Gov. Walker’s Clever Proposal Takes Cleaver to State Workers
If Gov. Walker is accomplishing anything a few weeks into his term, it's showing that he'll make good on his anti-worker campaign promises. The degree to which he's ramming through massive changes that are an ultra-conservative's dream in Wisconsin is shocking.
Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill to be unveiled Friday would wipe away the ability of public worker unions to negotiate over anything but their wages.
That would mean unions would not have a say on benefits and work rules. The bill would also allow public employees to avoid making payments to unions if they don't join those unions. Now, workers can choose not to join unions, but they must make "fair share" payments similar to dues – a requirement that unions say is needed because all workers potentially benefit from their work at the bargaining table.
So instead of going to the bargaining table in good faith, he's just deciding to pull out the rug all together on State workers. Screw the negotiations. It's a lot easier for him to just take away workers rights than to have to go through a messy negotiation where the interests of both parties are served. And while this 'screw em' attitude will certainly win him praise from conservatives, it won't magically fix our budget deficit and it certainly won't help working people provide for their families in this State.
As I've pointed out in the past, the "budget problems' excuse is nothing more than cover to accomplish a long standing conservative wish: kill unions. It's as simple as that.
But it's more devious than that. Instead of banning State employee unions all together, he only wants to take away the ability for State workers to bargain for their fringe benefits. They would still have to bargain (beg) for wage increases.
That's a key point that no one else has really picked up on yet.
After all why would Walker want to kill off unions but only take away their ability to negotiate the fringe benefits they receive, and not their wages? That's not really killing them after all.
The answer? He wants the ability to be able to negotiate wages and keep them under what most public workers could get in the private sector while reaping the benefit of dictating what fringe benefits like retirement contributions and health care premiums will be. It's the best of both worlds for him.
Bring the fringe benefits into parity with what the private sector pays but keep wages below what most public workers could get if they took a job in the private sector. So while a guy like me will pay as much or more as the 'private sector' for things like health insurance, I'll still be paid less in wages than I could make in the private sector.
Like I said, very clever.
And if points for being clever on screwing people were all that counted, he'd win the game. But it's not about points and it's not a game. We're talking about tens of thousands of real families, real children and real life for real families for who this is not a game but real life.
And for all the conservatives or anti-government crowd out there giving high fives, realize that this will ultimately lead to a much lower skilled workforce who work for you make a lot of things in Wisconsin "just work". What's the reason people would work for the State anymore, especially younger workers? "Pay just as much in premiums but make less money if you come work for us!"? Really? How do you attract the best workers with that kind of attitude?
Again, that might solicit high fives from some, but the reasonable will see that a race to the bottom for those who work for us doesn't benefit the citizens of Wisconsin.
It's a sad day for the thousands of dedicated public servants that I consider myself lucky enough to be counted among. We work hard and don't expect to get rich working for the government but are being treated like scum for reasons that I can't begin to understand.
I think it’s funny that he wants to provoke a strike, planning the National Guard to pick up the slack. I remember when they tried that here in Minnesota. The Guard is good and will do the job as best they are capable, but when we tried it (as in, me, along with others), there were gaping holes in training and experience that nearly resulted in several disasters. Fortunately, we were very lucky.
A quick example would be when the state workers at a mental institution went on strike. What do you think trained soldiers are going to do when someone starts throwing feces at them and attacking them uncontrollably?
As a public employee with a master’s degree who could easily have gone into a far more lucrative field, I am astounded by the degree to which this sociopath is proposing to re-write the basic social contract between the State and its workers. Public employees are the people who guard our criminals, plow our streets, teach our kids, support the most vulnerable among us, and do the critical teaching and research that make this state’s university system an extraordinary deal for taxpayers and students. Only an evil tyrant would propose denying these hard-working Wisconsin men and women their basic rights as workers.
This is about power and payback, not about good policy. This is an outrage, and it is so incredibly disrespectful to all workers in this state that we can only hope it will spark a Recall movement.
“What’s the reason people would work for the State anymore, especially younger workers?”
Because it’s really hard to find a job anywhere coming out of college, so you take what you can get.
I supported the republican party to end the nonsense of over regulation and wasteful spending, not to destroy the labor relations act and the ability of workers in both the private and public sector to bargain for working conditions. If the Walker bill passes, the republican party will be losing my support.
JB Baby, you accidentally make some excellent arguments for why it should be illegal for public sector employees to unionize, like it was up until the 1950s.
Government jobs do not exist for the benefit of workers. Teaching isn’t a job welfare program. Social working isn’t a job welfare program. Et cetera.
My favorite story in dealing with state employee unions is the Senior Password Changers. Two people, at a cost of over $120k/yr EACH in total compensation and overhead, had the sole function of sitting in a chair and answering a phone call to reset a user’s password when they have incorrectly entered it 3 times in a row and got locked out of the system. We offered to build a feature to automate this process in a completely secure fashion for a total ONE TIME cost of $10,000 for requirements gathering, design, development, testing, deployment, and training/implementation. It didn’t happen, thanks to the unions, because it would have eliminated 2 jobs.
Absolute insanity.
And let’s make this real. The department we were working for was the department that handles sending out food stamps, TANF, energy assistance so the poor can have heat, medicaid, and countless other welfare programs. So this $240k/yr in job welfare is $240k/yr that isn’t getting to the people who need it — the very purpose of the department.
@mwarden
I concur that certain positions -like the phone answering people- ought not be union. But public-sector employees particularly need the ability to unionize, far more than their civilian counterparts. The reason is simple: if not unionized, they would fall to the whims of politicians and the flash-anger of the mob. For example, any teacher accused of anything improper would be out the door in a heartbeat. No investigation into the truth of the allegation, only a scared principal trying to keep his job by firing the “offending” teacher.
The same goes for police and firefighters. Would you feel safe in your community if a police officer could/would be fired if accused of brutality, stealing, improper conduct, etc.? How many criminals would actually be arrested if they knew all they needed to do was to complain about the officer and get him fired? Yet you decry the same unions that allow a police officer or teacher to engage in their job without fear of baseless retribution. Unions aren’t the evil or purposeless organizations you contend.
Finally, for their rights to bargain. When you enter the corporate world, you have an opportunity to bargain for your contract (wages, benefits, etc.). Would you deny the same rights to another citizen?
your examples are not convincing. wrongful termination can be addressed by the courts, just like it is in the private sectors
your last point is nonsensical — unions are the reason government employees aren’t paid based on merit, thus reducing their ability to control their compensation
@mwarden Unfortunately, it’s not an uncommon thing to see in any organization, but that’s reflective of the organization, not unions in general. For every “Lazy overpaid unionists!” story, I can give just as many back about people who go above and beyond in their jobs. That goes for every organization I’ve ever been in both in the public and private sector.
@mwarden your examples are not convincing. wrongful termination can be addressed by the courts, just like it is in the private sectors – because typical workers – especially those on the lower end of the pay scale – have the resources for a trial or lawsuit! That’s nonsensical.
@mwarden
You know as well as I do that wrongful termination is incredibly difficult to prove, and may not necessarily be a cause of action available for at-will employees (based on state). Unless you want an individual contract for each cop and firefighter.
Government employees can’t negotiate their compensation, not because of unions, but because of laws pre-dating those unions.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind here. You are all represented by public sector unions, so it is no surprise that you will try to find ways to defend them. Mostly, I am just happy to see some momentum building against public sector unions and hope to see my state get rid of them.
@Dan Cody “Unfortunately, it’s not an uncommon thing to see in any organization, but that’s reflective of the organization, not unions in general. ” — uh, what? the organization asked us to fix the problem. it was the union that resisted.
“I can give just as many back about people who go above and beyond in their jobs.” — I want those people to be compensated for their extra effort. I don’t understand why you would oppose this idea, unless you are trying to protect bad employees.
Well then that’s the problem with the union dictating the functions of the organization and isn’t right. As for extra compensation, great, glad you support that. You don’t have to abolish unions to get things like bonuses though.
@mwarden
Unfortunately, I do not have union representation. We are entirely at the whims of whatever Congress would like. If I were to threaten to strike, it would be called mutiny.
@Dan Cody Unions consistently block merit-based pay
Well Dan, on this one you and I are in agreement, and could have long term ramifications on how I vote in the future. This whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test. The lynch mob doesn’t realize it’s the public sector employees now but it will trickle down to the private sector when employers see they to can get away with this and more, then they’ll realize it. This sets a bad precedence that most people don’t realize yet. But hey there’s too may state employees, let’s get rid of half of them, I won’t mind waiting 4 hours at the DMV. Lynch mob mentality throws reason out the window. And wait till it tickles down in the form of poor services, but hey it’s not the lynch mob’s fault, damn lazy public employees…
@Curt DMV is trivial to fix. Add a kiosk that allows bidding-based priority for 4-5 workers who are fully paid for by the proceeds of the bidding.
But I’m guessing someone will have some problem with that because it sounds too much like a market approach.
@mwarden This is only one example that came to mind, it would affect services across the board. Or sure let them bid, and roll that cost into extra fees we have to pay to get the service. Just like they did at the emission testing stations which then was reflected in a $10 fee there to renew. Nice solution. Not. I see you’re fast to outsource. You then also support off shore manufacturing? Sure, give all the jobs away, then complain when they’re gone. You appear to me to be part of the problem and not the solution.
@Curt I really have no response to what you brought up, because you ended up about 17 leaps from what I said. I’m not talking about outsourcing anything. If the DMV currently has 20 employees, then we add 5 more. The 10 that were there are funded just as they are today. The 5 new ones are funded wholly by the bidding process. If you are a customer and you don’t have a problem waiting, then nothing changes for you. But if you value your time more than that, you can enter a bid to be helped by the 5 new employees who will only be servicing the highest bids in the queue.
I’m sure you have an interesting story for how this model would affect manufacturing jobs in China and wind velocities in Tajikistan, but let’s save that for another day.
@mwarden
So if I want to jump to the head of the line I have the privilege of paying extra? That’s plain BS. For a service the Government mandates I have to do if I chose to drive? Wrong. Plain wrong. I’m tired of paying taxes and additional fees for what used to be fully covered by the taxes I paid that used to cover all the services in the first place. I’m not totally opposed to paying more taxes, but not fees. I get a tax breaks for taxes, I do not get a tax break for State, County and City fees I have to pay.
To the subject at hand, State employees compensation lags the public sector, so the retirement and healthcare benefits somewhat made up for that, but not entirely. Now they are attempting to strip that, widening the disparity. But they gloss over that fact, because it doesn’t support their position. Some people chose this and consider this their civic duty and do not need to chase the almighty dollar, and I applaud them, but then don’t take that further and stick it to them even more.
And that is the problem, they aren’t, telling the whole story, only the part that supports their position to rile up the public.
@Curt Bingo! The idea that someone can pay extra and jump ahead in the line just bothers you, even though your wait time and everyone else’s wait time isn’t affected one minute, and even though you aren’t required to pay one penny more.
This is what is precisely what is sick about liberalism.
Your idea of what’s awesome customer service may be acceptable from airlines, but generally not the services which people are paying tax dollars for (DMV in your example).
And I don’t think it’s just “liberals!!” who hate the idea of people with money being able to slip through the velvet rope and past the unwashed masses.
@Dan Cody It doesn’t affect you in the slightest, except out of rabid jealousy.
Except when it does. Like last weekend returning from Dallas when two of the three counter agents for the airline were only doing check ins for the occasional “elite” member who strolled to the front while the line for regular joe travellers stretched at least 45 long.
Or when a TSA agent doing security from regular people had to stop the regular people line when someone from the first class line needed his attention for a priority screening check.
Or at the hotel when I got there. Or a million other examples that you refuse to acknowledge. But jealousy and nonsensical and etc.
Forget the irrelevant analogies. Please explain how my scenario results in any effect on you in any scenario.
Something gets lost in this: The fact that being able to bargain *only* for wages results in being able to bargain for nothing at all.
Let’s say they try to “bargain” under these rules. There’s no real bargaining going on. The state can simply agree to whatever wages the union wants, then change the benefits package so the extra co-pays, contributions, and fees subtract enough off the top so the worker gets only what the state wanted to pay in the first place. Net result of bargaining: nothing at all.
You either have the right to bargain for everything about your workplace, or you have the right to bargain for nothing; in between is nothing but handwaving, smoke and mirrors.
As for DMV: Haven’t you noticed? The DMV is *already* charging you a fee to stand in line.
@mwarden My scenario? You have small and specific examples of using tech to replace people in your DMV scenario. A kiosk is great. You’ve got trivial fixes for complex problems that really don’t deal with them in the long run. Yes, there are efficiencies to be had, but efficiency isn’t the goal that Wisconsin Republicans – and apparently you are – are aiming for here.
It’s busting unions.
As I pointed out in my original post, if there were any interest in bargaining or compromise, there are avenues for that. Walker doesn’t want to have to bargain though any more than my three year old wants to when trying to get dessert without eating dinner. Walker wants what he wants and he’ll do whatever it takes to get it. The ends always justify the means, if you’re not with us you’re against us, and there are no shades of gray.
You are trying to frame this into something like kiosks or theoretical solutions that may have a place in a second year econ class but don’t in the real world. What’s at stake isn’t 20% of our semester grade, it’s the lives of real people who are really impacted and have real kids to try to make a better life for.
I wish as a friend you felt differently about that, but you don’t and that sucks.
@Dan Cody You know, each time you respond like this, I wonder to myself how many years have to pass since my last college econ class before you stop charging me with copying and pasting from my notes. How many years of management and small business experience do I need before you stop dismissing everything I say as naive, unrealistic, and impractical. 10 years? 20? And once that threshold passes, what will you do? Will you be forced to address the substance of what I say instead of just dismiss it?
I also wonder whether I should even bother to respond. The replies you provide seem to indicate that you either didn’t read what I wrote initially, or you are such a devoted partisan that you didn’t want to read what I actually said. For example, nowhere in my example am I replacing anyone with technology. Strangely, I have found a way to INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE DMV while decreasing the wait line for all customers, and I’ve done it without increasing the cost of the DMV. And your objection is… well, frankly, I have no idea what your objection is because you didn’t address what I said, you just dismissed it because that was easier. (Although you also seemed earlier to object to the idea that someone could pay to avoid the longer line even though it would take them out of the normal line thus improving everyone’s wait time. I am unable to explain this in any way other than jealousy, though I realize that is likely offensive to you.)
If you really want to talk about what’s sad, it’s that liberals have convinced themselves that they are only the compassionate ones. You care about workers. You care about sick people. You care about poor people. You care about all the vulnerable. And we conservatives only care about rich people and do not care about all those vulnerable people.
If liberals took half the effort they currently put into avoiding actual discussion of issues (i.e., dismiss as naive, dismiss as hatred of poor people, dismiss as racism/bigotry/whatever, etc.) and put that effort instead into discussing issues, we’d probably be able to gain some serious ground.
In theory, at least!!!
@mwarden The problem I have with your kiosk scenario is that these things aren’t static. Year 1, it works great. Everybody is treated equally, whichever line they’re in and all of the lines move more quickly. Year 2 or 3 or 4…budget issues lead to cutbacks. Now we’re down to 15 regular windows and 5 priority windows. And the regular windows are overworked and the employees are cranky, but the priority windows have less work and better attitudes. On and on it goes until the only people willing to wait 8 hours in the 3 remaining “free” lines staffed by frazzled and angry workers are those who can barely afford to put food on the table, and everyone else is paying a new fee for services that used to be free. This is not a net gain.
@TheFishmonger The priority lines pay for themselves and do not take away from any general funding. In your scenario, without the priority lines, after budget cuts you would have 15 regular workers and that’s it.
People being able to pay to have the velvet rope lifted so they can be serviced quicker than other citizens IS offensive to me Matt. I didn’t like it when I was a poor kid who got treated like a second class citizen because my parents couldn’t pay for your idea of efficiency and I don’t like it now.
I did’t like it at the airport terminal this weekend and I wouldn’t like it at the DMV. When I brought up that example, you labeled it an irrelevant analogy. That doesn’t make me a “LIBERAL!” any more than it made the two Bush supporters with Stetsons on their heads who were also waiting with me in line while the velvet rope was lifted for those who would pay an extra $50+ a flight “LIBERALS!”. You fall back on that every time it seems recently..
For what it’s worth, I do care about workers and families and people and their jobs and their futures and the poor and I show it through my actions, you’re right.
@Dan Cody Exactly. You think it is better for everyone to have to sit in the same line, even if it means EVERYONE has to wait longer. This is why I reject liberalism. I am not interested in living in equal size huts and picking grass for dinner from our equal sized yards. If some people can benefit greatly and their benefit also benefits everyone else, that is something I we should embrace.
(By the way, I labeled your airport terminal analogy irrelevant because I very intentionally constructed my scenario to NOT take resources away from the “general” line, and your analogy did not do that. I knew if I didn’t take that care, then you would make the argument that the rich were benefiting at the expense of the poor. And my intention was to show that is not your real issue with the scenario, which ultimately we did — but only because I resisted your analogy.)
@mwarden I wasn’t going to get drawn into this, but I’m in a mood this morning, so I guess I will.
First, the context of the two analogies is completely different. Dan refers to being offended by a private company that decided to treat people differently because of their ability to pay a premium. I can empathize, but it’s the right of the airlines to set up special treatment for VIPs (however they care to define them, from celebrity status to possession of a bit of plastic) and our right as customers to not patronize those who do. The rare occasions I fly, I pay extra, not for the reason Dan noted, but because it’s the only way I can be assured of having a comfortable seat for the time in flight.
Matt, OTOH, stands up for the right of the government to treat its citizens differently based on their ability to pay. That practice has been with us for centuries, though it usually went under the name of “graft” or “bribery” and was legally frowned upon. Matt proposes to make it legal, thus removing the stigma. Points for creativity.
I can’t subscribe to that. It is fundamental to democracy that each citizen have the same rights and responsibilities as the next, and that every citizen count with their government the same as every other citizen, regardless of economic status. To treat one citizen differently from another based on wealth is not democracy, it’s plutocracy. Feel free to lobby for such a change (some might say, with a degree of justice, that we’re half-way there already, but that’s another issue entirely) but call it what it is, please.
My fundamental issue with the proposition is that the DMV is a govt agency. If my bank, or even my dry-cleaner, set up such a system, I might be offended or not, but I’d have to support their right to do it. An agency of a democratic (small d, not the party affiliation) government should never be allowed to do so.
@arlen Your distinction is valid, but as Dan said, he doesn’t like it in any public OR PRIVATE situation. The concept I am illustrating is more important than the fact that I picked the DMV, which happens to be a government agency.