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

[nismaratwork]

Yea. You're probably right. He would have been a Deputy Sheriff. Sorry.

Not a problem, it's an honest mistake.

 

[turbo]

There are other considerations regarding sheriff's deputies. Here they are hourly, not salaried, like the sheriffs. When the work-load gets nasty and the department is understaffed, they have to work long shifts and they get paid overtime. That inflates their yearly earnings. In central Maine, little towns have no budget for police staffing, so the county and state police have to take up that load and split up the coverage.

Also, every deputy I have known personally took on extra work. Sometimes it something as simple as serving papers. That can pay quite well, and they get compensated for use of their personal vehicles and extra time along with the serving fee. A senior deputy in this county moonlights as chief security officer for a private art school, as well. I'd hate to do his taxes and have to sort out his public and private earnings, allowable expenses, deductions, etc.

 

[Evo]

Also, every deputy I have known personally took on extra work. Sometimes it something as simple as serving papers. That can pay quite well, and they get compensated for use of their personal vehicles and extra time along with the serving fee. A senior deputy in this county moonlights as chief security officer for a private art school, as well. I'd hate to do his taxes and have to sort out his public and private earnings, allowable expenses, deductions, etc.

That's what I was thinking, he must be doing other "jobs" to make that much.

I was watching the new show on Alaska state troopers last night and they were talking about how dangerous their job was because everyone there has guns and the people that move to Alaska are mostly loners, survivalists and people that just can't get along with other people. Makes for a very deadly mix.

But, this has gone off topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well hold on now cowpokes... mebbe this here feller was DepYuTized fer a posse! Why, he could be Doc Holiday his own consumptive self.

OK... he probably moonlighted, but don't you like my version more?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Passion inside the chamber
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/represenative-gordon-hintz-tears-the-republicans-i

 

[cobalt124]

No one could begrudge you though, getting a job after retirement—you’ll probably have to anyway, because you’re pension is only a percentage of your last years salary (which in New York at least, is usual a pittance). Frankly, the pension sucks.

I still take issue with this, personally. I sympathise with the "no one could begrudge you" argument for gaining financially from a poor system. I don't see how whether it's taxpayers money or not changes the principle of what is being done, whichever side of the principle you land on. IMO, a lot of these problems can be solved by calling a spade a spade. So to my mind, a pension is a fund you contribute to over a lifetime of working, so that you can receive payments when you no longer work. Why does it have to be made so complicated?

You never get “overtime”—it’s just a salary position.

I suspect here that you are doing work on "good will", which presumably is unpaid, but has intangible benefits to yourself in your job, your colleagues, your employer, and in the case of teaching, to pupils. I think good will is fine, as long as it works both ways. From my experience, many government functions would not, without the presence of good will. Employers and unions who trample on this cause a lot of damage.

Freedom of Association means I have the right to associate, or not, with whoever I want with no regard whatsoever to anyone's idea of fairness. If a right is limited to what others think is fair, it's not a right.Of course not, not naturally. Such an entitlement could be the result of a specific agreement or contract, but it obviously doesn't and logically can't exist a priori. I wasn't making such a comparison. I made no mention of any right to either, I was referring to a right to negotiate one's own agreements, which applies to cars and jobs. Of course jobs are generally more important than cars, but the right of an individual to negotiate terms applies equally to both.

Yes I'm possibly missing your point. I would say an individual negotiating with a government employee backed by corporations seems a lot more intimidating than an individual negotiating with a few salesmen to buy a car, hence the need for collective union representation. Personally, I'd find both a terrifying prospect.

I'm totally with you here Evo. Unions are one thing but I've yet to see hard working union workers. BTW I'm retired and have "seen it all" and have never been a union member.

I don't see a relation. In my experience people work hard or they do not, irrespective of union membership.

 

[FrancisZ]

I still take issue with this, personally. I sympathise with the "no one could begrudge you" argument for gaining financially from a poor system. I don't see how whether it's taxpayers money or not changes the principle of what is being done, whichever side of the principle you land on.

Perhaps we have different definitions of a pension. I've always looked at it as: something you received for years of contributing to public service; almost as a thank you for being a good steward of the system. Children take care of their parents when the time comes; and so should society take care of its workers.

But when you retire, you usually only get a small percentage annually anyway, of what you would be making, had you kept your position. My grandfather, for example, was a policeman with the NYPD between 1947-1972; and I think he only got 30% at retirement. If you get hurt, then you might get 3/4.

Normally, this is inadequate to survive however; so then you are confronted with the problem of staying on board and continuing to work, literally until you are too feeble; or try seeking a supplement to maintain your standard of living, in the private sector (or perhaps, in some other field entirely).

Most likely, you would be working part time, if elsewhere. And if you're old and have developed health issues, you may not be able to work in any respect. So that means you would become very poor (living on 30%), unless you struggle at least part time somewhere else.

Quite a "thank you" for years of getting stabbed and shot at for 25 years.

Sometimes they actually force you out too--because it would be more expensive for the state, keeping you on.

From one perspective: you'd be doing a disservice then to the State; and in several respects. Firstly, you would not be vacating the position, so that a younger person my fill it (and usually at lower salary); and secondly, the longer you work (unless there is a ceiling to begin with), the greater the pension owed to you when you finally do retire.

Part of the problem we are experiencing in the United States, is that the Baby Boom generation actually CANNOT retire. Many people--who got talked into 401(k)'s in lieu of an actual pension--have since gotten wiped out by the stock market crash, stemming from the financial sector.

And reasonably: that has only made baby boomers want to CLING to their current employment positions, for dear life--and maybe also THEIR SPOUSE'S PENSIONS!

But that of course only leaves my demographic rather out in the cold, so to speak. Unemployment will continue to grow, so long as the older generations cannot retire.But I digress..If you "retired" from a public position (meaning you reached the eligible age for collecting a pension, and did so), but then continued to work at this same job--taking, in addition, a 2nd check from the same source--well, that's the very definition of double dipping.

But if, however, you "retired" (literally left and did not return) from your public service position, in order to collect your pension; and then worked in the private sector (for whatever reason--whether you can't make ends meet otherwise; or you just like working and earning money); that is NOT double dipping, because you are not receiving it from the same source. One is private, and one is paid for my tax payers.

But YES, even still: if a person has really any work ethic at all, then they most certainly deserve something (namely money) for doing something (at least while they're doing it).

However, if you AGREED under contract, 20 years before: that you would actually leave, when the time came, in order to collect the pension; well then you simply must. Sticking around, in an elaborate scheme to milk the system--by getting paid TWICE by that system--is frankly unethical. I would also expect it to be breech of contract.

IMO, a lot of these problems can be solved by calling a spade a spade. So to my mind, a pension is a fund you contribute to over a lifetime of working, so that you can receive payments when you no longer work. Why does it have to be made so complicated?

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.

I suspect here that you are doing work on "good will", which presumably is unpaid, but has intangible benefits to yourself in your job, your colleagues, your employer, and in the case of teaching, to pupils. I think good will is fine, as long as it works both ways. From my experience, many government functions would not, without the presence of good will. Employers and unions who trample on this cause a lot of damage.

What can I add but more cliches: too often the bottom line rules here. And maybe sometimes not enough. It usually depends on who your friends are.

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.

Do it in the name of fiscal conservatism! Tally-ho!

The truth is though: what a politician makes in public service, is a mere bag of shells in comparison to what they could making as a lobbyist. And many lobbyists do become politicians; and many politicians do become lobbyists. In that respect at least, perhaps becoming governor is just a stepping stone toward making more money in the private sector.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[Al68]

Yes I'm possibly missing your point. I would say an individual negotiating with a government employee backed by corporations seems a lot more intimidating than an individual negotiating with a few salesmen to buy a car, hence the need for collective union representation. Personally, I'd find both a terrifying prospect.

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

You're as free as those things you're willing to give up to be free. Still, I have to question how you find neither intimidating... why don't you? All or nothing isn't a lack of indimidation, it's a thought distortion.

 

[FrancisZ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1

 

[Norman]

As someone who grew up in Wisconsin and went to school there I have been following the news about the governor and his new budget fairly closely.

A couple of things that have not (I don't think) been brought up in this thread are the following:

The bill also has a provision for the governor to forgo the usual legislative process (remember a governor is not a legislator, but an executive) and revamp public health care system for poor children (called BadgerCare). See this link for reference: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_979fd798-385c-11e0-b233-001cc4c03286.html

In addition, 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."
source: http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/iteam/116633848.html

--Note this source makes some extreme logic jumps - namely that Koch industries would directly profit from this clause. I don't know about that, but, no bid contracts have traditionally been one way politicians reward campaign contributors. I don't think it matters whether you are right wing, left wing, or no wing on the political spectrum. If the state is going to sell off infrastructure it should do so at the greatest economic reward to the state. It is in a budget bill...

 

[WhoWee]

As someone who grew up in Wisconsin and went to school there I have been following the news about the governor and his new budget fairly closely.

A couple of things that have not (I don't think) been brought up in this thread are the following:

The bill also has a provision for the governor to forgo the usual legislative process (remember a governor is not a legislator, but an executive) and revamp public health care system for poor children (called BadgerCare). See this link for reference: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...cle_979fd798-385c-11e0-b233-001cc4c03286.html

In addition, 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."
source: http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/iteam/116633848.html

--Note this source makes some extreme logic jumps - namely that Koch industries would directly profit from this clause. I don't know about that, but, no bid contracts have traditionally been one way politicians reward campaign contributors. I don't think it matters whether you are right wing, left wing, or no wing on the political spectrum. If the state is going to sell off infrastructure it should do so at the greatest economic reward to the state. It is in a budget bill...

Is there a specific proposal on the table? Your link credited the Tea Party with raising concerns of a political supporter - then spoke in terms of "could" and "if" - not clear?

 

[Norman]

Is there a specific proposal on the table?

Are you talking about the actual budget bill? I am unsure what you are talking about. Could you be more specific please?

Your link credited the Tea Party with raising concerns of a political supporter - then spoke in terms of "could" and "if" - not clear?

I assume you are referring to the 2nd link about the sale of the state-owned power plants. Yes, as I stated in the last part of my post, the article makes a lot of logical leaps. Namely that some campaign contributors to Walker's campaign would benefit. The point is not that these people will definitely profit here. My point was simply that no-bid sales of public infrastructure are a losing situation for taxpayers. All of this put into a budget bill that is meant to address some (imagined - in my opinion) budget issues. How can the Governor pretend to care so much about the state budget, but be willing to let a no-bid sale of state infrastructure happen?


Mainly, I am trying to add the following to the discussion: The Governor, with this budget bill, seems to be trying to drastically change the power balance in Wisconsin. He seems to be consolidating power to the executive branch (away from the legislative branch) while simultaneously taking power away from state employees.

I feel this should be very unsettling to all Wisconsinites (and Americans), regardless of your political leanings. But that is just my opinion.

 

[WhoWee]

Are you talking about the actual budget bill? I am unsure what you are talking about. Could you be more specific please?


I assume you are referring to the 2nd link about the sale of the state-owned power plants. Yes, as I stated in the last part of my post, the article makes a lot of logical leaps. Namely that some campaign contributors to Walker's campaign would benefit. The point is not that these people will definitely profit here. My point was simply that no-bid sales of public infrastructure are a losing situation for taxpayers. All of this put into a budget bill that is meant to address some (imagined - in my opinion) budget issues. How can the Governor pretend to care so much about the state budget, but be willing to let a no-bid sale of state infrastructure happen?


Mainly, I am trying to add the following to the discussion: The Governor, with this budget bill, seems to be trying to drastically change the power balance in Wisconsin. He seems to be consolidating power to the executive branch (away from the legislative branch) while simultaneously taking power away from state employees.

I feel this should be very unsettling to all Wisconsinites (and Americans), regardless of your political leanings. But that is just my opinion.

If he's trying to consolidate power - how does 14 legislators - members of the opposing party - hiding in another state to avoid debate and votes help their cause?

 

[Norman]

If he's trying to consolidate power - how does 14 legislators - members of the opposing party - hiding in another state to avoid debate and votes help their cause?

I don't know, you would probably have to ask them...

Also, I don't think hiding in another state has held up debate on the subject. It has definitely held up a vote. I believe those senators have been quoted as saying they left to slow down the vote and allow more discussion.

Are you interested in clarifying your previous questions and having a discussion? What do you think about the consolidation of power? Or do you just want to randomly jump from point to point?

