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

[WhoWee]

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.

I'm not sure he's "essentially burned his political capital"? I would like to see a statewide poll of what people think about the 14 Democrats that are hiding out in another state to avoid a vote.

What kind of a system do we have when voters send a clear message during an election - cut spending - and the legislators who don't like the voter mandate hide out until the people who will be on the receiving end of the cuts storm the Statehouse and disrupt the legislative process until the leader of the state agree to do what they (a minority of voters as per the last election) want?

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't know if anyone has said this already, but I didn't want to read all 19 pages just to check.

No, Cairo did not move to Madison. What you are facing is NOTHING compared to what the Egyptians faced. What you are doing when you say that is CHEAPENING their revolt for no other purpose than your own selfish gain. They had to deal with tear gas and molotovs being thrown at them. I doubt you can say anything CLOSE to the same thing. Everyone in the United States needs to stop comparing their protests to Cairo, or to Tripoli, or to Tunis. They are only alike in the sense that a mountain is like a clod of dirt.

Sorry, but that sentence just annoyed the hell out of me.

 

[turbo]

What kind of a system do we have when voters send a clear message during an election - cut spending - and the legislators who don't like the voter mandate hide out until the people who will be on the receiving end of the cuts storm the Statehouse and disrupt the legislative process until the leader of the state agree to do what they (a minority of voters as per the last election) want?

As usual, the right has framed the conflict as "greedy unions" against cost-cutting governor. That is not the case. The unions have made the financial concessions that the governor wanted, but that's not enough for him - he wants to eliminate their right to bargain collectively. A very different kettle of fish.

BTW, did you miss this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3154056&postcount=174

Wisconsin's non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau was projecting surpluses until the GOP majority rammed through $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. Then suddenly it was the "greedy unions" who were responsible for the looming deficit, and it was the "greedy unions" that had to pay for those tax breaks to balance revenues. Well, the "greedy unions" have done just that, making the concessions that the GOP wanted, but that's not enough - the GOP wants to remove their right to collective bargaining, as well.

 

[WhoWee]

As usual, the right has framed the conflict as "greedy unions" against cost-cutting governor. That is not the case. The unions have made the financial concessions that the governor wanted, but that's not enough for him - he wants to eliminate their right to bargain collectively. A very different kettle of fish.

BTW, did you miss this?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3154056&postcount=174

Wisconsin's non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau was projecting surpluses until the GOP majority rammed through $117 million in tax breaks for businesses. Then suddenly it was the "greedy unions" who were responsible for the looming deficit, and it was the "greedy unions" that had to pay for those tax breaks to balance revenues. Well, the "greedy unions" have done just that, making the concessions that the GOP wanted, but that's not enough - the GOP wants to remove their right to collective bargaining, as well.

In an effort not to backtrack the entire thread - the negotiations at the local level typically take 12 to 18 months. The prior administration apparently kicked the can down the road and now they are out of time - the problems need to be fixed long term (this time). There is also a matter of about $200 million the last administration tapped that must be repaid - a reversal of $400 million that isn't on the table yet - I posted a few pages back. We've also noted the state workers have civil service protection in addition to union.

If you want to debate the "greed" of unions - please start a thread - I'll participate. I'd also like to see a poll of PF to see who is willing to pay more in federal and state taxes to offset Government union benefits and pay increases.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not sure he's "essentially burned his political capital"? I would like to see a statewide poll of what people think about the 14 Democrats that are hiding out in another state to avoid a vote.

What kind of a system do we have when voters send a clear message during an election - cut spending - and the legislators who don't like the voter mandate hide out until the people who will be on the receiving end of the cuts storm the Statehouse and disrupt the legislative process until the leader of the state agree to do what they (a minority of voters as per the last election) want?

14 nearly faceless state senators are nothing compared to a new Republican governer making this Custarian stand. I'm happy to come back to this after it becomes clear that he's doomed himself; if you want more polls beyond what's been offered... get polling.

@Char Limit: Very true, and it's an absurd comparison.

