America is not broke...

Explain to me how a "non-fiscal" measure of killing the unions does so. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Frankly Mazo?...I don't know that it does. I don't believe I excluded anything from the definition of "posturing". I'm way down here in Texas, and only watching a bit of this at a time...since it really doesn't have a lot of effect on me.

You seem to be getting all lubed up though, and spending a considerable time trying to blame somebody for upsetting the alligators. But ultimately?...draining the swamp is what has to occur. I though perhaps you might have some insight to that. But I've seen post after post...and whine after whine...and the swamp is still full, and Wisconsin is still up to their ass in alligators.

Like I said in my other post though...it entertaining to watch from the safety of dry land.

There are a lot of problems with socialism....And one thing I HATE about the UK is the NHS....it's a bloody joke.... Originally Posted by Valerie

Which bit do you 'hate'? The treatment free at the point of use? The low share of GDP devoted to health outcomes not materially different from any other OECD country?

OK, it draws the line at breast enhancement, but most everything else your really need is available.

Oh, don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. It looks awkward and it diminshes noblity (if that's what it really was).

We all play the games "pro bono" we choose to play. And like a round of golf with your sporting buddies?...Somebody likes every shot.

Some folks measure success based on each shot. Some folks on each round. Some on a season. Then there are those who play for a career. The career man tends to keep his game much more to himself...cause in the total scheme of things?...each shot, round or season is just the one. And the one shot, round or season wonders think they've figured out what makes the career man tick. Nevertheles,, its still fun to watch the players jump up and down on a good shot, or throw his clubs on a bad one. Thanks for the entertainment. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Ahhh, what's the matter Rud? Feeling a little insecure about your role in society?

Or could it be that you're coming to realize that you and your ilk suck more blood out of this country than all the welfare moms you complain about put together.

I know a lot of guys just like you. All talk about honor and patriotism and mom and apple pie. All sit on their ass and do nothing when its time to pick up a shovel and put a little work back into the system. And then when you're shamed by somebody who actually adds value to society you try to drag them down to your miserable level and suck the nobility out of what they do.

How pathetic you are.

Sorry Ruddy, but I'm proud of what I do and somebody the likes of you ain't gonna convince me I shouldn't be. I put in the hours for people who need it because I know slaggards like you won't.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Which bit do you 'hate'? The treatment free at the point of use? The low share of GDP devoted to health outcomes not materially different from any other OECD country?

OK, it draws the line at breast enhancement, but most everything else your really need is available. Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

I hate the fact that if you need a very important procedure done, rather than receiving treatment immediately or in a matter of days (how it's mainly done in the states) , a lot of times you half to wait weeks or months....I've experienced this first hand, as well as watched it happen to my family and close friends...

One question. How can you have collective bargaining if the people paying the tab (the taxpayer) cannot sit at the table and bargain with the worker? The unions have for YEARS bought the politicians on both sides of the isle. And because of that the unions have been repaid by the politicians with contracts carried by the taxpayer. And yes this would be the taxpayer that has been taking pay cuts and losing benefits while the public service unions keep getting their $$$. I thought BO said everyone was going to have to put skin in the game to turn this mess around.

One question. How can you have collective bargaining if the people paying the tab (the taxpayer) cannot sit at the table and bargain with the worker? Originally Posted by Linus

You can't, at least not in any equitable sense. It's self-dealing, pure and simple.

...because of that the unions have been repaid by the politicians with contracts carried by the taxpayer. Originally Posted by Linus

Exactly.

I thought BO said everyone was going to have to put skin in the game to turn this mess around. Originally Posted by Linus

Everyone except, of course, those who make up constituencies upon which he relies for support.

I know a lot of guys just like you. All talk about honor and patriotism and mom and apple pie. All sit on their ass and do nothing when its time to pick up a shovel and put a little work back into the system. And then when you're shamed by somebody who actually adds value to society you try to drag them down to your miserable level and suck the nobility out of what they do. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

You are a laugher Mazo, I'll give you that.

I've given you two chances, in this thread alone, to pick up the shovel (to use your metaphor) with some solution to the problem. That's where the real heavy lifting is done. In typical lawyer leech fashion, you jumped around the real work to try to take out the trash...and then are the first one in line to get the T-shirt extolling your efforts.

I once heard a young man exclaim...Without money, I'm nothing. I think I've found him a bretheren in Wisconsin. Let's hope for the people on your team...that they aren't getting what they paid for.

One question. How can you have collective bargaining if the people paying the tab (the taxpayer) cannot sit at the table and bargain with the worker? Originally Posted by Linus

Actually, the "people paying the tab" are NOT a part of the process. The definition of collective bargaining is:

The process through which a Labor Union and an employer negotiate the scope of the employment relationship.

OR:

Collective bargaining consists of negotiations between an employer and a group of employees so as to determine the conditions of employment.

The "employer" is not the "people." Taxpayers may fund the employment, but they are NOT, in fact, the employers. If they were, they would have many more duties than just paying taxes.

You are a laugher Mazo, I'll give you that.

I've given you two chances, in this thread alone, to pick up the shovel (to use your metaphor) with some solution to the problem. That's where the real heavy lifting is done. In typical lawyer leech fashion, you jumped around the real work to try to take out the trash...and then are the first one in line to get the T-shirt extolling your efforts.

I once heard a young man exclaim...Without money, I'm nothing. I think I've found him a bretheren in Wisconsin. Let's hope for the people on your team...that they aren't getting what they paid for. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Like I said Rud, you're just a sad little man with nothing left in life except the power to complain. I'm very sorry that life has left you so bitter that you can't take joy in anything - especially the happiness of others. All you can do bitch and moan and wallow in the suffering you try to impose on those around you. I'm not buying into it. It's something that you really should try to get help with.

Cheers and good luck,
Mazo.

Actually, the "people paying the tab" are NOT a part of the process. The definition of collective bargaining is:
OR:
The "employer" is not the "people." Taxpayers may fund the employment, but they are NOT, in fact, the employers. If they were, they would have many more duties than just paying taxes. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Good point. I don't think shareholders actually sit at the bargaining table either. At least not in the literal sense. They can fire the people who agree to the deals on the management side, but then so can the taxpayers.

Like I said Rud, you're just a sad little man with nothing left in life except the power to complain. I'm very sorry that life has left you so bitter that you can't take joy in anything - especially the happiness of others. All you can do bitch and moan and wallow in the suffering you try to impose on those around you. I'm not buying into it. It's something that you really should try to get help with.

Cheers and good luck,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I'm going to play WTF on TV here, umm I mean moderator lol

RK and I agree on very little politically; he is a social conservative and I am a social liberal, but we have actually met and enjoyed dinner, booze, and conversation together without causing a cosmic event ending the world. RK doesn't need me to defend him but he is nothing like what you describe.

DG hacking at SR Only's keyboard.

I don't think shareholders actually sit at the bargaining table either. At least not in the literal sense. They can fire the people who agree to the deals on the management side, but then so can the taxpayers. Originally Posted by Doove

Obviously shareholders don't actually sit at the bargaining table.

However, management representatives, who do have a clear incentive to control costs, have seats at the table.

But here's where your comparison falls flat:

Where state legislatures, city councils, or other governing bodies are beholden to public sector unions (as so many are) no one has any real incentive to control costs. In fact, the opposite is often the case -- higher union pay leads to more union dues, which are then funneled into the campaigns of union-friendly politicians, who in turn keep the goodies flowing. It can then become a very expensive vicious circle.

Yes, the voters may eventually toss out fiscally irresponsible political hacks when the problem becomes obvious enough. But politicians do have a pretty pronounced tendency to try to push the envelope. Just look at what's been going on in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and a number of other states in recent years.

You don't see quite so much of that kind of stuff going on in the private sector, do you?

But here's where your comparison falls flat: Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I didn't say my comparison was perfect in every sense. But in rebuttal to the sole point of the people paying the tab not sitting at the bargaining table, it was.

Now, as far as your point about management representatives who do have a clear incentive to control costs having seats at the table, are you saying that each and every person sitting at the bargaining table with unions is beholden to support from the particular union they are bargaining with? I'll plead ignorance on actually knowing the answer to that myself, but simple common sense tells me that your comparison likely falls flat as well.

The decision makers (who are the only ones that count) are at the table and they are usually beholding to a union (not so much in Wisconsin this year) -- either directly or in a desire to neutralize them.

I didn't say my comparison was perfect in every sense. But in rebuttal to the sole point of the people paying the tab not sitting at the bargaining table, it was.

Now, as far as your point about management representatives who do have a clear incentive to control costs having seats at the table, are you saying that each and every person sitting at the bargaining table with unions is beholden to support from the particular union they are bargaining with? I'll plead ignorance on actually knowing the answer to that myself, but simple common sense tells me that your comparison likely falls flat as well. Originally Posted by Doove

No, I'm not saying that "each and every person" negotiating with a public-sector union is beholden to a particular union, or even to unions in general.

What I'm saying is that in cases where the decision makers negotiating union contracts are beholden to members of a legislative majority or executive receiving campaign contributions from unions, there's a clear conflict of interest.