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

[cobalt124]

Perhaps we have different definitions of a pension.

Yes I think we do. Having read your posts a second time, I understand the reasoning.

It really shouldn't be. No one ever said Americans were smart though. Believe me: I've seen statistics that expound us for being stupid, actually.

Yes, I'd have to confess that in my time I have fallen for that stereotype, without actually meeting an American that fits it.

But as long as we're getting out the chopping block and cleaver: I again suggest that we start from the top down. Why doesn't somebody in Wisconsin pull together a portfolio of their elected official's perks and benefits, and see how much fat they could shave off their asses.

Agreed.

I believe this has become a clear issue of union-busting, and that makes any other claim that was used to cover that act suspect.

It certainly looks that way to me.

I find neither intimidating, myself. If I couldn't negotiate with someone on the terms of a purchase or employment, I might as well be someone's pet instead of a free person.

Intimidation doesn't come into it. Given a government employer, backed by corporate interests, having all its own way on its own terms, a union would have a chance of representing employers and fighting back. Dealing with employees on an individual basis, would be a "divide and conquer paradise" for the employer,and no matter how assertive an individual was, he'd probably have to purr sweetly, rollover or play fetch stick or something, just to get employed.

It might be a good time to consider a parliamentary form of government...

I find it quite scary that these people just can't be booted out. If you take up the parliamentary option, its not easy to boot them out, but it is possible.

...the bill also has a provision to "sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without the solicitation of bids."...

If this is true, it's just a license to be corrupt.

 

[WhoWee]

I find it quite scary that these people just can't be booted out. If you take up the parliamentary option, its not easy to boot them out, but it is possible.

Are you suggesting that the 14 Senators that fled the state - to hide out (apparently at taxpayer expense) and avoid doing their job - be booted?

 

[Amp1]

No, but the Rs that tried to ram the bill thru without any debate or hearings should be along w the Gov.

 

[Al68]

Still, I have to question how you find neither intimidating... why don't you?

Because I've never had a reason to be intimidated by a car salesman or employer except the military (the only employer to ever have power over me). The real question is: why be intimidated?

 

[WhoWee]

No, but the Rs that tried to ram the bill thru without any debate or hearings should be along w the Gov.

Who should the Republicans debate WITH - when the Democrats are hiding out (apparently at taxpayer expense) in another state so they won't have to debate or vote?

 

[Norman]

Who should the Republicans debate WITH - when the Democrats are hiding out (apparently at taxpayer expense) in another state so they won't have to debate or vote?

Do you have proof that it is at taxpayer expense? Otherwise, please stop saying "apparently at taxpayer expense." If you have proof, I would really love to see it. Because if it is at taxpayer expense, people should know.

The point is that the Republicans were going to force a vote without enough debate. Why? Just look at the giant gathering in Madison. Both sides do it in power. This time it failed for the Republicans. It will fail for the Dems in the future too. Won't stop either party from trying again.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you have proof that it is at taxpayer expense? Otherwise, please stop saying "apparently at taxpayer expense." If you have proof, I would really love to see it. Because if it is at taxpayer expense, people should know.

The point is that the Republicans were going to force a vote without enough debate. Why? Just look at the giant gathering in Madison. Both sides do it in power. This time it failed for the Republicans. It will fail for the Dems in the future too. Won't stop either party from trying again.

I've posted several times in the past week - inquiring how the expenses for the legislators in hiding would be paid. Nobody has posted anything definitive in response yet.

I've heard a few people on the cable tv channels indicate it is at taxpayer expense - hence the "apparent" label as I still don't have confirmation. The use of the word "apparent" is to find an answer - I want to know as well.

As for the behavior of legislators hiding out to avoid a vote they fear they'll lose - children throw temper tantrums and adults face their problems.

 

[Containment]

Oh cmon you really think it isn't at tax payer expense? Anyhow I was just going to ask is there a name for the ploy the 14 dems in Wisconsin are doing? If not it really should have one so I'm open to suggestions the funnier the better :)

 

[WhoWee]

Oh cmon you really think it isn't at tax payer expense? Anyhow I was just going to ask is there a name for the ploy the 14 dems in Wisconsin are doing? If not it really should have one so I'm open to suggestions the funnier the better :)

If they manage to have a scandal of some type while at the hotel (use your imagination) - more than likely a catchy label will ensue.

 

[Norman]

Oh cmon you really think it isn't at tax payer expense? Anyhow I was just going to ask is there a name for the ploy the 14 dems in Wisconsin are doing? If not it really should have one so I'm open to suggestions the funnier the better :)

My vote is the "Madtown Maneuver"

I've posted several times in the past week - inquiring how the expenses for the legislators in hiding would be paid. Nobody has posted anything definitive in response yet.

I've heard a few people on the cable tv channels indicate it is at taxpayer expense - hence the "apparent" label as I still don't have confirmation. The use of the word "apparent" is to find an answer - I want to know as well.

As for the behavior of legislators hiding out to avoid a vote they fear they'll lose - children throw temper tantrums and adults face their problems.

My gut feeling is who foots the bill depends largely on if their ploy works or not. If it fails, let the taxpayers eat it. Their political capitol is all used up anyways. But we won't know until the credit card bills come in, then someone has to request them, finally, someone has to comply with the request. So, a long time after it has all been decided.

 

[WhoWee]

Which would be worse - if the 14 Senators had their expenses (incurred while hiding out of state from voting on important legislation) paid by the taxpayers or by a union? Any opinions?

 

[Norman]

Which would be worse - if the 14 Senators had their expenses (incurred while hiding out of state from voting on important legislation) paid by the taxpayers or by a union? Any opinions?

I say union is worse and I am a former Wisconsin state union worker. I hate the new special interest control of the our government- regardless of the special interest.

I could kind of see the argument for the taxpayers - don't know if I buy it - but it seems plausible.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you love bills that are voted on without being read and debated - the so-called "rammed down our throats" process - you'll love this bill. This one seems particularly special: Republicans arrive early to hold the vote even before the scheduled time, so they don't have to listen to minority opinions and amendments!

 

[nismaratwork]

If you love bills that are voted on without being read and debated - the so-called "rammed down our throats" process - you'll love this bill. This one seems particularly special: Republicans arrive early to hold the vote even before the scheduled time, so they don't have to listen to minority opinions and amendments!

Well... what a bunch of "What a needle does".

 

[WhoWee]

If you love bills that are voted on without being read and debated - the so-called "rammed down our throats" process - you'll love this bill. This one seems particularly special: Republicans arrive early to hold the vote even before the scheduled time, so they don't have to listen to minority opinions and amendments!

Did you see the body language of the Speaker of the House and the fellow sitting just behind the person on the rant - not much response to a dramatic delivery?

If he's THIS outraged over a 147 page Bill that had some off-topic items included - how should all Americans feel about a 2,000+ page healthcare reform Bill stuffed with off-topic spending and a massive expansion of the IRS included - that nobody had a chance to read?

 

[nismaratwork]

Did you see the body language of the Speaker of the House and the fellow sitting just behind the person on the rant - not much response to a dramatic delivery?

If he's THIS outraged over a 147 page Bill that had some off-topic items included - how should all Americans feel about a 2,000+ page healthcare reform Bill stuffed with off-topic spending and a massive expansion of the IRS included - that nobody had a chance to read?

Given that if anyone wanted to, they could have read it by now... about the same.

 

[Norman]

If you love bills that are voted on without being read and debated - the so-called "rammed down our throats" process - you'll love this bill. This one seems particularly special: Republicans arrive early to hold the vote even before the scheduled time, so they don't have to listen to minority opinions and amendments!

Wow, nice. I like his righteous indignation too.

 

[Gokul43201]

Did you see the body language of the Speaker of the House and the fellow sitting just behind the person on the rant - not much response to a dramatic delivery?

What's your point?

