Americans for Prosperity
(AFP) is a group fronting special interests started by oil billionaire David Koch and Richard Fink (a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries). AFP has been accused of funding astroturf operations but also has been fueling the "Tea Party" efforts.  AFP's messages are in sync with those of other groups funded by the Koch Family Foundations and the Koch's other special interest groups that work against progressive or Democratic initiatives and protections for workers and the environment.
Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.
NEENAH — The Neenah Joint School District reduced its expenditures by $600,000 for the 2011-12 school year by offering its employees a voluntary health insurance buyout.
The savings effectively eliminated a $500,000 structural deficit in the school budget.
“At this time it looks like we will have a balanced budget and even a small surplus,” said Paul Hauffe, director of business services.
The Board of Education adjusted the 2011-12 budget Tuesday to reflect the change.
In July, the district offered a $2,000 payment to employees and retirees who have access to other health insurance if they opted out of the district’s health and dental insurance. A family plan costs nearly $19,000, so the district could save as much as $17,000 for each employee who took the offer.
Hauffe said 46 employees and retirees relinquished Neenah’s insurance for the cash, yielding the $600,000 savings.
The savings was prorated according to when an employee opted out of the insurance. The district had enrollment windows at the beginning of the school year and again in December.
The number of employees opting for the cash surprised board members.
“When I read 46, I was shocked that it was that many,” board president Scott Thompson said. “I expected a handful.”
Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.
Oh by the way this isn't the real Fred posting because as you all know according to Paul Wohlfarth "WOLFMAN really had nothing to do with the possible banishment. I believe its because of his corporate employer. Mind you I have no proof but my gut tells me his employer stopped his free speech." The real Fred is still not able to post just as Paul surmised. LOL
Too Funny Fred! Just can't stop laughing at your program "Minister" Herr Wilson's dust up with Mark Levin. Maybe you should suggest he take a Dale Carnegie course. You know teach him how to get along with others i.e. Mark Levin. Mark gives a rare opinion from someone in the biz of what the Thuggish Wilson has been doing. Levin calls it Stalinist Tactics.
Here's a few Dale Carnegie quotes you could pass along to the WSPD staff:
~Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do~
~If you want to gather honey, don't kick over the beehive~
~Instead of worrying about what people say of you, why not spend time trying to accomplish something they will admire~
The push to secure signatures to put a Right to Work levy on the November ballot in Ohio has begun. At the March 6 primary polls, there will be people circulating petitions. With presidential, congressional, and re-call elections coming up, the unions will have to spread their money pretty thin and won't be able to finance as many deceptive ads as they did to defeat Issue 2. Can't wait until I'm no longer forced to pay union dues!
Don't want to pay union dues? Get a different job. Did someone force you to take the job?
You're arguing with a Libtard which is like talking to wax fruit except a little worse, At least wax fruit is smart enough not to say anything.
According to Libtards, the ONLY freedom of choice you get is aborting a baby.
And since you got that job without Union help, you are beholden to the Union for that job.
Since the Union was in the interview with you, you are now beholden to that Union.
Since the Union helped you do your homework in high school and college in order for you to be qualified for that job, you are now beholden to that Union.
Since the Union put the Want Ad in your hand in order for you to even know about that job, you are now beholden to that Union.
Nah, it doesn't make sense to anyone except the brainwashed Union hack zealot morons who have replaced religion with Unionism.
Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a socialist.
Since when is forcing to join a union a good thing just because you have a specific job?
"Wrong right", friend. Nobody should be forced to join a union in order to work for an employer. That is the real right under issue, here.
The employer owns the business. Not the union. Period.
A union should always be a voluntary association.
If you believe in real property rights, you'll agree.
Right to work means that union members will be forced to pay to represent non-unions members. It's basically a tax on union supporters.
So yeah, let's continue to destroy unions and watch the middle class completely disappear--dummies.
In fact, accoring to US Census data, about 8% of Union Members are "middle class" not including the rich Union Bosses and their fat paychecks being paid by bleeding the working man dry.
So getting rid of Unions and their Communist ideas WILL NOT get rid of the middle class. It will only get rid of COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS, CRYBABIES WHO CANNOT MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN, HIGH-SCHOOL DROPOUTS WHO SHOULDN'T MAKE AS MUCH AS A DOCTOR and followers of Karl Marx.
Your first paragraph is abysmally wrong. The union always chooses who to represent. If they want to keep the non-payers in the collective, then that's their choice.
And we must ever recall that RTW is about choice. Choice is liberty. Unions are anti-liberty.
Your second paragraph is almost as bad. Unions have priced themselves out of work. They have been part of the destruction of the middle class.
I've told union workers the following time and time again in various forms:
"I will not support your union since unions are uneconomic. Unions never represent me. You're the labor elite and that's above me. Defend yourself and don't expect me to do it. I can't afford to fund unions and government, since they are often the same thing."
"Your first paragraph is abysmally wrong. The union always chooses who to represent. If they want to keep the non-payers in the collective, then that's their choice."
You might actually try a little research. The law dictates that the union represent EVERY worker in the bargaining unit--including non union members.
"Your second paragraph is almost as bad. Unions...have been part of the destruction of the middle class."
Now you're just showing your lack of historical knowledge. Our middle class was at its strongest when union membership was at its largest. Unions have been in decline in last 30 years. The middle class has correspondingly followed. This isn't an opinion--it's a verifiable fact.
"Now you're just showing your lack of historical knowledge. Our middle class was at its strongest when union membership was at its largest. Unions have been in decline in last 30 years. The middle class has correspondingly followed. This isn't an opinion--it's a verifiable fact."
There is a correlation but you are assuming the relationship is cause-effect. That is not what a correlation is.
For instance it could be the same factor brining both groups down yet both are independent of one another.
If correlations were cause effect then eating oatmeal causes cancer because people who eat oatmeal have higher cases of cancer, also a verifiable fact. The truth is old people get cancer and old people eat oatmeal. The factor is aging. The fact that oatmeal and cancer have a correlation does not mean that one causes the other but that an outside factor can cause both.
Is it possible that industry factors can cause both a decline in the middle class and a decline in union membership? Yes.
Mike, I'm making an assertion based on the facts. The middle class' share of national income has shrunk right in line with declining union membership. Unions raise wages, not just for union members but for non-unions as well. Not only are there studies that show this, but if you understand how the labor market works it makes perfect sense.
Ok but that still doesn't prove what you posted that union membership fuel the middle class. Again no matter how close the correlation is doesn't mean it's a cause-effect relationship.
For instance as union membership has declined so has the percentage of our GDP that comes from manufacturing. Yet our productivity during that same time has increased.
And then you say "Unions raise wages, not just for union members but for non-unions as well."
Ok, then why does our healthcare industry, that is not unionized, have 9 of the 10 average highest paid wage earners? And during the same period smoking decreased at a huge rate. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/27/health/webmd/main3106215.shtml I can also effectively relate that to a cause and effect. Not smoking makes you not earn enough to be middle class. See there are holes to your rationale.
Mike, do unions raise wages?
Well using the same methodology you used the answer would be no, smoking does. Again pointing out the flaw in your methodology.
It's a simple question. Go ahead...
Unions raise wages. In order to pay for the increase in wages, businesses raise prices. Not only do the union employees now pay more, which takes some of their new found raise, so do all those who do not receive raises.
Actually what tends to happen is that labor's (all labor) share of national income increases. Notice I said "all labor". Because as wages increase for unions members, non-union employers have to also raise wages in order to compete for workers. It's called competition. Subsequently, when workers have more money, workers spend more money. That's good for the economy.
I'll answer for Mike:
Unions close factories, or cause them to move, by increasing the cost of labor beyond what owners are willing to pay.
Quote me on that one.
Unions raise wages
But wages in the United States had to fall. Massive illegal immigration, and massive offshoring, had to result in that. So a union demanding rising wages, would obviously be economically impossible.
We're not going to stop the illegal immigration, and we're not going to stop the offshoring. So it's deuced odd that you believe that unions could just have sat there, continuing to make demands for rising wages. Those who did, had to walk away en masse from closed factories, like what happened at Doehler-Jarvis of local fame.
