Wisconsin labor protests it's like Cairo has moved to Madison these days

[WhoWee]

I have to disagree on this point; it's a rather amusing turn of tactics that were used to defund Acorn, and recently go after Planned Parenthood. If what the Gov said wasn't a smoking gun, it's more than enough for the preponderance of the evidence in my view. IMO, it's beyond a reasonable doubt as well, and while it isn't criminal, he comes off as a fool and extremely insincere in public. The reaction has been profoundly negative as well, with protests now well outside of the capitol.

The difference is the criminal intent (underage girls, kidnapping, pimps, and prostitution) versus - a joke about having a "Louisville Slugger" and stringing along a supposed "supporter"? A better comparison would be to Blago.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Democrats rammed the legislation through - tactics were well documented.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...kers-aim-push-back-against-hasty-votes/print/
Do you not recall?

Yes, the Dems tried to pull the kinds of tricks the Repubs are pulling in WI. I don't condone any of it, no matter where it comes from. But none of that negates the fact that the healthcare bill was sitting with Congress for several months, across several recesses, generating several CBO reports, several town hall meetings and several opinion polls. Saying there wasn't enough time to read it is just another trick, only it makes a pretty sorry excuse for an excuse.

 

[WhoWee]

I just finished off a six pack before noon. Doesn't everyone?

In my college years, a group of us took a "road trip" to Chicago and someone decided we needed to continue on to Milwaukee "the Beer Capitol of the World". We left Chicago (where bars closed at 4:00 AM) and arrived in Milwaukee just before midnight - only to find out beer carryout stopped at (I think) 10:00 PM? I seem to recall the bars closed a little earlier as well? We did find a big dance club in a warehouse downtown and had fun - but the "Beer Capitol" label was downgraded - and the next stop added was St. Louis (another story). Young and dumb.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, the Dems tried to pull the kinds of tricks the Repubs are pulling in WI. I don't condone any of it, no matter where it comes from. But none of that negates the fact that the healthcare bill was sitting with Congress for several months, across several recesses, generating several CBO reports, several town hall meetings and several opinion polls. Saying there wasn't enough time to read it is just another trick, only it makes a pretty sorry excuse for an excuse.

The final version of the Bill was only available for a few hours - who knows what was slipped in at the last moment - undisclosed. Has anyone ever claimed responsibility for adding the 1099 requirement to the Bill?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

In my college years, a group of us took a "road trip" to Chicago and someone decided we needed to continue on to Milwaukee "the Beer Capitol of the World".

I don’t think Greg is talking about bar hopping; he’s talking about the life-supporting systems you keep at home.

 

[WhoWee]

I don’t think Greg is talking about bar hopping; he’s talking about the life-supporting systems you keep at home.

You are probably correct - just recalling a time - long, long ago. On a final note, the fellow who proposed the Milwaukee leg of the trip - blamed his idea it on "Laverne and Shirley".

 

[Gokul43201]

The final version of the Bill was only available for a few hours - who knows what was slipped in at the last moment - undisclosed. Has anyone ever claimed responsibility for adding the 1099 requirement to the Bill?

I looked up the last 4 days worth of amendments: there were 165 proposed amendments in those final 4 days, before the bill was voted through. As far as I can tell, all of the amendments in that final list seem to be proposed by Republicans.

Here's the source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d111:./temp/~bda8aFV:1[1-165]%28Amendments_For_H.R.4872%29&./temp/~bdUPt5

But yes, last minute amendments get snuck in all the time. I don't approve of any of it, but let's also not make it look like this is unique to the healthcare bill. Both parties have been doing this for years and years, at all levels of Government. Some states have tried to restrict this practice (I don't know if any have been successful), but for the most part, it is virtually unchecked.

Example: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/feb/09/tennessee-lawmakers-delay-rule-limit-last-minute-a/

 

[WhoWee]

I don't approve of any of it, but let's also not make it look like this is unique to the healthcare bill. Both parties have been doing this for years and years, at all levels of Government. Some states have tried to restrict this practice, but for the most part, it is virtually unchecked.

Example: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/feb/09/tennessee-lawmakers-delay-rule-limit-last-minute-a/

I don't approve of any "tactics" whatsoever. We elect representatives to ultimately do one thing - vote on legislation. The more complicated the Bill - the more due diligence required - IMO.

I'd rather see smaller and more focused Bills - eliminate all of the off-topic add-ins. If an item can't pass on it's own merits - it shouldn't pass.

