Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

[Neally]

And none of that takes into account the fact that the unions are willing to capitulate on the salary, benefits, and pension terms. All they want is to keep their collective bargaining rights.

Walker has refused them.

So let's see some numbers from Walker substantiating the fiscal necessity of taking those collective bargaining rights away.

Okay, but this says a lot more about the unions' loud and skillful P.R. campaign than it does about the actual merits of the issues. I am still waiting for the unions to put it in writing. So far, this "offer" exists mainly in the realm of union publicity. Can the unions and their AWOL allies in the Wisconsin legislature guarantee that economic concessions actually get made, in a timely manner, in every single one of the 72 counties and 1,000-plus municipalities across the state where bargaining would have to be carried out?

And what do they mean by "collective bargaining rights?" If they mean the right to sit down and negotiate wages, benefits and conditions on a periodic basis, that would be one thing. But if they mean the right to de facto eternal representation status for the current unions and a mandatory, state-enforced, dues check-off, that would be quite another.

 

[AlBell]

I assume by "some people" you mean Gov. Walker?

I assume a lot lot more ... 'elections have consequences' ring a bell?

And you think the national backlash will be pro-govt-unions? I think you are wrong about the way the backlash will develop.

And if you believe the average taxpayer thinks NEA etc are looking out for taxpayers' best interests, I again think you are wrong.

 

[BeAChooser]

how will removing collective bargaining rights save the state of Wisconson one single dime?

Ask Californians.

 

[johnny karate]

Is that just an assumption? For you to know for sure that it doesn't need repaid during this budget cycle you'd need to know when it does need repaid by.. so when is that? (edit: and yes that's an admission that I don't know either)

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

In addition, the state has two big obligations looming: a $58.7 million payment to the State of Minnesota after the end of a tax-reciprocity agreement between Wisconsin and its neighbor; as well as an additional $200 million that the state is under court order to return to a medical malpractice fund after an illegal fund transfer in 2007 by lawmakers and Gov. Jim Doyle. The state has to pay all of that money, but not necessarily in this fiscal year.

Is it fiscally necessary to close the current budget gap? Probably not, Walker himself estimates only $30 million in savings for the remaining months of the budget, and that's for the entire bill not just the collective bargaining aspect.

In other words he's not claiming that the collective bargaining restrictions are necessary to close the current budget gap of $137M, in fact he's stated plainly that it will not close that gap. Will the bill help to close the $3.6 billion shortfall for the upcoming biannual budget? Well that's not really the question, the question is "is that the best way to try and close that budget gap?" which is a political and philosophical discussion.

Well, Walker is certainly putting the revocation of the unions' collective bargaining rights into fiscal terms:

But Walker defended his plan, saying the public employee union has “a stranglehold” on the state through tough negotiating that is “like a virus, eating up our budget.”

So let's see him provide some numbers to back up his assertion.

 

[johnny karate]

Okay, but this says a lot more about the unions' loud and skillful P.R. campaign than it does about the actual merits of the issues. I am still waiting for the unions to put it in writing. So far, this "offer" exists mainly in the realm of union publicity. Can the unions and their AWOL allies in the Wisconsin legislature guarantee that economic concessions actually get made, in a timely manner, in every single one of the 72 counties and 1,000-plus municipalities across the state where bargaining would have to be carried out?

"Well, the unions may have said they'd be willing to capitulate, but I don't believe them."

And what do they mean by "collective bargaining rights?" If they mean the right to sit down and negotiate wages, benefits and conditions on a periodic basis, that would be one thing. But if they mean the right to de facto eternal representation status for the current unions and a mandatory, state-enforced, dues check-off, that would be quite another.

That will all become academic if Walker and the Republicans have their way.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I believe this is more than about unions. If they succeed in busting them up, then they eliminate the only financial competit ion for ad/election campaigns.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And what do they mean by "collective bargaining rights?" If they mean the right to sit down and negotiate wages, benefits and conditions on a periodic basis, that would be one thing. But if they mean the right to de facto eternal representation status for the current unions and a mandatory, state-enforced, dues check-off, that would be quite another.

Isn't the language of the bill something you should be asking Walker?

 

[johnny karate]

The simple matter is I campaigned on this all throughout the election. Anybody who says they are shocked on this has been asleep for the past two years.

Yeah, not so much.

One of many examples of the cheap political stunt he's pulling:

As the campaign rolled near a close, in late October 2010, Walker told the Oshkosh Northwestern that he would "ask all state workers" for wage and benefit concessions in the collective bargaining process.

After the election, he proposed imposing concessions without negotiating and eliminating benefits as a topic of collective bargaining.

Walker is a union-buster. Plain and simple. He played it close to the vest while he campaigned (read: he lied about it), and is now making a power play to hamstring his political enemies.

 

[Neally]

"Well, the unions may have said they'd be willing to capitulate, but I don't believe them."

Yep, what have they put in writing or some other official capacity?

That will all become academic if Walker and the Republicans have their way.

That doesn't address the question.

Isn't the language of the bill something you should be asking Walker?

The question is more for they unions.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The question is more for they unions.

Why are you asking unions what Walker means?

 

[DavidJames]

I believe this is more than about unions. If they succeed in busting them up, then they eliminate the only financial competit ion for ad/election campaigns.

Indeed, if unions generally voted Republican this would be playing out quite different.

 

[johnny karate]

Yep, what have they put in writing or some other official capacity?

I don't know. But your baseless implication they might be lying doesn't change the reality of what's transpired. The unions made an offer to capitulate on all financial demands. Walker refused. That none of this was done in an official enough capacity to suit you is irrelevant.

That doesn't address the question.

To ponder the degree to which the unions will negotiate on this issue is pointless in the face of them having to deal with someone who will not negotiate at all (despite the fact that he said he would during his campaign).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And it shows that some categories make substantialy more!



You're still stuck on this 100 million dollar lie, aren't you? And you complain about the other side using propaganda!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your links have been shown to be absolute . This is a problem for BILLIONS of dollars in deficits over two years. Not about a pittance 100 million!

Anyone who has been reading the posts and links can see how distorted your perception of the facts are. It's a shame you can't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Strange, because firefighters have shown up to the rallies in Madison, in opposition to Walker. They seem to think that once he's done with the other public sector unions, then they're next.

And they're right.

I'm not sure that's the motivation. Workers identify with one another. I would think the unaffected union members are saying, we don't like what Walker is doing to other workers. The firefighters don't have to feel personally threatened to care about the teachers and other workers.

I'm not threatened by Walker and I care.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I believe this is more than about unions. If they succeed in busting them up, then they eliminate the only financial competit ion for ad/election campaigns.

It's about this, too, perhaps...

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02...for-no-bid-sales-of-state-owned-power-plants/

Pay no attention to that man behind the screen.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Anyone who has been reading the posts and links can see how distorted your perception of the facts are. It's a shame you can't.

The tax breaks and spending that Walker has added are for next fiscal years budget. There was not a surplus as your propaganda has claimed. They didn't read the memo right. I'll ascribe this to incompetence rather than malice as it's kinda long and wordy.

edit: here's another link backing up the above. Please note that the actual author of the memo that the left is using for its false claim is quoted.

I'm not sure how to point this out to you AGAIN in a way that you might understand. It's been pointed out over and over again. What's keeping you from understanding? The only thing I can surmise is blind bias forcing your arguments into the ludicrous.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I believe this is more than about unions. If they succeed in busting them up, then they eliminate the only financial competit ion for ad/election campaigns.

OpenSecrets has a page up for PACs and how much they give. And while there are some unions up high on the lists of total expenditures in elections, they are not by any definition the sole supporting of Democrats.

 

[The_Animus]

Is this accurate?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It appears to be.

Who would drink anything squirting out of an ass? I remember that scandal from when it first came to light. That's one incredibly disgusting thing. Eeeewwwww.

Walker’s Gone, But We Are Still Stuck With His Bills

How did that not come out in his race to be governor?