Ah, there's always one exception to the rule, eh? I take it no-one brought a gun, then.

danivon wrote:Ah, there's always one exception to the rule, eh? I take it no-one brought a gun, then.

I'll use the rickyp standard: someone had a gun until YOU prove they didn't.

What does a gun have to do with it? No person should be protested in their home. Should children be subjected to bullying by unions, etc. in their own home?

Oh, right. As a liberal, you don't much like private property.

No Steve, when it's their guys, then it's ok and is their right to do so. But when you get whacky anti-abortionists protesting outside an abortion doctors house, THEN it's wrong and steps over the line. With these guys it all depends on how it suits their position.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll use the rickyp standard: someone had a gun until YOU prove they didn't.

And you think that's a rational way to debate? You aren't 7 years old any more.

What does a gun have to do with it?

People brought guns to protests against the President, didn't they?

No person should be protested in their home. Should children be subjected to bullying by unions, etc. in their own home?

As long as it is civil, and from public property, it is not necessarily beyond the pale. A polititian gives up some of their privacy when they stand and when they take decisions that affect the lives of others.

Oh, right. As a liberal, you don't much like private property.

[/quote][/quote]ad hom twaddle.

[quote="danivon"No person should be protested in their home. Should children be subjected to bullying by unions, etc. in their own home?[/quote]As long as it is civil, and from public property, it is not necessarily beyond the pale. A polititian gives up some of their privacy when they stand and when they take decisions that affect the lives of others.
[/quote]

The home is, by definition, private property. This was a dodge, Danivon. Do Unions have the right to protest on someone's lawn (which is private property)?

So what's the deal with the anti union sentiment anyways. Is it that it's mostly government employees nowadays, or their historical connections to the mob or why are the Republicans trying to get rid of them now ?

Not anti-union... Pro personal rights.

Faxmonkey wrote:So what's the deal with the anti union sentiment anyways. Is it that it's mostly government employees nowadays, or their historical connections to the mob or why are the Republicans trying to get rid of them now ?

It is public sector unions Fax. Some states. Currently the private work force is 7% union membership while Government force is 30+% union membership.

Bascially, there is a perception that while the private sector has faced stagnate or reduced wages, increasing healthcare costs and reduced benefits (meaning transistion from defined benefit to defined contribution retirement plans), most public sector unions have gotten signaficant raises, limited to no increase in healthcare costs and continuation of defined benefits retirement plans. Some example, the average private sector employee is paying about 30% of healthcare premium while many public sector employees pay nothing towards health benefits or if they do it is a small percentage (usually between 1%-10%.) Another issue is with longevity pay. Teachers, for example, operate on a step system. Every year or two a teacher will increase what "step" they are on. The advancement is usually accompanied by a salary increase. So not only is the teacher getting the 3.5% raise negotiated through the collective bargin, (s)he is getting an additional 3% in step increases.

Now combined this with the information that three of the top five poliltical funding sources in the 2010 election were from public employee unions (SEIU, NEA and AFSCME). Public Sector union contracts are approved by elected officials. What we have here is a situation where the Unions are spending obscene amounts of money influencing who they will be negotiation with in contract negotiations. Chris Christie remarked during his campaign on a comment John Corzine had made while speaking at a campaign stop a the state employee's union rally. Corzine said something along the lines of "I will fight to make sure you get a good contract." Christie's comment was along the lines of "You are the guy they are negoitating with so how much of a fight is it going to be?"

Back to the Democrats and Liberals claims that this "violence" and rhetoric is more aimed at Republicans and how Democrats are seemingly soooo civil. The link posted earlier was pretty funny showing exactly the opposite and boy how fast these guys can forget how they complained about Bush (calling him the devil and satan and all sorts of nonsense)

anyways, using the scientific method MX used in another thread
I decided to do a Google search on some foul terms cast at each party
"A$$hole Democrats" = 2,310 hits
"A$$hole Republicans" = 8,490 hits
"FU@king Democrats" = 15,500 hits
"Fu@king Republicans" = 29,600 hits
Seems to me it's the Democrats that are the more guilty party, calling Republicans names about 2:1
But to hear them and the media, one would swear it was the other way around, not quite so true now is it?

Green Arrow wrote:The home is, by definition, private property. This was a dodge, Danivon. Do Unions have the right to protest on someone's lawn (which is private property)?

I'm not fully au fait with US trespassing laws.

I was saying that you can protest on the street outside. Which is not private property. If they protested on the lawn (and that lawn was part of the property and clearly so), they crossed a line.

Still I'm intrigued as to why Steve thinks it's ok to protest at the White House, but not at a Governor's mansion (usually also a publicly owned residence).


