Precisely Bob. I got disgusted with myself from hanging with the racist residents of the Patch comments. Instead, you can expect lots of these op-eds but except for right now, I will maintain my New Year's resolution to not get into the sewer.

I have found that the decent people read the articles but are too turned off by the boorish comments. So I will remain one of those decent people.

These miniature versions of Alex Jones as usual will not and cannot deal with the issue at hand but will rail about bets and bookstores, and I will be entertained from my detached perch as I run a stick along the bars of the monkey cage.

So you should be happy. I'll give you plenty of opportunities to ply your sole hobby as a towering intellectual cynic, while of course you vote the party line all along. Have fun.

Good bye for now.

Still doesn't explain why you didn't address the letter writers you found fault with in the venue in which you found their objectionable commentary.

That was a pretty longwinded disclaimer there, Keith. I think you miss the attention. Obviously you'll take any over none.

I never knew that Patch sucked so much. Per Keith :
1) People who comment on Patch are racists.
2) People who comment on Patch are not decent.
3) The comments on Patch are boorish.
4) The Patch comment section is a sewer.
Keith is so occupied running his stick on the bars of the monkey cage that he did not notice that he is the one in the cage. Keith that tire on the rope should have been a clue.

Here's Keith staying out of the sewer just the day before yesterday.

Keith Schmitz
7:35 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
SIRI has a more life-like personality than Alberta.

http://shorewood.patch.com/articles/2-gop-lawmakers-push-for-big-cut-in-county-supervisor-pay

Yet we have laws that prohibit all those things, and whole divisions of government that monitor and enforce.

Yes Bren, and another reason is that unions insist on rules that hurt the company more than it helps the company. Things list rigid work definitions, not being able to properly discipline employees and not being able to terminate bad employees.

Back in early 2011, when the AFP-funded anti-public employee union media blitz was in full swing, people said, "I have no problem with private unions, just public employee unions, for reason X,Y,Z..." Now, just a year later, the far-right talking points attack private unions. And the same people who last year had no problem with private unions say, "Private unions are bad!" Etc.

Question One: Will making billionairess Diane "How do we make Wisconsin a Right to Work State" Hendricks happy benefit you in a significant material way? Or is it enough to know that you've helped lower Wisconsin wages over the next few years?

Question Two: If the far-right strategists roll out a talking point like "Offshoring is patriotic, boycott domestic goods," will you do it? What level of unquestioning obedience are we "talking" about here?

Reminds me of a book I read when I was a kid, 1984. "Oceania is at war with Eastasia." Etc. "Hate Week," anyone?

Bren:

The unions have some pretty obvious downsides, and often do end up hurting the company as a whole (and in turn the workers they are supposed to be helping).

People should be paid according to the value of their work, rather than according to what their union is able to win through collective bargaining/strikes. Unfortunately, the global economy has reduced the value of many jobs, as there are now millions more people able and willing to do the work for far less money. Offshoring isn't patriotic, but rather it is often necessary to keep product pricing in line with the competition.

Rather than trying to keep wages high for jobs that are losing value, perhaps the unions should be helping people increase/diversify their skills so they can move to jobs that are more in demand in this country.

@AWD I think you have it backwards. As seen in the past when there were good paying union jobs, small businesses flourished --- the restaurants were the union workers could afford to take their wives out to, the taverns where they stopped after work, the auto shops where they got their cars fixed, the flower shops where they could afford to buy their sweetie some roses ---- the roofers, remodelers, appliance sales people, gift shops, insurance agents, real estate sales people, etc, etc, etc, ---- check it out, most of these small businesses are hurting when people cannot afford their services or goods.

A small business can definitely pay better when business is better --- get twice the sales with the same fixed overhead, and the direct costs such as labor can rise and yet be a lower percentage of the overall costs versus revenue, and the more likely to make a profit.

I just read that in some of the oil boom areas in the country, they are paying hiring bonuses to fast food workers --- I think we can believe the operators of those small business McDonalds etc are not paying that out to their hamburger flippers out of altruism -- it is because there are people with disposable income who are willing to pay a little bit more for the convenience of a burger and fries, rather than having to brown bag it.

North Dakota has been a Right to Work state since 1948.

@Greg Before the oil boom there was hardly anybody living in ND --- totally irrelevant

It was your example, not mine. Did you have a different oil boom in mind? They tend to be in remote areas.

ND also is experiencing a tech boom. Companies from liberal states like CA are flocking there for it's many benefits.

And a construction boom, due to the manufacturing boom where cpmpanies like Cat are building nice new plants.

Interesting how that works, that evil trickle down economics. I even herd they are having a public education and hiring boom. You know from all those companies employing people and them reproducing in ND.

And our own blue fisters day no to a mine.

David T. - You must have missed Econ 101. The reason they are paying those bonuses and higher wages is called suppied-side economics. There are less workers in the area than are required. In order to attract people to take these jobs and relocate is offset by the compensation they will receive for doing so.

Further, why don't you include government dipping in to disposable income. Rising taxes, higher withholding amounts also contribute. Or why not include predatory lenders who gave out mortgages and personal loans to people tat did not have the means to pay them back.

Well, GWB handed climate reports to pr folks in his administration for sanitization.

Anyone who has opened the door of a car that has been sitting in 90 degree F temperature for hours understands that the sun has the power to heat metal. Anyone who has stepped on sand, cement, or tar on a hot day also understands the sun's power to heat these materials. If one has ever driven on the highway and seen the rippling effect in the air above very hot cement also understands this. It's rather obvious that the more heat-absorbing materials spread across a large area, the greater the amount of heat collected.

Bren, the sun has had that ability for the last couple of billion years.

It's one thing to modify and spin data results.
It's a whole different thing for the people collecting the data to CHANGE THE DATA so it gives them the result they want.

Natural selection will have no pity on Keith and his feelings about how things should be, if only all obsticals, competition and change would cease to exist.

I missed your point, please explain:
"Just saying because that’s where the anti-union sentiment is taking us all."

The point is this Greg. Most of us work for someone else. Hard to get around that. The military, while beneficial to some that need or desire someone else to provide discipline and direction in life, is not the situation most want to be involved with. The question is this and this is why unions came about. Do you want to live with the philosophy that you are just lucky to have a job and accept whatever goes with it, or do you want to have some say in your life’s pursuits to make a living for yourself and your children? Part of the reason I went on to advanced education was to allow myself more options other than relying on an organization like a union. My father was a union electrician who had no choice but to pay the dues, though he didn’t favor them, but needed to provide for his family. These are choices we all have. I will admit that unions are not the end all solution but they have helped countless people over time. Crucify me for my opinion if you want.

I have no intention of crucifying you, I just want to understand your post.
I have lost a lot of work to the extortion that is forced unionism. I don't have a problem with others wanting to belong to a union and I don't have a problem with the union negotiating for them. I do have a problem when I lose a contract because I don't want to belong or have the union negotiate for me. With only 11% of the workforce belonging to a union and better than half of that being government sector unions, I don't see the problem with being independent and taking responsibility for job decisions. More IBEW members are sitting on the bench than are working and the local is doing nothing for the guys on the book. Working only a few months a year has many of the union electricians looking to the open shops where they can get their 40 and not only provide for their family, but also have the pride that comes with that.

Yep, Greg, I can feel your pain. Lot's of good people out of work, union and non-union. Dad paid a lot of IBEW dues, not happy, and was out of work for 6 months at a time. This was the early 1970's to give you perspective. But to their credit, the union at that time did not accept dolts, knobs, whiners, aholes, losers, boozers, etc. etc. That has all changed with current day unions and I think for one that is why unions today have a bad rep.

$$andSensese-less- until unions stop defending poor employees that sap dollars from a company, corporation or government entity; they are a drain on society. When a company has to hire 80 people to do the work of 50 because 30 of them won't show up, or will only do the minimum required; that is a drain on our society.

The military is by choice, a choice employees don't have in a union shop. Your loathe of the military is truly a product of your blue-fister mentality.

My father was in a private union all his working life. When companies hired union workers they knew they were getting well trained people. It was a symbol of pride. I have no intentions of disrespecting private unions because the American Legislative Exchange Council and Diane Hendricks think I should. Trade guilds/unions have a proud history going back centuries.

Bren- Sadly that is not the case today. Like I've said before; "This is not your father's union." I don't say that because ALEC says I should. I know that from personal experience. My father proudly served as Secretary of the United Steelworkers union in the early 60's. He denounced the union in the late 90's.

Have you ever actually had to work with union guys, Bren? The union guys really aren't always as well trained as you believe them to be. I dread going to job sites that are union.

...and I don't disrespect unions because ALEC or anyone else thinks I should. I disrespect unions because my personal experiences with them have all been negative, and find them to be a hindrance to getting work done correctly, in a timely fashion. Certainly not a good thing when it comes to success in business.

Cowdung, I certainly respect that you personally had problems with unions in the past.

But what about the original point that as union membership has gone down, the middle class has gone down with it? So far I have seen no one put up an idea that replaces the efficiency of unions for growing the middle class.

What about strengthening the unions while putting in place significant reforms? Another idea would be to encourage businesses to be less adversarial towards unions?

One thing that has not been acknowledged is the role of corporate management in driving companies get driven into the ground. Doesn't that bother some of you that when this happens, the executives responsible get huge golden parachutes?

Keith:

The problems with the union has been the past, present and future. They specialize in extracting as much money as possible from the company while failing to provide an increased value for their work. Union rules tend to require more workers than are actually necessary (see the post below about the 'bread loaders' and the 'cake loaders' as an example). Did you ever consider that the existence of the unions are what is causing the decline of the middle class, as entire industries have been ruined by union greed?

Collective bargaining for employee compensation is a disconnect from the actual market conditions. When times are good, the unions are quick to demand better compensation for the workers, but when times are bad, unions are reluctant to make any concessions to help trim cost. Now that companies are having to produce their products at lower pricepoints in order to compete with overseas businesses, it is quite the challenge to continue to pay the inflated union wages.

I don't have a solution for the 'golden parachute' issue. The compensation of employees (including the CEO) needs to be left up to the owner/Board of Directors of the company. I cannot support the government dictating compensation levels for any employee of a private sector business.

@DS My uncle was a unions Operating Engineer in Chicago --- a good man, hard worker, and yes he had to put up with Bozo's --- but guess what, they exist in the non-union workplaces as well !!! You FIL is lucky, the Operating Engineers make a very good living, because they are union.

But if he prefers a non union enviornment, he can feel free to go down to Florida or Mississippi and make 1/3 the pay and have no job protection and little to no benefits.

David,

I think you missed his point. It was that the bozos are the ones that end up ruining the union for EVERYONE. He loves being the union. He just doesnt like the "union mentality".

@David: When job protection means keeping losers (like Donny points out above) employed, how is that in the best interest of the company, fellow employees, and customers? When pay & benefits bust companies like Thomas, Hostess and countless others, what does "protection" and "benefits" even mean?

@DS I can agree with you there --- I was a Teamster and we had a number of Sh---hds who were not good employees or people for that matter.

Unfortunately that is part of life --- Sh--- hds are everywhere, union, non union, management --- yada, yada

After being a Teamster I was in management of Teamsters --- and yes, I had to deal with the Sh--- hds, but I had also managed non union drivers, and in some ways, it was easier with the union --- there were rules and everybody knew them.

Did management sometimes negotiate stupid contracts --- yep -- and sometimes the union got less than it wanted --- nothing in our lives or this world is a straight line, there are always peaks and valleys.

In the long run --- I still believe in unions -- the jerks are always going to be there, but there are jerks on both sides --- and labor needs to have protection against jerks in management --- it is hard, but if both sides work at it, the outcome is good for everybody

Why is it that 89% of the workforce lives without protection from the jerks. You can be as pro-union as you want, just don't keep my employees from working.

I think management needs protection from the jerks in the labor force. Unfortunately unions dont allow that to happen. The idiots get to stick around because thats what the union wants.

David T. - The point is that in non-union shops, the poor employee can be terminated with cause. Not so in a union shop. Ex. My ex-father-in-law was the head of the Letter Carriers union in Milwaukee. He told me a story of how a carrier who was drunk, drove his mail truck into a house, causing damage and injury to others. He announced how proud he was to save that man's job. Proud? Try that at UPS and you not only would lose your job, but probably end up in jail.

You precisely make the point why unions are no longer useful.

@ C --- yes that person was brilliant --- almost as smart as a 5th grader and almost the maturity of a 1st grader ---- way to stay on topic

I agree, it's off topic. I guess that's what you get when you "run a stick along the bars of the monkey cage".

Yeah it even got David T, the guy who whines about being part of a realtor's association, to respond. Maybe -I- was the one running the stick along the monkey cage bar? lol

The Hoffa that Keith owes $50?

For this I will break the vow of silence.

Let's put an end to this libel once and for all. I have offered time after time. He can look me up on whitepages.com. So where is he?

If I don't hear from him this week, then he doesn't want the money. I can't shove it down his throat now can I?

You will know at the end of the week if I hear from him or not. If I don't hear from him this week, then STFU.

What part was libel?

I posted your recall signature and address but you got all whinny and had the pics removed. Cry more

Would love nothing more than to have him materialize and pay him the Goddamned money.

As the old joke goes, "you'll find Jimmy Hoffa in the yellow pages, under concrete."

James R Hoffa

11:33 am on Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The original terms of the bet were that Hoffa was to meet with Schmitzy in persona at a public location of his choosing no later than two (2) weeks after the June 5 election had concluded.

Hoffa asked Schmitzy on numerous occasions to name a location, date, and time. Instead, Schmitzy finally replied with this:

"Keith Schmitz
6:47 am on Thursday, June 7, 2012

What's you address. I'll mail you the check."

And Hoffa responded with this:

"James R Hoffa
4:59 pm on Thursday, June 7, 2012

Schmitzy -

I thought you wanted to meet up in persona? I was looking forward to it. If not, you can send my winnings to:

Subway
c/o: James R Hoffa
1088 Milwaukee Ave
Burlington, WI 53105

Leave the 'pay to' blank, as my real name obviously isn't James R Hoffa :-)

I'll be sure to report back on Patch when I've received your correspondence!

It was fun none-the-less and I'm sorry that things didn't work out as you would have liked to have seen them. No hard feelings."

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/articles/how-did-gov-scott-walker-survive-the-recall

Thus far Hoffa has not received payment from Schmitzy.

Isn't the internet marvelous?!?!

Hoffa's middle name was taken from his mother's maiden name, Riddle, and his disappearance remains just that.

There was a Shorewood guy and a Czechoslovakian guy walking in a national forest. All of a sudden, a bear came and took the Czech and ate him. The Shorewood guy ran back to find someone to help. He found a Forest Service man, and told him what happened. So he took a gun and went back into the forest. There were two bears together. "Now there are only two bears on this mountain." Said the Forest Service man. "One is a male, the other is a female. Which one ate your friend?" The Shorewood guy said it was definately the male. so the man fired the gun and killed the male, while the other ran away. When they opened up the bear, its stomach was empty.

The moral of the story is that you never trust a Shorewoodian when he says that the Check is in the Mail.

Galatians 6:7-8, Keith reaps what he sows.

Thanks for your concern $$s, but I have made a vow not to get into the mud.

The problem with the righties on this blog is that they cannot handle a liberal who gets into their grill and who calls them out. They can dish it out but can't take it. They will name call, and dredge for personal information that has nothing to do with the topic, and that passes for discourse.

It is a badge of honor that the likes of these people have to deal in personal attacks and in no way have addressed the issue presented here. They hide behind their screen names like cowards, yet make personal attacks.

I am a very reasonable person. I have many conservative friends. But these people are out of control, and obviously I have touched a nerve. They can't handle it and so have to lash out, but n the process have proved how empty their arguments are.

As far as the attacks go, a lot more people read these comments than participate, and I know that rather than engaging, I can sit back knowing that to most readers, these asshats are making total asses out of themselves.

So stay out of the mud already. You keep saying you're going to, and then you jump right back in. There's your problem right there. Say one thing, do another. Accuse people of doing this or being that, then doing or being the same thing yourself.

So let's see if you can stick to this one promise without having to be nagged repeatedly to fulfill it. Stay out of the mud.

Keith:

You may want to take a read through your own comment history before you start complaining about others making personal attacks and spewing vitriol...

Actually Keith, it is just hard to take someone seriously when you need to give them several kicks in the pants to pay off their gambling debts.

The "Victim" hops into the mud again.

Actually Keith, I usually come to the table with my wagers. And if I make a spur of the moment bet, I pay off as soon as I can, even if I have to hunt the person down.

I personally hate owing people money, and I do everything I can to pay them off ASAP!!!

So, since you are all ears, here’s a better idea to ensure a growth of the middle class. Ensure that companies are not mismanaged to the point of failure. Make sure that such companies do not have to enter bankruptcy or go insolvent, thus screwing its creditors and causing a net fiscal drain on the economy.

Perhaps you can offer some advice on how to properly manage a company? Perhaps you can offer some advice on how to avoid the non-payment of debt to ensure that the general public is not burdened with having to pay it? Is such advice not truly germane to the issue of your blog? Yes, blaming unions constitutes a red herring. However, so is your predictable, partisan-based criticism. Perhaps your criticism is a bit audacious?

Here's a thought -- stop paying the executives obscene salaries and bonuses to run a company into the ground. And tax the obscene salaries.

Randy, agreed. Also, Congress and our President should finally close the carried interest tax loophole.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/42/tax-carried-interest-as-ordinary-income/

What do you propose as a solution Randy? Certainly, we don't want the government dictating how much CEOs are allowed to be paid, do we? To me, that is clearly something that the owner(s) of the business should be determining rather than outsiders that have little to no knowledge of the business, the industry or the responsibilities of the CEO.

Randy1949 wrote: "Here's a thought -- stop paying the executives obscene salaries and bonuses to run a company into the ground. And tax the obscene salaries."

Randy, it is up to the stockholders in a company to determine how much an executive should get paid. I agree that many, if not most, of them are waaaaay over paid, but unless you own stock, it is none of your business. I do a moderate investment in stocks, and one of the first things I look at is how much the CEO and other board members get paid. If I think it is too much, I just don't buy their stock.

As far as taxes, accumulating it under one person will push them into the highest bracket. If you split it up as dividends among the thousands of stock holder, then you only collect a fraction of that.

Misty: That graph you saw is a sign of the times. As the jobs have left this Country, many of them were union jobs. China has taken many jobs off of US soil because of low labor rates, so it is only reasonable that some of them jobs would be union jobs.
Funny; the Unions gave so much money to William Jefferson Clinton, and he screwed them over (along with the rest of America). Most favored nation status will do that- it took China some time to build industrial complexes, then they took our jobs.
I'm going to check my closet for A BLUE DRESS....

First of all, RUSD isn't my district, so i don't have much control over what they pay the superintendent. Second, isn't $200K per year a modest middle-class salary according to the GOP when it comes to raising tax rates? And third, $200K is less than the millions that the CEO of Hostess was paid to tank the company.

Of course the bankruptcy had nothing to do with the bakers refusing to accept a reasonable offer from Hostess, even with the advice of the drivers. The workers (oops, can we call them that any more since they ran themselves out of a job?) refused to accept the reality of the situation.
Case in point, watch the hostess speech below to the workers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AAP7zORyWA

I find it interesting that you are willing to jump all over a company closing in the midst of a poor economy, but give a pass to President Barack Hussein Obama for running up TRILLIONS in debt.

There are multiple reasons that Hostess went torpedoes-up, but the one that stands out for this discussion is:

"Union-imposed work rules stopped drivers from helping to load their trucks. A separate worker, arriving at the store in a separate vehicle, had to be employed to shift goods from a storage area to a retailer's shelf. Wonder Bread and Twinkies couldn't ride on the same truck.

Hostess has spent eight of the past 11 years in bankruptcy. As the company explained to its latest judge, the Hostess brands "have not been able to profit from many of their existing delivery stops and have been unable to enter potentially profitable markets, such as dollar stores, vending services and movie theaters."

"Hostess's production costs were neither excessive nor out of line with the market but its distribution costs were—to the tune of between $80 million and $130 million annually."

From what I read, it was the bakers who refused to take a cut in pay. If production costs were not out of line, as you say, why were the bakers being asked to make concessions?

The money has to come from somewhere, correct?

"The snack giant endured $52 million in workers’ comp claims in 2011, according to its bankruptcy filing this January. Hostess’s 372 collective-bargaining agreements required the company to maintain 80 different health and benefit plans, 40 pension plans and mandated a $31 million increase in wages and health care and other benefits for 2012.

Union work rules usually required cake and bread products to be delivered to a single retail location using two separate trucks. Drivers weren’t allowed to load their own vehicles, and the workers who loaded bread weren’t allowed to load cake. On most delivery routes, another "pull up" employee moved products from back rooms to shelves."

For polite Brian:
Yeah... Those are some rather fair observations and statements. Management needs to think at the level of the rank and file, and the rank and file need to be informed of the big picture. I believe the destructive union types are those that think one dimensionally only, it's all about me.