Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

[Danzig]

i'm not familiar with this fellow, but they ran this article in the local paper-so i googled it, and here's the article... had stuff in it i hadn't seen mentioned before, either in the discussion here or elsewhere.. thought i'd post it. of course i'll probably hear this guy is a whack job or something..if so, i'll know better next time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ket-rich-lowry

an excerpt:

Even if Walker prevails, Wisconsin will allow more wide-ranging collective bargaining than these states.

Not to mention the federal government. Obama may lecture Walker about union rights, but he can go straight to Congress with a highly political proposal to freeze the pay of federal workers because they can’t collectively bargain for wages or benefits.

(this is a part that intrigued me) No, the most important measure at stake in Wisconsin is the governor’s proposal for the state to stop deducting union dues from the paychecks of state workers. This practice essentially wields the taxing power of the government on behalf of the institutional interests of the unions. It makes the government an arm of the public-sector unions. It is a priceless favor.


and further down:

When Indiana governor Mitch Daniels ended collective bargaining and the automatic collection of dues in 2005, the number of members paying dues plummeted by roughly 90 percent.


now, is this a major issue? i could see where it could be. if dues aren't automatic, but become voluntary, perhaps the unions would find they aren't quite so popular, based on indiana.....no wonder the union is so upset! can you imagine your income dropping 90%??

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm not familiar with this fellow, but they ran this article in the local paper-so i googled it, and here's the article... had stuff in it i hadn't seen mentioned before, either in the discussion here or elsewhere.. thought i'd post it. of course i'll probably hear this guy is a whack job or something..if so, i'll know better next time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ket-rich-lowry

an excerpt:

Even if Walker prevails, Wisconsin will allow more wide-ranging collective bargaining than these states.

Not to mention the federal government. Obama may lecture Walker about union rights, but he can go straight to Congress with a highly political proposal to freeze the pay of federal workers because they can’t collectively bargain for wages or benefits.

(this is a part that intrigued me) No, the most important measure at stake in Wisconsin is the governor’s proposal for the state to stop deducting union dues from the paychecks of state workers. This practice essentially wields the taxing power of the government on behalf of the institutional interests of the unions. It makes the government an arm of the public-sector unions. It is a priceless favor.


and further down:

When Indiana governor Mitch Daniels ended collective bargaining and the automatic collection of dues in 2005, the number of members paying dues plummeted by roughly 90 percent.


now, is this a major issue? i could see where it could be. if dues aren't automatic, but become voluntary, perhaps the unions would find they aren't quite so popular, based on indiana.....no wonder the union is so upset! can you imagine your income dropping 90%??

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm not familiar with this fellow, but they ran this article in the local paper-so i googled it, and here's the article... had stuff in it i hadn't seen mentioned before, either in the discussion here or elsewhere.. thought i'd post it. of course i'll probably hear this guy is a whack job or something..if so, i'll know better next time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ket-rich-lowry

an excerpt:

Even if Walker prevails, Wisconsin will allow more wide-ranging collective bargaining than these states.

Not to mention the federal government. Obama may lecture Walker about union rights, but he can go straight to Congress with a highly political proposal to freeze the pay of federal workers because they can’t collectively bargain for wages or benefits.

(this is a part that intrigued me) No, the most important measure at stake in Wisconsin is the governor’s proposal for the state to stop deducting union dues from the paychecks of state workers. This practice essentially wields the taxing power of the government on behalf of the institutional interests of the unions. It makes the government an arm of the public-sector unions. It is a priceless favor.


and further down:

When Indiana governor Mitch Daniels ended collective bargaining and the automatic collection of dues in 2005, the number of members paying dues plummeted by roughly 90 percent.


now, is this a major issue? i could see where it could be. if dues aren't automatic, but become voluntary, perhaps the unions would find they aren't quite so popular, based on indiana.....no wonder the union is so upset! can you imagine your income dropping 90%??

This is exactly the reason why the democrats have been fighting this so hard. They have been funding their campaigns thru required union dues for years. Riot will claim that the Koch brothers are doing the same for Walker, however the fact is the Koch brothers use their own $ and not the mandated union dues of the teachers to fund their campaigns. The Koch brothers also contributed less than $50k towards Walker's campaign whereas the teachers union contributed $1.57 million to 4 democrats.

In the bill Walker removed the residency restrictions for Milw city workers (police, fire fighters, etc) and MPS teachers. In the past they were required to live in the city of Milwaukee. Now they are not. Imagine that the republicans giving freedoms back to the people and allowing them to choose where they want to live. Democrats including Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett are furious over this and are totally against giving workers the freedom to live where they want, but again they know what is best for the workers. Why give them a choice?

[Danzig]

i figured the union was so adamant about the changes because they don't want to lose union membership, thus losing money. but when i read that article today...well, it sure put a new spin on things. why the dems were so against it-it's not budgetary, except where their campaigns are concerned apparently.

it also makes me wonder about the supreme court ruling regarding companies donating to campaigns....some people were so against that ruling-but how many are perfectly ok with unions donating tons of dough? aren't unions really a business? interesting stuff.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i figured the union was so adamant about the changes because they don't want to lose union membership, thus losing money. but when i read that article today...well, it sure put a new spin on things. why the dems were so against it-it's not budgetary, except where their campaigns are concerned apparently.

it also makes me wonder about the supreme court ruling regarding companies donating to campaigns....some people were so against that ruling-but how many are perfectly ok with unions donating tons of dough? aren't unions really a business? interesting stuff.

Back when I was in the Teamsters Union, they would send us the voting guide for all the various things on ballots....candidates..propositions, and who the Teamsters supported. If you were a Dem...they supported you. If they didnt like you or it was a Rep running...there was no endorsement.

[dellinger63]

In chicago, there is a mob boss in jail for life who used to control their pension fund.

murder was just his hobby I guess.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i figured the union was so adamant about the changes because they don't want to lose union membership, thus losing money. but when i read that article today...well, it sure put a new spin on things. why the dems were so against it-it's not budgetary, except where their campaigns are concerned apparently.

That's what the Democrats have said since day one about this fiasco. It's even on this thread. It's surely no "new spin"

Remember? That's why the GOP governors made union busting a priority this year? Because first they passed the Citizens United ruling eliminated restrictions on campaign donations by corporations.

Out of the top ten corps giving to $$ to political campaigns nationally, 7 are Republican, 3 are Democratic. The 3 Democratic are unions. If the GOP union-busts, yes, that eliminates those three unions, those three top Democratic political funders, leaving the GOP corporations entirely in charge, financially, of our elections.

The Republican Party has markedly and permanently changed in the past 10 years. They are now a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate America. The GOP platform now - and look at every GOP governor's actions, and the House GOP, right now, both state and national levels, is this:

1. Impress that there is a severe budget crisis requiring "emergency measures" and "emergency powers" and "sudden action"
2. Use "crisis" as an excuse for cutting and slashing everything one can out of a budget, but from the lower and middle classes only: funding for schools, aid programs, abortion rights, planned parenthood, OSHA, FDA, prisons, etc. - everything.
3. Continue giving huge tax cuts and incentives to corporations
4. Attempt to privatize what survives: schools, vouchers, security at prisons, government, everything

What do you guys think about an emergency edict that enables a State governor to appoint a "manager", to go in and take over individual town governments, and usurp the duties of elected officials? (current bill that already passed the House in Michigan)

What about a State governor who takes away the right of individual towns to set their own local tax rates and improve their own local schools? (the bill Walker just signed in Wisconsin)


And they call Obama communist? What the GOP governors are trying to do is beyond crazy! This is scary stuff.