Apple and fraud

[wayfriend]

They are not contributing to anyone's budget crisis, unless you consider that opposing fixing the budget the easy but unfair way, by penalizing public servants, is contributing to the crisis. But by that measure, people who oppose raising taxes are contributing to the budget crisis.

[SerScot]

wayfriend,

I'd say both are contributing to budget crises. But that's just me.

[Zarathustra]

They are not contributing to anyone's budget crisis, unless you consider that opposing fixing the budget the easy but unfair way, by penalizing public servants, is contributing to the crisis. But by that measure, people who oppose raising taxes are contributing to the budget crisis.

If only we could all fix our "budget crises" by raising our revenue with the stroke of a pen and signing a law. Unfortunately, we (and WI) live in the real world, where resources and money are finite. WI can't just print money like the federal government. The solution to fixing our own budgets, for our own households, isn't merely to take money from others (who are also having their own budge crises), so why should that be the natural, logical choice for WI? At what point do we recognize that we can't keep forcing the public to pay for higher and higher wages/benefits for a select, elite few who can hold their government hostage?

Their jobs were saved ... during a recession when private sector employees didn't have this guarantee or benefit. I guess being grateful is out of the question? Why not, when we can simply raise taxes and give them more, huh?

[wayfriend]

The solution to fixing our own budgets, for our own households, isn't merely to take money from others (who are also having their own budge crises), so why should that be the natural, logical choice for WI?

Precisely. Except I recognize that taking away people's rights so that you can lower their wages is taking money from others to fix your own problems. Maybe, because they belong to unions, they aren't people we care about?

At least if you raise people's taxes, you aren't taking away their rights in order to do it.

I'd say both are contributing to budget crises. But that's just me.

They may both be contributing to difficulty in fixing the budget crisis easily. But the crisis was caused by a decline in revenue which was caused by unemployment and lack of demand.

[Rigel]

If public employees striking amounts to obstruction of government, should the Republicans be supporting that? After all, elements within the GOP (such as the Tea Party caucus) have built their platform on obstructionism.

With that being said, it's all well and good to say that civil servants are in the employ of the people, but let's be honest... this isn't charity work. Public employees deserve fair compensation for their labor and time, just as Congress does. We don't expect legislators to serve their terms pro bono, or purely out of the goodness of their hearts; it's totally unrealistic. Likewise, it's unrealistic to expect public employees to simply bow to every demand made of them. Sometimes, they will be asked to make unreasonable concessions, and the unions allow negotiation from a stronger position.

[SerScot]

I love to see y'all chew out the liberal paragon.

[Cybrweez]

They reduce the need for people to work at tedious, repetitive, alienating jobs. That's a good thing. Like cars reducing the need for people to work within walking distance. It frees people to more fully realize their potential. We weren't built to do the things that robots or cars do. We can do better.

Currently, which brings enough problems. Not sure if 6+ billion people are able to do other things. Maybe, but I bet against it.

And that's only currently. How long til robots are doing more, like most service jobs (waiters, mechanics, construction)? No one has figured out how to replace these jobs.

[Zarathustra]

The solution to fixing our own budgets, for our own households, isn't merely to take money from others (who are also having their own budge crises), so why should that be the natural, logical choice for WI?

Precisely. Except I recognize that taking away people's rights so that you can lower their wages is taking money from others to fix your own problems.

You're obviously misinformed on this issue. Their wages haven't been lowered. They have only been asked to pay half of their pension contribution (which they used to do anyway until 1996 when they "bargained" for the taxpayers to pay both the state's contribution and their contribution for them), and pay 12% of their insurance premuims (you and I most likely pay much more of our premiums). The bill doesn't strip them of their privilege (see below) for bargaining for higher wages, only the privilege of bargaining for greater benefits. They can still collectively bargain for higher wages:

Collective Bargaining: The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.[2][3][4][5]

Again, we're talking about privileges here, not rights. No one has had their rights taken away:

Nothing in Wisconsin's Declaration of Rights (found in the State Constitution) guarantees a right to collective bargaining for any citizen, yet the reaction coming from government unions sounds as though the 1857 Dred Scott decision was dropped on them to enshrine slavery.

