Point of information RE: Wisconsin

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES GAIN PROTECTIONS
Wisconsin also led the nation in giving public employees the right of collective bargaining. The nation’s largest public employee union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was founded in Madison in 1936; throughout the state, public employees organized, even though they had no legal protections. Nonetheless, public workers, like those in Milwaukee regularly showed solidarity in threatening to strike to win fair treatment. Finally in 1959, the State passed the nation’s first comprehensive public employee bargaining law, Section 111.70, which provided the right of collective bargaining to public employees, and also required municipalities, school districts the university system and other public entities to bargain with the unionized workers.

http://www.wisconsinlaborhistory.org/?page_id=34


The NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) establishes procedures for the selection of a labor organization to represent a unit of employees in collective bargaining. The act prohibits employers from interfering with this selection. The NLRA requires the employer to bargain with the appointed representative of its employees. It does not require either side to agree to a proposal or make concessions but does establish procedural guidelines on good faith bargaining. Proposals which would violate the NLRA or other laws may not be subject to collective bargaining. The NLRA also establishes regulations on what tactics (e.g. strikes, lock-outs, picketing) each side may employ to further their bargaining objectives.

State laws further regulate collective bargaining and make collective agreements enforceable under state law. They may also provide guidelines for those employers and employees not covered by the NLRA, such as agricultural laborers.

Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution used as an alternative to litigation. It is commonly designated in collective agreements between employers and employees as the way to resolve disputes. The parties select a neutral third party (an arbiter) to hold a formal or informal hearing on the disagreement. The arbiter then issues a decision binding on the parties. Both federal and state law governs the practice of arbitration. While the Federal Arbitration Act, by its own terms, is not applicable to employment contracts, federal courts are increasingly applying the law in labor disputes. Fourty-nine states have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act (1956) as state law. Thus, the arbitration agreement and decision of the arbiter may be enforceable under state and federal law.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/collective_bargaining
 
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES GAIN PROTECTIONS
Wisconsin also led the nation in giving public employees the right of collective bargaining. The nation’s largest public employee union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was founded in Madison in 1936; throughout the state, public employees organized, even though they had no legal protections. Nonetheless, public workers, like those in Milwaukee regularly showed solidarity in threatening to strike to win fair treatment. Finally in 1959, the State passed the nation’s first comprehensive public employee bargaining law, Section 111.70, which provided the right of collective bargaining to public employees, and also required municipalities, school districts the university system and other public entities to bargain with the unionized workers.

http://www.wisconsinlaborhistory.org/?page_id=34


The NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) establishes procedures for the selection of a labor organization to represent a unit of employees in collective bargaining. The act prohibits employers from interfering with this selection. The NLRA requires the employer to bargain with the appointed representative of its employees. It does not require either side to agree to a proposal or make concessions but does establish procedural guidelines on good faith bargaining. Proposals which would violate the NLRA or other laws may not be subject to collective bargaining. The NLRA also establishes regulations on what tactics (e.g. strikes, lock-outs, picketing) each side may employ to further their bargaining objectives.

State laws further regulate collective bargaining and make collective agreements enforceable under state law. They may also provide guidelines for those employers and employees not covered by the NLRA, such as agricultural laborers.

Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution used as an alternative to litigation. It is commonly designated in collective agreements between employers and employees as the way to resolve disputes. The parties select a neutral third party (an arbiter) to hold a formal or informal hearing on the disagreement. The arbiter then issues a decision binding on the parties. Both federal and state law governs the practice of arbitration. While the Federal Arbitration Act, by its own terms, is not applicable to employment contracts, federal courts are increasingly applying the law in labor disputes. Fourty-nine states have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act (1956) as state law. Thus, the arbitration agreement and decision of the arbiter may be enforceable under state and federal law.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/collective_bargaining

http://www.old-time.com/commercials/Sounds/Move Up To Schlitz.wma

:)
 
why are you against this bill? even the dems who fled the state agree that they need to contribute more to their pension and health insurance. what exactly are you concerned about? the collective bargaining issue? tell me exactly how the bill deals with collective bargaining....
 
why are you against this bill? even the dems who fled the state agree that they need to contribute more to their pension and health insurance. what exactly are you concerned about? the collective bargaining issue? tell me exactly how the bill deals with collective bargaining....
Well that's easy to answer. It eliminates it.
 
Maybe we need more POINTS of INFORMATION

2007 data....and since its only gotten better for civil servants...

The nation's 6 million retired civil servants — teachers, police, administrators, laborers — received a median benefit of $17,640 in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-20-pensions-cover_x.htm

----------------------------
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume23/Vol23No2/Vol23No2.html


A private sector employee earning $70,000 in the year before his/her retirement will receive somewhat comparable retirement income as his/her WRS counterpart earning $48,000 per year, who will contribute less than half as much.
 
Maybe we need more POINTS of INFORMATION

2007 data....and since its only gotten better for civil servants...

The nation's 6 million retired civil servants — teachers, police, administrators, laborers — received a median benefit of $17,640 in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven million private-sector retirees covered by traditional pensions got $7,692.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-20-pensions-cover_x.htm

----------------------------
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume23/Vol23No2/Vol23No2.html


A private sector employee earning $70,000 in the year before his/her retirement will receive somewhat comparable retirement income as his/her WRS counterpart earning $48,000 per year, who will contribute less than half as much.



1. Bravo's information does not address the FACT that the bill proposed by Gov. Walker is AGAINST 50 years of Wisconsin LAW (Section 111.70)....along with the Uniform Arbitration Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. To date, neither Walker or any of the neocon punditry and parrots can explain how BANNING unions from collective bargaining is a proven method to save money.

2. the private sector is making an average of $28-30 grand more in base salary than a public worker for the same job, and the the pension difference is about $200-250 dollars in the public workers favor. A small reminder: The public worker has to RETIRE at 65 to get that pension (early retirement means less money), while the private sector gets that $28 grand more YEARLY until retirement.

What Bravo doesn't realize is about 60 percent of state and local government pension funds/assets were invested in corporate stocks that took heavy during the Wall Street crisis total value of these pension funds fell by nearly $900 billion.

So the hue and cry by right wing conservatives, Libertarians, teabaggers, neocons, and the like is very myopic...because they would have to abandon their advocated faith in the privatization of everything a'la' Wall St. in order to solely blame union pensions for a major part of state/nation fiscal woes. You also have to look into the decline of state input into pension over the last few years. Essentially what we're seeing is a failure of Wall St. and local state gov't fiscal policies to carry their share of the pension fund, and subsequently right wing conservatives pretending that it's the rate of input by the State employees that is the cause. Also, when you add the FACT that all these neocon GOP politicos that are gunning for pensions and unions are STILL advocating failed Reaganomics policies in conjunction to save the day. Wisconsin is the test case for examination, and when ALL the facts are in, the false neocon Bravado fails to sway the objective analysis.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158...rkers?page=0,0
 
Last edited:
e110222_Bokpg-vertical.jpg
 

But neocon toadies like Yurtle were all a twitter when Gingrich pulled a walkout and stopped gov't.

So when Yurtle is ready to condemn and mock Gingrich, then I'll take his little cartoons as a substitute for serious debate. Meanwhile, notice that Yurtle doesn't DARE debate the issue point for point using facts and the logic derived from them. Small wonder why I only occasionally take this Yurtled clown out of IA.
 
Well that's easy to answer. It eliminates it.

No... it eliminates the ability to negotiate benefits. They still have the ability to negotiate wages.

You are simply blind to the problem with public unions. Even FDR saw the problem inherent with public unions negotiating with the very people they help put in office.
 
But neocon toadies like Yurtle were all a twitter when Gingrich pulled a walkout and stopped gov't.

So when Yurtle is ready to condemn and mock Gingrich, then I'll take his little cartoons as a substitute for serious debate. Meanwhile, notice that Yurtle doesn't DARE debate the issue point for point using facts and the logic derived from them. Small wonder why I only occasionally take this Yurtled clown out of IA.

actually, i have debated it...you just willfully ignore points that refute your claims

i could care less about gingrich, this is now...and the dems are obstructionists and running away from democracy....you were all about elections have consequences....now, strangely you don't think elections matter, the will of the people should be ignored.

i bet you criticized gingrich and i know you call republicans obstructionists, yet during the last two years they didn't run away from their duty to vote, nope, only the dems.

can you not see your own hypocrisy?
 
No... it eliminates the ability to negotiate benefits. They still have the ability to negotiate wages.

You are simply blind to the problem with public unions. Even FDR saw the problem inherent with public unions negotiating with the very people they help put in office.

It's in VIOLATION OF A WISCONSIN LAW THAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 50 YEARS...that law DOES NOT separate benefits and pensions from wages from the rights of public workers to collectively bargain with the state.
 
It's in VIOLATION OF A WISCONSIN LAW THAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 50 YEARS...that law DOES NOT separate benefits and pensions from wages from the rights of public workers to collectively bargain with the state.

link...and if it is a law....then guess what...a new law can change the old law

it happens quite frequently in the legislative process...

but you were wrong, it doesn't eliminate collective bargaining
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
But neocon toadies like Yurtle were all a twitter when Gingrich pulled a walkout and stopped gov't.

So when Yurtle is ready to condemn and mock Gingrich, then I'll take his little cartoons as a substitute for serious debate. Meanwhile, notice that Yurtle doesn't DARE debate the issue point for point using facts and the logic derived from them. Small wonder why I only occasionally take this Yurtled clown out of IA.


actually, i have debated it...you just willfully ignore points that refute your claims

You're a liar.....on this thread you haven't "debated" anything. Cartoons don't count as a factual and logical argument to the contrary....unless you're in 5th grade.


i could care less about gingrich, this is now Translation: Although Gingrich pulled a similar action, Yurtle the neocon toadie will NOT criticize him or even acknowledge the similarity....instead he pretends the Dems in Wisconsin are doing something unique. This makes Yurtle a hypocrit. ...and the dems are obstructionists and running away from democracy....you were all about elections have consequences....now, strangely you don't think elections matter, the will of the people should be ignored. Elections do not mean that the executive office has power to circumnavigate laws, to BAN people from the negotiating table on procedures GUARANTEED BY STATE LAW FOR 50 YEARS. When Walker pulled that crap, the Dems did the best thing to bring public attention to his union busting ploy...and it worked! TFB for hypocritical clowns like Yurtle. The "will of the people" came out THOUSANDS STRONG FOR A WEEK....overwhelming the the bussed in idiot teabaggers on the Freedomworks dollar.
i bet you criticized gingrich and i know you call republicans obstructionists, yet during the last two years they didn't run away from their duty to vote, nope, only the dems.

can you not see your own hypocrisy? Note how our resident neocon parrot projects his own problems onto others.

Yurtle typically using convoluted neocon "logic" to try and BS his way pass the FACTS of the LAW and LEGAL PRECEDENT I posted here that show how underhanded and wrong Walker's proposed bill is. Note that first Yurtle says he's not interested in Gingrich...but brings him up to make an accusation. And what is comical is that Yurtle considers the Party of No's actions since Obama took office (logging a record number of filibusters) something to be excused and praised.

Like I said, Yurtle and his ilk have no problem with Gingrich or the Party of No, but condemn the Dems in WI for similar actions.

Yurtle's smokescreen fails as usual.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It's in VIOLATION OF A WISCONSIN LAW THAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 50 YEARS...that law DOES NOT separate benefits and pensions from wages from the rights of public workers to collectively bargain with the state.


link...and if it is a law....then guess what...a new law can change the old law


it happens quite frequently in the legislative process...

Not if it's in contradiction to subsequent legal precedents connected to the Constitution. Had Yurtle actually READ the links I provided, he would have access to the actual law....which goes to show that Yurtle is operating on his opinion, supposition and conjecture and NOT legal precedent and proceedings.


but you were wrong, it doesn't eliminate collective bargaining

You should READ, Yurtle....the Walker proposal SPECIFICALLY states that unions can only collectively bargain on salary, NOT benefits or pensions. This is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the 50 year old Wisconsin law, which DOES NOT SEPARATE SALARIES FROM BENEFITS AND PENSIONS WHEN IT GRANTS WORKERS (public and private)THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAIN.

It's fascinating that the teabaggers, neocons and the like all ballyhooed that they did NOT want gov't to tell them what to do...yet here they are supporting a proposal that tells them YOU THE PEOPLE don't know whats good for you in this instance...we the gov't know best and will tell you what to do.

Teabagging fools would shoot themselves in the foot if the Koch brothers, Dick Armey and Limbaugh told them to.
 
actually, i have debated it...you just willfully ignore points that refute your claims

i could care less about gingrich, this is now...and the dems are obstructionists and running away from democracy....you were all about elections have consequences....now, strangely you don't think elections matter, the will of the people should be ignored.

i bet you criticized gingrich and i know you call republicans obstructionists, yet during the last two years they didn't run away from their duty to vote, nope, only the dems.

can you not see your own hypocrisy?

Conservatives bleated constantly that they weren't given a seat at the table during negotiations over various laws. For example, they said Obama rammed HC through and they weren't given a voice. Yet the WI governor wants to do the very same thing and conservatives back him. Why the discrepancy?
 
Conservatives bleated constantly that they weren't given a seat at the table during negotiations over various laws. For example, they said Obama rammed HC through and they weren't given a voice. Yet the WI governor wants to do the very same thing and conservatives back him. Why the discrepancy?

No discrepancy here. Elections have consequences. When the Democrats had the Congress and the presidency they rammed all kinds of shit down our throats. The People responded by throwing their asses out not just in the house but in dozens of State legislatures. Now its our turn to ram shit down your throats.
 
No discrepancy here. Elections have consequences. When the Democrats had the Congress and the presidency they rammed all kinds of shit down our throats. The People responded by throwing their asses out not just in the house but in dozens of State legislatures. Now its our turn to ram shit down your throats.

And how will "the people" (and, going by your guidelines, I assume you mean all people, everywhere) respond then?
 
Back
Top