Bipartisan recall efforts in Wisconsin

[Jeemie]

The bill would force all employees to affirmatively opt into the unions annually, or they would not be part of the union..

Of course that is double speak. What he really means to say is that the bill would give you the choice of joining the union or not. We can't have freedom of choice when it comes to unions, can we? Especially not in the area of where their political donations go.

Your implication here is inaccurate. No employee is required to join the union. Under current law, any employee who wants to opt out of the union can do so. They already have choices. --Bob

Not only is the implication inaccurate, it is quite clear the intent of this part of the bill is to SUPPRESS joining of the union.

Because this passage has been set up to take advantage of the same bit of human nature that credit card companies that offer perks that are "free for a month, and then you'll be automatically billed $X to keep the perk going"....and that is, the part of human nature that causes you to forget to follow up on things like this.

Whenever a thing is set up that you have to do something (like "affirmatively opt into the unions annually") else a certain option automatically occurs (i.e. you are taken out of the union), then the automatic choice is what is desired by the entity who wrote the rules.

The writer of this rule is hoping lots of people forget to "affirmatively opt into the union annually".

This is abundantly clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

[Bob78164]

Your implication here is inaccurate. No employee is required to join the union. Under current law, any employee who wants to opt out of the union can do so. They already have choices. --Bob

No employee is required to "join" the union. He or she nevertheless is required to pay union dues. Since those funds then may be used by the union for purposes the dues-paying, non-member does not approve, the word "choices" is misleading if not inaccurate.

Representation fees paid by non-members can only be used for representation in the collective bargaining process. There's a U.S. Supreme Court case on this issue. --Bob

[silvercamaro]

Nonmembers of a union are not required to pay union dues. If they don't join the union, they will probably be ineligible for union provided benefits such as negotiated discounts with third parties, and they can't participate in union activities. They are required to pay a fee that covers the portion of their dues that goes towards collective bargaining, grievance procedures, and other services that benefit them as an employee.

Wisconsin teachers who do not wish to belong to the union nevertheless face automatic deductions from their paychecks, usually in the range of $700 to $1,000 per year. By your application of semantics, those are not "dues." The money does go to the union, however. No choice there.

[Jeemie]

Wisconsin teachers who do not wish to belong to the union nevertheless face automatic deductions from their paychecks, usually in the range of $700 to $1,000 per year. By your application of semantics, those are not "dues." The money does go to the union, however. No choice there.

...and, as Bob pointed out, can only be used for things from which the non-union member benefits.

If they want true freedom, then they'd have to negotiate their salary and benefit package themselves.

Is that what you want?

[MarleysGh0st]

Since this thread show no sign of stopping, I think this clip from the March 3 episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is relevant.

Crisis in Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street

[silvercamaro]

Wisconsin teachers who do not wish to belong to the union nevertheless face automatic deductions from their paychecks, usually in the range of $700 to $1,000 per year. By your application of semantics, those are not "dues." The money does go to the union, however. No choice there.

...and, as Bob pointed out, can only be used for things from which the non-union member benefits.

I have never seen a published report on how unions allocate their money. Does lobbying benefit the non-union teacher? Do campaign contributions to specific candidates help the non-union teacher? In some cases, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it helps more toward the perpetuation of the union itself.

For the record, I am not anti-union. One of my sons belongs to a union and serves as an officer in his local. I most certainly recognize the historical value of unions that helped gain fair pay and safer working conditions for laborers. I also recognize that some unions of today have gone way beyond "fair and safer" toward a position of "me first, and to hell with anybody else." I have objections to that position.

[Jeemie]

Wisconsin teachers who do not wish to belong to the union nevertheless face automatic deductions from their paychecks, usually in the range of $700 to $1,000 per year. By your application of semantics, those are not "dues." The money does go to the union, however. No choice there.

...and, as Bob pointed out, can only be used for things from which the non-union member benefits.

I have never seen a published report on how unions allocate their money. Does lobbying benefit the non-union teacher? Do campaign contributions to specific candidates help the non-union teacher? In some cases, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it helps more toward the perpetuation of the union itself.

For the record, I am not anti-union. One of my sons belongs to a union and serves as an officer in his local. I most certainly recognize the historical value of unions that helped gain fair pay and safer working conditions for laborers. I also recognize that some unions of today have gone way beyond "fair and safer" toward a position of "me first, and to hell with anybody else." I have objections to that position.

I agree with your sentiments.

I am simply pointing out that the only way someone could not be a member of a union and not have to pay anything is to negotiate his/her package him/herself.

I suppose it could be done...but that is the battle that would need to be fought- not simply throwing up of hands and saying "Well- they're not REALLY free to choose to not be part of a union".

[silverscreenselect]

Wisconsin teachers who do not wish to belong to the union nevertheless face automatic deductions from their paychecks, usually in the range of $700 to $1,000 per year. By your application of semantics, those are not "dues." The money does go to the union, however. No choice there.

...and, as Bob pointed out, can only be used for things from which the non-union member benefits.

I have never seen a published report on how unions allocate their money. Does lobbying benefit the non-union teacher? Do campaign contributions to specific candidates help the non-union teacher? In some cases, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it helps more toward the perpetuation of the union itself.

Lobbying efforts and campaign contributions would not be considered money spent on employee related activities such as collective bargaining. As such, a nonmember would not have to pay that (he or she also would not receive any union-provided benefits like credit union membership, discounts, training and vocational services, etc.) The union keeps track of how much it spends on those activities and then divides that by the total number of employees, and each nonmember employee pays his pro rata share of that total.

[flockofseagulls104]

Wisconsin teachers who do not wish to belong to the union nevertheless face automatic deductions from their paychecks, usually in the range of $700 to $1,000 per year. By your application of semantics, those are not "dues." The money does go to the union, however. No choice there.

...and, as Bob pointed out, can only be used for things from which the non-union member benefits.

If they want true freedom, then they'd have to negotiate their salary and benefit package themselves.

Is that what you want?

They would have to negotiate their salary and benefit package THEMSELVES? OMG!

Oh wait. I do that.....

[Jeemie]

They would have to negotiate their salary and benefit package THEMSELVES? OMG!

Oh wait. I do that.....

Fine. If that's what they truly want, then that's the legal change to make.

But to simply complain about paying "union dues" while STILL BENEFITTING from union action is dishonest.

[flockofseagulls104]

...and, as Bob pointed out, can only be used for things from which the non-union member benefits.

I have never seen a published report on how unions allocate their money. Does lobbying benefit the non-union teacher? Do campaign contributions to specific candidates help the non-union teacher? In some cases, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it helps more toward the perpetuation of the union itself.

Lobbying efforts and campaign contributions would not be considered money spent on employee related activities such as collective bargaining. As such, a nonmember would not have to pay that (he or she also would not receive any union-provided benefits like credit union membership, discounts, training and vocational services, etc.) The union keeps track of how much it spends on those activities and then divides that by the total number of employees, and each nonmember employee pays his pro rata share of that total.

As a taxpayer and theoretical boss of both the government executives and the government employees, the public union is a middleman I don't want to pay for. It adds no value and drives costs up. I will let the government executives set the compensation structure for the teachers, and if they don't like it, perhaps they can set up their own schools and set their own compensation levels. Perhaps then they would be motivated to do a better and more efficient job in educating our children. And if the government can't get any teachers to work for what they're willing to pay, perhaps they could consider a voucher system to encourage the development of good private schools.

[Bob78164]

Wisconsin teachers who do not wish to belong to the union nevertheless face automatic deductions from their paychecks, usually in the range of $700 to $1,000 per year. By your application of semantics, those are not "dues." The money does go to the union, however. No choice there.

...and, as Bob pointed out, can only be used for things from which the non-union member benefits.

I have never seen a published report on how unions allocate their money. Does lobbying benefit the non-union teacher? Do campaign contributions to specific candidates help the non-union teacher? In some cases, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it helps more toward the perpetuation of the union itself.

Payments for activities of this nature were precisely the subject of the Supreme Court case I referenced earlier. That is precisely the money that need not be paid by non-members of the union. --Bob

[Ritterskoop]

But what about the Baptists?

[Bob78164]

But what about the Baptists?

The Governor told them to go soak themselves. --Bob

[SportsFan68]

I have never seen a published report on how unions allocate their money. Does lobbying benefit the non-union teacher? Do campaign contributions to specific candidates help the non-union teacher? In some cases, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it helps more toward the perpetuation of the union itself.

Lobbying efforts and campaign contributions would not be considered money spent on employee related activities such as collective bargaining. As such, a nonmember would not have to pay that (he or she also would not receive any union-provided benefits like credit union membership, discounts, training and vocational services, etc.) The union keeps track of how much it spends on those activities and then divides that by the total number of employees, and each nonmember employee pays his pro rata share of that total.

As a taxpayer and theoretical boss of both the government executives and the government employees, the public union is a middleman I don't want to pay for. It adds no value and drives costs up. I will let the government executives set the compensation structure for the teachers, and if they don't like it, perhaps they can set up their own schools and set their own compensation levels. Perhaps then they would be motivated to do a better and more efficient job in educating our children. And if the government can't get any teachers to work for what they're willing to pay, perhaps they could consider a voucher system to encourage the development of good private schools.

As a blanket statement, I disagree with the above statement. In many cases, there would be no added value, and costs would probably increase slightly because of some administrative and rank and file employee time being spent on the negotiation process. In probably 99%+ of those cases, there is no union because the employees don't believe they need one to get a fair compensation/benefits/working conditions package.

Having said that, I am acutely aware of a situation where the clout of a collective bargaining process was desperately needed because one of my best friends from high school was closely involved in it. Teachers were doing their own classroom janitorial work, one teacher working in two schools had to wolf her lunch on her commute between the schools, teachers were expected to cover for emergency illnesses without compensation, and the list goes on. Anyone who complained didn't get a renewed contract. When a number of teachers, including my friend, started to organize, none of them got a renewed contract. They eventually won union representation, reinstatement, better working conditions, and a settlement which must have cost the district seven figures because my non-tenured friend wasn't even eligible, and the tenured teachers gave her $20,000. In that case, there was plenty of added value for everybody, and I'm confident it wasn't the only one in this country.

[SportsFan68]

Maybe I'm math challenged, or I don't understand the doublespeak used in government operations. Someone tell me where I'm wrong, but let's look at Wisconsin's problem by going up one level to the federal government.

I heard a report this morning that the federal deficit for the month of February was 200 BILLION dollars. OK. I believe that means that the federal government SPENT 200 billiion dollars more than it took in. If that is accurate, that means, if I'm doing my math correctly, and it's difficult with such big numbers, I might have misplaced a zero or two, that to make up the difference for February, each and every man woman and child in the US would have to chip in about $600 for February. So if we go the route of raising taxes, that means everybody would have to step up with an extra $7200 dollars this year to keep the Federal Government running at it's current pace. And that does not take into account the debt we already have accumulated, which is in the TRILLIONS.

Does this not scare anyone? And this doesn't even include the state, like Wisconsin, that they live in, most of which have a problem similar to the Federal Government's. I don't think raising taxes is the answer. I think that the whole structure needs to be looked at and made more efficient and lean. Wisconsin is an example. We need to do a lot bigger things than asking teachers to pay more of their share towards their healthcare and retirement, but all hell breaks loose when it happens.

It terrifies me. Reagan started us down the trillion-dollar deficit road, and Bill Clinton is the only President since then capable enough to do enough of the big things Flock wants and make a balanced budget possible without all hell breaking loose. Assuming we had stayed with the course President Clinton set, we could have started chipping away at that terrifying debt load.

So Flock, how is Bill Clinton not your #1 political hero?

[flockofseagulls104]

Maybe I'm math challenged, or I don't understand the doublespeak used in government operations. Someone tell me where I'm wrong, but let's look at Wisconsin's problem by going up one level to the federal government.

I heard a report this morning that the federal deficit for the month of February was 200 BILLION dollars. OK. I believe that means that the federal government SPENT 200 billiion dollars more than it took in. If that is accurate, that means, if I'm doing my math correctly, and it's difficult with such big numbers, I might have misplaced a zero or two, that to make up the difference for February, each and every man woman and child in the US would have to chip in about $600 for February. So if we go the route of raising taxes, that means everybody would have to step up with an extra $7200 dollars this year to keep the Federal Government running at it's current pace. And that does not take into account the debt we already have accumulated, which is in the TRILLIONS.

Does this not scare anyone? And this doesn't even include the state, like Wisconsin, that they live in, most of which have a problem similar to the Federal Government's. I don't think raising taxes is the answer. I think that the whole structure needs to be looked at and made more efficient and lean. Wisconsin is an example. We need to do a lot bigger things than asking teachers to pay more of their share towards their healthcare and retirement, but all hell breaks loose when it happens.

It terrifies me. Reagan started us down the trillion-dollar deficit road, and Bill Clinton is the only President since then capable enough to do enough of the big things Flock wants and make a balanced budget possible without all hell breaking loose. Assuming we had stayed with the course President Clinton set, we could have started chipping away at that terrifying debt load.

So Flock, how is Bill Clinton not your #1 political hero?

I don't accept your premises.
Reagan preached reducing taxes and reducing spending. He reduced taxes and revenue went up, but CONGRESS kept spending, producing a deficit.
Clinton claimed credit for balancing the budget, but it was only the 1994 congress that got him to do it. (Again, don't argue with me, ask Dick Morris, who was there.) The credit should have gone to Gingrich, but, of course, he was no favorite of the media, and he was an evil republican and he didn't help himself with his personal choices.

No, Bill Clinton is not my #1 hero. I wish there was one, but we are sadly sparse in that area. So I will stick with the Tea Party and try and goad our sad sack politicians of whatever party to do the right things.

[ten96lt]

I'm not a great fan of Unions ever since the AGU came into existence and kept giving guys a hard time like this guy.

[Jeemie]

Reagan preached reducing taxes and reducing spending. He reduced taxes and revenue went up, but CONGRESS kept spending, producing a deficit.

Reagan himself never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress.

As for tax revenues going up following the Reagan tax cuts, this is patently false.

They only started rising a) following the inevitable recovery after the recession that came AFTER Volcker's painful, but necessary steps to get inflation under control and b) after Reagan followed up his tax decrease with some of the largest tax INCREASES in history.

There's a TON of misconception about Reagan's time in office...most of it coming from the conservatives that revere his name.

Reagan was NOTHING like the man he was "painted to be" by the right wing media today.

[silverscreenselect]

Reagan preached reducing taxes and reducing spending. He reduced taxes and revenue went up, but CONGRESS kept spending, producing a deficit.
Clinton claimed credit for balancing the budget, but it was only the 1994 congress that got him to do it.

Reagan preached about reducing spending but he never quite got around to doing it, even though he had a Republican majority in the Senate and a working majority in the House for at least six year of his term. You're telling me that a guy tough enough to stare down Gorbachev was completely helpless whenever Tip O'Neill tried to do something he didn't like.

Reagan (or at least someone in his administration) knew that the type of Draconian spending cuts he preached would have crippled the economy (and would have put a huge crimp in his plans to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion via ones weapons system after another). Reagan, like both Bushes, was a tough talking free spender.

And Dick Morris is the only person who seems to feel the Republicans deserve credit for balancing the budget. You and Dick conveniently forget that Clinton raised taxes in 1993, before the Republicans took over, in his first budget that passed without a single Republican vote in favor in either house. The additional revenue generated by those intelligent tax hikes, coupled with spending cuts he also promoted, led to getting a surplus which George W. Bush managed to blow in less than one year in office.

[Jeemie]

Reagan was much more of a realist/pragmatist than idealogue.

Tody's idealogues do not realize how much different politics was back then than it is today.

[flockofseagulls104]

Reagan preached reducing taxes and reducing spending. He reduced taxes and revenue went up, but CONGRESS kept spending, producing a deficit.
Clinton claimed credit for balancing the budget, but it was only the 1994 congress that got him to do it.

Reagan preached about reducing spending but he never quite got around to doing it, even though he had a Republican majority in the Senate and a working majority in the House for at least six year of his term. You're telling me that a guy tough enough to stare down Gorbachev was completely helpless whenever Tip O'Neill tried to do something he didn't like.

Reagan (or at least someone in his administration) knew that the type of Draconian spending cuts he preached would have crippled the economy (and would have put a huge crimp in his plans to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion via ones weapons system after another). Reagan, like both Bushes, was a tough talking free spender.

And Dick Morris is the only person who seems to feel the Republicans deserve credit for balancing the budget. You and Dick conveniently forget that Clinton raised taxes in 1993, before the Republicans took over, in his first budget that passed without a single Republican vote in favor in either house. The additional revenue generated by those intelligent tax hikes, coupled with spending cuts he also promoted, led to getting a surplus which George W. Bush managed to blow in less than one year in office.

Dick and I have a lot of company in our views. I remember how Clinton changed his policies after 1994 to conform to what the congress was trying to do. I was alive and paying attention, and Dick Morris was the chief strategist for the administration, and that's what he says happened. I don't buy the revision of history that has been built and now is conventional wisdom. You just don't talk to the right people, or just choose to ignore them and continue in your ignorance. But we all know you know everything.

[TheCalvinator24]

Maybe I'm math challenged, or I don't understand the doublespeak used in government operations. Someone tell me where I'm wrong, but let's look at Wisconsin's problem by going up one level to the federal government.

I heard a report this morning that the federal deficit for the month of February was 200 BILLION dollars. OK. I believe that means that the federal government SPENT 200 billiion dollars more than it took in. If that is accurate, that means, if I'm doing my math correctly, and it's difficult with such big numbers, I might have misplaced a zero or two, that to make up the difference for February, each and every man woman and child in the US would have to chip in about $600 for February. So if we go the route of raising taxes, that means everybody would have to step up with an extra $7200 dollars this year to keep the Federal Government running at it's current pace. And that does not take into account the debt we already have accumulated, which is in the TRILLIONS.

Does this not scare anyone? And this doesn't even include the state, like Wisconsin, that they live in, most of which have a problem similar to the Federal Government's. I don't think raising taxes is the answer. I think that the whole structure needs to be looked at and made more efficient and lean. Wisconsin is an example. We need to do a lot bigger things than asking teachers to pay more of their share towards their healthcare and retirement, but all hell breaks loose when it happens.

It terrifies me. Reagan started us down the trillion-dollar deficit road, and Bill Clinton is the only President since then capable enough to do enough of the big things Flock wants and make a balanced budget possible without all hell breaking loose. Assuming we had stayed with the course President Clinton set, we could have started chipping away at that terrifying debt load.

So Flock, how is Bill Clinton not your #1 political hero?

I don't accept your premises.
Reagan preached reducing taxes and reducing spending. He reduced taxes and revenue went up, but CONGRESS kept spending, producing a deficit.
Clinton claimed credit for balancing the budget, but it was only the 1994 congress that got him to do it. (Again, don't argue with me, ask Dick Morris, who was there.) The credit should have gone to Gingrich, but, of course, he was no favorite of the media, and he was an evil republican and he didn't help himself with his personal choices.

No, Bill Clinton is not my #1 hero. I wish there was one, but we are sadly sparse in that area. So I will stick with the Tea Party and try and goad our sad sack politicians of whatever party to do the right things.

The Clinton Balanced Budget is also a lie.

Social Security was (as I suspect it has always been) off-budget. The country still had a deficit even when Clinton had his much vaunted balanced budget.

I believe the truth is that we have not had a truly balanced budget since LBJ.

[SportsFan68]

It terrifies me. Reagan started us down the trillion-dollar deficit road, and Bill Clinton is the only President since then capable enough to do enough of the big things Flock wants and make a balanced budget possible without all hell breaking loose. Assuming we had stayed with the course President Clinton set, we could have started chipping away at that terrifying debt load.

So Flock, how is Bill Clinton not your #1 political hero?

I don't accept your premises.
Reagan preached reducing taxes and reducing spending. He reduced taxes and revenue went up, but CONGRESS kept spending, producing a deficit.
Clinton claimed credit for balancing the budget, but it was only the 1994 congress that got him to do it. (Again, don't argue with me, ask Dick Morris, who was there.) The credit should have gone to Gingrich, but, of course, he was no favorite of the media, and he was an evil republican and he didn't help himself with his personal choices.

No, Bill Clinton is not my #1 hero. I wish there was one, but we are sadly sparse in that area. So I will stick with the Tea Party and try and goad our sad sack politicians of whatever party to do the right things.

The Clinton Balanced Budget is also a lie.

Social Security was (as I suspect it has always been) off-budget. The country still had a deficit even when Clinton had his much vaunted balanced budget.

I believe the truth is that we have not had a truly balanced budget since LBJ.

Colorado is required by law to have a balanced budget, and twice that I know of the legislature has played tricks to make it happen. The first time, they transferred all our Tobacco Settlement into General Revenue on budget submittal day; the next day they transferred it back to its own fund. They did something similar last year, but I don't know what it was. Anyway, if Colorado turned in an officially balanced budget, so did Clinton. Even if it wasn't truly balanced without some creative accounting, I'd like to have seen President George W. Bush get that close, and President Obama too for that matter.

[Bob78164]

I don't understand the procedural details, but the fact that the state is now running a deficit somehow made it possible for the bill to be presented as a budget bill. The Republicans have enough senators for a quorum to act on non-budget bills, so there must be some reason they don't want to push the bill through on that basis. I speculate that doing so would make the bill subject to referendum. --Bob

Looks like my speculation may have been inaccurate. Last night, some sort of legislative conference committee stripped out all of the budget provisions from the bill, and the Wisconsin Senate (no longer needing 20 senators for a quorum) passed it last night 18-1.

If a referendum to repeal the bill is possible under Wisconsin law, I would imagine that's the next step (in addition to the recall efforts, of course). --Bob