Gov. Scott Walker - Un-American?

[Grim Reaper]

Gob, the economic folly of a huge overcompensated public sector will be manifested everywhere in time.

Care to explain why the states without strong public unions are also having problems?

Texas doesn't allow collective bargaining, yet they're also in the middle of slashing their budget to make ends meet.

Additionally, if collective bargaining really was such a bad thing, then why were only certain unions targeted by the bill?

[Grim Reaper]

There was a segment on NPR yesterday in which a college professor was trying to make the case that when “the highest level of education” is considered, Government workers make only 75% of what their private counterparts earn. But to those whose eyes are not blinded by partisanship, there is no real comparison. The degreed individuals who work for Government are greatly skewed toward humanities degrees and the “social sciences” – subjects with minimal academic rigor, and even at that they tend to come from the bottom of their graduating classes. The historically low SAT scores of teachers has long been documented and known. In addition, hundreds of colleges and universities have bottom-feeder “Masters Degree” programs that are targeted at the nation’s hundreds of thousands of public school teachers – who have to have a number of graduate credit hours to get permanent credentials anyway – and provide an “advanced” degree with no thesis or comprehensive examinations, and few substantive requirements.

Maybe it's because we treat teachers like trash to begin with that causes this. No, that couldn't be it. It's the evil unions dragging education down.

The American education system has been overloaded and underfunded for a long while now. When we don't pay enough for the best, the best are going to look for other ways to earn money.

[Long Run]

I have not heard any commentary on the ethics or appropriateness of the "filibuster" by the Wisconsin elected Democrats in absenting themselves from doing their jobs and showing up for work. There have been many criticisms here and in the press when there is a filibuster in the U.S. Senate, but I haven't seen such criticism in this case. Am I missing something, or isn't what the Wisconsin representative doing the same thing as what happens in a U.S. Senate filibuster (but maybe even worse since no other legislative work can be done).

[Scooter]

You haven't heard the press reporting any criticism of the absence of the Democrats from the Wisconsin state senate? Not even once?

Has your doctor told you that you have lost some language skills that would explain how it could have escaped your notice?

[The Hen]

Without Unions, I would not be working as I am married and have a child.

Without Unions, my wages would not be as high they are.

Without Unions, I would not have the amount of holidays that I receive.

Without Unions, I would not have the amount of sick leave that I receive.

Without Unions, I would not have my carers leave.

Without Unions, I would not receive my Christmas bonus and my holiday leave loading.

Without Unions, I would not get my long service leave to visit the 'old country'.

Without Unions, my rights at work would be almost American.

[dgs49]

Dear Hen-person:

For whom do you work?

Dear Scooter-person:

I have not seen a single news account that stated the obvious point that the absent legislators were shirking their duties as elected government officials, or that they are cheating the taxpayers, or trying to illegitimately nullify the results of the recent elections.

I can't say categorically that none have been published, but compared to the coverage of the GOP's "shutting down the government" in the 90's, it is the non-story of the year.

[Grim Reaper]

The Republicans shut down the federal government, not just a single state. You'd think that might make a bit of a difference in the amount of coverage.

[Long Run]

The Republicans shut down the federal government, not just a single state. You'd think that might make a bit of a difference in the amount of coverage.

First of all, I don't know that this is an apt comparison. Second, the Republican were blamed for shutting down the federal government, but it was a tango with Clinton, and kudos to Clinton for winning the PR battle on that one. Third, the point is that the story in the federal budget showdown was mainly about the Republicans shutting things down, compared to the prevailing slant of the Wisconsin story which is the Republicans aiming to end collective bargaining and the coverage most certainly is not about Democrats shutting down the state government.

[Andrew D]

The Democratic legislators have not shut down the Wisconsin government. In the 1995 budget crisis, the federal government had to furlough "non-essential" government workers and suspend "non-essential" government services for six days and then for another twenty-two days. After the first shutdown, the administration released figures showing that because of just that six-day shutdown:

● the government lost $400 million in payments to furloughed workers who did not report for work;

● the government lost $400 million due to the closure of IRS enforcement offices;

● the enrollments of 400,000 newly eligible Medicare recipients were delayed;

● 112,000 Social Security claims were not processed;

● 212,000 new or replacement Social Security cards were not issued;

● 360,000 Social Security office visits were denied;

● 800,000 toll-free calls for Social Security information were not answered;

● 80,000 passport applications and 80,000 visas were delayed;

● 2,000,000 visitors to National Parks were turned away; and

● FHA mortgage loans worth more than $800 million to more than 10,000 low-and-moderate-income working families were delayed.

I have seen no reports of any such things happening in Wisconsin. The latest appears to be that the governor is claiming that if the Democrats do not return, he will lay off 1500 state workers on 1 April. That hardly seems comparable.

[Andrew D]

Oh, and as to "nullify[ing] the results of the recent elections, polls show that people in Wisconsin oppose the Republicans' bill by more than 60%-40%, and Americans on the whole oppose such legislation by a similar margin. Governor Walker claims that he ran on the proposal now before the state senate. Unfortunately for him, careful study by PolitiFact shows that his claim is false.

And now the Republicans are worried that they might not even be keep all the Republican state senators on board with it. Maybe they are starting to realize that voting Republican is not the same as giving the Republicans carte blanche to enact their wildest right-wing notions.

[dgs49]

O yes, these are wild notions...

Polls? Gimme a break. There is only one poll that counts, and it's generally held on the first Tuesday in November.

Andrew it is really beneath you to publish such nonsense statistics.

[Andrew D]

There is nothing nonsensical about them. The governor is trying to implement a policy that he did not run on. The voters of Wisconsin did not make a decision about that policy in the election, because that policy was not presented to them. Now that they are confronted with it, they overwhelmingly disapprove.

[Gob]

Thousands of people have joined protests in the US state of Wisconsin against proposals that will limit the power of trade unions.

In the city of Madison, filmmaker Michael Moore told them: "We're going to do this together. Don't give up."

Senate Republicans voted on Thursday to hold the missing Democrats in contempt and force police to bring them back to the capitol.

Governor Walker on Friday sent out redundancy warning notices to unions representing state workers following the failure to pass the bill.

He says the measures are needed to tackle a $3.6bn budget gap over the next two years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12658349

All getting rather heavy isn't it?

[dgs49]

Andrew:

The statistics are utter nonsense.

The government did not "lose" the payments to furloughed workers. They were paid their normal salaries, and their functions were accomplished - albeit a few days later - and no one was the worse. It was about the same impact as a snow day in D.C. The Government "workers" got a couple days off, with pay. So what?

The Feds (we) lost NOTHING due to the closure of IRS offices. Some taxpayers got off without paying their taxes because the IRS shut down for a couple days? Rubbish.

Delayed paperwork. So what?

NO SS CLAIMS WERE "NOT PROCESSED." They were processed a few days later.

And so on. This was obviously propaganda published by the Clinton Adminstration to try to make the case that the government's couple-day hiatus was in some way harmful. It was not.

And you know it.

RE: Wisconsin. Yes, it's getting "heavy." If things truly deteriorate, a couple of the unionized government workers in Wisconsin might have to endure what EVERYONE ELSE IN THE FUCKING COUNTRY HAS TO ENDURE from time to time - a job loss through no fault of their own. And wouldn't that be a pity?

[Gimcrack]

Government union workers lose jobs all the friggin' time. Where do budget cuts hit first? Staff. Union or not. Sure, they call them lay-offs or deferments, but they're not. As a government union worker, I now make less than I did 6 years ago, no opportunity for any wage increase until 2013, my caseload has increased by 20% due to loss of positions, and we have no support from management (unless you count a "Do More With Less!" sign in the breakroom). Why did I choose to work for the government? Surely not for the hours of sitting on my ass, eating bonbons. I, as many of my bretheren in the Social Services division, have done so to help people. Kind of like people who go into teaching. I can pretty safely say most don't go into that career for the 3 months of vacation.

Walker did NOT state he wanted to bust collective bargaining when he ran. And he doesn't want to bust all unions, only those who traditionally vote Democrat. His bill does not, as he says, address the budget as the unions have already said they would agree to the monetary demands. That is not good enough for that fuckwaffle.

[Grim Reaper]

They were paid their normal salaries, and their functions were accomplished - albeit a few days later

Yeah, paid their normal salaries while they didn't show up for work because of the shutdown. Money was spent for services that were not rendered.

And delayed paperwork does cost money. That's more paperwork that has to be processed, with overtime if they don't want to stay behind.

Finally, the National Parks being closed meant that admission fees could not be collected. You can't argue that wasn't a loss in money.

And wouldn't that be a pity?

The real pity is that people are too caught up in trying to take away the rights of others to question what happened to their own.

[Grim Reaper]

And because the collective bargaining thing is such an important part of the budget, they're going to pass it as a non-fiscal bill bypass the need to have the Democrats present.

[Sue U]

Because all the budget-related provisions had to be stripped from the bill before it could be passed without the Senate Democrats, there is now not even a fig leaf of pretense that this legislation has anything whatsoever to do with any fiscal issue; this was a straight-up union-busting measure. And it doesn't even have very much to do with Wisconsin; Republican state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald admitted (on Fux News, of course) that the whole purpose of this effort was to cripple the unions so that they would be unable to provide support for Obama's reelection campaign. This is simply a naked abuse of the legislative process (apparently in violation of the state open-meetings law, too) for the sole purpose of inflicting as much political damage as possible on groups perceived to support the other party. These guys are utterly shameless.

[Long Run]

These guys are utterly shameless.

You also referring to those who abdicated their jobs and violated their state's constitution, and now have the chutzpah to complain about the majority party's use of a parliamentary maneuver to overcome their own move?

[dgs49]

Dear Sue-U Person:

Honestly, can you not concede that collective bargaining in the public sector is a horrible idea? Particularly for people who bill themselves as "professionals," like teachers. Teachers' unions have done more to damage k-12 education (by imposing ridiculous work rules, preventing the removal of incompetent teachers, and fighting any educational initiative that does not line the "workers'" pockets) than any national enemy could ever hope to have accomplished.

This carryover from the private sector is appropriate under very limited circumstances, even in the private sector, and it is never appropriate when the employer is, in fact, the taxpayer.

Nobody disputes the principle that public sector employees should be compensated in a manner that is comparable to what their counterparts in the private sector are paid. The Federal GS-scale employees (other than those in Washington) are fairly and reasonably paid, they pay an appropriate amount for their health and retirement benefits, and they have NEVER been able to "bargain" with Uncle Sam for pay and benefits.

It is true that there are pockets of public sector employees that are chronically underpaid (e.g. social workers, probation officers, and even teachers in some school districts), but the solution is not to impose the obvious and endemic burden of unionization, but to work for compensation standards that are more reasonable.

If this is "union busting," it's about time.


"...percieved to support the other party..."

Are you serious? As in the Sun is "perceived to" rise in the East every day?