Wisconsin Senate Passes Union Reform Legislation

[comptr6]

And you don't see any conflict of interest of a group collectively bargaining with government to get more taxpayer money which some of it is used as mandatory dues to the union and then that money going to fund campaigns and organize for the re-election of those very same government officials?

That's an irrefutiable point. But the leftist mind sees Corporations = BAD and Union = GOOD so I'm sure he'll come back with some more fud.

The idiot will probably say some crap like that's no worse than a company that lobbies the government for contracts, gets paid with tax payer dollars and then uses that money to fund political campaigns to get friendly politicians re-elected so they'll get rewarded with more contracts.

 

[Craig234]

You do know that the DNC is in bed with them on that one, right? (The rich and corporations bit, not so much the unions bit.) The only worthwhile Democrats are as marginalized in their party (federal, that is) as Ron Paul is in the federal GOP.

I've said for years that the Democrats are a split party, with corporatists on one side and the more powerful faction, and progressives on the other needing the public to back them.

Small local unions with voluntary dues represent their membership. Large government unions with mandatory dues do not. They lobby for causes that have virtually nothing to do with the interests of their membership, and do so unapologetically.

While I haven't looked at a lot of specific data on your claim, and you didn't post any, I'd say that supporting the Democratic party is largely in the interests of those members.

The bottom line in this country is that the corporations stand to make vast fortunes from their lobbying and can get thousands of dollars returned for a dollar on lobbying, giving them the largest budgets by far, while the American people, while vastly outnumbering the rich and corporate interests, give almost nothing in comparison to the political system.

The rich and corporations know this and it's why they do everything they can to keep money as a requirement to get elected, to give themselves more power.

Unions play some small counter role to that corporate money.

Given the fact that Democrats apparently have no trouble getting in the pants of the same corporate fatcats the GOP do, losing union dues won't really affect much then, will it?

There's a K Street saying that the lobbyists 'give to Democrats because they have to, and Republicans because they want to'.

Further shifts for corporate lobbyists will have a huge negative impact on the progressives.

It will further turn the Democrats into the second flavor of 'corporatists party'.

As for big corporate money harming politics I'm mostly on your side, believe it or not. I'm quite ecstatic that the Kochs' power plant fiasco got left behind in this little stunt.

I'm not too surprised you are on the same side on corporate corruption, but I don't recall the relation of the Koches' power plant situation to this?

 

[nyker96]

To be clear, the union busting has ECONOMIC impacts, in terms of slashing the union's power and therefore lowering their compensation; but it does not have FISCAL impact, in the sense of the government spending or taxing a certain amount of money, such that it seems it doesn't fit the definition needed for the larger quorum.

It will have fiscal impact down the road, but indirectly, by slashing unions' rights.

If the Democrat can argue in court otherwise, great, but it seems unlikey they can.

As to why Republicans didn't do it sooner, I don't know, but it might have been to keep up the pretense of their lie that this was all about their manufactured 'fiscal crisis'.

So, they didn't want to say their real top priority 'wasn't a fiscal issue'.

well, this I have to disagree on. I think some union compensation pensions do need to be slashed to balance budget. But let's also be clear that for this to be a democratic process, they at least have to negotiate with the other side and come up with a compromise at the end. To pass something that satisfies only Republican side w/o chance for debate/amendments is bypassing the democratic process entirely. That is plain wrong no matter which party you are from.

Fact is people like you are racists and bigots. Not only do you do everything in your power to keep minorities in what you consider "their place", but you hate women as well.

Fortunately the American people see through your bigotry and are beginning to reject it.

now this one is very confusing.

 

[Fear No Evil]

A fact, huh? How do liberals "do everything in their power to keep minorities in their place" and "hate women"? This oughta be good...

/lawnchair

I never said liberals. But its kind of revealing that you mentioned them. Guilt perhaps?

 

[Craig234]

And you don't see any conflict of interest of a group collectively bargaining with government to get more taxpayer money which some of it is used as mandatory dues to the union and then that money going to fund campaigns and organize for the re-election of those very same government officials?

I've said, the issue is arguable, but at the moment we have a far larger one that democracy is under attack by the corruption of the rich and corporate dominance.

In a time like that, I'm more concerned with fixing that and protecting the only major source of funding for the people however imperfect it is.

While there are issues to challenge in the current setup on the principles, there's another principle well served that this is the largest existing process that is at all close to 'the people' having a say in their democracy right now.

When we've addressed THAT and we have a reasonable democracy where the people can be represented rather than our system dominated by these corrupt interests, we can talk.

In the meantime, by the way, there are counter-pressures - you don't think that massive numbers of employees of, say, defense contractors support pro-weapon politicians?

This is a basic issue for democracy to not allow corporate money to dominate its politics.

It does so not only through direct things like its dominant role in campaign contributions, but in a whole societal infrastructure for a radical agenda, see 'The Vast Right-Wing Noise Machine', with things like extremely disporortionate influence from a few radical ideologue bilionares (Olin, Koch, Coors, Scaife), creating and paying for the propaganda factories (AEI, Heritage, Hoover and Cato), and the media that distributes the agenda (Murdoch and others), breaking democracy, allowing the voters' views to be 'bought'.

 

[Craig234]

well, this I have to disagree on. I think some union compensation pensions do need to be slashed to balance budget. But let's also be clear that for this to be a democratic process, they at least have to negotiate with the other side and come up with a compromise at the end. To pass something that satisfies only Republican side w/o chance for debate/amendments is bypassing the democratic process entirely. That is plain wrong no matter which party you are from.



now this one is very confusing.

Let's clear this up.

My point: Wisconson has a rule requiring one size of quorum for bills with a fiscal impact, and a smaller quorum for bills without a fiscal impact.

I'm saying it appears that these rules changes, while having a large impact later indirectly, appear likely to not require the large quorum for fiscal impact.

You are arguing other issues, like the democratic process and what's right and wrong.

The Republicans can be totally preventing any reasonable democratic process, and morally wrong in their agenda, but it doesn't mean the quorum rules for a fiscal bill are met.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I'm not too surprised you are on the same side on corporate corruption, but I don't recall the relation of the Koches' power plant situation to this?

There was language in the original bill that could have allowed the non-bid sale of specific state assets (including power plants) to private interests.

Craig, I don't like unions. Not because I disagree with you that they're a counterweight to the agenda of The Umbrella Corporation, but because I don't like it when I am forced to join one to have a job, forced to give them money, and then forced to accept how they spend that money with no real voice as to how it's spent. I don't like how unions homogenize a heterogeneous workforce. Do you think these are illegitimate complaints, or do you see the ends as justifying the means?

 

[Craig234]

There was language in the original bill that could have allowed the non-bid sale of specific state assets (including power plants) to private interests.

Craig, I don't like unions. Not because I disagree with you that they're a counterweight to the agenda of The Umbrella Corporation, but because I don't like it when I am forced to join one to have a job, forced to give them money, and then forced to accept how they spend that money with no real voice as to how it's spent. I don't like how unions homogenize a heterogeneous workforce. Do you think these are illegitimate complaints, or do you see the ends as justifying the means?

I think they are legitimate complaints, but that they miss a bigger issue in our society; see my post #105, and if that answers you.

We're having a lot of nicities to worry about on the one side, while the country has far, far worse harm, our democracy under threat, from far greater wrongs not fixed on the other.

Frankly, I'd take it further than you; I've heard of plenty of corruption and problems within unions, but you have to look at other things also.

When we look at the US and say "how could we elect that bum! He won because of a pretty face and exploiting an issue!", we don't say "so let's get rid of democracy".

And we shouldn't say now, let's get rid of the main thing protecting democracy, unions.

I'm fine with a 'union reform' effort - after our democracy is in better shape. Currently, any such effort would do nothing but hand over the country to very corrupt interests.

It's a little like in WWII - the guy you might have had huge arguments with on domestic politicial issues pre-war, you aren't so worried about when he's next to you in the foxhole.

The unions are looking awfully good right now and are allies for the good of the country - even if in better times, I'd have a lot to say about reform.

By the way, you concerned me in an earlier post when you seemed to trivialize this very important fight for people's rights by saying all you care about is an easier parking place. That sort of apolotical view plays into the hands of interests who will screw you.

 

[Patranus]

I’m hearing and reading a national school student walk out this Friday 2pm in protest, is in the making.
Interesting....
Reminds me of the Vietnam war student protests, if it materializes.

Seriously. This should piss off any parent regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

You kids isn't a political tool for the unions/teachers.

 

[nonlnear]

I've said for years that the Democrats are a split party, with corporatists on one side and the more powerful faction, and progressives on the other needing the public to back them.

I think it's a little more nuanced than that. I would say that there is a clear corporatist wing of the Democrats which is thoroughly evil. We agree on that much I'm sure. The progressives within the Democratic party I would say are about half and half. Some truly believe in the progressive ideals of equality and enfranchisement (which, while I may not be a fan of their policy preferences for bringing about this vision, I respect the ideals as being the basis for productive political engagement with some "conservatives" who share these same ideals, but have a different color of sprinkles on top of them.) There is a rather powerful faction of progressives who see the machinery of progressive institutions as a means to build powerful legacies for the sake of building legacies. Not all of them are building their own personal legacies, as some of them are "true believers" in the work of seminal figures, such as John Dewey, et. al. These folk I view with the same derision as the corporatists, actually a little more. Unfortunately, these folk tend to be perceived as excellent high level bureaucrats - because that is what they aspire to be. In order to run a large bureaucracy, you need somebody who believes that a large bureaucracy is the most wonderful thing in the world. A non-believer just won't do.

While I haven't looked at a lot of specific data on your claim, and you didn't post any, I'd say that supporting the Democratic party is largely in the interests of those members.

Even the ones who oppose the Democratic party? You believe the Democratic party is in the interests of many people who would object to this "fact", but are simply too misguided to realize it. I'm not sure that hearing your opinion on whom the Democrats are beneficial to really conveys any meaningful information...

The bottom line in this country is that the corporations stand to make vast fortunes from their lobbying and can get thousands of dollars returned for a dollar on lobbying, giving them the largest budgets by far, while the American people, while vastly outnumbering the rich and corporate interests, give almost nothing in comparison to the political system.

The rich and corporations know this and it's why they do everything they can to keep money as a requirement to get elected, to give themselves more power.

Unions play some small counter role to that corporate money.

But not all unions are the same. Government unions with mandatory dues are a completely different beast from non-government unions, and unions with elective dues. I actually have no objection to government unions with optional dues. In fact, I support returning to unions some of the rights that the NLRA stripped from them - as long as they are truly voluntary organizations. Wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes, etc. are all fine by me as long as employees and employers are truly free to react to them as they individually choose.

There's a K Street saying that the lobbyists 'give to Democrats because they have to, and Republicans because they want to'.

Further shifts for corporate lobbyists will have a huge negative impact on the progressives.

It will further turn the Democrats into the second flavor of 'corporatists party'.

THat might be what's needed. I have been cheering the collapse of the GOP from the McCain campaign through 2009-ish (and was sad that the party managed to start piecing itself together prior to effecting more substantial change), hoping that the few sane ones might find something to coalesce around. If the Democrats did the same, then there might be some hope for the country's political landscape. As long as there is a duopoly (which is actually a monopoly), good policy will always play second fiddle.

I'm not too surprised you are on the same side on corporate corruption, but I don't recall the relation of the Koches' power plant situation to this?

I just meant that the no bid power plants have to wait for a quorum, as they have direct financial consequences. There is actually hope that they might get squashed in debate. Then again, it might not.

 

[cubby1223]

And we shouldn't say now, let's get rid of the main thing protecting democracy, unions.

Say what? So now Unions are the primary protectors of Democracy? Only in your fucked up logic is that so.

See, when you take the position that all Republicans seek to destroy democracy, then sure the biggest donor to the Democratic Party would be the protector of Democracy.

But someone like me thoroughly REJECTS your premise that Republicans seek to destroy democracy.


You just continue getting weirder and weirder as you try to maintain the lead in an argument you so clearly cannot win

 

[cubby1223]

The Republicans can be totally preventing any reasonable democratic process

What is "reasonable"?

Do even know what "Democratic Process" means? It does not mean that Craig gets his way 100% of the time. It means that the majority gets their way most of the time. And last time I checked, the majority in the 100% democratically elected Wis. legislature and senate both passed the bill, and the 100% democratically elected governor signed the bill. So long as the courts do not find the bill illegal, what exactly is wrong with how it got done?

I really don't know how to take your side as anything other than painfully hilarious

 

[the DRIZZLE]

LOL...the middle class has been falling for over a decade now. This only makes it go faster. Interesting that the 3rd job with the largest need in this country (according to an article on Yahoo) for the next decade is education. With the revolt against teachers and their union, I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone go through the long educational process (including Master's degree) for this shit. It will be interesting to see educator's pay 10 years from now with some of the incentive removed to go into teaching.

If there really is a shortage the government will have to raise wages to attract more teachers. If theres not than the tax payers save money by not overpaying. Sounds like a win/win to me.

 

[Jadow]

Wisconsin Citizens 1
Union Thugs and the Liberal Establishment 0

 

[cubby1223]

I’m hearing and reading a national school student walk out this Friday 2pm in protest, is in the making.
Interesting....
Reminds me of the Vietnam war student protests, if it materializes.

That is one of the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Let's see students in New Mexico walk out of the classrooms because Wisconsin public unions have to contribute more to pensions and lost some collective bargaining rights.

Actually, this is one point where PUBLIC sector unions are a drag on the nation - they should NOT have the power to strike. None of them. Ever. No union which controls a monopoly over an industry should be allowed to strike.

The public sector is not supposed to work for the benefit of the public sector. They work for the benefit of the private sector.

 

[cubby1223]

With the revolt against teachers

Who said this bill is a revolt against teachers? I don't see it.

 

[cubby1223]

Oh, and for those who seem to think this bill is the definitive destruction of the nation...

You do know that Democrats *can* win the next election cycle *and* easily reverse all the changes.

So stop yer bitching.

 

[Drift3r]

I’m hearing and reading a national school student walk out this Friday 2pm in protest, is in the making.
Interesting....
Reminds me of the Vietnam war student protests, if it materializes.

And someone questioned when I said that kids are indoctrinated in schools.

 

[Drift3r]

dbl

 

[wuliheron]

I love it!

Only a bunch of crazy lawyers could steal the food right out of a baby's mouth and say its just "business" or just "democracy". In some countries we've even stolen peoples' water and then sold it right back to them. Sometimes they die, sometimes they get violent, but its the principle of the thing and somebody has to show them how this world works! It's kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, and for those of us at the top we never miss a meal.

 

[Drift3r]

I love it!

Only a bunch of crazy lawyers could steal the food right out of a baby's mouth and say its just "business" or just "democracy". In some countries we've even stolen peoples' water and then sold it right back to them. Sometimes they die, sometimes they get violent, but its the principle of the thing and somebody has to show them how this world works! It's kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, and for those of us at the top we never miss a meal.

Maybe the dems should of shown up for the vote instead of running?

 

[Jadow]

I see dead unions

 

[cubby1223]

Here's the "inconvenient" truth

If Wisconsin will go to shit as the libs think, then the voters of the state will vote Democrat next election, and collective bargaining powers are reinstated. Be like this little squabble never happened.

*BUT* the only reason for libs to be concerned over this legislation, is if it actually *improves* the conditions of the state.

Every single Democrat in the state will be running on public union rights as their primary campaign issue. The voters will get the ultimate say in the matter, not the Governor, not the legislatures.

*That* is the Democratic Process in perfect action.

Why is "the left" so fearful they believe they must win this today and not tomorrow?

 

[wuliheron]

Maybe the dems should of shown up for the vote instead of running?

That's the spirit! If you're gonna rape someone you might as well insist they maintain some dignity while you do the dirty deed. You don't want them making too much noise or people might see what's going on.

 

[Acanthus]

I love the "anti middle class" argument being put forth by CNN right now.

If the median house hold income in the United States is $46,326 and an individual member of these unions make more than that, they are clearly not in the middle class.

You failed statistics 101.