[dumadegg]

I guess this is another issue I lean conservative on. I think public employees should be at the mercy of taxpayers.

If you're a private sector employee, you should have the right to collectively bargain.

If you're a public sector employee, you shouldn't have the ability to hold my tax money for ransom.

Where we all lean individually is beside the point.

The law is that public employees do have the right to collectively bargain, and you can't just pass a law and expect to have it held up when you go about discriminating one group.

The Wisconsin gov't wishes to force one collective bargaining group to be bound by new legislation while other groups remain bound by already established laws.

The country is not in the mess that it's in because of teachers unions, it's in a mess because of power grabs like this by Republicans who are very clear about their intention to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top.

http://www.revenue.wi.gov/ra/CorpInc...ax20100714.pdf

Look at the bottom of page 21/top of page 22 of the most recent Department of Revenue statistic in Wisconsin regarding corporate tax revenue in the state. Over the last 30 years, as a share of "general purpose revenue", corporate tax revenue has gone down by half, from 10.4% of general revenue in 1980 to 5.2% last year.

Two-thirds of Wisconsin corporations effectively pay no taxes.

Improvements sure can be made in regards to education, but the Wisconsin bill is supposed to be addressing budget concerns, not the rights of public unions to exist or not exist or to be subject to the whims of a vengeful Republican Governor who is laying a smack down on the one public union that didn't endorse him.

[staisacic]

Wisconsin Senate to Vote on Anti-Union Bill - ABC News

Footage of the Wisconsin protests;

YouTube - Massive crowd protests at State Capitol on Wednesday

YouTube - MSNBC: 30,000 In Madison Protest Gov. Walker's Union Busting (Feb 16, 2011)

The most significant budget cut fight among budget cut fights in America today is playing out in Wisconsin, where a bill before the senate meant to cut costs has brought the state capitol to a stand-still because of an amendment in the bill that takes away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

In the budget cuts, state workers are being asked to pay higher health care costs while being required to pay more for their pensions. Those are cost-cutting measures worthy of a discussion between employees and those managing them, but it's brand new Governor would prefer to not have to even deal with them. Ever.

Protesters numbered between 12 to 15,000 on Tuesday; those numbers swelled to upwards of 30,000 yesterday; meanwhile, schools in Madison, the state's capitol, will be closed today because of the massive union walkout. Yesterday, protesters stormed the capitol and held a rally inside. The numbers are expected to swell some more today as the state senate is about ready to vote on the legislation.

Budget cuts are one thing; taking away the negotiating rights of employees is another.

Fire them all.. then let them bitch and moan while on unemploymnet.

There are MILLIONS looking for work, and these people should be ahppy to even have a job...

[Greapyjeory]

Where we all lean individually is beside the point.

The law is that public employees do have the right to collectively bargain, and you can't just pass a law and expect to have it held up when you go about discriminating one group.

The Wisconsin gov't wishes to force one collective bargaining group to be bound by new legislation while other groups remain bound by already established laws.

The country is not in the mess that it's in because of teachers unions, it's in a mess because of power grabs like this by Republicans who are very clear about their intention to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top.

http://www.revenue.wi.gov/ra/CorpInc...ax20100714.pdf

Look at the bottom of page 21/top of page 22 of the most recent Department of Revenue statistic in Wisconsin regarding corporate tax revenue in the state. Over the last 30 years, as a share of "general purpose revenue", corporate tax revenue has gone down by half, from 10.4% of general revenue in 1980 to 5.2% last year.

Two-thirds of Wisconsin corporations effectively pay no taxes.

Improvements sure can be made in regards to education, but the Wisconsin bill is supposed to be addressing budget concerns, not the rights of public unions to exist or not exist or to be subject to the whims of a vengeful Republican Governor who is laying a smack down on the one public union that didn't endorse.

I'm not suggesting that this move will fix Wisconsin's fiscal issues. I agree that the governor might just be supporting this for a petty reason as well.

If Wisconsin law protects public unions and the legislature wants to pass a law that differentiates in treatment between public ones and private ones, that's not unconstitutional. Your source of employment is not a protected class.

