Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[Wezil]

Fighting words?

You're the one that won't take "not interested" for an answer. Keep baiting all you want but I'm not interested in revisiting an argument from months ago. Particularly when you made it clear we'd have to go back and argue issues that even the Americans on the board have already conceded (the "in the pockets" bit).

Quite simply Molly, the idea is boring. Hence the emoticon.

[The Mad Monk]

Shouldn't that be wezil words?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Home / News / Local / Mass.
House votes to restrict unions
Measure would curb bargaining on health care
Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, said the union would fight the legislation “to the bitter end.” (M. McDonald for The Boston Globe)

By Michael Levenson
Globe Staff / April 27, 2011
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

“We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,’’ he added. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.’’

The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.

DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.

“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.

Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.

The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.

The second concession gives union members 20 percent of the savings from any health care changes for one year, if the unions object to changes imposed by local officials. The original bill gave the unions 10 percent of the savings for one year.

The modifications bring the House bill closer to a plan introduced by Governor Deval Patrick in January. The governor, like Murray, has said he wants workers to have some say in altering their health plans, but does not want unions to have the power to block changes.

But union leaders said that even with the last-minute concessions, the bill was an assault on workers’ rights, unthinkable in a state that has long been a bastion of union support. Some Democrats accused DeLeo of following the lead of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other Republicans who have targeted public employee benefits. “In the bigger world out there, this fits into a very bad movement to disempower labor unions,’’ said Representative Denise Provost, a Somerville Democrat who opposed the bill.

Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.

Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said that, even if the bill becomes law, municipal workers would still have more bargaining power over their health care plans than state employees. “It’s a fair, balanced, strong, effective and meaningful reform,’’ he said.

Unions lobbied to derail the speaker’s plan in favor of a labor-backed proposal that would preserve collective bargaining, and would let an arbitrator decide changes to employee health plans if local officials and unions deadlock after 45 days. Labor leaders initially persuaded 50 lawmakers, including six members of DeLeo’s leadership team, to back their plan last week. But DeLeo peeled off some of the labor support in the final vote.

Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat who is secretary-treasurer of the Boston Building Trades Council, led the fight against the speaker’s plan. In a speech that was more wistful than angry, he recalled growing up in a union household that had health care benefits generous enough to help him overcome cancer in 1974. He said collective bargaining rights helped build the middle class.

“Municipal workers aren’t the bad guys here,’’ he said. “They’re not the ones who caused the financial crisis. Banks and investment companies got a slap on the wrist for their wrongdoing, but public employees are losing their benefits.’’

The timing of the vote was significant. Union leaders plan today to unleash a major lobbying blitz with police officers, firefighters, and other workers flooding the State House. Taking the vote last night at 11:30 allowed lawmakers to avoid a potentially tense confrontation with those workers, and vote when the marble halls of the House were all but empty.

Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...are/?page=full

Who would have thought Massachusetts?

[rah]

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

Yeah, once they pay for them, they expect them to stay bought.
They didn't keep a campaign promise/lied to us. boo hoo
Shocking behavior for a politician.
It will be interesting to see what their alternative is. VOTE GREEN.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I liked that part as well. It was almost as if it was part of a bad movie where the mob boss has the congress critter before him saying "I own you, biotch!"

[chequita guevara]

Who would have thought Massachusetts?

It is a bit of a shock, but the Obamats on FB have been surprisingly quiet on this, and Cuomo, and Jerry Brown. Wondering how they will try and spin this as being different from Walker, Rick Scott, Christie, etc.

Keep telling 'em, two corporate parties, but they have their heads so far up the Democrats asses they can't listen.

[Donegeal]

As I said all along, Walker, or in this case, his cronies, are now targeting Police and Fire.

http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-news/2011/jun/03/wis-budget-panel-targets-police-fire-benefits/

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Legislature's budget committee re-opened the fight over collective bargaining rights shortly after midnight on Friday, proposing that newly hired police and firefighters be forced to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits.

The change, approved by the Republican-controlled committee on an 11-4 party line vote, would force police and firefighters to make the same level of contributions as other public workers as required under a bill pushed by Gov. Scott Walker and passed by the Legislature in March.

Police and firefighters were exempt under that bill.

That measure, which also took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from state workers, was voided by a circuit court judge last month and hasn't taken effect. The state Supreme Court is hearing arguments Monday as to whether it should take the case and allow the law to be enacted.

The Legislature is also considering passing the law again as part of the budget in case the court fails to act or strikes down the law.

The change added to the budget Friday by the Joint Finance Committee deals only with police and firefighters. It would force newly hired police and firefighters to pay 5.8 percent of their pension benefits and 12 percent of their health care costs, just like other public workers under the bill passed earlier.

It would also forbid collective bargaining over the design and choice of health insurance coverage plans for police and firefighters, but the cost could still be negotiated.

Committee co-chair Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, said the measure gave local governments "reasonable tools" to help save money.

The change becomes part of Walker's budget, which the Legislature is expected to debate later this month. It must pass both the Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly and be signed by Walker before it takes effect.

Democrats on the budget committee blasted the move.

"Police and fire have been expecting this assault," said Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Poplar. "They knew it was coming. They don't deserve it. And it defies common sense."

Rep. Tamara Grigsby, D-Milwaukee, predicted the move would energize the public again. During the height of the fight over the collective bargaining bill, tens of thousands of people marched on the Capitol for weeks in an ultimately vain attempt to block the bill's passage.

Dozens of protesters attended the committee's meeting that began Thursday evening, and more than two dozen were removed by police for shouting at lawmakers and disrupting the process. The collective bargaining changes didn't come up for consideration until five hours later, shortly after midnight, when the room was nearly empty.

"For you to slip this through at whatever time it is, it's disgusting, it's union busting, whatever chant you want to yell," Grigsby said. "It's sickening."

The Wisconsin Professional Police Association, the state's largest police union, issued a statement saying police departments will suffer.

Mahlon Mitchell, president of the Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin union, said he expected Republicans would eventually force firefighters to make the same concessions as other public workers. Allowing the union to collectively bargain for health care and pension contributions can result in savings for local governments, he said.

"We like to do things at the bargaining table and we believe in that process," Mitchell said. It's a hostile environment at the Capitol. They're taking away ... different things from people who have had it for years. It's unfortunate to see our state in the position that it's in."

[KrazyHorse]

Good. Get over yourself. There's nothing holy about working for the ****ing city/state.

[DinoDoc]

As I said all along, Walker, or in this case, his cronies, are now targeting Police and Fire.

http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-news/2011/jun/03/wis-budget-panel-targets-police-fire-benefits/

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Legislature's budget committee re-opened the fight over collective bargaining rights shortly after midnight on Friday, proposing that newly hired police and firefighters be forced to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits.

That son of a *****! How dare he increase what police and fire services pay for health and pension benefits to levels still less than the private sector!

[DaShi]

Yeah, those jobs are interchangeable.

[Dinner]

As I said all along, Walker, or in this case, his cronies, are now targeting Police and Fire.

http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-news/2011/jun/03/wis-budget-panel-targets-police-fire-benefits/

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Legislature's budget committee re-opened the fight over collective bargaining rights shortly after midnight on Friday, proposing that newly hired police and firefighters be forced to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits.

The change, approved by the Republican-controlled committee on an 11-4 party line vote, would force police and firefighters to make the same level of contributions as other public workers as required under a bill pushed by Gov. Scott Walker and passed by the Legislature in March.

Police and firefighters were exempt under that bill.

That measure, which also took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from state workers, was voided by a circuit court judge last month and hasn't taken effect. The state Supreme Court is hearing arguments Monday as to whether it should take the case and allow the law to be enacted.

The Legislature is also considering passing the law again as part of the budget in case the court fails to act or strikes down the law.

The change added to the budget Friday by the Joint Finance Committee deals only with police and firefighters. It would force newly hired police and firefighters to pay 5.8 percent of their pension benefits and 12 percent of their health care costs, just like other public workers under the bill passed earlier.

It would also forbid collective bargaining over the design and choice of health insurance coverage plans for police and firefighters, but the cost could still be negotiated.

Committee co-chair Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, said the measure gave local governments "reasonable tools" to help save money.

The change becomes part of Walker's budget, which the Legislature is expected to debate later this month. It must pass both the Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly and be signed by Walker before it takes effect.

Democrats on the budget committee blasted the move.

"Police and fire have been expecting this assault," said Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Poplar. "They knew it was coming. They don't deserve it. And it defies common sense."

Rep. Tamara Grigsby, D-Milwaukee, predicted the move would energize the public again. During the height of the fight over the collective bargaining bill, tens of thousands of people marched on the Capitol for weeks in an ultimately vain attempt to block the bill's passage.

Dozens of protesters attended the committee's meeting that began Thursday evening, and more than two dozen were removed by police for shouting at lawmakers and disrupting the process. The collective bargaining changes didn't come up for consideration until five hours later, shortly after midnight, when the room was nearly empty.

"For you to slip this through at whatever time it is, it's disgusting, it's union busting, whatever chant you want to yell," Grigsby said. "It's sickening."

The Wisconsin Professional Police Association, the state's largest police union, issued a statement saying police departments will suffer.

Mahlon Mitchell, president of the Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin union, said he expected Republicans would eventually force firefighters to make the same concessions as other public workers. Allowing the union to collectively bargain for health care and pension contributions can result in savings for local governments, he said.

"We like to do things at the bargaining table and we believe in that process," Mitchell said. It's a hostile environment at the Capitol. They're taking away ... different things from people who have had it for years. It's unfortunate to see our state in the position that it's in."

The Police and Firemen were dumb enough to turn on the other unions so now they're left along and easy pickings. They practically deserve what's coming to them. It was classic divide and conquer and they fell for it.

[The Mad Monk]

Law Reinstated.

Supreme Court reinstates collective bargaining law

Madison - Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the reinstatement of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial plan to end most collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.

The court found that a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when it hastily approved the collective bargaining measure in March and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had halted the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.

The changes on collective bargaining will take effect once Secretary of State Doug La Follette arranges for official publication of the stalled bill, and the high court said there was now nothing to preclude him from doing that. La Follette did not return a call Tuesday to say when the law would be published.

The ruling came on lines that have become familiar in recent years for the often divided court.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices - Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks - concurred in part and dissented in part. Abrahamson's dissent was particularly stinging as she upbraided her fellow justices for errors and faulty analysis.

Republicans who run the Assembly were prepared late Tuesday to insert the collective bargaining changes into the state budget if the court hadn't acted. But the court's ruling just before 5 p.m. spared them from again having to take up a contentious issue that spawned weeks of massive protests earlier this year.

The court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's ruling, which had held up implementation of the collective bargaining law, was in the void ab initio, Latin for invalid from the outset.

"The court's decision ...is not affected by the wisdom or lack thereof evidenced in the act," the majority wrote. "Choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts. The court's task in the action for original jurisdiction that we have granted is limited to determining whether the Legislature employed a constitutionally violative process in the enactment of the act. We conclude that the Legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used."

The court concluded that Sumi exceeded her jurisdiction, "invaded" the Legislature's constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and implementation of the collective bargaining law.

But Abrahamson wrote that the order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has "reached a predetermined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision."

The majority justices "make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891," Abrahamson wrote.

GOP lauds ruling
Republicans praised the majority decision.

"The Supreme Court's ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again," Walker said in a one-sentence statement.

"We didn't violate any rules," said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon). "We upheld the constitution all the way through the passage of Act 10. We feel great about the decision."

Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) praised the high court and disparaged Sumi for her earlier rulings, saying she "stepped all over the people of Wisconsin."

"You think of all the chaos and discord and acrimony that's gone on in this Capitol as the result of her decision and just doing what she wanted, which she had no cause, no basis, no rule of law," Darling said. "She just did what she wanted for political reasons. To me, it was despicable."

But Democrats decried the Supreme Court decision for finding lawmakers do not have to follow the open meetings law. They said they would move to amend the state constitution to make them subject to the meetings law, a process that would take years and be difficult to start while they remain in the minority.

"The majority of the Supreme Court is essentially saying that the Legislature is above the law. It's now clear that unless the constitution is amended, the Legislature is free to ignore any laws on the books," said a statement from Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha).

During the meeting at the heart of the case, Barca had screamed at Republicans to halt the meeting because he said they were violating the open meetings law. They ignored him as cameras recorded the dramatic confrontation.

Tens of thousands of public workers and their supporters demonstrated at the Capitol in February and March to oppose the collective bargaining changes. They have returned in smaller numbers this week as the Legislature prepared to take up the state budget, and thousands of people rallied on the Capitol lawn shortly after the court issued its order.

"I had a sickening feeling in my stomach," said Barbara James, a Madison middle school teacher who demonstrated at the Capitol.

Lawmakers' stance on collective bargaining triggered efforts to recall state senators, and elections are scheduled this summer for six Republicans and three Democrats.

The legal fight over Walker's plan will continue on other fronts. Two other lawsuits are already pending, and "numerous" others are expected, according to Madison attorney Lester Pines, who represented Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) in the case the Supreme Court decided Tuesday. The other cases challenge the law on other grounds, rather than on open meetings violations.

The justices issued their order just one week after hearing oral arguments that lasted more than five hours, making them the longest in memory if not state history, attorneys said.

In addition to limiting collective bargaining, the bill also requires state employees to pay more for their health care and pensions. Those changes were to take effect in April, but were stopped from going into place because of Sumi's order.

Last week, Administration Secretary Michael Huebsch said that if the court ruled in the administration's favor, implementation of the law could move quickly. State employees should expect to see the changes in pension and health care costs to become effective on their paychecks by the middle of August, Huebsch said.

In February, Walker proposed eliminating most collective bargaining for public workers except police, firefighters and State Patrol troopers.

The day the Senate was to take up the bill, the Democrats prevented action on the bill by fleeing to Illinois. Under the state constitution, at least 20 senators had to be present to pass the measure because it included fiscal elements. Republicans hold just 19 seats.

After three weeks, Republicans - with less than two hours' notice - created a conference committee with lawmakers from both houses and stripped out the parts of the bill that were considered "fiscal" under the narrow state definition. The Legislature then passed it and Walker signed it.

Within days, Democratic Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne filed a court complaint alleging the committee violated the open meetings law. He said the committee needed to give 24 hours' notice before meeting and had to allow more people into the room.

In addition, the room was packed with legislative aides, reporters and camera crews, but just 20 members of the general public were allowed into the meeting. Hundreds if not thousands of others attempted to get inside.

The state constitution requires the doors of the Legislature to remain open when it is in session, and that portion of the constitution is referenced in the state's open meetings law.

The court majority found lawmakers must obey the state constitution, but not the open meetings law, which spells out when meeting notices must be published and when public entities can meet in closed session.

Sumi initially blocked the law with a temporary restraining order, saying Ozanne was likely to succeed on his open meetings arguments. Walker's administration then filed a petition for what is known as a supervisory writ - a request that the high court take over the case.

The court held arguments June 6 on whether to take the case. Until issuing its ruling Tuesday, the court had not formally accepted the case.

In May, while the high court was studying whether to take the case, Sumi entered her final order enjoining the implementation of the collective bargaining law. In its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said it took up the case because the lower court had "usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature."


***
Collective bargaining law
Law eliminates most collective bargaining for most public unions. Workers will contribute more toward health insurance and pensions. Bargaining limited to negotiating wages; unions required to hold a vote of members every year to continue.
Supreme Court sees no impediment to Secretary of State Douglas La Follette publishing the law. Once published, it would take effect.
State employees can expect to make higher pension, health care contributions as soon as August.
Bill Glauber, Jason Stein and Rustin Fakheri of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html

[DaShi]

How long until Wisconsin ends up like Texas?