Public Employees Protesting WI Governor

[mook]

This isn't a conflict between the government and the union; it's a conflict between the union and the taxpayers. I choose the taxpayers.

Oddly enough, the majority of taxpayers choose the unions:

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them.
Those surveyed said they opposed, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits, breaking down along similar party lines. A majority of respondents who have no union members living in their households opposed both cuts in pay or benefits and taking away the collective bargaining rights of public employees.
Governors in both parties have been making the case that public workers are either overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits. But 61 percent of those polled — including just over half of Republicans — said they thought the salaries and benefits of most public employees were either “about right” or “too low” for the work they do.
When it came to one of the most debated, and expensive, benefits that many government workers enjoy but private sector workers do not — the ability to retire early, and begin collecting pension checks — Americans were closely divided. Forty-nine percent said police officers and firefighters should be able to retire and begin receiving pension checks even if they are in their 40s or 50s; 44 percent said they should have to be older. There was a similar divide on whether teachers should be able to retire and draw pensions before they are 65.
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Feb. 24-27 with 984 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all adults. Of those surveyed, 20 percent said there was a union member in their household, and 25 percent said there was a public employee in their household.

 

[mook]

Anyway, I'm not opposed to cutting spending to reduce federal deficits, and I certainly appreciate that states have to balance their budgets. It just seems unfortunate to me that teachers and unions are being singled out as leeches and parasites, when more broad-based cuts (and tax increases) is clearly where we need to aim.

 

[PapaG]

Oddly enough, the majority of taxpayers choose the unions:

I'm not sure what a national poll has to do with a state issue, but regardless, I wonder what the results would be if those polled knew that the federal government doesn't allow any collective bargaining. Not ever for wages, which WI workers would keep.

The facts are all over this thread. WI public union workers have many advantages over their paymasters in the private sector. WI had an election, and elected a governor who campaigned on repairing their budget. At some point, the idiots of America need to realize that the money will soon not exist to pay out these promises that have been made by Democratic politicians to their campaign funders in the public unions.

That said, what Walker should do is strip off the non-financial aspects of the bill, vote on the Collective Bargaining portions, and pass them. A quorum of 20 is only needed for appropriations bills; collective bargaining does not fall under that umbrella.

I'll point out that the poll of a "adults", and not "registered voters", or even "likely voters".

 

[Minstrel]

I'll point out that the poll of a "adults", and not "registered voters", or even "likely voters".

Why is that an important thing to note? maxiep and mook were talking about tax-payers. Even people who don't vote pay taxes. I don't think either poster was, in this case, talking about the political fall-out but, rather, who should be "protected" (the tax-payers or the public unions). mook's post suggested that the tax-payers don't seem to believe they need protection from the public unions.

 

[PapaG]

Why is that an important thing to note? maxiep and mook were talking about tax-payers. Even people who don't vote pay taxes. I don't think either poster was, in this case, talking about the political fall-out but, rather, who should be "protected" (the tax-payers or the public unions). mook's post suggested that the tax-payers don't seem to believe they need protection from the public unions.

How do you know the "adults" are working? How do you know that "adults" aren't students.

The demographics show that the respondents were "the youngest adult 18 and over in the household". Plus 36% of states arleady don't allow any collective bargaining for state union workers.

 

[maxiep]

Oddly enough, the majority of taxpayers choose the unions:

In Wisconsin, the last poll I saw had 48% supporting the Governor and 38% supporting the union. Furthermore, 67% of the people polled in the state disagreed with the Democrats decision to leave the state to avoid a quorum.

The poll you cited was nationwide and the question was asked in general. No one is being asked to pay more taxes to support existing benefits for unions in this poll. In other words, there's no perceived penalty to supporting the "working man". I wonder if the poll numbers in the above paragraph look that bad in a state as pro-union as Wisconsin, what it would look like in a more pro-right-to-work state?

Here's what I do know: Wisconsin has until today to refinance its bonds to save $165MM. If it can't (and it requires a Senate quorum), then Wisconsin has to trim $165MM from its budget. It may be government employees, it may be government services. The bottom line is that the Democrat Senators have put the union ahead of the people they represent and the teachers have put themselves ahead of the kids. Neither can ever call themselves public servants ever again.

 

[PapaG]

In Wisconsin, the last poll I saw had 48% supporting the Governor and 38% supporting the union. Furthermore, 67% of the people polled in the state disagreed with the Democrats decision to leave the state to avoid a quorum.

The poll you cited was nationwide and the question was asked in general. No one is being asked to pay more taxes to support existing benefits for unions in this poll. In other words, there's no perceived penalty to supporting the "working man". I wonder if the poll numbers in the above paragraph look that bad in a state as pro-union as Wisconsin, what it would look like in a more pro-right-to-work state?

Here's what I do know: Wisconsin has until today to refinance its bonds to save $165MM. If it can't (and it requires a Senate quorum), then Wisconsin has to trim $165MM from its budget. It may be government employees, it may be government services. The bottom line is that the Democrat Senators have put the union ahead of the people they represent and the teachers have put themselves ahead of the kids. Neither can ever call themselves public servants ever again.

What I find interesting is that both Pew and the NYT have out separate national polls of "adults", while the real issue is in WI, where I imagine respondents would be much more educated on the issue.

Anyhow, I love these demographics from Pew in their polling of "adults".

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1915

 

[Minstrel]

How do you know the "adults" are working? How do you know that "adults" aren't students.

I don't know that every one of them is either part of the workforce or else an adult who was part of the workforce and is currently without employment but wanting it (I consider those to be "tax-payers" too, even if they currently don't due to being laid off). But unless there's some reason to believe the poll was gamed for an agenda, I do think that it's probably a perfectly reasonable cross-section of tax-payers.

 

[PapaG]

Oh come on now. 40% of Americans think raising state taxes is the best way to reduce state deficits? This poll seems highly suspect. Either that, or we're a bigger bunch of idiots as a nation than I suspected.

Tax increases were not as unpopular among those surveyed as they are among many governors, who have vowed to avoid them. Asked how they would choose to reduce their state’s deficits, those polled preferred tax increases over benefit cuts for state workers by nearly two to one. Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education.

 

[PapaG]

The most recent Party ID data

Partisan Trends
Partisan Trends: 35.1% Are Republicans, 34.3% Democrats

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

To say that Democrats and Independents are over represented in this poll is an understatement. Yet, people look uncritically at it, and accept the findings as some sort of validation.

 

[barfo]

It didn't take any effort at all to figure out how much of my salary and individual retirement benefits Sug pays.

ZERO

And why should he? Do you provide any services to him (or to the community at large)?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

And why should he? Do you provide any services to him (or to the community at large)?

barfo

Yes. My tax dollars help pay for the services Sug provides, the home he lives in, the porn he buys, as well as the money for all facets of state government, be it from state taxes or federal Stimulus dollars. All this, and he doesn't even teach my kids. I'd rather pay a teacher directly, but paying for lazy freeloading service workers like Sug, as well as numerous other public boondoggles, makes private school unrealistic financially for us right now.

You really don't know much about how government operates, and where the money to fund it originates. Seems to be a pattern around here.

 

[maxiep]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703530504576164870117398088.html?mod=ITP_opinion_1

It seems that the union supporters in Wisconsin have decided to take to the streets to accomplish what they failed to do within the political system. That's a reasonable tactic in Tunisia or Egypt, but the last time I looked, Wisconsin already has a democratic system of government, with a system of fair and free elections to ensure that the will of the people was being served. The people have spoken. The unions don't like the result. What they are doing now is an affront to democracy and to the majority of voters in Wisconsin who they hope to disenfranchise. And what is even more disturbing is that the leader of our country, President Obama, is supporting their actions. Perhaps he believes in democracy only when the results meet his agenda.

Benjamin Riggs

Newport, R.I.

Bingo.

 

[barfo]

Yes. My tax dollars help pay for the services Sug provides, the home he lives in, the porn he buys, as well as the money for all facets of state government, be it from state taxes or federal Stimulus dollars. All this, and he doesn't even teach my kids. I'd rather pay a teacher directly, but paying for lazy freeloading service workers like Sug, as well as numerous other public boondoggles, makes private school unrealistic financially for us right now.

You really don't know much about how government operates, and where the money to fund it originates. Seems to be a pattern around here.

So, your argument is that he should pay your salary because you pay taxes. Yeah, that's mighty fine logic.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Bingo.

It's weird, you didn't have any such objection when the tea partiers were demonstrating. I wonder why that is?

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Good thing I'm not in this thread or it would get decided too fast.

I'll let all you pups get some practice.

 

[MrJayremmie]

What they are doing now is an affront to democracy and to the majority of voters in Wisconsin who they hope to disenfranchise. And what is even more disturbing is that the leader of our country, President Obama, is supporting their actions. Perhaps he believes in democracy only when the results meet his agenda.

Is he against protesting?

I really hope he had an article putting down all the right wing protests over the last few years.

Didn't America speak in 2008? And then when the Dems tried to pass legislation didn't the right wing gather in protest? But I thought democracy was working and the will of the people was served, since the people elected Obama and shooed out the Pubs.

Terrible article.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It's weird, you didn't have any such objection when the tea partiers were demonstrating. I wonder why that is?

barfo

Yeah, I'm with Barfo on this one. I believe peaceable assembly is a very American notion; I don't see how you can begrudge them that right.

 

[maxiep]

Yeah, I'm with Barfo on this one. I believe peaceable assembly is a very American notion; I don't see how you can begrudge them that right.

It's one thing to protest peaceably on your own time, as the Tea Partiers did, it's quite another to call in "sick" and have doctors write you fake excuses so you get paid to protest instead of teach. These protests shut down the schools in Madison and other towns in Wisconsin for several days. The taxpayers of the state paid for the teachers to protest. Protesting is fine, but don't interrupt services and don't ask others to pay for your activity.

 

[maxiep]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-26/end-unions-and-end-the-privileged-class/

 

[PapaG]

So, your argument is that he should pay your salary because you pay taxes. Yeah, that's mighty fine logic.

barfo

That's not even close to my point. Let's go back to your economic ignorance that I addressed in an earlier post.

 

[PapaG]

The temper tantrum starts getting violent...

[video=youtube;9Cx77K8e3WE]

 

[MrJayremmie]

It's one thing to protest peaceably on your own time, as the Tea Partiers did, it's quite another to call in "sick" and have doctors write you fake excuses so you get paid to protest instead of teach. These protests shut down the schools in Madison and other towns in Wisconsin for several days. The taxpayers of the state paid for the teachers to protest. Protesting is fine, but don't interrupt services and don't ask others to pay for your activity.

It didn't seem like that was his point at all. It may be what you think, and I think you may have something there, but that article was mainly saying that protesting after the voters have spoken is undemocratic.

 

[maxiep]

Ah, there's nothing quite as objective as our media...

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/opinion-whitewashing-wisconsin-s-protests/

 

[maxiep]

Well, well, well, it looks like some government officials were colluding with unions. Doesn't the idea of bargaining--at it's core--mean that it has to be adversarial? Here, both sides are sitting on the same side of the table.

http://powip.com/2011/03/madison-mayor-colluded-with-unions/

Man, if there isn't a better reason to outlaw public unions, I can't think of one.

 

[MARIS61]

Well, well, well, it looks like some government officials were colluding with unions. Doesn't the idea of bargaining--at it's core--mean that it has to be adversarial? Here, both sides are sitting on the same side of the table.

http://powip.com/2011/03/madison-mayor-colluded-with-unions/

Man, if there isn't a better reason to outlaw public unions, I can't think of one.

You're right. There's no reason to outlaw public unions.

There's no collusion indicated here. Simply a mayor legally trying to keep his schools running smoothly and his credibility as a politician from being smeared by a governor who steals from teachers to enrich the uber-wealthy donors who own him. Already documented is the fact that Wisconsin's financial woes were caused by massive tax cuts and bloated state contracts gifted by the gov to the gov's donors. The teachers are but strawmen in this melodrama.

Anyone truly concerned about financial responsibility in Wisconsin's government would be screaming for his head, rather than assuring their kids grow up even dumber than their parents already have.

 

[maxiep]

The financial impact of the Wisconsin battle from the only perspective the unions and the Democrats care about: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/u...ousands-of-dollars-annually-new-report-shows/

Don't kid yourself that this is a battle for the rank and file. This is a battle for union bosses and political cronies.

 

[maxiep]

You're right. There's no reason to outlaw public unions.

There's no collusion indicated here. Simply a mayor legally trying to keep his schools running smoothly and his credibility as a politician from being smeared by a governor who steals from teachers to enrich the uber-wealthy donors who own him. Already documented is the fact that Wisconsin's financial woes were caused by massive tax cuts and bloated state contracts gifted by the gov to the gov's donors. The teachers are but strawmen in this melodrama.

Anyone truly concerned about financial responsibility in Wisconsin's government would be screaming for his head, rather than assuring their kids grow up even dumber than their parents already have.

I wonder how anything was ever learned before teacher unions...

 

[maxiep]

Peggy Noonan clarifies the issue

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6175290387698846.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

[MrJayremmie]

Let's look for a second at one of the most famous battles, in New Jersey. A year ago Chris Christie was sworn in as the new governor. He immediately faced a $10.7 billion deficit and catastrophic debt projections. State and local taxes were already high, so that if he raised them he'd send people racing out of the state. So Mr. Christie came up with a plan. He asked the state's powerful teachers union for two things: a one-year pay freeze—not a cut—and a modest 1.5% contribution to their benefit packages.

I think Christie went about this the right way.

Fact of the matter is, most of America, as well as Wisconsinites are for letting unions have collective bargaining agreements. Even the conservative pollers at Rasmussen found that out.

Apparently, the unions in Wisconsin are for paying more for their benefits. What they drew the line at was when the governor (who seems a tad fascist) wanted to strip their CBA rights. This is simply political. The layoffs, threats, everything is political here. Notice that Walker's approval ratings are ALREADY below 50% and falling. He won't last long, and this is the wrong thing the Pubs should have gone after after their momentum started. Things like this will turn momentum back to the left quickly (and it already is).