Printable View
Based on some light reading on the Interwebs, it seems a bit odd to say Kekkonen and "more democratic than the U.S." in two posts, but I'm not interested in a pissing match. We'll learn so much on our Finnish/US exchange program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I am unsure whether I should take that as an indication that I am to expect explosives in my mail box in the near future!
Free speech does come into it a bit, but it's more that threats themselves cause little to no harm. You might be able to get a court order if there's repeated behavior *not that court orders carry that much punitive weight themselves* but mostly reporting threats is for little more than establishing an official record in case the threatener takes real action in the future. So "don't do something bad or the system will get you" becomes "don't threaten to do something bad because if you do that thing, the system will DEFINITELY get you." People who are getting threatened or intimidated, who feel that they're in danger, and who go to the authorities quickly realize that they don't have much recourse until after they get hurt. Which is a major reason self-defense gun-ownership is such a big thing over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
SourceQuote:
Madison, Wis. — Wisconsin's polarizing union rights law will remain on hold for at least two months after a judge Friday said she would continue a restraining order blocking its enactment while she considers whether Republicans broke the state open meetings law in passing it.
Republicans had been pushing the law through despite a boycott by Democratic state senators and weeks of protests that drew as many as 85,000 people to the state Capitol. But they suffered a defeat Thursday when the same judge declared the law was not enacted last week as Republicans had claimed.
Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi on Friday extended indefinitely a temporary restraining order preventing the secretary of state from putting the law in effect. She is considering a lawsuit that says Republican lawmakers didn't provide the proper public notice when they convened a special committee to amend the plan before its passage. The state has appealed the order to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but the court has not indicated whether it will take the case and has no deadline for making a decision.
Sumi heard testimony Friday on the lawsuit filed by Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne. He argues the law was broken because Republicans provided only two hours' notice of their meeting when state law requires 24 hours' notice. Republican legislative leaders say proper notice was given under Senate rules.
Sumi asked for additional arguments from attorneys by May 23, delaying a decision for nearly two months. Whatever decision Sumi eventually makes, one side or the other is likely to appeal in an attempt to get the case to the state Supreme Court.
Republicans also could pass the bill again to avoid questions over how they handled it the first time, although party leaders have said they have no plans to do that now.
Messages seeking reaction from Walker and Republican legislative leaders were not immediately returned Friday.
The collective bargaining law would force public employees to pay more for their health care and pension benefits, which amounts to an 8 percent pay cut. It also would eliminate their ability to collectively bargain anything except wage increases no higher than inflation.
Democrats have said the bill is meant to weaken the public employee unions that have been some of their strongest campaign supporters. After it was introduced in mid-February, tens of thousands of people turned up at the state Capitol for protests that went on for a month, and Senate Democrats fled to Illinois to block a vote in that chamber.
To get around that roadblock, Republicans called a special committee meeting on March 9 and stripped the financial elements out of the bill, enabling the Senate to vote without the Democrats. The Assembly passed the bill the next day, and Walker signed it into law on March 11.
But with three lawsuits filed, Sumi issued the temporary restraining order preventing Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law, typically the last step before it can take effect.
Republicans leaders then persuaded the Legislative Reference Bureau to post the law online last Friday. They claimed that put the law into effect and began preparations to start deducting money from state workers' salaries, beginning with their April 21 paychecks. That work had to be stopped after Sumi's Thursday decision.
30,000 signatures were turned in to recall Kapanke, and most of the sources say that the other recall efforts are almost done too.
Kapanke only got 45,000 votes in the last election, and various polls keep showing the recalls losing to generic democrats now.
Under what grounds are these guys seeking to get them recalled?
Pretty much anything, there just needs to be enough signatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Meanwhile, Ohio has passed a pro-taxpayer bill, leaving Wisconsin and simply the figurehead start of the revolution. And also a great window into desperate union thuggery.
The state-level union has since recanted, because the stories about intimidation have gone national.
Your tax dollars at work! :up:Quote:
Numerous Union Grove shops threatened with union boycott
UNION GROVE - The government workers union is threatening to boycott numerous businesses here for declining to display a poster stating their support for "workers rights."
Many Union Grove businesses Tuesday received a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Each of them declined to display a sign stating, "This business supports workers rights" - with a prominent AFSCME logo below that. As a result, the union threatened them with a "public boycott."
The fact that many other businesses got the same letter is little consolation for Dawn Bobo, owner of Village Dollar store, 1000 Main St., which she opened 1 1/2 years ago.
"I'm a new business, and I need to concentrate on issues that won't offend half of my customers," she said Wednesday. "I work 60 hours a week, and I don't get any of the benefits that (union members) get."
Several weeks ago, Bobo said, five female union members showed her the poster and asked her to display it in her front window.
"I said I can't put up any type of signage for either side," she recalled. "They said, ‘No problem,' they were all smiles."
But Tuesday shop owners got the letter from AFSCME Council 24 Field Rep. Jim Parrett, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
"It is unfortunate that you have chosen not to support public workers rights in Wisconsin," it began.
"These signs simply said, ‘This business supports workers rights,' a simple, subtle and we feel noncontroversial statement given the facts at this time," Parrett wrote.
He listed the government institutions AFSCME represents in the area, including Southern Wisconsin Center and several corrections facilities.
After making a case that government workers are badly treated by Gov. Scott Walker and Republicans' recent moves to remove most collective bargaining rights, Parrett wrote: "With that, we'd ask that you reconsider taking a sign and stance to support public employees in this community.
"Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means ‘no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members."
Few signs visible
Parrett ended his letter by offering a phone number merchants could call to get off the boycott list.
In Union Grove, that must be a long list. The union thanked shops it counted as supporters, listing 27 local businesses. But merchants and The Journal Times could only find two Main Street businesses displaying the AFSCME sign Wednesday.
One was Raceway Food Mart, 1645 Main St. Owner Hushyar Singh said one of his workers told union members the store would take a sign.
"I will just keep it a week or two, because I don't want to have so many signs in the window," said Singh, who clearly had no passion for the issue.
Glen Cayemberg, co-owner of Grove Insurance, 815 Main St., said they got the boycott letter even though they'd never even been asked to display the poster. He would've said no anyway.
"As a business owner, your business needs to remain neutral, and you're not in a position to hop on either side of the fence," Cayemberg said.
Jeff Kieslich, owner of Ruma Sports, 1000 Main St., said he called Parrett after getting the letter. "I was just disappointed; I didn't like the tone of the letter," Kieslich said. "To me, it bordered on strong-arm tactics.
"I have every right to keep silent," he added. "It does me no good to put a sign like that in my window."
Kieslich said Parrett told him in that phone call, "‘We just sent you that letter because we wanted to give you one more chance.' He was kind of smug about the whole thing."
The threatened boycott may backfire, based on what merchants heard Wednesday. "We have actually had quite a response the other way today," Kieslich said.
Nancy Washburn, owner of Main St. Market, 1002 Main St., said the same. "Instead of a downturn in our business, we have seen an increase in support from the community around us," she said.
"The residents and business owners are making an extra effort to spend their money in our community to show their support for our willingness to remain neutral, which the union deems fit to punish us for."
http://www.journaltimes.com/news/loc...cc4c03286.html
Update: As the revolution pushes forward, an analysis of the Ohio bill.
Quote:
March 31, 2011
Ohio’s Anti-Union Law Is Tougher Than Wisconsin’s
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
After Wisconsin’s labor battle seized the nation’s attention, after nearly 100,000 people rallied in Madison to protest a bill to curb public-sector collective bargaining, the Ohio legislature has, with far less fanfare, enacted a bill perhaps even tougher on unions.
It is perhaps surprising that Ohio faced more limited public demonstrations considering that its bill, which Gov. John R. Kasich signed Thursday, goes further than Wisconsin’s in several important ways.
While both laws severely limit public employees’ ability to bargain collectively — they both prohibit any bargaining over health coverage and pensions — the Ohio law largely eliminates bargaining for the police and firefighters. Wisconsin’s law leaves those two groups’ bargaining rights untouched. Ohio’s law also gives city councils and school boards a free hand to unilaterally impose their side’s final contract offer when management and union fail to reach a settlement.
Notwithstanding the differences in legislation, the push by those states’ Republican governors and Republican-dominated legislatures points to a pendulum swing away from what many unions and Democrats see as a fundamental right for public employees: the right to bargain over wages and benefits.
Moreover, at a time of huge budget deficits and of Republican dominance in many states, including states like Ohio and Wisconsin where unions once had swaggering power, the pendulum has swung toward the taxpayer instead of the government workers paid by the taxpayer. And after five decades in which public-sector unions have grown far stronger in membership and political power, Mr. Kasich and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin seem intent on checking their rise.
State Senator Shannon Jones, a Republican and chief sponsor of the Ohio law, said curbing collective bargaining made sense when so many states, cities, counties and school districts faced daunting budget deficits. She said the law would help public employers hold down compensation costs, especially soaring health and pension costs, as a way to minimize any layoffs and reductions in public services, whether police patrols or garbage collections.
“The economy has changed fundamentally,” Ms. Jones said. “Not only families and business have to change to adapt to tougher economic circumstances, but governments have to adapt, too.”
Many Democrats and labor leaders said the law was an effort to balance state and local budgets on the backs of Ohio’s 360,000 public employees. They argue that the driving force behind the law was ideological and political. “It’s a politically motivated effort to weaken and destroy the unions that the leaders of the Republican Party perceive as their biggest political opponents,” said William Leibensperger, vice president of the Ohio Education Association, which represents 130,000 teachers and other school employees.
William Even, an economics professor at Miami University of Ohio, said the law resulted from another difference between the parties. “There’s a definite philosophical disagreement between the Republicans and Democrats about what unions do to the efficiency of government operations and whether unions have led to overcompensation for public workers.”
When the Ohio Senate approved the bill Wednesday night, 17 to 16, all 17 supporters were Republicans, and when the Ohio House passed it earlier Wednesday, 53 to 44, all of the supporters were Republicans.
In Ohio, as in Wisconsin, mayors, school superintendents and county executives are already thinking through how to use the legislation to hold down public employees’ raises and health costs. At the same time, in Ohio, as in Wisconsin, Democrats and union members are maneuvering to overturn the legislation.
In Ohio, union leaders plan to dispatch rank-and-file members around the state to collect signatures to trigger a referendum. And in Wisconsin — in addition to a lawsuit that has resulted in a court order temporarily suspending the anti-union law for violating the open meetings act — unions have collected tens of thousands of signatures to hold recall elections aimed at ousting a half-dozen Republican state senators, as a first step to repeal the law.
Ohio political and union leaders say there were fewer protests than in Wisconsin because Governor Walker moved first, making him and Madison a lighting rod. Moreover, Madison has a famously liberal university and Wisconsin was the home of the progressive movement. Still, Ohio unions boast that their biggest rally in Columbus attracted 20,000, just a fraction of Madison’s weekly Saturday rallies.
The Wisconsin law is in ways tougher toward unions — it bars any public employer from deducting workers’ dues from their paychecks and forwarding it to union treasuries. It is also requires a vote each year to determine whether government workers want to keep their union.
Both states would let government employees opt out of paying any union dues or fees.
The Wisconsin law generally limits raises to the Consumer Price Index, although under the Ohio legislation if a public employer accepts the union’s contract offer and if that forces a community to raise taxes to pay for it, then voters can overturn the contract through a referendum.
“It’s pretty much evisceration of collective bargaining in both states,” said James Brudney, an Ohio State law professor.
Louis W. Blessing, a Republican House member who represents Cincinnati, said his party had pushed for the law at the behest of taxpayers who feel public unions have become too powerful, their pensions too generous. “We’re trying to level the playing field between the two parties, between the taxpayer and the unions,” he said. But Mr. Blessing acknowledged that political motivations also came into play. “It’s clear the unions support the Democrats,” he said. “I’m sure that made it easier to pass.”
Governor Kasich has repeatedly said the law would give communities the tools they need to hold down labor costs to help reduce layoffs. For instance, Ohio’s office of collective bargaining estimates that replacing statutory step pay increases with merit pay will save the state $75 million a year and local governments $393 million a year.
Armond Budish, the Ohio House Democratic leader, said, “This bill is an effort to camouflage the pain that the governor’s huge budget cuts are going to cause.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/us/01ohio.html
Since when is a boycott thuggery? It's a perfectly normal and legitimate political pressure tactic. Thuggery involves illicit intimidation. Nothing illicit about a boycott.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Thuggery is aggression. As when the Wisconsin police and firefighters sent their cryptic boycott threat, I consider is thuggery when your local government [workers] demanding you put up signs supporting their wage increases or risk a vague "boycot" from your government [workers].
It goes to the heart of why I think government unions should be illegal.
Thuggery is aggression, huh? So the obnoxiously loud college student holding three different clip-boards who keeps stepping in your way until you sign something is now a thug. So are all the spam phone calls I get, those are all from two groups who are very aggressive in their solicitation. If this is what goes to the heart of why you think government unions should be illegal, you need to do a big rethink on your position, Dread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Your concern about that message from the police and firefighters was a stretch, but I could understand where one could get intimidating subtext out of it. But this is ridiculous. There is real union thuggery out there, Dread. Genuine physical intimidation *an element of physicality is also pretty elemental to the meaning of thug and its derivations* and violence. I've referenced it, Veldan's seen it, Chaloobi's recognized it. Find some better rhetoric, something that actually has at least a smidge of truth supporting it.
You think someone who keeps blocking you from walking away until you sign something isn't trying to intimidate you?
Intimidation isn't just the threat of physical harm. :rolleyes: It's the threat of being socially ostracized; economically ruined; or having the government employees you pay for threatening unspecified boycots of business and possibly government service unless you give them more money .
What's that got to do with public unions, Dread? You've never seen a community-based boycott of a proposed WalMart coming to town? You don't notice the protests at Target stores regarding same-sex marriage and corporate political contributions?
In fact, right here in this forum we've had posters saying that's exactly how a society should deal with an injustice (in the hotel and florist threads re civil rights)---boycott, protest, canvass, inform, ostracize, encourage economic loss---influence consumers and make the connection between pocketbook and profit, board of directors or ballot box.
Once again, I've drawn a very strong line between public and private. HRC can try to start a boycott of Target all they want. When your local cop comes to your store and demands more money or face a boycott, it's a different story.
You're obsessed with the fact that police and fire fighters are paid by taxes. Once they've been paid, the money is theirs and should no longer be considered "public funds". Maybe merchants and business should see it that way, and not get hung up on the group they've joined or intimidated by a uniform.
We have volunteer fire fighters and ambulance companies that work with our publicly paid departments, and they routinely canvass private homes for donations, wearing their uniforms. They offer to do a home fire safety check and ask about smoke detectors and emergency plans. That doesn't come with some implicit suggestion that if we don't donate, they won't respond to our house fire.
He did this before a few pages ago, about here. Reading his replies might save you some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
So you'd be fine with it if instead of a public police force we had a private one, and they threatened to boycott if they weren't paid more? I find this doubtful since the same logic you used for why its thuggery if the police or firefighters threaten a boycott would apply regardless of whether they are public or private.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I really don't know how to class your position, but I am working from stupid, as it stands, if you are against government regulation of businesses then the only recourse people have to control businesses are through criticizing them, boycotting them, and refusing to do business with them (buying from, selling to, working for them). Unless you wish to clarify this, your position essentially boils down to businesses are entitled to exist and make money, anyone who attempts to interfere in this entitled behavior is a thug, whether its the government, workers, or consumers. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I guess the train of thought runs more like: If fire and police department were private, we could have competition thus driving prices down and preventing boycotts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
However, this either ends in a monopoly with several days or weeks of chaos if you actually try to replace one fire company with another one since it simply is impossible to replace such businesses instantly. Or you get the absurd situation where two fire companies arrive at the same location and promptly slug it out while the house burns down (didn't they show something like that in Gangs of New York?)
*Facepalm* How are you guys getting that I think the police should be privatized? I'm saying that their taxpayer-funded unions are the problem, not that they are supported by the taxpayers.
I'm not saying you think the police should be privatized. Its a hypothetical situation that demonstrates the holes in your logic of considering something thuggery. If a private police force did exist, it could still do the same things you called the public police force thugs for doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I dare say that both police and fire departments actually need unions. Except for the medical professions, every person is able to lay down his tools and go on strike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Police and fire departments can't go on strike for obvious reasons. So, riddle me this: How exactly are those people supposed to represent themselves without unions?
It doesn't demonstrate anything. I think the police occupy a unique role in our society that precludes them from privatization as well as from some of the benefits private employment entails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
They can "represent" themselves the same way that the rest of the world represents themselves: by representing themselves. Either demand what you want, and if you don't need it take your talents elsewhere. This isn't an alien concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
and this is why the concept of "good" police doesn't exist in some locations, and why corruption is so common in others. :up: (the idea of looking out only for oneself)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I dare say that with that particular logic of Dread's, he should also demand the removal of all political parties, the NATO, the WTO and several other institutions which represent the will of a group of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I mean, it's the same principle, really. Now, this leaves me with a slight problem: If the NATO is not allowed to represent my interests, how exactly should I make my individual representation in regards to Libya felt? Buy an M6 and drive down there?
I thought you were a man of the law or something. Guess I was wrong. Because using your logic, any group that declares itself a group is suddenly sacrosanct. So, I'm going to fly 1000 of my closest friends and beer-lovers to Berlin tomorrow. We are going to declare ourselves a state and demand stuff from people. If you disagree, you are abrogating our right of self-determination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
The existence of a state (and the treaties it negotiates) is part of a very large social contract. It's far more significant and unique than a petty police union.
Actually, it's the idea that cops can act with impunity because they are a protected class of people. Wonder how they got that impression?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I can understand how you would confuse the concept of "good old boys" with a union, but a discussion about the ludicrous idea that unions support or protect illegal activities would go no where with you, especially considering the thuggery claims everyone has already laughed at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You don't have to break the law to be a thug. When your public employees threaten your business, it's legal intimidation. I think it should be illegal.
The "rest" of us are "represented" by groups that take our donations and lobby politicians, or we donate directly to a candidate. Unions call it dues, PACs and other groups call it tax-deductible political contributions. Seeing how public unions have shrunk dramatically over the decades, they're really the only alternative to those "private" groups that throw their money and clout at legislators, while half the time we can't tell who's given what to whom (Citizens United).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If politicians can't say No to a certain group because they wield too much power (aka money and voter blocs) that's their own damn fault. Plus a flaw in our campaign finance ways. :sour:
Yes, blame the victim. :confused:
Whu? :confused: Legislators are only victims of themselves, since they make the laws surrounding all these funding issues. If they feel "victimized" by donors or unions or lobbyists, and can't figure out how to legislate for all voters as their "constituents", instead of placating those who give them the most money, they can change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
edit: and by that I didn't mean to outlaw collective bargaining, but to change how politicians fund their "war chests".
While I think Dread is pushing it - Yes of course they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy