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

  • News
  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
In summary, the Wisconsin Senate blocked passage of a sweeping anti-union bill Thursday by leaving the state to force Republicans to negotiate over the proposal. The group of Wisconsin lawmakers disappeared from the Capitol hours later, and one of them told The Associated Press that the group had left Wisconsin.
  • #456


Norman said:
Maybe you are unacquainted with US law, but opinion cannot be entered as fact...
Or maybe you are unacquainted with satire? Did you think I was being serious?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #457


Al68 said:
Or maybe you are unacquainted with satire? Did you think I was being serious?

Satire translates badly over the internet. This is an international forum, I simply didn't want to assume anything. It crossed my mind (that you were being satirical) but I thought best to err on the side of caution.

Plus I was sort of hoping you would counter with something like - "US courts allow expert testimony to be entered into record" and it made me laugh a little thinking of politicians being forced to be expert witnesses and then raked over the coals from both sides.
 
  • #458


Norman said:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_ed8497da-4c1a-11e0-8669-001cc4c03286.html



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.

Wow... that judge is going to be raked by an appelate court if it goes higher... I can't believe he wouldn't grant an injunction.

They must elect judges in WI...
 
  • #459


nismaratwork said:
Wow... that judge is going to be raked by an appelate court if it goes higher... I can't believe he wouldn't grant an injunction.

They must elect judges in WI...

There is also an issue in WI law, that if an injunction was granted the county would have to furnish a bond to cover the loss of possible revenue due to the law not being enacted. The county could likely not cover this. But it sort of completely backs up the counties argument... lol.
 
  • #460


Norman said:
There is also an issue in WI law, that if an injunction was granted the county would have to furnish a bond to cover the loss of possible revenue due to the law not being enacted. The county could likely not cover this. But it sort of completely backs up the counties argument... lol.

Oy vey iz mir. Truly, an appropriate time to say that. Thank you for leading me through some truly convoluted political and legal "logic". You're very well informed!
 
  • #461


nismaratwork said:
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).

Why do you think the Chief Senate Clerk would say it was legal if the law has been violated? From my understanding, the Chief Senate Clerk is a guy who is respected by both parties in the state, and not a partisan. Not saying you're wrong, I just mean out of curiosity.
 
  • #462


Here is an overview of it from The Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/wisconsin_554095.html

And an overview from Mother Jones: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/whats-next-wisconsins-unions-democrats-and-protesters

One thing I find very wrong is that the president of the Madison firefighters union said he supports general strike. I don't care how "wrong" they may think this all is, police and firefighters should not be going on strike, as that can get people killed. That is precisely why folks like FDR were against public-sector workers going on strike.
 
  • #463


I would say that unions used to be good, but now they are just as bad as the companies that they bargain with. They helped increase pay and workplace situations back when they were horrible, but that's no longer the case. Also the higher wages and what not that they bargain for are generally just passed on to the consumer rather than out of the pockets of the execs (which was part of the reason car companies like GM went under; basically they couldn't afford the cost of the unions anymore).

In the case of public unions it's even worse. These unions fight to increase the wages of people who are paid by the taxpayers. These unions then turn around and donate money to politicians who support them (usually democrats); money that members HAVE to pay to the unions. They then go to the bargaining table with the very same people that they helped to elect. This is basically a conflict of interest as why would the elected official want to go against what the union is asking for when the union helped them get elected?

So while unions were a good thing, I would say they are past their usefulness and are now more of a hinderance on the country than a help.
 
  • #464


CAC1001 said:
Here is an overview of it from The Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/wisconsin_554095.html

And an overview from Mother Jones: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/whats-next-wisconsins-unions-democrats-and-protesters

One thing I find very wrong is that the president of the Madison firefighters union said he supports general strike. I don't care how "wrong" they may think this all is, police and firefighters should not be going on strike, as that can get people killed. That is precisely why folks like FDR were against public-sector workers going on strike.

Hmmm... "support" as in, "we're going on strike too", or support as in, "We're lobbying against it, and we'll send some guys down there to show solidarity"?

If it's the latter, great, if the former, I believe that's completely illegal, much as ATC's striking en masse is.

To the Senate Clerk, I don't know, and clearly my first assumption about a judge granting an injunction was incorrect (thanks for not betting :smile: ). I can only say that any reading of the relevant law seems clear... beyond that... ??

@Aknazer: GM went under because they made cars (again) that people didn't want to buy. The unions had gotten well out of hand there, but it was hardly the driving force unless you choose to ignore more than a little history of poor performance in a modern market.

Unions are generally there in theory, to fight against abuses. In times when they turn into lobbying and negotiating bodies, it's less clear. Take away unions, and how long do you think it will be before the 'need' becomes painfully apparent again?
 
  • #465


Aknazer said:
So while unions were a good thing, I would say they are past their usefulness and are now more of a hinderance on the country than a help.

IMO there's always a need for unions to represent the needs of workers, and nothing else. This way they would not be a hindrance.
 
  • #466


cobalt124 said:
IMO there's always a need for unions to represent the needs of workers, and nothing else. This way they would not be a hindrance.

Of course, in a modern climate you have to be proactive to protect workers, or you get a governor and state senate that will bring you down... for example.

I'm still puzzled... Goldman-Sachs good... Unions Bad... Haliburton good... Teachers Bad.

I'm not moved by any of the anti-union arguments made here or elsewhere thus far, especially given their balancing nature in this current political environment.
 
  • #467


nismaratwork said:
@Aknazer: GM went under because they made cars (again) that people didn't want to buy. The unions had gotten well out of hand there, but it was hardly the driving force unless you choose to ignore more than a little history of poor performance in a modern market.

Unions are generally there in theory, to fight against abuses. In times when they turn into lobbying and negotiating bodies, it's less clear. Take away unions, and how long do you think it will be before the 'need' becomes painfully apparent again?

GM wasn't the only car company that went under. Also the American car companies had improved upon their performance but there were other issues at hand. Yes media and the public had a less than favorable view of them, but also the fact that their unionized workers were being paid roughly twice what non-unionized workers of other car companies were being paid (I believe saw a figure that was somewhere around $45 for the union workers and around $22 for the non-union ones of places like Toyota). That increased cost in workers at a time when the companies were doing poorly directly contributed to them going under.

Personally i think the issue all comes down to greed. Once corporations become too greedy they start trying to abuse their consumers and employees in order to squeeze every last penny out. Thats where QA and unions are needed to help improve the workplace (government regulation can help out some, but is often slow and there's other issues with government oversight). But then once unions start to become greedy and push for too much (partially due to our entitlement society) then they start making the companies that they're bargaining with uncompetative. With public unions it's worse because you can't make a government "uncompetative" and instead either go insolvant or pass the cost on to the taxpayers (or both).

I also think that the upper elite have too much of the wealth, but it's very hard to fix that issue. Wealth redistribution is something very tricky as it can quickly turn into socialism and also promote mediocraty (why should I work as hard as I can when I can do less and make the same amount). But all of that would be for another thread.
 
  • #468


Aknazer said:
GM wasn't the only car company that went under. Also the American car companies had improved upon their performance but there were other issues at hand. Yes media and the public had a less than favorable view of them, but also the fact that their unionized workers were being paid roughly twice what non-unionized workers of other car companies were being paid (I believe saw a figure that was somewhere around $45 for the union workers and around $22 for the non-union ones of places like Toyota). That increased cost in workers at a time when the companies were doing poorly directly contributed to them going under.

Personally i think the issue all comes down to greed. Once corporations become too greedy they start trying to abuse their consumers and employees in order to squeeze every last penny out. Thats where QA and unions are needed to help improve the workplace (government regulation can help out some, but is often slow and there's other issues with government oversight). But then once unions start to become greedy and push for too much (partially due to our entitlement society) then they start making the companies that they're bargaining with uncompetative. With public unions it's worse because you can't make a government "uncompetative" and instead either go insolvant or pass the cost on to the taxpayers (or both).

I also think that the upper elite have too much of the wealth, but it's very hard to fix that issue. Wealth redistribution is something very tricky as it can quickly turn into socialism and also promote mediocraty (why should I work as hard as I can when I can do less and make the same amount). But all of that would be for another thread.

Yep, but just as we don't dissolve corporations for greed alone, we shouldn't bust unions just because they're an easier target. At least the two pathologies are in opposition...
 
  • #469


nismaratwork said:
I'm still puzzled... Goldman-Sachs good... Unions Bad... Haliburton good... Teachers Bad.

Well I was going nuts about this until I read and posted in the "P&WA issues" thread. Now I understand.
 
  • #471


nismaratwork said:
Yep, but just as we don't dissolve corporations for greed alone, we shouldn't bust unions just because they're an easier target. At least the two pathologies are in opposition...

You're right and I don't believe in removing unions. But unions do need to work with companies, and public unions are in direct conflict as they are bargaining with the same people that they donate money to for elections. Private sector unions keeping up the wages of their workers will naturally affect public sector jobs because if the public sector jobs don't go up then the government won't be able to higher and keep good workers.

That's actually an issue I see regularly in the military. I won't go into all of the causes, but prior to this recession a lot of people join, get the training, then get out once they could and take a better paying job in the civilian sector. Even with bonuses up to 90k+ (for a 6year re-enlistment) people were getting out. If the pay isn't comensurate with the work done then people will go somewhere else until it is. And so the government would have to raise their pay to stay competative.
 
  • #472


Aknazer said:
You're right and I don't believe in removing unions. But unions do need to work with companies, and public unions are in direct conflict as they are bargaining with the same people that they donate money to for elections. Private sector unions keeping up the wages of their workers will naturally affect public sector jobs because if the public sector jobs don't go up then the government won't be able to higher and keep good workers.

That's actually an issue I see regularly in the military. I won't go into all of the causes, but prior to this recession a lot of people join, get the training, then get out once they could and take a better paying job in the civilian sector. Even with bonuses up to 90k+ (for a 6year re-enlistment) people were getting out. If the pay isn't comensurate with the work done then people will go somewhere else until it is. And so the government would have to raise their pay to stay competative.

Or depress unreasonable salaries + benefits for the private sector by taxing the hell out of them. Just a thought...
 
  • #474


nismaratwork said:
I'm not moved by any of the anti-union arguments made here or elsewhere thus far, especially given their balancing nature in this current political environment.

Public-sector unions create a conflict of interest, because they use taxpayer money to support politicians who will do the union's bidding. A politician cannot both represent the union and represent the people. I also think it is questionable whether public-sector workers have any "right" to collective-bargaining, but if so, I think important public-sector workers, such as firefighters and police, should be banned from striking.

I do not think the unions care about the workers much, despite their rhetoric, because they are against pro-worker pieces of legislation such as right-to-work laws, secret ballot vote, and paycheck protection.
 
  • #475


CAC1001 said:
Public-sector unions create a conflict of interest, because they use taxpayer money to support politicians who will do the union's bidding. A politician cannot both represent the union and represent the people. I also think it is questionable whether public-sector workers have any "right" to collective-bargaining, but if so, I think important public-sector workers, such as firefighters and police, should be banned from striking.

I do not think the unions care about the workers much, despite their rhetoric, because they are against pro-worker pieces of legislation such as right-to-work laws, secret ballot vote, and paycheck protection.

I would argue the same is true of lobbies and other special interests. This isn't an attempt to perfect a system made and run by people, just a balancing measure.

@AlephZero: About damned time... I can't believe that first judge didn't grant an injunction... heck I almost made and lost a bet over it!
 
  • #476


nismaratwork said:
@AlephZero: About damned time... I can't believe that first judge didn't grant an injunction... heck I almost made and lost a bet over it!

Well, I can't believe there is so little news from the UN, Libya, Japan, or even the Cricket World Cup, that this link was on the front page of the BBC news website.
 
  • #477


AlephZero said:
Well, I can't believe there is so little news from the UN, Libya, Japan, or even the Cricket World Cup, that this link was on the front page of the BBC news website.

Really?! That's genuinely bizarre.
 
  • #478


nismaratwork said:
Or depress unreasonable salaries + benefits for the private sector by taxing the hell out of them. Just a thought...

Oh trust me I have a very big issue with the unreasonable salaries + benefits of the people at the top of the private sector. Especially when they start cutting jobs so that they either don't have to take a pay cut, or to minimize their pay cut. And then there's the whole getting bonuses regardless of how good/bad the company did. But personally I don't know how one could properly regulate that (I have a rough idea, but I doubt it would ever fly). It would need to be relatively simple (the more bureaucracy you have and the harder it is to enforce), but you would also have to be careful to not set the country down a socialist path.

I would say that the issue all around (unions, government, top level private sector jobs, people who feel "entitled" to benefits, etc) all boils down to greed. Regardless of if that greed is for power, money, or control it is that greed in excess that causes these issues. One could easily show excess greed in each of these groups that has hurt the country; and as greed is a part of human nature I don't think it will ever truly go away. It comes down to the people taking steps to try and control greed whenever it starts to get out of control. And the failure to control excess greed can cause even the mighiest of countries to fall.

As this is an overly broad statement about greed in our society I don't expect people to fully understand what I'm attempting to say, but I'm not quite sure how to fully explain what I view as an issue of greed in a simple manner and without writing a novel.
 
  • #481


nismaratwork said:
@Aknazer: GM went under because they made cars (again) that people didn't want to buy. The unions had gotten well out of hand there, but it was hardly the driving force unless you choose to ignore more than a little history of poor performance in a modern market.
There are two pieces to that equation. One of them is the car itself, but the other is the price of the car. If GM could have cut their prices by (for example) $1000 per car without a negative financial impact on the company, they may well have been able to convince people their cars were worth the price.
The carmaker is saddled with a $1,600-per-vehicle handicap in so-called legacy costs, mostly retiree health and pension benefits.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_19/b3932001_mz001.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #482


russ_watters said:
There are two pieces to that equation. One of them is the car itself, but the other is the price of the car. If GM could have cut their prices by (for example) $1000 per car without a negative financial impact on the company, they may well have been able to convince people their cars were worth the price. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_19/b3932001_mz001.htm

Oh I know, but the point I was trying to make is that it is the cost of the unions that has driven up the cost of the cars (a point that you do a very good job of showing). Between all of the benefits and higher wages that companies like GM pay due to the unions it is hard, if not impossible, for them to lower their prices. Well it's hard unless the higher ups take a substantial pay cut, and that's HIGHLY unlikely (but that's for another thread in dealing with wealth distribution in general).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #483


russ_watters said:
There are two pieces to that equation. One of them is the car itself, but the other is the price of the car. If GM could have cut their prices by (for example) $1000 per car without a negative financial impact on the company, they may well have been able to convince people their cars were worth the price. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_19/b3932001_mz001.htm

...And let me guess, that's just about the amount you think can be saved by slashing unions.

edit: You know, I'm tired of paying so much for rice and cotton, whatever happened to slavery? </sarcasm>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #484


Aknazer said:
Between all of the benefits and higher wages that companies like GM pay due to the unions it is hard, if not impossible, for them to lower their prices. Well it's hard unless the higher ups take a substantial pay cut, and that's HIGHLY unlikely (but that's for another thread in dealing with wealth distribution in general).

You might consider the economics of Toyota's manufacturing and assembly plants in the UK, built in about 1990.

Total investment in plants: more than £1.8 billion.
Total number of employees: 3100.
Those plants produced about 40 cars per year per employee in 2009. You can estimate for yourself what percentage of the car's price is labor costs, and compare with GM.

(Numbers from Toyota's website).
 
  • #485


nismaratwork said:
...And let me guess, that's just about the amount you think can be saved by slashing unions.

edit: You know, I'm tired of paying so much for rice and cotton, whatever happened to slavery? </sarcasm>

You could actually save more. The average hourly cost for GM was $69 while for Toyota it was only $48. Note that these numbers are from 2009.

http://www.manufacturing.net/News-GM-Vs-Toyota-Wages-And-Benefits.aspx

Now figure that it takes ~30 hours to assemble a car with all parts ready, and plenty more hours to build all of the parts prior to assembly. The difference in assembly alone is ~$660. I'm sure you can see how quickly the cost can add up once you then start accounting for the time to build the engine, transmission, etc.

Unions have their place and can be very good for the workers and in improving conditions. But should they not change with the times they can also be a liability and cause a company to become less competative or for union workers' jobs to end up being outsourced to cheaper people.

As for your comment about rice/cotton (I know you were being sarcastic), something that would actually help out there is figuring out how to actually make crude oil and for the process to be cheaper than the cost of drilling for oil. Since it is the fluctuations in oil prices that can cause such spikes in the costs of these things (and many others). These spikes directly make it cost more to run all of the farm equipment to till, plant, and harvest the fields; which, dare I say, would be cheaper than feeding/housing/clothing all of the slaves that would be required to till, plant, and harvest that amount of crops :P
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #486


nismaratwork said:
...And let me guess, that's just about the amount you think can be saved by slashing unions.
I don't really have any idea. The point is simply qualitative: If GM had less "legacy" costs, they could sell their cars for less money and more people would buy them.
 
  • #487


russ_watters said:
I don't really have any idea. The point is simply qualitative: If GM had less "legacy" costs, they could sell their cars for less money and more people would buy them.

Its worth noting that legacy costs are fixed- if GM sold twice as many cars, their legacy cost would be only $800 per car. 4 times as many cars, and they are down to only $400 per car.

Further, most of that legacy cost isn't pension- its healthcare. I'm always surprised that GM (and other companies with large legacy health-care costs) aren't lobbying for a single-payer health care system. It would certainly help their bottom line considerably.
 
  • #488


russ_watters said:
I don't really have any idea. The point is simply qualitative: If GM had less "legacy" costs, they could sell their cars for less money and more people would buy them.

I can accept honesty... I don't know either.
 
  • #489


Aknazer said:
You could actually save more. The average hourly cost for GM was $69 while for Toyota it was only $48. Note that these numbers are from 2009.

http://www.manufacturing.net/News-GM-Vs-Toyota-Wages-And-Benefits.aspx

Now figure that it takes ~30 hours to assemble a car with all parts ready, and plenty more hours to build all of the parts prior to assembly. The difference in assembly alone is ~$660. I'm sure you can see how quickly the cost can add up once you then start accounting for the time to build the engine, transmission, etc.

Unions have their place and can be very good for the workers and in improving conditions. But should they not change with the times they can also be a liability and cause a company to become less competative or for union workers' jobs to end up being outsourced to cheaper people.

As for your comment about rice/cotton (I know you were being sarcastic), something that would actually help out there is figuring out how to actually make crude oil and for the process to be cheaper than the cost of drilling for oil. Since it is the fluctuations in oil prices that can cause such spikes in the costs of these things (and many others). These spikes directly make it cost more to run all of the farm equipment to till, plant, and harvest the fields; which, dare I say, would be cheaper than feeding/housing/clothing all of the slaves that would be required to till, plant, and harvest that amount of crops :P

I take your point... and I think you've correctly identified both the benefits of unions, and the beauropathologies which inevitably emerge. The answer is not union busting, but neither is the current state of affairs; we need to find a middle ground in this horribly polarized country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #490


nismaratwork said:
I take your point... and I think you've correctly identified both the benefits of unions, and the beauropathologies which inevitably emerge. The answer is not union busting, but neither is the current state of affairs; we need to find a middle ground in this horribly polarized country.

I agree. But finding that middle-ground is very hard as most people don't truly want to compromise, but instead simply want to make the other side give into their demands.

Another issue I see (and this isn't aimed at anyone group of people, but more of an overarching issue) is that things in general have just gotten pretty out of hand and a simple compromise might not be enough to handle the issue. This is best highlighted with the federal debt and deficit levels where we continue to borrow roughly .40 for every $1 that we spend and a debt level of over 14 trillion dollars ($14,000,000,000,000+ is a lot of zeros). A simple compromise between the two sides would likely still keep us deep in the red, but too many people simply have their heads in the sand about how bad the problems truly are. And this gets right back to what you're saying about the country being polarized (you can't cut THAT program as it's MY program and I DESERVE it! entitlement country...grumble grumble...) and how it is so hard to get people to compromise in a way that will put us back on track to fiscal solvency.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top