You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 04:32:04 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Scott Walker, Union Buster  (Read 26766 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #325 on: March 11, 2011, 10:02:33 PM »
Uhm, we already were paying for our health care and pensions.  Now we're just being asked to pay more.  In the case of pensions, I used to pay 100% of it.  Now I'll be paying an addtional 5.8% of my salary towards it, and my healthcare premiums will more than double.  All told, it's nearly a $5K per year pay cut.  That's far more than the raise I received for getting tenure.

Oh, also - http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ed8497da-4c1a-11e0-8669-001cc4c03286.html.  Just an fyi on how the bill is moving along.

Looking over the article is it legal for them to require the Dale county payroll organization to mark union/non-union down? Sounds like their making a list and checking it twice for a later move.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #326 on: March 11, 2011, 10:55:59 PM »
Proper PR..and you know if it's an off year election only about half the electorate will be involved.

Left-wing accounts say Republican support should be waning by then and with democrats and union supporters "mobilized," the half that turns out should be mostly democrats.
 
There is language in contracts for both sides, it is not one sided. Basically both sides come to the table with issues and if its mutual interest bargaining they try to solve them by brainstorming its a long process. If the language is changed both parties agree.

Sounds like a typical contract to me.

Now if he decrees as king that the language is null and void that would be an unfair labor practice.

Except he's already promised to honor all current labor contracts until they expire.
inb4 assaults on Walker's honesty.

However lets suppose it is null and void that forces both sides to go to past practice which would be the present contract. Labor law public or private is simple, past practice is binding. That  means neither side can change the past practice as you no longer have the capability to do it in negotiations. Most school districts are free flowing when problems come up. You dint change the contract at that moment but instead you get what is called a memorandum of understanding. when the contract runs out that memorandum can A) go into the contract as stands B) be renegotiated and put in C) be dropped because one side feels it is no longer needed.

That is what this bill has done to the school districts as far as bargaining rights are concerned. Now neither side can change the language. You can't change language unilaterally as that is also an unfair labor practice and that is both federal and state laws.


If neither side can change the language, does it not default to option C and require a new contract?

Uhm, we already were paying for our health care and pensions.  Now we're just being asked to pay more.  In the case of pensions, I used to pay 100% of it.  Now I'll be paying an addtional 5.8% of my salary towards it, and my healthcare premiums will more than double.  All told, it's nearly a $5K per year pay cut.  That's far more than the raise I received for getting tenure.

Oh, also - http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ed8497da-4c1a-11e0-8669-001cc4c03286.html.  Just an fyi on how the bill is moving along.


The Wisconsin Retirement System and deferred compensation are two completely separate things. Full-time state-and local-government employees are participants in the Wisconsin Retirement System, which uses taxpayer money to fund both the state (around 5 percent of salary) and employee (another 5 percent) contributions to their pensions.

On top of that, if they choose, state employees can participate in the deferred-comp plan, where they decide how much of their money to set aside, pre-tax, and a portion is matched by the state. That is in addition to their traditional pension contribution. All this can be found in Chapter 40 of the Wisconsin State Statutes.

Wisconsin Retirement System in detail provided by Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Informationalpapers/84_Wisconsin%20Retirement%20System.pdf

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #327 on: March 11, 2011, 11:28:34 PM »
My point is that contracts are used by both sides to settle issues. If the language is dropped you now have the issue again. He thinks a contract is just wages and benefits its not. It also is conditions of employment. An agreement on what is suppose to be the norm when the two sides have differing opinions and compromise. It is a check and balance as well for bad administrators. Most contracts have language in them because some bone head administrator did something the board was not aware of and they fixed it so it wouldn't happen again.

Because the school board changes both sides need this to keep a working relationship that is fluid. You don't want a whole new board coming in with no guidelines and an unethical administrator telling them what is suppose to be. The contract sets up boundaries to what it is suppose to be. 

Most teachers do not have direct contact with the school board. It isn't considered professional. The board has to take the word of the administrator.

Offline Kuroneko

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #328 on: March 12, 2011, 08:49:50 AM »

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #329 on: March 12, 2011, 11:17:10 AM »
Now that they have a list of companies that donated

http://scottwalkerwatch.com/?page_id=979

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #330 on: March 12, 2011, 08:23:35 PM »
Naturally, the thing to do with that information is threaten the businesses on it.

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117764004.html?blog=y

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #331 on: March 12, 2011, 08:35:32 PM »
Yes, they want to boycott organizations that support Walker. Just like it said on the scott walker watch page, they want to cut money to the organizations that helped get Walker and other Republicans who backed the bill.

What did you think they'd do?

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #332 on: March 12, 2011, 08:45:27 PM »
Naturally, the thing to do with that information is threaten the businesses on it.

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117764004.html?blog=y

Why is it when the conservatives and/or religious right do this its called 'Boycotting' but when anyone else does it, its 'Threatening?'.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #333 on: March 12, 2011, 09:15:36 PM »
The right to engage in commerce includes the implied right not to engage in commerce.  It's no different from the 'Buy American' movement.


Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #334 on: March 12, 2011, 09:45:41 PM »
There's a difference between actually boycotting and issuing a threat of a boycott.

Offline Jude

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #335 on: March 12, 2011, 11:05:47 PM »
Well, yeah, a threat causes no actual damage to the corporation involved but lets them know of your displeasure.  This can encourage them to change their ways for public relations reasons without damaging that company.  I would think you'd be in favor of that given your pro-corporatist rhetoric we've observed thus far?

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #336 on: March 12, 2011, 11:22:35 PM »
The whole state should be worried about union's boycotting them for vacations.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #337 on: March 13, 2011, 04:01:11 AM »
Well, yeah, a threat causes no actual damage to the corporation involved but lets them know of your displeasure.  This can encourage them to change their ways for public relations reasons without damaging that company.  I would think you'd be in favor of that given your pro-corporatist rhetoric we've observed thus far?

Did you entirely miss

Why is it when the conservatives and/or religious right do this its called 'Boycotting' but when anyone else does it, its 'Threatening?'.

Or are you intentionally trying to damage the high opinion I had of you?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #338 on: March 13, 2011, 09:36:10 AM »
'Threatening a business' (as in 'Not buying my widgets is a threat to my business') and 'threatening a boycott' (as in, 'We are threatening to boycott if you continue to exploit purple people eaters.') are slightly different.  In the first case (which matches Callie's post), the change in purchasing is already in place.  In the second (which matches Jude's post), the change in purchasing is pending. 

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #339 on: March 13, 2011, 12:01:50 PM »
And the letter in the link 'threatens' to boycott. Am I missing something here?

Offline ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #340 on: March 13, 2011, 12:18:39 PM »
Yes.  Callie, I believe, is saying that while the right considers organizing a boycott of a particular company to be a worthy and useful tactic, when the left does the same thing, the right refers to it as a threat.  In other words, something threatening or bullying against that company.

As Jude explained, if you first inform a company that you intend to boycott them unless they address your complaint, that has the potential to make both sides happy, if change occurs without any boycotting.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #341 on: March 13, 2011, 12:24:47 PM »
Yes.  Callie, I believe, is saying that while the right considers organizing a boycott of a particular company to be a worthy and useful tactic, when the left does the same thing, the right refers to it as a threat.  In other words, something threatening or bullying against that company.

As Jude explained, if you first inform a company that you intend to boycott them unless they address your complaint, that has the potential to make both sides happy, if change occurs without any boycotting.

Exactly.

Offline Noelle

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #342 on: March 13, 2011, 03:17:16 PM »
Or are you intentionally trying to damage the high opinion I had of you?

Can we...not do this? Insinuating that disagreeing with you is tantamount to doing something so offensive that you lose respect for someone as a person really doesn't have a place here. It's a debate, not a personal attack.

The only difference between sending a letter of intent to boycott and just skipping that step and doing it is giving the company ample time to react. Do tell me how it would be better if the unions decided they didn't care if the company knew or not and just went ahead and did it? It sounds to me like you'd rather give them a false choice that plays into what you want either way. If you send them a letter beforehand, it's a threat -- if you go ahead and boycott them anyway, you're just trying to muscle them into agreeing with you. Is there any way to win?

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #343 on: March 13, 2011, 03:38:06 PM »
Can we...not do this? Insinuating that disagreeing with you is tantamount to doing something so offensive that you lose respect for someone as a person really doesn't have a place here. It's a debate, not a personal attack.

The only difference between sending a letter of intent to boycott and just skipping that step and doing it is giving the company ample time to react. Do tell me how it would be better if the unions decided they didn't care if the company knew or not and just went ahead and did it? It sounds to me like you'd rather give them a false choice that plays into what you want either way. If you send them a letter beforehand, it's a threat -- if you go ahead and boycott them anyway, you're just trying to muscle them into agreeing with you. Is there any way to win?

Not to mention that it gives the company time to release their side of things. Offer reasons why they are supporting this or that person. Or perhaps allow them time to internally review their past support and actions.

My brother is a very conservative republican, much more so than I am. Always has been, most likely always will be. He has supported democratic judges over republicans in the past, donating to the campaigns of ones that had personal dealings with as a lawyer. It was held against him when he first started running for office as 'evidence' that he was not a 'real republican'.

He didn't do it from an ideological angle but a practical and pragmatic one. Simply put, he knew how these judges thought and reacted. As a trial lawyer you want to KNOW what angles to work, what will or won't work. It was simply good business for him as a LAWYER to ensure that they stayed where it would benefit my brother, his firm and clients.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #344 on: March 13, 2011, 09:11:15 PM »
Insinuating that I would not accuse the act of threatening someone or something else -by a letter of similar tone from a republican source- simply because of my party affiliation and beliefs, IS a personal attack on my morals. Perhaps something more befitting the actual text of the letter would have been more appropriate? Like coercion or extortion?

"The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor
Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in
Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this
request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not
respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with
Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters,
and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

"In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining,
please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the
goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will
do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to
preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table."

This copy also has the undersigned. http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0310/0310wppa.pdf

Publicly oppose Walker or we'll hurt your business. Yeah, not a threat at all.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #345 on: March 13, 2011, 09:24:18 PM »
I fail to see how that is anymore threatening than some of the stuff that comes out similar republican moves.

Offline ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #346 on: March 13, 2011, 09:25:06 PM »
Then what did you mean by this?

There's a difference between actually boycotting and issuing a threat of a boycott.

Based on the discussion prior to that, you seem to be saying that threatening to boycott is worse than actually boycotting, which makes no sense.

Now, you seem to have reversed that position.

I think you need to be more clear.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #347 on: March 13, 2011, 09:34:44 PM »
I did nothing but say what was actually done. What is or is not worse was established by others. The discussion prior to what you quoted was limited to:

Naturally, the thing to do with that information is threaten the businesses on it.

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117764004.html?blog=y

Which is entirely accurate, unless it's March 17th and the boycotting has already begun. I think everyone else needs to be a little less presumptuous.


Offline Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #348 on: March 13, 2011, 09:51:35 PM »
The direct connotation of the article's first sentence implies mafia-style violence.

Quote
That's a nice business you got there. Pity if anything were to happen to it...

The headline doesn't even say 'threatens boycott', just 'threatens'.

Dishonest reporting at its finest.

Although, thinking about it, I can think of a lot of effective left-wing boycotts, where entire states have been economically impacted (Colorado, Arizona, Utah). Have there been -any- effective right-wing boycotts?

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #349 on: March 13, 2011, 10:04:14 PM »
Boycotting someones business for their political beliefs is completely acceptable. Why should I do business with someone that supports a major political position that I am opposed to? This is why a lot of businesses don't donate to political organizations.