And You thought Wisconsin was bad

[GostHacked]

Political governments are a creature of provincial legislation indeed. Municipal councils are still ELECTED, which means that ultimately they work for US the people.

Hows that workin out?

[Sir Bandelot]

Last time I checked, the United States didn't start with entitlement programs and guaranteed defined benefit plans either.

Or taxes?

[Michael Hardner]

The problem with your position is that it neglects to recognize the fact that the decisions are being made by the Governor of Wisconsin with the backing of his Republican majority. If your scenario is to make any sense there needs to be meaningful negotiations between the Republicans and Democrats. I would expect if such negotiations took place one of the conditions on the Democrat side would see the Republicans dropping its proposal to strip bargaining rights from public sector employees.

Ok. Why is that a problem ? It seems like a bargaining position to me.

FYI management and labour are many employers and a variety of unions. Apart from lobbying efforts they are excluded from the process I have described above.

If the political-management side doesn't include them in those negotiations in any capacity then it will just end up as a labour dispute and no real change will happen.

[blueblood]

Though it's not quite that simple, If your finances are in an legitimate "emergency" situation, you pretty much can abdicate your debt.

Michigan essentially is bankrupt. If they can't afford the union contracts, yes they should be able to walk away from them.

Correct, ask some sask farmers how their dealings with the former big sky corporation has gone. Either way if the finances are in trouble there is a hierarchy of who gets paid when the ship goes down.

[pinko]

Ok. Why is that a problem ? It seems like a bargaining position to me.

It should be evident but I will explain the reality to you. Before I do that though I am wondering if you are aware of the distinctions made between discussions(consultation) and negotiation.

Are you aware of the elements of good faith negotaitios?

Are you at all familiar with the concept of surface bargaining?

If the political-management side doesn't include them in those negotiations in any capacity then it will just end up as a labour dispute and no real change will happen.

I don't think so. As I mentioned previously there are a multitude of labour unions and employers in Wisconsin each with specific terms and conditions. If you read the emails accompanying the posted artile you should recognize this.

[pinko]

Ok. Why is that a problem ? It seems like a bargaining position to me.

It may be a bargaining position but if one is not prepared to move from such a position then it would seem to me the negotiating process is aborted. Perhaps the Republicans need to wipe the slate clean and exchange proposals with the Democrats and proceed from there. In the meantime all collective bargaining rights should remain intact.

Edited March 9, 2011 by pinko

[bush_cheney2004]

.....the party that won sure as hell didn't run on that platform. And nothing like winning an election, creating a crisis and then assigning CORPORATIONS to arbitrarily remedy that crisis by screwing the local elected government. Nice giant step towards totalitarianism. Won't be long now before the "conservatives" figure to do away with the inconvenience of elections altogether.

This coming from the land of Crown Corporations and less frequent elections? How interesting!

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm talking about long term problems here, not any specific questions. Pension agreements are supposed to be honoured - whether it's Nortel or a public employer. Failing to do so is just wrong.

You are making a personal (moral) judgement, not a legal determination. No way in hell is a pension agreement always honoured regardless of underlying financial viability...public or private.

[Michael Hardner]

You are making a personal (moral) judgement, not a legal determination. No way in hell is a pension agreement always honoured regardless of underlying financial viability...public or private.

Yes I am, and that's a shame that I have to do that.

[Shady]

I notice you use the term "blame". Why should a union be blamed for expecting an employer to fulfill it's obligations?

In this case the employer is the tax payer, and the pension pyramid scheme are defined benefit pension plans.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think so. As I mentioned previously there are a multitude of labour unions and employers in Wisconsin each with specific terms and conditions. If you read the emails accompanying the posted artile you should recognize this.

I understand that, however the challenges that GM faced a few years ago, for example, required all parties to sit down and talk about what was possible moving forward. Negotiations will happen in that framework, and for individual contracts, but what is happening here is bigger than that.

[pinko]

I understand that, however the challenges that GM faced a few years ago, for example, required all parties to sit down and talk about what was possible moving forward. Negotiations will happen in that framework, and for individual contracts, but what is happening here is bigger than that.

Yes and unless and until Gov. Walker backs down from his effort to destroy unions in his state little, if any progress will be made. His legislative initaitive is what is hampering the collective bargaining process.

Edited March 9, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

In this case the employer is the tax payer, and the pension pyramid scheme are defined benefit pension plans.

You are no more the employer than I am when it comes to governemnt.

[Jonsa]

This coming from the land of Crown Corporations and less frequent elections? How interesting!

If only you could respond on point. But that would mean looking in the mirror and I suspect that scares you.

[Jonsa]

Interesting that the discussion devolves to union busting in wisconsin again.

this is far far more extensive.

I guess the ability to assign non elected officials to arbitrarily and without recourse dissolve local governments, fire elected officials, dispose of local assets, ban politicians from holding office, isn't as bad as decertifying a union or taking away all or some collective bargaining rights.

In other words, under the guise of financial crisis, democracy is suspended. If a state government could do that, imagine what a similar federal government could and would do.

[bush_cheney2004]

....In other words, under the guise of financial crisis, democracy is suspended. If a state government could do that, imagine what a similar federal government could and would do.

Haven't you ever heard of martial law? How about the "October Crisis"? Just sayin'.....

[Shady]

In other words, under the guise of financial crisis

Definitely. That whole recession talk was just a bunch of made up stuff.

[bush_cheney2004]

If only you could respond on point. But that would mean looking in the mirror and I suspect that scares you.

I've already responded "on point", including the judiciary, which you conveniently ignored in your frenzied doomsday scenarios, none of which have happened. How do such scared rabbits manage to get up each day?

[Shady]

Public sector collective bargaining is a completely perverted process. They essentially have influence on both sides of the negotiating table. And if they don't like why they're offered, they have the ability to go to the legislature to get what they want.

It's completely different than any private sector collective bargaining. And anyone that tries to compare the two is being totally disingenuous.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's completely different than any private sector collective bargaining. And anyone that tries to compare the two is being totally disingenuous.

Agreed...seems that "corporate" influence on goverment is bad, but union influence is good. Got it.

[Shady]

Agreed...seems that "corporate" influence on goverment is bad, but union influence is good. Got it.

Exactly! It would be like a corporation getting to pick who represents the union. And after that, if they didn't like how negotiations were going, going to the board of directors to get what they want.

Apparently those are now considered "rights!"

[pinko]

Haven't you ever heard of martial law? How about the "October Crisis"? Just sayin'.....

You seem to have some knowledge of the Trudeau era. A more relevant comparison would be Trudeau's imposition of wage and price controls. If I recall that particular program set out defined increases over a three year period.

Of course collective bargaining rights remained intact during that time frame.

Here is a link

http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/labour_unions/clips/8001/

Edited March 9, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

The early 70's had brought political instability on the international scene and with the formation of OPEC in the early 60's (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Nations) the scene was set. OPEC began to raise the price of crude oil which in conjunction with American hyper spending over the previous 10 years began to drive up inflation rates. Unions responded to arising prices by striking and demanding equivalent wage increases while businesses passed on the increase in production costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices for products. Due to the impact of increasing inflation in most other developed countries, Canada found it difficult to control affairs in the domestic economy.

The Liberals won the election but by 1975 the inflation rate which had been 10.7% in 1974 had climbed to 10.9% and showed no sign of abating. Trudeau was forced to rethink all of the options and when he introduced the Anti-Inflation Act in Parliament it contained wage and price controls for various segments of the economy.

The legislation was only one part of a program that also imposed limits on Federal government expenditures, tighter monetary policies and government restrictions on fiscal policy.

Wage increase were to be restricted to 10% during the first year of the program, and then 8% and 6% during the following two years. These restrictions applied to all Federal government employees and employees of companies that employed over 500 works. The implementation of these policies was overseen by the anti-inflation board which had the ability to recommend the reduction in prices of consumer goods, wage rollbacks and rebates to customers of various services.

http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/trudeau/wage_&_price_controls.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

You seem to have some knowledge of the Trudeau era. A more relevant comparison would be Trudeau's imposition of wage and price controls. If I recall that particular program set out defined increases over a three year period.

PM Trudeau actually did an about face on this when he adopted Nixon's approach to wage and price controls. Both policies ultimately failed to achieve their objectives.

Of course collective bargaining rights remained intact during that time frame.

Here is a link

http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/labour_unions/clips/8001/

Correct...it wasn't until later that collective bargaining units would be challenged in the US, first by government (e.g. illegal PATCO strike), then by private employers (e.g. Hormel Local P-9 Austin MN). Labor has never fully recovered from these blows, and in the automotive sector particularly as foreign manufacturers set up shop in North America.

[Jack Weber]

I am no fan of corporations being able to do political speech. But Dred Scott? Pleeeeeeaaaaase.

I think you're missing the point...

The Dred Scott decision by Justice Tawney was/is considered one of the most egregious of that period.Along with John Brown's revolt at Harpers Ferry,it is one of the seminal flash points of the US Civil War.It was such an egregious decision that it was virtually ignored!!!

The decison rendered by Justice Roberts last year is equally egregious,but on a different front.It has essentially stopped any impediment to funding of political advertising,which goes straight to the issue of influence.And when their is no check on this,those with the most money win,and they get to implant the legislatoirs they've paid for to enact the legislation they want...

We are seeing this now with the union busting going on in Wisconsin,Indiana,Ohio,and,Michigan.Now in Michigan,not only do we have cintracts being (potentially) declared null and void,but CORPORATIONS being put in place to oversee public institutions.Corporations who are inanimate entities whose boards answer to no one but shareholders,and were not elected in the first place!They are,in fact,accounatble to no one...

And we are only 4 months from the first election since the decision of Justice Roberts...

This will only get worse as the money chokes off everything other than what those with the most money want....