Scott Walker Fires The Douchecannon at Public Workers

I'm sure you've heard about the bullshit in Wisconsin by now. it's International news. Sadly, the bill that was to be a "Budget bill" was split into two bills, one strictly for "union busting" and the other for the budget. Senate Republicans passed the Union busting bill in 5 minutes. Yes. Five.


And now there is hell to pay. The Democrats that left to stall the quorum to vote on the bill are coming back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031002020.html

Senate Republicans abruptly passed Gov. Scott Walker's spending plan on Wednesday night, after stripping the bill of fiscal measures that require a 20-member quorum for action. Analysts say the bill would cripple most of the state's public employee unions.

On Thursday, the slimmed down bill is expected to go to the GOP-run state Assembly, which has already passed another version of it.

And from twitter reports, Police are getting into riot gear as of 10 am CST today. Apparently they are expecting a riot?

The whole thing is rotten. Mostly Walker, for being a lying prick.

Csonicgo said:

And from twitter reports, Police are getting into riot gear as of 10 am CST today. Apparently they are expecting a riot?

If that happens, I hope that the Libyans declare a no-fly zone over the area and are prepared to back it up with military action if necessary.

This is insane. Wisconsin isn't very far from Michigan, who also just elected a Republican governor. I'm working to become a public school teacher in Michigan, and if Walker extremist views leak over here, who the hell knows what will happen. I'll probably be hired, work for high-school-graduate pay, and then get replaced by a less experienced and less qualified teacher because it saves the state money. That's how non-unionized workplaces tend to work, anyway.

To me this is like "political trolling" to see how far they can get. Maybe they are retarded, but I don't see how Republicans can actually think that can go through without consequences, either short term political ones, long term economic ones, or both.

Who cares about consequences, as long as they get to do what they want to do while they can? Chances are that whoever has to deal with the consequence will be some poor sucker rather than them, so, what should stop them?

The budget part of the bill (so, the part that hasn't been passed yet because they still need the quorum) contains beautiful little gems too; mostly of the "let's give away state properties to my backers the Koch brothers in exchange for a penny and a half" variety.

You know, the kind of things that the Ben Ali, Mubarak and others indulged in. But they're not alone in doing so. That corrupt despots like Walker haven't been thrown out of their office by revolted citizens show the complacency in which the old Western democracies have fallen.

myk said:

To me this is like "political trolling" to see how far they can get. Maybe they are retarded, but I don't see how Republicans can actually think that can go through without consequences, either short term political ones, long term economic ones, or both.

This is what bugs me. They have to know that there will be consequences for this, notably from the public. The fact that it went through so fast either means they really don't give a damn or they turned into 5-year olds at a candy store and didn't give second thought to getting what they wanted.

Wagi said:

This is insane. Wisconsin isn't very far from Michigan, who also just elected a Republican governor. I'm working to become a public school teacher in Michigan, and if Walker extremist views leak over here, who the hell knows what will happen. I'll probably be hired, work for high-school-graduate pay, and then get replaced by a less experienced and less qualified teacher because it saves the state money. That's how non-unionized workplaces tend to work, anyway.

Oh you're in for much more than Wisconsin. Not outlined in that link there is his Gov. Snyder's plan to give his office direct power over whether a state is fiscally sound or not (judged by his office). If it is not, his office will have the right to abolish the municipal government in that town and appoint new leaders unilaterally. Oh, and those "new leaders" can be a private firm.

What strikes me as extraordinary about this is that apparently the urgency stems from the need to balance the budget and set the state's finances on a firm footing.

You'd think therefore that this would be a time for pragmatism, and not an opportune moment at all to start a major battle on a point of ideology. If the unions really were acting outrageously, and were the basic cause of the problem, then it might well make sense to prioritize reducing their powers. But it appears they weren't.

Once the politicians start resorting to "nuclear" options, a good outcome is unlikely. The WI Democrats tried to block this measure by vanishing, and the WI Republicans forced through changes in union laws by underhand means. But they still need to get a budget approved, and the Democrats can raise hell with that process. Really it comes down to who has the more public support (outrageous abuses of political mechanisms can be accepted by the public if they are seen to be in the overwhelming public interest, but not otherwise).

I'm glad to be on the MN side of the border, but who knows where this will end?

Shit like this makes me wish I could live in a country where there isn't crazy stuff like this @_@

Mancubus II said:

Gov. Snyder's plan

my mind is blown.

Enjay said:

If that happens, I hope that the Libyans declare a no-fly zone over the area and are prepared to back it up with military action if necessary.

lol umad?

Kirby said:

This is what bugs me. They have to know that there will be consequences for this, notably from the public.

HA, right. What consequences? Labor union membership is less than 15% of the entire workforce of the united states. The vast majority of people not part of a union are led to believe unions don't do anything worthwhile and in fact are detrimental and almost certainly support shit like this.

Grazza said:

I'm glad to be on the MN side of the border, but who knows where this will end?

You know, on one hand I'm not terribly fond of teabaggers like cravaack or bachmann, But at least in bachmanns case she stays the fuck out of minnesota and doesn't involve herself in state politics. She can sit in ny and iowa for all I care. And she does and that's fantastic.

I'll be in Madison this Saturday supporting workers.

Grazza said:

I'm glad to be on the MN side of the border, but who knows where this will end?

Wait, what? You live in MN?

Kirby said:

This is what bugs me. They have to know that there will be consequences for this, notably from the public.

Not from Republican voters, there won't. It's all in the name of Freedom, after all. None of their voters would be caught dead speaking about union rights, or even -gasp- anything having to do with state salaried jobs or even worse, permanent jobs. Not a chance in hell.

goddammit could the world please stop being retarded for one second

EDIT: Wait a second, what's the point of unions if the government can rob them of all their power whenever it feels like it? They started out as independent organizations, workers banded together, fighting against unfair working conditions and the lazy, apathetic governments that let these conditions slide. Now unions are the government's bitch? Even though this is a public workers' union we're talking about, they should still have the ability to band together and go on strike when their boss is being a dick.

It just got signed into law. Commence the shitstorm.

Creaphis said:

Wait a second, what's the point of unions if the government can rob them of all their power whenever it feels like it?

Absolutely no point, which is the point of such reforms. It's just a tiny little bit more subtle than declaring unions illegal and sending their members to the gulag.

This is really insane. So my home state is going to become an oligarchy run by Amway. (For those who don't know, Amway is one of those corrupt corporations that has those really uplifting commercials. Ever seen Dan Halen from Squidbillies? That's Amway)

John Smith said:

lol umad?

Heh, nah, I just saw it as an opportune moment to comment on how we in the West seem to think that we need to go stomping around whenever some non-Western country is in difficulty.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister here in the UK, has already been making sabre-rattling noises (perhaps he just needs oiling) and trying to tell Libya what to do. I was just musing what it would be like if the boot were on the other foot. If we were having civil unrest of some sort, how would we feel if other countries started commenting, telling us how to run our business, imposing sanctions and threatening military action?* I'm sure that the response would be the politically acceptable version of "fuck off". Yet we apparently feel obligated to do it to other countries.


*However, it did amuse me when Cuba offered to help arbitrate during the fuss over the 2000 US presidential election.

If we had a civil war in the UK, then yes, having foreign powers assist in ending it might very well be welcome.

Do you believe NATO should have idly sat by while the Balkans melted down completely in the 1990s?

If in Wisconsin this somehow turns into an armed struggle, then there would indeed be federal intervention. Hmm, that would make a day's skiing at Afton Alps that little bit more entertaining. :p

Creaphis said:

They started out as independent organizations, workers banded together, fighting against unfair working conditions and the lazy, apathetic governments that let these conditions slide. Now unions are the government's bitch? Even though this is a public workers' union we're talking about, they should still have the ability to band together and go on strike when their boss is being a dick.

And there's not a great deal to stop them, no matter what anti-union legislation is enacted. The organization of such action will just need to go underground (easier nowadays with social media). That's not a step that will lead to better industrial relations or a more conciliatory approach. Essentially, all this will end up doing is radicalizing unions and workers who were perfectly reasonable and moderate to begin with.

Grazza said:

Do you believe NATO should have idly sat by while the Balkans melted down completely in the 1990s?

I'd take a consistent neutralism over a selective interventionism any day -for that matter, NATO should be solved by now, there's no Iron Courtain to call "enemy", and its interventions are hardly neutral or benevolent/humanitarian: they simply follow US foreign policy, which is NOT everybody's best interest.

It's an institution that should really die out, if anything, to expose the U.S.'s unilateralism, and save some money from national military budgets. If they want to "shake and bake" to their whim, they should do it on their own taxpayers' money alone, and knowing that they will find no willing allies to legitimize them.

First I will say workers deserve rights. However, I will say that state workers unions often abuse their power. Who cares if you bankrupt the state as long as your raise and insane pension benefits?

Because the bill passed 1,500 workers didn't get laid off. I believe in my company I would rather not get a raise than half a good chunk of the people I work with get laid off, and I would hope others would do the same. But apparently not.

But if states would operate like the real world (companies can't really run a deficit...) none of this would be a problem. If I went to my boss and said "I demand a raise or I'm going on strike." I'm pretty sure he would reply, "Ok. Clean your desk out."

hobomaster22 said:

Because the bill passed 1,500 workers didn't get laid off. I believe in my company I would rather not get a raise than half a good chunk of the people I work with get laid off, and I would hope others would do the same. But apparently not.

Straw man.

That's not the situation in Wisconsin. How exactly does removing bargaining rights in the future save money now that enables you to keep 1500 people on the payroll? Unless it was just a threat for the sake of making a threat? This year's WI budget and unions' future collecting bargaining rights are two separate things.

hobomaster22 said:

If I went to my boss and said "I demand a raise or I'm going on strike." I'm pretty sure he would reply, "Ok. Clean your desk out."

Then you have no rights.

hobomaster22 said:

First I will say workers deserve rights. However, I will say that state workers unions often abuse their power. Who cares if you bankrupt the state as long as your raise and insane pension benefits?

Doesn't really happen. State workers don't have unreasonable pensions.. and most make concessions and pay into their retirements. Not really much different from private sector employees... no union is fucking stupid enough to argue themselves out of a job.

Because the bill passed 1,500 workers didn't get laid off. I believe in my company I would rather not get a raise than half a good chunk of the people I work with get laid off, and I would hope others would do the same. But apparently not.

Public employees agreed they needed to give something, so they offered huge concessions and agreed to pay much more into their pensions and health care. Like Grazza said, this was a bullying tactic... no more, no less.

But if states would operate like the real world (companies can't really run a deficit...) none of this would be a problem. If I went to my boss and said "I demand a raise or I'm going on strike." I'm pretty sure he would reply, "Ok. Clean your desk out."

A common mistake.. government's don't and shouldn't operate as a business. They are there to serve the public, not make money. It is also good fiscal policy to intentionally run deficits during a recession and be austere during times of growth. Good for government, bad for business.

Also, unions rarely just "Go on strike" because they want more money... they go on strike to protest some egregious work related problem... like working conditions, management taking in a shitton of money but not paying the employees more (NFL), or having bargaining rights taken away. remember, a union isn't a business, it's just all the employees voting together. the majority of employees would have to agree to strike. I'm guessing you've never been in a union, nor have any clue how they work.

I'm surprised worker unions are still legal in the USA, sincerely. If they still are, then they must be limited to the public sector -where it's more likely to have people with government connections to legitimize them. I thought they had died out/been outlawed entirely, especially in the private sector, since the Cold War and Red Scare eras -and even now they must feel like a poisonous thorn in the side of full-throttle economic liberalists and Republicans-.

Grazza said:

If we had a civil war in the UK, then yes, having foreign powers assist in ending it might very well be welcome.

Who would they assist? Who would be the "good guys" and who would be the "bad guys" and how would that be decided? Would assistance be balanced and in the best interest of the people of the UK or would it be shaped by the agenda of the foreign powers, perhaps that of a power that wanted regime change in the UK?

And when does it become a war? When does it become "necessary"? Many people considered the "troubles" in Northern Ireland to be a war though it never was officially. Should someone have stepped in and forced a solution to prevent the troubles lasting almost 40 years? Would forced military intervention by a foreign power have been acceptable? People were dying on the streets and the positions were entrenched for decades - surely that could be seen as a reason to step in by an over-zealous nation with an appropriate foreign policy and the means to back it up. And why do "we" step in and "help" with some wars and not others? Clearly, I think, it isn't always simply to make a situation better within a country for the people of that country. Even if it is, can we be sure that our definition of "better" is right or the one that the people of the country want?

All that being said, however, I do accept that it is complicated and intervention is appropriate in some cases. I'm just a little fed up of our politicians sticking their oar in and telling other countries how to behave - seemingly at every opportunity and for their own agenda.

Enjay said:

Who would they assist? Who would be the "good guys" and who would be the "bad guys" and how would that be decided? Would assistance be balanced and in the best interest of the people of the UK or would it be shaped by the agenda of the foreign powers, perhaps that of a power that wanted regime change in the UK?

In the case of Lybia, if Gheddaffi pledged e.g. to the US to sell them oil at half the price of Saudi Arabia forever, then the US would not only tolerate him, but they would provide him with neutron bombs* so that he could take out the insurgents cleanly & quickly, and call it "humanitarian" and "necessary" in order to restore order and democracy (which would be Gheddaffi).

*Or, if Iraq is any indication, some sort of chemical agent or simply a hefty supply of "shake and bake" white phosphorous-based weapons.

Enjay said:

All that being said, however, I do accept that it is complicated and intervention is appropriate in some cases. I'm just a little fed up of our politicians sticking their oar in and telling other countries how to behave - seemingly at every opportunity and for their own agenda.

There's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem anyway. If you don't choose a side, you're being complacent and cowardly, and your lack of support for the uprising is a testimony of your complicity with the old dictatorial regime. If you do intervene, you're being colonialist and patronizing, showing that you don't think these people can solve their own problems by themselves. There is no good answer.

Gez said:

There is no good answer.

Yes there is. As far as I'm concerned it's a sovereign state dealing with a purely internal affair, something which seems to be highly disregarded as of lately. Same as if e.g. there was a massive riot in Bronx or a Wako siege situation: purely internal problem, to be dealt with internal policing forces and, if those are inadequate, the military. Other similar examples: Serbia vs UCK, Turkey vs Kurds, Colombia vs FARC etc.

In about every state that I know, if you try crapping on the government with armed action, you'll get a pretty violent armed reaction (monopoly on violence and all that notwithstanding).

The bottom line: sometimes (most of the time, actually) it's none of your damn business, and you don't "have" to choose a side. Let's cut the crap with this damn false dichotomy.

Quick profits at the expense of workers is all this is about.

They know it's short term, it only has to hold out through the 2012 elections.


As it stands, the unions have a serious uphill battle. Killing the unions revenue stream really is their goal. Disenfranchising Democratic voters with ID laws (this hurts college students voting out of state, minorities, the elderly) breaking organizations like ACORN, posting teabagger militant retards at the polls, gerrymandering, controlling the media message and now....

financially weakening the only group that represents the middle-class in DC.

They can't win running openly on their agenda so they rig the fucking system.


So very "patriotic" of them, isn't it?

"Americans For Continued Disparity" would be a more honest name for the Kochs and their asshole allies. Treasonous barons raping resources, stealing money, intentionally destroying economies, corrupting government, outsourcing jobs, changing laws, abolishing long fought for regulations and worker benefits. Don't think it isn't happening.

And those teabagging retards bought into all of it and are sending the country over a cliff over nonsense like a black sekrit mooooslim kenyan president, while being hypnotized and validated in their hatred daily by a litany of douchebag radio personalities who feed them old, debunked lies and talking points to support the causes of the Kochsuckers and billionaires and so they can cling to their piece of the pie.


Traitorous bastards,the lot of them.