Actually, ironically, a lot of people have time to go to the rallies in Wisconsin because of state imposed furloughs. A lot of state employees in Wisconsin are being required to take unpaid days off as part of a move to close the budget. This is BEFORE anything else that is being asked of them. So a lot of the people there have been travelling to Madison to the protests on their furlough days.

I should also point out that it's not like the public employees unions got a bonanza in the last couple of years. Their benefits and wages have stayed more or less the same. It's not payroll that is causing the current budget crisis. Rather it's income. What happened in the last few years was the economic collapse which has put people out of work (no income tax) and destroyed property values (less property tax). This isn't helped when, as Governor Walker did, you pass an upper class tax cut.

If public employee pensions were the budget busters then you'd expect to see the budget problems follow a pattern where the most unionized states were doing the worst. That's not what we see. Instead the worst budget deficits tend to be in places which had big housing booms and have lots of obligations but few options in terms of raising taxes (like California which, due to the initiativee and referendum, has a lot of things it's mandated to do but also heavy restrictions on what taxes it can levy)

Turn out the lights, the party's over

By Stevil on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 12:33pm.

And across the street is rally for America. What part of $100 minus $110 equals a negative number do these people not understand? They must have missed the "There's no more blood in the stone and the stone is fighting back" memo.

50% of America doesn't have two nickels to rub together (and probably owes a lot of nickels), 40% has roughly two nickels and 9% are fighting just to keep the few extra nickels they have. You can tax the other 1% 100% of their assets and it won't get you too far.

I'll let others argue over whether collective bargaining or not - but the bottom line is - when you argue collectively or singly over nothing - you still get nothing.

It IS about the collective bargaining

By adamg on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 12:39pm.

It's not about the money - the Wisconsin unions agreed to give Walker all the cuts he wanted, but he won't talk to him. It's about the firing salvo in the final battle to destroy unions in the U.S.

Stevil you can just give them nothing then

By Pete Nice on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 12:55pm.

Nothing says city or town managers have to give unions anything. This issue is about unions having the chance to bargin for things that they have always bargined for.

In theory yes

By Stevil on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 1:42pm.

In practice no they don't have to give in (unless it ultimately goes to arbitration). However, such a large percentage of the population works in the public sector or is related to someone who works in the public sector that it's very difficult to win an election without their support (think about it - in Boston alone about 3% of the population works for the city - add in state and federal workers and you are probably in the 5% of population range - add in spouses, parents, adult kids etc. and if you get their vote you can easily rack up 10-20% of the vote - pretty easy to win elections when you can get the public unions behind you and almost impossible to win if they don't support you.

Bargaining assumes a level playing field, but when a politician's job is reliant on giving the public unions what they are asking for, what incentive does the politician have to say no especially if s/he can do it without raising taxes? (makes you realize how powerful the non-public vote must be in places like Wisconsin and now NJ that they are willing to take on the unions).

Many unions have sown the seeds of their own death - public and private - by effectively bankrupting their employers.

I'd rather a politician be

By Anon² on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:01pm.

I'd rather a politician be beholden to individual voters, than to the narrow interests of corporate dollars.

At least one is representing a wide constituency.

And the line about bankruptcy is absurd.

Taxes and share of revenue is at an all time 50 year low because of tax cuts and loophole giveaways. This is at the same time that real wages have been falling over 30 years, and the middle class is disappearing.

The real problem is wealth is becoming concentrated and untouchable for the majority of the population. The American dream is on life support.

But yeah, it's the big bad boogyman unions that are the problem, not the complete and utter failure of Reaganomics and trickle down theory.

The douchebag governor's first act was to give huge tax cuts to corporations, taking the state from black to red on the balance sheet. He borrowed on the taxpayers back, with no plan for revenue, to funnel money to private business and now is telling everybody else that they have to go without. He should be thrown in jail for what a crook he is.

So yeah, let's not talk about bankruptcy, as it's the GOP's moto.

And the line about bankruptcy is absurd

By Stevil on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 9:12pm.

talk to anyone that works on an assembly line in Detroit or flies a plane for Delta lately?