One point appears lost in this discussion of "rights" (even coming from some commentators who supported the bill's passage). Neither the U.S. Constitution nor Wisconsin's Constitution identifies collective bargaining as a right. One can argue for an amendment at the state level - -and some advocates have recently done so -- but you can't credibly maintain that the legal equivalent presently exists.

Therefore since collective bargaining is neither a natural, civil, nor political right, at best it is a right only in the colloquial sense of the term and merely a privilege in a purely constitutional sense. It is a privilege in our view that has been badly abused in Wisconsin to the detriment of state taxpayers. Collective bargaining actually denies the individual employee -- who might otherwise choose to decline a contract, or even decline the requirement to bargain collectively -- an ability to act independently, yet many continue to refer to this bargaining mechanism as a right.

While the recently enacted bill has caused much consternation, what it actually will do is replace collective bargaining with distributed bargaining and push down negotiations to the local school district levels -- where, in our view, they belonged in the first place.

Maybe, because they belong to unions, they aren't people we care about?

Setting aside the fact that this is a purely, transparently emotional argument ... I notice you've used "we" again, as if you include yourself in this possibility. Are you entertaining the idea that you don't care about union workers? Or are you just pussyfooting around the idea of making an insulting accusation aimed at your opponents? You know, this type of language doesn't fool anyone.

Do you really believe that there is anyone who doesn't care about another human being simply because they're in a union? That's ludicrous. I could just as easily accuse you of not caring for the taxpayers in general. But this isn't an issue of which group we care about the most. It's not a popularity contest or an emotional issue at all. Rather, it's an issue of how to best fix a budget problem and balance the needs of everyone involved. Surely the tax payers aren't the only ones who have to sacrifice something in this compromise, while the unions only see increasing benefit at every turn.

At least if you raise people's taxes, you aren't taking away their rights in order to do it.

Well, people do actually have property rights, but I concede the point that you don't have the right to avoid taxation.

[wayfriend]

Well, it was probably only a matter of time until someone tried the its-not-a-right argument. Neverthelesss:

The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right. Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.[link]

And, since it was right there on the same page, we can quote Ronald Reagan: "... where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."

Furthermore, the argument that collective bargaining would need to be an individually enumerated right is specious. It is derived from the right to free speech and the right to congregate. Just like unlimited corporate campaign donations are based on the right of free speech - which also is not explicitely enumerated as a right.

Also, the benefit vs. wages argument is just argumentative nitpicking. Cutting benefits is effectively cutting wages.

Do you really believe that there is anyone who doesn't care about another human being simply because they're in a union? That's ludicrous.

And yet you considered taking away rights and lowering wages (and or benifits) of union workers as not the same as taking money away from people like raising taxes is. Clearly you're not including union members in what you think of as "people". Asking if maybe "we" just don't care about those people is giving you several benefits of several doubts.

[Zarathustra]

If you have to go outside of U.S. law to make your argument, I think you've just made mine. Anyway, Article 23 of the UDHR says nothing whatsoever about collective bargaining:

Article 23

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

www.udhr.org/UDHR/ART23.HTM

Just because you have the "right" to join a union doesn't mean that you have unlimited rights to collectively bargain for anything you want, or to hold public services hostage in order to get it. From the same Wikipedia article which you quoted:

The laws governing local, regional, and national governments may allow government employees to form unions, yet prohibit them from engaging in collective bargaining over one or more rights or benefits such as pay, personnel rights, health insurance, or pension contributions, as well as preventing them from going on strike against the government. Both the federal government and some state and local governments in the United States have such rules.[8][9] Public employee unions are usually prohibited from bargaining collectively with respect to pay or other benefits and/or rights on the grounds that their employer, the general public, is not represented in such collective bargaining agreements but rather by administrative officials who cannot fully represent nor bind the voters to rules or procedures that may conflict with existing or subsequently executed laws and regulations.[7] Thus, a collective agreement providing for fixed rights such as salary rates and pension contributions could not be revised by subsequent legislatures elected by the public at large, even if such measures were required to prevent fiscal insolvency.[7]

Another reason cited for not granting collective bargaining rights to public employees is the advantage held by public employee in rights granted under existing civil service or personnel rules.[10] In countries such as the United States, the courts have repeatedly held that public employees possess a property interest in their jobs, which interest triggers constitutional protections to the employee including due process of law.[10] In fact, public employees without collective bargaining rights frequently have more protection against arbitrary and unjust employer action than do private employees with such rights.[10] The reality of collective bargaining is that it is essentially a bilateral process, whereas public policymaking is a multilateral process accessible to all taxpayers on equal terms.[11] This conflict raises the possibility that over time, public employee unions could wield an insurmountable advantage in political power when negotiating government wage and personnel policies with public administrators and elected officials, to the detriment of taxpayers and other competing groups and interests in the democratic process.[11] This advantage in bargaining power is magnified with respect to certain monopolistic services provided only by the government and which are critical to the welfare and safety of the public at large, such as police and fire protection.[11]

Collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions also affect taxpayer rights to due process of law, that is, the right to contest deprivations of property or rights without the right of individual appeal.[12] In the private sector, constitutional collective bargaining and binding arbitration agreements may deprive shareholders of stock or dividend value.[12] Shareholders, however, always have the option to liquidate their interests in a particular private company if bargaining or arbitration with unions affects the value of their property (stock).[12] In contrast, negotiated increases in the cost of pay, pensions, health insurance and other benefits for public employees deprive both existing and subsequent taxpayers of their property through reduction of their income via increased taxation, without due process and right of redress through administrative or judicial appeal.[12]

Furthermore, the argument that collective bargaining would need to be an individually enumerated right is specious. It is derived from the right to free speech and the right to congregate.

...neither of which say anything about holding the government hostage and taking other people's money.

Also, the benefit vs. wages argument is just argumentative nitpicking. Cutting benefits is effectively cutting wages.

If there is no essential difference between wages and benefits, then the fact that WI union members retain the right to collectively bargain for wages renders your point "nitpicking." If they don't like their benefits, they can bargain for higher wages. So is there a substantive difference, or not? You can't have it both ways.

And yet you considered taking away rights and lowering wages (and or benifits) of union workers as not the same as taking money away from people like raising taxes is. Clearly you're not including union members in what you think of as "people".

Forcing someone to stop taking money from me in order to pay for their own insurance and pension is in NO WAY taking money away from them. It's merely getting my money back which they have taken from me, and asking them to pay the same (less actually) contribution to their insurance/pension that everyone else in the private sector already pays. So you're right--I do consider the two as different. Very different indeed. But it's ludicrous for you to suggest that this distinction extends to my definition of what a "person" is.

Asking if maybe "we" just don't care about those people is giving you several benefits of several doubts.

Hopefully your many doubts have been dispelled by the fact that I have pointed out how happy I am that a compromise could be achieved wherein the union members get to keep their jobs and don't have to face the same threat of layoffs that most of the rest of the private sector has to face. Good for them. God bless 'em.

[wayfriend]

If you have to go outside of U.S. law to make your argument

I haven't gone outside of US law for anything. I have a right to talk to people, and I have a right to assemble with them. That's the constitution. I don't need any other rights to negotiate with my employer. Preventing me from negotiating with my employer would be interfering with my rights.

I was only demonstrating all the important facts your biased article chose to leave out of the discussion.

When you have to pretend the answer to one question is the answert to a different question, you've demonstrated that even you have no faith in your own argument.

..neither of which say anything about holding the government hostage and taking other people's money.

1. make up something about someone
2. criticize them for what you made up
No Reality Required.

Negotiating for wages and benefits isn't those things.

Again, you demonstrate you have no faith in any actual argument.

If there is no essential difference between wages and benefits, then the fact that WI union members retain the right to collectively bargain for wages renders your point "nitpicking." If they don't like their benefits, they can bargain for higher wages. So is there a substantive difference, or not? You can't have it both ways.

