Collective bargaining law published despite court order blocking it, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

Topic started on 26-3-2011 @ 02:34 PM by soficrow

Collective bargaining law published despite court order blocking it

host.madison.com

...the Legislative Reference Bureau published the law — normally the last step before legislation takes effect.

But the surprise publication on the Legislature's website had lawmakers and their attorneys arguing over whether the law will be in force Saturday.

Walker's legislation has been stuck in court ever since he signed it two weeks ago, challenged by critics who say Republicans violated the state's open meetings law to pass the measure.

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 26-3-2011 @ 02:34 PM by soficrow

When I think of unions, I always think of the food industry - from agricultural workers to grocery store stockers to restaurants.

And then I think of infectious diseases - health - public health, prions, flu.

H5N1 Bird Flu is just one of many dangerous and untreatable diseases poised to go pandemic. Other untreatable serious diseases already have gone global. For example, Drug-resistant TB could infect 2 million by 2015.

Of course, medicos and activists have been ranting about drug-resistant TB for some time now, and authorities have been considering all kinds of "solutions" - like this one, put on the table in 2007: Quarantine Until Death: The Pandemic Policy Now on Trial in the Court of Public Opinion.

Like Bird Flu, TB is a zoonosis - a disease that jumps back and forth between animals and people. Zoonoses are the greatest disease threat we face globally - and new zoonoses seem to appear every other week.

Sadly, our system forces medical specialties to compete with one another - doctors and researchers have to "pick" a disease to focus on - and few have the resources to look at the big global picture. So the focus is on "treatments" and "cures" - NOT prevention.

Big Pharma, vaccines and magic pills aside, our best defence is the same as it always has been - hygiene. Clean water and air, uncontaminated food, good nutrition - hand washing - and personal responsibility:

Don't go to work sick - especially if you handle food!

Unfortunately, the only low-level employees who can afford to miss work when they're sick have union contracts. Your friendly servers and the cooks who prepare your food aren't covered. Many have children, mortgage payments, car payments and lots of other bills. So they go to work sick - because they have to.

It doesn't look like that essential bit of prevention is about to happen. Unions are getting busted all over the place - never mind Wisconsin:

Union-Busting: Six Fired After Demanding Sick Days for Fast-Food Workers

Get ready. There are NO magic pills, and prevention is not covered.

Without unions, or some kind of public coverage, prevention will never be possible. 'Cuz people have to work. Without prevention we're looking at epidemics and pandemics, non-stop - and truly unthinkable solutions like eugenics policies or quarantine 'til death. ...In that light, unions don't look so bad to me.

host.madison.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 26-3-2011 @ 02:48 PM by lostviking

delete

edit on 26-3-2011 by lostviking because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-3-2011 @ 08:38 PM by desert

Originally posted by soficrow
.....
Big Pharma, vaccines and magic pills aside, our best defence is the same as it always has been - hygiene. Clean water and air, uncontaminated food, good nutrition - hand washing - and personal responsibility:

Don't go to work sick - especially if you handle food!

...........
In that light, unions don't look so bad to me.

Excellent post. I hadn't thought about that angle before. Americans do eat out a lot more, and buy more processed food, than when I was growing up.

When the economy started to rely on service industry, since manufacturing jobs were lost, and such services are used more, we do need to have healthy workers handling our food. Jeez, the thought of a sick worker coughing or sneezing on my food, or having tb or hepatitis.

People need to understand that gains in public health came not from fancy pills but from some things as simple as clean water and hygiene. Even trash removal is important to public health.

Combine ill workers working with a health care delivery system too expensive for low/minimum wage workers and add the fact that wages have been driven lower and lower....that could be one reason we're not as healthy a nation as we could be.

reply posted on 27-3-2011 @ 09:11 AM by soficrow

UPDATE:

Supporters of the law state that it will go into effect on Saturday. However, opponents of the law believe that the questionable legality of the Republicans' maneuver will be what ultimately dooms the bill to failure. At issue is whether or not this action constitutes a true publication of the bill, as well as whether Judge Sumi had the authority to issue a stay against the bill.

State District Attorney Ismael Ozanne has challenged Walker's controversial bill on the grounds that it violates the state's open meetings law. Madison lawyer Lester Pines says that this tactic by the state Republicans will immediately open up the bill to legal challenges by groups who are opposed to it, groups that would otherwise have been forced to wait for the law to go into effect. The Journal quotes Pines as saying that this turn of events will set in motion "a tsunami of litigation".

reply posted on 27-3-2011 @ 09:30 AM by beezzer

This entire issue is about having people in the public unions pay for their health insurance and to pay into their own retirement. This foot dragging has turned the entire process into an infantile example of what happens when unions don't get their way.
I honestly thought that my disgust over the entire process had reached an apogee,

until now.

reply posted on 27-3-2011 @ 09:53 AM by soficrow

Originally posted by beezzer
This entire issue is about having people in the public unions pay for their health insurance and to pay into their own retirement.

This case is about public unions - the larger issue is about unions in general.

reply posted on 27-3-2011 @ 09:58 AM by anon72

If true, sounds to me like those nasty Repubs are using an Obama playbook special. Do whatever you want, screw the courts.

Seems to be working for Obama so.....

reply posted on 27-3-2011 @ 10:08 AM by beezzer

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by beezzer
This entire issue is about having people in the public unions pay for their health insurance and to pay into their own retirement.

This case is about public unions - the larger issue is about unions in general.

No, I must respectfully disagree. This is all about public unions. To throw in unions in general muddy's the issue and changes the narritive. This is about the arrogance and greed of the public unions. To state anything different ignores the main points.

reply posted on 27-3-2011 @ 11:28 AM by soficrow

reply to post by beezzer

Obviously, I disagree - else I wouldn't have written the OP I did.

reply posted on 27-3-2011 @ 10:57 PM by Oaktree

This is a copy/paste from my post in this thread

Let me give you a bit of background on this judge.

First, she is a Circuit Court judge, presiding over civil matters, meaning, the majority of her day she listens to speeders, red light runners, parents of truant students, etc.

But wait, there's more than that to her.

Here's a snippet form a talk she gave, entitled:
“Judicial Decision Making: Activism or Accountability?”

She will begin with a brief overview of what a circuit court judge does, and then discuss decision making and the values associated with it--including Jewish values. Temple Beth El and Jewish Social Services of Madison affectionately host and co-sponsor this event. A light brunch follows the lecture.

But, the best for last.

Judge Maryann Sumi's son, is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council.

Jacob “Jake” Sinderbrand runs a company called Left Field Strategies, a firm that works on political campaigns.
From his bio on his company's website:

A lifelong political activist, Jake Sinderbrand got his start as a volunteer doorknocker, and has years of experience training both volunteers and canvassing staff. Jake graduated from Macalester College cum laude with a degree in political science, specializing in American political structures.
He has developed his professional political experience serving as a lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and as data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle.
Jake’s expertise in canvass planning and turf strategy helped these organizations to have among the most successful field operations in Minnesota.

For link's and sources, see my link in this thread

reply posted on 29-3-2011 @ 10:17 PM by richc

reply to post by beezzer

y Dear Fellow American,
This has not been an issue concerning the unionist health care or pensions ever since they conceeded on both those points which occurred right at the onset of this controversy. Since they conceededd on both those subjects the question that remained was why was Walker pursuing a non budgetary issue if this whole controversy was about "BUDGET REPAIR" as I think he termed it. The truth of the matter is, it has never been about the budget and instead it has always been about busting the Unions. If I am correct Walkers predecessors was a two term governor and in both his terms he balanced the budget and therefore Walker inherited a state with a balanced budget. But Walker must do his "MASTERS" bidding(the Koch Brothers) and to that avail he created the budget mest by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy and outside corporate interest and thus depleating the states revenue and now he says he has to fix it. And fix he will on 'WORKING' PEOPLES BACK.
Think about this, he's messing with your future too. If corporation A is a union shop and pays their employees union scale of say $20.00 per hour and corporation B is non union and doesn't want their employees trying to become union then they would likely pay the same to prevent occurrence. Get rid of unions and why would corporation B pay it's emloyees $20.00 per hour. Make no mistake, "public sector unions" are in the crosshairs today .But agressors don't stop. Why should they? If they take out public sector unions who is going to stand with the rest of us? This is not about unions, public or not,this is an assault on the American worker. This attack has been going on for decades. It started with Patco under Reagen, then Nafta under Clinton, and George Bush senior declaring a "New World Order".Under Nafta corporations enjoy vitual slave labor in places like China where workers work for $5.00 per day if they are lucky. But wouldn't it be wonderful for the corporate elite to have their very own slave labor force right here in America so they don't have to import their products from over seas. Do you really think that Wal Mart is giving you good deals when what they have actually done was help to increase the unemployment in America by importing most of their goods from over seas? Sam Walton's vision was MADE IN AMERICA.But he is not here and the corporation lives on without him. But the corporation is still being run so as to increase the bottom line . Corporations are not loyal to any country they are only loyal to their share holders and their share holders demand a return on their investments and please don't forget about the C.E.Os pay and bonus. That's is what is driving everything in America and that is what's driving Walker and it's never been about the budget.

reply posted on 29-3-2011 @ 10:20 PM by sepermeru

Originally posted by beezzer
This entire issue is about having people in the public unions pay for their health insurance and to pay into their own retirement. This foot dragging has turned the entire process into an infantile example of what happens when unions don't get their way.
I honestly thought that my disgust over the entire process had reached an apogee,

until now.

Yeah, unfortunately for that argument, the unions in this case long ago agreed to all the conditions and cuts. The one single thing they fought was the loss of the right to collectively bargain at all. Again: the unions in this case agreed LONG ago to ALL the cuts, and the governor refused to accept them. Can't be all that crucial, can they? Pretty clear what the real agenda was all along.

reply posted on 30-3-2011 @ 03:47 AM by links234

Originally posted by sepermeru
Yeah, unfortunately for that argument, the unions in this case long ago agreed to all the conditions and cuts. The one single thing they fought was the loss of the right to collectively bargain at all. Again: the unions in this case agreed LONG ago to ALL the cuts, and the governor refused to accept them. Can't be all that crucial, can they? Pretty clear what the real agenda was all along.

Quoting you because this needs to be read again and again until people realize that no, this wasn't about the 'greedy' unions, it was about dismantling the unions entirely.

Pages: ^^TOP^^