Mass Protests Over WI Governor's Controversial Budget Repair Bill

[FrozNlite]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/16/wisconsin.budget/index.html


(CNN) -- Furor over a bill that would strip Wisconsin public employees of most of their collective bargaining rights and have them pay dramatically more for benefits drew at least 10,000 protesters to the state Capitol on Wednesday and forced the cancellation of classes in one large school district because of a teacher sick-out.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker said he is dealing with a budget crisis. Employees and unions contend his bill is an assault on worker rights.

Walker is asking legislators to pass his "Budget Repair Bill" to combat a $137 million shortfall through June 30. An upcoming two-year budget for 2011-13 must address a pending $3.6 billion deficit, he said.

In a budgetary scenario being played out in other cash-strapped states and municipalities, the legislation requires workers to cover more of their health care premiums and pension contributions, although supporters say local governments will decide on health care contributions for their employees.

The legislation also requires collective bargaining units to conduct annual votes to maintain certification. Unions would lose the right to have dues deducted from worker paychecks and collective bargaining can only cover wages.

The bill has prompted protests from public employees and supporters. On Tuesday, an estimated 13,000 people thronged Tuesday to the Capitol, followed by 10,000 Wednesday, said Carla Vigue, spokeswoman for the Department of Administration.

Unions said the number of protesters was much higher.

"I appreciate the fact that the folks here today will have a chance to have their voices heard," Walker told reporters Wednesday. "But I want to be sure the taxpayers of Wisconsin will have their chance to have their voices heard."

"Calling this a budget bill is a smokescreen," said Bryan Kennedy, president of AFT-Wisconsin, which represents about 17,000 employees. "This is an attack on all labor organizations."

Sign-carrying protesters jammed the Capitol rotunda on Tuesday and Wednesday, chanting "Kill the bill" and "Workers Unite." Thousands more marched outside in the snow.

The governor, who took his campaign for the bill to his Twitter account, said he was talking with some legislators about protections for workers.

Walker's press secretary, Cullen Werwie, said he expects the measure to reach the Senate on Thursday and, possibly, the Assembly (lower chamber) on Friday. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans, but the legislation likely faces a tougher test in the Senate.

Under the bill, public employees in the Wisconsin Retirement System would pay about 5.8% of their salaries toward pensions, up significantly from 0.2%, Werwie said. And state workers would pay for 12.6% of their monthly health care premiums, up from between 4% and 6% percent.

Pay raises would be limited to inflation, unless a referendum approves of a larger increase.

"This is not something unusual," Walker said of the employee contributions. "That is what middle-class workers in this state have experienced."

The legislation would save the state about $30 million between now and the end of June and, if continued, an estimated $300 million during the next two years, Walker has said. He said workers in the private sector pay higher percentages of their pay for health care and pensions.

The governor visited private businesses on Tuesday, arguing the bill would end furloughs and prevent layoffs.

"People viewed what we are proposing as modest," he said.

The changes do not apply to police, firefighters and state troopers, who would continue to bargain for their benefits.

But the proposed curtailing of most collective bargaining rights among public employees has drawn the most vocal complaints. There are about 300,000 state and local workers in the heavily unionized state.

Of 425 primary and secondary school systems, for example, employees at all but two are covered by AFT-Wisconsin or the National Education Association, Kennedy said.

Walker, he said, is ignoring $100 million in previous employee concessions and wants to take his measure directly to a vote rather than negotiate.

Calling Wisconsin a "state in turmoil," Kennedy said the debate is "not a financial issue. It is about worker rights."

His group is calling for more rallies on Thursday to "keep the pressure on."

The website for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees featured a video of interviews with union workers.

"This is the state where collective bargaining for public employees started," one said. "If Wisconsin falls, so does the nation."

Ken Syke, a spokesman for the Madison Metropolitan School District, said about 40% of 2,600 teachers, assistants, social workers and psychologists in the bargaining unit called in sick, forcing the district to cancel Wednesday's classes for 24,500 students.

Because of the budget imbroglio, the district warned teachers that they would be docked pay if they were sick Wednesday through Friday and returned without a note from a medical provider, Syke said. They may face other sanctions.

Although Superintendent Daniel A. Nerad wrote Walker, asking him to return to the table to discuss collective bargaining, he also has said "our No. 1 responsibility is to instruct students," Syke said.

Some students left school Tuesday to join the protests, the spokesman said.

Many states, including California and New York, are grappling with budget deficit crises.

A month after Illinois lawmakers approved a massive tax increase, Gov. Pat Quinn on Wednesday unveiled a $35.4 billion budget that depends on state lawmakers approving $8.7 billion in new borrowing largely to clear a towering stack of unpaid bills.

The budget, which increases spending by $1.7 billion from the previous year and closes a $13 billion gap, slashes programs for the elderly, the poor and the disabled, but leaves education funding largely untouched. No layoffs of state workers are suggested.

An awesome NY Times slideshow:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/02/16/us/WISCONSIN-6.html

I'm living and contributing in the middle of this as an executive board member of our College Democrats of Madison chapter. Things are intense here. I'd be happy to report as much as people would like.

[Mike]

Sweet. Anything big planned for the days ahead?

[Rick]

What is your proposed alternative to combat your state's bad financial situation?

[FrozNlite]

Sweet. Anything big planned for the days ahead?

Let's just say I have never received as many Facebook event invitations in one week. The bill was announced Friday, protesting began Monday, and is expected to continue going full steam as it has through tomorrow. Tonight is the second night in a row thousands are sleeping at the capitol in order to testify as part of a citizen filibuster of the bill. I slept there last night. It was awesome, but roughed up my whole day today.


What is your proposed alternative to combat your state's bad financial situation?

If I can find the news article again, it would be to rework financial structuring. There was some article I read yesterday about how the governor himself already stated financial restructuring would cover $165 million of the $167 million that needs to be covered.

There's a lot more I could say, but I need to go do shit if I still want to be on top of my studies and protest tomorrow. Bleh. I'll respond more later if people have other questions.

[Rick]

Well, as long as you're not protesting without a valid alternative. People who do that really piss me off.

[Anonymous Moose]

Any sign of the National Guard yet?
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/53725/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-to-deploy-national-guard-against-unions-a-homegrown-mubarak/

Aside from that, I'm not an expert on Wisconson and that is your business, but what I oppose here and what I have a strong opinion on is that the military should never be used on the people it is meant to protect.

[BitchenCamero]

If I can find the news article again, it would be to rework financial structuring. There was some article I read yesterday about how the governor himself already stated financial restructuring would cover $165 million of the $167 million that needs to be covered.

There's a lot more I could say, but I need to go do shit if I still want to be on top of my studies and protest tomorrow. Bleh. I'll respond more later if people have other questions.

This issue that state goverments are having is a tough one for me to take a hard stance on. Currently, I believe that the financial restructuring that you are talking about will only fix the issue for the short term. States are going to have to make really tough budget cuts to solve thier budget issues for the long term. There needs to be a combination of financial restructuring and reasonable cuts in state employee benifits. IMO state employee pension plans are crazy. Hardly any public companies these days offer pension plans, so I think the states are behind the times with pension benifit reform.

Like I said, this is a really tough issue. Cutting benifits will negatively affect many people which no one wants to see.

With all that being said, I admire you for protesting for what you believe! Keep up the fight.

[Stereo]

You know what else solves budgeting issues? Raising taxes...

[FrozNlite]

@AnonymousMoose: No sign of them yet. That's definitely the most chilling aspect of this entire debacle.

To clarify for others, our governor also said on Friday that, basically, if vital public employees to various communities went on mass strikes in opposition to the passage of the bill, if it passes, he would use the National Guard to "maintain order." Because clearly stripping working class citizens of their rights in the workplace and then forcing them continue their jobs under threat of arrest or worse is democracy at its finest.

@peachenCamero: The main issue here is the assault on the rights in the work place of public employees. As Obama said yesterday when he addressed the tensions in Wisconsin, this bill appears to be an attempt to disrupt unions. He added that in times like these people need to come to terms with "hard financial realities," and provided an anecdote about his two year salary freeze for federal employees. That's a viable, long-term option for dealing with employees. Stripping them of rights they've had for over 50 years is not. Such a fix would be short term as well, as in the long run you risk massive issues, such as, to name a few, working professionals quitting their jobs and leaving the state.

[Anonymous Moose]

You know what else solves budgeting issues? Raising taxes...

Taxing people that are already barely able to make ends meet isnt exactly the best idea. Sure, you might be able to get some more money into the state at first, but that wont last long. Taxes, when too high, choke the economy. Then some people that are living paycheck to paycheck might be pulled into a spiral of debt from the increased taxes or those people might simply stop spending as much money. It'll hurt the economy, people's lives, and result in potentially less tax revenue.

What most states need to do is cut spending. Although, that brings the question of "what should we cut?" Some of us might simply have to bite the bullet and give up some luxuries we once had. That's life. Although maybe not if we cut the right programs and cut the right forms of spending.
Now, what to cut should be up to the citizens of Wisconson, but I'm certain you could easily find some obscene bullpomegranate to cut. Just looking at governments, they tend to overpay on everything (I'm thinking of how the Feds might pay a $1000 per chair...). One step would obviously be to frugal and force the government to not overpay. Then of course, we need to watch out for governments paying for private interests. For example, it would probably be best to oppose building private sports stadiums with tax payer money.
Now, I dont know exactly what sorts of bull goes on in Wisconson, but I'm certain the government is wasting money.

Now, back to the proposal of cutting benefits of workers. This is the one thing I can say for certain. The governer and the congress of Wisconson should be willing to cut their own benefits before they cut other people's benefits.
In fact, since they want to cut teacher benefits, I think that they should all have to work in a building similar to that of a school, with similar funding to a school and work at desks commonly used by high schoolers before they cut school related funding.

Anyway, looks like RT has some video coverage of the event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrRN9UWgISE&feature=player_embedded

[FrozNlite]

That footage is old, like from Tuesday. I recognize the union semi-truck on one of the outside streets from that afternoon (which also means I'm somewhere in the middle of the ground floor rotunda in the first few seconds). Shit's gotten more intense since then: thousands more protesting, people sitting in on all levels to barricade the senate chamber doors, etc. The police are awesome and on our side, though. The Republican legislators tried leaving for lunch and asked for a police escort, and the police refused. Instead, they've been handing out brats to protesters outside.

Also, at 11:45 am CST the Democratic senators left the state, effectively shutting down the state senate by preventing quorum. In response, Governor Scott Walker sent state troopers after them. Which, of course, has made all protesters here that much more riled up. It's insane.

[WillDaSnail]

Also, at 11:45 am CST the Democratic senators left the state, effectively shutting down the state senate by preventing quorum. In response, Governor Scott Walker sent state troopers after them. Which, of course, has made all protesters here that much more riled up. It's insane.

I just read that on CNN. Boy, what a dumbf'uck of a governor Wisconsin has. >_> (excuse my swearing)

At least Jerry Brown, governor of California, is dealing with our budget issues by taking a step-by-step approach, not a rash, one-shot solution.

[Anonymous Moose]

I just read that on CNN. Boy, what a dumbf'uck of a governor Wisconsin has. >_> (excuse my swearing)



No one minds. That governer deserves it.

And if that footage is old, I'll attempt to find more recent footage. I just recently began looking into this issue.

Edit: I just hope we dont get another Kent State shooting.

[FrozNlite]

A Kent State repeat is my fear as well. However, thankfully, no federal forces have shown up, and all state police are on our side. I just read from friends still at the capitol that the state police refused to hunt down and extradite the senators, with local police, again, being awesome like I described above.

And no worries about the recent footage. There's so much to sort through you can just type appropriate keyword in YouTube and a lot will pop up. This is a good video to start with for some footage:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2011/02/17/nr.wisconsin.dems.skip.vote.cnn.html

[RedRaven16]

sigh why does walker have to be stupid?

I'm currently hating where i live

[WillDaSnail]

A Kent State repeat is my fear as well.

If the governor even dares to do that...he's screwed. For good.

[Alley]

Why don't they just raise taxes and raise the amount of taxes wealthy people pay?

[Cyadd]

I wish I could be there, just for the sense of being apart of something. I really hope you guys pull through and get a good governor. Our's doesn't seem too bright yet.

[Kurtle]

Why don't they just raise taxes and raise the amount of taxes wealthy people pay?

Have you ever taken basic economics? Surely you must know that taxing is not the answer to all government money questions. And over-taxing the wealthy can have extremely detrimental effects on the economy, plus it's lolWisconsin, what wealthy?

Take a look at the Laffer Curve-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
http://www.timswineblog.com/images/laffer%20curve.gif

[Riyuran]

I attend a Wisconsin public high school, so this has been the topic of discussion all week. All my teachers are pretty angry about it, and quite a few of them have attended protests. I live near Milwaukee, so as intense as it is here, I'm guessing it's exponentially crazier closer to Madison...

The fact that the bill does not apply to police, firefighters, and state troopers bothers me. Is Scott Walker saying those professions are more important than teachers and other labor workers? There really can be no definite proof of one's worth over another, so I think it's extremely arbitrary and unfair. This bill is blatant stripping of rights, so if passed it will definitely be challenged in the WI Supreme Court.

Scott Walker is an idiot. He didn't even graduate college. >_>

[kanevaldier]

The one thing in all this that really needs to be understood is that no matter what the unions will loose in this matter. The reason is that there is no money to continue with business as usual. Walker is doing the best thing he can in order to save jobs from being lost and to eliminate the need for furlos. Also, something else that is not being noted is that many of the people in the protests are being bussed in from out of state. What needs to be understood is that the people of the state voted him into office to do his job and fix the problems within the state. This is the first step in a long hard process. Wisconson, like many states is facing the reality of a major financial shortfall. One that can in fact bankrupt the state.

As for Obama and his remarks regarding the situation, he is the president of the united states but that does not give him the right to say what is and is not the way to handle this. He is also not a reliable source as his administration has created the largest debt this nation has ever seen and has not come up with a reasonable way to fix that himself as of yet. He should be focusing on his issues not the issues of other states at this time.

[WillDaSnail]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_wisconsin_budget_unions;_ylt=At8GK2H9ESTWZDurRX nYkRdH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNlcjl0anFzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMT EwMjE5L3VzX3dpc2NvbnNpbl9idWRnZXRfdW5pb25zBGNjb2Rl A21wX2VjXzhfMTAEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3 RvcmllcwRzbGsDd2lzY29uc2luZGVt

Standoff is getting more intense. I wish the Wisconsin Democratic lawmakers the best of luck. They didn't have to do this if it weren't for Governor Walker being a total as'shole. >_>

[FrozNlite]

I wish I could be there, just for the sense of being apart of something. I really hope you guys pull through and get a good governor. Our's doesn't seem too bright yet.

Hey, Pat Quinn's awesome compared to Walker.


The one thing in all this that really needs to be understood is that no matter what the unions will loose in this matter. The reason is that there is no money to continue with business as usual. Walker is doing the best thing he can in order to save jobs from being lost and to eliminate the need for furlos. Also, something else that is not being noted is that many of the people in the protests are being bussed in from out of state. What needs to be understood is that the people of the state voted him into office to do his job and fix the problems within the state. This is the first step in a long hard process. Wisconson, like many states is facing the reality of a major financial shortfall. One that can in fact bankrupt the state.

As for Obama and his remarks regarding the situation, he is the president of the united states but that does not give him the right to say what is and is not the way to handle this. He is also not a reliable source as his administration has created the largest debt this nation has ever seen and has not come up with a reasonable way to fix that himself as of yet. He should be focusing on his issues not the issues of other states at this time.

Dude. What the fuck. Simple logic to combat your statement:

Scott Walker has said if the bill is not passed, there could be as many as 5500 layoffs. My mother is a teacher, and can thus relate to all those affected by the bill, and already told me she would quit her job if a bill like this came to Illinois and fucked with her livelihood.

So simple math: 166,000 public employees affected by this bill quitting their jobs >>>>>>> 5500 layoffs.

To state this again: Wisconsin GETS statewide financial hardships. We understand that. Believe it or not, that's probably why a lot of Wisconsinites voted for Scott Walker: because when on the campaign he said the first thing he'd do when taking office would be creating jobs. The first thing he did when he got to office was refuse $810 million from the federal government for the sole purpose of creating a high speed rail system between Madison and Milwaukee, which would, ironically, create tons of jobs, not just on the creation of the system, but in increasing travel between the two cities, benefiting local businesses springing up in the urban centers. The best part is that the money was free, with the only clause to use it that it be used only for that project; if the state refused, it would go to another state to create high speed rail systems.

tl;dr: The first thing Scott Walker did upon taking office was refuse free money and job creation, and now, six weeks later, has gone about the "job creation" process by stripping the rights of those currently with jobs, which will result, again, if passed, in thousands of job losses with people quitting and leaving the state.

I'm don't know everything about politics and how to run a state effectively, but common sense and a normal degree of mental competency shows that Scott Walker is beyond incompetent - he's a flat out, illogical idiot running Wisconsin into the ground.

[kanevaldier]

Simple logic. So simple math: 166,000 public employees affected by this bill quitting their jobs >>>>>>> 5500 layoffs.


Bolded because they are the key words here. Your statement is exactly that, simple. You are assuming that 166,000 people will just up and quit. I hate to break it to you but the odds are not in your favor on that. I bet you have not even taken the time to acually read what is in the bill itself. I have and it seems pretty reasonable to me. Just for you, I have copied the details for you and put them right here:

Fiscal Year 2010-11 Budget Adjustment Bill Items

Employee Compensation:

Pension contributions: Currently, state, school district and municipal employees that are members of the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) generally pay little or nothing toward their pensions. The bill would require that employees of WRS employers, and the City and County of Milwaukee contribute 50 percent of the annual pension payment. The payment amount for WRS employees is estimated to be 5.8 percent of salary in 2011.

Health insurance contributions: Currently, state employees on average pay approximately 6 percent of annual health insurance premiums. This bill will require that state employees pay at least 12.6 percent of the average cost of annual premiums. In addition, the bill would require changes to the plan design necessary to reduce current premiums by 5 percent. Local employers participating in the Public Employers Group Health insurance would be prohibited from paying more than 88 percent of the lowest cost plan. The bill would also authorize the Department of Employee Trust Funds to use $28 million of excess balances in reserve accounts for health insurance and pharmacy benefits to reduce health insurance premium costs.

Health insurance cost containment strategies: The bill directs the Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Group Insurance Board to implement health risk assessments and similar programs aimed at participant wellness, collect certain data related to assessing health care provider quality and effectiveness, and verify the status of dependents participating in the state health insurance program. In addition, it modifies the membership of the Group Insurance Board to require that the representative of the Attorney General be an attorney to ensure the board has access to legal advice among its membership.

Pension changes for elected officials and appointees: The bill modifies the pension calculation for elected officials and appointees to be the same as general occupation employees and teachers. Current law requires these positions to pay more and receive a different multiplier for pension calculation than general classification employees. Under the state constitution, this change will be effective for elected officials at the beginning of their next term of office.

Modifications to Wisconsin Retirement System and state health insurance plans: The bill directs the Department of Administration, Office of State Employment Relations and Department of Employee Trust Funds to study and report on possible changes to the Wisconsin Retirement System, including defined contribution plans and longer vesting periods. The three agencies must also study and report on changes to the current state health insurance plans, including health insurance purchasing exchanges, larger purchasing pools, and high-deductible insurance options.

General fund impact – Authorize the Department of Administration Secretary to lapse or transfer from GPR and PR appropriations (excluding PR appropriations to the University of Wisconsin) to the general fund estimated savings of approximately $30 million from implementing these provisions for state employees in the current fiscal year (2010-11). Segregated funds would retain any savings from these measures.

State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations:

Collective bargaining – The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.

Career executive transfers – The bill would allow state employees in the career executive positions to be reassigned between agencies upon agreement of agency heads.

Limited term employees (LTE) – The bill would prohibit LTE's from being eligible for health insurance or participation in the Wisconsin Retirement System.

State employee absences and other work actions – If the Governor has declared a state of emergency, the bill authorizes appointing authorities to terminate any employees that are absent for three days without approval of the employer or any employees that participate in an organized action to stop or slow work.

Quality Health Care Authority – The bill repeals the authority of home health care workers under the Medicaid program to collectively bargain.

Child care labor relations – The bill repeals the authority of family child care workers to collectively bargain with the State.

University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority – The bill repeals collective bargaining for UWHC employees. State positions currently employed by the UWHC Board are eliminated and the incumbents are transferred to the UWHC Authority.

University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff - The bill repeals the authority of UW faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain.

Debt Restructuring – The bill authorizes the restructuring of principal payments in fiscal year 2010-11 on the state's general obligation bonds. These principal repayments will be paid in future years. Since the state is required to make debt service payments by March 15th, the bill must be enacted by February 25th to allow time to sell the refinancing bonds. This provision will reduce debt service costs by $165 million in fiscal year 2010-11. This savings will help address one‑time costs to comply with the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund state Supreme Court decision and make payments under the Minnesota‑Wisconsin tax reciprocity program.

Medicaid

Address FY11 Medicaid deficit – Medicaid costs are expected to exceed current GPR appropriations by $153 million. The bill would increase the Medicaid GPR appropriation to address this shortfall.

Authorize DHS to restructure program notwithstanding current law – Medicaid costs have increased dramatically due to the recession and expanded program eligibility. In order to reduce the growth in costs, the bill authorizes the Department of Health Services to make program changes notwithstanding limits in state law related to specific program provisions. The department is expected to develop new approaches on program benefits, eligibility determination and provider cost-effectiveness. The proposed changes will require passive approval of the Joint Committee on Finance before implementation.

Technical correction – Act 28 included language that required unused GPR expenditure authority in the Medicaid GPR appropriation at the end of the biennium to be carried over to the subsequent biennium. The bill repeals this provision in order to ensure unspent funds in Medicaid lapse to the general fund balance.

Aging and DisabilityResourceCenters (ADRC) – The bill transfers an estimated $3 million in savings in this appropriation to Medicaid. ADRC's are the intake and assessment element of the state's Family Care program.

Corrections – The bill provides $22 million GPR to address shortfalls in the Department of Corrections adult institutions appropriation. These shortfalls are due to health care costs, overtime, and reductions in salary and fringe benefit budgets under Act 28.

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Funding for Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – The bill allocates $37 million of excess TANF revenues to increase TANF funding for the EITC from $6.6 million to $43.6 million in fiscal year 2010-11. By increasing TANF funding, GPR funding for the EITC is reduced by a commensurate amount.

Income Augmentation Revenues – Allow the Department of Children and Families and Department of Health Services to utilize $6.5 million of already identified income augmentation revenues to meet fiscal year 2010-11 lapse requirements.

Act 28 Required Lapses by DOA Secretary – Under Act 28, the Department of Administration Secretary is required to lapse or transfer a total of $680 million in 2009-11 from appropriations made to executive branch agencies to the general fund. The bill would reduce this amount by $79 million to ensure the lapses can be met in the next five months as this was ineffectively addressed by the previous administration.

Lapse of Funding from Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) Appropriation – The JCF appropriation includes $4.5 million related to estimated fiscal year 2010-11 implementation costs of 2009 Wisconsin Act 100 (operating while intoxicated enforcement changes). This funding is not anticipated to be needed in fiscal year 2010-11 and the bill lapses these amounts to the general fund balance.

Sale of State Heating Plants – The bill authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants. The proceeds from any sale, net of remaining debt service, would be deposited in the budget stabilization fund.

Shift Key Cabinet Agency Positions to Unclassified Status – The bill creates unclassified positions for chief legal counsel, public information officer and legislative liaison activities in cabinet agencies. An equivalent number of classified positions are deleted to offset the new unclassified positions. These activities are critical to each cabinet agency's overall mission and should have direct accountability to the agency head.

[WillDaSnail]

Bolded because they are the key words here. Your statement is exactly that, simple. You are assuming that 166,000 people will just up and quit. I hate to break it to you but the odds are not in your favor on that. I bet you have not even taken the time to acually read what is in the bill itself. I have and it seems pretty reasonable to me. Just for you, I have copied the details for you and put them right here:

Fiscal Year 2010-11 Budget Adjustment Bill Items

Employee Compensation:

Pension contributions: Currently, state, school district and municipal employees that are members of the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) generally pay little or nothing toward their pensions. The bill would require that employees of WRS employers, and the City and County of Milwaukee contribute 50 percent of the annual pension payment. The payment amount for WRS employees is estimated to be 5.8 percent of salary in 2011.

Health insurance contributions: Currently, state employees on average pay approximately 6 percent of annual health insurance premiums. This bill will require that state employees pay at least 12.6 percent of the average cost of annual premiums. In addition, the bill would require changes to the plan design necessary to reduce current premiums by 5 percent. Local employers participating in the Public Employers Group Health insurance would be prohibited from paying more than 88 percent of the lowest cost plan. The bill would also authorize the Department of Employee Trust Funds to use $28 million of excess balances in reserve accounts for health insurance and pharmacy benefits to reduce health insurance premium costs.

Health insurance cost containment strategies: The bill directs the Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Group Insurance Board to implement health risk assessments and similar programs aimed at participant wellness, collect certain data related to assessing health care provider quality and effectiveness, and verify the status of dependents participating in the state health insurance program. In addition, it modifies the membership of the Group Insurance Board to require that the representative of the Attorney General be an attorney to ensure the board has access to legal advice among its membership.

Pension changes for elected officials and appointees: The bill modifies the pension calculation for elected officials and appointees to be the same as general occupation employees and teachers. Current law requires these positions to pay more and receive a different multiplier for pension calculation than general classification employees. Under the state constitution, this change will be effective for elected officials at the beginning of their next term of office.

Modifications to Wisconsin Retirement System and state health insurance plans: The bill directs the Department of Administration, Office of State Employment Relations and Department of Employee Trust Funds to study and report on possible changes to the Wisconsin Retirement System, including defined contribution plans and longer vesting periods. The three agencies must also study and report on changes to the current state health insurance plans, including health insurance purchasing exchanges, larger purchasing pools, and high-deductible insurance options.

General fund impact – Authorize the Department of Administration Secretary to lapse or transfer from GPR and PR appropriations (excluding PR appropriations to the University of Wisconsin) to the general fund estimated savings of approximately $30 million from implementing these provisions for state employees in the current fiscal year (2010-11). Segregated funds would retain any savings from these measures.

State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations:

Collective bargaining – The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.

Career executive transfers – The bill would allow state employees in the career executive positions to be reassigned between agencies upon agreement of agency heads.

Limited term employees (LTE) – The bill would prohibit LTE's from being eligible for health insurance or participation in the Wisconsin Retirement System.

State employee absences and other work actions – If the Governor has declared a state of emergency, the bill authorizes appointing authorities to terminate any employees that are absent for three days without approval of the employer or any employees that participate in an organized action to stop or slow work.

Quality Health Care Authority – The bill repeals the authority of home health care workers under the Medicaid program to collectively bargain.

Child care labor relations – The bill repeals the authority of family child care workers to collectively bargain with the State.

University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority – The bill repeals collective bargaining for UWHC employees. State positions currently employed by the UWHC Board are eliminated and the incumbents are transferred to the UWHC Authority.

University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff - The bill repeals the authority of UW faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain.

Debt Restructuring – The bill authorizes the restructuring of principal payments in fiscal year 2010-11 on the state's general obligation bonds. These principal repayments will be paid in future years. Since the state is required to make debt service payments by March 15th, the bill must be enacted by February 25th to allow time to sell the refinancing bonds. This provision will reduce debt service costs by $165 million in fiscal year 2010-11. This savings will help address one‑time costs to comply with the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund state Supreme Court decision and make payments under the Minnesota‑Wisconsin tax reciprocity program.

Medicaid

Address FY11 Medicaid deficit – Medicaid costs are expected to exceed current GPR appropriations by $153 million. The bill would increase the Medicaid GPR appropriation to address this shortfall.

Authorize DHS to restructure program notwithstanding current law – Medicaid costs have increased dramatically due to the recession and expanded program eligibility. In order to reduce the growth in costs, the bill authorizes the Department of Health Services to make program changes notwithstanding limits in state law related to specific program provisions. The department is expected to develop new approaches on program benefits, eligibility determination and provider cost-effectiveness. The proposed changes will require passive approval of the Joint Committee on Finance before implementation.

Technical correction – Act 28 included language that required unused GPR expenditure authority in the Medicaid GPR appropriation at the end of the biennium to be carried over to the subsequent biennium. The bill repeals this provision in order to ensure unspent funds in Medicaid lapse to the general fund balance.

Aging and DisabilityResourceCenters (ADRC) – The bill transfers an estimated $3 million in savings in this appropriation to Medicaid. ADRC's are the intake and assessment element of the state's Family Care program.

Corrections – The bill provides $22 million GPR to address shortfalls in the Department of Corrections adult institutions appropriation. These shortfalls are due to health care costs, overtime, and reductions in salary and fringe benefit budgets under Act 28.

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Funding for Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – The bill allocates $37 million of excess TANF revenues to increase TANF funding for the EITC from $6.6 million to $43.6 million in fiscal year 2010-11. By increasing TANF funding, GPR funding for the EITC is reduced by a commensurate amount.

Income Augmentation Revenues – Allow the Department of Children and Families and Department of Health Services to utilize $6.5 million of already identified income augmentation revenues to meet fiscal year 2010-11 lapse requirements.

Act 28 Required Lapses by DOA Secretary – Under Act 28, the Department of Administration Secretary is required to lapse or transfer a total of $680 million in 2009-11 from appropriations made to executive branch agencies to the general fund. The bill would reduce this amount by $79 million to ensure the lapses can be met in the next five months as this was ineffectively addressed by the previous administration.

Lapse of Funding from Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) Appropriation – The JCF appropriation includes $4.5 million related to estimated fiscal year 2010-11 implementation costs of 2009 Wisconsin Act 100 (operating while intoxicated enforcement changes). This funding is not anticipated to be needed in fiscal year 2010-11 and the bill lapses these amounts to the general fund balance.

Sale of State Heating Plants – The bill authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants. The proceeds from any sale, net of remaining debt service, would be deposited in the budget stabilization fund.

Shift Key Cabinet Agency Positions to Unclassified Status – The bill creates unclassified positions for chief legal counsel, public information officer and legislative liaison activities in cabinet agencies. An equivalent number of classified positions are deleted to offset the new unclassified positions. These activities are critical to each cabinet agency's overall mission and should have direct accountability to the agency head.

tl;dr. I don't see what your point is.

[Secun]

Less copy/pasting, more compacted points, please. Anything past 12 paragraphs is usually unread.

[FrozNlite]

@kanevalider: Sorry that I didn't bother reading the bill; I don't usually bother with something the moment I know it contains clauses limiting human rights. Perhaps the bill actually proposes some useful options. I don't know, and don't really care, so long as rights are not stripped in the process of passage. That's perhaps the biggest misconception of what protesters want. No one cares about the money anymore. Unions have already said they'll concede to the 5.6 percent pension and 12 percent health care premium contribution rates (which are ridiculous already considering the amount of statewide corporations that pay no taxes) so long as they can keep collective bargaining rights. Yet that's just not good enough for Scott Walker, who claims you can't fix the budget with one or the other. Bullshit.

And just to update everyone, this is how democracy dies:

Wisconsin Assembly passes union-weakening bill, move to Senate (CNN Breaking News) (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/25/wisconsin.budget.bill/index.html)

Quote from one of the two campus papers that sums up what happened:


Republicans resorted to a surprise vote at 1:09 a.m. Friday morning to pass the governor’s controversial budget repair bill as Democrats leapt out of their chairs shouting “Shame! Shame!” at the exiting representatives.

Republicans had attempted the quick vote at least two other times earlier in the night, but Democrats, under the vocal leadership of Rep. Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, protested and demanded the speaker renounce the votes. The move came after around 61 hours of debate had taken place, largely due to Democrats taking liberty with the length of their speeches. The final count of the vote was 51-17.

http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/02/24/assembly_approves_bu.php

Support the bill if you do, but don't support ramming it through a state legislature like this.

[kanevaldier]

Support the bill if you do, but don't support ramming it through a state legislature like this.

Here is the other misconception. The unions dont care about anything other than money. Did you know that the union boss for the teachers union in wisconson makes $450k a year? That is outragous. Unfortunately the collective bargening must go as well because it is things like that that make the problems they are facing at the moment with a $3.8 billion deficit by 2013. The concept behind collective bargening is to give better than market wages and benefits. That just isnt right to make the tax payers give them better pay and benefits than they get in the private sector. Many states facing the same types of budget woes are also moving in the same direction against the unions because they are paracitic. Unions when they first began were probably pretty useful. But in this day and age they are for more money and power hungry than those who caused the creation in the first place. As far as I am concerned, unions have no business in any government what so ever. It is ok to have them in the private sector.

As for democracy dying, that happened the minute the democrats decided to run away just to stop a vote. The people of the state have even spoken out against the demonstrators on this matter and guess what? Those who are against the bill are in the minority. So democracy dying is truely being caused by those who fled not by the rest of the government.

[FrozNlite]

lolwut. I'm sorry, but you're the one who is ridiculously misinformed.

First off, those who are against the bill are not in the minority, but the majority. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/146276/Scaling-Back-State-Programs-Least-Three-Fiscal-Evils.aspx) 61% of adults in the United States oppose the elimination of collective bargaining rights for state unions.

Second, and I can say this from personal experience, your attempts to paint public, union employees as overpaid and overbenefitted when compared to the private sector is laughably ludicrous. To explain, I'll use my parents as the perfect comparative example: my mother works in the public sector as a unionized middle school teacher, and my father works in the private sector as a firm/contract mechanical engineer. Both have bachelor's degrees from Cornell University, and both have masters' degrees - my father an MBA, and my mother two, one in Nutritional Biochemistry and the other in Education. My mother has worked as a teacher for 10 years this next academic year, and will be the science department head for her middle school, not to mention team leader and a number of other various leadership positions. My father has worked in his craft for over 20 years, at three different firms, and is currently enjoying a flexible yet challenging job.

My mother will continue to earn half of what my father makes next year, even as department head, and my father doesn't make $100k a year.

It's a personal insult to me when someone stands up and claims teachers and union workers are overpaid, and says private sector jobs is the place for high pay and good benefits. Union work may not require the most prestigious of degrees and rigorous of academic training, but it's damn well necessary for the upkeep of a community, and it's rather silly to sit here and piss on that, claiming the private sector should get everything, when these are the people who run your towns. Are you seriously going to affront the policeman and firemen that keep you safe, the snow plow drivers, garbage and sewer workers that keep this country clean, and the teachers that educate the future? What happens if you take away their rights and they fight back with strikes and protests, like they're doing in Madison?

Communities. Shut. Down.

I'm sorry kanevaldier, but you disgust me. The concept behind collective bargaining is to protect a group of public employees in a particular sector the same way a corporation protects all of its employees in the private. Unions are the only way public individuals receive some kind of power in negotiating benefits and wages with their state and local governments, a luxury taken for granted in the private sector. Without such a force, many individuals wouldn't work union jobs, and so it's essential to the upkeep of society that unions continue with full rights in the public sector.

Finally, you're absolutely ignoring other aspects of this past week in which democracy was killed. Did you know that a week ago the WI state assembly was supposed to take a vote on the bill at 5 pm one day, as decided upon by the Republican Speaker, and at 4:55, when all the Republicans were back in the assembly room and the Democrats were walking back, the Speaker started taking a vote? WITHOUT THEM? You sit here and make comments that paint the Democrats as the killers of democracy. I'm not going to lie - fleeing the state to prevent quorum is an unprecedented and unusual move. But when your Republican colleagues not only don't even listen to what you and 100,000 protesters have to say and even try and figure out some compromises, but don't even let you exercise your right to vote as a state representative, what else is there to do?

Get your facts straight.

[kanevaldier]

Ok, you say "get your facts strait". You might want to do the same thing. Like I already stated, unions, when first conceived, were a good thing and did good things. Now many years later they are not. They dont care about the workers. They pretend to care about them only as long as the bosses of the union are still getting "their cut". Meaning as long as they dont loose any money they care about the worker.

Again, I aslo pointed out the key points of the bill. You did not even read them because you dont care. Learning the facts vs. just listening to the propoganda is far more intelligent of a thing to do. You are worried about their right to collectively bargin. Most people I know, several of whom have worked in unions, would say that while it is nice to be able to do that the unions just do help you the way they should. Unions are very self serving. Even more to the point, unions in government, is just rediculous. Who pays the government? We do, the tax payers. I dont want pay union boss saleries, especially ones that make $450k a year and dont provide any sort of service to the community as a whole. While I am on the subject of pay, do you even know what the average pay is for a teacher in wisconson? I do, its about $100k a year. Thats a bit too much. I could see maybe $70 to 75k a year but not $100k. To top it off they at present dont even pay into their own pension plans and barely pay for any of their other benefits. So who picks up the tab? The rest of the tax payers do.

As for the protesters in madison. The amount of people protesting is not even accurate. Many of the protesters do not even live in wisconson because the unions have bussed them in from other states in order to beef up the numbers. Even recently the protest organizers have asked them to go back to work. Hmmmm, I wonder why they would do that, could it be because they have seen that public opinion is not in favor of them? Probably so.

Point is, that no matter what is said, at the end of the day their is only a certain amount of money available. The unions have raped and pillaged the tax pays for years and now because of that fact the state is now forced with the reality that without ending their abilities to do just that, they will face financial ruin. Wisconson was just the first state to step up to the plate and now many have followed suit. Why? Because they are all facing major defecits. The last thing anyone wants to see is a state go bankrupt. In wisconson, the govener is just trying to save jobs. The starting figuers, if the bill is not passed, will cost 5500 employees their jobs. Thats just the starting point.

I dont what state you and your parents live in froznite, but each state has a very different economy and pay scales also vary. The cost of living in wisconson is pretty low compared to most of the U.S. You speak about how "great" unions are yet neither of your parents are union workers and I dont know if you are or not but something tells me not. You tell me to get my facts strait, but you base your information on what? What the unions say? Sorry but it sounds to me that you need to get your facts strait.

[Rick]

I dont what state you and your parents live in froznite

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. As if it wasn't blazingly obvious.

[FrozNlite]

I can't help but laugh at this point. You asked where I get my facts from...perhaps the link I embedded at the beginning of my last post? You say my parents aren't union workers...after I explicitly say my mother is a 9 year unionized teacher?

You're not worth arguing with anymore, because what you've said is plain wrong. My sources are Rachel Maddow, the Huffington Post, CNN, The New York Times, and PhD economic and political science professors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. What are yours? FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck? And you say I need to stop listening to propaganda.

P.s. I'd encourage you to try and teach any K-12 academic class for a week, and then tell me teachers don't deserve a six figure salary. As a taxpayer, I'd rather increase wages for the public employees who keep our communities together and educate the future generations, not fund projects benefitting the socioeconomic top 1%.

[WillDaSnail]

I dont what state you and your parents live in froznite

http://media.animevice.com/uploads/0/6566/182832-quadruple_facepalm_super.jpg

Sorry, but what you just said deserved this. Continue arguing what you believe, but if you're going to make arguments that are moot, and is totally off what Dan is trying to get across (and believing what Republicans are spewing out), forget it. You're now to the point where your credibility drops to 0. Zip.

And tl;dr. Like always. Nothing will ever change from you.

[kanevaldier]

It always amazes me when I see people comment on things the government does when they clearly have no clue as to how the government works...will...froz...rick. People who are blind to the facts are nothing more than sheep. Froz, you stated that you didnt even read the bill and didnt care. You based you opinion on what you heard the media spew out instead of looking it up and reviewing the facts. Much is the same with most people. Those who do that are have no right to complain about some "injustice" because they have no clue what is going on other than what they heard.

Lets go back two election cycles ago. Obama was running for the presidency and everyone who voted for him or would have if they could were hooked on the promise of "change". After that election he not only won but had complete support from his party in both houses of congress. The democrats had complete control to do what they pleased. What happened? Not only did Obama and the rest of his party completely do a 180 on the things they had said durring the time they were campagning. But they also chose to continue and expand upon, the polices that were put in place during the Bush administration. All that did was to exasperate an already bad situation. Now we come to this past election cycle. Many of those who were on the Obama band wagon had reached the point were they had enough and wanted something done to fix the economy not make it worse. So, in comes the tea party and the republicans. Both worked together to bring about the real change that was needed. The thing is, that means making tough choices. Getting rid of unions is a tough choice. But in wisconson, if you read the bill that is, the problem is that the money is being reconfigured. One way that is being done is to have them put money from their pay into their penstion and health care. This is offset by making it so they dont have to pay union dues. Oh my, no we start to see why there is a problem and why the unions are up in arms. They are no longer getting paid for no reason. Paid by the tax payers I might add, to do nothing but "bargin for more stuff".

Before you make claims based on what you hear, you might want to do some actual research and see what is in the bill before ranting on about things you have no clue about.

P.S. @ froznite....that explains why you are so pro-union because your parents are in them. Makes sense to me now, I somehow missed that part in your post. As for teaching kids, the thought has crossed my mind and it stops each time not because of pay scales but because I would rather teach adults.

[WillDaSnail]

P.S. @ froznite....that explains why you are so pro-union because your parents are in them. Makes sense to me now, I somehow missed that part in your post. As for teaching kids, the thought has crossed my mind and it stops each time not because of pay scales but because I would rather teach adults.

I'm gonna have to step in and bite here.

When Dan's parents are in an union, it does NOT mean that he's pro-union by default. Dan has looked at both sides of the issue and develop his own opinions on it based on what he has read, seen, and from those who are experts in those issues (example: researching both sides of the issue from various news sites, and even going to ask the Political Science professors at his school, which he explicitly mentions in this thread). Your assumption that "Oh, your parents are in a union, therefore you must be a union supporter" is just outright logical fallacy. I could (and anyone could) pick you apart for that and further discredit you; you might want to be careful about how you word your arguments because you're now treading the fine line between logical arguments and logical fallacies.

[kanevaldier]

I'm gonna have to step in and bite here.

When Dan's parents are in an union, it does NOT mean that he's pro-union by default. Dan has looked at both sides of the issue and develop his own opinions on it based on what he has read, seen, and from those who are experts in those issues (example: researching both sides of the issue from various news sites, and even going to ask the Political Science professors at his school, which he explicitly mentions in this thread). Your assumption that "Oh, your parents are in a union, therefore you must be a union supporter" is just outright logical fallacy. I could (and anyone could) pick you apart for that and further discredit you; you might want to be careful about how you word your arguments because you're now treading the fine line between logical arguments and logical fallacies.

Lol. Researching by going with news sites and political science? Thats not researching the facts. How about looking at the history and then looking at the present day of unions. They have changed considerably over time and become quite money and power hungry. It really amuses me to see your comments though will. I do get a good laugh. I am certain that my original thought stands, in that you have not read the bill but instead rely on the information given by the media.

[WillDaSnail]

Lol. Researching by going with news sites and political science? Thats not researching the facts. How about looking at the history and then looking at the present day of unions. They have changed considerably over time and become quite money and power hungry. It really amuses me to see your comments though will. I do get a good laugh. I am certain that my original thought stands, in that you have not read the bill but instead rely on the information given by the media.

I did do my research and look at the facts. Bottom line: It is not fair for the unions. Cost-cutting does not have to involve unions. Period

@ Bolded: -facepalm-. Now I'm laughing at you for what you just said. You simply don't get it. Never cease to amaze how you keep going and going while what you've said has been picked apart many times now.

[Lugin]

@kanevaldier:
Since you don't seem to know what it is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy.


And I'll leave this here.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-21-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---revenge-of-the-curds.
First five minutes sums this up nicely.

[kanevaldier]

I did do my research and look at the facts. Bottom line: It is not fair for the unions. Cost-cutting does not have to involve unions. Period

@ Bolded: -facepalm-. Now I'm laughing at you for what you just said. You simply don't get it. Never cease to amaze how you keep going and going while what you've said has been picked apart many times now.

You have yet to actually pick anything apart. When you have an intelligent response I will gladly reveiw it. The fact is that you dont and the only thing you can do is to continue to make the same response. If you did any real research you would not have just said anything like you just did. You really continue to amaze me by how little you know.

[WillDaSnail]

@kanevaldier:
Since you don't seem to know what it is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy.


And I'll leave this here.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-21-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---revenge-of-the-curds.
First five minutes sums this up nicely.

@kanedalvier: Do me a favor and read the first link. You simply didnt care that you used a logical fallacy as your argument as long you could discredit someone; you simply steamrolled over what people have said. Even if I go ahead and pick apart the bill, I will still feel like speaking to a wall because of your throat-shoving attitude. That's what you're doing right now.

[kanevaldier]

@kanedalvier: Do me a favor and read the first link. You simply didnt care that you used a logical fallacy as your argument as long you could discredit someone; you simply steamrolled over what people have said. Even if I go ahead and pick apart the bill, I will still feel like speaking to a wall because of your throat-shoving attitude. That's what you're doing right now.

Read it and does not apply. You have yet to actually pick the bill apart as you still have not read it. You pick an chose things from the media and that about it. I say again, you continue to amuse me.

[WillDaSnail]

Read it and does not apply. You have yet to actually pick the bill apart as you still have not read it. You pick an chose things from the media and that about it. I say again, you continue to amuse me.

Then why should I spend time arguing my side, when you're going to simply ignore what I may going to post like its just a piece of junk? You do know your attitude is ticking a lot of people off in this thread, yet you don't give a damn about it.

[kanevaldier]

For those of you who still refuse to read the bill I will add this key note. As many of you have already stated concerns about loosing colective bargining rights, here is the bills take on that.

Collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation.

Also as another key note:

The changes sought by Walker would make state workers contribute more to health insurance and pensions, end government collection of union dues, let workers opt out of unions and require unions to hold recertification votes every year.

I saved you some time in reading and understanding what you are reading. You are welcome.

[Rick]

I love how I'm a sheep yet I haven't given an opinion on the situation.

[WillDaSnail]

Employee Compensations:

Pension contributions: Currently, state, school district and municipal employees that are members of the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) generally pay little or nothing toward their pensions. The bill would require that employees of WRS employers, and the City and County of Milwaukee contribute 50 percent of the annual pension payment. The payment amount for WRS employees is estimated to be 5.8 percent of salary in 2011.



I’m going to call bullshi’t over the bolded part. The wording is simply misleading

On a serious, more civil note, that provision will screw over the amount of take-home pay that. Do note that in contrast to what you said about teachers, to be honest with you, the pay range for the teachers is not considered good, it’s only OK.

Example: California is probably one of the better known states in terms of having one of the worst budget crises in the nation. And the pay that public school teachers get here is already on the borderline. When I brought the Wisconsin protests up to some of my teachers, all of them said they will consider quitting and going into the private sector if their pay gets slashed even more. They already had furlough days this year (restored after some federal funding was available), and that was enough for many of the teachers.


Health insurance contributions: Currently, state employees on average pay approximately 6 percent of annual health insurance premiums. This bill will require that state employees pay at least 12.6 percent of the average cost of annual premiums. In addition, the bill would require changes to the plan design necessary to reduce current premiums by 5 percent. Local employers participating in the Public Employers Group Health insurance would be prohibited from paying more than 88 percent of the lowest cost plan. The bill would also authorize the Department of Employee Trust Funds to use $28 million of excess balances in reserve accounts for health insurance and pharmacy benefits to reduce health insurance premium costs.

Health insurance cost containment strategies: The bill directs the Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Group Insurance Board to implement health risk assessments and similar programs aimed at participant wellness, collect certain data related to assessing health care provider quality and effectiveness, and verify the status of dependents participating in the state health insurance program. In addition, it modifies the membership of the Group Insurance Board to require that the representative of the Attorney General be an attorney to ensure the board has access to legal advice among its membership.

My comments: Again, this is forcing public state workers to pay more into health insurance, which reduces their take-home pay. If their take-home pay gets squeezed – especially in the now-recovering, yet uncertain, economy, many people will get ticked off. Who would want to work in a profession where they won't make too much of a living?

Pension changes for elected officials and appointees: The bill modifies the pension calculation for elected officials and appointees to be the same as general occupation employees and teachers. Current law requires these positions to pay more and receive a different multiplier for pension calculation than general classification employees. Under the state constitution, this change will be effective for elected officials at the beginning of their next term of office.

@ Bolded: I’ll believe it if I see that come to fruit. There’s a major discrepancy when it comes to lawmakers and lower-tier public state workers in terms of pensions.

I know that statement applies to the state that I live in. Just a side note.


State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations:

Collective bargaining – The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.

Career executive transfers – The bill would allow state employees in the career executive positions to be reassigned between agencies upon agreement of agency heads.

Limited term employees (LTE) – The bill would prohibit LTE's from being eligible for health insurance or participation in the Wisconsin Retirement System.

State employee absences and other work actions – If the Governor has declared a state of emergency, the bill authorizes appointing authorities to terminate any employees that are absent for three days without approval of the employer or any employees that participate in an organized action to stop or slow work.

Quality Health Care Authority – The bill repeals the authority of home health care workers under the Medicaid program to collectively bargain.

Child care labor relations – The bill repeals the authority of family child care workers to collectively bargain with the State

tl;dr - direct attack on unions, utterly. Completely eliminates their rights to negotiate their pay with the state of Wisconsin, simply put. If anything, this completely violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'll bet that if this budget gets challenged in court, there's a strong possibility appeal courts might pick this apart simply on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause

And this provision, if anything, goes above what is outlined in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. That act was already a blow to the unions. Those provisions are simply ten times worse over what Taft-Hartley already does.


University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority – The bill repeals collective bargaining for UWHC employees. State positions currently employed by the UWHC Board are eliminated and the incumbents are transferred to the UWHC Authority.

Same thing as I have mentioned before in my response to the "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations" provision

University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff - The bill repeals the authority of UW faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain.

Simply put, this is NOT fair to the intellectual-minded, hard-working faculty at UW-Madison. UW-Madison is one of the best – if not – well-regarded public universities in the nation, and if this provision takes effect, many of the faculty may consider quitting for the private sector; as a result, this could screw over the quality of education that UW-Madison offers to its students. Especially its top-notch, well-known academic programs they provide (such as their science and political science programs). This will not do the current UW-Madison students any good.

And a bit of off-topicness, but their top-notch academic programs is why I applied to that school in the first place. I do not want to see the quality of UW-Madison go to the dumps.



Medicaid

Address FY11 Medicaid deficit – Medicaid costs are expected to exceed current GPR appropriations by $153 million. The bill would increase the Medicaid GPR appropriation to address this shortfall.

Authorize DHS to restructure program notwithstanding current law – Medicaid costs have increased dramatically due to the recession and expanded program eligibility. In order to reduce the growth in costs, the bill authorizes the Department of Health Services to make program changes notwithstanding limits in state law related to specific program provisions. The department is expected to develop new approaches on program benefits, eligibility determination and provider cost-effectiveness. The proposed changes will require passive approval of the Joint Committee on Finance before implementation.

Technical correction – Act 28 included language that required unused GPR expenditure authority in the Medicaid GPR appropriation at the end of the biennium to be carried over to the subsequent biennium. The bill repeals this provision in order to ensure unspent funds in Medicaid lapse to the general fund balance.

This could tick off the senior voting bloc if reductions are implemented to try to make "efficient use" of Medicaid money. Who doesn’t like their well-deserved entitlements being taken away from them? Especially if it involves their well-being?



Sale of State Heating Plants – The bill authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants. The proceeds from any sale, net of remaining debt service, would be deposited in the budget stabilization fund.

Minor thing, but why would you go sell “unnecessary” state assets to raise state funds? Completely unnecessary. This similar situation happened in California when our previous governor tried to do that, but it created a lot of controversy; that “state-assets” selling program was reversed by current governor Jerry Brown

The crappy economy has already reduced what states take in in terms of tax revenue, and the obvious response to that is to find ways to trim "wasteful spending". What Governor Walker is doing is already considered extreme to many people. Cost-cutting in government services was already enough to many voters, and they've learned to accept it, albeit with disgruntlement. But where did unions come into this equation? If this bill passes, states will have more excuses to find ways to trim their operating costs. Targeting unions in order to save money is not the way to go.

Hell, even my own current state governor has not taken this type of a rash approach. He's taking a step-by-step approach, and is only targeting what's wasteful in the current state government. Not coming after unions.

[kanevaldier]

Ok Will, let me start by saying thank you for finally taking the time to respond in this manner.

I will state once more on the collective bargaining, Collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation. This is completely fair. No reason to battle over that.
I understand your issues in california. That said it is california not wisconson. As I stated in earlier posts, each state has a different economy and cost of living. I live in nevada, the state with the highest unemployment and home forclosure rate in the entire united states. So I feel your pain. That said, here is a calculation to show the difference in the cost of living from nevada to wisconson...madison wisconson to be exact. If I made 50k a year in nevada, I would only need to make 45k a year to keep my same life style in madison. That said, the average pay for a teacher in wisconson is about 100k. That is way more than is needed to live in that state. Wisconson has one of the lowest costs of living in the U.S. They can afford to take out some of the pay the currently get to put into the pension and health care. Everyone else has to to that there is no reason whay they cant too. Even more to the point there is no reason why the cost of their pension and health care should fall onto the tax payer either.

As for the minor note of selling assets. It is totally needed in order to get the defecit down to a more managable level. Wisconson is facing a 3.8 billion dollar defecit by 2013. Thats pretty big for a state of its population. I know about californias problems as well and I would question the reasons behind not selling assets in that state because I see no way out your states problems. California is and has been for a long time a state that is out of control. Though I think much of the problems there could be solved or at least lessened by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants. I know its a problem in nevada and can only immagine how bad it is there.

[WillDaSnail]

I will state once more on the collective bargaining, Collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation. This is completely fair. No reason to battle over that.

However, I want to point out that the elimination of collective bargaining could lead to many things that could really kill the salaries that state workers get. Unions were there to counter big corporations in the first place (note: I'm not saying states are "big corporations") and they are there to fight for rightful pay.


I understand your issues in california. That said it is california not Wisconsin. As I stated in earlier posts, each state has a different economy and cost of living. I live in nevada, the state with the highest unemployment and home foreclosure rate in the entire united states. So I feel your pain. That said, here is a calculation to show the difference in the cost of living from nevada to Wisconsin...Madison Wisconsin to be exact. If I made 50k a year in nevada, I would only need to make 45k a year to keep my same life style in madison. That said, the average pay for a teacher in wisconson is about 100k. That is way more than is needed to live in that state. Wisconsin has one of the lowest costs of living in the U.S. They can afford to take out some of the pay the currently get to put into the pension and health care. Everyone else has to to that there is no reason whay they cant too. Even more to the point there is no reason why the cost of their pension and health care should fall onto the tax payer either.

I just looked up the average pay of Wisconsin teachers, and while its somewhat better than other states on average (not $100K total though), eliminating collective bargaining will trim down what the teachers are currently making. That is not good for those that want to go into the teaching profession.

And just to throw another element in there: Teachers are already under attack by those who think they're giving students a shi'tty quality in education. I can bet you have heard of people "teacher-bashing" all day, every day. I read an article the other day about how the breaking point for teachers in Wisconsin was the fact that they were attacked once more - though in a different fashion - in terms of their right to collectively bargain. That was enough for many Wisconsin teachers.


As for the minor note of selling assets. It is totally needed in order to get the defecit down to a more managable level. Wisconson is facing a 3.8 billion dollar defecit by 2013. Thats pretty big for a state of its population. I know about californias problems as well and I would question the reasons behind not selling assets in that state because I see no way out your states problems. California is and has been for a long time a state that is out of control. Though I think much of the problems there could be solved or at least lessened by getting rid of all the illegal immigrants. I know its a problem in nevada and can only immagine how bad it is there.

Though I believe that selling of state assets are not the way to go. I'm sure that there's other ways to cut "wasteful spending".

Sorry for bringing up California again, but in my state, I had already lost faith in state legislatures doing their job balancing the budget due to their antics. Had they done their job and did this on a bipartisanship basis, I can guarantee you the state budget crisis wouldn't be as worse as it is right now. Right now, Jerry Brown is doing a good job by hitting this issue since Day 1, but is not taking any rash actions.

Though I have to add that only last-minute compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans got the past state budget passed. Still ridiculous (and budget gap was still huge), but at least something was done (albeit not in a satisfactory manner).

In the case of Wisconsin: The problem is Governor Walker (and his fellow Republican) lawmakers are not willing to negotiate with Democrats. They act like they have the right to do anything to cut the costs. Including taking this extraordinary, unusual action of targeting unions in order to trim costs. That's just a recipe for disaster. Its already has been seen on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin. That's what I don't like about those Wisconsin Republican lawmakers. Not compromising with the opposition can only take one so far before things blow up. Wisconsin Democratic lawmakers have no choice but to go AWOL, and I believe that they had no choice but to do so given what Governor Walker being a hard-head in terms of being inflexible with compromise. Horrible move on his part. Small wonder why a lot of people think he's an idiot.

And as history goes in the United States, compromise is what saved certain crises from breaking out within the nation (exception: Civil War).

Also...do note that unions wanted to give up a little of what they have - in terms of pay - as a way to compromise. But nope. Governor Walker squashed all of those proposals and said his proposal was the only way to go.

[kanevaldier]

I just looked up the average pay of Wisconsin teachers, and while its somewhat better than other states on average (not $100K total though), eliminating collective bargaining will trim down what the teachers are currently making. That is not good for those that want to go into the teaching profession.

The salary is about 100k when you also add in the current benefits package. Which is exactly the problem here.

[WillDaSnail]

The salary is about 100k when you also add in the current benefits package. Which is exactly the problem here.

Well, do note that in this craptastic economy, things can go wild if people's salaries are getting hit too hard.

But either way, I wouldn't say that the problem lies within their package. Their salary depends on what type of school they are working in (preschool, elementary, junior high, high school). Hell, I would consider that amount somewhat nice for teachers to get paid for their profession (but not excessive IMO); its a rarity nowadays given the animosity towards the teachers thanks to a few "rotten ones" that can't teach for beans.

But the bottom line is....Governor Walker's was foolish enough not to not sit down with Democrats and say "okay, lets work things out". He just wants to shove his proposal down through people's throats, "quick and easy", as he liked to call it, with the strong backing of his fellow Republican lawmakers. Now tell me, you think shunning compromise is a recipe for disaster? I think so. :\

I can bet you that teachers may be willing to sacrifice a bit of what they have so there wouldn't be so many problems compared to what's going on right now. I can bet you if Governor Walker sat down and worked with Democrats, he would've not have caused so much controversy to bestow on himself. Way2fu'ckyour public image Governor.

[FrozNlite]

First off, kanevalider, your hypocrisy is astounding. You claim the only "truth" in this matter with regards to factual debate lies in disseminating the bill itself. You've bashed news sources by quite literally saying, to an effect, than ANY news source from the media is false/illogical/incorrect. So, I ask you, how do you get your news? How do you know that anything reported upon in any part of the world is actually true, if the "media" is always false? This is one of your glaring logical fallacies.

Going along the same sentiment, how do you know unions are busing people from out of state if you don't believe any media source is truthful/factual? How can you claim teachers in Wisconsin make 100k a year if you don't believe any media source is truthful/factual? Essentially all you've said is that the only "truth" in this matter lies in the bill itself, yet the bill doesn't address half the "factual claims" you've attempted to make. And you wonder why we laugh at you? You're blatantly hypocritical, as I've outlined.

But if we are to address some of your factual claims, as based on what was stated in the bill, let's start by discussing how collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation. You act like that's more than enough. I can flat-out tell you it's not, as collective bargaining is necessary for maintaining reasonable class room sizes, curriculum decisions, TA flexibilities, and other important factors that affect the quality of education in Wisconsin. Let's not forget, also, this is just teachers. You claim that unions are "collectively bargaining to get paid for no reason." You believe union workers do nothing but sit on their asses draining money from taxpayers? These are the people who plow your streets when it snows. Who arrest the people who ruin communities. Who put out fires that threaten loved ones. And you claim they do NOTHING BUT BITCH FOR MONEY? Fuck you. Like seriously? I spoke earlier about the importance of the actual content of union jobs towards the upkeep of society, and you piss on that saying they're only in things for the money. I can't explain how upset I am right now by your utter ignorance at what runs a community.

[kanevaldier]

@froznite...First of all, if you want to talk about logical fallacies you might want to take a good hard look in the mirror. I have stated many times that if you want to argue/debate this issue then you should at least read the bill before doing so. You stated directly that you not only didnt read the bill but that you didnt care to read it. So if you dont want to read the bill then you have no place to piss and moan about something that you know little to nothing about. The fact is that the media simply does not report every detail. So if you want all of the detais then you need to go to the source to find out what the problem is. I dont rely on just media stories. Yes I read them but I also look up thing that they claim too. In many cases I find that they have only reported a little piece of the puzzle. That make the picture unclear. That what I am talking about when I say to do actual research. I dont just look up other media stories I also look up the key points in order to find out the truth. That is all I am after.

I am sorry but unions do not run the community. You can take a long look throughout the U.S. and see that. Not every community is unionized. I know quite a few people who have worked in unions, most of them say that the unions are not worth it. Many have left unions in favor of non-union jobs. This bill is not so anti-union as lead to believe. It does not get rid of collective bagaining entirely, rather it reduces its ability to force better than market wages/benefits. The actual amount of pay the worker looses is miniscule and is being redistributed into their pension and health care, something every single other person has to do. What it does do is offset that reduction in take home pay by elliminating the need for paying union dues. Under this bill, union dues are no longer required. Also it makes it so that the unions have to recertify each year. That makes it easier for those who dont like the unions to get out of it. This is the kicker, none of this takes affect until the end of the current contracts. So where is the problem? Well, quite simply, it is with the union bosses themselves. Because not instead of collecting fat checks they will have to earn what the rest of the union earns. I stated this in an earlier post as well, the union boss for the teachers union alone makes 450k a year. That is paid by the taxpayer. The one thing that you seem to not understand is that no matter what, the government is not going to get screwed. If they do, then we all do. Why? Because we pay the government. It is our money that makes the government able to function. When I see figures like that, it makes me sick. That is almost twice what the president makes per year. So dont tell me that they do that much work because I am certain that the president does a hell of a lot more for much less pay.

[Lugin]

What it does do is offset that reduction in take home pay by elliminating the need for paying union dues. Under this bill, union dues are no longer required.

So being in the union is free due to this? Wrong.
Dues still need to be paid. All the bill does is remove it from the list of automatic deductions. All union funding comes from the union members, NOT the taxpayers.

Also, you keep saying "salary." Do you mean net, or gross?


The one thing that you seem to not understand is that no matter what, the government is not going to get screwed.

Then why not end the tax breaks that are active rather than extend them?

[kanevaldier]

So being in the union is free due to this? Wrong.
Dues still need to be paid. All the bill does is remove it from the list of automatic deductions. All union funding comes from the union members, NOT the taxpayers.

You need to go read the bill again. Not only does it remove the automatic deductions but it also states that an employee has the right to refrain from paying dues while still remaining part of the collective bargaining agreement. This means that they do not have to pay dues if they do not want to. While you are correct in the statement saying that union funding comes from union members, you are not correct in saying it does not come from the tax payers because it is the tax payers who are paying the union members.

[Corn]

Another day, another argument going down the drain...

[FrozNlite]

Glad to see this thread die :f7:. kanevalider, I've addressed everything you've said, while you haven't given the same respect to me. I specifically asked you for your sources on union bosses and their salaries, and you simply reiterated your point without any support. You claim the media doesn't do enough research and doesn't provide the whole story, yet you're doing the exact same thing. There's no way to believe any of your comments as factual if you don't support any of your statements or even respond to questions posed directly to you.

So before I close this thread, I'll leave you with some fact to completely decimate one of your logical fallacies: the President of the United States earns a $400,000 a year salary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States), which, assuming you're actually correct with your statement that the WI teachers' union boss makes $450k a year, is clearly not half as much as the boss. Yet again, you are wrong.