Both ways? See "No Reality Required" above.

When you negotiate, you negotiate for a balance of wages and benefits. You may accept less wages for more benefits. When your employer unilaterally then changes your benefits -- with no negotiation -- you were just trampled on. You were treated unfairly, and the person you negotiated with broke faith. And you didn't get any wages to compensate for the benefits, so that's a net loss. It's unequivocable.

Now if you want to you can ask for wages in compensation, but this isn't a given, it has to be negotiated all over again. With someone you have lost faith in. With someone who, once negotiations are done, will unilaterally change the deal again. Not only is it a net loss, but the process is broken, and the balance of power is changed for the worse.

So no, calling that unfair is not nitpicking.

Saying it's not wages, it's only benefits, so nothing is harmed, is so plainly wrong that I can't credit that as anything but trying to be misleading. Which again paints a picture of someone with no faith in their own argument.

Forcing someone to stop taking money from me in order to pay for their own insurance and pension is in NO WAY taking money away from them.

Oh, come on. That's pathetic.

t's merely getting my money back which they have taken from me

Well there it is. They didn't earn it, I see. They took it.

I think that says everything. It's an appalling opinion.

[Zarathustra]

At least if you raise people's taxes, you aren't taking away their rights in order to do it.

Collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions also affect taxpayer rights to due process of law, that is, the right to contest deprivations of property or rights without the right of individual appeal.[12] In the private sector, constitutional collective bargaining and binding arbitration agreements may deprive shareholders of stock or dividend value.[12] Shareholders, however, always have the option to liquidate their interests in a particular private company if bargaining or arbitration with unions affects the value of their property (stock).[12] In contrast, negotiated increases in the cost of pay, pensions, health insurance and other benefits for public employees deprive both existing and subsequent taxpayers of their property through reduction of their income via increased taxation, without due process and right of redress through administrative or judicial appeal.[12]

And yet you considered taking away rights and lowering wages (and or benifits) of union workers as not the same as taking money away from people like raising taxes is. Clearly you're not including union members in what you think of as "people".

With these three quotes, I just wanted to point out that with the magic of "Wayfriendian Logic," we can all conclude that Wayfriend doesn't think taxpayers are people ... since they clearly have their rights taken away by public sector collective bargaining, and he explicitly said "people" don't have their rights taken when you raise their taxes [to fund the demands of public sector collective bargaining.]

And from this extremely inventive logical system, we can also conclude that Wayfriend doesn't care about tax payers:

Precisely. Except I recognize that taking away people's rights so that you can lower their wages is taking money from others to fix your own problems. Maybe, because they belong to unions, they aren't people we care about?

Why do you hate and dehumanize tax payers so much, Wayfriend?

[wayfriend]

If you have to go outside of U.S. law to make your argument

I haven't gone outside of US law for anything. I have a right to talk to people, and I have a right to assemble with them. That's the constitution. I don't need any other rights to negotiate with my employer. Preventing me from negotiating with my employer would be interfering with my rights.

I was only demonstrating all the important facts your biased article chose to leave out of the discussion.

When you have to pretend the answer to one question is the answert to a different question, you've demonstrated that even you have no faith in your own argument.

..neither of which say anything about holding the government hostage and taking other people's money.

1. make up something about someone
2. criticize them for what you made up
No Reality Required.

Negotiating for wages and benefits isn't those things.

Again, you demonstrate you have no faith in any actual argument.

If there is no essential difference between wages and benefits, then the fact that WI union members retain the right to collectively bargain for wages renders your point "nitpicking." If they don't like their benefits, they can bargain for higher wages. So is there a substantive difference, or not? You can't have it both ways.

Both ways? See "No Reality Required" above.

When you negotiate, you negotiate for a balance of wages and benefits. You may accept less wages for more benefits. When your employer unilaterally then changes your benefits -- with no negotiation -- you were just trampled on. You were treated unfairly, and the person you negotiated with broke faith. And you didn't get any wages to compensate for the benefits, so that's a net loss. It's unequivocable.

