Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Tax payers sent a message to public employee unions

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
But teachers were only laid off in three disricts where the union contract would not allow any change. Throughout he rest of Wisc, teachers were not laid off, in fact many were hired, the school suddenly were showing a surplus and having smaller class sizes.
I'm not really familiar with the specifics, mainly what was reported in the national press. It's being reported that the pro-Walker, anti-union forces (Koch Bros, et al) outspent the recall effort by an 8-to-1 margin. If so, it portends a pretty grim future for the true root source of our nation's prosperity...the American middle-class.
 
I'm not really familiar with the specifics, mainly what was reported in the national press. It's being reported that the pro-Walker, anti-union forces (Koch Bros, et al) outspent the recall effort by an 8-to-1 margin. If so, it portends a pretty grim future for the true root source of our nation's prosperity...the American middle-class.
Go back to the first post from March of 2011, this is the middle class tired of gov't benefits for public employees.

Read some more, GOP outspent 2:1, the Dem's union bank was nearly broke from the money spend in Ohio, Indiana, and Wisc. It was the middle class blue worker who voted 67% in favor of Walker. They want their taxes to go down as they are. This is a grass roots movement of tax payers tired of continued increased taxes to support public benefits not available to the average middle class worker.

The battle of Wisc is a seminal showdown over whether government union power can be tamed, and overall government reined in. The alternative is higher taxes until the middle class is picked clean and the U.S. economy is no longer competitive. Voters said in November that they want reform, and Mr. Walker is trying to deliver. The people of Wisconsin understand that this battle is ultimately about their right to self-government.

BTW From another thread, tell me in your response which private company provides this?
Originally Posted by CiFIknow
I apologize, but I was a public employee at one point. I spent 12 years working in County government before I started flying. For my 12 years of service I will collect $28,000 per year after I turn 50, until the day I die. That is in today's dollars, subject to cost of living adjustments after I begin collecting.

If I had stayed until I could retire at full pension (which is age 55), I would have collected 93% of the average of my highest five years of salary. If I would have stayed until retirement I would have picked up as much overtime as I could during my last (highest) five years of work to bolster my pension to be way out of proportion to what I would have made during a regular five year period. Saw every one of my elderly co-workers do just that. My pension would not be subject to bankruptcy or pawning off to the PBGC. It is guaranteed money paid for by whom?? Yes, the taxpayer.

Name me a private sector job that will guarantee you 93% of your salary when you retire, without risk. There are none. Name me a private sector job that would pay you $28,0000/yr. at age 50 for just 12 years of service. Again, there are none. If I was altruistic I would give the money back to the government to help pay down their debt, but I worked in government too long to know that they won't spend the money as wisely as I will.

Corporations have a feduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. Government has no feduciary responsibility to its shareholders (i.e. taxpayers) to be fiscally responsible. Government just comes back to the taxpayers and says they "need" more money to provide services. They have no bottom line. Government Bureaucrats think they have a tap into an endless well of resources to do what they please. We are at the tipping point where the public sector is almost as large as the private sector. Once the public sector outnumbers private...we will be just like Greece.
 
Last edited:
Go back to the first post from March of 2011, this is the middle class tired of gov't benefits for public employees.

Read some more, GOP outspent 2:1, the Dem's union bank was nearly broke from the money spend in Ohio, Indiana, and Wisc. It was the middle class blue worker who voted 67% in favor of Walker. They want their taxes to go down as they are. This is a grass roots movement of tax payers tired of continued increased taxes to support public benefits not available to the average middle class worker.
Whether the spending was 8-to-1, 7-to-1, or something in excess of 2-to-1 (the most reliable number I've seen) the fact is that the recall effort was seriously outspent by the opposition. Money buys influence. That why so much of it is spent on political campaigns on the days leading up to elections, or in this case, a recall. We don't know how much influence it brought to this recall, but the final vote was close enough (53% to 46%) to raise questions about what the middle-class really wants from their Governor vis-à-vis public unions, especially when the police and fire unions were specifically excluded from his efforts to "reform" them. If cost to the taxpayers was the core-issue and his plan for reform was "so popular among the people," why exclude those groups?
The battle of Wisc is a seminal showdown over whether government union power can be tamed, and overall government reined in. The alternative is higher taxes until the middle class is picked clean and the U.S. economy is no longer competitive. Voters said in November that they want reform, and Mr. Walker is trying to deliver. The people of Wisconsin understand that this battle is ultimately about their right to self-government.
There is no question that government unions can be tamed...Ronald Reagan proved that in 1980. Whether any politician has the will and political capital to do so is another matter. I think this recall was more a showdown between the ability of big-money to influence political outcomes and the right of ALL workers to bargain collectively. Scott Walker ran on the platform of reforming public unions, not that of gutting them entirely. His actions in this case were clearly a post-election switch-up on his part, and probably led in-part to his recall. Voters tend to respond negatively to politicians who lie, break promises, or carry out secret agendas after they're elected.

There's no question that wages and benefits (inc. pensions) granted to many public employees have gotten out of hand. The question is whether effectively gutting their unions is the most reasonable and politically-sustainable way of correcting that. This recall shows us that it may not be.

BTW From another thread, tell me in your response which private company provides this?
Originally Posted by CiFIknow
I apologize, but I was a public employee at one point. I spent 12 years working in County government before I started flying. For my 12 years of service I will collect $28,000 per year after I turn 50, until the day I die. That is in today's dollars, subject to cost of living adjustments after I begin collecting....If I had stayed until I could retire at full pension (which is age 55), I would have collected 93% of the average of my highest five years of salary.
How do I respond to something posted on the internet by an unnamed person, regarding the pension provisions of an unspecified labor contract, affecting the employees of an unspecified county in an unspecified state? Labor contracts with public employees are public knowledge. The fact that the author provides absolutely NO details about which government agency he worked for or in what capacity make his claim of such largesse highly questionable.
 
Last edited:
Money buys influence.
So do I read this money is OK if it is union money spend like in Ohio? Plus you did not comment that 67% of the voters who supported Walker considered themselves blue collar workers.
 
So do I read this money is OK if it is union money spend like in Ohio?
No, it's not OK, but it is a fact-of-political life in government these days, and citizens have a right to know who's b1tch their Governor is before they go to the polls. In this case, it was Big Money, coming in from the outside the state;

"Walker's campaign, in a press release entitled "Grassroots donors fuel Walker fundraising," crowed that about three-quarters of the governor's more than 21,000 contributions since Dec. 11 came in amounts of $50 or less.
The release did not mention that this grassroots support -- including about $415,000 in itemized donations and $61,000 in lump sums from donors who gave $20 or less -- accounted for only about 10 percent of the governor's total receipts. Meanwhile, 65 percent of Walker's nearly $4.6 million total came from individual donors who gave $1,000 or more.
Most of Walker's largest contributions -- indeed, 56 percent of his total receipts since Dec. 11 -- came from people who live in other states and cannot vote for him." (http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=35855)
Plus you did not comment that 67% of the voters who supported Walker considered themselves blue collar workers.
In order for than number to have any statistical significance, we'd need to know what percentage of the total number of voters consider themselves "blue collar." Even then, it would be hard to draw conclusions as to what the real "message" was, given the great disparity in spending and the fact that Walker spared police and fire unions from the pending legislation. How many governors have faced recall elections in the last 30 years? A few, at most?

Even with over twice the money of his opposition, Walker squeaked by with only 53% of the vote. Maybe the real message to this is that union-workers are not going to be scapegoats for bad fiscal policies and/or poorly-negotiated and hastily-settled contracts with public-sector employees?
 
Maybe the real message to this is that union-workers are not going to be scapegoats for bad fiscal policies and/or poorly-negotiated and hastily-settled contracts with public-sector employees?
No the real message is that public employees have a monoply on services, and they can not put the gov't out of business with unrealistic pay and benefits. Like the UAW and GM. Pay and benefits that now outstrip the average non-gov't worker. The tax pavers are sending a message to the policitians that they are tired of funding this luxury that they as non-gov't workers do not have. The politicans who receive money from the union members through forced dues vote for benefits they do not have to pay inorder to get the money top keep them in their job. FDR was right in 1938 when he saiod public empoyees should not be union members.
 
No the real message is that public employees have a monoply on services, and they can not put the gov't out of business with unrealistic pay and benefits.
Where I live, about the only government workers who still have a blue-chip "monopoly" on public services are police and firemen...two groups specifically excluded from Walker's union reform bill.
The politicans who receive money from the union members through forced dues vote for benefits they do not have to pay in order to get the money to keep them in their job.
Much has been made in this debate of "forcing" people to pay union dues. Personally, I don't have any problem with that, as those being "forced" receive the benefits of membership in that union....benefits that far outstrip those they would receive in the private-sector, according to you. Many property owners in Wisconsin are "forced" to pay higher taxes in order to provide tax-abatements and other incentives to companies that want to locate in Wisconsin. Do you think there's any chance that Governor Walker will make "paying taxes" optional for people who have a fundamental objection to subsidizing private industry?
FDR was right in 1938 when he said public employees should not be union members.
There are a lot of things public employees should not be. "Retired at 30 years of service" for one. "Double-dippers" ("retired," but working for the government) would be another. I can think of a dozen more, as I'm sure you can also.
 
I'm not upset about public pensions, except for politicians who receive them.
This doesn't bother you?

Originally Posted by CiFIknow View Post
I apologize, but I was a public employee at one point. I spent 12 years working in County government before I started flying. For my 12 years of service I will collect $28,000 per year after I turn 50, until the day I die. That is in today's dollars, subject to cost of living adjustments after I begin collecting.

If I had stayed until I could retire at full pension (which is age 55), I would have collected 93% of the average of my highest five years of salary. If I would have stayed until retirement I would have picked up as much overtime as I could during my last (highest) five years of work to bolster my pension to be way out of proportion to what I would have made during a regular five year period. Saw every one of my elderly co-workers do just that. My pension would not be subject to bankruptcy or pawning off to the PBGC. It is guaranteed money paid for by whom?? Yes, the taxpayer.

Name me a private sector job that will guarantee you 93% of your salary when you retire, without risk. There are none. Name me a private sector job that would pay you $28,0000/yr. at age 50 for just 12 years of service. Again, there are none. If I was altruistic I would give the money back to the government to help pay down their debt, but I worked in government too long to know that they won't spend the money as wisely as I will.

Corporations have a feduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. Government has no feduciary responsibility to its shareholders (i.e. taxpayers) to be fiscally responsible. Government just comes back to the taxpayers and says they "need" more money to provide services. They have no bottom line. Government Bureaucrats think they have a tap into an endless well of resources to do what they please. We are at the tipping point where the public sector is almost as large as the private sector. Once the public sector outnumbers private...we will be just like Greece.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top