From the Streets of Madison: A Crash-Course on Collective Action

"We can follow the example set by the people of WI and collectively demand that our politicians serve the interests of the people, or we can remain passive and apathetic to the systems of power that surround us, and watch as the American middle class is slowly crushed by the same people it votes for."

So you support the Tea Party then.

Here's a little research done, and some facts presented by the Wall Street Journal. Scroll down about half a page to see the chart. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-a UNION) was the TOP spender in the 2009-2010 mid-term elections-donating $87.5 MILLION dollars to Democratic campaigns. SEIU and the National Education Association (two unions) together spent almost as much-$84 MILLION together.

In the 1997/98 campaign cycle, the AFSCME spent $19 million dollars getting Democrats elected. Just 10 years later, that same Union spent $78.8 million. That is a 400% increase! And two years later-in 2009/2010-it increased another $10 million.

But hey! Can you imagine what Unions would spend if they actually DID "buy" politicians???

http://online.wsj.com/article/...

Excellent point with regard to the federal government. Not having researched that further myself, I'll leave that point for now except to note that just because the feds do something a certain way, it doesn't follow that the states should automatically follow.

Well, a filibuster is part of legislative procedure. So is a quorum bust, I'd say. After all, why do you suppose the WI constitution requires a different quorum for a budget bill compared to everything else? "No strike, no lockout" means that the current contract stays in force pending completion of a new one; not a unilateral set of rule changes, much less destruction of the union. It's debatable whether the sick-out constitutes a strike. But much to their credit, the schools are starting to crack down on bogus sick-calls.

As to the Nazi signs, well, two wrongs don't make a right. If people want to report fairly, then they should report a feel for the (approximate) percentage of Nazi signs present in both movements.

For your last point, I cannot stress this enough. The union has agreed to the requested financial concessions. It's unwilling to roll over and commit suicide over its existence. So the real issue is whether unions should have a place with public employees, or not. The "my way or the highway" style of governance I find repugnant and unworkable.

I would like to shed some light on the reality that employees in the public sector can find themselves. I would like to share personal experiences that show that the following statement from Mocholite is only partially true. "True in the private sector -there is a natural adverse relationship between employee and employer, and where what is being negotiated is the distribution of profits. Not true in the public sector - taxpayers are the employers, but they have no seat at the bargaining table." It is true that the taxpayers ultimately pay the salaries for state employees, but they are not responsible for the daily decisions made that involve employee's. As a retired teacher, I worked in a public school district where. teachers and parents complained about mold issues at the high school that they believed were caused by mold issues. There had been some water damage over a period of time as a result of leaky pipes. In all fairness there had been some effort to re mediate the issue by replacing carpeting. However, teachers and some students continued to complain of chronic bronchitis and respiratory problems. A teacher and 8 students were even rushed to the hospital one day as a result of sudden dizziness. It was chalked off to group hysteria by the administration and further complaints were ignored. The union pursued the issue which eventually resulted in a governmental agency determining that the school was so dangerous that it had to be shut down immediately. Students were not allowed in the building and parents were only allowed in building a month later to retrieve students' items from lockers and only after they signed release that school district would not be responsible for them. The students had to be bussed the rest of the school year to another high school where they had to be on a double shift. In an attempt to save money short term the district shortchanged maintenance issues and in the long run had to pay out considerably more money. The union helped protect the lives of the employees and the students they served. Taxpayers elect school board members who do negotiate with unions.

I know that you believe in what you are doing, but please consider these facts:

First, you said: "...they are not willing to give up their rights to collectively bargain. These are union rights to negotiate with their employers for fair working conditions." True in the private sector -there is a natural adverse relationship between employee and employer, and where what is being negotiated is the distribution of profits. Not true in the public sector - taxpayers are the employers, but they have no seat at the bargaining table. Rather, the mis-named "negotiations" are conducted between unions and politicians purchased with union dollars. There is no adverse relationship - both the unions and the pols are benefitted by giving more and more to the unions so they will give more and more money to the pols. And what they are distributing is the tax dollars of nonunion taxpayers. So, in Wisconsin, public-service employees were paying much, much less (in some cases, nothing) for their pensions and health care, while nonunion taxpayers were paying 25-30% of their wages for those things.

Second, you said: "While protesters wave signs and shout, "Kill the bill!," no one is violent." Perhaps not in your circle, but expand your vision. Look at the signs likening Gov. Walker to Hosni Mubarek and Hitler, the signs with targets painted over his face, the people who have been hit and thrown to the ground (you'll need to check media other than MSNBC and CNN to see that). Extending the word "violence" a bit, how about the violence against honest dealing and quality teaching that was shown by teachers lying about being sick and doctors/nurses handing out fraudulent sick notes?

Finally, you said: "Governor Walker's unwillingness to compromise is disheartening". Compromise with whom? The 14 Senate Democrats chose to leave their post of duty and run away rather than stand and argue their case.

The 14 Senate Democrats were doing their job. They knew that even if they did show up, nothing they could say or do would make a difference with this bill. That's just a fact. And so they did their JOB by standing up for the thousands and thousands of people they represent by doing something that actually would be heard and make a difference.

If politicians are bought by unions, tell us, how did Scott Walker get elected?

Your "facts" are bogus. American politics is bought and run by corporate money, especially since Citizens United. Unions are very active politically, but their influence is dwarfed by the corporate giants. Anyone willing to do even a minimal amount of actual research would see this. I'm guessing you prefer to watch FOX.

What the people on the ground in Madison are doing should be lauded, as mass political action is pretty much the only thing capable of standing in the way of the corporate oligarchs' complete control of the state. They've largely bought our politicians, and the SCOTUS is controlled by partisan hacks who consistently rule in favor of the interests of the corporate elites rather than those of the middle class.

The right to collectively bargain is fiscally irrelevant in itself, and the WI unions have already agreed to the concessions requested by Walker. This is not about money, or the budget. Private unions have already been decimated, so now the public unions are the only institutions of significant power standing up for the economic interests of working people. Our oligarchs detest unions because treating their workers fairly is inconvenient to them; they would prefer total power of those who earn them their money.

We can follow the example set by the people of WI and collectively demand that our politicians serve the interests of the people, or we can remain passive and apathetic to the systems of power that surround us, and watch as the American middle class is slowly crushed by the same people it votes for. Our children will surely be grateful when they inherit a country run by the rich and the violently ignorant.

A great man once said regarding his opponents' objections to his legislative agenda, "we won." I guess that only makes a difference when Democrats are in charge.

I would like to shed some light on the reality that employees in the public sector can find themselves. I would like to share personal experiences that show that the following statement from Mocholite is only partially true. "True in the private sector -there is a natural adverse relationship between employee and employer, and where what is being negotiated is the distribution of profits. Not true in the public sector - taxpayers are the employers, but they have no seat at the bargaining table." It is true that the taxpayers ultimately pay the salaries for state employees, but they are not responsible for the daily decisions made that involve employee's. As a retired teacher, I worked in a public school district where. teachers and parents complained about mold issues at the high school that they believed were caused by mold issues. There had been some water damage over a period of time as a result of leaky pipes. In all fairness there had been some effort to re mediate the issue by replacing carpeting. However, teachers and some students continued to complain of chronic bronchitis and respiratory problems. A teacher and 8 students were even rushed to the hospital one day as a result of sudden dizziness. It was chalked off to group hysteria by the administration and further complaints were ignored. The union pursued the issue which eventually resulted in a governmental agency determining that the school was so dangerous that it had to be shut down immediately. Students were not allowed in the building and parents were only allowed in building a month later to retrieve students' items from lockers and only after they signed release that school district would not be responsible for them. The students had to be bussed the rest of the school year to another high school where they had to be on a double shift. In an attempt to save money short term the district shortchanged maintenance issues and in the long run had to pay out considerably more money. The union helped protect the lives of the employees and the students they served. Taxpayers elect school board members who do negotiate with unions.

mochalite-

As a tax paying citizen whose children are being educated in the public school system-THANK YOU. I'm standing on a chair clapping right now in your honor!

Excellent point with regard to the federal government. Not having researched that further myself, I'll leave that point for now except to note that just because the feds do something a certain way, it doesn't follow that the states should automatically follow.

Well, a filibuster is part of legislative procedure. So is a quorum bust, I'd say. After all, why do you suppose the WI constitution requires a different quorum for a budget bill compared to everything else? "No strike, no lockout" means that the current contract stays in force pending completion of a new one; not a unilateral set of rule changes, much less destruction of the union. It's debatable whether the sick-out constitutes a strike. But much to their credit, the schools are starting to crack down on bogus sick-calls.

As to the Nazi signs, well, two wrongs don't make a right. If people want to report fairly, then they should report a feel for the (approximate) percentage of Nazi signs present in both movements.

For your last point, I cannot stress this enough. The union has agreed to the requested financial concessions. It's unwilling to roll over and commit suicide over its existence. So the real issue is whether unions should have a place with public employees, or not. The "my way or the highway" style of governance I find repugnant and unworkable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

You have some interesting points, but you're also missing some points. I'll bring some of them up. (Edit: I had more than the original two points.)

First, the politicians representative of the state are elected by the people as a whole, and are certainly not in the pocket of the unions. If anything, they could be in the pockets of big business. It's fairer to suggest that they are supported by a web of special interests, none of which is completely dominant. Now given this fairer formulation, can one really argue that collective bargaining with the government is wrong? (I'll also concede that since the state cannot go bankrupt the way a company can, that no strike/no lockout laws are a reasonable check.)

Second, I feel the quorum break is little different than the US Senate tradition of filibustering something to which one is vehemently opposed.

Third, in terms of violent incidents, we must ask whether they were widespread, isolated, or something in between. Anytime there is a crowd of tens of thousands, there will be a small percentage of incidents. The doctors involved in the "doctor's notes" are now being investigated, as they should be.

As has been conceded, it's no secret that the government goal here is to *break and destroy* the unions, period. The unions have been willing to make the monetary concessions - they are unwilling to commit suicide.

If politicians are bought by unions, tell us, how did Scott Walker get elected?

Your "facts" are bogus. American politics is bought and run by corporate money, especially since Citizens United. Unions are very active politically, but their influence is dwarfed by the corporate giants. Anyone willing to do even a minimal amount of actual research would see this. I'm guessing you prefer to watch FOX.

What the people on the ground in Madison are doing should be lauded, as mass political action is pretty much the only thing capable of standing in the way of the corporate oligarchs' complete control of the state. They've largely bought our politicians, and the SCOTUS is controlled by partisan hacks who consistently rule in favor of the interests of the corporate elites rather than those of the middle class.

The right to collectively bargain is fiscally irrelevant in itself, and the WI unions have already agreed to the concessions requested by Walker. This is not about money, or the budget. Private unions have already been decimated, so now the public unions are the only institutions of significant power standing up for the economic interests of working people. Our oligarchs detest unions because treating their workers fairly is inconvenient to them; they would prefer total power of those who earn them their money.

We can follow the example set by the people of WI and collectively demand that our politicians serve the interests of the people, or we can remain passive and apathetic to the systems of power that surround us, and watch as the American middle class is slowly crushed by the same people it votes for. Our children will surely be grateful when they inherit a country run by the rich and the violently ignorant.