ARJ - could it be that the private sector employees have been stiffed because they aren't in unions, and perhaps should organise better for themselves, rather than be jealous of other people who did?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/companies/SEIU_Bank_of_America_protest.fortune/

Easy search for info on the SEIU protests to see pics of protesters on the porch and lawn.

As for Steve's position, he means protesting on the road outside the White House. Secret Service would NEVER allow protesters to get so close.

danivon wrote:Still I'm intrigued as to why Steve thinks it's ok to protest at the White House, but not at a Governor's mansion (usually also a publicly owned residence).

It's my understanding they went to his private home. As they did with other Republicans:

Scott Fitzgerald, the Republican leader in the State Senate, slipped out of the Capitol Wednesday morning with his sunglasses on, head down. Protesters had gone to his home earlier in the week, forcing his family (including his wife, a school guidance counselor) to go elsewhere for a bit.

That is exactly the sort of thing that crosses the line.

danivon wrote:ARJ - could it be that the private sector employees have been stiffed because they aren't in unions, and perhaps should organise better for themselves, rather than be jealous of other people who did?

I believe it is two fold. First, because it isn't just non-union private sector employees that have faced this. Even the private sector unions are having a problem maintaining increasing salaries, health insurance benefits and retirement pensions.

Second, is because public sector salary and benefit increases are paid for directly by increasing taxes. People don't want to pay more in taxes. Now I know your response is that increases in private sector benefits cause increases in prices. However, people can choose not to purchase. They can't choose to not pay taxes.

I know it is anectdotal and you hate anectdotal but let me give two examples. I grew up in Bensalem, PA. There is a private company in Bensalem called ExpressScript. They do mail order prescriptions. The shop is unionized (I believe UCW) and recently in contract negotiations. The Company told the union they needed significant give back in terms of benefits and salary and if they did not get them, the Bensalem plant will be closed and consolidated with a similar site in Missouri. The Union voted to refuse any give back at all. The day following the vote the company announced the closing of the Bensalem location and the termination of all employees. Can I tell you how much the Union went back begging the company to let them accept the give backs.

Compare that to the Neshaminy Federation of Teachers(NFT). Neshaminy School District has an extremely high property tax rate, i.e. median property tax a 1,200 sq.ft. house on a 1/4 acre is about $4,500 a year. Additionally, the district is currently looking at a $2M budget deficit. The NFT contract expired three years ago. The original offer from teacher's union was a 5 year deal with 6% salary increases plus steps and a contiunation of no employee contributions towards healthcare premiums. The District countered with a 3 year deal. 3.5% salary increase plus steps per year and employee contribution to health benefits of 15%/16%/17%. Oh, also add to this because the contract expired 3 years ago, the NFT is now demanding all increases be retro-active. If the final settlement includes the 3.5% rate the Board offered, it would come to about $11M. The NFT refused it outright and has refused to negotiate in any way. They are saying this is their position and they ain't budging.

Add to this, the state employee and teacher pension funds are currently underfunded by about 30%. Within the next few years, the taxpayer funded employer contribution to the pension is going to rise from the current 6% of payroll dollars to about 29% of payroll dollars.

This contract negotiation impasse as been going on for 3 years now because the NFT does not strike because they know they do not have the public support and the school board can't do anything to force the negotiaitons. The reason the school board has no leverage to force anything is because the state laws are written in such a way to favor the public employee unions. Oh, and this isn't the only school district in the area that is facing a similar fight with the teachers union.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Still I'm intrigued as to why Steve thinks it's ok to protest at the White House, but not at a Governor's mansion (usually also a publicly owned residence).

It's my understanding they went to his private home. As they did with other Republicans:

No, I was referring to your comment that it's only the President who could be protested at their home. Plenty of people have 'grace-and-favour' residences that the publicly owned and are a perk of their position.

I've already said that protesting on public property is fine, but not on the lawn. What more do you guys want?

Scott Fitzgerald, the Republican leader in the State Senate, slipped out of the Capitol Wednesday morning with his sunglasses on, head down. Protesters had gone to his home earlier in the week, forcing his family (including his wife, a school guidance counselor) to go elsewhere for a bit.

That is exactly the sort of thing that crosses the line.

Wow, he bowed his head? It's almost like he's being stoned or something - or just avoiding people.

So, Steve, much violence at these demos?

danivon wrote:

Scott Fitzgerald, the Republican leader in the State Senate, slipped out of the Capitol Wednesday morning with his sunglasses on, head down. Protesters had gone to his home earlier in the week, forcing his family (including his wife, a school guidance counselor) to go elsewhere for a bit.

That is exactly the sort of thing that crosses the line.

Wow, he bowed his head? It's almost like he's being stoned or something - or just avoiding people.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. They were at the man's home.

So, Steve, much violence at these demos?

Violent rhetoric and images, to be sure. Isn't that what you (allegedly) began this forum about?