- Banned
- #1
I think the republicans have something here.
below is what Walker wants to do to the Govt workers, OK
Lets just take it one step further, lets just make everyone in Wisc have to apply for their job each year and neg. a fair wage and benefit package under the same guidelines as what your asking the unions to do.
You will not recieve a raise/decrease untill you settle. Your max raise will be the cost of living. There will be no bonus or other form of compensation unless everyone in the state gets the same deal. And State Taxes will not be collected out of peoples checks, it will be up to the state to send you a bill and ask for your tax money.
And the best is that each and every year you will have to be affrimed to hold office by the population of the state.
There will be a survey done on all wages and benefits for the state and depending on your occupation you will not be able to be paid more than the going rate. Anything to be found excessive will also be cut reguardless of averages. And nobody can have a retirement plan paid for by their employer that is higher than any other state resident.
Sounds great to me Wisconsin.
What is actually being proposed in Wisconsin?
By Ezra Klein
Reading the commentary, I think a lot of people are confused about what's actually being proposed in Wisconsin. So let's go through it.
You can find Gov. Scott Walker's proposal here. It's called "the Budget Repair bill." The section that's attracted all the anger is "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations."
In it, Walker proposes that the right to collectively bargain be taken away from most -- but not all -- state and local workers. Who's left out? "Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes." As Harold Meyerson notes, these are also the unions that happened to be more supportive of Walker in the last election. Funny, that.
Walker tries to sell the change in collective bargaining as modest. "State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures." But that's not really true. Read down a bit further and you'll find that "total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum." In other words, they couldn't bargain for wages to rise faster than inflation. So, in reality, they can't bargain for wages and they can't bargain over other forms of compensation. They just can't bargain.
The proposal doesn't stop there, though. "Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues." These rules have nothing to do with pension costs or even bargaining. They're just about weakening unions: They make it harder for unions to collect dues from members, to negotiate stable contracts or to survive a bad year.
The best way to understand Walker's proposal is as a multi-part attack on the state's labor unions. In part one, their ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced. In part two, their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut. And in part three, workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year. Put it all together and it looks like this: Wisconsin's unions can't deliver value to their members, they're deprived of the resources to change the rules so they can start delivering value to their members again, and because of that, their members eventually give in to employer pressure and shut the union down in one of the annual certification elections.
You may think Walker's proposal is a good idea or a bad idea. But that's what it does. And it's telling that he's exempting the unions that supported him and is trying to obscure his plan's specifics behind misleading language about what unions can still bargain for and misleading rhetoric about the state's budget.
By Ezra Klein | February 18, 2011; 12:16 PM ET
Categories: Unions
below is what Walker wants to do to the Govt workers, OK
Lets just take it one step further, lets just make everyone in Wisc have to apply for their job each year and neg. a fair wage and benefit package under the same guidelines as what your asking the unions to do.
You will not recieve a raise/decrease untill you settle. Your max raise will be the cost of living. There will be no bonus or other form of compensation unless everyone in the state gets the same deal. And State Taxes will not be collected out of peoples checks, it will be up to the state to send you a bill and ask for your tax money.
And the best is that each and every year you will have to be affrimed to hold office by the population of the state.
There will be a survey done on all wages and benefits for the state and depending on your occupation you will not be able to be paid more than the going rate. Anything to be found excessive will also be cut reguardless of averages. And nobody can have a retirement plan paid for by their employer that is higher than any other state resident.
Sounds great to me Wisconsin.
What is actually being proposed in Wisconsin?
By Ezra Klein
Reading the commentary, I think a lot of people are confused about what's actually being proposed in Wisconsin. So let's go through it.
You can find Gov. Scott Walker's proposal here. It's called "the Budget Repair bill." The section that's attracted all the anger is "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations."
In it, Walker proposes that the right to collectively bargain be taken away from most -- but not all -- state and local workers. Who's left out? "Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes." As Harold Meyerson notes, these are also the unions that happened to be more supportive of Walker in the last election. Funny, that.
Walker tries to sell the change in collective bargaining as modest. "State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures." But that's not really true. Read down a bit further and you'll find that "total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum." In other words, they couldn't bargain for wages to rise faster than inflation. So, in reality, they can't bargain for wages and they can't bargain over other forms of compensation. They just can't bargain.
The proposal doesn't stop there, though. "Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues." These rules have nothing to do with pension costs or even bargaining. They're just about weakening unions: They make it harder for unions to collect dues from members, to negotiate stable contracts or to survive a bad year.
The best way to understand Walker's proposal is as a multi-part attack on the state's labor unions. In part one, their ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced. In part two, their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut. And in part three, workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year. Put it all together and it looks like this: Wisconsin's unions can't deliver value to their members, they're deprived of the resources to change the rules so they can start delivering value to their members again, and because of that, their members eventually give in to employer pressure and shut the union down in one of the annual certification elections.
You may think Walker's proposal is a good idea or a bad idea. But that's what it does. And it's telling that he's exempting the unions that supported him and is trying to obscure his plan's specifics behind misleading language about what unions can still bargain for and misleading rhetoric about the state's budget.
By Ezra Klein | February 18, 2011; 12:16 PM ET
Categories: Unions