My opinion extends to this proposed Wisconsin legislation.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... On a final note, the fellow who proposed the Milwaukee leg of the trip - blamed his idea it on "Laverne and Shirley".

That’s what friends are for! Solving those Big Questions of Life = Chicks + Beer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRmKzxhMzwo

 

[nismaratwork]

The difference is the criminal intent (underage girls, kidnapping, pimps, and prostitution) versus - a joke about having a "Louisville Slugger" and stringing along a supposed "supporter"? A better comparison would be to Blago.

...Who is no longer a governor, and is quite up the river!

@Greg: Well sure, I'm talking about REAL booze-hounds.

 

[mugaliens]

That’s what friends are for! Solving those Big Questions of Life = Chicks + Beer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRmKzxhMzwo

My father grew up with Gary Marshall.

Beer there, sods that...

 

[Andy Resnick]

Even though this thread veered wildly off the topic some time ago, I wanted to raise the following point:

My problem with the Wisconsin and Ohio legislative bills eliminating collective bargaining rights for government workers has nothing to do with salaries and benefits.

In fact, discussions about salaries and benefits only serve to obscure the real problem- collective bargaining (for university faculty anyway) is more fundamentally about 'shared governance'. That is, the faculty have a say in how the institution is operated- what courses are required for a major (or a minor), the standards required for promotion and tenure, etc. etc. Currently, I am evaluated by my peers.

When I worked in industry, I was not- I was evaluated by someone with no technical background. This meant that in order to succeed, I did what my manager told me to do- even when said manager told me to do something that made no sense- investigate a measurement technique that was clearly inappropriate, for example. Refusing to do so caused problems. One year, several of us got poor job evaluations because we sat in a project review meeting we were not invited to- even though it was our own project. Industry needs people who do what they are told to do. The education system does not. First responders also need to be able to make decisions without asking their boss for permission.

Now apply this to the educational system- without shared governance, elected officials can determine what courses you need to take to get a BS in Physics (or any subject), and furthermore, elected officials will determine what material is taught in that class. Do you think creationism should be taught as a viable scientific theory? There are *plenty* of elected school board officials who think it should be. Teachers who refuse to do so could be fired without recourse: peers wouldn't determine merit, some random administrator beholden to an elected official, would.

To me, *this* is the critical issue regarding collective bargaining, not salary and benefits.

 

[Amp1]

Good point Andy,

I'm still not satisfied; in a previous post I indicated that "Collective Bargaining" is Guaranteed and protected by the 'Wagner Act' (It is possible there is some legislation limits or modifies the W. A.). The response seemed to say "those powers not given to the 'Central Government' or 'people', revert to the 'States' then how is it that an act duly enacted by representatives of the 'States' put in effect by the 'United States' can be abrogated in part or full by a single member of a three part governing body which represents the 'State'. Isn't that a wee bit beyond his power?

 

[nismaratwork]

Good point Andy,

I'm still not satisfied; in a previous post I indicated that "Collective Bargaining" is Guaranteed and protected by the 'Wagner Act' (It is possible there is some legislation limits or modifies the W. A.). The response seemed to say "those powers not given to the 'Central Government' or 'people', revert to the 'States' then how is it that an act duly enacted by representatives of the 'States' put in effect by the 'United States' can be abrogated in part or full by a single member of a three part governing body which represents the 'State'. Isn't that a wee bit beyond his power?

You may be right, and if this ever passes you can rest assured that it would almost certainly reach The SCOTUS... although only they know if they'd hear the case.

 

[Amp1]

Thats the problem if it happens would it immediately go into effect? And if so would it have an effect on benefits already on the books?

Also, it takes a while litigation to get to SCOTUS, Doesn't it have to go through the circuit courts then appeals courts?

 

[WhoWee]

I've heard a good bit about the strength of the civil service rules in Wisconsin (specifically) is anyone familiar with the protections afforded in the absence of collective bargaining?

 

[nismaratwork]

Thats the problem if it happens would it immediately go into effect? And if so would it have an effect on benefits already on the books?

Also, it takes a while litigation to get to SCOTUS, Doesn't it have to go through the circuit courts then appeals courts?

You're correct on all fronts, unless a lower court granted an injunction, which IMO would be likely... but who really knows?

 

[nismaratwork]

I've heard a good bit about the strength of the civil service rules in Wisconsin (specifically) is anyone familiar with the protections afforded in the absence of collective bargaining?

Not a clue... any links (not just asking you)?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Good point Andy,

I'm still not satisfied; in a previous post I indicated that "Collective Bargaining" is Guaranteed and protected by the 'Wagner Act' (It is possible there is some legislation limits or modifies the W. A.). The response seemed to say "those powers not given to the 'Central Government' or 'people', revert to the 'States' then how is it that an act duly enacted by representatives of the 'States' put in effect by the 'United States' can be abrogated in part or full by a single member of a three part governing body which represents the 'State'. Isn't that a wee bit beyond his power?

I don't know much about the Wagner Act- but doesn't that only apply to the private sector? Are public employees covered under the Wagner act?

 

[Amp1]

This might be a good read WhoWee: It relates to your statement about the "strength of the civil service rules in Wisconsin" and "protections afforded in the absence of collective bargaining", which I think you will find are none.

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/sta...sin-gov-scott-walker-says-his-budget-repair-/

 

[Amp1]

Andy, your right.

"... The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, federal, state or local government workers, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

 

[Amp1]

After rereading the Act, I'm beginning to think the government workers (teachers ?) are out of luck.

 

[nismaratwork]

After rereading the Act, I'm beginning to think the government workers (teachers ?) are out of luck.

Yep, I think you're right, hence their understandable fear and outrage.

Teachers of WI, remember:

"Ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι."
----
"Stranger, announce to the Spartans that here
We lie, having fulfilled their orders."

Asymmetry is not everything, and today's victory can pave the way for tomorrow's bloody defeat.

 

[WhoWee]

This might be a good read WhoWee: It relates to your statement about the "strength of the civil service rules in Wisconsin" and "protections afforded in the absence of collective bargaining", which I think you will find are none.

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/sta...sin-gov-scott-walker-says-his-budget-repair-/

From your link - my bold:

"Civil service protections

The protections are put into state law by the Legislature, or into a local ordinance by a city council, or village or town board, said public-sector employer attorney Andrew Phillips. He is general counsel for the Wisconsin Counties Association and his Mequon firm also represents municipalities and school districts.

Currently, state employees are covered by civil service, but most local government employees don’t have it and no public school employees do, Phillips said.

Phillips said civil service protections, among other things, specify employee rights to things such as vacation and overtime; prohibit termination for reasons other than just cause; and create procedures for employees to file grievances and to have those complaints heard.

What they don’t provide, he said, is any right for employees to bargain with their employers over those issues and others. The terms are set by the employer.

Collective bargaining rights

Two sections of state law -- one for state workers and one for local government and public school employees -- give public employees the right in Wisconsin to collectively bargain.

The law issues a mandate to both the employer (the government) and the collective bargaining unit (employees represented by a union).

The two sides must "meet and confer at reasonable times, in good faith, with the intention of reaching an agreement" on wages, hours, fringe benefits and conditions of employment.

In other words, the workers -- through their union -- have a say in those areas. They do not have such a say under civil service rules.

So, what would change if Walker’s budget-repair bill is adopted by the Republican-controlled Legislature?

With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Alternatively, local governments could establish a grievance procedure that would, at minimum, address employee discipline and workplace safety, and provide for a grievance procedure for employee terminations."

It's not exactly crystal clear - is it?

 

[nismaratwork]

From your link - my bold:

"Civil service protections

The protections are put into state law by the Legislature, or into a local ordinance by a city council, or village or town board, said public-sector employer attorney Andrew Phillips. He is general counsel for the Wisconsin Counties Association and his Mequon firm also represents municipalities and school districts.

Currently, state employees are covered by civil service, but most local government employees don’t have it and no public school employees do, Phillips said.

Phillips said civil service protections, among other things, specify employee rights to things such as vacation and overtime; prohibit termination for reasons other than just cause; and create procedures for employees to file grievances and to have those complaints heard.

What they don’t provide, he said, is any right for employees to bargain with their employers over those issues and others. The terms are set by the employer.

Collective bargaining rights

Two sections of state law -- one for state workers and one for local government and public school employees -- give public employees the right in Wisconsin to collectively bargain.

The law issues a mandate to both the employer (the government) and the collective bargaining unit (employees represented by a union).

The two sides must "meet and confer at reasonable times, in good faith, with the intention of reaching an agreement" on wages, hours, fringe benefits and conditions of employment.

In other words, the workers -- through their union -- have a say in those areas. They do not have such a say under civil service rules.

So, what would change if Walker’s budget-repair bill is adopted by the Republican-controlled Legislature?

With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Alternatively, local governments could establish a grievance procedure that would, at minimum, address employee discipline and workplace safety, and provide for a grievance procedure for employee terminations."

It's not exactly crystal clear - is it?

I've seen some very murky crystal before it was tossed back in the furnace, but that's just me being contrary. One way or another, I expect the courts to become involved eventually.

 

[Amp1]

Like the article said he (the governor) mixed the two. Still from post #231 & 232 you can see that I realize he could change CB because the State legislated CB into law for public employees. So the State can take it away.

 

[nismaratwork]

Like the article said he (the governor) mixed the two. Still from post #231 & 232 you can see that I realize he could change CB because the State legislated CB into law for public employees. So the State can take it away.

...And in a climate of "smaller government", it wouldn't be exactly comfortable.

 

[WhoWee]

Like the article said he (the governor) mixed the two. Still from post #231 & 232 you can see that I realize he could change CB because the State legislated CB into law for public employees. So the State can take it away.

This is the confusing part - IMO.

"With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Alternatively, local governments could establish a grievance procedure that would, at minimum, address employee discipline and workplace safety, and provide for a grievance procedure for employee terminations."

 

[nismaratwork]

This is the confusing part - IMO.

"With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Alternatively, local governments could establish a grievance procedure that would, at minimum, address employee discipline and workplace safety, and provide for a grievance procedure for employee terminations."

So... OSHA would be the minimum... greeeeaaaat.

 

[Amp1]

Another somewhat similar situation in Rhode Island has many teachers and parents concerned: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/25/rhode.island.teachers.fired/index.html
Says Steve Smith, president of the city's teacher's union,

"This sounds very much like what's going on in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana, where lawmakers want to get rid of collective bargaining and remove the voice of workers."

 

[Al68]

My problem with the Wisconsin and Ohio legislative bills eliminating collective bargaining rights for government workers has nothing to do with salaries and benefits.

In fact, discussions about salaries and benefits only serve to obscure the real problem- collective bargaining (for university faculty anyway) is more fundamentally about 'shared governance'. That is, the faculty have a say in how the institution is operated...

This is a good point. How a (democratic) state-operated institution operates must be determined by elected representatives of the people, not state employees.

And a strike of public employees is an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Allowing them to succeed is intolerable for a democratic state.

These teachers have a right to withhold their own labor. So be it. Time to hire replacements. It's not like these teachers have the right to decide whether or not the state operates a school.

 

[cobalt124]

This is a good point. How a (democratic) state-operated institution operates must be determined by elected representatives of the people, not state employees.

And a strike of public employees is an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Allowing them to succeed is intolerable for a democratic state.

These teachers have a right to withhold their own labor. So be it. Time to hire replacements. It's not like these teachers have the right to decide whether or not the state operates a school.

The state employees are not determining policies, and did not elect anyone in, the electorate did. In their own eyes they are fighting a just cause, whether it is should be a matter for the elctorate to decide, and for that the decision to be enforceable they should have the means to boot them out, not the strikers. Polarizing an argument can only benefit nterests at one end or the other, the electorate will always lose out in this scenario IMO.
"Allowing them to succeed" is a polarizing argument. "Hiring replacements" is a polarizing action.

 

[mugaliens]

The state employees are not determining policies, and did not elect anyone in, the electorate did.

Frick and frack, those were both open and uncontested elections, and you know it. For you to make such ridiculous claims should get you banned on any world forums.

 

[cobalt124]

Frick and frack, those were both open and uncontested elections, and you know it. For you to make such ridiculous claims should get you banned on any world forums.

I'm sorry, I'm not American, and I'm not a "Wisconsinite", and I may be be dim at tmes. I'm assuming an electorate voted one person one vote to get these people in. I'me learning loads about federal/state politics, please explain. You might have a case for banning me off a U.S. forum but the rest of the world has no need to know. I wish to know that's all. I have an increasing suspicion from this and other threads that a lot of the problems are caused by deliberate over complication which benefits vested interests.

 

[mugaliens]

You might have a case for banning me off a U.S. forum but the rest of the world has no need to know. I wish to know that's all.

I apologize for my harsh tone last night. Friday was a long day fighting many issues on many fronts.

I have an increasing suspicion from this and other threads that a lot of the problems are caused by deliberate over complication which benefits vested interests.

Our Founding Fathers wrote our Declaration of Independance and our U.S. Constitution in clear, understandable English. They did not use the convoluted legalese of the day.

Any complication since then has usually involved the vested interests of others.