If he's THIS outraged over a 147 page Bill that had some off-topic items included -

He is outraged, in large part, from finding that Republicans had decided to sneak in a vote even before the Dems had arrived for it. I suppose you find that honorable?

how should all Americans feel about a 2,000+ page healthcare reform Bill stuffed with off-topic spending and a massive expansion of the IRS included - that nobody had a chance to read?

This is a joke? The first drafts of the healthcare bill were introduced in June 2009, the nearly finalized versions in Oct 2009; there were...

...dozens of town hall meetings,
...at least a half-dozen House recesses and a similar number of Senate recesses,
...several dozens (hundreds?) of public opinion polls,
...some double-digit number of amendment hearings (I stopped counting at July 2009),
...and about 35 CBO reports (by my count, I may have missed some), ...

before the bill was finally voted through in March, 2010. That's over 8 months, including some 7 weeks of recess time, and plenty of help from the dozens of congressional staffers that each Congressperson has access to, to digest and debate and praise or vilify the 2400 pages of healthcare bill.

"Nobody had a chance to read"? Hogwash! If they didn't read it, it's because they chose not to. Not that that prevented you from repeating this again and again (how many times would you say?) in different threads here.

You'd think that by those standards, YOU would be outraged that the people of WI and the members of the State Legislature, with their relative pittance of staff, were given 3-4 days to read and vote on a 140 page bill. Outraged, that this bill was being rammed down their throats.

 

[WhoWee]

What's your point?

He is outraged, in large part, from finding that Republicans had decided to sneak in a vote even before the Dems had arrived for it. I suppose you find that honorable?

This is a joke? The first drafts of the healthcare bill were introduced in June 2009, the nearly finalized versions in Oct 2009, there were dozens (hundreds?) of town hall meetings, at least a half-dozen House recesses and a similar number of Senate recesses, several dozen public opinion polls, over a dozen amendments (I stopped counting at July 2009), and about 35 CBO reports (by my count, I may have missed some), before the bill was finally voted through in March, 2010. That's over 250 days, including some 7 weeks of recess time, and plenty of help from the dozens of congressional staffers that each Congressperson has access to, to digest and debate 2400 pages.

Didn't have a chance to read? Hogwash! If they didn't read it, it's because they chose not to. Not that that prevented you from repeating this again and again (how many times would you say?) in different threads here.

You'd think that by those standards, YOU would be outraged that the people of WI and the members of the State Legislature, with their relative pittance of staff, were given 3-4 days to read and vote on a 140 page bill. That this bill was [/i]rammed down their throats.[/i]

The body language of his associates indicate they were not moved by his performance.

As for his claim that he was told the wrong time - was he the only one? Have any other Democrats made this claim? As for his inability to read the 147 pages - are you certain he never saw a draft?

As for repeating that legislators were not given adequate time to read the 2,000+ page final document - I'll say it again now - they didn't read the Bill. Now we know the law might not even be legal - maybe they should've gotten an opinion before enacting the law - but that would have required THEY READ IT FIRST - wouldn't it?

IMO - this guy makes for great YouTube - real dramatic and laughable. If he was serious, he'd demand his associates (the ones hiding in another state) return and join him in public debates.

 

[nismaratwork]

The body language of his associates indicate they were not moved by his performance.

Sociopaths and people with strong sociopathic affect and traits rarely are.

As for his claim that he was told the wrong time - was he the only one? Have any other Democrats made this claim? As for his inability to read the 147 pages - are you certain he never saw a draft?

Has anyone even counter-claimed that?

As for repeating that legislators were not given adequate time to read the 2,000+ page final document - I'll say it again now - they didn't read the Bill. Now we know the law might not even be legal - maybe they should've gotten an opinion before enacting the law - but that would have required THEY READ IT FIRST - wouldn't it?

This is a straw man... you're better than this.

IMO - this guy makes for great YouTube - real dramatic and laughable. If he was serious, he'd demand his associates (the ones hiding in another state) return and join him in public debates.