Now if you want to you can ask for wages in compensation, but this isn't a given, it has to be negotiated all over again. With someone you have lost faith in. With someone who, once negotiations are done, will unilaterally change the deal again. Not only is it a net loss, but the process is broken, and the balance of power is changed for the worse.

So no, calling that unfair is not nitpicking.

Saying it's not wages, it's only benefits, so nothing is harmed, is so plainly wrong that I can't credit that as anything but trying to be misleading. Which again paints a picture of someone with no faith in their own argument.

Forcing someone to stop taking money from me in order to pay for their own insurance and pension is in NO WAY taking money away from them.

Oh, come on. That's pathetic.

t's merely getting my money back which they have taken from me

Well there it is. They didn't earn it, I see. They took it.

I think that says everything. It's an appalling opinion.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, you have accused me of saying that union members aren't people, and then have the gall to claim I'm making "no reality required" arguments?

Let's get this straight: you actually believe I think union members aren't people? What do I think they are, hmm?

Remember when I said you're too smart for this? Please stop playing dumb in order to make me look "appalling," in your words. You know damn well that I didn't say anything as fucking stupid as union members aren't people.

This is a waste of time. Arguing with you is a waste of time. Your only goal here is to make me look like a bad person, not to address the points. Same as always. Have fun with that.

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend, you have accused me of saying that union members aren't people, and then have the gall to claim I'm making "no reality required" arguments?

Pretty sure I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that one. [Scrolls back.] Yup.

Please stop playing dumb in order to make me look "appalling,"

The "appalling" thing was where you said public servants "took" your money and you should get it back. [Scrolls back.] Yup, that was it. Just my opinion though. Care I should google around the Watch and find some opinions of me that you've shared? At least I commented on your opinion, and not you.

[Cail]

I'll just point out a few things.....

From 2000 to 2010, employment in right-to-work states increased 2.3 percent, compared to a 4.0 percent decline in non-right-to-work states.

Between 2000 and 2010, personal income grew 57.5 percent in right-to-work states, compared to 40.5 percent in non-right-to-work states.

From 2000 to 2010, disposable personal income increased 65.3 percent in right-to-work states, compared to 49.4 percent in non-right-to-work states.

[aliantha]

And, since it was right there on the same page, we can quote Ronald Reagan: "... where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."

This would be the same Ronald Reagan, I believe, who broke the air traffic controllers' union -- speaking of having it both ways.

[Avatar]

Politicians.

Hey, wait a minute...Cail, are you in favour of "right to work?" (That's the thing where they can't just fire you on a whim, right?)

And Z, the union isn't taking your money. The government is taking it. You think they're going to take less if union members have to pay their own insurance? (Which they should probably have to, I don't have much problem with that.)

--A

[Cail]

Yep, I'm in favor of right to work. There's nothing stopping the unions from forming in a right to work state, they just can't force anyone to pay into them or join them.

You've apparently bought into the pro-union propaganda, as your example can happen in any state, regardless of law.

[Zarathustra]

Politicians.

Hey, wait a minute...Cail, are you in favour of "right to work?" (That's the thing where they can't just fire you on a whim, right?)

It's the right to work without being forced to join a union and pay dues.

And Z, the union isn't taking your money. The government is taking it. You think they're going to take less if union members have to pay their own insurance? (Which they should probably have to, I don't have much problem with that.)

--A

If the public sector unions are holding the government hostage with the threat of a strike which shuts down government services, in order to force the government to take more taxes to pay themselves, then the fact that the government is the middle man who extracts the money isn't a significant distinction, IMO.

However, it's probably true that the taxes won't be lowered ... the point was to balance the budget and avoid higher taxes and further damage to the economy. And I agree with your last point: asking the union to pay the same (or less) contribution to their own pension/insurance as private sector employees seems like a sane, fair compromise vs insolvency and harm to the economy in general. The idea that everyone else in society must sacrifice so that a few privileged government workers can continue to have benefits most others don't enjoy only makes sense to those who put their political allies above society in general.