Unions under Attack...

[chancellor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110310/..._budget_unions

They passed the bill without the Dems even there to vote.

Is this legal?

Oh, yes. A quorum is only required for bills that actually spend money, so the GOP decoupled the collective bargaining part from the Budget Repair Bill.

If you're GOP in Wisconsin, I'd get my resume ready.

For higher office, I presume.

[frae]

Outside of just flat out disagreeing with this, one of my other huge problems with this is he didn't run on this. He didn't run on stripping the unions of their rights. When you don't run on something it seems crazy to have it be your first piece of major legislation rolled out.

[PaleoMan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110310/..._budget_unions

They passed the bill without the Dems even there to vote.

Is this legal?

If you're GOP in Wisconsin, I'd get my resume ready.

The game of political chess is afoot. This move is just begging the unions to strike. It will be interesting to see if they take the bait and throw momentum back to the Wisconsin GOP.

[chancellor]

Of course he ran on it; the unions were either too arrogant or too stupid to realize that "all options to reduce the state deficit" also meant collective bargaining for benefits and work rules juuuust might be on the table. Best to get it done now, if the economy improves in Wisconsin general election voters won't really give a rip what Walker did to collective bargaining, no matter how much the unions outspend all other groups in Wisconsin to try and talk it up. Most importantly to me, it'll be the most important cost control measure the state will have long term; not merely two years down the line but 5, 10 and 15 years down the line.

Mind you, I surely expect Walker's laughing his head off. The unions have warred against him his whole career; I'm sure he's enjoying giving them a swift kick in the testicles right now.

[frae]

Of course he ran on it; the unions were either too arrogant or too stupid to realize that "all options to reduce the state deficit" also meant collective bargaining for benefits and work rules juuuust might be on the table. Best to get it done now, if the economy improves in Wisconsin general election voters won't really give a rip what Walker did to collective bargaining, no matter how much the unions outspend all other groups in Wisconsin to try and talk it up. Most importantly to me, it'll be the most important cost control measure the state will have long term; not merely two years down the line but 5, 10 and 15 years down the line.

Mind you, I surely expect Walker's laughing his head off. The unions have warred against him his whole career; I'm sure he's enjoying giving them a swift kick in the testicles right now.

Show me the quote or press release where he said he was going to eliminate the unions rights to collectively bargain? There is a HUGE difference between freezing wages for now or asking for concessions on health care which is what everyone assumed was in play here and what he is doing. He did NOT say he was going to do this.

[Moonlight J]

Of course he ran on it; the unions were either too arrogant or too stupid to realize that "all options to reduce the state deficit" also meant collective bargaining for benefits and work rules juuuust might be on the table.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

[Judge Jude]

Some guy from The Nation, a liberal publication, was on TV the other day saying that he talked to Walker several times during the campaign and that he had brought up limiting collective bargaining (to the chagrin of the interviewer). Not sure the mantra about "he didn't run on this" is as clearcut as some are claiming.

[frae]

Some guy from The Nation, a liberal publication, was on TV the other day saying that he talked to Walker several times during the campaign and that he had brought up limiting collective bargaining (to the chagrin of the interviewer). Not sure the mantra about "he didn't run on this" is as clearcut as some are claiming.

Is it on the record anywhere? There is a huge difference between talking off the record with a reporter and getting up in your stump speech and saying, "We will strip the unions rights to collectively bargain!"

[Judge Jude]

Agreed.
It sure looks from politifact that Walker is wrong to claim that this was, for example, a central part of his campaign. But he did suggest that sort of thing here and there, as I guess he did from his talks with The Nation guy. And it's not a stunning leap, really, from what he was specifically proposing. He clearly planned to be very aggressive on this front - he took it one step further than I think a lot of voters expected.

[frae]

Agreed.
he took it one step further than I think a lot of voters expected.

That's a pretty big step.

[chancellor]

Show me the quote or press release where he said he was going to eliminate the unions rights to collectively bargain? There is a HUGE difference between freezing wages for now or asking for concessions on health care which is what everyone assumed was in play here and what he is doing. He did NOT say he was going to do this.

As Jude's noted it, Walker did discuss it with The Nation and a couple well-regarded bloggers in Wisconsin. But even if he didn't, the union screaming about how this is totally unexpected is laughable for anyone even remotely familiar with Wisconsin politics. Walker was quite clear throughout the campaign that "all options are on the table to reduce the state deficit" or similar quotes. Let's just say, to keep this civil, that elimination of collective bargaining for benefits and work rules has a perceived long-term value to reducing state spending, and it certainly falls under the umbrella of "all options are on the table". And every union leadership group knew he'd go after collective bargaining, regardless of what they're squealing right now.

If the state Senate Democrats have half a brain - and, given their leadership right now with Russ Decker gone, I'm not sure they do - they'll get their butts back in state, and start negotiating the budget in earnest. If they don't, Walker and the GOP will find a lot more non-budget related bills the Dems surely will not like and get 'em passed.

[frae]

Again from the summary of politfact...

"Let’s sum up our research.

Walker contends he clearly "campaigned on" his union bargaining plan.

But Walker, who offered many specific proposals during the campaign, did not go public with even the bare-bones of his multi-faceted plans to sharply curb collective bargaining rights. He could not point to any statements where he did. We could find none either.

While Walker often talked about employees paying more for pensions and health care, in his budget-repair bill he connected it to collective bargaining changes that were far different from his campaign rhetoric in terms of how far his plan goes and the way it would be accomplished.

We rate his statement False."

So let's say the union knew this was coming, I'll probably agree that the higher ups were aware of what Walker could bring, but to not stay it directly to the public and to the people who are not in the know during a campaign where he laid out many things is not giving him the mandate to roll this out as his number one issue. The bloomberg poll out today shows nationwide opposition to this (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-benefits.html) and to not come right out and say your intention to the public is dirty pool as far as I am concerned.

[chancellor]

Well, given that the Senate Democrats have abandoned their posts, a budget bill cannot be passed. Nor can any bill with direct monetary impact.

Soooo, do you think he's just going to sit around and do nothing? Uhhh....no. And splitting the collective bargaining part out is absolutely no surprise. It's been discussed for over a week now. I know WTMJ has brought it up on at least one of their radio shows, and a libertarian law professor at UW who has a very influential blog has been openly discussing it since the weekend prior.

This isn't dirty pool, frae. This is figuring out what can be passed with the Dems abandoning their posts.

[Judge Jude]

If this is legal, it does suggest a strategic blunder on the part of the Democrats.

I understood the initial exit on both principled and politically strategic grounds. They drew nationwide attention to the issue, so that part worked well.

But after a couple of weeks, I don't really get it anymore. Are they permanently in exile or something? And this coming from someone who has some sympathy with the principle here. If this is as big a blunder by the Republicans as many think it is, then letting them pass it is a good thing for the Democrats in the long run, isn't it? They would then reap the rewards come election time as Wisconsinites (Wisconsonians?) vote out the Republicans in droves and restore collective bargaining soon enough.

But I do think I may be missing something..

[PaleoMan]

gotta love those right to work states, they need NO reason to fire you. It does NOTHING to protect discrimination because you never get a reason as to why you were terminated.

Why not just go ahead and give the country to the corporations and wealthy and get it over with already.

The issue is representation without extortion. In many of these forced unionization states, the union is often looking out for the narrow interests of the union instead of it's members. What kind of motivation does union leadership have in a state where membership and dues are mandatory for a particular industry? At least in a right to work state, a union has to truly prove it's mettle in order to attract members. This environment makes for a more viable & accountable union organization.