The hardest thing to explain to folks who are not part of the Wisconsin protests now in their second week is that this isn't about money. The spin placed on it by the far right and even Walker wants to portray this fight as being about greedy unions refusing to make concessions to a tight budget during tight times.
That's a load of crap.
The unions have been willing to talk concessions in order to help with budget shortfalls since the beginning. In addition, the state was on track for a 121 million dollar surplus when governor Walker took the job. So it's hard to understand how a 121 million dollar surplus turns into a 137 million dollar shortfall in one month that is so much an emergency that it requires a budget repair bill passed in 5 days or Armageddon is upon us.
Well no matter what you think about this, the whole process of how it's happening feels wrong.
Even if you don't want to question why a surplus budget became a dangerous deficit in one month requiring a emergency measure to fix, you can at least acknowledge that the Unions made a formal offer to concede every single financial cost the bill wanted in exchange for leaving the negotiation and organization rights intact. Now remember, these rights have no impact on the state budget or it's shortfall. So taking Walker at his word and assuming this is about money, he was offered the financial elements he claimed the bill was about. Walker refused, citing some high minded ideals about mob rule and catering to protesters was wrong.
Well since when, in an emergency financial crisis where a sweeping reform bill must go through within 5 days, does the governor in charge decide not to take what he says he wants because of the principle of how it was offered?
Is this an emergency or isn't it?
Also if you read the bill, it becomes clear that the financial elements were an afterthought. This is the first paragraph of the bill. The financial adjustments to benefits don't even start until 5 paragraphs and a page later.
“Under current law, municipal employees have the right to collectively bargain
over wages, hours, and conditions of employment under the Municipal Employment
Relations Act (MERA), and state employees have the right to collectively bargain
over wages, hours, and conditions of employment under the State Employment
Labor Relations Act (SELRA). This bill changes MERA and SELRA with respect to
all employees except employees who are certain protective occupation participants
under the Wisconsin Retirement System or under a county or city retirement system
(public safety employees). This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all
employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of
base wages. In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any
general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining
over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage
change in the consumer price index.”
Also, you have this little gem later under State Government:
“Under current law, the governor may declare a state of emergency if he or she
determines that an emergency exists resulting from a disaster or the imminent
threat of a disaster. This bill authorizes a state agency to discharge any state
employee who fails to report to work as scheduled for any three unexcused working
days during a state of emergency or who participates in a strike, work stoppage,
sit−down, stay−in, slowdown, or other concerted activities to interrupt the of
operations or services of state government, including specifically purported mass
resignations or sick calls. Under the bill, engaging in any of these actions constitutes
just cause for discharge.”
Let me call your attention to the bold section. At first glance, the structure of this paragraph suggests that the terms of these discharges are based on being in a state of emergency. But that's not how it's actually constructed. The first condition is that the bill authorizes dismissal of employees for repeated absences when the State is in imminent danger of disaster as defined by law – understandable – but in the next the pre-condition of state of emergency doesn't apply and simply making the subsequent list of organized employment disobedience tactics essentially illegal.
This clause alone makes unions powerless. The collective form of resistance to employer stonewalling is made patently illegal and cause for termination. So even though salary bargaining remains, if the State doesn't yield or just refuses to budge, the union is prevented from taking any action that normally would be a collective consequence of that failure.
What it comes down to is that this bill is a mash-up between two very distinct efforts. One is geared at severely cutting back the state contribution to employee benefits. But interwoven throughout and referenced almost as many times, you see every single tool available to organized labor stripped away, made illegal, or simply rendered moot. So two bills: One to back off State involvement and support of their employees, and second bill guarding against state unionization – despite the fact that the state is already unionized.
The Governor was counting on the fact that because times are tough and because everyone has had to tighten their belts, he could talk loudly about bill #1 and quickly pass bill #2 along with it without discussion or debate.
If you've followed me to this point, then a lot of this starts to really make sense.
Walker comes in to power in a state with a budget surplus. He takes actions in his first month to turn that into a deficit, but a manageable one. A 137M shortfall that doesn't even approach what Wisconsin has seen in the past at this time of year. But it's enough. The bill destroying the state's unions is then cloaked in a shroud of financial concessions to the one place state employees have a compensation advantage. This was designed to make protests against the bill seem irrational. The talking heads then pick this up and rave about how unions are protesting making financial concessions during hard times.
Brilliant!
Except that when governor walker rushed this bill he raised all kinds of alarm bells. As I've stated, the State's seen worse deficits during this time of year. Never have we seen this kind of emergency fast paced response to such a small number. Under closer scrutiny, the bill reveals that the financial elements in it are either a) not emergency. They have no effect on the immediate budget such as allowing the sale of power plants that wouldn't see any action on that for years or b) not about money at all. Like we've seen, the bill's first paragraph, and inf act first five paragraphs are about dismantling union rights.
So suddenly the emperor has no clothes. He comes across as deceptive and dishonest not to mention ruthless and dictatorial. His method of doing this is so heavy handed that he drives the state into the worst set of protests it has seen since Vietnam.
Well, good job, Mr. Walker.
The right has made the argument that the people spoke in November with their votes and therefore the actions taken by the governor are his right and duty as an elected official. It would be inappropriate for him to back down to the pressure of protests.
Nonsense.
We are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. We vote for people to REPRESENT us. Our system has built in protections against elected officials that fail in that duty. We have impeachment and recall. We have criminal statutes that step in against officials who go to far. We do not give our elected officials carte blanche to do whatever they want when we elect them, we have expectations about HOW they will represent us that must be met or at least engaged. The people are always involved in politics, not just when we cast our vote.
Walker's voters didn't know this was on his agenda. This wasn't part of his campaign. It is because of this and the method by which he tried to pass it that even conservatives who are not blindly loyal feel like they're delaing with a bait & switch.
The outcome of all this is still uncertain, but we need to see it for what it is. Governor Walker wants to deunionize the State. Instead of coming out and saying that and fighting that battle up front, he tried to slip it under the door and he's paying for it dearly for the deception now. Will walker lose this? Too soon to tell. But the lesson to be taken no matter how it comes out is that the method by which you deal with your duty as an elected representative is just as important as it's outcome.
That's a load of crap.
The unions have been willing to talk concessions in order to help with budget shortfalls since the beginning. In addition, the state was on track for a 121 million dollar surplus when governor Walker took the job. So it's hard to understand how a 121 million dollar surplus turns into a 137 million dollar shortfall in one month that is so much an emergency that it requires a budget repair bill passed in 5 days or Armageddon is upon us.
Well no matter what you think about this, the whole process of how it's happening feels wrong.
Even if you don't want to question why a surplus budget became a dangerous deficit in one month requiring a emergency measure to fix, you can at least acknowledge that the Unions made a formal offer to concede every single financial cost the bill wanted in exchange for leaving the negotiation and organization rights intact. Now remember, these rights have no impact on the state budget or it's shortfall. So taking Walker at his word and assuming this is about money, he was offered the financial elements he claimed the bill was about. Walker refused, citing some high minded ideals about mob rule and catering to protesters was wrong.
Well since when, in an emergency financial crisis where a sweeping reform bill must go through within 5 days, does the governor in charge decide not to take what he says he wants because of the principle of how it was offered?
Is this an emergency or isn't it?
Also if you read the bill, it becomes clear that the financial elements were an afterthought. This is the first paragraph of the bill. The financial adjustments to benefits don't even start until 5 paragraphs and a page later.
“Under current law, municipal employees have the right to collectively bargain
over wages, hours, and conditions of employment under the Municipal Employment
Relations Act (MERA), and state employees have the right to collectively bargain
over wages, hours, and conditions of employment under the State Employment
Labor Relations Act (SELRA). This bill changes MERA and SELRA with respect to
all employees except employees who are certain protective occupation participants
under the Wisconsin Retirement System or under a county or city retirement system
(public safety employees). This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all
employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of
base wages. In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any
general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining
over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage
change in the consumer price index.”
Also, you have this little gem later under State Government:
“Under current law, the governor may declare a state of emergency if he or she
determines that an emergency exists resulting from a disaster or the imminent
threat of a disaster. This bill authorizes a state agency to discharge any state
employee who fails to report to work as scheduled for any three unexcused working
days during a state of emergency or who participates in a strike, work stoppage,
sit−down, stay−in, slowdown, or other concerted activities to interrupt the of
operations or services of state government, including specifically purported mass
resignations or sick calls. Under the bill, engaging in any of these actions constitutes
just cause for discharge.”
Let me call your attention to the bold section. At first glance, the structure of this paragraph suggests that the terms of these discharges are based on being in a state of emergency. But that's not how it's actually constructed. The first condition is that the bill authorizes dismissal of employees for repeated absences when the State is in imminent danger of disaster as defined by law – understandable – but in the next the pre-condition of state of emergency doesn't apply and simply making the subsequent list of organized employment disobedience tactics essentially illegal.
This clause alone makes unions powerless. The collective form of resistance to employer stonewalling is made patently illegal and cause for termination. So even though salary bargaining remains, if the State doesn't yield or just refuses to budge, the union is prevented from taking any action that normally would be a collective consequence of that failure.
What it comes down to is that this bill is a mash-up between two very distinct efforts. One is geared at severely cutting back the state contribution to employee benefits. But interwoven throughout and referenced almost as many times, you see every single tool available to organized labor stripped away, made illegal, or simply rendered moot. So two bills: One to back off State involvement and support of their employees, and second bill guarding against state unionization – despite the fact that the state is already unionized.
The Governor was counting on the fact that because times are tough and because everyone has had to tighten their belts, he could talk loudly about bill #1 and quickly pass bill #2 along with it without discussion or debate.
If you've followed me to this point, then a lot of this starts to really make sense.
Walker comes in to power in a state with a budget surplus. He takes actions in his first month to turn that into a deficit, but a manageable one. A 137M shortfall that doesn't even approach what Wisconsin has seen in the past at this time of year. But it's enough. The bill destroying the state's unions is then cloaked in a shroud of financial concessions to the one place state employees have a compensation advantage. This was designed to make protests against the bill seem irrational. The talking heads then pick this up and rave about how unions are protesting making financial concessions during hard times.
Brilliant!
Except that when governor walker rushed this bill he raised all kinds of alarm bells. As I've stated, the State's seen worse deficits during this time of year. Never have we seen this kind of emergency fast paced response to such a small number. Under closer scrutiny, the bill reveals that the financial elements in it are either a) not emergency. They have no effect on the immediate budget such as allowing the sale of power plants that wouldn't see any action on that for years or b) not about money at all. Like we've seen, the bill's first paragraph, and inf act first five paragraphs are about dismantling union rights.
So suddenly the emperor has no clothes. He comes across as deceptive and dishonest not to mention ruthless and dictatorial. His method of doing this is so heavy handed that he drives the state into the worst set of protests it has seen since Vietnam.
Well, good job, Mr. Walker.
The right has made the argument that the people spoke in November with their votes and therefore the actions taken by the governor are his right and duty as an elected official. It would be inappropriate for him to back down to the pressure of protests.
Nonsense.
We are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. We vote for people to REPRESENT us. Our system has built in protections against elected officials that fail in that duty. We have impeachment and recall. We have criminal statutes that step in against officials who go to far. We do not give our elected officials carte blanche to do whatever they want when we elect them, we have expectations about HOW they will represent us that must be met or at least engaged. The people are always involved in politics, not just when we cast our vote.
Walker's voters didn't know this was on his agenda. This wasn't part of his campaign. It is because of this and the method by which he tried to pass it that even conservatives who are not blindly loyal feel like they're delaing with a bait & switch.
The outcome of all this is still uncertain, but we need to see it for what it is. Governor Walker wants to deunionize the State. Instead of coming out and saying that and fighting that battle up front, he tried to slip it under the door and he's paying for it dearly for the deception now. Will walker lose this? Too soon to tell. But the lesson to be taken no matter how it comes out is that the method by which you deal with your duty as an elected representative is just as important as it's outcome.
Comments
Post a Comment