That's the difference. You THINK they can be done with the unions, I KNOW they can easily be done, along with an overhaul and improvment of the education system, without them.

Unions were great in the early 1900s. As of now, they are doing much more harm than good, ESPECIALLY regarding public servants. The additional load and buracracy that they place on an already burdened state goverment is unacceptable and the meaningless concessions that they are pleading for now that they realize that they have little choice left, it pitiful.

No fluff this is about union busting, busting the union will let the state cut it's budget, and easily streamline and improve the education system in rapid fasion instead of it takig years of red tape just to get a pack of #2 pencils for a classroom.

Detmer and Servant, you guys are sticking to the opposition point that it's about union-busting. It's not. If it was then it would call for the elimination of the collective bargaining agreement and units all together. It doesn't.

I really wish you guys would read the relevant fiscal notes offered by the Wisconsin legislative bureau. It's frustrating for me to explain as I've worked with state budgeting for several years now, but you guys want to take a cursory look at it.

As for the tax credits--I don't know the policy of why he did or didn't pass them. But it's insolvable to have a pension fund entirely paid for by the employer. This isn't Google where your stock shares multiple every day. You have a set tax base, set growth or lack thereof, and set costs incurred.

Quite frankly, Wisconsin is one of many states confronting the pensions/liabilities issue that was irresponsibly put off in good times. It is a travesty it takes until bad times for it to come up, but that's the reality we face.

And while I respect the teachers, Servant, I don't feel that bad for them. It appears, similar to my home state, that they already get a better deal and earn more than the average state government employee. But that's a result of them having a historically stronger union that negotiates with brass-knuckle tactics as we're seeing.

And, by the way, when does the union share any responsibility? They went from a 5/5 share to 0/10. Then they cry wolf when the state says time to ante up for those years you got a free ride? Gimme a break.

This is about busting the unions. If it is not why doesn't the Gov just give all state employees a 5% pay decrease. I'm sure that would fix any deficits. And they would keep their jobs and still be FAR better off than the private sector. Everyone wins.

Except the UNIONS won't let that happen.

Do you read before you post?

I do read before i post- and no where did i hear the gov trying to ACROSS THE BOARD make a 5% pay cut. He is singling out Unions. Geezz I feel like i am talking to 4 yr olds.

Mr Ford,
the unions are on record, agreeing to the cnocessions the Gov wanted, EXCEPT for disbanding the union.

Too little too late. They are like a little kid fluffig and complaining untill daddy pulls off his belt, then they change their tone.

It went too far already, just because you cry like a little girl doesn't mean you are instantly forgiven for everything you have done in the past.

You can help the budget and rid the state of another worthless and harmful union all at the same time? Holy fluff that's an amazing deal, where do I sign.

Servant, talking to mrford is like talking to the gov. It's a waste of time. His head is way to far up him rear.

actually there are no specific pay cuts per say it's the paying into the pensions and health benefits. and that is across the board (I guess t would be about an 8% take home cut howeer they get to keep their health care and pensions, sounds like a good deal)

the one thing that isn't across the board is the collective barganing restrictions. Fire, emt, and police won't have the new restrictions.

He isn't dissbanding the unions, he's limiting their rights. The "paycut" you are fluffing about is ALL PUBLIC WORKERS

I'm on my iPod and I found a reputable article that disproved pretty much everythng you have said on this thread deerhunter

http://mobile.reuters.com/...STRE71H6I020110219?ca=rdt

you are a fluffing tard deerhunter now stop trying to talk with the grownups and run back to the express board to troll.

Well I suppose if we cut off your penis and balls but leave you with y chromosomes you're still a man technically...

It does not eleminate the collective bargaining, it caps them, and requires a voting referendum to raise that cap.

http://www.weac.org/..._rights_from_workers.aspx

Jesus ppl. Do any of you read?

The more I read the more simple this looks.

All I said is if its about budget cuts, the Gov can have his way.

If its about busting a union, or, are the current analogy seems to be making a bull a steer, then the Gov can keep the current course.

BTW here's another article pointing out that public safety union in Wisconsin (the one exempted) is historically conservative.

Excellent article.
http://www.politico.com/...s/stories/0211/49919.html

Jesus crist. It talks about "the safety union" for half of a sentence.

That is a bloody horrible article. What are you smoking and how much for a pound?

That article is full of generalizations, incorrect information, and banter. I see very few facts and just a ton of quotes. Nothing is supported with evidence and it is extremely vague.

Can you actually read or did you just glance at the first page?


The democrats are acting like spoiled little children. The republicans are playing hardball. Who the fluff cares, partisanship is killing this country.

The bottom line is, restricting the unions gives the goverment, who by the way actually pays these people, so they should have more rights than the workers themselves, a little more say for the future of the education system. It allows the PEOPLE to be able to decide when to raise the cap on teachers pay. It allows fluffty teachers to be done away with and the good ones to be promoted.

If youtards would get over your "OMFG THEY ARE TRYING TO BUST THE UNIONS" bullfluff, you would see how good this bill is. They are not busting the unions, they are taking some power back in order to fix a failing system. The budget was just the final trigger, this just plain needs to be done.

Grow a pair and actually read an entire factual article. Stop pointing at one sentence in a 4 page fluffty article and hanging on that phrase as if it's gospel.

People are still forgetting the almost $1 billion in cuts yet to come. It is also much more than teachers. An example that I am sure Wisconsin is not alone in, the DMV. Ever been there and waited forever, to get the grumpy guy who rarely speaks, just pushes the papers to you, and moves at the speed of drying paint?

Well, now they need to lay someone off. Do they lay off the non-productive lazy guy? Nope, they are forced to lay off the new girl who just happens to be full of energy, fast, and friendly. The same thing for road works, plow drivers, everyone. Promotion? Still based on seniority. Or, refusal to allow cross training in many areas, even if it would not change working hours. Just a few examples.

I DO think though that if the Unions agreed to transform there would be enough support to make it temporary until the new organization can be defined and roles agreed. Something more "like" an oversight organization. They also always claim just about everything is working "conditions" giving the image of sweat shops, and should somehow keep it restricted to true conditions. Since those are pretty much all defined in law they could act as legal support for individual workers under the existing law. Just ideas.

But it is about budget due to that $1 billion as well as the future. It MAY still be the wrong thing to do, and as I said before there is plenty to argue. But to say it isn't even about the budget is the wrong direction to argue it if resolution or more support is the desired result.

The union is offering furloughs which are one-time savings. The problem they face is structural in nature. A big part of the problem comes from the state subsidizing the employee portion of retirement contribution rates. In other words, once upon a time state employees and the state government shared the retirement costs, but the unions were successful at getting the state to supplant the employee contribution.

When your retirement costs have grown almost 26% in the last 9 years, your medicaid costs have grown faster, and your revenues are flat then you have a structural deficit. The best means to address this are to address the biggest growth in costs. So you cut your medicaid rolls some by reducing coverage or reduce your pension liability (via reduced benefits, reduced number of employees or increased employee contribution) and/or you do both.

What you don't do is increase taxes on your small business community, particularly in industries that can pick up and move easily to a more friendly state. This of course comes with the Laffer Curve for those of you familiar with budgeting process.

And you didn't ask this, but I saw folks saying 'take stimulus money.' Well, that's part of the problem. Stimulus money is one-time by default. Worse yet, most stimulus dollars came with strings attached-- K-12 you can't reduce spending levels, medicaid you have to expand coverage, etc. Smart states with budget deficits only accepted the stimulus dollars without strings--aka the infrastructure dollars (and not the rail ones).

If you guys want to learn more--find your state capitol, find their revenue estimate briefings and go to one. There are volumonous documents produced about how states budget, but the best sources are typically the non-partisan legislative analyst reports.

Yep! There are some school districts in Wisconsin that had teachers slated to be laid off. In THESE cases it was also due to declining class size and not "strictly" budget, although due to State funding being per-student it was that as well.

Stimulus money was accepted. This paid all the costs of these teachers for a one year period. However, it required a 2 or 3 year contract be signed. So, by accepting the "stimulus", we are now stuck with excess teachers in rural schools that are not needed even by their own Union's class size desires. They SHOULD have just been laid off and the stimulus money refused if it came with those strings.

let the state legislators give up their med benefits and pensions and take a pay cut as a gesture of good will first.
:)

The circle of beck

balanced budget -> tax cuts ->budget deficit -> "crises" -> reason to cut services -> outsource contract to buddies (profits)-> balanced budget. AND REPEAT!
:)

Martian, am I to assume you are one that is back on the story that Walker created this deficit for the budget ending this June?

Also, I DO agree ALL legislators should take a cut as a means to lead by example. However, it should also be odd that the Governor makes LESS than the leader of WEAC, just ONE of the many Unions.

http://cnsnews.com/...onsin-public-school-8th-g

Imagine how bad it would be without the union and 170k a year! For shame Governor!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/...ernal+-+Economy+-+Text%29

Some notable paragraphs:

"President Obama's intervention in the dispute between Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker and public employee unions violates his constitutional obligations to ensure representative democracy in each state and abuses special privileges he enjoys as President."

"Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." By supporting and facilitating outside agitators in Wisconsin to extend the shutdown of the legislature, the President is failing in his constitutional obligation to ensure that voters can effect laws through the ballot box."

"In the private sector, unions represent less than 8% of workers, because an increasingly well educated and professional labor force does not find them relevant, as did less-educated industrial workers who dominated the non-agricultural labor force in the decades after World War II.

Public-sector unions enjoy a superior relevance to their members. If a private union negotiates wages and benefits that make its employer uncompetitive, the business fails and workers lose their benefits. Government workers and their employers face no similar competitive restraints, and often organize politically to ensure their bosses -- governors and legislators -- are pro-union.

Now in Wisconsin and several other states, voters have chosen governments that would rebalance the relationship between public employers and organized labor. The reforms proffered by Governor Walker are not as radical as laws denying collective bargaining, for example, in Virginia and several other states.

Under U.S. law, the scope of public sector workers' right to collective bargaining is the legitimate province of state legislatures, and the intercession of the President of the United States into the lawmaking functions of a state legislature is an illegitimate use of federal executive power.
Presidents enjoy a peculiar status in U.S. law. Federal courts are disinclined to adjudicate the acts of sitting presidents, fusing their private and official personality under the law."



This sums up my exact views on the topic.


Most notably, the voters have spoken: "voters have chosen governments that would rebalance the relationship between public employers and organized labor"

So let the elected officials do the job they were elected to do!

The democrats fleeing the state is rather ridiculous and immature.

http://postbulletin.com/...es/display.php?id=1445909


This is about Union busting, or more importantly, taking away "union dues" that go to support "democratic canidates."


The Gov got a prank call, and believed it was real heh.

Those GOP members may still want things like the State being responsible for collecting dues changed, or more frequent union votes on certification, and Unions still refuse since it still limits collective bargaining under certain circumstances, but I like the compromise idea at the end of this editorial:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116773954.html

It removes it for NOW, but it would also turn the Unions into budget Watchdogs to ensure it stays preserved once this budget is fixed. They could still collectively bargain, but they would ALWAYS be on the lookout for waste. They would also likely stop supporting every proposed entitlement program that has nothing to do with them in an effort to keep the budget in balance for their own self-preservation. I would personally still add that the State stop collecting the dues for them and let them deal with that themselves, but the "basic" idea of this is the first thing I've seen that would really be a compromise.

so, the general population is stating that public union members are self-serving beotches who need to be separated because they are running around like a bunch of bullies?

But, imagine them running around to keep the budget balanced!

"Union-busting." Sounds so bad. Try living in a state where a unions impose compulsory dues on members regardless of whether the member wants to join the union or not. Attempts to change it have been met with the same accusation ;).

Walker also didn't say the Union couldn't collect dues, only that the State was not going to do it FOR them and make it mandatory to have it withheld. The Unions can still get their dues. They are likely worried about those who would stop paying when they are no longer forced.

Haven't you guys seen Armed and Dangerous?!

UNIONS ARE TEH DEVIL!!!111oneoneeleven

naw, they're just a bunch of crooks.

"We Will, We Will, Steal From You!"
"We Are The Champions! We Are The Champions!"
"You ARe Da Losers!"
"We Are The Champions!"

i can change 20 lightbulbs in the time it takes for a union member to process the request!

Trumper,

Oklahoma went "right to work" right while I lived there.

Trust me, unions don't only negotiate for money/wages,

but also for safety, standards and other things.
I used to be anti-union, till I saw what happened in Oklahoma after 'right to work" went throug,

Friends of mine that used to make 25-30 dollars an hour for a project, could only make 12-15 if they stayed home. So now they leave the state for similar types of jobs. So they can make the 30$ an hour.

Sure, the "owners" of the projects pocket that money,
safety is down,

but at least those "dues" don't go to the wrong political party.

This is about removing the power of labor, plain and simple. I don't understand why people on this forum continue to think that this lowering of salary - ALONG WITH elimination of public assets - will not happen to you also. The message is as it always has been: The top 0.1% are simply pocketing the difference.. it's not like there's any savings to be had from this budget "deal."

Any guesses as to what next year's WI budget will contain? MORE tax breaks for super-rich people - who continue to receive services from state government paid for by the very same people whose salary they are cutting. And then, to "pay for" the budget deficit that is created solely by reducing revenues, they will cut salaries of the middle and lower class even more.


The macro-economic result of this is crystal clear: Reduction of aggregate demand in the US. Salaries of the bottom 90% have not increased since the 60's.. and how, exactly, is this a rising standard of living? WHY is anyone supporting this?

* All the excuses given so far in this thread about the negative effects of unions are not true in WI. The budget was not an issue until Walker slashed company taxes. All the assumptions about "unions negotiating in good faith" ASSUME the revenue side of the budget is staying constant! Interestingly enough, Walker and the Republicans are not meeting the legal definition of good faith.

First I would like to point out that federal employees do not have the bargaining rights that these state employees do. Are federal employees whipped while shoveling coal? No...their pay is higher than state employees actually, for a myriad of reasons that aren't important to this conversation.

Second, the company taxes have no effect on the current budget, and is a moot point. Though it will have a positive effect in the future as businesses will move to Wisconsin due to lower taxes. Business friendly environment creates business.

Third, you talk of macro-economics, yet you do not actually take the entire effect of what is happening into the equation.

You covered that a worker receives lower pay, thus a CEO must receive higher pay or the company higher profits. Sure enough, that is true. Lets continue from that point. A company has higher profits, thus they can be more competitive, not only domestically, but internationally. They can lower their prices to increase their share of the entire market for their "widgets". They then move their profit margin back down for the increase of products sold.** They then need to hire more workers to account for the increase of product sold.

On the demand side, the price of the widget has now gone down as explained above and the same worker who took the pay cut can now buy a widget same as they could before on their old salary(same buying power). With lower costs, they can buy the same amount of items as before, even with the lower salary, if this example is indeed an example of business in a given country.

Now if we take the labor side, it is about exactly opposite. A worker makes more money, thus the company cannot sustain the workforce(lets think GM here as it is a perfect example of pay being too high) and must layoff or raise prices. If they raise prices, in all likelihood one of two things happen; either prices go up on all things and the worker who makes more money has no more buying power than at the lower salary, or the company who raised the price goes out of business. If the prices are up and the company survives, it means that all business raised prices equalizing buying power. If the company goes out of business(in all likelihood) he lays off all workers.

In the first example we have more employed workers and thus higher demand. In the second we have more unemployed and thus lower demand. The buying power of the employed remains the same in each case, even with the change in actual salaries.

The problem occurs when regulations skew the market and create bubbles or monopoly situations. Oil for example is not freely accessed because of government intervention, thus the companies who do drill can control the price of oil without outside competitors. The housing market had the bubble created by federal intervention in 1995 which caused prices to skyrocket. After that it is inevitable that it will burst at some point.

All in all, that is a pretty good look at capitalism vs semi-capitalism. Im sure there are even further unintended consequences, but this rounds it out well I think. If we were to go full socialism vs capitalism, things change considerably and Im not doing that here.

**If they don't lower prices, another company will since someone will want to make more money for themselves. Its capitalism using greed to turn the economy.

I hope that is all comprehensible lol. Im horrible at expressing my intricate thoughts into words sometimes. Hope you get the idea anyways hehe.

"the company taxes have no effect on the current budget"

Quit lying. The revenue shortfall which results from the decrease in corporate taxes is precisely the gap that is the fabricated "excuse" to demand the elimination of collective bargaining. WI was firmly in the black; there was zero justification for reducing taxes.


"They can lower their prices to increase their share of the entire market"

Please copy/paste more econ 101. It's all irrelevant to this thread, but feel free to talk about whatever is on your mind.

This is about reducing corporate taxes purely to pander to corporate interests, eliminating unions, and giving public assets to corporations for free.

*sigh* I guess you could have learned something via econ 101. Lower taxes helps business...lower costs helps business...better business = larger pie for everyone...larger pie is good. Its basic capitalism, which is the underlying issue to this thread.

The shortfall you allude to is THIS year. The taxes are a change to future budgets, so no, they are not for this shortfall. Even the unions themselves stopped trying to use this argument.

Giving public assets? Where is anyone giving public assets away? Im all against corporate welfare, but I haven't seen any indication of it.

Lower taxes = billionaires siphon more money out of the system never to be seen again.

where does it go? how'd you get the money to spend on their junk in the first place? dang billionaires and the invention of the Money Vacuum!!!!

WE DA BILLIONAIRES WILL SUCK UP ALL YOUR MONEY UP AND SEND IT INTO DA SUN SO IT CAN BURN FOR ETERNITY BECAUSE YOU IDIOTS DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE IT PROPERLY!!!!

LOL, i can't believe that Detmer.

you pay people to play sports billions of dollars per year.
you pay people billions of dollars per year to pretend to be something that they are not so you can watch a 2 hour fictional piece of life displayed on a 2D screen.

and you got the farking balls to complain about billionaires sucking up all da money.

Ummm yeah... it's true. They stick their money in banks who then refuse to lend it out and the money is effectively removed from the system. The money leaves the economy and things slow down. Pretty simple concept actually.

no, it's just a pretty stupid concept, actually. the banks don't loan the money out because it all got sent into the sun, because the billionaires don't need it anymore because they suckered da people into giving them that green stuff that grows on trees.

da people gave up their hard earned money willingly to da billionaires, why you need to tax them to take it back, anyway? what is this? Grand Theft Auto?

Does Billionaires Are Keeping Me From Their Illegally Earned Money That I Was Stooooopid Enough To Give Them for recording a movie, or a sporting event, or some dude sang a song that i liked...

oh, Detmer, do you happen to own an iApple product or three?

I proudly own zero apply products. Thanks for asking.

I do have Microsoft products though. Bill Gates donates tons of his money back into people's pockets through charitable efforts. He has also said the rich need to be taxed more heavily. Bill Gates is actually aware that the rich make more money when everyone else has money due to a booming economy. He is unlike most billionaires who are more interested in their relative wealth than their absolute wealth.

you show me some dang evidence that Bill Gates is paying anything out of his Hide-Da-Billions Dollar Fund to help anyone, anywhere without making a two dollar profit off of it...

it's just a dang tax shelter beotch... you think he's actually losing money with that deal?

His net worth is $54B. He has donated $28B to charity. Donating 34% of your wealth is more than tax sheltering.

ok, so you're not mad at Bill Gates for sucking up all your money, what exactly are you mad at? da tax payers don't feel that you are earning your money and they think you should have your nads shoved up to your mouth, so you can choke on them?

You are too bad at trolling to coherently address... trolls are supposed to make people angry, not be incomprehensible...

dude, you're off topic... shut the fark up.

explain why teachers who can't teach worth a damn need to strike to get a pay raise?

Hmmm,

Dibs sucks as an earther and can't play worth crap.

Therefore, he needs more turns,

So, let's all go on strike, so Dibs can actually compete?


you know, it's not fair to judge the whole community, by your terrible playing skills.


Just as it isn't fair to judge the majority of teachers by the occasional bad one.

increase teacher pay, you'll get higher quality people going into teaching overall, yes the occasional sucky teacher wil make it through, but the voerall quality will go up.

I would never work for a union. Pay me my worth not what someone negotiated in a board room.

I know I am an outstanding employee and deserve a reasonable pay. There are however many around me that arent, yet you union guys think they should be paid as much as me just because they showup and thats what was negotiated?

Thats what is wrong with this country (USA) everyone has thier hand out wanting everything but no one wants to actually sweat and bleed for it. They all want it handed to them, because somehow they deserve it just because they exist.

Without a union you won't get paid what you're worth. They will pay you less than someone in a third world country. Until there are more jobs than workers it is essential for people to unionize.