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.
  • #246


cobalt124 said:
I'm sorry,

Don’t be. Aliens without authority have no right to execute this kind of ridiculous threats.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #247


Andy Resnick said:
... Do you think creationism should be taught as a viable scientific theory? There are *plenty* of elected school board officials who think it should be. Teachers who refuse to do so could be fired without recourse:

Best and brightest comment so far!

Could we add that there are many tea partiers out there who strive for creationism as the *only* viable theory...? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #248


Andy thanks for the important insight. One of my most passionate state worker friend from the beginning ranted how the union won't be able to help negotiate the splitting of the state budget. They actually had say in what went where and how much!
 
  • #249


Good points and bad points, I'd hate to be Walker right now; if he backs down he's finished as a governor. If he doesn't... he's finished as a governor.

Fortunately I find that incredibly amusing... always good to see that each party immediately self-destructs upon acquiring even a feeble majority in the house.
 
  • #250


DevilsAvocado said:
Best and brightest comment so far!

Could we add that there are many tea partiers out there who strive for creationism as the *only* viable theory...? :rolleyes:

Greg Bernhardt said:
Andy thanks for the important insight. One of my most passionate state worker friend from the beginning ranted how the union won't be able to help negotiate the splitting of the state budget. They actually had say in what went where and how much!

Thanks, guys... it took me a while to extract out a useful/coherent thought. It came to me during a committee meeting- I'm a member of the group looking for a new Dean of the college, and I realized that faculty having a say in who is hired to run the place is important, and threatened by the loss of collective bargaining.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #251


mugaliens said:
I apologize for my harsh tone last night. Friday was a long day fighting many issues on many fronts.

No apology needed and thanks for the explanation. I do have a lot to learn about U.S. politics, but I'm enjoying finding out.
 
  • #252


Andy Resnick said:
My problem with the Wisconsin and Ohio legislative bills eliminating collective bargaining rights for government workers has nothing to do with salaries and benefits.

All too often we take on a blinkered, money prioritised, self interested view to issues. We never seem to realize that takng a consensual view doesn't necessarily have to be altruistic or self-sacrificing, that it can benefit individually.
 
  • #253


cobalt124 said:
The state employees are not determining policies, and did not elect anyone in, the electorate did.
Are they not preventing the state from operating (some) schools?
In their own eyes they are fighting a just cause, whether it is should be a matter for the elctorate to decide, and for that the decision to be enforceable they should have the means to boot them out, not the strikers.
Huh? The electorate does have the means to boot out elected officials, and the strikers have nothing to do with that. The strikers are simply obstructing the operations of democratic government as leverage to get their demands met.
Polarizing an argument can only benefit nterests at one end or the other, the electorate will always lose out in this scenario IMO.
"Allowing them to succeed" is a polarizing argument. "Hiring replacements" is a polarizing action.
Baloney. Not submitting to their demands is "polarizing"? :rolleyes:
 
  • #254


Al68 said:
Are they not preventing the state from operating (some) schools?Huh? The electorate does have the means to boot out elected officials, and the strikers have nothing to do with that. The strikers are simply obstructing the operations of democratic government as leverage to get their demands met. Baloney. Not submitting to their demands is "polarizing"? :rolleyes:

What demands?... That they retain what they already have, and have the privelage of agreeing to meet all fiscal demands? Come on Al...
 
  • #255


Al68 said:
Are they not preventing the state from operating (some) schools?

Maybe, but that is not "determining policy".

Al68 said:
Huh? The electorate does have the means to boot out elected officials, and the strikers have nothing to do with that. The strikers are simply obstructing the operations of democratic government as leverage to get their demands met.

From reading this thread my understanding is that they cannot be booted out. How do the electorate boot out the elected when they want them out of power?

Al68 said:
Baloney. Not submitting to their demands is "polarizing"?

Yes.
 
  • #256


nismaratwork said:
What demands?... That they retain what they already have, and have the privelage of agreeing to meet all fiscal demands? Come on Al...
I made no claims regarding whether their demands are reasonable or not. That has nothing to do with my point.
 
  • #257


cobalt124 said:
Maybe, but that is not "determining policy".
Whether or not to operate a school isn't "policy"? Making no sense here.
From reading this thread my understanding is that they cannot be booted out.
Your understanding is incorrect.
Yes.
If not submitting (generally) to someone's demands is your definition of polarizing, then I'm a "pro-polarizationist".
 
  • #258


Al68 said:
I made no claims regarding whether their demands are reasonable or not. That has nothing to do with my point.

I don't believe that this is a matter of reasonable or not, it's a matter of who is being demanded of. The governor demanded, the unions conceeded for the most part, and now refuse to concede more; those aren't demands unless you twist the word like a Klein Bottle.
 
  • #259


Al68 said:
Whether or not to operate a school isn't "policy"? Making no sense here.

Withdrawing labor is different to determining policy.

Al68 said:
Your understanding is incorrect.

Quite possibly. Would someone be kind enough to educate me? How do elected representatives get booted out by their electorate in Wisconsin?

Al68 said:
If not submitting (generally) to someone's demands is your definition of polarizing, then I'm a "pro-polarizationist".

That seems to be the case.
 
  • #260


nismaratwork said:
I don't believe that this is a matter of reasonable or not, it's a matter of who is being demanded of. The governor demanded, the unions conceeded for the most part, and now refuse to concede more; those aren't demands unless you twist the word like a Klein Bottle.
Since we're referring to actions of government, and the will of the elected leaders vs the will of its employees, it seem that you are the one doing the twisting.
 
  • #261


cobalt124 said:
Withdrawing labor is different to determining policy.
I wasn't referring to withholding labor, in fact I specifically pointed out that that's their right, and anyone's right.

Preventing their replacement is what I was referring to.
 
  • #262


Al68 said:
Since we're referring to actions of government, and the will of the elected leaders vs the will of its employees, it seem that you are the one doing the twisting.

How so?
 
  • #263


Al68 said:
I wasn't referring to withholding labor, in fact I specifically pointed out that that's their right, and anyone's right.

Preventing their replacement is what I was referring to.

And witholding labor is what they are doing. In what sense are they determining policy?
 
  • #264


cobalt124 said:
And witholding labor is what they are doing. In what sense are they determining policy?
The state is allowing them to determine policy by not operating schools as desired by the state. Didn't realize it needed to be spelled out.
 
  • #265


nismaratwork said:
How so?
Simply put, those striking are asked, not demanded, to teach in state operated schools. No one is demanding that they do anything.

They, however, are trying to prevent the state from doing what the state chooses unless their demands be met, including the demand that the state doesn't just hire others to do the job.
 
  • #266


Al68 said:
Simply put, those striking are asked, not demanded, to teach in state operated schools. No one is demanding that they do anything.

They, however, are trying to prevent the state from doing what the state chooses unless their demands be met, including the demand that the state doesn't just hire others to do the job.

They're breaking no laws, and they're part of the state too... and I'd add that this has gone beyond teacher's unions now.
 
  • #267


Al68 said:
The state is allowing them to determine policy by not operating schools as desired by the state. Didn't realize it needed to be spelled out.

Thankyou for spelling it out. I believe that the state being held to account in this way is a healthier situation than if they were just allowed to do what they want. They were not (or should not have been) elected to do that. Once elected, they do not become unaccountable for their actions, whether in their election manifesto or not.
 
  • #268


cobalt124 said:
Thankyou for spelling it out. I believe that the state being held to account in this way is a healthier situation than if they were just allowed to do what they want. They were not (or should not have been) elected to do that. Once elected, they do not become unaccountable for their actions, whether in their election manifesto or not.
I have no idea what your point is here. I never said anyone was unaccountable for anything, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else. But replacing what elected representatives want with what the unions want is anti-democratic, if we are referring to a state institution.

Elected representatives are accountable to the public via the democratic process, not to state employees via union strike.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #269


nismaratwork said:
They're breaking no laws, and they're part of the state too...
Yes, but we're talking about their role as state employees, not as part of the electorate. And I never said it was illegal for them to make demands, just that their demands (as employees) must not be permitted to interfere with state policy. Their actions don't have to be illegal in order to replace them. Nobody is suggesting that they be imprisoned, or prosecuted for any crime.
 
  • #270


Who exactly would be replacing them anyhow? Is there a chance I could get a job in teaching if they do get fired and I were to move up there? Not that I am qualified by any means to be a teacher.
 
  • #271


Al68 said:
Yes, but we're talking about their role as state employees, not as part of the electorate. And I never said it was illegal for them to make demands, just that their demands (as employees) must not be permitted to interfere with state policy. Their actions don't have to be illegal in order to replace them. Nobody is suggesting that they be imprisoned, or prosecuted for any crime.

OK... so fire them... RI just did that. Games, or firing... choose Gov Walker... that's what being an executive IS. He's drawing this out because he's a coward who doesn't want to spend political capital to do what he seems to want: fire the teachers and then re-hire on the state's terms.
 
  • #272


Containment said:
Who exactly would be replacing them anyhow? Is there a chance I could get a job in teaching if they do get fired and I were to move up there? Not that I am qualified by any means to be a teacher.

I was thinking the exact same thing, but then, with the layoffs in Cali and elsewhere, I suspect the market will be glutted.
 
  • #273


Al68 said:
I have no idea what your point is here. I never said anyone was unaccountable for anything, and as far as I know, neither has anyone else. But replacing what elected representatives want with what the unions want is anti-democratic, if we are referring to a state institution.

Elected representatives are accountable to the public via the democratic process, not to state employees via union strike.

I don't think I can say any more than I have, but we will see. I don't see the point of having a polarized view, either end, it won't benefit the electorate. Maybe my ignorance of Wisconsin politics and unions is showing here.

Containment said:
Who exactly would be replacing them anyhow? Is there a chance I could get a job in teaching if they do get fired and I were to move up there? Not that I am qualified by any means to be a teacher.

Thankyou Containment. This is what I am trying to get at. Let him fire the teachers, and replace them. Does he even care about the quality? Is he only going to get staff that are in it for the money? Or will he get committed educators employed safe in the knowledge they can be sacked on a political whim? Could this be an example of a polarizing situation leading to an advantage at one end, to the detriment of the electorate? I'm not taking sides here. I know there are bad unions. The situation could be at either end.

nismaratwork said:
OK... so fire them... RI just did that. Games, or firing... choose Gov Walker... that's what being an executive IS. He's drawing this out because he's a coward who doesn't want to spend political capital to do what he seems to want: fire the teachers and then re-hire on the state's terms.

I've wondered about this.

nismaratwork said:
I was thinking the exact same thing, but then, with the layoffs in Cali and elsewhere, I suspect the market will be glutted.

Presumably, the reasoning then being teachers could name their price, which IMO, is putting dogma before the future prosperity of a country. Some things are just too important to be left at the mercy of those forces. Or at least they used to be.
 
  • #274


cobalt124 said:
I don't think I can say any more than I have, but we will see. I don't see the point of having a polarized view, either end, it won't benefit the electorate.
Still making no sense. Your use of the word "polarizing" renders the word meaningless.

What view on this issue would be "un-polarized"?
 
  • #275


nismaratwork said:
OK... so fire them... RI just did that. Games, or firing... choose Gov Walker... that's what being an executive IS. He's drawing this out because he's a coward who doesn't want to spend political capital to do what he seems to want: fire the teachers and then re-hire on the state's terms.
As I understand it, he cannot fire and replace them. Current law allows the teachers' union to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. That's the problem. And one that undermines democratic government. But I said that already.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #276


Al68 said:
As I understand it, he cannot fire and replace them. Current law allows the teachers' union to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. That's the problem. And one that undermines democratic government. But I said that already.

If those abilities to obstruct are legal means, then once again, I don't see how this undermines democracy. Remember, a true democracy is equal voting; we don't have that. All I see undermined here is a particular ideology, or a fantastical view of what this country is or even tries to be.
 
  • #277


nismaratwork said:
If those abilities to obstruct are legal means, then once again, I don't see how this undermines democracy. Remember, a true democracy is equal voting; we don't have that. All I see undermined here is a particular ideology, or a fantastical view of what this country is or even tries to be.
It exists whether you see it or not. FDR saw it as plain as day: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

Of course by the standards many like to use today, FDR was apparently a right-wing extremist corporate whore, but that's beside the point.
 
  • #278


Al68 said:
It exists whether you see it or not. FDR saw it as plain as day: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

Of course by the standards many like to use today, FDR was apparently a right-wing extremist corporate whore, but that's beside the point.

He may have, but the judiciary has disagreed, and that's the branch the matters here. Beyond that, we use "Democracy" very freely, but it's a strict issue of definition. We're an Indirectly Federated Republic. Period.
 
  • #279


nismaratwork said:
He may have, but the judiciary has disagreed, and that's the branch the matters here.
I don't think so. You have a source?
Beyond that, we use "Democracy" very freely, but it's a strict issue of definition. We're an Indirectly Federated Republic. Period.
I was using the word "democratic" to refer to democratic republicanism, not a pure democracy. So was FDR, obviously. It's common practice to use the term in its broad sense that way.
 
  • #280


Al68 said:
Still making no sense. Your use of the word "polarizing" renders the word meaningless.

What view on this issue would be "un-polarized"?

I may be being sloppy with words here. If a union uses it muscle for its own ends, not its members, that is wrong. Likewise, if a government employer does the same, for its own ends, not for the electorate that is wrong. My take on this thread is that in the main one or the other of these two extreme views is being justified. I may be wrong. That is what I mean by polarized. So "un-polarized" would mean negotiation, give and take and consensus, and whichever side is scuppering that for their own ends is in the wrong and harming the electorate IMO.

Al68 said:
As I understand it, he cannot fire and replace them. Current law allows the teachers' union to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. That's the problem. And one that undermines democratic government. But I said that already.

I would suggest that there are very good reasons, good democratic reasons, why they cannot fire and replace, and that that siuation reinforces democratic government. They are accountable while they are in office as well as when they are being elected.

nismaratwork said:
If those abilities to obstruct are legal means, then once again, I don't see how this undermines democracy. Remember, a true democracy is equal voting; we don't have that. All I see undermined here is a particular ideology, or a fantastical view of what this country is or even tries to be.

Agreed, but why don't you have equal voting?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top