Taxes and share of revenue is at an all time 50 year low because of tax cuts and loophole giveaways.

By that do you mean for the 50% of americans that pay no income taxes or the 40% that pay almost no income taxes?

the middle class is disappearing

Would that be the cop making $200 large, the toll taker with the $100k comp package or the assembly line worker making $30 an hour plus bennies competing with the guy in China making $1 an hour? Good thing for the cops and toll takers we can't import cops and toll takers - only problem is the assembly line workers and their bosses are the ones paying to keep them employed and they're in big trouble through little fault of their own. While the cops and toll takers are ranting in front of the state house, the private sector guys are trying to figure out how to compete with a guy that's happy to have a job paying $1 an hour.

governor's first act was to give huge tax cuts to corporations

You mean the ones that Cambridge and Boston were trying to lure to Mass with tax cuts when they are not too busy shooting tax breaks across the river at each other?

funnel money to private business

Would that be those pesky businesses that have rich owners that pay taxes and provide jobs that everyone is dangling tax breaks in front of if they move to (fill in the blank with the name of just about any state).

If the government is saying - we don't have any more to give, and the unions are saying that's ok - we give in - what exactly do they need to bargain about anyway?

You're ill-informed. Even

By chicken on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 10:04pm.

You're ill-informed. Even people who don't have to pay income tax still generally owe payroll tax.

Police unions were explicitly exempted from this legislation in WI.

The main concern in this crisis is not only about bargaining now, but also bargaining in the future. Walker wants to end all collective bargaining, now and forever. Workers would like to retain their rights.

guess again

By Stevil on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 10:57pm.

a) I said income tax for a reason - keep in mind payroll tax is basically social security (which is really a form of an annuity) and medicare (which is really a payment plan for elderly health care). They may be called taxes, but they are effectively both forms of insurance. Speaking of bankruptcy - they are both effectively bankrupt and on government life support so poor people don't lose their benefits and vote out the politicians (even the bank bailout pales in comparison to the cost of this bailout). If either program operated under the auspices of any state insurance commission they'd have been put out of their misery many years ago. One more thing the gov't can't seem to figure out how to run (and this is pretty easy stuff - especially SS - medicare has a few more complications).

b) I had heard that about the police unions in WI - I was talking generally - not WI in particular - with some reference to MA level salaries.

Private workers can still have collective bargaining. But there is now a valid debate about the efficacy of public unions with the power to swing elections having a right to collective bargaining. (perfect case in point - Boston's budget has increased over the past 11 years at roughly double the rate of inflation and we've cut almost 1000 heads and they still can't afford all the "collective bargaining" agreements - something has to give - any other large union in this city gets another 17% salary bump and you'll see Wisconsin repeated on City Hall Plaza - there won't be a choice)

partly wrong

By chicken on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 11:27am.

Social Security is actually doing fine by itself, with a small long term problem that can easily be corrected in a number of ways.

The problem is that politicians dip into the social security trust fund, taking money away from the program, and then turn around two-faced and claim that SS is bankrupt.

Medicare, on the other hand, is rising in costs in a completely unsustainable manner. However, any attempt to address the problem gets vigorously opposed, as you say. The Democrats did take a step to limit the costs of Medicare: it's part of the Affordable Care Act. For their trouble, they were accused of "socialism", "death panels", and threatened by crazed screamers. This opposition was funded by Republican groups, ones with very wealthy backers, I might add. So your shot at "poor people" is really quite off the mark.

Finally, if public sector unions are so devastatingly effective, then why are Wisconsin public servants underpaid [PDF link] relative to private sector workers?

Separate accounting

By Stevil on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 1:31pm.

SS will soon be paying out more than goes in and over the long term as you point out without a couple of tweaks it will run out of money - dipping or no dipping. But again - easy fix (raise full retirement age to 69 over time).

Medicare is a hornet's nest - I disagree with the death panel group but also that I'm off the mark. The minute you touch medicare - both sides start screaming - but we can't afford to keep going the direction we're going. Separate long discussion.

I've seen the links about how "underpaid" they are - a) the net difference is only 5% after all the adjustments according to the article - but are you really comparing apples to apples simply on education level, experience and the other variables you can control for. My guess would be no -but completely anecdotal (one example: I go to a blood drive at the Hancock Center regularly - no lines and people are moving in and out with about 30-45 minute turnaround - private sector employees. Once I went to the transportation building where public sector workers generally go - walked in - 12 people sitting in chairs all of them reading a 500 page book - I turned and walked out - would have been there for hours - which workers do you think are more productive and care about getting their work done?). b) would be curious to see the calculations for medical and pension bennies - not sure about WI that alone in MA at least is worth $20-$25k per year. (keep in mind that a $50k pension needs to be supported by about $1 million in assets - how many middle class private sector employees can sock away $1 million in assets with their great compensation package?)

Bottom line - you need X workers to do the jobs that need doing and you have y dollars in income. Divide up the pie. If you reach a point where you are struggling to get and retain employees - you need to ratchet up the income - the voters are smart - they can make that choice and they did - excluding the unionistas, the Gov sounds like he has a lot of support. If the pendulum swings too far in the wrong direction - the voters will ask for change.

Yea I guess I just don't buy that arguement

By Pete Nice on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:45pm.

of "x% of people live/work here so y% of people are always going to vote for canidate z."

Isn't that how all politics works? If 20% of your voting population feels strongly about something, then more likely than not you are going to get a politician elected that will vote the way that 20% wants to. But you forget about the other 80% and how strongly they might feel about the issue as well.

It will be interesting here in MA with Patrick and the teachers because as I understand it, the teachers supported him but he would love to get rid of collective bargining as well (see the GIC and the many municipal unions that have joined it).

I stand with Pete Nice

By Anonymous on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 1:36am.

You can just give them nothing then. Nothing says city or town managers have to give unions anything. This issue is about unions having the chance to bargin for things that they have always bargined for.

New T-Shirt

By John-W on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 7:02am.

Adam, where's yer marketing machine? Roll out them "I stand with Pete Nice" v-necks! They'll sell like hot cakes. It'll be bigger than More Cowbell!

I stand with him too

By Stevil on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 8:53pm.

Give them nothing - they can bargain with themselves (you can see my analysis under the Joe Hill post - I mostly follow city finance and it looks like total compensation over the past 11 years has gone up at more than twice the rate of inflation since FY 2000 or about 65% - if we "bargain" like that again nobody will be living here in 2020).

The other part of the issue

By chicken on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 1:58pm.

The other part of the issue is that Walker frittered away a good large chunk of cash, in order to create this situation in the first place, on purpose.

So Walker is not really being honest here. This is a manufactured crisis that was created to achieve a certain political/culture war end.

Yup. His first two acts as

By J on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 3:28pm.

Yup. His first two acts as governor: Send 700 MILLION in fed bucks away, and lower taxes.

Suddenly, they have a deficit they need to handle. I wonder why?

It's a common mistake

By Sock_Puppet on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 4:02pm.

To confuse not believing lies told by parasitic scum with a failure to understand math.

The top 1% of the pyramid hold approximately 43% of the financial wealth in the country. That is more than six times as much as the bottom 80% as a group.

The destruction of the middle class embarked upon by Reagan has born fruit in this extreme polarization of wealth - worse than Egypt. The tax burden has been pushed steadily off of the people who have gotten more and more of the money thanks to one hand washing another in our corporate kleptocracy, and steadily onto the people whose real wages have been falling ever since the neo-feudal movement ass-birthed that filthy traitor.

You can't get blood from a stone is right! Common people have been squeezed by the financial parasites and robber barons until there's hardly any blood left. The first thing Hosni Walker did is distribute the people's money to corporations. Now the bastard wants to destroy collective bargaining by imperial fiat and smash working people down even flatter.

Tahrir Square is in Madison now. Don't stop until Hosni Walker flees the country for his tax haven.

Yeah pre-Reagan the country

By Haviland on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 4:40pm.

Yeah pre-Reagan the country was just idyllic. Obviously you didn't live through the 60s & 70s.

The bottom 50% don't even pay taxes anymore.

A reason for the “wealth or income gap”: Smart people keep on doing things that are smart and make them money while stupid people keep on doing things that are stupid and keep them from achieving.

People who get an education, stay off of drugs, apply themselves, and save and wisely invest their earnings do a lot better than people who drop out of school, become substance abusers, and buy fancy cars and houses that they can’t afford, only to lose them.

We don’t have an income gap. We have a stupid gap.

Not on UHub we don't!

By John-W on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 2:32pm.

...apparently.

"The bottom 50% don't even pay taxes anymore"

By Dan Farnkoff on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 7:11am.

This sounds like a canard, Haviland. No sales, Medicare, social security, property, or income taxes paid by "the bottom 50%" of earners? What's the median income of the bottom 50% of earners? Looking at the federal tax brackets, it seems 15% is the lowest rate- I don't see 0% anywhere. Surely not every low-income earner claims the Earned Income tax credit or something?

Maybe he meant this

By merlinmurph on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 8:37am.

Maybe he meant that nearly 50% of the US households pay no federal income tax, like this article states. Yes, I agree, that's not quite what Haviland said.

One quote:

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Rally against the rally

By adamg on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 12:56pm.

Same time, on the Common.

Via Red Mass. Group.

It's going to be hard for the

By Anon² on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:04pm.

It's going to be hard for the teabagers to argue 400 showed up when they can't use the shoppers and tourists in Faneuil Hall, like last time.

The Wisconsin unions don’t

By Haviland on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 1:38pm.

The Wisconsin unions don’t seem to understand that Governor Walker is just following what they have always asked for, wealth redistribution. They say that the wealthy should share with the poor. Well, right now, the private sector worker makes about half of what the public sector worker does. Seems like the wealthy public sector should share.

They have jobs that pay 40k more than the state average? They pay NOTHING to your retirement or healthcare when most other private sector employed are paying up to half into those funds? There's 9-10% unemployment in the state and these people aren't even accountable for job performance or attendance? They don't even work a full typical work year? They have a 'right' to collective bargaining, but taxpayers don't? What a bunch of spoiled cry babies.

Every single one of them should be sacked and replaced with someone that actually feels like working for a living.

What are you talking about?

By anon on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:06pm.

The private sector makes 1/2 what public sector does? Is that why all the teachers are driving around in luxury cars, living in McMansions and taking vacations to the Four Seasons in Maui?

What alternative universe must you live in to believe such tripe.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/wiscon...

Ahem

By Anon² on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:10pm.

IMAGE(http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac74/JacksonBrown/Economics/wisconsin_public_sector.jpg)

But yeah, keep making shit up.

The first thing I think of when you hear of qualified people looking for jobs is where in the public sector they're looking to land a job.

Almost all public sector jobs pay a much lower rate than those at private enterprises.

Fantasy Numbers

By BlackKat on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:36pm.

To have such a skewed idea of what public sector workers make compared to private sector workers. In Wisconsin they actually make around 8% less than their private counterparts, and even when you factor in their better health benefits and pension plans, it's still 4% less.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/art...

http://www.employmentpolicy.org/sites/eprn.cloud.o...

And you are ignoring that they agreed to the bills proposal to contribute to their healthcase and pension plans so long as the provision barring future collective bargaining was removed, Scott Walker rejected it. Showing that this is not about money at all to him. It's about squashing the American workers rights to collective bargaining. A right ALL employees should have but one infinitely easier to achieve when one is unionized.

All employees should have such rights so don't go crying about the taxpayers rights here. These public employees are working their asses off to serve those taxpayers teaching their children at all levels from kindergarten to college, protecting them from crime and fires, healing them in public hospitals, and keeping the state's business moving.

We should all be able to collectively bargain at work but it's a lot easier when you have a union. As in you are united together with your fellow employees so you are not standing alone at a disadvantage when negotiating.

Fortunately many people in Wisconsin are not that selfish. You will note that the firefighters union marched in support of the other public workers in full regalia with bagpipes and drums despite themselves being exempt from the proposal to bar collective bargaining rights.

They agree to contribute 5%

By Haviland on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 4:35pm.

They agree to contribute 5% and still retire at 55. That's pathetic when everyone else is contributing 50% to their 401ks and can't retire until 65+.

Why do you think states are broke?

It mus be nice to live in a

By J on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 3:31pm.

It mus be nice to live in a fantasy world where every misplaced notion is backed by made up numbers.

Facts? How inconvenient.

But hey, if daddy (or fox news) said it, then it MUST be true.

It must be nice to live a

By Haviland on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 4:41pm.

It must be nice to live a fantasy world where everything on the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground must be true!

Facts? How inconvenient!

My dad has been dead for 40 years and I don't have cable.

You said: "Well, right now,

By J on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 5:29pm.

You said:

"Well, right now, the private sector worker makes about half of what the public sector worker does. Seems like the wealthy public sector should share. They have jobs that pay 40k more than the state average"

A chart was provided showing the exact opposite.

Care to address it?

The chart's based on flawed

By Haviland on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 11:04pm.

The chart's based on flawed data. The average teacher in Wisconsin is making 100k including benefits. The average non state employee in WI is making 61k including benefits.

You Can't Draw Swords In a Sword Fight Without One of Your Own

By BlackKat on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 11:37pm.

So you are saying the Economic Policy Institute, a peer-reviewed industrial relations powerhouse of who's who in the world of management education has flawed data?

Back it up with your own?
Where are you getting your crazy numbers from?

And don't pull out some Heritage Foundation crap either. It needs to be from experts in the field of industrial relations, not politics.

Really?

By Anon² on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 12:04am.

The average teacher is making 100K?

Do you even know any teachers? How can you possibly claim that?

Derp alert.

Here's another chart for you to ponder, based on "false data" (layman term: ideologically incorrect data):

IMAGE(http://i55.tinypic.com/15efgif.jpg)

There a problem with "Capitalism", but it ain't with unions, buddy.

Who's living in a ideological wonderland?

By Anon² on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 6:36pm.

As rising health insurance costs have eaten up most of the 3.8% total compensation target, teacher salaries in Wisconsin have stagnated and even declined. As a result, Wisconsin teacher salaries fell 6.8% from 1997-98 to 2007-08, when adjusted for inflation. For 2007-08, Wisconsin's teacher salaries ranked 21th in the nation at $49,051, down from 20th the year before, and below the national average of $52,308.

But yeah, we're the one's making up facts.

You got some nerve Mr keyboard warrior. Maybe you should get out more and stop listening to Howies regurgitation.

I think the confusion over these Wisconson teacher stats

By Pete Nice on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 11:31pm.

is that the larger cities in Wisconson have much higher paid teachers than the rest of the state. I also heard today that the Wisconsin public workers pay 0% of their pension and 5% of their health insurance coverage. In Ma, most public employees pay 15-25% of their pension costs and 10%-25% of their health insurance costs.

Bloodsuckers

By RJ on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 1:58pm.

Screw the bloodsucking union thugs.

As apposed to the K street

By Anon² on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:55pm.

As apposed to the K street bloodsucking thugs?

But those are your bloodsucking thugs, so they're cool!

Corporatism is not Capitalism people! And unions are not socialism.

Who know who else wanted to form a union?

IMAGE(http://www.militaryartgallery.com/images_3_b/b_founding_fathers.jpg)

Yeah the founding father were

By Haviland on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 4:32pm.

Yeah the founding father were all about public sector labor unions. That's they they were illegal until the 20th century when crooked politicians figured out they could pay off a voting block with other peoples' money.

So was corporate personhood

By SwirlyGrrl on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 6:39pm.

The founders didn't like corporations, either.

That's why it used to be a

By Haviland on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 11:08pm.

That's why it used to be a big deal for politicians to run as trust busters. Monopolies and limited legal culpability, both major features of public sector unions and large corporations, are detrimental to the Republic. Whenever there is no responsibility or competition, in politics or economics, the public loses.

Then we agree,

By Anon² on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 12:06am.

You let us bust up all large companies, and well let you bust the unions.

Fair, right?

Rally for Wisconsin at the State House

Comments

Support Universal Hub

In other Beacon Hill news