Wisconsin labor protests it's like Cairo has moved to Madison these days

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm not aware that Walker campaigned to clamp down on collective bargaining. Do you have a reference for that?

You could say it's part of cutting the budget. The power is now in the hands of the local governments.

 

[nismaratwork]

They did justify it, although i don't know the details, but I do know they justified it some way. The claim about laws regarding notification being broken is being done by the Democrats right now.



IMO, it is precisely the opposite. The Democrats lost this one, even while trying to illegally sabotage the process themselves, so they are going to try every trick they can.

How much do you want to bet on a swift injunction at the first court this hits, based first on procedural issues, then legal? I can justify anything... it doesn't mean it's a valid justification. I've looked, and the law is clear about 24 and 2 hour notices in WI, and the exceptions require that the other party be incommunicado. Neither happened... so unless you can do more than simply say it was justified, your claim is merely an echo.


As for Walker recovering, I doubt it, but politics are odd... I would say that he's going to have to be skillful and lucky (neither his qualities so far) to avoid a recall in Nov.

@Greg: You could, and I could say that murder is a kindness to people I don't like... both are non-starters based on twisted interprations. If this IS a budgetary measure, then they cannot have passed it with less than a quorum of 20. One... or the other... not both.

 

[CAC1001]

How much do you want to bet on a swift injunction at the first court this hits, based first on procedural issues, then legal? I can justify anything... it doesn't mean it's a valid justification. I've looked, and the law is clear about 24 and 2 hour notices in WI, and the exceptions require that the other party be incommunicado. Neither happened... so unless you can do more than simply say it was justified, your claim is merely an echo.

I don't know enough about the legality of the situation. But I think it would be rather silly to have gone ahead with it without giving proper notice when required if the whole thing could easily be derailed easily as a result. The Wisconsin GOP have to think the law is on their side, because otherwise, they could have just given the two-hour notice, and then gone ahead with it.

As for Walker recovering, I doubt it, but politics are odd... I would say that he's going to have to be skillful and lucky (neither his qualities so far) to avoid a recall in Nov.

If he makes the budget good, then his poll numbers will probably go back up. If not, then he will likely have major problems I think.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't know enough about the legality of the situation. But I think it would be rather silly to have gone ahead with it without giving proper notice when required if the whole thing could easily be derailed easily as a result. The Wisconsin GOP have to think the law is on their side, because otherwise, they could have just given the two-hour notice, and then gone ahead with it.

Thinking it's silly isn't a reason, meanwhile you can check the law which is clear, and over two nights Elliot Spitzer (while left) seems to think it's a clear violation of law... and he'd probably have a decent idea. Again... want to make a bet? If I win, you donate 10 bucks a month to PF every month you're here ad infinitum, and I lose, I'll donate in the same fashion. These donations can't be towards gold membership, just donations on top of anything else. Seems like good stakes, eh?

If he makes the budget good, then his poll numbers will probably go back up. If not, then he will likely have major problems I think.

He still can't touch the budget without a 20 quorum... I wonder what he dems will do now, but something tells me coming back won't be in it. Still, if he gets results (hard as I find it to believe) certainly odder things have happened in politics by far than a new gov making a comeback.

 

[Gokul43201]

Let's see, a candidate that is doing exactly what he said he'd do while running for office...

I'm not aware that Walker campaigned to clamp down on collective bargaining. Do you have a reference for that?

I didn't make that claim

I'm finding it very hard to discuss anything with you. Either I just can't understand what you're saying, or you're generally not being very clear.

1. Above, you said that Walker is doing exactly what he promised while campaigning.
2. The main thing that Walker has done so far (that is thrust of this thread) is pass a bill that restricts collective bargaining.
3. From #1 and #2, it follows that Walker promised to restrict collective bargaining.

Yet you say that is not what you claimed.

Perhaps you can explain using different words, how the bill that just got voted through is exactly (or even close to) what Walker promised while campaigning.

 

[Gokul43201]

You could say it's part of cutting the budget.

I guess you could make that argument, but it would require some logical gymnastics. After all, the Republicans were able to vote on the revised bill without the 20-member quorum only because they stripped the bill of all fiscal measures. If the bill did not address any fiscal issues, how can one simultaneously claim it is a deficit cutting measure?

