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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Wisconsin is experiencing significant labor protests, with over 20,000 people gathering at the Capitol in response to Governor Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public workers. Many schools are closing as teachers participate in the protests, reflecting a deep divide among residents regarding labor rights and union protections. The situation has drawn comparisons to the protests in Cairo, highlighting the intensity of the unrest. While some support the proposed wage and benefit cuts, concerns about the stripping of collective bargaining rights under the Freedom of Association are prevalent. The ongoing protests raise questions about the future of labor relations and the potential for similar movements in other states.
  • #331


The only reason negotiation would take so long is that one or both sides are unwilling to negotiate and compromise. The issues are known and resolvable. As has been said this is not rocket science. My perception is (and it may be wrong) that the unions are doing what they have been mandated to do, represent their members, and that the Governor is pursuing an agenda that is not primarily in the interests of the electorate.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #332


nismaratwork said:
"Longer than any in recent memory"

... That seems pretty cut and dry.

I could not agree more - 18 months is clearly a loy longer than the "norm" as described by Walker of 15 months - ESPECIALLY in the context of turbos assertion the entire process should take only 2 weeks - those 3 months are a lifetime.
 
  • #333


WhoWee said:
I could not agree more - 18 months is clearly a loy longer than the "norm" as described by Walker of 15 months - ESPECIALLY in the context of turbos assertion the entire process should take only 2 weeks - those 3 months are a lifetime.
Do you not see the gross inconsistency in logic here? After repeatedly rejecting Turbo's estimate you now decide that you will use it to strengthen your argument. Sorry, you can not have cake and ~cake too.
 
  • #334


Maybe I can shed some light, however anecdotal and subject to poor recollection, to this discussion.

I was a member of the Wisconsin graduate teaching student union. All Teaching Assistants were in the union.

My memory is that contract negotiations were around 6 months (give or take a few months). We were part of much larger union, so our contract and negotiations were tied with that. Which is why I assumed it took much longer for the negotiations compared to the private sector.

So, in a sense, you are both correct (from my point of view).

I think there is some question about what exactly takes 15 months to negotiate... is it all the negotiations with all the unions? Every single union contract is up at the same time? That seems a really dumb way to set things up. Or maybe it lawfully has to happen that way.

Either way, I think Walker's argument about the amount of time needed is BS. If that was the case, wouldn't the contracts for Firefighters, State police and one more that I cannot remember, be out the door also? But wait, they are explicitly left out of the union busting bill.
 
  • #335


Gokul43201 said:
Do you not see the gross inconsistency in logic here? After repeatedly rejecting Turbo's estimate you now decide that you will use it to strengthen your argument. Sorry, you can not have cake and ~cake too.

I have no reason to doubt that turbo's recount of his experience is accurate - it was a local negotiation with very specific issues. At the same time, Walker has re-counted his experience at the local government level at 15 months and the union official has stipulated the process (at 18) months has run longer than in recent memory. Given the information available, the only conclusions I can draw are the ones in my last post.

The 18 months is
3 months longer than Walker said is typical. The 3 months is 20% longer than Walker said is typical. The union official did not stipulate as to the norm, but he indicated there are 39,000 people involved. Turbo's recount of a 2 week process serves as a good tool to measure whether the 3 months (13 weeks) - 6.5 times turbo's experience fits the description of "longer" - how am I incorrect?
 
  • #336


Norman said:
...Firefighters, State police and one more that I cannot remember...
State troopers.

There was mention earlier in this thread that lawmakers were also to be exempt from the pension cuts, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources supporting that.
 
  • #337


WhoWee said:
The 18 months is
3 months longer than Walker said is typical. The 3 months is 20% longer than Walker said is typical. The union official did not stipulate as to the norm, but he indicated there are 39,000 people involved. Turbo's recount of a 2 week process serves as a good tool to measure whether the 3 months (13 weeks) - 6.5 times turbo's experience fits the description of "longer" - how am I incorrect?
In the most obvious way.

If turbo's number is deemed good enough to use as a measuring stick, then it automatically invalidates any claims that 15 months is a good estimate. If turbo's number can not be used to determine whether 15 months is reasonable or not, then it most certainly also can not be used to determine if 18 months - 15 months is long or short.

Do I really have to spell this out?
 
  • #338


Gokul43201 said:
In the most obvious way.

If turbo's number is deemed good enough to use as a measuring stick, then it automatically invalidates any claims that 15 months is a good estimate. If turbo's number can not be used to determine whether 15 months is reasonable or not, then it most certainly also can not be used to determine if 18 months - 15 months is long or short.

Do I really have to spell this out?

Turbo recounted an experience with a pulp mill and very specific issues. I absolutely believe it took turbo 2 weeks to reach an agreement. The Wisconsin issue is much more complex.

The notice I posted earlier apparently required 1 weeks notice there would be a meeting - 50% of the time it took turbo to reach an agreement.

The union leader specified they spent 18 months through December 2010 - before Walker took office - and were unable to reach agreement with the outgoing Democrats. The union and the Democrats knew it would be more difficult to achieve agreement once Walker took office - they still couldn't come to terms (again - after 18 months).

Yes Gokul, please spell it out.
 
  • #339


WhoWee said:
Yes Gokul, please spell it out.
I just did, twice. Now you're asking me to spell the letters. I give up.
 
  • #340


The bill passed the Ohio senate yesterday: SB 5. It specifically denies collective bargaining to faculty by classifying them as managerial employees:

"any faculty who, individually or through a faculty senate, or like organization, participate in the governance of the institution, are involved in personnel decisions, selection or review of administrators, planning and use of physical resources, budget preparation, and determination of educational policies related to admissions, curriculum, subject matter, and methods of instruction and research, are management level employees."

Note, these have *nothing* to do with salary or benefits. SB 5 does not address the budget, it addresses who controls the educational system in Ohio.
 
  • #341


Andy Resnick said:
The bill passed the Ohio senate yesterday: SB 5. It specifically denies collective bargaining to faculty by classifying them as managerial employees:

"any faculty who, individually or through a faculty senate, or like organization, participate in the governance of the institution, are involved in personnel decisions, selection or review of administrators, planning and use of physical resources, budget preparation, and determination of educational policies related to admissions, curriculum, subject matter, and methods of instruction and research, are management level employees."

Note, these have *nothing* to do with salary or benefits. SB 5 does not address the budget, it addresses who controls the educational system in Ohio.

I think the most important component of the OH Bill is it seeks to put and end to binding arbitration.
 
  • #342


I think the debate over the length of negotiations is BS. It's not unreasonable to assume government runs somewhat like most offices.

You have a deadline of x date for project A.

Your ambitious managers want their staff to start working on project A 18 months before the deadline to make sure things are resolved before the deadline. Ambitious manager's staff starts to work only to find ...

Your less enthusiastic managers blow project A off until a month before it's due and then tell their staff project A has to take priority over everything else.

Since ambitious manager's staff depends on stuff from less enthusiastic manager's staff, ambitious managers staff loses heart and responds with a "Meh, I'll take a look at it and see where we are" whenever ambitious manager pesters them for progress reports.

Everything important gets done during the last month regardless of how long ambitious manager claimed their staff worked on the project.

Bottom line: If relations are good, the government and union come to an agreement ahead of time; everyone knows what's going to happen; everyone can plan their future and the future budget - regardless of when the actual contract is signed. If relations are bad, nothing will get done until the deadline is looming and both sides begin to sweat.
 
  • #343


BobG said:
I think the debate over the length of negotiations is BS. It's not unreasonable to assume government runs somewhat like most offices.

You have a deadline of x date for project A.

Your ambitious managers want their staff to start working on project A 18 months before the deadline to make sure things are resolved before the deadline. Ambitious manager's staff starts to work only to find ...

Your less enthusiastic managers blow project A off until a month before it's due and then tell their staff project A has to take priority over everything else.

Since ambitious manager's staff depends on stuff from less enthusiastic manager's staff, ambitious managers staff loses heart and responds with a "Meh, I'll take a look at it and see where we are" whenever ambitious manager pesters them for progress reports.

Everything important gets done during the last month regardless of how long ambitious manager claimed their staff worked on the project.

Bottom line: If relations are good, the government and union come to an agreement ahead of time; everyone knows what's going to happen; everyone can plan their future and the future budget - regardless of when the actual contract is signed. If relations are bad, nothing will get done until the deadline is looming and both sides begin to sweat.

The Democrats that now side with the union - could not reach an agreement with them during an 18 month period. As a result, the union must now reach an agreement with a Republican majority lead by a Governor that ran on a platform of cuts.
 
  • #344


WhoWee said:
The Democrats that now side with the union - could not reach an agreement with them during an 18 month period. As a result, the union must now reach an agreement with a Republican majority lead by a Governor that ran on a platform of cuts.

And that is a real problem for the union. I think it's safe to say the current administration will be less likely to give in than the past administration was.

Walker's comment...
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.

... is just a BS statement tossed out there since negotiations have already been ongoing for 18 months. Both sides already know where they stand and it's a simply a matter of neither side budging any further.

It's the difference between each side's position that's relevant; not how long it would take to negotiate a contract from scratch. Negotiating from scratch would require each side to figure out what they wanted, find out what the other side is willing to give, and then start figuring out what parts of what they want are essential, what concessions they can live with, etc. All of that's been done already. Neither side will start over from scratch.

His comment is a meaningless rhetorical exclamation - no more, no less.
 
  • #345


BobG said:
And that is a real problem for the union. I think it's safe to say the current administration will be less likely to give in than the past administration was.

Walker's comment...


... is just a BS statement tossed out there since negotiations have already been ongoing for 18 months. Both sides already know where they stand and it's a simply a matter of neither side budging any further.

It's the difference between each side's position that's relevant; not how long it would take to negotiate a contract from scratch. Negotiating from scratch would require each side to figure out what they wanted, find out what the other side is willing to give, and then start figuring out what parts of what they want are essential, what concessions they can live with, etc. All of that's been done already. Neither side will start over from scratch.

His comment is a meaningless rhetorical exclamation - no more, no less.

The context of Walker's comment has been blurred - he was referring to local negotiations.
 
  • #346


Maine's new tea party governor wants to roll back environmental protection regulations, abolish our state's bottle-bill (deposits on returnables), and abolish the Land Use Regulation Commission that is responsible for monitoring and regulating development, mining, wood harvesting, etc in the unorganized townships. He also wants to separate Health and Human Services from Medicaid. The previous (Democratic) governor had combined those two bodies, resulting in a reduction in head-count of about 300 and considerable dollar savings and reduction of duplication of services. LePage wants to separate them, in preparation for an attack on MaineCare, which he has been railing against since the campaign began. He says he wants to separate them to save money, but has no explanation how that can happen, since the previous governor saved a lot of money simply by combining them.

And, guess who is under attack? State employees. He wants to slash their pensions and health-care benefits. His argument is that he is doing this FOR the state employees because if we don't slash their negotiated benefits now, we won't be able to pay them in the future. Got that?
 
  • #347


turbo-1 said:
And, guess who is under attack? State employees. He wants to slash their pensions and health-care benefits. His argument is that he is doing this FOR the state employees because if we don't slash their negotiated benefits now, we won't be able to pay them in the future. Got that?

You mean he doesn't want to do what Bethlehem Steel, National Steel, Kaiser Steel, Kaiser Aluminum, Eastern Air Lines, United Airlines, TWA, US Airways, Singer, Lehman Brothers, Circuit City, etal did? Promise pensions and then default on them so that pensioners have to go to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to see just how much of that pension they'll actually get?

There is a responsibility to only promise what the state is likely able to deliver on. It's tough to plan a retirement if the pension turns out to be less than what was promised.
 
  • #348


WhoWee said:
I could not agree more - 18 months is clearly a loy longer than the "norm" as described by Walker of 15 months - ESPECIALLY in the context of turbos assertion the entire process should take only 2 weeks - those 3 months are a lifetime.

Longer than the norm, in recent memory... i.e. not a reason to bust the unions... not a rule, and as Gokul has pointed out, and illogical and destructive metric against any other anecdote.

Oh yeah, and now it's "lets give public employees 401Ks"... right... because we saw how fabulous and safe those are.

Give me a reason WhoWee... why this, and not defense? Why not more taxes? Why bust the union even after the gap has been closed, and in doing so, losing your mandate?

This is blatantly political, your defense irrational and fallacious, and your persistance dishonest.

YOU. ARE. BETTER. THAN. THIS.
 
  • #349


Andy Resnick said:
The bill passed the Ohio senate yesterday: SB 5. It specifically denies collective bargaining to faculty by classifying them as managerial employees:

"any faculty who, individually or through a faculty senate, or like organization, participate in the governance of the institution, are involved in personnel decisions, selection or review of administrators, planning and use of physical resources, budget preparation, and determination of educational policies related to admissions, curriculum, subject matter, and methods of instruction and research, are management level employees."

Note, these have *nothing* to do with salary or benefits. SB 5 does not address the budget, it addresses who controls the educational system in Ohio.

Absurd... so we'll have to re-learn why unions work, and how they survive even when busted? Great. I'm in a killing mood.
 
  • #350


nismaratwork said:
Oh yeah, and now it's "lets give public employees 401Ks"... right... because we saw how fabulous and safe those are.

In one sense, it's the more honest solution. Everyone knows what the state or company is paying for and everyone knows the risks.

On the other hand, it's a worse deal for employees since governments are seen as more reliable than private companies when it comes to pensions.

The latter relies on some assumptions that might be a little shaky if the government is running high deficits on a routine basis. Just like with Social Security, you're relying on future voters choosing to honor those commitments by continuing to pay higher and higher taxes.

It's nice to say the government is legally and morally bound to honor the promises it made, but I tend to be just a little bit afraid that all of the young people in the nation might not see themselves morally bound to fulfill promises I made to myself (or at least promises the government I elected made to me).
 
  • #351


BobG said:
In one sense, it's the more honest solution. Everyone knows what the state or company is paying for and everyone knows the risks.

On the other hand, it's a worse deal for employees since governments are seen as more reliable than private companies when it comes to pensions.

The latter relies on some assumptions that might be a little shaky if the government is running high deficits on a routine basis. Just like with Social Security, you're relying on future voters choosing to honor those commitments by continuing to pay higher and higher taxes.

It's nice to say the government is legally and morally bound to honor the promises it made, but I tend to be just a little bit afraid that all of the young people in the nation might not see themselves morally bound to fulfill promises I made to myself (or at least promises the government I elected made to me).

You should be concerned, we don't.
 
  • #352


BobG said:
There is a responsibility to only promise what the state is likely able to deliver on. It's tough to plan a retirement if the pension turns out to be less than what was promised.
Even more grating to public employees, their benefits are negotiated, and they are underpaid compared to private-sector employees. So to have their pensions and health benefits cut after years of service is a real slap in the face. I have been a party to contract negotiations, and labor traditionally has to look at their compensation as a package. Give up some wages in return for better retirement benefits and health-care? That is standard operating procedure. Now after years of making those compromises to try to ensure a secure retirement, LePage roars in wanting to take back those benefits.

A NYT/CBS poll published Tuesday shows that US citizens oppose weakening public unions and taking back negotiated benefits by a margin of about 2:1.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html
 
Last edited:
  • #353


Lets be clear... this is not a group of idiots. Our budgets are disasters because of entitlements, and defense.

This is just sticking it to the poor, which is like a comedian ripping on the Amish... very little feedback that matters. Why is it wise to go after unions and teachers, but it's a mortal sin to tax the crap out of the obscenely wealthy?... answer: Who has the voice?

Everything is corrupt, consider unions the working man's check, and voice. What a shock there is an attempt to eviscerate them.
 
  • #354


State officials said Thursday that damage to the marble inside and out the State Capitol would cost an estimated $7.5 million.

Much of the damage apparently has come from tape used to put up signs and placards at the Capitol.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117340918.html


Would anyone like to comment on this estimate. $7.5m to remove tape from marble?
 
  • #355


Greg Bernhardt said:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117340918.html


Would anyone like to comment on this estimate. $7.5m to remove tape from marble?

I think the issue is that it's a "historical" building, thus bound to certain cleaning. Frankly, it smells like everything else coming out of Wisconsin lately... the southbound end of a northbound cow.

I'm mortally tired of these games, this rhetorical nonsense... this is union busting, and the people doing the busting don't have the balls to admit they're just Pinkerton 2.0

On the bright side, it's always fun to watch people like Walker self-destruct.
 
  • #356


Greg Bernhardt said:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117340918.html


Would anyone like to comment on this estimate. $7.5m to remove tape from marble?
If the governor's brother is going to clean up the tape residue, I'd say that the estimate is low. Tax-payers had better bend over and brace for impact.
 
  • #357


turbo-1 said:
If the governor's brother is going to clean up the tape residue, I'd say that the estimate is low. Tax-payers had better bend over and brace for impact.

*southern draw* Yessir, going to be like runnin' backwards though a cornfield, nekkid.


The protesters are peacefully leaving by the way, because a judge ruled that during business hours, they cannot legally keep them out, even in droves.

Poor Walker... he's the brick sinking his party in WI, and now Gingrich is back? :smile:

Obama must be laughing his nuts off.
 
  • #358


Greg Bernhardt said:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117340918.html


Would anyone like to comment on this estimate. $7.5m to remove tape from marble?
I'd like to ask the question that no one's asking - perhaps I'm just being intensely dense in not getting this.

From the article: "...estimates of damage to marble includes $6 million to repair damaged marble inside the Capitol, $1 million for damage outside and $500,000 for costs to supervise the damage."

What exactly does that last bit mean? What does supervision of damage involve?
 
  • #359


Gokul43201 said:
From the article: "...estimates of damage to marble includes $6 million to repair damaged marble inside the Capitol, $1 million for damage outside and $500,000 for costs to supervise the damage."

I will volunteer to watch people remove tape from marble for $500k!
 
  • #360


Greg Bernhardt said:
I will volunteer to watch people remove tape from marble for $500k!
Can I sub-contract the watching? I would gladly drive out there and camp in my Forester for a share of that! I can supervise tape-adhesive removal with the best of them!