The Cheddar Rebellion Part Three

[Odie]

The capitol is still closed to the public as of this morning. Hearings considering the TRO continue today at 1PM central. The general thought is that the building will be ordered open during normal business hours, but people will no longer be allowed to occupy it at all hours.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I like cheesehead better than Chedder.

[TerraPrime]

A colleague traveled to Madison two weekends ago and taped some of the happenings (I think they also spent Friday night camping out). Here's the YouTube link:

[Kelli Fury]

I was in Madison last night, still some brave people camping out on the freezing concrete in front of the capitol, lots of chalk messages on the sidewalks. I've been told the police and fireman's unions have been participating in the protests. It can be confirmed that many of the windows have been bolted shut. I'm told you can order pizzas for the protestors online and over the phone from local pizza restaurants, people are still on the capitol around the clock.

[Shryke]

One still-unanswered question in the Wisconsin budget standoff is who is paying the expenses -- hotel, transportation, etc. -- of the 14 Senate Democrats who fled the state rather than allow debate and a vote on Gov. Walker's budget proposal. "We have no idea how they're funding their out-of-state costs," a Republican Senate aide said a few days ago. "We would love to know."

Now, it turns out at least one of the fleeing Democrats asked the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the state's key interpreter of campaign and ethics laws, for an opinion on whether Democrats can use campaign funds to pay their expenses in exile. The Board said yes.

Kennedy explained that Wisconsin law mostly restricts the use of campaign funds to purposes related to campaigns and elections. But he added that in the past the Board has used quite a bit of latitude when it comes to allowing political figures to spend campaign funds. In the case of the fleeing Democrats, Kennedy said the Board based its opinion, at least in part, on two news releases from Republican Gov. Scott Walker's office which "characterized the actions of the Democrat senators in Illinois as being related to campaign fundraising and that the state Senate Democratic Committee has raised close to $300,000 in the past two weeks."

In other words, the Board said that since Walker accused Democrats of using their self-imposed exile to raise campaign contributions, then that exile is in fact campaign-related and Democrats may use campaign funds to finance it. The Board also noted that several of the hiding Democrats now face recall petitions, which means that the contributions they can accept to finance their time on the lam are not subject to limits that apply to other types of contributions. Of course, the Democratic senators did not flee the state because they face recall petitions; they face recall petitions because they fled the state. Nevertheless, the Board says using campaign money to pay for hotels and other expenses in exile is permitted.

Finally, Kennedy wrote that the fleeing senators "may not accept personal gifts of money, or anything of substantial value, to facilitate their stay."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/wisconsin-ethics-board-dems-can-use-campaign-funds-pay-life-lam

[awesome possum]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/wisconsin-ethics-board-dems-can-use-campaign-funds-pay-life-lam

Har, yet more proof that Walker doesn't exactly seem to be the type that thinks things through.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just to point out for a moment that a somehwat similar bil is headed for passage in Ohio with a lot less fanfare.

Also, I'm a bit struck by the national outrage focused on Wisconsin given that a significant number of states have never allowed collective bargaining for public employees anyway, or make such bargaining permissible rather than mandatory (which has an effect similar to a ban), and nobody nationally seemed to care.

[Shryke]

Just to point out for a moment that a somehwat similar bil is headed for passage in Ohio with a lot less fanfare.

Also, I'm a bit struck by the national outrage focused on Wisconsin given that a significant number of states have never allowed collective bargaining for public employees anyway, or make such bargaining permissible rather than mandatory (which has an effect similar to a ban), and nobody nationally seemed to care.

Because no one nationally knew about it? As you say, it's going through in Ohio. What you don't see, though, is any press coverage of it.

And in Ohio, the GOP there can make quorum without the Democrats, as I remember, and thus there is absolutely nothing the Dems can do.

[TerraPrime]

Just to point out for a moment that a somehwat similar bil is headed for passage in Ohio with a lot less fanfare.

Also, I'm a bit struck by the national outrage focused on Wisconsin given that a significant number of states have never allowed collective bargaining for public employees anyway, or make such bargaining permissible rather than mandatory (which has an effect similar to a ban), and nobody nationally seemed to care.

That's all besides the point, isn't it, because it's categorically different to try to remove a policy after it's been in place for many years than it is to never have it at all, even if the end results are the same. Wisconsin has a tradition of progressive politics, with it being the first state to legislate labor laws, and one of the first states to adopt non-discrimination policies for gay people. That's a tradition that states like Ohio doesn't have. Also, Madison is the site of many anti-war protests in the 70s, and there are residual memory in the city for taking to the streets to protest. I don't know if there's an equivalent history in Ohio.

Also, if the public workers unions in Ohio are feeling left out, they should agitate and draw attention to that issue. Same with any state that does not allow public unions bargaining. I'm sure the national as well as Wisconsin labor unions will show support in solidarity.

[Ormond]

Also, I'm a bit struck by the national outrage focused on Wisconsin given that a significant number of states have never allowed collective bargaining for public employees anyway, or make such bargaining permissible rather than mandatory (which has an effect similar to a ban), and nobody nationally seemed to care.

This is just a psychological fact of life. People are much more upset to lose something they already have. Even in minor ways -- surveys show people are generally rate losing $50 as making them more unhappy than gaining $50 makes them happy. That has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative or closed shop vs. right to work; it's basic human nature for everybody.

