Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can't believe he opened his mouth that wide, for both feet to fit.
shows what he's really like. actually considered adding "trouble makers"
into the protesters, but then says if it went badly he might have to settle
under public pressure.

Enjoy:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-scott-walker-prank-call-20110223,0,6061596.story?track=rss

Walker is a scumbag, just like all of the Packer fans that voted for him.

To noone's surprise, a Republican dislikes unions and wants to use underhanded tactics to get rid of them.

Melissia wrote:To noone's surprise, a Republican dislikes unions and wants to use underhanded tactics to get rid of them.

True, but i can't believe, in this day and age, he fell for a prank call!

Considering the average politician in DC is of the older sort (fifty to sixty years of age), I'm not entirely surprised. I have to help my family members of that age bracket out with technological things all the time...

The entire government is corrupt, we must purge them with the american inquisition!. We should wear blue robes though, not red, blue. With some white edges. Maybe some red under the robe. With cowboy hats. Someone needs to carry rope.

He didn't really say anything particularly damning. Looks like the worst part of the story is "Walker gets prank phone call". Hard to see how this hurts him, except with people who already oppose him.

In the whole Wisconsin issue, I do find it particularly hilarious that the absent congressmen claim they're running away to preserve democracy. Elections matter.

Or as one man once said, "I won."

biccat wrote:He didn't really say anything particularly damning. Looks like the worst part of the story is "Walker gets prank phone call". Hard to see how this hurts him, except with people who already oppose him.

Well, he is doing his level best to conceal the fact that he wants to do away with collective bargaining in the WI public sector. In that sense its one of those moments where the "private" conversations don't match the public rhetoric/silence, which could have certain consequences given that he didn't frame the issue as "We're trying to bust unions."

Additionally, some are claiming that Walker's conversation with the impersonator represents a violation of Wisconsin state law regarding the conduct of public officials; though its clearly very thin as far as evidence goes.

biccat wrote:
In the whole Wisconsin issue, I do find it particularly hilarious that the absent congressmen claim they're running away to preserve democracy. Elections matter.

So do congressional procedures. You know, those institutional rules that serve to insure that no public official can do whatever it is that they wish.

dogma wrote:Well, he is doing his level best to conceal the fact that he wants to do away with collective bargaining in the WI public sector.

Er, what? The governor supports the bill, and I haven't heard anything about him distancing himself from this issue. There may be some debate as to whether this is actually saving money, but he certainly has taken a side.

dogma wrote:So do congressional procedures. You know, those institutional rules that serve to insure that no public official can do whatever it is that they wish.

Yes, also there's the rule that says you can be arrested and hauled back in session if you don't attend. It's called a motion to compel attendance and doesn't need quorum.

Also, I thought this bill was before the legislature? What public official is trying to do 'whatever they wish'?

The Dem congresscritters are on the lam. If they set foot in Wisconsin, they will be arrested. This is not a minor issue.

So the only "gotcha" moment has slim evidence? Got it.

biccat wrote:
Er, what? The governor supports the bill, and I haven't heard anything about him distancing himself from this issue. There may be some debate as to whether this is actually saving money, but he certainly has taken a side.

Did I say that he was distancing himself from the issue?

Nope, doesn't look like it.

I said that the Governor has been presenting the matter as one of budgetary concern, not one of busting unions. There is a massive difference between the two, and this particular conversation indicates the latter rather than the former. Walker has consistently avoided discussing the collective bargaining issue in favor of referring to generalities regarding the budget, primarily because that would mean admitting that the unions have already agreed to the actual financial elements of the bill; rendering this nothing more than a power grab.

biccat wrote:
Yes, also there's the rule that says you can be arrested and hauled back in session if you don't attend. It's called a motion to compel attendance and doesn't need quorum.

Interestingly, Wisconsin can't compel Illinois authorities to arrest anyone, and taking this up as a federal offense will take a great deal of time.

biccat wrote:
Also, I thought this bill was before the legislature? What public official is trying to do 'whatever they wish'?

I never said that they were. The point is that institutional rules define those options that are open to members of the institution, and so are at least as relevant to the matter as whether or not something is "democratic". In fact, institutional rules are the only things that even allow something to be considered as "democratic". This was something I decided to say because it seemed as though you thought simply because something was to be voted on by a legislature it should be considered democratic. which is plainly false (nearly every nation in the world has a legislature), and that the mere fact that something is democratic makes it good, which is also plainly false (Jim Crow laws).

biccat wrote:
So the only "gotcha" moment has slim evidence? Got it.

Who ever said this was about a gotcha moment? And why are you adding a disdainful "got it" at the end? Its almost like you think I'm taking a side. I'm not. It just appeared to me that you didn't put very much thought into your post.

Having direct links between your politicies and the Koch brothers should be utterly damning. I mean, there's been this massive effort to produce more and more evidence linking the Koch brothers to the Tea Party movement, and all these people have jumped with glee everytime they've outed some other connection.

What they're missing is that people don't seem to care that very rich people are funding political movements geared entirely to ensure greater wealth and more power for the very rich. Which is an easy thing to miss, it's taken me a long time to realise how committed people are to half baked ideology over their own direct interests.

sebster wrote:Having direct links between your politicies and the Koch brothers should be utterly damning.

Only in the wingnut side of the political spectrum. AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.

Frankly he needs to declare martial law, send bounty hunters out after the errant democrats and while he's oat it people on a short list I have, and start referring to himself as Governor Walker...Texas Ranger.

Frazzled wrote:AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.

Where have you read this? Everything I've heard from my friends in WI, and a good chunk of the news media, says the exact opposite; which really tells me that its closer to a 50% split than both sides realize, or are willing to admit.

I'm also not sure why the ability to bargain with an employer affects the quality of service that employer receives. One can play tougher with unions during negotiations without completely depriving them of the ability to negotiate.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.

Where have you read this? Everything I've heard from my friends in WI, and a good chunk of the news media, says the exact opposite; which really tells me that its closer to a 50% split than both sides realize, or are willing to admit.

I'm also not sure why the ability to bargain with an employer affects the quality of service that employer receives. One can play tougher with unions during negotiations without completely depriving them of the ability to negotiate.

What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.

Where have you read this? Everything I've heard from my friends in WI, and a good chunk of the news media, says the exact opposite; which really tells me that its closer to a 50% split than both sides realize, or are willing to admit.

I'm also not sure why the ability to bargain with an employer affects the quality of service that employer receives. One can play tougher with unions during negotiations without completely depriving them of the ability to negotiate.

What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.

Earth. What exactly is a govt. union?
unions protect the ability of a worker to make better wage. look at the middle income families in last 10 years. thanks to the former regime giving breaks everyone but
the middle class. Exxon makes record profit, millionaires that all ready loaded yet they need taxes breaks. really?

sebster wrote:Which is an easy thing to miss, it's taken me a long time to realise how committed people are to half baked ideology over their own direct interests.

I thought that's been the basis of the entire Republican party for a while now.

alarmingrick wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:AS this drags on the unions are losing massive support. People want their kids taught properly and this is shifting to an issue towards that.

Where have you read this? Everything I've heard from my friends in WI, and a good chunk of the news media, says the exact opposite; which really tells me that its closer to a 50% split than both sides realize, or are willing to admit.

I'm also not sure why the ability to bargain with an employer affects the quality of service that employer receives. One can play tougher with unions during negotiations without completely depriving them of the ability to negotiate.

What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.

Earth. What exactly is a govt. union?
unions protect the ability of a worker to make better wage. look at the middle income families in last 10 years. thanks to the former regime giving breaks everyone but
the middle class. Exxon makes record profit, millionaires that all ready loaded yet they need taxes breaks. really?

Besides being a stinking pile of gak, its wrong. The middle class are the ones being sucked dry to pay for all the government union employees. We can't afford it any more.
The Revolution has finally come, the Tsunami is here. The first wave hit in 2010 baby. Viva Reagan Viva Me Viva for everyone!

Frazzled wrote:The middle class are the ones being sucked dry to pay for all the government union employees.

Which iiiiiiis the fault of the Republican party and its focus on giving tax breaks to the rich in lieu of everyone else.

Frazzled wrote:
What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.

There's a difference between denying collective bargaining rights, and actually negotiating with unions in a meaningful fashion. Government unions didn't destroy the ability of the state to play hard ball, the state simply refused to do so because such measures were always unpopular.

dogma wrote:Did I say that he was distancing himself from the issue?

Nope, doesn't look like it.

No, you're right, and I apologize if I put words in your mouth.

dogma wrote:I said that the Governor has been presenting the matter as one of budgetary concern, not one of busting unions.

Actually, you didn't say this either. What you said was "he is doing his level best to conceal the fact that he wants to do away with collective bargaining..."

This is NOT union busting, it is an attempt to reduce excessive spending, something Walker has not been shy about. As I said, it may be debated as to whether eliminating collective bargaining is deficit-positive, but to suggest that his motivation is not based on spending is incorrect.

Here's a hint: Republicans think that public unions increase the cost of doing business. Eliminating them would therefore reduce spending.

dogma wrote:The point is that institutional rules define those options that are open to members of the institution, and so are at least as relevant to the matter as whether or not something is "democratic". In fact, institutional rules are the only things that even allow something to be considered as "democratic". This was something I decided to say because it seemed as though you thought simply because something was to be voted on by a legislature it should be considered democratic. which is plainly false (nearly every nation in the world has a legislature), and that the mere fact that something is democratic makes it good, which is also plainly false (Jim Crow laws).

I don't see how violating the law and running away from your job has ever been considered part of the "institutional rules." Quorum rules are in place to prevent secret meetings and allow all sides of a debate a chance to be heard. The motion to compel was instituted to prevent a minority faction from obstructing government action by fleeing the session to prevent quorum. The fact that the Sergeant at Arms has a limited jurisdiction and can't pursue across state borders is not an "institutional rule," it's a limitation of borders. In short, breaking the law/rules to achieve a result may be MORAL in some cases, but it shouldn't be confused with acting appropriately.

I'm confused as to how something voted on by the Legislature is anything BUT democratic (Republican if you want to split hairs). The legislators were elected in a free and fair election, and should therefore be construed to reflect the will of the people. Those who didn't win a majority in the election should have no authority to restrict (outside of legal application of the institutional rules) the ability of the democratically elected majority.

Finally, I never said democratic=good. If so, then there's no rational basis to oppose any congressional action. Instead, I was responding to your suggestion that someone in this case was doing "whatever it is that they wish." No one person is acting with such authority, it is the combined will of the Governor and a majority of the Legislature that is acting on behalf of the people.

dogma wrote:Who ever said this was about a gotcha moment?

I would advise you to read the OP and thread title and then reconsider this question. If you still haven't found the answer, I will be happy to explain it to you.

dogma wrote:And why are you adding a disdainful "got it" at the end?

Well, you responded to my statement that he didn't say anything damning with only one substantive point. I assumed you were trying to suggest that this was what Walker did wrong. If that is the extent of his "misconduct", then I think this is a non-issue, wingnuts aside.

"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management."

Tl;dr: "it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

Government union employees are the middle class...

Frazzled wrote:The middle class are the ones being sucked dry to pay for all the government union employees.

Wait, so the middle class is being sucked dry to pay for the salaries of other middle class employees who provide services to the middle class?

Either way, no, they aren't being sucked dry. Proportional tax rates are lower than they've been for the majority of US history, especially as regards state taxation; in Wisconsin a member of the upper middle class would incur a tax rate of around 38% of income accounting for both state and federal taxes.

Frazzled wrote:
We can't afford it any more.

I doubt very much that you're middle class by any reasonable definition given that you've talked about owning multiple homes, and bankrolling corporate jets.

I know that the general trend in America is to refer to oneself as middle class regardless of the reality of the matter, but its really very tired.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The middle class are the ones being sucked dry to pay for all the government union employees.

Which iiiiiiis the fault of the Republican party and its focus on giving tax breaks to the rich in lieu of everyone else.

Well if they don't give tax breaks to the rich who will?

My wife is a chemistry teacher here in WI, and I can tell you she puts in 10+ hour days and spends several hours each weekend correcting papers. Those awesome three months off she has? Spent researching new course curriculum and designing labs to help students understand very complex concepts.

She has had students go on to Yale and Stanford.

She has also broken down once or twice since this has started and apologized to me for choosing this career and putting us in a position where we are going to have to drastically cut our spending, or risk loosing our house.

My friends, this broke my heart... My wife was the first in her class in High School and spent her summers off working in a factory to pay for college. She could have gone into any science related field, but was so inspired by her teachers that she wanted to follow in their footsteps.

I still don't quite have words for the rage that I felt for Walker while holding my sobbing wife.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
What planet have you been on? government unions destroy the ability to hire, fire, and promote on merit.

There's a difference between denying collective bargaining rights, and actually negotiating with unions in a meaningful fashion. Government unions didn't destroy the ability of the state to play hard ball, the state simply refused to do so because such measures were always unpopular.

bs. Its a self feeding loop no different than the military industrial complex. The unions give money to get the opoliticians elected. the politicians then "bargain" more gimmees for the unions slackers and make sure the mouthbreathing contingent of the unions stay sucking on the government tit instead of being rightfully fired. At least with the military industrial complex we get lots of cool toys. We don't even get that with government unions. We just get the Hell of DMV.

Free the Oppressed! Strike them down from their High Places! Unleash the Broadside of Liberty, the Great Belch of Freedom! Brrrrpp! Breath deep boys. Its the sweet smell of freedom!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corey85 wrote:Government union employees are the middle class...

No they are leaches on society. All Good God fearing Americans know that the Middle Class was here long before government unions, which were only enacted in the last 50 years.

Ah, the lower house just passed the bill. Excellent. Soon there will be no dawn for unions suing for Viagra.
in the words of the immortal bard:

Corey85 wrote:I still don't quite have words for the rage that I felt for Walker while holding my sobbing wife.

I remember the rage I felt towards my boss when he decided that everyone would have to take a 10% pay cut. Then the rage when I got laid off (along with 30% of the staff) because the company couldn't afford to have so many people. And my friend who still works there has gone from 10 hours 6 days a week to 12 and 6, just to make up for the loss of extra help.

But when your employer isn't making as much money, they can't afford to have high salaries for all of their employees. And the State of Wisconsin, like most states, has less tax revinue.

Although, I admit that it woulf have been nice if I could have voted for my own boss who would promise to increase my pay by taking on more debt for the company. Too bad it wasn't an option.

biccat wrote:
Actually, you didn't say this either. What you said was "he is doing his level best to conceal the fact that he wants to do away with collective bargaining..."

This is NOT union busting, it is an attempt to reduce excessive spending, something Walker has not been shy about. As I said, it may be debated as to whether eliminating collective bargaining is deficit-positive, but to suggest that his motivation is not based on spending is incorrect.

Here's a hint: Republicans think that public unions increase the cost of doing business. Eliminating them would therefore reduce spending.

Of course its union busting, you said as much in that last sentence. The fact that the GOP believes that union busting necessarily reduces costs does not change the fact that it is union busting.

As I said earlier, the issue is that the state doesn't need to do away with collective bargaining rights in order to limit union authority, or reduce costs; especially when the union in question is receptive to actual cost cutting measures.

biccat wrote:
I don't see how violating the law and running away from your job has ever been considered part of the "institutional rules." Quorum rules are in place to prevent secret meetings and allow all sides of a debate a chance to be heard. The motion to compel was instituted to prevent a minority faction from obstructing government action by fleeing the session to prevent quorum. The fact that the Sergeant at Arms has a limited jurisdiction and can't pursue across state borders is not an "institutional rule," it's a limitation of borders.

Nor did I say that it was. The point is that institutional rules can, and will (perhaps even should) be manipulated by representatives given the set of circumstances in which they are present; particularly if an issue that is close to the core of their constituency is threatened. We cannot pretend that any given institution exists in a vacuum.

biccat wrote:
In short, breaking the law/rules to achieve a result may be MORAL in some cases, but it shouldn't be confused with acting appropriately.

Clearly not, but that distinction still doesn't get us anywhere as appropriateness is always going to be determined by the viewer in question. If someone believes that a moral imperative is being violated by this bill, then they're probably going to state that its appropriate for the legislators in question to do everything in their power to prevent its passage.

biccat wrote:
I'm confused as to how something voted on by the Legislature is anything BUT democratic (Republican if you want to split hairs). The legislators were elected in a free and fair election, and should therefore be construed to reflect the will of the people. Those who didn't win a majority in the election should have no authority to restrict (outside of legal application of the institutional rules) the ability of the democratically elected majority.

My precise point, though, is that any given legislature is classified as democratic by the institutional rules that define it. For example, no one is going to claim that the Chinese legislature is a democratic institution despite being largely decided electorally. That is an obtuse example, but democracy is a deeply abstract concept that has no easy definition, and so allows for no easy counter example. Perhaps a better point might be that you will find many people that claim a legislature with the ability to move for cloture is not democratic.

biccat wrote:
Finally, I never said democratic=good. If so, then there's no rational basis to oppose any congressional action. Instead, I was responding to your suggestion that someone in this case was doing "whatever it is that they wish." No one person is acting with such authority, it is the combined will of the Governor and a majority of the Legislature that is acting on behalf of the people.

As I said, I was drawing an inference, which doesn't imply that's what you actually intended. I often find it easier to openly infer things during conversations on the internet, as it makes it clear how both parties are reading the presented text.

biccat wrote:
I would advise you to read the OP and thread title and then reconsider this question. If you still haven't found the answer, I will be happy to explain it to you.

Why is the OP relevant to what I said in my previous post, especially given that I alluded to the fact that the "gotcha" moment wasn't really important?

biccat wrote:
Well, you responded to my statement that he didn't say anything damning with only one substantive point. I assumed you were trying to suggest that this was what Walker did wrong. If that is the extent of his "misconduct", then I think this is a non-issue, wingnuts aside.

I was agreeing with you indirectly.

biccat wrote:
"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management."

Tl;dr: "it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

I don't think the issue the GOP has is that its impossible, if that were the case democracy itself would be farce, rather I imagine they simply think that its too effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
bs. Its a self feeding loop no different than the military industrial complex. The unions give money to get the opoliticians elected. the politicians then "bargain" more gimmees for the unions slackers and make sure the mouthbreathing contingent of the unions stay sucking on the government tit instead of being rightfully fired. At least with the military industrial complex we get lots of cool toys. We don't even get that with government unions. We just get the Hell of DMV.

Where in that self-feeding loop was the agency of elected officials taken away?

Seriously Frazzled, if the government is incapable of bargaining with anyone that invests in elected officials on a financial level, then democracy is literally impossible. The behavior you're talking about wouldn't be limited to public sector unions and the military-industrial complex, it would extend to all groups capable of leveraging significant capital in the course of effecting political change. Everything from the Christian Church to Walmart effectively becomes a detriment to democratic practice given what you've just argued; implying that no good can come of anything unless its a matter of direct reward to a constituency that you happen to be a part of.

Frazzled wrote:
Free the Oppressed! Strike them down from their High Places! Unleash the Broadside of Liberty, the Great Belch of Freedom! Brrrrpp! Breath deep boys. Its the sweet smell of freedom!

You have absolutely no concept of what oppression really is if you believe that anyone in the United States that pays taxes is oppressed.

Frazzled wrote:
1. And she gets paid the same as the mouth breather teachers who absolutely suck the souls from students. How's that working out.
2. Seriously, she's losing it because you might have to pay for beenfits at only half the rate of the private sector. Cry me a river.

..well.....

... My --admitedly scant -- understanding is that (only) five states have no collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows - South Carolina - 50th / North Carolina - 49th / Georgia - 48th / Texas - 47th ....../ Virginia - 44th

Wisconsin - with its collective bargaining for teachers -... is ranked SECOND in the country.

So, it appears that collective bargaining is GOOD for quality of education and absence of collective bargaining is BAD for quality of education.


I assume it is more expensive of course, but Arkansas, Alabama, North Dakota and Wyoming all allow it... and don't appear to be running defecits ?



Given evidence that collective bargaining does not necessarily cause deficits and appears to be GOOD for quality of education, one could well assume that Wisconsin's Governor Walker has got some other motives.

Still, I'm sure the media coverage will be fine...

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102230006

..hmm..

Oh, massive proprs to "Ian's Pizza". Cool guys.

reds8n wrote:
Given evidence that collective bargaining does not necessarily cause deficits and appears to be GOOD for quality of education, one could well assume that Wisconsin's Governor Walker has got some other motives.

Yes they have a massive budget deficit. They are going to start layoffs next week.
Viagra or layoffs, its a dichotomy I guess.

Frazzled wrote:Viagra for lay

hooray !

layoffs

.. booooo