Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!
G

Gblock

Apr 5, 2011 1:22 PM
stlouiedipalma;733406 wrote:Haven't we learned by now that whenever an individual or corporation invests heavily in candidates' campaigns there is a payback expected? That goes for unions, the Koch brothers, this family you speak of and anyone who donates large sums. That is why I am against large donations of any kind to political candidates. Put a $100 limit on all campaign contributions, whether from an individual or a corporation. If we severely limit the amount which can be donated we can cut down on the influence of the donations.

i would support something like that...100 might be too low. but i dont think you should be able to use big money as in walmart/amway money to influence elections to get political favor. not sure about its accuracy but my friend who lives in michigan was saying that since they kicked out devos of mich he started a group called the BLM and you have to be worth 500 million to get in it. he basically says that they have more influence now then when he was a politician. big money salries waiting for you when you lose an election or end your term if you play ball. havent had time to look them up he was telling me that this weekend along with other things i had no idea about as far as who stands to gain the most out of this bill.
Apr 5, 2011 1:22pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 5, 2011 1:25 PM
stlouiedipalma;733406 wrote:Haven't we learned by now that whenever an individual or corporation invests heavily in candidates' campaigns there is a payback expected? That goes for unions, the Koch brothers, this family you speak of and anyone who donates large sums. That is why I am against large donations of any kind to political candidates. Put a $100 limit on all campaign contributions, whether from an individual or a corporation. If we severely limit the amount which can be donated we can cut down on the influence of the donations.
Actually, believe it or not, this isn't entirely true.

I work for a marketing company with a political fundraising department. About a month ago a donor who wished to remain anonymous to the recipient (which he voiced to our communicator) gave $1,000,000 toward the future presidential campaign of a certain politician. Paid over the phone, and it has been approved since.

I recognize that this is the exception to the rule, but even one exception with such large implications would be significantly impacted by such rules.

Honestly, the voting public is what allows it to happen. Those whose campaigns are obviously the result of a bloated marketing budget are further motivated by the fact that such marketing campaigns seem to work. It's lunacy.
Apr 5, 2011 1:25pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Apr 5, 2011 1:32 PM
Devos=AMWAY=The Windquest Group
Apr 5, 2011 1:32pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Apr 5, 2011 1:56 PM
O-Trap;733422 wrote:Actually, believe it or not, this isn't entirely true.

I work for a marketing company with a political fundraising department. About a month ago a donor who wished to remain anonymous to the recipient (which he voiced to our communicator) gave $1,000,000 toward the future presidential campaign of a certain politician. Paid over the phone, and it has been approved since.

I recognize that this is the exception to the rule, but even one exception with such large implications would be significantly impacted by such rules.

Honestly, the voting public is what allows it to happen. Those whose campaigns are obviously the result of a bloated marketing budget are further motivated by the fact that such marketing campaigns seem to work. It's lunacy.
Precisely.

People who even watch political advertising, let alone allow it to influence their vote, should be removed from the gene pool. That's why I only vote for the candidate with the coolest yard sign. Those are way less expensive than TV ads. ;)
Apr 5, 2011 1:56pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Apr 5, 2011 4:05 PM
Hey, a lot of us aren't influenced by political advertising (other than being sick and tired of the seemingly constant bombardment in the days leading up to the election), but there are undoubtedly many people who base their opinions on some of this crap. Give me one good reason why there should be no limits on political donations. I sure can't think of any.
Apr 5, 2011 4:05pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 5, 2011 4:11 PM
stlouiedipalma;733642 wrote:Hey, a lot of us aren't influenced by political advertising (other than being sick and tired of the seemingly constant bombardment in the days leading up to the election), but there are undoubtedly many people who base their opinions on some of this crap. Give me one good reason why there should be no limits on political donations. I sure can't think of any.
Because it would be throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. If a politician came along and decided to use that airtime to state his (or her) positions on issues, and focus on why he would make a good candidate ... as opposed to the current norm of propagandist one-liners about why the other major party's candidate is the most evil spawn of Satan to ever set its hooves on the earth ... then he would be just as unable.

