What is going on in WI - could it happen here? (Union: contractor, wage)

[NSHL10]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Of course things like that happen, and both sides are guilty. I was just pointing out how the concessions that Walker campaigned on and the Unions agreed to were connected to the fixing the deficit problem in the budget. However, going after the Collective Bargaining Rights really has nothing to do with the budget, but instead has to do with giving Walker the ability to hand out no bid contracts and give wealthy CEO's tax breaks.

I also don't see the correlation between eliminating Collective Bargaining rights and Walker giving no bid contracts and giving waelthy CEOs tax breaks.Can you explain the correlation? I've heard this talking point mentioned frequently on cable news but haven't seen anything tangible defending this point. Seems mainly to be emotional hyperbole.

I thought the elimination of CBR was to ensure the long term stability of pension and health care costs, ie the next Gov elected doesn't just hand back the same extraordinary benefits to th eunions that contributed to his campaign fund.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

Everything I am reading does not say they have agreed to these demands and it's a done deal. What I am reading says they will agree to these demands ONLY as long as all their collective bargaining rights stay exactly the same.

They have agreed to the concessions Walker put forth while he was campaigning for Governor, which is paying more for their pension plan and health benefits. They have not agreed to taking away most of their collective bargaining rights, which is something Walker did not campaign on, and only became an issue after Walker was elected, in part because Walker made the deficit even larger through CEO tax breaks.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by NSHL10

I also don't see the correlation between eliminating Collective Bargaining rights and Walker giving no bid contracts and giving waelthy CEOs tax breaks.Can you explain the correlation? I've heard this talking point mentioned frequently on cable news but haven't seen anything tangible defending this point. Seems mainly to be emotional hyperbole.

I thought the elimination of CBR was to ensure the long term stability of pension and health care costs, ie the next Gov elected doesn't just hand back the same extraordinary benefits to th eunions that contributed to his campaign fund.

Like many states Wisconsin was facing a deficit. When Walker was campaigning for Governor, the Collective Bargaining Rights issue really wasn't discussed. It was mostly about getting the Unions to put more in for their health benefits and pension plans as a way to help cut the deficit.

When Walker took office he put through corporate tax breaks, the current budget also has no-bid contracts. Now the corporate tax breaks, as well as not going through a bidding process for state contracts and land deals add even more to the deficit (and future budget issues as well).

So basically what Walker is doing is instead of just trying to fix the current deficit problems by getting the Unions to pay more for their health and pension plans as he campaigned on, he is going further. He created an even larger deficit than existed to begin with through these no-bid deals and CEO tax breaks, and is going after the Collective Bargaining Rights as a way to offset the impact on the deficit for now and in the future these tax deals and no bid contracts will have.

[NYEconomist]

Originally Posted by Smash255

They have agreed to the concessions Walker put forth while he was campaigning for Governor, which is paying more for their pension plan and health benefits. They have not agreed to taking away most of their collective bargaining rights, which is something Walker did not campaign on, and only became an issue after Walker was elected, in part because Walker made the deficit even larger through CEO tax breaks.

That's actually pretty smart. With all of the states around you raising taxes, you might be able to pull in some high earners from Illinois and Michigan that are able to relocate.

Do you know why thousands of millionaires claim Monte Carlo as home? Favorable tax benefits for the wealthy. Do you know why a large amount of companies incorporate in Delaware? Because of the favorable corporate laws.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by tomonlineli

That's actually pretty smart. With all of the states around you raising taxes, you might be able to pull in some high earners from Illinois and Michigan that are able to relocate.

Do you know why thousands of millionaires claim Monte Carlo as home? Favorable tax benefits for the wealthy. Do you know why a large amount of companies incorporate in Delaware? Because of the favorable corporate laws.

When the end result is a drop off in revenue that increases the deficit, it really isn't so smart, and is basically just a handout to the wealthy.

[NSHL10]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Like many states Wisconsin was facing a deficit. When Walker was campaigning for Governor, the Collective Bargaining Rights issue really wasn't discussed. It was mostly about getting the Unions to put more in for their health benefits and pension plans as a way to help cut the deficit.

When Walker took office he put through corporate tax breaks, the current budget also has no-bid contracts. Now the corporate tax breaks, as well as not going through a bidding process for state contracts and land deals add even more to the deficit (and future budget issues as well).

So basically what Walker is doing is instead of just trying to fix the current deficit problems by getting the Unions to pay more for their health and pension plans as he campaigned on, he is going further. He created an even larger deficit than existed to begin with through these no-bid deals and CEO tax breaks, and is going after the Collective Bargaining Rights as a way to offset the impact on the deficit for now and in the future these tax deals and no bid contracts will have.

OK, now I see your point. THank you.

Could it be argued that Walker needed to perform such drastic long term changes, in part due to continued Medicaid costs (including the huge increase in Medicaid enrollees approx bottom 8% of taxpayers will be enrolled via Obamacare) that need to be offset somewhere in the budget?

Many Governors have complained how Medicaid is decimating their budgets. Cuomo has proposed changes here in NY.

Governors' Wish List For Medicaid - Kaiser Health News

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by NSHL10

OK, now I see your point. THank you.

Could it be argued that Walker needed to perform such drastic long term changes, in part due to continued Medicaid costs (including the huge increase in Medicaid enrollees approx bottom 8% of taxpayers will be enrolled via Obamacare) that need to be offset somewhere in the budget?

Many Governors have complained how Medicaid is decimating their budgets. Cuomo has proposed changes here in NY.

Governors' Wish List For Medicaid - Kaiser Health News

I haven't seen Walker attempt to argue that. The one key thing is Walker is doing things (such as the Collective Bargaining Issue) that he didn't campaign on citing the deficit as the reason he is doing so, but at the same time taking other measures (such as the no bid contracts and corporate tax breaks) that negatively impact the deficit.

Not to mention the fact that the State Troopers (who endorsed Walker) are excluded from all of this. Ironically the state troopers unions are now standing with the teachers and have put out statements saying they regret the endorsement of Walker, so it will be interesting to see if anything comes out of that.

[Yzette]

Originally Posted by tomonlineli

So, your pro legalizing prostitution then?

What is with your hang-up on prostitution? If you're that horny, go to Nevada. Jaysus!

[NSHL10]

Originally Posted by Smash255

I haven't seen Walker attempt to argue that. The one key thing is Walker is doing things (such as the Collective Bargaining Issue) that he didn't campaign on citing the deficit as the reason he is doing so, but at the same time taking other measures (such as the no bid contracts and corporate tax breaks) that negatively impact the deficit.

Not to mention the fact that the State Troopers (who endorsed Walker) are excluded from all of this. Ironically the state troopers unions are now standing with the teachers and have put out statements saying they regret the endorsement of Walker, so it will be interesting to see if anything comes out of that.

I guess not being in a union, and seeing my property taxes go up every year due to cost of living raises, big pensions, and incredible highly subsidized health insurance given to public sector employees here on LI due to thier "lobbying efforts", I tend not to sympathize with the WI situation. I wish I actually had a raise for once. I'm looking at another 10% pay cut in Early Intervention services. 1199 got their deal from Cuomo,but not indpendent contractors. Why don't we call lobbying what it really is ...bribery.


Maybe I'm giving Walker more credit than he's due, but I thought he was trying to curtail long term budget problems from public sector union member benefits.

[Yzette]

Originally Posted by kajimenez

Come out of the 1920s!! Do you really think that in a normal competetive market that businesses can exploit workers today. The reason that most states have the right to hire and fire at will is because the competition allows it. Employees also have the right to leave on their own will. I worked many years WITHOUT employer healthcare. I never thought I was ENTITLED to that. I worked my way into jobs that OFFERED that BENEFIT. I now realize how naive I was. According to the our public service sector, it is a right that every employee should have, and shame on the private sector for not providing it. The rub is...the money has to come out of OUR pockets to pay for public benefits.

Come into the 21st century! Go over to the work and employment forum. Then come back and tell me that U.S. workers are not being exploited as we speak.

As far as health care is concerned, I don't think it should depend on employment or have anything to do with who you work for. I think it should be a single-payer system, with all supporting it and all receiving it, much like in the U.K.