Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

So at the conclusion of my union contract, it's hunky-dory if the state decides to unilaterally replace it with payment in cheese sandwiches, no pesky negotiation required? Gee, thanks!
 
What I find interesting is that Citizens United was tired as being fair because it allows corporations AND unions to contribute unlimited monies to campaigns. Now the Pubs want top abolish unions.
 
Rachel Maddow is on now talking about Glenn Beck interviewing a self proclaimed End-Times profit (someone told his wife's fortune saying she would marry an End Times profit and she married him). After this commercial we get to hear Beck tell us about the Mark of the Beast and how the Wisconsin unrest is tied to evil and the End Times.

Think I'll get a beer.
 
BeAChooser said:
Oh but it has. The voters would have been mad had he increased spending after campaigning on reducing the size of government.

And as to taxes, the folks who put him into office also knew he was a republican ... republicans like tax cuts. In fact, Walker also promised to cut taxes during his campaign.

Now are you complaining because he didn't break promises he made voters? :D
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this to insult you or to pick a fight, but why do you so often respond with things that don't further the discussion? None of that is relevant to what we were talking about.

Walker put forth tax credits and deductions which created a budget deficit.
This deficite was called a budget crisis.
This crisis was used as an excuse to remove collective bargaining rights of public workers who are likely to support his opposition.
 
thaiboxerken said:
What I find interesting is that Citizens United was tired as being fair because it allows corporations AND unions to contribute unlimited monies to campaigns. Now the Pubs want top abolish unions.
Click to expand...
The corporations already pushed the unions out from the top of the campaign donor list. Eliminating unions is clearly a well thought out thing to work against.

Wait til the Repubs get to redistricting.
 
FDR's thoughts on collective bargaining and public worker strikes:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

Specifically:

Franklin D. Roosevelt said:
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.
Click to expand...

Franklin D. Roosevelt said:
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
Click to expand...

Darn that right-wing FDR, he was such a union-basher!

(Edit: Hell, this letter is extremely topical it deserves a thread..)
 
Last edited:
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Even if they're "right" and the republicans are "wrong" our form of government couldn't survive the precedent it would set. If the dems were to succeed here via crippling the legislature the repubs will start doing the same to any legislation they don't like. The entire machine would grind to a halt until we either forced votes or removed the quorum requirements. In either case the majority would have its way, that's how democracy is supposed to work. Hopefully it won't go that far.
Click to expand...

I think the spectre of using State Police to round up members of an opposing party to force them to vote would be pretty damaging to our democratic process also.
I think both sides are at fault here, the Dems for walking out and the Governor for raising the tension with some of his statements.
 
dudalb said:
I think the spectre of using State Police to round up members of an opposing party to force them to vote would be pretty damaging to our democratic process also.
I think both sides are at fault here, the Dems for walking out and the Governor for raising the tension with some of his statements.
Click to expand...

Well the state constitution does say they can be "compelled" to appear and vote, which is theorized to be their reason for entirely leaving the state instead of just going back to their own homes. It's really not specific on what "compel" means exactly so that is admittedly a gray area.
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
FDR's thoughts on collective bargaining and public worker strikes:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

Specifically:





Darn that right-wing FDR, he was such a union-basher!

(Edit: Hell, this letter is extremely topical it deserves a thread..)
Click to expand...
Managers, be they private or public are by nature adversarial to employee unions. It's not a surprise the Wisconsin governor would like to not have to deal with a union.

But when you try to selectively pass a law to seriously weaken only the unions in your state that supported Democratic candidates and you exempt 3 unions that supported Repub candidates, you have some explaining to do beyond a vague excuse that doesn't hold a lot of water.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
But when you try to selectively pass a law to seriously weaken only the unions in your state that supported Democratic candidates and you exempt 3 unions that supported Repub candidates, you have some explaining beyond a vague excuse that doesn't hold a lot of water.
Click to expand...

I agree that those 3 unions shouldn't have been exempted, though I'm not seeing a lot of people in the mainstream criticizing the bill for not going far enough.. Except presumably FDR's ghost.
 
Recent polls of people in the US re unions:

Ben Smith flags a corporate-funded poll [Clarus] that asks:
"Do you think government employees should be represented by labor unions that bargain for higher pay, benefits and pensions ... or do you think government employees should not be represented by labor unions?"

Sixty-four percent said they don't think "government employees" should be represented by labor unions.


Pew, by contrast, asks the question this way and gets a very different answer:

...when you hear of a disagreement between state or local governments and unions that represent government workers, is your first reaction...

To side with the governments 38
To side with the unions 44
Click to expand...

Pew Poll


Ed Schultz implied the poll was of Wisconsin residents or he was referring to a different poll I can't find. Still, you've got all sorts of news sources citing the Claris numbers and ignoring the Pew Poll.
 
As a lifelong Wisconsin resident, I am actually not happy that we are currently the center of attention like this. Some may think it would be cool to be all over the national news.. but I hate it.

Mostly because it's getting all kinds of people weighing in on something that is a local issue, from other places where they don't know all the details and facts, and are often misrepresenting the truth, for political reasons.

All I can say is, as much as you Democrats may hate Walker and think he's an idiot, I would suggest you be careful. You could make him famous. You only know what you know about him based on your own little liberal blogs and what little time he's been in the spotlight. He was our Milwaukee County Executive for many years. He did a great many good things in that time. He showed himself to be a true fiscal conservative. A responsible man who takes his job very seriously.

The man is greatly respected here. It would not be surprising at all to many of us for him to launch into national spotlight from this sort of thing.

Be careful what you wish for. Don't let your ideology drive you to make decisions you will regret. The man could be a superstar for the right one day.

And I can't help but note how Democrats are defending this "flee the state" stalling tactic. It's a direct attempt to circumvent the results of the election. And considering the way you lefties were crying and crying about Republicans JUST FAILING TO VOTE WITH YOU, it's the height of hypocrisy to then defend this action. What is being pulled here is far far worse than that which you decried for the last two years. Republicans didn't pull any stunts like this. They just refused to support you. This is childish, and the entire thing is being misrepresented by most people on the left.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Not with the left's latest version of Global Warming occurring. :D
Click to expand...

Wow. So you're not exactly scientifically literate are you? Didn't think I would stumble across that on randi.org

Additionally, your other posts don't exactly bolster your reputation either; insistently dodging questions and giving garbled answers shows a number of facets of your thinking here (all poor, sorry).

I didn't want to point it out this way, but it looks like you took up about a page of posts from my cell phone simply equivocating.

First post, and I was resisting the urge to post in this section.
 
Whiplash said:
...it's getting all kinds of people weighing in on something that is a local issue, from other places where they don't know all the details and facts, and are often misrepresenting the truth, for political reasons..... Don't let your ideology drive you to make decisions you will regret.
Click to expand...
These assumptions don't fit with the evidence I see.

Explain your guv exempting the unions that supported his campaign. Explain the union busting legislation that is not directly related to the economic measures. Explain why the unions are saying no negotiations were undertaken and the guv is saying they had their chance?

And how do you know the issues are only local? The Repubs have made no secret they are interested in attacking any organization they view as politically disadvantageous. It's not about your state's budget. It's about the RNC's goals. Install right wing judges in any federal position you can so they can move into all the federal appeals courts and make decisions favorable to Repubs. Replace the staff in the Dept of Justice then use the prosecutors as a Repub attack arm. Stack the Supreme Court and bring the Citizens United case to them so you can get all the campaign funding you want from the rich and powerful. Eliminate ACORN that registered Democrats. Eliminate Planned Parenthood as a sacrificial offering to your base. Gerrymander districts in between census reports when it's not been done before. Disenfranchise voters by caging schemes and controlling election boards in key states that just happen to short change certain Democratic voting districts by delivering very few voting machines. Let's see, I haven't touched on Swift Boat campaign tactics.

This stuff is aimed not at political ideology, unless you consider cheating an ideology. It is aimed at getting in power not by winning voters over, but by any unethical means you can.


Whiplash said:
...And I can't help but note how Democrats are defending this "flee the state" stalling tactic. It's a direct attempt to circumvent the results of the election. And considering the way you lefties were crying and crying about Republicans JUST FAILING TO VOTE WITH YOU, it's the height of hypocrisy to then defend this action. What is being pulled here is far far worse than that which you decried for the last two years. Republicans didn't pull any stunts like this. They just refused to support you. This is childish, and the entire thing is being misrepresented by most people on the left.
Click to expand...
So I take it if we looked we could find some posts where you condemned the marked increase in use of the filibuster by the Repubs in the last 2 years?
 
Well walker is claiming that there were 310 police and fire unions in WI that didn't endorse him, the state-wide police and fire unions he says endorsed his opponent.
 
BeAChooser said:
Oh but it has. The voters would have been mad had he increased spending after campaigning on reducing the size of government.
Click to expand...

The point remains the same, you simply don't understand what that point is. The governor's new policies created a budget shortfall that has to be dealt with, he's using scare-tactics centered around the word "deficit" as leverage to bust the unions and severely hinder collective bargaining. Some of us would even go so far as to suggest this may have been, at least in part, intentional given that he's targeting opposition unions.

Besides, in practice there really is no difference between an unfunded increase in spending at one-hundred and forty million dollars and a tax cut of one-hundred and forty million dollars if spending isn't reduced.

BeAChooser said:
And as to taxes, the folks who put him into office also knew he was a republican ... republicans like tax cuts. In fact, Walker also promised to cut taxes during his campaign.
Click to expand...

One wonders why you don't apply this same logic to Democrat spending.

BeAChooser said:
Now are you complaining because he didn't break promises he made voters? :D
Click to expand...

Busting unions was one of his campaign promises? How about creating a budget shortfall? That on there too? :rolleyes:
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Well walker is claiming that there were 310 police and fire unions in WI that didn't endorse him, the state-wide police and fire unions he says endorsed his opponent.
Click to expand...
310 unions in one state? What, does every fire district have their own union? I'm not even sure we have 310 fire districts in this state.

This is bizarre:
Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, which represents more than 250,000 workers in more than 1,000 unions, launched radio and television ads on Sunday saying the plan would “take away rights of thousands of nurses, teachers and other trusted public employees.”
Click to expand...
I would have considered the AFLCIO to be a couple unions, one for each type of worker. I think what is really an individual bargaining unit is being called a union. So the employees of one hospital, or one school district that bargained as a unit must be being called a union. But in reality it's a bargaining unit, not a distinct union.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom