Page 1 of 23 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 688

Thread: Revolution in Wisconsin

  1. #1

    Default Revolution in Wisconsin

    This would be only a small victory for taxpayers, but can't avoid twitching with happiness. And in Wisconsin, a state dominated by university professors, farmers and the state workers they adore.

    February 11, 2011

    Wisconsin May Take an Ax to State Workers’ Benefits and Their Unions

    By MONICA DAVEY and STEVEN GREENHOUSE

    Citing Wisconsin’s gaping budget shortfall for this year and even larger ones expected in the years ahead, Gov. Scott Walker proposed a sweeping plan on Friday to cut benefits for public employees in the state and to take away most of their unions’ ability to bargain.

    The proposal by Mr. Walker, a Republican who was elected in November after pledging that he would get public workers’ compensation “into line” with everyone else’s, is expected to receive support next week in the State Legislature, where Republicans also won control of both chambers in the fall.

    The prospect left union leaders, state and local employees and some Democrats stunned over the plan’s scope and what it might signal for public-sector unions in the state. Union leaders began planning rallies in Madison and contacting lawmakers, pressing them to reject the idea.

    Mr. Walker said Wisconsin was prepared for any fallout, noting in an interview that the National Guard was ready to step in to handle state duties, if need be.

    “I’m just trying to balance my budget,” Mr. Walker said. “To those who say why didn’t I negotiate on this? I don’t have anything to negotiate with. We don’t have anything to give. Like practically every other state in the country, we’re broke. And it’s time to pay up.”

    State leaders across the country have talked about solving budget woes with actions that in other climates might have been politically impossible: cutting the salaries and pensions of government workers and limiting the power of labor unions.

    But the plan in Wisconsin, which faces a $137 million shortfall in the current budget and a gap in the billions for the coming cycle, is among the most far-reaching of such proposals to be delivered to lawmakers. Mr. Walker expects swift approval.

    Among key provisions of Mr. Walker’s plan: limiting collective bargaining for most state and local government employees to the issue of wages (instead of an array of issues, like health coverage or vacations); requiring government workers to contribute 5.8 percent of their pay to their pensions, much more than now; and requiring state employees to pay at least 12.6 percent of health care premiums (most pay about 6 percent now).

    Mike Imbrogno, a cook at the University of Wisconsin in Madison who belongs to a union and said he earns $28,000 a year, described the move as an “attack” on working people.

    “He’s basically trying to smash the last remaining organized upward pressure on wages and benefits in Wisconsin,” Mr. Imbrogno said. Governor Walker’s proposal would specifically remove the right of the university’s faculty and staff to bargain collectively.

    Mr. Walker made several proposals that will weaken not just unions’ ability to bargain contracts, but also their finances and political clout.

    His proposal would make it harder for unions to collect dues because the state would stop collecting the money from employee paychecks.

    He would further weaken union treasuries by giving members of public-sector unions the right not to pay dues. In an unusual move, he would require secret-ballot votes each year at every public-sector union to determine whether a majority of workers still want to be unionized.

    He would require public-employee unions to negotiate new contracts every year, an often lengthy process. And he would limit the raises of state employees and teachers to the consumer price index, unless the public approves higher raises through a referendum. Exempted from those changes would be firefighters and law enforcement personnel.

    “We think that the proposal that’s put forward, it just goes too far,” said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin A.F.L.-C.I.O. “The right to negotiate wages and benefits for a union is a fundamental underpinning of the American middle class.”

    But Mr. Walker and Republican leaders said disassembling unions was not the point at all. The intent, Mr. Walker said, was to avoid balancing the budget some other way: by laying off some 6,000 state workers, and taking away Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands of children.

    Wisconsin officials say Mr. Walker’s plan would save the state $30 million in the current budget, and $300 million in the next budget. “In these tough times, I think people are going to feel that this is not that much to ask,” said Jeff Fitzgerald, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly. “Everyone is going to have to pitch in.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/12unions.html

  2. #2
    Hardly call this a revolution (its almost insulting considering current world events). Its merely a sign of the times. Our new governor also wants us to contribute 5% of our pay into our pension. We currently contribute 0%

    Not really agreeing with the idea of removing the employees from the process of selecting healthcare coverage.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-12-2011 at 01:40 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  3. #3
    The end of the article is where the heart of the proposal lies. It's really not much of a concession for state workers at all. In context.

    Among key provisions of Mr. Walker’s plan: limiting collective bargaining for most state and local government employees to the issue of wages (instead of an array of issues, like health coverage or vacations); requiring government workers to contribute 5.8 percent of their pay to their pensions, much more than now; and requiring state employees to pay at least 12.6 percent of health care premiums (most pay about 6 percent now).
    People outside a state employee plan are astounded at how little they contribute toward pensions and health premiums. Add in property taxes that partially pay for those state workers' benefits, and it gets ugly really fast.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Our new governor also wants us to contribute 5% of our pay into our pension. We currently contribute 0%
    What?

  5. #5
    This Rick Scott guy is messing with everything. Some of it understandable, a lot of it stinks of "I've got mine, so fuck you", especially on issues that involve the homeless and underprivileged.

    Florida's 572,000 state and local-government workers now see no paycheck deductions for a fixed-benefit pension program, which supports 319,000 retirees. Governments in the fourth most populous U.S. state now pay between 9 percent and 20 percent of each worker's salary for pensions.

    Unlike some other big states wrestling with large pension obligations, such as Illinois and California, Florida's $125 billion pension fund is relatively strong financially and Florida's debt is top-rated by leading credit agencies.

    But Florida's once-booming economy was hard hit by the 2007-2009 recession. It remains an epicenter of America's housing crisis and has a 12 percent unemployment rate compared with the national jobless rate of 9.4 percent.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110202/...ida_pensions_2
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  6. #6
    Why remove collective bargaining on certain issues? Keep them from striking to less reductions somewhere in the near future? Don't understand the part about making union dues non-mandatory, but is that linked to the free-rider issue of workers essentially reaping the benefits of a union without being a member?

  7. #7
    Why should state workers have contributed 0% to their pension plans? There's no way their lower wages could compensate for that. Plus, it's a really stupid idea.

  8. #8
    Because Florida could. This state was allowed to do all sorts of shit ass-backwards because of tourism and good investments. Now the money isn't were is used to be (for now), so we have to get in line with everyone else. 5% per employee isn't all the much either, the meters per hour down here cost more than what the employees would be losing, so I wouldn't immediate jump at lower pay not compensating for it.

    Thats why calling this a revolution is lame, its just a sign of the times. There really are few avenues left to explore.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-12-2011 at 02:10 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  9. #9
    Yeah, it's not really a revolution. Egypt changed that word in my mind.

    State employees are valuable, they're the teachers, fire fighters, police forces.....but they should have been contributing to their health plans and pensions like everyone else. In fact, I'd say they should have been acting like independent contractors, and buying their own benefits all along. I don't mind my property taxes paying for their salary/wages, and paying them well. But if most of us are responsible for our retirement plans and health care, so should they. Being a state or federal employee shouldn't come with extraordinary "perks" that tax payers have to carry.

  10. #10
    Who would have thunk it from Wisconsin? Its a blue state. Good news.

  11. #11
    Republican Governor, if you want to look at it from that angle.

  12. #12
    Everyone forgets that collective bargaining with the state is a relatively recent phenomenon and that state unions exist at the behest of the governor. As far as I can tell, the state employee unions have no legal recourse at all. It's too bad they were promise unreasonable things, but now everyone there will have to work within the confines of reality.

    I'm glad to see this patronage scheme falling apart, I hope this kind revolution back to normalcy will work and inspire other states.

  13. #13
    http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6759/

    data indicates that state and local government employees in Wisconsin are not overpaid. Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that employees of both state and local governments in Wisconsin earn less than comparable private sector employees. On an annual basis, full-time state and local government employees in Wisconsin are undercompensated by 8.2% compared with otherwise similar private sector workers. This compensation disadvantage is smaller but still significant when hours worked are factored in. Full-time public employees work fewer annual hours, particularly employees with bachelor’s, master’s, and professional degrees (because many are teachers or university professors).
    When comparisons are made controlling for the difference in annual hours worked, full-time state and local government employees are undercompensated by 4.8%, compared with otherwise similar private sector workers. To summarize, our study shows that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8% less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin’s private sector.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    First of all, it's not just about compensation but about the number of state employees and the ability of the state to lay them off when needed.

    Secondly, there seems to be a total failure to examine pensions and benefits in that "source." Those are the issues that are usually breaking the bank.

    Finally, biased source fail.

    EPI Board of Directors

    R. Thomas Buffenbarger
    International Association of Machinists & Allied Workers (IAMAW)

    Larry Cohen
    Communications Workers of America (CWA)

    Leo W. Gerard
    United Steelworkers of America (USWA)

    Ron Gettelfinger
    United Auto Workers (UAW)

    Gerald W. McEntee
    American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)

    Bruce S. Raynor
    Workers United

    Andrew L. Stern
    Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

    Richard L. Trumka
    AFL-CIO

    Randi Weingarten
    American Federation of Teachers
    It's almost all the heads of unions! That link would be more accurate if it read:

    Unions not getting paid enough, according to union study

    This is much better union propaganda-



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3mw49mk_x0

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    I am always a bit nonplussed when people start angry rants about how public servants should pay taxes etc etc etc. To me it makes very little sense as long as you are talking about taxing their income from their work for the state. As far as the bookkeeping is concerned it's all front-pocket to back-pocket and the only thing the tax-payers really notice is that more of their money ends up in the coffers of the state in all that shifting around.

    And sure, you can screw people over in an economy like this, but in a normal economy they simply walk away from their government jobs and then things become even less nice for the tax-payers who have to use their services. I mean, does anybody not think that travellers at US airport would have a much nicer travel experience if the security checks weren't staffed with the bottom of the barrel?
    Congratulations America

  16. #16
    They don't pay taxes there?

    They do pay taxes here, it's not even an issue. Though on principle, I do see how state workers not paying taxes may be a bit of a funky idea. If state workers don't pay taxes, it really just reinforces the perception that state workers are an elite, protected class of people.

    Similarly, a lot of the people who want to make the state workforce more "normal" are also interested in letting state employees compete in a more normal labor market so that they can receive better pay for better work. Instead of wallowing around in slightly lower salary jobs-for-life that happen to also come with pensions-for-life.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    They don't pay taxes there?

    They do pay taxes here, it's not even an issue. Though on principle, I do see how state workers not paying taxes may be a bit of a funky idea. If state workers don't pay taxes, it really just reinforces the perception that state workers are an elite, protected class of people.

    Similarly, a lot of the people who want to make the state workforce more "normal" are also interested in letting state employees compete in a more normal labor market so that they can receive better pay for better work. Instead of wallowing around in slightly lower salary jobs-for-life that happen to also come with pensions-for-life.
    Dread you completely, absolutely, missed his point. He wasn't making any here or there comparisons. He's pointing out the fundamental weirdness *at a systems level* of government providing the paycheck and simultaneously taking part of it away as taxes. It would make more sense *and be more efficient* to just have the government jobs not be taxed, while paying less. Same result, fewer steps. It's an observation which I'm sure has occurred to most of us at one point or other.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #18
    States Aim Ax at Health Cost of Retirement

    By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
    Published: February 13, 2011

    Governors and mayors facing large deficits have set their sights on a relatively new target — the soaring expense of health benefits for millions of retired state and local workers.

    As they contend with growing budget deficits and higher pension costs, some mayors are complaining that their outlays for retiree health benefits are rising by 20 percent a year — a result of the wave of retirements of baby boomers and longer life expectancies on top of the double-digit rate of health care inflation.

    The nation’s governors face a daunting $555 billion in unfunded liabilities to finance retiree health coverage. The Pew Center on the States calculated those long-term obligations last year, saying New Jersey had the largest amount, $68.9 billion, with California second, at $62.5 billion.

    “Up to now, the action taken to deal with this problem has been gradual, but it’s begun to explode,” said John Thomasian, director of the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. “In 14 states, the state pays 100 percent of the health benefits for retirees. That’s very generous.”

    Michigan officials are stunned by the looming challenges of paying retirees’ health benefits, along with pension costs. “It’s pretty astronomical,” said John Nixon, the state’s budget director. “What’s happening with post-retirement health care is the biggest piece and biggest surprise.”

    “The issue isn’t to attack these folks or go after them,” he continued. “The main issue is how do we deal with this liability.”

    In state after state, the changes are occurring rapidly. For example, New Hampshire has stopped financing health insurance for many future retirees, while North Carolina has begun requiring state employees to work 20 years, up from five years, to qualify for full retiree health benefits. Michigan officials complain that retiree health obligations consume one-seventh of the state’s payroll costs, and New York City is slated to pay $2 billion toward retiree health next year.

    Over all, the Center for State and Local Government Excellence found that 68 percent of city and county officials surveyed said they were pushing to have retirees assume more of their health costs, while 39 percent said they had eliminated or planned to eliminate retiree health benefits for new hires.

    In many cases, states and municipalities are not required to negotiate these changes with retirees, and lawsuits challenging the cutbacks as a breach of contractual promises to retirees have resulted in mixed decisions. Many state or local workers retire before age 60, making them too young to turn to Medicare, prompting them to rely heavily on state and local plans for retirees.

    In Omaha, officials are seeking to work with their public-sector labor unions to have future retirees begin contributing toward their premiums.

    Omaha officials predict that their retiree health costs will quintuple, to $111 million, by 2020, at that point consuming nearly a third of the city’s budget.

    Richard O’Gara, Omaha’s director of human resources, put the numbers in perspective. “We’re going to reach a point where in five years, retiree health care will cost us more than employee health care,” he said, adding that was partly because the city was shrinking its work force and partly because retirees used far more medical services than active workers.

    Governors and mayors are also tackling the fast-rising health costs for the nation’s 19 million state and local workers, often focusing first on the government employees who pay nothing toward their health premiums for individual plans in 14 states. That is a benefit few private-sector workers have.

    In Oregon, Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, is demanding that state employees start paying part of their premiums. Oregon is the only state in which state employees do not contribute to any of their premiums for either family or individual health plans.

    “The bill is too big for us to pay,” Mr. Kitzhaber said. “Public employees should contribute to the cost of their health care premiums.”

    Just last Friday, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican, proposed that union negotiations should be limited only to wages and that workers pay 12.6 percent of their health care premiums, double the old average.

    In Jacksonville, Fla., Mayor John Peyton is insisting that police and firefighters begin paying 5 percent of the premiums toward their individual health plans, and the police union is balking.

    “In this budget crisis, taxpayers are becoming more concerned about where their tax payments are going,” Mr. Peyton said. “And many see a huge disconnect between what private-sector workers are getting on benefits and what the public sector is getting.”


    While some studies show that the public sector benefits are more generous, union officials counter that other studies show that overall compensation — wages and benefits taken together — are slightly lower for public workers when education levels and age are factored in.

    Unions representing state and city workers often assert that public employees have become a scapegoat. They argue that reckless Wall Street behavior, not public-sector unions, caused the recession, leading to sharp drops in tax revenues that propelled the deficits.

    “We’re in some of the most difficult negotiations we’ve ever been in because of the economic environment, and health care is very much on the table,” said Steven Kreisberg, director of collective bargaining for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “Some people have a political agenda to score points on this issue.”

    Ken Allen, the executive director of that union’s Oregon operation, opposes Mr. Kitzhaber’s plans for premiums. “We’ve given up wage increases for four of the past eight years in order to keep fully paid health care,” Mr. Allen said. “Yes, we have fully paid health care, but we gave up a lot to keep it.”

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, state and local employees pay 11 percent of the cost of individual medical plans on average, compared with 20 percent for private-sector employees, and state and local employees pay 27 percent of the cost of family plans, compared with 30 percent for private-sector employees.

    In White Plains, the mayor and City Council, struggling to avoid huge tax increases, began requiring retired city employees to pay 15 percent of their premiums, up from zero. But retired police officers and firefighters sued, and a federal judge granted an injunction suspending the payments after their lawyers argued that the city had breached a longstanding promise to provide fully financed health coverage to retirees.

    Some governments are also pushing to raise co-payments and deductibles to discourage overuse of medical services. For instance, in Tucson, where city workers have had a wage freeze for four years, employees pay $20 per doctor visit, up from $10, and face a $500 deductible for inpatient services, up from zero.

    Many states and cities have also become creative in holding down health costs. Georgia’s insurance plan imposes a $80 monthly surcharge for smokers. In Wauwatosa, Wis., a wellness coach works with every city employee on issues like high blood pressure, and all employees must have a colonoscopy at age 50, to help forestall cancer, and potentially high treatment costs.

    Richard Johnson, national public sector health practice director at the Segal consulting firm, said cutting retirees’ health coverage raised moral and legal issues. “It’s a tough group to deal with,” he said. “You have to remember that state and local governments have routinely catered to them and often promised them being able to retire with full benefits. Those are huge promises.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/bu...1&ref=business


    A new target? All those baby boomers approaching retirement just kinda snuck up on everyone, and escalating healthcare costs is a new phenomenon, huh.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Dread you completely, absolutely, missed his point. He wasn't making any here or there comparisons. He's pointing out the fundamental weirdness *at a systems level* of government providing the paycheck and simultaneously taking part of it away as taxes. It would make more sense *and be more efficient* to just have the government jobs not be taxed, while paying less. Same result, fewer steps. It's an observation which I'm sure has occurred to most of us at one point or other.
    I get that. But he referenced people ranting about the issue and was wondering if there's a specific case of this where he is.

    I also don't imagine it's that much more efficient to not tax state workers. Arguably it's less efficient to have a process to prove someone is in a very unique class of people who doesn't owe taxes. Not to mention preventing cheating -- after all, New York isn't really sure exactly how many state workers it even has.

  20. #20
    Why would state workers be exempt from a federal tax? That kind of system doesn't make any sense to me.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I get that. But he referenced people ranting about the issue and was wondering if there's a specific case of this where he is.

    I also don't imagine it's that much more efficient to not tax state workers. Arguably it's less efficient to have a process to prove someone is in a very unique class of people who doesn't owe taxes. Not to mention preventing cheating -- after all, New York isn't really sure exactly how many state workers it even has.
    Depends on the economies of scale. Considering the Federal government is by far the biggest employer in the country and most, if not all, of the states are bigger employers than anyone in the country besides the Feds, I would suspect not. And even if it were, that wouldn't make it more efficient overall, it would just make it more efficient for the tax-collecting agency. It would still be less efficient for the employees and the offices and departments employing them, who are generating rather more interactions of this sort over the year than the taxation agency is.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Dread you completely, absolutely, missed his point. He wasn't making any here or there comparisons. He's pointing out the fundamental weirdness *at a systems level* of government providing the paycheck and simultaneously taking part of it away as taxes. It would make more sense *and be more efficient* to just have the government jobs not be taxed, while paying less. Same result, fewer steps. It's an observation which I'm sure has occurred to most of us at one point or other.
    Disagreed, the best solution is the simplest. Treating everyone the same is simpler than creating a myriad of rules depending upon who the employer is.

    Secondly prospective employees would not be able to honestly and simply compare the renumeration for work at different potential jobs if they're not treated the same for taxation. It's not as simple as asking what the post-tax rate of pay elsewhere is as employers advertise and pay a pre-tax rate of pay.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Disagreed, the best solution is the simplest. Treating everyone the same is simpler than creating a myriad of rules depending upon who the employer is.

    Secondly prospective employees would not be able to honestly and simply compare the renumeration for work at different potential jobs if they're not treated the same for taxation. It's not as simple as asking what the post-tax rate of pay elsewhere is as employers advertise and pay a pre-tax rate of pay.
    Simplest is not the same as the most efficient. We can come up with all sorts of rationalizations for it if we want to. Don't try and tell me there isn't a disconnect there though.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  24. #24
    I'm inclined to agree with Rand. We've seen all sorts of examples of how tax loopholes create waste, paperwork and fraud. I don't see how exempting state workers from paying taxes would be much different.

    Separately, for those who found the Egypt comparison somehow offensive, gaze ye all upon Union-supported protestors:

    U of Wis.-Madison students march on gov's office

    Feb 14, 2011 3:06 PM ET
    By The Associated Press

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Hundreds of University of Wisconsin-Madison students and their teachers are telling Gov. Scott Walker to drop a bill that would strip most public workers of almost all their collective bargaining rights.

    Chanting "kill this bill" and brandishing signs with messages such as "From Cairo to Madison Workers Unite." the students and instructors jammed the corridor leading to Walker's Capitol office. They poured valentines on the desk of Walker's office guard that asked the governor not to break their hearts.

    UW-Madison law student Peter Rickman shouted through a bullhorn the protesters wanted to show their love for UW. After chanting and stomping the floor for a few more minutes, the protesters marched outside without incident. Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie didn't immediately return a message.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-s-office.html
    And then there's http://www.minimubarak.com/




  25. #25
    Click to view the full version
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  26. #26
    "Stop the attack on Wisconsin families" That's rich.

    Hope the legislators keep up their heroic resistance.

    An ex girlfriend who now lives in Wisconsin has been posting increasingly deranged Facebook messages. You would think the entire foundation of humanity is falling apart. I hope this happens in more states to restore the priorities of liberalism.

    channel3000.com
    No Major Changes Made In Union Bill

    Thousands Protest Union Bill At State Capitol

    Updated: 11:19 pm CST February 16, 2011

    MADISON, Wis. -- Republican legislative leaders said they will pass a bill taking away collective bargaining rights from public employees as Gov. Scott Walker wanted.

    Lawmakers outlined changes they will be supporting to the bill Wednesday, but the changes don't get to the heart of what attracted more than 10,000 protesters to the Capitol each of the past two days.

    The deal is expected to be passed by the Legislature's budget committee Wednesday night. It will then be taken up Thursday by the Republican-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said it will pass. It then heads to the Republican-controlled Assembly.

    Fitzgerald said he thinks taxpayers will support the idea.

    Fitzgerald said Wednesday that some changes would be made to the bill, but the core parts of Walker's plan would remain, including the provision affecting collective bargaining and another one requiring employees to make larger contributions to their pensions and health insurance.

    More rallies and protests are being held at the state Capitol on Wednesday after thousands descended on the city's downtown for the second straight day to denounce the governor's plan.

    Some lawmakers said that because of the protests and testimony at Tuesday's Joint Finance Committee hearing that lasted 17 hours, they offered some amendments to Walker's proposal.

    "We've been working with the governor's office, so he is definitely on board with where we're looking to go. So we are trying to find those good, positive changes that are going to make the bill better, but not necessarily have substantive changes that are going to dramatically alter the bill in a way that some of the protesters might hope," said Rep. Robin Vos, R-Burlington, the co-chairman of the budget committee.

    The amendments include some changes to worker protections, but no change to the collective bargaining rights provisions.

    "I know there are a lot of people protesting. We've seen it for the last couple days, primarily public employee unions, teacher unions. But you know what? I think there were a lot of people on Nov. 2nd that spoke loud and clear of what direction they want this state to head," Fitzgerald said.

    While state Republicans said their changes are responsive to what hundreds told them in committee Tuesday, Democrats said the changes only amount to lip service.

    "I think this is really putting lipstick on a pig. It's not even lipstick, it's Chap Stick. You know it's there, but you can't see it; the changes are pretty tough to find," said Rep. Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse.

    "The tens of thousands of people who have e-mailed and come to the Capitol, who have been on the phones, and our neighbors and grandparents, feel that this is personal to them, and they will be satisfied only when they're assured that workers rights are not going to be taken away from them," said Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Poplar.

    GOP lawmakers revealed they will amend the budget repair bill to remove a provision stripping pension and health benefits from state LTEs.
    The GOP amendment will also mandate local governments offer civil service protections to public employees similar to those state employees receive.

    "It's not restoring collective bargaining in any way, but certainly addresses a concern there was a gap created at the local level," Fitzgerald said.

    Among other changes in the amendment, the GOP lawmakers want a 14-day passive review for the Joint Finance Committee on state-owned power plant sales and more review over the Walker administration's ability to make changes to the Medicaid program.

    The budget committee was debating some Democratic proposed amendments Wednesday night but is expected to vote eventually. While committee co-chairs said Tuesday night they would not vote in the middle of the night, they said they'll stay Wednesday night until they are finished.

    Republicans said they have the votes to pass the amended bill in both houses Thursday.

    Many Teachers Attend Protests At Capitol

    While legislators debated the bill inside the Capitol building, protesters continued to arrive by the thousands.

    Many of those rallying Wednesday were teachers who could also lose their collective bargaining rights in the bill.

    It could mean paying more into health care and pensions, which protesters said would be equal to a pay cut that would make it difficult to make ends meet.

    For the second consecutive day, about 10,000 protesters came out to oppose Walker's bill.

    "It means, as workers, we're supporting each other so that we get the fair rights that we deserve," elementary teacher Nikki Burke said.
    Throughout the crowd, Burke was joined by other Madison Metropolitan School District teachers.

    Madison Metropolitan School District officials said at least 40 percent of staff called in sick by Wednesday morning, forcing all the day's classes to be canceled.

    Teachers said what's best for the union is best for the students.

    "As a teacher, I owe it to my students to make sure we have what we need to be good teachers," Burke said.

    "This is, in a lot of ways, what we teach our kids to do, to take an active role in our political system," said Eric Franco, a high school history teacher.

    Students also joined in, some supporting their parents while others supported teachers.

    Teachers with the most to lose said they're in it for the long-haul.

    "What happens if this passes and we want to protest another law? Then we won't be missing a day's pay, we'll be fired. To me, this is an attack on my civil and democratic liberties," said Cecelia Gredell, a Madison history teacher.

    While many teachers called in sick and attended the protest, others still went to school despite no students being there.

    Staff at Gompers Elementary School in Madison entered the building together at contract time Wednesday morning.

    In a joint-statement sent to WISC-TV, the teachers said their decision to go to work and not attend the day's rally was a personal and individual decision. Still, they said they support those who went to the Capitol and agree with the union's stance that a strong message must be sent
    Madison Teachers Inc. executive director John Matthews said the union was contacting members and urging them to attend rallies at the Capitol. Matthews said it's the first coordinated absence by Madison school employees in 16 years.

    Milwaukee Public Schools sent an e-mail to teachers warning them not to be absent without prior approval.

    Wisconsin Education Association Council spokeswoman Christina Brey said she knew of no other school districts, except for Madison, that were forced to close Wednesday.

    There have also been no reports of higher than usual absences at state prisons.

    Walker has said the National Guard stands ready to step in to operate the prisons if workers fail to show up. A union leader for prison workers didn't immediately return messages.

    Hundreds of protesters gathered outside Walker's office at the state Capitol and are shouting "recall Walker now" and "Walker has got to go."
    Besides the Capitol, some students have joined in the protest efforts. About 200 Oregon High School students walked out of classes on Wednesday in support of teachers' rights.

    Students at Mt. Horeb, Wonnewoc, Waunakee and DeForest also staged walkouts on Wednesday.

    The protesters are taking issue with Walker's budget repair plan, which he presented last week. The governor said besides removing workers' collective bargaining rights, except when negotiating salary, state employees need to pay more for health care benefits and their pensions. Local firefighters, such as local police and members of the Wisconsin State Patrol, are exempt in the bill.

    The governor said that the moves are necessary to better contend with the state's fiscal problems and he can't negotiate with the unions since the state has nothing to offer. The bill's supporters said public workers must make sacrifices to help balance the state's budget. The state has a projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

    However, the measure's opponents said that they believe the bill is an attack on middle-class families.

    http://www.channel3000.com/news/26893573/detail.html

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    If you are inclined to agree with Randblade about the taxation of people employed by government what you are really saying is that you want government to raise more taxes from all non-government workers so that the government can play at being a regular employer. Meaning that there is a high price to be paid for make-believe uniformity. In my book that doesn't make it simple, efficient or effective.

    Think of all that money in 'taxes paid by government workers' not winding up in the coffers of the state but staying in the pockets of people with productive jobs
    Congratulations America

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Why would state workers be exempt from a federal tax? That kind of system doesn't make any sense to me.
    Because if they are you don't have to cough up the extra money for your state to be able to pay these taxes for them
    Congratulations America

  29. #29
    For the second time in a decade, Democratic state legislators flee the state to avoid losing a vote. Unbelievable.

    Meanwhile, 40% of teachers in Madison, WI called in "sick" today to yell and scream for higher wages.

    All of this cuts to the meat of the immaturity behind these unions. The idea that you can increase pay at a rate beyond inflation and revenue growth without ever laying anyone off. That the state can pay for healthcare and pensions ad infinitum.

    Ironically, the teachers skipping work and the Democratic legislators fleeing is sort of a sign of what's wrong: that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in the private sector.

    February 17, 2011
    Democrats Missing, Wisconsin Vote on Cuts Is Delayed
    By MONICA DAVEY
    MADISON, Wis. — The fury among thousands of workers, students and union supporters rose to a boil on Thursday, as state lawmakers prepared to vote on landmark legislation that would slash collective bargaining rights for public workers. Protesters blocked a door to the Senate chambers. They sat down, body against body, filling a corridor. They chanted “Freedom, democracy, unions!” in the stately gallery as the senators convened.

    Then the surprising drama in Madison this week added a new twist: the Democrats disappeared.

    That left Republicans, who control the Capitol and had expected to push through the bill, in limbo. Although Republicans control the State Senate by 19 to 14, 20 senators — and thus, at least a single Democrat — must be in the room to call a vote on such fiscal matters.

    “It’s disgraceful that people who are paid to be here have decided to skip town,” Senator Michael Ellis, the Senate president, said shortly after the roll was called. Said another Republican leader, Senator Scott Fitzgerald, “This is the ultimate shutdown.”

    And so, as the Republicans fumed and waited, and the protesters (who were buoyed by the vanishing act) went right on protesting, a desperate search was begun for 14 missing senators — one more topsy-turvy chapter in a saga that has, in a single week, turned Wisconsin into a national battleground over public workers, unions and budget crises.

    The reason for the disappearance was simple: Democrats, along with the thousands of workers and protesters, vigorously oppose the bill, which would weaken unions by limiting collective bargaining for state employees and many local employees, including teachers, to base wages, and would require workers to pay more for pensions and health care. Without enough votes to actually stop the bill’s passage, Democratic senators apparently concluded that leaving the building would stop the vote from taking place.

    “The plan is to try and slow this down because it’s an extreme piece of legislation that’s tearing this state apart,” Senator Jon Erpenbach, one of the missing Democrats, told The Associated Press by telephone. (He refused, of course, to say where he was.)

    By noon, the sergeant-at-arms, Ted Blazel, was climbing past the crowds in the Capitol, searching for senators through the mazelike hallways, in offices, under desks — a task he has rarely been called to carry out.

    “Nothing yet,” Mr. Blazel said at one point, his forehead glistening with sweat.

    By dusk, Senate Republican leaders had decided to adjourn, at least temporarily, as supposed sightings of Democrats — and rumors of supposed sightings of Democrats — were alleged by seemingly everyone. Among the claims: They had been seen leaving on a bus altogether. They were in Iowa. Or Illinois. Or both.

    “They’re in Rockford!” Mr. Fitzgerald called out excitedly at one point, as he rushed between chambers. Some of the Democrats conducted interviews from what they described as “secure locations,” and others posted messages on social networking sites.

    Over three days, protesters’ backpacks, sleeping bags, water bottles and homemade signs have come to jam the marble halls of this Capitol, and on Thursday evening the rallies against the bill grew. People screamed: “Shut it down! Shut it down!” Drums pounded. Students, some barefoot, danced. Extra law enforcement workers now pepper the building, trying to guide officials through the thick, chanting crowds.

    Many among the protesters said that they had no plans to leave, and that they would wait, as long as it took, to end the proposal, which was introduced only a week ago by Scott Walker, the new Republican governor here. Regarding the claims by Mr. Walker that the changes were forced by gaping budget deficits, some protesters here question his figures and his motives.

    “That’s not the real fight,” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, who flew here on Thursday morning. “It’s a politically motivated attack. It’s not about the money. What he wants to do is destroy the voice of educators and public employees.”

    For his part, Mr. Walker, who appeared before reporters from his office even as chants from beyond security barriers echoed into the room, had no apologies and said he had no intention of changing the bill. And he chastised the Democratic senators for leaving.

    “We’re certainly looking at all legal options out there, but I have faith that after they do their stunt for a day or two — it’s more about theatrics than anything else — that they’ll come back and realize again they’re elected to do the job,” Mr. Walker said. “Show up, debate the bill, offer amendments, have a healthy debate, but you don’t have that debate if you hang out down in Rockford or Dubuque.”

    By 5 p.m., Senate Republicans said they were adjourning for the night. They had no immediate plans for sending law enforcement officers after the missing senators (it was unclear whether the Wisconsin State Patrol could pursue them across state borders anyway, one senator said). But they said they planned to be back on Friday, ready to vote. They hoped, they said, that the Democrats would choose to come, too.

    And if they do not? No one here seemed to know. As the senators went home, the protesters, some of them bearing pillows, did not.

    Monica Davey reported from Madison, Wis., and Steven Greenhouse from New York.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18wisconsin.html

  30. #30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •