It backfired for those Dems that fled the state

Next time they won't be so rash as to try to abbrogate their responsibilities. The bill passed without them.

Good news.

Well, apparently not all of it.

A bit of trickery (removing the spending portion), I guess both sides can be accused of trickery now.

I am curious if Wisconsin will be looking for a "change" come the next election.... and the swing goes back and forth...

I am no lover of unions..

But agree with aircooled.. These attacks on unions and no NPR will most certainly swing the election back the other way. Don't take my elmo away.

I'm sick of the see-saw we've been on lately in politics. It seems as though the idea is to get into power, overreach as much as possible to push your own platform and screw over the other side, and then to get demolished in the next election cycle and have the other party do the same to you. Some wag on the news was arguing that Dems and Repubs should never work together.

This Wisconsin vs Union thing is out of control. That both sides resorted to such brash tactics speaks to their inability to even think about compromise. I'm sure each side feels like they're the ones who have been levelheaded in this situation, when it's clear that neither side has.

I'm hoping our new Michigan governor will be a bit different - he seems to be arguing for a "pain for everyone" approach in the budget, which while difficult politically, should really be the reality short-term in our state if we want to get anywhere.

bastomatic wrote: I'm sick of the see-saw we've been on lately in politics. It seems as though the idea is to get into power, overreach as much as possible to push your own platform and screw over the other side, and then to get demolished in the next election cycle and have the other party do the same to you. Some wag on the news was arguing that Dems and Repubs should never work together. This Wisconsin vs Union thing is out of control. That both sides resorted to such brash tactics speaks to their inability to even think about compromise. I'm sure each side feels like they're the ones who have been levelheaded in this situation, when it's clear that neither side has. I'm hoping our new Michigan governor will be a bit different - he seems to be arguing for a "pain for everyone" approach in the budget, which while difficult politically, should really be the reality short-term in our state if we want to get anywhere.

Very good points.. Hell if I can calm down and talk seminormally about politics.. These idiots should be able too as well.

These swings are getting out of hand.

I think it was Jerry Brown that said that to be successful in politics is like paddling a canoe--you have to paddle a little to the right and a little to the left to get anywhere. But I don't think he meant as far as most are going these days.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't governor walker just trying to give the state union workers essentially the same deal that Jimmy Carter (a very liberal Democrat) gave to the federal union workers back in the 70's?

don't those people think that maybe- just maybe- the state workers could always find a different job if the pay and benefits of their current job aren't up to what they think they are worth? i'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that would be willing to do their jobs right now, so if they are unhappy they should do the right thing and quit.. that's the way the rest of us operate..

i guess, in a nutshell, i'm trying to say one thing- screw the unions. any and all unions.

novaderrik wrote: correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't governor walker just trying to give the state union workers essentially the same deal that Jimmy Carter (a very liberal Democrat) gave to the federal union workers back in the 70's? don't those people think that maybe- just maybe- the state workers could always find a different job if the pay and benefits of their current job aren't up to what they think they are worth? i'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that would be willing to do their jobs right now, so if they are unhappy they should do the right thing and quit.. that's the way the rest of us operate.. i guess, in a nutshell, i'm trying to say one thing- screw the unions. any and all unions.

So, if they all quit, who is going to do the needed work? One would assume that they were hired by the state for a reason. maybe.

It's going to be hard for a cop or a fireman to find the same job in the private sector.... Road workers, teachers, airport managers, parks and rec, etc. There are workers for the state for a reason.

If I were to run away from my job and hide for three weeks, I would not be able to return because there would not be a job there for me.

Not sure if this is appropriate for this thread, but its political and I've been wanting to post it somewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5aeHF2ay5M

Clearly no winners, but the Republicans did what they were voted to do and not to run away from the problem. And to say the Demoncrats wouldn't have done the exact same thing, is past the line of political idiocy. To say they wouldn't is a lie. To me, all I see from the other side, unions and the Demoncrats, is a bunch of spoiled rotten kids not getting there way, crying about it, and throwing a tantrum. Get over yourselves, get back to work, and do your job to the best of your abilities. If it isn't enough, pack your E36 M3 and find something YOU CAN DO.

alfadriver wrote:

novaderrik wrote: correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't governor walker just trying to give the state union workers essentially the same deal that Jimmy Carter (a very liberal Democrat) gave to the federal union workers back in the 70's? don't those people think that maybe- just maybe- the state workers could always find a different job if the pay and benefits of their current job aren't up to what they think they are worth? i'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that would be willing to do their jobs right now, so if they are unhappy they should do the right thing and quit.. that's the way the rest of us operate.. i guess, in a nutshell, i'm trying to say one thing- screw the unions. any and all unions.

So, if they all quit, who is going to do the needed work? One would assume that they were hired by the state for a reason. maybe. It's going to be hard for a cop or a fireman to find the same job in the private sector.... Road workers, teachers, airport managers, parks and rec, etc. There are workers for the state for a reason.

they were hired by the state because they applied. they took the job because they agreed to the terms of employment and compensation. if the compensation changes, they can either stay or leave and find a different job. mo one is entitled to a job or to a certain compensation package just because they have it.

maybe the unemployed people that are looking for jobs would be willing to do the work.

remember- this isn't about cops or firemen. this is about all the other workers that don't have lives in their hands every day.

free market ftw..

novaderrik wrote: remember- this isn't about cops or firemen. this is about all the other workers that don't have lives in their hands every day. free market ftw..

To me this is where the anti-public sector union argument falls far short. What makes police and firefighters different than any other career in terms of wage and collective bargaining rights? Aside from the fact that it's political suicide to touch them, of course.

The simple truth of the Wisconsin fiasco is that unions are politically active and give the state republicans fits on election years. The republicans saw a chance to try to eliminate some of the competition permanently, and they took it. If it was only about fiscal health they wouldn't need to touch the workers' right to collective bargaining, as the unions had already acceded to the demands for wage and benefit concessions.

A nickel says they get that right back next time the Dems are in power.

Ranger50 wrote: To me, all I see from the other side, unions and the Demoncrats, is a bunch of spoiled rotten kids not getting there way, crying about it, and throwing a tantrum.

If i elected a government official to represent me, that found himself in the minority party, that didnt do everything in his power to do what i elected him to do i would be pissed.

To me all i see is the Dems doing the same thing the Reps are doing. They are playing the game. You just have to play it differently when you dont have the numeric advantage.

The reps must be licking there chops right now though. Its not often that either party finds themselves in a situation where they can effectively disband a rival political organization.

The sad thing is the Dems were not primarily worried about the loss of collective bargaining over benefits. The real killer in this bill was the fact that it ended the closed shop status of the state school system. That's the dirty little secrete behind the bill. When you give the teaches the option to have 1000 to 2000 less deducted from their yearly pay there will be FAR fewer union members in a year or two. That's the killer.

Fun fact, voting amongst union members in the state of Wisconsin was split about 48/52 GOP/Dem last election, but political contributions by the teachers union (and other unions) are about 96% biased in favor of democratic candidates. So that my friends is the true reason behind all this outrage. One party will lose a HUGE source of funding in the coming years and possibly a large voting block as well.

Money is the lifeblood of politics and unions are a major source of Dem funds, you start opening shops everywhere and you deal a huge blow to democratic coffers everywhere. Notice how most right to work states are almost always GOP controlled states.

As private union membership has declined in the last 20 years due to natural economic realities and market forces, public unions (state and some federal workers) have increased and currently there are more public than private union members. Public unions are far more dangerous than their private counterparts because elected officials are in direct control of the pay/benefits of members. So in a since you are electing your own boss which economically is a very bad idea. Employees will ALWAYS vote in their own best interests as its the only rational thing to do and will always vote for the candidate that will raise pay and benefits. Their is quite a bit of quid pro quo than goes on between public unions and elected officials. The official knows that as pay increases for public union members the union takes in more and can then donate more to the party organization. So the official gets guarantied funds and votes next election if they capitulate to the unions demands. This is also a roundabout way to funnel tax payer dollars into party coffers as your taxes pay the public workers and the union deducts its dues from the pay checks of its members and then sends them to a party of candidate. Union members have almost zero control over where union dollars go and even though the partisanship of a union might be evenly split the money never is.

They are responsible for most of the debt in states like California and are bad for both sides of the isle. Not really trying to dump on either party here but it just happens that Dems have received the majority of public union support in the last 20-30 years. Trying desperately NOT to flounder this thread...

JohnGalt wrote: .......When you give the teaches the option to have 1000 to 2000 less deducted from their yearly pay there will be FAR fewer union members in a year or two. That's the killer....

Choice, what a tragedy!

Fun fact, voting amongst union members in the state of Wisconsin was split about 48/52 GOP/Dem last election, but political contributions by the teachers union (and other unions) are about 96% biased in favor of democratic candidates

Sounds like the union is not representing it's members.

A timely explanation of Wisconsin's reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su4PwZCWUdg&feature=feedu

JohnGalt wrote: They are responsible for most of the debt in states like California....

Umm... no. "They" (whatever faction your want to point at) are not primarily to blame for CA's budget woes. You don't live here, and I'm going to guess probably never have. Our economical and political issues are more complicated than just "it's their fault". Probably the same way everywhere.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the biggest problem with the California politics is the Proposition system. Direct Democracy is Dumb.

to keep from floundering.. there was one lone Republican who voted against the bill. The same guy who brought up a compromise bill that BOTH parties did not want.

Salanis wrote:

JohnGalt wrote: They are responsible for most of the debt in states like California....

Umm... no. "They" (whatever faction your want to point at) are not primarily to blame for CA's budget woes. You don't live here, and I'm going to guess probably never have. Our economical and political issues are more complicated than just "it's *their* fault". Probably the same way everywhere. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the biggest problem with the California politics is the Proposition system. Direct Democracy is Dumb.

n * o o * o o o California's $500-billion pension time bomb

Public Employee Unions Are Sinking California

"Approximately 85% of the state's 235,000 employees (not including higher education employees) are unionized. As the governor noted during his $83 billion budget roll-out, over the past decade pension costs for public employees increased 2,000%. State revenues increased only 24% over the same period."

The biggest time bomb California has on its hands right now is the MASSIVE amount unfunded pensions. In a lot of ways they are just like GM. They promised the moon to employees and now they are obligated to pay. Problem is they don't have a chance in hell of covering that much debt. Certainly did not mean to imply that the public sector unions were Cali's only problem.

What do you have against the Proposition system? Works fine in Georgia.

well.. that, like GMs fiasco are just the direct result of bad planning. Yes, both the state of California and GM were flush with cash when they gave into the bargain.. but they assumed they would continue to be flush with cash, so do not properly save and invest the money to cover their pensions.

Blaming GM's downfall entirely on the unions is false. Any company can bear any burden if they have product that supports the high profit required.

I believe a bit of this backlash against public unions is powered by our relative jealously of their benefits. A recent news article I read said something about their pay being much less than private workers, but their benefits are off the charts. I myself am very jealous of the benefits of their benefits. The recent birth of my child will probably cost me $6k out of pocket(no complications, normal birth) and I work for a fortune 50 company.

Recently, it seems as if, We're all on some gigantic witch hunt to find out why we're in this big economic mess. As with all witch hunts, It seems that the main purpose is to blame someone else for problems in which we have all played our part.

"In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority."

Way to Unions, way to go.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190260787805984.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

z31maniac wrote: "In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority." Way to Unions, way to go. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190260787805984.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

dude.. I've had the hand the layoff notices to some of my best welders just because they didn't make the senority cut off. Not right, but nothing new in a collectively bargained workplace.

I am no lover of unions. I once had my lead man effectively stop working for me because he asked me why I gave him all the difficult work. I told him cause he's the best I got, he works quick, and gets the job done right. He flipped his whig because in a collectively bargained shop all those at the same labor grade are effectively equal in all jobs. Too bad he forgot he actually was a different labor grade than the rest... Steward was called, I was accused of harrasment.

Ignorant wrote: Blaming GM's downfall entirely on the unions is false. Any company can bear any burden if they have product that supports the high profit required. I believe a bit of this backlash against public unions is powered by our relative jealously of their benefits. A recent news article I read said something about their pay being much less than private workers, but their benefits are off the charts. I myself am very jealous of the benefits of their benefits. The recent birth of my child will probably cost me $6k out of pocket(no complications, normal birth) and I work for a fortune 50 company. Recently, it seems as if, We're all on some gigantic witch hunt to find out why we're in this big economic mess. As with all witch hunts, It seems that the main purpose is to blame someone else for problems in which we have all played our part.

DINGDINGDINGDING! We have a winnar!

I said this before when the economic meltdown occured and was NOT a popular person for it.

ALL of us led to this problem..