He's serious, his body language makes that clear, or at least he's worked himsefl up to a point where it's hard to tell. Yes, it's theatre, but that doesn't make him wrong. You're avoiding the substance I've come to expect from you man... come on.

 

[Gokul43201]

The body language of his associates indicate they were not moved by his performance.

Even assuming you are able to accurately read this from watching faces - I doubt you'd be able to tell whether or not I was moved when I watched the video - again, W H A T . I S . Y O U R . P O I N T ?

As for his claim that he was told the wrong time - was he the only one?

I'm going to ignore the misdirection here - I hope it isn't intentional. The point is not that he was told the wrong time. It is that Democrats were informed that a vote was scheduled for 5pm and Republicans started voting a few minutes earlier, clearly before all the Dems had arrived, yet somehow all the Repubs knew to be there early!

Have any other Democrats made this claim?

Why should they? Have any Republicans refuted it?

As for his inability to read the 147 pages - are you certain he never saw a draft?

No, I'm not "certain". The Congressman said he wasn't shown anything ("not even talking points"), and I'm taking his word for it until something contradicts it. Do you have any evidence at all to suggest otherwise? Have any Republicans rejected his claims?

As for repeating that legislators were not given adequate time to read the 2,000+ page final document - I'll say it again now - they didn't read the Bill.

That's not "saying it again." That's saying a COMPLETELY different thing. All within one sentence. Wow!

Now we know the law might not even be legal - maybe they should've gotten an opinion before enacting the law - but that would have required THEY READ IT FIRST - wouldn't it?

Do you assert that 8 months was not enough to to get "an opinion"? How is it that they (the Republicans) supposedly couldn't find the time to get "an opinion", when they found the time to hold dozens of town hall meetings, when the CBO found the time to research and produce dozens of reports, when the public found the time to weigh in on dozens of polls?

IMO - this guy makes for great YouTube - real dramatic and laughable.

The bluster of the congressman is irrelevant. The video provides better understanding of the facts of the case. If you want to ignore that in favor of critiquing theatrical value or psychoanalyzing emotional impact, you're just side stepping the issue.

If he was serious, he'd demand his associates (the ones hiding in another state) return and join him in public debates.

Are you really not getting the point, or just pretending not to? The WI Republicans showed no indication of ever allowing the Dems to engage in a debate of any kind. The Dems showing up would be the surest way of ensuring that there be no debate.

 

[WhoWee]

Even assuming you are able to accurately read this from watching faces - I doubt you'd be able to tell whether or not I was moved when I watched the video - again, W H A T . I S . Y O U R . P O I N T ?

I'm going to ignore the misidrection here. The point is not that he was told the wrong time. It is that Democrats were informed that a vote was scheduled for 5pm and Republicans started voting a few minutes earlier.

Why should they? Have any Republicans refuted it?

No, I'm not "certain". Are you certain that Walker is not a KKK supporter?

That's not "saying it again." That's saying a COMPLETELY different thing.

So you assert that 8 months was not enough to to get "an opinion". How is it that they (the Republicans) supposedly couldn't find the time to get "an opinion", when they found the time to hold dozens of town hall meetings, when the CBO found the time to research and produce dozens of reports, when the public got to weigh in on dozens of polls. Excuses!

The bluster of the congressman is irrelevant. The video provides better understanding of that facts of the case. If you want to ignore that in favor of critiquing theatrical value or psychoanalyzing emotional impact, you're just side stepping the issue.

Are you really not getting the point, or just pretending not to? The WI Republicans showed no indication of ever allowing the Dems to engage in a debate of any kind. The Dems showing up would be the surest way of PREVENTING debate.

Let me re-cap what we know:

-A legislator made a very dramatic and theatrical speech - that at least 2 people shown sitting behind him didn't even seem to pay attention to - the (apparent) Speaker of the House was shown talking to someone else during the rant.
-The legislator claims he was told the wrong time - but we don't know if anyone else commented in agreement or disagreement?
-He claims he didn't have time to read 147 (I think he said 147?) pages and was outraged that some other off-topic item was inserted - but we don't know if he saw a draft previously or whether he really found out the details on the radio - again - anyone else agree or disagree with him on the record?

My opinion is that this is great YouTube footage - nothing else - until it's corroborated.

As for your question - "Are you really not getting the point, or just pretending not to? The WI Republicans showed no indication of ever allowing the Dems to engage in a debate of any kind. The Dems showing up would be the surest way of PREVENTING debate" - are the Democrats going to hide-out until the next election?

Where was your outrage when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi manipulated the rules?

 

[Gokul43201]

Let me re-cap what we know:

-A legislator made a very dramatic and theatrical speech - that at least 2 people shown sitting behind him didn't even seem to pay attention to - the (apparent) Speaker of the House was shown talking to someone else during the rant.
-The legislator claims he was told the wrong time - but we don't know if anyone else commented in agreement or disagreement?
-He claims he didn't have time to read 147 (I think he said 147?) pages and was outraged that some other off-topic item was inserted - but we don't know if he saw a draft previously or whether he really found out the details on the radio - again - anyone else agree or disagree with him on the record?

My opinion is that this is great YouTube footage - nothing else - until it's corroborated.

As for your question - "Are you really not getting the point, or just pretending not to? The WI Republicans showed no indication of ever allowing the Dems to engage in a debate of any kind. The Dems showing up would be the surest way of PREVENTING debate" - are the Democrats going to hide-out until the next election?

So you have ABSOLUTELY nothing substantive to say, other that we can't be sure he isn't lying. Fine! That's good to know.

Where was your outrage when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi manipulated the rules?

Please! I opposed both of their re-elections and said so in one or the other thread here. Don't even TRY to make this about ME! All this misdirection doesn't help your case at all.

 

[turbo]

Is there a budget crisis in Wisconsin? No, there is a projected shortfall that is self-inflicted by the GOP.

There is a kernel of truth in Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's claim of a "budget shortfall" of $137 million. But Walker, a Republican, failed to tell the state that less than two weeks into his term as governor, he, with his swollen Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature, pushed through $117 million in tax breaks for business allies of the GOP. There is your crisis.

The state Legislature's Legislative Fiscal Bureau -- Wisconsin's equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office and a refuge for professional expertise and nonpartisanship -- warned Walker and the legislature that the measure would create a budget gap. There is your shortfall -- and not one resulting from established public employee benefits. Before the tax giveaways, the fiscal agency predicted a surplus for the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-kutler/what-gov-walker-wont-tell_1_b_827104.html

So of course, the GOP's favorite bogeyman (collective bargaining) is to blame, and rank and file workers must pay for the tax cuts given to businesses.

 

[WhoWee]

I didn't notice if anyone posted these?

http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/pcs/taxrates.html

Top income tax rate is 7.75% (over a fixed max). The sales tax is 5% to 5.5%.

 

[WhoWee]

This is interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/transcript/low-grades-wisconsin-schools

"Just days after Wisconsin teachers forced school closings so they could engage in protest marches, we learn that two-thirds of the eighth graders in the state's public schools cannot read proficiently."

 

[Norman]

I didn't notice if anyone posted these?

http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/pcs/taxrates.html

Top income tax rate is 7.75% (over a fixed max). The sales tax is 5% to 5.5%.

Note - the state sales tax is 5% flat. The extra possible 0.5% is either county or in the case of Brown County it is a stadium tax to pay for Lambeau Field or the southeastern counties have a 0.1% Miller Park tax.

 

[Norman]

This is interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/transcript/low-grades-wisconsin-schools

"Just days after Wisconsin teachers forced school closings so they could engage in protest marches, we learn that two-thirds of the eighth graders in the state's public schools cannot read proficiently."

Which is 4% higher than the national average. You need to consider relative differences here since proficiency is a relative metric.

