Wisconsin Revolt

Who do you support in the Wisconsin Revolt?


  • Total voters
    118

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
It's not but when you discuss labor unions and the
Public sector you're talking about money. I don't agree with the current system
as much as you. That being said we can not ignore plain facts about the world we live in, it's a rough place. We should be spending our time
better preparing ourselves to become net producers rather than consumers. Currently as a net producer I, create wealth because it allows for my survival and advancent in the world. We have to innovate for the real world or perish. My experience is that a sober view of the facts gives the best grounding.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/how-can-america-create-wealth-if-our-industrial-base-is-destroyed-50000-manufacturing-jobs-have-been-lost-every-month-since-2001
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Sorry. What do you think the money of the rich is doing? They can only buy so many homes and yachts. That money "is" the capital that keeps the economy running. It literally "is" the privat sector economy. And every dollar that government takes out is a drag on the economy no matter who is paying it. Nothing can stimulate the economy better than cutting taxes, because it is by definition putting money into the economy. And it's real money not deficit spending. Your argument is like trying to borrow your way out of debt.

Now this is sliding to my worth. It's a standard defence. It's also lame.

Yes Capital is a system that we go by it's the people that fuck anything so keeping extreme wealth in private hands is the cause of the failure of American Capitalism.

Private wealth is without redemption when it is used to enslave. So no collective bargaining as a defence for private wealth is like excusing the Nazi's for killing Jews because they made the Jews turn the valve that turned on the Gas.

This may look like a small thing but when it degrades human rights and it is our Government that is spearheading the effort then the meaning of Public Servant changes to Servant of Private Wealth.
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
We are all servants of private wealth weather you like it or not. You talk of human rights and I talk of human liberty.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
So you claim those programs are not at risk then immediately start explaining why they should go. lol
They are not at risk. Elected officials are too cowardly to even think about eliminating them.

I did not exactly say they should go.

I said they are the responsibility of the states, or the people.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Good job with the wiki Ernst now look up: "public servant" and get back to me.
Are you inviting me over for BBQ? Because all this free work I'm doing for you is making me want to collectively bargain some food in addition to my labour.

From Wikipedia: Reprinted to save time:

Civil service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Roman civil service in action. Mary and Joseph of Nazareth register for the census before Governor Quirinius, mosaic 1315–20.


The term civil service has two distinct meanings:

  • A branch of governmental service in which individuals are employed on the basis of professional merit as proven by competitive examinations.
  • The body of employees in any government agency other than the military.
A civil servant or public servant is a person public sector employee working for a government department or agency. The term explicitly excludes the armed services, although civilian officials will work at "Defence Ministry" headquarters. The term always includes the (sovereign) state's employees; whether regional, or sub-state, or even municipal employees are called "civil servants" varies from country to country. In the United Kingdom, for instance, only Crown employees are referred to as civil servants, county or city employees are not.
Many consider the study of civil service to be a part of the field of public administration. Workers in "non-departmental public bodies" (sometimes called "QUANGOs") may also be classed as civil servants for the purpose of statistics and possibly for their terms and conditions. Collectively a state's civil servants form its Civil Service or Public Service.
Administrative institutions usually grow out of the personal servants of high officials, as in the Roman Empire. This developed a complex administrative structure, which is outlined in the Notitia Dignitatum and the work of John Lydus, but as far as we know appointments to it were made entirely by inheritance or patronage and not on merit, and it was also possible for officers to employ other people to carry out their official tasks but continue to draw their salary themselves. There are obvious parallels here with the early bureaucratic structures in modern states, such as the Office of Works or the Navy in 18th century England, where again appointments depended on patronage and were often bought and sold.
An international civil servant or international staff member is a civilian employee that is nominated by an international organisation.[1] These international civil servants do not resort under any national legislation (from which they have immunity of jurisdiction) but are governed by an internal staff regulation. All disputes related to international civil service are brought before special tribunals created by these international organisations such as, for instance, the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO.[2]
Specific referral can be made to the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) of the UN, an independent expert body established by the United Nations General Assembly. Its mandate is to regulate and coordinate the conditions of service of staff in the United Nations common system, while promoting and maintaining high standards in the international civil service.
Contents

[hide]

[edit] By countries

[edit] Australia

Main article: Australian Public Service
[edit] Canada

Main article: Public Service of Canada
Canada's public service is a body with less than 10 departments and 450,000 members, including commissions, councils, crown corporations, the Office of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
[edit] China


Emperor Wen of Sui (r. 581–604), who established the first civil service examination system in China; a painting by the chancellor and artist Yan Liben (600–673).


One of the oldest examples of a civil service based on meritocracy is the Imperial bureaucracy of China, which can be traced as far back as the Qin Dynasty (221–207 BC). During the Han Dynasty (202 BC–220 AD) the xiaolian system of recommendation by superiors for appointments to office was established. In the areas of administration, especially the military, appointments were based solely on merit.
After the fall of the Han Dynasty, the Chinese bureaucracy regressed into a semi-merit system known as the Nine-rank system; in this system noble birthright became the most significant prerequisite for gaining access to more authoritative posts.
This system was reversed during the short-lived Sui Dynasty (581–618), which initiated a civil service bureaucracy recruited through written examinations and recommendation. The following Tang Dynasty (618–907) adopted the same measures for drafting officials, and decreasingly relied on aristocratic recommendations and more and more on promotion based on the results of written examinations.
However, the civil service examinations were practiced on a much smaller scale in comparison to the stronger, centralized bureaucracy of the Song Dynasty (960–1279). In response to the regional military rule of jiedushi and the loss of civil authority during the late Tang period and Five Dynasties (907–960), the Song emperors were eager to implement a system where civil officials would owe their social prestige to the central court and gain their salaries strictly from the central government. This ideal was not fully achieved since many scholar officials were affluent landowners and were engaged in many anonymous business affairs in an age of economic revolution in China. Nonetheless, gaining a degree through three levels of examination — prefectural exams, provincial exams, and the prestigious palace exams — was a far more desirable goal in society than becoming a merchant. This was because the mercantile class was traditionally regarded with some disdain by the scholar official class. This class of state bureaucrats in the Song period were far less aristocratic than their Tang predecessors. The examinations were carefully structured in order to ensure that people of lesser means than what was available to candidates born into wealthy, landowning families were given a greater chance to pass the exams and obtain an official degree. This included the employment of a bureau of copyists who would rewrite all of the candidates' exams in order to mask their handwriting and thus prevent favoritism by graders of the exams who might otherwise recognize a candidate's handwriting. The advent of widespread printing in the Song period allowed many more examination candidates access to the Confucian texts whose mastery was required for passing the exams.
[edit] France

Main article: French Civil Service
The civil service in France (fonction publique) is often considered to include government employees, as well as employees of public corporations.
[edit] India

Main article: Civil Services of India
The Civil Service exams in India is conducted by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Union Public Service Commission conducts Civil Service Examinations every year to select officers for various services including Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Indian Police Services (IPS), Indian Foreign Services (IFS), Indian Revenue Services and other Group 'A' and Group 'B' central jobs. The examination is a three stage process which consists of Civil Services Aptitude Test CSAT (Earlier Civil Services Preliminary Examination) , Main Examination and the Interview. Entry into the IAS, IPS and the Central Services, Group A and Group B is through the All India Combined Competitive Examination for the Civil Services conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in different centers spread all over the country. However, recruitment to the Indian Forest Service is through a different procedure. Entry into the State Civil Services is through a competitive examination conducted by every state public service commission. Close to 3.5 lakhs of candidates apply every year for the 400 to 500 vacancies that may arise.
[edit] United Kingdom

Main article: Her Majesty's Civil Service
The civil service in the United Kingdom only includes Crown employees; not those who are parliamentary employees. Public sector employees such as teachers and NHS doctors are not considered to be civil servants. Note that civil servants in the devolved government in Northern Ireland are not part of the Home Civil Service, but constitute the separate Northern Ireland Civil Service.
[edit] Brazil

Civil servants in Brazil, Servidor Público in Portuguese, are those working in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government, state government, municipal government and the Government of Brasilia, including congressmen, senators, mayors, ministers, the president of the republic, and workers in Government-owned corporation. Civil servants are hired on the basis of entrance examinations known as Concurso Público in Portuguese. There are several companies with a government mandate to conduct the testing; the best known are CESPE, which belongs to the University of Brasilia, the Getulio Vargas Foundation, ESAF, and the Cesgranrio Foundation, which is part of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. The positions are filled according to examination score and the number of vacancies.
[edit] Spain

The civil service in Spain (funcionariado) is often considered to include government employees, "Comunidades Autónomas" employees, as well as municipal employees. There are three main categories of Spanish civil services; political posts ("puestos de libre designación, level 28-30") requiring simple or no examinations, posts called "funcionarios de carrera" requiring an examination, and "personal laboral" posts, also with an exam similar to that for the "funcionarios de carrera". Examinations differ among the states, the 17 autonomic communities and the city councils, and the "funcionarios" and "personal laboral" exams vary in difficulty from one location to another.
[edit] Ireland

Main article: Civil service of the Republic of Ireland
The civil service of Ireland includes the employees of the Department of State (excluded are government ministers and a small number of paid political advisors) as well as a small number of core state agencies such as the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Office of Public Works, and the Public Appointments Service. The organisation of the Irish Civil Service is very similar to the traditional organization of the British Home Civil Service, and indeed the grading system in the Irish Civil Service is nearly identical to the traditional grading system of its British counterpart. In Ireland, public sector employees such as teachers or members of the country's police force, An Garda Síochána are not considered to be civil servants, but are rather described as "public servants" (and form the Public service of the Republic of Ireland).
[edit] United States

Main article: United States civil service
In the United States, the civil service was established in 1872. The Federal Civil Service is defined as "all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services." (5 U.S.C. § 2101). In the early 19th century, government jobs were held at the pleasure of the president — a person could be fired at any time. The spoils system meant that jobs were used to support the political parties. This was changed in slow stages by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 and subsequent laws. By 1909, almost 2/3 of the U.S. federal work force was appointed based on merit, that is, qualifications measured by tests. Certain senior civil service positions, including some heads of diplomatic missions and executive agencies are filled by political appointees. Under the Hatch Act of 1939, civil servants are not allowed to engage in political activities while performing their duties.
The U.S. civil service includes the Competitive service and the Excepted service. The majority of civil service appointments in the U.S. are made under the Competitive Service, but certain categories in the Diplomatic Service, the FBI, and other National Security positions are made under the Excepted Service. (U.S. Code Title V)
U.S. state and local government entities often have competitive civil service systems that are modeled on the national system, in varying degrees.
As of January 2007, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, employed about 1.8 million civilian workers. The Federal Government is the Nation's single largest employer. Although most federal agencies are based in the Washington D.C. region, only about 16% (or about 288,000) of the federal government workforce is employed in this region.[3]
There are over 1,300 federal government agencies.[4]
[edit] Other meanings

Civil service also means a form of legal conscientious objection, for example the Swiss Civilian Service. More accurately, in this scope civil service is work performed in the public interest as a replacement for a military obligation to which one objects. The Finnish "siviilipalvelus", French "service civil", German "Zivildienst", Italian "servizio civile" and Swedish "civiltjänst" all can be translated as "civil service" in this sense.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Sorry. What do you think the money of the rich is doing? They can only buy so many homes and yachts. That money "is" the capital that keeps the economy running. It literally "is" the privat sector economy.
A lot of it is invested in gold right now (which is extremely unhelpful to the economy). In times of recession they invest it in overseas markets like oil speculation driving up our energy prices. If they were investing it in American corporations creating jobs we'd be in really good shape right now. The rich hold a higher concentration of wealth than they ever have in our modern history. They clearly aren't using that new found wealth to create jobs. The idea that we should just keep giving them all our money and maybe they'll be nice and create jobs with it is based on flawed logic.

So if it's true that all we have to do is make sure the wealth can afford to create jobs and they will, then how come they are holding historically high amounts of wealth and still not creating jobs? Do you think that has something to do with the fact that they can't create jobs if working class people can't afford the goods and services they would produce? Why would a rich person create a job for goods and services that he can not sell?

And every dollar that government takes out is a drag on the economy no matter who is paying it.
Then how come when taxes on the rich were higher, the economy was more successful?

Nothing can stimulate the economy better than cutting taxes,
That is factually incorrect. Food stamps are the single best way to stimulate the economy. Infrastructure spending creates jobs and improves our economy in the long run. Tax cuts are actually at the bottom of the list of things that stimulate the economy when they are skewed in favor of the rich. The only way they are effective is when they are given to poor and working class Americans who spend the money in the economy.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Again I have to depend on the Internet for my facts. Here is a snippit from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining



It's a Human Right that was paid for with burning girls jumping out windows while the Owners of factories escape harm and financial ruin.

View attachment 1517624
Yep. We are reading different Constitutions.

I suspected as much.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. There is no right to collective bargaining in the U.S. Constitution.

If you wish to live under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada you should start packing.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
What no rights to collective bargaining?
Really.. All this time that is what ace in the hole you have?

Guess again...
My ace is the United States Constitution.

Look at it two ways. One, he is a hero to his political base and Two, he is a villain of American Freedom.

If this was a judge declaring a lynching fair and just punishment did that make it right?

Enjoy this website. The loss of worker rights is directly akin to slavery and class warfare on the poor.

http://withoutsanctuary.org/
Before it was slavery, then lynching. Seriously?

But it looks like were back to slavery again. Yay!

No one is losing their rights.

And the race-baiting is getting tiresome.
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
Ok Ernst got another one for you "sovereign" the US constitution as JO said is not that of any other country or international entity. Also look up liberty I don't think you understand what it means to have "God given rights". The problem is they should be teaching this stuff in a high school civics class but they don't:dunce:
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
I hope that all you guys that are against collective bargaining have your own business...If not then you kinda stupid fighting against something that may work for you.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Yep. We are reading different Constitutions.

I suspected as much.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. There is no right to collective bargaining in the U.S. Constitution.

If you wish to live under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada you should start packing.
I'm sure you are seeing things (pun intended) since the Constitution doesn't outlaw collective bargaining.
Remember we were a Slave Nation and that foundation of Law is still with us like the "Dark Side" Luke.
Human rights is in conflict with private wealth and like the Nazi's making the Jews turn on the gas and burn the bodies it is the Worker that will get his hands dirty in the repression of Human Rights while the Uber-Fuhrers live a class above the rest.


Mom and Ken said this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110301200231AAp5DRW
This is not in the constitution, but rather found in most contracts between unions and labor management. The NRLB, or National Labor Relation Board which was founded in 1935 is the established guideline for all collective bargaining units. This right is your right to set up a union and bargain in "good faith" with an employer. A collective consensus of what the work force wants and what is fair and just in todays economy and competitive to other bargaining agreements. Just look at the POA or IAFF. Perfect examples of a collective bargaining agreement.


  • 2 people rated this as good



by mom Member since:May 01, 2008Total points:7,116 (Level 5)

The right to collective bargaining was in an act called National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Also the United Nations assembly 1948 passed the regulation governing international regulations, called, article 23; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was John F. Kennedy in 1962 who gave the right to public employees by executive order.


"Remember it's not what Cannabis can do for you it's what You can do for Cannabis. "
Ernst Berg 2011
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
It's not but when you discuss labor unions and the
Public sector you're talking about money. I don't agree with the current system
as much as you. That being said we can not ignore plain facts about the world we live in, it's a rough place. We should be spending our time
better preparing ourselves to become net producers rather than consumers. Currently as a net producer I, create wealth because it allows for my survival and advancement in the world. We have to innovate for the real world or perish. My experience is that a sober view of the facts gives the best grounding.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/how-can-america-create-wealth-if-our-industrial-base-is-destroyed-50000-manufacturing-jobs-have-been-lost-every-month-since-2001
I disagree: The Nature of life is to live. To suggest the nature of life is to make profit makes one the Proverbial Ferengi of Star Trek mythology.
We are in a Universe of Finite resources. For some to have more and some to have less is the nature of Wealth.
If there was some fronter we can advance to or if resources were free to all to exploit than Capitalism makes seance but since we are all fighting over what there is and some have more than many nations what good does that do the Planet?




We have the technology, we possess enough to overcome the poverty of the world.
If we humans labor life after life age after age and we accomplish little in survival of the Planet because of private wealth then the epitaph for the Planet Earth will read "It was a hell of a struggle and greed is all that survived." Some partied and some starved but all in all private property was protected.

Just think how small this speck of the Universe really is.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
I'm sure you are seeing things (pun intended) since the Constitution doesn't outlaw collective bargaining.
Remember we were a Slave Nation and that foundation of Law is still with us like the "Dark Side" Luke.
Human rights is in conflict with private wealth and like the Nazi's making the Jews turn on the gas and burn the bodies it is the Worker that will get his hands dirty in the repression of Human Rights while the Uber-Fuhrers live a class above the rest.

Mom and Ken said this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110301200231AAp5DRW
I don't recall saying that the U.S. (I must remember to add that qualifier when conversing with you) Constitution outlawed collective bargaining.

What I said was that it does not recognize collective bargaining as (an enumerated) right because it is not a right. We are not endowed by the Creator (Nature) with the RIGHT to bargain collectively.

The U.S. was founded under the cloud of slavery.

The U.S. flag was a flag of slavery.

I can live with that, do you know why? Because it no longer applies.

It's history now.

The U.S. Constitution, which you so gleefully shit on, has an Amendment SPECIFICALLY outlawing slavery.

See the 13th Amendment.

I'm almost certain it's in Wikipedia somewhere.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I don't recall saying that the U.S. (I must remember to add that qualifier when conversing with you) Constitution outlawed collective bargaining.

What I said was that it does not recognize collective bargaining as (an enumerated) right because it is not a right. We are not endowed by the Creator (Nature) with the RIGHT to bargain collectively.

The U.S. was founded under the cloud of slavery.

The U.S. flag was a flag of slavery.

I can live with that, do you know why? Because it no longer applies.

It's history now.

The U.S. Constitution, which you so gleefully shit on, has an Amendment SPECIFICALLY outlawing slavery.

See the 13th Amendment.

I'm almost certain it's in Wikipedia somewhere.

We still have those who long for the good old days when you could beat a black man to death and all you got was a fine or short jail term.

The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" Song by Bob Dylan from the album The Times They Are a-Changin' Released January 13, 1964 Recorded October 23, 1963 Genre Folk Length 5:48 Label Columbia Writer Bob Dylan Producer Tom Wilson The Times They Are a-Changin' track listing Side one
  1. "The Times They Are a-Changin'"
  2. "Ballad of Hollis Brown"
  3. "With God on Our Side"
  4. "One Too Many Mornings"
  5. "North Country Blues"
Side two
  1. "Only a Pawn in Their Game"
  2. "Boots of Spanish Leather"
  3. "When the Ship Comes In"
  4. "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll"
  5. "Restless Farewell"
"The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" is a topical song written by the American musician Bob Dylan. Recorded on October 23, 1963, the song was released on Dylan's 1964 album The Times They Are a-Changin' and gives a generally factual account of the killing of 51-year-old barmaid Hattie Carroll by the wealthy young tobacco farmer from Charles County, Maryland, William Devereux "Billy" Zantzinger (whom the song calls "William Zanzinger"), and his subsequent sentence to six months in a county jail.
[video=youtube;b0YMOF5Fqu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0YMOF5Fqu4[/video]

Just producing what the Life allows..

It's been hard to find Bob Dylan video http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=728462


[video=youtube;zGKpwyJZkx8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGKpwyJZkx8[/video]

[video=youtube;vYM4WYFAiLg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYM4WYFAiLg&feature=related[/video]

The last one is the best one.

As an additional option I offer something completely different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClQcUyhoxTg
Smoke Pot!
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
We still have those who long for the good old days when you could beat a black man to death and all you got was a fine or short jail term.

Just producing what the Life allows..

It's been hard to find Bob Dylan video
If you have something to say, man up and fucking SAY IT already.

Pussyfooting around is pretty childish.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
We need collective Bargaining?

Time for the Phatty..
Yeah, well you ALREADY made that statement or something very similar to it.

You did not need to rely on innuendo and passive/aggressive bullshit to make that particular point.

I was referring to what you OBVIOUSLY do not have the chingaderros to come right out and say.

Buh-bye.
 
Top