State In the Red; Delegates Push for Raises

http://dailymail.com/News/statehouse/200903030101

Some of these salary increases seem reasonable, even to this very conservative woman in these extremely bleak times. For example,

Del. Sharon Spencer, D-Kanawha, wants to boost the minimum amount a state worker can make to 125 percent of the federal poverty level.

Times are tough, but state workers shouldn't be forced to survive at the poverty level.

However, a couple of them are simply outrageous. Like this:

Del. Bill Wooton, D-Raleigh, wants to increase salaries of family court judges from $82,500 to $111,000.

During the brief time I've lived in WV, I've learned to be thankful the Legislature is in session so briefly.

It has been proven time and again that government workers total compensation package is twice that of the private worker. I'm sick of hearing their woe is me garbage.

Well as usual Aaron you post nothing to substantiate your claims.

More anti-worker propoganda.

I am glad to see your objective post Stephanie.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle "black". Let's repeal Taft-Hartley, pass card check, and repeal tax cuts for the rich.

Del. Bill Wooton, D-Raleigh, wants to increase salaries of family court judges from $82,500 to $111,000.

Betcha, he has a family member or friend who is a Judge ..... or a retired Judge.

Or he has plans of being appointed to a Judgeship.

A retired Judge will get the same pay raise, ya know.

But now the fellow that needs a pay raise is that Legislator who wants to outlaw the sales of Barbie Dolls in the State.




.

"Union leaders did not like the bill when it was proposed. Harry Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley, but Congress overrode his veto. More Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the bill and the override than voted against it.[9] Despite this, union leaders in the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) continued to support Democrats and vigorously campaigned for Truman in the 1948 election based upon a (never fulfilled) promise to repeal Taft-Hartley.[10] Organized labor nearly succeeded in pushing Congress to amend the law to increase the protections for strikers and targets of employer retaliation during the Carter and Clinton administrations, but failed on both occasions because of Republican opposition and lukewarm support for these changes[citation needed] from the Democratic President in office at the time. Ralph Nader, presidential candidate from 1992 to 2008, said on his web site nader.org in July 2002, "Taft-Hartley entrenched significant executive tyranny in the workplace, with ramifications that are more severe today than ever. ... It is past time for the repeal of Taft-Hartley."

This from wiki...

So it is not at all far-fetched that Taft-Hartley will be overturned.

I cant believe you guys would oppose organization when the majority sign up and declare their support.

Big Business under the current set-up can have weeks or months to browbeat, intimidate, and coerce their employees after the workers petition for organization and before the vote.

What about the fact that Americans have fought and died to secure the right to a secret ballot? You don't want to vote by secret ballot?

Big business can browbeat? Are you serious? Big labor can hit you with a lead pipe if you don't sign the card. Are you for real?

I've posted this many times Sherman and I'm confident you know it but since you ask in such a nice manner, here's a good place to start.

If that doesn't do it for you, you can try here.

If you need more, I can get that information to you or if you want to focus on one specific area such as teachers, I can show you how the public employee is compensated at a higher rate for the reduced work they often do compared to private workes.

C'mon OC we all know your big shot buddies have strategy sessions how to imtimidate and threaten (even fire) employees they see as leaders in an organizing effort.

And reward their good ol boys.

You have used the lead pipe tale before.

Do you know anyone who was hit with a lead pipe in a union organizing effort?

And if you're referring to cardcheck Sodbuster, I saw this from your buddy on the Gazette on one of their comment sections this morning.

Seems some of the biggest opposition to card check is union members themselves. So tell us, why do you think it is that union leaders don't follow the wishes of their members?

sodbuster wrote:C'mon OC we all know your big shot buddies have strategy sessions how to imtimidate and threaten (even fire) employees they see as leaders in an organizing effort.

And reward their good ol boys.

You have used the lead pipe tale before.

Do you know anyone who was hit with a lead pipe in a union organizing effort?

No, they just shoot the opposition like the did in 1993 in Boone county.

If you support card check Sodbuster, you're in a very small majority that DOES not include union workers. They believe in retaining the right to a private vote.

Why don't you?

Well Aaron I guess you did not read my post above.

C'mon OC we all know your big shot buddies have strategy sessions how to imtimidate and threaten (even fire) employees they see as leaders in an organizing effort.

Aren't you the guy who was chiding another forum member for not documenting his assertions?

I've worked in unions, worked to form unions, worked in management, crossed picket lines and have never seen what you describe above.

sodbuster wrote:I cant believe you guys would oppose organization when the majority sign up and declare their support.

sodbuster wrote:Well Aaron I guess you did not read my post above.

Sure I did Sodbuster. And I disagree with that statement. Of companies and plants where enough support is brought forth to vote on whether to unionize or not, a little better then half vote for union representation, right at 52 to 48%. (I looked for documentation of that but can't find it. When I find it I will post it.)

The problem isn't on whether unions will vote for representation or not, the problem for unions is getting enough voters to even have a secret ballot. Union representation is at an all time low of right at 12% but it's not for lack of effort on the unions part, it's because the American worker has seen through the union charade and have seen unions for what they truly are, an obsolete entity that should have died long ago.

So yes, I did read your post and I disagree with it. If it were just me disagreeing that would be one thing but considering the facts don’t agree with you either, that tells me you're wrong in your contention that "the majority sign up and support" organization.

Well aaron who is "my buddy" at the Gazette?

I didnt know I had one.

One Citizen, I'd guess.

FYi posted the survey that shows union workers overwhelming oppose card check.

And you never did answer my question. If unions oppse cardcheck, why do you support it?

As for One Citizen, he's an idiot and a coward.

I told him so and the gazette banned me from posting.

That's how they treat those of us on the right.

Sure, they banned you for telling him he's an idiot, but did nothing for months while he called us Iraqi baby killers and the like.

Stop telling me how much I'm missing because I don't read it any more.

As they limit the post to 1000 words and you can't post pictures, he just tells lies and post links to his stupid pictures and post the same thing over and over and over and they don't do anything to stop him. I honestly think he works for them in some manner. I know he's done a few op-eds. I don't buy the Gazette. I do read it online for free and hope that it befalls the same fate as the Rocky Mountain News.

OC you keep dodging the question and throwing up strawman arguments.

Do you know of any case where someone was hit with a lead pipe, or you just spouting off?

I am not demanding you cite your example, just asking if you personally know of any.

Stephanie wrote:Sure, they banned you for telling him he's an idiot, but did nothing for months while he called us Iraqi baby killers and the like.

We were Iraqi baby killers.

So what is so wrong with saying so?

Maybe you're an Iraqi baby killer. I've never killed anyone, yet he called me "Steffi Bloodlust" and you're going to defend him?

Well Steph I will stand up for you on that one.

Even though your Party and especially the neocons were pushing war and destruction you stood tall with us on that one.

Saaaaalute!

Of course Ziggy's going to defend him. That's what good comrades do.

I realize I am not perfect, nobody is. However, I do my best to be civil to everyone, including those I don't agree with or even actually dislike. Jimmy, another frequent target of One Citizen's venom, is always courteous, almost to a fault.

That guy is a creep, plain and simple. I actually consider it personal insult when he is defended.