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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Wisconsin is experiencing significant labor protests, with over 20,000 people gathering at the Capitol in response to Governor Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public workers. Many schools are closing as teachers participate in the protests, reflecting a deep divide among residents regarding labor rights and union protections. The situation has drawn comparisons to the protests in Cairo, highlighting the intensity of the unrest. While some support the proposed wage and benefit cuts, concerns about the stripping of collective bargaining rights under the Freedom of Association are prevalent. The ongoing protests raise questions about the future of labor relations and the potential for similar movements in other states.
  • #241


Andy Resnick said:
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...
This is a good point. How a (democratic) state-operated institution operates must be determined by elected representatives of the people, not state employees.

And a strike of public employees is an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Allowing them to succeed is intolerable for a democratic state.

These teachers have a right to withhold their own labor. So be it. Time to hire replacements. It's not like these teachers have the right to decide whether or not the state operates a school.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #242


Al68 said:
This is a good point. How a (democratic) state-operated institution operates must be determined by elected representatives of the people, not state employees.

And a strike of public employees is an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Allowing them to succeed is intolerable for a democratic state.

These teachers have a right to withhold their own labor. So be it. Time to hire replacements. It's not like these teachers have the right to decide whether or not the state operates a school.

The state employees are not determining policies, and did not elect anyone in, the electorate did. 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. 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.
 
  • #243


cobalt124 said:
The state employees are not determining policies, and did not elect anyone in, the electorate did.

Frick and frack, those were both open and uncontested elections, and you know it. For you to make such ridiculous claims should get you banned on any world forums.
 
  • #244


mugaliens said:
Frick and frack, those were both open and uncontested elections, and you know it. For you to make such ridiculous claims should get you banned on any world forums.

I'm sorry, I'm not American, and I'm not a "Wisconsinite", and I may be be dim at tmes. I'm assuming an electorate voted one person one vote to get these people in. I'me learning loads about federal/state politics, please explain. You might have a case for banning me off a U.S. forum but the rest of the world has no need to know. I wish to know that's all. I have an increasing suspicion from this and other threads that a lot of the problems are caused by deliberate over complication which benefits vested interests.
 
  • #245


cobalt124 said:
You might have a case for banning me off a U.S. forum but the rest of the world has no need to know. I wish to know that's all.

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

I have an increasing suspicion from this and other threads that a lot of the problems are caused by deliberate over complication which benefits vested interests.

Our Founding Fathers wrote our Declaration of Independance and our U.S. Constitution in clear, understandable English. They did not use the convoluted legalese of the day.

Any complication since then has usually involved the vested interests of others.
 
  • #246


cobalt124 said:
I'm sorry,

Don’t be. Aliens without authority have no right to execute this kind of ridiculous threats.
 
  • #247


Andy Resnick said:
... 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:

Best and brightest comment so far!

Could we add that there are many tea partiers out there who strive for creationism as the *only* viable theory...? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #248


Andy thanks for the important insight. One of my most passionate state worker friend from the beginning ranted how the union won't be able to help negotiate the splitting of the state budget. They actually had say in what went where and how much!
 
  • #249


Good points and bad points, I'd hate to be Walker right now; if he backs down he's finished as a governor. If he doesn't... he's finished as a governor.

Fortunately I find that incredibly amusing... always good to see that each party immediately self-destructs upon acquiring even a feeble majority in the house.
 
  • #250


DevilsAvocado said:
Best and brightest comment so far!

Could we add that there are many tea partiers out there who strive for creationism as the *only* viable theory...? :rolleyes:

Greg Bernhardt said:
Andy thanks for the important insight. One of my most passionate state worker friend from the beginning ranted how the union won't be able to help negotiate the splitting of the state budget. They actually had say in what went where and how much!

Thanks, guys... it took me a while to extract out a useful/coherent thought. It came to me during a committee meeting- I'm a member of the group looking for a new Dean of the college, and I realized that faculty having a say in who is hired to run the place is important, and threatened by the loss of collective bargaining.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #251


mugaliens said:
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.
 
  • #252


Andy Resnick said:
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.
 
  • #253


cobalt124 said:
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"? :rolleyes:
 
  • #254


Al68 said:
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"? :rolleyes:

What demands?... That they retain what they already have, and have the privelage of agreeing to meet all fiscal demands? Come on Al...
 
  • #255


Al68 said:
Are they not preventing the state from operating (some) schools?

Maybe, but that is not "determining policy".

Al68 said:
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?

Al68 said:
Baloney. Not submitting to their demands is "polarizing"?

Yes.
 
  • #256


nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #257


cobalt124 said:
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".
 
  • #258


Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #259


Al68 said:
Whether or not to operate a school isn't "policy"? Making no sense here.

Withdrawing labor is different to determining policy.

Al68 said:
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?

Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #260


nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #261


cobalt124 said:
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.
 
  • #262


Al68 said:
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?
 
  • #263


Al68 said:
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?
 
  • #264


cobalt124 said:
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.
 
  • #265


nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #266


Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #267


Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #268


cobalt124 said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #269


nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #270


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.