Since Fox (like every other major news outlet) can't be bothered to actually cite their research, I will present something similar. Wisconsin is a well educated state. See this link for the number of high scores on standardized tests by state: http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=22
Wisconsin is in the top bracket.

Also see ACT scores by state: http://www.act.org/news/data/09/states.html
In composite score, Wisconsin is ranked 13th in composite score and 14th for reading.

 

[Containment]

Ya I just really feel sorry for the children that have to grow up to eventually deal with the mess left behind from this. Not only are they missing school days but the likelihood that teaching in general will only get worse after this seems likely to me. And this is all the result of food shortage in the world? I remember hearing about food being dumped so prices wouldn't fall and that whole bio fuel garbage. In all honesty I think walker has to budge on this one and just let the state go into debt or find some other way to come up with the money. They probably already created as much debt from this whole thing as they would have saved from all the protesting and what not.

 

[WhoWee]

This site gives you a comparison of your state taxes to other states. It describes Wisconsin as

"FACT: Wisconsin: Medium spender, big taxer."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/89702927.html

 

[WhoWee]

Which is 4% higher than the national average. You need to consider relative differences here since proficiency is a relative metric.

Since Fox (like every other major news outlet) can't be bothered to actually cite their research, I will present something similar. Wisconsin is a well educated state. See this link for the number of high scores on standardized tests by state: http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=22
Wisconsin is in the top bracket.

Also see ACT scores by state: http://www.act.org/news/data/09/states.html
In composite score, Wisconsin is ranked 13th in composite score and 14th for reading.

After digging through your links.

http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/state_reports/long/WI.pdf

(Page 3) This report gives Wisconsin an "F" for Afforability - 4 year colleges.
[URL]http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/state_reports/long/WI.pdf[/URL]

The link for all of the states:
http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/states/report_print.php

 

[nismaratwork]

What does any of this have to do with the reality that having made all financial concessions, it's now about busting a union, and bypassing the legislative process. You know me WhoWee... like Gokul I'm not distracted or impressed by chaff.

 

[WhoWee]

What does any of this have to do with the reality that having made all financial concessions, it's now about busting a union, and bypassing the legislative process.

The problem, as I've come to understand it, is there isn't enough time to renegotiate all of the various state and local contracts - even with the general discussion of concessions. It's been estimated the typical local negotiation takes more than a year to complete.

I was surprised to see my state also scored an "F" for affordability - while California was rated a "C-"? I thought others might like to see how their states rate? Perhaps you would prefer I respond to a "bogeyman" discussion - might be fun?

 

[nismaratwork]

The problem, as I've come to understand it, is there isn't enough time to renegotiate all of the various state and local contracts - even with the general discussion of concessions. It's been estimated the typical local negotiation takes more than a year to complete.

I was surprised to see my state also scored an "F" for affordability - while California was rated a "C-"? I thought others might like to see how their states rate? Perhaps you would prefer I respond to a "bogeyman" discussion - might be fun?

Cali got a C-?!... sheesh. I'm going to look at the regional breakdowns of this, because unions aside, I find these facts very disturbing. Maybe material for an education thread... unions, and budgets aside.

 

[Norman]

After digging through your links.

http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/state_reports/long/WI.pdf

(Page 3) This report gives Wisconsin an "F" for Afforability - 4 year colleges.
[URL]http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/print/state_reports/long/WI.pdf[/URL]

The link for all of the states:
http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org/states/report_print.php

Again misleading. They gave 49 states an F for affordability. And one state a C- (California). Instead of using made up metrics - how you define affordability is very subjective - why not stick simply to the numbers?

Tuition at Madison is about $9k/year (in state), it is a top 50 school in the country (ranked 45 by US News). There was only one university ranked higher than it that had a lower tuition rate. Madison is ranked #13 for public institutions. See http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings Given the current options, Madison seems like a very good investment. But this is a personal opinion not a fact.

 

[Containment]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the majority of the school workers this bill would affect public school teachers and not university staff?

