Wisconsin Gov. Walker Threatens To Deploy National Guard Against Unions

Remove all ads!

There is a simple solution to that which I already mentioned. Hold a vote. Workers can vote on either changing what policies a union uses/asks for as well as if the union itself exists.

Then I would like to see the source they originate from. I did give you a couple of sources that I guessed were reliable and I would like to see reliable they are in turn-more than one organization that was less than trustworthy has come up during the course of this conversation (if you are looking at the MacIver Institute then just tell me and I'll encourage you to look elsewhere).

Thank you for admitting it. And as you know a guess can be wrong.

I agree and from what it sounds like they aren't bad. I used ACT because they are the scores more commonly used for colleges here. If it turns our the 4th grade results I pointed to are measured in a similar fashion in all states then that probably means that Wisconsin is doing at least slightly better than average-possibly and probably more imo.

My guess is that "compensation" is almost all in the form of health coverage. Our insurance rates have been growing rapidly for years-at least in SE Wisconsin because the state removed some regulations on healthcare and that set of a building boom between HMO and hospital groups who all want to provide the same thing some other group is.

The result is empty hospital beds (among other things) that get paid for by public and private insurance.

I suspect not much has changed in a teacher's life other than trying to use new technology more.

They were ordered to. I don't know if "allowed" came into the equation. What I know is that a few days after the order came to let people enter the building they were still denying access to the general public (including protesters who would have come for awhile and then left). Now maybe that has changed now but there was a time when the police were denying access in spite of the judge's order (I strongly suspect because of instructions approved of by political figures).

 

So the tyranny of the majority should determine who individuals contribute money to? Why not just end closed-shop practices? Why not just allow individuals to leave the union if they want without forfeiting their careers?

It took a little digging, but here:

I only got that by finding the exact name of the test in one of the articles and searching that. Similar efforts for other states haven't proven fruitful, but the news was accurate on this point.

I've found a lot on wages, and a few estimates on benefits, but nothing on a breakdown of benefits. Do you have any sources for that?

 

We already went over the first question-if someone doesn't want their dues used in elections all they need do is request it not be done.

The last 2 points related to the possibility people will be freeloaders-enjoying the pay, benefits, or workplace environments unions negotiated for but without repaying the unions for it. If you don't want people to have a "free lunch" that is something you should be able to appreciate.

I was hoping for an article of some sort that actually compared Wisconsin to other states and said Wisconsin wasn't doing as good or proved the Wisconsin's usage of terms was loose enough that the ratings don't match. You showed me a link to some of the ratings in WI DPI but you didn't prove Wisconsin doesn't compare reasonable well with other states.


"Proficient: Demonstrates competency in the academic knowledge and skills tested on WKCE at that grade level."

"Basic: Demonstrates some academic knowledge and skills tested on WKCE at that grade level."

They both deal with "at grade level". One could argue there is an exaggeration of how poor "basic" is comparatively.

There have been some things floating around here comparing public and private workers but I'm looking for one that actually balances out for educational level. I think the study could be called slanted if one is comparing high schoolers at in fast food and degreed public workers who-by the nature of their job in the state-have to have a greater training and knowledge level.

Here is an article from a few years ago that mentions healthcare costs were going up in Wisconsin beyond the national rate.

I would repeat my argument that this because some of the regulations that actually tried to keep healthcare costs lower were removed.

http://www.biztimes.com/news/2005/12/9/wisconsin-health-care-costs-still-outpacing-rest-of-us

The article is from several years ago (pre Obamacare). I would also point out that I know someone who was on the board of a non-union private school who said that one year they looked at double digit growth in costs for the same coverage as before and had to determine if they wanted to let go of a teacher in order to keep it.

 

Nonsense. Such closed shop laws are hardly defensible on that line. It's just plain out-right discrimination to prevent businesses from hiring staff based on their union status. What would the unions say if the reverse of this discrimination was made possible - if businesses could chose NOT to hire staff who joined unions? I can imagine that they wouldn't be very happy (and fair enough, too). You have to apply the same standards to both sides of the fence - if you want to be able to prevent businesses from hiring non-union staff (like this closed-shop practice that NOG is talking about), then you've got to allow businesses to chose to hire staff on condition they don't join a union.

Also, don't fool yourself into thinking that closed-shop union practices are the only way to prevent free-riding.

 

I live in a right to work state where no one is required to join the union. Right to work didn't break unions in Iowa. I support it.

 

And the other ones are?

Also if a new hire feels that joining a union as a condition of working there is unfair all he or she has to do is, along with a majority of coworkers who cast a ballot, vote that way in an election on if the union should exist.

For all the complaints about a lack of freedom and unions they are one of the few professional organizations that I know of that can cease to exist simply by a majority vote.

 

Just because a majority of [white/black/union members/christian/left-handed/select your description here] workers vote by a majority to impose rules on the other - such as preventing anyone else from joining - does not mean it is right or good. How would you feel if a majority of workers signed an agreement with a business to prevent them hiring any union workers? People would take up pitch-fork and torch.

 

Right, so it can free up more of someone else's dues for that purpose instead.

Actually, that doesn't have to happen. I think it was Denmark that did this, but one of the European nations has a system where people who aren't in the unions don't get the benefits. No extra pay, no nicer insurance package, no extra perks. I guess the working conditions may be a little hard to differentiate, unless it's like hours worked or something.

Let's both keep looking. It seems neither of us has come up with convincing evidence yet.

Right to work doesn't break unions, but it does weaken them. Usually substantially.

And you're still talking about the tyranny of the majority. Should one person be forced to join a union just because nine others like the idea? Should 3 people be forced to quit a union (a union of 1 is called an employee, after all), just because 7 others don't like it? This isn't an all-or-nothing situation here, and neither should the solution be.

 

I would day that nobody would get out a pitchfork provided the decision came from below (the workers) rather than above (the company).

I would say such a situation is similar to a group of workers voting not to have a union-in sum majority vote (what I've mentioned already).

---------- Added 0 hours, 24 minutes and 10 seconds later... ----------

Of people who don't mind it.
Plus if a significant group of people decide they don't like who the union seems to endorse it become hard to free up money if all of them make the same request.

Perhaps but for better or worse we don't take many ideas from Europe. And working conditions include but go beyond hours.

I guess I an search on it more but until you find something with a good rating system that says Wisconsin is doing worse than average I would encourage you not to think that-and my guess is that what I provided a link to before gave consistent standards from state to state-I noticed it didn't use the "advanced" or "minimal" wording for categories the WI DPI does.

And keep in mind that those against unions have already put out several falsehoods in this situation-one of the most recent of which includes claims that the protesters did millions of dollars of damage to the capital building.

That is how many referendums work. And unless there is deceptive wording I would argue it is a reasonably good thing.

 

Yes it does, but Unions greatly exaggerate the degree to which this legislation actually weakens them. If the workers value Union membership, they join, and enough do for the union to remain effective. Those ideologically opposed to unionization do not have to join. It's a good compromise even if it does diminish the influence of the Union to some small degree.

 

Here's the thing though - while it's true one does not "have to" become a member of their particular industry's union, it's often the only way to have a decent career. Here in Houston we have a large theatre district, and with it comes the Stagehands Union. If you work in theater production in this city and you aren't a dues-paying member, you are shut out of the best gigs (traveling broadway shows, symphonies, etc.) because the biggest venues hire exclusively union help. A non-union stagehand is lucky make hourly wages at a community playhouse. So in a way, you do "have to" join a union, or willingly handicap your career.

I imagine it's similar for a lot of industries.

 

DR, your right to work laws must be fairly weak for that to be possible. Iowa simply does not allow union membership to be considered as a condition for employment.

I would have assumed your right to work laws were more stringent than ours. I guess I was wrong.

 

It's possible that I don't have my facts straight on that - but I do know a few stage hands who make remarkably-high salaries and live in surprisingly-large houses. This is the impression that I have formed from my conversations with them over the years. I have no hard-data backing it up. When I have asked others who know them how they do as well as they do in a menial career that only requires a high-school diploma, the answer I get is "Stagehands Union, baby."

Were I a stagehand in Houston, you better believe I'd be a member. Who they supported politically would be a secondary concern.

 

DR, you've struck on the very reason that Right to Work laws don't actually kill unions. Collective bargaining works, and few who benefit from it would choose to give it up.

 

No, it didn't, but I'll show you how state standards may differ. I've already posted Wisconsin's definitions, but here are links to the closest I could find for Virginia and Texas(click on the "TPM for TAKS Reporting (PDF)" link). Virginia only has Proficient/Pass and Advanced as standards. There is no basic. There is nothing under at-grade-level except for failure. Texas has "Met Standard" and "Commended Performance", again what appears to be at-grade-level and above, nothing below but failure. If your link used this data at all, it adjusted the terminology and thus reports different standards for different states. Sadly, I haven't been able to find anything that makes a direct state-to-state comparison.

Actually, it looks like that wasn't a lie so much as an upper-range estimate based on a very preliminary review. At the moment they don't even know if professional restorers will be needed, or if the in-house staff can clean it up.

And I argue that, if the issue isn't necessarily all-or-nothing, it shouldn't be treated as such. The bulk of this issue isn't, so it shouldn't be treated so. Referendums should be held on issues that necessarily impact everyone involved together.

 

NOG is right. Direct Democracy has main failing points, such as the one he mentioned. There is a big reason that you don't see direct Democarcy operating in many places around the world (other than the practicality of it) - with the possible exception of Switzerland's cantons. I am sure Chandos could tell us how the Framers were against Direct Democarcy, with words, like NOG has used, such as Tyranny of the Majority, checks and balances and rights, popping up quite often.

 

They were opposed to direct "democracy." Some of them, like Madison, saw it at the local level, where pandering and the self-interest of the majority worked against the best and larger interests of the state. Most of them referred to themselves and the government they crafted as "Republican." They promoted democratic ideals and equality, while being wary of them at the same time. Slavery is good example of this divide in their philosophical approach. But they have to be seen within the context of their own times, which operated in a strict and brutal aristocartic hierarchy. Compared to how things mostly were in Europe, they were bold radicals, certainly far more "democratic" within their own times than we give them credit for nowadays.

 

I was wondering what a democarcy was ... but then I've have a bit of JD ... and a bit of beer.

 

NOG,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but I've been busy the last few days. A couple of pages back, you asked - and I'm paraphrasing here - why the party with a majority of seats tends to spend more in general elections when the number of seats that are being contested is the same for both parties.

To use an example - say we have an election where there are 30 contested seats, of which 20 are held by democratic incumbents and 10 are held by Republican incumbents. The rest of the seats are considered "safe" in that the challenger has no realistic chance of being elected. It seems obvious - intuitive even - to say that both parties have 30 contests to try and win, and so the amount they spend should be about the same.

The reason this isn't the case is that both political parties tend to spend more money to hold onto seats than they spend on trying to take a new seat. They do this for the very reason you state - the incumbent advantage. Someone who is uninformed is likely to vote for whatever name they recognize on the ballot (unless the incumbent is fantastically unpopular). So it's a lot harder to win a new seat than it is to retain one you already have. And that dictates where the dollars flow. So in the example I listed above, since 20 of the seats are held by Democrats, the Democrats will tend to spend more money.

That's why I predicted that House Republicans will spend more than House Democrats in the 2012 elections - they control more seats, and probably more contested seats. In the Senate it's nearly certain that the Democrats will spend more money, as the Senators running in 2012 are the ones that last ran in 2006 - the year the Dems took control of the Senate. As you are aware, 1/3 of the Senate runs every 2 years, but the way the cycle works out this time around, there are many more incumbent Democrats on the ballot than Republicans. Counting seats that normally would be safe, but are not because a popular incumbent is retiring, there are 18 seats in the 2012 Senate that are thought to be competitive, and currently, there is a Democrat incumbent in 14 of them.

 

I looked at both the links I provided you with and tried to understand what you were telling me. My guess is that if a state has a 3 level rating system and another has a 4 rating system then the 3 rating system likely splits at least 2 of the other state's levels so that the top of the upper part of the upper middle goes into the top rating and the lower part of the upper middle joins the upper part of the lower middle. With the lower section of the lower middle joining the bottom.

That is a guess. What is not a guess, if you look at both the websites I provided you with earlier (one dealing with 4th grade-I believe-and the other with ACT scores) Wisconsin does better than Texas in both. So if there is some consistency it is that Wisconsin, on average, does a better job of educating than Texas. And Wisconsin-was better than both Texas and the national average on each ACT category.

So if you get back to the basic point, is Wisconsin doing a good overall job with education I would say yes when you compare it to the rest of the country. And Texas' different method of rating itself doesn't mean it actually performs better overall.

So if the argument is that Wisconsin is failing to education because of teachers unions that argument is questionable because we are above the national average by most of the state to state comparisons I've found.

Pardon me but that is one big upper-range difference.

And considering we are talking about the amount of damage tape would do to stone you can see why I would find the notion questionable.

Oh, and at least one of the unions offered to help clean up.

Now I know there is misleading info or distortions being put out. I was there when I heard that Walker may try to force everyone out of the capital building. I'm glad it didn't happen. I was also glad to see a lot of prison guards show up, in uniform, to join the protests that day.

That said I feel like more of the misleading information coming from official or official like sources is related to the governor-like the implication that most of the protesters are outsiders.

I even had the ironic situation of a Walker supporter trying to tell me this was a "fact" after I had been there and knew different.