, I don't see how it's all that different than the filibuster. Using existing rules to block an up or down vote on a bill. And I think the biggest threat to the Dems as a party is the voter apathy that we experienced in 2010. I'm betting that someone realizes that the benefits of re-firing up the Dem base may outweigh the PR costs in the end.

    PaulUMD ●

  • terpinnyc said...

    Seems Indiana Democrats are joining in on the take-my-ball-and-go-home strategy;

    "INDIANAPOLIS—House Democratic lawmakers in Indiana have begun a de facto walkout in an effort to block a Republican-backed bill that would restrict private-sector union rights.

    Republicans arrived at the statehouse Tuesday morning to find no Democrats present, as protesters applauding the walkout could be heard inside the chamber.

    The strategy is possible because Republicans make up 60 of 100 House seats. Without any Democrats present, Republicans lack a two-thirds majority needed for a quorum to act on the bill."

    I'm curious, any Democrats on here support this tactic and/or think it is a good strategy?

    I don't know....seems no different than the filibuster in the senate that squashed hundreds of bills in the past few years.

    9/21/2010...RIP Old IMS.

    Kaisersayzo ●

  • filibuster is a rule of parliamentary procedure that the US Senate has agreed upon. I'm guessing the Wisc state senate has no such rule.

    edited to remove the target and cross hairs from my partisan poster.

    This post was edited by BCiB on 2/22/2011 at 12:49 PM

    BCiB ●

  • I would imagine the Wisconsin Senate also agreed on a parliamentary rule setting a number for a quorum as well, no? Again, I don't agree with this particular action, but neither party has the standing to complain about abuses of procedural rules in this country.

    PaulUMD ●

  • PaulUMD said...

    I would imagine the Wisconsin Senate also agreed on a parliamentary rule setting a number for a quorum as well, no? Again, I don't agree with this particular action, but neither party has the standing to complain about abuses of procedural rules in this country.

    a quorum is different from a filibuster obviously. one is an allowed method to prevent votes from taking place. the other is simply the minimum number of senators needing to be present to conduct senate business. I don't like the filibuster rule, but the US senate allows it. If the Wisconsin senate wanted to allow filibusters then they would have permitted it. I'm sure all parliamentary bodies discuss these issues when deciding what the rules are. Running to Illinois is not part of the rules.

    I get a visceral reaction to this sort of behavior, regardless of political parties. you have an election, and to the winners go the spoils. As Obama said, and as the teabaggers love to quote now, "elections have consequences." But they are both right. If you don't like the rules, change the rules (or allow filibusters, whatever). Or even better, do a better job at the next election.

    BCiB ●

  • Non-budget bills do not require a quorum in Wisconsin, so the GOP should use this opportunity to "ram through" all of their non-budget pet legislation, like a Right to Work law.

    neal990 ●

  • They should start ramming some of those bills through. The Dems can't really stay in exhile if the GOP is gonna just pass the rest of the agenda minus the union bill.

    ryalaman ●

  • neal990 said...

    Non-budget bills do not require a quorum in Wisconsin, so the GOP should use this opportunity to "ram through" all of their non-budget pet legislation, like a Right to Work law.

    This is why Dems should be absolutely livid with their elected representatives...this goes far beyond "not much different than a filibuster". They are not representing the voters who elected them.

    frode ●

  • I agree with most of the last 4 posts. I'm just telling you what I think their strategy and justification for it is.

    PaulUMD ●

  • The Dems hiding out in Illinois makes them look like the biggest pussies on earth.

    Oh wait, they already ARE the biggest pussies on earth. whistling

    bbpgtr

  • Prolific said...

    If this is not about union busting then why is there still a stalemate? As I understand it, the unions agreed to all of the financial provisions in the bill. They just dont want to have their collective bargaining rights curtailed. As a business owner I'd hate to have to deal with unions but recognize that without unions the typical union type employee would get constantly rammed in the ass. These people usually don't have highly marketable skill sets or a wide range of employment options in their local market so they need some form of protection. I understand the business argument but I tend to side with the unions. Business and government just need to not agree to ridiculous and unsustainable terms when negotiating with them.

    fwiw kornheiser spoke to a wh correspondent today who said the national pubs are telling walker to go for the jugular....to which i say they should focus on getting the federal budget situation taken care of

    can't wait for the CR to expire on march 4th and have the fed govt shut down and then a terrorist attack..............

    winterps

  • winterps said...

    can't wait for the CR to expire on march 4th and have the fed govt shut down and then a terrorist attack..............

    Woo hoo terrorist attack!

    PaulUMD ●

  • FWIW:

    The public strongly opposes laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions as a way to ease state financial troubles, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

    The poll found that 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to one being considered in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm

    PaulUMD ●

  • I think all of the straw men going around about the Wisconsin law probably affected that poll to a large extent. No one seems to be debating the merits of the actual proposal, it is all "Hey, do you like weekends? Well then you should be on the side of the Wisconsin unions." I'm surprised the characterizations of unions as evil money-wasting cheese eaters hasn't carried as much weight considering how few people in this country actually belong to unions.

    neal990 ●

  • Prolific said...

    If this is not about union busting then why is there still a stalemate? As I understand it, the unions agreed to all of the financial provisions in the bill. They just dont want to have their collective bargaining rights curtailed. As a business owner I'd hate to have to deal with unions but recognize that without unions the typical union type employee would get constantly rammed in the ass. These people usually don't have highly marketable skill sets or a wide range of employment options in their local market so they need some form of protection. I understand the business argument but I tend to side with the unions. Business and government just need to not agree to ridiculous and unsustainable terms when negotiating with them.

    There is the fact that Wisconsin gov't employees apparently have some of the most progressive civil service protections in the country, separate from any unions, as well as the concern about the overall wisdom of ANY gov't employees having the ability to both "hire" and bargain with their employers at the same time.

    SATerp

  • I think the problem here is whenever you start talking about cuts, people love it. But once you start actually cutting things, they recoil. Most people aren't plugged into this directly, and only capture the big ideas. They'll be either driven by a courageous governor trying to fix a budget problem or thousands of teachers/firefighters/etc protesting to keep their pensions, healthcare, etc. Just depends on your leanings and what images/info gets to you.

    PaulUMD ●

  • Wow.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20110222/NEWS/110222004/Indiana-Democrats-trigger-Statehouse-showdown-over-anti-union-legislation

    3:40 PM -- Governor says time to dump labor bill

    Gov. Mitch Daniels signaled this afternoon that Republicans should to drop the right-to-work bill that has brought the Indiana House to a standstill for two days and imperiled other measures.

    Daniels told reporters this afternoon that he expects House Democrats will return to work if the bill dies. It would be unfortunate if other bills are caught up in the turmoil, he said.

    He will not send out state police to corral the Democrats, the Republican governor said.

    The Democrat minority has right to express its views, he added.

    The governor clung to his view that this is not the year to tackle right to work.

    PaulUMD ●

  • God he's dreamy

    neal990 ●

  • well I just lost respect for Daniels. I guess he is running for president in 2012.

    BCiB ●

Maryland
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports