Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[DinoDoc]

I'm thinking you're a liar, Oerdin:

Associated Press - February 23, 2011 3:25 PM ET

Wis. Senate to take up photo ID bill

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The Wisconsin state Senate plans to take up a bill requiring voters show identification at the polls even though 14 Democrats don't plan to be there.

The Democrats skipped town last week to avoid voting on a different bill that would take away collective bargaining rights from public workers.

The Senate committee that determines the agenda met Wednesday without its two Democratic members present. Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says he has decided to no longer allow Democrats to participate in the meeting, even though they had by phone earlier in the week.

The committee decided to schedule the bill for Thursday. Democrats have long opposed the idea, which they say will disenfranchise voters.

[giblets]

s.16 of the link you provided (iirc).

Not sure what you're referring to. Is it this?

2010 – 16 Unions

WHEREAS, union members are friends, neighbors and relatives; and,

WHEREAS, union members are part of our community, school, churches and work places; and,

WHEREAS, union members are reported to vote for Republican candidates at least 40% of the time; and,

WHEREAS, union dues are used for political purposes against the wishes of some union members;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in convention assembled:

1. Encourages each county to organize a committee of Republican union members.
2. Encourages District union committees to promote and encourage union members to be active in the Republican Party.
3. Supports legislation similar to the state of Washington, which requires an employer or other entity to obtain prior written permission to disburse funds for political purposes from employees' salaries, wages, or dues.

1. Supports legislation to require open meetings for all government labor negotiated contracts.

E. Opposes the “Card Check”/Employee Free Choice Act.

That doesn't sound like the stuff Oerdin is talking about. Unless "open meetings" means "you can't collectively bargain anymore"????

[Wezil]

clause 3 of that is part of it (that was the first step to abolishing union political contributions here and the unions, predictably, went nuts over it) but was not what I was thinking of. There was a section in there on the 1 year certification reqiurements and (again iirc) making union membership voluntary. Both items that would be "union busting" in the eyes of many.

Sorry, I was going by memory (from a highly medicated memory at that).

Provide the link again and I will find the exact section if you wish.

[Wezil]

I recall items on education that would be alarming to teachers unions as well.

[giblets]

Here:
http://www.wisgop.org/gop-principles...m-resolutions/

[Hauldren Collider]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12555893

Read this BBC article. The union has agreed to all cuts (which amount to an 8% reduction in take home pay) but they're holding out for their right to collectively bargain. The proposed bill would make it illegal for unions to bargain over benefits and working conditions plus it would make it illegal for employers to automatically deduct union dues even if the person wants them to do that. Lastly, the bill would require a vote every year to recertify the union and if 50% plus one vote not to certify then the union would be forced to disband at that work place. In short, it's a comprehensive, all around, attack on workers' right to unionize attacking the union's ability to raise money, to bargain for better benefits and working conditions, and even just to continue to exist.

You realize that if they don't get rid of collective bargaining, the union will just use it to get its benefits back immediately? The entire "compromise" is a farce. Not to mention the fact that all the local governments that have deficits will be unable to make their own cuts, so even if the state balanced its budget it would be on the hook for dozens of municipalities.

[Hauldren Collider]

The state legislature cannot hold any votes until there are enough members present to fill the quorum. Personally, I don't see any difference between a filibuster which prevents the legislature from doing it's job or refusing to fill a quorum which does the same thing.

Because a filibuster doesn't prevent a legislature from doing its job, at least in the manner it is employed in the US Senate. They use a procedural filibuster where other business is attended to until they hold a cloture vote. Fun fact: the vice president actually has the power to eliminate the filibuster rule, but he's not going to because the Democrats know they're liable to be in the minority come two years.

Filibusters are only a good thing in the US Senate because there is no check on the majority party. If we had multiple parties and no single one had an absolute majority there would be no use to the filibuster. That kind of gridlock is unimportant and harmful in state legislatures because you don't have to worry about a state legislature doing something totally outrageous, as all three branches of the federal government provide significant checks on the powers of states. No such check exists for the federal government except for the courts, so we need some mechanism in the legislature to ensure that 51% of voters can't hold absolute authority over the other 49%.

[DaShi]

You realize that if they don't get rid of collective bargaining, the union will just use it to get its benefits back immediately? The entire "compromise" is a farce. Not to mention the fact that all the local governments that have deficits will be unable to make their own cuts, so even if the state balanced its budget it would be on the hook for dozens of municipalities.

Didn't I mock you for this earlier?

[Hauldren Collider]

Didn't I mock you for this earlier?

You might have thought it was mocking, but to me it just seemed incoherent and tangential...

[giblets]

You realize that if they don't get rid of collective bargaining, the union will just use it to get its benefits back immediately? The entire "compromise" is a farce.

That's like saying "You realize that if the Republicans convince the Dems to return by promising not to get rid of collective bargaining rights, they'll do it anyway?"

People don't necessarily have integrity, but assuming others don't just makes you a *****.

[giblets]

Oh sure, the union members say they're willing to accept pay cuts. But it must be a trick!

[DaShi]

It's not even an issue of integrity. What HC is saying is that public workers should have no benefits whatsoever. His issue isn't with collective bargaining, it is with that we compensate our workers.

Obviously, the union will try to negotiate their pensions again, when/if the economy improves. This is logical and reasonable, which is why HC's statement is so laughable.

[Hauldren Collider]

That's like saying "You realize that if the Republicans convince the Dems to return by promising not to get rid of collective bargaining rights, they'll do it anyway?"

People don't necessarily have integrity, but assuming others don't just makes you a *****.

I know they would just bargain for them straight back because collective bargaining is how they got their absurd benefits and pensions in the first place. Do you think the state legislature wanted to hand out union goodies? Do you think municipalities want to hand out union goodies? They only do so because of collective bargaining rights.

Unions do not exist to lower worker's wages or keep them exactly where they are, they exist to increase them, and increase them is exactly what they will do. If the unions promise never to insist for ridiculous compensation again they may as well disband now because that is essentially their only purpose (other than to fund democratic campaigns).

Unions have only FOUR purposes: Prevent workers from getting fired, increase compensation as much as possible, decrease working hours/workload as much as possible, and implement as many safety restrictions as possible. Number four is out because teachers aren't ****ing coal miners. The remaining three are just greed.

If you don't like the salary or benefits you get in your government job you are free to quit and find a new one. The government should be setting pay based on the level of talent they need to attract and the number of people they need to hire.

DaShi is claiming that I think teachers should not get any benefits. That's retarded. That would be like saying I'm against teachers getting paid. I doubt the state would be able to hire many qualified teachers without providing some level of benefits and I assume the state government isn't so retarded that it can't figure out how much to pay people to actually hire anyone.

[Hauldren Collider]

Obviously, the union will try to negotiate their pensions again, when/if the economy improves. This is logical and reasonable, which is why HC's statement is so laughable.

It's logical and not reasonable. Their benefits were never reasonable and no benefits that unions negotiate with employers will ever be reasonable. If it were reasonable, you wouldn't need a union, because they wouldn't be able to hire anyone to work with such crappy pay.

[giblets]

I know they would just bargain for them straight back

No, you don't. You are not a ****ing mind reader.

As for the rest of your rant, I thought the whole pretext for the cut was the budget shortfall. If the Republicans were against unions in principle they should have run on that. They also should go after all public sector unions, not just the ones that support Democrat candidates.