Protests In Wisconsin

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

That's up for interpretation apparently.

http://womenslawproject.wordpress.co...h-care-reform/

*sigh*

Dear insurance companies, cover contraceptives and voluntary sterilization procedures and you avoid the cost of paying for a pregnancy, something I believe is required coverage in the new bill. Why are you so dumb?

No love,
Women

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOEforme

The part that confuses me is that Wisconsin is required to pay for the health care of any child who lives in the state, in addition to their education and for meal programs and assistance if the parent(s) cannot afford to.

Why would you remove a third-party program to reduce the costs above if you're interest in saving money?

Well, they'd like to remove those programs too, I bet. But I suspect there's some "OMG CONTRACEPTION IS MURDER" along with some "DO NOT REGULATE BUSINESS" plus the theme of this year it seems: "HEY GUYZ, LETS VOTE ON ANYTHING THAT TARGETS WOMEN. MAYBE THEY'LL GO BACK TO TEH KITCHEN AND MAKE US SAMMICHS."

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Well, they'd like to remove those programs too, I bet. But I suspect there's some "OMG CONTRACEPTION IS MURDER" along with some "DO NOT REGULATE BUSINESS" plus the theme of this year it seems: "HEY GUYZ, LETS VOTE ON ANYTHING THAT TARGETS WOMEN. MAYBE THEY'LL GO BACK TO TEH KITCHEN AND MAKE US SAMMICHS."

Seriously.

Also, Walker already tried to cut the Medicaid program for these children. This was in his original proposal. When someone pointed out that this is highly illegal, he admitted he hadn't really checked on that.

[KSUViolet06]

I like how it's all "we're not covering your contraceptives, but we're not paying to help feed the kids you can't afford but had anyway because you didn't have access to said contraceptives."

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOEforme

Seriously.

Also, Walker already tried to cut the Medicaid program for these children. This was in his original proposal. When someone pointed out that this is highly illegal, he admitted he hadn't really checked on that.

He failed to graduate college, and has been accused of plagiarism IIRC. I don't think research was one of the things he valued.

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

I like how it's all "we're not covering your contraceptives, but we're not paying to help feed the kids you can't afford but had anyway because you didn't have access to said contraceptives."

If you'd just keep your legs closed, you slut, it wouldn't be a problem.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If you'd just keep your legs closed, you slut, it wouldn't be a problem.

I forgot which thread I was in. I saw that response and the pink text and let out a "What, WTF!?"

/carry on

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I forgot which thread I was in. I saw that response and the pink text and let out a "What, WTF!?"

/carry on

I know, you're used to us calling YOU the slut.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I know, you're used to us calling YOU the slut.

EXACTLY

[ThetaDancer]

Shit hit the fan tonight. I don't even think I can put the mood in Wisconsin into words right now. If you're interested in seeing how the initial meeting of the special committee went down, you can watch it here. The video really helps show the process and it's less than 5 minutes because that's how quickly things went. Nobody saw this coming.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AOEforme

Proof it was never about balancing a budget:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/09/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Bill passes without Senate Democrats present because ALL fiscal matters are removed from the bill.

Disgusting. In addition to collective barganing, Wisconsin's college programs were slashed, recycling programs (started by a Republican) dismantled, and a Early Release Work program (that was designed to reduce prison costs) is gone.

In addition, insurance companies are no longer required to cover contraceptives.

But he is still pretending it was about the budget.

[AGDee]

Since I can't sleep anyway, I started looking up some things about collective bargaining and found this excellent FAQ. http://clear.uhwo.hawaii.edu/CB-FAQ.html#Q1

Frankly, I don't see how what they've done is legal. The National Labor Relations Act seems pretty clear to me. The only "gotcha" could be the line at the end.. that it applies to members of unions in the private sector and members of unions that represent both public and private employees. It looks like AFSCME is the *the* public employee union for federal, state and city employees. So... they take ONE private employee group in and they become a union that represents both, right? I know, probably not that simple, but it seems they can get around this somehow.

[Ghostwriter]

^^^I think you are correct in that the wording is "public" versus "private". My understanding is that the public sector does not have the same options under Unionization as the private sector. This is not particular to our times and has been the case as with the Air Traffic Controllers etc. The public sector is allowed options to bargain at the behest of the states. There are several states that absolutely do not allow collective bargaining on the part of the public unions. My state being one.

General Statute (GS) 95-98, the North Carolina law prohibiting collective bargaining for public workers

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Since I can't sleep anyway, I started looking up some things about collective bargaining and found this excellent FAQ. http://clear.uhwo.hawaii.edu/CB-FAQ.html#Q1

Frankly, I don't see how what they've done is legal. The National Labor Relations Act seems pretty clear to me. The only "gotcha" could be the line at the end.. that it applies to members of unions in the private sector and members of unions that represent both public and private employees. It looks like AFSCME is the *the* public employee union for federal, state and city employees. So... they take ONE private employee group in and they become a union that represents both, right? I know, probably not that simple, but it seems they can get around this somehow.

There is some other piece that was referenced, that suggested there's a federal prohibition on removing union rights from the point at which some law was passed. I believe it referenced employees who would be covered under Depts of Transportation. Something about losing federal money if they removed union rights that had existed when that law was passed. I'll look into it and see if I can find the reference.

ETA:
Found it referenced from the HuffPo

Under an obscure provision of federal labor law, states risk losing federal funds should they eliminate "collective bargaining rights" that existed at the time when federal assistance was first granted. The provision, known as "protective arrangements" or "Section 13C arrangements," is meant as a means of cushioning union (and even some non-union) members who, while working on local projects, are affected by federal grants....

Moreover, in an a nearly unnoticed report filed by the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the non-partisan budget scorekeeper, the stakes are laid fairly bare.

"According to information from the U.S. Department of Labor, the proposed changes in collective bargaining rights included under SS SB 11 could impact the ability of unionized transit systems in the state to receive existing federal transit aid, unless actions are taken to protect the collective bargaining rights of their employees," the memo reads. "If the federal Department of Labor makes the determination that the changes under SS SB 11 affect the continuation of collective bargaining rights, and protections of transit employee's wages, working conditions, pension benefits, seniority, vacation, sick and personal leave, travel passes, and other conditions of employment, the Federal Transit Authority could not provide federal transit funding under there provisions." (See the full document below.)

Source

This said, the Assembly exempted transit unions at some point but I'm not 100% sure that it passed there or if it was included in the senate's bill.

[AGDee]

You thought Wisconsin was out of control. Our new Governor's plan now:
The governor or his administration can declare any city or school district to be in financial emergency and can then dissolve or disincorporate them and appoint people to be in charge of them. The emergency person can strip the town of union rights unilaterally AND suspend or dismiss elected officials. There are two different versions of this bill .. one in the House, one in the Senate. So we would lose our right to elect local government. In the meantime, he is cutting state funding to cities and school districts drastically, putting them in dire financial straits.

A YouTube video explaining it all, from MSNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUpO1QFMDtM

This is absolutely unbelievable.

And, in the interest of fairness.. his defense. We have to trust that he will only use these powers in a dire emergency. http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/nationa...l-manager-bill

[KSUViolet06]

An Ohio state legislator (and SB 5 supporter) recently said teachers "only work part-time" because they get summers off.

WTF?