Unions under Attack...

[GwynnInTheHall]

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

Is liquor or cigars an ok wager?

Edit: avatar bets are so 2010

[GwynnInTheHall]

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.



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.



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.



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.

Needless to say, I think you're wrong on just about everything in your response. Most of which we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

I'm not certain on the legality of the vote, but I read and heard there are some issues of legality with it. That should come to light quickly.

I have no doubt that one or more GOP Wisconsin State Senators will be recalled in the next year and when Walker is eligible to have it put on the ballot, they'll attempt to recall him as well.

Chicken **** is right. He split the bill--and no it wasn't discussed or it would have made news. If you have any link to any documentation of this discussion I'll retract my statement, but until then--I think you're wrong.

He engaged the Dems in possible negotiation talks over the phone while setting up this vote behind their backs. basically distracting while he set the vote up--if he wanted it out in the open, why the subterfuge?

Bottomline, they may have been voted into office by the people (the GOP), but they're not listening to them--the pols clearly show that most of Wisconsin wants to Keep collective bargaining.

But like I said--we have a while to wait to see how it all works out. I've been following this pretty closely on all 3 channels-(Fox, Cnn & Msnbc) as well as the online versions of the Times so I hope I
'm as informed as I can be, but maybe I'll learn a little more in the days to come.

You might too.

[senorsheep]

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.

Pretty good summary here: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...o-work-law.htm

**********

The right-to-work law is a United States (US) state law that makes it illegal for a business to establish union membership as a requirement for employment. States that do not have a right-to-work law in place can have companies and businesses run as a “closed shop” that requires membership in a union or the paying of union dues for employment. A right-to-work law makes it so that employment in a company cannot be contingent upon membership within a union, and that leaving a union cannot be cause for termination of employment.

...

Proponents for right-to-work laws insist they encourage fairness in the workplace and ensure that unions cannot control how a business is operated and managed. They typically insist that a union shop is contrary to the notion of a union looking out for the needs of workers while being separate from management, since one is often formed through agreements between a union and business owners. A right-to-work law can also often be pointed to as a way to increase business for a state, as proponents argue that businesses are typically drawn to states with laws that favor freedom of enterprise.

Opponents of states having a right-to-work law, however, argue that it gives up all real bargaining power for unions within the state. Pro-union workers often point out that though the law only states that union membership cannot be mandatory, businesses often use that to go to the other extreme and make non-membership in unions obligatory for employment. Since a right-to-work law gives non-union members all the same rights and privileges as those enjoyed by union members within a workplace, there is little incentive for workers to join a union. With fewer workers joining the union, opponents argue, the union has less money needed to continue operating, as well as losing any real bargaining power within the industry.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Pretty good summary here: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...o-work-law.htm

**********

The right-to-work law is a United States (US) state law that makes it illegal for a business to establish union membership as a requirement for employment. States that do not have a right-to-work law in place can have companies and businesses run as a “closed shop” that requires membership in a union or the paying of union dues for employment. A right-to-work law makes it so that employment in a company cannot be contingent upon membership within a union, and that leaving a union cannot be cause for termination of employment.

...

Proponents for right-to-work laws insist they encourage fairness in the workplace and ensure that unions cannot control how a business is operated and managed. They typically insist that a union shop is contrary to the notion of a union looking out for the needs of workers while being separate from management, since one is often formed through agreements between a union and business owners. A right-to-work law can also often be pointed to as a way to increase business for a state, as proponents argue that businesses are typically drawn to states with laws that favor freedom of enterprise.

Opponents of states having a right-to-work law, however, argue that it gives up all real bargaining power for unions within the state. Pro-union workers often point out that though the law only states that union membership cannot be mandatory, businesses often use that to go to the other extreme and make non-membership in unions obligatory for employment. Since a right-to-work law gives non-union members all the same rights and privileges as those enjoyed by union members within a workplace, there is little incentive for workers to join a union. With fewer workers joining the union, opponents argue, the union has less money needed to continue operating, as well as losing any real bargaining power within the industry.

I get the same thing when I Google it too. I have no idea why I was told that when I took over the Playhouse. Prior to that I hadn't even heard the term. do you know if termination without explanation is a part of RTW states?

[Bernie Brewer]

Walker, but that's probably not important!

[Kevin Seitzer]

Or perhaps that I felt that Willie Wilson was overrated.

1982 American League batting champion, baby!

Not to mention 12th all time in stolen bases.

[frae]

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.

So he went an entire campaign where he said "all options are on the table" and not a single reporter or even his opponent in a debate followed up with does that mean collective bargaining is on the table? To not be able to find anything where he directly says this to a reporter and is quoted leads me to stick by the fact that this isn't what he openly ran on.

I need to step away from this all for a while. All I do is come home and read articles, blogs, and messages boards and my blood pressure goes through the roof. I am frustrated beyond belief to watch my professions attacked and to hear that I am making too much money or that I am riding some gravy train. I am not going to change any minds here as I am clearly invested and biases and it is just making me unhappy arguing it. So all that said I am going to try to stay out of this thread for a while, enjoy.

[Bernie Brewer]

Personally I have issues with Otis Wilson! So much so, I usually drink myself to sleep with some Johnnie Walker Red!

[heyelander]

I need to step away from this all for a while. All I do is come home and read articles, blogs, and messages boards and my blood pressure goes through the roof. I am frustrated beyond belief to watch my professions attacked and to hear that I am making too much money or that I am riding some gravy train. I am not going to change any minds here as I am clearly invested and biases and it is just making me unhappy arguing it. So all that said I am going to try to stay out of this thread for a while, enjoy.

Looks like I know how to get into Keith's head on Saturday.

[senorsheep]

"...where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." -Ronald Reagan, 1980

Now the corrupt, senile old fool is a sage?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Now the corrupt, senile old fool is a sage?

I think it speaks to our political process and how all of them change their tunes to fit the time rather than have actual conviction about issues.

[senorsheep]

I think it speaks to our political process and how all of them change their tunes to fit the time rather than have actual conviction about issues.

It also speaks to our mental processes and how many of us are willing to dismiss people whose ideas we don't like until they happen to say something that supports our worldview. Then, suddenly, their credibility is restored, and their wisdom is quote-worthy! LOL

Humans amuse me. I need my Spock avatar back.

And we need our :toasted: avatar back, dammit!

[GwynnInTheHall]

It also speaks to our mental processes and how many of us are willing to dismiss people whose ideas we don't like until they happen to say something that supports our worldview. Then, suddenly, their credibility is restored, and their wisdom is quote-worthy! LOL

Humans amuse me. I need my Spock avatar back.

And we need our :toasted: avatar back, dammit!

I try not to quote anyone anymore as I had developed a Bad Platitude

besides, my opinion is valid enough for everyone

[Judge Jude]

Was Reagan reacting to President Jimmy Carter's rollback of collective bargaining in 1978, with the backing of a Democratic Congress?

That has me a little confused - is there something about a federal worker that makes it ok for them not to have collective bargaining but state workers have to have them or else? There's liable to be a good answer for that, it just hasn't hit me yet.

[Lucky]

Was Reagan reacting to President Jimmy Carter's rollback of collective bargaining in 1978, with the backing of a Democratic Congress?

That has me a little confused - is there something about a federal worker that makes it ok for them not to have collective bargaining but state workers have to have them or else? There's liable to be a good answer for that, it just hasn't hit me yet.

There may be other reasons, but initially federal employees had much better pay, benefits, protections, and grievance procedures. This made up, to some extent, for not having collective bargaining. State and local employees, by contrast, had lower wages, less benefits, no protections, and little in the way of grievance procedures.

For public employees, the ladder seems to be local (city or county), state, and then federal. It certainly is for law enforcement.

Of course, almost all public school teachers are "local" employees, as are most fire fighters.

There are lots of classifications of jobs that are common for local government which don't exist in the federal government. Take the county road department. The feds contract out repairs for Interstates. Dog catchers. Sanitation. There are federal jailers, but not nearly as many.

So, there's the thing of federal jobs being better from the standpoint of salary, bennies and conditions, plus the fact that federal jobs are generally higher on the job rung.