login
Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 15)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-02-20 1:37 PM in reply to: #3364040 |
Pro  3906     St Charles, IL |  Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:Force - 2011-02-20 1:09 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 12:12 PM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress?
Reasonable question. Was surprised to find that filibusters exist in state legislatures at all. That said, they don't appear commonly employed for reasons ranging from "past practice and tradition" to an unwillingness to stay in session longer than necessary and part-time legislators. I don't remember the minority party in Wisconsin politics dodging a quorum... Do I like the "hold" at the Fed level? Yeah, as I understand how it works, I do. To me the 'hold' actually speeds the Senate's business as it broadcasts intent to delay without actually having to do so (in the romanticized "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" way). The contentious business can be tabled and other business can then be addressed. In the current situation in Wisconsin, absent a quorum NO senate (and therefore state) business is possible. To RedSharks' point, this sets an interesting contemporary precedent. Apparently Wisconsin rules do not allow for a filibuster (or hold) but along with the rules that compel legislators to be present when the bodies are in session (all this talk of using the State Patrol to round up the wayward Senators if they were in the State), this suggests to me that the rules makers intended for state business to get done quickly and without extensive delay. Interesting to watch and we'll see how things unfold the next time the minority party uses this maneuver. Thank you for the insightful reply. I do see some of the reasons for not having a filibuster at the state level as having merit, especially the fact that no votes can take place, not just on the piece of legislation at issue. Though perhaps that's also an argument *for* having a similar sort of filibuster/hold at the state level, since it would allow other business to get done. I'm actually more in favor of doing away with the notions of 'holds' at the national level, as in practice, they seem to be used too frequently. I think a return to a more traditional type of filibuster would be good, as it raises the stakes for the objector. I think holds are an over-used tactic, and curtailing their use would be a good thing. |
| 2011-02-20 1:45 PM in reply to: #3364045 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:12 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:04 AM TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 12:52 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 1:44 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:40 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:26 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:19 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:12 AM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress? Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster? I think google can tell you the answer to that. Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting? I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules. Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do. So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly? I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that. Still a non-answer. Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not? I cannot speak for CV but in my mind the act of prevent a vote by NOT following the rules as laid down by the congress is cowardly. Imagine if this happened on every vote that people did not agree with. Nothing would ever happen. Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present. In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote. Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.
The WI Dems who are cowering in IL are violating their oath of office. Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants? It appears from what you've posted here that any and all tactics are OK with you so long as you get your desired result. TriSquared, you pretty much said what I think, thanks. If a method of filibuster ( other than denying a quorum ) were permitted in the rules adopted by the WI senate, would you withdraw your objections to the act of the democratic senators to block a vote from taking place? |
| 2011-02-20 1:51 PM in reply to: #3364078 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-02-20 11:45 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:12 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:04 AM TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 12:52 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 1:44 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:40 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:26 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:19 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:12 AM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress? Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster? I think google can tell you the answer to that. Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting? I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules. Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do. So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly? I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that. Still a non-answer. Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not? I cannot speak for CV but in my mind the act of prevent a vote by NOT following the rules as laid down by the congress is cowardly. Imagine if this happened on every vote that people did not agree with. Nothing would ever happen. Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present. In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote. Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.
The WI Dems who are cowering in IL are violating their oath of office. Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants? It appears from what you've posted here that any and all tactics are OK with you so long as you get your desired result. TriSquared, you pretty much said what I think, thanks. If a method of filibuster ( other than denying a quorum ) were permitted in the rules adopted by the WI senate, would you withdraw your objections to the act of the democratic senators to block a vote from taking place? Answer the bolded then I'll respond to this. |
| 2011-02-20 2:00 PM in reply to: #3364070 |
Master 1529 Living in the past | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-02-20 1:37 PM Force - 2011-02-20 1:09 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 12:12 PM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress?
