Protests In Wisconsin

[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

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I'm not sure what they want--do they not want to pay more for their retirement and health benefits, or do they want to keep collective bargaining?

To the first, I say welcome to the real world. I pay considerably more than these people do towards my 401(k) and health care, and I have what are considered "excellent benefits" for the private sector. Also, the fact that you're still guaranteed a pension is nothing short of amazing. Its the complaints I've been hearing about this which is probably why they're not getting a whole ton of sympathy about this from the rest of the state and country.

To the second, I can see keeping collective bargaining. I'm union-neutral at best (probably just anti-union), but I understand how it can help public employees to some extent.

This is how I feel.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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


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.

This is also how I feel.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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

This, why I was going to post.


So, I have lots of union experience. My husband was a union carpenter for 10 years before being accepted into the fire academy. He already in the Columbus fire union even though he's only a recruit. They excused the guys from class early today, so they could go protest in downtown C-bus. Not only am I a union "wife," but my job requires me to work with a LOT of union laborers and steelworkers. With that being said, and my agreement with the above posts, and what is going on in Ohio right now.... I think each union needs to be evaluated individually. If collective bargaining goes by the wayside for public employees, it will eventually affect the private sector (hubby's former job), and that will spell the end of all unions. I don't think union busting is the answer. It works in some situations. HOWEVER, IT IS GROSSLY ABUSED BY MANY! Union reform could save SOOOOO much money in the public sector. Getting rid of collective bargaining isn't a good enough fix. I can't even talk about my personal experiences at work, because I signed something saying I wouldn't.

However, I can say my husband would take a significant pay cut as a firefighter if the Ohio bill is signed. Yes, I'm biased, but I felt this way before; public safety employees should never have to take pay cuts. (What Cincinnati Police and Fire had to go through to keep their jobs this year made me ill, this city is so fucked up I'm glad we're moving). In Ohio, public safety employees cannot strike. They gave up that right as a part of collective bargaining 20+ years ago. But their system is very flawed as well. The Columbus assistant fire chief just retired with something like $200K+ in unused sick and vacation time. He then took the job of head fire chief in Cinci for a salary of $119K a year. SO much money could be saved if this ALONE were reformed. In the private sector, we have a "use it or lose it" policy. Why can't public union employees do that to save state and local budgets?

As for teachers, I'm fine with the average salary. I'm sure there are many who are overpaid, and I know there are many who are underpaid. Really, that's all I'll say, because I'm not looking to get into a fight with the teachers here. But my very qualified brother, who has his teaching degree, would happily take your job right now, even for only $34K a year. I think poor performing employees are protected by the unions, and really, their ass should be out the door.

My last thoughts... there is a factory in my hometown that has union employees striking right this second. The factory is permanently hiring "scabs." Friends of ours are leaving jobs at the mall and going to work for $15 an hour at this factory, and the factory management is training them all. http://www.sanduskyregister.com/news...kers21711aoxml Considering what the union workers are so upset over, and what they're striking over.... I think they deserve to be out on their ass if that's what it comes to. EVERYONE is making sacrifices right now to keep their jobs. Sacrificing a little bit in order to keep your employment is a must!!!!!!! No time and a half if you don't work 40 hours straight first? Tough shit! Be thankful you have a JOB! Because obviously, there are unemployed out there who would give anything to have those jobs, they don't care if they have to cross picket lines if that means a paycheck. I personally took a 20% pay cut at my last job in an effort to keep employed. It only worked for 3 months, and then I was laid off for 15 months. In this economy, everyone has to make sacrifices, union members included.

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

In this economy, everyone has to make sacrifices, union members included.

I totally agree.

What's perplexing is that union members have agreed to take the "pay" cut (really, a cut in benefits) and Walker is still not willing to negotiate.

Also interesting is the clause within the Senate Bill 11 that states that the Governor may fire any public employees involved in “concerted activities to interrupt the operations or services of state government” if the state were in a State of Emergency. (A state of emergency is, of course, declaired by the Governor). Consequently, if the bill passes, Walker has the power--without any system of checks or balances--to fire any public employee. This is something that (a) has nothing to do with balancing a budget and (b) is far too much power for any one man, especially when it extends to any public employee in the State, not simply the ones he hired.


Finally, Mr. Walker has attempted a similar move in the past, when he fired Milwaukee County courthouse security in the name of budget conservation. He hired a private security firm, Wackenhut, which turned out to be less than ideal (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/90958499.html). Milwaukee County also ruled that "the county did not have a true budget crisis at the time and county officials failed to give the union representing the security guards an opportunity to make some alternative cost-saving proposals before laying them off" (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/113212479.html), forcing the city to rehire the employees and pay all of their missed salary. This move cost the City of Milwaukee an additional $430,000, which is not something you want when fiscal conservation is the goal.

I want the state budget balanced as badly as anyone else. I want my kids to grow up in a fiscally secure environment and I want to have true job security when I return home. I just really don't think the budget or the safety of my state is what is going on here.