[dumadegg]

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.

[Kiliunjubl]

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.

From the first article -
Unions still could represent workers, but could not seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum. Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized. So state employees can no longer use union tactics to get inflated wages? And they no longer have to pay union dues if they don't want to be in the union? Sounds like a win win to me. The only union government employees should be accountable to are the tax payers.

[AromeWahmaron]

As I understand the bill as presented in the article, it does not take away negotiating rights - it caps salary increases based on the CPI.

That does not seem unreasonable to me, given the state of the economy.

Matt

[Dogxzysl]

As I understand the bill as presented in the article, it does not take away negotiating rights - it caps salary increases based on the CPI.

That does not seem unreasonable to me, given the state of the economy.

Matt

They don't understand (or care) what broke means. The AM news told of the Governor=Hitler and governor with crosshairs on him signs.....nice way to plead their case.

[r9tbayfC]

As I understand the bill as presented in the article, it does not take away negotiating rights - it caps salary increases based on the CPI.

That does not seem unreasonable to me, given the state of the economy.

Matt

The account I read states it takes away their right to use collective bargaining. Adjusting expenses... reasonable. Taking away collective bargaining? No way is that reasonable.

[dumadegg]

As I understand the bill as presented in the article, it does not take away negotiating rights - it caps salary increases based on the CPI.

That does not seem unreasonable to me, given the state of the economy.

Matt

Very unreasonable to me, since the police, firefighters, state inspectors and troopers would be exempt to these changes.

Read summary of Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill | greenbaypressgazette.com | Green Bay Press Gazette

That means the Governor is going after teachers and people who still work in the manufacturing sector.

He is breaking already existing bargaining agreements with the union.

Wisconsin is the state recognized most as a bastion for unions and for collective bargaining rights enshrined in 1959 there.

President Eisenhower, a Republican, considered collective bargaining rights to be one of his signature legacies. Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity Blog Archive Happy Labor Day! President Eisenhower on Unions.

In detailing the three philosophies of American labor, Eisenhower said, "The third principle is this: labor relations will be managed best when worked out in honest negotiation between employers and unions, without Government’s unwarranted interference."

This is no longer the party of Eisenhower.

Walker is totally walking all over these people's lives to make a point and allowing government overreaching power by disregarding agreements between public employees and the gov't that already exist.

A gov't can't force working people to vote within a union in order to stay unionized just because they draft up legislation that says so. People in a group can vote on whatever they want to vote on whenever they wish to vote on it.

This Governor is sticking it to teachers and playing off the cynicism out there about labor unions.

This is symptomatic of national Republicans too, whose philosophy is to screw middle class people even more while their buddies in oil and gas get to keep their $40 billion+ in welfare.

[dumadegg]

They don't understand (or care) what broke means. The AM news told of the Governor=Hitler and governor with crosshairs on him signs.....nice way to plead their case.

Why should teachers be burdened with paying for the mistakes of gov't?

[Lidawka]

Reading the bill, it seems like it's simply 'union busting', something the big business GOP has been doing for years. Creating a lot of red tape, and having to have yearly elections to keep the union formed. More than any cost savings, it's union busting.

[Mugflefusysef]

From the first article -


So state employees can no longer use union tactics to get inflated wages? And they no longer have to pay union dues if they don't want to be in the union? Sounds like a win win to me. The only union government employees should be accountable to are the tax payers.

First off, as a Liberal I am FOR Unions, as long as they are reasonable. Which has not been the case at times, considering the auto workers.

Yet, my wife was in the teachers union here, before she retired and that union has done more to effect bad education coming in only second behind sorry ass parents who don't have time to raise kids and motivate them to excel in school.

I don't believe in unions for public workers, period. Unions belong in private enterprise, IMO. So, I have no problem with what is occurring in Ws. We need to use this time when States are struggling to get rid of all of these unions that represent public workers, paid by tax dollars. Less lobbiests to contend with.

[KuRoregioNka]

Excellent.

Break the cartels.

[!!Aaroncheg]

I don't believe in unions for public workers, period. Unions belong in private enterprise, IMO. So, I have no problem with what is occurring in Ws. We need to use this time when States are struggling to get rid of all of these unions that represent public workers, paid by tax dollars. Less lobbiests to contend with.

+1. Not a fan of unions for public employees. Like the rest of us, they should just be glad to have a job at this point.

[vladekad]

I don't know too much about Wisconsin's politics to comment on them directly but this is something that will likely happen in most every state, especially in New York. Union backed public employees have crippled our state and nothing exemplifies that more than the $400K/year school administrator leading the change against DEMOCRAT Andrew Cuomo, who is looking to cap property tax increases at 2% (or rate of inflation).

Mind you the $400K is just salary. Her total compensation is probably in the $1M range when you factor in benefits and her pension.

One local newspaper in particular, Newsday, has done a fantastic job of exposing just how out of control public compensation has become. It's become common place in the NYC area to have teachers, railroad workers, cops, administrators, etc. making well in excess of $250K/year on top of extremely lucrative benefits and pension plans.

Recently it was a local Albany news station which brought to light the $50K-$80K salary increases given to our state police's top brass. This is just inexcusable but fortunately they were quickly rescinded when it provoked the ire of taxpayers - and rightfully so.

[vladekad]

+1. Not a fan of unions for public employees. Like the rest of us, they should just be glad to have a job at this point.

Finding a public job shouldn't mean you're set for life no matter the economy.

Personally, I think total compensation for all public employees should be straight salary, straight forward, up front, and voted on by the public.

[dumadegg]

Finding a public job shouldn't mean you're set for life no matter the economy.

Personally, I think total compensation for all public employees should be straight salary, straight forward, up front, and voted on by the public.

And having a public job shouldn't mean you need to carry the load in bad times more than other jobs that have public unions.

The teachers are being discriminated against because they endorsed the Democratic candidate for Governor, while the three unions representing the firefighters, police and state troopers (who are exempt from the same union-busting tactics) endorsed the Republican candidate who won.

This whole thing wreaks and the Governor, a Tea Party guy, did it to himself.

[Greapyjeory]

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.

[Quonuttott]

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.

[Greapyjeory]

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.

Good points. Private sector unions make sense and should be protected by law.

Public sector unions are different though. Because paying for public services is mandatory, that changes the nature of the market.

[vladekad]

And having a public job shouldn't mean you need to carry the load in bad times more than other jobs that have public unions.

I'm not all that familiar with Wisconsin state politics but I have a difficult time believing public employees are actually carrying the load.

[!!Aaroncheg]

Finding a public job shouldn't mean you're set for life no matter the economy.

Some of the laziest and most self-entitled workers I've ever witnessed work for the NYCTA.. railroad workers in particular. They really are set for life, and because of that, they don't actually need to do any work. One guy told me that the only way to get fired was to start a fight, or get caught using drugs. Other than that, they could sleep all day, watch movies, lift weights, etc.. They even had little living rooms set up in the shops, with old couches and TVs, fish tanks, coffee tables, etc.. They sit around for about 6 hours for every 8 hour shift, paid by the taxpayers (and ticket revenues, also paid by the public).

Personally, I think total compensation for all public employees should be straight salary, straight forward, up front, and voted on by the public. Not a bad idea.

[vladekad]

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.

While extremely heavy handed and partisan, I don't see a particular section in the ABC News article that actually suggests rights are being infringed upon. ABC seems to be saying state employees will pay into their pension and benefits while being unable to seek salary increases beyond the CPI. In return they're guaranteed no layoffs or furloughs.

That seems pretty reasonable to me. Which rights are being denied here?