Edit: I see nismar already made this point above.

 

[nismaratwork]

I guess you could make that argument, but it would require some logical gymnastics. After all, the Republicans were able to vote on the revised bill without the 20-member quorum only because they stripped the bill of all fiscal measures. If the bill did not address any fiscal issues, how can one simultaneously claim it is a deficit cutting measure?

Edit: I see nismar already made this point above.

I'm a psychic ninja.. yo.

 

[CAC1001]

Thinking it's silly isn't a reason, meanwhile you can check the law which is clear,

I was just watching Megyn Kelly on Bill O'Reilly's show, she said that normally in regular open session, there is a mandatory 24 hour notice that is required, but that the GOP were not in regular session, they were in a special session, which has different rules, and according to the Chief Senate Clerk who is non-partisan, if in special session, no notice is required. She said the vote could have been done instantly, but the GOP posted a two-hour notice.

Thinking it would be silly for the GOP to knowingly go ahead and violate the law when it could easily undo their legislation, especially if they could have easily abided by the law, I think is a valid reason on why I would not be inclined to believe the GOP just blatantly violated the law.

If that is truly what they did, then they deserve the injunction for stupidity.

and over two nights Elliot Spitzer (while left) seems to think it's a clear violation of law... and he'd probably have a decent idea. Again... want to make a bet? If I win, you donate 10 bucks a month to PF every month you're here ad infinitum, and I lose, I'll donate in the same fashion. These donations can't be towards gold membership, just donations on top of anything else. Seems like good stakes, eh?

Nope no betting because like I said, I don't know enough either way.

He still can't touch the budget without a 20 quorum... I wonder what he dems will do now, but something tells me coming back won't be in it. Still, if he gets results (hard as I find it to believe) certainly odder things have happened in politics by far than a new gov making a comeback.

The unions already agreed to the budget measures though. They said their main gripe was over the collective-bargaining issue. With that now passed, provided it remains law, then passing the budgetary measure shouldn't be much of an issue I would think.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I don't know enough about the legality of the situation. But I think it would be rather silly to have gone ahead with it without giving proper notice when required if the whole thing could easily be derailed easily as a result.

You should check out this video- the rhetoric is a bit much, but the chairman won't even tell the democratic senator what the bill actually says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5sx-4i5y0E&feature=player_embedded

 

[WhoWee]

I'm finding it very hard to discuss anything with you. Either I just can't understand what you're saying, or you're generally not being very clear.

1. Above, you said that Walker is doing exactly what he promised while campaigning.
2. The main thing that Walker has done so far (that is thrust of this thread) is pass a bill that restricts collective bargaining.
3. From #1 and #2, it follows that Walker promised to restrict collective bargaining.

Yet you say that is not what you claimed.

Perhaps you can explain using different words, how the bill that just got voted through is exactly (or even close to) what Walker promised while campaigning.

In post number 412, I responded to something "Amp" drug down from WAY up-thread. I wasn't trying to argue that Walker ran on promising to restrict collective bargaining specifically. However, I will re-read the afore-posted links and see if he did - fair enough?

 

[Gokul43201]

They did justify it, although i don't know the details, but I do know they justified it some way. The claim about laws regarding notification being broken is being done by the Democrats right now.

Here's some info on the details: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_66b46584-4ae2-11e0-98ae-001cc4c002e0.html

It is not yet clear where these complaints will be filed, but former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager [who is now legal counsel of AFSCME] said they can be filed with either the Dane County District Attorney's Office or the Attorney General's Office. But, she added: "Frankly I don't know how either of those men would need a complaint to file an action in this. It's clear that the conference committee's meeting on its face violated Wisconsin's open meetings law."
...
Attorney Bob Dreps, an expert in open meetings and open records law, said the state's open meetings law requires 24 hours notice before any government meeting can be held. It allows for shorter notice for "good cause" only when it would be "impossible" or "impractical" to wait 24 hours. But even in those situations there must be a two-hour notice for an emergency meeting, he said.

