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.
  • #491


Aknazer said:
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...
You're absolutely right. They're bickering over $60 billion dollars in cuts from a $1600 billion dollar deficit. The number they end up with is pretty irrelevant, since any compromise in between the spending cuts currently proposed by each side is a sure path to insolvency.

They need to just refuse to raise the debt limit, absent significant spending reform. That would be a $1600 billion per year spending cut right there. Just the right amount. For now.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #492


@Al68: We need to raise taxes, and cut entitlement and defense.


@Aknazer: Yep, we need to spread the pain around, or we'll all simply die of fiscal-sepsis.
 
  • #493


nismaratwork said:
@Al68: We need to raise taxes, and cut entitlement and defense.
I think you already know I disagree strongly about raising taxes. The last thing we need at a time like this is to drain even more resources from the economy.

But I agree with the other two. Just like the old Meatloaf song: "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad". :biggrin:
 
  • #494


ParticleGrl said:
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.

Benefits would need to be slashed - why would the union ever agree to a single-payer system?
 
  • #495


I think Particle Girl said " It would ... help their (the companies) bottom line..." The unions would probably agree with that if the quality of care given and received remains stable.
 
  • #496


WhoWee said:
Benefits would need to be slashed - why would the union ever agree to a single-payer system?

If the nation moved to a public single payer system, the union would have little choice. You would think GM (and other companies with large legacy costs) would be lobbying hard for large public options.
 
  • #497


ParticleGrl said:
If the nation moved to a public single payer system, the union would have little choice. You would think GM (and other companies with large legacy costs) would be lobbying hard for large public options.

That sounds a tad bit like anti-union sentiment?
 
  • #498


Amp1 said:
I think Particle Girl said " It would ... help their (the companies) bottom line..." The unions would probably agree with that if the quality of care given and received remains stable.

The union health care benefits at GM are above average.
 
  • #499


Forgive me if this was covered elsewhere in the thread, but I had a quick question, and this seems the best place to ask it.

I read that Ohio is planning on banning strikes. I don't really understand how unions work, but isn't striking just quitting your job in protest? How can that be made illegal? If someone decides to quit working for Wal-Mart because they object to their policies and decides to protest those policies, they have that right. What's the difference if that job is with the government, and a thousand other people do the same thing?

Are they literally saying that if many people are quitting their jobs and protesting for the same reason, it becomes illegal? That doesn't make any sense.
 
  • #500


Opus_723 said:
Forgive me if this was covered elsewhere in the thread, but I had a quick question, and this seems the best place to ask it.

I read that Ohio is planning on banning strikes. I don't really understand how unions work, but isn't striking just quitting your job in protest? How can that be made illegal? If someone decides to quit working for Wal-Mart because they object to their policies and decides to protest those policies, they have that right. What's the difference if that job is with the government, and a thousand other people do the same thing?

Are they literally saying that if many people are quitting their jobs and protesting for the same reason, it becomes illegal? That doesn't make any sense.
That's because you are assuming that reports of "banning strikes" are written in plain English instead of fraudspeak. There are no plans to ban strikes, take away collective bargaining rights, etc, if those terms are taken literally.

What is actually being referred to is doing away with the practice of guaranteeing employment to union workers if they strike, not (literally) making it illegal to strike.
 
  • #501


They must have learned to split hairs like that from somewhere. I think revoking a 'guarantee' for an action is tantamount to banning same.
 
  • #502


Amp1 said:
They must have learned to split hairs like that from somewhere. I think revoking a 'guarantee' for an action is tantamount to banning same.
You would say that declining to employ someone is "banning" their employment? Sounds pretty silly to me.

The difference between declining to employ someone and literally "banning strikes" isn't splitting hairs, it's the difference between mutual liberty and oppression. Pretty big difference there. :rolleyes:
 
  • #503


Al68 said:
That's because you are assuming that reports of "banning strikes" are written in plain English instead of fraudspeak. There are no plans to ban strikes, take away collective bargaining rights, etc, if those terms are taken literally.

What is actually being referred to is doing away with the practice of guaranteeing employment to union workers if they strike, not (literally) making it illegal to strike.

That would make sense, but I know I have read in several places (I'll look for a source and edit in a minute) that strikers would be subject to fines and possible jail time, which certainly sounds like "banning strikes" to me, and raises the ethical concerns I mentioned before.

EDIT: Sorry, it will take me a while to find the source, my internet is incredibly slow in the afternoons.
 
Last edited:
  • #504


Opus_723 said:
That would make sense, but I know I have read in several places (I'll look for a source and edit in a minute) that strikers would be subject to fines and possible jail time, which certainly sounds like "banning strikes" to me, and raises the ethical concerns I mentioned before.
That would be actually "banning strikes", and a despicable law (assuming it refers to peaceful strikes), and I would like to know if any such law is being proposed anywhere.

I don't see how it could have a chance of passing. I've never even heard of anyone advocating such a law in the U.S.
 
  • #505


From Section 4117.15, found here: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_5_EN_N.pdf"

(A) No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a
strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause,
instigate, encourage, or condone a strike. Whenever a strike occurs, the
public employer may seek an injunction against the strike in the court of common pleas of the county in which the strike is located.

(B) Any person who violates division (A) of this section may be subject
to removal or other disciplinary action provided by law for misconduct. The
public employer, the state employment relations board, or any court of
competent jurisdiction shall not waive the penalties or fines provided in this
section as part of the settlement of an illegal strike.

(C) A public employee who is absent from work without permission or
who abstains wholly or in part from the full performance of the employee's
duties in the employee's normal manner without permission, on the date
when a strike occurs, shall be presumed to have engaged in the strike on that
date.

--------------------------
So far that's all I've found. It does appear that they're actually making strikes illegal for public workers, but I have yet to find what the actual punishments are. I can't tell if there are criminal punishments, or if it's just saying they'll fire you. I'll keep looking, but it's very hard to specifically find what you're looking for in these things, even WITH Ctrl+F.

Several papers have reported that punishment includes fines, and at one point jail time, but that the jail time was removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #506


Did we ever find out who paid for the Democrats to flee the state to avoid voting?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US...s/2011/06/14/id/400078?s=al&promo_code=C708-1

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed Republican Gov. Scott Walker a major victory on Tuesday, ruling that a polarizing union law could take effect that strips most public employees of their collective-bargaining rights.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she said Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings statutes in the run-up to passage of the legislation and declared the law void.

The law, which also requires public employees to pay more for their health care and pensions, sparked weeks of protests when Walker introduced it in February. Tens of thousands of demonstrators occupied the state Capitol for weeks and Democratic senators fled the state to prevent a vote, thrusting Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights.

In a one-sentence reaction to the ruling, the governor said: "The Supreme Court's ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again."

Walker has claimed that the law was needed to help address the state's $3.6 billion budget shortfall and give local governments enough flexibility on labor costs to deal with deep cuts to state aid. Democrats saw it as an attack on public employee unions, which usually back their party's candidates."
 
  • #507


WhoWee said:
Did we ever find out who paid for the Democrats to flee the state to avoid voting?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US...s/2011/06/14/id/400078?s=al&promo_code=C708-1

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed Republican Gov. Scott Walker a major victory on Tuesday, ruling that a polarizing union law could take effect that strips most public employees of their collective-bargaining rights.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she said Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings statutes in the run-up to passage of the legislation and declared the law void.

The law, which also requires public employees to pay more for their health care and pensions, sparked weeks of protests when Walker introduced it in February. Tens of thousands of demonstrators occupied the state Capitol for weeks and Democratic senators fled the state to prevent a vote, thrusting Wisconsin to the forefront of a national debate over labor rights.

In a one-sentence reaction to the ruling, the governor said: "The Supreme Court's ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again."

Walker has claimed that the law was needed to help address the state's $3.6 billion budget shortfall and give local governments enough flexibility on labor costs to deal with deep cuts to state aid. Democrats saw it as an attack on public employee unions, which usually back their party's candidates."

I think they may have gotten paid after the fact, but from what I got in my several e-mails to their offices, it was pretty much a quick decision they made and started with their own cash. I could be wrong, that's just what I gathered.
 
  • #508


Ryumast3r said:
I think they may have gotten paid after the fact, but from what I got in my several e-mails to their offices, it was pretty much a quick decision they made and started with their own cash. I could be wrong, that's just what I gathered.

They responded to your requests - that's impressive. Are you a resident of Wisconsin (if you've mentioned it previously I sincerely apologize for not re-reading earlier posts)?
 
  • #509


WhoWee said:
They responded to your requests - that's impressive. Are you a resident of Wisconsin (if you've mentioned it previously I sincerely apologize for not re-reading earlier posts)?

It was either them or a secretary, hard to tell sometimes, but no, I'm not a resident of Wisconsin, which made it even more surprising.
 
  • #510


Ryumast3r said:
It was either them or a secretary, hard to tell sometimes, but no, I'm not a resident of Wisconsin, which made it even more surprising.

FAILURE - the Republicans prevail in Wisconsin - voters are sending a message - IMO.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wisconsin-assess-20110811,0,2981481.story

"Wisconsin recall election a test of voter sentiment
The outcome was close, but four Republican state senators prevailed. The results foreshadow the challenge Democrats and President Obama face in 2012."
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top