Note, not a lot of love for the union extortionists in comments.
[Update later morning]
In Wisconsin, it’s the unions versus the people.
52 thoughts on “A Doctor Weighs In On Wisconsin”
Comments are closed.
Note, not a lot of love for the union extortionists in comments.
[Update later morning]
In Wisconsin, it’s the unions versus the people.
Comments are closed.
Well, at least EEs still have a good rep…
It’s amusing how some of the trolls treat taxes and uncontrolled government spending as some sort of “contract” which the taxpayer has to pay for without question. OTOH, the teachers who are the recipients of the public juice, are supposed to have the right to negotiate contracts while the public does not. Why does a teacher’s union have the right to negotiate while no corresponding union for the the rest of the voters does not. The politicians who are running the public side of the contract serve the teachers as well and hence, have large conflicts of interest.
Here’s how I see it. The voters of Wisconsin have altered the “contract”. Pray they don’t alter it any further.
“It’s amusing how some of the trolls treat taxes and uncontrolled government spending as some sort of “contract” which the taxpayer has to pay for without question.”
Do the taxpayers REALLY have no say? Don’t they get their say with their vote?
Is this really the fault of the unions and collective bargaining? Wouldn’t one expect them to bargain for as much as they can get? Wasn’t it the politician the one who said yes or no to the unions demands?
Isn’t the public’s power via the vote?
If the public does not like the way their tax money is being spent, do they not have the power to turn them out of office (which is what they did in WI)? Now of course once they DO speak with the vote then their will should be carried out (and not blocked by running dog dems).
“The politicians who are running the public side of the contract serve the teachers as well and hence, have large conflicts of interest.”
I wonder about this: in my state (The People’s Republic of Massachusetts), the bargaining is done on a town by town level. The politicians that the unions are bargaining with were elected by their townsfolk, and live in that town. In most towns these are rinky dink, low dollar campaigns – a few signs and a few robo-calls. If the Big Unions are affecting these elections it’s very hard to see. I’m not sure I buy that.
So where is the conflict of interest? I’m not saying there isn’t one, but it’s hard to see it at the bargaining table, given that the politicians are extremely local.
You say this while the D legislators have fled the state and shut down the democratic process? Really? Did you type that with a straight face, too?
“Well, at least EEs still have a good rep…”
We do? Would you believe that there are EEs who work for the State of Wisconsin? It is guilt by association. According to the people around here we are parasites and spongers, even if we have been at our jobs and not at the protests.
I had a long post a couple of threads back, and the response I got was “Just because you know the Maxwell-Gibbs-Heaviside equations, the Kirchhoff’s Laws, and the Fourier Transform doesn’t make you better than anyone else, pal.”
I found the doctor’s convoluted logic amazing. It’s bad to hand out fake notes, but everyone who points out that it’s being done are conservatives. I don’t think I’ll seek him out if I need his specialty.
Alright, a less snarky response is owed: one basic flaw with representative government is that specific interests are very narrow, but public interests are very broad. A union can afford a full-time staff to spam their one issue, compensation, to make deals, organize voting blocks, etc, because there’s a big payoff at the end. On the other hand, the taxpayer is beset on all sides by hundreds of such foes, each of whom individually cost him a few dollars, but collectively will suck him dry. He cannot justify a symmetrical war against each and every special interest. All he can afford to do is vote Republican and hope for the best. WI shows exactly where that leads.
Heartfelt sympathies to my peeps, Paul. I had no idea.
Titus Quinn Says:
” Don’t they get their say with their vote?”
“You say this while the D legislators have fled the state and shut down the democratic process? Really? Did you type that with a straight face, too?”
Yes Titus I did. Totally straight face. And immediately afterwards I wrote this:
” Now of course once they DO speak with the vote then their will should be carried out (and not blocked by running dog dems).”
But you probably missed that part.
And again, is *this* not between the voters and those running dog dems? Are the taxpayers powerless? True they can’t necessarily get immediate results because the election is over a year away. But there are always recall votes.
What is the connection between collective bargaining and the fact that the dem legislators in WI are cowards, ran, are interfering with the legislative process, and possibly violating their oaths?
I’m happy to entertain such a connection, but constant sound bytes (or bites I guess), saying the taxpayers have NO say in the process because of evyl collective bargaining peg my skept-o-meter.
Perhaps the taxpayers should unionize. I will refer all calls from the IRS and Franchise Tax Board to my union representative who will discuss how much tax I’m required to pay to the public sector union members. Once that’s in place, I’ll consider the footing to be more equal.
Titus Quinn Says:
“Alright, a less snarky response is owed: one basic flaw with representative government is that specific interests are very narrow, but public interests are very broad.”
Titus, I was typing my reply above when you concluded you owed a less snarky response…which I appreciate.
Yes I understand that there are hundreds of special interests even in a Small Town setting (like mine), and the average voter cannot combat them all. More to the point no ONE politician will perfectly align with the voter. One MUST accept that a bit of horse trading will go on. Pol #1 will give Pol #2 what they want, because a) they don’t care about it and b) they get something in exchange. Not really sure how you can stop that.
On the other hand, in my town at least, most of them aren’t union driven. Many are driven by voters who have a special interest. They organize leave leaflets, make robo-calls. Turns out that they usually get what they want BECAUSE they are organized. When there is mortal combat between the special interest voters and other voters who oppose their idea, the most organized and energetic usually win.
Lastly, we have less than 50% voter attendance at elections. Again a win for the ones best organized.
In my town, when things get egregious ( as they did last year) voter attendance skyrockets and thing get voted down.
Losing the good fight is one thing. Losing because the other side out-performed you is another. And griping that the other side (unions) got what they want because the voters elected people who will do that, is yet another.
Gregg, every public employee will vote in every election for the guy their union has brokered the best deal with. They don’t have to be energized, they just do what they’re told. Their union bosses have a steady full-time six-figure stream of all the required “energy.”
In contrast, Joe Average, to avoid having his peers vote at random, has to “Yes, we can!” the neighborhood every 2 years and get worked-up over…maintaining the status quo. Yawn.
One does not win wars by fighting defensively; the attacker eventually wins.
P.S., That’s not even counting how horribly awry anti-union efforts can go. I think everyone’s heard the embarrassing tale of the CA governor’s recall, right? How that gave us Gov. Wienerschnitzel and, ultimately, the guy who gave us those unions in the first place?
Gregg writes:
Do the taxpayers REALLY have no say? Don’t they get their say with their vote?
In principle, yes. But in practice, often not.
When this story broke last week, the Madison mayor called for an emergency council meeting to seek to quickly negotiate a contract with the teachers union to lock in the higher pay and benefits before the new law kicked in.
Think about that for a minute.
When I negotiate with my employer, I want him to pay me as much as possible to do my job. He wants me to do my job for as little as possible. We meet somewhere in the middle.
Here we have the union negotiating with the Madison council, and both sides are trying to get as big a contract as possible and to stick the taxpayers with the bill. By their very actions, the mayor and the council have shown that they have been captured by the union and no longer represent the taxpayers. The union controls both sides of the negotiating table. It is no longer a fair negotiation.
Furthermore, in the private sector, if the union demands get too onerous, a company can get protection through the bankruptcy courts. If that fails, the company fails, and the problem goes away.
States cannot go bankrupt, so there is no upper bound to the amount a corrupt negotiation can soak the taxpayers for.
For these reasons, public employee unions need to be outlawed.
Mike
Titus Quinn Says:
“Gregg, every public employee will vote in every election for the guy their union has brokered the best deal with. They don’t have to be energized, they just do what they’re told.”
But the elected guy that the union is dealing with is some local town guy. No Big Union Money is in evidence to get that guy voted in.
It would be different if the union were negotiating with state reps. Then I’d see your point. But they are not. They are negotiating with rinky dinky townies voted in by about 5000 votes of which maybe 300 are teachers (i.e. union).
If there’s a conenction between where the money really is in the unions, and bigger state reps, and if this connection affects a town’s choices I’d be happy to know.
School administrations (one side of the table) are townies. Only the union members which live in that town can vote for them. If ALL of the teacher’s union voted for the same person (and maybe they do) it makes up only a tiny fraction of the votes in the town.
BTW I do understand that the situation might be different in a city like Boston or New York.
Accept handwritten utility bills as ID for the Quorum call. Problem solved.
@Gregg: “They are negotiating with rinky dinky townies voted in by about 5000 votes of which maybe 300 are teachers (i.e. union).”
300 out of 5000 could be a decisive voting block.
Al, I believe you have won the thread.
The union controls both sides of the negotiating table.
Michael Kent summed up the problem.
But the elected guy that the union is dealing with is some local town guy. No Big Union Money is in evidence to get that guy voted in.
Mayor Cieslewicz’s complete abandonment of protecting the interests of the city of Madison is evidence that something is up. It certainly is consistent with a Big Union Money bribe even if it doesn’t prove the existence (or more likely future existence) of such a bribe. For example, here’s a couple of excerpts from his call to close a deal with the teacher unions before state law changes things.
and
Emphasis mine. note how he talks about both government and unions being on the same side in protecting union squeeze even though they shouldn’t be.
He proposes to eliminate the copayment for health insurance? This is nuts economically.
It would be different if the union were negotiating with state reps.
No, you’d move the goalpost again. Michael gave a solid example of regulatory capture by a union, and you dismiss because it’s a local government official, as if that were relevant. We don’t oppose public unions because they capture state officials. We oppose them because of their detrimental effect on the public interest at all levels of government.
Karl Hallowell Says:
“No, you’d move the goalpost again.”
Ummm sorry but you are making an unwarranted assumption. It’s not my interest to move goalposts. It’s to address the fact that the politics are pretty local. And to see how that matters. And expose any impact that may have on the problem. Because it’s a weakness in our side’s argument (yes see I’m actually on your side) because pretty much all that’s being put out there are sound bites: “Conflict of interest”.
” Michael gave a solid example of regulatory capture by a union, and you dismiss because it’s a local government official, as if that were relevant. ”
I dismissed NOTHING because I hadn’t yet read it.
Once again you assume yourself into a silly position. He posted his at 9:28 and I was probably writing my LAST response which was posted at 9:47, and appeared right after his. I only just saw it now. So button up:
Not everyone who debates this topic, and asks questions, and puts up opposing points of view, is on the other side.
Now I’ll have to re-read and think about Michael’s comments, but they do seem to be telling.
Ken:
“”It would be different if the union were negotiating with state reps.”
No, you’d move the goalpost again.”
P.S. When I SAY it would be a different story, I mean it.
I mean what I say.
I would agree with a law that if people in an elected office do not show up for work, they would be summarily fired and new people elected at that point. So by abdicating the sandbox to stall the vote, the left has again shown their unwillingness to follow the process and that running from the problem is their best solution. Same thing happened in Texas a while back. Its all fine and dandy to accuse conservatives of being obstructionists, but God forbid you show up to your elected job and lose a vote. There is ONE republican representative in Hawaii and he shows up for EVERY vote even though he knows he’s going to lose that vote.
First, I need to call BS on this “legislators not doing their job” by skipping town. As that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal points out, state legislators have been doing this forever, including Abe Lincoln jumping out of a window to avoid a quorum. Nor was Lincoln the first – this was common practice even before the Constitution was ratified.
Second, in 2008 the people spoke and elected Democrats to reform health care. This did not stop the Republicans from trying every trick in the book to prevent the passage of, well, anything.
I’m sorry, but if it’s okay for Republicans to do something, then it’s okay for Democrats too.
I hate to break it to you, but just because Abe Lincoln did something doesn’t make it OK. Or are you referring to all of the imaginary blog posts where I praised Abe Lincoln for doing that? Abandoning your elected responsibilities is wrong, regardless of political party. But I guess you think it’s OK, as long as it’s one of your corrupt Democrat buds.
Chris, Rand:
I think you are both saying that either 1) the majority ought to hold sway in both enacting Health Care Reform and in enacting the Scott Walker agenda or 2) political tactics in support of a minority interest are often justified, to at least slow down the enactment of radical changes with potential long-term and unintended consequences, supporting both Republican obstruction of Health Care Reform and Democratic obstruction of Scott Walker. How is a mix of positions, of opposing Health Care and supporting the Wisconsin 14 or the reverse tenable?
Chris, on this one we are in agreement. That the Wisconsin 14 are “not doing their jobs” is the lamest of lame excuses from Mr. Walker. They are very much so doing their jobs as the quorom requirement is part of the law, and they are representing the interests of their particular districts, thank-you-very-much, by no showing up. But if you support this cause, do you think also there was some justification for obstructing Health Care Reform, say, for impacting Medicare and seniors as a minority that was getting “rolled.”
Rand, as to Abe Lincoln doing it means there is precedent for this action. The counter is that Mr. Lincoln “regretted” doing this, but it is not clear if he regretted it on principle or because he was not successful.
Rand – as Paul pointed out, it’s more than a little hypocritical to spend 2 years cheerleading obstructionists and then, when you’re the one getting obstructed, suddenly find great principles in swift action.
Paul – I think both Walker and the opponents of health care reform are / were wrong on the merits of the issues. Therefore I hoped that both groups would see things my way. I also think it’s a simple fact that nothing in the Constitution enshrines either filibuster or avoiding a quorum.
I never said I had a problem with obstruction in general. I cheer obstruction when it’s obstructing bad law, within the rules of the game. I don’t cheer political cowardice and dereliction of duty, as you seem to. You probably got a tingle up your leg every time Barack Obama voted “present.”
Rand – it’s not political cowardice. The absent legislators are at risk of arrest and can’t visit friends and family in Wisconsin. They are a hell of a lot braver than some blowhard talking on the Senate floor.
New Gerrib:
Old Gerrib (click my name):
Also, unless there’s some warrant I haven’t heard about, the legislators are under no “risk of arrest.”
and they are representing the interests of their particular districts
If they get recalled, will you amend that?
“Rand – it’s not political cowardice. The absent legislators are at risk of arrest and can’t visit friends and family in Wisconsin. They are a hell of a lot braver than some blowhard talking on the Senate floor.”
ROFLMAO!!!
You act like they’re living in a hovel somewhere with the secret police after them. They give interviews, they eat in fine restaurants. They have room service if they want it. Yes, they are political cowards. They have a job. They don’t want to do their job because they know they’re going to lose. I’d have to say this a definite Chris jumped the shark moment.
Titus Quinn – if you can’t see the difference between threatening to kill somebody and legislative tactics that are literally older than our country, I’m sorry, but you’re not worthy of serious response.
Curt Thomson – I wonder why a Utah group has decided to insert itself in Wisconsin politics? Perhaps one should ask who’s funding the Utah-ians? More on point, if the legislators are in fact recalled, then the replacement legislators need to do what their constituents want them to.
Bill, it is my observation that Gerrib has always been in LEO around, “the shark.”
they are representing the interests of their particular districts, thank-you-very-much
Paul, you are assuming that all of the Democrat state senators were elected from districts that voted Democrat in the gubernatorial election, and you are wrong.
The following Wisconsin state districts elected a Democrat state senator in the most recent state senate elections (2010, 2008, or 2006) yet had a majority of voters who elected Wilson as Governor in 2010: districts 12, 22, 30, and 31.
It would appear to me that, since Wilson ran specifically on a platform of getting this situation under control, those senators from the districts listed above who fled the state are not representing the will of the electorate but instead are under the control of special interests.
Chris,
Curt Thomson – I wonder why
a Utah groupPresident Obama has decided to insertithimself in Wisconsin politics? Perhaps one should ask who’s funding theUtah-iansPresident’s former campaign arm, Organizing for America?There! Fixed that for ya!
Oooo, Titus gots tha’ intertubes and he’ll fact check your ass; watchout!
Chris G. translation: I’m sorry but you’re too stupid to understand my superfluous distinctions.
Haha, also notice that Pres. Obama’s popularity rating has dipped back down to a -20. Last it was that skewed that much was about 3 months ago. Couldn’t have anything to do with the remarks on Friday about the goings on in Wisconsin, ya’ think? Naaah….Not like they did a 180 on Monday to try and save face or anything; nooope….
“Curt Thomson – I wonder why a Utah group has decided to insert itself in Wisconsin politics?”
Oh! I know! I know! Because the President and his OFA, outsiders all, did it already.
More of that new civility. Crosshairs for the goose are crosshairs for the gander, or something.
Gregg, maybe you’re for real or maybe you’re a shill. But when I read stuff like this:
If the Big Unions are affecting these elections it’s very hard to see. I’m not sure I buy that.
Now, suppose it was a large business getting a zoning change. Would you similarly claim that you can’t see how the business could possibly influence these local elections?
How hard is it to cut a check to the local politicians or fund your local union to put out the vote and some election materials? Second, Madison has a population of over 200k. Milwalkee has a population of 600k and the county has almost a million. These aren’t rinky-dink towns. There is serious money here. For example, the Milwalkee teacher’s union (Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association) had income of over $4 million. This isn’t small time stuff.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
…as Paul pointed out, it’s more than a little hypocritical to spend 2 years cheerleading obstructionists and then, when you’re the one getting obstructed, suddenly find great principles in swift action.
How is it hypocritical? You yourself wrote:
…it’s not political cowardice. The absent legislators are at risk of arrest and can’t visit friends and family in Wisconsin. They are a hell of a lot braver than some blowhard talking on the Senate floor.
Why are they at risk of arrest? Does Walker command some secret police to take them away to a frozen Gitmo?
No, they’re at risk of arrest because what they’re doing is illegal.
It’s not hypocritical at all to want your elected representatives to use legal parliamentary procedures (like a filibuster) to prevent a bad bill from becoming law and yet decry illegal means to prevent a good bill from becoming law. And it has nothing to do which bill is deemed good or bad.
It is hypocritical, it seems to me, to be opposed to legal obstructionist procedures like the filibuster yet support the illegal ones like fleeing the state to avoid quorum.
How do you justify that?
Mike
Titus Quinn wrote:
More of that new civility. Crosshairs for the goose are crosshairs for the gander, or something.
And speaking of hypocracy, Titus gave a grade-A example. Large groups of people were aghast that a group, the Tea Party, with no history of violence, put cross-hairs over a map of the districts they were targeting but are just fine with a group of people, the unions, whose history of violence is legendary, putting a cross-hairs over the face of a governor they don’t like.
Anyone care to justify that?
Mike
I thought it was pretty well established that the symbol misinterpreted as crosshairs on the website was actually the official placemarker symbol used by the US Geological Survey.
See http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/symbols/topomapsymbols.pdf and search within for “principal point”
It’s not illegal for legislators to not show up for a quorum. You can’t be convicted or imprisoned for it. You can only be compelled to attend.
So it isn’t illegal but they are at risk of arrest? For what, Chris, whim? Do you even convince yourself with that logic?
Karl Hallowell Says:
“Gregg, maybe you’re for real or maybe you’re a shill…..”
Well that’s a little better than calling me an out and out liar. But only a little.
Karl, “I’m not sure I buy that” means that I see pros and cons to the argument; that I don’t think I have all the facts and the pros and cons haven’t been sufficiently resolved in my mind. It means that counter arguments pop up in my head and sometimes the best way to test them is in a public forum. When you get soundbites from both sides; when the thing gets demagogued by both sides, I have to dig a little deeper to see what the real truth is. There’s a lot more than what you hear on the news. It’s partly the “correlation/causation” thing, partly the fact that any side can make their argument look right provided they leave out one or two important little facts. I’m trying to dig a little deeper.
I admit that until the unrest in WI, I never gave this issue the slightest thought.
Since most of the respondents here lean towards the right (as do I), this is the place to play Devil’s Advocate and put up arguments from the left and see how well the argument from the right, stands up. I do not claim to have all knowledge or perfect understanding or an unfailing ability to always arrive at the answer in my head.
And no one is obliged to respond.
This is what we do every single day here where I work – at an Observatory. You don’t get to say whatever you want and have it be taken as gospel. People will stress what you say with counter argument. Even if inwardly they think you may have something. *IF* what you propound stands up then everyone agrees that you might have a good idea. If not, your idea is rejected.
They don’t do this to score points against you or prove how much smarter they are (well ok some do 😉 ). They do it because that is how the TRUTH is found. And it’s the only way science can work. It’s how you avoid silly Man Caused Global Warming hysteria.
And in this union debate, if I have to pose some questions counter to your precious point of view to be sure I have the truth, it’s not to score points. And you’ll just have to cope.
If you think you have a monopoly on truth and nothing you say ought to be tested, well then you have a little problem, I’d say. And unless you prefer that this forum be nothing more than an echo chamber with no debate, then I’d think you’d welcome a little testing at times.
And why do I use the term Devil’s Advocate? Because that’s exactly what I’m doing. Ponder the meaning of Devil’s Advocate. In fact, I’ll save you some trouble. From the All Knowing Wikipedia:
“In common parlance, a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil’s advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position”
You see, your kneejerk reaction when I posed a counter argument was to IMMEDIATELY decide I was from the left, and you called me a liar (“you’ll move the goalposts”). A mistake.
But to help you sleep at night, and prevent you from fretting as to what side I’m on, let me mention a couple things about all this that I *have* decided:
1) It’s not right that taxpayers essentially pay the union dues which are then used to extract more tax revenues for the union members.
2) It’s not right when public employees are REQUIRED to join a union.
Ed – they can be compelled to attend by police. They can’t be convicted, imprisoned or otherwise punished for not attending.
Close — they can be prevented from leaving during session. However, if they’re not on the capitol grounds, they cannot be “compelled to attend” in any meaningful way because they cannot be arrested. Sending the cops out talk to the fugitives is (right, wrong or indifferent) an intimidation tactic.
They can’t be convicted, imprisoned or otherwise punished for not attending.
That’s not what the constitution says:
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. SECTION 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.
It seems they can be otherwised punished however each house shall provide as determined by a smaller number of legislators than a quorum. Nobody is talking about conviction or imprisonment, other than being compelled to be present in the floor of the respective house in order to obtain a quorum. If you want to call that imprisonment, ok. But it is called out clearly in the Wisconsin Constituion. However, the only punishment I know of is cutting off their direct deposit of funds, which they don’t seem to be earning anyway.
BTW, there is a quorum for conducting business in the Wisconsin Senate. The only thing they are lacking is a 3/5ths quorum for passing a fiscal bill. What the participating legislators could do is strip off the language in regards to collective bargaining from the more omnibus bill related to state union payments. They could then put collectice bargaining in a separate bill and pass it with the quorum that is present.
Did anyone catch Krauthammer on the Fox panel last night? I missed a section where he said that Walker had the solutions in his hands. He separates the collective bargaining from the pension/benefits pay in and somehow (this is what I missed) that allows Walker to pass the ban on CB without a quorum. But I didn’t catch how that actually worked.
Oops. Leland laid it out. Thanks.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
It’s not illegal for legislators to not show up for a quorum.
It appears they are in violation of Wisconsin statute 946.12(1), a class 1 felony.
I don’t know that a Wisconsin legislator has ever been charged under 946.12(1), but I’m pretty sure at least one has been charged with other sections of 946.12.
My understanding is that a writ of mandamus compelling attendance is required before charges can be filed, but I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know for sure.
However, unlike a fillibuster, it’s a clear violation of the rules.
Mike