Charles G. Koch: Why Koch Industries is Speaking out

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704288304576170974226083178.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

Koch's response to critics. For those of you that buy into central planning lunacy, don't bother reading. You'll end up learning the truth the hard way.

3/3/2011 11:38:21 AM

Quote :

"Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay. Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want. "

pot meet kettle

3/3/2011 12:05:20 PM

^^so you're ditching your anarchist streak in favor of going all-in on the GOP I guess? Cause he has sure done that.

Not to mention, the Koch companies certainly have requested and received subsidies for a variety of purposes, but I'm sure that's just because they're being edgy and subverting the system.

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/koch-industries-fought-the-health-care-law-but-sought-funds-from-it

Quote :

"Keep paying your dues"

Sort of hard since I'm not in a bargaining unit. I'm HR. That sorta means that we're the ones dealing with the unions. Do you not have an HR department at Lens Crafters?

Quote :

"Maybe I could re-evaluate where I get my information if you could please provide me some information, other than your red manuals. Thanks"

http://www.google.com

[Edited on March 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2011 1:26:58 PM

I see nothing wrong with a libertarian accepting government handouts as long as they continue to speak out against the handouts before, during, and after receiving them, as Charles Koch just did.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with a socialist taking a job at an advertising agency or a communist owning stock, as long as they continue to speak out against these institutions.

3/3/2011 2:01:33 PM

Quote :

"Do you not have an HR department at Lens Crafters? "

Cute, but I dont know. I have never worked at one. Just fyi, it is illegal for Lenscrafters to employ a doctor directly. That is why they are located next to eachother. They have to be independent by state laws. (not that you care about facts)
http://www.lenscrafters.com/eyeglasses/6/customer-service-frequently-asked-questions


I tried google, but only found links saying that they DIDNT have collective bargaining rights for wage and benefits. (From the Act I posted in the last page, and the article I pasted for ya)

Weird huh, esp since you get the red books.

I think it just proves that you dont have to have a clue to work in HR, or maybe you have never actually read the red books. Too many pages? Not enough pictures?

3/3/2011 3:13:11 PM

Literally the 2nd result if you Google the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which you've already mentioned:

http://www.opm.gov/biographyofanideal/PU_CSreform.htm

Title VII, Section 7102

Quote :

"Section. 7102. Employees' rights " Each employee shall have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and each employee shall be protected in the exercise of such right. Except as otherwise provided under this chapter, such right includes the right--, "(1) to act for a labor organization in the capacity of a representative and the right, in that capacity, to present the views of the labor organization to heads of agencies and other officials of the executive branch of the Government, the Congress, or other appropriate authorities, and "(2) to engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of employment through representatives chosen by employees under this chapter."

However, it does not apply to everyone:

http://www.flra.gov/statute_about

Quote :

"The Statute allows certain non-postal federal employees to organize, bargain collectively, and to participate through labor organizations of their choice in decisions affecting their working lives. [The Postal Reorganization Act (P.L. 91-375, Aug. 12, 1970) governs labor-management relations in the Postal Service.] The Statute defines and lists the rights of employees, labor organizations, and agencies so as to reflect the public interest demand for the highest standards of employee performance and the efficient accomplishment of Government operations. [5 U.S.C. §7101(a)(2)] Specifically, the Statute requires that its provisions "should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient Government." [5 U.S.C. §7101(b)] The Statue defines the universe of organizations that most directly rely on the FLRA: the Federal agencies that employ workers eligible to be represented by labor organizations and the labor organizations that have been recognized as the exclusive representatives of these employees. The agencies, labor organizations, and Federal employees accorded rights by the Statute, comprise the individual “customers” of the FLRA. Agency employers subject to the Statute include not only the Executive Branch agencies and the Executive Office of the President but also various independent agencies and certain legislative branch agencies, for instance, the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office."

Learn to read.

3/3/2011 3:29:22 PM

since you mentioned the AFGE

"We turned first to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) which represents 600,000 federal government workers in 65 agencies, including the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency. It is the largest federal employee union.

It's true, said Beth Moten, legislative and political director for AFGE, that most federal employees don't have collective bargaining rights over pay and benefits."

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/02/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-most-federal-emplo/

So I take it you work in HR for air traffic controllers?

3/3/2011 3:48:16 PM

Yes. All 600,000 of those AFGE employees are air traffic controllers.

Sigh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402764.html

Look, I don't know why you think you're going to win an argument on this when the damn law itself from the federal government can't convince you. CBAs are not all the same for every group of employees, in or out of the federal gov. I don't try to argue with you about glasses or whatever. Refer to this from now on. It's pretty simple:

http://www.federaldaily.com/labor/relations.htm

[Edited on March 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM. Reason : b]

3/3/2011 4:15:39 PM

Im simply pointing out to you that the vast majority of federal workers dont have collective bargaining rights on wage and benefits.

Along with the AFGE confirming that.

And if im reading it correctly, the last link said the same thing.

•The Act clarifies “management rights,” reserving to agency officials the authority to make decisions and take actions which are not subject to the collective bargaining process, and excludes bargaining on federal pay and benefits or non-voluntary payments to unions by employees.

I appreciate the links.

btw, this was the first link I got from google.

http://www.mackinac.org/2323

I will admit that to say that Federal employees dont have collective bargaining rights is not a true statement, but I was meaning in reference to wages and benefits which is what Walker is trying to do in WI...and the point of this thread. Which is true

[Edited on March 3, 2011 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2011 4:36:10 PM

recalls being attempted for 8 republican senators (only need 3 flips for the dems to be in the majority) and 1 democrat. Seems 2 of them only won last time by thousand or so votes, one by a couple hundred..might actually work.

3/3/2011 5:06:42 PM

Quote :

"I see nothing wrong with a libertarian accepting government handouts as long as they continue to speak out against the handouts before, during, and after receiving them, as Charles Koch just did. "

I don't really have a problem with that either. I do have a problem with him preaching to me to accept his austerity measures when he has shown no signs of doing the same.

3/3/2011 5:22:24 PM

You said:

Quote :

"Turns out Federal workers do NOT have collective bargaining rights. lol, another whitehouse misstep"

Which was wrong, unless you were talking about specific positions that are barred.

Also consider that the numbers of bargaining unit federal employees does not all actual union members. The federal gov. is not a closed shop. Something like only 30% of covered bargaining unit employees bother to join the union, but receive representation on issues which are a part of Title VII of the FCSR Act of '78.

And actually, the Wisconsin bill limits CBAs to wages only.
http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Wis_Budget_Repair_Bill.pdf

Federal laws limit the CBA to personnel employment practices only. Wages fall under statutory law along with benefits. So no, the Wisc. bill is nothing like the law covering Federal employees. It even says that Fed. employees can only have a CBA with regards to employment practices in your link.

3/3/2011 5:30:28 PM

^which Ive said.

My point was it is a mistep by the admin. WI, if the bill passes, will still have more rights than federal union workers. correct?

Pink, since I have never been in a union, what sort of things would you collectively bargain for besides wage and benefits? Days off, hours per day? type things. Serious question.

[Edited on March 3, 2011 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2011 8:56:11 PM

maybe i'm missing something, but you clearly tried to imply the WH was stupid because no federal employees have bargaining rights. it's been irrefutably proven that's not the case. now you're saying that's what you meant by the white house being stupid and making snide remarks about paying dues?

yeah, you should just fall on your sword on this one.

[Edited on March 3, 2011 at 10:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2011 10:26:41 PM

Quote :

"My point was it is a mistep by the admin. WI, if the bill passes, will still have more rights than federal union workers."

So saying the bill is an attack on unions, while the unions in WI would still have more rights than Federal unions is a mistep. imo

I do wish he would answer my question on what do they collectively bargain for. I really dont know. The only thing I can think of is vacation, sick days, etc. if they cant do pay and benefits.

3/4/2011 6:26:37 PM

They will still be able to bargain (IE: Refuse a contract because of) Pay, hours, vacation, sick days, active employee healthcare, and employee treatment such as firing and work environment.

They will lose their ability to bargain (IE: Refuse a contract because of) benefits, limited to retirement pension and retirement age healthcare coverage.

In other words, if after the bill has passed and the union feels the legislature has curtailed benefits too much, they are free to demand higher wages in response, but they are not free to demand the benefits be restored.

But keep in mind, the republicans knew this bill would be a huge fight. As such, they clearly made the bill as agreeable as possible so they could win this battle for public opinion. Once they have won this battle, they are free to start it all over again six months from now, this time over fire-fighter and police benefits, then six months later perhaps curtailing the unions even more.

3/5/2011 11:42:51 PM

Unions would have more credibility if they weren't so much like the mafia.

Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.

3/6/2011 9:04:45 AM

^^ Doubtful they bother with public safety...those guys don't vote Democrat so Walker doesn't care about them.

3/6/2011 9:20:55 AM

^^^ that still seems like an arbitrary first amendment right the republicans are trying to curtail. Why give in to the government’s demand to be able to suppress free speech, especially when it’s the result doesn’t protect anyone, but harms people instead?

3/6/2011 11:15:27 AM

what free speech? The union can complain all it wants. It can buy TV Commercials and lobby against their government all they want. All they can't do is have a government created entity (the state employee union is a state created and mandatory labor monopoly) refuse an offered contract.

3/6/2011 6:53:13 PM

That's the most asinine justification for this you could have possibly come up with.

So you're a self-proclaimed libertarian who believes employees shouldn't have the legal right to negotiate compensation with their employer? No wonder libertarians have such a hard time gaining credibility.

Why can't you just admit that your reflexive dislike for unions is causing you to bypass your rational thinking?

There's no good reason to legislate that union employees can't negotiate pensions, but can negotiate everything else. That is completely illogical. It's the proverbial camel's nose to making unions illegal and pushing us back a step towards the robber-baron controlled governments of the turn of last century. Next thing you know, the energy industries will be creating their own form of currency to be used by their employees in corporate-controlled stores.

3/6/2011 7:06:10 PM

Skip to 2 minutes (and then 7 minutes) and see Regan tear down unions and labor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_lUZu9xhMqc

[Edited on March 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2011 7:11:04 PM

I love how todays' right seems to think the government is always wrong, except when it comes to being an employer, then it always knows best. LOL.

3/6/2011 7:18:30 PM

Quote :

"So you're a self-proclaimed libertarian who believes employees shouldn't have the legal right to negotiate compensation with their employer?"

Employees certainly should have that right. But we are not talking about Employees here. We are talking about a government agency created and empowered to act against government interests. What is happening is akin to Congress and Amtrak having a contract dispute.

This is not a worker union. This is a government agency granted a monopoly on labor services by the government and then using that monopoly against the government.

As a libertarian, what should happen is the government should repeal the monopoly and restore workers right to strike. Then everyone's rights would be restored: if the government is unreasonable the workers will strike. If the workers are unreasonable they will be fired. If workers want to collect union dues and lobby their legislators, they can do that all on their own, they don't need a government agency to do it for them.

3/6/2011 8:09:48 PM

http://www.politicususa.com/en/michael-moore-wisconsin-rally

3/6/2011 8:58:14 PM

Apparently the Republicans figured out a way to pass something that bans collective bargaining without the quorum

3/9/2011 7:44:51 PM

Quote :

"Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate voted Wednesday night to strip nearly all collective bargaining rights from public workers after discovering a way to bypass the chamber's missing Democrats. All 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois nearly three weeks ago, preventing the chamber from having enough members present to consider Gov. Scott Walker's so-called "budget repair bill," a proposal introduced to plug a $137 million budget shortfall. The Senate requires a quorum to take up any measures that spend money. But Republicans on Wednesday split from the legislation the proposal to curtail union rights, which spends no money, and a special conference committee of state lawmakers approved the bill a short time later. The lone Democrat present on the conference committee, Rep. Tony Barca, shouted that the surprise meeting was a violation of the state's open meetings law but Republicans voted over his objections. The Senate then convened within minutes and passed it without discussion or debate. Spectators in the gallery screamed "You are cowards." Before the sudden votes, Democratic Sens. Bob Jauch said if Republicans "chose to ram this bill through in this fashion, it will be to their political peril. They're changing the rules. They will inflame a very frustrated public." Gov. Scott Walker praised the move, saying Democrats were offered repeated opportunities to come home, which they refused. Walker said: "In order to move the state forward, I applaud the Legislature's action today to stand up to the status quo and take a step in the right direction to balance the budget and reform government.'""

3/9/2011 8:15:11 PM

Quote :

"Democrats were offered repeated opportunities to come home, which they refused."

Yep. I bet they come home now. haha

I believe I heard they can still bargain for pay.

3/9/2011 10:11:54 PM

to be honest it just looks like the republicans are flailing. they are incredibly unpopular in that state now. and this is just the sort of thing that will fuel a recall against those that are eligible.

i also wouldn't be surprised if there were strikes in WI's future.

3/9/2011 10:59:23 PM

I don’t see a recall, but I do see some lost seats next election.

that’s life though.

3/9/2011 11:28:11 PM

As the union is still a state entity, I suspect striking is still illegal.

While this may cost them seats in the next election, it is good to see a legislature doing what is right for a chance, instead of just what is popular. That said, Walker ran for office on this platform. It would be odd for voters to be angry at him for fulfilling his election promises.

3/9/2011 11:52:46 PM

The didn’t do what was right, they did what the corporations wanted, which is what they always do.

3/9/2011 11:58:00 PM

At least this shows flat out that this had nothing to do with the budget.

3/10/2011 12:12:04 AM

^^ Which corporations would that be? Why would any corporation care whether state employee unions can negotiate their own benefit packages?

3/10/2011 12:34:40 AM

You're kidding right? Have you been paying attention? Come on, you're smarter than this...

3/10/2011 12:38:06 AM

No. No he's not.

3/10/2011 5:37:27 AM

Its amusing that the governor said it was all about money, but then did this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/09/breaking-wisconsin-state-senate-passes-restrictions-on-collective-bargaining/

Quote :

"Madison, Wisconsin (CNN) - Wisconsin's Republican-led state Senate passed Gov. Scott Walker's proposed restrictions on collective bargaining for public employees Wednesday, getting around a Democratic walkout by stripping financial provisions from the bill."

Odd that he pushed the restrictions first rather than the financial provisions part since he said he was all about the money all along.

3/10/2011 6:12:09 AM

Yeah. I've been following this story barely a little bit more than I've been following American Idol this season and it was still incredibly obvious to me that his entire motivation for doing this was to bust up unions. Except for the police and firefighters. They're cool because they supported Walker. It's an incredibly underhanded political move and I hope if it passes it gets struck down in court.

3/10/2011 6:28:51 AM

I heard they might challenge it on the grounds of breaking some 24 hour notice rule. Even Pat Buchanan was complaining that they didn't follow that rule and put the union busting bill ahead of the financial bill after breaking them into 2.

I can't imagine how this helps the governor in the short term though. I have to imagine that his political opponents will rally more much strongly against him at re-election time than they ever would have otherwise.

[Edited on March 10, 2011 at 6:52 AM. Reason : .]

3/10/2011 6:49:10 AM

Quote :

"Decisions are made by those who show up."

3/10/2011 7:44:12 AM

ah yes, let's listen to a TV show for guidance

the whole republican effort in Wisconsin was exposed by this move. they don't give a shit about solving budget issues when compared to busting up groups they don't like.

fuck 'em all.

3/10/2011 8:55:32 AM

Quote :

"In a country where the middle class is disappearing, where the discrepancy between what the rich are making and what the poor are making is spreading, unions are the greatest engine for creating the great American middle class."

3/10/2011 9:54:29 AM

oh snap, it's a west wing off

3/10/2011 9:55:55 AM

Quote :

"State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R), the Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader, must have forgotten his talking points while appearing on Megyn Kelly's Fox News show. This afternoon he admitted on-air what many liberals have long-suspected: rescinding collective bargaining rights from state workers is Wisconsin is as much about the 2012 presidential election as Wisconsin's 2011 budget shortage. As first reported by ThinkProgress, Fitzgerald told Kelly: "If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.""

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/09/wisconsin-senate-leader-admits-union-busting-bill-is-about-defeating-obama/

Is anybody surprised by this?

3/10/2011 10:12:19 AM

politicians do a thing their constituency asked for in order to get future support from same constituency.

3/10/2011 10:22:59 AM

i mean thats like saying democrats increase entitlement spending in order to get more votes in future elections.

3/10/2011 10:23:38 AM

I've read at least 10 articles about this and I can't find a single one that describes what's actually in the bill.

3/10/2011 10:31:14 AM

^ Pelosi: "We Must Pass The Health Care Bill So That We Can Find Out What’s In It"

Quote :

"You're kidding right? Have you been paying attention?"

I thought I had. The only mention in this thread of any corporation gaining from the Wisconsin bill was put to rest by splitting the bill, as the whole power plant sale off was stripped from the bill so it could be passed.

So I ask again. What corporation gains when state workers' lose some of their collective bargaining rights?

The governor is obviously highly motivated by his belief this move will hamper the democrats. He is wrong about that. Politics does not work that way. It will not weaken the democratic party in the medium to long term, all this will do is reduce the power unions have in the democratic party, a power which is decidedly unhealthy for the democrats. As such, if unions do lose, in my opinion so will the Republicans.

What I will say is, whatever the governor's motivation, he is doing the right thing.

3/10/2011 12:57:14 PM

^Exactly, Im not sure how limiting PUBLIC unions is doing the bidding of coorporations.

Funny listening to the spin from the media. How he broke the law, lied, didnt give time to talk about it. hahaha. What world are these people living in?

3/10/2011 1:01:49 PM

Wisconsin seems to be chock full of overly paid, lazy, whiny union workers.

Fuck unions.

3/10/2011 1:27:10 PM