Issue of the Week: Walker's History of Abusing Workers
Plus Hero of the Week
Hardly.
The truth is that Walker did indeed try to unilaterally impose a 35-hour workweek on county workers, with a commensurate decrease in salary, and the unions did, in fact, push back. But the unions had reason to do so. In fact, an arbitrator found that Walker had overstepped his authority as Milwaukee County executive in ordering that shortened workweek. A state appeals court upheld that ruling.
That's only one battle in Walker's larger war on workers. As county executive, he ignored his own labor negotiator's tentative agreements with county unions and instead wrote in $32 million of wage and benefits concessions in his 2010 county budget. Like the concessions he's proposed as governor, they had never been presented to unions at the bargaining table. He then imposed 26 unpaid furlough days in 2010 on members of the county's biggest union in order to balance his out-of-whack budget.
Last fall, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission found that his administration had bargained in "bad faith."
Never one to learn from his mistakes, Walker's 2011 county budget also contains concessions that had never been negotiated with unions.
Walker has also threatened mass layoffs as a tactic to get unions to make concessions, just like he's doing now as governor.
Also deemed unfair was Walker's decision to privatize courthouse security—and get rid of unionized county employees. The county must now hire back those workers—and give them their back pay, which could cost the county $430,000.
His new attack on unions as governor is also generating legal challenges. On Monday, Milwaukee City Attorney Grant Langley issued an opinion claiming that Walker's interference in the city's contracts with workers is unconstitutional. In addition, Wisconsin State Employees Union AFSCME Council 24 has filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission charging that Walker has failed to negotiate in good faith with state workers.
Walker's attack on unions is unfair and un-American. No wonder why a new national poll found that 60% of Americans support public employees' right to collectively bargain. Only 33% support Walker's position. Similarly, 56% oppose cutting public workers' pay or benefits to reduce deficits, while only 37% favor it.
Even more damning, a statewide poll found that if the election for governor were held today, Walker would lose to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett 52%-45%. Once Walker showed his true colors, Wisconsin voters realized he is far too extreme for our state.
Issue of the Week
Signs of the Protest
Gov.
Scott Walker has attempted to discredit protesters at the state Capitol as
out-of-state union agitators, but all indications are that the people,
including those at Saturday's 70,000-strong protest, are largely a diverse
crowd from Wisconsin—with a great sense of humor. Here are some of the signs
Walker refuses to witness at the people's protests:
"Heaven sent a budget solution: tax the rich"
Walker is so crooked he has to screw his socks on in the morning"
This is an intervention: Walker is a Koch addict"
- "Pepsi, no Koch"
- "Let's be friends with benefits"
- "Scott Walker isn't a badger, he's a weasel"
- "The Fitzgerald is Walker's favorite breed of lapdog"
- "The problem with political jokes is that they get elected"
- "Proof that too many Wisconsinites have tried Koch"
- "Walker isn't a Packer, he's a stealer"
- "Aaron Rodgers for governor" (the Super Bowl MVP is the team's rep for the NFL Players Association)
- "Every teacher has more education than Walker"
- "If you can read this sign, thank a teacher"
Hero of the
Week
Janet Kumbier
There are heroes who step up in times of crisis. And
there are those who use their resourcefulness and ingenuity to make a
difference every day. Janet Kumbier and her husband, Richard, are valued
members of the latter group.
For the last 10 years, the Kumbiers have been
collecting used and discarded clothing, which they then wash, stitch and
circulate to the needy. The couple regularly donates to Repairers of the Breach
and the free store The Price Is Right.
At year's end, area high schools amass literally
truckloads of clothes left behind by students; the couple cleans, refurbishes
and distributes these items to, among other places, the children of the Lakota
Sioux Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota.
In addition to their stateside largesse, the
Kumbiers have performed missionary work in such countries as India, Honduras
and Chile. Kumbier says that her efforts are the least she can do, considering
that "there are so many people who can't even afford clothes," and thanks the
members of her parish who help her and her husband with their endeavors to help
the less fortunate.
Senator Ellis,
The Democrats are not traitors. On the contrary, this nation was built on stalemates and compromises. As quoted below, James Madison believed in formal and informal mechanisms to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The Democratic Senators exercised an informal mechanism to stop this tyranny. They won enough seats in the senate to control whether or not you have a quorum, and they exercised this influence. The voters of Wisconsin gave them this power. The Republicans won enough seats for a majority, but not enough seats for a unilateral quorum.
You didn't win enough seats to pass a bill with such radical measures. The voters of Wisconsin didn't give you enough seats for a quorum, so now you are now trying to coerce the Democrats into giving you one with fines. Therefore, perhaps the real traitors to American democracy are the Republicans in the State Senate who refuse to accept the fact that, through democratic elections, they did not win a quorum, and are trying to steal one with intimidation. (a.k.a. tyranny of the majority).
It is arguable that the Republicans are tyrants. Senator Ellis, perhaps when speaking on this issue publicly, you should limit comments to expressing that you are angry and frustrated, but to call the Democrats "traitors" to democracy betrays the fact that, for an elected representative in an American democracy, you don't know very much about American democracy.
Quoted from Rick Garlikov, http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/majorityrule.htm:
The Need for Formal and Informal Mechanisms to Prevent
"Tyranny of the Majority" in Any Democratic Government
James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
An "informal mechanism"??? It is illegal (but not a crime) to behave the way the missing, cowardly Democrats are behaving right now. That means being absent is against the law, but no mechanism for enforcement or punishment is provided for- probably because no one ever guessed that this would really happen, and persist for any length of time. Your comment, @macshoes, is so twisted, so biased, and so disgusting that it's barely worth responding to. But respond we must. I'll ask you this- when the balance of power inevitably shifts, and the Dems want to put more people on the teat, will see it as "courageous" if the Republicans flee to Iowa to halt the democratic process?
"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Bull- this country is based on majority rule, with the minority generously offered a voice. Democratic State Senators have squandered the voice they were given.
First of all, to answer your question: if Doyle had proposed a bill to raise corporate taxes by 8% and included language requiring all Wisconsin corporations to hold a vote of all their shareholders before they engaged in any lobbying or political activism, then yes - I believe the Republican minority would have high tailed it to Iowa. However, I don't believe anything the Doyle's majority passed was anything like this. By far what the GOP is doing now is far more radical and harmful to the minority than what Doyle did. So I think your example is not a valid comparison: apples and oranges perhaps.
Secondly, I am sorry that you think my sources are "bull," but quite frankly you are dead wrong that American democracy is based on majority rule. The Constitution was designed on purpose to confound majority rule. James Madison believed that minority rights needed to be protected. He and other Framers set up a system of checks and balances, vetoes, quorums, etc. to purposely make it harder for a majority to enact public policy - in order to prevent a tyranny of the majority and facilitate compromise. As a student of American Government, I really think what is happening with the Democrats blocking a quorum is what the Founding Fathers intended. Sorry.
But you do understand that this is an illegal action? It is quite literally against the law- the state statutes that the elected representatives of this state passed?
By the way, corporations ask their shareholders to vote all the time- that is how the board of directors is staffed.
How about Obama's healthcare bill? Every single Republican (and more than a few Democrats) opposed it. Yet they stayed and took their lumps, because power had shifted, and, well, that's the way it goes. Unless you're a liberal, in which case absolutely any means will justify your ends, no matter how scummy, illegal, immoral, or just plain wrong.
Instead of being a "student of American Government" why not look at this from the point of view of a "participant in Wisconsin Reality"?
Thank you @macshoes for pointing out this "tyranny of the majority". I had remembered learning of that years ago, but my poor-at-names memory thought it was Thomas Jefferson, at least I did know it was one of the "founding fathers".
To my understanding, the many constitutional freedoms we cling to so strongly were actually the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, that part we call the "Bill of Rights". Amendments, mind you, not originally in the Articles themselves. The Bill of Rights was wisely added to prevent the tyrannny that happens when majority say "we won, you lost, now deal with it." Bill of Rights was put in specifically to protect the minority from the majority.
-----------------------------------
Okay. Let me hear the TRUE DESIRE of this 52%majority that put Scott Walker into the governors office. Let me hear from the majority that drove both Wisconsin legislative houses into a Republican majority...
What would you have done to those who are unemployed, those who are in a failing school system, those who are of color, and so forth? When hardship is being talked about do you say "better them than me."?
If you do not want to provide assistance, what do you expect to happen? Get jobs that are non-existent or won't pay the bills? Are you that dead set that every last one should be deported, exhiled, or otherwise starved out, frozen out, or get sick and die? Are you that vicious and cruel, all to preserve your shrinking piece of the pie?
Since you conservative, TEA Party Republicans are all for lowering taxes on the rich, cutting off redistribution to the lower ranks, then SHOW YOUR SUPPORT for money making business by simply handing over your Middle Class money to the rich! The rich are just trying to accelerate their acquisition of your wealth, go satisfy their need!
Big Business wouldn't have to work so hard to get it out of you who still have some money if you just easily handed it over. More efficient that way, and you support anything and everything to make business more efficient!
Think about it, you already know that the upper classes are not going to make any money off of the Earned Income Credit class once you have cut them off from Redistribution of Wealth, so all the profit going to the rich is simply going to be coming out of Middle Class pockets!
Deal with the truth!
Your most foolish post yet. Do you realize that you lumped "those who are of color" in with "those who are unemployed" and "those who are in a a failing school system"? Wow- two are unfortunate circumstances, one is a naturally occurring pigment in the skin. Are you equating these three "situations"?
Here's an idea- why don't you donate my portion of the union dues that are paid out of my taxes to a conservative cause? Put your money where your mouth is! Then we'll call it even and I'll shut up (stop typing, that is.)
I made an offer to a friend who is a government employee- write a check to the conservative PAC of my choice to balance out the union dues she pays that come from my tax dollars, and I would call each of my local, state, and federal legislators in opposition to the budget repair bill. I would also hand-write letters to each politician. She declined. I then offered to do this in return for a donation of half of the $900 she pays in union dues- so that she (I) am still donating with a bias toward liberals. She still declined. Interesting that it is OK for my money to go to politicians I don't support, but not OK for her money to do the same. Interesting, but seriously hypocritical.