Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rejecting compromises that have been offered doesn't mean that "Gov. Walker has closed the door to any kind of compromise." He may accept a future compromise. He hasn't ruled that out like you stated.

Words have meaning. Learn what they are.

Come on, you are not convincing anyone. Why do you bother?

The governor has been on multiple news conferences and every time he's asked why he won't accept the unions' agreements to everything he's asking for except the changes in the union rights and Walker repeats the same lie that Politifact gave the rating of, "Liar liar, pants on fire," as his answer.

 

[Newtons Bit]

He has rejected the unions giving him everything he wanted except taking away collective bargaining, the main part of unions in the first place. It isn't a stretch to say he rejects everything but destroying unions.

I've, repeatedly, stated that Scott Walker was on Fox News Sunday and stated that he wanted the deal making for the local governments as well as the state. I've asked, repeatedly, for someone to show that these compromise deals would get the cities and counties what they need.

No one assaulting Scott Walker has made any attempt to address this. There has been a fair amount of bluster on it. That's been nifty.

Not that you're doing this Newtons Bit, but it is interesting to see the reasoning many display. Unions are always good, or unions are always bad seems the default two, then it's worked backwards from that premise.

I'm perfectly fine with them. I'm perfectly fine without them except in a few cases. But if an employer decides that they don't want to do collective bargaining then they are also well within their rights to do so as well.

My job doesn't have unions. We get along just fine. I imagine teachers and most public sector employees will be just fine as well. They don't need unions. The people who need unions are those who work in very dangerous and low-qualification jobs. That would be miners, construction workers, etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looks like I did miss that. The way that a given "opt out" works though can render it functionally meaningless.

The lengths people go to to fit contradictory evidence into their preexisting beliefs never ceases to amaze me.

I was right, it is law that unions cannot collect mandatory dues for the political portion of their activities:
NLRB Employee Rights

The NLRA allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements, which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired.

Even under a security agreement, employees who object to full union membership may continue as 'core' members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer full members but are still protected by the union contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right.

That inconvenient fact hasn't stopped dozens of right wing blogs from complaining about the supposed forcing of employees to contribute to candidates via union dues that the employees object to. It appears the SCOTUS has ruled mandatory political contributions through unions are unconstitutional as they violate the Free Speech Amendment.

More evidence lying for Repubs is their standard operating procedure.

Haven't found the relevant info yet as it applies to Wisconsin, what I did find is the membership form of the California Teachers Association:

http://www.ostahome.org/CTA_Docs/CTA Membership Enrollment Form.pdf

Again, not sure how any particular WI public unions work yet, but in the CTA you don't actually get that money back, it just "remains in the general fund". In theory this is the only money that must remain in the general fund.. Say 200 teachers pay dues and 50% of each teacher's contribution goes to the PAC, if 100 of them opt out the union needn't decrease its PAC transfers at all so long as the opt-out group's total dues are less than or equal to the entire general fund. Effectively the opt-outs are meaningless unless they exceed the total non-PAC spending that would occur either way.

If the opt-outs aren't pretty significant it could make an artful end-run around the Beck decision.. Well, for the CTA at least, no time to dig around more right now.

*Edit: How about a system where if the union spends 20% of it's total dues collection on PACs and you opt out, your dues are actually 20% less? Maybe some unions do work that way, but in the ones that don't I still consider the PAC donations quite mandatory (and therefore taxpayer funded) unless the members opt-out en masse (probably doesn't happen much if ever since they don't even get the money back).

Oh for Pete's sake! That's an application for the CA Teachers' Association, not a teachers' union.
CTA Mission Statement

CTA assists its local chapters in bargaining for salaries and individual and employment rights in keeping with the academic and professional status of its members.

It's the same set up as the state nurses' associations. Membership in the association is not membership in the collective bargaining unit! And if it is like the state nurse's associations, you can be a member of either or both but the bargaining units are very segregated from the association. Membership in the association might give you a discount of your union dues and the assistance the association can provide the bargaining unit is limited by law. Generally these professional associations offer legal advice to the unions and not much more.

A bit of history is in order here. These professional associations began when the attitude was, professional workers were white collar and unions were for blue collar jobs. It wasn't professional to be in a union as late as the 1970s. I witnessed that change during my nursing career as I described in an earlier post. It started with ineffective bargaining units connected to the professional organizations but segregated. Later the SEIU moved in and now most nurses have more effective unions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... BECAUSE THE UNIONS OWN [Obama]. So the thugs are on the way to help those poor underpaid teachers rolleyes. And the feds will undoubtedly look the other way, just as they have previously.

This is not about unions asking for more money. So no one is saying the "poor underpaid teachers" need help.

Unions have a long history of supporting other unions. It doesn't have Jack to do with Obama.

Teachers do not make excessive salaries relative to their education level. And those in WI rank about in the middle of the country's average. I posted a link earlier.

LOL! New York unions fear this coming to their own state. As they should. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ose-government-employee-unions-116481443.html "Clarus Poll: 64% of Voters Oppose Government Employee Unions"

The Claris poll was shown to have had biased questions in an earlier link. The questions were quoted compared to another poll's questions which got the opposite results.

BTW, there are a dozen polls out, many of which have questions worded so as to result in unreliable results including the latest Rasmussen poll.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Would it mean anything to someone who admires communists?

Your continued use of this straw-man to deflect criticism is so-noted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... if an employer decides that they don't want to do collective bargaining then they are also well within their rights to do so as well. ...

That's not a valid description of what is going on here.

Walker did not run on a union busting platform so he does not have a political mandate. He's been challenged that his goals are union busting while he claims it's all about the budget. The evidence demonstrates he's lying and this is about a political agenda, not about the budget.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

We're both wrong, the CTA is indeed a teachers union, and while full membership is not required, at least paying dues (as a "non-member fee-payer") is.

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/California Agency Fee Letter--Finalss1.htm

While here they were accused in 2005 of charging special temporary fees to non-members and using that money politically, the quoted law passages in the above link are informative.

Moreover, your agency is charged with providing a mechanism whereby these agency fee payers can receive a “rebate or fee reduction [that is] not devoted to the cost of negotiations, contract administration, and other activities of the employee organization that are germane to its function as the exclusive bargaining representative.”

So as long as they're not (allegedly) breaking the law anymore, then this seems to all check out.

That check box on the membership application didn't mean what I thought it did, on further investigation I believe that to be an opt-out for a specific PAC for members, checking that probably doesn't, and isn't intended to, exempt money from going to political activities in general.

Not sure what the process is to become a non-member fee-payer but apparently in doing so you give up much, much more than just having your money go toward politics:

http://tveducators.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=119&Itemid=125

Option 3. Agency Fee Payer Have not or do not want to complete a form.
In lieu of membership, agency fee payers pay monthly unified dues equal to TVEA/CTA/NEA annual dues. Agency Fee payers receive the right to receive a rebate of the fee equal to the portion that represents political or ideological spending on the part of the local, CTA and NEA that is not related to collective bargaining or employment matters.

• Agency fee payers are not a member of the local, cannot hold office or vote in local elections. They forfeit access to union representation – your Weingarten rights and legal representation. They do not receive the valuable membership benefits of Disability Insurance, low rates and substantial discounts on home loans, personal, life and car insurance, merchandise, travel, legal & credit union services and discounted LA Fitness gym memberships.

So regardless of the fact that it's possible to opt-out of political activity, it's not actually asked it requires deliberate action on the teachers part. Also, they are heavily disincentivized from doing so by stripping them of every union benefit except the kitchen sink in the process.

 

[fishbob]

Walker said on Fox News Sunday that this was also about giving the local governments (cities and counties) the ability to change contracts as well. Does this compromise affect those workers?

Contracts are negotiated between two parties. If a government agency can change an agreement at will, then it is not really a contract and all bets are off. If the legislature unilaterally takes away collective bargaining, then the agreement to not go on strike is null and void.

The matter will end up in court and the decision will be that the government negotiated in bad faith. Penalties to follow and the taxpayers will not be happy.

 

[davefoc]

I've read through most of this thread and I would just like to respond to something that gets repeated through out it.

~"If somebody has more education they deserve more money."

This is nonsense in the private sector and for a good reason. In the private sector one's pay is related to what he can do for his company and the market it serves. If one wants to go get lots of nifty degrees he can go right ahead and do it, but if the degree isn't of value to his employer he isn't going to get more money.

In the public sector, particularly in the schools, this just isn't the case. Are elementary school teachers with PhD's better teachers than ones without? I don't know, but I doubt it, and if they are I doubt that having a PhD has anything to do with the fact that they're better teachers. But teachers with higher degrees make more money. So it is not surprising that teachers are going to have a lot of degrees, but using needless degrees to justify higher wages is more of a scam than a legitimate basis for justifying higher wages for teachers than private sector employees.

It is expected that the knee jerk JREF Democrats who have developed an unfalsifiable notion that unions are always a good thing are going to strain to rationalize public wages and pension plans that are devastating the economies of many states. But, for the first time in a long time, I have a sense that somebody is going to stand up and do something about this before what is a horrible problem, turns into economic collapse. I regularly read comments on Huffington Post and I was particularly interested to see how, what I assume, is mostly a highly partisan Democratic readership was going to react to all this. I was surprised. Even there, there are signs that people understand that this has gotten out of control.

IMHO, if something isn't done massive economic failure and significant civil unrest are likely. I'm 61 and I really wonder just how keen the folks coming along are going to be to pay the taxes to fund all the giveaways the current crop of legislators have made. And at some point we could reach a tipping point where states in particularly bad trouble begin to lose workers and businesses because they're unwilling to fund the giveaways made that corrupt legislators made in their name and as more workers and businesses leave there are less left to fund the mess, which will lead to higher taxes and more people and businesses leaving.

Even in my own Democratically controlled state, California, I have a sense that something is going to be done. Brown just stopped the legislature from implementing a scam where they sold a bunch of stuff off and then leased it back so they could get a momentary infusion of cash to keep the scam going for a few more years. Brown seems determined to confront the problem, even if his solution will not be as straightforward as Walker's.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
Rejecting compromises that have been offered doesn't mean that "Gov. Walker has closed the door to any kind of compromise." He may accept a future compromise. He hasn't ruled that out like you stated.

Keep moving your goalposts, NB

He didn't move any goal post. The statement was "Gov. Walker has closed the door to any kind of compromise." .

While I would not be surprised if is true. Your two examples of compromises he rejected does not mean any kind of compromise has been rejected.

In no way does turning down 2 offers mean you will turn down all future offers.



Here are a few questions I am interested in having answered.
Does anyone here truly have the knowledge to explain how the local governments fit into this?
Is not allowing collective bargaining for benefits the same as union busting and does the state have the legal right to do this?

 

[Neally]

I've read through most of this thread and I would just like to respond to something that gets repeated through out it.

~"If somebody has more education they deserve more money."

This is nonsense in the private sector and for a good reason. In the private sector one's pay is related to what he can do for his company and the market it serves. If one wants to go get lots of nifty degrees he can go right ahead and do it, but if the degree isn't of value to his employer he isn't going to get more money.

Thank you. Completely correct. This is the first line of defense for union supporters when the very real apples to apples, position to position disparity is pointed out between public and private compensation. The next fallback is that public employees aren't over paid, private employees are underpaid!

 

[Newtons Bit]

That's not a valid description of what is going on here.

Walker did not run on a union busting platform so he does not have a political mandate. He's been challenged that his goals are union busting while he claims it's all about the budget. The evidence demonstrates he's lying and this is about a political agenda, not about the budget.

So now you're saying the public isn't the employer and doesn't have a right to decide whether or not to do collective bargaining...

 

[WildCat]

Contracts are negotiated between two parties. If a government agency can change an agreement at will, then it is not really a contract and all bets are off. If the legislature unilaterally takes away collective bargaining, then the agreement to not go on strike is null and void.

The matter will end up in court and the decision will be that the government negotiated in bad faith. Penalties to follow and the taxpayers will not be happy.

Collective bargaining was instituted per legislative action and can be taken away/modified through legislative action. There is no contract between the unions and the state to implement collective bargaining in perpetuity.

 

[Thunder]

Collective bargaining was instituted per legislative action and can be taken away/modified through legislative action. There is no contract between the unions and the state to implement collective bargaining in perpetuity.

there are many rights that we have simply due to legislative action, such as the right to vote, the right to not be slaves, the right to a trial by jury, etc etc.

if they take away the right to collectively bargain what will be the next right to fall?

 

[ZirconBlue]

So now you're saying the public isn't the employer and doesn't have a right to decide whether or not to do collective bargaining...

Since when do employers get to decide this? If the employees vote to unionize, the employer's choices seem to be to either bargain collectively or close up shop.

 

[Newtons Bit]

there are many rights that we have simply due to legislative action, such as the right to vote, the right to not be slaves, the right to a trial by jury, etc etc.

if they take away the right to collectively bargain what will be the next right to fall?

Yes, but those require a change to the Constitution. Ultimately, the People get to decide who has what right.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Since when do employers get to decide this? If the employees vote to unionize, the employer's choices seem to be to either bargain collectively or close up shop.

I read a law saying that the employer could decide to collectively bargain with the union so long as that union had a majority of employers in support. They could still do individual bargaining. Of course the union can then decide to strike.

 

[Thunder]

Yes, but those require a change to the Constitution. Ultimately, the People get to decide who has what right.

so, we can have a a situation where Union rights go back and forth depending on who is in power? that's just unworkable.

this is not about saving money. this is not about reducing state deficits.

this is about Republican and Tea-Bagger idealogues wanting to destroy Unions, purely due to idealogical reasons.

 

[Newtons Bit]

so, we can have a a situation where Union rights go back and forth depending on who is in power? that's just unworkable.

Not if it's in the Constitution, that requires more than a simple majority. If you want to change it, petition the State of Wisconsin to amend their Constitution. Our, petition for the Federal Constitution to be amended.

this is not about saving money. this is not about reducing state deficits.

this is about Republican and Tea-Bagger idealogues wanting to destroy Unions, purely due to idealogical reasons.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Thunder]

Cool story, bro.

how does simply removing collective bargaining rights reduce Wisconsin's deficit?

it doesn't. not by one penny.