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

[WhoWee]

Yes, that... it's quite the rapid shift, and I suspect it has a lot to do with the unions having made all financial concessions. It would seem that the Democrats leaving is achieving precisely what they want.

I'm not sure he's "essentially burned his political capital"? I would like to see a statewide poll of what people think about the 14 Democrats that are hiding out in another state to avoid a vote.

What kind of a system do we have when voters send a clear message during an election - cut spending - and the legislators who don't like the voter mandate hide out until the people who will be on the receiving end of the cuts storm the Statehouse and disrupt the legislative process until the leader of the state agree to do what they (a minority of voters as per the last election) want?

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't know if anyone has said this already, but I didn't want to read all 19 pages just to check.

No, Cairo did not move to Madison. What you are facing is NOTHING compared to what the Egyptians faced. What you are doing when you say that is CHEAPENING their revolt for no other purpose than your own selfish gain. They had to deal with tear gas and molotovs being thrown at them. I doubt you can say anything CLOSE to the same thing. Everyone in the United States needs to stop comparing their protests to Cairo, or to Tripoli, or to Tunis. They are only alike in the sense that a mountain is like a clod of dirt.

Sorry, but that sentence just annoyed the hell out of me.

 

[turbo]

What kind of a system do we have when voters send a clear message during an election - cut spending - and the legislators who don't like the voter mandate hide out until the people who will be on the receiving end of the cuts storm the Statehouse and disrupt the legislative process until the leader of the state agree to do what they (a minority of voters as per the last election) want?

As usual, the right has framed the conflict as "greedy unions" against cost-cutting governor. That is not the case. The unions have made the financial concessions that the governor wanted, but that's not enough for him - he wants to eliminate their right to bargain collectively. A very different kettle of fish.

BTW, did you miss this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3154056&postcount=174

Wisconsin's non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau was projecting surpluses until the GOP majority rammed through $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. Then suddenly it was the "greedy unions" who were responsible for the looming deficit, and it was the "greedy unions" that had to pay for those tax breaks to balance revenues. Well, the "greedy unions" have done just that, making the concessions that the GOP wanted, but that's not enough - the GOP wants to remove their right to collective bargaining, as well.

 

[WhoWee]

As usual, the right has framed the conflict as "greedy unions" against cost-cutting governor. That is not the case. The unions have made the financial concessions that the governor wanted, but that's not enough for him - he wants to eliminate their right to bargain collectively. A very different kettle of fish.

BTW, did you miss this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3154056&postcount=174

Wisconsin's non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau was projecting surpluses until the GOP majority rammed through $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. Then suddenly it was the "greedy unions" who were responsible for the looming deficit, and it was the "greedy unions" that had to pay for those tax breaks to balance revenues. Well, the "greedy unions" have done just that, making the concessions that the GOP wanted, but that's not enough - the GOP wants to remove their right to collective bargaining, as well.

In an effort not to backtrack the entire thread - the negotiations at the local level typically take 12 to 18 months. The prior administration apparently kicked the can down the road and now they are out of time - the problems need to be fixed long term (this time). There is also a matter of about $200 million the last administration tapped that must be repaid - a reversal of $400 million that isn't on the table yet - I posted a few pages back. We've also noted the state workers have civil service protection in addition to union.

If you want to debate the "greed" of unions - please start a thread - I'll participate. I'd also like to see a poll of PF to see who is willing to pay more in federal and state taxes to offset Government union benefits and pay increases.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not sure he's "essentially burned his political capital"? I would like to see a statewide poll of what people think about the 14 Democrats that are hiding out in another state to avoid a vote.

What kind of a system do we have when voters send a clear message during an election - cut spending - and the legislators who don't like the voter mandate hide out until the people who will be on the receiving end of the cuts storm the Statehouse and disrupt the legislative process until the leader of the state agree to do what they (a minority of voters as per the last election) want?

14 nearly faceless state senators are nothing compared to a new Republican governer making this Custarian stand. I'm happy to come back to this after it becomes clear that he's doomed himself; if you want more polls beyond what's been offered... get polling.

@Char Limit: Very true, and it's an absurd comparison.

 

[nismaratwork]

In an effort not to backtrack the entire thread - the negotiations at the local level typically take 12 to 18 months. The prior administration apparently kicked the can down the road and now they are out of time - the problems need to be fixed long term (this time). There is also a matter of about $200 million the last administration tapped that must be repaid - a reversal of $400 million that isn't on the table yet - I posted a few pages back. We've also noted the state workers have civil service protection in addition to union.

If you want to debate the "greed" of unions - please start a thread - I'll participate. I'd also like to see a poll of PF to see who is willing to pay more in federal and state taxes to offset Government union benefits and pay increases.

I would be happy to pay, but its not an issue because the unions already agreed. STRAW MAN.

 

[Char. Limit]

14 nearly faceless state senators are nothing compared to a new Republican governer making this Custarian stand. I'm happy to come back to this after it becomes clear that he's doomed himself; if you want more polls beyond what's been offered... get polling.

@Char Limit: Very true, and it's an absurd comparison.

Indeed it is. I can tell so, because it's gotten me more angry than I've been in months.

 

[nismaratwork]

Indeed it is. I can tell so, because it's gotten me more angry than I've been in months.

Yeah... it's the kind of thing that just makes you question the validity of the perspectives of any politician. The rhetoric is so poisonous, and so divorced from reality.

 

[WhoWee]

I would be happy to pay, but its not an issue because the unions already agreed. STRAW MAN.

It's not a straw man. The 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending at all levels of Government. Now the task is at hand and the only alternative is to raise taxes. The argument of choosing to raise taxes on rich people only aside - who wants to pay more in taxes and who wants to see cuts? The only way to allow states to make (and keep) cuts in place is to untie their hands.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's not a straw man. The 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending at all levels of Government. Now the task is at hand and the only alternative is to raise taxes. The argument of choosing to raise taxes on rich people only aside - who wants to pay more in taxes and who wants to see cuts? The only way to allow states to make (and keep) cuts in place is to untie their hands.

I do. And again, all financial concessions were made already; this is still a straw man. I'd add, the same electorate is now turning against their governer, and neither party is touching Defense or Entitlements as needed.

Sorry, still a straw man. We don't need to TOUCH this stuff, it's just chaff to distract from massive inaction, and in this case, from the point of this debate.

 

[WhoWee]

I do. And again, all financial concessions were made already; this is still a straw man. I'd add, the same electorate is now turning against their governer, and neither party is touching Defense or Entitlements as needed.

Sorry, still a straw man. We don't need to TOUCH this stuff, it's just chaff to distract from massive inaction, and in this case, from the point of this debate.

Oh no...this is the core of the debate. The Fall 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending - and it's happening all over the country - hence the comparison to the ME.

 

[Char. Limit]

Oh no...this is the core of the debate. The Fall 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending - and it's happening all over the country - hence the comparison to the ME.

No, no, no. The comparison to the ME is completely unwarranted political blather. It has no importance.

 

[turbo]

In an effort not to backtrack the entire thread - the negotiations at the local level typically take 12 to 18 months.

And every party to the union contracts (unions, administrations, etc) know exactly when the contracts will expire, and how they would like to negotiate the next iteration of each contract. Claiming that it takes 12-18 months to negotiate a new contract is pretty ridiculous. I have been on a union contract negotiating committee representing my paper machine crews. Negotiating a comprehensive 5-year contract at a very large pulp and paper mill took about 2 weeks, primarily because of the company's refusal to grant us a change from Southern Swing shifts to 3-on, 3-off shifts of 12 hours each. We had already established substantial agreement on wages, benefits, etc, but the company dug their heels in on the shift-structure issue. They used arguments like "No person should be expected to work 12-hour shifts on a paper machine." despite the fact that during the start-up-phase of the new machine (several months) we were forced to work 12 hour shifts every single day for months without a single day off.

I'd like you to explain how negotiating contracts for teachers, garbage collectors, and other public servants takes a year+ to negotiate. My experience suggests otherwise (to say the least).

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh no...this is the core of the debate. The Fall 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending - and it's happening all over the country - hence the comparison to the ME.

The comparison is beneath you, and we both know it.

 

[WhoWee]

And every party to the union contracts (unions, administrations, etc) know exactly when the contracts will expire, and how they would like to negotiate the next iteration of each contract. Claiming that it takes 12-18 months to negotiate a new contract is pretty ridiculous. I have been on a union contract negotiating committee representing my paper machine crews. Negotiating a comprehensive 5-year contract at a very large pulp and paper mill took about 2 weeks, primarily because of the company's refusal to grant us a change from Southern Swing shifts to 3-on, 3-off shifts of 12 hours each. We had already established substantial agreement on wages, benefits, etc, but the company dug their heels in on the shift-structure issue. They used arguments like "No person should be expected to work 12-hour shifts on a paper machine." despite the fact that during the start-up-phase of the new machine (several months) we were forced to work 12 hour shifts every single day for months without a single day off.

I'd like you to explain how negotiating contracts for teachers, garbage collectors, and other public servants takes a year+ to negotiate. My experience suggests otherwise (to say the least).

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c814c77a-3600-11e0-b9e0-001cc4c03286.html

my bold
"Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, was shocked by the proposal. He said the governor seems to be "union-busting."

"State employees have the right to negotiate in good faith with the state. Without a willingness to even discuss what concessions need to be made with state employees, the governor comes across more like a dictator and less like a leader," Risser said.

Risser said he hopes Walker will meet with union leaders, instead of unilaterally imposing these measures. But the governor said Friday that he did not have 15 months to negotiate these issues with the union, the amount of time it typically takes for the state and its unions to agree on contracts.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers said Friday they expected Walker's bill will move quickly through the Legislature, perhaps being passed as early as next week. Republicans control the Assembly 60-38-1 and the Senate 19-14. "

 

[nismaratwork]

Walker says a lot of things... few appear to be based in reality; is there an indipendant analysis of contract negotiation times?

 

[WhoWee]

Walker says a lot of things... few appear to be based in reality; is there an indipendant analysis of contract negotiation times?

It looks like the procedure is a little more involved than turbo described - just one county.

http://www.buffalocounty.com/Personnel_Human%20resources/Agendas/2010%20Agendas/October%2018%20'10%20HR%20Committee%20Agenda.pdf

 

[turbo]

It looks like the procedure is a little more involved than turbo described - just one county.

http://www.buffalocounty.com/Personnel_Human%20resources/Agendas/2010%20Agendas/October%2018%20'10%20HR%20Committee%20Agenda.pdf

And you are claiming that this public notice supports your claim that it takes a year or a year and a half to negotiate a contract? Please! Support your claim, or back off.

 

[nismaratwork]

It looks like the procedure is a little more involved than turbo described - just one county.

http://www.buffalocounty.com/Personnel_Human%20resources/Agendas/2010%20Agendas/October%2018%20'10%20HR%20Committee%20Agenda.pdf

Uhhh... if I gave you something like that to support an argument, you'd rip me apart. We both know it...

 

[WhoWee]

And you are claiming that this public notice supports your claim that it takes a year or a year and a half to negotiate a contract? Please! Support your claim, or back off.

My bold - care to tone it down a bit sir? Your stated experience was "Negotiating a comprehensive 5-year contract at a very large pulp and paper mill took about 2 weeks" - as per your post turbo.

My post indicates the process might just be a bit more involved than you were accustomed to - given the notice. The Governor said it typically takes 15 months - he has experience at the local level prior to statewide service. I'll try to find a timeline for such negotiations - the Governor isn't the only one that's given the timeline on the various cable channels. I've heard it several times.

 

[nismaratwork]

My bold - care to tone it down a bit sir? Your stated experience was "Negotiating a comprehensive 5-year contract at a very large pulp and paper mill took about 2 weeks" - as per your post turbo.

My post indicates the process might just be a bit more involved than you were accustomed to - given the notice. The Governor said it typically takes 15 months - he has experience at the local level prior to statewide service. I'll try to find a timeline for such negotiations - the Governor isn't the only one that's given the timeline on the various cable channels. I've heard it several times.

The governor is full of bull, and without more to back his claims, I'm not going to assume anything. Without a real study for these time-lines, it's just more political chaff.

 

[turbo]

My post indicates the process might just be a bit more involved than you were accustomed to - given the notice. The Governor said it typically takes 15 months - he has experience at the local level prior to statewide service. I'll try to find a timeline for such negotiations - the Governor isn't the only one that's given the timeline on the various cable channels. I've heard it several times.

