The same thing happened in Indiana as happened in Wisconsin...

Thats right, all but 3.....demacrats walked out yesterday at 9am and "fled the state" to avoid a vote on "right to work".....

I don't care about the bill, its mainly a sense of reason.....

If any of us walked out of our jobs claiming they didn't agree with something, how many would have jobs to return to? I think they shouldn't have their cozy 6 figure salaries to return to either....

I don't want dem/rep bashing in this thread, since I'd be saying it the same way if all the republicans walked out...

Opinions?

Reminds me little kids. Do the job you got elected to do. If you can't/ won't, get out.

yamaha wrote: I don't want dem/rep bashing in this thread, Opinions?

My opinion is you're living in La La Land.

When a discussion over Titling a car breaks down into a two page slap fest, and knowing that some political views are intensely emotional; how can you expect niceties?

I think the Dems are wrong but I live in New York where they rule and the old boy network is in full swing.

Two of the 914 sites I visit do not allow political threads. I like to think the average GRMer is more mature than that, but evidence has me rethinking.

Dan

yamaha wrote: If any of us walked out of our jobs claiming they didn't agree with something, how many would have jobs to return to? I think they shouldn't have their cozy 6 figure salaries to return to either....

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the actual issue--probably somewhere along the republicans line of thinking, but not sure--but it is built into the law/structure of government that they can do this. I'm not quite sure that I would hold it against them. There is no purpose in your job and my job to do what the dems have done here. This does have a purpose.

A friend of mine and I talk about politics all the time. Mainly because we share the same views. I strongly think the gov't officials should not be paid more than the average mean salary for their region. That means, if they're governor, they should get the avg. mean salary for the state, if they're a national rep, the avg. mean salary for the nation. THAT would mean that in order to get a raise, they need to make the avg. mean salary of the entire region higher, not simply vote to give themselves a raise.

Just a thought.

^I like that idea.

In relation to the thread topic, they should lose their jobs, plain and simple. They are not being paid to leave the state and avoid doing their jobs......GOP/Dem doesn't matter.

Did any of the GOP do this during the past Dem rule? Honest question.

z31maniac wrote: ^I like that idea. In relation to the thread topic, they should lose their jobs, plain and simple. They are not being paid to leave the state and avoid doing their jobs......GOP/Dem doesn't matter. Did any of the GOP do this during the past Dem rule? Honest question.

I didn't pay attention, is it funny one of the three dem's that didn't leave claimed this was unethical? I'm glad I voted for them the last election....lol

mtn, I'm not sure if it is written into the law or not, since the governor was considering dispatching state police to locate them, I doubt it.

yamaha wrote: mtn, I'm not sure if it is written into the law or not, since the governor was considering dispatching state police to locate them, I doubt it.

Maybe not written into the law, but if you look back in the history of the United States, this is a pretty regular occurrence. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but the way that the law is written, it is allowed (otherwise it wouldn't be happening).

This is all from my recollection of my Government 101 class that I took while in high school, so I definitely could be wayyy off base here.

its all good, I know where you are coming from, yet still don't get what good is gained....lol

What they're trying to do is make it so that the vote can't pass because not enough people are present to vote. It's a filibuster (I think that's the term). Pretty chicken E36 M3 if you ask me. You're hired by the people to do a job and you pull some crap like this when you KNOW you're not going to get your way. Buncha damn kindergarteners!

the only piece of recent legislation I cared about was the law to make any municipal/region bans on firearms null vs the state law....which means I could go up to tire rack and not be threatened with jail for having a standard capacity magazine in my glock.....

I seriously am in love with the average salary idea...too bad the guys who get to make the decisions are they guys the average salary law would affect. Sometimes I honestly think about throwing my hat in the ring. If I werent married and didnt have to think about how my actions may affect another person who I love and care for, then I probably already would have, to be honest.

To be fair, I do believe that the unions have done wonders for safety and workers rights in this nation. Its just that they stopped being effective in the middle of the last century. Since then, theyve existed simply to propagate the status quo. There arent 12 year olds chained to machines in american factories, there arent fathers losing arms in terrible machine accidents (well, not as often anyway), there arent people being forced to work for pennies...work in this country is pretty good - if you can get it.