[Odie]

The judge's ruling, written as a letter to the "Members of the Rotunda Community" :)

http://yfrog.com/h4n2emtj

Strange, it sure seems to imply there was a distinct lack of violence and/or vandalism going on. Funny, that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's all besides the point, isn't it, because it's categorically different to try to remove a policy after it's been in place for many years than it is to never have it at all, even if the end results are the same.

My point is that the discussions around this topic have often been in the context that public employee collective bargaining is some sort of fundamental, a priori right, and that for Wisconsin to get rid of it is an unprecendented assault on a right Americans hold dear. In fact, I think Wisconsin was the first state to authorize collective bargaining for public employees, and that was only in 1950 or so. Many other states have never authorized it or authorized it only with significant restructions. I think people who are unfamiliar with the history of public employee collective bargaining in the U.S. may not be aware of that.

Wisconsin has a tradition of progressive politics, with it being the first state to legislate labor laws, and one of the first states to adopt non-discrimination policies for gay people. That's a tradition that states like Ohio doesn't have. Also, Madison is the site of many anti-war protests in the 70s, and there are residual memory in the city for taking to the streets to protest. I don't know if there's an equivalent history in Ohio.

I can understand that attitude with respect to the folks in Wisconsin. It's their state, and what other states do shouldn't matter a bit. What puzzles me is the national reaction to this, and to a lesser extent, the reaction of some international boarders, as if this was some sort of inviolable principle being violated for the first time. And it just isn't -- it is the norm already in a lot of states.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

On a different note, one theme here has been why Walker has been pushing to limit collective bargaining when the unions supposedly already agreed to the cuts in question. I pointed out then that was a meaningless promise by union leaders intended for public consumption/PR, and that signed contracts were what matters.

And as it turns out, that isn't what happened at all. Apparently, unions throughout the state have been trying to rush through contracts that don't contain those cuts at all. They've been aided and abetted in this by political allies, which essentailly places the unions on both sides of the collective bargaining table.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261218/wisconsin-officials-rush-walker-proof-their-benefits-christian-schneider

....This rush to ratify new contracts is why Scott Walker didnt take the union leaders up on their deal almost two weeks ago theres no way the AFSCME and AFL-CIO big shots could control the contract machinations of over 1,000 local governments. While protesters roared that their objection to Walkers plan wasnt about the money, their bargaining units were working furiously behind the scenes to grab as much cash as possible before Walker dropped the guillotine.

Furthermore, these new contracts demonstrate why declaring public sector collective bargaining to be sacrosanct is so preposterous. In places like the City of Madison, theres very little bargaining happening. Public employees and elected officials are sitting on the same side of the table. The only actual negotiating taking place is from city employees deciding which Applebees theyll crash to celebrate their fat new contracts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261218/wisconsin-officials-rush-walker-proof-their-benefits-christian-schneider

[Tinydigit]

My point is that the discussions around this topic have often been in the context that public employee collective bargaining is some sort of fundamental, a priori right, and that for Wisconsin to get rid of it is an unprecendented assault on a right Americans hold dear. In fact, I think Wisconsin was the first state to authorize collective bargaining for public employees, and that was only in 1950 or so. Many other states have never authorized it or authorized it only with significant restructions. I think people who are unfamiliar with the history of public employee collective bargaining in the U.S. may not be aware of that.

Wisconsin was the first state to authorize collective bargaining for public-sector employees in 1959.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Also, if the public workers unions in Ohio are feeling left out, they should agitate and draw attention to that issue. Same with any state that does not allow public unions bargaining. I'm sure the national as well as Wisconsin labor unions will show support in solidarity.

Oh, they are. It's just that they're losing.

Fun fact: Ohio has lost nearly 570,000 private sector jobs since 2000, while adding 2,000 public sector jobs.

So we've got that going for us.

[CryHavoc]

This may have already been posted, but anyway, from CNN:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Thursday warned 14 absent lawmakers trying to stall his controversial budget bill to return to the state Capitol immediately to vote on the measure, or layoff notices will be sent to 1,500 public employees before the weekend.

Instead, Walker repeatedly said he was "frustrated" by the intransigence of the 14 Democratic senators trying to stymie the bill by not showing up to vote. He blamed a core group of "extreme" dissenters for standing in the way of compromise.

Yes. You've been making threats in the face of overwhelming public opinion and offers to compromise for weeks now, but they're the intransigent ones. :rolleyes:

Edit: I can't spell, apparently

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

CryHavoc,

Did you see FLOW's link regarding what's going on in contract negotiations as opposed to what's be said in public?

[awesome possum]

Good for the unions.

[C S]

CryHavoc,

Did you see FLOW's link regarding what's going on in contract negotiations as opposed to what's be said in public?

If FLOW's link is accurate and I'm sure it is, it seems like it would be a really good strategy for Walker to say, "Okay I accept your compromise, conditional to you getting all the various bargaining units across the state to sign a new contract consistent with the compromise". In other words, put your money where your mouth is. Of course that might not be a good plan if his primary goal is actually union busting.

[TerraPrime]

Of course that might not be a good plan if his primary goal is actually union busting.

There's still doubt about this? :stunned: