End of collective bargaining/other anti-union measures plus reactions ...

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

This is the kind of culture we've allowed to come into being. People and their communities exist to serve corporations, not the other way around.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

He's not "union busting" for aggressively negotiating a good deal for the state with the union. He's union busting for terminating collective bargaining and making strikes illegal. I think this is why it's national news.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

What mess? The severe recession? No.

The states do in fact have a balanced budget requirement. Maybe that's the problem with the economy. I don't know for sure, but one thing I do know, it's not, as you suggest, due to states spending too much because they do not have to balance the budget. They do.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

This is why we should have a stronger federal government, so the states don't compete with each other to reach the bottom.

But the companies were indeed in Wisconsin before the tax cut. What evidence do you have that they would have left but for the tax cut, considering that they were conducting business there under the old tax structure.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

I don't have any evidence, other than the fact that companies leave states and even countries all the time. My original post did not say definitively that that's what was happening, just a hypothetical "what if"

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Some states (such as Missouri) have a balanced budget amendment. Others obviously do not, such as California and Illinois.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

This is all well and good, but it does nothing to deal with reality. The reality is, if it costs a business too much money to do business in a certain locale, for whatever reason (interstate access, taxes, etc.) they will move to another location to save that money. Yes, good corporations give back to the community and treat their employees fairly. But, no corporation is going to continue to do that and provide jobs to that community if they can do business much cheaper some place else due to lower taxes, etc.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

And thus... if you are rich and make your money via capital rather than labor, you're set.

If you're poor or middle class and make your money via actual work, you're on your way to Bangladeshi living standards in the next hundred or so years.

Great system we've got going here...

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Reports are coming in that all 14 Democrats in the Wisconsin State Senate have left the state and are boycotting the vote on this bill. The rumor is that they boarded a bus for Illinois at dawn this morning.

That leaves 19 Republicans in the chamber. With 20 Senators required for the Senate to act, nothing can be done until a Democrat returns.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Well, that is Globalization 101: The use of governments to make the world secure. For money, that is, not people.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Because no rich people ever made their money via work. They all got it gifted to them from daddy...

Once again, you guys are talking theory. What should we do at the federal level to prohibit business from moving? Set a uniform corporate tax rate? disband the practice all together (and, if you do that, business will just close down and all those jobs will vanish.) Once again, what is the practical solution to the problem?

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Exactly.

I saw an interview earlier today with the guy who heads the biggest public employee union in Wisconsin. Taking him at his word, he said he sent a letter to Walker (or a phone message, I can't remember which) the morning after he won election both congratulating him, telling him he recognized the budget challenges facing WI and inviting him to sit down to see how they could work together.

That call/letter went unanswered. He said he kept trying until he finally started publishing public letters to the governor. The point is, the union guy reached out to the Governor the day after the election and basically said, "we are ready to make concessions" as he obviously saw the same mountain of red ink and new the unions would be required to do their part.

So don't be snowed Mt. Mike. This isn't about the budget shortfall. If it was, don't you think he would have been happy to meet with the unions immediately to see what concessions he could get to close the hole? He didn't. He's using a budget crisis to crush the unions but lo and behold, it looks like he underestimated their resolve.

Given the scenes I have seen in Madison, if these people stick to their guns, (can I say that in this new age? ) he invited paralysis that the normal people of Wisconsin will ultimately blame him for. I'm all for budget cuts and I have supported the concept of re-thinking public employee benefits and pensions here in Illinois (the pensions are killing us). So, with that background, I feel pretty credible in saying that Walker appears to be nothing by a political whore and shill for corporate interests. The fact that his "law" exempts three public unions -- the only three that supported him in the election -- pretty much tells me everything I need to know about him.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Actually you are, too. Classical neo-liberalism is a common name for it.

That, or Autistic Economics, depending on which side you come down on.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Illinois does have a constitutional requirment that its budget be balanced. I believe California does as well. Not everyone follows the law.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

taking him at his word. He could just be posturing as well.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

There is a difference between posturing and outright lies on purely factual matters. A letter. A phone message. These are simple facts. If this guy is lying about THAT then he is an idiot and he would never had the credibility to get where he is. Now, saying that they offered to work with the governor might be posturing. To some extent I'm sure it is. But there is no reason to doubt the logistics of his statement. So, IF those calls were made, and IF they went unreturned, and IF these public employees are really at the core of the state's financial troubles, then what does that tell you about the governor? To not even engage the unions before attempting to crush them is incredibly disingenuous and frankly, incredibly stupid. He is getting what he asked for and might be setting himself up for the quickest guaranteed "one term and out" era's in history.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

My thoughts on this:

#1. I believe that Unions have become too powerful, and their demands are starting to become unreasonable. In the case of Wisconsin, the Gov. is going to force them into paying upto 5.9% into their pensions, and 12% of their health care costs. That's significantly less than what people in the private market have to pay for health care. If you have a $15K policy, that comes out to $35 per week.

#2. The new Governor of Wisconsin enacted a Tax cut to the tune of $100M over 2 years. They'd save approximately $30M by pushing this anti-union Bill.

#3. The methodology here is abhorent. Every worker deserves union bargaining rights, if it's necessary. Stripping public workers of CBA rights and then dictating terms is pretty d*mn close to what we revolted over. Negotiate, and then tell these people we can't afford what you're demanding, and thus will have to lay people off if you want...but you went straight for a nuclear option.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/politics/01transitionwi.html

Once Mr. Walker is sworn in, brand-new negotiations are presumed for state employee contracts. Union leaders are gloomy — or worse. They complain that Mr. Walker has, so far, ignored their efforts to reach out to him. A union leader, Bryan Kennedy, suggested that Mr. Walker was aiming to change the state’s long-held motto, “Forward,” to “Always the Low Price.”

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

This is a pretty good summary. There are no good guys here.

The governor is a union-busting, tax-cuts for corporations douche.

And the unions have gotten to the point where anything short of the nuclear option is laughed off as an idle threat.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

The thought that unions can just force anyone to do anything is laughable. It's called a negotiation for a reason.
I bet companies' or governments' suppliers wish they could just willy-nilly renegotiate terms of contracts whenever they feel it is beneficial to them too because of economic changes, etc., but they can't. It's called a contract for a reason.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Which is part of my point. I would like to have a tariff on imports like that. If you're gonna ship jobs overseas because it's cheaper, at least make it even enough financially where they'll think twice.

 

Re: Public Unions vs. the state of Wisconsin

Well I'm glad I didn't have to say it.