Another Very Sad Day for the USA

[Rodger Tellefson]

Wis. gov. officially cuts collective bargaining



By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press Scott Bauer, Associated Press 42 mins ago

MADISON, Wis. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker succeeded Friday in taking away nearly all collective bargaining rights from the vast majority of the state's public employees, quietly capping weeks of contentious debate and delivering an epic defeat to the labor movement with a private bill signing.



Walker planned to hold a ceremonial signing later in the day.



The proposal touched off a national debate over labor rights for public employees, and its implementation is a key victory for Republicans who have targeted unions in nationwide efforts to slash government spending. But labor leaders said they plan to use the setback to fire up their members nationwide and mount a major counterattack against Republicans at the ballot box in 2012.



The measure passed the state's Assembly on Thursday following more than three weeks of protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the Capitol in opposition. The Senate cleared the way for passage with a surprise move Wednesday that allowed them to move the measure forward without 14 Democratic senators present.

 

[H D]

:banana:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Public employees should not have the right to collective bargaining. Allowing such, ultimately, puts taxpayers at the mercy of greed. Those that support a unions right to collectively bargaining most often cite greedy corporations and employers that would take advantage of the employees if not for the unions. Well, since it is the taxpayers that pay for public employees, and taxpayers don't get to vote on the pay, or the services they often opt in or out of that their taxes provide for, I ask: Who protects them, the taxpayer, from the potential greed of union employees?



This is only right, IMHO.



Its one thing to bend a private employer over and demand more and more. If unions kill that fatted cow (the corporation) through their greed, then they in turn hurt themselves. We have seen that happen with corporations going under lately, not able to sustain union employee and retiree benefits (not wishing to debate this, just citing the cases and what has been going on).



But if unions bend the government over demanding more and more, the govt doesn't fall...the taxpayers just have to pay more.



It all has to end somewhere.



TJR

 

[Les]

Without change, there can be no progress...

 

[Bill V]

Rodger, interestingly enough, there's been talk that this may actually turn out beneficial to both the unions and Democrats. The backlash against Walker is so intense that it's brought in record funding for WI Democrats, many of the recall efforts in Wisconsin against Republican legislators appear to have enough inertia to ultimately be successful, and the way in which this was done has soured many people, both union supporters and non, enough against these tactics that ultimately, it may work to the unions' advantage.

 

[Rick Kent]

Did the 14 Democrats who ran away 3 weeks ago come back yet?

 

[Tom Schindler]

Here is proof that government workers get more pay for less work than the private sector.





Tom

 

[WILL E]

Collective bargining for State Employees who are not Firemen or Police. And everyone else can still bargin for their salary.



And no one should be forced to join a Union to keep their job.



What's really sad is the behaviour of the people who stormed the Capitol.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Thanks for posting the same article.



I failed to find the proof in the article that you claimed, or were you being sarcastic in your statement?



TJR

 

[Bill V]

fkent, I haven't heard that they have come back. And I wouldn't be surprised if they still stay away. The bill was passed and signed by supposedly taking all the fiscal implications of the bill out, which made the forum unnecessary. (I say "supposedly" simply because the definition of "fiscal implications" is up for debate, and likely to end up in court. After all, Walker and the Republicans have stated all along that the reason for needing this were fiscal. By their own definition, then, the bill has fiscal implications, and there are therefore legitimate doubts about whether the courts will find the passage of this bill without a quorum to be legal.) I've seen a number of interviews with noted WI constitutional specialists saying that the Republicans efforts to "have it both ways" (say that they need this change made for fiscal reasons, but avoid the quorum rules by saying that the bill has no fiscal implications) may end up killing it in the courts.



Even if the courts were to uphold this, the Democrats can still completely hobble Walker's financial plans simply by staying away.

 

[Tom Schindler]

I failed to find the proof in the article that you claimed, or were you being sarcastic in your statement?

What did you read in the article?





Tom

 

[Bill V]

Well, since it is the taxpayers that pay for public employees, and taxpayers don't get to vote on the pay, or the services they often opt in or out of that their taxes provide for, I ask: Who protects them, the taxpayer, from the potential greed of union employees?

The answer is simple--THEY do. The taxpayers. Via the voting booth. They might not get to vote directly on pay, but they do get to vote on who gets to vote on the pay.



Like I've said before--I wholeheartedly support playing hardball with unions as part of budgetary corrections. But I even more wholeheartedly support their right to exist.



One thing regarding the Wisconsin situation I've heard many times, but I've never heard a reason for why it is this way--The bill that was just passed exempts police and fire personnel from the union-busting. Why? I don't get that. I can understand why it's critical to not allow them the right to strike. But I don't understand why they'd be exempt from this legislation. Especially when you consider that, to the best I can tell, this isn't the case in most other states pursuing such legislation, and both the fire and police unions are fully supporting the other unions in Wisconsin, even though they themselves have been exempted.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



I found mention of several surveys and studies that all together don't come to any clear consensus.



The article mentioned a "USA Today" survey showing that federal workers were often paid substantially more than workers in the private sector. I got this information from the article where it stated:

Many point to an analysis by USA Today last year that asserted, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, that federal civil servants not state or local ones had in 2009 "average pay and benefits" that were nearly double those of private workers.

However, earlier in the article the study by Bender and Heywood indicated that state and local workers in the public sector were making quite a bit less than those in the private sector. In particular, I am referring to the article where it states:

When the cost of benefits is factored in, Bender and Heywood say that their calculations show that the so-called total compensation for state workers is 6.8 percent less than for those in the private sector; local workers' total compensation is 7.4 percent less.

Now, the article also says that a lot of these claims are poltically motivated, or are hyped or or swayed one way or the other to serve a purpose. That is evidenced by the article where it states:

An analysis by PolitiFact.com, however, found that public vs. private claims can be problematic given both the difficulty in making apples-to-apples comparisons and the higher percentage of white-collar jobs in the public sector

So, since the article simply refers to studies, and surveys, and various sources, all of which have their own bias and agends, the real question is: Who do you believe?



Well, to me, it doesn't really matter whether priviate sector employees make more, or less, than comparable private sector employees. The jobs aren't the same, the demands aren't the same, the job securities aren't the same. There really is no comparison between the two sectors, IMHO, so comparing them on one factor/facet seems somewhat pointless.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



I submit that the taxpayers DO NOT have a voice. I wish they did. I wish they had a say. But I as a state and local taxpayer don't get to define, directly, the budgets that various government bodies and offices have at the state and local levels. I don't directly get to vote on the services they do, or should, or shouldn't provide. The only thing I get to vote on are the representatives, and they more often than not are more interested in getting elected, and re-elected, than in serving me. And, since in some parts of the country there are MORE voters employed in the public sector than in the private sector, what say do I as a taxpayer NOT employed by the government really have?



Getting a vote for the guy or gal that gets to vote isn't enough. The inmates are running the asylum. Time to stop feeding them.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Well, to me, it doesn't really matter whether priviate sector employees make more, or less, than comparable private sector employees. The jobs aren't the same, the demands aren't the same, the job securities aren't the same. There really is no comparison between the two sectors, IMHO, so comparing them on one factor/facet seems somewhat pointless.

Isn't this what we are doing here? Isn't this the whole "union vs. non-union" arguments we have here?



So, yes, facts are skewed for one political agenda. I just hope that Governor does not get re-elected and he screws up the budget even worse than it already is.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



To me this isn't a union versus non-union discussion. To me, this is a taxpayer's rights issue. As a taxpayer I want the free market, not collusion, not collective bargaining to set the price that govt employees are paid, and the price that our govt agencies pay for services, goods, etc.



Too much of what our govt does, at all levels, it does with the mentality that there is a blank check to pay for it all.



The taxpayers some time ago said they have had enough. The state and local governments aren't getting more money, and the recession has hit civilians and the public sector.



People are sick of it... paying high taxes for crap services.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Too much of what our govt does, at all levels, it does with the mentality that there is a blank check to pay for it all.

I can tell you, from experience, this is simply not the truth. Not at all what so ever.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, it absolutely is the truth, FOR ME, because I get to define what I mean by "TOO MUCH"



I see the excesses.



You may feel that the excessess that you see are just fine. Or, maybe you will say that you have seen zero, not even ONE excess.



If you tell me that, then THAT I would say I find hard to believe. I would never say that it is simply "not the truth" though, as I am neither that rude, nor that presumptuious.



So, again, it is the TRUTH, because for me, what I have seen are excesses. What I have seen at my school (public school), what I have seen at my local township is EXCESS, and it is TOO MUCH...for me.



Thus, I am right. Too many of my local govt agencies have a blank check mentality.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

As I said, I work with the US Government. Eerything we do for the Government must be justified as to the cost. Every single penny of it.



You may have seen things like Haliburton selling cases of soda for $150.00 to the US Government, but those were buddy deals. The work I deal with, we are accountable for everything and there is not "Blank Check Mentality".





Tom

 

[TrainTrac]

Caymen said:

As I said, I work with the US Government. Eerything we do for the Government must be justified as to the cost. Every single penny of it.



You may have seen things like Haliburton selling cases of soda for $150.00 to the US Government, but those were buddy deals. The work I deal with, we are accountable for everything and there is not "Blank Check Mentality".

But you work for a gov't contractor, correct? You're not an acutual employee of the Federal gov't, right? Big difference there. Not only that, but this is a state gov't issue, not Federal. Federal gov't employees don't have collective bargaining rights.



So you can't compare your private sector gov't contractor job with either a state or Federal civil service employee job. Apples & Oranges.