About Damned Time

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 9-19-45-22

Partha proved wrong (again)

Good for WI. This act restores common sense, a measure of the democratic process, and a message to other state governments that the oppresive yoke of PSUs can be realigned to reality.

[Ddrak]

What other state functions are not critical? Department of Liscensing? Department of Transportation? Department of Corrections? Public Records? DSHS? Court System?

What exactly could you shut down that wouldn't cripple the states ability to function that has any major barginning position to have a budgetary impact.

Well, let's take a look at Wisconsin then shall we? From http://www.wisconsin.gov/state/core/agency_index.html, I'd say the following could enact short to medium term shutdowns without significant long term impact:

Administration, Department of
Aging and Long Term Care, Board on
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Department of
Arts Board
Children and Families, Department of - NEW
Children's Trust Fund
Commerce, Department of
Commissioners of Public Lands Board
Educational Approval Board
Educational Communications Board
eHealth Initiative
Elections Division
Emergency Management, Wisconsin
Employee Trust Funds, Department of
Employment Relations Commission
Employment Relations, Office of State
Energy Independence, Office of
Environmental Education Board
Ethics and Accountability Division
Financial Institutions, Department of
Forward Wisconsin
Government Accountability Board
Governor, Office of
Groundwater Coordinating Council
Hearings and Appeals, Division of
Higher Educational Aids Board
Historical Society, State
Homeland Security
Independent Living Council, State
Insurance Commissioner, Office of
Investment Board, State of Wisconsin
Justice Assistance, Office of
Kickapoo Valley Reserve BoardLabor and Industry Review Commission
Land Information Program
Lieutenant Governor, Office of the
Lower Wisconsin State Riverway Board
Military Affairs, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of
Office of State Employment Relations
Personnel Commission
Privacy Protection, Office of
Public Health Council
Public Instruction, Department of
Public Service Commission
Railroads, Office of the Commissioner
Recovery and Reinvestment, Office of
Regulation and Licensing, Department of
Secretary of State, Office of the
Tax Appeals Commission
Tourism, Department of
University of Wisconsin System
Veterans Affairs, Department of
Wisconsin Electronic Recording Council
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
Wisconsin Health and Educational Facilities Authority
Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA)
Wisconsin State Law Library
Wisconsin State Legislature
Wisconsin State Fair Park
Wisconsin Technical College System
Wisconsin Women's Council
Workforce Development, Department of


The following could have partial shutdowns, removing clerical functions and only limiting staff to the essentials needed to keep government ticking over:

Corrections, Department of
Health Services, Department of
Justice, Department of
Public Defender, Office of State
Revenue, Department of
Transportation, Department of
Treasurer, Office of the State

Dd

[Ddrak]

That doesn't mean they shouldn't have their freedom of association taken from them.

I am guessing you meant to say should rather than shouldn't but either way can you please post the language in the WI bill that does this? I can't find it.

Pretty much everything between pages 38 and 46, but most specifically the part entitled "Prohibited Subjects of Collective Bargaining".


And,

This act restores common sense, a measure of the democratic process, and a message to other state governments that the oppresive yoke of PSUs can be realigned to reality.

As far as I can tell, this act removes common sense, injects mob-rule into private employee/employer negotiations and sends a message everywhere that US states will enforce the oppressive yoke of employers on an employee's freedom of association by expanding government power.

It's a bad law.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

What private employer/employee relationship? Have you not been reading this thread? Employees of the government are not private sector workers. They are workers employed, indirectly, by the taxpayer. They are paid for by tax dollars, not profits from business. The act didn't affect non-public worker unions.

[Kulaf]

What other state functions are not critical? Department of Liscensing? Department of Transportation? Department of Corrections? Public Records? DSHS? Court System?

What exactly could you shut down that wouldn't cripple the states ability to function that has any major barginning position to have a budgetary impact.

Well, let's take a look at Wisconsin then shall we? From http://www.wisconsin.gov/state/core/agency_index.html, I'd say the following could enact short to medium term shutdowns without significant long term impact:

Administration, Department of
Aging and Long Term Care, Board on
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Department of
Arts Board
Children and Families, Department of - NEW
Children's Trust Fund
Commerce, Department of
Commissioners of Public Lands Board
Educational Approval Board
Educational Communications Board
eHealth Initiative
Elections Division
Emergency Management, Wisconsin
Employee Trust Funds, Department of
Employment Relations Commission
Employment Relations, Office of State
Energy Independence, Office of
Environmental Education Board
Ethics and Accountability Division
Financial Institutions, Department of
Forward Wisconsin
Government Accountability Board
Governor, Office of
Groundwater Coordinating Council
Hearings and Appeals, Division of
Higher Educational Aids Board
Historical Society, State
Homeland Security
Independent Living Council, State
Insurance Commissioner, Office of
Investment Board, State of Wisconsin
Justice Assistance, Office of
Kickapoo Valley Reserve BoardLabor and Industry Review Commission
Land Information Program
Lieutenant Governor, Office of the
Lower Wisconsin State Riverway Board
Military Affairs, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of
Office of State Employment Relations
Personnel Commission
Privacy Protection, Office of
Public Health Council
Public Instruction, Department of
Public Service Commission
Railroads, Office of the Commissioner
Recovery and Reinvestment, Office of
Regulation and Licensing, Department of
Secretary of State, Office of the
Tax Appeals Commission
Tourism, Department of
University of Wisconsin System
Veterans Affairs, Department of
Wisconsin Electronic Recording Council
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
Wisconsin Health and Educational Facilities Authority
Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA)
Wisconsin State Law Library
Wisconsin State Legislature
Wisconsin State Fair Park
Wisconsin Technical College System
Wisconsin Women's Council
Workforce Development, Department of


The following could have partial shutdowns, removing clerical functions and only limiting staff to the essentials needed to keep government ticking over:

Corrections, Department of
Health Services, Department of
Justice, Department of
Public Defender, Office of State
Revenue, Department of
Transportation, Department of
Treasurer, Office of the State

Dd

Pretty much all of that has already been done. Prior to this proposal from the Governor, all state departments were asked to come up with a 10% reduction. And looking at some of departments, even the elimination of clerical would bring them to a grinding halt. But regardless, the test was a lockout......not a workforce reduction. That is already a tactic used by unions when they have organized sick days. Pretty much anything you could lock out for any length of time and not cripple the states ability to function is not a major component of the budget.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Kind of like what the teachers in WI did when they shut down schools by taking sick days to go an protest.

[Torakus]

Pretty much everything between pages 38 and 46, but most specifically the part entitled "Prohibited Subjects of Collective Bargaining".

Their freedom of association isn't being taken away, simply limited. Kulaf, Embar and FDR have all clearly stated why this is necessary so I won't go over it again.

Besides those workers don't enjoy full freedom of association under the current law. Freedom of association must include a right to refuse to join the union as well as the right to join.

Tora

[Embar Angylwrath]

And Walker just gave some workers a raise. Workers who don't belong to the union will no longer be forced to contribute to the union. They now have a choice as to whether or not they want a portion of their paycheck going to a union they don't belong to. Previously (through collective bargaining and legislative capitulation), public employees that chose not to belong to the union had union dues deducted from their paychecks and sent to the union. THEY HAD NO CHOICE.

Now they do. If they want to support the union's direction, they can contribute freely, and I encourage them to do so. But no employee should be forced to contribute to an organization they don't beloing to.

And I'd LOVE to hear Partial's and Lurker's (where ever the hell he went) defense of that particular union pushed policy.

[Ddrak]

What private employer/employee relationship? Have you not been reading this thread? Employees of the government are not private sector workers. They are workers employed, indirectly, by the taxpayer. They are paid for by tax dollars, not profits from business. The act didn't affect non-public worker unions.

Uh, you misread my statement. I am saying relationship between employer and employee was private (ie no one else's business). Calm down - I didn't realize how ambiguous my statement was. It's what I've been saying from the beginning - the relationship between an employer and employee is a private one and either side of that arrangement should have the right to bring any conditions they want to the table and freely accept or reject the other's conditions. Legislation has precisely ZERO place in that arrangement and anything else is just a power grab by the legislature.

Of course, I agree 100% that mandatory unionism is completely wrong as well. Employers should hire and fire on the merits of the worker relative to the terms they are willing to work under and not be restricted by law into refusing to accept a collective bargaining position if they feel it's worthwhile. Employees should be able to offer terms with or without union association as they see fit and have the employers accept those terms if they are reasonable.

There is no difference between employers in that negotiation, whether the public are the ultimate employer, a restricted set of the public as shareholders are the employer or an extremely restricted set of the public as private owners are the employer.


@Kulaf,

I'm not sure what you're responding to but I was looking at lockouts (and stated it clearly in my post), not "workforce reductions". If you read the WI budget, you'll find that only two programs are actually significant (>10%) in the budget - schools at 35% and medical entitlements at 14%. Both of those could survive lockouts for the usual short time required to make the government's point. Corrections is next at 6% and that's a whole different argument because there's much better ways to cut that then hiring cheaper jailors.

The real savings in the WI budget don't come from the union busting bullshit (as far as I can see), it's from slamming a quarter billion from UW-Madison by shelving it off into a non-state company, therefore losing almost 20,000 state employees. The union thing is a sideshow that doesn't actually have that much to do with balancing the budget and everything to do with a legislative power grab.


@Tora,

I strongly dispute any reduction of freedom of association is "necessary", just as I strongly dispute other reductions in freedom are "necessary". Almost all cases of "necessary removal of freedom" is just an excuse to increase government power and reduce the power of the people.

Workers "not enjoying full freedom of association" is a pretty poor excuse to remove more freedoms, don't you think? Surely the better solution is to just remove the mandatory unionism and then negotiation from there? Unions tend to behave a lot better when they're in competition with other non-union employees.

I completely agree with Embar's statement that workers should be free to support the union's direction and I extend that logically to say that the union's direction should be curtailed by the will of the workers through their ability to retain jobs under union negotiation and not artificially limited by legislation. It's a simple argument of freedom and free markets vs. big government and artificial restrictions.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I completely agree with Embar's statement that workers should be free to support the union's direction and I extend that logically to say that the union's direction should be curtailed by the will of the workers through their ability to retain jobs under union negotiation and not artificially limited by legislation. It's a simple argument of freedom and free markets vs. big government and artificial restrictions.

Dd

Except, of course, the whole public worker collective bargaining issue was an artificial expansion to begin with. It's not a right. Its a legislative construct.

[Kulaf]

@Kulaf,

I'm not sure what you're responding to but I was looking at lockouts (and stated it clearly in my post), not "workforce reductions". If you read the WI budget, you'll find that only two programs are actually significant (>10%) in the budget - schools at 35% and medical entitlements at 14%. Both of those could survive lockouts for the usual short time required to make the government's point. Corrections is next at 6% and that's a whole different argument because there's much better ways to cut that then hiring cheaper jailors.

The real savings in the WI budget don't come from the union busting bullshit (as far as I can see), it's from slamming a quarter billion from UW-Madison by shelving it off into a non-state company, therefore losing almost 20,000 state employees. The union thing is a sideshow that doesn't actually have that much to do with balancing the budget and everything to do with a legislative power grab.

Short time to make the governments point? What point are they making when it is understood that they cannot lock out employess for any significant time? How are you spurring on negotiations? I know unions that have been on strike for years. Does the government have the ability to lock out employees for years? If not then there is not equality in the negotiating positions and the system of negotiation is flawed. It's really that simple.

The long term savings come from what has been enacted. You are going to see it sweep across this country as more and more governmental bodies realize that they cannot sustain pensions and medical for their workers at the levels the unions want.

As an asside, should the voters of WI feel that their public service employees deserve a larger raise than the rate of inflation, they can approve the increase through a referendum vote. So the will of the people is preserved.

[Harlowe]

Not part of this discussion, but it's just humorous that Scott Walker thinks himself Reagan-esque when Reagan supported unions. Hell he was the President of the Screen Actor's Guild.

They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children and it would disappear everywhere in the world. Today the workers in Poland are showing a new generation how high is the price of freedom but also how much it is worth that price."

Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America’s economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere. Too often, discussion about the labor movement concentrates on disputes, corruption, and strikes. But while these things are headlines, there are thousands of good agreements reached and put into practice every year without a hitch

[Embar Angylwrath]

Actually Harlowe, Reagan is seens as the President that was the pivot point in the US for the decline in labor unions (although its an open question if he fostered the change, or was the man-in-the-chair when the change happened). It's also of note that Reagan fired about 12,000 unionized air traffic controllers for striking (which was against the law). This was a union that actually supporeted his Presidency. And it sent a message that it was ok to stand up to organized labor.

Really, I think we can all agree that the abuses of the past that spawned unions have long since been addressed. We have minimum wage, laws for working conditions, overtime regulations, etc. etc. etc. The real truth why organized labor is in decline is because it simply isn't needed anymore. And it NEVER was needed in the public sector.

[Torakus]

Not part of this discussion, but it's just humorous that Scott Walker thinks himself Reagan-esque when Reagan supported unions. Hell he was the President of the Screen Actor's Guild.

They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children and it would disappear everywhere in the world. Today the workers in Poland are showing a new generation how high is the price of freedom but also how much it is worth that price."

Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America’s economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere. Too often, discussion about the labor movement concentrates on disputes, corruption, and strikes. But while these things are headlines, there are thousands of good agreements reached and put into practice every year without a hitch

But the Unions HATED him. I can still vividly remember the hateful speeches, posters, t-shirts, hats, etc. that were the staple of union rallies, picnics and gatherings nationwide during this time frame. Being a teen in a union household during this time I was a little embarrassed for my parents and their peers. They were like a pack of rabid dogs, egged on by the unions. The saddest part was a teen like me could see through the union smoke screen; see that they were no better than the big business that they "fought" and in fact were just a big business that profited off the sweat of the members for very little real return. The saddest thing I saw in my entire life was union members cheering when President Reagan was shot. Thirty years later there is even less need for unions and they are still sucking the life out of industry, their members and the tax payer.

Tora

[Ddrak]

The whole public worker collective bargaining issue was an artificial expansion to begin with. It's not a right. Its a legislative construct.

Uh, what? Since when was there a law required for people to be able to negotiate together on their employment contracts? Freedom of association is absolutely a right. It falls clearly under "Liberty" in the Declaration of Independence, because what liberty do you have when the government can tell you that you can't associate yourself with another (lawful) person or group of people?

Being a public employee does not mean you give up your inalienable rights.

I do agree with most of this:

Really, I think we can all agree that the abuses of the past that spawned unions have long since been addressed. We have minimum wage, laws for working conditions, overtime regulations, etc. etc. etc. The real truth why organized labor is in decline is because it simply isn't needed anymore. And it NEVER was needed in the public sector.

Obviously, the "never was needed in the public sector" is demonstrably false in my opinion and the rest of it just adds weight to my argument. If unions are in decline because they aren't needed then surely the logical step is to just allow people to not join up and let them die a natural death? Why are you so keen on legislating against what you admit is a movement dying by itself?

Here's the problem with the entire thing: either unions are necessary or they aren't. If they are necessary then legislating against them is a grievous attack on worker's rights. If they aren't necessary then legislating against them is pointless because they're putting their own members at a disadvantage compared to non-union workers so simply legislating for the freedom to not join is all that's needed. You can't have it both ways.

The unions here are a convenient scapegoat here for weak and gutless politicians. What's really happening is Walker (and others) are trying to criminalize any organized response to trimming worker compensation rather than having the balls to answer the flak directly. Sorry, but I got nothing but contempt for that sort of douche.


@Kulaf,

Unless the locked out employees and employers have massive financial backing, they're both going to run out of cash pretty fast. Lockouts typically last weeks and it's extremely rare to go more than a month. Strikes are a very different thing (scab labor and other mitigations mean the employer doesn't have to shut down).

I believe the government for the most part has the ability to withstand a lockout far more than the average business does. If anything, by your argument that means there's more of a reason for public service unions than private sector ones?

Of course, you're still diverting because the real question isn't about strikes or lockouts but the fundamental right of an employee to negotiate all aspects of their compensation in concert with other employees if they so choose.

The long term savings are from the UW-Madison reduction of 20,000 FTEs. Please prove otherwise if you think you can match that sort of cut.

We both know the referendum thing is bullshit. The will of the people has always been preserved through their elected proxies in the government. That's how a representative democracy works. All the referendum does is enact extraordinary road blocks in raising wages because if raises are incrementally capped at CPI then any year the DON'T raise with CPI is an effective pay cut forever and hence an effective skill drain on the public service as it's less able to compete with the private sector. It's also an unnecessary cost (do you know how expensive a referendum really is?) that could easily be far more than the cost of the wage increase. How is that in any way sane budgeting?


@Tora,

The unions hated Reagan and yet he still defended their right to exist and participate in collective bargaining on behalf of their members. Gutless freaks like Walker just want to criminalize them. I know which politician I would support and which I'd be holding in contempt there...

Dd

[Kulaf]

"Of course, you're still diverting because the real question isn't about strikes or lockouts but the fundamental right of an employee to negotiate all aspects of their compensation in concert with other employees if they so choose."

Yet somehow an employer doesn't have a fundemental right to negotiate individually with each employee? Explain that to me. Where exactly is this "fundemental right" defined? Why did we need the NLRA? Or the Taft-Hartley Act?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

@Tora,

The unions hated Reagan and yet he still defended their right to exist and participate in collective bargaining on behalf of their members. Gutless freaks like Walker just want to criminalize them. I know which politician I would support and which I'd be holding in contempt there...

Dd

You're right that he did, but only when it came to private sector workers.

“…Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike … But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government’s reason for being.”

[Ddrak]

Yet somehow an employer doesn't have a fundemental right to negotiate individually with each employee? Explain that to me. Where exactly is this "fundemental right" defined? Why did we need the NLRA? Or the Taft-Hartley Act?

No, employers don't have the right to *demand* employees not attempt to act collectively. That's not the inverse of labor rights because you typically find a single employer and multiple employees so a "union of employers" makes no sense.

They have the right to not bend to the demands made collectively (something the WI government should probably have done more often by the sounds of things), and they have the right to attempt to negotiate individually but they don't have the right to force the employees to negotiate individually. If the employees don't want to negotiate individually, what right does anyone have to force them to do so? The employer is left with the simple option of accepting or denying the collective offer. Remind me again where the legislature has to get involved in restricting the employer's choices?

Where is the "fundamental right" defined? The Declaration of Independence is a good enough place to start. Freedom of association is fairly clearly "Liberty".

Why do you need laws? To protect rights. No one would deny the right to life and so we have laws that say murder is illegal. Now, if some legislature decided that public workers didn't need that right and passed laws to that effect, would the argument not be that public workers deserve life as much as private workers? How then should a right of association be different?

btw, the NLRA and Taft-Hartley were both fairly bad pieces of reactionary legislation. Both were needed about as much as a shotgun is needed to cure a cold.

Dd

[Ddrak]

“…Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike … But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government’s reason for being.”

Interesting. I would agree if government only provided "protective services" which immediately exposed people to harm if the workers didn't turn up for a day. Would you agree that Reagan was rather stupid if he honestly thought that all of government was "protective services"?

Really, all Reagan is doing there is agreeing with my point that safety related government functions are a separate case. He's fairly clearly missed the vast majority of government that isn't safety related.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Why should it be a separate case? Don't they have the same right you would guarantee to other public union workers? Do they sign away their "fundemental rights" when they take the job?

"Where is the "fundamental right" defined? The Declaration of Independence is a good enough place to start. Freedom of association is fairly clearly "Liberty"."

That is the liberty to redress the government about grievences. It also says I have the right to persue happiness......doesn't mean I have the right to do whatever makes me happy at the expense of others.