Democrats flee Wisconsin to avoid vote, police searching...

[Fenris]

Gonna quote it again:

Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with friendly politicians over taxpayer money

This is why states are going bankrupt.

[Vhayes]

The workers have already agreed to give up/accept financial concessions.

One more time - WHAT is the Governor trying to accomplish? Balance the budget?

Another question - based on this bill, what will the savings be to the state as opposed to other legislation where cost cutting is being proposed? I don't know the answers to any of that. Do you?

[Fenris]

One more time - WHAT is the Governor trying to accomplish? Balance the budget?

Yes, exactly.

Do you see the difference between public sector unions and private sector unions?

Another question - based on this bill, what will the savings be to the state as opposed to other legislation where cost cutting is being proposed? I don't know the answers to any of that. Do you?

The overwhelming majority of state budgets are salaries and benefits of state employees.

[RevLogos]

The workers have already agreed to give up/accept financial concessions.

One more time - WHAT is the Governor trying to accomplish? Balance the budget?

Another question - based on this bill, what will the savings be to the state as opposed to other legislation where cost cutting is being proposed? I don't know the answers to any of that. Do you?

As I understand it, he is required by Wisconsin law to balance the budget. Not sure if this is a new law.

[RabbiKnife]

He's being smart. Instead of playing with numbers and cooking the books and using weird calculations to "balance the budget" in a politically correct way, he is using real revenue and cost numbers to balance the budget.

He's not hiding his head in the sand.

He's saying "we have to get this under control now or the state will not be able to operate in the future, and I am not going to play a shell game with the budget to create a bigger liability down the road for some other poor schmuck to have to deal with."

[awestruckchild]

IMO, it dosen't matter what is being voted on. These public servants were elected in to office to do a job, not run away from voting on difficult matters. If they don't agree with the Governor's proposal, vote against it. That's their job, period.

You've said it all LT!
To try to block a vote in this way is not the way to go.
It's like if one team going to the superbowl absolutely knew they would lose and so they ran away and hid so no one could win.................or something...........

[Vhayes]

Yes, exactly.

Do you see the difference between public sector unions and private sector unions?
The overwhelming majority of state budgets are salaries and benefits of state employees.

There are a couple of things I would like to lay out here, for my own focus as much as anything else.

1. - The state employees have already AGREED to concessions. They are as aware as anyone the state coffers are empty - or at least I would think they would be.

2. - That being the case, why the stance of immovability by the Governor? Why insist that collective bargaining for anything except wages held to a cost of living index be dismantled? Why not take the savings to the state that is offered up, consider it a starting point and see where the state is financially in 2 years.

3. - If the goal is to balance the budget, what are the other proposals?

I DO think changes need to be made. States, as well as the Federal Government ARE in trouble. Someone is going to have to just suck it up and make do with less than they were promised when they hired on. That happens all the time in the private sector. What people fear (I think) is the job/position/retirement/health care they were "promised" will just disappear. That may be ok if you are 30 or even on some levels if you are 45 - bit it would be hard to adjust to deep changes if you are 60 today.

[Fenris]

There are a couple of things I would like to lay out here, for my own focus as much as anything else.

1. - The state employees have already AGREED to concessions. They are as aware as anyone the state coffers are empty - or at least I would think they would be.

I suppose what they agreed to is not enough, according to the governor.

2. - That being the case, why the stance of immovability by the Governor? Why insist that collective bargaining for anything except wages held to a cost of living index be dismantled? Why not take the savings to the state that is offered up, consider it a starting point and see where the state is financially in 2 years.

because he doesn't want to punt the problem down the road. He wants to fix the system, not put a band-aid on it.

3. - If the goal is to balance the budget, what are the other proposals?

Unknown. Regardless, as I have stated above, the vast majority of a state's budget goes to wages and benefits.


I would like you to at least acknowledge this statement. Thi sis the third time I am posting it and thus far you seem content to pretend it doesn't exist:

Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with friendly politicians over taxpayer money

[Vhayes]

I'm not sure about that statement one way or the other. It doesn't appear they are all that friendly when they are negotiating. On the other hand, politicians are "public sector" employees - so they certainly have a vested interest.

Rush and his "bandaid fix" statement is goofy. Compromise HAS been reached - but the Governor is wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Go slow. See what happens in a couple of years. It probably won't be any better - and if it isn't, then you talk further about ways and means of MAKING it better.

Also, and this is very real - I have been anti-union my whole life. Their demands are usually over the top, especially when regular joes are trying to make the best of their employment situation with NO bargaining power. But this whole scenario reeks.

[Fenris]

I'm not sure about that statement one way or the other.

OK, allow me to simplify it.

Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits.

Government unions negotiate over taxpayer money


Agree or disagree?

Rush and his "bandaid fix" statement is goofy.

I didn't reralize that Rush had said it. GMTA I guess.

Compromise HAS been reached - but the Governor is wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Why? because he wants to alter collective bargaining rules? How is that "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"?

Go slow. See what happens in a couple of years. It probably won't be any better - and if it isn't, then you talk further about ways and means of MAKING it better.

Why not just fix it?

Also, and this is very real - I have been anti-union my whole life.

If you say so.

[Diggindeeper]

No one has said that they have to give up their collective bargaining rights. It just is not in the bill. The bill eliminates the right to bargain for guaranteed union contributions to health care and pension costs, because the problem the state has now is the inability to fund those programs. The idea that this bill eliminates collective bargaining rights is nonsense being spread by union supporters.

The issue isn't about the short term balance this year. It is about next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. The State has to have an equal playing field when to comes to guesstimated health care and pension costs, and the Unions what guaranteed benefits at a fixed price now, regardless of what actual costs are in the future.

The governor is taking on the sacred cow of "entitlement", and no one wants to address the issue of unfunded mandates for pension and health care costs.

RabbiKnife is right. Even if the state of Wisconsin accepted the 'concessions' and moved on, what's to prevent the union from voting next week (or next year) to put it all back in, like it was in the first place?

1. - The state employees have already AGREED to concessions. They are as aware as anyone the state coffers are empty - or at least I would think they would be.

See my quote above....(in blue)

2. - That being the case, why the stance of immovability by the Governor? Why insist that collective bargaining for anything except wages held to a cost of living index be dismantled? Why not take the savings to the state that is offered up, consider it a starting point and see where the state is financially in 2 years.

According to what I've read and heard on newsbroadcast, the state (and that means the Governor who has been elected by the majority) took on the job of trying to balance the budget. No one can do that overnight, even the Governor. All he, as Governor has said is that he wants the people (teachers, etc.) to put 40% into their OWN retirement funds, where at this time the STATE is having to pay their retirement 100%.

Personally, I don't know anyone in the private unions whose companies pays in 100% of anyone's retirement benefits. Maybe there are some, but I know of none. What's wrong with them putting in 40% towards their own retirement plan?

Then, the Governor wants them to pay only 12% towards their healthcare provisions. As it is now, the state (in my understanding) is paying ALL costs of their healthcare provisions. 12% is not too much to ask, in my opinion. Most plans that I know of, might have us paying at least 20%. So in my way of thinking, the governor is not being at all unreasonable in what he wants for the benefit of EVERYONE in the state of Wisconsin. What's wrong with them paying 12% of their own healthcare costs??

3. - If the goal is to balance the budget, what are the other proposals?

I DO think changes need to be made. States, as well as the Federal Government ARE in trouble. Someone is going to have to just suck it up and make do with less than they were promised when they hired on. That happens all the time in the private sector. What people fear (I think) is the job/position/retirement/health care they were "promised" will just disappear. That may be ok if you are 30 or even on some levels if you are 45 - bit it would be hard to adjust to deep changes if you are 60 today.

I honestly don't think the Governor is being unreasonable. The problem is that people are not well informed, and so jump on the bandwagon that is screaming "He's trying to do away with 'collective bargaining'! He's not doing that. Just limiting what they can demand with their collective bargaining power.

[Vhayes]

RabbiKnife is right. Even if the state of Wisconsin accepted the 'concessions' and moved on, what's to prevent the union from voting next week (or next year) to put it all back in, like it was in the first place?

Because it would be a contract? Because they will stick to their agreement for the duration?

[See my quote above....(in blue)

And why should anyone trust the gov to "do the right thing"? What I hear ALL the time is we should not trust the gov. Now all of a sudden we should?

[According to what I've read and heard on newsbroadcast, the state (and that means the Governor who has been elected by the majority) took on the job of trying to balance the budget. No one can do that overnight, even the Governor. All he, as Governor has said is that he wants the people (teachers, etc.) to put 40% into their OWN retirement funds, where at this time the STATE is having to pay their retirement 100%.

And this was agreed to by the union members. As was all the health care payments. The ONLY thing they are up in arms about as far as I can tell after having read story after story, is the demand to eliminate collective bargaining. They have agreed to all the financial concessions made by Governor Walker.

Personally, I don't know anyone in the private unions whose companies pays in 100% of anyone's retirement benefits. Maybe there are some, but I know of none. What's wrong with them putting in 40% towards their own retirement plan?

There's NOTHING wrong with it and it should have happened long ago. And the workers have agreed to this. So - why is Governor Walker not willing to accept exactly what he asked for?

Then, the Governor wants them to pay only 12% towards their healthcare provisions. As it is now, the state (in my understanding) is paying ALL costs of their healthcare provisions. 12% is not too much to ask, in my opinion. Most plans that I know of, might have us paying at least 20%. So in my way of thinking, the governor is not being at all unreasonable in what he wants for the benefit of EVERYONE in the state of Wisconsin. What's wrong with them paying 12% of their own healthcare costs??

THis too is something the workers agreed to. So - once again - why is Governor Walker unwilling to accept these concessions/compromises and continues to insist the collective bargaining on ALL things except wages (which are tied to the cost of living index) be eliminated?

I honestly don't think the Governor is being unreasonable. The problem is that people are not well informed, and so jump on the bandwagon that is screaming "He's trying to do away with 'collective bargaining'! He's not doing that. Just limiting what they can demand with their collective bargaining power.

He IS doing away with collective bargaining in any meaningful way. If the only item able to be negotiated is pay and that is tied to the cost of living index, then what earthly good would the union be?

Why is the Governor unwilling to accept the FINANCIAL concessions that have been made, concession he himself asked for? Why is he insisting that the collective bargaining issue be eliminated?
V

[RabbiKnife]

What people fear (I think) is the job/position/retirement/health care they were "promised" will just disappear. That may be ok if you are 30 or even on some levels if you are 45 - bit it would be hard to adjust to deep changes if you are 60 today.

You mean like Social INsecurity?

[RabbiKnife]

I'll say it loud and proud.

I'm agreeing with FDR. Public sector unions should be illegal. Period. The civil service protection system provides more protection for public sector folks that union contracts ever dreamed of. Kennedy issued an executive order to permit federal public sector unions.

ANd the contract idea...as in "but we already negotiated womb from the tomb income from the state? Well, if you enter into a contract knowing that the person you contract with does not have the ability to pay, then that's your own problem.

Perhaps Wisconsin should just default on its bonds, declare bankruptcy, eliminate all the union contracts, and start all over.

Coming to a state near you soon. You can take care of the Goose that lays the Golden Egg, or you can kill it by demanding 300 eggs a day. The unions apparently have decided to kill the Goose and then blame the Goose for dying.

[Vhayes]

I'll say it loud and proud.

I'm agreeing with FDR. Public sector unions should be illegal. Period. The civil service protection system provides more protection for public sector folks that union contracts ever dreamed of. Kennedy issued an executive order to permit federal public sector unions.

ANd the contract idea...as in "but we already negotiated womb from the tomb income from the state? Well, if you enter into a contract knowing that the person you contract with does not have the ability to pay, then that's your own problem.

Perhaps Wisconsin should just default on its bonds, declare bankruptcy, eliminate all the union contracts, and start all over.

Coming to a state near you soon. You can take care of the Goose that lays the Golden Egg, or you can kill it by demanding 300 eggs a day. The unions apparently have decided to kill the Goose and then blame the Goose for dying.

That's all well and good except it has no meaning in this particular instance. The people are trying to take care of the goose by complying with all the demands made except for one - collective bargaining on benefits.