Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers


cr8f

Recommended Posts

Why are these people mad? They lost some elections that allowed this to happen. Either get more votes, or move. There are 49 other states in this country.

Because the governor is lying about the states budget shortfall in order to break the unions?

The projection, even with lower revenue, projected a surplus until he took office.

Our analysis indicates that for the three-year period, aggregate, general fund tax collections

will be $202.8 million lower than those reflected in the November/December reports. More than

half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2

(health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and

Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).

So this governor comes in and creates a hole in the budget by cutting taxes and then tries to strip collective bargaining away from the union claiming budget hardship? What horse####, I'd protest too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are these people mad? They lost some elections that allowed this to happen. Either get more votes, or move. There are 49 other states in this country.

Because the governor is lying about the states budget shortfall in order to break the unions?

The projection, even with lower revenue, projected a surplus until he took office.

Our analysis indicates that for the three-year period, aggregate, general fund tax collections

will be $202.8 million lower than those reflected in the November/December reports. More than

half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2

(health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and

Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).

So this governor comes in and creates a hole in the budget by cutting taxes and then tries to strip collective bargaining away from the union claiming budget hardship? What horse####, I'd protest too.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02...hts.php?ref=fpa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are these people mad? They lost some elections that allowed this to happen. Either get more votes, or move. There are 49 other states in this country.

Because the governor is lying about the states budget shortfall in order to break the unions?

The projection, even with lower revenue, projected a surplus until he took office.

Our analysis indicates that for the three-year period, aggregate, general fund tax collections

will be $202.8 million lower than those reflected in the November/December reports. More than

half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2

(health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and

Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).

So this governor comes in and creates a hole in the budget by cutting taxes and then tries to strip collective bargaining away from the union claiming budget hardship? What horse####, I'd protest too.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02...hts.php?ref=fpa
I guess I really shouldn't be surprised, these are the same tactics Republicans are using at the national level. They say we cannot afford to keep adding to the debt then pass 900 billion in tax cuts which include the tax cuts for the weathly and a nice estate tax giveaway. They really have doubled down on starve the beast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are these people mad? They lost some elections that allowed this to happen. Either get more votes, or move. There are 49 other states in this country.

I don't think you really understand what's going on here. it has nothing to do with elections and who lost and whether someone can just leave.

There's a collective bargaining agreement currently in place. The state negotiated it with public employees. Both parties agreed to the terms. And people who accepted jobs or continued at jobs any time since the formation of that agreement did so based in part on the terms of the CBA. However, the state has now decided that it doesn't like the agreement that was negotiated. And because they're the state, they are seeking to enact an "emergency measure" that would unilaterally nullify the agreement that both parties agreed to, despite the fact that any other labor agreement would be binding on both parties (and this agreement is binding on the public employees). The government is basically saying that because it makes the law, it is above the law with respect to the binding nature of a contract. Anyone who is opposed to "big government" should be absolutely outraged by this.

So you are for taking unions right to strike away if they are under contract I take it? The state is doing what it has the ability to do to change a current contract just as unions do that strike to try to get changes to their contracts.

TF, I actually think you are pretty smart (even if I don't agree with you) so what am I missing about this one? Are they not doing basically the same thing as unions do when they strike?

I just don't know enough about what motivates most strikes to give you a good answer. But yeah, I generally feel that if there's a collective bargaining agreement in place, employees should be bound by the terms of the agreement until it expires. Obviously a court can't enforce it because of the 13th Amendment, but in that case I'd personally side with management every time. Just like most of us do when, say, athletes under contract hold out.
Ok, thanks for answering. I really thought I must be missing something.

I don't like the fact that the government is changing the rules in the middle of the game, but the current system just isn't sustainable unless/until the economy turns around and the water raises all the boats. Used to be that (or my impression had always been anyway when I was looking for jobs and comparing salaries...I have been wrong before) government jobs paid less but had better job security and benefits and that was the trade off made for working for the government. But if the pay has now pretty much caught up to the private sector I would say that the benefits and job security would need to be brought more in line with the private sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are these people mad? They lost some elections that allowed this to happen. Either get more votes, or move. There are 49 other states in this country.

Because the governor is lying about the states budget shortfall in order to break the unions?

The projection, even with lower revenue, projected a surplus until he took office.

Our analysis indicates that for the three-year period, aggregate, general fund tax collections

will be $202.8 million lower than those reflected in the November/December reports. More than

half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2

(health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and

Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).

So this governor comes in and creates a hole in the budget by cutting taxes and then tries to strip collective bargaining away from the union claiming budget hardship? What horse####, I'd protest too.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02...hts.php?ref=fpa
Wow.

Wisconsin's new Republican governor has framed his assault on public worker's collective bargaining rights as a needed measure of fiscal austerity during tough times.

The reality is radically different. Unlike true austerity measures -- service rollbacks, furloughs, and other temporary measures that cause pain but save money -- rolling back worker's bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own. But Walker's doing it anyhow, to knock down a barrier and allow him to cut state employee benefits immediately.

Mad In Madison: Wisconsin Workers Protest Against Governor's Budget Proposals

Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.

"Walker was not forced into a budget repair bill by circumstances beyond he control," says Jack Norman, research director at the Institute for Wisconsin Future -- a public interest think tank. "He wanted a budget repair bill and forced it by pushing through tax cuts... so he could rush through these other changes."

"The state of Wisconsin has not reached the point at which austerity measures are needed," Norman adds.

In a Wednesday op-ed, the Capitol Times of Madison picked up on this theme.

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state's budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January.

You can read the fiscal bureaus report here (PDF). It holds that "more than half" of the new shortfall comes from three of Walker's initiatives:

•$25 million for an economic development fund for job creation, which still holds $73 million because of anemic job growth.

•$48 million for private health savings accounts -- a perennial Republican favorite.

•$67 million for a tax incentive plan that benefits employers, but at levels too low to spur hiring.

In essence, public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda. "The provisions in his bill do two things simultaneously," Norman says. "They remove bargaining rights, and having accomplished that, make changes in the benefit packages." That's how Walker's plan saves money. And when it's all said and done, these workers will have lost their bargaining rights going forward in perpetuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link from page 1. Doyle never ran any kind of surplus. Raided every fund possible to use for the general fund and took 1 time money to plug holes. Edit, borrowed lots of money as well. This is from the left leaning Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and even the budget person (economist) from UW-Madison agreed the next budget shortfall of over 3 billion dollars.

Politics

State's 2-year budget deficit grows to $3.6 billion

Projection paves way for Walker's announcement on how to start addressing it

By Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel

Feb. 7, 2011 |(93) Comments

Madison — Gov. Scott Walker's administration Monday raised the deficit projections for the state budget, preparing the way for an expected announcement later this week on how to start addressing them.

A key Republican senator said Monday that she expected Republican leaders would pass by next week an undisclosed bill to solve the state's problems in this current fiscal year ending June 30. Walker's administration pegged the shortfall for this fiscal year at $137 million and projected the shortfall for the two-year budget beginning on July 1 at $3.6 billion.

That last number was an increase over previous estimates that had gone as high as $3.3 billion, though it includes requested increases in spending by state agencies that would not necessarily have to be granted. The deficit for this fiscal year, however, is somewhat less than what Walker said last week in his "state of the state" speech.

A Walker aide Monday framed the issue in stark terms, saying the state would need to take action on the budget with a repair bill that the Republican governor could present as early as this week. Otherwise, the state could finish the year without enough money to pay its bills.

"Bill collectors are waiting at the door of the state Capitol," Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said in a statement. "Without taking action to reduce the deficit in the current fiscal year, thousands of Wisconsin children and families could lose their health care coverage through BadgerCare, and there would need to be even more aggressive spending cuts in the future."

So far no details have been released on what will be in the budget repair bill that Walker is preparing, though Republicans have repeatedly said they're committed to balancing the budget without tax increases.

But Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) said that she expected it would pass the Legislature by sometime next week, saying the "tough decisions" on the budget can't be delayed much longer. Passing a fix would allow Walker to introduce his 2011-'13 budget bill on Feb. 22 with the problem in the current fiscal year resolved.

"I think this is going to be a really wild ride over the next couple of weeks," Darling said.

One area where Walker has signaled he intends to seek budget savings is on state employee pensions and health benefits. Walker has said that asking public employees to pay just over 5% on their pensions and 12% of their health insurance would save the state more than $30 million over three months.

In his "state of the state address," Walker had said the state would have a budget shortfall of more than $200 million in this fiscal year. But that amount could have included some of the $200 million that the state must return to a medical malpractice fund after the Supreme Court last summer found that Gov. Jim Doyle and lawmakers had illegally transferred money from the fund in 2007.

Walker's latest budget shortfall figure for this year didn't include that $200 million - so far the state doesn't have a deadline for paying that money back.

Werwie did not have answers to several questions about the budget figures, including whether the medical malpractice money was included in the 2011-'13 budget shortfall.

Andrew Reschovsky, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has estimated that larger two-year shortfall at $3.1 billion, including the money in the medical malpractice fund. He said that one difficulty of measuring the size of the shortfall is getting a handle on how much new money state agencies need to keep providing the current levels of services.

"They're probably in the range, in the ballpark," Reschovsky said of Walker's deficit estimates.

Edited by tommy300
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check the facts folks. There was no budget deficit when Walker took office. He's been dishing out cash to special interests groups and giving tax breaks to corporations while paying for it with this stupid amedment which is causing all the outrage.

:::sigh::::OK, I'll bite :link:You do not know what you are talking about, only what you are reading from liberal hacks.Show me some solid facts......... I won't hold my breath waiting...... :lmao:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check the facts folks. There was no budget deficit when Walker took office. He's been dishing out cash to special interests groups and giving tax breaks to corporations while paying for it with this stupid amedment which is causing all the outrage.

This is not true:In October 2010, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Wisconsin’s shortfall in the current budget -- 2010-2011 -- was $3.4 billion, or 23.9 percent of its budget. That indicated Wisconsin was in slightly worse shape than California, whose deficit was $17.9 billion, or 21.6 percent of its state budget.Next Wisconsin governor faces big deficit Wisconsin budget rated in worst 10Wisconsin has a total state debt of $17,971,519,547 when calculated by adding the total of outstanding debt, pension and OPEB UAAL’s, unemployment trust funds and the 2010 budget gap as of July 2010
:lmao: Even the ex Governor Doyle admitted there was a huge deficit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Since the Democrats ran to Illinois so they wouldn't have to vote on this I have a suggestion for Walker.

Let the democrats know you will pull this bill, if they lay out the 3-6k people who should be laid off or fur-longed to make up for the short fall.

They have one week from today to come up with the list or you will make the cuts for them.. :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are these people mad? They lost some elections that allowed this to happen. Either get more votes, or move. There are 49 other states in this country.

That's easy. I'd bet 80% of them have no clue what they are protesting.

I heard teachers yelling that they will lose 20% of their pay.

Really????? :lmao:

But that's how stupid these people are.

Incredulous actually

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a compromise? The unions accept all of the pay cuts requested, but retain their right to collective bargaining. How's that?

Which is basically what I posted but :lmao: Edited by snogger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a compromise? The unions accept all of the pay cuts requested, but retain their right to collective bargaining. How's that?

Which is basically what I posted but :lmao:
Jon-mx says this is what the governor really wants, but I'm not so sure. I've listened to several union people on TV and they've hinted that this would be acceptable. But apparently they've made no headway. Which makes me wonder: is the governor really trying to solve the budget, or is he intent on union-busting?ETA- I should add that it's also possible the union people are lying about this as well, and that they won't accept this compromise, either. Edited by timschochet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are these people mad? They lost some elections that allowed this to happen. Either get more votes, or move. There are 49 other states in this country.

I don't think you really understand what's going on here. it has nothing to do with elections and who lost and whether someone can just leave.

There's a collective bargaining agreement currently in place. The state negotiated it with public employees. Both parties agreed to the terms. And people who accepted jobs or continued at jobs any time since the formation of that agreement did so based in part on the terms of the CBA. However, the state has now decided that it doesn't like the agreement that was negotiated. And because they're the state, they are seeking to enact an "emergency measure" that would unilaterally nullify the agreement that both parties agreed to, despite the fact that any other labor agreement would be binding on both parties (and this agreement is binding on the public employees). The government is basically saying that because it makes the law, it is above the law with respect to the binding nature of a contract. Anyone who is opposed to "big government" should be absolutely outraged by this.

So you are for taking unions right to strike away if they are under contract I take it? The state is doing what it has the ability to do to change a current contract just as unions do that strike to try to get changes to their contracts.

TF, I actually think you are pretty smart (even if I don't agree with you) so what am I missing about this one? Are they not doing basically the same thing as unions do when they strike?

I just don't know enough about what motivates most strikes to give you a good answer. But yeah, I generally feel that if there's a collective bargaining agreement in place, employees should be bound by the terms of the agreement until it expires. Obviously a court can't enforce it because of the 13th Amendment, but in that case I'd personally side with management every time. Just like most of us do when, say, athletes under contract hold out.
Ok, thanks for answering. I really thought I must be missing something.

I don't like the fact that the government is changing the rules in the middle of the game, but the current system just isn't sustainable unless/until the economy turns around and the water raises all the boats. Used to be that (or my impression had always been anyway when I was looking for jobs and comparing salaries...I have been wrong before) government jobs paid less but had better job security and benefits and that was the trade off made for working for the government. But if the pay has now pretty much caught up to the private sector I would say that the benefits and job security would need to be brought more in line with the private sector.

From what I read and understood yesterday the current CBA had expired.

Officials alerted the Wisconsin State Employees Union on Friday that expired collective bargaining agreements would be canceled March 13. State unions have been operating under the terms of their previous contracts, an arrangement that can be terminated with 30 days notice.

The news came on the same day the governor unveiled a budget repair bill that would remove nearly all collective bargaining rights for nearly all public employees in the state and make it easier for employers to fire workers that engage in some form of labor unrest.

http://www.favstocks.com/expired-collectiv...allies/1433010/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milwaukee Public Schools are closed today due to 600 teachers calling in sick.

They're doing it for the children...or maybe the elderly...or is it the working families...no, it must be the children...the playbook is so tired...

I'm all for getting what you can but let's be serious here...can anyone in the private sector imagine being in a job interview and when they discuss the benefits they tell you you will get a week off in December, a week off in Februay a week off in April, two months off in the summer, a half-day every month (that's a Massachusetts special and it's such a fraud) and almost every holiday off that makes it onto a Hallmark calendar as well as a benefits package that runs laps around almost anything non-public employees will ever come close to...I'd be lying if I wouldn't love to have that package...that being said it's not reality...some of these benefits and especially the silly pensions are breaking budgets all over the country and any politician that isn't addressing it in one form or another is not doing his job...Unions can fight as hard as they want to keep these antiquated packages but to think their ability to get a pension or not contribute much money to their health insurance has any effect on their students ability to get a quality education is simply using kids as a prop to get what is good for them...calling in sick when you're not sick is effecting their ability to learn...

Then why not get a teaching job? I don't understand all this "teachers have it so much better than the rest of usalready!!" whining. If that's the case, why aren't you teaching? It's not like you need to get a Ph.D from Harvard and go through a long residency in order to teach in a public school.

And you're analyzing it wrong. It's not whether the gig is a sweet one or not. It's that they were told the gig was sweet, and now some of that is being pulled out from under them. No matter how sweet the terms of employment, if you took or kept a job based on those sweet terms, and the understanding that the terms were agreed to by your employer by contract to cover a certain time period, and then your agreement was voided, you'd be pissed.

In all honesty if I knew at age 22 what I know now I would be teaching...that being said it's too late for me...I've invested too much time and energy in my current profession and due to family obligations can't make a drastic career change...it's too bad because I would love to be looking at having around 23 years into the current system...so if I am whining than yes it probably is laced with envy...

That being said non-teachers have every right to comment on these situations since it is our tax money that helps foot the bill as well as our kids that get effected...if this were a private business I could care less what happened...yet, that is not the case...local and state governments are facing a budget crisis and unless these pensions and benefits get under control the ramifications are nothing but negative...for an elected official to not attempt to solve this problem is a complete dereliction of his/her duty...

I don't think anyone is saying teachers should make the minimum wage...all they are asking is for some of these perks that public employees (just not teachers) get that are contributing to a financial crisis be amended to be more in-line with reality...right now a lot of these benefits are just not sustainable....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple somewhat funny additions that I heard but aren't widely reported.

1) Sick-outs are an illegal action in their contract

2) Teachers union paying gas mileage and food $$ for everyone going to Madison if they carpool (which really means we are paying for it)

3) School kids outside Madison area schools picketing with signs "Who cares about us?"

4) I actually know several teachers that were in Madison yesterday, I can honestly say that not all of them know all that much about the situation except that their friends big into the union were going so they made a day of it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link from page 1. Doyle never ran any kind of surplus. Raided every fund possible to use for the general fund and took 1 time money to plug holes. Edit, borrowed lots of money as well. This is from the left leaning Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and even the budget person (economist) from UW-Madison agreed the next budget shortfall of over 3 billion dollars.

Politics

State's 2-year budget deficit grows to $3.6 billion

Projection paves way for Walker's announcement on how to start addressing it

By Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel

Feb. 7, 2011 |(93) Comments

Madison — Gov. Scott Walker's administration Monday raised the deficit projections for the state budget, preparing the way for an expected announcement later this week on how to start addressing them.

A key Republican senator said Monday that she expected Republican leaders would pass by next week an undisclosed bill to solve the state's problems in this current fiscal year ending June 30. Walker's administration pegged the shortfall for this fiscal year at $137 million and projected the shortfall for the two-year budget beginning on July 1 at $3.6 billion.

That last number was an increase over previous estimates that had gone as high as $3.3 billion, though it includes requested increases in spending by state agencies that would not necessarily have to be granted. The deficit for this fiscal year, however, is somewhat less than what Walker said last week in his "state of the state" speech.

A Walker aide Monday framed the issue in stark terms, saying the state would need to take action on the budget with a repair bill that the Republican governor could present as early as this week. Otherwise, the state could finish the year without enough money to pay its bills.

"Bill collectors are waiting at the door of the state Capitol," Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said in a statement. "Without taking action to reduce the deficit in the current fiscal year, thousands of Wisconsin children and families could lose their health care coverage through BadgerCare, and there would need to be even more aggressive spending cuts in the future."

So far no details have been released on what will be in the budget repair bill that Walker is preparing, though Republicans have repeatedly said they're committed to balancing the budget without tax increases.

But Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) said that she expected it would pass the Legislature by sometime next week, saying the "tough decisions" on the budget can't be delayed much longer. Passing a fix would allow Walker to introduce his 2011-'13 budget bill on Feb. 22 with the problem in the current fiscal year resolved.

"I think this is going to be a really wild ride over the next couple of weeks," Darling said.

One area where Walker has signaled he intends to seek budget savings is on state employee pensions and health benefits. Walker has said that asking public employees to pay just over 5% on their pensions and 12% of their health insurance would save the state more than $30 million over three months.

In his "state of the state address," Walker had said the state would have a budget shortfall of more than $200 million in this fiscal year. But that amount could have included some of the $200 million that the state must return to a medical malpractice fund after the Supreme Court last summer found that Gov. Jim Doyle and lawmakers had illegally transferred money from the fund in 2007.

Walker's latest budget shortfall figure for this year didn't include that $200 million - so far the state doesn't have a deadline for paying that money back.

Werwie did not have answers to several questions about the budget figures, including whether the medical malpractice money was included in the 2011-'13 budget shortfall.

Andrew Reschovsky, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has estimated that larger two-year shortfall at $3.1 billion, including the money in the medical malpractice fund. He said that one difficulty of measuring the size of the shortfall is getting a handle on how much new money state agencies need to keep providing the current levels of services.

"They're probably in the range, in the ballpark," Reschovsky said of Walker's deficit estimates.

Does this really conflict with the TPM article above? Both seem to agree that there is a a $137 million deficit this year. Is it untrue that the governor has passed $140 in new spending and tax cuts already?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check the facts folks. There was no budget deficit when Walker took office. He's been dishing out cash to special interests groups and giving tax breaks to corporations while paying for it with this stupid amedment which is causing all the outrage.

This is not true:

In October 2010, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Wisconsin’s shortfall in the current budget -- 2010-2011 -- was $3.4 billion, or 23.9 percent of its budget. That indicated Wisconsin was in slightly worse shape than California, whose deficit was $17.9 billion, or 21.6 percent of its state budget.

Next Wisconsin governor faces big deficit

Wisconsin budget rated in worst 10

Wisconsin has a total state debt of $17,971,519,547 when calculated by adding the total of outstanding debt, pension and OPEB UAAL’s, unemployment trust funds and the 2010 budget gap as of July 2010

:hophead:

Even the ex Governor Doyle admitted there was a huge deficit.

So you're saying that the Fiscal Bureau report is a fraud? "In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state's budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million."

PDF of memo here:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_0...amp;Darling.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read and understood yesterday the current CBA had expired.

Officials alerted the Wisconsin State Employees Union on Friday that expired collective bargaining agreements would be canceled March 13. State unions have been operating under the terms of their previous contracts, an arrangement that can be terminated with 30 days notice.

The news came on the same day the governor unveiled a budget repair bill that would remove nearly all collective bargaining rights for nearly all public employees in the state and make it easier for employers to fire workers that engage in some form of labor unrest.

http://www.favstocks.com/expired-collectiv...allies/1433010/

If that's the case (agreed-upon termination provision in existing CBA), then my only issues with it would be political. One, whether it's necessary given what appears to be uncertainly concerning the deficit and what the new governor's contribution to that deficit is. I have no idea what the real answer is. Two, if there is a legitimate need for cuts, the brutal approach ... in lieu of simply going to the state employee reps and discussing the need for everyone to share the burden, he's acting unilaterally in a manner that seems to show intent to anger state employees, potentially for political gain. And three, the union-busting, which again is heavy-handed and unnecessary. Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read and understood yesterday the current CBA had expired.

Officials alerted the Wisconsin State Employees Union on Friday that expired collective bargaining agreements would be canceled March 13. State unions have been operating under the terms of their previous contracts, an arrangement that can be terminated with 30 days notice.

The news came on the same day the governor unveiled a budget repair bill that would remove nearly all collective bargaining rights for nearly all public employees in the state and make it easier for employers to fire workers that engage in some form of labor unrest.

http://www.favstocks.com/expired-collectiv...allies/1433010/

If that's the case (agreed-upon termination provision in existing CBA), then my only issues with it would be political. One, whether it's necessary given what appears to be uncertainly concerning the deficit and what the new governor's contribution to that deficit is. I have no idea what the real answer is. Two, if there is a legitimate need for cuts, the brutal approach ... in lieu of simply going to the state employee reps and discussing the need for everyone to share the burden, he's acting unilaterally in a manner that seems to show intent to anger state employees, potentially for political gain. And three, the union-busting, which again is heavy-handed and unnecessary.
The rationale for his move (posted somewhere earlier in this thread) was that it takes 15 months to complete a new contract with the union and that is why he is circumventing the process. Anyone who is against big government and bureaucracy would support this move then, right? :goodposting:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January. If the Legislature were simply to rescind Walker’s new spending schemes -- or delay their implementation until they are offset by fresh revenues -- the “crisis” would not exist.

So is this true or false?

it seems we are having trouble agreeing on the facts here. I honestly don't know the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point?

The point is, the Public Sector should be paying their fair share like the Private sector.No more, no less.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that concept. Public sector employees in Wisconsin have long recognized that there are going to be cutbacks in their comp and benefits. Walker essentially wants to gut the public sector unions (other than fire and police). The opinion piece from McIlheran linked above apparently draws a distinction between public and private sector unions. I'm sure there are relevant differences, but they are not immediately apparent to me so I am asking the two posters who referenced it to explain the significance. I do agree with Battersbox that this is "far from a black and white issue."
By "gut" you mean make them pay their fair share for healthcare and their pensions, and have their raises dictated by how how the economy is doing?Because that is pretty much all this is about.
Pack - you are either not informing yourself about this issue or you are pretending to be ignorant. As has been discussed over and over in this thread and is noted in virtually every article about this issue, the main concern with this legislation is that it will effectively eliminate the unions' ability to bargain on any issues other than pay. It will also eliminate their ability to collect dues directly from paychecks. Explain how those two measures will affect the state budget? When you say this is "pretty much" all about compensation, you are 100% wrong - that is the one thing the union will still be able to address.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read and understood yesterday the current CBA had expired.

Officials alerted the Wisconsin State Employees Union on Friday that expired collective bargaining agreements would be canceled March 13. State unions have been operating under the terms of their previous contracts, an arrangement that can be terminated with 30 days notice.

The news came on the same day the governor unveiled a budget repair bill that would remove nearly all collective bargaining rights for nearly all public employees in the state and make it easier for employers to fire workers that engage in some form of labor unrest.

http://www.favstocks.com/expired-collectiv...allies/1433010/

If that's the case (agreed-upon termination provision in existing CBA), then my only issues with it would be political. One, whether it's necessary given what appears to be uncertainly concerning the deficit and what the new governor's contribution to that deficit is. I have no idea what the real answer is. Two, if there is a legitimate need for cuts, the brutal approach ... in lieu of simply going to the state employee reps and discussing the need for everyone to share the burden, he's acting unilaterally in a manner that seems to show intent to anger state employees, potentially for political gain. And three, the union-busting, which again is heavy-handed and unnecessary.
The rationale for his move (posted somewhere earlier in this thread) was that it takes 15 months to complete a new contract with the union and that is why he is circumventing the process. Anyone who is against big government and bureaucracy would support this move then, right? :goodposting:

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Even if it was true, I have a hard time believing that the budget savings over 15 months are so enormous that they require immediate drastic action. Even if there is a shortfall, someone else pointed out some tax cuts he's enacted that could cover most of the savings from this measure. When did this emergency arise, exactly? Within the last week, but before that everything was hunky dory? Also, if this were true, he'd initiate those discussions ASAP while seeking passage of the emergency measure. Instead he's acting unilaterally, and not just refusing negotiations but looking to bust up the union. The fact that he's being so needlessly confrontational leads me to be suspicious of his true motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a compromise? The unions accept all of the pay cuts requested, but retain their right to collective bargaining. How's that?

That is probably what the governor was shooting for, but he had to play hardball to even get them to the table.
On what basis do you say this is what Walker wants? He's been very clear in his statements, which I heard again this morning on the radio - he is not interested in any discussion or compromise on this. He's got his "emergency" and is going to exploit it to cram through legislation that will effectively eliminate public unions (other than fire and police). Personally, I think that might be a good thing, although I actually think the fire and police unions are the worst ones of the bunch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Even if it was true, I have a hard time believing that the budget savings over 15 months are so enormous that they require immediate drastic action. Even if there is a shortfall, someone else pointed out some tax cuts he's enacted that could cover most of the savings from this measure. When did this emergency arise, exactly? Within the last week, but before that everything was hunky dory? Also, if this were true, he'd initiate those discussions ASAP while seeking passage of the emergency measure. Instead he's acting unilaterally, and not just refusing negotiations but looking to bust up the union. The fact that he's being so needlessly confrontational leads me to be suspicious of his true motives.

I don't disagree with you. I am supportive of the union's ability to negotiate on pay, hours, healthcare, etc. I find it frustrating, though, that the system that exists in Wisconsin and elsewhere is generally inflexible to correct budgets if and when they need adjustment. (yet not surprised one iota either)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a compromise? The unions accept all of the pay cuts requested, but retain their right to collective bargaining. How's that?

That is probably what the governor was shooting for, but he had to play hardball to even get them to the table.
On what basis do you say this is what Walker wants? He's been very clear in his statements, which I heard again this morning on the radio - he is not interested in any discussion or compromise on this. He's got his "emergency" and is going to exploit it to cram through legislation that will effectively eliminate public unions (other than fire and police). Personally, I think that might be a good thing, although I actually think the fire and police unions are the worst ones of the bunch.

Exactly. Much of the budget problems were caused by Walker then he tries hurting the unions

This from an article this morning

Just last month, he and the Legislature gave away $117 million in tax breaks, mostly for businesses that expand and for private health savings accounts. That was a choice lawmakers made, and had it not been for those decisions and a few others, according to the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the state would have had a surplus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a compromise? The unions accept all of the pay cuts requested, but retain their right to collective bargaining. How's that?

That is probably what the governor was shooting for, but he had to play hardball to even get them to the table.
On what basis do you say this is what Walker wants? He's been very clear in his statements, which I heard again this morning on the radio - he is not interested in any discussion or compromise on this. He's got his "emergency" and is going to exploit it to cram through legislation that will effectively eliminate public unions (other than fire and police). Personally, I think that might be a good thing, although I actually think the fire and police unions are the worst ones of the bunch.
Personally, I'm a little appalled they aren't included in this. I have a very hard time speaking against teachers in any way as a lot of great educators helped sculpt my life and I have a lot of friends currently teaching here in Wisconsin. It's really a shame they are being singled out in all of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would this story be reported and talked about if everything was reversed? Teachers 4 to 1 Republicans to Dems, sickouts, school cancellations for days, and State Senate Republicans fleeing the state to not take a vote. I bet it would be a little different....

And my last parting shot (16 hour shift coming up), I don't think it was in the thread although the thought of Walker being in the police/fire dept pocket, I believe only 4 of the over 100 unions in the state supported him, although Milwaukee was a huge plus for him. It's been talked about that they might be next, just weren't included in this portion of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a compromise? The unions accept all of the pay cuts requested, but retain their right to collective bargaining. How's that?

That is probably what the governor was shooting for, but he had to play hardball to even get them to the table.
On what basis do you say this is what Walker wants? He's been very clear in his statements, which I heard again this morning on the radio - he is not interested in any discussion or compromise on this. He's got his "emergency" and is going to exploit it to cram through legislation that will effectively eliminate public unions (other than fire and police). Personally, I think that might be a good thing, although I actually think the fire and police unions are the worst ones of the bunch.

Exactly. Much of the budget problems were caused by Walker then he tries hurting the unions

This from an article this morning

Just last month, he and the Legislature gave away $117 million in tax breaks, mostly for businesses that expand and for private health savings accounts. That was a choice lawmakers made, and had it not been for those decisions and a few others, according to the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the state would have had a surplus.

Do you even read other peoples' posts or do you just keep posting the same thing over and over again? There have been a number of posts debunking the "Walker created the entire fiscal problem". Why not debate the facts instead of posting the same thing over again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a compromise? The unions accept all of the pay cuts requested, but retain their right to collective bargaining. How's that?

That is probably what the governor was shooting for, but he had to play hardball to even get them to the table.
On what basis do you say this is what Walker wants? He's been very clear in his statements, which I heard again this morning on the radio - he is not interested in any discussion or compromise on this. He's got his "emergency" and is going to exploit it to cram through legislation that will effectively eliminate public unions (other than fire and police). Personally, I think that might be a good thing, although I actually think the fire and police unions are the worst ones of the bunch.
Personally, I'm a little appalled they aren't included in this. I have a very hard time speaking against teachers in any way as a lot of great educators helped sculpt my life and I have a lot of friends currently teaching here in Wisconsin. It's really a shame they are being singled out in all of this.
I admit I don't know the facts about this enough to have anything but a gut reaction. I'm trying to understand this and still don't know by reading 7 pages here, but I don't get the scapegoating of teachers either.

Perhaps Wisconsin and the other states where teachers are under attack have teachers living high on the hog in million dollar homes, but my wife's parents were life-long teachers in Illinois. Her Dad was a principal, mom a grade school teacher. They didn't do it for the money as evident by the fact they both now live happily in the mountains in Virgina in a palatial double wide. They don't complain about it, and they are very happy, but they surely didn't get rich teaching. Punishing educators seems like probably the worst message you could send as a state and a country IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Even if it was true, I have a hard time believing that the budget savings over 15 months are so enormous that they require immediate drastic action. Even if there is a shortfall, someone else pointed out some tax cuts he's enacted that could cover most of the savings from this measure. When did this emergency arise, exactly? Within the last week, but before that everything was hunky dory? Also, if this were true, he'd initiate those discussions ASAP while seeking passage of the emergency measure. Instead he's acting unilaterally, and not just refusing negotiations but looking to bust up the union. The fact that he's being so needlessly confrontational leads me to be suspicious of his true motives.

I don't disagree with you. I am supportive of the union's ability to negotiate on pay, hours, healthcare, etc. I find it frustrating, though, that the system that exists in Wisconsin and elsewhere is generally inflexible to correct budgets if and when they need adjustment. (yet not surprised one iota either)
I agree. If it really takes 15 months to renegotiate a CBA, that's an issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walker wants the collective bargaining rights for public employees removed (except on pay) because the next step in the budget is going to be to drastically lower the amount of shared revenue sent back to city and county governments from the state. When that money disappears like it is going to, the idea is for the local governments to have the same option with their employees that the state is doing. Make them pay for part of their benefits. The hundreds (thousands?) of local government entities can't do that if each one has to bargain over pension and health care benefits with their local public unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punishing educators seems like probably the worst message you could send as a state and a country IMO.

:mellow: This really bothers me too, over and above all other issues related to this matter. There's been a lot of attacks on teachers lately. Here in the FFA, LHUCKS started a thread for that purpose a few months back. I have very little respect for him, but what shocked me was the number of people who agreed with him on that issue.Personally, I believe that teachers are one of the few instances of a public employee who should be paid more than they are currently: a lot more. I would like to see teaching become a sought after profession, with pay equivalent to that of a good doctor. $200,000- $300,000 per year. I would seek to balance the budget in other areas. Teaching would be the LAST place I would go after.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for Democrats hating special interest groups. Can you imagine what the press and Democratic reaction would be if Big Oil started blocking the Capitol building, screaming at politicians, beating drums, and going to their houses to threaten them? Or if these union members were Tea Partiers?! The media and Dems would be through the roof ripping them!

And it's really unbelievable that President Obama would support the actions of the Democratic lawmakers taking their ball and going home. What if the Republicans had done the same thing after the 2008 election? Wouldn't he have chided them for subverting the will of the electorate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not a compromise? The unions accept all of the pay cuts requested, but retain their right to collective bargaining. How's that?

That is probably what the governor was shooting for, but he had to play hardball to even get them to the table.
On what basis do you say this is what Walker wants? He's been very clear in his statements, which I heard again this morning on the radio - he is not interested in any discussion or compromise on this. He's got his "emergency" and is going to exploit it to cram through legislation that will effectively eliminate public unions (other than fire and police). Personally, I think that might be a good thing, although I actually think the fire and police unions are the worst ones of the bunch.
Personally, I'm a little appalled they aren't included in this. I have a very hard time speaking against teachers in any way as a lot of great educators helped sculpt my life and I have a lot of friends currently teaching here in Wisconsin. It's really a shame they are being singled out in all of this.
I admit I don't know the facts about this enough to have anything but a gut reaction. I'm trying to understand this and still don't know by reading 7 pages here, but I don't get the scapegoating of teachers either.

Perhaps Wisconsin and the other states where teachers are under attack have teachers living high on the hog in million dollar homes, but my wife's parents were life-long teachers in Illinois. Her Dad was a principal, mom a grade school teacher. They didn't do it for the money as evident by the fact they both now live happily in the mountains in Virgina in a palatial double wide. They don't complain about it, and they are very happy, but they surely didn't get rich teaching. Punishing educators seems like probably the worst message you could send as a state and a country IMO.

The focus is on teachers because they make up the majority of the protesters, and many public schools (particularly in Madison and Milwaukee) have been closed for two days because of the teachers' "sick-out". Teacher pay and teachers' unions seem to be a hot-button topic generally. The reality that is being somewhat overlooked is that the great great majority of public employees in Wisconsin, all of whom will be affected by this legislation, are at work today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punishing educators seems like probably the worst message you could send as a state and a country IMO.

:shrug:

This really bothers me too, over and above all other issues related to this matter.

There's been a lot of attacks on teachers lately. Here in the FFA, LHUCKS started a thread for that purpose a few months back. I have very little respect for him, but what shocked me was the number of people who agreed with him on that issue.

Personally, I believe that teachers are one of the few instances of a public employee who should be paid more than they are currently: a lot more. I would like to see teaching become a sought after profession, with pay equivalent to that of a good doctor. $200,000- $300,000 per year. I would seek to balance the budget in other areas. Teaching would be the LAST place I would go after.

Ok, that is just nucking futs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punishing educators seems like probably the worst message you could send as a state and a country IMO.

:shrug:

This really bothers me too, over and above all other issues related to this matter.

There's been a lot of attacks on teachers lately. Here in the FFA, LHUCKS started a thread for that purpose a few months back. I have very little respect for him, but what shocked me was the number of people who agreed with him on that issue.

Personally, I believe that teachers are one of the few instances of a public employee who should be paid more than they are currently: a lot more. I would like to see teaching become a sought after profession, with pay equivalent to that of a good doctor. $200,000- $300,000 per year. I would seek to balance the budget in other areas. Teaching would be the LAST place I would go after.

Ok, that is just nucking futs.
Why? And please don't respond that we can't afford it. I already know that. I'm writing what I would like to see, not what is realistic based on economics. Why is it nuts to want a society where teachers receive elite level benefits?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point?

The point is, the Public Sector should be paying their fair share like the Private sector.No more, no less.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that concept. Public sector employees in Wisconsin have long recognized that there are going to be cutbacks in their comp and benefits. Walker essentially wants to gut the public sector unions (other than fire and police). The opinion piece from McIlheran linked above apparently draws a distinction between public and private sector unions. I'm sure there are relevant differences, but they are not immediately apparent to me so I am asking the two posters who referenced it to explain the significance. I do agree with Battersbox that this is "far from a black and white issue."
By "gut" you mean make them pay their fair share for healthcare and their pensions, and have their raises dictated by how how the economy is doing?Because that is pretty much all this is about.
Pack - you are either not informing yourself about this issue or you are pretending to be ignorant. As has been discussed over and over in this thread and is noted in virtually every article about this issue, the main concern with this legislation is that it will effectively eliminate the unions' ability to bargain on any issues other than pay. It will also eliminate their ability to collect dues directly from paychecks. Explain how those two measures will affect the state budget? When you say this is "pretty much" all about compensation, you are 100% wrong - that is the one thing the union will still be able to address.
I know it's more than compensation. But what he's trying to do is what happens in the Private sector. The bosses make the decisions. In this instance, they are State employees, and the State should be setting the rules, not the employees.For too long now the Teachers Union has held the state hostage. In todays world, GOOD teachers aren't going to get the shaft, this will weed out the bad teachers. No way in hell does Walker want the Teachers to fail. If they fail, they fail the students, if the students fail, the state loses millions of federal dollars.It's time to reel these people in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on the teachers who have chosen to turn their backs on the children they proport to care so much about. Turns out kids take a back seat to teacher perks and benefits in the end.

You could make the exact same statement about Walker- for Walker, kids apparently take a back seat to political posturing or [insert budget item here]. Just depends who you think is in the right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on the teachers who have chosen to turn their backs on the children they proport to care so much about. Turns out kids take a back seat to teacher perks and benefits in the end.

I don't think this fair at all. Shame on you for generalizing about what these teachers are asking for. Everything I read about Wisconsin teachers is that they are exemplary, and their sacrifices already on behalf of their students are unbelievable. They may be on the wrong side of this fight (still not sure about that) but you're creating a very distorted picture of them in order to satisy your own partisan beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point?

The point is, the Public Sector should be paying their fair share like the Private sector.

No more, no less.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that concept. Public sector employees in Wisconsin have long recognized that there are going to be cutbacks in their comp and benefits. Walker essentially wants to gut the public sector unions (other than fire and police). The opinion piece from McIlheran linked above apparently draws a distinction between public and private sector unions. I'm sure there are relevant differences, but they are not immediately apparent to me so I am asking the two posters who referenced it to explain the significance. I do agree with Battersbox that this is "far from a black and white issue."
By "gut" you mean make them pay their fair share for healthcare and their pensions, and have their raises dictated by how how the economy is doing?

Because that is pretty much all this is about.

Pack - you are either not informing yourself about this issue or you are pretending to be ignorant. As has been discussed over and over in this thread and is noted in virtually every article about this issue, the main concern with this legislation is that it will effectively eliminate the unions' ability to bargain on any issues other than pay. It will also eliminate their ability to collect dues directly from paychecks. Explain how those two measures will affect the state budget? When you say this is "pretty much" all about compensation, you are 100% wrong - that is the one thing the union will still be able to address.
By allowing employees to choose to pay dues or not, if they choose not to that equals more :thumbup: in their pocket, which usually equals more spending, which equals more tax revenue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...