DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum GOP/Tea Party Controlled Ohio and Wisc govs attack Unions

Just clicking...

I rarely post on here anymore because many people (not just on this board, though I believe the spats here would be representative of the country as a whole) have their opinions and no amount of arguing is going to change anyone's stance on the issue. Just look at the demonstrations in Wisconsin - both sides are screaming at each other and no one is willing to budge.

As a union member who CHOSE to work in the public sector in order to better the lives of children and our society, this is NOT about the money and the concessions. Most of my colleagues would tell you this too. We understand that we have to pay in more in order to keep the system going. This is about attacking our right to collective bargaining. I'm in a job where there is no way to earn a promotion like in the private sector. I'm in a job where I have no chance of advancement and cannot gain a higher status or title. Am I supposed to earn the same amount every year because my "standing" never officially changes? I could leave my job, turn to the private sector and double my salary, but I would rather help better our country's future as opposed to earning more money.

The concessions are okay, but the attacks on our character and our power as a group are NOT.

Have a wonderful weekend.

What kills me about most of the left leaning people who are supporting these protests, are Democrats. The same people who said when Obama was elected, that elections have consequences. Yet the majority in Wisconsin voted for this Governor, yet a small minority is trying to undo an election. These same people bashed the republicans who didn't go along with Obama's agenda, calling them the party of no. They state they want democracy, but when they lose the vote, they turn to violence and hatred.

The articles posted by Mac are all from leftist websites, yet are expected to be seen as unbiased. If a story is printed here from Fox news or the Heritage foundation they come on here and try to discredit it as untrue.

Maybe the governor is breaking the union, but as was stated above , by someone backing the unions, they are only 12% of the workforce. So we are expected to overturn a majority vote for 12% of the population? The worst part of all this, is that most of these protesters aren't even from Wisconsin. They are being bussed in by Moveon.org and other anti-american organizations.

I love how these union workers are referred to ass the " working class". Most non union workers are paying much more of their money to support their families thru health care costs and pensions. Yet these "government employees", who are paid with tax dollars from the other 88% of the workforce, expect the true working class in this country to foot the bill for them. Most of these "middle class" workers are making close to $100,000.00 a year while their salaries are being funded by the larger majority that is making probably half that much. Minimom wage workers with no health benefits, are paying the taxes that pay these large salaries.

My friend is a pipefitter, he makes $42 an hour, plus $11 an hour towards a "vacation fund, plus $400 a week for his health benefits, a couple hundred a week for an annuity. He has been on many government payed jobs. While on those jobs, his excessive salary and benefits package is funded by tax dollars. At one time I worked on the same project as he did, but as a non-union employee. The job I have doesn't have a union, so that choice was not there for me. I made $15 dollars an hour, and paid $170 to for my health insurance, a pay. I recieved no "vacation supplement, and no 401K money.
While on that job, I worked constantly for 10 hours a day. My friend sat in a trailer for more than half a shift everyday. A trailer that was suppied with fresh coffee, and heat. They also demanded that the water bottles in the trailer would be replaced every day, whether they were empty or not.

For those in unions that wnat my sympathy, screw you. I tried to get into quite a few union positions over the past 30 years. I constabtly was told I had to have someone pull me in, nepotism. The steel mills in our area, were the same thing, family got family hired, friends got friends hired, bossses put their families in the best positions. Even today at a local titanium plant, I have friends who tell me constantly that they are hiring, yet when you try to submit a resume, or get an application you are told that there is no hiring taking place. Then within days, you find out that someones nephew or son got the job. That's real fair hiring practices huh?

The voters voted for a governor to fix the state economy. One that is being bankrupted by big salaries and rediculous benefit packages, yet we are supposed to bow down to a 12% minority because since they are a union and back the minority party. They are the problem, and they are acting very un democratic. This is mob rule, backed by a socialist president and his friends, peiod.

The thought that a sitting president would use his personal websites to help undermine the govenment of a state is apalling. This guy does not only hate the constitution, he goes against it at a drop of a hat.

The unions already said that they would give back again and concede the monetary part that the govenor was looking for if they could keep collective bargaining; and he said no. So again, this is not about the cost savings.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2011/02/10/wisconsin-public-workers-underpaid.html


http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6759/

This paper investigates whether Wisconsin public employees are overpaid at the expense of Wisconsin taxpayers. The research is timely. Newly sworn-in Gov. Scott Walker believes that public employee compensation must be cut to make it comparable to private sector pay at the state, local, and school levels. Walker is promoting public employee pay cuts, changes in collective bargaining laws, major benefits reductions, and a possible decertification of public employee unions as the antidote to the alleged overpayment of public employees in Wisconsin and the key to reducing the state’s budget deficit (Bergquist and Stein 2010).

However, the data indicates that state and local government employees in Wisconsin are not overpaid. Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that employees of both state and local governments in Wisconsin earn less than comparable private sector employees. On an annual basis, full-time state and local government employees in Wisconsin are undercompensated by 8.2% compared with otherwise similar private sector workers. This compensation disadvantage is smaller but still significant when hours worked are factored in. Full-time public employees work fewer annual hours, particularly employees with bachelor’s, master’s, and professional degrees (because many are teachers or university professors).
When comparisons are made controlling for the difference in annual hours worked, full-time state and local government employees are undercompensated by 4.8%, compared with otherwise similar private sector workers. To summarize, our study shows that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8% less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin’s private sector.

These compensation comparisons account for important factors that affect earnings, the most important of which is the educational levels of public employees. When comparing public and private sector pay it is essential to consider the much higher levels of education required by occupations in the public sector. As a consequence of these requirements, Wisconsin public sector workers are on average more highly educated than private sector workers; 59% of full-time Wisconsin public sector workers hold at least a four-year college degree, compared
with 30% of full-time private sector workers. Wisconsin state and local governments pay college-educated employees 25% less in annual compensation, on average, than private employers. The compensation differential is greatest for professional employees, lawyers, and doctors. On the other hand, the public sector appears to set a floor on compensation, which benefits less-educated workers. The 1% of state and local government workers without high school diplomas earn more than comparably educated workers in the private sector.

And to offset some of the reduction in wages-you look forward to that HUGE pension. But actually, the average public pension in 2007 was $22,000 a year, and you do not normally qualify for social security. See below.

https://www.penfed.org/productsAndRates/Kiplingers/2010/retirement/pensionSocialSecurity.asp

A Public Pension and Full Social Security Benefits? No Way
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was originally published in the August 2010 issue of Kiplinger's Retirement Report.

Perhaps you had two careers. In one job, you were a government employee whose earnings were exempt from the Social Security payroll tax. You also worked in the private sector, paying into the Social Security system. When you retire, you'll get your public pension, but don't count on getting your full Social Security benefit.

Under federal law, any Social Security benefits you earned will be reduced if you were a federal, state or local government employee who earned a pension on wages that were not covered by Social Security. Reductions also apply to Social Security spousal or survivor benefits that are claimed by government pensioners.

David Walrath, a lobbyist for the California Retired Teachers Association, says many government employees don't realize their Social Security will be squeezed until they apply. "People will get their annual statement with a benefit number, but they're not told they're subject to an offset," says Walrath, with the consulting firm of Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes, in Sacramento, Cal.

The two rules that cover government employees are the "windfall elimination provision" (WEP) and the "government pension offset" (GPO). The WEP applies to workers, and the GPO applies to government pensioners who are applying for Social Security spousal and survivor benefits.

Patricia Kohlen got hit by both. Kohlen, 61, paid into a public pension system for 28 years when she worked as an elementary school teacher in Atascadero, Cal. She also worked part-time as a secretary and paid Social Security taxes through that job.

Just before Kohlen retired with a disability in 2003, her statement showed that she was due $247 a month in Social Security disability payments. The windfall provision reduced the payments to $108 a month. Her monthly teacher's pension is currently $1,930.

The big shock came when she asked the Social Security Administration about a survivor benefit after her husband, Kenneth, died at age 62 in 2006. A retired college professor, Kenneth was getting a Social Security benefit of $1,406 a month, plus a private pension of $4,000 a month.

Widows and widowers are typically eligible for a Social Security survivor benefit that's 100% of the deceased spouse's benefit. Because of the formula used to calculate the government pension offset, Kohlen was told she would receive nothing when she became eligible for a survivor benefit at age 60.

Kohlen, who lives in San Luis Obispo, Cal., says she and Kenneth had been counting on his Social Security payments. "He paid into Social Security for 49 years, and I feel, as a widow, that I am entitled to that money," she says. "It's just so terribly unfair."

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced legislation that would end or modify the two provisions. Don't expect any decision soon. These issues will likely be addressed only when Congress takes up the larger issues of Social Security solvency and deficit reduction.

In the meantime, you need to become familiar with the two rules if you ever worked in a job that was not covered by Social Security. While some federal, state and local employees have paid into Social Security, others have not. Most federal employees today are covered by Social Security. Check with your employer or former employer. Also, if your Social Security statement lists $0 for years you worked for a government agency, that's an indication you may be subject to the two rules.

First, let's look at the windfall elimination provision. To understand how the WEP works, you need to know how Social Security calculates benefits. Social Security looks at the average monthly earnings for the years a person paid into the system. Benefits are intended to replace a percentage of a worker's preretirement earnings. Lower-income workers get a larger percentage of their earnings replaced than higher-income workers.

Until the mid 1980s, the Social Security Administration used a formula that treated government employees, who may have contributed into the system for only a few years, as low-wage workers. As a result, public employees received a disproportionately large Social Security benefit -- plus their government pension. In 1983, Congress ended this so-called windfall.

The windfall provision does not apply to government pensioners who paid into the Social Security system for 30 years or longer. Nor does it apply to workers who receive a military pension or a private pension. You can use a WEP calculator at www.socialsecurity.gov to figure your benefit.

As with all Social Security beneficiaries, your WEP-reduced benefit could change based on your age when you claim it. Consider this example: After 20 years of covered earnings, you turn 62 in 2009. Your full monthly benefit at 66 would be $1,372, which is reduced $372 by the windfall provision. If you claim at 62, your benefit would be reduced by 25%, to $750. For each year you delay past 66, you get an 8% delayed-retirement credit until you reach 70.

For Survivor and Spousal Benefits
A government pensioner who applies for a spousal or survivor benefit based on his or her spouse's Social Security earnings record will also face cuts. Typically, a spousal benefit is about 50% of a husband or wife's benefit if that's more than the spouse would receive based on his or her own work record. A survivor generally receives 100% of a deceased spouse's benefit.

But if the government pension offset applies, your Social Security spousal or survivor benefit will be reduced by two-thirds of your government pension.

Let's look at Patricia Kohlen, the retired schoolteacher. The earliest a survivor can apply for a benefit is age 60, six years before full retirement. A survivor benefit is reduced by 28.5% if a widow or widower applies that early. If Kohlen had applied at 60, as she had hoped, the survivor benefit would have been reduced to $1,005, from Kenneth's monthly $1,406 benefit.

Then the GPO would kick in. At the time, Kohlen's teacher pension was a little less than $1,900. Two-thirds of $1,900 is $1,266. Because $1,266 is larger than $1,005, she was not eligible for a Social Security survivor benefit at age 60.

The same goes for spousal benefits. Assume your wife receives a $2,000 Social Security payment each month. You want to take a $1,000 spousal benefit. If your public pension is $1,200, your spousal benefit would be reduced to $200. (That's $1,000 minus $800, which is two-thirds of $1,200.)

Quote:

---

When comparisons are made controlling for the difference in annual hours worked, full-time state and local government employees are undercompensated by 4.8%, compared with otherwise similar private sector workers. To summarize, our study shows that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8% less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin’s private sector.

---

This info seems largely focused on public school teachers....who are averaging over 50k per year working 9 months with an exceptional benefit package. That's good money no matter what the private school teachers are making. They are not underpaid.

I know the pensions of the people I referred to earlier, and they are much more than 22k. And some were able to go back to work and double dip....pushing them well into 6 figures. Maybe it's different in WI, or CA?

I am shocked to learn the the Economic Policy Institute, founded by Robert Reich and other liberals, and funded by union contributions, came to this conclusion.

Shocked I tell you!

The EPI is well known for unrealistic claims of dubious origin.

When you take benefits into account....the scale tips toward the government employees. (I know nothing of the Maciver institute).

web page

Study Shows, Even After Limits, Public Employee Benefits Would Be Extremely Generous
MacIver News Service | February 16, 2011

[Madison, Wisc..] Wisconsin taxpayers would be very generous to state employees even after the proposed budget repair bill passes this week, according to a just released study. The website HCTrends indicates if the proposed changes were to become law, public employees would still pay less toward their family health insurance premium than most other Midwestern states and the vast majority of large employers in Southeastern Wisconsin.
Currently, Wisconsin state employees pay less than 5 percent of the premium cost for family coverage (4.35 percent for union employees and 4.96 percent for non?union employees). That’s lower than the 6.2 percent they paid in 2009, when Wisconsin’s employee contribution was the second?lowest among Midwest states for family coverage.

Republican Governor Scott Walker has proposed raising the employee share of health insurance premiums to 12.4 percent, however even after the additional contribution, the contribution rate would still be less than the 2009 Midwest average for state government employees.

Moreover, the new rate would also be less than the employee contributions required at 85 percent of large Milwaukee?area employers.

The proposed changes would cost the average state employee an additional $1,560 per year for family coverage, but the amount they would pay ($2,496) would still be significantly less than the $3,875 average premium contribution at large private?sector employers in southeastern Wisconsin.

“State employees will also continue to get much more for their money than their private sector counterparts,” the study reads. “The state plan offers more benefits, lower deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket maximums than the average private sector plan.”

HCTrends reviewed data from the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the HCTrends Greater Milwaukee Health Care Benefits Survey.

The NCSL data was used to compare Wisconsin state employee benefits with eight other Midwestern states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio. The HCTrends employer survey data was used to compare Wisconsin state plan costs and design with private?sector employers in southeastern Wisconsin.

The study can be found, here.

Per Wikipedia: AlterNet, a project of the non-profit Independent Media Institute, is a progressive/liberal[1] activist news service.

You're questioning the veracity of a source that mac uses? How dare you!

Let's hope the CAP act passes.



I know Bob Corker...he is a good man who knows how to run a business.


The government is a business....or at least needs to be run as such.


This act forces Congress to make the necessary cuts.



Vote yes to this, we start to see results.


If it doesn't pass, we stay mired in the mud.

We as Americans have a choice. Cut spending in all areas or go broke.....it's that simple.



Yes, it is going to hurt, but the bottom line is the piper is here and he wants to be paid.

We can't avoid it or push if off any longer.

Quote:

---

Let's hope the CAP act passes.

---

I don't have a huge problem with the CAP act. The key feature is that it wouldn't be implemented until 2013. I firmly believe that the economy is still extremely fragile right now, and drastic, immediate austerity would have drastic consequences.

Having not read it in detail, the only thing I would say is that there should be some kind of way to deal with special economic circumstances. For example, if the government hadn't been able to bail out banks b/c that was over the limit, then we might be in the depths of a depression rather than in a shaky recovery.

I am wondering if what the governor of Wisconsin is doing the right thing? He has forced the unions into conceding, which is something they never would have done.He isn't busting the union, just nuetering them on certain things.

If he allows the state employees all of their present barging rights they can choose to play hardball once their contracts are up. The atmosphere might be different in the future and he won't be able to pass something like this.

Wisconsin might elect a more labor friendly governor next time who may not want, or be willing to keep the employees benefits in check. Causing the budget to balloon again out of control.


However, I am really uneasy with how this is happening. The state is choosing to make existing contracts null and void. I think the states should have the right to change these things, but only during contract negotiations.

I guess my opinion is force their hand into making these concessions or huge layoffs. They have done that. When each labor agreement is up play hardball and not agree to any contract that doesn't give the state the right to have more control over things like benefit payments and pension payments by employees.If the unions want to push back to much that is their right as well. I think the state would still have the upper-hand.

This is what my opinion is based on the info I have right now. It might change if further info comes out.

Corker, McCaskill Introduce Bill to Dramatically Cut Spending Over 10 Years


Bipartisan “CAP Act” Would Put Binding Cap on All Federal Spending
February 1 2011 -
WASHINGTON – As the Congressional Budget Office reports a record $1.5 trillion U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2011, U.S. Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) are introducing legislation to force Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years.

“Washington continues to borrow and spend, and despite the pleas of the American people, there is no end in sight,” said Corker, who spent the fall delivering a sobering presentation about America’s fiscal situation to more than 43 audiences in Tennessee. “As we approach our debt limit of $14.29 trillion and more and more Americans - Republicans, Democrats and Independents – call on Washington to get spending under control and reduce our deficit, I see no better time to change course. What Senator McCaskill and I are offering is a legislative straitjacket, a way of forcing Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years. The beauty of the CAP Act is that it imposes fiscal discipline and smaller government, while incentivizing lawmakers to pass policies that promote economic growth.”

“At a time when many families have been forced to tighten their pocketbooks, Congress must also learn to do the same. This bill isn’t just about cutting back this year or next year; it’s about instilling permanent discipline to keep spending at a responsible level,” McCaskill said.

The Commitment to American Prosperity Act, the “CAP Act,” would:

(1) Put in place a 10-year glide path to cap all spending – discretionary and mandatory – to a declining percentage of the country’s gross domestic product, eventually bringing spending down from the current level, 24.7 percent of GDP, to the 40-year historical level of 20.6 percent, and

(2) If Congress fails to meet the annual cap, require the Office of Management and Budget to make evenly distributed, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget to bring spending down to the pre-determined level. Only a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress could override the binding cap, and

(3) For the first time, eliminate the deceptive “off-budget” distinction for Social Security – providing a complete and accurate assessment of all federal spending.

“Cutting trillions of dollars from the federal budget in the coming years won’t be easy or painless; it will require backbone and discipline on the part of policy makers and shared sacrifice for the country. I believe Americans will be willing to make short-term sacrifices for the long-term good of our country and demand commensurate actions from their elected officials,” continued Corker.

The Corker-McCaskill CAP Act is cosponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

In 2009 the federal government spent $1.4 trillion more than it took in, borrowing nearly 40 cents of every dollar. The gap between spending and revenue is almost four times the historic average. Even when the U.S. reaches historic revenue levels, we are still projected to be spending nearly six percent more of our gross domestic product than we take in, and the gap will continue to widen. By 2035, on our current trajectory, U.S. debt will reach 185 percent of GDP. If this occurs, interest payments on our national debt will reach nearly nine percent of GDP – as much as we currently spend on national defense, education, roads, and all government agencies combined.

web page

Come on Mac....call your democrats in Congress to go alone with Claire.


This is the first step.



This isn't about right or left...it's about fixing a problem.



The rich, unions, you, me....a price has to be paid by everyone.

I trust you can agree with that.

Teachers are working a few weeks after summer break starts and a few weeks before summer break ends. In reality, they work about 9.5 months a year when you include holidays.

Arguing semantics? Perhaps, but I want to point out that I work in the private sector and I get 4 weeks of vacation per year plus another 10 workdays off per year for holidays. I also am young and haven't put as much time into my job as others, and those who have have more vacation time than I do.

Point being, 9 months of work and 3 months off is being spouted as some teacher exclusive job benefit, but in reality its not uncommon at all in the private sector.

I wanted to point out (though I am just speaking from one case) that a family member of mine makes more than 6 figures per year and
"technically" has upwards of a month of taking vacation and when you include corporate recognized holidays as well as shutdown time for the different plants he could only work about 40 to 42 weeks a year on paper.

However ... it is more or less frowned upon to take them because if you are a manager and just "leave" for more than a few days at a time, who is going to do your job? And when you have a specific title like he does, you can take vacation whenever you want ... but the last day (*including saturdays and sundays) that he had a day off was new year's eve and new years day.

From the people that I know in the private sector ... mostly younger in their late 20's to early 30's .. you don't take time off. Especially in the current economy. The guy I roomed with during my last year of college worked out his actual physical hours in his office and ended up making within a dollar of minimum wage because he was on salary.

Having an office job is anything but cushy these days. Ton of stress and pressure. If you think most people on salary only work 40 hours a week and get tons of vacation time I would strongly urge you to look at what is really going on.

I hope that didn't sound like I was being a **** or anything. Just throwing in 2 cents.

Your job is not the norm.

My job, for instance, has a cap of 4 weeks vacation plus another 5 personal/sick days. We can use those 5 days as either sick or personal days. That's a total of 5 weeks.

I do not personally know anyone who gets 3 months paid vacation except for teachers. The most I know of is a friend of mine who gets 6 weeks vacation.

You may have a position where you get 1/4 to 1/3 of the year off with pay ..... but most people do not have such jobs. It's fine if you have a private sector job, and your employer has decided that this is a good idea, but the public sector is, and must be different. It is the same way with wages, and collective bargaining.

Part of the problem with collective bargaining in the public sector is that newer and more effective employee can, and are, let go at the expense of younger and often more motivated employees. A teacher of the year being laid off in Wisconsin so that a longer tenured teacher may retain their job is an example.

I am a firm believer in performance/results being the sole determining factor in who keeps their job and who loses theirs in the event that cuts have to be made. This is the way it happens in much of the private sector, but in very little of the public sector.

Do you also get two weeks off for Christmas and another week for spring break?

As far as my experience goes, when you have the education and training that a teacher does, you can expect similar benefits. Mine for example, those of my peers with educations are also similar. They vary from employer to employer, but not drastically.

I wasn't including in the argument what benefits a construction worker, best buy clerk, jewelry salesman, etc get because they don't seem relevant to the topic as they are not going through the same education and training a teacher does. That time in school earns you that extra benefit, in my opinion. People that don't like it should go to school and get a degree and a job that has the extra time off rather than get in a tizzy over someone else having it, if you ask me.

Why are we railing against teachers anyway? Can we not find something more important than this to get up in a tizzy about?

It started with charlie stating that teachers were grossly underpaid, and I posted an article showing that he was completely wrong yet again. It grew from there.

Well come on, it was Charlie. What happened to just ignoring that guy? That sounded like a good idea to me.

I know you want to get off of teachers but I just wanted to add that what teachers are paid is deceiving. I know of a teacher who makes around 70K. He also has worked for half a century in the sme district. The high paid teachers make that money only after working for a long time. Most of the Ohio districts start out I believe make between the low to mid
30s.

Here's a link to a table of the county by county average salaries of public school teachers in Ohio. The average in Ohio is also well over 50k. In my district, the average is 58k. Cuyohoga leads the state at 62k. Scroll down a bit to see the table.

Cleveland.com

I have that article. There is also a website that breaks down every district in every county by starting pay average pay and years of experience. i want to say the list top pay as well as education. There is a huge difference around the state.

There is also a website that allows you to look up any teacher's wage in any district of the state. They also list other government employees as well.

Your vacation schedule isn't anywhere near the norm.

I accrued 4 hrs per pay period the first 3 years; 6 hrs/pay period to 15 years; and 8 hrs per pay period after 15.

jc

When Wisconsin's Governor Walker formulated his plan to go after public unions, he excluded the Firefighter's union, the Policeman's union and the Highway Patrolman's union.

Coincidently, there were only 3 public unions in Wisconsin that supported Walker's winning campaign last Nov...the Firefighter's union, the Policeman's union and the Highway Patrolman's union...hmmm...something smells like_____......

If Walker is truly focused on doing what is best for the state of Wisconsin, why not include "all" the public unions?

Oh how quickly things can change though...
.............................................................................................

The Police Are Turning On Walker

Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 03:33 PM EST.

During the election, there were only three unions that endorsed Walker for Governor of Wisconsin: The Firefighters, Police, and State Troopers. We've seen spectacular video of the Firefighters marching into the capitol with their bagpipes. The Firefighters have taken their stand.

Well, now, so have the Police.

And it's NOT with Walker.

Tracy Fuller, the Executive Board President of the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association has issued a statement on the organization's page. Parts of it read as follows:

Please excuse the caps--this was how it was written

I am going to make an effort to speak for myself, and every member of the Wisconsin State Patrol when I say this.


Break*

I SPECIFICALLY REGRET THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE WISCONSIN TROOPER’S ASSOCIATION FOR GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER. I REGRET THE GOVERNOR’S DECISION TO “ENDORSE” THE TROOPERS AND INSPECTORS OF THE WISCONSIN STATE PATROL. I REGRET BEING THE RECIPIENT OF ANY OF THE PERCEIVED BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNOR’S ANOINTING.

I THINK EVERYONE’S JOB AND CAREER IS JUST AS SIGNIFICANT AS THE OTHERS. EVERYONE'S FAMILY IS JUST AS VALUABLE AS MINE OR ANY OTHER PERSONS, ESPECIALLY MINE. EVERYONE'S NEEDS ARE JUST AS VALUABLE. WE ARE ALL GREAT PEOPLE!!

More:



I don’t believe that the Troopers Association could have possibly predicted, or comprehended the events that are unfolding in front of us at this time. I can agree that it was a tragic mistake for the Trooper’s Association to endorse the Governor, I can’t do anything about it, and they are reaping the benefits of their actions. I do believe they thought any benefits gained would be for all of the members of WLEA, after all, the PCO’s, Field Agents, Capitol Police, and U.W. Police are all in the same union.
Who could have possibly thought that the Governor could pluck one local’s members from a union and identify it as being worthy of bargaining for a contract? Some of the comments and attitudes that have been made and displayed would have you believe that the Governor consulted with the board of the Trooper’s Association about what his plans were in all of this.
And further on, he gets to the meat of the argument:

This bill has some provisions that make no sense, unless the basic intent is to bust unions. One provision makes it illegal for public employers to collect dues for labor organizations. The employer can take deductions for the United Way, or other organizations, but they are prohibited from collecting union dues.
How does that repair the budget?

Another provision requires the WERC to conduct a representation election by December 1st each year, to determine if the employees still want the union to represent them. The WERC has to bill the union for the cost of the election. Currently, if a group petitions the WERC to do an election, the WERC covers the cost. Right now, the members have the right to request an election if the majority of the members want to change or eliminate representation. Why create unnecessarily processes?

Does that help repair the budget?

This is where Walker has failed. This is where Republicans will ultimately fail. When the people become EDUCATED and realize what having Republicans in charge actually means, then Republicans lose every time.

Let's fervently hope it's not too late.

Protests in Michigan tomorrow, Ohio, Tuesday, and ongoing in Wisconsin. We MUST. NOT. LOSE. Failure at this point means the end of the American Democracy and the rise of American

web page