Skip to comments.What Wisconsin means
Posted on 06/08/2012 5:33:42 AM PDT by Hojczyk
It was predictable. In Indiana, where Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) instituted by executive order a similar reform seven years ago, government-worker unions have since lost 91 percent of their dues-paying membership. In Wisconsin, Democratic and union bosses (a redundancy) understood what was at stake if Walker prevailed: not benefits, not rights, but the very existence of the unions.
So they fought and they lost. Repeatedly. Tuesday was their third and last shot at reversing Walkers reforms. In April 2011, they ran a candidate for chief justice of the state Supreme Court who was widely expected to strike down the law. She lost.
In July and August 2011, they ran recall elections of state senators, needing three to reclaim Democratic i.e., union control. They failed. (The likely flipping of one Senate seat to the Democrats on June 5 is insignificant. The Senate is not in session and wont be until after yet another round of elections in November.)
And then, Tuesday, their Waterloo. Walker defeated their gubernatorial candidate by a wider margin than he had pre-reform two years ago.
Most important, however, because in the end reality prevails. As economist Herb Stein once put it: Something that cant go on, wont. These public-sector unions, acting, as FDR had feared, with an inherent conflict of interest regarding their own duties, were devouring the institution they were supposed to serve, rendering state government as economically unsustainable as the collapsing entitlement states of southern Europe.
It couldnt go on. Now it wont. All that was missing was a political leader willing to risk his career to make it stop. Because, time being infinite, even the inevitable doesnt happen on its own.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Next up pay and pension cuts...
This is something the EU and all investors hoping for an easy remedy for Greece, Spain et al need to take to heart.
The sh!t IS gonna hit the fan...be prepared!
In fact, hey Obama...word to yo mama!
The union people did the job; the Commies disappeared; Roosevelt paid up with a couple of executive orders, one of which was to allow government employees to write their Congressmen.
Oh, yeah, and he gave government employees a raise ~ I have the pen used to sign his first, last and only pay raise.
Oviously the AFL-CIO and its affiliates have let too many hard core leftists into their own structure these days but another President could make a deal just like FDR did ~ otherwise their public labor unions will wither up and die like they are in Indiana, and shortly will in Wisconsin.
I'm sure the union guys know how to deal with commies if they really want to.
“All IT TAKES IS A LEADER.....................”
......AND we have Boner and his RINObuddies instead.
It would be appropriate if commentators made clear that the actions were taken against public sector unions and not private industrial unions. Public sector employment has evolved as a sinecure in this country. Taxpayers are not as much served as they are serfed. Their sole purpose is to provide ever expanding pay, benefits and pensions for privileged workers who are immune from economic realities. Walker’s victory thus far the most pivotal for American culture in the 21st century.
“Next up pay and pension cuts...”
I wouldn’t cut pay or pensions. For pensions I would use the 3% up to 6% you pay in. Anything else, you pay.
For pay, based on number of years of service, you get a percentage of your 10 year number. Not last year working.
That should clear most of it up.
I believe “Wisconsin” comes from the indian word meaning “land of cheese”. Ask Lizzie Warren.
“I’m sure the union guys know how to deal with commies if they really want to.”
String up the Muni Workers Union Bosses. 90% of the problem is solved right there. Then you indict the Democrat who gave them the contracts in the first place. More than likely he is just as dirty and it wouldn’t be too hard to find something.
Land of Cheese is good.
The word Wisconsin originates from the name given to the Wisconsin River by one of the Algonquian speaking American Indian groups living in the region at the time of European contact. French explorer Jacques Marquette was the first European to reach the Wisconsin River and record its name, arriving in 1673 and calling the river Meskousing in his journal. This spelling was later corrupted to Ouisconsin by other French explorers, and over time this version became the French name for both the Wisconsin River and the surrounding lands. English speakers anglicized the spelling to its modern form when they began to arrive in greater numbers during the early 19th century. The current spelling was made official by the legislature of Wisconsin Territory in 1845.
Throughout the course of its many variations, the Algonquian word for Wisconsin and its original meaning have both grown obscure. Interpretations may vary, but most implicate the river and the red sandstone that line its banks. One leading theory holds that the name originated from the Miami word Meskonsing, meaning “it lies red,” a reference to the setting of the Wisconsin River as it flows by the reddish sandstone of the Wisconsin Dells. Numerous other theories have also been widely publicized, including claims that name originated from one of a variety of Ojibwa words meaning “red stone place,” “gathering of the waters,” or “great rock.”
The populace had no idea that Union dues were deducted automatically from their checks for the Unions regardless of their “choice” or that employment was so contingent of joining a Union.
This is just one of the things that we all got smacked up side the head with because if Wisconsin. When the truth of what the Unions and ‘Rats were doing came to light they LOST. I love seeing AFSME losing 50% of their members when they get the choice of whether they WILLINGLY wasn't to be members of a union.
They will continue to lose.
How did you ever get your hands on such a rarity?
No, she comes from a different tribe. In her tribe, Wisconsin means "free cheese".
In the private sector there are market restraints on what a union can demand. If UPS (union) workers demand too much in compensation as to render their company non-competitive with FedEx (non-union), they will lose business. This puts a real world restraint on what these unions demand in terms of compensation and benefits. Corporations can go out of business, which obviously would hurt the union employees. Government has no competition, and is in effect a monopoly in terms of the services that it supplies. Therefore, there is no similar control placed upon public sector union demands. If government workers go on strike, where else can consumers go to get their drivers licenses? There is no market mechanism to keep the price of labor in line.
With the lack of market forces, taxpayers must rely exclusively upon management to say no to costly demands. Management in this case of the current issue in Wisconsin is the Governor, but the scenario is no different throughout other levels of government. County Executives, Mayors, & Town Councils all act as management in the government “corporation”. The government official must work even harder to represent the taxpayer in negotiations with public employee unions under these circumstances. There is a political party, however, that is beholden to the very government unions they are supposed to be negotiating with.
The Democratic Party receives an overwhelming amount of money in political donations from public sector unions, in fact their top 4 donors are various government unions (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php).
Many candidates go to union sponsored events, and pledge their support. This would not be a problem if not for the fact that the elected official in question will be sitting across the negotiating table from the very union that supported them in their campaign. If a candidate for office received a donation from a corporation, then after elected gave a no bid contract to that corporation it would be called corruption. How is this situation any different?
Considering most government entities (other than federal) must balance their budgets every year, you would think that politicians would be restricted from offering paybacks to the unions. They cant give what they dont have. Right? The problem with this argument is that the official has the ability to promise, and get passed into law, retirement and health benefits that will be paid for in the future. This takes away any current budgetary restraint that may exist, and puts us in the situation we find ourselves today in Wisconsin and all across the nation.
Mr. Walkers proposal specifically eliminates collective bargaining for pension and healthcare benefits. This addresses the problem of politicians overpromising future benefits for unions that helped elect them. Any progress made in Wisconsin or other states, however, may be short lived if the screamers get to rule the debate. It would not be surprising if unions spend even more than the current record amounts in the next election in order to drown out rational discussion.