Dreps said from what he could see, the Senate Republicans "didn't give valid notice."

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald responded to complaints by releasing a statement from Chief Senate Clerk Rob Marchant, who insisted no rules were broken.

"There was some discussion today about the notice provided for the Legislature's conference committee. In special session, under Senate Rule 93, no advance notice is required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board," Marchant said in the statement. "Despite this rule, it was decided to provide a 2 hour notice by posting on the bulletin board. My staff, as a courtesy, emailed a copy of the notice to all legislative offices at 4:10, which gave the impression that the notice may have been slightly less than 2 hours. Either way, the notice appears to have satisfied the requirements of the rules and statutes."

In the end, I don't think the objections will work, mostly because the judiciary would probably rather just stay out of it.

IMO, it is precisely the opposite. The Democrats lost this one, even while trying to illegally sabotage the process themselves, so they are going to try every trick they can.

I don't follow. What was it the Democrats did that was illegal?

 

[CAC1001]

I'm finding it very hard to discuss anything with you. Either I just can't understand what you're saying, or you're generally not being very clear.

1. Above, you said that Walker is doing exactly what he promised while campaigning.
2. The main thing that Walker has done so far (that is thrust of this thread) is pass a bill that restricts collective bargaining.
3. From #1 and #2, it follows that Walker promised to restrict collective bargaining.

Yet you say that is not what you claimed.

Perhaps you can explain using different words, how the bill that just got voted through is exactly (or even close to) what Walker promised while campaigning.

What gets me is that is appears so blatantly political to remove the collective bargaining powers from the teachers unions, who did not support him, but not do it for the police and firefighting unions, who did support him. Since the police and fire unions have been protesting this bill, then they would not have supported Governor Walker in his campaign if this is what he said he'd do. IMO he should have done it for all the unions, or none.

If not doing it for all the unions, I think it would have been better to just pass a budget measure on the unions, as he could have won public support there easily, and do it for all the unions, and also enact the right-to-work laws for the state that his bill does.

 

[nismaratwork]

I was just watching Megyn Kelly on Bill O'Reilly's show, she said that normally in regular open session, there is a mandatory 24 hour notice that is required, but that the GOP were not in regular session, they were in a special session, which has different rules, and according to the Chief Senate Clerk who is non-partisan, if in special session, no notice is required. She said the vote could have been done instantly, but the GOP posted a two-hour notice.

Megyn Kelly is a lawyer, but nothing special and about as bright as a broken light-bulb. Elliot Spitzer is a horndog, but he was an amazingly effective prosecutor and governor in NY/NYC. Given that Spitzer isn't on Fox News, and that CNN is mostly limp rather than left... I'll stick with Spitzer and my own reading of the law on this one. Still, as I said, the courts will ultimately decide... and while they do, expect an injunction.

Thinking it would be silly for the GOP to knowingly go ahead and violate the law when it could easily undo their legislation, especially if they could have easily abided by the law, I think is a valid reason on why I would not be inclined to believe the GOP just blatantly violated the law.

By that logic, they should have done this to begin with, not as a last-ditch effort to save their skins. This was a last resort because they had to decouple this from the budget, claim it's NOT a budgetary measure, and then... these (at best) questionable tactics had to be used.

If that is truly what they did, then they deserve the injunction for stupidity.

Well... desperation maybe, but yeah, I don't think a judge is going to err on the their side in the face of 50 years of law and jurisprudence.

Nope no betting because like I said, I don't know enough either way.

I'd bet, but court is always a gamble, so fair enough.

The unions already agreed to the budget measures though. They said their main gripe was over the collective-bargaining issue. With that now passed, provided it remains law, then passing the budgetary measure shouldn't be much of an issue I would think.

They did, but after this do you think that they'll still be willing, or that the dems will even PRETEND to act in good fatih?

 

[CAC1001]

I don't follow. What was it the Democrats did that was illegal?

The fourteen senators who left the state to go into hiding.

 

[nismaratwork]

The fourteen senators who left the state to go into hiding.

That's not illegal... sort of like trying to escape from prison in some countries. It's not exactly the nicest thing to do, and it can be political suicide, but it's not illegal.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have another general question for anyone that can provide clarity. I was under the impression that teacher's salaries were paid by the City (from revenues through property taxes, local taxes, etc.), and not by the State. Am I wrong?

 

[Gokul43201]

The fourteen senators who left the state to go into hiding.

How is that illegal? What law does it break?

Edit: Yeah, late again.

 

[CAC1001]

Megyn Kelly is a lawyer, but nothing special and about as bright as a broken light-bulb. Elliot Spitzer is a horndog, but he was an amazingly effective prosecutor and governor in NY/NYC. Given that Spitzer isn't on Fox News, and that CNN is mostly limp rather than left... I'll stick with Spitzer and my own reading of the law on this one. Still, as I said, the courts will ultimately decide... and while they do, expect an injunction.

Well as you said, we will see. I was just providing one of the counter arguments I heard. Kelly doesn't strike me as a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann though.

By that logic, they should have done this to begin with, not as a last-ditch effort to save their skins. This was a last resort because they had to decouple this from the budget, claim it's NOT a budgetary measure, and then... these (at best) questionable tactics had to be used.

I don't know why they didn't do it at the start. Maybe they wanted to make it look like the Democrats gave them no choice, although IMO that was silly as it drew a whole lot of unnecessary attention to the event.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well as you said, we will see. I was just providing one of the counter arguments I heard. Kelly doesn't strike me as a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann though.

True, I'm being harsh... 9 years of respectable legal practice is not a joke. Still, given the network, and given other posts I'm guessing this was flat-out illegal.

I don't know why they didn't do it at the start. Maybe they wanted to make it look like the Democrats gave them no choice, although IMO that was silly as it drew a whole lot of unnecessary attention to the event.

I'd just guess first that they've lost all political cover by joining this to budget, and because they had to (maybe) break the law to do it. I think your right in your conclusions however.

 

[nismaratwork]

How is that illegal? What law does it break?

Edit: Yeah, late again.

BAM! Just like that!

Ninja...

*jazz hands*

 

[CAC1001]

That's not illegal... sort of like trying to escape from prison in some countries. It's not exactly the nicest thing to do, and it can be political suicide, but it's not illegal.

How is that illegal? What law does it break?

Edit: Yeah, late again.

Hmm...well you learn something new everyday. I thought it was illegal because the Senators were to be arrested on site if spotted.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hmm...well you learn something new everyday. I thought it was illegal because the Senators were to be arrested on site if spotted.

Weird, right? It's not quite arrest, but they'd be taken into custody and brought to the capitol... the law... not always a sane or clear thing.

 

[Gokul43201]

The argument made by Republicans was that they could "detain" (not "arrest") the Dems and have their asses dragged into the Capitol. They may have an argument there. The WI Constitution says Congress can act appropriately to "compel" attendance of absent members. The problem is that the WI Sargeant at Arms (who is charged with the detention) really has no jurisdiction outside the state, so at best, even the detention is a tricky proposal.

 

[nismaratwork]

The argument made by Republicans was that they could "detain" (not "arrest") the Dems and have their asses dragged into the Capitol. They may have an argument there. The WI Constitution says Congress can act appropriately to "compel" attendance of absent members. The problem is that the WI Sargeant at Arms (who is charged with the detention) really has no jurisdiction outside the state, so at best, even the detention is a tricky proposal.

Oh yeah, it would have been absurdly ugly, no doubt, but the law requires that they be unreachable, not just beyond detainment.

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps you can explain using different words, how the bill that just got voted through is exactly (or even close to) what Walker promised while campaigning.

Let me again state that I NEVER said the Bill that just passed was something he campaigned on - my response to "Amp" landed in an apparently unfortunate placement.

However, to clarify what I did say, here is a re-cap.

