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

[cobalt124]

I apologize for my harsh tone last night. Friday was a long day fighting many issues on many fronts.

No apology needed and thanks for the explanation. I do have a lot to learn about U.S. politics, but I'm enjoying finding out.

 

[cobalt124]

My problem with the Wisconsin and Ohio legislative bills eliminating collective bargaining rights for government workers has nothing to do with salaries and benefits.

All too often we take on a blinkered, money prioritised, self interested view to issues. We never seem to realize that takng a consensual view doesn't necessarily have to be altruistic or self-sacrificing, that it can benefit individually.

 

[Al68]

The state employees are not determining policies, and did not elect anyone in, the electorate did.

Are they not preventing the state from operating (some) schools?

In their own eyes they are fighting a just cause, whether it is should be a matter for the elctorate to decide, and for that the decision to be enforceable they should have the means to boot them out, not the strikers.

Huh? The electorate does have the means to boot out elected officials, and the strikers have nothing to do with that. The strikers are simply obstructing the operations of democratic government as leverage to get their demands met.

Polarizing an argument can only benefit nterests at one end or the other, the electorate will always lose out in this scenario IMO.
"Allowing them to succeed" is a polarizing argument. "Hiring replacements" is a polarizing action.

Baloney. Not submitting to their demands is "polarizing"?

 

[nismaratwork]

Are they not preventing the state from operating (some) schools?Huh? The electorate does have the means to boot out elected officials, and the strikers have nothing to do with that. The strikers are simply obstructing the operations of democratic government as leverage to get their demands met. Baloney. Not submitting to their demands is "polarizing"?

What demands?... That they retain what they already have, and have the privelage of agreeing to meet all fiscal demands? Come on Al...

 

[cobalt124]

Are they not preventing the state from operating (some) schools?

Maybe, but that is not "determining policy".

Huh? The electorate does have the means to boot out elected officials, and the strikers have nothing to do with that. The strikers are simply obstructing the operations of democratic government as leverage to get their demands met.

From reading this thread my understanding is that they cannot be booted out. How do the electorate boot out the elected when they want them out of power?

Baloney. Not submitting to their demands is "polarizing"?

Yes.

 

[Al68]

What demands?... That they retain what they already have, and have the privelage of agreeing to meet all fiscal demands? Come on Al...

I made no claims regarding whether their demands are reasonable or not. That has nothing to do with my point.

 

[Al68]

Maybe, but that is not "determining policy".

Whether or not to operate a school isn't "policy"? Making no sense here.

From reading this thread my understanding is that they cannot be booted out.

Your understanding is incorrect.

Yes.

If not submitting (generally) to someone's demands is your definition of polarizing, then I'm a "pro-polarizationist".

 

[nismaratwork]

I made no claims regarding whether their demands are reasonable or not. That has nothing to do with my point.

I don't believe that this is a matter of reasonable or not, it's a matter of who is being demanded of. The governor demanded, the unions conceeded for the most part, and now refuse to concede more; those aren't demands unless you twist the word like a Klein Bottle.

 

[cobalt124]

Whether or not to operate a school isn't "policy"? Making no sense here.

Withdrawing labor is different to determining policy.

Your understanding is incorrect.

Quite possibly. Would someone be kind enough to educate me? How do elected representatives get booted out by their electorate in Wisconsin?

If not submitting (generally) to someone's demands is your definition of polarizing, then I'm a "pro-polarizationist".

That seems to be the case.

 

[Al68]

I don't believe that this is a matter of reasonable or not, it's a matter of who is being demanded of. The governor demanded, the unions conceeded for the most part, and now refuse to concede more; those aren't demands unless you twist the word like a Klein Bottle.

Since we're referring to actions of government, and the will of the elected leaders vs the will of its employees, it seem that you are the one doing the twisting.

 

[Al68]

Withdrawing labor is different to determining policy.

I wasn't referring to withholding labor, in fact I specifically pointed out that that's their right, and anyone's right.

Preventing their replacement is what I was referring to.

 

[nismaratwork]

Since we're referring to actions of government, and the will of the elected leaders vs the will of its employees, it seem that you are the one doing the twisting.

How so?

 

[cobalt124]

I wasn't referring to withholding labor, in fact I specifically pointed out that that's their right, and anyone's right.

Preventing their replacement is what I was referring to.

And witholding labor is what they are doing. In what sense are they determining policy?

 

[Al68]

And witholding labor is what they are doing. In what sense are they determining policy?

The state is allowing them to determine policy by not operating schools as desired by the state. Didn't realize it needed to be spelled out.

 

[Al68]

How so?

Simply put, those striking are asked, not demanded, to teach in state operated schools. No one is demanding that they do anything.

They, however, are trying to prevent the state from doing what the state chooses unless their demands be met, including the demand that the state doesn't just hire others to do the job.

 

[nismaratwork]

Simply put, those striking are asked, not demanded, to teach in state operated schools. No one is demanding that they do anything.

They, however, are trying to prevent the state from doing what the state chooses unless their demands be met, including the demand that the state doesn't just hire others to do the job.

They're breaking no laws, and they're part of the state too... and I'd add that this has gone beyond teacher's unions now.

 

[cobalt124]

The state is allowing them to determine policy by not operating schools as desired by the state. Didn't realize it needed to be spelled out.

Thankyou for spelling it out. I believe that the state being held to account in this way is a healthier situation than if they were just allowed to do what they want. They were not (or should not have been) elected to do that. Once elected, they do not become unaccountable for their actions, whether in their election manifesto or not.

 

[Al68]

Thankyou for spelling it out. I believe that the state being held to account in this way is a healthier situation than if they were just allowed to do what they want. They were not (or should not have been) elected to do that. Once elected, they do not become unaccountable for their actions, whether in their election manifesto or not.

I have no idea what your point is here. I never said anyone was unaccountable for anything, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else. But replacing what elected representatives want with what the unions want is anti-democratic, if we are referring to a state institution.

Elected representatives are accountable to the public via the democratic process, not to state employees via union strike.

 

[Al68]

They're breaking no laws, and they're part of the state too...

Yes, but we're talking about their role as state employees, not as part of the electorate. And I never said it was illegal for them to make demands, just that their demands (as employees) must not be permitted to interfere with state policy. Their actions don't have to be illegal in order to replace them. Nobody is suggesting that they be imprisoned, or prosecuted for any crime.

 

[Containment]

Who exactly would be replacing them anyhow? Is there a chance I could get a job in teaching if they do get fired and I were to move up there? Not that I am qualified by any means to be a teacher.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, but we're talking about their role as state employees, not as part of the electorate. And I never said it was illegal for them to make demands, just that their demands (as employees) must not be permitted to interfere with state policy. Their actions don't have to be illegal in order to replace them. Nobody is suggesting that they be imprisoned, or prosecuted for any crime.

OK... so fire them... RI just did that. Games, or firing... choose Gov Walker... that's what being an executive IS. He's drawing this out because he's a coward who doesn't want to spend political capital to do what he seems to want: fire the teachers and then re-hire on the state's terms.

 

[nismaratwork]

Who exactly would be replacing them anyhow? Is there a chance I could get a job in teaching if they do get fired and I were to move up there? Not that I am qualified by any means to be a teacher.

I was thinking the exact same thing, but then, with the layoffs in Cali and elsewhere, I suspect the market will be glutted.

 

[cobalt124]

I have no idea what your point is here. I never said anyone was unaccountable for anything, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else. But replacing what elected representatives want with what the unions want is anti-democratic, if we are referring to a state institution.

Elected representatives are accountable to the public via the democratic process, not to state employees via union strike.

I don't think I can say any more than I have, but we will see. I don't see the point of having a polarized view, either end, it won't benefit the electorate. Maybe my ignorance of Wisconsin politics and unions is showing here.

Who exactly would be replacing them anyhow? Is there a chance I could get a job in teaching if they do get fired and I were to move up there? Not that I am qualified by any means to be a teacher.

Thankyou Containment. This is what I am trying to get at. Let him fire the teachers, and replace them. Does he even care about the quality? Is he only going to get staff that are in it for the money? Or will he get committed educators employed safe in the knowledge they can be sacked on a political whim? Could this be an example of a polarizing situation leading to an advantage at one end, to the detriment of the electorate? I'm not taking sides here. I know there are bad unions. The situation could be at either end.

OK... so fire them... RI just did that. Games, or firing... choose Gov Walker... that's what being an executive IS. He's drawing this out because he's a coward who doesn't want to spend political capital to do what he seems to want: fire the teachers and then re-hire on the state's terms.

I've wondered about this.

I was thinking the exact same thing, but then, with the layoffs in Cali and elsewhere, I suspect the market will be glutted.

Presumably, the reasoning then being teachers could name their price, which IMO, is putting dogma before the future prosperity of a country. Some things are just too important to be left at the mercy of those forces. Or at least they used to be.

 

[Al68]

I don't think I can say any more than I have, but we will see. I don't see the point of having a polarized view, either end, it won't benefit the electorate.

Still making no sense. Your use of the word "polarizing" renders the word meaningless.

What view on this issue would be "un-polarized"?

 

[Al68]

OK... so fire them... RI just did that. Games, or firing... choose Gov Walker... that's what being an executive IS. He's drawing this out because he's a coward who doesn't want to spend political capital to do what he seems to want: fire the teachers and then re-hire on the state's terms.

As I understand it, he cannot fire and replace them. Current law allows the teachers' union to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. That's the problem. And one that undermines democratic government. But I said that already.

 

[nismaratwork]

As I understand it, he cannot fire and replace them. Current law allows the teachers' union to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. That's the problem. And one that undermines democratic government. But I said that already.

If those abilities to obstruct are legal means, then once again, I don't see how this undermines democracy. Remember, a true democracy is equal voting; we don't have that. All I see undermined here is a particular ideology, or a fantastical view of what this country is or even tries to be.

 

[Al68]

If those abilities to obstruct are legal means, then once again, I don't see how this undermines democracy. Remember, a true democracy is equal voting; we don't have that. All I see undermined here is a particular ideology, or a fantastical view of what this country is or even tries to be.

It exists whether you see it or not. FDR saw it as plain as day: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

Of course by the standards many like to use today, FDR was apparently a right-wing extremist corporate whore, but that's beside the point.

 

[nismaratwork]

It exists whether you see it or not. FDR saw it as plain as day: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

Of course by the standards many like to use today, FDR was apparently a right-wing extremist corporate whore, but that's beside the point.

He may have, but the judiciary has disagreed, and that's the branch the matters here. Beyond that, we use "Democracy" very freely, but it's a strict issue of definition. We're an Indirectly Federated Republic. Period.

 

[Al68]

He may have, but the judiciary has disagreed, and that's the branch the matters here.

I don't think so. You have a source?

Beyond that, we use "Democracy" very freely, but it's a strict issue of definition. We're an Indirectly Federated Republic. Period.

I was using the word "democratic" to refer to democratic republicanism, not a pure democracy. So was FDR, obviously. It's common practice to use the term in its broad sense that way.

 

[cobalt124]

Still making no sense. Your use of the word "polarizing" renders the word meaningless.

What view on this issue would be "un-polarized"?

I may be being sloppy with words here. If a union uses it muscle for its own ends, not its members, that is wrong. Likewise, if a government employer does the same, for its own ends, not for the electorate that is wrong. My take on this thread is that in the main one or the other of these two extreme views is being justified. I may be wrong. That is what I mean by polarized. So "un-polarized" would mean negotiation, give and take and consensus, and whichever side is scuppering that for their own ends is in the wrong and harming the electorate IMO.

As I understand it, he cannot fire and replace them. Current law allows the teachers' union to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. That's the problem. And one that undermines democratic government. But I said that already.

I would suggest that there are very good reasons, good democratic reasons, why they cannot fire and replace, and that that siuation reinforces democratic government. They are accountable while they are in office as well as when they are being elected.

If those abilities to obstruct are legal means, then once again, I don't see how this undermines democracy. Remember, a true democracy is equal voting; we don't have that. All I see undermined here is a particular ideology, or a fantastical view of what this country is or even tries to be.

Agreed, but why don't you have equal voting?

 

[Al68]

I may be being sloppy with words here. If a union uses it muscle for its own ends, not its members, that is wrong. Likewise, if a government employer does the same, for its own ends, not for the electorate that is wrong. My take on this thread is that in the main one or the other of these two extreme views is being justified. I may be wrong.

You are. Neither of those views has been justified or advocated in this thread.

I would suggest that there are very good reasons, good democratic reasons, why they cannot fire and replace, and that that siuation reinforces democratic government.

So, then, what "good democratic reasons" are there for employees of the state to be immune from being fired by democratically elected representatives of the people?

They are accountable while they are in office as well as when they are being elected.

Accountable to the people, not state employees. How many times have I repeated the same thing in this thread? The same exact thing that FDR, hero of the American left, said decades ago: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

 

[cobalt124]

You are. Neither of those views has been justified or advocated in this thread.

My bad.

So, then, what "good democratic reasons" are there for employees of the state to be immune from being fired by democratically elected representatives of the people?

Nothing to add to this. I've already stated reasons why.

Accountable to the people, not state employees. How many times have I repeated the same thing in this thread? The same exact thing that FDR, hero of the American left, said decades ago: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

Yes accountable to the electorate. I'll read the link when I get chance.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think so. You have a source?I was using the word "democratic" to refer to democratic republicanism, not a pure democracy. So was FDR, obviously. It's common practice to use the term in its broad sense that way.

It's a common practice to imbue "magical words" with ideals and ideas that having nothing to do with them. I can see why you hate semantics... you're often on the wrong side of them.

As for FDR, you want me to cite SCOTUS, when the reality of unions all around us is evidence enough? That's just odd, altough I assume that you're using his letter becaause you see this in purely ideological and partisan terms.

FDR was a politician like any other, and his letter expressed his concerns; unions persist and rightly fought with militant tactics against militant tactics... remember the Pinkertons? I feel as though your view of the world is somehow through a very odd lens of pure ideology. I'm getting a little tired of pure rigidity; conversation is not meant to constantly devolve into *-Wing talk radio.

 

[KeenanSteel]

unions persist and rightly fought with militant tactics against militant tactics

Unless we're talking about slavery - either of the employer or the employee - militant tactics seems to be an odd term to use. Working for money is a trade, and thus both parties must feel that something is to be gained from the trade. I agree that unions CAN make this possible, but cooperation is still required.

 

[nismaratwork]

Unless we're talking about slavery - either of the employer or the employee - militant tactics seems to be an odd term to use. Working for money is a trade, and thus both parties must feel that something is to be gained from the trade. I agree that unions CAN make this possible, but cooperation is still required.

Again... you may want to read about: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency.[/URL]

I'd add, how about the civil rights movement...?

 

[Al68]

It's a common practice to imbue "magical words" with ideals and ideas that having nothing to do with them. I can see why you hate semantics... you're often on the wrong side of them.

Using a word by its most commonly used definition is "on the wrong side" of semantics?

As for FDR, you want me to cite SCOTUS, when the reality of unions all around us is evidence enough? That's just odd, altough I assume that you're using his letter becaause you see this in purely ideological and partisan terms.

You claimed the judiciary disagreed with FDR. I asked for your source. Especially since the judiciary doesn't even make that type of judgments.

FDR was a politician like any other, and his letter expressed his concerns; unions persist and rightly fought with militant tactics against militant tactics... remember the Pinkertons? I feel as though your view of the world is somehow through a very odd lens of pure ideology. I'm getting a little tired of pure rigidity; conversation is not meant to constantly devolve into *-Wing talk radio.

That reminds me of a very funny commercial, one in which Rush Limbaugh says he finds the WSJ "a bit...opinionated".

 

[nismaratwork]

Using a word by its most commonly used definition is "on the wrong side" of semantics?You claimed the judiciary disagreed with FDR. I asked for your source. Especially since the judiciary doesn't even make that type of judgments.That reminds me of a very funny commercial, one in which Rush Limbaugh says he finds the WSJ "a bit...opinionated".

You know... I consider it a sign of growing maturity that: I give up.

[URL]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/rolleye/rolleye0005.gif[/URL]

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Palm Trees in Madison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4

 

[Norman]

Palm Trees in Madison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4

Fair and balanced...

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh... priceless.

 

[Gokul43201]

Palm Trees in Madison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4

Bogus protest footage! Where have I seen that before?

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm so amused at this point... the polls indicate that the governor has essentially burned his political capital, and he just arrived.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm so amused at this point... the polls indicate that the governor has essentially burned his political capital, and he just arrived.

What polls?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Palm Trees in Madison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4

I LOVE it! Fox News is the funniest news channel in the WORLD!

 

[Norman]

What polls?

I assume nismaratwork is talking about some polls showing up comparing whether people would still have voted Walker into office - basically asking if the same election was held last week, would the public still vote for Walker.

There have also been some polls concerning who is winning the public relations battles - the unions or Walker.

Some links:
Public Policy Polling blog (talking about re-voting for Walker or not): http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/do-over.html
Pew Poll (unions vs Walker): http://people-press.org/report/709/
CBS/NYT poll results: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/03/01/us/01poll_graphic.html
Article about CBS/NYT poll: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01poll.html?_r=2

 

[nismaratwork]

What polls?

A Pew Research Foundation poll, seen on CNN yesterday... I can look it up if you like, I made the claim, I'll back it. If you already know of it however, my left arm is killing me, and I'm in a lot of threads.

@Norman: Thanks!

edit: Ah, Norman posted it too! MANY thanks Norman.

 

[nismaratwork]

I LOVE it! Fox News is the funniest news channel in the WORLD!

Oh man... priceless.

edit: "Stars, etc." Oh bleeping bleepity bleep... my ribs... [URL]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0032.gif[/URL]
Could there be a LESS elegant way of putting it?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

edit: "Stars, etc." Oh bleeping bleepity bleep... my ribs... [PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0032.gif[/QUOTE]

[PLAIN]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/happy0032.gif[ATTACH=full]197054[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]197055[/ATTACH]

 

[WhoWee]

A Pew Research Foundation poll, seen on CNN yesterday... I can look it up if you like, I made the claim, I'll back it. If you already know of it however, my left arm is killing me, and I'm in a lot of threads.

@Norman: Thanks!

edit: Ah, Norman posted it too! MANY thanks Norman.

This?

"By a modest margin, more say they back Wisconsin’s public employee unions rather than the state’s governor in their continuing dispute over collective bargaining rights. Roughly four-in-ten (42%) say they side more with the public employee unions, while 31% say they side more with the governor, Scott Walker, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Feb. 24-27 among 1,009 adults.

In Washington, meanwhile, prospects for an imminent government shutdown decreased as Republicans and Democrats neared a short-term budget deal. However, the public is divided over who would be more to blame if the federal government were to shut down as a result of a budget impasse: 36% say Republicans would be more to blame, 35% say the Obama administration and 17% volunteer that both would be to blame. This question was asked jointly by the Pew Research and The Washington Post.

Opinions are notably different today than they were the last time a budget battle threatened a government shutdown. In November 1995, a Washington Post/ABC News survey asked a similar question and found that 46% said a possible government shutdown would be mainly the Republicans’ fault; just 27% said the bulk of the blame would fall on the Clinton administration. "

 

[nismaratwork]

This?

"By a modest margin, more say they back Wisconsin’s public employee unions rather than the state’s governor in their continuing dispute over collective bargaining rights. Roughly four-in-ten (42%) say they side more with the public employee unions, while 31% say they side more with the governor, Scott Walker, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Feb. 24-27 among 1,009 adults.

In Washington, meanwhile, prospects for an imminent government shutdown decreased as Republicans and Democrats neared a short-term budget deal. However, the public is divided over who would be more to blame if the federal government were to shut down as a result of a budget impasse: 36% say Republicans would be more to blame, 35% say the Obama administration and 17% volunteer that both would be to blame. This question was asked jointly by the Pew Research and The Washington Post.

Opinions are notably different today than they were the last time a budget battle threatened a government shutdown. In November 1995, a Washington Post/ABC News survey asked a similar question and found that 46% said a possible government shutdown would be mainly the Republicans’ fault; just 27% said the bulk of the blame would fall on the Clinton administration. "

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