Archive

Wisconsin Teachers shut down schools for 2nd day to Protest Elimination of CBA

  • QuakerOats
    After that last clip all these little tantrums just brought to mind this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5NyyC-UjBM

    "I want MY cigarettes ...." :)
  • fan_from_texas
    stlouiedipalma;705912 wrote:What I am trying to find out is whether there is even a system in place for a filibuster in the Wisconsin Senate. I'm guessing there isn't one, hence the disappearing act by the 14.

    At least we now know what we had suspected all along. The move to eliminate collective bargaining for the public employees had nothing at all to do with balancing the state budget. The Wisconsin Republicans all but admitted such when they removed it from their budget bill. That was the loophole they claimed would allow them to pass this legislation without debate, amendment or a quorum.

    As far as I know, the Wisconsin Senate does not allow filibusters.

    I'm not sure about your second point--the overriding argument that has been presented (right or wrong) is that there are significant philosophical arguments against public sectors unions (public choice theory; the fact that they vote for and contribute to the campaigns of the people across the table from them). Thus, even if the union were willing to take a haircut now, it doesn't remove the fundamental problem of their collectively bargaining for outrageous benefits. This is something that has been trumpeted as good for the long-term fiscal health of the state.

    Re a "loophole"--I guess that depends on your definition. It's not something that should come as a surprise to Democrats, as it had been discussed on day one as a possible way of resolving this. It's messier and makes for worse PR, but it's a pretty widely known way to resolve these issues. The Rs held off in hopes of negotiating a better solution, but when it became clear that the Ds were going to stay out until they got their way, the Rs decided to break the impasse.

    That seems pretty reasonable to me, all things considered, and it probably should've been done long ago.
  • QuakerOats
    FFT - Good to get your hands-on perspective from WI .... thanks.
  • Writerbuckeye
    stlouiedipalma;705604 wrote:Lost in this whole conversation is the fact that what the Wisconsin Democratic Senators are doing amounts to a filibuster of sorts. I don't know enough about their procedures in Wisconsin, so I don't really know whether they have any other means of mounting a filibuster.

    Oh please. They ran away because they knew they were beat.

    Childish.

    No other way to say it.

    As for your earlier question to me about what I'd do if my terms of employment were being changed -- I've been laid off twice, so I've already been on the brunt end of that stick. Guess what? I'd prefer to work in those conditions (at will, no union) than be in the public union I was forced to join as part of my initial state employment.

    Fortunately, I was talented enough to get out of the union and get a job that wasn't protected either by union or civil service. But I still had to deal with the union as a supervisor, and they were useless and lazy, and did nothing all day but protect workers who would have been fired years ago if rational thought and behavior ruled and not union contracts.
  • O-Trap
    stlouiedipalma;706558 wrote:That person needs to be locked up right now. There's no place in civil disobedience for that kind of rhetoric or threat and I hope that everyone condemns this kind of idiocy.

    Unfortunately, cooler heads like yours aren't always out there.

    Having a background in email, though, I chuckle at this guy, because unless he went to a random library where he would not be recognized, used a brand-new email address (that isn't linked to an established one), found a computer that didn't require him to login (most libraries force you to), and sent this, it can be tracked to him.

    Someone is going to have some unpleasant people at their front door shortly.
  • born_to_wrestle
    Writerbuckeye;707030 wrote:Oh please. They ran away because they knew they were beat.

    Childish.

    No other way to say it.

    As for your earlier question to me about what I'd do if my terms of employment were being changed -- I've been laid off twice, so I've already been on the brunt end of that stick. Guess what? I'd prefer to work in those conditions (at will, no union) than be in the public union I was forced to join as part of my initial state employment.

    Fortunately, I was talented enough to get out of the union and get a job that wasn't protected either by union or civil service. But I still had to deal with the union as a supervisor, and they were useless and lazy, and did nothing all day but protect workers who would have been fired years ago if rational thought and behavior ruled and not union contracts.

    Just curious about your thoughts on the upcoming NFL strike. Seeing how the CBA is banned in Wisconsin and the Packers are a public owned team and tax dollars pay for the stadium, how shoud the Government punish them for striking or not working? Or is it OK for people that make millions to strike when they don't agree with their contracts while others that make 30,000 are not allowed to disagree with their contracts?
  • O-Trap
    born_to_wrestle;707257 wrote:Just curious about your thoughts on the upcoming NFL strike. Seeing how the CBA is banned in Wisconsin and the Packers are a public owned team and tax dollars pay for the stadium, how shoud the Government punish them for striking or not working? Or is it OK for people that make millions to strike when they don't agree with their contracts while others that make 30,000 are not allowed to disagree with their contracts?
    If a worker intentionally doesn't work, that worker has earned a suspension, a pay dock, and/or a pink slip. They are (or should be, at least) at the mercy of their employer at that point. I don't care if it's a kindergarten gym teacher, a high school AP math teacher, or Aaron Rodgers.
  • Con_Alma
    born_to_wrestle;707257 wrote:Just curious about your thoughts on the upcoming NFL strike. Seeing how the CBA is banned in Wisconsin and the Packers are a public owned team and tax dollars pay for the stadium, how shoud the Government punish them for striking or not working? Or is it OK for people that make millions to strike when they don't agree with their contracts while others that make 30,000 are not allowed to disagree with their contracts?


    CB is not yet banned in Wisconsin.

