No class in WI as teachers protest union-busting governor

[archibaldcrane]

You say this like I haven't been madly ranting about our government since I got on these forums.

Next your gonna tell me that this surprises you Archi.

You madly ranting about our government never surprises me Guartz.

The actions of Wisconsin elected officials, however. Yeah, it does a little. Wisconsin is traditionally a state that actually functions properly.

[guartz]

To continue my role as the devil's advocate; if the dems never fled the state and just voted, this fiasco could have been avoided.

[archibaldcrane]

To continue my role as the devil's advocate; if the dems never fled the state and just voted, this fiasco could have been avoided.

?

Collective bargaining still would've been stripped, just weeks ago as opposed to now. How would it have been avoided?

[Melena]

I also wouldn't call thousands of people rising up against essentially a tyrannical government a fiasco either. Going to be really funny to see republicans blow money now to try to fight off the recall votes on the senators.

[guartz]

?

Collective bargaining still would've been stripped, just weeks ago as opposed to now. How would it have been avoided?

ah, so sleazy political action is OK so long as it supports your cause?

[archibaldcrane]

ah, so sleazy political action is OK so long as it supports your cause?

Again, how could elimination of collective bargaining have been avoided?

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk

[Talint]

Hey that's fine though.. I don't think people are going to have short memories about this shit.

The American voter has an incredible short-term memory. This is why, out of nowhere, Reagan became this cultural, conservative icon after his presidency was over. You want to really annoy the American voter, you have to do a lot of shit over the course of a fairly extensive period.

But that might just be my pessimism talking.

Guartz is the same guy that has repeatedly claimed 9/11 was an inside job caused by the jews the fact that you're arguing with him says more about you guys then it does about him.

...wow. Good to know.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You can theoretically construct the right to bargain collectively from the right to free association (1st amendment) and self-determination (declaration of independence), and of course everyone's favourite, the 9th amendment.

It's one thing if the state passed a law saying "we will fire all union workers / we will not negotiate with unions". If that's how the republicans want to run the state, that's peachy, they can run it into the ground for a few years and then get turfed for hashing things up so badly. But passing a law saying "your union is forbidden from bargaining collectively, also we retain the right to break strikes through legislation" is pretty dangerous.

I'm sure they'll still get 4/9 supreme court justices, no matter the argument. Go go dysfunction.

I don't think the freedom of association has ever been used in this context, especially since they can still join the union. So you're right it's definitely theoretical.

And the 9th is kind of meaningless b/c of historical accident.

[archibaldcrane]

http://media.journalinteractive.com/...28FIX%29-2.jpg
Notice the chart on the left. To me, the most telling line out of those three is the "not sure" line.

Only 2% of Wisconsinites haven't formed an opinion about this matter. It's reaching into everyone's lives. This is an engaged populace.

(and note this chart was from over a week ago)

[Alarial]

Would love to see that poll taken again today Archi.

[aurik]

9th is hardly meaningless, it's part of the justification chain for roe v wade for one.

Also the difference between public sector unions and private sector unions is that the public sector unions ultimately work for the taxpayer instead of a private corporation. But they're still employed, they still have the right to free association, they still have a right to organize, they ought to still have the right to negotiate with their employer over working conditions, benefits, grievance policies, and more.

If you want politicians to bargain harder with the public sector unions to "get a better deal" for the taxpayer, for heavens sake elect representatives with the balls to stand up and say "fuck no we're not giving you that kind of pension", or "get back to work or you're all fired".

Electing representatives to pass laws that prevent workers from negotiating in the first place is the weasel way out.

[archibaldcrane]

Minority Leader Barca is trying to get Majority Leader Fitzgerald removed from his position for violating the open meetings law.

[archibaldcrane]

Fitzy speaking right now: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN-Live-Two/

[archibaldcrane]

They're making their arguments to remove him as speaker.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

9th is hardly meaningless, it's part of the justification chain for roe v wade for one.

Also the difference between public sector unions and private sector unions is that the public sector unions ultimately work for the taxpayer instead of a private corporation. But they're still employed, they still have the right to free association, they still have a right to organize, they ought to still have the right to negotiate with their employer over working conditions, benefits, grievance policies, and more.

If you want politicians to bargain harder with the public sector unions to "get a better deal" for the taxpayer, for heavens sake elect representatives with the balls to stand up and say "fuck no we're not giving you that kind of pension", or "get back to work or you're all fired".

Electing representatives to pass laws that prevent workers from negotiating in the first place is the weasel way out.

Hmm, well let me put it this way. It was edited out of the Roe v. Wade opinion in the case book if it was there, it's not studied in con law I or II, and a visiting professor cited multiple cases where the SCOTUS essentially called worthless.

And there are already multiple civil service laws protecting public employees and public employees can still bargain, just not collectively.

Also, for all the hoopla about "rights" being taken away, why aren't any liberals bitching about the unions wanting to take away secret ballot elections? That "right" is far more fundamental than the right to collectively bargain.

[Olo401]

I guess the lockdown of the capitol building isn't going as planned since a bunch of protestors are still inside. They are being slowly removed with force by the police though.

Live feed (currently from the crowd outside the building) here: http://theuptake.org/2011/03/09/wisc...ve-bargaining/

[archibaldcrane]

I feel like we're in Fitzwalkerstan, because we don't know what the rules are and don't follow the rules anymore.... Like a third-world junta.

Awesome.

[Esvedium]

Fitzwalkerstan made me chuckle.

[guartz]

9th is hardly meaningless, it's part of the justification chain for roe v wade for one.

Also the difference between public sector unions and private sector unions is that the public sector unions ultimately work for the taxpayer instead of a private corporation. But they're still employed, they still have the right to free association, they still have a right to organize, they ought to still have the right to negotiate with their employer over working conditions, benefits, grievance policies, and more.

No, wrong. You missed a vital point.

Collective bargaining system is for private employees, where a clear profit and loss margin can be established and reasonable negotiating can take place in a form of a legal contract. This is absolutely crucial, because individually, employees don't have negotiating leverage as they do collectively and the constant downwards pressure of the profit incentive by their employers can lead to unfair wages, BASED on the profit and loss margin that particular company has. When collective bargaining system was adopted for public employees, the fact that the state has no clear profit/loss margin was never taken into consideration. Nor was the exiting civil service protection laws taken into account, which existed prior public sector employee collective bargaining rights. In effect; this creates a unfair tip of power, in favor of public sector unions where the push for higher wages and benefits is much higher then any downward pressure (if any) the state might have. Where a balance of power was intended, instead a bias was created, because public employees already had sufficient representation and rights in their employment.

Furthermore, this created a closed loop between politicians and union leaders at the negotiating table, where union leaders would champion a politician in return for favorable laws and wages. Incidentally, these politicians were all democrats and unions are not shy about using their member's dues to fund them. Yes, I know about PACs. PACs only apply for direct contributions. If you use your googl-fu, you can find that public unions use 527s and other loopholes to circumvent FEC laws and regulations. In my opinion, this is the only reason why Walker is doing what he is doing.

they still have a right to organize, they ought to still have the right to negotiate with their employer over working conditions, benefits, grievance policies, and more.

You forget or simply didn't know, that state/federal employees have civil protection. Which guarantees fair pay, due process, etc. And this should not be confused with collective bargaining, which is something entirely different. Not to mention the constitutional right to organize, etc.

It's becoming drastically clear to me, that majority of you haven't a inkling what the fuck collective bargaining is.

[archibaldcrane]

Right, he's trying to stop unions from donating to political campaigns. We all know this Guartz.

Point is, he's constantly lying because he says he's doing it to balance the state budget. Everyone knows this is false.