Wisconsin Anti-Union Bill Gets March 18 Hearing

The war on workers’ rights goes to court

PoliticsMarch 2011 • Views: 22,884

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s union-busting bill will face a legal challenge this Friday.

A Wisconsin county executive’s challenge to a bill curbing collective bargaining for most state government workers will be considered at a hearing March 18, a judge said.

The Wisconsin Assembly passed a modified version of Governor Scott Walker’s budget bill March 10, a day after the State Senate voted 18-1 for the measure. Senate Republicans ended a stalemate by stripping the bill of some fiscal measures to circumvent a requirement that three-fifths of members be present. The chamber’s 14 Democrats left the state Feb. 17 to prevent a quorum.

Kathleen Falk, Dane County Executive, sued Wisconsin, its secretary of state and four legislators March 11, asking the court to declare that the senate’s vote was unconstitutional and to stop the bill from becoming law. Judge Amy Smith, who later recused herself from the case, denied Falk’s request that day for a temporary restraining order.

“I see no conflict of interest or other need to recuse,” Dade County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi, who has taken over the case, said at a status conference today. She asked lawyers for both sides to decide whether they wanted a new judge and set a hearing on the lawsuit for March 18.

Jump to bottom

124 comments

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:38:02am

This was a really weird place for the GOP to fight this hard about. It’s rather transparently an attack on institutions that lean towards Democrats. I think it’s a bit too obvious for them to really get widespread support; especially when they go about it in backhanded ways.

They’re going to argue, of course, that they had to do it this way due to the malfeasance of the Democrats not allowing a quorum. I don’t think that’s actually going to resonate with people, who, I think, prefer to see government not take a precipitous step than to do so.

I mean, people were incredibly wary about health care reform would change the status quo, even when they supported every individual part of it. In this case, you’ve got a passel of things that the public doesn’t support, wrapped up into one big, clearly political bundle.

moderatelyradicalliberal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:38:54am

The GOP is doing some serious damage to themselves in some key swing states:

[Link: publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com…]

Brutal Numbers for Kasich, SB 5

Ohio Senate Bill 5 may not be in effect for very long…54% of voters in the state say they’d repeal it in an election later this year while just 31% say they’d vote to let the bill stand.

The support for repealing SB 5 is reflective of a high level of support for unions and workers in Ohio, more so than we saw in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago. 63% of voters in the state supportive collective bargaining for public employees to only 29% who oppose it. 52% of voters think public employees should have the right to strike, to 42% who think they should not. And 65% think public employees should have the same rights they do now- or more- while only 32% believe they should have fewer rights.

There are two things particularly notable in the crosstabs on all of these questions. The first is that non-union households are supportive of the public employees. 54% support their collective bargaining rights to 36% in opposition and 44% say they would vote to repeal SB 5 to 38% who would let it stand. Obviously that level of support is not nearly as high as among union households but it still shows that the workers have even most of the non-union public behind them.

The other thing that’s worth noting is the independents. A lot of attention has been given to the way what’s been going on in Ohio and Wisconsin is galvanizing the Democratic base, but it’s also turning independents who were strongly supportive of the GOP in the Midwest last year back against the party. 62% of independents support collective bargaining for public employees to 32% opposed and 53% support repeal of SB 5 to 32% who would let it stand.

All of this is having an absolutely brutal effect on John Kasich’s numbers. We find him with just a 35% approval rating and 54% of voters disapproving of him. His approval with people who voted for him is already all the way down to 71%, while he’s won over just 5% of folks who report having voted for Ted Strickland last fall. Particularly concerning for him is a 33/54 spread with independents.

Voters in the state are having significant buyers remorse about the results of last fall’s election. In a rematch 55% say they would now vote for Ted Strickland to just 40% who would vote for Kasich. Because this is a sample of all registered voters in the state and not just those who voted in last fall’s Republican heavy electorate the self identified 2010 vote of this sample is 49% for Strickland and 46% for Kasich but that still suggests a 12 point movement toward Strickland among those surveyed over the last four months.

The upper Midwest is not the Deep South and they don’t seem to like Deep South policies. Maybe next time they will vote like it.

rwdflynavy Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:39:57am

Activist Judges!!11!!//

Kragar (Antichrist ) Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:40:22am

re: #3 rwdflynavy

Activist Judges!!11!!//

Black Robed Shadow Cabal.

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:40:44am

Remember what happened to Social Security reform under Bush.

Kragar (Antichrist ) Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:45:06am

Germany to shut down pre-1980 nuclear plants

Germany will shut down all seven of its nuclear power plants that began operating before 1980 at least till June, the government said on Tuesday, leaving open whether they will ever start up again after Japan’s crisis.

Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the closures, which will leave only 10 nuclear stations still generating, under a nuclear policy moratorium imposed as Japan faced a potential catastrophe at its earthquake-crippled Fukushima complex.

“Power plants that went into operation before the end of 1980 will … be shut down for the period of the moratorium,” Merkel told a news conference, adding that the decision would be carried out by government decree as no agreement with the plants’ operators had been reached.

Rush was screaming about this this morning, saying it was a bunch of damn liberals panicking about nothing.

I guess that makes liberals the people concerned with the safety of the people.

rwdflynavy Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:46:05am

re: #5 ralphieboy

Remember what happened to Social Security reform under Bush.

AARP killed it?

jamesfirecat Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:50:06am

Lets just hope there isn’t a local gavel pounders 507 in Wisconsin or they’ll never find an unbiased judge to rule on it!

Varek Raith Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:50:15am

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Germany to shut down pre-1980 nuclear plants

Rush was screaming about this this morning, saying it was a bunch of damn liberals panicking about nothing.

I guess that makes liberals the people concerned with the safety of the people.

It’s all just Soros Propaganda.
/Beck

Gus Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:52:17am

I for one am glad that the Republican’s war on working people will get a day in court.

KingKenrod Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:53:02am

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Germany to shut down pre-1980 nuclear plants

Rush was screaming about this this morning, saying it was a bunch of damn liberals panicking about nothing.

I guess that makes liberals the people concerned with the safety of the people.

This will obviously raise Germany’s CO2 output, unless they have green capacity standing by, which I seriously doubt. It’s a stupid, panicky decision, regardless of what Rush says (and who cares, anyway?).

Those older reactors are just as safe now as they were last week.

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:54:57am

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Background is this: the Socialist/Green coalition passed a bill to phase out nuclear energy use in Germany over the next 20 years. The Conservative coalition reversed the decision to further extend the life of certain plants.

That reversal has been put on hold for three months, which means that many of these plants were already due to be shut down, and since it is sad to say that the Japanese reactors are still going to be smouldering in three months, they are going to stay shut doen for good.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:55:46am

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The problem is that shutting down a nuke plant is not a risk-free operation.

I’m against this. I think it’s a panic move, and I think that just going over the plants with a fine-tooth comb is the right move; inspect the hell out of them, find out what’s really going on.

Shutting them down might potentially confuse the issue even farther.

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:56:03am

re: #11 KingKenrod

Germany has been making a big effort to up its share of renewable energy and to position itself as a world market leader in exporting alternative energy technologies.

Shiplord Kirel Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:56:03am

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Germany to shut down pre-1980 nuclear plants

Rush was screaming about this this morning, saying it was a bunch of damn liberals panicking about nothing.

I guess that makes liberals the people concerned with the safety of the people.

Rush is denying reality as usual. I am at least as supportive of nuclear power as he is, the difference being that I probably know more about it. We can reasonably argue that new plant designs are inherently safer than the old ones. This is especially true of the various “walk-away” passive safety designs that won’t be ready for service for many years yet. What we cannot do is argue that the old plants themselves are safe. It might be possible to make them safe, but I am not sure I believe that myself.
As pointed out on an earlier string, Merkel’s decision will be an important confidence building measure when new designs are ready.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:56:07am

Germany should definitely be modernizing the older plants. Just shutting them down without a credible plan to replace a large part of their overall energy portfolio, however, is insanity.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:56:21am

re: #12 ralphieboy

Okay, thanks for the context. My above post is wrong, then; this isn’t a panic move, just part of an ongoing thingy.

Kragar (Antichrist ) Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:56:23am

re: #11 KingKenrod

This will obviously raise Germany’s CO2 output, unless they have green capacity standing by, which I seriously doubt. It’s a stupid, panicky decision, regardless of what Rush says (and who cares, anyway?).

Those older reactors are just as safe now as they were last week.

They were scheduled to shutdown last year, but the German parliament had decided to extend them for a few years. Now they’ve reconsidered and placed a temporary moratorium pending further investigation. How is that panicking again?

Kragar (Antichrist ) Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:57:39am

re: #13 Obdicut

The problem is that shutting down a nuke plant is not a risk-free operation.

I’m against this. I think it’s a panic move, and I think that just going over the plants with a fine-tooth comb is the right move; inspect the hell out of them, find out what’s really going on.

Shutting them down might potentially confuse the issue even farther.

They’re keeping their newer plants operational though.

What, me worry? Tue, Mar 15, 2011 10:58:35am

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Germany to shut down pre-1980 nuclear plants

Rush was screaming about this this morning, saying it was a bunch of damn liberals panicking about nothing.

I guess that makes liberals the people concerned with the safety of the people.

I don’t see it as as liberal/conservative thing either, but I think shutting down 8 plants is ridiculous. If they want to shut them down to upgrade them, then ok. But it seems that the chance for this to happen in Japan was high - building nuclear plants on fault lines. Does Germany have fault lines? Hurricanes? I think their only natural enemy are the Nazis.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:00:22am

I’m going to take this article as a chance to go to sleep on a positive note. Just in time for lunch.

Later fellow tetrapods.

Stanley Sea Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:00:55am

Oh man

BreakingNews Breaking News

500 bone marrow transplant centers in Europe asked to be on standby to treat possible radiation victims - BBC [Link: bbc.in…]

lawhawk Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:01:08am

re: #14 ralphieboy

A big effort, except that about 30% of its energy needs come from nuclear - and there’s nothing on the horizon that can replace that capacity.

What the Germans - and everyone else needs to do is take a step back - take a deep breath - and don’t make hasty decisions based on inadequate and incomplete information.

Should sensible reviews take place? Absolutely.

Should backup systems be bolstered and standby equipment be readied and improved? Absolutely.

But should plants that have operated in good stead be shut down because of a massive confluence of extremely rare events (9.0 quake, massive tsunami, and multiple failures of backup systems, etc.?) No. Especially when the seismic threats and tsunamis aren’t likely to happen in Germany and now that this disaster has shown limitations on the backup systems - additional systems can be put in place to deal with it.

Indeed, newer reactors now use a gravity system to send water into reactors in emergency situations rather than relying on pumps. Siting of storage pools will also deserve closer scrutiny - along with how those backup systems operate.

Kragar (Antichrist ) Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:02:02am

re: #20 marjoriemoon

I don’t see it as as liberal/conservative thing either, but I think shutting down 8 plants is ridiculous. If they want to shut them down to upgrade them, then ok. But it seems that the chance for this to happen in Japan was high - building nuclear plants on fault lines. Does Germany have fault lines? Hurricanes? I think their only natural enemy are the Nazis.

Moderate earthquake rattles western Germany - Feb 14, 2011

The 4.8-magnitude earthquake at 1.43 p.m. local time (1243 GMT) was centered about 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) east of Koblenz, a city in Rhineland-Palatinate near the Rhine. It struck about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) deep, making it a shallow earthquake, according to the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre.

KingKenrod Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:02:13am

re: #18 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They were scheduled to shutdown last year, but the German parliament had decided to extend them for a few years. Now they’ve reconsidered and placed a temporary moratorium pending further investigation. How is that panicking again?

Timeline:
1. Let’s keep these reactor’s running - we need the power and have a sensible plan to replace their capacity with green technology!
2. Earthquake
3. OMG! Never mind our sensible plan! Shut them down!!!

Varek Raith Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:02:24am

[1:29 p.m. ET Tuesday, 2:29 a.m. Wednesday in Tokyo] The beleagured crew at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had to abandon the control room Tuesday night because of high radiation levels, Kyodo News reported, citing plant owner Tokyo Electric Power Company. They were monitoring data from a remote site, Kyodo reported.

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:03:24am

re: #20 marjoriemoon

These plants were due to be shut down according to an existing law to phase out nuclear energy, which the Conservatives had overturned using some questionable parliamentary procedures and bypassing the upper house.

They have now put that initiative on hold, which menas that several of these plants are due to be shut down anyways.

SW Germany had a slight (4.4) quake just the other week.

But the main safety threat is nuclear plants, especially older ones, are not at all desiged for protection against terror attacks, which is something the nuclear industry does not even want to begin to mention.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:03:37am

re: #23 lawhawk

They were already scheduled to be shut down, though. This is just moving up the timetable slightly. Their other, newer nuclear plants are still going.

Seems perfectly rational to me.

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:04:41am

Elections have consequences.

Varek Raith Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:05:02am

re: #29 haavamaal

Elections have consequences.

So does breaking the law.

Sol Berdinowitz Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:05:16am

re: #28 Obdicut

They were already scheduled to be shut down, though. This is just moving up the timetable slightly. Their other, newer nuclear plants are still going.

Seems perfectly rational to me.

The way that the German politicians are reacting to this is, however, perfectly typical for politicians all over the world.

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:07:18am

re: #30 Varek Raith

So does breaking the law.

What law are they breaking?

What, me worry? Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:11:09am

re: #27 ralphieboy

These plants were due to be shut down according to an existing law to phase out nuclear energy, which the Conservatives had overturned using some questionable parliamentary procedures and bypassing the upper house.

They have now put that initiative on hold, which menas that several of these plants are due to be shut down anyways.

SW Germany had a slight (4.4) quake just the other week.

But the main safety threat is nuclear plants, especially older ones, are not at all desiged for protection against terror attacks, which is something the nuclear industry does not even want to begin to mention.

I was just reading that after I posted.

I think you can fairly easily guard against terror attacks. I mean, it’s a matter of guarding, no? But I do understand these plants are old and if there was a way to upgrade them (from reading upthread, that might not be possible) than ok, let them be upgraded.

But freaking out over Japan seems silly to me, unless there are natural disaster issues. Japan had few choices in energy so they picked nuclear, but that was a humongous risk.

blueraven Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:14:35am

re: #32 haavamaal

What law are they breaking?

The WI law that says they must give 24 hr notice for called meetings. They didn’t even give quite two hrs for the special resolution meeting.

Also, the bill that passed there by the senate is different than the one passed by the assembly. It contained fiscal matters (the no bid contracts for public utility sell offs) which would require a quorum.

Take your pick.

Unsympathetic Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:18:29am

This thread is making some very large assumptions. Why, exactly, is everyone willing to be certain the backup power generation equipment was actually capable of working? Because they asserted it was, even after the same company had massive issues with a coverup of backup power generation failures at another plant?

[Link: www.gregpalast.com…]

Unsympathetic Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:20:18am

To the topic of the thread: It will be interesting to force the governator to defend his concepts in her courtroom. “What? You mean I can’t just assert stuff?”

RogueOne Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:20:34am

re: #27 ralphieboy

…..
But the main safety threat is nuclear plants, especially older ones, are not at all desiged for protection against terror attacks, which is something the nuclear industry does not even want to begin to mention.

The way the structures are built in the US there isn’t enough fertilizer in the state of Indiana to blast your way into the containment area and, trust me, we have an assload of fertilizer around here. Nuclear facilities would make a really lousy terrorist target, little to no chance of success.

What, me worry? Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:20:51am

re: #23 lawhawk

I agree with you, but the problem with talking about “rare” occurrences, if they do happen, it could result in devastating effects that can effect billions of people for generations, as in spilled radiation. So I think the word “rare” becomes meaningless. How rare was the oil spill in our gulf? When was oil ever spilled in the gulf?

Us crazy liberals who care about these things have been pushing alternative fuel sources for 50 years, since the 60s, but there was too much money in oil, coal and nuclear to pay attention so no one did. Now we are reaping what we sow.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:29:10am

The process here in Ohio has been underhanded also. The Bill here was presented in the Senate commerce committee that was made up of Eight R’s and Four D’s………. Two of the r’s came out publicly against the bill and said they would vote against the Bill, the result would have been a 6/6 tie, resulting in defeat.

On the morning of the vote the president of the senate replaced the two R senators on the committee for a result of 8 to 4.

Not to be outdone the speaker of the house replaced two Republican representatives on the House Commerce commission.

Even the head of the Ohio Teaparty blasted them.

[deleted] Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:30:11am

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:33:50am

re: #40 haavamaal

Wow….and its from Red State too

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:33:59am

re: #40 haavamaal

No, that’s not what your link says that the NLRB said.

The link is about overturning an election, nowhere inside it does the NLRB say that physical threats aren’t coercive.

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:36:30am

re: #34 blueraven

The WI law that says they must give 24 hr notice for called meetings. They didn’t even give quite two hrs for the special resolution meeting.

Also, the bill that passed there by the senate is different than the one passed by the assembly. It contained fiscal matters (the no bid contracts for public utility sell offs) which would require a quorum.

Take your pick.

Just a couple questiona out of sheer ignorance on my part about Wisconsin.

Why would the legislature have to announce 24hr in advance of a meeting when they are in session already? Aren’t they supposed to be meeting?

The fact that the bill passed the Senate is different from the Assembly would lead to a reconciliation would it not? Do they have to be identical pieces of legislation in both houses to be considered by either?

Didn’t the Senate remove all fiscal measures from the bill prior to its’ passage?

I am really only aware of what I’ve read in the Times, so I could be misinformed. Plus I don’t really give a rats rear about Wisconsin so I don’t pay that much attention to thier politics. Texas is messed up enough!!

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:37:06am

re: #42 Obdicut

I just posted the headline. I made no comment.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:38:48am

One of my earliest experiences with unions was in about 1980, the company I worked for was being targeted by a union. The union stood out on th street passing flyers to workers coming into the parking lot.

Just inside the parking lot stood employees stopping cars and collecting the flyers. These guys took it upon themselves to this, the company didnt tell them too. Should we accuse the company of heavy handed tactics to stop the union? were these guys “management thugs?”

I didnt think so myself, just guys that felt strongly against unions.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:39:04am

re: #44 haavamaal

Uh, no. The headline is the hilarious “Union-Controlled NLRB Approves Union Thuggery in Union Elections”.

What you posted was a quote from the article.

So you disagree with it? Think that article is a piece of crap— that’s why you were posting it?

Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:39:55am

re: #45 dmon

One of my earliest experiences with unions was in about 1980, the company I worked for was being targeted by a union. The union stood out on th street passing flyers to workers coming into the parking lot.

Just inside the parking lot stood employees stopping cars and collecting the flyers. These guys took it upon themselves to this, the company didnt tell them too. Should we accuse the company of heavy handed tactics to stop the union? were these guys “management thugs?”

I didnt think so myself, just guys that felt strongly against unions.

What right have they to collect the flyers? Did you never ask yourself that?

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:43:58am

re: #43 haavamaal

The 24 hrs is designed to let the pblic know that a bill is being voted on, its also intended to give all legislators an opportunity to attend…….. can a legislative body go into a holiday recess only to hav the majority rush back into session and pass a bill with 5 minutes notice?

The reconciliation is the part where thy did not give the notice, the house passed a bill, the senate changed it, then had a reconciliation vote with only 2 hours notice.

The parts about selling state power plants was still included in the Bill. One of the goals of the lawsuit is to force walker to testify in court that the collective bargaining changes werent fiscl matters after climing for weeks that they were

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:45:36am

re: #47 Fozzie Bear

Didnt feel they had the right….my point was that these guys did it on their own initiative, the company didnt ask them too, thats the point in NLRB report, these guys surely intimidated, but the werent part of the union and there was no roof the union was involved.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:50:04am

re: #49 dmon

Didnt feel they had the right…my point was that these guys did it on their own initiative, the company didnt ask them too, thats the point in NLRB report, these guys surely intimidated, but the werent part of the union and there was no roof the union was involved.

They suppressed a contrary point of view “on their own initiative”? Don’t you get how bad that sounds?

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:50:50am

re: #48 dmon

Thanks. Interesting chain of events. Texas is known for its crazy ass politics, but even we don’t need rules like that. Once a recess is called there can be no votes until its reconvened. When the legislature reconvenes is defined at the recess.

We had legislators bug out once over redistricting. Poor bastards went to Oklahoma. There should be a law that terminates the seat vacated by “boycotting” legislators. If they don’t like something don’t vote yes, but they are PAID to be there.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:53:39am

Didnt say it sounds good……. my point was that even though it happened, no one blamed the company for their actions. I dont view my old employer as union suppressing corporate thugs, they werent involved

Its the same in this NLRB case, a couple of guys do something that is clearly wrong, but if the union wasnt involved, why does the article state they are “union thugs”?

Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:55:17am

re: #51 haavamaal

Their job is to represent their constituents, not just show up and rubber-stamp the will of the majority.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:56:36am

re: #51 haavamaal

The quorum requirement is there for a reason, it performs the same function as a fillibuster which is used in many states.

As far as terminating the legislatures……… i think that would be unconstitutional in every state, the state constitution spells out the steps in removing an elected official……as it should

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 11:58:46am

Fleeing the state has happened only about 3 times in 100 years, its an extreme move that only happens in extreme circumstances.

its much tougher to pull off than a fillibuster

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:00:11pm

re: #53 Fozzie Bear

Their job is to represent their constituents, not just show up and rubber-stamp the will of the majority.

and they represent their constituents by running away. Sounds like Monty Python and the vorpal bunny.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:03:36pm

re: #56 haavamaal

extreme yes, and if you are going to do it you better be damn sure the public agrees with you, in the case the polls are about 60-40 against the law in Wisconsin.

Any legislator that leaves can be removed by their constituants either by recall or in the next election……… if 60% of the people in your district strongly oppose a law, and you leave to avoid the law being passed, you are representing your constituants

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:06:42pm

On the flip side, if you vote FOR a law, that 60% of your constituants strongly oppose, are you then representing your constituants?

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:08:55pm

re: #58 dmon

On the flip side, if you vote FOR a law, that 60% of your constituants strongly oppose, are you then representing your constituants?

You vote against the law if the majority of your constituents are against it. Then if you lose you or your party uses that in the next election. Running away is a dishonorable way to represent your constituents.

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:10:19pm

Bottom line is they are paid to be there AND represent their constituents. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes you win. Either way do it like a person of character and honor. Those legislators make me sick.

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:12:06pm

By the logic you are using then Obama should leave the country for 2 years on tour, and no budget bill can ever be passed. They would all have a pocket veto. Sweet what’s after a trillion?

Tigger2 Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:12:43pm

re: #60 haavamaal

Bottom line is they are paid to be there AND represent their constituents. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes you win. Either way do it like a person of character and honor. Those legislators make me sick.

Walker and his union killing Repug administration makes me sick.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:13:17pm

You are free to your opinion, but unless you live in Wisconsin your opinion doesnt matter, neither does mine.

The people of Wisconsin will decide if they did right or wrong, at this point, the people of wisconsin appear to be behind them, the attempts to recall them arent off to a flying start

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:13:53pm

re: #63 dmon

You are free to your opinion, but unless you live in Wisconsin your opinion doesnt matter, neither does mine.

The people of Wisconsin will decide if they did right or wrong, at this point, the people of wisconsin appear to be behind them, the attempts to recall them arent off to a flying start

on this we certainly agree

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:13:55pm

Last response was directed at haavamaal

Tigger2 Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:15:09pm

re: #63 dmon

You are free to your opinion, but unless you live in Wisconsin your opinion doesnt matter, neither does mine.

The people of Wisconsin will decide if they did right or wrong, at this point, the people of wisconsin appear to be behind them, the attempts to recall them arent off to a flying start

I
re: #65 dmon

Last response was directed at haavamaal

I knew it was.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:15:58pm

Here in Ohio where the union bill is actually worse than Wisconsin, the legisators didn’t have either a fillibuster, or quorum requirement to slow it down.

We will have to rely on a referendum to stop the law

Tigger2 Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:16:58pm

re: #67 dmon

Here in Ohio where the union bill is actually worse than Wisconsin, the legisators didn’t have either a fillibuster, or quorum requirement to slow it down.

We will have to rely on a referendum to stop the law

I live in Indiana we have our problems too.

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:20:14pm

Texas has no effective government unions, thank god, so there are no pending issues like that here. We do of course have the same budget issues that most states are having, but generally they are being addressed in a pretty bipartisan way.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:23:14pm

If Texas has no public unions how could they possibly have budget issues? According to the governor of Ohio, this was the most pressing fiscal issue we have, as a matter of fact he is going to declare a fiscal emergency to enact it immediately

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:23:23pm

re: #69 haavamaal

You’re from alternate-universe Texas? Cool!

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:26:31pm

re: #62 Tigger2

Walker and his union killing Repug administration makes me sick.

Not that I care or don’t care for Walker. Frankly, I don’t think one way or the other about him. Nor can I say I give a damn about State other than mine so far is does not affect mine.

That said I can say as an employer with my own company. That when I am hurting financially my employees hurt financially. Do we hurt equally? No. I was talking with a focus group of my staff about this type of topic though, and they virtually unanimously stated they would rather pay more for their benefits and/or have me contribute less to their 401k than be unemployed. From my perspective that is the net effect of what these states are going though.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:29:34pm

re: #72 haavamaal

I have no issue with making sacrifices, I have since 2006, and am willing to do it again… I make less now than I did in 2006…. but what I am not willing to give up is my collective bargaining rights

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:31:24pm

If you asked your employees how they would feel about you downgrading their safety equipment, would they say the same thing?

Im a fulltime firefighter, we would really like to continue to input on the type of equipment we are supplied with

Fozzie Bear Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:33:59pm

re: #69 haavamaal

Texas has no effective government unions, thank god, so there are no pending issues like that here. We do of course have the same budget issues that most states are having, but generally they are being addressed in a pretty bipartisan way.

lolwut?

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:34:14pm

re: #70 dmon

If Texas has no public unions how could they possibly have budget issues? According to the governor of Ohio, this was the most pressing fiscal issue we have, as a matter of fact he is going to declare a fiscal emergency to enact it immediately

Just because we don’t have effective government unions does not mean we don’t have employee benefits and retirement programs for state employees. That said I believe that most employers INCLUDING States should provide benefits to their employees just like private companies.

There are two sides that are causing these budget issues. First the revenue from various states is down, and their “fixed” obligations to employees is up. These two factors took many years to get to this point.

The solution at this point is problematic. Tax your way out of your shortfall and employers like me will move more of our business overseas, and you net little. Many employers like myself don’t mind paying a fair share of taxes, but you have to realize that companies don’t pay taxes. We pass that cost to the consumer. On the other hand you can decease your cost. Reducing cost is painful, but often beneficial in that it forces innovative thought.

Personally I think the solution is some of both, but that’s just me.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:39:15pm

I agree the solution is is incresed taxes and decreased spending.

What both wisconsin and ohio are doing is neither…….. Any costs that the states recover by cutting employee benefits have already been passed on as tax cuts to business, excuse for being skeptical, if I dont think that the average citizen will see a tax decrease,an increase in hiring, …or a reduction in prices that reflect the savings to the businesses….. my opinion is…..they will take the money from the middle class and hand it to the upper class

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:39:47pm

re: #76 haavamaal

So you don’t have a patriotic bone in your body, then?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:40:19pm

re: #76 haavamaal

What sort of business do you run, by the way, where your market is so inelastic you price at production + x, rather than what the market will bear?

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:42:07pm

Any savings in employee costs have already been given away, fiscl benefit to the state budget…….zero

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:43:46pm

Since 1983 Firefighters in my department have bargained our work week down to 48 hours from 56, this bill wipes that out, the result is 16 percent more work hours for the same pay

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:44:32pm

re: #74 dmon

I am in the oil field discovery business. I would sooner degrade my peoples safety equipment than shoot myself. My employees are like family and their job safety is paramount. It does not mean that I don’t downsize or change benefit structures. Safety is a COMPLETELY different issue.

In the 80’s I went from over 300 employees to 12 to stay alive. I have since been lucky enough to get many of my original peeps back through the years, but most landed on their feet in other careers. A couple are even competitors now. re: #78 Obdicut

So you don’t have a patriotic bone in your body, then?

In what way? I was a soldier. I pay personal and corporate tax and don’t even bitch that much. I would be willing as I stated to pay more IF IT’S FAIR.

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:46:17pm

re: #80 dmon

Any savings in employee costs have already been given away, fiscl benefit to the state budget…zero

Well that’s just stupid. What you said is not stupid, rather the effect of the legislation. If it served no financial benefit either way then it was dumb ass legislation.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:46:51pm

re: #82 haavamaal

safety in police and fire is always an issue, the city looks at the price, we look at the performance………. if only our local governments were as dedicated to it as you are, the workers wouldnt have fought like hell to get the right to bargain for it

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:47:21pm

re: #83 haavamaal

Well that’s just stupid. What you said is not stupid, rather the effect of the legislation. If it served no financial benefit either way then it was dumb ass legislation.

BINGO!!

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:49:20pm

re: #79 Obdicut

What sort of business do you run, by the way, where your market is so inelastic you price at production + x, rather than what the market will bear?

I find oil and natural gas for a variety of companies. My market is not inelastic, but is competitive. It’s damn near getting to be like commodity pricing particularly in international markets where I consistently get underbid by the Chinese who are subsidized if not wholly owned by the PLA (People’s Liberation Army).

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:49:26pm

The legislation really has no fiscal effect for the state, the only effect it has is to weaken the unions so they dont finance Democrats in elections

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:52:29pm

re: #84 dmon

safety in police and fire is always an issue, the city looks at the price, we look at the performance… if only our local governments were as dedicated to it as you are, the workers wouldnt have fought like hell to get the right to bargain for it

States are so stupid sometime. We spend tons on safety equipment, not what is required but what is absolutely best. I would love to say that it’s purely altruistic, but it’s not. I do care for my peeps, but I also don’t want the shit sued outta me because I failed to provide the best safety to them.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:53:11pm

re: #86 haavamaal

Then what you just said makes no sense; if your problem is getting underbid, then you would be a goddamn idiot to pass along your costs to the customer.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:59:05pm

re: #88 haavamaal

In 2001 the city paid 1.4 million for new SCBA (self contained breathing apparatus), we had failure after failure, after looking into it we found that the equipment was designed for emergency escape in mining, not designed for structural firefighting (I had one failure myself, fortunately it was after the fire was mostly out) we raised hell with the press, the city was embarassed, they had to shit can the masks, and allowed us to pick the replacement, we are still using them.

After that we demanded the right to bargain for safety equipment and got it. The result is that whatever is bought is evaluated by the city and the union.

The citiy’s criteria when they made the original selection…..price

This Bill makes it illegal for us to bargain over safety equipment

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 12:59:19pm

re: #89 Obdicut

Then what you just said makes no sense; if your problem is getting underbid, then you would be a goddamn idiot to pass along your costs to the customer.

You’re not getting it. Part of any bid process includes the costs your business incurs. Taxes are an expense that companies incur. Those costs are passed to the consumer of the goods or services you produce.

So I bid $15 million to do a project off the coast of Cuba. That $15 million is materials, personnel, overhead, taxes….. Then the Petro China bids $11 million they probably should and would win the bid. They can bid $11 because they don’t have safety standard, or taxes.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:01:15pm

In case you are wondering about the initial cost difference, less than 200 per unit x 200 units

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:01:58pm

re: #92 dmon

In case you are wondering about the initial cost difference, less than 200 per unit x 200 units

You’re not using rebreathers?

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:03:53pm

rebreathers arent really suited for firefighters, we use scott 4500 psi SCBA with 30 minute bottles, rebreathers dont like the heat.

PS please dont recommend them to the city if they are cheaper…..they’ll by em

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:05:00pm

Rebreathers havent been used in firefighting since the 60’s

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:06:03pm

The heat load gets too high as a person in a hot enviroment keeps rebreathing hotter and hotter air

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:06:39pm

We have alot of rebreathers for offshore stuff, but not for fires. What I do generally blows up but there is no fire. You get blown into the water rebreathers rock.

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:07:16pm

Rebreathers are great in the water

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:08:12pm

The problem with city governments, which is probably different than your industry, is that the people purchasing equipment have no idea what we do or how we do it

100

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:08:35pm

while we are on the discovery platforms everyone has both life jacket and rebreather. Perfect combo for what we do. You can be in the water 4-8 hours no problem.

101

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:09:40pm

I started my company after being tool pusher for an oil company while I was going to college.

102

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:10:08pm

Well, if they were working for the city, they’d supply water wings and snorkel

103

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:12:02pm

I’d laugh if you were joking. I need to check with one of my buddies that’s a firefighter at Ft. Sam and see what they use.

104

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:12:17pm

I know many people have strong feeling against unions, I hope you can at least take into consideration that much of what we fight for are things other than money, we’ll grudgingly give up th money, its the other things we will fight to save

105

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:14:50pm

If Ft Sam has a good relationship with the firefighters, they will likely have pretty good stuff, the problem comes in when a city administrator decides he knows more than the folks that use it.

Thats where a union can step in fight for better stuff. We can go to the press and embarass the city into doing the right thing….without the union, when you go to the press the fire you

106

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:16:11pm

re: #91 haavamaal

You’re not getting it. Part of any bid process includes the costs your business incurs. Taxes are an expense that companies incur. Those costs are passed to the consumer of the goods or services you produce.

No, this isn’t true. I’m sorry, but the way that the cost of a bid is determined is not taking costs + X. It’s what the market will bear— except in inelastic markets.

Also, in oil and gas exploration, you’re seriously saying that the quality of a vendor doesn’t actually come into it? That another outfit will be chosen solely based on being cheaper than yours? The people buying these services just don’t give a shit about results?

107

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:16:20pm

I am not totally against unions and think they serve a purpose. I am against unions that exist to benefit the union and not the worker, and you have to admit there are many of them. I would categorize the UAW as one that serves only itself. They negotiated their employees into unemployment. While right down the road from me is Toyota who is a non union shop and their employees would friggin die for them. I have been trying for two years to steal one of their computer modeling crew and he won’t leave no matter what I offer (realistically offer) because he is so loyal. I would love the UAW to come there and maybe I’ll get the guy.

108

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:18:08pm

re: #106 Obdicut

No, this isn’t true. I’m sorry, but the way that the cost of a bid is determined is not taking costs + X. It’s what the market will bear— except in inelastic markets.

Also, in oil and gas exploration, you’re seriously saying that the quality of a vendor doesn’t actually come into it? That another outfit will be chosen solely based on being cheaper than yours? The people buying these services just don’t give a shit about results?

I was being overly simplistic. Quality certainly counts, but in many markets particularly Asia and unfortunately Russia its 90% the cost not the value.

109

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:19:25pm

re: #108 haavamaal

Yeah. You were being more than overly simplistic.

If you are simply passing costs to the customer instead of actually figuring out the price that the market will buy for your services, then I don’t think your problems are that you’re getting underbid.

110

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:20:25pm

re: #107 haavamaal

Unions can get to the point where they cripple a company, too may work rules.

We have one work rule, there has to be an officer on each truck.

Im an officer, if one of my firefighters called the union president to complain that he had clean the toilets again today, the union president would tell him to quit bitchin and go clean the toilets, then he’d be the laughing stock of the department

111

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:23:32pm

re: #109 Obdicut

Yeah. You were being more than overly simplistic.

If you are simply passing costs to the customer instead of actually figuring out the price that the market will buy for your services, then I don’t think your problems are that you’re getting underbid.

The purpose here is not to explain the bid process. Rather that costs are passed to the ultimate consumer not the taxee unless that taxee is the ultimate consumer.

112

albigensian Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:25:56pm

I assume the author meant “DANE” county, not “Dade” County as written. Madison, WI is in Dane county.

And, the constitutional grounds for rejecting the bill are slim-to-none. A quorum is only required for bills that “increase appropriations, impose a tax, or incur a new debt” (Article VIII, Section 8 of Wisconsin Constitution.” This bill, although fiscal, does none of these things.

Finally, Wisconsin government employees are already forbidden by law to strike. So, what’s the union’s leverage? It’s binding arbitration— which is mandatory. Binding arbitration compares the salary and benefits of public employees against those of other public employees, and awards increases if they are not comparable.

However reasonable that may sound, the effect is to increase all public employees’ compensation to equal that of the best compensated in the state— as well as making decreases impossible. The result is a never-ending spiral of wage and benefit improvements which, over time, inevitably come to exceed compensation for similar work in the private sector.

And there is also the matter of work rules. Milwaukee police (not subject to the law) are presently negotiating staffing levels and work rules. But, this raises some obvious questions— such as, who shall have the right to determine how many police are needed, and when— our elected representatives, or the union? And who shall determine what is acceptable on-duty behavior for a police officer— our elected representatives, or the union?

The reality is, public sector unions have become an unelected fourth branch of government, and have usurped what is rightfully the People’s business.

So, these (the costs of retirement at age 50, with pension payout determine by final-year inflated salary) along with interference with the Public’s business are reasons why this bill restricts collective bargaining to wages, and takes benefits and work rules off the table.

113

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:26:18pm

re: #110 dmon

Unions can get to the point where they cripple a company, too may work rules.

We have one work rule, there has to be an officer on each truck.

Im an officer, if one of my firefighters called the union president to complain that he had clean the toilets again today, the union president would tell him to quit bitchin and go clean the toilets, then he’d be the laughing stock of the department

Some union tried to get my peeps interested a few years ago. Their name escapes me, but they where from San Fernando. My folks were like your want me to pay X monthly and you’ll guarantee me less than I have now!! See ya!!

114

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:28:10pm

re: #111 haavamaal

The purpose here is not to explain the bid process. Rather that costs are passed to the ultimate consumer not the taxee unless that taxee is the ultimate consumer.

That’s not true, though. It’s something that’s said by many people, but it isn’t in the least bit true.

In any mature market, the price of a good is set by what the market will bear— X people might buy it at Y price, X+W will buy it at Y-Z price. Etc. The area with the maximum area under that line will determine the ideal selling price. If you rise that price beyond the idea, you will make less money, in any elastic market.

So, no, what you are saying is wrong. What is true is that a produce is not going to be offered at a price below cost + some X— in other words, companies wont engage in unprofitable behavior. That’s a world apart from saying costs are passed along.

115

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:29:41pm

re: #112 albigensian

Holy talking point salad.

116

dmon Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:31:52pm

re: #112 albigensian

So, these (the costs of retirement at age 50, with pension payout determine by final-year inflated salary)

Because we all know that having cops work till they are in their 70’s is in the public interest

117

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:32:57pm

re: #114 Obdicut

Its absolutely true that all costs pass. That is limited by market factors to the extent that the market will not bear the price of the passed costs and the product or service will either not be offered or will be offered by someone who has a different cost structure or other competitive factor that reduces costs.

I sometimes under bid a contract as a loss leader to get my foot in the door, but aside from that I would not bid with a known loss, nor would any serious business person. Opps, Chrysler not withstanding.

118

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:33:46pm

re: #116 dmon

So, these (the costs of retirement at age 50, with pension payout determine by final-year inflated salary)

Because we all know that having cops work till they are in their 70’s is in the public interest

LOL that’s a good one!!

119

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:39:33pm

re: #117 haavamaal

Its absolutely true that all costs pass.

Then actually try to support this, instead of just stating it over and over. Why do you think cost is not set by what the market will bear? Or are you really just saying that the price of an item is greater than its costs? That’s not exactly news.

That is limited by market factors to the extent that the market will not bear the price of the passed costs and the product or service will either not be offered or will be offered by someone who has a different cost structure or other competitive factor that reduces costs.

You’re just using the really awkward phraseology of ‘passed costs’ to say “If something costs too much to make for there to be a profit margin, that company won’t make it”. Duh. That doesn’t mean that costs are passed. If a cost for a company raises, that does not equate, 1-to-1, with that cost being passed to the consumer. That is absolutely wrong.

Very, very often, the response to a rise in cost for a company is that company finding a cost elsewhere to cut, so that they don’t have to pass that rise in cost down to the consumer and lose market share.

120

haavamaal Tue, Mar 15, 2011 1:54:29pm

re: #119 Obdicut

Then actually try to support this, instead of just stating it over and over. Why do you think cost is not set by what the market will bear? Or are you really just saying that the price of an item is greater than its costs? That’s not exactly news.

You’re just using the really awkward phraseology of ‘passed costs’ to say “If something costs too much to make for there to be a profit margin, that company won’t make it”. Duh. That doesn’t mean that costs are passed. If a cost for a company raises, that does not equate, 1-to-1, with that cost being passed to the consumer. That is absolutely wrong.

Very, very often, the response to a rise in cost for a company is that company finding a cost elsewhere to cut, so that they don’t have to pass that rise in cost down to the consumer and lose market share.

Of course costs are not passed on a 1-to-1 basis; although they could. You example of a cost not being passed due to another cost being cut is just another way to pass a cost. In that sense one can say that cost increases not offset by cost reductions in other areas are passed to the consumer up to the point the market might bear.

Would you like me to write you a economic white paper on the cause and effect of costs and price in a competitive market? If so I’ll write up a bid for you.

121

garhighway Tue, Mar 15, 2011 3:11:54pm

re: #69 haavamaal

Texas has no effective government unions, thank god, so there are no pending issues like that here. We do of course have the same budget issues that most states are having, but generally they are being addressed in a pretty bipartisan way.

Hmmm. They DON’T have unions, but they DO have a budget problem.

Could it be that this shows how public unions are NOT the fiscal problem the GOP says they are?

Naaaaaah.

122

Thundermother(it will turn your head around) Tue, Mar 15, 2011 3:21:01pm

“Texas has no effective government unions, thank god, so there are no pending issues like that here.”

You guys have plenty of issues of your own. I escaped to Wisconsin from Texas. Unfortunately your particular brand of right-wing insanity has invaded my beloved state. We’ll see if it takes hold… I grew up here and I don’t see it happening.

*shudder*

123

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Mar 15, 2011 7:03:41pm

re: #120 haavamaal

Of course costs are not passed on a 1-to-1 basis; although they could. You example of a cost not being passed due to another cost being cut is just another way to pass a cost.

No, it’s a cost not being passed. Because, you know, it gets absorbed, rather than being passed.

Jesus christ.

124

younggringos Tue, Mar 15, 2011 9:56:59pm

re: #123 Obdicut

It’s obvious he does business in Texas- he’s never had to deal with a tax increase so this is all theoretical.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Wisconsin Anti-Union Bill Gets March 18 Hearing

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud