Interesting Times in Wisconsin..........

[BTravlin]

Btravlin:

Your point is valid, Nonetheless they spent the money already. What should they do now is the question. Not what should they have done.

Ditto for Social Security and Medicare.

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure that those bashing the teachers see the other side of the story. Along these same lines, states have often skipped funding their public employee pension plans for a year with the intention of catching up the following year and often times that doesn't happen. Similar to credit card debt jumping up and biting you in the rear because you really did intend to pay that balance off!

It all gets back to the real problem which is spending. Government never has learned to LBYM.

 

[BTravlin]

Actually, the Wisconsin plan is funded about the best in the US. However, healthcare and other benefits negotiated through collective bargaining are killing the goose (taxpayer).

One of my mom's former students is a nurse at one of the prisons. She was allowed to "opt-in" a disability policy that is 100% funded by the state, and after 90 days pays 100% of her compensation irregardless of the nature of the disability, even stress was counted as a reason to pay.......can we really afford those types of benefits??

Agreed, and again the situation varies from state to state. And, no, we can't afford those types of benefits.

 

[FinanceDude]

Agreed, and again the situation varies from state to state. And, no, we can't afford those types of benefits.

The benefits seem not to be benefits but rather entitlements. Walker is taking a very unpopular stand in a state that is the birthplace of unionized labor and has loads of state employees, both working and retired. He has some cajones, that's for sure. Other Governors have slapped band-aids and passed the buck, Walker is making a stand.

The alternative is laying off folks and unpaid furloughs for those who keep their jobs. Walker feels there is nothing to negotiate because he has nothing to give, he was handed a $3 billion deficit from the last governor..............

 

[haha]

He has some cajones, that's for sure.......

I think you may mean cojones, not cajones. As: His boxers are kept in his cajones, and his cojones are kept in his boxers. (Different pairs of boxers one hopes! )

Ha

 

[Westernskies]

The benefits seem not to be benefits but rather entitlements. Walker is taking a very unpopular stand in a state that is the birthplace of unionized labor and has loads of state employees, both working and retired. He has some cajones, that's for sure. Other Governors have slapped band-aids and passed the buck, Walker is making a stand.

The alternative is laying off folks and unpaid furloughs for those who keep their jobs. Walker feels there is nothing to negotiate because he has nothing to give, he was handed a $3 billion deficit from the last governor..............

It's hard to negotiate in good faith if you don't have the funding. I admire his honesty and no-nonsense approach; pretty refreshing in the world of political weasel-speak.

 

[GregLee]

Not UP TO THEM, required and forced upon them. Payroll deduction for $900 a year whether you want to join the union, or not is fair?

It's not up to each individual worker, but it's up to the workers collectively. It's their union. They elect their union representatives. They can decertify their union or choose another national organization to affiliate with. Why is $900 unfair? Are you complaining about the amount? What would a fair amount be?

 

[samclem]

It sounds like many residents of Wisconsin are no longer being represented in their state legislature. I don't think there's any practical way to round up AWOL legislators and make them perform the job they were hired to do, but certainly at some point it's appropriate to make a determination that an individual has abandoned his job and needs to be replaced so citizens can be represented. I'm sure the law differs by state--maybe this is done via special elections. It's time to start the wheels turning. If nothing else, the potential cash drain on unions and Organizing for America for a slew of special elections might be useful in helping align their interests with the residents of these states.

 

[Texas Proud]

It's hard to negotiate in good faith if you don't have the funding. I admire his honesty and no-nonsense approach; pretty refreshing in the world of political weasel-speak.

I would admire him more if he did this to all the state employees....


Why are the police, firefighters, state troopers and whoever else is not part of this left out



But, agree that this is a good start....


OHHH, edit to add.... the dems will be able to overturn this and give collective bargining back to the teachers if their view is what the state believes... just wait for the next election and win on that ticket...

 

[Texas Proud]

It sounds like many residents of Wisconsin are no longer being represented in their state legislature. I don't think there's any practical way to round up AWOL legislators and make them perform the job they were hired to do, but certainly at some point it's appropriate to make a determination that an individual has abandoned his job and needs to be replaced so citizens can be represented. I'm sure the law differs by state--maybe this is done via special elections. It's time to start the wheels turning. If nothing else, the potential cash drain on unions and Organizing for America for a slew of special elections might be useful in helping align their interests with the residents of these states.

In Texas they send the Texas Rangers out to find them and bring them in... someone in the leadership has that power... I would suspect from what I read that it is the same in WI....

 

[youbet]

Union busting is not fine.

Yet company busting is perfectly OK?

 

[FinanceDude]

It's not up to each individual worker, but it's up to the workers collectively. It's their union. They elect their union representatives. They can decertify their union or choose another national organization to affiliate with. Why is $900 unfair? Are you complaining about the amount? What would a fair amount be?

Not the amount, the fact you HAVE to join a union, why is that a condition of employment? Just trying to understand if that is status quo? Some unions have the OPTION of joining the union, and if you don't, you don't get the pension or whatever, its a choice though..........

 

[FinanceDude]

Yet company busting is perfectly OK?

I heard that federal employees don't have collective bargaining rights, is that true?

 

[FinanceDude]

It sounds like many residents of Wisconsin are no longer being represented in their state legislature. I don't think there's any practical way to round up AWOL legislators and make them perform the job they were hired to do, but certainly at some point it's appropriate to make a determination that an individual has abandoned his job and needs to be replaced so citizens can be represented. I'm sure the law differs by state--maybe this is done via special elections. It's time to start the wheels turning. If nothing else, the potential cash drain on unions and Organizing for America for a slew of special elections might be useful in helping align their interests with the residents of these states.

A local radio station had on a local expert in politics. He said that Wisconsin laws are really vague, the State Patrol can't go get the lawmakers out of state, the senators could come back and vote on just amendments and then leave again, noone could stop them, etc........sounds a bit messy..............

 

[youbet]

OHHH, edit to add.... the dems will be able to overturn this and give collective bargining back to the teachers if their view is what the state believes... just wait for the next election and win on that ticket...

I agree. It seems that the Dem legislators are disrupting our political system which calls for gov't policies to reflect the will of the people within constitutional bounds. I say the dem legislators need to participate in the process. If the people disagree with the outcome, they'll elect union supporting dems in droves in the next elections and the rules can be changed back or even enhanced to favor the unions even more.

I doubt the limitation of negotiating powers or "open shop" status that is being proposed will permanently damage the unions if in fact all these things are restored and enhanced after landslide dem victories in the next elections.

 

[youbet]

I heard that federal employees don't have collective bargaining rights, is that true?

I'll leave the answer to that question to the fed employees here on the forum.

I'm very experienced with unions in the private sector (from both academic training and personal involvement standpoints. And DW is a card carrying member of the Illinois teachers union (now the retired chapter) and I've followed her involvement very closely including being an advisor to her local during two strikes (we won!). But I am not familiar with the fed gov't employee unions to any extent.

 

[FinanceDude]

I agree. It seems that the Dem legislators are disrupting our political system which calls for gov't policies to reflect the will of the people within constitutional bounds. I say the dem legislators need to participate in the process. If the people disagree with the outcome, they'll elect union supporting dems in droves in the next elections and the rules can be changed back or even enhanced to favor the unions even more.

I think this is the reason the Dems have drawn the line in the sand. Let's say the bill passes, the unions lose 25% of their members, but the budget is balanced and gains are made in job creation, etc. Would the voters like that or not?

Wisconsin has been a swing state for a little while. Dane and Milwaukee county are the two largest population counties, and are overwhelmingly Democratic. Outside of those two counties, almost all the rest of the state leans Republican. Just in the November election, a 24 year Democratic Senator (Russ Feingold) lost to a businessman with no political experience (Ron Johnson), the legislature swung from Democratic majority to Republican majority, and we have the first Republican governor is 8 years...........so change is fast and furious...........

 

[youbet]

I think this is the reason the Dems have drawn the line in the sand. Let's say the bill passes, the unions lose 25% of their members, but the budget is balanced and gains are made in job creation, etc. Would the voters like that or not?

Wisconsin has been a swing state for a little while. Dane and Milwaukee county are the two largest population counties, and are overwhelmingly Democratic. Outside of those two counties, almost all the rest of the state leans Republican. Just in the November election, a 24 year Democratic Senator (Russ Feingold) lost to a businessman with no political experience (Ron Johnson), the legislature swung from Democratic majority to Republican majority, and we have the first Republican governor is 8 years...........so change is fast and furious...........

Change is good. The proposed changes to public union powers in Wisconsin are certainly controversial but they aren't things that can't quickly be undone if the people are not happy with them after they are implemented.

The foundation upon which unions exist is that of NEVER giving up a benefit previously won. This sometimes results in unsupportable wages, benefits or local work rules when economic conditions, technology or politics change over time. It takes some sort of disaster to re-establish a new equilibrium point (UAW vs the auto makers for instance) and then the process begin anew. The Wis Rep politicians think there is a state budget disaster (as do some of the Wis citizens) and they're seizing the moment to implement change just as GM seized the moment of bankruptcy to seize union concessions.

The difference between public and private union situations is, of course, that the public unions are more likely to be controlled by legislation. But, as mentioned, changes will only be an election away if needed and wanted.

Edit: Just an additional tidbit...... in Illinois (an even bluer state than Wis) teachers are free to belong or not belong to their local unions as they choose. It is not a condition of employment as it is in Wis today. Yet the teachers union in Illinois is powerful and effective.

 

[FinanceDude]

Here's a tidbit from newspaper last week that the press ignored:

MATC OKs contract that preserves no-cost pensions - JSOnline

So, the unions, fearful of what's going on in Madison, keeps the status quo going, even after the attorney tells them they would need to forfeit $7.1 million later if the budget bill passes? And folks wonder why private sector workers are out of patience..............

 

[ziggy29]

Why are the police, firefighters, state troopers and whoever else is not part of this left out

Just a thought -- if the police were included in this and the demonstrations began to get violent, who's going to suppress it? It's time-honored -- don't alienate your security forces.

 

[FinanceDude]

Just a thought -- if the police were included in this and the demonstrations began to get violent, who's going to suppress it? It's time-honored -- don't alienate your security forces.

Not to mention guns and heavy equipment...........

 

[GregLee]

Not the amount, the fact you HAVE to join a union, why is that a condition of employment?

Maybe it shouldn't be, but this is disingenuous, since the real reason for limiting Wisconsin's unions' power right now is because the unions have been too effective in the past at obtaining salary and benefits for their members. This argument that teachers will be better off without unions is just a pretense, because it's perfectly obvious to everyone that they will be worse off. That's the whole point of attacking the unions -- to pay teachers less in the future, not to help them be more free. Come on, now.

 

[ziggy29]

Maybe it shouldn't be, but this is disingenuous, since the real reason for limiting Wisconsin's unions' power right now is because the unions have been too effective in the past at obtaining salary and benefits for their members. This argument that teachers will be better off without unions is just a pretense, because it's perfectly obvious to everyone that they will be worse off. That's the whole point of attacking the unions -- to pay teachers less in the future, not to help them be more free. Come on, now.

And these unions, in turn, need to pay attention to the rest of us. We can't afford what they want unless our eroding employment deals -- our declining real wages, our lousier benefits, our job insecurity, our lack of a secure retirement system -- start getting better, too. They might even find a significant shift in public sentiment in their favor. If they keep advocating only for themselves while blissfully ignoring our declining ability to pay for their deal, they risk an even greater backlash. "Too bad for everyone else, we're coming to pick your pockets" type of comments (paraphrased) like those the Albany, NY police union head said last year don't help, either. Nor do teachers union leaders in New Jersey urging members to pray for Governor Christie's death.

As long as the attitude seems to be that they deserve a better deal than the rest of us, the middle class in-fighting is doomed to continue, and the moneyed corporate elites will love it.

 

[youbet]

the real reason for limiting Wisconsin's unions' power right now is because the unions have been too effective in the past

There's a lot of truth to that GregLee. It's analogous to when a company becomes so successul in business that they force all competition out and then enjoy a monopoly. The gov't is forced to step in and enforce anti-monopoly legislation which is definitely not good for the monopolistic company but does help the public.

Sometimes the reward for being "too good" is getting your legs cut off at the knee. And that's whether you're an extremely successful business that gains a monopolistic situation or an extremely successful union that forces pay and benefits the payers cannot afford.

 

[FinanceDude]

Maybe it shouldn't be, but this is disingenuous, since the real reason for limiting Wisconsin's unions' power right now is because the unions have been too effective in the past at obtaining salary and benefits for their members. This argument that teachers will be better off without unions is just a pretense, because it's perfectly obvious to everyone that they will be worse off. That's the whole point of attacking the unions -- to pay teachers less in the future, not to help them be more free. Come on, now.

I guess the alternative is to lay off teachers. Is it better to get laid off or make concessions on collective bargaining, which brought us to this point in the first place?

Let's say for some reason Walker takes collective bargaining out of the bill, and it gets voted into law. Then when his biennial budget bill is introduced, he has to lay off 8000 state workers because there's no budget for them. The unions won the battle, but lost the war. Was that worth it?

There is no right or wrong answers, tough decisions will be made. In a school district near mine, 1/3 of the teachers have been put on notice that they are on the chopping block if the budget bill does not pass. Is that better than the bill passing and giving up collective bargaining rights? To the teachers affected, probably...........to the protestors, no way.

Does some 20 year old ollege kid banging a drum at the Capitol for the past 11 days even know what he's protesting?

 

[BTravlin]

In Texas they send the Texas Rangers out to find them and bring them in... someone in the leadership has that power... I would suspect from what I read that it is the same in WI....

Wisconsin can do the same but these legislators have supposedly crossed state lines and are holing up in Chicago. Illinois isn't going to extradite in this matter although I wish they would.