Protests In Wisconsin

[KSUViolet06]

I mentioned this a little in the "what you feel like saying" thread, but I have heard of quite a few teachers who are seriously considering leaving the field over this bill in Ohio. These aren't even "close to retirement anyway so I'll just retire early" aged teachers, but teachers who haven't been in the field 5 years. Crazy.

[ProudandTrue]

Then they will likely have trouble finding a job, as so many others have. If they are lucky enough to find a job, I hope that they don't mind paying around 25% of their health care. And working 10 hour days at work, and likely throw in a couple more in the evening, but not being paid for that overtime. But at least they will get 2 weeks of vacation a year -- if they're lucky. And they should also remember to start contributing to their 401(k), for when/if they are lucky enough to be able to retire. Alas, they will
have to pay taxes on that, as well, when they are able to finally draw from it. Welcome to the reality of the private sector.

[ThetaDancer]

I think the 17 hours of debate had been a different day. I haven't read anything that gives a reason for turning off the microphones.
Since a)the Dems noticed their microphones weren't on when they came in, b) the microphones for the Republicans were on, and c)the microphones for the Democrats were turned on after they were screaming to be heard and they were then allowed to discuss the bill, I'm inclined to believe it didn't have to do with cutting off debate but I'm not 100% sure.

[ZZ-kai-]

WI needs this bill to pass.

The way the Democrats have punked out is an absolute disgrace to the free society. The way they acted and the teachers 'sicking out' just shows our kids that it's OK to run from your problems and quit.

Full collective bargaining rights are not being taken away. Many, yes. All, no.

And the money portion of all this (pension contribution, healthcare) - that's what gets the most publicity because it directly effects every one of us WI taxpayers. To pay a measly 5% towards their own retirement and 12.6% of their healthcare premium? Wow, I'd KILL to have those benefits. I fund my own retirement account (with 2.5% match from my employer) and pay $1,100 per month for full healthcare for my family (50%).

Cushy state jobs need to go. Don't raise MY taxes for YOUR benefit.

Lastly, for all the teachers who are going to 'up and leave'. Good riddance I say. For every 1 quitter, there are 3 waiting in line for that job.

Democrats, man up. Time to pay the piper.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by ZZ-kai-

WI needs this bill to pass.

The way the Democrats have punked out is an absolute disgrace to the free society. The way they acted and the teachers 'sicking out' just shows our kids that it's OK to run from your problems and quit.

Full collective bargaining rights are not being taken away. Many, yes. All, no.

And the money portion of all this (pension contribution, healthcare) - that's what gets the most publicity because it directly effects every one of us WI taxpayers. To pay a measly 5% towards their own retirement and 12.6% of their healthcare premium? Wow, I'd KILL to have those benefits. I fund my own retirement account (with 2.5% match from my employer) and pay $1,100 per month for full healthcare for my family (50%).

Cushy state jobs need to go. Don't raise MY taxes for YOUR benefit.

Lastly, for all the teachers who are going to 'up and leave'. Good riddance I say. For every 1 quitter, there are 3 waiting in line for that job.

Democrats, man up. Time to pay the piper.

From everything I've read, the dispute is not about pay/retirement/healthcare, it is about collective bargaining rights. They said they'd accept those cuts and were told no.. there are several posts above to links that say that.

How about cutting the governor's pay in half?

[ZZ-kai-]

[ThetaDancer]

Yeah I think the "it's all about the money" argument stopped working a while ago. Paul Krugman agrees. Like I've said, if Scotty is into union busting, he should just say that because advancing this issue as "budget repair" is dishonest.

[ZZ-kai-]

Scott Walker ran his campaign based on fixing the deficit and bringing the budget back in to balance and never hid the fact that he was going to go after public employees (unions) and their outrageous benefits and contacts, yet he was voted in by the majority. I think that most people are shocked that he took office and is actually following through on his promises.

Unions have no place in todays society. I thank them for what they did, but they also need to change as time goes by, and they didn't, so they must go.

I find it funny that this same union, who is willing to negotiate and give things up NOW, is the same union that tried to jam through their contract right as Walker came in to office....and refused to negotiate up til about a week ago when they saw their golden lifestyle threatened.

Ever see how much the union heads make? sickening.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ZZ-kai-

Scott Walker ran his campaign based on fixing the deficit and bringing the budget back in to balance and never hid the fact that he was going to go after public employees (unions) and their outrageous benefits and contacts, yet he was voted in by the majority. I think that most people are shocked that he took office and is actually following through on his promises.

Unions have no place in todays society. I thank them for what they did, but they also need to change as time goes by, and they didn't, so they must go.

I find it funny that this same union, who is willing to negotiate and give things up NOW, is the same union that tried to jam through their contract right as Walker came in to office....and refused to negotiate up til about a week ago when they saw their golden lifestyle threatened.

Ever see how much the union heads make? sickening.

So why didn't he touch the firefighter's or state troopers' or police unions?

Speaking of, the firefighters' union agreed to accept the same pay cuts/benefit cuts as the other unions in return for retaining bargaining for all unions.

[ZZ-kai-]

I am not sure why to be exactly honest with you. One could state that it's because the FF, ST and Police unions were heavy contributors to the Republican (Walkers) campaign. Another argument I heard was that they were left alone due to the fact that they are emergency personel and that a strike from those unions would literally put 'the public' at risk.

Here are some interesting campaign donations that I found perculiar:

MADISON, Wisc. — As the Tea Party movement and union bosses prepare to clash in Wisconsin, it is worthwhile to keep in mind that many millions of dollars of union members’ dues have been spent to fuel the Democratic Party in past elections. Here’s a breakdown of what some of the top unions donated to the Democratic Party in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles:

-The AFL-CIO, whose president Richard Trumka is orchestrating much of the protests in Madison this week, donated $1.2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $900,000 in 2010.
-The American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees donated $2.6 million to the Democrats in 2008 and another $2.6 million in 2010.
-The National Education Association donated $2.3 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2010.
-The Teamsters union donated $2.4 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.3 million in 2010.
-The SEIU donated $2.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.7 million in 2010.
-The Carpenters and Joiners union donated $2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million 2010.
-The Laborers union donated $2.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2010.
-The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers donated $3.8 million to Democrats in 2008 and $3.2 million in 2010.
-The American Federation of Teachers donated $2.8 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.7 million in 2010.
-The Machinists and Aerospace union donated $2.5 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2010.
-The Communication Workers of America, which includes employees from several television and radio stations and other publishing platforms, donated $2.2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2010.
-The United Autoworkers union (UAW) donated $2.1 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.5 million in 2010.
-The United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) donated $2.1 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.9 million in 2010.

Most unions gave a negligible amount, if anything at all, to the Republican Party over the past two election cycles.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/19/un...y-financially/

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ZZ-kai-

I am not sure why to be exactly honest with you. One could state that it's because the FF, ST and Police unions were heavy contributors to the Republican (Walkers) campaign. Another argument I heard was that they were left alone due to the fact that they are emergency personel and that a strike from those unions would literally put 'the public' at risk.

Here's the article about the firefighters' union:
Wisconsin Firefighters: We'll Give Up Pay to Save Collective Bargaining

"The reason that we are here is because it's important that labor sticks together. There was a message from the governor's office to conquer and divide...collective bargaining is not just for us, police and fire, it's good for all involved. It's a middle-class upbringing."

"Collective bargaining is not about union rights; it's about rights of workers...We ask Gov. Walker to come back and negotiate with the people, negotiatie with the state workers' unions, and get things worked out, as opposed to just putting out this bill and we don't hear from him again."

"Us as firefighters, we have been exempted from this bill...There's a 5.8 percent pay into the pension, there's a 12.4 percent pay into the health care premium benefits...For the betterment of the government, for the betterment of the state, we don't mind helping to pay for that. We don't want to price ourselves out of a job. Ever. What we want to do is have a fair and equitable treatment among our members."

Personally I don't think unions are inherently bad. I think without them, or without the threat of them, corporations would take advantage of a glut in the labor market by paying unreasonably low wages that people will feel compelled to take. I don't see things returning to the 1910 status quo, but it wouldn't have been a positive thing either. That said, unions aren't always good either, and if they DO price themselves out of a job others should be hired - at reasonable rates - to do the work. I don't 'get' when unions protest the construction of buildings that use non-union labor, if their work is superior it should pay for itself, but for all I know those buildings hired contractors who hired and exploited workers to do shoddy work.

Basically, I don't think the fiscal cuts are unreasonable, but I think the 'union-busting' measures are a purely political move and a pretty bad one.

[ZZ-kai-]

PS, I'm trying to find out the numbers on what the FF, ST and Police unions contributed to Walkers campaign - I did see them once, just can't find them...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ZZ-kai-

PS, I'm trying to find out the numbers on what the FF, ST and Police unions contributed to Walkers campaign - I did see them once, just can't find them...

I want to say I an article that said that actually the state employees endorsed Walker, but the Police and Troopers unions didn't. However it was suggested that he had a lot more local support from the exempted unions even if the overall organizations didn't endorse him.

Either way, it's shady and if his argument is truly "its' about the money" they should have been included. The firefighters I know wouldn't let a building burn because of a strike, that's just the antithesis of their jobs. If he knew that workers would strike because of the measures perhaps he should have negotiated longer - last article I read indicated they were negotiating when he pulled the rug out and put this bill forward, I don't know what was on the table then though.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I want to say I an article that said that actually the state employees endorsed Walker, but the Police and Troopers unions didn't. However it was suggested that he had a lot more local support from the exempted unions even if the overall organizations didn't endorse him.

Either way, it's shady and if his argument is truly "its' about the money" they should have been included. The firefighters I know wouldn't let a building burn because of a strike, that's just the antithesis of their jobs. If he knew that workers would strike because of the measures perhaps he should have negotiated longer - last article I read indicated they were negotiating when he pulled the rug out and put this bill forward, I don't know what was on the table then though.

AFAIK most, if not all, unionized emergency responders aren't allowed to strike.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

AFAIK most, if not all, unionized emergency responders aren't allowed to strike.

So then exempting them for that reason doesn't make much sense, does it? It makes plenty of sense