A Very Modest Victory in Wisconsin

cpwill · Mar 11, 2011

I think this puts the whole matter in perspective rather succinctly.

A Very Modest Victory in Madison

The political theater under way in Madison invites both Democrats and Republicans to imagine that something more significant has transpired there than is in fact the case: By curtailing the collective-bargaining powers of some government-employee unions, Wisconsin merely joins the ranks of Colorado and Maryland — not precisely hotbeds of right-wing extremism...

Gov. Scott Walker and the sober Republicans in Wisconsin’s state legislature are celebrating a victory, to be sure, but it is in truth a modest one: Under the new law, government workers will vote annually on whether they wish to be represented by a union, and the state will not be compelled to extract union dues from employees’ paychecks on behalf of the unions. Health-care and pension benefits for government workers will be set by the people’s elected representatives outside of the union-dominated collective-bargaining process, and wage increases will be indexed to inflation. Government workers still will enjoy salary-and-benefit packages that in most cases exceed what those workers could hope to command in the private sector, along with such hard-to-price benefits as enhanced job security.

For this modest reform, Governor Walker has been compared to Adolf Hitler, and progressives have called for his assassination. For adopting collective-bargaining rules similar to those found in many other states and more generous than those found in some, the people of Wisconsin have seen their state capitol under the occupation of bongo-beating misfits while the necessary and essential business of state government ground to a halt, with Democrats fleeing the state in a cynical bid to prevent duly elected legislators from legislating...

The bill has been called “extreme” and “draconian,” but is in fact the opposite of that: No state worker is set to lose his job, there will be no furloughs or salary cuts. The worst that government employees will endure is a requirement that they pay 12.6 percent of their own health-insurance premiums and 5.6 percent of their own pension contributions. And they all will receive something of value: a regularly scheduled vote about whether to be represented by their unions, which often serve no one’s interests but those of the union bosses themselves.

And that is the real source of the rage on the left: Mandatory union representation, empowered by mandatory collective bargaining and mandatory dues deductions enforced by the state, creates an enormous flow of cash for Democratic political candidates and their pet causes. From 1989 to the present, five of the ten biggest donors to American political campaigns have been labor unions, including public-sector unions such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The overwhelming majority of those donations go to Democrats. The union bosses and their Democratic patrons know that giving workers more of a choice about union representation will diminish that power and reduce that cash flow. That is what this is about, for all of the cheap talk about “civil rights” — as though federal employees in Washington were being treated like second-class citizens because their unions do not enjoy the same princely powers until now wielded by Wisconsin’s...

randel · Mar 12, 2011

cpwill said:
I think this puts the whole matter in perspective rather succinctly.

A Very Modest Victory in Madison

The political theater under way in Madison invites both Democrats and Republicans to imagine that something more significant has transpired there than is in fact the case: By curtailing the collective-bargaining powers of some government-employee unions, Wisconsin merely joins the ranks of Colorado and Maryland — not precisely hotbeds of right-wing extremism...

Gov. Scott Walker and the sober Republicans in Wisconsin’s state legislature are celebrating a victory, to be sure, but it is in truth a modest one: Under the new law, government workers will vote annually on whether they wish to be represented by a union, and the state will not be compelled to extract union dues from employees’ paychecks on behalf of the unions. Health-care and pension benefits for government workers will be set by the people’s elected representatives outside of the union-dominated collective-bargaining process, and wage increases will be indexed to inflation. Government workers still will enjoy salary-and-benefit packages that in most cases exceed what those workers could hope to command in the private sector, along with such hard-to-price benefits as enhanced job security.

For this modest reform, Governor Walker has been compared to Adolf Hitler, and progressives have called for his assassination. For adopting collective-bargaining rules similar to those found in many other states and more generous than those found in some, the people of Wisconsin have seen their state capitol under the occupation of bongo-beating misfits while the necessary and essential business of state government ground to a halt, with Democrats fleeing the state in a cynical bid to prevent duly elected legislators from legislating...

The bill has been called “extreme” and “draconian,” but is in fact the opposite of that: No state worker is set to lose his job, there will be no furloughs or salary cuts. The worst that government employees will endure is a requirement that they pay 12.6 percent of their own health-insurance premiums and 5.6 percent of their own pension contributions. And they all will receive something of value: a regularly scheduled vote about whether to be represented by their unions, which often serve no one’s interests but those of the union bosses themselves.

And that is the real source of the rage on the left: Mandatory union representation, empowered by mandatory collective bargaining and mandatory dues deductions enforced by the state, creates an enormous flow of cash for Democratic political candidates and their pet causes. From 1989 to the present, five of the ten biggest donors to American political campaigns have been labor unions, including public-sector unions such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The overwhelming majority of those donations go to Democrats. The union bosses and their Democratic patrons know that giving workers more of a choice about union representation will diminish that power and reduce that cash flow. That is what this is about, for all of the cheap talk about “civil rights” — as though federal employees in Washington were being treated like second-class citizens because their unions do not enjoy the same princely powers until now wielded by Wisconsin’s...

what a load of crap....this is payback to the unions for the asswhoopin' the republicans got a couple of years back....repubs figure if they can break the unions, then they can hurt democrats, and enjoy what they have longed for...one party, republican rule for years to come. what business is it of the wisconsin state government to dictate to the unions how often they have to have elections to certify? that is an internal union matter, and there are procedures in place in the union for decertification votes if enough of the membership decides they want a vote, the state has no business dictating this. for all the bs about 'balancing state budgets', all this is is union busting, as evidenced by the way walker and the republicans got this bill through...i'll say it for the millionth and tenth time cp, dues are not used for political purposes, that money is by donation by individual union members , and is separate from regular dues...some people here really do need to do some homework, and quit repeating misinformation about dues and how they are spent.

haymarket · Mar 12, 2011

randel said:
what a load of crap....this is payback to the unions for the asswhoopin' the republicans got a couple of years back....repubs figure if they can break the unions, then they can hurt democrats, and enjoy what they have longed for...one party, republican rule for years to come. what business is it of the wisconsin state government to dictate to the unions how often they have to have elections to certify? that is an internal union matter, and there are procedures in place in the union for decertification votes if enough of the membership decides they want a vote, the state has no business dictating this. for all the bs about 'balancing state budgets', all this is is union busting, as evidenced by the way walker and the republicans got this bill through...i'll say it for the millionth and tenth time cp, dues are not used for political purposes, that money is by donation by individual union members , and is separate from regular dues...some people here really do need to do some homework, and quit repeating misinformation about dues and how they are spent.

Exactly. The Republican party has looked at the demographics and have rightly concluded that the party of the angry white man is going to have a very hard time winning elections in an America which is becoming increasing less white with every passing year. So the solution is to make sure that elections are conducted with as many advantages going to their core constituency as is possible. That includes making it harder for people to vote with ID requirements. It includes allowing corporations to buy elections through the terrible Citizens United decision. It includes going after and destroying groups like Acorn which registered lots of Democratic voters. It includes weakening labor unions which have been key supporters of Democratic candidates. It includes trying to take citizenship rights and thus voting rights from people born in the USA from immigrant parents who may not have entered legally. It includes providing plenty of voting machines in Republican leaning areas to make voting easier and the process shorter while shortchanging Dem areas of the necessary machines to force long lines and increased voting times.

It is all part of an intentional effort to allow a minority to keep power in a democratic republic where the majority is suppose to rule the day.

