Wisconsin Union Busting Bill/Protests

[Lord of Oop North]

If the best way to close the budget gap without new taxes is for government employees to take a pay cut, or reduction in pension matching then so be it. Frankly people that get government jobs, and I know we have a number on this board so please understand I am not attacking you in any way, should have to abide by the same rules as all of us in the private sector. My company froze all pay raises for the last 2 years, dropped all bonuses and will probably not have raises this year as well. We did this in an effort to reduce the number of layoffs.

So hey if the teachers et al in Wisconsin dont want to take a pay cut they can just get layed off. I would however start the layoffs at the top of those near retirement, thats a nice double dip since it gets rid of the highest salary people and stops you havign to pay off their pensions.

That all sounds fine and reasonable, but as far as I can tell, the Governor didn't even try to negotiate with the Union and bring this to the table. And then he goes ahead and tries to ram a bill that essentially guts the primary purpose of the union. Talk about bad fucking faith.

[The Iceman of the North]

I don't have a problem with outside protestors either, but some broke through police barricades and went inside, cramming the halls, etc. That's not peaceably assembling. That's an attempt at physical initimidation.

:lol: :lmao:

You're on a roll today FLoW!

Of course, nobody on the right have attempted to physically intimidate their opponents.

[Merentha]

Except that there is a reason for them to try to delay the vote. Its not just a dumb political move, it has a purpose. Getting attention for what is clearly a very unpopular action in many, many circles, especially their constituents', means that pressure is put on some Repubs to not vote party line.

And, practically, yes, some votes do matter more if you care more. Or have more money. If a minority raises a big enough fuss or donates enough money, they get action that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Complaining that significant portions of the populations have a less practical influence on government based on income is a completely valid criticism of the current capitalist republic we currently have in the United States. Claiming to be as disenfranchised as the Egyptians were, however, is hyperbolic.

[Spring Bass]

After he came into office, he allocated a bunch of money towards things like HSAs, tax cuts, and the like, creating a budget deficit. Which he then attempted to correct by crushing the public sector unions.*

* Make sure to take a good look at which public sector unions he's targeting - the law excludes "public safety employees" (like firefighters and police) from the limitations on collective bargaining. I suspect it's a stab at crippling the teacher's union in the state.

[DrownedCrow]

This seems like a good idea to me. Public sector unions have been fucking over the rest of the country for a long time. In recent years, the average wage of government workers has surpoassed that of the private sector. When you consider that government workers typically have far better pensions/benefits and almost total job security, it doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

[TrackerNeil]

Seriously, if you're not on some kind of list, you really ought to be.

Funniest thing I have read today.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So because these people cast their votes, and the election is over, they're supposed to sit the fuck down and shutup for the entire term? Please. Your right to speak and feel outraged doesn't stop at the ballot box.

Who said they should sit down and shut up, or that their right to speak and feel outraged must end? I certainly didn't. I expressly stated that I have no problem with them peaceably assembling outside the Capitol and protesting. That's their right. What I don't like is physical intimidation.

It has nothing to do with their votes counting 'extra'.

Well then, can you explain to me the logic behind the sign that said "if Egypt can have democracy, why can't Wisconsin?" Because that's the specific sign to which I was referring when I made that comment. Wisconsin does have democracy. There was an election. So the only explanation I can figure for that sign is that that person just believes that Wisconsin isn't a democracy unless policies reflect their personal opinions, regardless of whether those are the opinions of the majority of voters. That's not democracy. And that pretty much goes for all the Egypt-related signs and comments people are making. To equate their losing out in the democratic process to the people of Egypt who lived in a dictatorship is just ignorant, and shameful.

That doesn't mean they have to stop bitching, but claiming that Wisconsin isn't a democracy is just asinine.

[Spring Bass]

This seems like a good idea to me. Public sector unions have been fucking over the rest of the country for a long time. In recent years, the average wage of government workers has surpoassed that of the private sector. When you consider that government workers typically have far better pensions/benefits and almost total job security, it doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

Thing is, the place where you see that type of pension and wage compensation is almost always in the "public safety employee" unions - which is the group that isn't getting its rights gutted under the Wisconsin law.

[Datepalm]

If the best way to close the budget gap without new taxes is for government employees to take a pay cut, or reduction in pension matching then so be it. Frankly people that get government jobs, and I know we have a number on this board so please understand I am not attacking you in any way, should have to abide by the same rules as all of us in the private sector. My company froze all pay raises for the last 2 years, dropped all bonuses and will probably not have raises this year as well. We did this in an effort to reduce the number of layoffs.

Why should they have to 'abide by private sector rules'? They've achieved better ones, fairly and freely, and now theres an attempt to basically go back on the deal by changing the actual law.

[awesome possum]

Of course, nobody on the right have attempted to physically intimidate their opponents.

No way. Those guys taking their assault rifles to rallies? They're just exercising their constitutional rights.

These teachers and students walking over or under some tape? They're goddamned criminal fundamentalist assholes trying to prevent democracy from taking place!

This seems like a good idea to me. Public sector unions have been fucking over the rest of the country for a long time. In recent years, the average wage of government workers has surpoassed that of the private sector. When you consider that government workers typically have far better pensions/benefits and almost total job security, it doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

How exactly have teachers been "fucking over the rest of the country for a long time" with their wages?

[Alexia]

How exactly have teachers been "fucking over the rest of the country for a long time" with their wages?

Why should they have to 'abide by private sector rules'? They've achieved better ones, fairly and freely, and now theres an attempt to basically go back on the deal by changing the actual law.

Because if I don't have it, then nobody should! :tantrum:

[Merentha]

This seems like a good idea to me. Public sector unions have been fucking over the rest of the country for a long time. In recent years, the average wage of government workers has surpoassed that of the private sector. When you consider that government workers typically have far better pensions/benefits and almost total job security, it doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

"Hey, that person over there has nicer things than me. Rather than agitating for and demanding workplace protection, a true living wage, a better pension, or better job security, I'm just going to break their stuff. Nyaaah"

Besides, shouldn't the magical hand of the free market mean that if you are a harder, better worker, you get rewarded more? Or maybe the problems in private sectors arise because corporations are free to shove their shit on everyone underneath them?

[Datepalm]

This seems like a good idea to me. Public sector unions have been fucking over the rest of the country for a long time. In recent years, the average wage of government workers has surpoassed that of the private sector. When you consider that government workers typically have far better pensions/benefits and almost total job security, it doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

To put it extremely simply, the wage you aren't making and the benefits you don't have were not take by a highschool teacher from Wisconsin. They were taken from you by your boss and your CEO.

Fuck them and unionize instead of bitching about others with their heads slightly less deep in the sand. .

[Commodore]

I have no problem with the protests, neither does the governor. If you start blocking public thoroughfares and intimidating public officials, you lose me. That isn't free speech or peaceable assembly (not saying that is happening in this instance).

Scott Walker on The Early Show this morning, tells it like it is.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That all sounds fine and reasonable, but as far as I can tell, the Governor didn't even try to negotiate with the Union and bring this to the table. And then he goes ahead and tries to ram a bill that essentially guts the primary purpose of the union. Talk about bad fucking faith.

The problem is sort of inherent in the concept of public employee unions. A private employer who finds itself unable to afford benefits contained in a contract can declare bankruptcy, and have some aspects of the contract rewritten, or sometimes just abrogated in the entirety. So all those private sector employees lose out on their contractual benefits. Because a failure to do that actually screws over all the other lawful creditors of the debtor who have equally valid contracts with that business.

Or consider the situation where private employees have a union contract and their employer simply goes belly-up completely because it is broken. They don't get anything for whatever pay they were promised in the future under the contract. That's clearly understood in any collective bargaining relationship.

That, essentially, is where some states are finding themselves. They have more revenue scheduled to go out than they have coming in, and they are prohibited by their own state constitutions from doing that. They are required to close that deficit, and have all sorts of other legal obligations to the residents of their states.

It should also be pointed out that these particular cuts are less than 15% of the total cuts the state is making. It is not asking public employees to bear the entire burden, or even most of that burden. They're cutting like hell everywhere else too.

[Lyanna Stark]

To put it extremely simply, the wage you aren't making and the benefits you don't have were not take by a highschool teacher from Wisconsin. They were taken from you by your boss and your CEO.

Fuck them and unionize instead of bitching about others with their heads slightly less deep in the sand. .

Preach on sister.

Looking at the salary development in the US and Western Europe during the last decade or so, it's not teacher salaries that should worry you DrownedCrow. The increasing pay gap between average earners and top earners is a galloping social problem that needs to be adressed.

[Merentha]

Threatening to call in the national guard to stop a strike doesn't count as intimidation to you? Certainly doesn't sound like the actions of someone who has no problems with the protest.

And, effective peaceful protest has to disrupt something, or the people in power could completely ignore it. Basically, you're saying that the people are allowed to protest as long as it doesn't bother you personally or affect what I think is a good thing.

[Lord of Oop North]

That doesn't mean they have to stop bitching, but claiming that Wisconsin isn't a democracy is just asinine.

Think that I may have misunderstood you a bit, apologies. Yeah, the sign is hyperbolic. Obviously they live in a democracy. I'm not cool with physical intimidation, but I think that calling this protest 'physical intimidation' is also a bit hyperbolic. Depending on what exactly they did once inside the building, obviously.

In general, I kind of agree with those who are harsh on the unions. A lot of them are awful, and basically actively work to milk the system for all it's worth. My father's union operates like that. Or, like the construction unions, engage in purposeful actions to delay projects in order to extend work and wages. Even the teacher's union in Ontario is overly spoiled, in my opinion. But from everything that I've heard, this is not the norm in the United States. Not even close. So that makes me a little more sympathetic.

ETA: Last sentence refers to teacher's unions in the USA.

[MinDonner]

This seems like a good idea to me. Public sector unions have been fucking over the rest of the country for a long time. In recent years, the average wage of government workers has surpoassed that of the private sector. When you consider that government workers typically have far better pensions/benefits and almost total job security, it doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

Blimey. And here I thought that the ones fucking over the country were the ones gutting all workers' rights, abolishing job security, slashing benefits and making wages stagnate. I guess "the country" consists of merely employers rather than employees. :dunno:

"Hey, that person over there has nicer things than me. Rather than agitating for and demanding workplace protection, a true living wage, a better pension, or better job security, I'm just going to break their stuff. Nyaaah"

Besides, shouldn't the magical hand of the free market mean that if you are a harder, better worker, you get rewarded more? Or maybe the problems in private sectors arise because corporations are free to shove their shit on everyone underneath them?

Well said.

[Commodore]

Threatening to call in the national guard to stop a strike doesn't count as intimidation to you?

The national guard would be used to perform the duties of public workers that illegally strike, not to "stop the strike".

It's a contingency plan for public safety.