Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[Arrian]

Uhhhh......what?????

You think that contracts should be assumed to continue forever?

My understanding was... incomplete.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

A contract will sometimes continue on after expiry while new negotiations take place (if the terms permit it). New contracts will then backdate to the expiry of the old one. Cancellation is always an option.

[Arrian]

Maybe Walker can hire his old pals at Wackenhut to replace WI's public section workers. I'm sure they'll do an excellent job and save WI's taxpayers lots of money.

The unions are willing to make the $$ concessions. They want to hang on to their collective bargaining rights. Walker says no. That, together with the tax cutting and the (proposed) selling off of state assets in no-bid sales, tells you what you need to know here.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

A contract will sometimes continue on after expiry while new negotiations take place (if the terms permit it). New contracts will then backdate to the expiry of the old one. Cancellation is always an option.

Yes, conceded. My original "understanding" was a garbled memory of a conversation with my father in law (NH State DOT worker and, therefore, evil parasite).

[Wezil]

It looks to me he wants to implement what he sees as a more permanent fix rather than a temporary band-aid. Giving up money now doesn't change things over the long run when the system that led to it remains unchanged.

Disagree or not with the philosophy they at least are being democratic about it. They stood for election and after winning handily are now trying to implement an agenda they were elected to implement. The extremely undemocratic response of the D's and their supporters is strange for a people that place so much faith in the ballot box.

[Wezil]

Yes, conceded. My original "understanding" was a garbled memory of a conversation with my father in law (NH State DOT worker and, therefore, evil parasite).

Wasn't trying to hammer you. I think the continuing contract when both sides intend to renew is what you were probably thinking of.

[Arrian]

It looks to me he wants to implement what he sees as a more permanent fix rather than a temporary band-aid. Giving up money now doesn't change things over the long run when the system that led to it remains unchanged.

Disagree or not with the philosophy they at least are being democratic about it. They stood for election and after winning handily are now trying to implement an agenda they were elected to implement. The extremely undemocratic response of the D's and their supporters is strange for a people that place so much faith in the ballot box.

I understand that argument. I don't buy it. The whole idea seems to boil down to the notion that unions "buy" politicians and then get sweetheart deals because of it. That's not a collective bargaining thing, that's a campaign finance thing. And as we know, unions are the only organizations that influence the political process! Or profit from it! Clearly.

I think this is a bull**** solution to a real problem.

I also happen to agree that fleeing to deny quorum is wrong.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

Collective bargaining in the public sector is a rigged game. If the workers strike the customers have no alternatives for service.

If GM goes on strike I can buy a Toyota. I have an option that places pressure on the GM strikers to resolve their dispute (else lose market share and jobs).

[Arrian]

I might buy that Wezil - MIGHT - if our political system wasn't set up as a "rigged game," as you put it. We have legalized bribery in our system. The unions do it... defense contractors do it, etc.

In a vacuum, I'd be agreeing with you. Not in this context, however.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

When's the revolution?

If it's as bad as all that why are you still playing the game?

[Arrian]

WTF? Revolution? Wezil, we've been commenting on these boards for some time. I think you know full well that I've no interest in revolution (partly a personality thing, but mostly it's about vested interests. I'm pretty invested in the status quo, or something very much like it. Therefore, while I'm all for some incremental changes, revolution would suck for me).

As for "playing the game" by which I assume you mean voting... frankly it's probably just social conditioning + some wishful thinking at this point.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

You are telling me you think your political system is rigged, where legalized bribery is the rule. The political system has come to the point when elected representatives flee the jurisdiction rather than lose a vote and you will continue to support said system?

Hello?

[Arrian]

See my edit. Short answer: yeah.

Longer answer: you would have me do what, exactly? Pick up a gun and go fight? I'm not insane, Wezil. I have a family. And I'm comfortable as hell. Those things, in combination, do not a revolutionary make.

-Arrian

p.s. And the whole quorum-fleeing thing is little different than other dysfunctions of our system, such as the fake fillibuster, secret holds, etc.

[Wezil]

Were I convinced the system was that dysfunctional, my first step would be to stop voting. If the vote doesn't matter (as I must concede, based on WI it apparently doesn't) then why lend legitimacy to the system?

I agree with you that other influences affect politics. We've removed both corporate and union donations from political parties.

[Arrian]

Were I convinced the system was that dysfunctional, my first step would be to stop voting. If the vote doesn't matter (as I must concede, based on WI it apparently doesn't) then why lend legitimacy to the system?

I've a close friend who makes that exact argument. I've rejected it in the past. Now I'm not so sure.

I agree with you that other influences affect politics. We've removed both corporate and union donations from political parties.

Great. Now imagine if you'd done only one of those things.

-Arrian