OMG! you want us to pay for pensions=fascist pig

[Racket_Man]

There's a similar bill here in Ohio. It's Senate Bill 5. It would restrict collective bargaining, ban strikes by public workers, eliminate binding arbitration, and changes the way public employees pay for benefits.

.

here in Wisconsin, by law, ALL public, local and state employees can not strike. this was due to a nasty teachers (????) strike back in the early 1970's. I also think that there is no such thing as binding arbirtration here either.

[Boozy]

how does paying the price of a starbucks latte a day for insurance AND pension=poor? for me to purchase comparable insurance, would be over twice that($14/day), and that's just insurance.

Now you've changed your argument. Perhaps you're right that these state employees should be contributing more to their pension plans. What I'm disagreeing with is your original argument that state employees shouldn't have better pay or benefits than other, lower paid taxpayers:

actually for most of the people I've spoken with, it's the fact that we as minimum wage workers, who cannot afford insurance and retirement, are paying for it for people that make almost twice as much as we do if not more. As is a waitress making $2.35 per hour-how is that even remotely fair?

That's just not a valid argument. A judge should be better compensated than a waitress. A teacher should be better compensated than a cashier. It makes no difference if an infinitesimally small part of these low-wage workers paycheques go towards state employees' wages.

[Andara Bledin]

An Indiana prosecutor decided it would be a good idea to send an email to governor Walker stating: ""If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the public unions."

AP Article

And this is one of the people who is supposed to be working to uphold the law. 9.9

^-.-^

[Racket_Man]

the law got published even though there is a court injunction against doing that. which means the law might be "valid"

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/25/wi...e-court-order/

[FArchivist]

the law got published even though there is a court injunction against doing that. which means the law might be "valid"

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/25/wi...e-court-order/

Yeah, the Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and his brother Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald say that the law's online publication meant it would take effect Saturday.

Unfortunately for them, Secretary of State Doug La Follette said that he didn't know what the law's online publication meant, and that he's not taking any action because of the court order. Which is smart. If he does take action on it while there is an existing injunction, he's looking at a charge of contempt of court. 30-90 days in the pokey wouldn't look good on his record.

Steve Miller, the Reference Bureau's director, also disagrees, insisting that posting the law online was simply a procedural step and that the law wouldn't take effect until La Follette orders it published in a newspaper.

So frankly, the Fitzgerald brothers? Speaking out of their ass. I'd think they'd watch their step a bit; judges can get mighty cranky when they think someone believes they're immune to the law.

[Greenday]

No, there's a court injunction saying the secretary of state could not publish it. La Follette didn't publish it.

I have to laugh at the statement, "This is a dark day for Wisconsin and a travesty to our democracy."

A. We are a republic. The people do not create law or make the decisions. Representatives do.
B. This is who Wisconsin voted into power. Should have campaigned harder for the other side.

[FArchivist]

No, there's a court injunction saying the secretary of state could not publish it. La Follette didn't publish it.

That's taking a real narrow view of the injunction. The decision that goes along with the injunction has this to say:

I am now issuing a restraining order preventing further implementation of this act. (pg. 7 of 8)

That's very clear and direct...and also indicates that the Fitzgerald brothers are trying to run an endgame around a judge's injunction. As La Follette has refused to enforce the law as of today (Saturday), despite the Fitzgerald brothers' insistence to the contrary, I think that is very wise.

The Fitzgeralds need to be very cautious from here on out; too many of these types of shenanigans and they'll be hauled into court and bitch-smacked by a judge. You do NOT ignore the majesty of the law.

[Greenday]

Well, it specifically said La Follette couldn't further it. He didn't.

Also, they are splitting fine hairs by saying that just giving it to La Follette to read doesn't make it any closer to actually being official than it already was. Whether they delivered it to him or not doesn't change the fact that he hasn't read it.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, the judge has slapped down their attempt to end-run around her injunction by clarifying that in no way, shape, or form is this bill in effect.

AP Article at Forbes

The relevant quote:

Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation of (the law) was enjoined. That is what I now want to make crystal clear.

She is not amused, and many proponents are still trying to handwave the bill into effectiveness despite this.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Why are they not just passing it again?

[FArchivist]

Why are they not just passing it again?

Official word: They passed it correctly and they will prove it in the court of law! They have right and just on the side of WisGOP.

Unofficial word: They don't have the public support in their districts and if they try to pass it again, they're going DOWN in a recall election. And the governor along with them, since Walker didn't campaign on such a strict sanction against the unions.

She is not amused, and many proponents are still trying to handwave the bill into effectiveness despite this.

WisGOP politicians must not have been taught as Daddy FArchivist taught me: When it comes to matters of law, the judge is GOD in her courtroom. Do not disobey GOD. I am reminded of this one surgeon who tried that here in Atlanta.

[Rapscallion]

What happened with the surgeon?

Rapscallion

[blas87]

Katt has said it before, and I guess it needs to be said again. These threats of recalling Walker are absolutely idle and immature and just part of the rage of the protesting side. He hasn't been in office long enough to be recalled.

I have heard I don't know how many people talking out of their asses on how they are going to recall Walker and every Republican behind this mess, and I just want to laugh. "Someone will PAY for this!!!!"

[HYHYBT]

How is it an idle threat? He hasn't been in office long enough to recall *yet,* but that's hardly a guarantee that a successful recall won't happen as soon as he has been.

[blas87]

It's outrage and just part of the protesting.

That's just my opinion. Anyone who isn't from around here is free to keep making assumptions as well, but I wouldn't go making remarks of his imminent recall until next year, when or if it really happens.