In post number 323 on PF page 17, I posted this: (my size change)
--------

"This is suggestive that the process might take a while to complete? This gives a little background on the issue - the Democrats failed the unions back in December - it seems?

my bold
http://wseu-sepac.org/news/news_2010...erbetrayal.pdf

"State unions fume over betrayal, prepare for future negotiations
CLAY BARBOUR
cbarbour@madison.com
608-252-6129 madison.com
Posted: Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:00 pm
After 18 months, more than $100 million in concessions, and negotiations that were painfully close to completion, union leaders again find themselves back at the table — and they're not happy about it.
When outgoing Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Wausau, reversed course Wednesday night and voted against union contracts for some 39,000 state employees, he doomed unions to continue talks that have already taken longer than any in recent memory.
Union leaders on Thursday expressed anxiety about future labor unrest and rage at the man they say has betrayed them. Decker, a former bricklayer with union ties, voted for the contracts in the Legislature's joint employee relations committee hours before he cast the deciding vote against them in the Senate.
"Russ Decker is a whore," said Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, which represents 22,000 state employees. "Not a prostitute. A whore. W-H-O-R-E."
Decker said the clock had simply run out for the current administration and the matter should be left to the next governor. Beil called the reversal a betrayal.
Behind the rhetoric is a palpable fear of what comes next for unions. New contract negotiations will have to run a GOP gantlet bracketed by Gov.-elect Scott Walker and a hostile Republican Legislature, both of which promise to take a hard line, demanding employees contribute significantly more toward their pensions and health care benefits.
If unions balk, the new governor has threatened everything from layoffs and cuts in social services to abolishing unions — though it is unclear if Walker would have the power to do so.
And while union leaders say they will negotiate in good faith with the new administration, they seem to dread the prospect.
"The ball is in (Walker's) court," Beil said. "We will make no overtures toward them. It will be up to them to come to the table."""
---------

Clay Barbour claimed Walker wants to abolish unions - I'm not sure what he heard from the campaign trail? Then, as a follow up, in post number 326, I posted this:

---------

"I'll re-assert this point - the unions knew in December the Republicans would be harder to deal with if the Democrats didn't support them - Walker was elected in the spirit of cutting costs. Wiki summed it up this way:
my bold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician )

"2010 campaignFurther information: Wisconsin gubernatorial election, 2010
Walker became an early favorite for the 2010 Republican Party endorsement for Wisconsin governor, winning straw polls of Wisconsin GOP convention attendees in 2007 and 2008.[26][27] He announced his candidacy in late April 2009 after several months of previewing his campaign themes of reduced taxes and reduced spending to Republican audiences around the state.[20] He also criticized the 2009–11 Wisconsin state budget as too large for the slow economy.[20] He won the Wisconsin GOP convention endorsement on May 22, 2010, receiving 91 percent of the votes cast by the delegates. Walker won the Republican nomination in the primary election of September 14, 2010, receiving 59 percent of the popular vote, while former U.S. Representative Mark Neumann garnered 39 percent.[28]

As part of his campaign platform, Walker said he would create 250,000 jobs in his first term through a program that would include tax reforms[16] such as rolling back the 2009 state tax increases on small businesses, capital gains, and income for top earners, and cutting state employee wages and benefits to help pay for the tax cuts.[29] Critics claimed his proposals would only help the wealthy and that cutting the salaries of public employees would adversely affect state services.[29][30] Supporters said that tax cuts for businesses would reduce the cost of labor, which would ultimately promote consumer demand and more job growth. Walker indicated he would refuse an $810 million dollar award from the federal Department of Transportation to build a high speed railroad line from Madison to Milwaukee because he believed it would cost the state $7.5 million per year to operate and would not be profitable.[31] The award was later rescinded and split among other states.[32]

Social issues played a part in the campaign. Walker has stated that he is "100% pro-life",[33] meaning that he opposes abortion in all circumstances including in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.[19][34] He supports abstinence-only sex education in the public schools, and opposes state supported clinical services that provide birth control and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases to teens under the age of 18 without parental consent.[19] He supports the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives on religious or moral grounds.[19][35] He supports adult stem cell research, but opposes human embryonic stem cell research.[36][16] As the election drew near, Barrett attempted to portray Walker as an extremist on social issues.[34][37]

On November 2, 2010, Walker won the general election with 52 percent of total votes cast, with his closest opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett, garnering 46 percent. His running mate, now Lieutenant Governor, was Rebecca Kleefisch, a former television news reporter in Milwaukee."


Walker ran on spending cuts and the unions knew they needed to get a deal done before he took office."

----------

Upon review, Walker clearly ran on spending cuts - as I specified - it's unclear why the union leader said he would try to abolish unions.

 

[Gokul43201]

Okay, I'll chalk that down to an unfortunate confluence of words. I don't intend to push that point any further.

 

[CAC1001]

The argument made by Republicans was that they could "detain" (not "arrest") the Dems and have their asses dragged into the Capitol. They may have an argument there. The WI Constitution says Congress can act appropriately to "compel" attendance of absent members. The problem is that the WI Sargeant at Arms (who is charged with the detention) really has no jurisdiction outside the state, so at best, even the detention is a tricky proposal.

So just out of curiousity, how do you know so much about Wisconsin? (you make me feel stupid with some of your posts)

 

[Gokul43201]

So just out of curiousity, how do you know so much about Wisconsin?

Some people actually live in WI. A few months ago, I joined their ranks! =D

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, I'll chalk that down to an unfortunate confluence of words. I don't intend to push that point any further.

What point?... WhoWee couldn't have cited more if he'd tried.

On the other hand, are you glad to have moved to WI? I'm curious if these events may have an effect on who decides to live there, or if that is primarily anger in the heat of the moment.

 

[CAC1001]

Some people actually live in WI. A few months ago, I joined their ranks! =D

Oh, well that explains it! :D

 

[Al68]

I guess you could make that argument, but it would require some logical gymnastics. After all, the Republicans were able to vote on the revised bill without the 20-member quorum only because they stripped the bill of all fiscal measures. If the bill did not address any fiscal issues, how can one simultaneously claim it is a deficit cutting measure?

It seems obvious to me that the thought never occurred to Republicans that the collective bargaining issue could be treated as a non-budget issue, and therefore not need a quorum, until after weeks of Democrats insisting that it was a non-budget issue. The real question is why did it take so long for that light bulb to light up in somebody's head?

I don't know exactly how that quorum rule is worded, but presumably it doesn't apply to every bill that has a fiscal consequence, or it would apply to all bills.

 

[nismaratwork]

It seems obvious to me that the thought never occurred to Republicans that the collective bargaining issue could be treated as a non-budget issue, and therefore not need a quorum, until after weeks of Democrats insisting that it was a non-budget issue. The real question is why did it take so long for that light bulb to light up in somebody's head?

I don't know exactly how that quorum rule is worded, but presumably it doesn't apply to every bill that has a fiscal consequence, or it would apply to all bills.

It was discussed, and rejected for the very reason that it exposes them politically, and will be murdered in court. The assertion that this is not a budgetary measure is also going to be difficult to justify in higher courts, so... actually yeah the rule really does apply to all budgetary measures, which is all that was ever claimed.

Even under this lesser quorum, the law has been violated (see previous posts).

 

[Norman]

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ed8497da-4c1a-11e0-8669-001cc4c03286.html

Secretary of State Doug La Follette said he won't publish the collective bargaining law passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker until March 25, the latest day he can do so under law.

He said the delay on implementing the law, signed by Walker on Friday, is needed to allow legal challenges to the law to move through the courts.

Laws don't take effect until one day after they are published with the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Dane county (the county in which the city of Madison resides) has filled suit against the state over this bill. However, an injunction was not granted by the judge presiding over the case.

 

[Al68]

Dane county (the county in which the city of Madison resides) has filled suit against the state over this bill...

I wonder if the Governor can call all those Democrats as witnesses that the collective bargaining issue has nothing to do with the budget? Or maybe use recorded statements over the last couple of weeks?

 

[Norman]

I wonder if the Governor can call all those Democrats as witnesses that the collective bargaining issue has nothing to do with the budget? Or maybe use recorded statements over the last couple of weeks?

Maybe you are unacquainted with US law, but opinion cannot be entered as fact. The county will have to prove that the bill has budgetary implications and the judge will have to decide whether it is sufficient. And the governor is not responsible for representing the State in a court of law. He actually cannot practice law since he is not a member of the Bar in Wisconsin. Hell, he doesn't even have a college degree...