Reasonable question. Was surprised to find that filibusters exist in state legislatures at all. That said, they don't appear commonly employed for reasons ranging from "past practice and tradition" to an unwillingness to stay in session longer than necessary and part-time legislators. I don't remember the minority party in Wisconsin politics dodging a quorum... Do I like the "hold" at the Fed level? Yeah, as I understand how it works, I do. To me the 'hold' actually speeds the Senate's business as it broadcasts intent to delay without actually having to do so (in the romanticized "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" way). The contentious business can be tabled and other business can then be addressed. In the current situation in Wisconsin, absent a quorum NO senate (and therefore state) business is possible. To RedSharks' point, this sets an interesting contemporary precedent. Apparently Wisconsin rules do not allow for a filibuster (or hold) but along with the rules that compel legislators to be present when the bodies are in session (all this talk of using the State Patrol to round up the wayward Senators if they were in the State), this suggests to me that the rules makers intended for state business to get done quickly and without extensive delay. Interesting to watch and we'll see how things unfold the next time the minority party uses this maneuver. Thank you for the insightful reply. I do see some of the reasons for not having a filibuster at the state level as having merit, especially the fact that no votes can take place, not just on the piece of legislation at issue. Though perhaps that's also an argument *for* having a similar sort of filibuster/hold at the state level, since it would allow other business to get done. I'm actually more in favor of doing away with the notions of 'holds' at the national level, as in practice, they seem to be used too frequently. I think a return to a more traditional type of filibuster would be good, as it raises the stakes for the objector. I think holds are an over-used tactic, and curtailing their use would be a good thing. You and I may agree on the first bolded part. There, I'm on record of (maybe) agreeing with CD on a political topic  and thank you for the compliment. I actually had that same thought all typed up, but deleted it. My counter view is that WI seems to have gotten along without it (past tradition and whatnot). If this drags out much longer and state business is stalled, I suspect there will be calls for this type of rule change. On the second bolded, I see your point, but I have more thoughts. Maybe another time/thread... |
| 2011-02-20 2:17 PM in reply to: #3364082 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:51 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:45 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:12 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:04 AM TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 12:52 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 1:44 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:40 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:26 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:19 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:12 AM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress? Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster? I think google can tell you the answer to that. Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting? I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules. Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do. So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly? I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that. Still a non-answer. Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not? I cannot speak for CV but in my mind the act of prevent a vote by NOT following the rules as laid down by the congress is cowardly. Imagine if this happened on every vote that people did not agree with. Nothing would ever happen. Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present. In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote. Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.
The WI Dems who are cowering in IL are violating their oath of office. Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants? It appears from what you've posted here that any and all tactics are OK with you so long as you get your desired result. TriSquared, you pretty much said what I think, thanks. If a method of filibuster ( other than denying a quorum ) were permitted in the rules adopted by the WI senate, would you withdraw your objections to the act of the democratic senators to block a vote from taking place? Answer the bolded then I'll respond to this. I'm not aware of any laws they have broken. Certainly it is an extraordinary action ( used in the sense that it is out of the ordinary ). I do disagree however, with your premise that it's an illegal action. |
| 2011-02-20 2:32 PM in reply to: #3364100 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-02-20 12:17 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:51 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:45 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:12 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:04 AM TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 12:52 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 1:44 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:40 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:26 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:19 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:12 AM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress? Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster? I think google can tell you the answer to that. Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting? I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules. Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do. So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly? I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that. Still a non-answer. Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not? I cannot speak for CV but in my mind the act of prevent a vote by NOT following the rules as laid down by the congress is cowardly. Imagine if this happened on every vote that people did not agree with. Nothing would ever happen. Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present. In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote. Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.
The WI Dems who are cowering in IL are violating their oath of office. Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants? It appears from what you've posted here that any and all tactics are OK with you so long as you get your desired result. TriSquared, you pretty much said what I think, thanks. If a method of filibuster ( other than denying a quorum ) were permitted in the rules adopted by the WI senate, would you withdraw your objections to the act of the democratic senators to block a vote from taking place? Answer the bolded then I'll respond to this. I'm not aware of any laws they have broken. Certainly it is an extraordinary action ( used in the sense that it is out of the ordinary ). I do disagree however, with your premise that it's an illegal action. That's why I phrased it Laws/Rules, they swore an oath to office and are now fleeing to another state, why are they fleeing to another state, because the WI State Patrol cannot go to another state to arrest them as they have been charged to do. Nice dodge btw. |
| 2011-02-20 2:37 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: |
| 2011-02-20 2:38 PM in reply to: #3364106 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-02-20 2:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 12:17 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:51 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:45 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:12 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:04 AM TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 12:52 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 1:44 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:40 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:26 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:19 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:12 AM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress? Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster? I think google can tell you the answer to that. Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting? I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules. Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do. So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly? I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that. Still a non-answer. Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not? I cannot speak for CV but in my mind the act of prevent a vote by NOT following the rules as laid down by the congress is cowardly. Imagine if this happened on every vote that people did not agree with. Nothing would ever happen. Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present. In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote. Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.
The WI Dems who are cowering in IL are violating their oath of office. Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants? It appears from what you've posted here that any and all tactics are OK with you so long as you get your desired result. TriSquared, you pretty much said what I think, thanks. If a method of filibuster ( other than denying a quorum ) were permitted in the rules adopted by the WI senate, would you withdraw your objections to the act of the democratic senators to block a vote from taking place? Answer the bolded then I'll respond to this. I'm not aware of any laws they have broken. Certainly it is an extraordinary action ( used in the sense that it is out of the ordinary ). I do disagree however, with your premise that it's an illegal action. That's why I phrased it Laws/Rules, they swore an oath to office and are now fleeing to another state, why are they fleeing to another state, because the WI State Patrol cannot go to another state to arrest them as they have been charged to do. Nice dodge btw. Not a dodge, as they won't be arrested even if they return to or had remained in the state. They can be "compelled to appear", but they have not broken any laws and won't be placed under arrest. And it's not against the "rules" for them to deny a quorum. I await your answer. |
| 2011-02-20 3:20 PM in reply to: #3364114 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-02-20 12:38 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 2:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 12:17 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:51 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:45 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:12 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:04 AM TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 12:52 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 1:44 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:40 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:26 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:19 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:12 AM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress? Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster? I think google can tell you the answer to that. Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting? I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules. Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do. So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly? I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that. Still a non-answer. Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not? I cannot speak for CV but in my mind the act of prevent a vote by NOT following the rules as laid down by the congress is cowardly. Imagine if this happened on every vote that people did not agree with. Nothing would ever happen. Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present. In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote. Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.
The WI Dems who are cowering in IL are violating their oath of office. Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants? It appears from what you've posted here that any and all tactics are OK with you so long as you get your desired result. TriSquared, you pretty much said what I think, thanks. If a method of filibuster ( other than denying a quorum ) were permitted in the rules adopted by the WI senate, would you withdraw your objections to the act of the democratic senators to block a vote from taking place? Answer the bolded then I'll respond to this. I'm not aware of any laws they have broken. Certainly it is an extraordinary action ( used in the sense that it is out of the ordinary ). I do disagree however, with your premise that it's an illegal action. That's why I phrased it Laws/Rules, they swore an oath to office and are now fleeing to another state, why are they fleeing to another state, because the WI State Patrol cannot go to another state to arrest them as they have been charged to do. Nice dodge btw. Not a dodge, as they won't be arrested even if they return to or had remained in the state. They can be "compelled to appear", but they have not broken any laws and won't be placed under arrest. And it's not against the "rules" for them to deny a quorum. I await your answer. Wrong, they are in clear violation of the rules. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/unannotated_wisconst.pdf
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. SECTION 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide. |
| 2011-02-20 4:12 PM in reply to: #3364143 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-02-20 3:20 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 12:38 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 2:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 12:17 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:51 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:45 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:12 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:04 AM TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 12:52 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 1:44 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:40 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:26 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:19 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:12 AM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress? Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster? I think google can tell you the answer to that. Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting? I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules. Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do. So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly? I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that. Still a non-answer. Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not? I cannot speak for CV but in my mind the act of prevent a vote by NOT following the rules as laid down by the congress is cowardly. Imagine if this happened on every vote that people did not agree with. Nothing would ever happen. Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present. In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote. Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.
The WI Dems who are cowering in IL are violating their oath of office. Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants? It appears from what you've posted here that any and all tactics are OK with you so long as you get your desired result. TriSquared, you pretty much said what I think, thanks. If a method of filibuster ( other than denying a quorum ) were permitted in the rules adopted by the WI senate, would you withdraw your objections to the act of the democratic senators to block a vote from taking place? Answer the bolded then I'll respond to this. I'm not aware of any laws they have broken. Certainly it is an extraordinary action ( used in the sense that it is out of the ordinary ). I do disagree however, with your premise that it's an illegal action. That's why I phrased it Laws/Rules, they swore an oath to office and are now fleeing to another state, why are they fleeing to another state, because the WI State Patrol cannot go to another state to arrest them as they have been charged to do. Nice dodge btw. Not a dodge, as they won't be arrested even if they return to or had remained in the state. They can be "compelled to appear", but they have not broken any laws and won't be placed under arrest. And it's not against the "rules" for them to deny a quorum. I await your answer. Wrong, they are in clear violation of the rules. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/unannotated_wisconst.pdf
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance.
Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.
Then indeed they should face such penalties as are provided. Now, do you have an answer? |
| 2011-02-20 4:22 PM in reply to: #3363987 |
Extreme Veteran 312 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-02-20 12:12 PM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress?
Your kidding right! A filibuster is a standard procedure. Running away and hiding is childish and cowardly. They don't need to be present in the chambers - why don't they join the protesters or stay home. As far as I am concerned they are a bunch of LOSERS! |
| 2011-02-20 4:22 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: CD, (I'm tired of all the quotes, so snip) Seriously? You compare a filibusterer (which requires a person to take the floor and NOT yield it to leaving the state and refusing to even talk to the other side? It's not like the Republicans can even talk to the Dems to try to get them to see their side. It's really quite different and I honestly believe you know that. The Dems in this situation do not like that they are going to lose and they are holding the entire state hostage. Again, what if this happened on every vote either side were to lose? How is that a democracy? |
| 2011-02-20 4:44 PM in reply to: #3364208 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 4:22 PM CD, (I'm tired of all the quotes, so snip) Seriously? You compare a filibusterer (which requires a person to take the floor and NOT yield it to leaving the state and refusing to even talk to the other side? It's not like the Republicans can even talk to the Dems to try to get them to see their side. It's really quite different and I honestly believe you know that. Yes, I do compare them. And no, I really don't think it's that different. Both are extremely dramatic actions, and serve to disrupt the legislative process to prevent a vote from taking place. Do you disagree that they are dramatic actions, and that the purpose and intent of both actions is to prevent a vote from taking place? As to willingness to discuss, *both* sides have to be willing to discuss, otherwise it's much of a discussion is it? The Dems in this situation do not like that they are going to lose and they are holding the entire state hostage. Again, what if this happened on every vote either side were to lose? How is that a democracy? One could argue that in the face of significant public opposition, the governor's unwillingness to waver from his desire to end collective bargaining, after the unions, the union members, and the opposing senators have conceded to the proposed budget is likewise contributing to the impasse. |
| 2011-02-20 5:14 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. -Franklin Delano Roosevelt Just thought people might be interested. Edited by JoshR 2011-02-20 5:15 PM |
| 2011-02-20 5:58 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Master 2621 Almaden Valley, San Jose, California | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: I'm taking my dolls and going (to somebody else's) home. AND I still expect my allowance. Sarc font not added. |
| 2011-02-20 6:20 PM in reply to: #3363833 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-02-20 10:08 AM Brock Samson - 2011-02-20 5:34 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-18 4:37 PM Brock Samson - 2011-02-18 1:20 PM TriRSquared - 2011-02-18 4:12 PM Brock Samson - 2011-02-18 4:09 PM TriRSquared - 2011-02-18 1:36 PM Brock Samson - 2011-02-18 1:31 PM TriRSquared - 2011-02-18 1:09 PM Persoanlly I do not see a prpoblem with an "assult" on unions. Unions are an obstruction to the turnaround of the US economy. I am neither pro-union or anti-union, neither am I pro-managment or anti-management. I believe that both parties have their short comings and both parties have there merits. However, I find the idea that the elimination of unions will then somehow result in a more fair and equitable working structure almost laughable. To believe this you must believe that managment and owners, out of the shear goodness of thier hearts and their own personal desire to ensure fair wages, will give to their employees. History, and recent history, has demonstrated the contrary. Good and successful companies do understand that they must treat their employees well if they want to maintain a happy and productive workforce. How do you explain the vast majority of employees in the US who are NOT part of a union making a good and sometimes GREAT living? Almost every single modern employee benefit, that we take for granted now, unions forced from the hands of ownership and management. Safe working conditions, child labor laws, minimum wages, health care, retirement. These were not freely given to workers/employees, they were forced concessions due to union pressure, and then became standardized through subsequent regulations. I conceded they *had* their place. However these things are now laws. I see you're from Fla., the reason I also have a problem with the "union" issue as it relates to public employees is that less than 5% of all public employees are in a union. (The Wisc. thing is apparently different, although I would be interested to see the actual percentage of public employees in Wisc. that are members of unions) In Fla., which is a right to work state, this "union" issue is also being bandied about talking about reducing salaries/retirement benefits/health benefits. And it's a red herring because the vast majority, over 95% of all Fla. public employees are NOT in a union. But, the anti-union sentiment is being used as a public argument to sway popular opinion against public employees. From the reports and arguments you would think that every public employee is a union member and all of our salaries and benefits are the result of collective bargaining. It simply isn't true. Very true. Which is why the FL situation is different from the WI situation. While there are some similar points you cannot compare them apples to apples. True, but they are trying to do the exact same thing to public employees in Fla. Reduction in benefits, reduction in retirement, reduction in health insurance. (for instance, the Governor has proposed changing the Florida Retirement service basis for calculating retirment income fomr the current calculation of the average of your last five years of pay to a new calculation of the average of all of your years of service. This will cost me about $40,000 a year!) When an entitiy be it private or public runs out of money, someone is going to get stiffed, whoever is going to get a reduction isn't going to like it. Every decision in life has some gamble to it, you don't like the results of your choice as it goes right now, that's life. We're not talking about being stiffed. We're talking about fundemental changes to a negotiated employment contract. I can only talk about what's happening in Fla. Again, this wasn't a gamble, this was a negotiated terms of employment. The State and the public employees engaged in a quid pro quo. The State wanted to save money up front. And durring the "good" economic times, the State chose to pay it's employees a lower salary compared to private sector workers. (No one in the public complained about this when this was happening) and in exchange for the concession of lower pay they offered certain benefits, including retirment and health care. This wasn't a gamble. This was a term of my employment contract. I detrimentally relied upon this specific and articulated term of my employment contract in that I did not seek higher paying private sector work based upon this specific term of employment. Now, the State want's to say: We paid you less for years ( in my case 16 years) and the portion of your contract that was agreed to to compensate for that lower pay we now aren't going to pay you. Here pay more taxes...how's that. Problem solved.... Everyone is talking that the only solution is changing the pension payouts....Not true, another solution is to increase taxes. Why isn't that being discussed on this board?
The gamble was the agreement made, was made with a party that is financially unable to hold up their side of the agreement. I stick with my assertion that every decision we make in life has some gamble to it, just because you enter into a binding agreement does not mean that agreement is going to ge adhered to. Yes in the past contracts with the government were never much of a gamble, well times have changed. As far as the tax issue I believe it's been addressed but you can only squueze so much out of the private sector. If you keep increasing taxes more and more of those paying the most will leave the state, just as may corporations have moved their labor force out of the USA. The Public Sector should (public servants) NOT make more than the private sector (the puclic servants boss) for similar jobs. Is it fair, no but then again the only thing in life that is fair is the amount of time we each have in a day. Just out of curriosity, what percentage of equivalant pay should public sector employees make as it relates to their private sector counter parts? How much should your prosecutors make to prosecute crimes? If you agree that they should be paid less, how do you propose attracting talented prosecutors, doctors, other proffessionals to the public sector? I'm just curious. Because you want to pay them less and give them less benefits, what is the incentive to go into public sector? Are you expecting us public sector employees simply to suck it up and work altruistically for the greater good to protect you and your family? Remember people when we're talking about the public sector it's not just the senators, and congressmen and mayors and city councilment. It's teacher, police, firemen, prosecutors, public defenders, prison guards, garbage men, accountants, doctors at state hospitals, psychiatrists at state mental facilities. I'm done...this thread is going no where. There seems to be a very skewed view of who makes up the public sector and what we all make.... |
| 2011-02-20 6:21 PM in reply to: #3364269 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: JoshR - 2011-02-20 6:14 PM All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. -Franklin Delano Roosevelt Just thought people might be interested. I agree, but yet again, the vast majority of public employees ARE NOT UNIONIZED! |
| 2011-02-20 6:26 PM in reply to: #3363651 |
Extreme Veteran 499 Racine WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: JSA - 2011-02-20 12:16 AM MarkK - 2011-02-19 9:23 PM JSA - And to you, thank you for your service to our county. As you and I have both experienced the enlisted and officer side of our military careers, I think that you can appreciate and remember that the military (I dont think it matter which service you refer to) developes its leadership in a style and manner that is solely unique to the military. That is not something that is shared in other areas of employment, including some government management positions. What the union has provided in my limited experience has been a set of guidelines that management and employees are required to adhere to in the execution of our respective jobs no matter who the employee is, or who the "employer" is. I like knowing the rules, and I like knowing that there is a set of rules that management is required to also follow which will ensure that I am allowed to effectively and safely do my job. Give me some examples. I would be willing to be the management rights clause in your collective bargaining agreement gives management to sole and exclusive right to created and implement work rules. I am also willing to bet management reserves the sole and exclusive right to determine the number of employees and the manner in which the operation is run. So, give me some examples. Do you have a copy of your cba? What does the management rights section towards the front say? I have been through this a few times in the private sector. This is the first time it has ever happened in the public sector, so, no one has experience in that. However, I think you will find it to be the same as I have experienced in the private sector. A lot fear, but no major problems. Sending you a PM as a response. |
| 2011-02-20 6:39 PM in reply to: #3364333 |
| 49 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Brock Samson - 2011-02-20 6:21 PM JoshR - 2011-02-20 6:14 PM All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. -Franklin Delano Roosevelt Just thought people might be interested. I agree, but yet again, the vast majority of public employees ARE NOT UNIONIZED! Vast majority? 36.2% of all public employees in the US (state and federal) are unionized, so, I do not think "vast" is accurate. According to AFSCME's numbers, in WI, 56% of all public employee are unionized, so, your statement is inaccurate. |
| 2011-02-21 7:32 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
| New Haven, CT | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: what is so cynical about the Wisc initiative is that unions that supported the governor (police for example) are permitted to keep their collective bargaining rights. I agree with FDR, there are issues with unionization of public workers BUT that issue does not change based on wether they are teachers or firefighters. Basically, this is a political action to try and harm the Democrats, not actually balance the budget. Nothing like playing of fears of people and use of half-truths to achieve a political goal - Machiavelli and Richelieu would be so proud of us. |
| 2011-02-21 8:21 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Some information that was presented from a friend that is from the private sector - http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf |
| 2011-02-21 8:25 AM in reply to: #3364016 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: JSA - 2011-02-20 12:48 PM 1stTimeTri - 2011-02-20 11:53 AM I've been thinking it over and wondering if I should ask the mods to freeze this thread or have it removed, or let it continue on in its civil manner? Tough decision. I know I am new here but -- Why would this thread be frozen or removed??? This has been a great exchange of views and opinions, with quite a bit of useful information included. I'm like the Gov. - because I can and there won't be any negotiation. I have considered to not remove the thread. I am thinking that it is time to freeze this thread, though. I think we have covered, from both sides, all that we can without the rehash. |
| 2011-02-21 8:40 AM in reply to: #3364675 |
Master 1529 Living in the past | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: jsklarz - 2011-02-21 7:32 AM what is so cynical about the Wisc initiative is that unions that supported the governor (police for example) are permitted to keep their collective bargaining rights. I agree with FDR, there are issues with unionization of public workers BUT that issue does not change based on wether they are teachers or firefighters. Basically, this is a political action to try and harm the Democrats, not actually balance the budget. Nothing like playing of fears of people and use of half-truths to achieve a political goal - Machiavelli and Richelieu would be so proud of us. I see you created an offshoot thread with a plea of having a 'decent discussion', or something to that effect, but here you insinuate a vendetta, claim 'half-truths' and ascribe Machiavellian intentions, corruption and deceit to those on a particular side of this issue. Nice... |
| 2011-02-21 8:45 AM in reply to: #3364188 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: coredump - 2011-02-20 2:12 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 3:20 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 12:38 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 2:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 12:17 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:51 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:45 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 1:12 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 11:04 AM TriRSquared - 2011-02-20 12:52 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 1:44 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:40 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:32 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:26 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 12:19 PM coredump - 2011-02-20 10:12 AM RedShark - 2011-02-20 11:15 AM My disgust for this is that the Dems ran and hid - very adult move. Should this become the standard - if you don't like something go run and hide. I am sure this will make for an effective government. There is no filibuster allowed in the Wisconsin rules. The only option to effect a "filibuster" is to prevent a quorum. Are you disgusted when filibuster ( or more accurately the "hold", which is basically just a statement of intent to filibuster ) is used in the US congress? Can you be charged with a crime in the US congress for the filibuster? I think google can tell you the answer to that. Care to answer the question I asked instead of deflecting? I thought in my own way I did, the filibuster is a procedure which is within the rules. Running and hiding to a diffent state like cockroaches when the lights come on is a crime & against the rules which is why they fled the state. If they were in the state they would be arrested and brought to the floor to do the job they were elected to do. So the act of preventing a vote is what you find cowardly? I'll try this one last time CD, the act of NOT following the rules/laws set in place, especially by those who take a specific oath to do EXACTLY that. Still a non-answer. Is the act of preventing a vote on legislation you don't agree with cowardly or not? I cannot speak for CV but in my mind the act of prevent a vote by NOT following the rules as laid down by the congress is cowardly. Imagine if this happened on every vote that people did not agree with. Nothing would ever happen. Well, the rules say that for a vote to take place, a quorum must be present. In my view, the act of filibuster and the act of denying a quorum serve to accomplish the same thing in preventing a vote. Filibuster ( or the threat of filibuster ) in the US congress has the effect of causing opposing sides to reach compromises and reconcile differences of opinion. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I'm trying to ask why it seems one is perfectly acceptable and the other is a cowardly avoidance of duties, when they both have the same result.
The WI Dems who are cowering in IL are violating their oath of office. Why do you feel violating the law/rules is acceptable for these public servants? It appears from what you've posted here that any and all tactics are OK with you so long as you get your desired result. TriSquared, you pretty much said what I think, thanks. If a method of filibuster ( other than denying a quorum ) were permitted in the rules adopted by the WI senate, would you withdraw your objections to the act of the democratic senators to block a vote from taking place? Answer the bolded then I'll respond to this. I'm not aware of any laws they have broken. Certainly it is an extraordinary action ( used in the sense that it is out of the ordinary ). I do disagree however, with your premise that it's an illegal action. That's why I phrased it Laws/Rules, they swore an oath to office and are now fleeing to another state, why are they fleeing to another state, because the WI State Patrol cannot go to another state to arrest them as they have been charged to do. Nice dodge btw. Not a dodge, as they won't be arrested even if they return to or had remained in the state. They can be "compelled to appear", but they have not broken any laws and won't be placed under arrest. And it's not against the "rules" for them to deny a quorum. I await your answer. Wrong, they are in clear violation of the rules. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/unannotated_wisconst.pdf
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance.
Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.
Then indeed they should face such penalties as are provided. Now, do you have an answer? What was the question? |
| 2011-02-21 8:47 AM in reply to: #3364331 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Brock Samson - 2011-02-20 4:20 PM crusevegas - 2011-02-20 10:08 AM Brock Samson - 2011-02-20 5:34 AM crusevegas - 2011-02-18 4:37 PM Brock Samson - 2011-02-18 1:20 PM TriRSquared - 2011-02-18 4:12 PM Brock Samson - 2011-02-18 4:09 PM TriRSquared - 2011-02-18 1:36 PM Brock Samson - 2011-02-18 1:31 PM TriRSquared - 2011-02-18 1:09 PM Persoanlly I do not see a prpoblem with an "assult" on unions. Unions are an obstruction to the turnaround of the US economy. I am neither pro-union or anti-union, neither am I pro-managment or anti-management. I believe that both parties have their short comings and both parties have there merits. However, I find the idea that the elimination of unions will then somehow result in a more fair and equitable working structure almost laughable. To believe this you must believe that managment and owners, out of the shear goodness of thier hearts and their own personal desire to ensure fair wages, will give to their employees. History, and recent history, has demonstrated the contrary. Good and successful companies do understand that they must treat their employees well if they want to maintain a happy and productive workforce. How do you explain the vast majority of employees in the US who are NOT part of a union making a good and sometimes GREAT living? Almost every single modern employee benefit, that we take for granted now, unions forced from the hands of ownership and management. Safe working conditions, child labor laws, minimum wages, health care, retirement. These were not freely given to workers/employees, they were forced concessions due to union pressure, and then became standardized through subsequent regulations. I conceded they *had* their place. However these things are now laws. I see you're from Fla., the reason I also have a problem with the "union" issue as it relates to public employees is that less than 5% of all public employees are in a union. (The Wisc. thing is apparently different, although I would be interested to see the actual percentage of public employees in Wisc. that are members of unions) In Fla., which is a right to work state, this "union" issue is also being bandied about talking about reducing salaries/retirement benefits/health benefits. And it's a red herring because the vast majority, over 95% of all Fla. public employees are NOT in a union. But, the anti-union sentiment is being used as a public argument to sway popular opinion against public employees. From the reports and arguments you would think that every public employee is a union member and all of our salaries and benefits are the result of collective bargaining. It simply isn't true. Very true. Which is why the FL situation is different from the WI situation. While there are some similar points you cannot compare them apples to apples. True, but they are trying to do the exact same thing to public employees in Fla. Reduction in benefits, reduction in retirement, reduction in health insurance. (for instance, the Governor has proposed changing the Florida Retirement service basis for calculating retirment income fomr the current calculation of the average of your last five years of pay to a new calculation of the average of all of your years of service. This will cost me about $40,000 a year!) When an entitiy be it private or public runs out of money, someone is going to get stiffed, whoever is going to get a reduction isn't going to like it. Every decision in life has some gamble to it, you don't like the results of your choice as it goes right now, that's life. We're not talking about being stiffed. We're talking about fundemental changes to a negotiated employment contract. I can only talk about what's happening in Fla. Again, this wasn't a gamble, this was a negotiated terms of employment. The State and the public employees engaged in a quid pro quo. The State wanted to save money up front. And durring the "good" economic times, the State chose to pay it's employees a lower salary compared to private sector workers. (No one in the public complained about this when this was happening) and in exchange for the concession of lower pay they offered certain benefits, including retirment and health care. This wasn't a gamble. This was a term of my employment contract. I detrimentally relied upon this specific and articulated term of my employment contract in that I did not seek higher paying private sector work based upon this specific term of employment. Now, the State want's to say: We paid you less for years ( in my case 16 years) and the portion of your contract that was agreed to to compensate for that lower pay we now aren't going to pay you. Here pay more taxes...how's that. Problem solved.... Everyone is talking that the only solution is changing the pension payouts....Not true, another solution is to increase taxes. Why isn't that being discussed on this board?
The gamble was the agreement made, was made with a party that is financially unable to hold up their side of the agreement. I stick with my assertion that every decision we make in life has some gamble to it, just because you enter into a binding agreement does not mean that agreement is going to ge adhered to. Yes in the past contracts with the government were never much of a gamble, well times have changed. As far as the tax issue I believe it's been addressed but you can only squueze so much out of the private sector. If you keep increasing taxes more and more of those paying the most will leave the state, just as may corporations have moved their labor force out of the USA. The Public Sector should (public servants) NOT make more than the private sector (the puclic servants boss) for similar jobs. Is it fair, no but then again the only thing in life that is fair is the amount of time we each have in a day. Just out of curriosity, what percentage of equivalant pay should public sector employees make as it relates to their private sector counter parts? How much should your prosecutors make to prosecute crimes? If you agree that they should be paid less, how do you propose attracting talented prosecutors, doctors, other proffessionals to the public sector? I'm just curious. Because you want to pay them less and give them less benefits, what is the incentive to go into public sector? Are you expecting us public sector employees simply to suck it up and work altruistically for the greater good to protect you and your family? Remember people when we're talking about the public sector it's not just the senators, and congressmen and mayors and city councilment. It's teacher, police, firemen, prosecutors, public defenders, prison guards, garbage men, accountants, doctors at state hospitals, psychiatrists at state mental facilities. I'm done...this thread is going no where. There seems to be a very skewed view of who makes up the public sector and what we all make.... Can you point out where I said the Public Employees should be paid less? I went through some of the teacher salaries including benefits one that stood out to me was a librarian making over $100k a year. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK