Revolution in Wisconsin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Alright, so here seems to be a new disconnect between yourself and other people when it comes to debating, mainly that you base arguments around how you define words, and not how everyone else does. This makes it incredibly difficult to care about continuing the debate with you. For instance (I'll go sentence by sentence to illustrate):



Okay, this makes plenty of sense.

Alright, so you're not questioning/debating that an employee must meet/agree to certain terms in order to get a job.

Uhh, wouldn't joining the union as a requirement to holding a certain job, be having to agree to a term in order to get a job?

Can you hold the job without joining the union? No? Then its a condition or term of holding that job. Which you are questioning, even though you said you weren't. Why is this so difficult? You're questioning why being required to be in a union is a term/condition of employment for certain jobs. It can be debated like any other term or condition. It is not special or different because you think it is. I tire of this crap from Lewk, in regards to "freedom", "liberals", and a slew of other words he feels can be used to mean whatever he wants, I'm certainly not going to deal with it from a second person. I especially don't want to have to inquire as to how words and ideas are defined in the Dreadnaught Dictionary in order to discuss things with one person, simply because of a slanted viewpoint affecting language usage.

---

I'm not sure I see the disconnect here. Not all terms or employment agreements are created equal, right? What he's saying isn't exactly rocket science, and it's not the semantic jungle you seem to think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Not all terms or employment agreements are created equal, right?

---

Well we can have some fun with this. Do you think Dreadnaught is stating that being required to join a union in order to get a job is a term or condition of employment, or do you believe he is stating it is something else entirely?

In regards to constitutionality though, something either is, or is not. Unless I'm unaware of it, and Loki had the chance to point it out, constitutionality doesn't deal in gradients. For instance, something is either cruel and unusual punishment, or it is not, and is unconstitutional whether its the least cruel and unusual punishment, or the most heinous ever committed.

Quote:

---

What he's saying isn't exactly rocket science, and it's not the semantic jungle you seem to think it is.

---

We'll see if he agrees with what you answer in the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Well we can have some fun with this. Do you think Dreadnaught is stating that being required to join a union in order to get a job is a term or condition of employment, or do you believe he is stating it is something else entirely?

---

It certainly can be a condition of employment, but that does not limit its wider impact. It can be a condition, but also much more.

If I were to make being straight, white, Republican, and male a condition of employment, is that acceptable in your view? What if I required a percentage of your earned income to be deducted from your paycheck every pay period and be donated to the RNC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

If I were to make being straight, white, Republican, and male a condition of employment, is that acceptable in your view? What if I required a percentage of your earned income to be deducted from your paycheck every pay period and be donated to the RNC?

---

Acceptable as in legal? Sure, if I knew this was the condition of getting the job ahead of time. Acceptable as in do I approve of it? No. Would I want people to choose to not work there so that they aren't able to stay in business...yes.

I'm also assuming that what you stated there is what you think Dreadnaught meant, not your personal opinion about the issue, since thats what I asked about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Acceptable as in legal? Sure, if I knew this was the condition of getting the job ahead of time. Acceptable as in do I approve of it? No. Would I want people to choose to not work there so that they aren't able to stay in business...yes.

I'm also assuming that what you stated there is what you think Dreadnaught meant, not your personal opinion about the issue, since thats what I asked about.

---

My personal opinion is that employment contracts between consenting adults are just that, between consenting adults.

I do foresee a problem where it is no longer a private contract between the employer and the employee, but is instead dictated by law. I think this is the gist of Dreadnaughts complaint, but I'll let him speak for himself.

2 Questions. How's the revolution going, and is Dread still twitching with happiness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

It certainly can be a condition of employment, but that does not limit its wider impact. It can be a condition, but also much more.

If I were to make being straight, white, Republican, and male a condition of employment, is that acceptable in your view? What if I required a percentage of your earned income to be deducted from your paycheck every pay period and be donated to the RNC?

---

Eh, companies can in effect already do that. They can decide to pay their employees less and donate money to the RNC, since companies can donate money. The first part is discrimination and against civil rights legislation.

I don't really see how you can ban this political funding by unions without doing the same for companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Eh, companies can in effect already do that. They can decide to pay their employees less and donate money to the RNC, since companies can donate money. The first part is discrimination and against civil rights legislation.

I don't really see how you can ban this political funding by unions without doing the same for companies.

---

I'd like to see some evidence of a company that forcefully takes out parts of their workers' wages in order to give it to a political party.

Eh, if they spend money on a party it's money they could have spent on wages instead. They 'forcefully' pay their employees a certain amount which they determine, so that's really a weird point you are trying to make... how can you 'forcefully take' money from them if you can also just not give it to them in the first place? :bulb:

By the way, I assume that if you are part of a union you can vote in that union too, so you'd have more control in theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Eh, if they spend money on a party it's money they could have spent on wages instead. They 'forcefully' pay their employees a certain amount which they determine, so that's really a weird point you are trying to make... how can you 'forcefully take' money from them if you can also just not give it to them in the first place? :bulb:

By the way, I assume that if you are part of a union you can vote in that union too, so you'd have more control in theory.

---

Erm, no they can't. They'd get a different caliber of worker if they gave a lower salary. And your argument is quite frankly absurd. You can always make the case that some entity is withholding money from someone and giving that money to a third party, and therefore the third party is being forced to give money to the second one.

Furthermore, you get charged union dues whether you're in the union or not. Regardless, it's a forced membership. What's the difference if they claim to represent me? You see nothing wrong with someone representing you without your permission (and getting paid for it as a result)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Erm, no they can't. They'd get a different caliber of worker if they gave a lower salary. And your argument is quite frankly absurd. You can always make the case that some entity is withholding money from someone and giving that money to a third party, and therefore the third party is being forced to give money to the second one.

Furthermore, you get charged union dues whether you're in the union or not. Regardless, it's a forced membership. What's the difference if they claim to represent me? You see nothing wrong with someone representing you without your permission (and getting paid for it as a result)?

---

I don't like forced memberships, no (and we don't have them here anyway), but I think the points made above were a bit silly. I must admit I'm not entire sure on the American situation though to be honest. Over here neither unions or companies donate to political parties AFAIK. They both lobby, but that's institutionalized.

You don't have to work at an employer who offers you less money because he spends it on something else, but you don't have to take a job where you lose some pay to a union either. So they both attract a different caliber of workers, no? (unless for certain sectors union membership is mandated at all companies, and even then you could argue somebody can work in a different sector). And in both cases the other entity (employer or union) spends the money to benefit you (employer spends it to benefit his company which benefits the employers, union works on benefits for their members directly).

And the reason you call my argument absurd is the reason that your point of 'forcefully taking money' is absurd too - does it really matter if it is taken from your paycheck or never given to you in the first place? Same thing, really, in the end. Both situations someone else spends money, on things they claim is for your benefit too. And is there a real difference between a company donating money to the RNC or to the union, be it before or after it is listed on a paycheck?

And if it's so bad for all workers, why don't they vote to get rid of the system within their own union? Or don't unions have voting rights for their members?


By the way, wikipedia says that a non union employee at a union shop has the choice to only pay the part of the dues that is used for his benefit because it is spent on collective bargaining, and not pay any part that is used for political donations. Seems sorta fair - if you work at an employer who offers you working conditions based on collective bargaining agreements, it's only fair you also pay dues to get the collective bargaining in the first place.

I do agree with Enoch. I think being forced to join a union as a job condition is way different than being forced to buy a uniform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

By the way, wikipedia says that a non union employee at a union shop has the choice to only pay the part of the dues that is used for his benefit because it is spent on collective bargaining, and not pay any part that is used for political donations. Seems sorta fair - if you work at an employer who offers you working conditions based on collective bargaining agreements, it's only fair you also pay dues to get the collective bargaining in the first place.

---

The unions find ways around that. The one here gives a majority of its budget to another union in "gratitude" for legal and logistic assistance. That union spends a large chunk of its money on political campaigns.

So the issue is more the loopholes around it than the actual unionizing rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

So the issue is more the loopholes around it than the actual unionizing rules?

---

No, my main problem is being forced to pay money to a private organization against my will. And the situation is the same in a large portion of grad schools in the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

By the way, wikipedia says that a non union employee at a union shop has the choice to only pay the part of the dues that is used for his benefit because it is spent on collective bargaining, and not pay any part that is used for political donations. Seems sorta fair - if you work at an employer who offers you working conditions based on collective bargaining agreements, it's only fair you also pay dues to get the collective bargaining in the first place.

---

No its not fair. Those who choose to join a union should do so, those that don't shouldn't have to pay. Just because others choose to, let them pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I do agree with Enoch. I think being forced to join a union as a job condition is way different than being forced to buy a uniform.

---

Using objective ideas and logic that couldn't be used to put forth other ideas you would disagree with or find ridiculous, state why this is so ⃰⃰.


⃰⃰ because I will do so if possible.

If you don't think being required to buy a uniform for a job is different than being forced to join a union and have a percentage of your paycheck automatically taken out and sent to a third party, I don't really know what will make the difference clear. We all have to buy clothes for work after all.

Jazakallah!

Quote:

---

June 14, 2011
Collective Bargaining Law Upheld in Wisconsin

By MONICA DAVEY

The Wisconsin Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for significant cuts to collective bargaining rights for public workers in the state, undoing a lower court’s decision that Wisconsin’s controversial law had been passed improperly.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, issued at the close of the business day, spared lawmakers in the Republican-dominated Capitol from having to do what some of them strongly hoped to avoid: calling for a new vote on the polarizing collective bargaining measure, which had drawn tens of thousands of protesters to Madison this year and led Democratic lawmakers to flee the city in an effort to block the bill.

Republican leaders had warned on Monday that if the Supreme Court did not rule by Tuesday, they would feel compelled to attach the same measure to the state’s budget bill, which is expected to be approved this week.

The decision ended, at least for now, lingering questions about when and whether the cuts would take effect, but it also underscored the state’s partisan divide, which seems to grow wider by the day. The ruling was 4 to 3, split along what many viewed as the court’s predictable conservative-liberal line.

The majority of the justices concluded that a lower court was wrong when it found that the Legislature had forced through the cuts in collective bargaining without giving sufficient notice — 24 hours — under the state’s open-meetings requirements.

In its written decision, the court cited the importance of the separation of powers, and said the Legislature had not violated the state’s Constitution when it relied on its “interpretation of its own rules of proceeding” and gave slightly less than two hours’ notice before meeting and voting. In the end, the provision passed without the attendance of any of the Senate’s 14 Democrats.

Justice David T. Prosser, whose re-election bid was threatened this year because he was seen as a conservative who would cast the deciding vote on the collective bargaining measure if it came before the court, voted to overturn the lower court ruling. He issued his own opinion concurring with the majority.

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, who is viewed by many as leading the court’s liberal wing, wrote a scathing opinion that accused the majority of a “hasty judgment.”

“It is long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant,” Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote of Justice Prosser’s opinion.

Republicans, who won control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s office in last November’s elections, praised the ruling, and said they could now move forward with what some of them describe as a fiscally wise budget.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again,” Gov. Scott Walker said.

Democrats said the court’s decision was unsurprising given a battle that has turned so fierce. Protesters, again, were mounting at the Capitol. Democratic leaders said they planned to remind voters of the collective bargaining bill in the weeks before Senate recall elections that grew out of the fight.

“I guarantee you, some Republicans are breathing a sigh of relief about not having to take this up again,” said Senator Christopher Larson, a Democrat. “On the other hand, these justices just sent a reminder to voters of what has happened here.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us...wisconsin.html

---

Twitching again?

Good :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Examiner

Union curbs rescue a Wisconsin school district

"This is a disaster," said Mark Miller, the Wisconsin Senate Democratic leader, in February after Republican Gov. Scott Walker proposed a budget bill that would curtail the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. Miller predicted catastrophe if the bill were to become law -- a charge repeated thousands of times by his fellow Democrats, union officials, and protesters in the streets.

Now the bill is law, and we have some very early evidence of how it is working. And for one beleaguered Wisconsin school district, it's a godsend, not a disaster.

The Kaukauna School District, in the Fox River Valley of Wisconsin near Appleton, has about 4,200 students and about 400 employees. It has struggled in recent times and this year faced a deficit of $400,000. But after the law went into effect, at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it's all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.

In the past, teachers and other staff at Kaukauna were required to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance coverage and none of their pension costs. Now, they'll pay 12.6 percent of the cost of their coverage (still well below rates in much of the private sector) and also contribute 5.8 percent of salary to their pensions. The changes will save the school board an estimated $1.2 million this year, according to board President Todd Arnoldussen.

Of course, Wisconsin unions had offered to make benefit concessions during the budget fight. Wouldn't Kaukauna's money problems have been solved if Walker had just accepted those concessions and not demanded cutbacks in collective bargaining powers?

"The monetary part of it is not the entire issue," says Arnoldussen, a political independent who won a spot on the board in a nonpartisan election. Indeed, some of the most important improvements in Kaukauna's outlook are because of the new limits on collective bargaining.

In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective bargaining agreement that we could only negotiate with them," says Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can only negotiate with one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.

Now, the collective bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. "With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and lo and behold, WEA Trust said, 'We can match the lowest bid,'" says Republican state Rep. Jim Steineke, who represents the area and supports the Walker changes. At least for the moment, Kaukauna is staying with WEA Trust, but saving substantial amounts of money.

Then there are work rules. "In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now, they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.

The changes mean Kaukauna can reduce the size of its classes -- from 31 students to 26 students in high school and from 26 students to 23 students in elementary school. In addition, there will be more teacher time for one-on-one sessions with troubled students. Those changes would not have been possible without the much-maligned changes in collective bargaining.

Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments. (The top salary is around $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.
It is impossible to overstate how bitter and ugly the Wisconsin fight has been, and that bitterness and ugliness continues to this day with efforts to recall senators and an unseemly battle inside the state Supreme Court. But the new law is now a reality, and Gov. Walker recently told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the measure will gain acceptance "with every day, week and month that goes by that the world doesn't fall apart."

In the Kaukauna schools, the world is not only not falling apart -- it's getting better.

---

So the sky wasn't falling?

One district does not a state make. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

One district does not a state make. :bored:

---

Is there evidence that other districts are having new found problems because of the legislation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Is there evidence that other districts are having new found problems because of the legislation?

---

I can't comment on something you didn't post. ;)

But I do know that PA's districts are all faring differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I can't comment on something you didn't post. ;)

But I do know that PA's districts are all faring differently.

---

Better question: don't you think there are other districts in similar situations that might have benefited from this fairly reasonable change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I can't comment on something you didn't post. ;)

But I do know that PA's districts are all faring differently.

---

Have Pennsylvania's school districts recently been lifted from the burdens of collective bargaining?

I would like to see any evidence of any district where things are "falling apart" due to this reasonable law.

Didn't you know that reducing an entity's costs leads to them falling apart?

PA has massive budget problems, I've never denied that. When Rendell wanted to increase education by $1 billion a few years ago, I posted about it (at the other place); I rant about the inefficient way we fund education with property taxes (70/30), with inequities by neighborhood and region.

But I don't lay blame on teacher unions or collective bargaining per se for our long-standing history of budget problems, or failing schools. That they had so much power for decades is also how lobbyists had power...because of the ways we elect and legislate. These legacy costs have been a problem for over fifty years, just like private pensions, the auto industry, SS and Medicare. Special interest groups have enough money and power to trump smart policy or radical change, and "governance" is an election cycle instead of long-term planning.

"Union" is just another word for "special interest group", and all we're doing is moving chairs around on the deck.