| Author | Message | ||
     Strokizator |
What I find interesting is the high number of union pipe fitters, plumbers, etc. who start their own NON-UNION businesses. They may as well put up a sign that says "Yeah, I really wasn't worth that much". | ||
| Swordsman |
I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually specify WHAT unions are supposed to be protecting employees from. I mean, once upon a time there were all kinds of crazy, unsafe stuff that went on, but we have federal laws for that now. Wrongful termination? So sue. Long term injuries? I thought that was handled by disability insurance? What is it that the companies are doing to workers that requires "protection"? ~SM | ||
| Blake |
Speaking from experience, they ensure that only a designated union employee can plug in the extension chord or push the "play" button on the video camera. | ||
| Blake |
Jerseydevil, >>> Now, back to my $48,000 thats breaking the bank. Show me an equipment operator, union or not, making $23.00 an hour. Come to Texas and you'll likely find plenty. What kind of truck are you being paid to drive? | ||
| Swordsman |
Blake, my uncle in San Fran has griped about that. Not sure if this was at the bank or not, but somewhere he worked out there, you weren't allowed to open your own blinds. Someone had to come do it for you. ~SM | ||
| Britchri10 |
I live & work in N.Florida. It's a right to work State but my employment is Unionized. As it's Florida, I don't have to join or contribute to the Union but my work (I'm hourly paid) is subject to the Union's agreement with my employer. It is not a good work environment. No one can be fired/dismissed/disciplined or even reprimanded without Union involvement. Employees take advantage of Union representation & grieve everything! (I don't want to go into specifics 'cause my employer would take a dim view of my discussing anything to do with my job on an internet forum.) Suffice to say, anyone who wants to work and show some initiative is hamstrung by the majority who want it all without putting anything other than the minimum effort into their work. (For the record: I used to be a rep' for the ASTMS Union in the UK). I cannot function to the best of my ability because of the Union & its influence. It sucks! Chris C | ||
| Buellkowski |
Unions and employers enter into contracts by mutual agreement to avert the threat of strike or lockout. If you think a particular contract stipulation is silly, rest assured both sides agreed to accept it as part of the overall contract negotiation. I agree that when a union and its employer get too cozy, the consumer can suffer. But blaming the union alone for any perceived largesse is a gross oversimplification. Employers play their part, too, as the example of the "old" GM can attest. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
You have got to be kidding. Obviously you guys are not paying attention to what is actually going on. Every dollar that Walker wrestles away has so far, NOT gone to deficit reduction, but has been handed over to corporations for "job" creation. The crisis in Wisconsin started with $140 million dollar gift to the job creation gods. So far no announcement of any jobs unless you count the seven lobbists in Koch Industries new offices on the square. The Wisconsin bill also included: the replacement of 37 high level civil service jobs with 37 patronage positions - really? you think that is a good idea? Would it be a good idea if it was a democrat handing those jobs out with every turn of an election cycle. Wisconsin has prided itself on not being like old Mayor Daley's Chicago. That will now come to an end with the new Walker patronage system. The bill also includes the power for one person (the Governor) to set the value for the sale of state owned power plants (think heating and powering the capital and university)in a one time shot of money that will leave the state beholden to that power plant owner forever. No bid, no hearing, no recourse, no appeal, sale decided entirely by one person to do as he pleases (I'm not thinking he is an expert on power plant valuation) - Does anybody think that is a good idea? It is "not a union busting bill" BUT every year now, every union will have re-certify and they will have to get more than 50% of all the possible votes to stay certified. If only 49% of the ballots are returned - can't certify even with 100% of the vote. REALLY? If politicians had to meet that standard - we would not have any elected officials. Can Governor Walker walk that walk? (only 52% of less than half the electorate). Oh yeah, the state has said it will have to hire more people to send out 175,000 union certification ballots every year until the unions give up the fight. Cost savings? The Wall Street bankers are collecting 25 million dollar BONUSES less than a year after they put the entire economy and their companies in the toilet AND we bailed them out with TARP money. If anybody even discusses taxing that money - there is a howl that "HEY, IT'S NOT RIGHT!!! THAT IS THEIR MONEY, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP IT!!! But if a teacher makes $45,000 a year... well that is criminal. Take off your union hating blinders and pay attention to what is going on | ||
| Two_seasons |
Aussie: $48K teacher...really, what year of service and what step is that teacher at? WI teachers salaries are posted on the internet. One of my neighbors makes $114,000 with benefits. Not bad for 180 classroom days and 190 days/year (in-service included) total. It takes 52 families in Waukesha to pay for the teacher's annual salary and benefits! The employer's (we the people) ability to pay has been curtailed (read mass unemployment). You'd think surely a guy like you would know this as you live in probably the highest unemployment areas of the state right now (GM shut the plant down in Janesville). (Message edited by two_seasons on March 22, 2011) (Message edited by two_seasons on March 22, 2011) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Where do tax revenues come from to fund the budget in Wisconsin? | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Two seasons: Let's cherry pick the wall street bankers and compare salaries. If you look at the posted salaries are all of them making $114,000 Nooo... Is their any expectation that corporations should help lift the load? Dumping more money at the top does not create jobs - demand creates jobs and that comes from people that actually have to spend the money not just accumulate it - Corporations are already sitting on a pile of money "waiting" for demand to kick in. What about the revenue side - for ten years we have been told that we can fight two wars and have tax cuts for all... Doesn't seem to be working. Your right Janesville is huge unemployment and cutting teachers salaries and laying them off is going to improve the picture how? With tax cuts for all and huge unemployment... all we have to do is cut some more "If you only TRUELY believe, it HAS to come true." | ||
| Strokizator |
Since when doesn't anybody pay tax on bonuses? It's always been my contention that while govt openly chastises corporations for "obscene" bonuses they are inwardly drooling over getting their 33% off the top. Corporations are sitting on their money (those that have any) because they are waiting to see just which way the govt and/or interest rates are going to move. Then they'll use it to their advantage whether that means spend it on capital improvements, hand it out in bonuses or just build a big bonfire. As far as "helping lift the load" I'm still waiting for the bottom 50% to get off their asses. Maybe if I wasn't helping support some welfare cheat with 6 kids from 6 different dads or some fraud on disability for a "bad back" I could look forward to my own retirement. Moochers and looters. | ||
| 2008xb12scg |
WI teachers salaries are posted on the internet. One of my neighbors makes $114,000 with benefits. Not bad for 180 classroom days and 190 days/year (in-service included) total. It takes 52 families in Waukesha to pay for the teacher's annual salary and benefits! wow, her in California they don't make half that. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Wow! | ||
| Jerzydevil |
Jerseydevil, >>> Now, back to my $48,000 thats breaking the bank. Show me an equipment operator, union or not, making $23.00 an hour. Come to Texas and you'll likely find plenty. What kind of truck are you being paid to drive? Anything from six wheeled dump trucks to tractors with lowboy trailers moving equipment around. Plus running the equipment. In this part of the country most operators I speak to are making $40 plus an hour, non union. Non government work. That being said, I took my job knowing I would forever be underpaid compared to the private sector. It was what I needed as far as time off and benefits (single dad of 2, taking care of my mom with MS). While everyone is all pissed at the public employees, why not start at upper management instead of the little guy doing the work. You know, the bosses who are making $85-150 grand a year, have a government vehicle to take home on the taxpayer dollar when gas/fuel is at an all time high. Or ALL upper echelon elected offices (gov. on up,) who get a taxpayer funded pension after serving 1 term in office when they DID NOT pay into it. | ||
| Two_seasons |
Aussie: I can't state it any better than I already have. By the way, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers pay those taxes. And corp. execs salaries aren't funded by the taxpayers, they are funded from the profits of capitalism! Corporations are "sitting on their cash" because they don't know if/when more gov't regs, obamacare, etc. will kick in. Maybe they will take their cash and build a brand new complex somewhere else, maybe in USA or maybe not, that is more favorable to their particular situation. I am a small business owner too, so I know about the gov't double dipping into my profits and my hourds of cash that I have laying around. Regarding WI teachers, this Walker bill/law will allow local communities to determine who stays/who goes w/o regard to seniority in their union. They will have that option and the teachers will have the option to either be a part of the teachers union or not, without the school district and school board keeping them out of the classroom because they don't belong to the union. Wouldn't it be refreshing, for a change, to see teachers that actually teach, that actually care about what they are producing, rather than just babysitting them until they can pass them on to the next grade/teacher? A little off subject, but what are we the people going to do when all functions are federally controlled, when all state powers are totally absorbed, by the federal gov't? Where will we move to then to get away from the oppression from a state that has run amuck with taxing anything that moves? I've lived in 5 states, each time moving to improve my position, my lot in life, so I know where I speak from. It's the same for all those around us that are whining about their current situation. We have become a nation of whiners and we expect that our gov't will nanny state to our graves! What that line of thinking will do is run our states/USA into bankruptcy! I can't give anymore, I'm tapped out. Enough with the class warfare. Either we are the united states of america, or we will continue to divide and whine. What ever happened to JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? | ||
| Kc10_fe |
Ok that makes sense now.I know the IUOE guys makes some nice cash when work is plenty. | ||
| Kenm123t |
The reason ex union pipe fitters go non union is they see how bad the rank and file just screw around and waste time bullshit thier way on job skills. We get tired of a system that is doomed to failure good folks will not stay working in a corrupt environment. The other reason is they want some thing better than Kissing a BA s butt to get on the Power house job etc and have to pay him a kick back to get on it. Oh and the bidding that goes on to be the Steward. Translation for you non union types The PAID non working Grievance generator Its sad typicaly no union makes more money and have better insurance and non stolen pensions If you wanttosee wasted pension funds look up the UA and Westin Diplomat in Ft Lauderdale FL DEPT OF JUSTICE AND DEPT OF LABOR WERE ALL OVER THAT | ||
| Kc10_fe |
Most of my family is UA 250 on the hot side. Interesting things happen out in Ca as well. | ||
| Two_seasons |
Any of you guys remember the Valley Forge Sheraton with a non-union GC named Altemose or something like that that happened back in the early 70's? The trades unions overran the site fencing and burned all the dozers, shovels, etc. I remember it well. Almost put the GC out of business. When the unions couldn't stop the site, a couple of them were threatening the family and even shot at their house. Pathetic! Not much has changed...  | ||
| Aussie2126 |
I can't give anymore, I'm tapped out. Enough with the class warfare. Either we are the united states of america, or we will continue to divide and whine. What ever happened to JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? Of course when JFK asked that question the marginal tax rate was 91% on any income over $400,000 just as it was during the Eisenhower years. I wonder why we are suddenly short of revenue? The bottom 50% in this country now has less income and assets than the top 400 INDIVIDUALS in this country. Good luck if you think there is enough money there to plug any type of budget shortfall. To quote Warren Buffet, "There clearly is class warfare going on and my class is winning." | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
We are short of revenue not because of the rates but because of the velocity of the cash flow. Our tax system is based largely upon the transfer of wealth. When an employer pays an employee, taxes are paid. When that employee purchases a product, the revenue that comes from that purchase is taxed. When an individual transfer accumulated wealth to children, taxes are paid. Revenues are down because the velocity and frequency of those transfers is down. Those with capital will not invest it if the outcome is a tax rate that consumes most of the gains. The goal is to attack the problem from two angles: 1) Decrease the budget so that less taxes are required 2) Increase the velocity of transfer of wealth so that tax revenues increase.  | ||
| Two_seasons |
Aussie: Still waiting for you to answer my first question posted 22MAR2011 @ 06:08 pm... You keep skirting my specific questions and go to the emotional arguments, so...here's some help for you and others that are spewing lies about Walkers budget repair bill and the impact on WI school districts... http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/362 7/03/3627_1300303985.pdf You'll note that your school district info is on page 5. Also note in the top right corner that 71% of the WI school districts could/will benefit from this bill should they choose (that would be the incestuous school board) to implement it. By the way, your bud Buffett is over in India today looking for "bargains". I know you won't answer this question either but...why over there instead of here? (Message edited by two_seasons on March 23, 2011) | ||
| Sifo |
Of course when JFK asked that question the marginal tax rate was 91% on any income over $400,000 just as it was during the Eisenhower years. Keep in mind that virtually no one ever paid that 91%. The system was so riddled with loopholes that a wealthy person could get their tax burden way down from that. The wealthy actually carry a heavier actual tax burden now than they did back then. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Keep in mind that virtually everyone tries not to pay the 35% now. The system is more riddled with loopholes now than it was then. There are certainly more lobbists now, protecting all kinds of little niches than there ever was in 1961. A wealthy person can still get their tax burden way down from 35%. I question the statement that the rich carry a heavier tax burden now - that fact comes from? All one has to do is structure your income as a capital gain and the tax rate on that portion goes down to 15%. There are much smarter people than me to make sure that as little is taxed at the top rate as possible. I believe that is still the intent of most - not blaming, just saying. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I question the statement that the rich carry a heavier tax burden now - that fact comes from?" Have you been living under a rock? What percentage of the total personal income tax collected by the US Government is paid by the top 5% of tax payers? You'll be surprised. The bottom 50% pay almost nothing, and a significant percentage get more back than they put in. | ||
| Doerman |
structure your income as a capital gain Huh? You can't structure income as capital gains. To have capital gain you have earned money and invested it. The invested money has been taxed as income already already once. The capital gains rates are lower than the typical income tax rate because you are using taxed income as the investment seed. Our economy NEEDS investment and there has to be some incentive left to take the risk. Even if you taxed all the "rich" people at 100% rate, it still would not fill the gap. The "let's tax the rich" is a non-starter to get votes. Works as a vote getter though. | ||
| Court |
>>>>A wealthy person can still get their tax burden way down from 35%. The argument gets a tad tricky. The fellow my wife worked for a couple years ago did a stellar job of driving his tax rate down, like when Warren Buffet cites the fact that he paid 17.5%. But, even at that lower rate, seeing someone write a check to the IRS for $120,000,000 is . . at least to me. . . a staggering sum . . even if his "marginal tax rate" was half mine . . he darn sure paid for more highways than I did. America has a disdain for anyone who makes a good deal of money. I'm never quite certain if it's envy or malicious in any way or if it's just some of us wanting to be some of "them". | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There were significantly more tax loopholes under Kennedy than now. Eliminating all those tax loopholes was conducted under Reagan in return for reduced government spending and a reduction in tax rates from Carter. (The spending wasn't reduced under the Democrat Congress BTW) Ever heard of the Tax Reform Act of 1986? The statement from Buffet that pisses me off most is the assertion that his tax rate is lower than his assistant's. It is ONLY because he is operating from a pool of accumulated assets which are taxed at capital gains rates whereas his assistant is taxed on EARNED income. You can't just "structure you income as capital gains" to reduce your tax rate. ALL middle and low income citizens who hope to rise in economic status and economic class have to do so with earned income. Period. The tax rate is structured to prevent people from being able to move up. | ||
| Boltrider |
Yeah, it's a weird form of jealousy. They don't have it, so they don't want anyone else to have it either. It's pathetic. |
