Wisconsin lawmakers are missing in action

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
54,903
Reaction score
1,518
MADISON, Wis. – Democrats on the run in Wisconsin avoided state troopers Friday and threatened to stay in hiding for weeks, potentially paralyzing the state government in a standoff with majority Republicans over union rights for public employees.

The dramatic flight from the state stalled a proposal that seeks to ease Wisconsin's budget woes by cutting the pay, benefits and collective bargaining rights of many government workers. Democrats who stayed in Madison scored their own victory, forcing the state Assembly to adjourn until at least Tuesday without taking a vote....
Wisconsin Democrats could stay away for weeks - Yahoo! News
 
Just read this in the SFC *smh*
 
Yup, I read on CNN and I think that governor should find way to cut the spending instead of taking on unions, or even tax increase until their state recovers from revenue loss during recession and post-recession.

I think that you already know that I'm pro-unions but it is up to Wisconsinites to what do with their state, such as democrat senates are absent from job, union strike, protest, etc are not my problem since I'm not from this state so let them handle with situation.
 
Well, regardless of what you might think of unions, the time to take away their wages, bargaining power, etc was not this week. It should have been done when the last contract expired. "Hello, we are no longer willing to negotiate with your union. Go away." Now they are backing out of a legal contract they made. Those wages and benefits they gave were given through a bargaining process.

The issue here is not giving back a few dollars a week. It is about backing out of a signed agreement. Think about being in this situation; you make a legal and signed agreement with someone, and a year later he tears the contract up. He is having financial trouble, and now it has become part of your problem. Would you protest?

The Democrats are famously behind unions. I find it rather ironic that they are boycotting the vote on this thing. Wasn't the Republican party the ones that said they would not allow anything to pass unless the debt was reduced? More partisan crap that means the voters get screwed by the game of bipartisan one-upmanship.
 
This whole situation and the behavior of the unions and protesters is pathetic and hypocritical on so many levels, it's hard to keep count.

Well, regardless of what you might think of unions, the time to take away their wages, bargaining power, etc was not this week. It should have been done when the last contract expired. "Hello, we are no longer willing to negotiate with your union. Go away." Now they are backing out of a legal contract they made. Those wages and benefits they gave were given through a bargaining process.

The issue here is not giving back a few dollars a week. It is about backing out of a signed agreement. Think about being in this situation; you make a legal and signed agreement with someone, and a year later he tears the contract up. He is having financial trouble, and now it has become part of your problem. Would you protest?
I believe it's not effective until July- after the current contract expires.

The Democrats are famously behind unions. I find it rather ironic that they are boycotting the vote on this thing. Wasn't the Republican party the ones that said they would not allow anything to pass unless the debt was reduced? More partisan crap that means the voters get screwed by the game of bipartisan one-upmanship.
How is this at all related to Republicans refusing to support a spending bill that does not reduce the deficit? The Wisconsin Democrats literally ran away from the state to neglect their duties in a representative democracy. Like it or not, at least the Republicans in Congress are playing by the rules.
 
This whole situation and the behavior of the unions and protesters is pathetic and hypocritical on so many levels, it's hard to keep count.


I believe it's not effective until July- after the current contract expires.


How is this at all related to Republicans refusing to support a spending bill that does not reduce the deficit? The Wisconsin Democrats literally ran away from the state to neglect their duties in a representative democracy. Like it or not, at least the Republicans in Congress are playing by the rules.

Yeah, but have you tried having breakfast with them? They won't pass the salt or pepper or anything.
 
Didn't republicans use this same escapist tactic a few years ago in another state, and they were lambasted by democrats for being uncooperative, etc?

I might agree with the democrats on the policy issue, but I certainly don't agree with their "screw you, we're not going to play by the rules" mentality here. Childish and hypocritical.
 
This whole situation and the behavior of the unions and protesters is pathetic and hypocritical on so many levels, it's hard to keep count.


I believe it's not effective until July- after the current contract expires.


How is this at all related to Republicans refusing to support a spending bill that does not reduce the deficit? The Wisconsin Democrats literally ran away from the state to neglect their duties in a representative democracy. Like it or not, at least the Republicans in Congress are playing by the rules.

Do you feel they should give in? Should the union be decertified? If that occurs, good luck to them. Other unions will join the fight. Teamsters will not deliver. Police and fire unions may picket. A very scary precedent.

I do see some similarity between the Dems boycotting this vote and the Repubs boycotting passing of bills in US Congress. It is just my perspective. It is simply a refusal to cooperate.
 
Yeah, but have you tried having breakfast with them? They won't pass the salt or pepper or anything.
Unbelievable. Democrats in Wisconsin are actually leaving the state to bring state business to a halt and you're complaining about Republicans not passing salt and pepper or whatever?

By the way, who locked who out of discussions for the stimulus bill? Who wrote the health care bill behind closed doors? It's hard to get someone to pass you salt and pepper when you keep them locked out of the room.
 
Didn't republicans use this same escapist tactic a few years ago in another state, and they were lambasted by democrats for being uncooperative, etc?
In 2003, Democrats left Texas and headed up to Oklahoma.

I might agree with the democrats on the policy issue, but I certainly don't agree with their "screw you, we're not going to play by the rules" mentality here. Childish and hypocritical.
At least we can agree on that.

Do you feel they should give in? Should the union be decertified? If that occurs, good luck to them. Other unions will join the fight. Teamsters will not deliver. Police and fire unions may picket. A very scary precedent.
The Republicans should not give in to outright bullying. They had to shut down the state legislature over legitimate security concerns. That's how thuggish this thing has gotten. This whole situation, including the illegal striking, makes me think the union should be decertified, but that's not what's being proposed. If other public unions start striking illegally, I think the governor should pull a Reagan and shut them down, too.

By the way, Texas is a right to work state and it works out pretty well for us (considering that something like 70% of all new jobs in the country over the past few years were created here). Teachers unions are quite weak here and yet, you don't see teachers starving in the streets.

I do see some similarity between the Dems boycotting this vote and the Repubs boycotting passing of bills in US Congress. It is just my perspective. It is simply a refusal to cooperate.
No equivalence whatsoever. The filibuster is a part of the rules that the Senate passes at the start of each term. Both parties approve of it when they come into power knowing the other party could use it to block bills. It's a legitimate tactic that neither party really wants to scrap. What the Wisconsin Democrats are doing is possibly illegal and certainly pathetic. It is not a legitimate tactic and it just shows their disdain of the people who had the audacity to elect the other party to power.
 
Unbelievable. Democrats in Wisconsin are actually leaving the state to bring state business to a halt and you're complaining about Republicans not passing salt and pepper or whatever?

By the way, who locked who out of discussions for the stimulus bill? Who wrote the health care bill behind closed doors? It's hard to get someone to pass you salt and pepper when you keep them locked out of the room.

Yep. Gotta have salt and pepper, and if they won't pass them, fuggem.
 
In 2003, Democrats left Texas and headed up to Oklahoma.


At least we can agree on that.


The Republicans should not give in to outright bullying. They had to shut down the state legislature over legitimate security concerns. That's how thuggish this thing has gotten. This whole situation, including the illegal striking, makes me think the union should be decertified, but that's not what's being proposed. If other public unions start striking illegally, I think the governor should pull a Reagan and shut them down, too.

By the way, Texas is a right to work state and it works out pretty well for us (considering that something like 70% of all new jobs in the country over the past few years were created here). Teachers unions are quite weak here and yet, you don't see teachers starving in the streets.


No equivalence whatsoever. The filibuster is a part of the rules that the Senate passes at the start of each term. Both parties approve of it when they come into power knowing the other party could use it to block bills. It's a legitimate tactic that neither party really wants to scrap. What the Wisconsin Democrats are doing is possibly illegal and certainly pathetic. It is not a legitimate tactic and it just shows their disdain of the people who had the audacity to elect the other party to power.

The penalty for illegal striking will be depends in state, teachers whoever join union strike could have their paycheck deducted, cut the wage, loss of benefits, loss of union rights, termination, etc.

I do aware about union striking is illegal for public school teachers and public workers, but I don't understand why governor exempt the police and firefighter from anti-union bill, that's unfair to me.
 
Dark Dog, you're against workers organizing? Do you have a lots of capital assets? A huge stock portfolio?
It's so hard to get good help these days! :laugh2:
 
The penalty for illegal striking will be depends in state, teachers whoever join union strike could have their paycheck deducted, cut the wage, loss of benefits, loss of union rights, termination, etc.

I do aware about union striking is illegal for public school teachers and public workers, but I don't understand why governor exempt the police and firefighter from anti-union bill, that's unfair to me.
I don't know why. If I had to guess, I'd say perhaps it's because firefighters and police officers have more reasonable unions and/or compensation packages, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Personally, I think public sector unions should be banned. It was a nice experiment, but it failed. Here's the problem with public sector unions. I think we can all agree it would be wrong, not to mention illegal, for a worker or a union to bribe a company's management into giving higher salaries and benefits. That screws over the company's stakeholders. But with the public sector unions, that's exactly what's happening, except it's legal. Politicians give unions what they want and unions reward politicians with campaign contributions and political support. They both win and the taxpayers get screwed.

I also think that joining a union should never be a condition for accepting a job. As it is right now, if I were to become a teacher in Wisconsin, I would have to join the union and pay dues. It doesn't matter if I despise everything the union stands for (and I do) or if I oppose the politicians the union supports with my money (which I probably would). I still have to pay. That's not right and that's what they're trying to change in Wisconsin.

Dark Dog, you're against workers organizing? Do you have a lots of capital assets? A huge stock portfolio?
It's so hard to get good help these days! :laugh2:
I'm against public workers organizing. I don't know what my financial situation has to do with it. Yes, I do have some assets, but I wouldn't call myself rich (yet). What I have I acquired through non-union work. I have never been in a union and I've never felt I my compensation was unfair.
 
I don't know why. If I had to guess, I'd say perhaps it's because firefighters and police officers have more reasonable unions and/or compensation packages, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Personally, I think public sector unions should be banned. It was a nice experiment, but it failed. Here's the problem with public sector unions. I think we can all agree it would be wrong, not to mention illegal, for a worker or a union to bribe a company's management into giving higher salaries and benefits. That screws over the company's stakeholders. But with the public sector unions, that's exactly what's happening, except it's legal. Politicians give unions what they want and unions reward politicians with campaign contributions and political support. They both win and the taxpayers get screwed.

I also think that joining a union should never be a condition for accepting a job. As it is right now, if I were to become a teacher in Wisconsin, I would have to join the union and pay dues. It doesn't matter if I despise everything the union stands for (and I do) or if I oppose the politicians the union supports with my money (which I probably would). I still have to pay. That's not right and that's what they're trying to change in Wisconsin.


I'm against public workers organizing. I don't know what my financial situation has to do with it. Yes, I do have some assets, but I wouldn't call myself rich (yet). What I have I acquired through non-union work. I have never been in a union and I've never felt I my compensation was unfair.

Oh I see, I'm for worker rights so you can assume me as pro-unions but I don't believe that anyone should force to join unions that against their wishes or anti-union philosophy. That why most southern and western states have right to work that allow employees to not join union whatever they want. In my opinion, right to work law is joke because of make very hard to recruit the unions, restrict employers from voluntary contracts with unions and employers can fire them for any reasons if they did nothing to make wrong. I like to see Walker to include police and firefighters in anti-union bill too.

Yup, that's true about in Wisconsin, if you want become teacher at public school so you are required to join unions and pay their dues, same goes with CA that I used to live in.

At overall, I support libertarian views on unions and worker rights.
 
I really don't like debating about unions. There is a reason they came into being. There is a reason they are now fading. People like the Koch brothers are more concerned about the people upstairs than the people on the floor. We can talk about people and the drive to be wealthy until we are blue in the face, but the real issue becomes greed. The guy on the floor, that decided he would be content to live his life as a 40 hour a week person with limited need for the finer things in life, often bears the brunt of the guy upstairs that commands a salary 500 times the salary of the guy on the floor, yet feels obligated to give himself a 15% wage increase annually, regardless of how the company is doing.

Unions were devised to keep things a bit more reasonable, especially in the areas of safety and hours worked. There are some CEOs that despise the union workers intensely. There are also CEOs that would pour hazardous chemicals down the drain, forced overtime, discriminatory promotion practices, etc without a union in place.

Do unions play fair? Not much. Are they needed? In some cases, yes. Is it fair to require a new employee to join? Maybe not, but it is also unfair about a lot of what new hires are required to do to accept a job; credit checks, drug testing, personality tests, physicals. What do they do with the information they obtain from people that they don't hire? In some cases, they sell it to further the bottom line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top