If I believe in the cause of Ron Paul, and I want to give him $XX,XXX (or any amount, as "a lot" in terms of money is subjective), I should be allowed to do so. I should not be allowed to do so with hope of a return. So the question REALLY should be, how do we separate the baby from the bathwater in this case?

I think that's where our efforts should be in this discussion.
Apr 5, 2011 4:11pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Apr 5, 2011 4:13 PM
Which is why the Supremes ruled against putting limits on contributions and did so under the realm of the First Amendment.
Apr 5, 2011 4:13pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Apr 6, 2011 1:20 AM
stlouiedipalma;733642 wrote:Give me one good reason why there should be no limits on political donations. I sure can't think of any.
Putting aside the argument that elections of representatives of the states in the federal government should be governed by the states constitutionally, I have no doubt similar issues you mentioned would exist at the state level as well.

So if one form of government or another limits individuals and group entities to a set amount (you have thrown out the $100 limit). OK. Now you have to deal with the independently wealthy who can fund their own campaign individually. Or at the least greatly contribute to it. Unless you want to allow the independently wealthy an unfair advantage government must intervene. More government begets more government.

Lets not leave the media out of this. Whether it is MSNBC, FOXNEWS, ABC, CBS, or whatever. They can still air what they will. How much do you want to empower the heads of these media outlets? Money talks and buys you air time. But will you allow them sole possession of the 1st amendment?
Apr 6, 2011 1:20am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Apr 6, 2011 1:23 AM
Glory Days;732183 wrote: Yeah, that works when making widgets, but you fail to realize that doesn't exactly work with policing or firefighting.

Sure it does. More cost effective and efficient training for firefighters, better utilization of volunteers. With police more effective use of resources to problem areas among other things. The opportunity may not be as easy or as plentiful as in some businesses, but put another way would it be effective for everyone to be a cop or firefighter? Of course not, there is an optimal an effective number just like anything else, and technology and more effective planning can always make things more efficient. I take issue with the default assumption the same results can't be accomplished with less resources. That's the sort of attitude/perception that leads to bloated govt workforces.
Apr 6, 2011 1:23am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Apr 6, 2011 3:56 AM
gut;734151 wrote:I take issue with the default assumption the same results can't be accomplished with less resources. That's the sort of attitude/perception that leads to bloated govt workforces.
Exactly. The standard "solution" to "fixing" inefficiencies in the public sector has for decades been to toss more money and/or bodies at it. That type of tunnel vision by managers in the eeeeevil for-profit private sector can easily derail your business....or at least get you fired.

Thinking outside the box and finding ways of doing more with less is almost akin to avoiding plague by those in public sector.

The economy in general is in the tank and tax revenue streams are rapidly dwindling for the boys & girls in the public sector who once had the luxury of simply tossing more and more taxpayer dollars at the "issues." Now that they're faced with using common sense and creativity in finding ways to get the job done on less resources, they're in complete meltdown mode.

Quite frankly I'm enjoying the show. Welcome to reality folks.
Apr 6, 2011 3:56am
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Apr 6, 2011 2:57 PM
Although probably not likely, what if SB5 backfires and the market value for public workers increases and it doesnt save cities money?
Apr 6, 2011 2:57pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Apr 6, 2011 2:58 PM
Glory Days;734573 wrote:Although probably not likely, what if SB5 backfires and the market value for public workers increases and it doesnt save cities money?

At the very least they won't have to pay union dues so they'll have even more money. :)
Apr 6, 2011 2:58pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Apr 6, 2011 3:28 PM
Glory Days;734573 wrote:Although probably not likely, what if SB5 backfires and the market value for public workers increases and it doesnt save cities money?

It won't. It will leave the tax payers in control of if they want to pay market value for a good fire department or not. If the tax payers don't want to fork over the cash to have an adequate fire department, then they will just have to suffer the consequences.
Apr 6, 2011 3:28pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Apr 6, 2011 6:55 PM
Glory Days;734573 wrote:Although probably not likely, what if SB5 backfires and the market value for public workers increases and it doesnt save cities money?

If the market value goes up it will be because the taxpayers will have wanted to pay more for better services.
Apr 6, 2011 6:55pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Apr 6, 2011 7:18 PM
A question just came to me that I'd like to pose to you people in the "let the people decide" referendum mob....

Is it safe to assume that you wouldn't have a problem with all future public union contracts being voted on by the people?
Apr 6, 2011 7:18pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Apr 6, 2011 7:41 PM
fish82;734813 wrote:A question just came to me that I'd like to pose to you people in the "let the people decide" referendum mob....

Is it safe to assume that you wouldn't have a problem with all future public union contracts being voted on by the people?
GREAT question, Fishy! I'd like to hear the responses to that myself!
Apr 6, 2011 7:41pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Apr 6, 2011 7:55 PM
Dear god dude.

Fire departments aren't operating on a for profit basis so they don't care if Fireman Ted brings them in funds. They care about their effectiveness as a unit to prevent and put out fires. If Ted performs well at that he'll be rewarded.

Is it that difficult of a concept?
Apr 6, 2011 7:55pm
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Apr 6, 2011 8:48 PM
dwccrew;734799 wrote:If the market value goes up it will be because the taxpayers will have wanted to pay more for better services.

Isnt that what happens now? Mayor says he wants to raise taxes to pay for public services, it then gets voted on by the council for approval. If Council/people dont want the increase, they vote it down and the departments deal with it.
Apr 6, 2011 8:48pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Apr 6, 2011 8:53 PM
CenterBHSFan;734851 wrote:GREAT question, Fishy! I'd like to hear the responses to that myself!

Me too. Unions make membership mandatory for one reason: they know if it's voluntary, they'll lose most of their membership. In states where mandatory membership has been reversed, unions have had significant losses.

I would expect nothing different to happen if any of these contracts were put to vote -- especially if there was full disclosure on the cost to taxpayers.
Apr 6, 2011 8:53pm
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 6, 2011 9:04 PM
I've said it before. I'd like to do away with the BIG union, and just have a local union group where we bargain for OURSELVES, and don't pay for lobbying.
Apr 6, 2011 9:04pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Apr 6, 2011 9:06 PM
Glory Days;734951 wrote:Isnt that what happens now? Mayor says he wants to raise taxes to pay for public services, it then gets voted on by the council for approval. If Council/people dont want the increase, they vote it down and the departments deal with it.

No, it's not what happens now. What happens now is politicians and government leaders, that receive campaign money from unions, negotiate contracts with public sector employee unions. If the market dictated how public employees were paid, they would see significant pay and pension reductions along with the private sector. This hasn't happened because the market doesn't dictate the value of a public sector employee, a union contract does. So even if an employee is shitty and does the bare minimum, they will still be rewarded through step pay increases whereas if the market dictated the pay and compensation, an employee would have to perform better than others to receive pay increase and improved compensation packages.

It is how the market determines it in the private sector (non-union) and that is how it would work in the public sector with SB5.
Apr 6, 2011 9:06pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Apr 6, 2011 9:08 PM
ernest_t_bass;734972 wrote:I've said it before. I'd like to do away with the BIG union, and just have a local union group where we bargain for OURSELVES, and don't pay for lobbying.

I honestly don't think this would be bad. I don't see a problem with teachers within a school district collectively bargaining for their pay and benefits solely with that particular district.. The problem is, a small union like this would get gobbled up by a bigger one with the line "strength in numbers. Join us and we will have even more bargaining power."

The idea is a good one, but I don't think it is realistic.
Apr 6, 2011 9:08pm
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Apr 6, 2011 9:10 PM
dwccrew;734980 wrote:The idea is a good one, but I don't think it is realistic.

FAR from realistic.
Apr 6, 2011 9:10pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Apr 6, 2011 9:12 PM
ernest_t_bass;734981 wrote:FAR from realistic.

Which is why I think the next best solution is to get rid of the unions within the public sector all together and let teachers (and any public sector employees) individually negotiate their contract. If it can be done within the private sector, I feel it can be done in the public as well.
Apr 6, 2011 9:12pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Apr 7, 2011 12:36 AM
dwccrew;734982 wrote:Which is why I think the next best solution is to get rid of the unions within the public sector all together and let teachers (and any public sector employees) individually negotiate their contract. If it can be done within the private sector, I feel it can be done in the public as well.

This could be done in small districts, but how would the logistics play out in large districts where you have thousands of teachers negotiating contracts every year?
Apr 7, 2011 12:36am