Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
You asserted that the legislation in Wisconsin was "just Union busting" and not about the budget. Unfortunately, that is not what the bill's proponents argued.

If the bill was about the budget then under Wisconsin law it required 2/3 of the Senate to be present for the vote. They stripped OUT the budget parts to pass it without the Democrats so your argument is not supported legally.

Governor Walker testified to the US Congress that the bill had no effect on the budget.

Neither you nor I know what were the inner motives of those who drafted and passed the legislation. We know only what they did and said .. and it is very easy to take their words out of context to distort their intended meaning. We do know that the state government advanced the legislation limiting medical and pension costs and eliminating the collective bargaining power of state employee unions over pay and benefits, arguing that the state and many communities governed by these labor agreements were facing unsustainable financial peril, and that the system as it existed needed these reforms to solve a persistent and growing cost problem. Later the unions indicated they would accept most of the short term benefit reductions if the reductions in their collective bargaining power were retained. The governor and the legislature rejected that proposal and enacted the modified law you described.

Was that "union busting"? The unions still exist; they still enjoy a state-sanctioned monopoly on employment and state sanctioned compulsion that applicable employees must join the union and must pay dues to it. The domain for the bargaining power of the unions has been reduced, but it is still greater than that allowed to unions by the Federal Government. Has the Federal Government also been guilty of "union busting"? I don't think so.

Personally, I have no objection to union busting, and have done all I could to limit or defeat union infestation in companies I managed. Unions chronically harm the unity and motivation of any enterprise they infect, making it very difficult to create a high performance organization. As one Union Local President explained to me. "we don't work your damn job: we work the contract, and we'll make the contract what we want it to be."

1 Reply

Quote:

Neither you nor I know what were the inner motives of those who drafted and passed the legislation. We know only what they did and said .. and it is very easy to take their words out of context to distort their intended meaning.

So when Parados says it's about union busting, you say he can't know what the inner motives were of those who drafted and passed the legislation. I suspect that the same objection could be raised to your claim that it was about the budget.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Neither you nor I know what were the inner motives of those who drafted and passed the legislation. We know only what they did and said .. and it is very easy to take their words out of context to distort their intended meaning.

I never said it was "just union busting". I am only pointing out what the proponents may have argued in public doesn't have much of a legal basis based on the Wisconsin Constitution and testimony under oath to Congress.

If the bill was about the budget then it would require 2/3 of the Senate. Since 2/3 of the Senate wasn't present it couldn't be a budgetary bill unless it was passed illegally. You can choose your poison. Was the bill passed illegally or was it not a budget bill?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

[So when Parados says it's about union busting, you say he can't know what the inner motives were of those who drafted and passed the legislation. I suspect that the same objection could be raised to your claim that it was about the budget.

I made no claim at all about the motives of the Governor and legislators in Wisconsin. I merely noted what occurred.

Moreover the unions weren't "busted" at all. No harm: no foul. Their previously unassailable monopoly and compulsory powers over employees have been reduecd in marginal ways, providing some future elements of employee choice in their representation, but if the unions have all the loyalty they claim, that shouldn't be a problem for them.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If the bill was about the budget then it would require 2/3 of the Senate. Since 2/3 of the Senate wasn't present it couldn't be a budgetary bill unless it was passed illegally. You can choose your poison. Was the bill passed illegally or was it not a budget bill?

You are quibbling again about self-created nits. The Democrat legislators engaged in an extra legal flight from their sworn duties to prevent a quorum; the Republicans modified the original draft legislation to get what they could get of it under those abnormal circumstances. It appearts to me that under the self-inflated hysteria the Democrats created they were simply out smarted at their own game, and got what they well deserved. My opinion is that justice was done: competent authorities and the subsequent democratic process have validated the state's actions and the public interest was well served. Indeed the justice of it all was quite poetic.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

You are quibbling again about self-created nits. The Democrat legislators engaged in an extra legal flight from their sworn duties to prevent a quorum;

Ah.. the law is nothing but a 'nit' when it comes to getting your way. Your side doesn't have to follow it but if the other side does something you don't like even though it is legal, you refer to it as "extra legal.".

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Ah.. the law is nothing but a 'nit' when it comes to getting your way.

Well, he IS a Republican. This has long been their attitude on all matters.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@parados,

The law also obliges the elected legislators to perform their elected duties.

With respect to the legislation that has passed, the Wisconsin supreme court has ruled on its legality. The nit in question had to do with parados' obsession about the unknowable inner motives of the governor, The legal issue has been settled - no nits at all there.

Your penchant for bad form and a lack of grace in defeat continues.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The law also obliges the elected legislators to perform their elected duties.

Really? If that is the case then their flight was illegal, not extra legal.
Which is it george? You seem to be on both sides of the issue.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Your penchant for bad form and a lack of grace in defeat continues.

Says the man who refers to others as being pedantic when they present supported facts to dispute his unsupported "facts".

0 Replies

Massachusetts passed a bill to strip union members' bargaining rights on healthcare recently, claiming it would save the state something like $100M. The union leader there was pretty mad, mostly because so many Democrats voted for it. Not sure if the governor has signed, or plans to sign it, though.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

With respect to the legislation that has passed, the Wisconsin supreme court has ruled on its legality.

No, they didn't rule on the legality of the law. They ruled on whether it can be blocked from being published under the open meetings law.

The law is still being challenged for legality in several cases that have yet to be heard.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
The law also obliges the elected legislators to perform their elected duties.

Really? If that is the case then their flight was illegal, not extra legal.
Which is it george? You seem to be on both sides of the issue.

I don't really know the answer to the legal question. The state Constitution is very clear that the duty of the legislators was to perform their elected function. The Democrat legislator's flight out of the state's jurisdiction was eloquent testimony to their belief that the state had the power to compel them to attend to their elected duties if it could reach them. Whether their actions were punishable under the law is a separate question. That they were not in accord with the intent of the constitution is quite clear. My use of the term "extra legal" was both thoughtful and accurate in this regard.

It may be that the quality of moral justice was equally strained by the flight of the Democrat Legislators as it was by the modification to the content of the legislation that was passed in their absence - hence my reference to poetic justice.

You appear to be neurotically unwilling to accept setbacks in any form, or even accountability for the consequences of your own logic. This grasping desperation to find fault is a little ... strange.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, he IS a Republican. This has long been their attitude on all matters.

They always have seemed to believe that the most import Commandment is the 11th.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I guess a little mutual back-scratching is helpful when you are out of ideas.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I don't really know the answer to the legal question. The state Constitution is very clear that the duty of the legislators was to perform their elected function.

And what precisely is that elected function per the Constitution? Be sure to Cite the Wisconsin Constitution.
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=index&jd=constitution,%20wisconsin
Your ability to make things up about what is in the law is really quite amazing.

I also find it amazing that you know the thinking of the legislators after pointing out that no one can really know what they think only a few posts ago.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

I don't really know the answer to the legal question. The state Constitution is very clear that the duty of the legislators was to perform their elected function.

And what precisely is that elected function per the Constitution? Be sure to Cite the Wisconsin Constitution.
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=index&jd=constitution,%20wisconsin
Your ability to make things up about what is in the law is really quite amazing.

I also find it amazing that you know the thinking of the legislators after pointing out that no one can really know what they think only a few posts ago.

You resally are a very tiresome asshole. Why don't you simply tell me what the state constitution says is the function of the elected legislators - that will spare us all the stupid gotcha games you find so fascinating, but which don't interest me at all.

I never claimed to know the thoughts of the legislators who fled the state jurisdiction. Instead I said the fact that they fled the jurisdiction of the state attests to their recognition of the fact that the state could otherwise apprehend them and deliver them to the capitol precisely to perform their cvonstitutional duties. There is a difference, though in your relentless and obsessive pursuit of nits, important to no one but you, it may be hard for you to see. OCD is a sometimes treatable disorder .. you should try it.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Since I am not the one that claimed the state Constitution is very clear about the duty of legislators, I see no reason to do your job.

By the way.. the state Constitution isn't very clear about their duties which is why I asked you to provide this mythical part of the constitution you think exists.

So..

Quote:

I never claimed to know the thoughts of the legislators who fled the state jurisdiction. Instead I said the fact that they fled the jurisdiction of the state attests to their recognition of the fact that the state could otherwise apprehend them and deliver them to the capitol precisely to perform their cvonstitutional duties.

I gotta love your chutzpa george. Shortly after you claim
"Neither you nor I know what were the inner motives " you turn around and attribute inner motives to why they left the state. For all you know, the food might be better across the state line or the hotel rates are cheaper but you are quick to state that an action attests to their recognition which goes to their motives.
By the way it isn't a "fact" that the state could apprehend them. There was a legal question as to whether they could or not. Legislators can't be arrested during the session. There is a legal question as to whether police officers can take someone into custody without arresting them. It wasn't clear at all that the legislators could be apprehended by anyone against their will. What may be clear is that the governor and GOP may have been willing to test the kidnapping laws. And it appears you feel kidnapping is OK if we can guess at your motives.

Quote:

There is a difference, though in your relentless and obsessive pursuit of nits, important to no one but you, it may be hard for you to see.

You keep referring to the law as a "nit" george. Do you really care that little about how our system works that you feel you can make up laws that don't exist and then get to call others names when they point out that you are making **** up? It's hardly a nit george when you are flat out wrong about facts. But I can see how you want to poison the well to try to keep others from seeing that your "facts" are nothing but made up ****.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You resally are a very tiresome asshole.

Yeah, people who are right are usually assholes.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

How could you possibly know?

0 Replies

Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know