Did you hear it anyplace outside of FOX? Negotiating union contracts is an incremental process, and both sides know what the other side wants, where they can give a bit, and where they can hope to get a bit. This is not rocket science, and the player aren't strangers to one another.

Please give some kind of substantial support for the time-line that you claim. It would be madness to spend a year and a half at a "bargaining" table where nothing is getting done, just to beat each other up. I have never seen it in industry.

 

[WhoWee]

Uhhh... if I gave you something like that to support an argument, you'd rip me apart. We both know it...

This is suggestive that the process might take a while to complete? This gives a little background on the issue - the Democrats failed the unions back in December - it seems?

my bold
http://wseu-sepac.org/news/news_20101216_wisstatejournal_stateunionsfumeoverbetrayal.pdf

"State unions fume over betrayal, prepare for future negotiations
CLAY BARBOUR
cbarbour@madison.com
608-252-6129 madison.com
Posted: Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:00 pm
After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory.
Union leaders on Thursday expressed anxiety about future labor unrest and rage at the man they say has betrayed them. Decker, a former bricklayer with union ties, voted for the contracts in the Legislature's joint employee relations committee hours before he cast the deciding vote against them in the Senate.
"Russ Decker is a whore," said Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, which represents 22,000 state employees. "Not a prostitute. A whore. W-H-O-R-E."
Decker said the clock had simply run out for the current administration and the matter should be left to the next governor. Beil called the reversal a betrayal.
Behind the rhetoric is a palpable fear of what comes next for unions. New contract negotiations will have to run a GOP gantlet bracketed by Gov.-elect Scott Walker and a hostile Republican Legislature, both of which promise to take a hard line, demanding employees contribute significantly more toward their pensions and health care benefits.
If unions balk, the new governor has threatened everything from layoffs and cuts in social services to abolishing unions — though it is unclear if Walker would have the power to do so.
And while union leaders say they will negotiate in good faith with the new administration, they seem to dread the prospect.
"The ball is in (Walker's) court," Beil said. "We will make no overtures toward them. It will be up to them to come to the table.""

 

[WhoWee]

Did you hear it anyplace outside of FOX? Negotiating union contracts is an incremental process, and both sides know what the other side wants, where they can give a bit, and where they can hope to get a bit. This is not rocket science, and the player aren't strangers to one another.

Please give some kind of substantial support for the time-line that you claim. It would be madness to spend a year and a half at a "bargaining" table where nothing is getting done, just to beat each other up. I have never seen it in industry.

ANOTHER personal attack turbo? They spent over 18 months at the table BEFORE Walker took office.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is suggestive that the process might take a while to complete? This gives a little background on the issue - the Democrats failed the unions back in December - it seems?

my bold
http://wseu-sepac.org/news/news_20101216_wisstatejournal_stateunionsfumeoverbetrayal.pdf

"State unions fume over betrayal, prepare for future negotiations
CLAY BARBOUR
cbarbour@madison.com
608-252-6129 madison.com
Posted: Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:00 pm
After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory.
Union leaders on Thursday expressed anxiety about future labor unrest and rage at the man they say has betrayed them. Decker, a former bricklayer with union ties, voted for the contracts in the Legislature's joint employee relations committee hours before he cast the deciding vote against them in the Senate.
"Russ Decker is a whore," said Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, which represents 22,000 state employees. "Not a prostitute. A whore. W-H-O-R-E."
Decker said the clock had simply run out for the current administration and the matter should be left to the next governor. Beil called the reversal a betrayal.
Behind the rhetoric is a palpable fear of what comes next for unions. New contract negotiations will have to run a GOP gantlet bracketed by Gov.-elect Scott Walker and a hostile Republican Legislature, both of which promise to take a hard line, demanding employees contribute significantly more toward their pensions and health care benefits.
If unions balk, the new governor has threatened everything from layoffs and cuts in social services to abolishing unions — though it is unclear if Walker would have the power to do so.
And while union leaders say they will negotiate in good faith with the new administration, they seem to dread the prospect.
"The ball is in (Walker's) court," Beil said. "We will make no overtures toward them. It will be up to them to come to the table.""

Uh huh.. bolding mine:

"After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory."

So, an outgoing D scuttled it, and 100 million USD... and it took, "longer than any in recent memory".

This strikes me as the opposite of support for your claim; you've proven an exceptional exception, and it wasn't the unions.

 

[WhoWee]

Oh no...this is the core of the debate. The Fall 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending - and it's happening all over the country - hence the comparison to the ME.

I'll re-assert this point - the unions knew in December the Republicans would be harder to deal with if the Democrats didn't support them - Walker was elected in the spirit of cutting costs. Wiki summed it up this way:
my bold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician )

"2010 campaignFurther information: Wisconsin gubernatorial election, 2010
Walker became an early favorite for the 2010 Republican Party endorsement for Wisconsin governor, winning straw polls of Wisconsin GOP convention attendees in 2007 and 2008.[26][27] He announced his candidacy in late April 2009 after several months of previewing his campaign themes of reduced taxes and reduced spending to Republican audiences around the state.[20] He also criticized the 2009–11 Wisconsin state budget as too large for the slow economy.[20] He won the Wisconsin GOP convention endorsement on May 22, 2010, receiving 91 percent of the votes cast by the delegates. Walker won the Republican nomination in the primary election of September 14, 2010, receiving 59 percent of the popular vote, while former U.S. Representative Mark Neumann garnered 39 percent.[28]

As part of his campaign platform, Walker said he would create 250,000 jobs in his first term through a program that would include tax reforms[16] such as rolling back the 2009 state tax increases on small businesses, capital gains, and income for top earners, and cutting state employee wages and benefits to help pay for the tax cuts.[29] Critics claimed his proposals would only help the wealthy and that cutting the salaries of public employees would adversely affect state services.[29][30] Supporters said that tax cuts for businesses would reduce the cost of labor, which would ultimately promote consumer demand and more job growth. Walker indicated he would refuse an $810 million dollar award from the federal Department of Transportation to build a high speed railroad line from Madison to Milwaukee because he believed it would cost the state $7.5 million per year to operate and would not be profitable.[31] The award was later rescinded and split among other states.[32]

Social issues played a part in the campaign. Walker has stated that he is "100% pro-life",[33] meaning that he opposes abortion in all circumstances including in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.[19][34] He supports abstinence-only sex education in the public schools, and opposes state supported clinical services that provide birth control and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases to teens under the age of 18 without parental consent.[19] He supports the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives on religious or moral grounds.[19][35] He supports adult stem cell research, but opposes human embryonic stem cell research.[36][16] As the election drew near, Barrett attempted to portray Walker as an extremist on social issues.[34][37]

On November 2, 2010, Walker won the general election with 52 percent of total votes cast, with his closest opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett, garnering 46 percent. His running mate, now Lieutenant Governor, was Rebecca Kleefisch, a former television news reporter in Milwaukee."


Walker ran on spending cuts and the unions knew they needed to get a deal done before he took office.

 

[WhoWee]

Uh huh.. bolding mine:

"After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory."

So, an outgoing D scuttled it, and 100 million USD... and it took, "longer than any in recent memory".

This strikes me as the opposite of support for your claim; you've proven an exceptional exception, and it wasn't the unions.

The 12 to 18 month time frame Walker referred to as typical was at the local level - this post gave background on how long this process had already taken before they had to start over.

 

[nismaratwork]

The 12 to 18 month time frame Walker referred to as typical was at the local level - this post gave background on how long this process had already taken before they had to start over.

"Longer than any in recent memory"

... That seems pretty cut and dry.

 

[WhoWee]

"Longer than any in recent memory"

... That seems pretty cut and dry.

...again..."But the governor said Friday that he did not have 15 months to negotiate these issues with the union, the amount of time it typically takes for the state and its unions to agree on contracts."

Good night.

 

[nismaratwork]

...again..."But the governor said Friday that he did not have 15 months to negotiate these issues with the union, the amount of time it typically takes for the state and its unions to agree on contracts."

Good night.

You're relying on the governor who still claims this is a financial issue, and your own citation argues that this is rare. You've made a claim that has no backing except the words of one VERY interested politician.

You just cannot make that kind of claim based on what amounts to nothing and expect anything except incredulity and laughter.

Sweet Dreams.