TurtleDude · Mar 12, 2011

randel said:
what a load of crap....this is payback to the unions for the asswhoopin' the republicans got a couple of years back....repubs figure if they can break the unions, then they can hurt democrats, and enjoy what they have longed for...one party, republican rule for years to come. what business is it of the wisconsin state government to dictate to the unions how often they have to have elections to certify? that is an internal union matter, and there are procedures in place in the union for decertification votes if enough of the membership decides they want a vote, the state has no business dictating this. for all the bs about 'balancing state budgets', all this is is union busting, as evidenced by the way walker and the republicans got this bill through...i'll say it for the millionth and tenth time cp, dues are not used for political purposes, that money is by donation by individual union members , and is separate from regular dues...some people here really do need to do some homework, and quit repeating misinformation about dues and how they are spent.

public employee unions are nothing more than dem organs. crushing them and destroying their ability to funnel taxpayer dollars to politicians who represent the intersests of the unions rather than the taxpayers is sound public policy

TurtleDude · Mar 12, 2011

haymarket said:
Exactly. The Republican party has looked at the demographics and have rightly concluded that the party of the angry white man is going to have a very hard time winning elections in an America which is becoming increasing less white with every passing year. So the solution is to make sure that elections are conducted with as many advantages going to their core constituency as is possible. That includes making it harder for people to vote with ID requirements. It includes allowing corporations to buy elections through the terrible Citizens United decision. It includes going after and destroying groups like Acorn which registered lots of Democratic voters. It includes weakening labor unions which have been key supporters of Democratic candidates. It includes trying to take citizenship rights and thus voting rights from people born in the USA from immigrant parents who may not have entered legally. It includes providing plenty of voting machines in Republican leaning areas to make voting easier and the process shorter while shortchanging Dem areas of the necessary machines to force long lines and increased voting times.

It is all part of an intentional effort to allow a minority to keep power in a democratic republic where the majority is suppose to rule the day.

the robbing a few peters to pay a lot of pauls makes it tough to win elections when you try to protect the interests of a society that needs more Peters and less pauls.

Mayor Snorkum · Mar 12, 2011

cpwill said:
I think this puts the whole matter in perspective rather succinctly.

yes, it does.

Mayor Snorkum sees that those on the left refuse to gain perspective.

cpwill · Mar 12, 2011

randel said:
what a load of crap....this is payback to the unions for the asswhoopin' the republicans got a couple of years back

so you could say it's Republicans trying to remove a major benefactor of the Democratic Party, or you could say it's about the Democrats seeking to protect that same benefactor (controlling actor?), or you could say it's about the Public Unions themselves refusing to give up their grip on political power.

All strike me as simply different ways of looking at the exact same central issue: the key here is that this is about the lessening of Public Unions' political power and influence.

.repubs figure if they can break the unions, then they can hurt democrats, and enjoy what they have longed for...one party, republican rule for years to come.

:lol: didn't Democrats just get done with that? had an unfillibusterable majority in the senate, even, as i recall.

Gosh, who were the major donors to the Democrats in 2008 when they won that supermajority? who were their "feet on the ground" and their political muscle? Who did the same in 2010 to try to help them retain that one-party rule?

Gee wiz, the public sector unions? you don't say....

I don't want a single-party Republican rule. I want a two-party system. Republicans and Libertarians.

what business is it of the wisconsin state government to dictate to the unions how often they have to have elections to certify?

sounds to me like they are worried that Unions might be abusing their members. given that up until now membership was forced, that wouldn't be too hard a thing to imagine.

but now (and this is the real kicker) membership is no longer forced. I think even within that central issue of reducing the power and control of the Public Unions, that is the main thorn in their craw

all this is is union busting, as evidenced by the way walker and the republicans got this bill through...

given that it was the Democrats fleeing the state and refusing to do their jobs that forced them to pass the measure in that particular manner.

but yes, in general this is about doing our best to remove the virus in our governing system that is public sector unions. "government" is not supposed to be it's own interest group.

cpwill · Mar 12, 2011

haymarket said:
It is all part of an intentional effort to allow a minority to keep power in a democratic republic where the majority is suppose to rule the day.

i'm sorry, but didn't the minority party in Wisconsin just refuse to even allow the government to function rather than lose a vote?

ThePlayDrive · Mar 12, 2011

TurtleDude said:
public employee unions are nothing more than dem organs. crushing them and destroying their ability to funnel taxpayer dollars to politicians who represent the intersests of the unions rather than the taxpayers is sound public policy

union members are taxpayers. people who support union members are taxpayers. therefore, union members work in the interest of some taxpayers.

this isn't about unions versus taxpayers. this about taxpayers vs. taxpayers. citizens vs. citizens. like every other political battle.

haymarket · Mar 12, 2011

TurtleDude said:
public employee unions are nothing more than dem organs. crushing them and destroying their ability to funnel taxpayer dollars to politicians who represent the intersests of the unions rather than the taxpayers is sound public policy

Thank you for providing instant proof to my previous post

It is all part of an intentional effort to allow a minority to keep power in a democratic republic where the majority is suppose to rule the day.

If I wrote your stuff for you this could not have fit better.

haymarket · Mar 12, 2011

cpwill said:
i'm sorry, but didn't the minority party in Wisconsin just refuse to even allow the government to function rather than lose a vote?

you are confusing a minority party in the legislature with a demographic minority across the nation.

randel · Mar 12, 2011

cpwill said:
so you could say it's Republicans trying to remove a major benefactor of the Democratic Party, or you could say it's about the Democrats seeking to protect that same benefactor (controlling actor?), or you could say it's about the Public Unions themselves refusing to give up their grip on political power.

All strike me as simply different ways of looking at the exact same central issue: the key here is that this is about the lessening of Public Unions' political power and influence.

:lol: didn't Democrats just get done with that? had an unfillibusterable majority in the senate, even, as i recall.

Gosh, who were the major donors to the Democrats in 2008 when they won that supermajority? who were their "feet on the ground" and their political muscle? Who did the same in 2010 to try to help them retain that one-party rule?

Gee wiz, the public sector unions? you don't say....

I don't want a single-party Republican rule. I want a two-party system. Republicans and Libertarians.

sounds to me like they are worried that Unions might be abusing their members. given that up until now membership was forced, that wouldn't be too hard a thing to imagine.

but now (and this is the real kicker) membership is no longer forced. I think even within that central issue of reducing the power and control of the Public Unions, that is the main thorn in their craw

given that it was the Democrats fleeing the state and refusing to do their jobs that forced them to pass the measure in that particular manner.

but yes, in general this is about doing our best to remove the virus in our governing system that is public sector unions. "government" is not supposed to be it's own interest group.

sounds to you like that the republicans are worried about the unions abusing their members eh?:roll: sure cp, sure, that is a load of dung and you know it.....sad day in mudville cp, i know your brighter than that.

cpwill · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
sounds to you like that the republicans are worried about the unions abusing their members eh?

that's why we oppose getting rid of the secret ballot.

sure cp, sure, that is a load of dung and you know it.

well ole tag-teamer, you are probably right about some - but not for me. i have to wonder why the unions are so petrified that their members will get the choice whether to be a member or not. we have a name for places that seek to lock people inside; we call them prisons. I notice, for example, that in Indiana when workers were given the choice by Mitch Daniels, that something like 90% of them decided they weren't interested in being forced to send money to the union... and I have to wonder... what kind of "beneficial" organization would see 90% of it's members flee as soon as they had the option?

you and I both agree that this is about reducing the political power of public unions. but think on this: if the unions' members were so excited to be part of it, if all those millions upon millions upon millions were really coming from willing donors... then the threat of allowing people to opt out would be a paper tiger. it would be like threatening a rich man with your willingness to accept a check for $1,000,000 from him, should he choose to give it to you. claiming that members of the union who have no choice to be there don't want the choice to be there reminds me of the hermit kingdom (nKorea) swearing up and down that it's citizens love their government and their poverty... and that is why it must kill any of them that attempt to escape.

if - as you claim - the unions are beneficial organizations for their members, and if - as you claim - those dues don't in any way end up purchasing said unions' political power.... then the measure just passed can't be about reducing union political power because it would have no effect whatsoever upon it.

Kal'Stang · Mar 13, 2011

haymarket said:
Exactly. The Republican party has looked at the demographics and have rightly concluded that the party of the angry white man is going to have a very hard time winning elections in an America which is becoming increasing less white with every passing year. So the solution is to make sure that elections are conducted with as many advantages going to their core constituency as is possible. That includes making it harder for people to vote with ID requirements. It includes allowing corporations to buy elections through the terrible Citizens United decision. It includes going after and destroying groups like Acorn which registered lots of Democratic voters. It includes weakening labor unions which have been key supporters of Democratic candidates. It includes trying to take citizenship rights and thus voting rights from people born in the USA from immigrant parents who may not have entered legally. It includes providing plenty of voting machines in Republican leaning areas to make voting easier and the process shorter while shortchanging Dem areas of the necessary machines to force long lines and increased voting times.

It is all part of an intentional effort to allow a minority to keep power in a democratic republic where the majority is suppose to rule the day.

Oh look, the race card, how..............original...:aliens2: :sarcasticclap

the makeout hobo · Mar 13, 2011

cpwill said:
i'm sorry, but didn't the minority party in Wisconsin just refuse to even allow the government to function rather than lose a vote?

May I assume you're anti filibuster?

cpwill · Mar 13, 2011

i'm ambiguous on it. but fleeing the state in order to deny quorum is a very different order of things than a fillibuster. while a single bill is under fillibuster, the government is continuing to function. other pieces of work can be put forth while the threat of fillibuster stalls that which is under more serious debate. a compromise can be more easily struck at any point in time that would allow a measure to at least come to the floor for a vote. at the very least a fillibuster entails senators doing their jobs. fleeing a state to deny quorum is basically saying that you are willing to bring the workings of the government to a screeching halt in order to get your way. a fillibuster is a sometimes annoying procedure that gives a final bit of push to a minority that is strong in its' convictions. fleeing the state is like the kid that grabs the football and throws it on a rooftop because the other kids won't let him be quarterback.

the makeout hobo · Mar 13, 2011

cpwill said:
i'm ambiguous on it. but fleeing the state in order to deny quorum is a very different order of things than a fillibuster. while a single bill is under fillibuster, the government is continuing to function. other pieces of work can be put forth while the threat of fillibuster stalls that which is under more serious debate. a compromise can be more easily struck at any point in time that would allow a measure to at least come to the floor for a vote. at the very least a fillibuster entails senators doing their jobs. fleeing a state to deny quorum is basically saying that you are willing to bring the workings of the government to a screeching halt in order to get your way. a fillibuster is a sometimes annoying procedure that gives a final bit of push to a minority that is strong in its' convictions. fleeing the state is like the kid that grabs the football and throws it on a rooftop because the other kids won't let him be quarterback.

Only the modern filibuster. The original filibuster meant a single person had to take up all of the senate's time by talking nonstop. For that day Strom Thurmond was reading his mom's cookbooks, no other business could be done. It was only after fairly recent rules reforms that it didn't bring things to a halt.

The Prof · Mar 13, 2011

randel said:
i'll say it for the millionth and tenth time cp, dues are not used for political purposes, that money is by donation by individual union members , and is separate from regular dues...some people here really do need to do some homework, and quit repeating misinformation about dues and how they are spent.

up to 40% of cta dues go to political action, members can opt out of that portion of their payments by writing a letter and resigning from the union

not a wise career choice, however, for a public school teacher to dump on the union

it would make for some pretty tense relations, for example

Special Legal Notice to California Teachers: How to Get About a $300 refund of CTA Nonbargaining Expenses | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Class-Action Lawsuit Pending Against California Teacher Union - by Karla Dial - School Reform News

Teachers Boost Dues to Battle Gov. - Los Angeles Times

Walter · Mar 13, 2011

theplaydrive said:
union members are taxpayers. people who support union members are taxpayers. therefore, union members work in the interest of some taxpayers.

this isn't about unions versus taxpayers. this about taxpayers vs. taxpayers. citizens vs. citizens. like every other political battle.

What's your compliant then? Seems to me THE PEOPLE have spoken and decided to LIMIT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING in the public service sector. If you have a problem take it up with the PEOPLE who elected representatives via the mandate held in Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution. Collective Bargaining was first established by an act of legislation and it can be regulated via the same process but the SPIN coming from the left wishes to project this gift from the Tax Payers as if it were some unalienable right based upon a Civil Liberty.

Slartibartfast · Mar 13, 2011

Walter said:
What's your compliant then? Seems to me THE PEOPLE have spoken and decided to LIMIT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING in the public service sector. If you have a problem take it up with the PEOPLE who elected representatives via the mandate held in Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution. Collective Bargaining was first established by an act of legislation and it can be regulated via the same process but the SPIN coming from the left wishes to project this gift from the Tax Payers as if it were some unalienable right based upon a Civil Liberty.

Walker and the republicans in the wisconsin senate, hardly the people.

Walter · Mar 13, 2011

megaprogman said:
Walker and the republicans in the wisconsin senate, hardly the people.

So...THE PEOPLE did not elect them to represent their interest? How did they ascend to their positions? Did they STEAL the election? We do live in a Representative Republic...as far removed from a pure Democracy as the night is from day. See point number 10 of the Federalist Papers in relation as to why Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution exists with its mandate of Republican Representation. It appears that Mr. Madison had the Democrats pegged to perfection with their IDEOLOGY of democracy, i.e., mobocracy, as evidenced by the violent threats of death and riots in the streets. Democracies have no respect for personal freedom, individual rights of property..etc, as are always VIOLENT.

It appears that you believe the people who are UNION MEMBERS have more authority than does the State Constitution of Wisconsin or even the United States Constitution....because they supposedly represent....democracy in action..no? To hell with the established format of history and its representative mandate found to exist in the US CONSTITUTION.

haymarket · Mar 13, 2011

Perhaps what megaprogman meant was that Walker was elected by a minority of the Wisconsin people and it becomes debatable as if he truly speaks for "the people of Wisconsin". 25% of Wisconsin adults voted for Walker for governor in 2010.

Slartibartfast · Mar 13, 2011

Walter said:
So...THE PEOPLE did not elect them to represent their interest? How did they ascend to their positions? Did they STEAL the election? We do live in a Representative Republic...as far removed from a pure Democracy as the night is from day. See point number 10 of the Federalist Papers in relation as to why Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution exists with its mandate of Republican Representation. It appears that Mr. Madison had the Democrats pegged to perfection with their IDEOLOGY of democracy, i.e., mobocracy, as evidenced by the violent threats of death and riots in the streets. Democracies have no respect for personal freedom, individual rights of property..etc, as are always VIOLENT.

It appears that you believe the people who are UNION MEMBERS have more authority than does the State Constitution of Wisconsin or even the United States Constitution....because they supposedly represent....democracy in action..no? To hell with the established format of history and its representative mandate found to exist in the US CONSTITUTION.

Ok, so if you are going to use the elections as your gauge, then the conclusion is that the tea party was being silly since THE PEOPLE elected the democrats in '08. By your logic of course.

cpwill · Mar 13, 2011

haymarket said:
you are confusing a minority party in the legislature with a demographic minority across the nation.

the way we measure minority and majority as far as governing is concerned is via the ballot; which put those Republicans in power.

Now you could definitely say that "collective bargaining rights" are popular. so are "right to work" rights and "self government rights", both of which, arguably, were on the Governors side.

it seems that Americans are in favor of "rights" generally when polled; we'll see in the upcoming elections how they feel about public employee unions v republicans.

either way it's immaterial. the fact remains that the minority party tried to shut down government in order to get their way.

cpwill · Mar 13, 2011

megaprogman said:
Ok, so if you are going to use the elections as your gauge, then the conclusion is that the tea party was being silly since THE PEOPLE elected the democrats in '08. By your logic of course.

:shrug: which would make the anti-war movement silly prior to the election of 2006.

but if elections are how we measure, then the Tea party should be measured by 2010.

A Very Modest Victory in Wisconsin

cpwill

randel

haymarket

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Mayor Snorkum

cpwill

cpwill

ThePlayDrive

haymarket

haymarket

randel

cpwill

Kal'Stang

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World

cpwill

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World

The Prof

Walter

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

Walter

haymarket

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

cpwill

cpwill