patrick.net

I'm feeling the pain for those poor overworked, underpaid teachers. No wonder the Rev. Jesse Shakedown is calling this a "Martin Luther King moment."

http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/03/average-mps-teacher-compensation-tops-100kyear/

Paralithodes says

Um, a filibuster requires that the legislators actually show up! Nice try though.

Yes, it was a nice, and successful, attempt at explaining the similarities between a boycott and a filibuster.

Paralithodes says

Yes, and this is exactly why FDR was against the concept of public-sector unions.

What does FDR have to do with anything? Shall we go back to those days, with no computers, electricity was still spotty in many areas, cars weren't within everyone's reach, and politics were the sport of the wealthy? We've come a long way, baby!

BTW, I'm not saying that I support the boycott - but I support the process. I'm on the fence about this issue. Some hard choices need to be made.

shrekgrinch says

And they are a minority..a minority of envied ‘rich’ people in an era of very hard financial times.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/12435289/i-team-public-trust-water-authority-salaries?redirected=true

On the right, about 1/3 of the way down, there's a box with links to the salaries of different agencies of public workers in the Vegas area. It's outrageous.

Being a social worker, I know many public workers who aren't able to quit because they'll never be paid even close to what they're earning now. They have a union contract. I believe that unions were necessary at one point, but that now it's a way to ensure that the workers will make a hell of a lot more than the private sector.

Legal secretaries who make $128k? Social Workers who make $85k (after 20 years, but in the private sector it would be about half of that). This is one of the reasons that the public sectors are in the red and are full of layers of people who should have retired or been fired long ago...

The construction industry is a bit different - there's a union, but because the workers are independent contractors, at least the union offered some benefits. But in Clark County now, unions don't mean shit for the workers, only for the union reps.

There is nothing new about "breaking quorum" to prevent a vote. It's an old move.

In 1839, a young Abraham Lincoln, serving as a Whig in the Illinois House, jumped out of the building in a futile bid to prevent Democrats from getting a quorum to vote on a banks bill.

1994, Republican members of the California Assembly refused to show up for floor sessions in an effort to prevent Democrats from electing Willie Brown as speaker with less than a majority vote.

The manufactured "budget crisis" is a misdirection by the Geriatric Oppression Party. They wouldn't have one BTW if they weren't letting 2/3rds of the corporations operate without paying ANY taxes.

The union-busting attempt to remove their right of collective bargaining is reprehensible. The fact that the GOP never even mentions this part of the bill and gives all the budget nonsense all of their Talking Point time, tells you how underhanded they are being about this. OH dear, we seem to have UNEXPECTEDLY painted ourselves right into a corner, well now that we've managed that how can we put it to use? Bust the unions? Why that never even OCCURRED to us before but now that you mention it....

You want budget concessions and layoffs, fine make that an entire bill.

You want to bust the unions, fine put that up for vote as a separate bill.

Tying the two together in a package and saying here take it or leave it, well frankly they should leave it.

GOP is always talking about how the best thing is a government that is tied up in knots and does nothing. How about if they just stay in exile for the rest of their term, and prevent any legislation from taking place? Shut down the government. I suspect the people of Wisconsin wouldn't starve to death. It would be a nice "put up or shut up" move about that particular GOP aphorism.

Strike, shut it all down. See how parents feel about school closing and suddenly you have to homeschool or find a private school.

I saw this poster recently and I like it:

Because it reflects a time when corporations were shit-scared enough of Union power, to feel like they needed to make EFFORTS (however meager) to win their employees over. Scot was tapping into that management fear to sell their product. Prevent union and thus by extension "communist" influence by treating their employees well instead of like disposable slaves.

Unions are sufficiently small now that they should be protected as an endangered species.

Yes the more I think about it, the more the idea of government shutdown appeals. It would make the Koch Brothers and their Teabagger volunteers feel pretty silly about the outrageous contributions to put people in power and pay them to actually "just do nothing".

Another bit of "quorum trivia" for you, in 2008 the Nevada GOP Convention leaders attempted to break quorum in order to sabotage Ron Paul. It had become obvious that he was getting more support than McCain and they wanted to invalidate that. History is littered with evidence this is a legit procedural tactic in legislative playbook, thus RayAmerica's attempt to cast it as a some underhanded ..... ILLEGAL? ... UNCONSTITUTIONAL? .... Democrat invention is plainly wrong. RayAmerica seems remarkably restrained though in not crying for horse whippings and tar&feather like old timers.

"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"

Pathetic aint it?

"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"
"This is what Democracy looks like!!!!!"

Pretty amazing that the same school district in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where the PRIVATE average income is only $19,000, public school teachers make with benefits, over $100,000. Talk about greed! I guess that's what you get with collective bargaining.

http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/03/average-mps-teacher-compensation-tops-100kyear/

None other than President Franklin Eleanor Roosevelt (I think it might be Delano) on collective bargaining for public employees (1937): “Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
The reason? FDR believed that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Nomograph says

Based on his posts about Wisconsin, Egypt, and other topics, RayAMerica is clearly uncomfortable with grass-root expressions of democratic free will.

Are you saying the Muslim Brotherhood is at work in Wisconsin too?

Interesting that police and fire unions are exempted from the Wisconsin governors plan. They usually have the most expensive benefits.

http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14059749

"Police and fire unions, which have some of the most expensive benefits but who supported Mr. Walker’s campaign for governor, are exempted."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/us/politics/19states.html

elliemae says

What does FDR have to do with anything? Shall we go back to those days, with no computers, electricity was still spotty in many areas, cars weren’t within everyone’s reach, and politics were the sport of the wealthy? We’ve come a long way, baby!

So.. since there were many other things going on in society that were not quite as good as today, everything FDR said 66 years ago is inapplicable to today.... Wow, now that is thoughtful and intellectual!!!!

Vicente says

Another bit of “quorum trivia” for you, in 2008 the Nevada GOP Convention leaders attempted to break quorum in order to sabotage Ron Paul. It had become obvious that he was getting more support than McCain and they wanted to invalidate that. History is littered with evidence this is a legit procedural tactic in legislative playbook,

The Nevada GOP Convention was a legislature??????

Vicente says

In 1839, a young Abraham Lincoln, serving as a Whig in the Illinois House, jumped out of the building in a futile bid to prevent Democrats from getting a quorum to vote on a banks bill.

Sorry, but according to ellie mae's rules of discussion, this observation is completely irrelevant... Do you really want people to go back to people living in log cabins, no automobiles at all, no such thing as x-ray machines, no Internet, telephones, etc.?

Vicente says

Was Lincoln a traitor to the Constitution? Awaiting your answer…..

To the US Constitution? Not likely.... Perhaps you can explain how the Constitution had any bearing what he did in the Illinois legislature in this particular case? Awaiting your answer....

Besides... as discussed before, whatever Lincoln did was irrelevant.... happened too long ago and we don't want to go back to that standard of living...

elliemae says

But I know you think I’m awesome-er!

Sure, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think so....

Paralithodes says

Sure, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think so….

I'm glad that I can make ya'll come together. It doesn't happen often.

Paralithodes says

Perhaps you can explain how the Constitution had any bearing what he did in the Illinois legislature in this particular case? Awaiting your answer….

Question for original poster, which posited that the actions of the Democrats attempted to "block the Constitutional process". Or are you admitting you are just an "alt" for RayAmerica?

Vicente says

Paralithodes says

Perhaps you can explain how the Constitution had any bearing what he did in the Illinois legislature in this particular case? Awaiting your answer….

Question for original poster, which posited that the actions of the Democrats attempted to “block the Constitutional process”. Or are you admitting you are just an “alt” for RayAmerica?

The OP used "constitutional process in Wisconsin," (with "constitution" in lower case). You referred to Lincoln being a "traitor" to "the Constitution." Since you used the term "traitor" and "the Constitution" together, without clarifying whether it was the Wisconsin Constitution or the US Constitution, I assume you mean the former. The term "traitor" gets bandied back and forth between liberals and conservatives towards each other, but I have never, ever heard it used in the context of a state's Constitution.

Case may mean something (maybe not)... context of which words are chosen and how words are used mean something.... If you were specifically referring to the Wisconsin Constitution, then I stand corrected on use of "Constitution" but assert that your answer, by throwing in such perjoratives as "traitor" make your question invalid and unanswerable.

Whether I am an "alt' for RayAmerica" or not, somehow I think you missed the nuance and you were referring to the US Constitution... Even if RayAmerica was referring to the US Constitution, you perpetuated his mistake. Care to clarify how "traitor" applies to a state constitution? Did the Illinois constitution have provisions for "traitor" to the state of Illinois within it?

Vicente says

Or are you admitting you are just an “alt” for RayAmerica?

That was posted by RayAmerica

Vicente says

Was Lincoln a traitor to the Constitution? Awaiting your answer…..

"Traitor" might be a little strong, but Mr. Lincoln did in fact suspend the writ of habeas corpus back in 1862. I think that little thingy was kind of mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Does that count as an answer? I really, really hope so. I anxiously await your answer.

Like anyone else who refuses to show up for work, they need to be fired. The governor should appoint some replacements and get on with his anti-union legislation.

shrekgrinch says

As far as Joe Q. Public is concerned, all the Reps are ‘asking’ is for cuts

Actually the unions are extremely willing to negotiate further cuts in their pay and benefits. What they are objecting to is losing their collective bargaining rights, that is losing the right to negotiate these for the future. This is something the governor only wants certain select public employees to lose and not others.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (a fiscal conservative) recently pointed out that Ohio Turnpike toll booth operators start out at $52,000 plus benefits. On average, toll booth operators make $66,000 per year due to overtime .... plus benefits. All that for a job that requires literally no skill other than to make change and hand over a ticket stub. Although the Turnpike has been paid for many times over, it is now operating at a deficit. Just one of thousands of examples that can be cited to illustrate that government, on all levels, is out of control.

shrekgrinch says

Please re-read what I wrote

Actually, I caught what you wrote. And my comment in response was intended to inform two or three of of John and Jane Q Public, and maybe you as well.

We will see if it's too late. Maybe it temporarily is, at least in Wisconsin. But I don't see why it should be impossible for a majority of the people to learn what is actually happening.

Are you one of those who believe that the media is now so overly controlled by the right wing that all liberal policies and agenda are henceforth doomed ?

shrekgrinch says

Wisconsin is but the vanguard of what will sweep the nation with regards to states getting out of their unfunded pension and employee benefits messes

We'll see. It is true that the baby boom bubble in health and pension benefits is a problem that can only be solved by significant GDP growth or combinations of cuts and increased pay in by employees. But using this temporary situation that also coincides with a huge recession as an excuse to destroy unions is basically cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Interesting to me that the right wing sheep, envious of what are now good pay and benefits that state employees receive (because our standard of living per person (not per household with 2 wage earners) has dropped so much), want to see those union employees lose out. Don't they see it's just a step in the wrong direction for everyone ? And not just because your descendants or friends may one day work for the government. It's also because it lowers the salary bar for other jobs. I wish I could say that it's deflationary, but it is only deflationary relative to salaries.

RayAmerica says

Does that count as an answer? I really, really hope so. I anxiously await your answer.

No.

Let me try again.

When Lincoln jumped out a window to break quorum, was he wrongfully blocking the rightful "constitutional proccess"?

And now we see buried WAY down in the Union-Killer Bill.....

a hidden freebie for the billionaire Koch Brothers:

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-less-discussed-part-of-walkers-wisconsin-plan-no-bid-energy-assets-firesales/

Things can't actually end up with a single monopolist. That situation results in the people killing the monopolist and taking what is his (hopefully I don't have to enumerate all the instances of this happening in the past...)

You also have upstarts that can take a "fighting the big bad man" angle.

Now, if the rule of law doesn't exist, that upstart can't come into existance. At that point you don't have a free market though, so it's a moot point.

shrekgrinch says

Zlxr says
Without workers rights, without collective bargaining and all - there will not be a precedent anymore for what constitutes a safe and fair working environment.
Cry me a river and move to some third world country to see how workers are truly abused. I mean, really.

Lovely. Got any more 3rd grade arguments? Well, as long as we're not as bad as Somalia...

shrekgrinch says

Lincoln ended up doing far, far worse things regarding blatant defiance of the Constitution..so you sure you want to continue on with the Lincoln Analogy with regards to this topic?

Hello Ray....errr Shrek,

I wasn't speaking of those things. Specifically breaking quorum, is that always when people "Unite Against the Democratic Process" even if they happen to be Republicans?

The whole process stopped being "Democratic" when supreme court allowed unlimited capital to flow into elections allowing those with more money to influence the outcome.

If corporations have collective bargaining, why shouldn't the unions? After all we shouldn't (in my opinion) apply the laws differently to different people based purely on their connections to the current ruling party.

"if unions are such hot shit, then why do they have to depend on forcing workers to join them like good little comrades at the local soviet collective in order to be a going concern, eh?"

Largest corporations do that now by exercising their collective bargaining. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right. My argument here is that if we do not allow unions to collectively bargain than we have to take away corporate lobbying collective bargaining or we'll simply end up tipping the scale in favor of feudalism.

shrekgrinch says

ChrisLA says

Largest corporations do that now by exercising their collective bargaining.

Then I guess I didn’t get the context of ‘collective bargaining’ made with regards to corporations (because it is an alien term made in context of corporations, really). I thought it had to do with how they funnel political contributions because that was what was originally bitched about in the posting where this originally appeared.
Unions ‘collectively bargain’ for wages, benefits, etc. not to make political contributions. Public sector unions should NEVER be making political contributions as that is the taxpayer’s money being used against the taxpayers interest (more taxes and more spending…no matter what!).
And like I said, what corporations do is voluntary on their part. That is their money they are contributing from earnings, not salaries and if workers really, really don’t like it, they can quit and go work for a competitor…whereas most states that have unions also force workers to join said unions and force them to pay union dues whether they want to join or not…simply to hold a job in that field (try and find another state employer other than your state if you want to work as a public sector employee at the state level).
So I ask again, if unions are such hot shit, then why do they have to depend on forcing workers to join them and pay the dues? All other attempts at collective bargaining amongst individuals — grocery co-ops, for example — are voluntary. Individuals freely join or leave them based upon their own determinations of value they derive/don’t derive from membership.
But not when it comes to unions who want national card check scams to force workers to join and pay up. Such blatantly anti-American concepts is what they are all about..and why the public is against them.

I just like you do not like how corporations or unions do political contributions, I really dislike this system. Because it is not honorable, and it really just screws everyone who is not in the union or has a big daddy in Federal Reserve.

But I still think both should be addressed.

shrekgrinch says

It has been widely documented.

Ahh. The old widely documented. The last defense of a poster that knows he's wrong.

It's so widely documented that you were able to post 0 links to anything, huh?

Workers in states where unions were demolished, make about $5,000 less.

It's pretty clear the game here is part of the "divide the peasants" policy so a billionaire can buy another mansion with matching Rolls Royce.

Just say No.

Vicente says

Workers in states where unions were demolished, make about $5,000 less.

The cost of living in those state is also lower and companies are moving FROM the union states to the right to work states, creating jobs for the working class in the process. What was the point you were trying to make?

RayAmerica says

The cost of living in those [Union hostile] state is also lower

Oh REALLY?

According to the Cost of Living Calculator.....

If $50K in Madison, WI is your "living wage", you'll need $59K to live in Phoenix Arizona.

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

Vicente says

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

I wonder if illegal immigration, which is much higher in AZ than Wisconsin, might have a little something to do with it?