    The NFL will have a lockout before the players go on strike.
  • Skyhook79
    born_to_wrestle;707257 wrote:Just curious about your thoughts on the upcoming NFL strike. Seeing how the CBA is banned in Wisconsin and the Packers are a public owned team and tax dollars pay for the stadium, how shoud the Government punish them for striking or not working? Or is it OK for people that make millions to strike when they don't agree with their contracts while others that make 30,000 are not allowed to disagree with their contracts?
    Its a lockout not a strike.
  • born_to_wrestle
    Ok, it's a lockout. What is the difference between that and a strike? Not trying to be a smart butt, just like the information. And it looks like the CBA in Wisconsin did get voted on yesterday.........http://www.mndaily.com/blogs/newsstand/2011/03/09/wisconsin-gop-votes-strip-cba-without-democrats
  • Con_Alma
    born_to_wrestle;707440 wrote:Ok, it's a lockout. What is the difference between that and a strike? Not trying to be a smart butt, just like the information. And it looks like the CBA in Wisconsin did get voted on yesterday.........http://www.mndaily.com/blogs/newsstand/2011/03/09/wisconsin-gop-votes-strip-cba-without-democrats

    It's not law until the Governor signs it. He hasn't done so yet.

    In a simplified explanation:

    Lockout - owners keep employees from working

    Strike - workers don't show up for work
  • born_to_wrestle
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

    it has been signed
  • Con_Alma
    It appears so. Thank you for providing that. Last night's news' reports were that he was consulting with constitutional attorneys and when it would be signed was undetermined.
  • fan_from_texas
    born_to_wrestle;707440 wrote:Ok, it's a lockout. What is the difference between that and a strike? Not trying to be a smart butt, just like the information. And it looks like the CBA in Wisconsin did get voted on yesterday.........http://www.mndaily.com/blogs/newsstand/2011/03/09/wisconsin-gop-votes-strip-cba-without-democrats


    The Packers aren't a government entity. The players aren't public employees. The law will not affect them in any way.
  • born_to_wrestle
    fan_

    thanks, i was just reading more about the packers. i appreciate the info.
  • Writerbuckeye
    fan_from_texas;708055 wrote:The Packers aren't a government entity. The players aren't public employees. The law will not affect them in any way.

    This. Nothing prevents private employees from striking in Wisconsin or elsewhere.
  • fan_from_texas
    born_to_wrestle;708069 wrote:fan_

    thanks, i was just reading more about the packers. i appreciate the info.


    No prob. The WI law does not affect private entities. It (1) removes the ability for public sector unions to collectively bargain on benefits, and (2) limits the ability of public sector unions to collectively bargain for wages beyond the rate of inflation. If a public sector union seeks a pay increase greater than the rate of inflation, the public votes on it.
  • O-Trap
    fan_from_texas;708203 wrote:No prob. The WI law does not affect private entities. It (1) removes the ability for public sector unions to collectively bargain on benefits, and (2) limits the ability of public sector unions to collectively bargain for wages beyond the rate of inflation. If a public sector union seeks a pay increase greater than the rate of inflation, the public votes on it.

    In other words, it will be another vote that will come down to whose commercials are better at selling propaganda. :D
  • fan_from_texas
    O-Trap;708204 wrote:In other words, it will be another vote that will come down to whose commercials are better at selling propaganda. :D

    Right. If a public sector union contributes significant money to an election to secure that the person across from the table is negotiating with a conflict of interest (i.e., representing the party across from it, rather than the interests of the taxpayers, to whom it should be beholden), and those negotiations result in significant pay increases to the entire scale that outstrip inflation (regular step increases that outstrip inflation are fine), then the citizens must approve it.

    The idea is to prevent the outrage we see in MKE where one of the worst school systems in the country can pay its teachers an average of $100K annually.
  • O-Trap
    fan_from_texas;708207 wrote:Right. If a public sector union contributes significant money to an election to secure that the person across from the table is negotiating with a conflict of interest (i.e., representing the party across from it, rather than the interests of the taxpayers, to whom it should be beholden), and those negotiations result in significant pay increases to the entire scale that outstrip inflation (regular step increases that outstrip inflation are fine), then the citizens must approve it.

    The idea is to prevent the outrage we see in MKE where one of the worst school systems in the country can pay its teachers an average of $100K annually.
    I only said that because now, when that vote/approval is set to take place, there will be commercials popping up to try to sway the voting public by hiding behind banners like "Support Your Child's Education," "Thank The Teachers By Voting ______," and that sort.

    I agree that it's better to at least give the ones paying this a fighting chance, though. All in all, it's still a good thing.
  • dwccrew
    wgh raider;705963 wrote:i look at it this way boehner and mcconnell may as well stayed home as they did exactly nothing in obamas first 2 years so whats the difference??

    The difference is they didn't stay home, they were present and did what they were elected to do which is show up and represent. That's the difference. Are you so dense that you can't tell the difference?
  • Writerbuckeye
    dwccrew;709168 wrote:The difference is they didn't stay home, they were present and did what they were elected to do which is show up and represent. That's the difference. Are you so dense that you can't tell the difference?

    I'd also argue their presence those two years led to the GOP taking back the House, and winning so many state office throughout the country. You don't have to stop everything the other side is doing to win some huge battles later. Just getting the right message out can make all the difference, even if you're on the wrong end of a vote.

    Also, legislators who flee (literally) from their duties should be summarily dismissed from office.
  • sleeper
    Writerbuckeye;709332 wrote: Also, legislators who flee (literally) from their duties should be summarily dismissed from office.
    +1

    I'd be saying this about Republicans and Independents too.
  • Writerbuckeye
    sleeper;709468 wrote:+1

    I'd be saying this about Republicans and Independents too.

    As would I. However, I notice it's only the Dems doing it of late.
  • believer
    Writerbuckeye;709533 wrote: However, I notice it's only the Dems doing it of late.
    Come to think of it, this seems to be a tactic practiced entirely by Dems. You have to give them credit for originality and creativity even if they are cowards, shirkers, and idiots.