Show me any real political force for stopping the illegals, and for stopping offshoring, and I'll agree with you. But you can't. There's nothing at all that's stopping both of those. In the current environment and into the foreseeable future, stopping either of those is culturally impossible... from Democrats AND Republicans.
Explain to us how illegal immigration makes it "economically impossible" for unions to maintain higher wages. I'd like to hear that.
 In the last several years, unions have embraced the immigration issue as a way to increase their numbers.
Also, it's interesting how you just casually accept the issue of offshoring without recognizing it for what it is--neoliberal economic policy that once again favors capital over labor. The fact that you gloss over this sends out a clear message--you believe labor must always bow to the power of organized capital & it's cozy relationship with our government.
Ah Ha, I will give you an example. Los Angelos in 1980's.
The City Janitorial Union decided to strike. The union in the 80's had a large portion of Black janitors. What happened was the city waited out the strike and many of the janitors left the union and the industry to find work elsewhere. They then caved on their contract and the union workers that replaced the large majorities of Black workers were immigrants who were willing to work for a far lower wage.
Fast forward 20 years. In 2000 the City Janitors again attempted to strike because they were the lowest paid janitors of any major city.
So there. The affect of immigration on the unions. Again the union wages did not raise at a competitive level as their counterparts because there was a inproportional number of workers willing to work for a lower wage in the immediate pool of potential workers.
« I'd like to hear that. »
You hear it all the time; you just refuse to accept it.
Cheap labor and techniques drive out expensive labor. Technology does the same. I don't see you screeching about all the combines and tractors and trucks that have replaced millions of jobs in the wheat and corn fields.
« you just casually accept the issue of offshoring »
That's because I respect PROPERTY RIGHTS. If a factory owner wants to close down his operations in the United States and re-open them in some Third World heckhole, then that's his right. He controls his money; WE DON'T.
Your ideology doesn't permit you to respect property rights, which is why you're having so much trouble with my "casualness".
It is with equal casualness that I accept the rule of law and the rights of the individual, all either stated or implied by our formation documents, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution, as well as the subordinate state constitutions. Nowhere in those does it say that there is a right by workers to stop shop owners from allocating their capital as they please. If there is, quote it. DO IT.
Your worker militancy is what is helping to drive employers away. You like to blame people like me, but if I were a big-time Capitalist and I heard this bullchit out of the mouths of Toledoans, I'd avoid this area like it had a plague (as it does: UNIONS). No worker has the right to tell me how I spent my owner money, as no other citizen has the right to tell me (just a citizen) how to spend mine. These rights of property are equal.
"The law dictates that the union represent EVERY worker in the bargaining unit--including non union members."
OK, then. It's pro-union law that unions forced on us, which they are complaining about? Unintended consequences! I love it.
Cancel the law, then. Oh wait, they love their pro-union, anti-liberty laws. Watching unions squirm is just delicious.
Our middle class was at its strongest when union membership was at its largest.
Correlation is not causation. Globalization was just an idea then. Globalization is the real cause of decline of the nation's middle class.
And PRIVATE unions have been in decline, as economic circumstances dictate. PUBLIC unions have skyrocketed. Union pukes fled into the ranks of government, since they couldn't take the heat of the action of real economics.
Get your own facts straight. Wait, wait, your ideology will never let you do that. Too bad.
I must now state again for the record about unions in this country: They are the elite. They don't represent me. They are anti-liberty. Their ranks are filled with lazy but greedy fools. They are in decline for inevitable economic reasons, but they infested the ranks of government employees and do nothing but drive up the costs of government. The only rational conclusion is that we need to get rid of them.
Globalization is certainly one reason for the decline of the middle class, but it's not the only reason:
"Economists have identified three long-term factors that can explain why the wage-productivity gap has widened and the share of income accruing to labor has declined. The first is the decrease in the bargaining power of labor, due to changing labor market policies and a decline of the more unionized sectors. Another factor is increased globalization and trade openness, with the resulting migration of relatively more labor-intensive sectors from advanced economies to emerging economies. As a consequence, the sectors remaining in the advanced economies are relatively less labor-intensive, and the average share of labor income is lower. The third factor is technological change connected with improvements in information and communication technologies, which has raised the marginal productivity and return to capital relative to labor."
Unions aren't in decline because of "economic circumstances". They're in decline because of laws written by politicians who are in bed with their corporate overlords. The middle class will continue to decline until organized labor is allowed to counter the wage-destroying power of organized capital (corporations).
The unionization rate in this country is at an historic low. That IS a fact.
« Globalization is certainly one reason for the decline of the middle class, but it's not the only reason »
Then I was right and you're admitting it. Check.
Globalism was, and is, inevitable. It cannot be stopped, until Petroleum Depletion kills pervasive worldwide shipping. But that will take another 30 years. It only takes about 3 years of zero employment to destroy a worker and his family (particularly the American worker, who so unwisely partied hard on vast borrowing). So Globalism will win, and we will lose. That's already baked into the future's cake. Bankruptcies, lifelong debt service (student loans, increased taxes), foreclosures, divorces, legal entanglements, violence and people literally going batchit insane, are already baked into the cake.
« Unions aren't in decline because of "economic circumstances". »
Economics is automatically "circumstances". It's like you're arguing that the atmosphere outside isn't actually the environment.
You keep arguing by implication that Americans need to support unions. But supporting a failing worker paradigm is also a failure. March right into your employer's head office tomorrow and demand that there be a union to represent the workers. I dare you. You'll all be unemployed within a year, and pimping out your daughters for cash within 10 years.
You can support unions all you like, but you're only making them collapse all the faster. The Capitalists have all the power. Period.
In the case of public unions, you are only making their cost load upon we few remaining taxpayers all the larger, accelerating the collapse of levels of U.S. government.
I'm not really worried about arguing these points with you. You can't stop what's happening regardless of rhetoric. All you can really do by your actions is accelerate the decline of wages and unions, with your foolish ideology. But wiser heads like my own have already hunkered down, waiting for the advancing collapses. I already use solar energy to help heat my home. I'm far ahead on the learning curve. And I probably won't even be around you, to tell you "I told you so". It won't matter then, since you'll just be another one of the lost.
"Then I was right and you're admitting it. Check."
Why wouldn't I admit it? I agree that globalization plays a role in declining wages.
"That's because I respect PROPERTY RIGHTS. If a factory owner wants to close down his operations in the United States and re-open them in some Third World heckhole, then that's his right. He controls his money; WE DON'T."
Property rights for individuals? Sure, no problem--couldn't agree more. Property rights for organized capital (corporations)? Bullshit. Corporations are government-created entities, and as such only have the rights that we bestow upon them. Unfortunately, our government encourages organized capital to set up shop in other countries, and crafts trade legislation that hurts the US worker and depresses wages. This is the globalization you speak of. It is not inevitable, and it is not a matter of property rights. It's our government screwing over the American worker by getting into bed with big business, who naturally want to keep wages low--at all costs.
"Corporations are government-created entities, and as such only have the rights that we bestow upon them." Actually the Supreme Court has never agreed with you.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite is quoted in a ruling as saying "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." The year was 1886. And the decision was unanimous amongst the Justices.
Mike, please--that does nothing but strengthen my argument. First, the Supreme Court itself is a government-created entity. Secondly, Justice Waite's comment (which is NOT actually included in the opinion) merely says that he believes the government should protect corporations the same as they protect natural persons. Corporations don't exist in nature, and so by definition CANNOT have the same rights as humans. Humans have natural rights and legal rights. Corporations only have LEGAL rights, but not NATURAL rights. There's a big difference.
It does not strengthen your argument. It was well established by virtue of the opinion that the constitution did extend to corporations as well as individuals.
In fact, corporations are merely a group of people incorporated for mutual benefit. The root being people and people do exist in nature and thus groups of people have the same rights as invidividuals. I can argue that yes corporations do exist in nature. Humans are pack animals, they will seek each other out for mutual benefit, exactly what corporations do.
Also, the decision and it's implication have been roundly cited throughout the history of the court. If you want further quotes I can provide them to you.
Your also wrong in your description of the Supreme Court. It is not a government-created entity, it is the government, one of the founding three portions of our government. Now the FCC is not listed in the constitution and does not have basis in pre-American history and is thus a government-created entity.
In fact, rendering judgement to emphasis the law of the land is a founding principle of governments in general. A baby was brought before King Solomon not because it seemed like the thing to do but because rendering a judgement on the childs maternity was a key founding of government. That is why King's held "courts". Without a Court to uphold a Law or Constitution then a Law or Constitution it is not.
So history has totally rejected your view that is tailored only to promote your beliefs.
Mike, just answer this simple question. Do corporations need permission from the government to exist?
Technically no. Corporations incorporate only for tax purposes. Business partnerships happen every day without utilizing the tax benefits.
In fact, the tax benefits exist because individuals banding together in business partnerships is beneficial to our society.
It's happened since before the Constitution and just because we allow people to formally incorporate for tax/liability purposes doesn't mean they didn't exist. They also outdate our country's taxes.
Your fault is your think people need the government's permission. When the inverse is true.
That is a basic founding principle of our country.
What are you talking about??? Technically--yes. You simply CAN'T create a corporation without going through the government.
"Corporations incorporate only for tax purposes."
First, this is simply wrong. There are several reasons for incorporating. Ever hear of limited liability? Secondly, who collects these taxes you speak of?
"Your fault is your think people need the government's permission."
Sorry, but no. I certainly don't think that. I'm just telling you like it is. You're problem, is that you're arguing stuff that ain't .
"Sorry, but no. I certainly don't think that. I'm just telling you like it is. You're problem, is that you're arguing stuff that ain't ."
And to prove me wrong you've offered no facts whereas I posted several facts and even was able to argue it from a Natural Law perspective.
I guess Natural Law... aint?
"And to prove me wrong you've offered no facts"
You can't be this daft. What, is your Google broke? Fine, here is a link I found in 5 seconds that should crystalize things for you:
Look at the very first step:
"Find and choose a name that is available and complies with the corporation rules of your state"
"Prepare and file the formal paperwork with your state government."
And so on, and so on...
Now go on and keep trying to argue that corporations have anything over than LEGAL rights that are GIVEN to them. You look more and more foolish.
What a terrific read. It even allows for the union to collect the appropriate fees for bargaining, it just makes them itemize and calculate what that fee is. Of course the union is so good that no one will use this letter to get out of the union, but it's nice to dream. What's nice about this is that it's free will, you can send the letter or not.
Sample Union Resignation/Objection Letter for Indiana Private Sector Employees Paying Dues Directly
[name and address of union]
[To the appropriate union officer (see your union constitution)]:
I am employed by [name of employer].
Effective immediately, I resign from membership in the [name of local union] and all of its affiliated unions.
As a nonmember, I will continue to meet my lawful obligation of paying a representation fee to the union under its "union shop" or "agency shop" agreement with [name of employer] until the current agreement is modified, renewed, extended or expires, whichever comes first, at which time Indiana’s Right to Work law becomes effective as to me and I will no longer be required to pay you anything.
As a nonmember, I object to the collection and expenditure by the union of a fee for any purpose other than my pro rata share of the union's costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment, as is my right under Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). Pursuant to Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986), and Abrams v. Communications Workers, 59 F.3d 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1995), I request that you provide me with my procedural rights, including: reduction of my fees to an amount that includes only lawfully chargeable costs; notice of the calculation of that amount, verified by an independent certified public accountant; and notice of the procedure that you have adopted to hold my fees in an interest-bearing escrow account and give me an opportunity to challenge your calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial decision maker. Consider this objection to be permanent and continuing in nature.
Please reply promptly to my request. Any further collection or expenditure of dues or fees from me made without the procedural safeguards required by law will violate my rights under the National Labor Relations Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Your facts do not prove anything that I posted as wrong.
I never said governments don't recognized corporations now did I?