Which brings me to my point. Unions have sucked the life out of companies and communities to the point where there arent enough jobs to get right now. Companies are literally scared right now to invest in hiring anyone. There is a place for Unions still - ensuring safety and working WITH an employer to ensure security. But there has to be a limit or margin of reason. Keeping a mediocre teacher or detective on the job simply because theyve been there for a decade, and calling it Tenure, isnt good for whoever they are teaching or policing. Getting a jackass back on the clock machining axles even though hes often late or not present at all isnt doing whats best for Ford or for the car buying public. Unions have overstepped their bounds and outgrown their usefulness. Is time for an overhaul. I dont mean we dispatch them entirely, we just need to refocus their direction towards a path thats prosperous for both the employer, the employee, and the "customer, be it 3rd graders, the community, or the purchasing public.

/rant

Just because it's legal to do something doesn't make it right.

Were the fleeing politicians (see how deftly I sidestepped the Dems vs. Reps issue) fleeing because that didn't give a quorum to allow the vote or because they didn't want to be present? It seems if they were wanting to represent their constituents then they'd have stayed and voted against.

IIRC this was done on a national level semi-recently too. Only in that instance they made it impossible to have the vote.

Wait. The fuss is over a right to work law?

Which it it's core prevents a union from requiring workers to join?

That some 20 states already have? Jesus.

Hum.... do I dare?

Okay. Here's what I think.

First- before we can talk about the issue we need to figure out what the issue is. I'm not talking about the labor issue, but the fleeing the state issue.

I don't think it's accurate to say that they simply didn't come to work and should be fired. Actually, no, I don't think that, I know that. Everyone knows that. It isn't framing the argument correctly to imply that they just didn't feel like getting out of bed one morning so didn't show up.

What they are doing is opposing legislation proposed by the majority. They feel that it’s important enough to use an extreme provision of the law to prevent it from passing. But they’re using the law and they’re doing what they believe is in the interest of, and representing their constituents, which, is their job. It’s maybe more extreme, but along the same lines as the last Congress using the filibuster in the Senate to oppose legislation that had never even been discussed on the floor. That’s the law, and they can do it. If we want to change it, we have to change the law.

Notice I did that without weighing in on the actual labor issue. That was intentional.

Osterkraut wrote: Wait. The fuss is over a right to work law? Which it it's core prevents a union from requiring workers to join? That some 20 states already have? Jesus.

And states I might add that have a better economy than the Illi

New constitutional amendment (state constitution, not federal):

If the state patrol cannot locate member of congress, or said member is out of state and not reachable or not cooperating, a governor can appoint a replacement until a special election can be held, to be scheduled within three months of the appointment.

Nearly every state can dispatch the state patrol to force the folks back into the chambers, but they can't go beyond state lines.

Osterkraut wrote: Wait. The fuss is over a right to work law? Which it it's core prevents a union from requiring workers to join? That some 20 states already have? Jesus.

essentially yes....If I get free time later I will look for the bill info itself, but I do not believe it includes the end of collective bargaining like wisconsin's does....indiana's economy went down the toliet when the big 3 closed almost everything. And with that, alot of good hard working people lost jobs. Alot of it was over the uaw overstepping their bounds, some of it was theft/unethical employees(minority of it).

And btw, I agree with the average salaries

tuna55 wrote: New constitutional amendment (state constitution, not federal): If the state patrol cannot locate member of congress, or said member is out of state and not reachable or not cooperating, a governor can appoint a replacement until a special election can be held, to be scheduled within three months of the appointment. Nearly every state can dispatch the state patrol to force the folks back into the chambers, but they can't go beyond state lines.

If a state chooses to do this, that would be fine. Just as the United States Senate could decided to limit or remove the filibuster. But as the law stands now, they absent members are doing what they think is right.

