Pages

Jump to bottom

48 comments

1 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:25:10am

Actually it was Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, that opposed public service unions in 1978 when he passed the Civil Service Reform Act.

The 1978 bill went even further than Walkers Bill as it focused on
worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

I know the facts hurt, but thanks to Jimmy Carter Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a “right to work zone.”

Federal employees cannot collectively bargain for many issues including pay, and by law are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues.
For all of their anti WI talk, neither Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever even thought about changing those facts.

2 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:27:05am

re: #1 Buck

Actually it was Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, that opposed public service unions in 1978 when he passed the Civil Service Reform Act.

The 1978 bill went even further than Walkers Bill as it focused on
worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

I know the facts hurt, but thanks to Jimmy Carter Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a “right to work zone.”

Federal employees cannot collectively bargain for many issues including pay, and by law are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues.
For all of their anti WI talk, neither Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever even thought about changing those facts.

What democrats once did doesn’t excuse what Republicans are doing now.

3 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:33:18am

re: #2 jamesfirecat

What democrats once did doesn’t excuse what Republicans are doing now.

Funny that you don’t see this as hypocritical.

Union Power for Thee, But Not for Me!

4 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:36:31am

re: #3 Buck

Funny that you don’t see this as hypocritical.

Union Power for Thee, But Not for Me!

I support Unions in both places. So I’m sure as not a hypocrite. As for Obama, regardless of if he supports unions in DC or not, there’s no way he could bring them back with the current Republican controlled house not to mention such a bill would get filibustered to death in the senate.

Fight the battles you can win Buck.

5 MinisterO  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:51:59am

re: #1 Buck

Cut and paste much? At least cite your source.

6 Gus  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:56:42am

re: #1 Buck

Actually it was Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, that opposed public service unions in 1978 when he passed the Civil Service Reform Act.

The 1978 bill went even further than Walkers Bill as it focused on
worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

I know the facts hurt, but thanks to Jimmy Carter Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a “right to work zone.”

Federal employees cannot collectively bargain for many issues including pay, and by law are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues.
For all of their anti WI talk, neither Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever even thought about changing those facts.

Well damn. I guess we should focus our attention and opposition to Jimmy Carter instead. I better notify the Wisconsin unions and the DNC.

Tu quoque. It’s what’s for breakfast.

7 MinisterO  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:57:05am

re: #1 Buck

It’s funny that those who so quickly denounce hypocrisy in others are completely unable to recognize it in the mirror.

8 Gus  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:57:36am

Minor note. “Overreach” is one word. No biggie.

9 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 7:58:07am

re: #4 jamesfirecat

I support Unions in both places. So I’m sure as not a hypocrite. As for Obama, regardless of if he supports unions in DC or not, there’s no way he could bring them back with the current Republican controlled house not to mention such a bill would get filibustered to death in the senate.

Fight the battles you can win Buck.

It is so funny that you excuse a group that had a majority in BOTH houses and the Presidents pen, and yet somehow they were thwarted by the evil minority republicans by the super weapon filibusters.

Let me explain. IF YOU CAN COUNT, Democrats could have passed anything they wanted IF they had the votes. The Votes had to only come from Democrats. You are drinking the kool aid if you think they had the votes in their own party, but were stymied by republicans.

It is nice to hear you support Unions. However it has been a fact for a long time that both Union and management need to have limits to their power. It has been generally accepted by both side that in the case of Public Service workers, the supposed right to collective bargaining can have limits.

You are a hypocrite if you fail to acknowledge that Democrats and Republicans AND UNIONS have accepted that premise since at least 1978.

It didn’t mean the end to unions then, and it doesn’t now.
It didn’t mean that workers would be abused then, and it doesn’t now.
It didn’t mean the employees would stop paying unions dues then, and it doesn’t now.

10 MinisterO  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:01:26am

re: #1 Buck

Aw hell this isn’t even accurate. Typical Buck, quoting from wingnuttia without bothering to fact-check.

11 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:01:55am

re: #9 Buck

It is so funny that you excuse a group that had a majority in BOTH houses and the Presidents pen, and yet somehow they were thwarted by the evil minority republicans by the super weapon filibusters.

Let me explain. IF YOU CAN COUNT, Democrats could have passed anything they wanted IF they had the votes. The Votes had to only come from Democrats. You are drinking the kool aid if you think they had the votes in their own party, but were stymied by republicans.

It is nice to hear you support Unions. However it has been a fact for a long time that both Union and management need to have limits to their power. It has been generally accepted by both side that in the case of Public Service workers, the supposed right to collective bargaining can have limits.

You are a hypocrite if you fail to acknowledge that Democrats and Republicans AND UNIONS have accepted that premise since at least 1978.

It didn’t mean the end to unions then, and it doesn’t now.
It didn’t mean that workers would be abused then, and it doesn’t now.
It didn’t mean the employees would stop paying unions dues then, and it doesn’t now.

“You are a hypocrite if you fail to acknowledge that Democrats and Republicans AND UNIONS have accepted that premise since at least 1978.”

If democrats accepted that premise in 1978 why did they rally against Walker so visciously?

12 MinisterO  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:03:00am

re: #11 jamesfirecat

“You are a hypocrite if you fail to acknowledge that Democrats and Republicans AND UNIONS have accepted that premise since at least 1978.”

If democrats accepted that premise in 1978 why did they rally against Walker so visciously?

Don’t get sucked into a stupid argument. There’s quite a bit of interpretation in Buck’s #1, and it’s not his own.

13 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:03:02am

re: #6 Gus 802

Well damn. I guess we should focus our attention and opposition to Jimmy Carter instead. I better notify the Wisconsin unions and the DNC.

Tu quoque. It’s what’s for breakfast.

I don’t think that pointing out that democrats are being hypocritical about public sector unions and collective bargaining is Tu quoque. I don’t think that pointing out that it was NOT Reagan who should be famous for opposing public sector unions as is inferred by the OP, but it should be Jimmy Carter is Tu quoque.

I think you use that phrase way too much. It seems to be your answer to almost everything you disagree with.

14 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:03:35am

re: #11 jamesfirecat

“You are a hypocrite if you fail to acknowledge that Democrats and Republicans AND UNIONS have accepted that premise since at least 1978.”

If democrats accepted that premise in 1978 why did they rally against Walker so visciously?

Because he is a Republican.

15 Gus  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:04:03am

re: #14 Buck

Because he is a Republican.

Because it’s not 1978.

16 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:06:24am

re: #9 Buck

It is so funny that you excuse a group that had a majority in BOTH houses and the Presidents pen, and yet somehow they were thwarted by the evil minority republicans by the super weapon filibusters.

Let me explain. IF YOU CAN COUNT, Democrats could have passed anything they wanted IF they had the votes. The Votes had to only come from Democrats. You are drinking the kool aid if you think they had the votes in their own party, but were stymied by republicans.

It is nice to hear you support Unions. However it has been a fact for a long time that both Union and management need to have limits to their power. It has been generally accepted by both side that in the case of Public Service workers, the supposed right to collective bargaining can have limits.

You are a hypocrite if you fail to acknowledge that Democrats and Republicans AND UNIONS have accepted that premise since at least 1978.

It didn’t mean the end to unions then, and it doesn’t now.
It didn’t mean that workers would be abused then, and it doesn’t now.
It didn’t mean the employees would stop paying unions dues then, and it doesn’t now.

Also on the issue of what could and couldn’t be passed…

Al Franken became a Senator on July 7, 2009, Scott Brown became one on February 4, 2010.

Yes there was a six month gap there where if Democrats voted all together they could have passed whatever they wanted.

However they chose instead to focus on healthcare reform over restoring Unions.

Forgive me for refusing to chastise the democrats for doing something which would help the whole country for years to come rather than just the union members of DC…

17 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:06:53am

re: #14 Buck

Because he is a Republican.

So you’re saying that Unions will accept losing their power if a Democrat is behind it?

18 Gus  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:11:56am

re: #15 Gus 802

Because it’s not 1978.

Anyway. That’s not the whole point. The fact remains that college dropout and slack jawed Walker wanted, wants, to be like Reagan and has, and is failing with at least half of Americans and the people of Wisconsin.

19 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:12:08am

re: #12 MinisterO

Don’t get sucked into a stupid argument. There’s quite a bit of interpretation in Buck’s #1, and it’s not his own.

re: #17 jamesfirecat

So you’re saying that Unions will accept losing their power if a Democrat is behind it?

They did in 1978… didn’t they? Did you ever hear anything about this obvious war on unions before I told you? Did the unions ever bring up this clear assault on their basic human rights ever?

Bottom line… when the union tells you that collective bargaining is a right for public sector employees, they know it is not true. When the union tells you that this is an attack on them in order to dissolve them, they know it is not true. When YOU ASK THE QUESTION “if the union does not have the power to collectively bargain for wages, why should anyone pay union dues?” the union knows the answer, and now you should too.

20 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:15:26am

re: #19 Buck

re: #17 jamesfirecat

They did in 1978… didn’t they? Did you ever hear anything about this obvious war on unions before I told you? Did the unions ever bring up this clear assault on their basic human rights ever?

Bottom line… when the union tells you that collective bargaining is a right for public sector employees, they know it is not true. When the union tells you that this is an attack on them in order to dissolve them, they know it is not true. When YOU ASK THE QUESTION “if the union does not have the power to collectively bargain for wages, why should anyone pay union dues?” the union knows the answer, and now you should too.

Buck do you know the answer? And if you do can you just tell me rather than forcing me to go running around asking people in DC why they’re sitll union members?

21 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:22:29am

re: #20 jamesfirecat

Buck do you know the answer? And if you do can you just tell me rather than forcing me to go running around asking people in DC why they’re sitll union members?

Wow, i really thought it was obvious. Wages are only part of what’s important to public sector employees when they negotiate with management.

The fact is that spending less time on wages allows for moire time on more important issues, like working conditions.

seniority, schedules, the length of shifts…

Unions still able to represent and bargain for every kind of working condition imaginable.

It is only the unions that are characterizing this as the complete end to collective bargaining. That was a lie they told you. I have been telling you from the start that it is ONLY setting limits. AND that limits have always been there.

22 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:26:58am

re: #16 jamesfirecat


However they chose instead to focus on healthcare reform over restoring Unions.

I think they could have done both, IF they really wanted to. You know, walk and chew gum at the same time? The fact is they didn’t want to. Why? Because it WAS not THEN the assault on unions that they want to characterize the WI bill to be.

23 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:27:00am

re: #21 Buck

Wow, i really thought it was obvious. Wages are only part of what’s important to public sector employees when they negotiate with management.

The fact is that spending less time on wages allows for moire time on more important issues, like working conditions.

seniority, schedules, the length of shifts…

Unions still able to represent and bargain for every kind of working condition imaginable.

It is only the unions that are characterizing this as the complete end to collective bargaining. That was a lie they told you. I have been telling you from the start that it is ONLY setting limits. AND that limits have always been there.

Um buck…

“The fact is that spending less time on wages allows for moire time on more important issues, like working conditions.

seniority, schedules, the length of shifts…”

Um Buck doesn’t the Wisconsin Bill that Walker brought up make it illegal for unions to collectively bargain on those things?

24 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:32:11am

re: #8 Gus 802

Corrected & thanks

25 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:34:02am

re: #21 Buck

Wow, i really thought it was obvious. Wages are only part of what’s important to public sector employees when they negotiate with management.

The fact is that spending less time on wages allows for moire time on more important issues, like working conditions.

seniority, schedules, the length of shifts…

Unions still able to represent and bargain for every kind of working condition imaginable.

It is only the unions that are characterizing this as the complete end to collective bargaining. That was a lie they told you. I have been telling you from the start that it is ONLY setting limits. AND that limits have always been there.

“This Bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of wages”

[Link: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com…]

Buck if as you say there are many issues more important than wages that unions should be spending their time collectively bargaining for… then haven’t you just perfectly explained why Walker’s Bill is so outrageous to Unions while Carter’s wasn’t?

26 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:37:53am

See? My point illustrated. We are over a decade into a new century, a new Millenia, and conservatives do a knee jerk reach back to last century and Carter/Reagan days whenever they do anything. Dwelling in the past doesn’t gain you new strategies or new ideas.

27 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:38:32am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

Um buck…

“The fact is that spending less time on wages allows for moire time on more important issues, like working conditions.

seniority, schedules, the length of shifts…”

Um Buck doesn’t the Wisconsin Bill that Walker brought up make it illegal for unions to collectively bargain on those things?

NO. In the case of the teachers unions (for example) it is only wages. The bill sets wages to be only increased to a limit (unless there is an exception it could be higher) of inflation.

There is a part of the bill that says the Unions have to collect their own dues.

It does not mean the end of negotiations on working conditions.

28 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:39:16am

re: #27 Buck

NO. In the case of the teachers unions (for example) it is only wages. The bill sets wages to be only increased to a limit (unless there is an exception it could be higher) of inflation.

There is a part of the bill that says the Unions have to collect their own dues.

It does not mean the end of negotiations on working conditions.

Please explain this

“This Bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of wages”

[Link: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com…]

29 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:39:41am

re: #28 jamesfirecat

Please explain this

“This Bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of wages”

[Link: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com…]

Sorry messed up the link.
[Link: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com…]

30 Lidane  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:42:46am

re: #26 Thanos

See? My point illustrated. We are over a decade into a new century, a new Millenia, and conservatives do a knee jerk reach back to last century and Carter/Reagan days whenever they do anything.

That’s because it’s all they know. When in doubt, demonize Carter and idolize Reagan. It’s the GOP default setting.

Dwelling in the past doesn’t gain you new strategies or new ideas.

Conservatism is all about dwelling in the past. It’s in the name. They don’t have any new ideas because new ideas are a threat to the old order.

31 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:43:50am

re: #25 jamesfirecat

“This Bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of wages”

[Link: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com…]

Buck if as you say there are many issues more important than wages that unions should be spending their time collectively bargaining for… then haven’t you just perfectly explained why Walker’s Bill is so outrageous to Unions while Carter’s wasn’t?

NO, you are miss quoting the WLRB.

This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of base wages,” states the WLRB.
“In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index,” the WLRB added. A “referendum” would require a statewide election.

They mean that on the subject of wages, the UNION is limited to only the BASE WAGES. So the limit is mentioned as a subset of the wages collective bargaining. Just like I have been telling you all along.

32 Lidane  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:44:14am

re: #12 MinisterO

There’s quite a bit of interpretation in Buck’s #1, and it’s not his own.

This is the key point— the first post in this thread was a cut and paste job that didn’t cite a source and just presented someone else’s words as an argument.

Trying to debate that is pointless. You might as well slam your head into a brick wall, since it would be a better use of your time.

33 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:47:10am

re: #32 Lidane

This is the key point— the first post in this thread was a cut and paste job that didn’t cite a source and just presented someone else’s words as an argument.

Trying to debate that is pointless. You might as well slam your head into a brick wall, since it would be a better use of your time.

I made the same points (not an argument, but a statement of facts) back in February.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

34 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:47:25am

re: #31 Buck

NO, you are miss quoting the WLRB.

This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of base wages,” states the WLRB.
“In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index,” the WLRB added. A “referendum” would require a statewide election.

They mean that on the subject of wages, the UNION is limited to only the BASE WAGES. So the limit is mentioned as a subset of the wages collective bargaining. Just like I have been telling you all along.

Um buck it says “to” not “on”

35 Lidane  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:49:38am

re: #33 Buck

Correction— you cut and paste another article back in February. You even admit as much in the first few comments.

FAIL.

36 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:54:06am

re: #35 Lidane

Correction— you cut and paste another article back in February. You even admit as much in the first few comments.

FAIL.

Fail what? Of course I do research on the internet. Are my facts wrong?

Did I actually cut and paste whole paragraphs from someone? No.

You can’t argue with the facts, so you try and say I got this from the internet. Wow… all I can say is Wow that is weak.

37 Obdicut  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:55:20am

re: #36 Buck

The facts are that it says ‘to’ not ‘on’, and the Wisconsin bill restrains collective bargaining in exactly the way you’re claiming it doesn’t.

You don’t do research online. You simply find things that agree with your ideological position and regurgitate them, leading to humiliating moments like this.

38 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:55:30am

re: #31 Buck

NO, you are miss quoting the WLRB.

This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of base wages,” states the WLRB.
“In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index,” the WLRB added. A “referendum” would require a statewide election.

They mean that on the subject of wages, the UNION is limited to only the BASE WAGES. So the limit is mentioned as a subset of the wages collective bargaining. Just like I have been telling you all along.

Buck I’m not arguing about how it limits wages.

I’m arguing that it removes the unions ability to collectively bargain on everything else.

Do you argue that it doesn’t do this?

39 Lidane  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 8:56:23am

re: #36 Buck

What’s weak is you presenting someone else’s words as your own argument. Also, using Google to find articles that agree with you isn’t research. It’s cherry picking.

Again, you FAIL.

40 Obdicut  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:01:37am

I mean, shit, this isn’t hard to figure out. It’s been reported in nearly every goddamn article on this bill. It takes a special person who’s committed to denying reality in order to defend the party and ideology of his choice not to get it.

[Link: www.foxnews.com…]

Under the law, most public sector workers must contribute more to their pensions and health care, changes that amount to an 8 percent pay cut. The measure also prohibits them from collectively bargaining on all work conditions except wage increase up to the rate of inflation.

Bolded for the ideologically blinded.

41 Buck  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:02:06am

re: #34 jamesfirecat

Um buck it says “to” not “on”

Yes, the LIMITS are TO base wages.

42 Obdicut  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:03:16am

re: #41 Buck

Amazing. Simply amazing. Doesn’t matter what reality is, you’re just going to grit your teeth and ignore it.

Why? What can drive you to seek humiliation in this fashion?

43 Randall Gross  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:07:17am

Oh my. Buck’s about to break negative 4K.

44 Lidane  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:08:11am

re: #42 Obdicut

Why? What can drive you to seek humiliation in this fashion?

Masochism.

45 jamesfirecat  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:08:46am

re: #41 Buck

Yes, the LIMITS are TO base wages.

re: #41 Buck

Yes, the LIMITS are TO base wages.

How would it have to be written for it to say that it was limiting it to JUST base wages then and eliminating all other collective bargaining rights?

46 CuriousLurker  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 9:47:21am

Thanks for a well written article, Randall.

47 researchok  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 4:22:20pm

Best remarks of the week.

48 MinisterO  Thu, Apr 7, 2011 5:44:47pm

When in doubt go to the source.

111.70 (4) (mb) Prohibited subjects of bargaining; general municipal employees. The municipal employer is prohibited from bargaining collectively with a collective bargaining unit containing a general municipal employee with respect to any of the following:

1. Any factor or condition of employment except wages, which includes only total base wages and excludes any other compensation, which includes, but is not limited to, overtime, premium pay, merit pay, performance pay, supplemental compensation, pay schedules, and automatic pay progressions.

Yes, folks, Buck is full of shit. Total base wages is the only thing they’re being allowed to bargain over.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 118 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 279 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1