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

[kombat]

Imagine if a company had to get shareholder approval to give anyone a raise higher than the inflation rate. How do you think that would affect the viability of those companies?

If I don't like the way a company is being run, I can simply sell my shares and liquidate my interest in the company.

Who do I contact to opt-out of paying taxes if I don't like the way my tax dollars are being spent?

As long as we're forced to pay taxes, that gives taxpayers a say in how that money is spent. Thus, your analogy is not apt.

 

[kombat]

The shareholders have no idea whether the employees are reasonably paid or not. Just like voters would have no idea whether government employees should get a raise or not.

Well, when those raises are awarded blindly, with no performance evaluation requirement, in a time of recession, the perception is that the majority of those raises are not warranted, and are in fact simply being awarded to appease an overly-powerful union that is extorting the public purse.

Furthermore, in many cases taxpayers do have some idea of whether or not public employees are overpaid, because the budgets are often required to be publicly disclosed. I can easily see exactly what a Level-2 DBMS admin earns in a particular government branch, and compare that to private-sector salaries with a comparable job description (making sure I factor in the generous defined-benefit pension, medical, sick leave, parental leave, and vacation entitlements).

 

[FinanceDude]

My point was that the minority's recourse in our society against a tyranny of the majority is civil disruption.

The majority cannot stomp on a decent sized minority with impunity.

At a certain point, the minority decides to play "I may lose, but you won't win."

I think the majority has pushed a fairly large group of people to that point in Wisconsin.

However, I'm doubtful that they will remain the majority for much longer.

Really? Only 7 PERCENT of all jobs in Wisconsin are held by state unionized workers, which means 93% are not. The voters in November sent a clear message, reversing a Democratic majority in both houses to a Republican majority in both houses. 50,000 or 80,000 people protesting at the State Capitol makes for great TV, but there are 4 million+ workers in the state.

Can you define the "fairly large group" of people you speak of? I don't see anyone against the bill except retired and working union members, and some students skipping out of class. 300,000 out of 4,000,000 is not that large of a number.......

 

[FinanceDude]

They are funded by shareholder dollars. Shouldn't the shareholders required to vote for any increases?

No, because the shareholders made a CHOICE to own that company. What CHOICE did I have to pay for collective bargaining that is bankrupting local govts? In Wisconsin, under Walker's bill, law enforcement and firefighters are exempt, yet I see tons of ads slamming the bill from folks in law enforcement and firefighters, that seems weird to me........

 

[ERD50]

Describing the Democrat senators' cute little prank as "subverting the democratic process" is overblown.

I guess we will have to disagree on that (though I thought you agreed when you said it violated the 'spirit' of requiring a quorum). Isn't voting on bills that are brought up "the democratic process"? I'm quite certain that the quorum requirement was never intended to be used this way as part of" the democratic process", so I'll call it "subverting" the process. It may be technically legal, but it strikes me as "the ends justify the means", and that shouldn't be how democracy works, IMO.

As I said earlier in this thread, I disapprove of Walker's union busting -- trying to change the law to limit public workers' bargaining rights. That makes his the bad side, and the other side, the one with which I sympathize. I hope Walker's side loses.

And I suppose some people disapproved when public workers' bargaining rights were expanded in 1959 by a vote in the WI State Congress? Is it categorically good/bad, or just a law that was passed by people who thought it was the right thing at that time? Can't that change with time and conditions? I also think it's a stretch to call these 'rights'. It's simply a law that defines what can and cannot be done. If a length of road has a speed limit of 35mph, then they pass a law to change it to 45, then later set it back to 35 - can I claim I have "the right" to drive 45mph there? No.

That is what happened with the civil rights movement. The majority was happy with the system, but the black population showed them that they were not going to let it continue. They brought the system to a standstill and the majority came around to their way of thinking

I'll disagree (somewhat) with your assessment. We (finally) reached a point where the majority did not want to see a minority treated unfairly. The Civil Rights Act was passed by our Representatives, so (in theory) it represents the will of the majority of the people.

I'd agree that the demonstrators helped to bring the issue up to the forefront. But that is largely an issue of free speech, and that is great (w/o digging into the history, I suppose the strikes were more than just free speech, but I'm speaking generally here).

I can think of many, many examples of laws that protect a (numerical) minority - yet I fully support it even if I am not of that minority. Laws that protect (numerical) minorities are what help us to have an orderly system.

Any raise above inflation would need voter approval. That's going to make it pretty much unworkable. ...

A sizable minority of the people of Wisconsin (including my family members), believe that this change will make their lives untenable.

Now this really strikes me as overblown. How can this be "untenable", when the majority of workers in the US do not have collective bargaining? When/if we can't get qualified people to fill the jobs, people will vote for increases. Don't tell me it can't happen, we often pass referendums here to approve higher expenditures - when those expenses represent the will of the people.

...government workers, who will be left with no recourse but finding other employment (which I expect all of the better employees to start doing as quickly as they are able).

Again, the option of finding other employment is exactly what most of us taxpayers have had to deal with. Why should public employees be immune from this? I don't get it?

If the majority pushes a minority hard enough, the minority will always at some point decide that democracy is no longer serving their interests.

Absolutely. However, it sure is tough to apply it to this group who have had raises, job security, and pensions that are mostly far better than the majority. Just how 'hard' has this group been pushed

-ERD50

 

[GregLee]

... The main reason the unions are fighting this bill is NOT the worker's rights, ...

Yeah, yeah, I've heard it. Look, you asked me what I meant by characterizing the workers' side as the "good side". It was obvious, but I explained anyway. Now do you understand what I meant?

Interesting, avoiding taking a vote on legislation because you are afraid it might pass?

This is obtuse. We all know they did it to draw attention and rally support. It worked fine.

 

[GregLee]

... I'm quite certain that the quorum requirement was never intended to be used this way as part of" the democratic process", so I'll call it "subverting" the process. ...
... I also think it's a stretch to call these 'rights'. It's simply a law that defines what can and cannot be done.

So, you don't know what "good side" means, violating the spirit of a law becomes "subversion", and now a legal right is no longer to be referred to as a "right". You seem to be inventing your own little language.

 

[FinanceDude]

This is obtuse. We all know they did it to draw attention and rally support. It worked fine.

So, if the Republicans do it when the Dems are in power, I guess you'll have no problem with that? Good to know for the future. FYI, this "fleeing" has never been done in the history of Wisconsin, which was founded in 1848.........

 

[Alan]

Round and round the poltical bush we go.

We think any real relevance to FIRE has now gone in the thread.

YouTube - Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!"