QUOTE
I'm kind of on the fence on this topic. I love the concept of unions and protecting the rights of the working class, but I think some unions have taken advantage of the system put in place for them. I've seen some of the union benefits from the big detroit automakers from before the recession and they're ridiculous. Auto Worker Benefits Not all unions are like this, but there needs to be a balance between what is right for the employee and what is right for the business and economy. I think there needs to be a check and balance to make sure neither side is taken advantage of.
This is something that's been lost (at least here at H&E) and has yet to have been mentioned once in this thread.
The Walker bill would not touch the UAW or organizations like the AFL-CIO. It only deals with collective bargaining for public sector employees. Public Sector workers were barred from collective bargaining everywhere until the 1950's an in several states they still are. In many other states it very limited, just as it is with the Feds. Federal employees cannot bargain over pay or benefits. Wisconsin workers can at least still bargain over pay even if Walker's bill passes (albiet only up to the level of inflation).
If the UAW were based in Wisconsin they have the same collective bargaining power before and after Walker's bill. Same for Ohio.
As far as advantage over the system...public employee unions are among the Democrats biggest donars (if not the biggest). They donate almost exclusive to Democrats. I don't even business or corporate donations are as monolithic. They spend millions electing Democrats and when they succeed those unions are then negotiating labor contracts with those same Democrats they just helped elect. What do you think the incentive is? It's even more so when combined with the closed shop rules and mandatory union dues. In such a situation the union is essentially sitting on both sides arguing about the allocation of money that isn't theirs.
Repulicans get accused all the time of being in bed with corporate America, but how is this not Democrats being in bed with PEU's?
As far as I know, the UAW (at least prior to the Feds becoming involved) UAW employees didn't elect their managers, so if GM/Chrysler/Ford were making contracts the companies couldn't sustain that's their own fault for giving in.
QUOTE
That is why, i don't vote for democrats, instead of staying and fighting for the rights of they're people, they flee with they're tails between they're legs.
You voted Democrat before this?
QUOTE
Hell the indications are that he could have had the restrictions on public sector unions he wanted if hed removed that part from bill and debated it openly with democrats and union leaders earlier. instead he insisted no debate take place and that the union parts were non negotiable.
thats why the dems left. Edict firmly in place walker basically told them nothing you do matters nothing you say matters this is done and its my way or no way.
thats why the dems left. Edict firmly in place walker basically told them nothing you do matters nothing you say matters this is done and its my way or no way.
QUOTE
With their tails between their legs? Do you even understand the proper meaning of that phrase? 'With their tails between their legs' means that one fled in shame. The Democrats (while I don't totally agree with them leaving) didn't 'flee with tails between their legs'. They left to make a stand and a statement. To try to make the Republican governor stop and hopefully take stock of what he was doing, and actually try to work out a more reasonable solution. Obviously it didn't work as he railroaded and rammed this bill through no matter the cost to the civilians he's supposed to be looking out for livelihoods.
Statement made. It was in essence debated in open public for three weeks and they couldn't peel anyone off, so they were ultimately ready to return, take they vote, and make their case in 2012, right? If debate was all they wanted, then that should have succified. They weren't gone to return until the acceed to their demands. They didn't offer much besides higher contributions which the unions equated to slavery when it brough up in December.
"Ramming" the bill through they way they just did only become necessary when the Democrats wouldn't return.
If you don't approve the tactic then you should be able to understand why complete remove of the union provisions was impossible the moment the Democrats fled. Walker would have gone the way or Arnold and larger been redendered an irrelevancy. Democrats would then know all they needed to when Walker would acceed to their demands is run. That tactic could never be rewarded or legitimized. Caving would have meant exactly that.
You really think it's approriate for the minority party to flee the jurisdiction every time they don't like the result?
In the words of Barack Obama: "elections have consequencess" and the Republicans won in 2010. That means they votes that fell to party line were going to be theirs and they are under no obligation to include the Democrats suggestions. If the Democrats didn't like it the solution was simple: Win in 2012 and reimpose the collective bargaining rights.
QUOTE
Hell walker even got what he wanted prior to the vote when Unions stated their willingness to agree to the cuts and extra money sent to their pensions
Yeah a concession that was made only after the writing was on the wall and Dems had bailed from the state. As I told Shauna....the initial response that preposal was to equate it with slavery. And as I said to Shauna, that became impossible the moment the Democrats fled. No way could Walker reward them for fleeing the state. This particular comprise would have meant exactly that.
As I asked Shauna...is that an acceptable thing for the minority party to do everything they don't get their way?
QUOTE
Your wrong the bill was not being debated it was shoved through the house with no debate and walker standing before press conference after press conference stating emphatically and I quote ""This is not up for debate!!""
You are utterly and completely wrong Nate.
NOTHING absolutley nothing. So why then has walker stated time and again that balancing the budget has EVERYTHING to do with it.
because hes a lieing fraud. He knew that 3 of his own republcians were wavering on the issue which public polls clearly show the people of wisconsin were against by a 2/3rds majority.
You are utterly and completely wrong Nate.
NOTHING absolutley nothing. So why then has walker stated time and again that balancing the budget has EVERYTHING to do with it.
because hes a lieing fraud. He knew that 3 of his own republcians were wavering on the issue which public polls clearly show the people of wisconsin were against by a 2/3rds majority.
Or it could be that he genuinely believes that it does? A lie would be stating that it has something to do with it when he didn't believe anything of the sort.
You still haven't proven that. You've only shown that you disagree with his assertion that it has anything to do with the budget. As I have said two times know, the procedure he used proves nothing of the sort. Leaking emails showed he made offers to them at least two days before he initiated a procedure that has been available to him for three weeks and didn't use until he had made the offers. The only offers the Dems made was the contributions which I already talked about earlier in the post. And that was after they left.
Moreover, I also already addressed...were the Democrats offering to come home after sufficient time had passed for debate while the law was, in effect, be debated nationally in open public or were they only going to come home when they got their way on collective bargaining issue? Their statements suggest the latter, which tells me that this wasn't really about having enough time to debate it.
Actually I do have one point of clarification on your rant: When you are talking about debating the bill are you referring to the initil posting of it back on February 14th or the procedure that was used on March 10th? If it's the latter I might back off on that point, but that's predicated on finding the information I want and as of right now I can't. Checked many a news story and none talk about the time frame I'm wondering about.
What day, precisely, did he say that? I'm not doubting he did, I know he did, but when was it. From what I'm finding it came AFTER the left, but maybe you can find it. I'm out of time.
If it's March 10, I haven't a tear to shred and you can refer to my earlier post.
One other thing, I remember this health care bill back in 2010 that consistently showed the public didn't like ObamaCare, but it got passed anyway. Obama has threatened to veto repeal that has, in most polls, has recieved majority support. Still stuck with that until the Supremes rule on it. So, at this point I can't say I really give a damn that 2/3 of Wisconsin opposed it. Don't like it, recall 'em Wisconsin.
QUOTE
Walker made no counter proposals at all until after they left and the republicans were on the verge of breaking.
and then he goes and pulls this underhanded bullcrap.
And to your point they will have to do this again. The republicans have violated State law and senate procedures with this. The Court will strike it down and when they do theyll have to go through this whole routine again, when walker could have had a real debate which he knows hed lose, and followed the real vote.
and then he goes and pulls this underhanded bullcrap.
And to your point they will have to do this again. The republicans have violated State law and senate procedures with this. The Court will strike it down and when they do theyll have to go through this whole routine again, when walker could have had a real debate which he knows hed lose, and followed the real vote.
Underhanded? It was Democrats that refused to come home until they got their way on collective bargaining. It goes through normal Senate voting if they don't bail and refuse to return until the collective bargaining provisions are stripped.
A possibility if they go through with this particular version and Republicans can't make the standard required to by pass the 24 hour notice.
That's is precisely my point. Resubmit the bill to the Assembly. Give 24 hour notice (which is the primary problem they face) and then proceed accordingly. I'm not going to say whether they can as I am not an expert on Wisconsin law and have seen more than enough cases come out in way I didn't expect. No predictions on that from me. That's my suggestion. If thay have doubts on the notice issue that is what they need to do. My understanding that's the only portion of the procedure they screwed up.
That said, that the previous version had that defect had no bearing on whether a new version would.
QUOTE
they could have had the dems back at anytime but left no room for debate in this issue.
it wasnt just a matter that the they were gonna lose the vote. THey were going to have a bill shoved down their throats with no chance to debate it or counter it.
it wasnt just a matter that the they were gonna lose the vote. THey were going to have a bill shoved down their throats with no chance to debate it or counter it.
Oh okay, so if Walker said: okay, if you come back we wil have full debate in the Senate for say....two weeks and then we will vote. Think they would have come back? Not holding my breath.
If that's the case that isn't what they were saying publically.
After they left they got three weeks to try do that and failed. They effectively got their debate (nationally too!), had an chance to make a deal and none was reached. They still did not return and were refusing to do so. The Democrats effectively made it a condition of their return the removal of the collective bargaining positions. Walker submitted alternatives that were rejected. They held the process hostage until they got their way.
QUOTE
you again have missed the point entirely. this is not about removing via elections. This law means walker and company can walk into your town and tell your mayor, city counsel and police chief and the like. "Go home your fired."
Is that what you meant as to the correction?
Oh and you missed by point: Don't like the law. Removes those who passed it. Not run away and hold the process hostage.
Actually, you might consider not responding unless other people want to debate what I''ve said. Or maybe you want to for the hell of it. Up to you. I'd read it at least.
I do intend this to be my last post in the politics thread for along time because I really can't justify spending this much time on LAP's anymore and I have a lot of trouble not writing LAP's in this thread. That and I don't have fun in it anymore. I had a blast during the 2008 election, but this thread stopped being fun for me a long time ago. I'd have stopped, but I just can't let stuff go and say nothing. I'm passionate just as you are, but mostly it eats up too much of my time.
