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

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
511 replies · 62K views


nismaratwork said:
I have to disagree on this point; it's a rather amusing turn of tactics that were used to defund Acorn, and recently go after Planned Parenthood. If what the Gov said wasn't a smoking gun, it's more than enough for the preponderance of the evidence in my view. IMO, it's beyond a reasonable doubt as well, and while it isn't criminal, he comes off as a fool and extremely insincere in public. The reaction has been profoundly negative as well, with protests now well outside of the capitol.

The difference is the criminal intent (underage girls, kidnapping, pimps, and prostitution) versus - a joke about having a "Louisville Slugger" and stringing along a supposed "supporter"? A better comparison would be to Blago.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


WhoWee said:
The Democrats rammed the legislation through - tactics were well documented.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...kers-aim-push-back-against-hasty-votes/print/
Do you not recall?
Yes, the Dems tried to pull the kinds of tricks the Repubs are pulling in WI. I don't condone any of it, no matter where it comes from. But none of that negates the fact that the healthcare bill was sitting with Congress for several months, across several recesses, generating several CBO reports, several town hall meetings and several opinion polls. Saying there wasn't enough time to read it is just another trick, only it makes a pretty sorry excuse for an excuse.
 


Greg Bernhardt said:
I just finished off a six pack before noon. Doesn't everyone?

In my college years, a group of us took a "road trip" to Chicago and someone decided we needed to continue on to Milwaukee "the Beer Capitol of the World". We left Chicago (where bars closed at 4:00 AM) and arrived in Milwaukee just before midnight - only to find out beer carryout stopped at (I think) 10:00 PM? I seem to recall the bars closed a little earlier as well? We did find a big dance club in a warehouse downtown and had fun - but the "Beer Capitol" label was downgraded - and the next stop added was St. Louis (another story). Young and dumb.:rolleyes:
 


Gokul43201 said:
Yes, the Dems tried to pull the kinds of tricks the Repubs are pulling in WI. I don't condone any of it, no matter where it comes from. But none of that negates the fact that the healthcare bill was sitting with Congress for several months, across several recesses, generating several CBO reports, several town hall meetings and several opinion polls. Saying there wasn't enough time to read it is just another trick, only it makes a pretty sorry excuse for an excuse.

The final version of the Bill was only available for a few hours - who knows what was slipped in at the last moment - undisclosed. Has anyone ever claimed responsibility for adding the 1099 requirement to the Bill?
 


WhoWee said:
In my college years, a group of us took a "road trip" to Chicago and someone decided we needed to continue on to Milwaukee "the Beer Capitol of the World".

I don’t think Greg is talking about bar hopping; he’s talking about the life-supporting systems you keep at home.
 


DevilsAvocado said:
I don’t think Greg is talking about bar hopping; he’s talking about the life-supporting systems you keep at home.

You are probably correct - just recalling a time - long, long ago. On a final note, the fellow who proposed the Milwaukee leg of the trip - blamed his idea it on "Laverne and Shirley".:-p
 


WhoWee said:
The final version of the Bill was only available for a few hours - who knows what was slipped in at the last moment - undisclosed. Has anyone ever claimed responsibility for adding the 1099 requirement to the Bill?
I looked up the last 4 days worth of amendments: there were 165 proposed amendments in those final 4 days, before the bill was voted through. As far as I can tell, all of the amendments in that final list seem to be proposed by Republicans.

Here's the source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d111:./temp/~bda8aFV:1[1-165]%28Amendments_For_H.R.4872%29&./temp/~bdUPt5

But yes, last minute amendments get snuck in all the time. I don't approve of any of it, but let's also not make it look like this is unique to the healthcare bill. Both parties have been doing this for years and years, at all levels of Government. Some states have tried to restrict this practice (I don't know if any have been successful), but for the most part, it is virtually unchecked.

Example: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/feb/09/tennessee-lawmakers-delay-rule-limit-last-minute-a/
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Gokul43201 said:
I don't approve of any of it, but let's also not make it look like this is unique to the healthcare bill. Both parties have been doing this for years and years, at all levels of Government. Some states have tried to restrict this practice, but for the most part, it is virtually unchecked.

Example: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/feb/09/tennessee-lawmakers-delay-rule-limit-last-minute-a/

I don't approve of any "tactics" whatsoever. We elect representatives to ultimately do one thing - vote on legislation. The more complicated the Bill - the more due diligence required - IMO.

I'd rather see smaller and more focused Bills - eliminate all of the off-topic add-ins. If an item can't pass on it's own merits - it shouldn't pass.

My opinion extends to this proposed Wisconsin legislation.
 


WhoWee said:
... On a final note, the fellow who proposed the Milwaukee leg of the trip - blamed his idea it on "Laverne and Shirley".:-p

:smile: That’s what friends are for! Solving those Big Questions of Life = Chicks + Beer

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


WhoWee said:
The difference is the criminal intent (underage girls, kidnapping, pimps, and prostitution) versus - a joke about having a "Louisville Slugger" and stringing along a supposed "supporter"? A better comparison would be to Blago.

...Who is no longer a governor, and is quite up the river!

@Greg: Well sure, I'm talking about REAL booze-hounds. :wink:
 


DevilsAvocado said:
:smile: That’s what friends are for! Solving those Big Questions of Life = Chicks + Beer

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

My father grew up with Gary Marshall.

Beer there, sods that...
 


Even though this thread veered wildly off the topic some time ago, I wanted to raise the following point:

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

In fact, discussions about salaries and benefits only serve to obscure the real problem- collective bargaining (for university faculty anyway) is more fundamentally about 'shared governance'. That is, the faculty have a say in how the institution is operated- what courses are required for a major (or a minor), the standards required for promotion and tenure, etc. etc. Currently, I am evaluated by my peers.

When I worked in industry, I was not- I was evaluated by someone with no technical background. This meant that in order to succeed, I did what my manager told me to do- even when said manager told me to do something that made no sense- investigate a measurement technique that was clearly inappropriate, for example. Refusing to do so caused problems. One year, several of us got poor job evaluations because we sat in a project review meeting we were not invited to- even though it was our own project. Industry needs people who do what they are told to do. The education system does not. First responders also need to be able to make decisions without asking their boss for permission.

Now apply this to the educational system- without shared governance, elected officials can determine what courses you need to take to get a BS in Physics (or any subject), and furthermore, elected officials will determine what material is taught in that class. Do you think creationism should be taught as a viable scientific theory? There are *plenty* of elected school board officials who think it should be. Teachers who refuse to do so could be fired without recourse: peers wouldn't determine merit, some random administrator beholden to an elected official, would.

To me, *this* is the critical issue regarding collective bargaining, not salary and benefits.
 


Good point Andy,

I'm still not satisfied; in a previous post I indicated that "Collective Bargaining" is Guaranteed and protected by the 'Wagner Act' (It is possible there is some legislation limits or modifies the W. A.). The response seemed to say "those powers not given to the 'Central Government' or 'people', revert to the 'States' then how is it that an act duly enacted by representatives of the 'States' put in effect by the 'United States' can be abrogated in part or full by a single member of a three part governing body which represents the 'State'. Isn't that a wee bit beyond his power?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Amp1 said:
Good point Andy,

I'm still not satisfied; in a previous post I indicated that "Collective Bargaining" is Guaranteed and protected by the 'Wagner Act' (It is possible there is some legislation limits or modifies the W. A.). The response seemed to say "those powers not given to the 'Central Government' or 'people', revert to the 'States' then how is it that an act duly enacted by representatives of the 'States' put in effect by the 'United States' can be abrogated in part or full by a single member of a three part governing body which represents the 'State'. Isn't that a wee bit beyond his power?

You may be right, and if this ever passes you can rest assured that it would almost certainly reach The SCOTUS... although only they know if they'd hear the case.
 


Thats the problem if it happens would it immediately go into effect? And if so would it have an effect on benefits already on the books?

Also, it takes a while litigation to get to SCOTUS, Doesn't it have to go through the circuit courts then appeals courts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:


I've heard a good bit about the strength of the civil service rules in Wisconsin (specifically) is anyone familiar with the protections afforded in the absence of collective bargaining?
 


Amp1 said:
Thats the problem if it happens would it immediately go into effect? And if so would it have an effect on benefits already on the books?

Also, it takes a while litigation to get to SCOTUS, Doesn't it have to go through the circuit courts then appeals courts?

You're correct on all fronts, unless a lower court granted an injunction, which IMO would be likely... but who really knows?
 


WhoWee said:
I've heard a good bit about the strength of the civil service rules in Wisconsin (specifically) is anyone familiar with the protections afforded in the absence of collective bargaining?

Not a clue... any links (not just asking you)?
 


Amp1 said:
Good point Andy,

I'm still not satisfied; in a previous post I indicated that "Collective Bargaining" is Guaranteed and protected by the 'Wagner Act' (It is possible there is some legislation limits or modifies the W. A.). The response seemed to say "those powers not given to the 'Central Government' or 'people', revert to the 'States' then how is it that an act duly enacted by representatives of the 'States' put in effect by the 'United States' can be abrogated in part or full by a single member of a three part governing body which represents the 'State'. Isn't that a wee bit beyond his power?

I don't know much about the Wagner Act- but doesn't that only apply to the private sector? Are public employees covered under the Wagner act?
 


After rereading the Act, I'm beginning to think the government workers (teachers ?) are out of luck.
 


Amp1 said:
After rereading the Act, I'm beginning to think the government workers (teachers ?) are out of luck.

Yep, I think you're right, hence their understandable fear and outrage.

Teachers of WI, remember:

Wikipedia - Epitaph of Simonides said:
"Ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι."
----
"Stranger, announce to the Spartans that here
We lie, having fulfilled their orders."

Asymmetry is not everything, and today's victory can pave the way for tomorrow's bloody defeat.
 


Amp1 said:
This might be a good read WhoWee: It relates to your statement about the "strength of the civil service rules in Wisconsin" and "protections afforded in the absence of collective bargaining", which I think you will find are none.

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/sta...sin-gov-scott-walker-says-his-budget-repair-/


From your link - my bold:

"Civil service protections

The protections are put into state law by the Legislature, or into a local ordinance by a city council, or village or town board, said public-sector employer attorney Andrew Phillips. He is general counsel for the Wisconsin Counties Association and his Mequon firm also represents municipalities and school districts.

Currently, state employees are covered by civil service, but most local government employees don’t have it and no public school employees do, Phillips said.

Phillips said civil service protections, among other things, specify employee rights to things such as vacation and overtime; prohibit termination for reasons other than just cause; and create procedures for employees to file grievances and to have those complaints heard.

What they don’t provide, he said, is any right for employees to bargain with their employers over those issues and others. The terms are set by the employer.

Collective bargaining rights

Two sections of state law -- one for state workers and one for local government and public school employees -- give public employees the right in Wisconsin to collectively bargain.

The law issues a mandate to both the employer (the government) and the collective bargaining unit (employees represented by a union).

The two sides must "meet and confer at reasonable times, in good faith, with the intention of reaching an agreement" on wages, hours, fringe benefits and conditions of employment.

In other words, the workers -- through their union -- have a say in those areas. They do not have such a say under civil service rules.

So, what would change if Walker’s budget-repair bill is adopted by the Republican-controlled Legislature?

With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Alternatively, local governments could establish a grievance procedure that would, at minimum, address employee discipline and workplace safety, and provide for a grievance procedure for employee terminations."

It's not exactly crystal clear - is it?
 


WhoWee said:
From your link - my bold:

"Civil service protections

The protections are put into state law by the Legislature, or into a local ordinance by a city council, or village or town board, said public-sector employer attorney Andrew Phillips. He is general counsel for the Wisconsin Counties Association and his Mequon firm also represents municipalities and school districts.

Currently, state employees are covered by civil service, but most local government employees don’t have it and no public school employees do, Phillips said.

Phillips said civil service protections, among other things, specify employee rights to things such as vacation and overtime; prohibit termination for reasons other than just cause; and create procedures for employees to file grievances and to have those complaints heard.

What they don’t provide, he said, is any right for employees to bargain with their employers over those issues and others. The terms are set by the employer.

Collective bargaining rights

Two sections of state law -- one for state workers and one for local government and public school employees -- give public employees the right in Wisconsin to collectively bargain.

The law issues a mandate to both the employer (the government) and the collective bargaining unit (employees represented by a union).

The two sides must "meet and confer at reasonable times, in good faith, with the intention of reaching an agreement" on wages, hours, fringe benefits and conditions of employment.

In other words, the workers -- through their union -- have a say in those areas. They do not have such a say under civil service rules.

So, what would change if Walker’s budget-repair bill is adopted by the Republican-controlled Legislature?

With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Alternatively, local governments could establish a grievance procedure that would, at minimum, address employee discipline and workplace safety, and provide for a grievance procedure for employee terminations."

It's not exactly crystal clear - is it?

I've seen some very murky crystal before it was tossed back in the furnace, but that's just me being contrary. One way or another, I expect the courts to become involved eventually.
 


Like the article said he (the governor) mixed the two. Still from post #231 & 232 you can see that I realize he could change CB because the State legislated CB into law for public employees. So the State can take it away.
 


Amp1 said:
Like the article said he (the governor) mixed the two. Still from post #231 & 232 you can see that I realize he could change CB because the State legislated CB into law for public employees. So the State can take it away.

...And in a climate of "smaller government", it wouldn't be exactly comfortable.
 


Amp1 said:
Like the article said he (the governor) mixed the two. Still from post #231 & 232 you can see that I realize he could change CB because the State legislated CB into law for public employees. So the State can take it away.

This is the confusing part - IMO.

"With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Alternatively, local governments could establish a grievance procedure that would, at minimum, address employee discipline and workplace safety, and provide for a grievance procedure for employee terminations."
 


WhoWee said:
This is the confusing part - IMO.

"With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Alternatively, local governments could establish a grievance procedure that would, at minimum, address employee discipline and workplace safety, and provide for a grievance procedure for employee terminations."

So... OSHA would be the minimum... greeeeaaaat.