Unions under Attack...

[GwynnInTheHall]

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.

Don't take your victory lap just yet. even in committee, they are required to give a 24 hour notice about the vote, which they didn't. They didn't even give the 2 hours required if an emergency vote is called for.

I'll bet you right now Chance-not a money wager J-a year off the board, that the Wisconsin state senate will be a Democratic majority after the next election cycle.

He may have won the battle, but it'll cost him the war. He and any GOP senate member eligible will have to beat recalls in the next 1-2 years.

And hell yes it was a chicken **** thing to do.

[GwynnInTheHall]

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.

Bad trade off. To get the Unions to work the way you'd like, you subject EVERY worker in such a state to unfair labor practices and potential discrimination. A gal won't sleep with her boss, she's fired-- no recourse unless she can prove sexual harassment, which in most cases can't be proven. Same thing goes for gender discrimination, racial discrimination and orientation biases.

Protect the workers THEN subject the Unions to the same regulations and oversight you would any other agency.

Right to work States, work only for the employer.

[frae]

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.

So basically you are now arguing something completely different than what I argued and ending it by connecting it to something I said about something else. I called the entire attempt to do this wrong and pointed out again that he didn't really say this in his campaign. You came back and explained why what he did to get it passed with the Dems gone is ok. I don't care how it passed, he should never have started the process he did not run on ending collective bargaining, but keep changing the point since no one has shown me a single link where he is quoted saying this on a very long campaign trail and no talking to bloggers off the record doesn't count. Give me a stump speech, press release, or a debate quote, or ignore this and answer something else.

[cardboardbox]

wow, this is what all the anger is about?

While it might be a bold political move, the changes are modest. We ask government workers to make a 5.8% contribution to their pensions and a 12.6% contribution to their health-insurance premium, both of which are well below what other workers pay for benefits. Our plan calls for Wisconsin state workers to contribute half of what federal employees pay for their health-insurance premiums. (It’s also worth noting that most federal workers don’t have collective bargaining for wages and benefits.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...787805984.html

[OaklandA's]

wow, this is what all the anger is about?

No. The unions agreed with all of the financial suggestions. The anger is that the Governor wants to take away most collective bargaining rights, which he just did.

[cardboardbox]

No. The unions agreed with all of the financial suggestions. The anger is that the Governor wants to take away most collective bargaining rights, which he just did.

most? I believe the union bargaining rights removed only apply to benefits, not wages.

[OaklandA's]

most? I believe the union bargaining rights removed only apply to benefits, not wages.

Isn't it kind of pointless to have negotiation for one without the other? If the union somehow managed to get a 5% wage increase, the governor could just unilaterally cut their benefits by 5% to negate the gain.

[cardboardbox]

Isn't it kind of pointless to have negotiation for one without the other? If the union somehow managed to get a 5% wage increase, the governor could just unilaterally cut their benefits by 5% to negate the gain.

I suppose thats a good point but its not like Walker tried to gut their benefits or wages. These benefits are still way better than what most of us get.

[OaklandA's]

I suppose thats a good point but its not like Walker tried to gut their benefits or wages. These benefits are still way better than what most of us get.

But that is the entire point. The union agreed to pay the costs that Walker wanted. If the issue was about balancing the budget, then Walker should be happy. But now that the collective bargaining rights have been mostly removed, Walker can arbitrarily cut benefits again anytime.

[senorsheep]

Bad trade off. To get the Unions to work the way you'd like, you subject EVERY worker in such a state to unfair labor practices and potential discrimination. A gal won't sleep with her boss, she's fired-- no recourse unless she can prove sexual harassment, which in most cases can't be proven. Same thing goes for gender discrimination, racial discrimination and orientation biases.

Protect the workers THEN subject the Unions to the same regulations and oversight you would any other agency.

Right to work States, work only for the employer.

:facepalm:

You really need to have B-Fly or Wonderboy or one of your other trusted Lefties who actually knows what right-to-work means explain it to you. You're going to be shocked to discover how far off base your current understanding is. It has nothing to do with grounds for dismissal, other than establishing that you can't be terminated for refusal to join a union, or for leaving a union.

[onejayhawk]

:facepalm:

You really need to have B-Fly or Wonderboy or one of your other trusted Lefties who actually knows what right-to-work means explain it to you. You're going to be shocked to discover how far off base your current understanding is. It has nothing to do with grounds for dismissal, other than establishing that you can't be terminated for refusal to join a union, or for leaving a union.

Or be prevented from obtaining employment without Union membership.

As a Union Steward, I can verify that. The Contract may have provisions, where the law does not.

J

[chancellor]

So basically you are now arguing something completely different than what I argued and ending it by connecting it to something I said about something else. I called the entire attempt to do this wrong and pointed out again that he didn't really say this in his campaign. You came back and explained why what he did to get it passed with the Dems gone is ok. I don't care how it passed, he should never have started the process he did not run on ending collective bargaining, but keep changing the point since no one has shown me a single link where he is quoted saying this on a very long campaign trail and no talking to bloggers off the record doesn't count. Give me a stump speech, press release, or a debate quote, or ignore this and answer something else.

Since when does he need to state it in a stump speech, press release or anything else to put it into law? If you want to get nasty here, fine. I mean when he said "all options are on the table", you have to be flat-out flamingly stupid, or blindingly ignorant of Wisconsin politics, to not realize that collective bargaining was on the table. And since the Senate can't pass any direct budget impacting bills, they're going to tackle the indirect ones - and collective bargaining for benefits and work rules moved to the top of the list.

[chancellor]

Don't take your victory lap just yet. even in committee, they are required to give a 24 hour notice about the vote, which they didn't. They didn't even give the 2 hours required if an emergency vote is called for.

He has his legal bases covered; even the liberal Madison Capital Times has conceded that. I have no doubt there'll be legal challenges, but they'll get beat.

I'll bet you right now Chance-not a money wager J-a year off the board, that the Wisconsin state senate will be a Democratic majority after the next election cycle.

Jason would bhan both of us if I even consider taking that bet. I wouldn't take the bet in any case since Wisconsin's state senate has traditionally leaned blue anyway. But what happens here will have little impact on the elections; if the economy turns around, the senate will likely stay red. If not, it'll almost certainly cycle back.

He may have won the battle, but it'll cost him the war. He and any GOP senate member eligible will have to beat recalls in the next 1-2 years.

I'd say the Senators who've abandoned their posts are at far greater risk than the GOP is right now. If the GOP finds a non-O'Donnell like candidate to run in two of the districts, they'll have very good chances of flipping those seats; most notably Hansen, who's the state senator in the Green Bay area.

And hell yes it was a chicken **** thing to do.

LOL! How so? It was in the bill originally, they'd talked about splitting it out publicly for some time. Given how the Dems have behaved so far - including assembly Dems unlocking GOP offices and allowing protesters in and direct obscene death threats on the floor of the Assembly - it's none too surprising it was brought up on an emergency basis. If the Senate Dems wanted their objections on the record, they should have been in Madison instead of cowering in Illinois.

[GwynnInTheHall]

:facepalm:

You really need to have B-Fly or Wonderboy or one of your other trusted Lefties who actually knows what right-to-work means explain it to you. You're going to be shocked to discover how far off base your current understanding is. It has nothing to do with grounds for dismissal, other than establishing that you can't be terminated for refusal to join a union, or for leaving a union.

I may indeed be misunderstanding it. When I was in Idaho, it was explained to me by the Chamber of Commerce, that it essentially meant-- any worker could be terminated at any time and the employer wasn't required to give a reason. If that's incorrect-- then please help me understand it and if I'm wrong in my thinking-- retract what i've said-- because I'm not hear to rail unfairly about anything.

[Moonlight J]

Yea, please revisit terms for bets on the board....especially banning people for a year