The Cheddar Rebellion Part Three

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

CryHavoc,

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

And Scot, that was completely predictable by anyone who knows how this stuff works in practice, which is why I was able to peg it long before this story came out. The unions are, in essence, playing a giant game of chicken. All that crap about "we're willing to compromise" is just a lie. They want to delay the bill as long as possible and pass every contract they can in the meantime so they lock in compensation that makes cuts impossible. The only option local governments will have at that point given the cut in state aid will be massive layoffs. And the unions and compliant politicians are simply betting that the prospect of such layoffs will be so intolerable that the state will be forced not to cut the amount of money being handed out by the state. I personally think Walker will call their bluffs and make the cuts anyway, which will place those local governments in a huge financial bind.

And by the way, this points to another problem with unions in general. Unions are governed by the votes of their members. In a situation like this, the union membership is presented with two choices: 1) accept across the board cuts for all of its members, or 2) keep compensation at the current levels, and just lay off enough members to make the numbers work. Now, option 1 may well be more palatable to the vast majority of the membership who knows it won't get laid off, so they support option 2 even though it screws over their less-senior members, because it puts more money in their pockets.

Apart from those people who get laid off, the folks who really get screwed in that scenario are the taxpayers, who are now paying the exact same amount of money for fewer government employees.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

Really? Tell people you're willing to compromise and Walker's a big bully while putting precisely the opposite terms on paper? Who's lieing to the public then?

[C S]

There's still doubt about this? :stunned:

I couldn't find the sarcasm emoticon.

[awesome possum]

The only option local governments will have at that point given the cut in state aid will be massive layoffs.

No, the other option local governments had was to watch their Governor not hand million and billion-dollar corporations even bigger tax breaks, thus digging the state's economy into an even bigger hole.

AP,

Really? Tell people you're willing to compromise and Walker's a big bully while putting precisely the opposite terms on paper? Who's lieing to the public then?

Why shouldn't they try to protect themselves? This guy is out to destroy the livelihoods of middle class workers for the sake of a) political opportunity and B) allowing the rich to get richer.

In short: he's a scumbag of the highest order who deserves to be screwed over as much as possible.

[C S]

AP,

Really? Tell people you're willing to compromise and Walker's a big bully while putting precisely the opposite terms on paper? Who's lieing to the public then?

It seems to me that both sides are effectively playing the same game. If your criticizing the tactics, both sides look equally guilty.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

So, Walker is the liar and the bully for trying to remove the mechanism by which the Unions are able to lie and cheat the public who's sympathes they are playing upon?

[TrackerNeil]

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.

And you've put your finger on it: this isn't about the budget. If it were, Walker would have taken the concessions he could get and declared victory two weeks ago. Either he really is serious about breaking the unions, or he's trying to cause a kerfuffle that he thinks will help him win higher office later on. (Think Ken Cuccinelli in Virgina.) In any case, he's not doing very well at the job he has, that's for sure, unless being governor involves taking actions opposed by a majority of your constituents for narrow political gain.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It seems to me that both sides are effectively playing the same game. If your criticizing the tactics, both sides look equally guilty.

Equally guilty? Well, I suppose that's a lot better than the beatification of the unions that has been the general conclusion to date.

[C S]

Equally guilty? Well, I suppose that's a lot better than the beatification of the unions that has been the general conclusion to date.

I call 'em as I see 'em.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And you've put your finger on it: this isn't about the budget. If it were, Walker would have taken the concessions he could get and declared victory two weeks ago.

The promised concessions were not real. Concessions made verbally in the media mean nothing unless they are reduced to contracts. That's contracts plural, not singular, because there are over 1500 such contracts in Wisconsin. The Democrats might pass the budget, but the local unions would still be free to ram contracts through locally compliant political bodies to create the "chicken" environment they want to force more money to be spent.

What is being missed is that there is no single entity capable of making binding promises on behalf of all the local bargaining units, because contracts are negotiated and ratified at the bargaining unit level. The union "promise" was an unenforceable bait and switch.

[awesome possum]

AP,

So, Walker is the liar and the bully for trying to remove the mechanism by which the Unions are able to lie and cheat the public who's sympathes they are playing upon?

You can see it your way and I'll see it mine. The facts of the matter are, no matter how Fox News or rightwing publications try to spin it, teachers, etc are severely underpaid and having decent benefits do not make up for it. Politicians shouldn't be forcing teachers to take pay cuts; they should be moving everyone else up to that level if anything.

It's a goddamned crying shame that an entire side of the political aisle isn't even trying to hide their real intentions anymore. Make the rich richer while attempting to shove the middle class down a few pegs. It's disgusting. How are you not disgusted? Do you not see what's happening?

Are the unions liars and cheats out to better their own interests? Yes. But we know that. We know what their interests are; it's making sure their members make a decent living. And that's villainized?

Am I living in a fucking alternate reality?

The promised concessions were not real.

OOOoooh, if FLoW says it and is backed up by National Review and Fox, it must be true.

The union "promise" was an unenforceable bait and switch.

Much like the "budget emergency" was.

The difference here, as I previously stated, is that one side wants to ensure their members make a decent living. The other side wants to ensure their uber-rich puppeteers get even richer, preferably on the backs of the middle class.

[Raskolnikov]

I noticed this little tidbit that's been seemingly obscured and I don't know why. The bill has explicit language specifically exempting police, firefighter and state trooper unions from this. Aren't these jobs paid for by taxpayer money as well, and therefore also prone to abuse (real or perceived) by their unions? Or is the bill actually less about the budget shortfall (brought about, in part, by tax cuts from the more affluent section of the population), and the real motive is union busting, specifically unions from specific trades, which is why the bill has created protected classes of work?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

Oooookaaaaay...

I doubt very seriously that most people who sincerely want to limit the size and scope of government are "uber-rich". I'm certianly not.

[CryHavoc]

CryHavoc,

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

I did read the link. For the first part, I wasn't previously aware, and while I would agree that it's deceptive and doesn't exactly help their cause, I don't think it's unreasonable. If you had previously agreed to salary cuts because of a budget situation (before this whole fiasco, I mean), thus showing relatively good faith, only to have your right to bargaining, which you view as a fundamental right, revoked, and if the person trying to do the revoking has proved as unwilling to move in the face of public opinion or anything else as Walker has (the more public opinion has turned against him, the more threats he's issued), I don't think it's an unreasonable response to take what little time you have left to lock in what you consider to be a reasonable salary while you still have your rights. I'd agree that it's certainly kind of shady to do it while you're trying to claim the moral high ground, but I don't think it's unreasonable or even wrong to try and help yourself while offering to compromise, in the face of someone who continually refuses to do so.

I'm not sure if you can necessarily say that the concessions were "not real", though. Trying to lock in your current salary as a backup in the face of actually losing your bargaining rights does not necessarily mean that the concessions you're willing to make if you get to keep your rights are untrue--just that you've got a kind of shady fallback if no one is willing to take you up on those concessions and bargain. It's possible that they in fact were completely fake and the entire thing is a massive delaying tactic to get those contracts rammed through, but I don't think that that has been shown at all. It's just as possible that the "concessions" were offered in the face of the possibility that this is really about the budget, while the shady contracts were in case this is really about union busting. I don't think we can necessarily know.

As for the second part of the link (the part, I'm assuming, that you're using to support your assertion that collective bargaining is the mechanism by which unions "lie and cheat the public"), it seems to me that the problem there is not that employees have the right to bargain; it's that the state/city/whatever is not bargaining particularly hard. That's like saying country A shouldn't be able to negotiate the terms of a treaty because country B's ambassador sucks and doesn't effectively represent his nation (or has a conflict of interest involving ties to country A).

I'm not sure if my opinion makes much sense, as I'm currently on the bus, but hopefully it kind of does. :)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

AP,

Oooookaaaaay...

I doubt very seriously that most people who sincerely want to limit the size and scope of government are "uber-rich". I'm certianly not.

The uber-rich and the poor seem to be the two groups most generous with other peoples' money.

[awesome possum]

AP,

Oooookaaaaay...

I doubt very seriously that most people who sincerely want to limit the size and scope of government are "uber-rich". I'm certianly not.

If you want to limit the size and scope of government, then the United States isn't for you. It will never happen here. Never.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

So, America "love it or leave it" is that really where you want to go?

[lokisnow]

Scott Walker seems very generous with the middle class's money. He's perfectly willing to steal an average of $8000 a year from a teacher or a nurse in order to give multimillion dollar tax breaks to corporations.

[Guy Kilmore]

I am confused as to why the Narrative is that public employees don't pay for their pension. I always thought it was a salary deferment for future payout. (I.E. Instead of negotating for a salary of 40k a year, I negotiate for a salary of 35k with 5k going towards my pension plan.) It seems like instead of public employees getting an individual choice of what they could apply for their pension, they all agreed to put forward 5k towards it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I noticed this little tidbit that's been seemingly obscured and I don't know why. The bill has explicit language specifically exempting police, firefighter and state trooper unions from this. Aren't these jobs paid for by taxpayer money as well, and therefore also prone to abuse (real or perceived) by their unions? Or is the bill actually less about the budget shortfall (brought about, in part, by tax cuts from the more affluent section of the population), and the real motive is union busting, specifically unions from specific trades, which is why the bill has created protected classes of work?

Well, he's been pretty blunt about the reasons for that. And no, it's not to show favoritism to unions that supported him, because they didn't.:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-25/walker-says-public-safety-means-wisconsin-cops-keep-collective-bargaining.html

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker exempted police and firefighters from a bill limiting collective bargaining to avoid jeopardizing public safety, a spokesman said.... Labor actions could interrupt services if the measure’s bargaining limits are imposed on police and firefighters’ unions, Walker has said. His motive in excluding them from the bill was “contingency planning to ensure public safety,” Chris Schrimpf, his spokesman, said in an e-mail....Walker excluded police to avoid losing backing for his bill because emergency workers enjoy public support, said Jim Palmer, executive director of the 11,000-member Wisconsin Professional Police Association.

....His union didn’t endorse Walker last year; all but four of 314 police and fire unions in state backed the Democratic candidate, said Cullen Werwie, a spokesman for Walker.

“I can’t have the possibility anywhere in the state of Wisconsin that if there was a fire or a crime or anything else that there would be one gap, one interruption in services out there because there’s no way we’re going to put the public safety at risk,” Walker said in a Feb. 21 press conference.