Test for Public Unions: Wisconsin

[Valandil]

Really crazy developments in Wisconsin the past few days. Apparently the governor wants to tighten up the budget and control spending. One aspect of this is curbing public labor unions. This is a battle that has been looming all across the nation of late.

There have been a number of protests over this though. I've heard that in at least one place - school has been out for over a week so that teachers could go join in the protesting at the state capital in Madison.

Now - because the Republican-majority state Senate needs at least 1 Democrat Senator present to have the required quarum to vote on an issue, Democratic Senators have just disappeared from the state.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41644074...ife/?GT1=43001

What do you guys think of all this?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I think politicking by fleeing across the state border is an awesome tactic.

[Valandil]

I'm wondering if Illinois will extradite them to Wisconsin. Doubtful - since the Democratic party has had almost total control here since Governor Ryan.

But frankly - I think they're shirking their duty and should be replaced. It would be a very poor blueprint for other state governments to follow. The party out of power boycotts when legislation unpopular to them comes along. But maybe that will be the (terminal) fate of state governments.

[The Gaffer]

Two things here: the tactic and the issue

1) Seems like an underhand tactic, but aren't the Republicans doing their darnedest to scupper legislation in the House?

2) Seems like an outrageous assault on the employment conditions of these public servants that should be halted at all costs.

2.1) Removal of collective bargaining means "divide and rule"
2.2) "an average of 8 percent increase in state employees' share of pension and health care costs" means a massive pay cut.

Up the workers!

[Insidious Rex]

Im not a fan of the tactic but they seem to think this legislation is so extreme that it warrants its use. And Im a little disturbed at what amounts to an attempt at union busting essentially in the name of budget cutting. Do labor issues need to be addressed? Sure. But why the determination to take it out on labor in Wisconsin? Is this how the republican wave of budget cutting is going to manifest itself? As an excuse to play politics by attacking those groups politically aligned with the other party in the name of cost cutting? I think increasing the amount workers pay for their health care/pension is fair but some of the other stuff is just in there to try to destroy the union while they have the votes.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Two things here: the tactic and the issue

1) Seems like an underhand tactic, but aren't the Republicans doing their darnedest to scupper legislation in the House?

2) Seems like an outrageous assault on the employment conditions of these public servants that should be halted at all costs.

2.1) Removal of collective bargaining means "divide and rule"
2.2) "an average of 8 percent increase in state employees' share of pension and health care costs" means a massive pay cut.

Up the workers!

Gaffer - this is not all unions. It is only unions of public workers. I disagree with your statement that it should be halted 'at all costs'. At some point, the cost is too much.

An 8% increase in what they pay for this is nowhere near an 8% pay cut - maybe 2%, maybe just 1%. Most of us have lost a lot more. The public unions are asking taxpayers to continue to subsidize for them, what the rest of us have lost in this economy.

The collective bargaining is a problem when done between a union and a governing agency (which can theoretically raise taxes to meet the financial promises it makes) - as opposed to when done between a union and a business or an industry (which cannot raise taxes to meet promises... they can only raise prices, but must do so within the bounds of remaining competitive). When the competitive business nature is out the door at one end, collective bargaining is a recipe for financial disaster at the other end.

[GrayMouser]

Glenn Beck explains it all :

Glenn Beck told viewers of his Fox News program today that the U.N., unions and the Muslim Brotherhood were all just working towards a New World Order and that protesters in Wisconsin were "looking to create chaos on the backs of the worker when the world's focus is on Egypt."

"Unions claim the cuts will affect teachers but it's not the everyday teacher that this story is really all about," Beck said.

"There are three groups of people," Beck explained. "They want a new world order. This is your choice. One world government. This is open society. This is United Nations, whatever you want to call it. One world government. They have lots of money and lots of power and they have NGOs, non-governmental organizations."

"This is the United Islamics Nations, this is the one the Muslim Brotherhood is going for now. But it all looked like this, a new world order. They are organized, too. They have the religion and mosques and apparently help from Google as well... at least in Egypt.

"Then you have this one, workers union, they call it state capitalism. Really what it was good old-fashioned communism. They have unions and community organizing," he said.

Watch the video below.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...rder-video.php

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

An 8% increase in what they pay for this is nowhere near an 8% pay cut - maybe 2%, maybe just 1%. Most of us have lost a lot more. The public unions are asking taxpayers to continue to subsidize for them, what the rest of us have lost in this economy.

The collective bargaining is a problem when done between a union and a governing agency (which can theoretically raise taxes to meet the financial promises it makes) - as opposed to when done between a union and a business or an industry (which cannot raise taxes to meet promises... they can only raise prices, but must do so within the bounds of remaining competitive). When the competitive business nature is out the door at one end, collective bargaining is a recipe for financial disaster at the other end.

Sure, nothing is ever "at all costs" IMO. However, there are decisions to be made as to prioritisation, and bun-fights to be had, and nothing ever is the only option. There's always an alternative. The unions are quite right to try to protect their members' interests.

And just because one group has lost something doesn't necessarily mean that another - innocent - group needs to lose something. In this case, a group that probably doesn't get paid all that much in the first place.

2% is a lot less than 8% of course. Perhaps they could compromise by dropping the "union busting" aspects and just ask the unions to accept the additional pension contributions?

You guys are lucky by the way. Here, local authorities are having to put through cuts of 20% and more (in Labour areas, of course). Some university courses are getting an 80% cut in funding. It's utter carnage.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

:
:
You guys are lucky by the way. Here, local authorities are having to put through cuts of 20% and more (in Labour areas, of course). Some university courses are getting an 80% cut in funding. It's utter carnage.

Gaffer - some here, who are opposed to our recent healthcare legislation - are referencing these severe cutbacks in the UK and elsewhere in the EU as a cautionary note of where we could be headed. IE - the state in those places has tried to take on too much, been unable to do it all, and is now going bankrupt - with a warning that we're next.

What do you think of this? Do you think there's some truth in it?

If we run with this, I'll probably section it off and amend it to the thread I started on USA healthcare - but for now it belongs here, since you brought it up with the discussion here. We'll just see if it goes that way.

[Rían]

State Senators are ELECTED officials that are supposed to REPRESENT the PEOPLE that voted them into office.

I think what they're doing stinks. If it's a matter of unconstitutional, take it up with the judiciary, but let the people be represented by their representatives.

[Insidious Rex]

Well you could make the argument they ARE representing their constituents because their constituents are union members and those that disagree with this legislation and feel it should be blocked at all costs. The bottom line is its primarily political. The republicans are trying to take advantage of the cost cutting environment now to try to castrate the unions once and for all because the unions back democrats traditionally. The democrats are pulling out all the stops and resorting to a stunt because they dont want to lose the financial benefits that the union brings. Once again both parties resort to political tactics rather than thinking of the people they represent in broad terms. Destroying collective bargaining tends to lead to stagnant wages. Do we want that when jobs are weak? Propping up government unions tends to increase government spending. Clearly we need to reach a middle ground which I think the democrats are willing to talk about (and Ive heard many of the republican legislature is willing to have those talks as well but they are afraid of this extremist governor who is bent on breaking the union completely and has sworn he would paint any republican who backed down as a traitor).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well you could make the argument they ARE representing their constituents because their constituents are union members and those that disagree with this legislation and feel it should be blocked at all costs.

Yes, I see that, but what I mean is that everyone should be represented, not just those who can pull a stunt like this and block a vote.

The bottom line is its primarily political.

Yes, I think we all agree on that one! The thing about unions is that they were tremendously helpful when they were up against real evils, but now that they have the power, they don't want to give it up, and have turned into bullies. I still remember my mom's friend - a single mother (her husband died) with a son to support who finally crossed the grocery store picket line to work, and got her tires slashed ... and they tried to intimidate me as I took my baby with me to get some food. I just forced my way through them (they weren't touching, just intimidating) and went shopping. I don't like strong-arm tactics (if they were being really rough, though, I certainly wouldn't have taken my baby)

[The Gaffer]

To an extent. However, the ballooning deficits and need for cutbacks have largely come about because of the banking crisis, bailout and subsequent recession, not because of excessively high spending.

Put another way, excessively unbridled capitalism caused this mess, we don't need "yet more capitalism" to clean it up. And it's odd how many people seem to think we do.

In my view, our government is making a bad situation worse by cutting back too much too soon. There is an argument to be made for state spending to remain high at times like this precisely in order to provide support to the economy when it needs it.

As a recovery proceeds, private sector growth can resume more quickly, with less loss and hardship and, crucially, from a higher starting point than it would have been at without the state aid.

And that's the best way to reduce your deficit.

The other thing to note is that our cuts take place in the absence of there not being an alternative means in place. A good example is universities. Culturally, the state funds so much of it that we have no model to replace that with (e.g. scholarships, alumni networks, etc) when it's withdrawn.

However, it is all ideological anyway: this lot loathes the state and wants to dismantle as much of it as possible. They don't care what happens to the services people rely on because they think that it will ultimately become an opportunity for their friends to sell it to them.

[Insidious Rex]

Which is pretty much what is happening in Wisconsin. Seems that the billionaire Koch brothers, who own a number of huge corporations around the US, bankrolled Governor Walkers campaign and helped tip the election in his favor. And should we be surprised that now Walker has proposed such an extreme attack on the lower and middle class with his anti union measures? And while he is looking to cut hundreds of millions from education in Wisconsin he supports LOWERING the capital gains tax for the rich and lowering taxes for large corporations. It seems to me that if they are in such horrible shape in Wisconsin that they need to decimate their own school system and screw over all their public employees then the rich and the corporations should also tighten their belts. Wouldnt that be fair and logical? But instead the rich get tax BREAKS. Are we to assume its purely a coincidence that this happens in the first month of a governor who was funded by billionaire corporation owners?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Which is pretty much what is happening in Wisconsin. Seems that the billionaire Koch brothers, who own a number of huge corporations around the US, bankrolled Governor Walkers campaign and helped tip the election in his favor. And should we be surprised that now Walker has proposed such an extreme attack on the lower and middle class with his anti union measures? And while he is looking to cut hundreds of millions from education in Wisconsin he supports LOWERING the capital gains tax for the rich and lowering taxes for large corporations. It seems to me that if they are in such horrible shape in Wisconsin that they need to decimate their own school system and screw over all their public employees then the rich and the corporations should also tighten their belts. Wouldnt that be fair and logical? But instead the rich get tax BREAKS. Are we to assume its purely a coincidence that this happens in the first month of a governor who was funded by billionaire corporation owners?

As opposed to Illinois: this state has been very deeply in the red for years, and it just keeps getting worse. The state just raised the personal income tax rate from 3% to 5% (*) - with a similar increase in business income taxes. My understanding is that Illinois had been considered the 48th or 49th most friendly state to business - and this tax increase pushed us to #50 (of 50). There's been a long-term drain on private sector employment in the state.

And part of the problem here is - I don't think there's really any substantial cut in spending. The tax increase is supposed to be 'temporary' - but I don't think we'll see the end of it. The state previously promised to remove the tollbooths once the tollways were paid for - that was supposed to happen in 1980.

We're in the position now of taking in wayward senators from neighboring states - while those states position themselves to take even more private sector jobs away from us, by luring businesses into those states with friendlier business climates (unless those senators manage to prevent their states from taking our jobs away).

I'll always remember Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Presidential Election (really - in the primaries) pointing out the dissonance between how Democrats are 'pro-employment but anti-employer'.

Besides - in Wisconsin, the governor is doing what he promised to do. His opponents are rallying at the statehouse against him (including out-of-staters - and doctors filling out sick forms - where's the medical ethics?), and the media flocks to cover it. But around the state, people are still as supportive of him as before. You might talk about his financial backers, but he was elected by the people of the state - and ultimately is responsible to them.

And remember too - that this is not a thing about any and all unions. It's strictly involving public unions. Those who can sit down at a table making demands - that the other side can meet by simply raising taxes. And the unions are not being disbanded - they're being asked to give back some of what they had previously negotiated for themselves.

(*) - note, expecially for our non-American members - here in the USA, states are free to determine how they will raise revenue. The most common forms are state income tax, sales tax, property tax - usually some combination of the above. Illinois 3% was fairly low compared to other states (as I understand it), but they get their money in other ways. Here in Cook County, the sales tax is now above 10%. Then - there's also state revenue from tollways, gambling, the lottery (gambling), etc. In some cases, residents will play the states against one another. Oregon has no sales tax, and Washington has no property tax - so some people intentionally live in Washington and do all their buying in Oregon, to avoid taxes either way.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Besides - in Wisconsin, the governor is doing what he promised to do. His opponents are rallying at the statehouse against him (including out-of-staters - and doctors filling out sick forms - where's the medical ethics?), and the media flocks to cover it. But around the state, people are still as supportive of him as before. You might talk about his financial backers, but he was elected by the people of the state - and ultimately is responsible to them.

He was elected in large part due to the exposure the Koch's money gave him including heavy handed commercials and web pages created through "grass roots" organizations bank rolled by the Kochs... Frankly Im horrified by the prospect of our democracy being completely hijacked (more than it has been) by corporations because the supreme court says they are people and can "express opinions" (until you want to sue them) by bankrolling "grass roots" organizations and making up lies and putting them in commercials they pay for because it helps their profits. And if you ask the people of Wisconsin (which several polls have been doing lately) you find enormous opposition to his insistence that collective bargaining be scrapped. Like 2/3rd to 1/3rd and increasing. A closer majority have said they side with the unions and the democrats on the entire issue. There has even been talk of a recall (not sure how since hes only been in office for a few months). So no he doesnt seem to be representing the people at all. Unless we qualify the definition of people by how much money they have available to them.

And remember too - that this is not a thing about any and all unions. It's strictly involving public unions. Those who can sit down at a table making demands - that the other side can meet by simply raising taxes. And the unions are not being disbanded - they're being asked to give back some of what they had previously negotiated for themselves.

The unions have agreed to ALL his demands (salary, health care, pensions, etc.) EXCEPT scrapping collective bargaining. But he hasnt even responded to them. He doesnt seem interested in dialog at all. He reminds me of an assassin with a brief window of opportunity to kill a hated target. Not a political representative trying to work things out with other representatives for the best of the people. And The People are NOT just billionaires and tea partyers. The People are the tens of thousands of state employees who make a whole lot less than the Kochs do. The People are teachers who drive late model cars and struggle to pay their mortgages and put their kids through college. He is acting like we are talking about spoiled overpaid athletes and movie stars not dog catchers and firemen. I mean this is the middle class we are attacking as undeserving of what they get. Not the rich. Where is the fairness in this? Why in the world wouldnt you seek consistency from top to bottom if you are in such a crisis?

As for Illinois, I agree its as short sighted to ONLY increase taxes as it is to ONLY cut spending. If things are so bad then we should be doing both. But we shouldnt increase taxes too much too quickly or it will hurt the economy and we shouldnt cut too close to the bone for the same reason. Can we all agree on that? The concept of cutting 700,000 jobs while handing tax breaks to the rich at a time when job generation is just starting to kick in is ludicrous.

[Insidious Rex]

So funny... and so accurate.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

:
:
As for Illinois, I agree its as short sighted to ONLY increase taxes as it is to ONLY cut spending. If things are so bad then we should be doing both. But we shouldnt increase taxes too much too quickly or it will hurt the economy and we shouldnt cut too close to the bone for the same reason. Can we all agree on that? The concept of cutting 700,000 jobs while handing tax breaks to the rich at a time when job generation is just starting to kick in is ludicrous.

IR - I meant to answer this LONG ago.

Curious about what kind of spending cuts you think would be OK. I don't know just how many ways a state could cut expenses. These are some of the things I can think of:
* Cut state employees - this could include cuts to education, police, any other state body or (partially or fully) state-supported position (cuts public sector jobs)
* Reduce the salary/benefits package of state employees (what Wisconsin tried to do)
* Reduce spending for various state projects (effectively cuts private sector jobs)
* Cut funding for state benefits - unemployment, welfare, etc. (cut off support for those most in need)

I can't think of any others.

It seems to me that Wisconsin actually made the best choice - of the options available. I think it was much more responsible than to cut any of the others, or to continue with huge deficit spending.

= = = = =

Illinois - by the way - has gotten weirder. Income taxes were increased on businesses as well as on individuals. So... Caterpillar threatened to leave Peoria and move to another state. Our Governor gave them a multi-million dollar deal to stay put. After that, similar deals went out to a number of various companies. Now all the businesses are lining up to get their share. The state will probably end up giving away more money than they're taking in with the tax increases.

I have so little faith in the future of this state.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

:
:
Put another way, excessively unbridled capitalism caused this mess, we don't need "yet more capitalism" to clean it up. And it's odd how many people seem to think we do.
:
:

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. In the USA, the initial troubles that started the mess came from a lending crisis - which came because the government decided that banks had to give mortgage loans to higher risk borrowers than they would normally lend to. This led to a lot of bad mortgages being out there - and eventually to the mess we're in now.

So the way some see it - as opposed to your notion of the cynical view that 'more capitalism is needed to clean up the mess caused by capitalism' - is that the loyal opposition intends on 'more government intervention needed to clean up the mess caused by government intervention'.

Greed - yes, we will always have that with us. It is not a product of capitalism, nor is it confined to the system of capitalism. It's part of our human nature. There were certainly a lot of cases where personal greed greatly exascerbated the downward financial cycle.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. In the USA, the initial troubles that started the mess came from a lending crisis - which came because the government decided that banks had to give mortgage loans to higher risk borrowers than they would normally lend to. This led to a lot of bad mortgages being out there - and eventually to the mess we're in now.

So the way some see it - as opposed to your notion of the cynical view that 'more capitalism is needed to clean up the mess caused by capitalism' - is that the loyal opposition intends on 'more government intervention needed to clean up the mess caused by government intervention'.

Greed - yes, we will always have that with us. It is not a product of capitalism, nor is it confined to the system of capitalism. It's part of our human nature. There were certainly a lot of cases where personal greed greatly exascerbated the downward financial cycle.

I agree that was a major contributory factor. This crash has its historical roots in the property boom under Clinton, and he in part engineered it in this way. Though of course it wasn't him that decided upon some of the insane lending practices that were going on. The industry took the ball eagerly and ran with it.

But you could far more convincingly trace it further back to the "Big Bang" in the late 80s. Or to the activities of hedge funds and derivatives trading from the late 90s and early 00s that spread the toxic assets invisibly throughout the system.

My point is that the roots are complex, but by and large down to the way capitalism works. Not mere "personal greed", but the whole mechanic that rewards individuals for short-term gain, and takes no account of long-term consequences.