 

[WhoWee]

Again misleading. They gave 49 states an F for affordability. And one state a C- (California). Instead of using made up metrics - how you define affordability is very subjective - why not stick simply to the numbers?

Obviously I didn't open every link - just my state, Wisconsin and California (because I expected CA to be more expensive). Was it posted somewhere that 49 states were graded an "F"? Again, I was digging in your links.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Believe it or not, this news got almost as much attention as Libya on Sweden prime time news this evening!

I’ve listen to the radio earlier this day, and they said this is the 'seed' for a new "Anti-Tea Party Movement". Is this true?


Looks like http://www.zazzle.com/wisconsin_anti_tea_party_button-145330043039902288" has everything needed in stock...

(What will the official name be? The Beer Party? )

 

[Norman]

Obviously I didn't open every link - just my state, Wisconsin and California (because I expected CA to be more expensive). Was it posted somewhere that 49 states were graded an "F"? Again, I was digging in your links.

It was in the Wisconsin one.

 

[Norman]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the majority of the school workers this bill would affect public school teachers and not university staff?

I don't know the exact breakdown, but school teachers (K-12) are probably a larger number than professors. But if you include TAs, who are also unionized, they numbers might be closer.

 

[ParticleGrl]

As for repeating that legislators were not given adequate time to read the 2,000+ page final document - I'll say it again now - they didn't read the Bill. Now we know the law might not even be legal - maybe they should've gotten an opinion before enacting the law - but that would have required THEY READ IT FIRST - wouldn't it?

How do you know they didn't read it? I managed to read it, and at the time I was writing a phd thesis. The healthcare debate ate months of time, why wouldn't legislators read it, or at minimum, have an aid read it and lay it out?

 

[WhoWee]

How do you know they didn't read it? I managed to read it, and at the time I was writing a phd thesis. The healthcare debate ate months of time, why wouldn't legislators read it, or at minimum, have an aid read it and lay it out?

I can dig up additional support - but this summarizes the moment rather well. You were probably too busy at the time to have heard this - one of the most bizarre statements of all time - IMO.
http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2010/03/09/we-have-pass-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-it

 

[ParticleGrl]

I can dig up additional support - but this summarizes the moment rather well. You were probably too busy at the time to have heard this - one of the most bizarre statements of all time - IMO.
http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2010/03/09/we-have-pass-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-it

Honestly, that's not as damning as you seem to think. I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt. "so you can find out what's in it" = "so you can see its effects as they happen." Certainly this in no way supports your contention that no one read the bill.

 

[Al68]

As for repeating that legislators were not given adequate time to read the 2,000+ page final document...

I have to disagree with this completely. The number of legislators that were required to vote for the bill prior to reading it was zero. If they didn't have time to read it before the scheduled vote, they should have voted no. Voting to enact a law to be enforced against citizens means either they read the bill or chose not to.

 

[Al68]

What does any of this have to do with the reality that having made all financial concessions, it's now about busting a union, and bypassing the legislative process.

One thing that seems absent in this debate is that democratic government, by its nature, cannot make deals with its employees about what the future government will or won't do.

Democratic government is very different than a private company: current representatives are not free to make agreements which bind future representatives of the people. And future representatives cannot be bound by agreements made by past representatives. Collective bargaining cannot be permitted to change that. That would undermine the democratic process entirely.

And a strike by public employees is an obstruction of the operations of government. Democratic government cannot make law based on the demands of striking employees.

Obviously a strike by school teachers isn't as much an obstruction of democratic government operations as a strike by police (or air traffic controllers) would be, but the principle is the same: If the people hired by democratic government to serve the people refuse to do so, they must be replaced by people who will.

Democratic government cannot allow demands of its employees to affect policy, thereby undermining the democratic process completely.

 

[nismaratwork]

One thing that seems absent in this debate is that democratic government, by its nature, cannot make deals with its employees about what the future government will or won't do.

Democratic government is very different than a private company: current representatives are not free to make agreements which bind future representatives of the people. And future representatives cannot be bound by agreements made by past representatives. Collective bargaining cannot be permitted to change that. That would undermine the democratic process entirely.

And a strike by public employees is an obstruction of the operations of government. Democratic government cannot make law based on the demands of striking employees.

Obviously a strike by school teachers isn't as much an obstruction of democratic government operations as a strike by police (or air traffic controllers) would be, but the principle is the same: If the people hired by democratic government to serve the people refuse to do so, they must be replaced by people who will.

Democratic government cannot allow demands of its employees to affect policy, thereby undermining the democratic process completely.

Given that the unions in question have agreed to all financial concessions, I'd say the easiest course of action would be the removal of the Governor. Beyond that, laws made in one congress absolutely bind another, unless they "re-negotiate" it through legilsation and the courts. We don't live in a democracy, it's an Indirectly Federated Republic.

 

[Al68]

Given that the unions in question have agreed to all financial concessions, I'd say the easiest course of action would be the removal of the Governor.

I don't follow. On what grounds and what does it have to do with my post? How would removing the Governor fix the problem with allowing public employees to obstruct the operation of democratic government?

Beyond that, laws made in one congress absolutely bind another, unless they "re-negotiate" it through legilsation and the courts.

Yes. Except I would disagree with your wording. Government is bound by current law passed by previous governments, unless and until congress changes the law. I never said otherwise. Did you misread my post?

 

[Amp1]

The governor started this mess. He is attempting to modify a law/act, originally meant to install some level of fairness in the employer/employee relationship. The Wagner Act (1935) was enacted by the U.S. CONGRESS, A GOVERNOR of a STATE is attempting to change//modify/strike out portions of said Act. If Wisconsin isn't a Right - To - Work state then he should probably work on making it one, if that's what the public wants. (not what the Koch's want)

 

[mugaliens]

The governor started this mess.

No. The people of Wisconsin started it when they elected him Governor. Furthermore, it's not like the entire state is against him, as most are not against him. Only some in the state, those who are most adversely affected by his cost-cutting measures, are raising the ruckus. Those who're paying through the nose in taxes while receiving minimal benefit are cheering his cost-cutting measures.

He is attempting to modify a law/act, originally meant to install some level of fairness in the employer/employee relationship. The Wagner Act (1935) was enacted by the U.S. CONGRESS, A GOVERNOR of a STATE is attempting to change//modify/strike out portions of said Act.

It may interest you to know that only a few powers were given by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government, and that all other powers were reserved to the individual States. Furthermore, ours is a United States, where the states retain their sovereignty, except as specifically provided by the Constitution. That's why individual states can, and should, tell the feds to go fish when the feds overstep the boundaries of their Constitutional mandate, and that is not an infrequent occurrence.

ETA (source): Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Then again, you might be interested in that at all. Some people are only interested in increasing their slice of the pie.

 

[cobalt124]

What is a "moneyed interest" - how much money do unions contribute to elections? Would it be fair for a union to support a candidate - then get special assistance in a crisis?

It's clear what a moneyed interest is, and it would be bad for the voters coming from either side, and I am sure there are examples from either side. What possible benefit would it give a voter?

Are you suggesting that the 14 Senators that fled the state - to hide out (apparently at taxpayer expense) and avoid doing their job - be booted?

Anyone who is elected to represent a group of people. There should be a way to hold them accountable to that group and for that group to be able to remove them.

Something like this (from another thread):

Tony Benn (retired U.K. politician) has five questions to ask anyone who takes power:

What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you exercise it?
To whom are you accountable?
And how can we get rid of you?

Though I can't think of any example of elected people where this holds.

Which would be worse - if the 14 Senators had their expenses (incurred while hiding out of state from voting on important legislation) paid by the taxpayers or by a union? Any opinions?

Logically I would assume the taxpayer would foot any such bill as they are elected by taxpayers and not by union members. Morally, to do so they would have to justify their actions to the taxpayer, and if they couldn't, one would hope there would be a mechanism in place to boot them out.