More union busting in Wisconsin

[Guest Raids]

Yes, on all issues except base pay, as stated in the OP.

ETA: I read it right out of the proposed bill, which was linked in the previous thread. I'll go look for the link.

[Shryke]

Here's some more semi-relevant data from the apparently hackish EPI:

http://www.epi.org/resources/datazone_rtw_index/

The most important aspect of right-to-work law is its effect on wages. That there have only been a handful of studies directly assessing the impact of these laws on workers' earnings is surprising. What research there is on the subject is mixed, with findings critically dependent on model specification. Unlike most research up to this point, this analysis focuses on the impact of regional costs of living and finds that workers living in RTW states earn significantly less than workers living in non-RTW states. We also find that care must be taken in examining the true effect of right-to-work legislation.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the effect of RTW legislation can be found in those metropolitan areas that occupy both RTW and non-RTW states. In these cases, estimating the effects separately indicates that workers living in these metropolitan areas are helped by the higher earnings typical of the non-RTW state.

[The Progressive]

Does the law forbid collective bargaining, or make it no longer mandatory?

Here's a more pertinent question for those who could only see the bottom line:

Does it make more economic sense to allow collective bargaining or to forbid it?

[TerraPrime]

Another take on the cost of pensions....

So... where's the analyses taking into consideration the bonuses that private sector employees get but which public sector workers don't?

Plus, the WI unions have already said that they will increase the employee contribution to the retirement plan.

[Guest Raids]

Here is the bill.

From the analysis provided at the start of the bill by the Legislative Reference Bureau:

This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of base wages. In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index.

[Commodore]

Here is the bill.

From the analysis provided at the start of the bill by the Legislative Reference Bureau:

Thanks.

So, could Walker set a policy of not collective bargaining without codifying it into law (similar to a company hiring policy)?

Basically, if the voters would prefer the state not bargain collectively, is that possible without passing a law?

It seems like the law, rather than the state administrators, determine whether there will or won't be collective bargaining.

[Fez]

Not just Wisconsin now, Indiana is now in the same situation

House Democrats are leaving the state rather than vote on anti-union legislation, The Indianapolis Star has learned.

A source said Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana.

The House came into session this morning, with only two of the 40 Democrats present. Those two were needed to make a motion, and a seconding motion, for any procedural steps Democrats would want to take to ensure Republicans don’t do anything official without quorum.

With only 58 legislators present, there was no quorum present to do business. The House needs 67 of its members to be present.

Good for them; use whatever means are necessary to stop these atrocious bills.

[Commodore]

Not just Wisconsin now, Indiana is now in the same situation

Good for them; use whatever means are necessary to stop these atrocious bills.

What's atrocious about this?

Right to work. Makes it a Class A misdemeanor for an employer to require an individual to: (1) become or remain a member of a labor organization; (2) pay dues, fees, or other charges to a labor organization; or (3) pay to a charity or another third party an amount that represents dues, fees, or other charges required of members of a labor organization; as a condition of employment or continuation of employment. Establishes a separate private right of action for violations or threatened violations. Exempts individuals employed in the construction industry, employed by the United States, or subject to the federal Railway Labor Act.

I would oppose this bill btw, a company should have the right to only hire union if they want.

But to say it justifies a scorched earth policy of fleeing the state to prevent the government from functioning is dubious.

I'm reading that Scott Walker is going to shut off direct deposit and make the legislators come back to pick up their paychecks.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Here's some more semi-relevant data from the apparently hackish EPI:

http://www.epi.org/resources/datazone_rtw_index/

And here's some data from National Right to Work. More job creation, greater growth in wages and benefits, hihger household incomes, etc., higher purchasing power when higher cost of living in forced-unionization states is taken into account, etc.

http://www.nrtwc.org/FactSheets/RTWFactSheet.pdf

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Thanks for posting actual hard data, Ini. I think I'll forward that to my Mom...

You might also be interested in the fact that it´s the federal employees that earn more.

USA Today article

[Guest Raids]

Thanks.

So, could Walker set a policy of not collective bargaining without codifying it into law (similar to a company hiring policy)?

We'd have to get deep into Wisconsin's initial act that authorized public unions in the state in the first place. My guess is that, no, they could not - it was probably written into the statute that they had to bargain in good faith with the elected union representative.

This is because normally, the workers can strike and thereby put pressure on the employer to come to the table with the union and public employees cannot do this legally.

This is not to say that employers don't have similar obligations with private unions, just that the option to force the employer's hand by striking isn't there with a public union, such that other constraints were put in place to put the parties in their respective bargaining conditions.

From a natural law perspective, you could say that employees traded their natural law right to strike for an obligation from the employer to come to the table.

Which is, you know, pretty much exactly what you're seeing here - a return to striking in the face of the reversal of that policy.

[Commodore]

And here's some data from National Right to Work. More job creation, greater growth in wages and benefits, hihger household incomes, etc., higher purchasing power when higher cost of living in forced-unionization states is taken into account, etc.

http://www.nrtwc.org/FactSheets/RTWFactSheet.pdf

Companies should not be forced to hire union, but RTW laws make it a crime to have a union only policy.

Either way, it's anti free market.

[Guest Raids]

Right-to-work provisions are kind of like the United States under the Articles. Like, hey, we'd really like it you paid taxes and stuff since you went and voted for these guys who set the tax rates and wholly participated in the process, but, you know, now that the results are known, if you feel like you don't like it and don't want to pay (or, hell, even if you do like it and just don't like paying for it), then, you know, fine.

[Fez]

What's atrocious about this?

Because even if the preliminary bill isn't as bad as it could be it still opens the floodgates to worse bills. Besides HB 1468, while bad, isn't the real problem, that would be bills such as HB 1585 and HB 1216

The former, while I currently cannot find the text to it, basically prohibits collective bargaining for public employees, and the later screws over unions in the construction industry.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Right-to-work provisions are kind of like the United States under the Articles. Like, hey, we'd really like it you paid taxes and stuff since you went and voted for these guys who set the tax rates and wholly participated in the process, but, you know, now that the results are known, if you feel like you don't like it and don't want to pay (or, hell, even if you do like it and just don't like paying for it), then, you know, fine.

How so? The workers who opt out may not vote for whom their negotiators will be, and are not permitted to vote on the contract that will govern their employment. They're bound by an agreement in which they had no voice and which they may not like in the least. Why on earth should they pay for representation on which they weren't permitted to vote?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Because even if the preliminary bill isn't as bad as it could be it still opens the floodgates to worse bills. Besides HB 1468, while bad, isn't the real problem, that would be bills such as HB 1585 and HB 1216

...and the latter screws over unions in the construction industry.

How so? All it does is give union and non-union bidders equal rights to bid on contracts, and may the best bid win. Hmm. I guess I can see your point on why unions might be pissed about that, although voters probably will like it:

Provides that plans, specifications, and contract documents for a public works contract may not: (1) require a bidder, contractor, or subcontractor to enter into or comply with an agreement with a labor organization on the same or a related public works project; or (2) discriminate against a bidder, contractor, or subcontractor for refusing to enter into, remain signatory to, or comply with an agreement with a labor organization on the same or a related public works project.

[Inigima]

FLOW, can you back up your disdain for the EPI?

Similarly, if you want to attack the study, attack the study -- Ezra linked it in his post.

But you don't really want to do put your money where your mouth is, do you? You'd rather just poo-poo it from the sidelines.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Companies should not be forced to hire union, but RTW laws make it a crime to have a union only policy.

Either way, it's anti free market.

Uh, just so everyone is aware, the rights unions are granted under labor relations in this country make unions themselves anti-free market by permitting them to monopolize labor. That's expressly recognized in the Clayton antitrust acts, which grants a specific, limited antitrust exemption for unions. You can't look at RTW laws in isolation from the rest of labor law.

[Fez]

How so? All it does is give union and non-union bidders equal rights to bid on contracts, and may the best bid win. Hmm. I guess I can see your point on why unions might be pissed about that, although voters probably will like it:

Provides that plans, specifications, and contract documents for a public works contract may not: (1) require a bidder, contractor, or subcontractor to enter into or comply with an agreement with a labor organization on the same or a related public works project; or (2) discriminate against a bidder, contractor, or subcontractor for refusing to enter into, remain signatory to, or comply with an agreement with a labor organization on the same or a related public works project.

Its difficult to make competitive bids when you have to deal with the costs associated with the safety conditions and livable wages that unions tend to demand for their members. Changing the law to effectively lower wages for the middle class is generally not a winning message with the voters.

[Swordfish]

So... where's the analyses taking into consideration the bonuses that private sector employees get but which public sector workers don't?

Um....

I give up...

Where is the analysis taking into account the bonuses that private sector employees get but which public sector employees don't?