Thread: Public-Sector Union Busting in Wisconsin

Anyone following the union fights in Wisconsin?

The rundown of the fight is over a bill introduced by the Republicans that will strip public sector unions of their collective bargaining rights, essentially castrating the unions of any power or decision making. The Republicans are trying to present this as about cutting spending, but the unions agreed to taking the pay cuts all they are fighting is to keep the right to bargain and actually voice an opinion over how much they should be paid.

There was also the conspicuous fact that the only public sector unions that were exempt from the bill were the ones that had supported the Republican governor in the last election... Making the union busting seem particularly partisan oriented.

Anyway mass protest erupted over the bill. And the Democratic senators have fled the senate to avoid voting on the bill, which does seem a bit of an odd delaying tactic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

Scott Walker getting punked; http://minnesota.publicradio.org/col...one_call.shtml

Fake budget crisis; http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...et+crisis+fake

Scott Walker should face criminal charges!

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Anyway mass protest erupted over the bill. And the Democratic senators have fled the senate to avoid voting on the bill, which does seem a bit of an odd delaying tactic.

As is having a system which forces a vote without debate.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Anyone following the union fights in Wisconsin?

Yes, following it quite closely. Walker is bound to lose this fight he picked, but not before doing damage to many families. Republicans who voted for him are having buyer's remorse, and Dems who didn't bother to vote are wishing they did:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....2/do-over.html

Weird, I thought this was a scientific forum? I wonder how many people here have actually read the bill instead of just regurgitating what they read in some article?

In any case, let's put it in scientific terms. We have x amount of money. We spend y amount of money. y>x. We have to decrease Y. A lot of what goes towards Y is government salaries and benefits, so logically, we decide to decrease government salaries and benefits. If we decide to leave collective bargaining in place(by the way, no federal agency and most private sector jobs do not have such collective bargaining. It's not a right enumerated by any Constitution. It's not a right at all), In any case, if we leave it in place, than the next administration can simply cave and we are back at square one.

Basically, the government should spend within it's means. Period. Also, we should not have elected politicians making long term deals with other government workers pertaining to their benefits or salaries.

Put simply, we cannot afford what some people in our government want to provide. Whether it would be nice or not is besides the point. We simply cannot afford it.

Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt

Weird, I thought this was a scientific forum? I wonder how many people here have actually read the bill instead of just regurgitating what they read in some article?

I have looked at it, and it's patently union busting...

Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt

In any case, let's put it in scientific terms. We have x amount of money. We spend y amount of money. y>x. We have to decrease Y. A lot of what goes towards Y is government salaries and benefits, so logically, we decide to decrease government salaries and benefits.

Duh, but the projected budget deficit was created by Walker, he had a surplus coming into this year, he chose to up the amount of subsidies given out by the government. Just saying you're putting it in scientific terms doesn't make it so, you act as if a government can't work towards more efficiency, raise taxes, offer less subsidies. Moreover, unions have been shown to provide benefits to the society at large, as even unionized individuals in the presence of unions see improvements in salary and working conditions.

Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt

If we decide to leave collective bargaining in place(by the way, no federal agency and most private sector jobs do not have such collective bargaining. It's not a right enumerated by any Constitution. It's not a right at all), In any case, if we leave it in place, than the next administration can simply cave and we are back at square one.

Really, if people have a right to free assembly, and a right to negotiate for pay and benefits, how is the combination of two rights in concert not protected?

Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt

Basically, the government should spend within it's means. Period. Also, we should not have elected politicians making long term deals with other government workers pertaining to their benefits or salaries.

Yes, but these payments were within the governments means last year, and would have been this year if Walker hadn't decided to change that. Exactly who are they going to make deals with pertaining to their benefits and salaries then?

Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt

Put simply, we cannot afford what some people in our government want to provide. Whether it would be nice or not is besides the point. We simply cannot afford it.

Distraction, the unions agreed to the cuts, agreed to taking less money, even though the government actually could afford to pay for it. All this was is a power play by Walker to do away with a major political opponent.

Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt

In any case, if we leave it in place, than the next administration can simply cave and we are back at square one.

The unions are already showing they understand and are willing to take cuts--why presume it won't be the same if the budget continues to be bad. Many of these employees are serving vital functions and are reluctant to walk out and leave their community's hanging. Many of them voted for him.

The threat to lay or fire bunches of them is very disingenuous given they've already agreed to cut their salaries--he just refusing to acknowledge them at this point.

Prepare for some early Wisconsin elections to recall folks. Walkers' term will just last a year.

The unions agreed to the cuts for now. What happens in 4 years if a different administration is in office?

I realize you are in Canada, but most people in the U.S. do not have benefits like the people in these Unions have. Most pay a percentage of their health insurance and most pay for their retirement. It was sweetheart deals and political favors that led to these unions having what they have today. It would be foolhardy to admit on one hand that the deals are unsustainable and, yet, leave in place the ability for them to get the deals back when different politicians are in office.

As far as subsidies and whether Walker created the budget crisis by extending them, that is something I will have to look into further. I have not seen that information before, and if it is true, would seriously skew my feelings towards Walker, but not necessarily towards the Unions. Right now, people are mentioning Walker as a possible 2012 Presidential Candidate due to his stance on a balanced budget. That was a position I agreed with. If he sacrificed a balanced budget to extend subsidies, something I have zero support for, than I appreciate you bringing that to my attention.

Edited to add: I just googled "Walker Wisconsin budget subsidies" and didn't find anything like what you were referring to. Care to provide a reference?

Edited again: I did find something. http://politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...ve-budget-sur/ It basically references a liberal media icon lying about the Wisconsin budgets. Perhaps that is where you got your information from?

Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt

Edited again: I did find something. http://politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...ve-budget-sur/ It basically references a liberal media icon lying about the Wisconsin budgets. Perhaps that is where you got your information from?

Seems there wasn't a surplus, yet if you do read that in detail, you will find that Walker did approve tax cuts that will increase the deficit by 140M for next years budget.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt

Edited again: I did find something. http://politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...ve-budget-sur/ It basically references a liberal media icon lying about the Wisconsin budgets. Perhaps that is where you got your information from?

Seems there wasn't a surplus, yet if you do read that in detail, you will find that Walker did approve tax cuts that will increase the deficit by 140M for next years budget.

Yes, I read that. Over the next few years what he did will create a budget problem. What he is trying to do now is fix a budget problem he inherited. Makes it kind of hard for me to justify his position.

As a matter of fact, I won't even try. I do, however believe that it is irresponsible to continue to approve budgets that we don't have the money to pay for. I don't do it in my own household and I don't expect my government to continue to do it, either.

I do, however believe that it is irresponsible to continue to approve budgets that we don't have the money to pay for. I don't do it in my own household and I don't expect my government to continue to do it, either.

Yes, thats why you need a Tobin Tax

Disbanding unions won't fix the budget, so all this is not about the budget fix.

Even mythical hero Ronald Reagan himself disagrees with many in today's Republican party, including Scott Walker.


http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...ce/9.1.80.html

These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland. The values that have inspired other dissidents under Communist domination. They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.

Watch our mythological ex-president disagreeing with Republicans yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHXJr8tqP0