 

[nismaratwork]

In an effort not to backtrack the entire thread - the negotiations at the local level typically take 12 to 18 months. The prior administration apparently kicked the can down the road and now they are out of time - the problems need to be fixed long term (this time). There is also a matter of about $200 million the last administration tapped that must be repaid - a reversal of $400 million that isn't on the table yet - I posted a few pages back. We've also noted the state workers have civil service protection in addition to union.

If you want to debate the "greed" of unions - please start a thread - I'll participate. I'd also like to see a poll of PF to see who is willing to pay more in federal and state taxes to offset Government union benefits and pay increases.

I would be happy to pay, but its not an issue because the unions already agreed. STRAW MAN.

 

[Char. Limit]

14 nearly faceless state senators are nothing compared to a new Republican governer making this Custarian stand. I'm happy to come back to this after it becomes clear that he's doomed himself; if you want more polls beyond what's been offered... get polling.

@Char Limit: Very true, and it's an absurd comparison.

Indeed it is. I can tell so, because it's gotten me more angry than I've been in months.

 

[nismaratwork]

Indeed it is. I can tell so, because it's gotten me more angry than I've been in months.

Yeah... it's the kind of thing that just makes you question the validity of the perspectives of any politician. The rhetoric is so poisonous, and so divorced from reality.

 

[WhoWee]

I would be happy to pay, but its not an issue because the unions already agreed. STRAW MAN.

It's not a straw man. The 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending at all levels of Government. Now the task is at hand and the only alternative is to raise taxes. The argument of choosing to raise taxes on rich people only aside - who wants to pay more in taxes and who wants to see cuts? The only way to allow states to make (and keep) cuts in place is to untie their hands.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's not a straw man. The 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending at all levels of Government. Now the task is at hand and the only alternative is to raise taxes. The argument of choosing to raise taxes on rich people only aside - who wants to pay more in taxes and who wants to see cuts? The only way to allow states to make (and keep) cuts in place is to untie their hands.

I do. And again, all financial concessions were made already; this is still a straw man. I'd add, the same electorate is now turning against their governer, and neither party is touching Defense or Entitlements as needed.

Sorry, still a straw man. We don't need to TOUCH this stuff, it's just chaff to distract from massive inaction, and in this case, from the point of this debate.

 

[WhoWee]

I do. And again, all financial concessions were made already; this is still a straw man. I'd add, the same electorate is now turning against their governer, and neither party is touching Defense or Entitlements as needed.

Sorry, still a straw man. We don't need to TOUCH this stuff, it's just chaff to distract from massive inaction, and in this case, from the point of this debate.

Oh no...this is the core of the debate. The Fall 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending - and it's happening all over the country - hence the comparison to the ME.

 

[Char. Limit]

Oh no...this is the core of the debate. The Fall 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending - and it's happening all over the country - hence the comparison to the ME.

No, no, no. The comparison to the ME is completely unwarranted political blather. It has no importance.

 

[turbo]

In an effort not to backtrack the entire thread - the negotiations at the local level typically take 12 to 18 months.

And every party to the union contracts (unions, administrations, etc) know exactly when the contracts will expire, and how they would like to negotiate the next iteration of each contract. Claiming that it takes 12-18 months to negotiate a new contract is pretty ridiculous. I have been on a union contract negotiating committee representing my paper machine crews. Negotiating a comprehensive 5-year contract at a very large pulp and paper mill took about 2 weeks, primarily because of the company's refusal to grant us a change from Southern Swing shifts to 3-on, 3-off shifts of 12 hours each. We had already established substantial agreement on wages, benefits, etc, but the company dug their heels in on the shift-structure issue. They used arguments like "No person should be expected to work 12-hour shifts on a paper machine." despite the fact that during the start-up-phase of the new machine (several months) we were forced to work 12 hour shifts every single day for months without a single day off.

I'd like you to explain how negotiating contracts for teachers, garbage collectors, and other public servants takes a year+ to negotiate. My experience suggests otherwise (to say the least).

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh no...this is the core of the debate. The Fall 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending - and it's happening all over the country - hence the comparison to the ME.

The comparison is beneath you, and we both know it.

 

[WhoWee]

And every party to the union contracts (unions, administrations, etc) know exactly when the contracts will expire, and how they would like to negotiate the next iteration of each contract. Claiming that it takes 12-18 months to negotiate a new contract is pretty ridiculous. I have been on a union contract negotiating committee representing my paper machine crews. Negotiating a comprehensive 5-year contract at a very large pulp and paper mill took about 2 weeks, primarily because of the company's refusal to grant us a change from Southern Swing shifts to 3-on, 3-off shifts of 12 hours each. We had already established substantial agreement on wages, benefits, etc, but the company dug their heels in on the shift-structure issue. They used arguments like "No person should be expected to work 12-hour shifts on a paper machine." despite the fact that during the start-up-phase of the new machine (several months) we were forced to work 12 hour shifts every single day for months without a single day off.

I'd like you to explain how negotiating contracts for teachers, garbage collectors, and other public servants takes a year+ to negotiate. My experience suggests otherwise (to say the least).

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c814c77a-3600-11e0-b9e0-001cc4c03286.html

my bold
"Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, was shocked by the proposal. He said the governor seems to be "union-busting."

"State employees have the right to negotiate in good faith with the state. Without a willingness to even discuss what concessions need to be made with state employees, the governor comes across more like a dictator and less like a leader," Risser said.

Risser said he hopes Walker will meet with union leaders, instead of unilaterally imposing these measures. 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.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers said Friday they expected Walker's bill will move quickly through the Legislature, perhaps being passed as early as next week. Republicans control the Assembly 60-38-1 and the Senate 19-14. "

 

[nismaratwork]

Walker says a lot of things... few appear to be based in reality; is there an indipendant analysis of contract negotiation times?

 

[WhoWee]

Walker says a lot of things... few appear to be based in reality; is there an indipendant analysis of contract negotiation times?

It looks like the procedure is a little more involved than turbo described - just one county.

http://www.buffalocounty.com/Personnel_Human%20resources/Agendas/2010%20Agendas/October%2018%20'10%20HR%20Committee%20Agenda.pdf

 

[turbo]

It looks like the procedure is a little more involved than turbo described - just one county.

http://www.buffalocounty.com/Personnel_Human%20resources/Agendas/2010%20Agendas/October%2018%20'10%20HR%20Committee%20Agenda.pdf

And you are claiming that this public notice supports your claim that it takes a year or a year and a half to negotiate a contract? Please! Support your claim, or back off.

 

[nismaratwork]

It looks like the procedure is a little more involved than turbo described - just one county.

http://www.buffalocounty.com/Personnel_Human%20resources/Agendas/2010%20Agendas/October%2018%20'10%20HR%20Committee%20Agenda.pdf

Uhhh... if I gave you something like that to support an argument, you'd rip me apart. We both know it...

 

[WhoWee]

And you are claiming that this public notice supports your claim that it takes a year or a year and a half to negotiate a contract? Please! Support your claim, or back off.

My bold - care to tone it down a bit sir? Your stated experience was "Negotiating a comprehensive 5-year contract at a very large pulp and paper mill took about 2 weeks" - as per your post turbo.

My post indicates the process might just be a bit more involved than you were accustomed to - given the notice. The Governor said it typically takes 15 months - he has experience at the local level prior to statewide service. I'll try to find a timeline for such negotiations - the Governor isn't the only one that's given the timeline on the various cable channels. I've heard it several times.

 

[nismaratwork]

My bold - care to tone it down a bit sir? Your stated experience was "Negotiating a comprehensive 5-year contract at a very large pulp and paper mill took about 2 weeks" - as per your post turbo.

My post indicates the process might just be a bit more involved than you were accustomed to - given the notice. The Governor said it typically takes 15 months - he has experience at the local level prior to statewide service. I'll try to find a timeline for such negotiations - the Governor isn't the only one that's given the timeline on the various cable channels. I've heard it several times.

The governor is full of bull, and without more to back his claims, I'm not going to assume anything. Without a real study for these time-lines, it's just more political chaff.

 

[turbo]

My post indicates the process might just be a bit more involved than you were accustomed to - given the notice. The Governor said it typically takes 15 months - he has experience at the local level prior to statewide service. I'll try to find a timeline for such negotiations - the Governor isn't the only one that's given the timeline on the various cable channels. I've heard it several times.

Did you hear it anyplace outside of FOX? Negotiating union contracts is an incremental process, and both sides know what the other side wants, where they can give a bit, and where they can hope to get a bit. This is not rocket science, and the player aren't strangers to one another.

Please give some kind of substantial support for the time-line that you claim. It would be madness to spend a year and a half at a "bargaining" table where nothing is getting done, just to beat each other up. I have never seen it in industry.

 

[WhoWee]

Uhhh... if I gave you something like that to support an argument, you'd rip me apart. We both know it...

This is suggestive that the process might take a while to complete? This gives a little background on the issue - the Democrats failed the unions back in December - it seems?

my bold
http://wseu-sepac.org/news/news_20101216_wisstatejournal_stateunionsfumeoverbetrayal.pdf

"State unions fume over betrayal, prepare for future negotiations
CLAY BARBOUR
cbarbour@madison.com
608-252-6129 madison.com
Posted: Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:00 pm
After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory.
Union leaders on Thursday expressed anxiety about future labor unrest and rage at the man they say has betrayed them. Decker, a former bricklayer with union ties, voted for the contracts in the Legislature's joint employee relations committee hours before he cast the deciding vote against them in the Senate.
"Russ Decker is a whore," said Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, which represents 22,000 state employees. "Not a prostitute. A whore. W-H-O-R-E."
Decker said the clock had simply run out for the current administration and the matter should be left to the next governor. Beil called the reversal a betrayal.
Behind the rhetoric is a palpable fear of what comes next for unions. New contract negotiations will have to run a GOP gantlet bracketed by Gov.-elect Scott Walker and a hostile Republican Legislature, both of which promise to take a hard line, demanding employees contribute significantly more toward their pensions and health care benefits.
If unions balk, the new governor has threatened everything from layoffs and cuts in social services to abolishing unions — though it is unclear if Walker would have the power to do so.
And while union leaders say they will negotiate in good faith with the new administration, they seem to dread the prospect.
"The ball is in (Walker's) court," Beil said. "We will make no overtures toward them. It will be up to them to come to the table.""

 

[WhoWee]

Did you hear it anyplace outside of FOX? Negotiating union contracts is an incremental process, and both sides know what the other side wants, where they can give a bit, and where they can hope to get a bit. This is not rocket science, and the player aren't strangers to one another.

Please give some kind of substantial support for the time-line that you claim. It would be madness to spend a year and a half at a "bargaining" table where nothing is getting done, just to beat each other up. I have never seen it in industry.

ANOTHER personal attack turbo? They spent over 18 months at the table BEFORE Walker took office.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is suggestive that the process might take a while to complete? This gives a little background on the issue - the Democrats failed the unions back in December - it seems?

my bold
http://wseu-sepac.org/news/news_20101216_wisstatejournal_stateunionsfumeoverbetrayal.pdf

"State unions fume over betrayal, prepare for future negotiations
CLAY BARBOUR
cbarbour@madison.com
608-252-6129 madison.com
Posted: Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:00 pm
After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory.
Union leaders on Thursday expressed anxiety about future labor unrest and rage at the man they say has betrayed them. Decker, a former bricklayer with union ties, voted for the contracts in the Legislature's joint employee relations committee hours before he cast the deciding vote against them in the Senate.
"Russ Decker is a whore," said Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, which represents 22,000 state employees. "Not a prostitute. A whore. W-H-O-R-E."
Decker said the clock had simply run out for the current administration and the matter should be left to the next governor. Beil called the reversal a betrayal.
Behind the rhetoric is a palpable fear of what comes next for unions. New contract negotiations will have to run a GOP gantlet bracketed by Gov.-elect Scott Walker and a hostile Republican Legislature, both of which promise to take a hard line, demanding employees contribute significantly more toward their pensions and health care benefits.
If unions balk, the new governor has threatened everything from layoffs and cuts in social services to abolishing unions — though it is unclear if Walker would have the power to do so.
And while union leaders say they will negotiate in good faith with the new administration, they seem to dread the prospect.
"The ball is in (Walker's) court," Beil said. "We will make no overtures toward them. It will be up to them to come to the table.""

Uh huh.. bolding mine:

"After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory."

So, an outgoing D scuttled it, and 100 million USD... and it took, "longer than any in recent memory".

This strikes me as the opposite of support for your claim; you've proven an exceptional exception, and it wasn't the unions.

 

[WhoWee]

Oh no...this is the core of the debate. The Fall 2010 elections were very clear - cut spending - and it's happening all over the country - hence the comparison to the ME.

I'll re-assert this point - the unions knew in December the Republicans would be harder to deal with if the Democrats didn't support them - Walker was elected in the spirit of cutting costs. Wiki summed it up this way:
my bold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician )

"2010 campaignFurther information: Wisconsin gubernatorial election, 2010
Walker became an early favorite for the 2010 Republican Party endorsement for Wisconsin governor, winning straw polls of Wisconsin GOP convention attendees in 2007 and 2008.[26][27] He announced his candidacy in late April 2009 after several months of previewing his campaign themes of reduced taxes and reduced spending to Republican audiences around the state.[20] He also criticized the 2009–11 Wisconsin state budget as too large for the slow economy.[20] He won the Wisconsin GOP convention endorsement on May 22, 2010, receiving 91 percent of the votes cast by the delegates. Walker won the Republican nomination in the primary election of September 14, 2010, receiving 59 percent of the popular vote, while former U.S. Representative Mark Neumann garnered 39 percent.[28]

As part of his campaign platform, Walker said he would create 250,000 jobs in his first term through a program that would include tax reforms[16] such as rolling back the 2009 state tax increases on small businesses, capital gains, and income for top earners, and cutting state employee wages and benefits to help pay for the tax cuts.[29] Critics claimed his proposals would only help the wealthy and that cutting the salaries of public employees would adversely affect state services.[29][30] Supporters said that tax cuts for businesses would reduce the cost of labor, which would ultimately promote consumer demand and more job growth. Walker indicated he would refuse an $810 million dollar award from the federal Department of Transportation to build a high speed railroad line from Madison to Milwaukee because he believed it would cost the state $7.5 million per year to operate and would not be profitable.[31] The award was later rescinded and split among other states.[32]

Social issues played a part in the campaign. Walker has stated that he is "100% pro-life",[33] meaning that he opposes abortion in all circumstances including in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.[19][34] He supports abstinence-only sex education in the public schools, and opposes state supported clinical services that provide birth control and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases to teens under the age of 18 without parental consent.[19] He supports the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives on religious or moral grounds.[19][35] He supports adult stem cell research, but opposes human embryonic stem cell research.[36][16] As the election drew near, Barrett attempted to portray Walker as an extremist on social issues.[34][37]

On November 2, 2010, Walker won the general election with 52 percent of total votes cast, with his closest opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett, garnering 46 percent. His running mate, now Lieutenant Governor, was Rebecca Kleefisch, a former television news reporter in Milwaukee."


Walker ran on spending cuts and the unions knew they needed to get a deal done before he took office.

 

[WhoWee]

Uh huh.. bolding mine:

"After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory."

So, an outgoing D scuttled it, and 100 million USD... and it took, "longer than any in recent memory".

This strikes me as the opposite of support for your claim; you've proven an exceptional exception, and it wasn't the unions.

The 12 to 18 month time frame Walker referred to as typical was at the local level - this post gave background on how long this process had already taken before they had to start over.

 

[nismaratwork]

The 12 to 18 month time frame Walker referred to as typical was at the local level - this post gave background on how long this process had already taken before they had to start over.

"Longer than any in recent memory"

... That seems pretty cut and dry.

 

[WhoWee]

"Longer than any in recent memory"

... That seems pretty cut and dry.

...again..."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."

Good night.

 

[nismaratwork]

...again..."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."

Good night.

You're relying on the governor who still claims this is a financial issue, and your own citation argues that this is rare. You've made a claim that has no backing except the words of one VERY interested politician.

You just cannot make that kind of claim based on what amounts to nothing and expect anything except incredulity and laughter.

Sweet Dreams.

 

[cobalt124]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

"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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[Norman]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

...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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes Gokul, please spell it out.

I just did, twice. Now you're asking me to spell the letters. I give up.

 

[Andy Resnick]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[turbo]

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?

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[BobG]

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).