Federal discrimination laws only apply to gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

I side with the idea of restricting public unions on principle, because the public market is different from a private one. When consumers don't have a choice as to whether they can pay for something or not, the rules have to be different from ones governing the open market.

[vladekad]

Fire them all.. then let them bitch and moan while on unemploymnet.

There are MILLIONS looking for work, and these people should be ahppy to even have a job...

Proponents of these unions are ignoring the fact that labor doesn't always get what it wants in negotiations but that doesn't mean negotiations don't exist. New York State is being held hostage by teachers and administrators with ridiculous salaries, benefits, and pension plans but those ridiculous salaries, benefits, and pension plans caused our youth to go to school for education and we now have a surplus of fully qualified and certified unemployed teachers willing to do th work for a fraction of the cost.

This highlights the underlying problem with public employment.

A surplus in talent in a given private sector field would cause salaries to fall until that surplus disappeared. The public sector artificially keeps salaries disproportionately high regardless of supply and demand.

[dumadegg]

"It would end collective bargaining for state, county and local workers, except for police, firefighters and the state patrol."

There's no other way to interpret that combined with the fact that only a public referendum could allow them to have raises. Would it be on every ballot or just special ballots? Would it be voted on every year or whenever politicians feel like it?

You can't discriminate against one group and let all the others be allowed to operate under existing laws like this, it's completely ludicrous. The state senate can pass it and the Governor can sign off on it, but it'll never stand up in the courts.

[Greapyjeory]

"It would end collective bargaining for state, county and local workers, except for police, firefighters and the state patrol."

There's no other way to interpret that combined with the fact that only a public referendum could allow them to have raises. Would it be on every ballot or just special ballots? Would it be voted on every year or whenever politicians feel like it?

You can't discriminate against one group and let all the others be allowed to operate under existing laws like this, it's completely ludicrous. The state senate can pass it and the Governor can sign off on it, but it'll never stand up in the courts.

I'm not so sure of that. Again, the rules are different with government. A law that treats one industry a certain way vs. all other industries probably wouldn't hold up in court, but when it comes to regulating organs of government, there's a general understanding that the government has more flexibility in doing what it pleases.

Some government employees have always been more regulated than others. Some enjoy far more benefits than others. Again, if the legislature was more consistent in its application of these regulations, they would seem less petty about it, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing illegal about this.

[dumadegg]

I'm not suggesting that this move will fix Wisconsin's fiscal issues. I agree that the governor might just be supporting this for a petty reason as well.

If Wisconsin law protects public unions and the legislature wants to pass a law that differentiates in treatment between public ones and private ones, that's not unconstitutional. Your source of employment is not a protected class.

Federal discrimination laws only apply to gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

I side with the idea of restricting public unions on principle, because the public market is different from a private one. When consumers don't have a choice as to whether they can pay for something or not, the rules have to be different from ones governing the open market.

I completely disagree. The people who teach, keep us secure and put out fires are groups are all public oriented groups that deserve to be on the same level with each other.

If you're going to take away the teachers union ability to even negotiate pay increases, but you're going to let police and firefighters have that right, you're clearly discriminating one group and favoring others while all of those jobs are public jobs.

If only public referendums can determine whether teachers get a pay increase, than it should be the same with all public sector jobs.

We're either pissing in the same pool here or we're not.

But the bigger picture narrative here is about an ideology that clearly wants to take away from the bottom and give to the top.

[vladekad]

There's no other way to interpret that combined with the fact that only a public referendum could allow them to have raises.

The very article you cited specifically says it would only go to a public referendum if unions seek pay increases above the CPI.

[!!Aaroncheg]

But the bigger picture narrative here is about an ideology that clearly wants to take away from the bottom and give to the top.

From my point of view, this is more about union employees getting far, far more than they deserve, on our tax dollars.

[Greapyjeory]

I completely disagree. The people who teach, keep us secure and put out fires are groups are all public oriented groups that deserve to be on the same level with each other.

If you're going to take away the teachers union ability to even negotiate pay increases, but you're going to let police and firefighters have that right, you're clearly discriminating one group and favoring others while all of those jobs are public jobs.

If only public referendums can determine whether teachers get a pay increase, than it should be the same with all public sector jobs.

We're either pissing in the same pool here or we're not.

But the bigger picture narrative here is about an ideology that clearly wants to take away from the bottom and give to the top.

I would agree that this is the way the law should be.

Logically, it's pretty asinine to put law enforcement and firefighters on a pedestal while demoting teachers. I think all of these groups should be equally restricted in their ability to unionize.

I also agree that these people are easier targets than corporations. However, I'm not sure if raising corporate taxes would be a good idea for Wisconsin. A large part of what determines the feasibility of a tax raise is how your neighboring states measure up in taxation.

[JMLot]

I for one am very interested in whatever efforts we can find to remove the disastrous budget effects these unions have had on state budgets across the country. Just to make that clear, I am not pro union at all as I can see clearly the intentions behind them in recent times. However, this legislation is a terrible way to go about it. Creating this sort of exception for some public work force unions where others are targeted by the legislation is just an open door for all of this to end up in the courts to sort out. It seems to me we have Republicans in this case trying to show discrimination in legislation going after teachers and other unions they cannot negotiate with, while protecting others. It is bound to fail at some level making all of this a costly waste of time for Wisconsin (and whatever other states are considering similar discriminatory legislation.)

[vladekad]

I completely disagree. The people who teach, keep us secure and put out fires are groups are all public oriented groups that deserve to be on the same level with each other.

If you're going to take away the teachers union ability to even negotiate pay increases, but you're going to let police and firefighters have that right, you're clearly discriminating one group and favoring others while all of those jobs are public jobs.

If only public referendums can determine whether teachers get a pay increase, than it should be the same with all public sector jobs.

We're either pissing in the same pool here or we're not.

But the bigger picture narrative here is about an ideology that clearly wants to take away from the bottom and give to the top.

While I think the same standard should be applied to all public employees to reduce pending, calling it discrimination is nonsensical. There's no reason to believe different occupations should be given the exact same thing.

[JMLot]

While I think the same standard should be applied to all public employees to reduce pending, calling it discrimination is nonsensical. There's no reason to believe different occupations should be given the exact same thing.

There is plenty of expected reason to believe that unions for public employees in terms of legal rights and expected treatment should be on the same terms. What is nonsensical is saying it is ok to create legislation to force some unions to operate under restricted terms with others exempt. It is discrimination on union level and expect it to be challenged in that regard.

[vladekad]

There is plenty of expected reason to believe that unions for public employees in terms of legal rights and expected treatment should be on the same terms.

The concept of unions themselves revolve around the idea of people having more bargaining power when they join together but now you're effectively saying to ignore the strength of certain unions and treat them all equally.

Why bother with unions in the first place?

What is nonsensical is saying it is ok to create legislation to force some unions to operate under restricted terms with others exempt. It is discrimination on union level and expect it to be challenged in that regard.

Heavy handed rhetoric aside, all contracts require union members to operate under restricted terms. That's exactly what a contract does. Calling it discriminatory would seem to mean one group is being denied something they have a legal right to have and I just don't see the argument here.

[dumadegg]

The very article you cited specifically says it would only go to a public referendum if unions seek pay increases above the CPI.

It's nonsensical and misguided, and how is it cost-effective to hold a referendum in place of simply having two parties sit down at a negotiating table with an arbitrator?

The idea of gov't writing legislation that tries to micromanage an entire group of people like this runs contrary to the basic notion of smaller gov't. Why is the gov't even injecting itself this far into the matter when teachers are not the reason for the sad and sorry state of the economy?

Taking away from the bottom while the top gets away with a tax burden that is now half of what it was 30 years ago simply does not make sense and it has gotten us to where we are now, where a middle school teacher only half way into her teaching career is going to see a loss of personal revenue of about $600 a month because of this legislation. The average state employee in Wisconsin makes just over $48,000 per year.

That's -$7,000 for this one individual who fits right around where the median state employee wage is. The money she is losing per paycheck is reflected in her having to pay twice as much for health care premiums under the law and an increase in the amount she would have to pay for her pension.

Can you do without $7,000 this year?

[JMLot]

The concept of unions themselves revolve around the idea of people having more bargaining power when they join together but now you're effectively saying to ignore the strength of certain unions and treat them all equally.

Why bother with unions in the first place?

I'd be ok with this part, I am not pro-union anyway. But to answer your question it is about collective bargaining, specifically removing it from one union but allowing it in others. Granted the size of the union in question and it's strength (and importance as teachers) gives them great power but as I understand it this legislation is being introduced because they will not give the concessions the Republicans want. The issue at hand is not the strength of one union over another, it is about a level collective bargaining right for them all to have. In the end you have a discrimination legislation effort to get around only this unions right to collective bargaining over others. If for instance teachers unions being larger have gotten them better contracts then the issue becomes how to negotiate with them, rather how to demand concessions in the face of budget crisis. But, in this case Republicans in the state have opted to try a biased legislation effort, one that will be a mess to sort out if it passes.

Discrimination would imply someone is being denied a legal right but I don't see any legal rights to ensure everyone gets the same contract.

No, in this case it is not about the same contract at all. It is not about the right for all of them to have similar contracts. It is about the right to pursue contracts for one's union specifically. As I said above, it is about removal of collective bargaining for only some unions but allowing them for others. That is discriminatory and will certainly be challenged.

[JimmyHas]

Budget cuts are one thing; taking away the negotiating rights of employees is another.

This is interesting....governments are established to support and provide various services necessary for the defense and general welfare of the public. Government service is, in every way, shape and form, public service.

One must at least consider whether those who choose to serve the public interest should even have the right to negotiate contracts when that service is the result of required government obligations. In a very real way it is like telling the taxpayer that they must not only fund a particular agency but also pay the service providers in that agency whatever they demand. The taxpayer (consumer) is supposed to be the one that gets to decide (at least in a general sense) what services they are willing to pay for and how much they are willing to pay. When unions come in and negotiate contracts for those services the taxpayer is completely cut out of the negotiation process.

[dumadegg]

This is interesting....governments are established to support and provide various services necessary for the defense and general welfare of the public. Government service is, in every way, shape and form, public service.

One must at least consider whether those who choose to serve the public interest should even have the right to negotiate contracts when that service is the result of required government obligations. In a very real way it is like telling the taxpayer that they must not only fund a particular agency but also pay the service providers in that agency whatever they demand. The taxpayer (consumer) is supposed to be the one that gets to decide (at least in a general sense) what services they are willing to pay for and how much they are willing to pay. When unions come in and negotiate contracts for those services the taxpayer is completely cut out of the negotiation process.

Unions don't just "come in"; they are the people in the whole "we the people" phrase.

Without collective bargaining rights, public sector workers can be fired or laid off unjustly and on a whim by any elected bureaucrat with the inclination to do as they please.

Is that a scenario you look forward to? Total dictatorship by one elected body over a group of public employees?

Education reforms are a separate issue from the rights that public school teachers should be able to enjoy along with those of firefighters or the police. I have still to hear a rational argument that says teachers should be stripped of most of their collective bargaining rights while other public sector workers have their rights protected.

[Gedominew]

I don't understand how some people fight tooth and nail for some groups of people to have every constitutional right --- corporations, but then have no compunction about limiting the rights of other groups of people --- unions. Corporations and unions are a 2 headed coin, both are manifestations of groups of people sharing a common purpose. You can't restrict the rights of one and let the other have free reign and maintain a consistent position.

I would say the legislation is unconstitutional. The government can't forbid people from negotiating for pay increases beyond a threshhold.

If its determined that the rights of groups of people can be restricted, then say bye-bye to corporate executive pay insanity and corporate political money.

Exactly. It's terrifying to think that we're at a point where people are arguing that corporations are people with rights, but people don't have rights.

Unbelievable.

[!!Aaroncheg]

Without collective bargaining rights, public sector workers can be fired or laid off unjustly and on a whim by any elected bureaucrat with the inclination to do as they please.

I can be fired or laid off without a moments notice, and for no reason (at-will employment). That's the way it is for those of us in the "real world". I don't see why union employees should have it any differently.

I have still to hear a rational argument that says teachers should be stripped of most of their collective bargaining rights while other public sector workers have their rights protected. Fine, strip all public sector workers of their bargaining "rights". I'd be fine with that.