[JerryLove]

A question for those who want to unilaterally alter the signed employment contract with the teachers unions.

I assume you also believe that the government was right to want to rewrite bonus and compensation for bank executives at companies receiving bail-outs?

I assume also you believe that someone who makes more than $250k per year is "rich". I assume, since you believe lowering the $60k pay of WI teachers won't cause them to do stuff like loose their houses; that it would be equally OK to bring the marginal tax on those making $250k back to Clinton-era levels?

[Jfool]

... and we're back to "the rich".

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by adamwagg

I'd say the risk of that in the US was pretty remote.

Well, right, we're not having large-scale workers' rebellions. My point is just, here's where you have the possibility for some serious corruption in unions -- that is, where corruption is most likely -- so always be on the lookout there. It's as true with larger political revolts as it is with smaller unionizing efforts.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The French revolution? No, wait, the uprising against the English monarchy that created the modern parlementery system. No? Perhaps something more modern like Egypt, Tunisa, or Lybia?

I don't see your point. The French revolution was the culmination of 150+ years of high culture, and brought us the Reign Of Terror, Napoleon, etc. I don't see how the English civil war was particularly a workers' rebellion, particularly because the capitalist/worker class alignments we would have today hadn't at that time solidified as they did later; Adam Smith was still a century away. But even with better examples, your point would just be that collective worker action CAN work. And yes it can. It can also be corrupted and co-opted. So can just about anything. But it's normally smart to identify the weak points so that you can be on guard when trouble comes.

Regarding Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, I'm having even more trouble seeing what you mean. Maybe I'm just missing something basic about what you're saying that would make it all make more sense?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Who, by and large, did your uprisings put out of power? Most of the examples of dictator-installing revolutions were already dictatorships.

Again, I don't see your point. At best you're saying, they were no better than they were before. But that still means that the revolt failed to bring justice for the poor, which was the whole point in the first place.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Well, right, we're not having large-scale workers' rebellions. My point is just, here's where you have the possibility for some serious corruption in unions -- that is, where corruption is most likely -- so always be on the lookout there. It's as true with larger political revolts as it is with smaller unionizing efforts.

Corruption within unions can and does exist and is indeed an issue.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

A question for those who want to unilaterally alter the signed employment contract with the teachers unions.

I assume you also believe that the government was right to want to rewrite bonus and compensation for bank executives at companies receiving bail-outs?

I assume also you believe that someone who makes more than $250k per year is "rich". I assume, since you believe lowering the $60k pay of WI teachers won't cause them to do stuff like loose their houses; that it would be equally OK to bring the marginal tax on those making $250k back to Clinton-era levels?

John Stewart has had a couple great bits on this recently.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by +Donny

John Stewart has had a couple great bits on this recently.

Crisis in Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 03/03/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...nd-wall-street

[normajean777]

I was just reading this:

Prell: Why conservatives should not criticize public employees for jobs that pay well – In the Arena - CNN.com Blogs

He shoots a few bullseyes:

More fundamentally though, momentary salary concessions on the part of unions will do virtually nothing to resolve the long-term issue of fiscal sustainability. Public sector collective bargaining is extremely corrupt. These public sector unions are paying for the election of favorite candidates and then demanding unmerited benefit packages from the same public officials. This is bankrupting state governments. In any other context it would be called bribery.

and

Criticize them for making it nearly impossible to fire bad employees, or to reward good employees, or because they use extortion to get more taxpayer dollars.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I was just reading this:

Prell: Why conservatives should not criticize public employees for jobs that pay well – In the Arena - CNN.com Blogs

He shoots a few bullseyes:

Can we get rid of corporations doing the same thing when we get rid of that? No more no-bid contracts for Haliburton? No more having the MPAA write actual law? Eisenhower warned heavily of the military-industrial complex.

I've said for a long time:
Pay a police officer to not arrest you and it's bribery.
Pay a jury not to convict you and it's jury-tampering.
Pay a judge to let you off and it's bribery.
But pay a politician to make what you did legal and it's just lobbying.

[normajean777]

I would be perfectly fine with getting rid of lobbyists. I've heard in other countries they try to increase the pay of politicians so they are less susceptible to bribes. Maybe each congressman and senator should make $1 million a year, and they wouldn't feel the need to help these lobbyists, or they are just greedy Americans, and would still bend over to pick up the quarter on the ground? I simply suggest that because I don't think there is a realistic chance of these politicians having the gonads to stop lobbyists anytime soon.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I would be perfectly fine with getting rid of lobbyists. I've heard in other countries they try to increase the pay of politicians so they are less susceptible to bribes. Maybe each congressman and senator should make $1 million a year, and they wouldn't feel the need to help these lobbyists, or they are just greedy Americans, and would still bend over to pick up the quarter on the ground? I simply suggest that because I don't think there is a realistic chance of these politicians having the gonads to stop lobbyists anytime soon.

Wouldn't work.

1. They get more than $1m from lobbyists.
2. $1m + lobby money + cushy consulting job > $1m
3. You can't get elected in the first place without support from the same groups that lobby.

[Bryan]

so the Wisconsin republicans seem to have been successful in removing collective bargaining.

Wisconsin Republicans cut collective bargaining | World news | guardian.co.uk

It still has to pass the 2nd chamber of the legislature, but its doubtful that will be a problem