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

[Amp1]

They must have learned to split hairs like that from somewhere. I think revoking a 'guarantee' for an action is tantamount to banning same.

 

[Al68]

They must have learned to split hairs like that from somewhere. I think revoking a 'guarantee' for an action is tantamount to banning same.

You would say that declining to employ someone is "banning" their employment? Sounds pretty silly to me.

The difference between declining to employ someone and literally "banning strikes" isn't splitting hairs, it's the difference between mutual liberty and oppression. Pretty big difference there.

 

[Opus_723]

That's because you are assuming that reports of "banning strikes" are written in plain English instead of fraudspeak. There are no plans to ban strikes, take away collective bargaining rights, etc, if those terms are taken literally.

What is actually being referred to is doing away with the practice of guaranteeing employment to union workers if they strike, not (literally) making it illegal to strike.

That would make sense, but I know I have read in several places (I'll look for a source and edit in a minute) that strikers would be subject to fines and possible jail time, which certainly sounds like "banning strikes" to me, and raises the ethical concerns I mentioned before.

EDIT: Sorry, it will take me a while to find the source, my internet is incredibly slow in the afternoons.

 

[Al68]

That would make sense, but I know I have read in several places (I'll look for a source and edit in a minute) that strikers would be subject to fines and possible jail time, which certainly sounds like "banning strikes" to me, and raises the ethical concerns I mentioned before.

That would be actually "banning strikes", and a despicable law (assuming it refers to peaceful strikes), and I would like to know if any such law is being proposed anywhere.

I don't see how it could have a chance of passing. I've never even heard of anyone advocating such a law in the U.S.

 

[Opus_723]

From Section 4117.15, found here: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_5_EN_N.pdf"

(A) No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a
strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause,
instigate, encourage, or condone a strike. Whenever a strike occurs, the
public employer may seek an injunction against the strike in the court of common pleas of the county in which the strike is located.

(B) Any person who violates division (A) of this section may be subject
to removal or other disciplinary action provided by law for misconduct. The
public employer, the state employment relations board, or any court of
competent jurisdiction shall not waive the penalties or fines provided in this
section as part of the settlement of an illegal strike.

(C) A public employee who is absent from work without permission or
who abstains wholly or in part from the full performance of the employee's
duties in the employee's normal manner without permission, on the date
when a strike occurs, shall be presumed to have engaged in the strike on that
date.

--------------------------
So far that's all I've found. It does appear that they're actually making strikes illegal for public workers, but I have yet to find what the actual punishments are. I can't tell if there are criminal punishments, or if it's just saying they'll fire you. I'll keep looking, but it's very hard to specifically find what you're looking for in these things, even WITH Ctrl+F.

Several papers have reported that punishment includes fines, and at one point jail time, but that the jail time was removed.

 

[WhoWee]

Did we ever find out who paid for the Democrats to flee the state to avoid voting?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US...s/2011/06/14/id/400078?s=al&promo_code=C708-1

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed Republican Gov. Scott Walker a major victory on Tuesday, ruling that a polarizing union law could take effect that strips most public employees of their collective-bargaining rights.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she said Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings statutes in the run-up to passage of the legislation and declared the law void.

The law, which also requires public employees to pay more for their health care and pensions, sparked weeks of protests when Walker introduced it in February. Tens of thousands of demonstrators occupied the state Capitol for weeks and Democratic senators fled the state to prevent a vote, thrusting Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights.

In a one-sentence reaction to the ruling, the governor said: "The Supreme Court's ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again."

Walker has claimed that the law was needed to help address the state's $3.6 billion budget shortfall and give local governments enough flexibility on labor costs to deal with deep cuts to state aid. Democrats saw it as an attack on public employee unions, which usually back their party's candidates."

 

[Ryumast3r]

Did we ever find out who paid for the Democrats to flee the state to avoid voting?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US...s/2011/06/14/id/400078?s=al&promo_code=C708-1

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed Republican Gov. Scott Walker a major victory on Tuesday, ruling that a polarizing union law could take effect that strips most public employees of their collective-bargaining rights.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she said Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings statutes in the run-up to passage of the legislation and declared the law void.

The law, which also requires public employees to pay more for their health care and pensions, sparked weeks of protests when Walker introduced it in February. Tens of thousands of demonstrators occupied the state Capitol for weeks and Democratic senators fled the state to prevent a vote, thrusting Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights.

In a one-sentence reaction to the ruling, the governor said: "The Supreme Court's ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again."

Walker has claimed that the law was needed to help address the state's $3.6 billion budget shortfall and give local governments enough flexibility on labor costs to deal with deep cuts to state aid. Democrats saw it as an attack on public employee unions, which usually back their party's candidates."

I think they may have gotten paid after the fact, but from what I got in my several e-mails to their offices, it was pretty much a quick decision they made and started with their own cash. I could be wrong, that's just what I gathered.

 

[WhoWee]

I think they may have gotten paid after the fact, but from what I got in my several e-mails to their offices, it was pretty much a quick decision they made and started with their own cash. I could be wrong, that's just what I gathered.

They responded to your requests - that's impressive. Are you a resident of Wisconsin (if you've mentioned it previously I sincerely apologize for not re-reading earlier posts)?

 

[Ryumast3r]

They responded to your requests - that's impressive. Are you a resident of Wisconsin (if you've mentioned it previously I sincerely apologize for not re-reading earlier posts)?

It was either them or a secretary, hard to tell sometimes, but no, I'm not a resident of Wisconsin, which made it even more surprising.

 

[WhoWee]

It was either them or a secretary, hard to tell sometimes, but no, I'm not a resident of Wisconsin, which made it even more surprising.

FAILURE - the Republicans prevail in Wisconsin - voters are sending a message - IMO.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wisconsin-assess-20110811,0,2981481.story

"Wisconsin recall election a test of voter sentiment
The outcome was close, but four Republican state senators prevailed. The results foreshadow the challenge Democrats and President Obama face in 2012."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here we go again

Judge throws out Walker's collective bargaining law
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...s-union-bargaining-law-3h6s8fp-169834626.html

 

[mheslep]

Here we go again

Judge throws out Walker's collective bargaining law
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...s-union-bargaining-law-3h6s8fp-169834626.html

Sure to overturned I would think at the state level.