As first reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Governor-elect Scott Walker has raised the possibility of decertifying state employee unions as a means of eliminating the state’s budget deficit continuing his all-out assault on thousands of middle class Wisconsinites.
However, while Scott Walker may think decertifying state employee unions is a cure-all to fix the state’s structural budget deficit (which it isn’t), the fact remains Walker cannot decertify Wisconsin’s state employee unions – only the unions themselves can do that – at least under current state law:
Wisconsin law permits public employees to obtain an election to decertify an exclusive bargaining representative. “If a petition is filed . . . for the discontinuance of existing representation indicating a showing of interest by 30% of the total number of employees . . . , the commission should hold an election . . . .”
Unless I’m mistaken, current state law could certainly be changed to make it easier for Scott Walker and his Republican allies in the legislature to decertify public employee unions, but I’m willing to bet that once the dust settled Wisconsin would still have a deep budget deficit. As I’ve written before, Wisconsin’s public employees aren’t the cause of Wisconsin’s structural budget deficit, nor can that deficit be fixed simply by cutting the wages and benefits of state employees.
It’s so easy to go after public employees, and it disgusts me when Walker does it. Keep slashing something and inevitably it will perform worse. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle.
Also, I heard Scotty went after the “high speed” in high speed rail yesterday. I don’t want to re-hash the last argument we had over that (but it was a good one from both sides) I just want to say I think Walker is intellectually bankrupt. I also think there’s still a decent chance he’s going to change stance on rail.
Jim, it’s class warfare – plain and simple. I’m not sure why Scott Walker and Republicans in the legislature hate the middle class, but clearly they do.
I don’t think it’s hatred towards the middle class as so much as love for themselves.
I think it’s hatred towards the middle class. Look at the policies they want to enact and it becomes clear they want to destroy the middle class.
I really wish that Scott Walker had spent a few years in private industry so he wouldn’t have a fetish about it.
Comment of the week!!
I agree again! LOL!
I think we see with all of walkers letter to doyle asking him to stop governing, that Walker thinks there is nothing he cant do now that he is in power.
I am surprised it took him so long to go after the “high speed” part if it, since that has been the focus of the right wing Wisconsin Hate radio talking heads.
What Walker is talking about, at least as one option, is repealing the state law that allows collective bargaining by public employees in Wisconsin. Presto! No more pesky unions.
Risky business, which is why he didn’t say it in the campaign, but there may be enough anti-union, anti-public worker sentiment out there to get away with it. That would be a tragedy.
Well, the unions would still exist; they’d just be powerless.
You guys on the left have not seen anything yet. With a cooperative legislature, he is well within his powwer to do this. Most unions (not all of them) have not adjusted for the times and are expecting things that are not possible to provide anymore.
As your guy John Edwards once said, there are two Americas. The union end, by and large, refuses to acknowledge that they are living well beyond the means of contemporary society.
Please tell me why custodial workers need to be in a union and drawing a salary of $60,000 per year with fringe benefits and a pension totaling another $25,000 per year.
Walker is simply telling it like it is.
I don’t get it. How much is $60000 after taxes? So…you have an issue with custodial workers bringing home $40000 a year to feed a family of four or more?? Also…how many years of service does it take for a custodial worker to earn $60000? Twenty?
BTW…how much did that Darlene earn to *blog* for Walker? Bloody hypocrites.
Anon, I think we’re going to get an answer to your question regarding Darlene Wink sometime in the next few weeks…
Cameron, cite me specific information on a custodial worker making $60,000 a year. I’ve worked for the state for 10 years and I don’t make $60,000 a year.
What’s more, I’d love to hear you explain how someone making less than $50,000 and supporting a family of four is living “well beyond the means of contemporary society.” By your logic, folks in the middle class are living “well beyond the means of contemporary society.”
Zach, it was my uncle who worked for the Elmbrook School District until 6 years ago. He is single and was paying for grad school while doing that, so needless to say, he came out well ahead while working that job. Granted, he was in a local school district and not working for the state, but come on…that much money for sweeping classrooms and replacing urinal cakes?
By the way, my wife and I lived the first three years of our marriage making a combined $30,000-$35,000 per year and we were still able to put money away, make our car payments, put food on the table, and still live happy lives. We did so by living within our means. So, yeah, I agree with Walker that there is a lot of unnecessary and overpaid labor within our state.
Also, Proud Progressive, I know that Edwards was not referring to union vs. non-union when he made his quip about the two Americas.
P.S. Darlene Wink made a comment on JSOnline defending her boss and then was relieved of her position. Funny how you guys care about that, but not about Tony Evers’s aide that campaigned on state time or when Jeff Fleming blatantly did campaign work for Mayor Barrett on city time. What was that about hypocrisy?
Answer the questions.
How much did that Darlene earn sitting at a desk blogging about her boss??
Who do you think works harder…custodians or people like that Darlene?
I call absolute BS on your 60k +20k in benefits story. No way.
I agree. I was checking out the “data on demand” on the JSonline website and I think the $60000 is total BS. Also…Darlene Wink whose date of hire was in 2002 was making a little over $40000 (plus benefits…I’m sure) to *blog* for her “boss”. Who thinks that was money well spent?? Personally…I would like a refund.
Cameron, your uncle is hardly indicative of the rest of the folks who work in the public sector, most especially state employees. As I wrote earlier, I’ve worked for the state for 10 years and I make less than $50,000 a year, so it’s not as if I’m rolling in dough, especially considering I’ve got a wife and two kids. What’s more, while I know there are probably some custodians who do work for the state (perhaps in the UW system), by and large our custodial staff is private contractors.
If we want to talk about cutting state government, let’s talk about cutting managerial and bureaucratic positions – the folks making high five figures and into six figures. Instead of demonizing rank and file workers who do the actual work, let’s look at eliminating folks who are pulling in a hefty salary to supervise others. There’s plenty of cost savings to be found there; trust me.
A custodian making $60K…I’m several pay grades above a custodian and only make $28K a year. A custodial program supervisor (which is the top of the custodian food chain) starts at around $16 per hour, which is under $35,000 a year.
How dare you attempt to inject a dose of reality into the conservative talking points!
Cam,
When Edwards spoke of two Americas, he did not mean the one that made 60k a year and the one that made 20k a year. He was referring to this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html which has not been this bad since the 1928.
Why shouldnt a person who does janitorial work(important work I might add) be paid a fair living US wage of 60k? especially since someone who is a janitor and makes 60k has probably been in the same job for many years and has earned their seniority.
Here’s a graph that sums up the two Americas:
Does he have the power (once in office) to do this to every union or just the union(s) of state employees?
Private sector unions are covered by the National Labor Relations Act, but Walker and Republicans in the legislature could make Wisconsin a Right to Work state, which would certainly have an impact on private sector unions.
Would Wisconsin becoming a Right to Work state necessarily be a bad thing? If I am a teacher in a school district, for instance, and I do not want my money to go to the union, why should it? Why should I have to join the union if I do not want that money channeled into a PAC that supports candidates I do not support?
This is the “other America” that I beleive currently exists today. It is a complete fantasy world in that the unions tend to believe that they should be able to require membership of workers. That is a restriction of freedom and I am looking forward to the day when Wisconsin’s teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc. have te freedom to make their own choice. This is what you guys want, right…freedom of choice and diversity in thought?
Would Wisconsin becoming a right to work state be a bad thing?
I suppose not, if you support lower wages for all workers:
You can file with your union to re-coup fees used for political purposes. Why shouldn’t you have a choice? Why should the union members pay for benefits that you would reap? Or would you work as an individual to negotiate your own pay, benefits, and protections?
Yes a “right to work” state would be a horrible thing. Wages have been attacked enough why should they continue to go down? Its a fact that having unions around, increases wages for ALL not just union shops.
As I have always said, Unions are pure democracy! A group of people getting together and speaking with one voice. If you do not like what the union is doing, run for union steward or president. It is that simple.
A union is not democracy. It could be, but it forces its members to contribute part of their salaries in dues toward the union. That is especially a problem in a profession like education. I am sure that while it is possible to run for a position like union steward or president, it is not that simple.
When was the last time WEAC or the NEA or the UAW backed anyone but a democrat? If I was a union member, I would not want my money that I earned in exchenge for my work being put toward a cause with which I disagree. That is not democracy.
P.S. Why did the unions also want the so-called “card check” legislation? That seemed like it could potentially intimidate members into voting the way that the union flunkies wanted them to. Is that democratic?
Cam,
does that mean the US is no longer a democracy? my tax dollars are going to the iraq war which i absolutely do not agree with. Even worse my tax dollars are going to pay Paul ryans salary and cadillac government funded health care. I 100% disagree with that. SHould we immediately stop paying paul ryan because i dont want him to get a nickel of my tax dollars?
As for “card check” its called the “EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT”, allowing EMPLOYEES the option of how they wanted to take a union vote. i know those damm union thugs that try and sway the vote, we are much better off letting the 100% neutral and completely objective management of the company supply both sides of the story and then letting the employees decide.
Interestingly enough, I was talking to a guy today complaining his union (pipefitter, I believe) was pricing themselves (via their hourly wages) out of business. He was making a hell of a lot of money, but his complaint was the new apprentices in the union start out at about 60% wages, with 5% increases every 6 months voting that they would strike if it came to that. Because they didn’t see as much money as the established guys. He thought they were being shortsighted. Something to think about. BTW, he makes about twice as much as our Zach W does working in public safety.
And the rich continue to get richer. Look at the graph. Why doesn’t anyone complain about this?
We on the left are complaining, but the right is just ignoring the truth. Somehow our friends on the right seem to believe that whatever is good for the bottom line of big business is good for their bottom line, despite evidence to the contrary.