The balance of power isn't even fucking close to even, and I can give you 1000 examples of union ineptitude and stupidity for every one you can come up with. But what is going to happen now is, they are going to use SOME people's stupidity to punish everyone, and strip workers rights back ti when your grandaddy was getting his face busted in by a Wobbly.

And, just remember, every single one of the people you vote for that are Democrats, federally especially, but on a state level in the north as well, are funded roughly 50% by unions or union lawyers.

Madison Riley

Put me on the side that thinks the notion that the balance of power is now even is absurd. It never has been and labor is steadily losing what power it had.




I also wanna address a couple of these. Mostly, the first point. Of course Union labor costs are higher. It's the whole fucking point of unions to get more for their workers, that obviously equals higher labor costs. If you think there's a way to pay people a better wage yet still reduce labor costs, I'm all ears. If you think keeping labor costs low is more important than paying people a decent wage...welcome to the Republican party.

And 2 is related. Sure, unions have standard for their work. But unions were never about making sure you got better quality per dollar. They have always been, always should be and always will be about maximizing what the worker gets for their labor. If you think it's some notion of union gets you better quality cheaper, you've been sold a big fat lie.

#3...by any means necessary mother fucker.

So today is the 3rd day of the protest, and it's the 2nd day that the Madison Public School District is closed.

This just means those poor kids are going to have to make up the days in the summer. haha

Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA. Do NOT mistake me here for a corporate apologist. Corps will steal the fucking lint out of your pocket if they can find a way to get away with it. BALANCE is all I'm talking about here. When one gets too much power, they abuse it.

And Nobody, all I'm saying is that there's a "fair" price for everything, just as there is a "fair" wage for any job. In a market like Atlanta, a qualified residential electrician (which I used to be, for the record) with 10 years experience ought to make something like $50k a year. Somewhere in that ballpark. I would say that $100k is too much for that job / experience, in my estimation. So if electricians decide one day that the new rate is $300/hour so that they can all make $100k a year, they should be able to do that according to you? I'm only saying you haven't put any upper limits on what you call "fair." You leave it up to (and ONLY up to) the people getting paid to decide what their rate is. That's extortion.

One more example... I know what a repair job on my motorcycle should cost. I know what the parts cost and I know how much time it takes to do the job. If I get a quote that seems fair, I'll probably opt to pay someone to do it becasue I'm a busy dad with no garage and all that bullshit. When I changed tires last time, I did not get fair quote - far from it. Shops here want $500 to put on a pair of tires I can get for $280, and which take less than 1 hour to install. I was not willing to pay them $220 to do it, so I did it myself. Now imagine if they had picketed me in the parking lot in a rat costume. By ANY means necessary? Really?

The MLBPU wanted Pujols to get at least $300 million for a 10 year deal to set a precedence. I can't wait for the MLB system to shut down because of the player greed when fans stop coming and spending money...but that may never happen with all the tv deals.

He's already made over $89 million in his 100 years of playing.

This isn't a moral issue for me (AKA ARE UNIONS GOOD?). In the reality of these kind of budget shortfalls, many items (both good and bad) are going to have to be cut. Unless you raise taxes...............

To me it's about keeping the economy moving forward but not doing it at the expense of the future.

But this isn't really what the WI GOV and others are doing. They are using this as a guise to make collective bargaining go the way of the dodo bird for public sector unions.

Like I said earlier I know nothing of Wisconsin's budget issues so I could never say this is good or bad. But Billy G has a solid point about pensions and their cost going forward. I'm more leery of all of the education cuts happening in almost every state (especially mine).

No, you can say whether this is good or bad. Should workers be allowed to organize or not?

Because everything else is smoke and mirrors to distract you from this question.

Education cuts are problematic because they are done with a huge sword instead of a paring knife. There are a ton of classrooms around the country that will have 10 more students per, that would do just as well or better to keep the smaller class and not fund the electronic smart boards and the top heavy administration.

Well, no offense, but who are you to decide really? Or me for that matte, what is a "fair" salary. In your example, the developer still made money paying what you consider inflated prices. Why is he entitled to pay even less and make even more while the guys building the place get less than top dollar? If the price of labor makes it so that the developer can't build and still make a profit, he doesn't build. If he's still willing to build, which means he's still making money, I have no issue at all with what the labor costs were for the project.

Also, I know electricians and I'm not sure where all these electricians making 100K a year you are complaining about come from. But ya know what...if a guy could undertake development and pay all the guys working 100K a year and still make a profit I would have absolutely zero problem with that. I may just want to become an electrician.

In a vacuum, I'm 100% pro-union and always have been. I'm not even going to start with my anti-corporation rants, which will make me seem like I wear tin-foil on my head to protect myself from Starbucks reading my thoughts.

However, I see the real problem of a large financial commitment that can't be funded realistically. As you say it could be smoke to accomplish destroying a political goal. Can't say you're wrong because I don't know. It could also be an unfortunately necessary step in undoing said commitments. Again, I don't know.

As far as education, in LA we have two areas of the budget that can be cut because the rest are constitutionally protected - higher education and healthcare. Jindal has taken a bazooka to LSU, something that I think lacks vision. LSU has made huge strides in the last 10 years to become a pretty decent public university and possible economic driver. He set it and the state back 10 years at least with his cuts.

He should have spent that massive amount of political capital he has to revise the constitution to allow more flexibility to cut other state programs. That and he should do what he has claimed to be and completely reform Louisiana's health care system (for those that don't know, we have the only truly free health care in the US but it fucking sucks and its a drain).

I doubt that. I think its more about the Wisconsin Governor trying to force the unions to the bargaining table over pensions. He has no ability to void those contracts unless he takes the state into bankruptcy. The union is not going to give up any benefits without their back being up against the wall. So while he can't get rid of the benefits already agreed to, he can threaten to destroy the union itself. If the union feels threatened enough, maybe it will agree to open up contracts and renegotiate their terms.

Its hardball and I'm fine with that because if you aren't going to be part of the solution, you are a BIG part of the problem.

And mutty, if Michigan has a defined contribution rather than an overly generous defined benefit program and it pays its workers less or equal to equivalent private sector workers, good for Michigan. That's not the norm now though.

Is this just funny to you because American is retarded and we don't know how to make good trains and our high speed trains would just fly off of bridges at a greater velocity than before

Or are you just a complete asshole

I think he's probably laughing at the idea of building more rail when Amtrak is losing $1 Billion annually.

Would this have necessarily been an Amtrak line, though? I mean I guess if it went from state to state it would be, but that would not exactly be your typical Amtrak line.

And, I mean, why the fuck do you think Amtrak loses money. It's a far cry from the kind of efficient high speed rail systems they have in other countries.

the amazing, super fast, toots-used-and-approved Thalys






amtrak. with snack bar.

This is the "critical mass" argument, which I kinda agree with, where in order for something like rail to become attarctive in a profitable way, it has to go Damn Near Everywhere and leave Damn Near All The Time. Until it does, cars are so much more attractive an option that very few people use it. We suffer in comparison to Europe because our population is so goddamn spread out. Chicago to Madison to Minneapolis is just as much rail as like Berlin to Paris.

I disagree with the critical mass argument (correct me if I'm wrong but I think Japan's rail loses money too). But I believe fast, safe, and reliable public transportation is a public good worthy of government expenditure for a number of reasons.

Part of the reason governments provide services at all is because they're not money makers but would be good for the public.

And anyone who thinks that we's ridin any damn ol train when gots cars n shit is just a damn ol Socialiss!

I go back and forth on these things, but I do buy the argument that having more money in the system right now is good, even if it's being used to pay people to dig holes and then fill them in. If we can get some benefit out of it all, why not?

I will say this, that for cities with real destinations or downtowns (New Orleans, say) this would a boon. Because I would MUCH RATHER stumble into a train and ride back from New Orleans than even try to have the sentience it takes to ride in, much less have to drive back.

But then you think about ATL, where white people don't ride Marta except to Braves games, and if the terminus was downtown....it might not be as attractive an option.

I suppose "If you build it, they will come" could apply. But shit, any GARvernor turning down money from anyone, for any project, is a fucking idiot.

Absolutely correct, and antithetical to everything the Tea Party holds dear. If it can't earn money, it has no place on god's green earth.

I wonder what the police should charge? We should ask Nobody.

I just want to go on record as being 100% in support of every high-speed rail, light rail, monorail, and people-mover project that has been proposed for the last 15 years, that is currently being proposed, or that may be proposed in the next 6-8 years. I do not give a fuck if one swinging dick ever rides one; my motives are purely selfish- I want my paycheck to keep hitting the bank twice a month.

My best friend's grandmother raised 13 children in New Orleans and never drove a car once in her life. Still doesn't drive. Either walked or took the street car. That's amazing to me. Can you imagine taking the street car to the doctor's office with 13 kids if one of them needed stitches. And they were a family of means.

100%. I'm in New Orleans at least once a year. Charlotte around 2-3 times a year and Charleston around 2-3 times a year.

I'd gladly pay a decent price point ($75-$150) to hop a train, not worry about shit, and get there in 2-4 hours.