Right to work is ok, unless you have an employer who throws it in your face all the time. I worked at a place that just kept decreasing and decreasing my pay and when I'd complain about it they'd say, "Texas is a Right To Work state. You don't like it, leave." It was hard for me to find THAT job, and I'm gonna quit and go back to being unemployed? Some money is better than no money. LOL

As far as the average mean salary idea, the friend I talk to about politics has a masters degree in political science and went to Washington after he graduated college to work for a congressman. Wanted to change the world. Was back home in Austin in 6 months. Said it was so corrupt up there he felt dirty just being there. Not money corruption, but power. They would say, sign, do, support, etc. ANYTHING that would keep them or give them more power.

He wants to run for office and change things from the inside. Only way to do it.

Conquest351 wrote: Right to work is ok, unless you have an employer who throws it in your face all the time. I worked at a place that just kept decreasing and decreasing my pay and when I'd complain about it they'd say, "Texas is a Right To Work state. You don't like it, leave." It was hard for me to find THAT job, and I'm gonna quit and go back to being unemployed? Some money is better than no money. LOL

Of course I have no idea if you were doing your job well, but I can say this- Texas has the strongest economy in the nation.
It's the #1 relocation destination.
It's the #1 retirement destination (since Fla cratered) More jobs have been created in Texas than in the whole nation If Texas were a country they'd have the 11th strongest economy in the world.

yamaha wrote: I think they shouldn't have their cozy 6 figure salaries to return to either....

Not sure if it matters, but...

"Indiana legislators make a base annual salary of $22,616, plus $155 for each day in session or at a committee hearing and $62 in expense pay every other day.[10]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_General_Assembly

"According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2001, Indiana had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $27,522 which ranked 32nd in the United States (including the District of Columbia) and was 90% of the national average, $30,413."

http://www.city-data.com/states/Indiana-Income.html

carguy123 wrote:

Conquest351 wrote: Right to work is ok, unless you have an employer who throws it in your face all the time. I worked at a place that just kept decreasing and decreasing my pay and when I'd complain about it they'd say, "Texas is a Right To Work state. You don't like it, leave." It was hard for me to find THAT job, and I'm gonna quit and go back to being unemployed? Some money is better than no money. LOL

Of course I have no idea if you were doing your job well, but I can say this- Texas has the strongest economy in the nation. It's the #1 relocation destination. It's the #1 retirement destination (since Fla cratered) More jobs have been created in Texas than in the whole nation If Texas were a country they'd have the 11th strongest economy in the world.

Yes, the economy is strong, but finding new jobs is still tough. Especially when you have my skillset (automotive service sales, service writing, etc). In my area, if you don't want to work shift work for 3M or Kohler, then you don't really have many options. Thank God I landed the Service Advisor job at the Ford dealership. LOL

carguy123 wrote: ....Texas has the strongest economy in the nation....

Probably true, but the state is still facing a huge budget problem. The situation in Texas is a bit different since they do bi-annual budgets and the current budget has spread over the current "crisis"... the next one is the problem.

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1

(the article has a bit of slant to it, but I am pretty certain the budget facts are true)

aircooled wrote:

carguy123 wrote: ....Texas has the strongest economy in the nation....

Probably true, but the state is still facing a huge budget problem. The situation in Texas is a bit different since they do bi-annual budgets and the current budget has spread over the current "crisis"... the next one is the problem. http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1 (the article has a bit of slant to it, but I am pretty certain the budget facts are true)

There's been a budget crisis for as long as I've been alive.

One of my good friends is one of the Texas State Representatives. We talk almost daily because he calls me for mortgage info. The budget issue is once again growth related.

There are expected to be as many people added to the population roles as presently reside in Houston in the next couple of years. Add to that the fact that while in most areas we have not had property value declines we also haven't had huge property value increases which gives less of a tax revenue increase than we the projected business and population growth.

Google Texaplex, it's enlightening.

It's a fact they don't pay teachers enough (my daughter's a teacher), but I don't know anywhere that does. This makes education always high on the list of budget issues.

A few years ago they enacted a Robin Hood tax scheme that required all the bigger districts to send their money to the smaller districts that ended up with a surplus of funds while the bigger districts had a shortage. That'll take a while to correct.

But regardless, we've got F!!!!! Wooo Hooo! And to listen to Bernie F1 alone will fill the state's coffers to overflowing.