Wisky recall: 119% voter turnout in Madison (and other fun)

[byu71]

I'm not an anarchist

I don't think I suggested you were. I was saying don't throw in the towell and join those who are.

[venkman]

Man I wish I had MSNBC's Ed Schultz on my death pool. Dude is gonna have a stroke and/or heart attack.

[Tex]

Finally the channel of bribery from the public unions to the Democrats and back has been broken.

Bonus: there are reports of people peeing their pants in Chicago tonight.

[venkman]

I philosophically believe all workers should be able to organize. I also admit some public sector unions have sometimes abused their power and it has led to excess.

I do too, even public sector workers. But you have to admit an inherent conflict of interest when you have forced union dues extracted from workers going to fund re-election campaigns for the same lawmakers who will be sitting across from union leaders in pay/benefit/whatever negotiations.

[Colly Wolly]

Here we go Rachel Maddow. Her melt downs are always epic.

[Omaha 680]

It's looking like a near 10 point victory for Walker. This is very big. I haven't dug into the exit polls but they were saying on MSNBC that Obama held a 9 point advantage among those who voted today. Maybe Wisconsin won't be in play for Romney but this result bolsters the fiscal restraint movement that has been building since 2009.

[venkman]

Wow, listening to MSNBC, it's very bad for Dems in WI. Political columnist in WI says the democrats major source of funding (forced union dues confiscated from state workers) is gone. Doesn't know how they recover. Walker will now go for tax cuts and right to work laws. Walker has "won the game".

The future looks bright in Wisconsin.

[Jacob]

I think you guys are way off on the money numbers.

[EuropeanFootballMale]

Thank you Wisconsin voters. This is huge.

[Omaha 680]

I think you guys are way off on the money numbers.

I was just repeating what I heard on MSNBC. It would not surprise me they were inaccurate.

[dabrockster]

Intersting.

I do have to remind people that Ohio's similar law went to public vote (After the legislatures passed it) and Kasich lost and the unions won.. The only difference I see was the fact Kasich decided to include the Police and Firefighter unions in his attempt to address the issue..

So I am not sure how big of impact this is in the Presidential race or to unions for that matter (Nationally)..


I am wondering if Kasich will give it a go one more time and modify it to exclude the Police and Firefighters.. The fact he did this early in his term was best and gave him enough time to bounce back and hopefully win a 2nd term. But if he goes for broke it may cause him to lose his 2nd term..

[pellegrino]

the anti-union feeling on this board is disheartening.

frank, I'm all for the right to bargain collectively for better working conditions and benefits, but I also think that a union can be just another bureaucratic power structure that enriches itself off the labor of its members. I am opposed to that type of union, which is what all of the large unions have become. How much do the union members pay in dues and what tangible benefits do they get from that in this day and age? If unions are like any other large organization (and there's nothing that persuades me to think otherwise) they are bloated with unnecessary administrative positions and they overpay their president/CEO (which in this case has likely never worked a job similar to the members that pay his salary).

We also have to realize that in this day and age most of the big battles have been fought. We have minimum wage laws, federal holidays that ensure vacations, health benefits, while not cheap are mostly standard (there's a lot to do in this area, but progress has been made). Unions played a big role in this, but any more they are nothing but a symbol of a bygone era, an ancient and clumsy system that does little to better society as a whole, much less the life of an individual worker.

In short, the concept of the union has played a crucial role in labor history, but I think that in many (if not most) cases the tables have been turned and Unions take more than they get from their members. In short, they oppress their members by raising old battle cries and mobilizing them to fight battles that better the union's bottom line and not the workers' rights or pay.

ps- I reserve the right to change my mind on this.

[YOhio]

Intersting.

I do have to remind people that Ohio's similar law went to public vote (After the legislatures passed it) and Kasich lost and the unions won.. The only difference I see was the fact Kasich decided to include the Police and Firefighter unions in his attempt to address the issue..

So I am not sure how big of impact this is in the Presidential race or to unions for that matter (Nationally)..


I am wondering if Kasich will give it a go one more time and modify it to exclude the Police and Firefighters.. The fact he did this early in his term was best and gave him enough time to bounce back and hopefully win a 2nd term. But if he goes for broke it may cause him to lose his 2nd term..

There were quite a few material differences between the Wisconsin and Ohio policies that led to the discrepancy in outcomes. First, the time factor. Walker had about 15 months to show demonstrable benefit while Kasich had about 4 months. Second, the method. Walker passed his policy a part of a budget resolution while Kasich and the Ohio Senate rewrote standalone state collective bargaining regulations. This led to the difference in the respective processes, ballot issue vs. recall. Because Ohio's legislation isolated it from the budget, it could go to ballot and the unions moved quickly so Kasich couldn't have adequate time to defend it based on results. He also faced the reality that it was an odd-year election with very low turnout, which was a boon to the motivated unions who are adept at getting people to the polls. Wisconsin faced a different situation where the only option they had was to recall the governor and elect someone who would repeal the legislation, a much lengthier and more controversial process.

I doubt Kasich will touch this again during this term. Over the past year he's put all his chips on Jobs Ohio and needs to focus his energy on getting that to work before taking on any new controversy.

[oxcoug]

Establishing pensions for public workers wasn't indefensible.

FR - I don't think anyone said this. I certainly didn't. I said that public sector employees negotiating with public sector employees for public sector employee benefits is completely FUBAR. FUBARevous in the French.

[frank ryan]

frank, I'm all for the right to bargain collectively for better working conditions and benefits, but I also think that a union can be just another bureaucratic power structure that enriches itself off the labor of its members. I am opposed to that type of union, which is what all of the large unions have become. How much do the union members pay in dues and what tangible benefits do they get from that in this day and age? If unions are like any other large organization (and there's nothing that persuades me to think otherwise) they are bloated with unnecessary administrative positions and they overpay their president/CEO (which in this case has likely never worked a job similar to the members that pay his salary).

We also have to realize that in this day and age most of the big battles have been fought. We have minimum wage laws, federal holidays that ensure vacations, health benefits, while not cheap are mostly standard (there's a lot to do in this area, but progress has been made). Unions played a big role in this, but any more they are nothing but a symbol of a bygone era, an ancient and clumsy system that does little to better society as a whole, much less the life of an individual worker.

In short, the concept of the union has played a crucial role in labor history, but I think that in many (if not most) cases the tables have been turned and Unions take more than they get from their members. In short, they oppress their members by raising old battle cries and mobilizing them to fight battles that better the union's bottom line and not the workers' rights or pay.

ps- I reserve the right to change my mind on this.

Where do you get the notion unions oppress their members? How many are or have been union members?