 

[nismaratwork]

"Oh myyyyyyyy"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/22/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Governor's spokesman calls the accusation "a lie"
NEW: Spokesman calls blockage temporary, routine for new sites
Democrats blame Republicans for blocking pro-union website in the state Capitol
Defendwisconsin.org could not be accessed in the Capitol on Monday, early Tuesday

 

[vici10]

It seems that Wisconsin protests are spreading. The protests in Indionapolis - http://peoplesworld.org/right-now-1000-workers-sit-in-and-block-indiana-state-senate/"

 

[nismaratwork]

It seems that Wisconsin protests are spreading. The protests in Indionapolis - http://peoplesworld.org/right-now-1000-workers-sit-in-and-block-indiana-state-senate/"

And republicans are joining. Can you recall a governer in WI?

 

[Norman]

And republicans are joining. Can you recall a governer in WI?

Not until they have been in office for a year. So the governor is safe until 2012. Bit there are 8 senators (if memory serves) who could be on the block.

 

[turbo]

And republicans are joining. Can you recall a governer in WI?

It might be a good time to consider a parliamentary form of government at the state and federal levels, in which a "no confidence" vote can trigger new elections. The US has electoral systems that are time-structured and are highly susceptible to intervention by moneyed interests. What if we had a more representative democracy in which we could turn out politicians that screw up instead of waiting 4-6 years for their terms to expire?

 

[nismaratwork]

Not until they have been in office for a year. So the governor is safe until 2012. Bit there are 8 senators (if memory serves) who could be on the block.

D's, R's, or I?

...And thanks for the info!

 

[nismaratwork]

It might be a good time to consider a parliamentary form of government at the state and federal levels, in which a "no confidence" vote can trigger new elections. The US has electoral systems that are time-structured and are highly susceptible to intervention by moneyed interests. What if we had a more representative democracy in which we could turn out politicians that screw up instead of waiting 4-6 years for their terms to expire?

Once, I would have argued vociferously against this... now...


Maybe parlimentary paralysis would be better than what we have now. With the SCOTUS decision utterly freeing corporations...

I'm thinking of moving to BC/Vancouver... I love the USA, but it's changing faster than it knows.

 

[WhoWee]

And republicans are joining. Can you recall a governer in WI?

Forget the Governor - recall the 14 Congresspersons - if you can find them.

 

[WhoWee]

It might be a good time to consider a parliamentary form of government at the state and federal levels, in which a "no confidence" vote can trigger new elections. The US has electoral systems that are time-structured and are highly susceptible to intervention by moneyed interests. What if we had a more representative democracy in which we could turn out politicians that screw up instead of waiting 4-6 years for their terms to expire?

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?

 

[nismaratwork]

Forget the Governor - recall the 14 Congresspersons - if you can find them.

Aren't they just representing their constituants?

I love dirty tactics... everyone uses AND decries them. It practically arouses me.

 

[WhoWee]

Aren't they just representing their constituants?

I love dirty tactics... everyone uses AND decries them. It practically arouses me.

I just want to know who is paying for their "tactics" - transportation, hotel, food, dry cleaning, phones, (they're basically on strike) wages, benefits, entertainment(no assumptions) - them or the taxpayers?

 

[Norman]

D's, R's, or I?

...And thanks for the info!

Sorry, took me a little bit to remember where I read it. Check out this:http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/19/recall-in-wisconsin/

16 total are eligible. 8 are Republicans. I will be interested to see if there is any pushback on the Dems for ditching also. Should be an interesting year in Wisconsin politics.

I have a few friends who are at the capital. In Wisconsin, all graduate student TAs are part of the union. We actually had a very decent (I wouldn't call it great) health care system. We actually had 3 options, so those of us with families could pay more but get quality coverage.

Latest word is that some of the Republicans are wavering - namely Hooper, Olsen and Schultz. Just rumor, but not that surprising. These guys are going to face one heck of a year.

I love dirty tactics... everyone uses AND decries them. It practically arouses me.

If your not going to fight dirty, why bother fighting? This is politics. Where might we be if a politician couldn't simultaneously use dirty tactics while lambasting his opponent for doing that exact thing?

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't checked back in a while, but has anyone pointed out yet that the liberal protesters are exhibiting some of the same insane extremism we had a whole thread dedicated to for the Tea Party?

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, someone posted links to a couple youtube videos of protesters making comparisons of Walker with Hitler, etc.