When Obama predictably stood up for Wisconsin unions, he didnt create sympathy but merely cast a spotlight upon bygone methods and absurdly selfish goals. Unions typically represent the proposition that, regardless of the underlying economic state, their power and wealth is sacrosanct. Such obscene leftist power-brokering led to the demise of Detroit as the worlds automobile capital. It is time we defang and emasculate these anachronisms of Marxism. Foolhardy attempts by Barack to steer America back to the glory days of Norma Raes nest of socialist maggots is doomed to fail. Labor union cliches are so dated they are as embarrassing to hear recited as an ancient prayer from a long-dead cult.
#1
They've forgotten the first rule of successful parasites, and will pay for it.
They've also tried to cover their greed with a masquerade of faux homespun and "average joe" demeanor. The notion of people who work nine months a year and get paid more than the average American makes plus have better benefits casting themselves as downtroden and oppressed doesn't sit well with the majority of Americans. When called on this, the homepsun and "average joe" gets dropped right away and they say' "but we're more educated than average".
Which is it? Are you common laborers (in which case you don't deserve your compensation package) or are you professionals (in which case you don't deserve collective bargaining or the veneer of "average joe")?
Leave aside for the moment that getting a bachelors or masters in education isn't really that hard, that a chimp could get either of those degrees. The argument regarding professional vs laborer (from the teachers themselves, not their union leaders) has to be resolved either one way or another before they can pursue a path with any sort of consistency.
Furthermore, to the extent that they have been bargaining, they haven't done so in good faith. A good contract is one where both parties accept equal amounts of benefits and risks. The teachers want all benefits, and no risks, especially with regards to market risk of rising health care costs and pension liabilities. In other words, they want the taxpayers to accept ALL the risk of health care costs rising faster than inflation and ALL the risk of pension funds not yielding as much as expected and needing to be supplemented with additional tax revenues. The fair thing in any contract would be for the unions to share such risks 50/50, or to compensate the taxpayers (with wage concessions) for avoiding their fair share of those risks. But they are absolutely unwilling to do so.
In business, would any of us even bother attempting to negotiate a contract with a party like this? Very early on in the negotiations, you would see what they are all about and decide that they weren't negotiating in good faith and that they weren't a serious potential partner and you would break off talks and seek someone else. That is the point the taxpayer is at, now.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/14/2011 7:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Somehow No More Uro elucidated every thought I've had on this subject very eloquently. Great minds think alike, Er, well my mind isn't that great yet today (goes to fix coffee)...
Posted by: Fi ||
03/14/2011 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The 'parasites' do have one significant advantage - focus. This issue is a BIG deal to them and they will stay engaged and vocal, but to the taxpayer it is just one more of many issues demanding similar amounts of attention, and Walker fixed this crisis, so it's now off the front burner. Plus - organized labor is, well, organized, while the rest of society just isn't. They stand a far better chance of succeeding in their senatorial recalls and in getting 'their' judge elected than does the opposition. Not to mention, they get a large and favorable treatment by most of the media. The host will be devoured for at least one more crisis cycle, and probably several, until the public economy totally implodes.
#4
to the Unions and Dems, the biggest threat is the non-automatic dues deductions from the paychecks. Once you have the opportunity to starve the beast's cash supply, you've won
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/14/2011 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I agree with Frank. Even if the unions succeed in their recall and Wisconsin Supreme Court efforts, the lack of automatic dues collections kills them in the '12 election effort.
But note their strategy:
1) get 'their' justice elected
2) get a few Pub senators recalled and flip the Senate to D
3) get the new law overturned at the WSC
4) back to business as usual as the new D Senate will block any new moves
That's where Glenmore's point is key: the unions' focus right now is like that of a heroin user looking for his next fix. They will not give up.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/14/2011 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Treat excessive Government like it's closest analogy Leukemia.
#7
So let's see if I understand this. The taxpayers foot the bill for the public unions. Nearly all such money as dues goes to the Democratic Party because they support the unions. The unions then vote for the Democratic Party because the Democrats support this vicious parasitic cycle. The taxpayers and voters take a hosing. Democracy is subverted. Unless this power is brought under control and some sense is injected into this, we are screwed. Good for Gov. Walker and all other executives who see this for what it is. A pox on Obama for being a part of this parasitic cycle.
#8
Remember what the public unions have against them: The money to satisfy their demands is not there. State governments by & large cannot go into debt to generate extra money to meet those demands. The ability of state governments to raise extra taxes is limited. What cannot go on forever WILL stop. Even minimally engaged & unorganized taxpayers WILL understand that at some point.
#9
Obama's absence from the front page on this issue telles you all you need to know about the WH polling on this matter. Despite the best efforts of the dying MSM, the public isn't on the unions side, and the last minute thuggery exposed the unions true nature to an even widen portion of the public before all the coverage suddenly stopped in the MSM.
Obama's character as a union organized and activist is well known, yet his political self-survival skills trumped even that. Funny how socialists always come to love the comfy lifestyle of the rich, even as they continue to mouth the same tired slogans.....
#11
@ Steve White #5 (above) Lets say the unions do all that. Then what?
Do they reinstate collective bargaining,and their over generous benefits package, then have to layoff several thousand of their members?
That will go over like a lead balloon.
I think they bluster and threaten but won't be able to do a damn thing.
Once union teachers (and others)don't have to have union dues taken out of their paychecks, they might find they really kinda like it.
#13
I was just talking about home schooling future mini Fis. I worked in a public school during a summer in my twenties (filling in for special ed teachers with certifications as an aide while the regulars were on vacay), at which point I myself was schooled on academic excellence. Or lack thereof.
Posted by: Fi ||
03/14/2011 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Remember what the public unions have against them: The money to satisfy their demands is not there.
Except they don't believe that. More importantly, terribly clever people have started writing op-eds telling them it isn't true, so they don't have to believe the evidence in front of their lying eyes.
#15
Responding to No Mo Uro: while i despise union thuggery, he made a blanket statement that is wrong: work nine months and get paid for more; my daughter and her husband are both teachers and they have a portion of their check for the nine months worked ( thank you very much) withheld and sent to them over the summer ( the 3 months they don't work) they both positively despise the union, but here in WA state, there is no alternative for them, if they wish to contune to teach.
The entire apparatus of U.S.-Muslim dialogue is controlled by our enemies.
There is one silver lining to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: it will eventually force the United States to adopt an international policy on Islam itself. Given his Cairo speech in 2009, littered with historical inaccuracies and undue politically correct praise of Islam, we shouldnt expect President Obama to take upon himself this task. Perhaps another statesman will. But that it must be done alas, ten years after 9/11 is no longer a matter of debate.
The national discourse is petty. Policymakers talk as though the problem were merely 500 terrorists cave-hopping around Waziristan. This is not so. The issue is societal. Europe is on the precipice of cultural implosion. The issue is also imminent. The entire Persian Gulf and Arab Levant is up for grabs. Atomic bombs are in question. Radical Islamists have entrenched themselves in the Wests political mainstream even into the U.S. government. For decades, the Muslim Brotherhood has had more power within the United States than in Egypt.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/14/2011 23:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is how I address it. If you're not American, well, you're just not American. I hate all non-americans equally, that way no one gets more negative attention than any other. However, I hate some non-Americans slightly more than others. Namely, Islamic men. They apparently don't like me either, so its mutual. Now, lets get bombastic on some Islamic ass.
Posted by: Fi ||
03/14/2011 23:20 Comments ||
Top||
His comment is strange coming from one of the most corrupt sheriffs Los Angeles county has ever had.
His sister just happens to have the exclusive contract for supplying commissary goods to the LA County prison system. hmmm
#2
...Keep in mind that Clapper isn't the head of US intelligence, no matter what the job description says. He's an empty suit who turned out to be even emptier than the White House thought. That job falls to Leon Panetta, who runs the CIA. The reason HE got THAT job is that he is a ruthless Democratic politician that will make DAMNED sure the CIA never does to Obama what it did to Dubya.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/14/2011 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Good view of Panetta. Love to find out what the NIE release guys got for their troubles. Big bucks, is my guess. Not this time.
Thing is, with guys like Clapper, what they don't know they can't tell zero and what zero doesn't know he doesn't have to think about, decide, and take responsibility for.
Ideal pick for the job.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
03/14/2011 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Obummer has surrounded himself with pogue ciphers who are even more inept than their boss. Must really suck to be in government at this time.
#5
Mike nails it. The Dhimmicrats may not know national security, but political security? That they know.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/14/2011 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
John, my ex works at NCTC (National Counterterrorism Center). Every time we talk, he says it really sucks. He literally bumped into Clapper in the lobby a few weeks ago. I asked if it knocked some sense into him. Apparently not, but it does seem that he shows up and tries to look busy.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
