Wisconsin Police Union Opposes Walker's Union-busting

Information on Governor Walker's Budget Adjustment Bill

On February 11, Governor Walker introduced a budget adjustment bill to address Wisconsin’s budgetary crisis. Specifically, Governor Walker’s proposal would do the following:

* The budget adjustment bill will include changes to WRS and to health care payments by employees.

* Neither the terms of WRS participation nor health care will be bargainable; they will become prohibited subjects of collective bargaining.

* The budget adjustment bill includes a requirement that employee contributions to WRS will be set at 5.8% for non-protective employees. The changes would take effect April 1, 2011.

* The bill also includes freedom for local government employers to mandate changes in health coverage plans that would generate savings; the Governor's goal is a 12.5% savings in health care contributions.

* Under the budget adjustment bill, increases in wages will be limited to increases in CPI. Larger increases could only be achieved upon approval by referendum. We believe this places hourly wages as a mandatory subject of bargaining, up to the threshold of CPI.

* Under the proposal, only hourly pay is bargainable. Lanes, steps, scales, and overtime would no longer be mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. The effect of this proposal would be to allow freezes in these areas.
It appears that the only mandatory subject of collective bargaining would be wages, and only up to the threshold of CPI.

* It is not known at this time whether there is to be any change in the rules regarding non-economic terms within contracts, such as sick leave, vacation, etc.

* Under the budget adjustment bill, "fair share" (required union dues payments) would be eliminated. We also anticipate further provisions in the bill affecting representation, including perhaps eliminations of required union memberships, requirements for annual certification votes, and similar measures.

* Current contracts will not be abrogated by the bill. However, passage of the bill could create pressure to reopen existing contracts.

* A major exception to these provisions are protective employees: police and fire employees. Included in the exception (and thus unaffected by the proposal) would be Sheriff staff. Corrections employees are apparently to be included in the proposal.

It was indicated that other reforms would follow in the biennial budget bill on February 22, 2011.

The WPPA will continue to monitor these legislation and post additional updates as developments occur.

While the WPPA appreciates that law enforcement is exempted from the bill's provisions, the WPPA opposes the bill on the basis of its union-busting measures. WPPA members are encouraged to contact their legislators to voice their concerns. Members can find their legislators their contact information by going to the following website: legis.wisconsin.gov...

www.wppa.com...

Bravo to the Wisconsin Police Union!

More:

Wisconsin police officers have participated in the Madison labor protests, not only on the job as public security, but also as demonstrators. "Law enforcement officers from all across the state are proud to stand with their fellow devoted public employees," says Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association. "We have been very impressed by how peaceful everyone has been."

www.democracynow.org... ting_wisconsin_officers_patrol_capitol

Despite the right-wing stereotypes, union people aren't violent thugs.

www.youtube.com...

Its funny obviously the last people they are going to take money from in pentions and other benefits are going to be the police. When they start doing that well then thats the time to strike

reply to post by apacheman


Unions have become monsters. In fact they are Criminal organizations frequently doing more harm than good.
Their leaders become very wealthy from the "dues" that members must pay. And then they call a strike and the workers lose more than they ever get back in pay raises.
It is time to do away with them, or greatly weaken their power.

Corporations who want to get away from them, take their business overseas.
And you see what that has done to this country.
Too bad the union bosses and their members cannot see it.

It seems obvious that government employees do not need a union.
So they have been asked to contribute to their pensions. Well boo hoo, I feel for them.

reply to post by OhZone


I think you miss the point my friend. Banning unions/collective bargaining is only the thin edge of the wedge. Every worker has the right to belong to a union who has the responsibility of negotiating salaries, benefits, working conditions etc...

It is down to the workers to regain control of the unions as it is everybody's duty to question where governments are leading. How can it be that the bankers have been allowed to lose all OUR money and yet we have to pay them to remain in business? Yet they are no more refrained from making the same mistakes and legislation relating to governance of the banks is yet to be introduced.

It's not only public employees who are feeling it I know, but they are not the ones to blame for this mess, but how convenient it is for government to introduce new legislation relating to salaries, benefits and working conditions.

Good on the Police in Winsconsin, at least they can see the bigger picture.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by OhZone

 

I think you miss the point my friend. Banning unions/collective bargaining is only the thin edge of the wedge. Every worker has the right to belong to a union who has the responsibility of negotiating salaries, benefits, working conditions etc...

Where in the bill is it banning unions? Limiting the collective bargaining of public employees is hardly banning unions. But I guess asking the 'civil' servants to contribute a bit more towards their pensions and health care benefits is extreme and anti-union.

On another note, I would be opposed to any measure that made an attempt of private workers being banned from unionizing, as it would be a direct conflict of the First Amendment. But limiting the power of a union is not.

Further, show me a work place that isn't unionized that has dangerous work conditions that are outside of the job description? Where children are being forced into labor practices that are against the social norm? Where wages are insanely lower than the skill required to accomplish a job (ie grossly below market price?) It is actually because of unions we see higher wages above market prices. This leads to a ripple effect in the goods and services we receive to be generally higher than market prices.

Unions served a great purpose in their day. They were needed to bring about a cultural change to the workforce. No one can really deny that fact. But today, today is completely different. There is so much regulation in the workforce it would be near impossible to go backwards from where we are at today. Case in point, I can lose my survivorship benefits if I climb a ladder that is over 6 feet tall without fall protection because of OSHA regulations. But because of those same regulations, I can refuse to do such a task if my employer has not provided adequate training or gear without fear of being punished. All without unions...go figure.

A very dangerous situation. Some of the police side with a vocal mob of malcontents against the will of the voters??..

This is, after all, shaping up to be a battle of 'us against them' now. But the 'us' are the 90 percent of American workers that AREN'T under the thumb of these corrupt Unions.

Simply put, the oppressors here are the Union bosses and those that side with them. A minority that does NOT represent the true American working class.


Not good, not good at all.

I am totally against public employee unions of any kind. Why you ask? If you are in a public employee union you can affect who will be your boss. You can support what ever politician will offer you the most goodies. Are you going to vote for the guy who promises to give you all kinds of free stuff or the guy who wants to be fiscally responsible? Think about it and then try an honest answer.

I have no problem with private sector unions because the workers need a strong voice to deal with the corporate bosses. Note the big difference - private sector unions have no influence on who runs the corporations.

reply to post by itguysrule


Umm, a non-union public employee can do the same through campaigning and voting for the candidate of their choice.

You are correct, the union members are hard working Americans just like you or I, however it is the leadership of said unions who are the thugs.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


With you 100%. This governor caused this "Crisis"

The unions all agreed to the cuts.

But that's not enough for governor bozo.

He wants to end collective bargaining, even though the unions agreed to the cuts needed to fix the fiasco that moron caused.

Damned good for the Police and firefighters and ems workers who are exempted from this but stand in support of the protesters!