Overwhelmed by the amount of information out there about Walker’s budget chaos?
Me too.
I know you’ve been scouring the Internet for the latest on the Republicans' use of the government to stifle free speech, reduce transparency in state contracts, and strip workers of their human rights.
If only that were an overstatement.
Anyway, even if you’ve been reading and talking and protesting 24-7, I wanted to make sure that you didn’t miss these articles:
Walker breaks a campaign promise to not raid segregated funds
Rep. Jennifer Shilling (D-LaCrosse) questions Walker’s fuzzy math
A member of the Madison school boarda self-described “budget hawk”supports the teachers unions.
This budget hawk believes that SB11 is draconian, malicious, and counterproductive to the goals the governor claims that he wants to achieve. I do not believe that it is necessary to end the right to bargain anything but wages in order to close Wisconsin's budget gap. I also note that the gap is less than we were led to believe (unless we are now saying that the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau is a tool of union sympathizers.)
I do not believe that the proposal to recertify collective bargaining organizations each year will enhance productivity or come without significant costs in conducting and verifying certification results. And I am stumped as to how turning back federal funds for Title I (aid to schools with high levels of poverty) will in any way improve schools or close the budget gap.
Speaking on the 14th, I responded that I find it unfortunate that this is portrayed as solely a debate over benefits and pay. It is not. It is about the rights that were won through established and legal systems labor organization, union formation, and collective bargaining. It is about the attempt to de facto decertify public sector unions rather than go through a decertification vote. That this is being done in a one-week timeline is mind boggling in its exercise of unilateral power.
Simplistic rhetoric may be handy for people seeking to raise support for their cause, but it helps no one in addressing a fundamental and complex issue: should public employees have the right to unionize.
My answer is yes.
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank eviscerates Walker and interviews state Sen. Tim Cullen about Walker’s remark that while he’s reasonable, he’s “not one of us.” Cullen should take that as a compliment.
The State Journal reports that the bill would bust the budget of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commision.
A provision that received less attention would require members of each public sector union to vote each year to continue operating. Those annual votes would require approval of 51 percent of a union’s membership to keep certification, Davis said.Requiring 51 percent of all members “is a unique and different standard than any other labor law we know of,” Davis said.
That means that if less than 51 percent of a union's membership takes part in a vote, then even if every member voting votes for the union it won't be enough. Under current law, workers typically vote just once to establish a union, and a simple majority of those voting is enough, just like in elections for government offices, Davis said.
The New York Times’ Paul Krugman compares Walker’s budget to the handling of the invasion of Iraq.
And a great article from the nonpartisan Tax.com about state employees’ pensions.
Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to "contribute more" to their pension and health insurance plans.
Accepting Gov. Walker' s assertions as fact, and failing to check, created the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not.
Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.
How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.
Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin. %u2028
