WI Gov. Scott Walker implicated in criminal probe

Complexity said:
I don't like sleazy, nasty people.

The governor of wisconsin is such a person.

I am delighted that he is getting caught up in a tangle of corruption. I doubt that he is innocent in this regard and, if he is guilty, look forward to him receiving some justice.

Your statements are disingenuous and your misunderstandings are deliberate.
Click to expand...
What has he done that is sleazy and nasty?
 
eeyore1954 said:
What has he done that is sleazy and nasty?
Click to expand...
He has shown a good deal of contempt for his constituents by stripping state workers of collective bargaining rights without even trying to work out compromises. He was offered concessions to solve the budget crises but refused them choosing to strip rights instead. He has acted unilaterally and shown a great deal of indifference. It's his way or the highway. I think he is an ass. I'm no huge fan of unions but people should have the right to organize and/or at least have their opinions heard and considered. Unions gave us many of the benefits we take for granted including vacations, days off, sick days, etc. Walker has shown he doesn't give a **** about what others think. People are chattel and should have no say. Their only right is to find another job. That's not always easy.
 
RandFan said:
He has shown a good deal of contempt for his constituents by stripping state workers of collective bargaining rights without even trying to work out compromises. He was offered concessions to solve the budget crises but refused them choosing to strip rights instead. He has acted unilaterally and shown a great deal of indifference. It's his way or the highway. I think he is an ass. I'm no huge fan of unions but people should have the right to organize and/or at least have their opinions heard and considered. Unions gave us many of the benefits we take for granted including vacations, days off, sick days, etc.
Click to expand...

Was that a good faith offer of concessions, or a PR move to create a future talking point? Now, had they offered concessions the previous year, when everyone knew about the impending $3.6 billion hole in the upcoming budget, that would've been something. But, no need to play their hand too soon. If Barrett wins, they lose nothing.

The reason that the bargaining laws had to be changed is because the state cannot make changes at the local level. This allowed municipalities and school boards to increase the employee contributions and make other changes to balance their budgets, to offset the lowering of state aid.

Walker has shown he doesn't give a **** about what others think. People are chattel and should have no say. Their only right is to find another job. That's not always easy.
Click to expand...
Unless you have some quotes or evidence to back this up, I'm going to assume it's just a strawman opinion you're attributing to Walker.
 
Reginald Hobbes said:
Was that a good faith offer of concessions...
Click to expand...
I don't see how they could be anything else. Walker could have accepted the concessions, right?

Unless you have some quotes or evidence to back this up, I'm going to assume it's just a strawman opinion you're attributing to Walker.
Click to expand...
Walker said he would listen but he wouldn't change his mind. Walker did nothing to try to preserve the rights of union workers, or do you have evidence that he did?

The reason that the bargaining laws had to be changed is because the state cannot make changes at the local level. This allowed municipalities and school boards to increase the employee contributions and make other changes to balance their budgets, to offset the lowering of state aid.
Click to expand...
Please to demonstrate your claims?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Tell us all about these concessions you claim were offered.
Click to expand...
See link. Post #102. Oh, and please to tell us all about what the kind and generous Walker did to preserve workers bargaining rights?
 
WildCat said:
All of the mainstream Wisconsin news media seem to have missed this earth-shaking story of how Walker is implicated in criminal activity.

Scooped by Brad Blog! I bet they're just too embarrassed to admit it, that's why they're all silent even after Brad Blog broke the story.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've been in Madison on business the past several months and have heard nothing. There aren't even any protestors outside the capital calling for him to resign over this.
 
RandFan said:
See link. Post #102. Oh, and please to tell us all about what the kind and generous Walker did to preserve workers bargaining rights?
Click to expand...
Sorry, no details there. Can you link to the exact concessions offered by every one of Wisconsin's public labor unions? All your link points to is a few union members saying they were open to concessions and negotiations. No tangible offers.
 
WildCat said:
Sorry, no details there. Can you link to the exact concessions offered by every one of Wisconsin's public labor unions? All your link points to is a few union members saying they were open to concessions and negotiations. No tangible offers.
Click to expand...
No. It was reported that concessions were offered. I'd like to see what Walker did to preserve workers rights. Did Walker offer concessions? Did Walker claim the concessions were not enough? What were his details? No, I'm afraid that given the claim that it was Walker who did nothing to preserve workers rights I'm happy to leave it at that.
 
RandFan said:
No. It was reported that concessions were offered. I'd like to see what Walker did to preserve workers rights. Did Walker offer concessions? Did Walker claim the concessions were not enough? What were his details? No, I'm afraid that given the claim that it was Walker who did nothing to preserve workers rights I'm happy to leave it at that.
Click to expand...
So you have no evidence that any concessions were actually offered, and your link just quotes a few yahoos saying they were open to concessions. But you have no evidence of any concessions actually being offered, correct?
 
WildCat said:
So you have no evidence that any concessions were actually offered, and your link just quotes a few yahoos saying they were open to concessions. But you have no evidence of any concessions actually being offered, correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, I gave you evidence. It was reported. You are hand waving. Show me where Walker or his supporters denied the reports? Show me where Walker did much of anything to preserve workers rights.

Gov. Scott Walker says he asked unions for concessions and they refused (false).

In any event, it really isn't controversial. Gov. Walker was offered concessions and that isn't disputed.

Wisconsin public-sector union leaders have offered Governor Scott Walker and the Republican-majority state legislature a deal. The unions will accept all of the fiscal aspects of Walker's bill: Henceforth members will pay 5.8 percent of their salary toward their pensions and 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums, up substantially in both areas. All they ask in return is that Walker and the legislature not gut their collective bargaining rights.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It should be obvious that Il Duce had no intention of negotiating with the unions. He was there to do one thing, and that is to hand over as much of government as possible to the people who government is supposed to keep under control.
 
RandFan said:
I don't see how they could be anything else. Walker could have accepted the concessions, right?

Walker said he would listen but he wouldn't change his mind. Walker did nothing to try to preserve the rights of union workers, or do you have evidence that he did?
Click to expand...
Those union leaders who offered concessions did not have the power to compel the locals to go along with them.
From your Politifact link:
It was at that point that AFSCME Council 24 (the largest state employee union), along with the state teachers union and other labor leaders said they would be willing to trade the concessions if Walker would drop the limits on collective bargaining. AFSCME stands for American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

To be sure, not all members or unions fell in lockstep behind their leaders’ stance. In fact, on March 3 some 7,000 unionists held a "no concessions, no cuts" rally in Madison organized by National Nurses United. And the rally was officially backed by several major public sector unions in Wisconsin.

Walker rejected the offer as a "hope and a prayer" and said the collective bargaining limits were also crucial to giving local government and schools the flexibility needed to balance their budgets.
Click to expand...


Please to demonstrate your claims?
Click to expand...
Act 10 FAQ
Collective Bargaining Law Changes

Under Act 10, are municipalities prohibited from collectively bargaining with municipal general employees on any subject except total base wages?

Yes. Act 10 prohibits local governments from bargaining with general municipal employees on matters other than base wages. This means, for example, that municipalities may unilaterally dictate the health insurance benefit levels and premium contribution requirements for all employees except represented police officers and fire fighters.
Click to expand...
From your other link:
But Republicans said the bill needs to pass as is because collective bargaining rights can affect the bottom lines of state and local governments in a host of ways.

To underscore that, Walker noted many school districts have union contracts that require them to provide health care through WEA Trust, which is affiliated with the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's largest teachers union.

He said if his plan passes, schools could leave the trust without bargaining and get health care from the state or private sector and save at least $68 million a year.
Click to expand...
 
I thought that Walker's proposal related specifically to collective bargaining on pension programs, and that all of the unions' other collective bargaining "rights" were left untouched?

Also, why does Walker get all the hate for this? I seem to recall several legislators fleeing the state to avoid having to vote on a bill. This suggests to me that responsibility for this whole thing originated in the legislature. About the worst thing you can say about Walker is that he happened to agree with several dozen other people, and that he declined to veto a bill that they had voted into law.

That horrible Scott Walker! You can tell how much he hates democracy, and how much he disregards the will of the people, by the fact that he acceded to the democratically-expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically-elected representatives of the people, in full conformity with the democratically-established constitution of his state! What a tyrant!
 
RandFan said:
You are correct. It's a summary of my link from a site critical of the unions. I apologize.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/on_wisconsin.html
Click to expand...
That opinion piece links to this article and the only reference I find there is this:
Miller and Hansen said Republicans should take the elements out of the bill that take away union rights because public workers have agreed to the financial concessions Walker is seeking.

"The workers have stepped up and given the governor what he's asked for," Hansen said.
Click to expand...
When did this vote take place? How many of the state unions were involved in this concession?

Incidentally, the opinion piece you did link to was spot on:
If there's no budget crisis, on what possible basis can union leaders instruct their members to give up an estimated $330 million worth of hard-earned, contractually guaranteed benefits over the next couple of years? Are they saying that the rank and file is better off giving up their money now, even though it isn't necessary to fix the state's budget, as long as they still have the chance to get the money back at the bargaining table later, maybe?

...Looks to me as if Wisconsin's union leaders have revealed their preference for political power. They want to preserve collective bargaining at all costs, because without it they will lose the flow of dues money. And without dues money, the unions have no political war chests, and without political war chests, they are no longer power brokers in state and local elections.
Click to expand...
And they have only to look at the state to their south to see what happens when powerful employee unions control the politicians with whom they "negotiate" compensation and work rules.
 
WildCat said:
That opinion piece links to this article and the only reference I find there is this:

When did this vote take place? How many of the state unions were involved in this concession?

Incidentally, the opinion piece you did link to was spot on:

And they have only to look at the state to their south to see what happens when powerful employee unions control the politicians with whom they "negotiate" compensation and work rules.
Click to expand...
None of this obviates my point and you have yet to address my questions. Did Walker deny that concessions were made? Did he state that not enough of the unions were involved? Did the article claim that there were not enough unions involved?

Let me reiterate my point so it's clear. Concessions were made and Walker did not care about those (and the article does not dispute them). Powerful unions? I don't know how "powerful" but now they have nothing. Walker took away their rights without any negotiations whatsoever. Without even responding to the offer. That was and still is my point and nothing has been said to change that.
 
theprestige said:
I thought that Walker's proposal related specifically to collective bargaining on pension programs, and that all of the unions' other collective bargaining "rights" were left untouched?

Also, why does Walker get all the hate for this? I seem to recall several legislators fleeing the state to avoid having to vote on a bill. This suggests to me that responsibility for this whole thing originated in the legislature. About the worst thing you can say about Walker is that he happened to agree with several dozen other people, and that he declined to veto a bill that they had voted into law.

That horrible Scott Walker! You can tell how much he hates democracy, and how much he disregards the will of the people, by the fact that he acceded to the democratically-expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically-elected representatives of the people, in full conformity with the democratically-established constitution of his state! What a tyrant!
Click to expand...

To be fair to the other side, I will have to correct you on this.
It was Walker's idea. The GOP controlled both houses, so it was going to pass. The 14 Democrats fled the state as a delaying tactic.
 
RandFan said:
None of this obviates my point and you have yet to address my questions. Did Walker deny that concessions were made? Did he state that not enough of the unions were involved? Did the article claim that there were not enough unions involved?

Let me reiterate my point so it's clear. Concessions were made and Walker did not care about those (and the article does not dispute them). Powerful unions? I don't know how "powerful" but now they have nothing. Walker took away their rights without any negotiations whatsoever. Without even responding to the offer. That was and still is my point and nothing has been said to change that.
Click to expand...
I am not going to take it as a given that concessions were made.

Which unions made the concessions? Did all of them agree to concessions? When was the vote taken by members, if any? Were the concessions supposedly made the only changes demanded by the government?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom