The American Spectator : Support Your Local Police?

Text Size

Support Your Local Police?

By Robert Stacy McCain on 3.4.11 @ 12:56PM

Ohio’s fight over public-sector unions presents a conservative dilemma.

When Ohio’s state Senate voted 17-16 Wednesday to approve S.B. 5, Frank LaRose became a target in the latest battle over government-employee unions. Not that LaRose is a stranger to battles — the 31-year-old is a former Army sergeant and decorated Iraq War veteran. But the fight over S.B. 5, which would limit the power of public-sector unions in Ohio, gave the freshman Republican state senator a baptism by fire into the world of political combat. After he voted in favor of the bill, once of the fiercest salvos was fired in a message posted Wednesday on LaRose’s Facebook page.

“Funny thing about cops, they hold a grudge,” said the message from Mike Piotrowski. That caught the eye of a group of College Republicans from the University of Akron who had supported LaRose in last year’s election, which the GOP candidate won by a decisive 57%-43% margin. The students quickly discovered that Piotrowski is a lawyer for the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, and complained that his message could be seen as a threat toward LaRose. Piotrowski denied intending to threaten the senator, but in a reply to one of the students, the lawyer snarled: “You don’t know what you are talking about. When Republicans talk about ‘Union Thugs’ they may as well be calling people the n-word.”

This was the latest provocation in the increasingly bitter confrontation between public-sector unions and Republican state officials. While the battle in Ohio hasn’t gotten as much attention as the massive union-led protests in Wisconsin against Gov. Scott Walker, the same dynamic is at work. And conservatives, who in January were accused of fostering a “climate of hate” that led to the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, are tired of “civility” lectures from liberals who don’t seem to notice the uncivil outbursts of their labor-union allies.

“In the last few weeks, example after example of incivility and even outright violence have been ignored, minimized, and diminished by the press,” conservative blogger Melissa Clouthier wrote in reaction to Piotrowski’s comments. “So, here’s another example, recorded as evidence that demonstrates that the true violent rhetoric and climate of hate is being fostered and encouraged by the left.”

Be that as it may, the seeming threat from the Ohio police union lawyer highlights a key difference between the GOP’s battles with public-section unions in Wisconsin and Ohio. The legislation that would limit collective-bargaining rights of government employees in Wisconsin exempts police, firefighters and other emergency personnel, whereas the bill that passed the Ohio Senate this week does not.

Taking on police unions presents a particularly troubling dilemma for conservatives, who naturally support police as upholders of the law and certainly don’t think of themselves as “anti-cop.” Indeed, many conservatives of a certain age will recall a time when it seemed police were the only institution in society that could prevent America from descending into anarchy.

During the 1960s and early '70s, campuses erupted in anti-war protests, cities were burning in riots of the “long hot summers,” street crime was rapidly escalating, and daily newspaper headlines told of violent terrorism perpetrated by radical groups like the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, and the Symbionese Liberation Army. It was during that stormy era that the John Birch Society promoted a bumper sticker with a simple four-word slogan: “Support Your Local Police.”

If you couldn’t trust anyone else to resist the subversive tide, the Bircher slogan suggested, at least you could trust the cops.

The recent struggle over public-sector unions threatens to undermine that trust. Fraternal Order of Police has never been part of the AFL-CIO and indeed, from its inception, the FOP has tried to avoid the “union” label. Yet FOP acts as a collective bargaining agent between police and the communities that employ them, and that’s what brought the FOP into the controversy over Ohio’s S.B. 5.

Like many other labor groups in Ohio, the FOP clearly felt betrayed by LaRose’s support for the legislation. Last year, the Republican’s campaign website boasted that LaRose had “been endorsed by the Ohio and Vicinity Regional Council of Carpenters; the International Longshoremen’s Association; the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18; United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 880; and the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.”

In a statement Thursday, LaRose said he “agonized over this decision” to vote for S.B. 5 and explained: “The people of our community sent me to Columbus to stand up for them and make tough decisions based on what’s in the best interest of all Ohioans.… I am duty bound to do what’s best for Ohio, even when it may be unpopular.”

And in what was obviously a response to harsh remarks from Piotrowski and others, LaRose added: “I sincerely value and respect the position of those who oppose my vote.It is however intolerable and unproductive to resort to mean-spirited personal attacks and senseless threats. Those who engage in such behavior degrade the necessary public discourse and demean their own cause as well. The citizens of our state deserve better.”

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (92) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

mames| 3.4.11 @ 1:49PM

I support the police but not their union war! :)

Sean| 3.4.11 @ 2:02PM

Fact is most police departments are bloated. Here in Texas it is not unusual to see police almost everywhere handing out tickets in low crime cities. This has a double effect on tax payers. They are often fined for very minor traffic offense to keep these police busy. They also must fit the bill for the bloated departments. It is time to cut the fat in all public sectors including police.

Alan Brooks| 3.5.11 @ 12:01AM

Sean is an honest Texan, a rare specimen. The police, courts, prisons,
are rackets today; they do not correct, they not only punish, they are fleecing itinerants-- making them even more foolish than they are to begin with. However this is libertopian: "It is time to cut the fat in all public sectors including police."

Wont happen any time soon with police: they can threaten to walk off and let criminals take over-- unless the Guard is called in.

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 3:22AM

I agree with you on this one Alan. Strange but true.

Think about the perverse symbiosis...

The cops depend on drug dealers to justify their positions and compensation, etc. The drug dealers depend on the cops, federal, state and local to keep the price of their commodity high.

If you could walk into the local drug store and buy factory refined heroin over the counter, perhaps with, perhaps without perscription how is it that a drug dealer could make any money selling heroin on the street?

If you could walk into the local drug store and buy factory manufactured marijauana cigerettes, cocaine or heroin two out of three cops would be out of work, that goes the same for lawyers and judges and corrections ossifers and jails and prisons and so fourth. Basically you'd be looking at gutting the entire "corrections" industry.

When I was a kid I lived in a "Dry" county. What that translates into is that you couldn't leagally buy alcohol in the county. From time to time there'd be a wet/dry referendum on the ballot. You could count on two prople getting up on the steps of the court house on the Saturday mornings a week or two before the elections to rant about the evils of alcohol and that was all the preachers and the boot-leggers.

Now, in reality, most "right minded" folks will tell you that they don't want heroin sold in the drug stores for any reason. They say that folks would be out driving cars up and down the road on heroin. The fact of the matter is that folks are out riding up and down the road on heroin anyway with the added bonus of the local drug lord completely willing, able and eager to kill off his competition. You have cops out more or less willing and able to capture or kill the local drug lord. And from time to time an innocent bystander gets wound up in the cross-fire. Me personally, I'd rather have the stuff sold legally and cut the violence out of the equation but most folks don't see the issue that way.

Mike Rogers| 3.5.11 @ 11:14AM

If we simply prosecute bad behavior, and causing injury to others, the only people getting jailed will be the ones with no self control.
End the drug war now!
I hate drugs, don't take anything stronger than Aspirin, and have no patience with habitual users of any substance, but the drug war's perverse consequences are much more harmful than a few drunks and druggies.

Coal Miner's Son| 3.6.11 @ 3:31PM

I've thought the same thing for a long time. The only exception I have is to Meth. And I only oppose meth because if your neighbor is cooking it in his house, the toxic fumes can do harm to neighbors. If you rent an apartment, a methlab can ruin the whole building. I've seen stories in the papers about garbage bags almost spontaneously combusting when the garbage collectors pick them up. I say legalize all the other stuff and it'll be easier to shut down the methlabs.

Steve B | 3.5.11 @ 7:16AM

Seems to me I recall about 20-30 years ago there were a couple of cities that had police strikes - only to experience a decline in crime rates of about 12-14 percent. (A possible reason police feel "duty bound" not to strike ;-)

It was actually a cop who offered the most reasonable explanation for this. When he knows he can't call the cops, John Q. Citizen arms himself - and John Q. is a hell of a lot more likely to shoot a burglar than a cop - and crooks know this.

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 12:23PM

Seems as I recall that these surplus cops came about from federal initiatives to reduce crime in the face of the success of concealed carry laws being passed in most states. A state allowing folks to walk around with guns and crime going down. The federal government couldn't have a statistic like that, people taking care of themselves and all so along came the "Me too!" tough on crime federal programs that allowed localities to hire extra cops.

Mike Rogers| 3.5.11 @ 11:10AM

It is time for all states to review the laws on their books, and think in terms of the freedom of their citizens, instead of socially engineering desirable outcomes.
For example, all the nit-picking laws about cellphones, headsets, texting, even seatbelts, sound like good sense, but in fact are licenses for unreasonable search and seizure. Likewise speed and redlight cameras, which are sponsored by the manufacturers - hmmmmm.
The simple antidote to the behavior modification laws is to stop and prosecute people for actual erratic driving - as we Brits call it "driving without due care and attention".
The simple answer to seatbelt and helmet laws is to allow the insurance companies to limit payouts in the case of (again from the Brits) "contributory negligence". EG - you do, or fail to do, something which increases your chance of injury, Voila! Less payout.

The simple Answer to "you must hate the police if you want to rein in collective bargaining" is to point out that the critical flaw in the overly generous retirement and health benefits promised by so many states, cities and towns, is that the beneficiaries do not own the benefit plans. The plans are owned and paid for by our, and their, grandchildren, who will eventually chafe at the yoke, and stop paying.

So, my question to all the public employees, especially police and fire departments, is this: "Do you feel lucky, punks, well do ya?" What I mean is - Would you rather rely on the town for an inflated promise, which may not be met, or would you rather have 100% ownership of a 401k or similar plan, to which the town makes a matching contribution? Anybody who relies on future punitive taxation for their own income is taking a big risk. Much better to hit the reset button now.
In addition, switching to a 401k program, especially if state law removed any employee contribution limits, would permit the police or fire officers to "bank" extra contributions during years of high overtime, which would permit overtime to be spread out, instead of being loaded into the final years on the job.

Finally, I'd end the traffic detail racket - hire private firms for such jobs, and let the police officers take the second job if they need a temporary income boost, but don't create incentives for police to be diverted from their main task.

Alan Brooks| 3.6.11 @ 11:18AM

No, people only deep down care about "me and mine"
They care about their people, their kind.

FTM| 3.6.11 @ 10:17PM

Wouldn't work in the US, makes too much sense.

Alan Brooks| 3.7.11 @ 1:58AM

in other words people have to be destroyed for productivity's sake-- that makes sense.
But in Heaven one can finally find peace. Amen.

FTM| 3.8.11 @ 1:54AM

I'm sorry Alan, I've forgotten the context of the conversation and lost you in a turn. Is there a problem with this idea of limiting insurance payouts in the case that somebody is doing something to endanger themselves or others? From my chair that seems like a better idea, maybe not a good idea. Seems that it would provide an incentive for folks to put the cell phone in airplane mode when they're driving, stuff like that.

martin j smith| 3.4.11 @ 2:37PM

The example of police and Unions is one of many groups that present real security issues for citizens. One thing that should not be is a kind of Union blackmail against the citizens. That means NO STRIKES. Putting it another way if Police or any unions essentially use their power to force unsustainable demands for money --I am opposed to that. Same for fire Department and should also be the same for Sanitation workers among others. I do not support any group of workers who extort "agreements" when a strike would lead to a danger to the citizens.
I could just imagine a Military Union.
Then there is the political element which truly others me. Why would I support any Union esecially in the public sector which is essentially a Democrat Socialist Party organ ? For me in the case of Police it is the security element that is paramount.

Alan Brooks| 3.5.11 @ 12:05AM

"I could just imagine a Military Union."

Keep appointing Rumsfelds, and you might get just that.

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 7:42AM

The have a military union in Holland. You ought to see the Dutch Army, looks more like a reform school chain gang than an organized military.

Alan Brooks| 3.6.11 @ 11:22AM

Rumsfeld: another Marshall-- but only in his mind.
How in over their heads were the Bush League!

Publius| 3.7.11 @ 1:29PM

Well, Alan, I suspect I speak more authoritatively on the condition of the military than you do.

Rumsfeld was, and remains, very popular with the military.

Try again.

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 4:38AM

Actually the issue that you raise regarding public safety is why there is a second ammendment to the constitution in the first place. You are responsible for your safety. If you wait around for the cops to solve your problems for you then you will forever be a victim.

Did you know that the supreme court has already ruled tha the cops are not compelled to guarantee your safety?

PolishKnight| 3.4.11 @ 2:43PM

I don't think there's a conflict. Imagine, say, if liberals supported collective bargaining for... combat troops. Soldiers stationed at the DMZ in South Korea don't think their benefits are good enough? Walk away and see how long before "management" caves in!

The primary reason why collective bargaining is tolerated for private companies is the factor that if management thinks their demands are too high, they have the option to fold up shop and let some other company rise up out of nowhere and address a public need. This has been the case with car companies, for instance. With police, no other private agency is authorized to fully take over that role. It's a double monopoly both for management and the unions hence the reason they get along so well together.

Police unions, in addition as Sean has pointed out, also tend to get real comfy with judges, politicians, DA's, and other special interests. It's literally allowing unions to use a gun in "collective bargaining". Tony Soprano would be jealous if his type probably weren't ALREADY involved!

ALL government unions should be disbanded. Period.

Alan Brooks| 3.6.11 @ 11:23AM

First eliminate Selective Service then I will pay attention.
You must fight your own wars from now on.

PolishKnight| 3.7.11 @ 11:55AM

Alan, that's a non-sequitur. On the contrary, selective service proves the point that allowing soldiers in the military to walk away from their posts would be detrimental to national security!

That said, I think that the option to enter into national service should be entirely voluntary. Ironically, much of the reason why western socialists now view the military as obsolete is due to the atom bomb. No country will invade the USA as long as we have nukes and vice-versa: The USA will not invade any country that has them (hence, if Saddam REALLY had one, we would NOT have been so quick to send in troops!)

GavInTucson| 3.6.11 @ 10:28PM

Well, at the federal level, all it would take is a stroke of the President's pen (the next president, obviously), as they were created by executive order thanks to JFK.

JimH| 3.4.11 @ 3:25PM

I support the police in as far as they help to secure property and public safety. As individuals most are brave and dedicated. As government bureaucracies and for members, the unions, their main interests are advancing themselves. Police, like all other government employees, should not have unions and should be barred from collective bargaining. I think that a case can be made that all government workers should be kept from voting and donating to political causes while employed by the state.

DanH in Alaska| 3.4.11 @ 4:23PM

OK JimH, make your case for denying me my right to vote or contribute to my choice of a political cause or politician. I’ve been paying taxes since I was a 14yr old boy. Spent 20yrs in the Air Force, five years working for a private sector corporation and am presently employed by the Army. Although I’m represented by the AFGE union I pay no dues to them nor would I. I’ve never voluntarily belonged to a union nor will I. I’m in complete agreement with others here that collective bargaining for public sector employees is an incestuous relationship. (a franchise we Gov. workers don’t have) How exactly does my chosen path of employment qualify me for your desire to disenfranchise me?

JimH| 3.4.11 @ 4:56PM

I did not say that it was my opinion or practical. Just raising a point for discussion. The point is that government workers, particularly unionized ones have influence which outweighs their numbers on those who determine how much they are paid. And after all, working for the government is a choice. No one is drafted. On the other hand, you may be familiar with Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. In this story the only people to have a vote are those who have completed military service. The point there being that only those who had put their lives on the line in protecting the country(planet) should have a say in how it was run.

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 4:40PM

DanH,

The root source of the problem that we're looking at here is not so much that public sector employees get to vote it's that we let everybody in this country vote without restriction. In Post Colonial America, take Virginia for example, in order to qualify for the "right" of public franchise one had to legally own property or legal tender or a combination of the two over and above a certain amount. The logic being that the folks that were paying the bills by way of taxes were the folks who decided how the money was to be spent. As a consequence government was small and government expenditures were even smaller.

Today we let everybody vote regardless. All you have to do is to live for eighteen years and you're in. We allow the welfare class and in some places even the criminal class to vote. We can't even stop people that are in the country illegally from voting.

The net result of this "liberty" is that we are now fourteen trillion dollars in debt and climbing with no end in sight. We have perhaps an illegal alien as a sitting President. Add in state debt and the actual debt owed by the United States of America is probably closer to twenty-five trillion dollars.

Now, due to the fact that we have no effective way to rectify the debt situation via a sane political process the country is headed for collapse with no way to aviod or to break the momentum. In my own humble opinion I believe that the United States of America will be administered by the military in five and no less than ten years. E. g. a military dictatorship.

I see some lashing out between or at certain groups, don't take it to heart. My take is that you're looking at panicked people doing what panicky people do. The truth is that disenfranchising public sector employees will have a small net impact on the problem at hand. Me personally, I'd disenfranchise everybody that couldn't prove half a million dollars in net assets.

JimH| 3.6.11 @ 8:12AM

I agree. Any faith I may have had in democracy was lost years ago, when going to vote in NYC I had to wait while an intellectually challenged (formerly retarded) group of adults from a local residence were led in one by one, escorted by their supervisor?, keeper?, into voting booths to exercise their rights.

Publius| 3.7.11 @ 1:31PM

Maybe I'm not following you, DanH, but why do you feel disenfranchised? Because you don't have collective bargaining rights?

George S| 3.4.11 @ 4:18PM

There is no dilemma. All that has to be done is apply basic economics. The job of police officer is demanded by the consumer, the taxpayer. Individuals are at liberty to offer their labor to meet that demand. That individual expects compensation. If the offer by the taxpayer is acceptable by the prospective police officer candidate, then there is no economic reason to offer higher compensation. Once the offer of employment is accepted, collective bargaining has no place in the dynamic -- unless it is directed at the "management", and concerns the working conditions imposed by superior officers or the chief. Compensation is off limits; you agreed prior to taking the job. To complete the economic analysis, if there are more qualified applicants than job openings, there is no reason to offer higher compensation. However, if the taxpayers have trouble finding qualified applicants, they petition their legislators to do something. Such as raising the base pay or adding benefits. That's the way it is done in the free market. No conservative dilemma here.

jomo2009| 3.4.11 @ 4:43PM

At the very least, if policemen, firefighters and emergency response personnel are to be exempt from collective-bargaining restrictions there must be an iron-clad no-strike clause included. As Calvin Coolidge said, "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time."

martin j smith| 3.4.11 @ 4:45PM

George S. The Market works--but then there is " The Economy". Todays "Economy" aint so great and their are factors that can be a serious problem such as inflation,etc. Bottom line if we dont got the dough, there is no where to go

QuietPro| 3.4.11 @ 5:25PM

As a Federal Law Enforcement Officer originally from Ohio, I feel compelled to weigh-in here. I have been a staunch Republican and heavy-leaning conservative my entire adult life. I chose to become a Police Officer because it was my calling. I have never asked anyone for a "hand-out", nor do I feel unionized departments should make no contributions on the part of it's members. It is right and proper to do so; for the officer is also a taxpayer and expected to pay his share.
However, I am increasingly angered and disturbed at this public backlash against public employees; primarily against Police, Firemen, and Teachers. I am tired of being made out like I don't work or collect welfare. I am tired of this totally false stereotype that I have a "Fat Paycheck" awaiting me in retirement. Ladies and gentlemen, there is a REASON that Policemen aren't living in mansions during their service or in retirement. There's a REASON Beverly Hills isn't stuffed with retired public-sector employees. The concept that we are bloated fat-cats is laughable, at best. The concept that we make no contibutions is insulting.
I recall in the 90's when public service was snubbed by many private sector workers; mainly because "There's no money in Gubmint work!" Funny, those same people are now not only angry at their own dire situations, but worse: ENVIOUS that we are still employed in our lower-paying jobs, that we took in exchange for more generous job-security and a pension in retirement.
So ladies and gentlemen who are screaming "They don't do anything, 'cause their lazy!".... Spare me your foolish envy, which is disguised as indignant anger. There is no private equivalent for my job, so also spare me the ridiculous argument that "If they don't like it, they should do something in the private sector, instead."
Public Sector employees didn't cause this mess we're in. Private companies such as the banks did. Fannie Mae and Freddy did. T.A.R.P. did. Start learning about the history of this crisis before you break out a torch and pitchfork. For quite frankly, I'm tired of my own party looking at me like The Boogeyman. Continue down this path, Republicans, and I will have no hesitation to switch my vote in 2012. Contrary to popular belief, most Firemen and Policemen are Republicans, and incredibly conservative. You're needlessly antagonizing huge chunks of your own voting block with this blind nonsense!

WillyP | 3.4.11 @ 6:09PM

I have never seen anyone screaming what you claim. In fact I don't see anyone claiming you are overpaid, lazy or anything else. Where did you get that? Don't listen to liberals or lefties who have no concept of what a conservative thinks. They simply don't, or refuse to understand, or even think about what they say. Or is it the union feeding you that line? But the fact is most who go into public service jobs do so for job security. Not because they want to get rich. Many like to feel they are doing a service for the community, and they are right. And I don't think any conservative, or Republican, has a problem with that.
The history of the crisis is well known here, you don't need to lecture anyone who reads this blog about it. But you are insisting that I pay for it and not you. I worked in the building industry, and lost my job as a result. I lost my house, went through bankruptcy. I had to cash in my 401 to get myself back into self employment, and it is still horribly slow. So, no I don't think anyone is getting rich as a patrolman or firefighter. But I do wish they see the importance of everyone tightening the belt a little, let's work together to pull through this.

It's either that or we let Obama drive us through the ditch and off the cliff.

QuietPro| 3.4.11 @ 6:52PM

Apparently I DO need to lecture, or this backlash against us wouldn't be occuring in the first place. We are in agreement that public employees both need to contribute. Your assertion that "I pay for it, and not you" is totally false. I pay taxes; I pay contributions into my own retirement as a Fed and I did as a public employee worker in Ohio. Where did you get the idea that public employment is a free ride?

I have no problem with belt tightening and collective bargaining to make concessions; negotiating as was always intended. I absolutely have a problem with talking heads- many of whom are conservative commentators well regarded here- on Fox News claiming we are causing the country's problems. I have a problem with taking away collective bargaining; effectively giving us no voice or say. The fact that I'm a public servant does not indenture me to you, the private citizen.

I am no fan of Obama and hold him in low regard. But I am even less of a fan of those who would try to sacrifice public employees on the altar of public opinion for the sake of plotical gain or just plain envy.......both of which is occuring with the legislation in Wisconsin and Ohio.

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 5:00AM

Read the post at the bottom of the page. An entry level patrolman in the National Socialist People's Republic of Illinois made more per year that I did as a vetran manufacturing engineer working in an automobile assembly plant. On top of that I paid twenty percent of my medical, dential and vision if I elected to have the dental and vision where the cops got all that as a part of the package.

Sorry QuitePro but your arguement doesn't stand up to the sniff test. It's not a question of compensation or productivity it's a question of parity. Where is it in the private sector that you do twenty and out? Where is it in the private sector that you do twenty and out and draw a pension then go back to work and continue to draw the first pension and at the end of the second twenty draw two pensions like the school teachers do? Dude, get a job.

I have an aunt and an uncle. Both did twenty years as public school teachers. During the first twenty they both got masters degrees then PhDs in education. No big deal there, you hit all the political correctness hoops along the way and you're over half way there.

Anyway, after the first twenty they retired, and got cashed out for their accumulated sick and vacation time. Now as a school teacher that works nine months out of the year how hard can it be to accumulate hundreds of vacations days?

So these folks retire, cash out their sick and vacation time, several hundred thousand dollars, live in retirement over the summer then go back to work as principles or assistant principles with hundred-thousand dollar salaries, accumulate a couple hundred more sick and vacation days then retire again after the second twenty and get cashed out again.

QuietPro, where does that happen in the private sector? Show me, I missed something.

Actually I screwed up big time, I had the example sitting there in front of me, I was just too stupid to take the hint. I've been in the work force long enough that I could have been retired once if I had had the sense to be a school teacher or a cop. Not to pick a fight with you but where is the apples to apples comparison between the public and private sectors? That's the issue here.

GavInTucson| 3.6.11 @ 10:50PM

Actually, QuietPro, as a public servant you are indentured to the private citizen. You serve them and they pay your salary. What part of PUBLIC SERVANT don't you understand?

I'm a 21 year active duty member of the USAF. There is no military union. We do not demand collective bargaining. We serve the taxpayer, not the other way around.

If the demands of your service to the public are too unbearable to handle, I suggest you leave. I think it takes a lot of gall to expect to hold your employer (the taxpayers paying your salary) hostage.

Lillith| 3.6.11 @ 3:13PM

As they say in church "Tell it, Brother!" Truer words were never written.

Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 5:25PM

No sir, it was ALL hazardous government service in Starship Troopers, not only military service. Heinlein made that point VERY clear. The point was a willingness to sacrifice self to the limit in exchange for political power.

JimH| 3.5.11 @ 8:05AM

Its been years since I read it. So you are probably correct. Maybe its a good time to reread. The point though, I think is still the same. One did not become a full citizen and have a vote until service was completed. To me, in an ideal world, the government would not have much to do with our daily lives so elections might be less critical, albeit still a civic duty.

MERLIN| 3.4.11 @ 7:23PM

Why oh why is there any dilemna? What is the difference between teachers and police. They are both providing a monopoly service. Their unions spend vast amounts to elect Democrats who they then "negotiate" with. The only restraint on the give away is the potential for voter uprisings over taxes. To solve that issue the politicians provide benefits that must be payed by taxpayers in the future: extraordinary pensions, early retirement, etc. Federal workers, including the FBI, are limited to collective bargaining over minor issues such as dress codes, facial hair, etc. There is not the slightest reason to allow public employees, police or firemen or teachers, to bargain collectively over wages and benefits. Like any other workers, if they don't like the offer they can take some other job.

QuietPro| 3.4.11 @ 7:46PM

Because, as I mentioned above, we public servants are not indentured to you the private citizen. Public service is not a form of slavery; it is not for you to dictate my work conditions or benefits any more than it is for me to dictate yours. I provide a service. You provide a service. For which we are entitled to compensation and benefits.....which is already collectively bargained by private unions around the country. Your argument that for the sake of being a public worker means I have no say or nor voice in my career's work conditions carries no water. One does not give up their rights when one chooses public service; as much as you'd like for that to be the case.

Wayne | 3.4.11 @ 10:44PM

YOU provide a service. You need to negotiate, not the union. We the tax payer are not slaves either, working for your union.

MERLIN| 3.5.11 @ 4:52PM

You have a comical ignorance of economics. If buyers (employers) don't offer a competitive wage and benefit package, workers move to other firms and industries, where the compensation is better. The competition for workers prevents employers from offering less than what workers could earn elsewhere. No one is indentured. Private unions, which represent a tiny fraction of workers, raise wages by reducing labor supply in unionized firms, thereby increasing labor supply and driving down wages in non-unionized firms. This represents a redistribution among private workers. Public employees just like private employees are not indentured and are free to leave if the wage and benefit package doesn't meet competitive alternatives. Your confusion is that as a public employee you seem to think you are entitled to lifetime secure employment and don't want to have to seek alternative employment. This is not an indenture, it is laziness. If you don't like what the government offers, go somewhere else. The only public employees that are effectively indentured are those that have enlisted in the military for a specific period of time and cannnot leave at will. The military, of course, is not allowed collective bargaining.

Lillith| 3.6.11 @ 3:21PM

CORRECTION: My statement of support goes to Quiet Pro, not the idiot posting that followed. I've worked with police, have great friends who are police and they deserve every benefit they get. Next time someone breaks into your house, or kidnaps your child - call a libertarian!

GavInTucson| 3.6.11 @ 10:53PM

Actually, I think I'll use my firearm, since I'm pretty sure a policeman won't be sitting in my living room at the time of the break-in.

Roy| 3.4.11 @ 8:31PM

Actually most private work is not collectively bargained.

Not being able to have taxpayer money confiscated through government guns at the whim of an arbitrator != "indentured servitude". Just like anybody else, you have the option to quit.

Richard Baker| 3.4.11 @ 9:36PM

QuietPro:
Regardless of your arguments, the taxpayers cannot afford exorbitant salaries, benefits, and pensions, anymore. If this isn't acceptable then go find another line of work. The public sector looting of America at the State and Federal level is OVER. In the aggregate, the total cost of public service employment has become prohibitive and is destroying the country. Pay the same share of your benefits/pensions as the rest of us do and receive the same salary levels, as well. How much will you be making when the governments you work for are bankrupt and the layoffs occur in the millions?

QuietPro| 3.4.11 @ 9:58PM

I've spoken my peace, and won't debate with you anymore. You've made up your minds, anyway, so what would the point be?

PCC| 3.4.11 @ 10:17PM

Neither police, fire nor any other group of public employees are entitled to a free pass on job cuts and belt-tightening.

However, collective bargaining is probably the only effective means to prevent the exploitation of individual workers, public or private. The enforced absence of collective bargaining is an invitation to unfair labor conditions.

Joining a union should be voluntary, ballots to form a union should be secret and free of intimidation, and re-certification and de-certification should be straightforward and above-board.

In return for the right to bargain collectively, public unions should not be allowed to strike.

Corrupt bargains between public unions and their political masters should be rectified at election time and, if criminal, in the courts.

Dee See| 3.4.11 @ 11:17PM

---Seeing that federalization, indeed, even
the use of foreign personnel on the ground
is already here, though still low key.

Hurl the flubba-dub decoys and frontmen
a la FOX News and Glenn Beck.

---Forget Washington.

GO to the source.

March on the New York office of the
private, illegal, UNCONSTITUTIONAL Federal Reserve.

Exorcise this nation, and the world, of the
TAX FREE, ultra-rich, capstone 'charitable'
(i.e. EUGENICS driven) foundations, NGO's and
their proxies.

Toss out the UN/WHO and UNESCO.

Unflinchingly FACE these issues ---and problems like this case in Ohio will evaporate within weeks.

-----WE GUARANTEE IT

Marc Jeric| 3.5.11 @ 12:14AM

Given time, every union will fall into the hangs of either the Mafia (less dangerous) of the communists (much more dangerous and mote common today). By their nature the unions of government employees are criminal conspiracies against the people (especially so in conjunction with Democrats), and should therefore routinely be prosecuted under RICO laws.

Pelligrino| 3.5.11 @ 12:52AM

I am frankly beginning to question every segment of our society and each segment's mores -- to include the police.

How many others heard the very long letter that radio host Mark Levin read earlier this week (or mid week last week? Sorry, not sure.) from the California state policeman who had recently retired after 30 some years on the force. Perhaps Mr. Levin has podcasts? I think I want to relisten to this letter. You should hear it, too.

The Californian's letter to Mr. Levin stated that he was earning over $105,000 base pay as a regular policeman at the end of his police career -- as annual salary. That's what I understood.

And the policeman was fully criticizing the California police benefits by saying that the latter half of his police career his monthly salary had $0 deducted to pay for 1) retirement or 2) medical care. At the outset of his career, single digit percentages of his monthly/yearly pay were deducted to help fund his retirement and medical coverage.

How is this possible?

The primary point of this California now retired policeman's letter: This grossly puffed up salary, benefits, and retirement packages for policemen will indeed bankrupt municipalities (obviously adding other public sector personnel like firemen, school teachers, public works, medical services, etc.) They are sweet deals; they are disproportionate to the services rendered and to what the municipalities’ taxpayers can even hope to support. And the overpayments AND over generous benefits are so obviously unsustainable.

But nobody blows the whistle because that would 1) cause real consequences like real threats – example, police lawyer Mr. Mike Piotrowski of Ohio (above), and 2) hurt oneself financially. (Makes me wonder why the California cop didn’t write this letter to Mr. Levin 3 or more years prior to his retirement.)

I am hearing very similar stories from retiring New Jersey and New York state policemen who come into the area to live. Almost identical to the California policeman.

Many who seem to freely admit to the "injured on duty" scam to obtain "disability" in the final 12-24 months of police duty prior to retirement from the force. This is done (with the ethics violating assistance of corrupt doctors) to further enhance the monthly/yearly retirement paycheck.

I also see the police 'coming after' (Is that the right terminology?) senior citizens in my family almost seeming to extort donation monies from them at times of the year like Christmas. The "shake down" seems obvious: We'll take your donation and mark you down as a good citizen and then take care of you, patrol your street, etc. No donation? Well....(And they do keep these 'donation' records.)

We do have a terrible problem when law enforcement, lawyers, judges, and politicians are so very tightly intertwined. And they are. I would argue that this is even worse than public sector teacher unions funding the politicians. (Both are BAD - completely unethical.)

The police, lawyers, and judges (our criminal justice system) can harass ANYONE ANYTIME regardless as to whether there is a shred of merit to the harassment.

This is the consequence of getting older, learning more, and experiencing more: You see more corruption revealed – everywhere (police, public teachers, politicians, lawyers, doctors billing for procedures not done, ‘Green’ professors at the universities falsifying data to keep the millions in grant monies flowing, President of Planned Parenthood earning an annual salary of $350,000 – all taxpayer monies...the list goes on and on.)

LED Tube | 3.5.11 @ 1:30AM

asd

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 4:02AM

OK everybody. First, I've worked with cops with their handgun shooting and the like. Passing what is called the PPC ot the "Practical Pistol Course" and the like. This was a HUGE mistake for me on my part because I got to be kinda/sorta comfortable/familiar/known to the cops. Not a cop but in and out of the local cop shop a lot, kinda like a coke machine, something that is part of the background and you don't look at twice.

My experience goes like this. The criminals with the guns are only a little bit worse than the criminals with the guns and the badges.

Case in point, the cops don't give a hoot about truth or justice or right and wrong. The cops have a piece of paper or a file jacket that they want to go away. If they can hang a crime on you they will and at the end of the pay period they get their check and they go to the house.

If you believe in this "Blue Knight" horse$hit I am sorry for you.

I've had more than one cop confide to me that the reason that they carry a back up piece is that if they accidently blast you on the side of the road in the middle of the night and it turns out that you don't have a gun then you will have one.

And so on...

When ossifer friendly pulls me over on the side of the road I turn on the dome light in the car, roll down the window and hold my licence and proof of insurance out the window, one document in each hand so as not to be percieved as a threat. The last thing that I want to do is to get shot by some half-wit while on the way to work.

By the bye, cops are a lot like school teachers, they're cops because for whatever reason they don't fit in too good in the private sector. For example, when I was in college if you couldn't hack the engineering program you changed your major and became a school teacher. The spouse has a cousin that graduated from a university psychology program and came to the stark realizatuion that psychology majors had less than no chance at all of getting a job that paid more than convenience store clerk wages so she enrolled in the state police academy and became a cop. Now she's riding around in a cop ride in a fairly large sized town with an M-92 Baretta and a Remmington 870 pump shotgun. Cop school was the first time in this lady's life that she'd ever picked up a gun let alone a semi-automatic hand gun. Sorry, not qualified.

Six out of ten cops that I personally have worked with with their handgun shooting I wouldn't turn loose with a sharp stick. If and when it were to ever hit the fan they'd be as likely to shoot themselves as anybody else. And yes, I have been in situations where I was looking at somebody over a gunsight so don't hand me that, "you've never been in that position so you can't say" crap.

I won't tell you about the M1-A2 rifles and the MP-9s sub guns that some of these knuckle-heads have. I don't have the time or the inclination to tell you about some of the, "Accidental Discharge' cases that I know about.

Suffice it to say that you have every reason to fear the cops as much if not more than the local drug dealer. As a matter of fact I know cops that refer to the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) as America's largest street gang.

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 5:10AM

QuitePro,

Sounds to me like you're perhaps one of the four in ten. The opposite side of the six in ten coin. If that's the case then hats off to you for doing a dirty and dangerous job that I have declined on more than one occasion. Like I said before, it's not a case of compensation or productivity, it's a case of parity plain and simple.

Clint| 3.5.11 @ 5:14AM

Police, like any other Government Employees need to be reined in by The Taxpayers, who are their Employers & who have the right to hire, fire & set their salaries & compensation.

martin j smith| 3.5.11 @ 8:31AM

When I hear any one from any Union on talk radio say that they are a " regular listener and agree with 90% of what they hear except for--anything critical about their Union I know this is a LIAR. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yvonne | 3.5.11 @ 12:40PM

How difficult would it be to utilize private companies to do the job that the police do?

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 4:20PM

Leagal issues. Cops are sworn "Officers of the Court" and are acting with the authority of a judge someplace. Something like that anyway. A private security company would have to have some similar relationship with the court.

FTM| 3.5.11 @ 5:24PM

I wouldn't worry about the issue too much. Soon enough there will be an Army check point at some through-way. They'll be screening IDs and detaining criminal aliens and folks with warrants against them. Folks like that. Perhaps folks with drugs and/or guns and the like.

The Army folks will be acting under the authority of a general staff officer someplace rather than a judge. The illegals will be ejected from the country I'd expect. Folks with warrants against them will be sent to an ad hoc military prison compound someplace to await trial under the UCMJ.

I'd also expect that after the initial chaos and panic that society would calm down and return to some simbilance of normalcy. The water will still run, the trash will get picked up. Folks will get up and go to work.

However there will be some very stark differences. The guy or gal that pulls you over will be an MP with the orders and authority to shoot you if you give them the least crap. Have you ever lived on a military base? The speed limit is not a general suggestion. If you violate the speed limit on a military base you will be court marshalled and fined and/or jailed and will most likely lose the priveledge of driving on base.

Sooner or later the big people are going to have to take charge of society in the face of the reality that society will not take charge of itself. In the event that you are an illegal alien I'd be thinking about taking the opportunity to cut and run while you still have the chance. If you're a heriditary public welfare case I'd think about a lifestyle change. Somehow or another I can't see the military being too very patient with your apparent inability to find work in the event that you are able-bodied. And I'd think that a Medic or Corpsman can determine your work status pretty quickly. There are twelve to twenty million illegals in this country at present doing jobs that Americans refuse to do. I'd say that the military could rectify that situation real quick.

pat| 3.5.11 @ 8:11PM

I admire what police and firemen do, but lets face it, their compensation(especially the retirement benefits) have gotten totally out of whack. Check out this database of California pension obligations.
Retired highway patrol, law enforcement as well as fire pensions are a big chunk of the future obligations. I'm in favor of reining in other groups first, but at some point police and fire have to be part ogf the reform too.

http://www.californiapensionreform.com/
database.asp?vttable=calpers

Richard Baker| 3.6.11 @ 11:51AM

QuietPro:
So if compensating you to fiscal destruction occurs then to Hell with the taxpayers? Sport, this has nothing to do with your job but everything about solvency. If you find that offensive then you ARE just another union hack.

MERLIN| 3.6.11 @ 4:44PM

Reply to Pat. Quiet Pro says he has quit participating because we have all made up our minds, which is another way of saying that his ridiculous arguement that he along with other government workers are "indentured" is so comical that no one is persuaded by it. His solution is to the horse laughs he is getting is to "strike."

DBR| 3.6.11 @ 12:23PM

In the process of collective bargaining by public service unions, the real payer has no seat at the table. I pay taxes but have to voice in the process. The administrator across the table from the union, and the arbitrator are all paid by me and ultimately work toward agreement without the voice of the tax payer. Union and administrator alike, grow some courage and place the proposed labor agreement on a ballot and allow the real employer, the tax payer, to have a vote in the matter.

Negro X| 3.6.11 @ 5:40PM

Remember, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away".

Wisconsin Solidarity| 3.6.11 @ 6:04PM

Since taking office, Walker has made no attempt to bargain with state employees as required by law. Even before taking office, Walker worked to scuttle a tentative agreement between the state and union members. Despite the fact that state employee unions have publicly stated for weeks that they would agree to fiscal concessions the governor demanded, Scott Walker continues to demand that workers give up their most basic rights. Walker's approach was taken to a whole new level recently, when he threatened to issue up to 6,000 layoff notices to state employees if his demands to terminate their rights were not met. Had Walker complied with the law meeting his obligation to bargain in good faith, no layoffs would be required. And should Democratic Senators be arrested, or “detained” as called for by James Troupis, Scott Fitzgerald’s lawyer, then more litigation is sure to ensue.

Meanwhile, in our neighboring state to the south, 14 Democratic Senators remain in hiding, hiding in Illinois in order to avoid possible arrest here. Depending on which side of the public debate one is on, they are either on the lam, refusing to do their jobs, or are elected officials making a truly defensible and noble sacrifice in large part, because there is no practical alternative. Gov. Walker’s plan would eliminate virtually all public sector union collective bargaining, other than those over wage increases (with even that limited to increases in inflation. Critics of the Walker plan have argued that excessively generous pay and benefits negotiated by unions for state and local employees are not the primary reason for the state’s burgeoning deficit, but rather that the deficit has grown because the Great Recession. The standoff also has mobilized labor and the left on a national scale, with numerous rallies being held across the country in support of Wisconsin workers.

The struggle against the corporate-backed agenda of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker continue unabated, as workers and community activists unite to stop the most serious challenge to the state’s democratic traditions ever. Wisconsin has become “ground zero” in the battle to retain collective bargaining rights and social programs. Elected in November, Walker’s reign has literally set off the greatest political battle in the state’s history, marked by unprecedented levels of protest, exceeding those in the Vietnam war era, calls for recall elections, charges of abuse of authority and serious questions of honesty and legality on the part of Walker and brothers Sen. Scott and Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald of Dodge County, believed to be the first to each control a state legislative house in U.S. history. The current battle is also geographic: Walker’s campaign funding came primarily from wealthy Milwaukee suburbs such as Glendale, River Hills, Shorewood, Elm Grove and others. However, much of the economic impact will be felt elsewhere.

The prolonged standoff in Wisconsin, which began Feb. 11, has galvanized labor and community activists who have raised numerous arguments against the Gov. Scott Walker's “budget repair” bill, which includes provisions elimination most collective bargaining rights for public employees in the state. Critics of the plan have argued that it is part of a larger, national assault on the Democratic Party and its aligned interest groups, particularly its most powerful ally, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state teachers union. Other parts of the bill, including the prospective loss of mass transit funding because of the changes in collective bargaining, the impact of new provisions relating to Medicaid, and the development of a new public-private authority to replace the state Department of Commerce, have also raised serious questions of constitutionality and drawn considerable public criticism.

Collectively, the Republican trio have repeatedly engaged in conduct of questionable legality, including:\

• Ushered through a Senate resolution authorizing law enforcement to arrest Democratic Senators to compel their attendance, in clear violation of the state Constitution.

• Using state troopers to track down Democratic Senators in a labor dispute and engaged in outright cronyism, with Walker hiring the Fitzgerald brothers’ father to head the state troopers.

• Kept the state Capitol closed to protestors in violation of a court order.

• Been sued by state labor unions for failing to bargain in good faith in a labor dispute.

• Created the state’s most hostile political environment in decades, with recall petition drives planned for all eight recallable Senate Republicans as well as several aimed at Democratic Senators.

• Repeatedly engaged in lies and distortion to advance their agenda.

• Been sued for open records violations (Walker).

• Shamelessly threatened to lay off state workers in order to force the 14 AWOL Democratic Senators to return.

As noted, Walker and the Fitzgeralds are facing several lawsuits, including those filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (over the use of state troopers to track down AWOL Democratic lawmakers over a labor dispute), AFSCME and WSEU Council 24 (against Walker for failure to bargain in good faith), and the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council and Isthmus (failure to Walker administration to respond timely to open records request). In addition, a 66-page legal memorandum outlining potential constitutional and other legal problems with Walker’s budget repair bill has surfaced, shedding further insights into the legal strategy against the plan. As noted, AFT-Wisconsin and the Wisconsin State Employees Union are in the process of filing unfair labor practice charges against Scott Walker for failing to negotiate in good faith with state workers.

Although the protests and general public debate over the proposal have for the most part been a relatively peaceful, there is no guarantee that this will continue indefinitely. As the prospects for reasonable compromise dim, the appeal of unreason grows. In response to Walker’s plan, tens of thousands of protestors have marched in and around the Capitol building to chants of "kill the bill" and "protect union rights." Although Walker has claimed that “almost all” of the protestors have come from outside Wisconsin, the Wisconsin version of Politifact and other observers have found this claim to be false. Senate Democrats, hiding in Illinois to prevent the Republican Senate here from raising the quorum needed to pass a fiscal bill such as the repair bill, have pledged that if troublesome provisions relating to ending collective bargaining, as well as Medicaid and transit are removed, the bill could be passed in hours.” However, she noted, the Republicans, led by Walker, appear at this point to continue to refuse to compromise.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s proposed plan to largely emasculate collective
bargaining, with nothing more than a single, marathon public hearing, is wrong, for a
number of reasons. Under the governor’s plan, most government workers - excluding police, firefighters and state troopers would have to pay half their pension costs and at least 12 percent of their health-care costs and would lose bargaining rights for anything other than pay, and that would be limited to inflation.

The proposal would save $300 million over the next two years to help reduce a $3.6
billion budget deficit. And he wanted it done within a week, with only one, 17-hour
public hearing. Like it or not, those are the facts. Now is not the time to wander blindly in the wilderness of the utopian.

State governments face budget deficits of $175 billion through 2013. Many believe state
tax revenue will not fully recover until the U.S. returns to full employment, which is not
likely for quite some time, if ever. Beyond their short-term fiscal problems, many states face pension and retiree healthcare costs that some experts contend are unsustainable.
States are curtailing retirement benefits for new employees, although many say it will
take much more to bring their long-term obligations in line.

Make no mistake about it. The unions are not simply an arm of the Democratic party.
Without them, the party will fall. We will not regret the judgment that the time has come to get serious.This is about taking away rights won over decades, in a matter or days, with little or no formal public discussion. The governor has already granted business
tax breaks and created health-care savings accounts that lower levels of already
problematic tax revenues. Public workers are being asked to pick up the tab. But there is
more to the story. The governor is proposing to sharply curtail the right to bargain collectively. An economic downturn that is not the workers’ fault, and a reversal in fiscal fortunes not their doing is being used to permanently end their ability to sit across the table from their employer and negotiate anything but pay, and then only at hold-harmless levels at best. This is what the long and very troubling recession has wrought. Almost everyone can see that capitalism has had better days.

And another thing to keep in mind is that, aside from the procedural problems we keep
finding out unpleasant things, such as the issue of the prospective loss of federal
transportation funding.

This is about political power, and who will yield it for years to come. Take away the union dues check-off, and you largely take away a political party, leaving the Republicans to conspire with their Tea Party allies over how to divide the spoils. This is their plan. They will not admit it, but this is their plan. No private employer can do what the governor proposes. For decades, Wisconsin has protected the rights of workers to collectively bargain with their employer on wages, benefits, workplace rules, and many other aspects of their employment. Public workers are not responsible for the state’s budget woes. The problem lies in China and India and Brazil, where they have learned from America how to beat America at its own capitalist game. We have no one to blame but ourselves and a world made smaller by time.

If Walker succeeds in undermining WEAC, AFT-Wisconsin, and the rest, forget about
things like the public interest and free and fair elections. Hope as you will, you won’t
have them anymore, and if it comes to pass, don’t blame us. We told you so, right here
and now. Like it or not, my dear fellow electors of Wisconsin, if this goes through as
planned, WMC will be laughing all the way to the ballot box, because they will rule, like
corporatist oligarchs in South America, and you will not have the Wisconsin you once
knew. Trust me. I know them all too well to think that they would let the opposition
survive this. Most have had privileges that you have not 0 think they’re going to pass
this one up?

The jobs that teachers have are “at risk” in the sense that, in the absence of
virtually all of the collective bargaining rights that they currently have, their jobs will
change dramatically. Although they would retain other civil service protections, it
remains to be seen how effective they will actually be in practice. As for whether school
funding will be cut, the administration is expected to be announcing unprecedented
reductions in aid to local governments, including schools, in a matter of days.

“The Will of the People”
On Feb. 18, State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) issued the following statement in
reaction to Senate Democrats’ decision to abscond to Illinois and to fail to show up to
work for the second consecutive day. “By failing to show up for work for a second day,
Democrats have shown a true lack of regard for Wisconsin taxpayers, the institution of
state government and their fellow elected officials. Running away to Illinois is not only
childish, it's also an affront to the will of the people. “

Republicans regained the governorship and took control of both
houses of the Legislature in November 2010. But the notion that “the will of the people”
is for a half-century of settled law in the realm of collective bargaining to be swept away
in a week, with only a single, 17-hour public hearing is a little hard to swallow. The
unions do not want to see this happen, of course, but to the extent that the issue is out
there, it needs to be discussed at some length. As some of you may know, we in this state
take pride in our educational institutions, particularly the world-renowned University of
Wisconsin-Madison.

As State Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona) has indicated, in a Feb. 18 letter to Gov. Walker,
public employees across the state “made very clear their willingness to cooperatively
accept additional pension and health insurance concessions in order to do their part to
help Wisconsin close a 2011 budget gap, and to assist in reducing the state's deficit going
forward.” The point is that millions of taxpayers who spoke in November had not been given the slightest indication, in the gubernatorial or any other campaign, that collective bargaining rights were going to be largely eliminated four months later. If they had, some, and perhaps many, would have voted differently. While some may feel “let down” if the bill should somehow fail to pass
,
This is why there are 80,000 people traipsing around the Capitol, many of them talking
about recalling Gov. Walker in January 2012. It is not entirely clear that those who
supported Walker in his campaign will feel the same level of angst if collective
bargaining remains intact. Either way, some will be let down – the difference is that if it
does pass, hundreds of thousands of people will find themselves in a completely
different work environment, all because of a proposal that came out of the blue, with the
expectation that it pass a week later, with little or no genuine or thoughtful discussion in
legislative hearings. We spend months in this state reviewing issues like nanotechnology
and single-use plastics in order to come up with a bill to make changes in the law
regarding these topics. But undermining collective bargaining should only take a week,
with a single hearing? .

The Tea Party’s Wisconsin Patriot Coalition has weighed in on its reaction to teacher
sick-outs and the students who have accompanied them. “Nearly every child with whom
WPC members spoke at the Capitol this week wrongly believed that their teachers’ jobs
were at risk, that school funding would be cut, or that favorite courses or programs
would be eliminated. No such measures are currently on the table. Yet, those are the
battles these children think they are helping to fight. Where did they get these false
impressions if not directly from their teachers and, indirectly, from the unions that
represent those teachers? The jobs that teachers have are “at risk” in the sense that, in the absence of virtually all of the collective bargaining rights that they currently have, their jobs will change dramatically. Although they would retain other civil service protections, it remains to be seen how effective they will actually be in practice. As for whether school
funding will be cut, the administration is expected to be announcing unprecedented
reductions in aid to local governments, including schools, in a matter of days.
Sick-Outs “Fully Merit” Job Termination
The Patriot Coalition has also charged that “engaging in “sick-outs” in order to protest at
the State Capitol is lying and a breach of contract. Encouraging students to be complicit
in such behavior in an effort to get one’s own way is exploitative, particularly when the
reasons for that protest are not truthfully communicated. It likewise fully merits
termination of employment.”

Sen. Fitzgerald is trying to command police action against the Republicans’ political enemies. A resolution calling for the arrest and detention of 14 Democratic Senators if they do not show up at the Capitol today is “insanely wrong” and an “unreasonable abuse of police power,” according to James Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association (WPPA), the union representing Wisconsin State Patrol officers, Capitol Police officers and nearly 11,000 active and retired law enforcement offices in the state. Republican Senators on Mar. 3 approved a resolution instructing police to compel the Democrats “with or without force” to go to the Capitol by 4 p.m. Palmer said: “Politics aside, encouraging the forcible detention of duly elected lawmakers because they won’t allow you to dictate with a free hand is an unreasonable abuse of police power,” Palmer said. “Due to the fact that Wisconsin officers lack any jurisdiction across state lines, does Senator Fitzgerald intend to establish a ‘lawmaker border patrol? The thought of using law enforcement officers to exercise force in order to achieve a political objective is insanely wrong and Wisconsin sorely needs reasonable solutions and not potentially dangerous political theatrics.”

Although the most controversial aspect of the Walker administration has been the proposal to largely end collective bargaining, other actions have been called into question, on numerous grounds, including those of the constitutionality of various proposals and the legality of actions involving the state troopers. As several observers have noted, there was a certain irony in charges of cronyism arising at a time when Walker was challenging public-sector union which was designed, at least in part, to address problems arising from political patronage. Walker recently named to serve as superintendent, or head of the Wisconsin State Patrol (WSP), the state’s police force, longtime law enforcement official Stephen “Steve” Fitzgerald, 68, father of Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), the Senate Majority Leader and his younger brother, Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), the Assembly Speaker. Fitzgerald began his law enforcement career with the Chicago Police Department. In 1974, he became the chief of police in the village of Hustiford in Dodge County, and in 1979, he joined the Dodge County sheriff's department as a detective.

First elected Dodge County Sheriff in 1988, Fitzgerald served as sheriff for 14 years before being appointed a U.S. Marshal by former President George W. Bush in 2002. Charges of cronyism emerged in response to the appointment. Democratic Party of Wisconsin Research Director Graeme Zielinski said the appointment called into question "whether best practices were followed," and argued that with the two Fitzgerald sons controlling each house of the Legislature, respectively, "there's just a lot of power concentrated with very few people." Steve Fitzgerald assumed the $105,678-a-year position on Feb. 14, the day Gov. Walker introduced the budget repair bill. Three days later, the troopers were called out to the home of Democratic State Sen. Mark Miller of Monona, the Senate minority leader. CREW, A Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group has filed lawsuits in connection with this and a subsequent incident in which troopers were again called to the homes of Senate Democrats. And at least one sign was ominous, reflecting a view held by some that the governor and his allies may be in for some surprises in the near future: “See You in Prison, Boys,” read a Department of Corrections employee’s sign. Resistance to Walker Through Social Networking

Labor advocates argue that collective bargaining preserves stability: Wisconsin’s long-standing tradition of allowing public sector workers to be represented by unions has worked for the state since the 1930s, and created greater consistency in the relationship between labor and management. This bill is about politics, not policy: Walker’s real purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining. His actions are partisan attacks we always see – people in power want to spend time punishing their enemies instead of serving th e public. This new proposal would also put services across the state at risk because the states’s collective bargaining law has helped to stabilize services by cutting down on the number of strikes and labor disputes.

Organizations in the Fight Against Walker.

Boycotts of businesses that supported Walker’s gubernatorial campaign has surfaced on the Internet and stung several business owners. Websites have posted lists of businesses whose executives or owners contributed to Walker’s successful 2010 campaign, including the Koch brothers (Georgia Pacific and other products), M & I Bank, Johnsonville Sausage, Sargento Cheese, Kwik Trip, Metcalfe’s Market and others. No one is claiming credit for launching a boycott, including one labor union with a link on a pro-boycott website and another union mentioned in media coverage of a possible boycott. Some executives and owners of some business gave to both Walker and Democratic candidate Tom Barrett as a way of hedging their bets in the election.

The following are the major protest groups that have formed beyond the traditional alliances between unions (national, state and local) and progressive political organizations, particularly those such as Organizing for America, MoveOn, and the SEIU.

Wisconsin Wave of Resistance Movement

The Wisconsin Wave of Resistance, a umbrella group of union officials, student, business and community leaders, opposed to state fiscal hyper-austerity and corporatization, has announced plans to oversee the campaign against Walker and his chief business ally, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC Wisconsin Wave’s next protests will come this Wednesday against Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) at the corporate lobby group’s statewide conference in Madison. The Wisconsin Wave describes itself as a non-partisan democracy movement initiated by over 100 Wisconsin leaders, with hundreds more signing on every day,”moving forward together to overcome the agenda of Walker and his extraction industry backers, and to create for Wisconsin the positive economic and political future all of us deserve.” A formal call for the Wisconsin Wave has been initiated by over 100 signators. That list, as well as the call, is on the website - http://wisconsinwave.org/

According to Wisconsin Wave, the threat to the state’s democratic traditions posed by Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers is unprecedented:

“Today, Wisconsin’s democratic tradition faces the greatest threat it has ever known. Gov. Scott Walker, operating at the direction of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, is using the financial crisis caused by Wall Street speculators as an excuse to impose devastating cuts to public services. The WMC agenda is shameless. They intend to shift the tax burden even further away from major corporations and onto the rest of us. Their agenda is undemocratic. They would protect themselves from voters by lowering Wisconsin’s voting rights guarantees to those of Alabama and Mississippi. Their agenda is heartless. It has no place in it for the needs of Wisconsin’s youth, our poor, our disabled, or our unemployed at this time when their needs are greatest. The WMC-Walker agenda would destroy everything that once made Wisconsin great: a robust educational system; safe, high-paying jobs; and a clean environment available for enjoyment by all people.”

The group has issued the following statement regarding its agenda:

• Our state government must guarantee a fully funded public sector including education, health care, human services, transportation, public safety, and vital regulatory agencies.
• Taxes on large corporations and wealthy individuals should be returned to reasonable levels in order to solve the state’s fiscal crisis.
• The state must respect the rights of workers to organize unions and bargain collectively.
• Initial budget priorities must be established through public participation instead of closed-door meetings between public officials and special-interest lobbyists.
• Voting rights must be expanded, not limited, to ensure that every Wisconsinite can take part in our democracy.
• Wisconsin deserves government of, by and for the people, not the corporate elite; corporations have no constitutional rights and may not buy our elections or government.

Defend Wisconsin

A website being used to help organize protests against Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin was temporarily blocked from the Capitol Building in Madison, according to reports. The site, http://www.defendwisconsin.org/, was inaccessible from the building on Monday and into Tuesday morning. Personsattempting to access the internet from a free wifi connection labeled “guest,” you cannot access the site defendwisconsin.org. The site has been used to provide updates on what is happening, where you can volunteer, and where supplies and goods are needed to support protesters. Administrators of the website were notified on Monday that the page is being blocked .

Recall the Republican 8

According to state Democratic Chair Mike Tate, citizens across the state have begun recall efforts against “key Republican Senators who have stood with Scott Walker and pushed his partisan power grab that will strip thousands of middle class teachers, nurses, librarians and other workers of their right to collective bargaining. And we learned just last night that their disastrous budget that will cut millions from our schools and universities. In 60 days you can take Wisconsin back by recalling the Republican Senators who have decided to push Scott Walker’s divisive attack on the rights of workers and his assault on schools, universities and local communities. Make no mistake, these Republican Senators are vulnerable to recall f or their radical partisan overreach.

“(Fond du Lac Republican) Sen. Randy Hopper won his last election by just 184 votes. And Alberta Darling won her last race by only 1,007. By recalling just three of the eight Senators we are targeting, we can regain control of the Senate. Walker’s Republican allies in the Senate have stood by for days while Walker has refused to negotiate on his partisan power grab disguised as a budget repair bill. Walker and his allies had no intention of listening to the people. That’s why Republicans unplugged the state legislative hotline for the first time in years. Yesterday we saw the Republicans for who they are. A party so indebted to the Koch brothers and big business that they will raise taxes on our poorest families by $41 million dollars and push our schools and communities to the breaking point. Republican Senators have applauded even as Walker proposes to end the state’s decades old recycling program, showing that they will do anything in their power to harm our environment.”

There's been much rhetoric put forth concerning the need for "shared sacrifice" and "belt tightening" to meet the state's budget demands. Wisconsin still needs to manage a $3.6 billion deficit in the 2011-2013 budget cycle, but rather than trying to meet that challenge by attacking middle-class workers and by gutting spending the state would be better served by a balanced plan that makes spending cuts where they would be prudent, and raises revenues in ways that reduce inequality and are least damaging to the most vulnerable.

True to form, Walker made good on his threats on Mar. 4, noting that he had sent layoff notices to union leaders, and “while these notices start the process needed to layoff state employees, if the Senate Democrats come back to Wisconsin, these notices may be able to be rescinded and layoffs avoided. Without Senate action within 15 days, individual employees may begin to receive potential termination notifications. GOP candidates reaped from the Citizens United ruling, which cleared the way for Republican operatives to spend hundreds of millions on federal and state races.

The Republican Governors Association, having collected a $1 million check from billionaire right-wingers Charles and David Koch and smaller contributions from other corporate interests, invested at least $3.4 million in electing Walker. Walker’s debt to the Koch brothers, whose PAC donated $43,000 to his campaign, was highlighted in the governor’s budget repair bill, including a potential no-bid contract on the state’s heating plans.

In addition to attacking unions outlined a plan to restructure state government so Walker could sell off power plants in no-bid deals to firms like Koch Industries, while restructuring state health-insurance programs so that tens of thousands of Wisconsinites could be stranded with no access to care.

Walker is using thousands of Wisconsin families as pawns in his game of political chess. Instead of working with our employees, he’s threatening workers’ livelihoods and our economy in a continuing effort to extort Democratic legislators to do his bidding. The Wall Street Journal and Politifact found Walker’s claim that Wisconsin is ‘broke’ to be false. Nurses, teachers, firefighters, and other public workers should not be threatened by
Walker, who is endangering our state’s reputation and tarnishing our legacy. The governor is using human beings as political pawns – threatening layoffs if his divisive political agenda is not passed on his decried timeline. This is behavior one expects from a playground bully, not the governor of the State of Wisconsin.

In a Feb. 13 editorial in The Capital Times, which suggested Walker was acting as a “dictator” argued that the goal of the Walker plan was “destroying public employee unions, which demand fair treatment of workers and hold governors of both parties to account when they seek to undermine public services and public education.” At every level, Walker’s proposal “sows the seeds of political, social and economic instability” adding that “the economic threat may well be the most significant -- especially at a time when Wisconsin needs to create jobs, as opposed to political fights” in the state.
Following only a single, 17-hour public hearing before the Joint Finance Committee, members of the Wisconsin Assembly passed the bill following a controversial, hastily-taken vote. Democratic leaders in the Assembly have vowed to sue over the vote, arguing that it failed to follow legislative procedure.

The powerful magnates who ruled Wisconsin’s Republican Party today have been supplanted by a figures from outside the state, most notably the Koch brothers from Kansas and others in Washington pushing a national agenda, aimed at the Midwest, that would scale back union bargaining rights and, in the process, severely weaken the union organizations as political forces, and through that, the Demcratic party. The obstacles are formidable but not insurmountable. The rank-and-file union members who've organized themselves to come to Madison for protests several times since February 15 can certainly organize in their workplaces to show a union presence on the job, from union buttons and T-shirts to

The 14 Senate Democrats have been absent, thereby stalling the ability of the Senate to reach a quorum needed to approve Gov. Scott Walker’s budget repair bill, which would revoke the collective bargaining rights of public employees in Wisconsin. The unions have promised to make the concessions Walker says are needed to balance the budget, but Walker and Fitzgerald are refusing to compromise.

The battle in Wisconsin – as well as in states such as Indiana and Ohio – has prompted
unions and their backers in a number of states to organize rallies in support in states across the nation, and particularly in the Midwest. But because of its historical traditions (the birthplace of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, in 1932 and long-time progressive sympathies, the Badger State is seen as by far the most important battleground. The logic is not hard to follow: if the unions can be beaten here, they might well be beaten throughout the Midwest, and perhaps the nation.
The Walker plan has brought into the public arena a long-time, but largely unstated, conservative dream of reducing the power of public employee union. Most observers believe the current dispute will influence the 2012 Republican nominating process.

A Rasmussen survey of Wisconsin voters shows that just 39% favor weakening collective bargaining rights and 52% are opposed. At the same time, 44% support a 10% pay cut for all state workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are opposed. That’s partly because 27% of Wisconsin voters believe state workers are paid too much and 16% believe they are paid too little.

In addition to curtailing collective bargaining for public employees, the Walker proposal would require public employees to cover 12.6 percent of their health insurance costs and contribute 5.8 percent of their pay toward their pensions. The bill would also end the automatic deduction of union dues from workers' paychecks, potentially crippling unions financially. Unions would also have to re-certify their status as a bargaining unit each year, opening the way for the state to withdraw recognition from unions over time

State Sen. Dale Schultz, elected to the Assembly in 1982 and the Senate in 1991, had offered a compromise amendment that would reinstate full collective bargaining rights in 2013, but so far, Walker has shown no interest in a compromise. With the absence of the Senate's 14 minority Democrats, who presumably would be members of the Senate most likely to support the amendment, Schultz said recently that there was no point in pursuing it.

Walker, elected on Nov. 3 by a 52-46 margin over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett with considerable support from Wisconsin Tea Party activists, has contended Wisconsin’s deficit, estimated at $136.7 million for the current state fiscal year, and $3.6 billion for the 2011-13 state biennium, means that the state can no longer afford to provide the level of salaries and benefits that state employees have had in past years.

Similar arguments have been made regarding employees of local governments, including school districts, counties and municipalities. Walker has argued that removing most collective bargaining rights for these employees represents the “tools” these governments need to contend with the loss of an estimated $1 billion in state aids, as set forth in his March 1 state budget address. Local officials, in response, have claimed that they did not request the changes in collective bargaining that Walker is seeking, and some have gone on record in opposition to the plan.

Many who side with the governor regard public employees in general as a sort of privileged, and resented, caste, a feeling intensified by the difficulties of a long, and difficult recession. In a now-infamous prank call, Walker, believing he was talking by telephone with billionaire supporter David Koch, likened his tough stance against the state unions to President Ronald Reagan's firing of the striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Reagan's action encouraged many private-sector employers to take on unions and break strikes by hiring permanent replacements, actions that industry had tended to shy away from over the previous several decades The principal long-term result of Reagan’s action was a sharp and still-continuing decline in work stoppages and a dramatic shift in the employer-labor balance of power

Thus far, there has been only one organized public demonstration in support of the Walker plan. On Feb. 19, a contingent of Tea Party activists, estimated at between 1,500 and 2,000, turned out at the Capitol to counter the anti-Walker demonstrations. The group was mostly contained to one side of the Capitol and largely drowned out by the throngs of union activists who continued to chant against the bill. In general, although generally motions ran high whenever pro-union demonstrators encountered the right-wingers, the demonstrations were peaceful.

Gov. Walker’s claim has been that the state is "broke," there is nothing to negotiate and the only solution is to mandate massive reductions in public employee compensation and to abolish their collective bargaining rights. Walker also has been accused by some of “ginning up” the state budget crisis by deliberately misrepresenting the state’s fiscal condition in an effort to promote his plans. Walker’s budget repair bill comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau, the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office, concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office. According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, "more than half" of the new shortfall comes from three of Walker's initiatives: $25 million for an economic development fund for job creation, which still holds $73 million because of anemic job growth; $48 million for private health savings accounts; and $67 million for a tax incentive plan that benefits employers, but at levels too low to spur hiring.

In a Nov. 10 press release, issued one week after the election, Walker estimated that the state’s deficit was then $2.7 billion, adding that “no idea” for addressing the deficit is “off the table.” Walker also asked state employees, as well as citizens, to offer his transition office suggestions for saving money. “Balancing our state’s $2.7 billion budget deficit will require all Wisconsinites to work together on ideas for reforming state government and saving money,” Walker said. “No idea is off the table. I encourage all citizens and state employees in particular to offer their thoughts.” Walker is using the relatively modest fiscal strain facing Wisconsin as a pretext to roll back basic worker rights and undermine public employee unions as a political force. Moreover, beyond this indefensible demonization of public employees as the primary cause of the state's budgetary shortfall, Walker's plan makes no macroeconomic sense.

When the plan was introduced, moderate Republican Sen. Luther Olsen ( R-Ripon), who has served for years on the Assembly Education Committee, expressed concern: "The concept is pretty radical,” Olsen says of the Walker proposal. “It affects a lot of good working people." Even Scott Fitzgerald conceded that his members has a lot of "good questions" for Walker's staff.

Although Walker’s plan has support within the state’s business community, some business leaders have come out against it. In a Feb. 18 statement, Jennifer Alexander, president of the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce, said that while the Chamber supports effort to develop policies to address the state budget deficit and to improve job creation in a sluggish economy, “that support ends at the adversarial way elected officials are approaching it. Public policy issues of this magnitude should not be rushed through the legislative process. Given this state's long history of collective bargaining, policy changes of this magnitude should be thoroughly debated for an adequate period of time, in good faith by both sides, with all potential consequences considered. Currently, that is not happening.”

The bill would also force an estimated 65,000 people off the Medicaid rolls and scale back BadgerCare, the health care program for low-income children. The budget repair bill contains a provision would give the Department of Health Services the ability to rewrite Medicaid policy with virtually no input from the Legislature or the public. Decisions made by an unelected state official could supersede state statutes relating to Medicaid services for more than 1.1 million Wisconsin residents, including the elderly, people with disabilities, and working families. The changes could affect policies such as eligibility, premiums, and services. The budget adjustment bill delegates broad, unprecedented powers to the Department of Health Services to make changes relating to Medicaid and BadgerCare Plus eligibility, services, cost-sharing, enrollment procedures, and provider reimbursement. Those policy choices, now the responsibility of state legislators and the Governor, would be handed over to an unelected official, the DHS Secretary, who could make the decisions behind closed doors. Under the bill, the legislative responsibilities being delegated to DHS could be exercised by the agency by rulemaking, including emergency rule. In contrast to current law, which sets short time frames for emergency rules, these rules could remain in effect until 2015. Concerns about the extraordinary powers being granted to an administrative agency, a clear violation of separation of powers, have been raised by many advocacy groups. Those concerns are echoed by the words of the attorney in the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau who drafted the Medicaid provisions. The drafter's note for the bill warns that “the request would allow DHS to change any Medical Assistance law, for any reason, at any time, and potentially without notice or public hearing.” The latest version of the bill does not remedy any of those problems.

In addition, Walker’s budget repair bill also could jeopardize an estimated $46.6 million in mass transit funding because of federal requirements that mass transit systems have collective bargaining protections to transit workers. As noted by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the state received $73.9 million in federal transit funding in 2010. Approximately $22.5 million of this funding was for the Milwaukee urbanized area. Other nonspecific funds may also go to Milwaukee urbanized area. In addition, in 2010, shared-ride tax systems received $4.8 million in federal transit aid. Therefore, $27.3 million in the state's federal transit aid would not likely be affected by the changes in (the budget repair bill). However, the remaining $46.6 million to Tier A-1, Tier B, and Tier C bus systems could potentially be withheld from state transit systems under the federal 13(c) provisions as a result of the changes to municipal collective bargaining under (the bill), unless further actions are taken. Most bus transit systems in Wisconsin are staffed by unionized transit workers. In addition, a few of the Tier C shared-ride taxi systems may involve unionized workers. According to information from the U.S. Department of Labor, the proposed changes in collective bargaining rights included under (the budget repair bill) could impact the ability of unionized transit systems in the state to receive existing federal transit aid, unless actions are taken to protect the collective bargaining rights of their employees. If the federal Department of Labor makes the determination that the changes in local transit worker collective bargaining rights resulting from the collective bargaining changes under (the budget repair bill) affect the continuation of collective bargaining rights, and protection of transit employees' wages, working conditions, pension benefits, seniority, vacation, sick and personal leave, travel passes, and other conditions of employment, the Federal Transit Authority could not provide federal transit funding under these provision.

Religious leaders have joined as never before in opposition to Walker’s plan. The following are statements from Wisconsin clergy regarding Walker’s plan:

Interfaith Coalition for Worker Justice of South Central Wisconsin, Inc.

“As people of faith, we oppose Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s plan to deny collective bargaining rights for public employees. Our religious traditions are very clear that workers, as human beings that have inherent dignity, have the right to form associations to improve their conditions at work. Statements issued by the following Christian denominations-- Roman Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, American Baptist, Christian Methodist Episcopal, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Presbyterian Church U.S.A., United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church-- along with the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Union of Reform Judaism, Council on American Islamic Relations, Muslim American Freedom Foundation, the Unitarian Universalist Church and others, support the right of workers to organize and bargain with their employers over wages, benefits, and a voice on the job. Teachers, public health workers, county/municipal employees and all people who provide vital services to our communities are under attack, falsely blamed for budget problems caused by the unemployment crisis and the drop in state revenues as businesses have closed, fewer people pay taxes, and consumers spend less. Wholesale attacks on public servants will only worsen this situation. Therefore we urge our legislators and Governor Walker to stop this bill and stand for genuine efforts to create jobs, improve standards, and respect all people who work and contribute to their families and communities.”

Rev. David Moyer, Conference Minister, Wisconsin Conference, United Church of Christ
“Dear friends and partners in the ministry of the Gospel. Grace, mercy, and peace be with you. In a time of conflict and danger for his community, the prophet Isaiah offered an invitation from God to the people: “Come, let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18)
“These are words to take to heart in Wisconsin these days, as divisions in our common life are causing confusion and pain. We are all aware of the difficult economic circumstances facing our state. Many of our families and many United Church of Christ congregations find they have to make difficult choices. Our leaders face hard decisions about balancing a budget while continuing to provide essential services and preserve jobs that support families and build a healthy society. We all know that sacrifices will have to be made. The question is how decisions will be made and if those who will be faced with the greater burden of these sacrifices will be given the respect that offers them a place at the table as decisions are made. “Come, let us reason together” is not a strategy that avoids decisions but is an essential framework of a democratic society and is consistent with the moral and ethical principles that come out of our Christian faith. The right to negotiate is at the core of Wisconsin’s history, and tough economic times are not a moment to turn away from these essential rights that provide for fair and just decision making. When all come to the table and reason in good faith, better decisions are made. When people who are affected help make decisions, they have a greater stake in the outcome and provide a voice of support for decisions, even ones that may not be in their immediate self-interest. Basic human dignity is preserved.

“As members of our congregations, let us remember that it is our neighbors and fellow church members and friends, and often our own families that are affected by the current attempt to remove essential rights and alter a long history of work for justice.
”
Archbishop Jerome Listecki, President of the Wisconsin Roman Catholic Conference

“The church is well aware that difficult economic times call for hard choices and financial responsibility to further the common good. Our own dioceses and parishes have not been immune to the effects of the current economic difficulties. But hard times do not nullify the moral obligation each of us has to respect the legitimate rights of workers. It does not follow from this that every claim made by workers or their representatives is valid. Every union, like every other economic actor, is called to work for the common good, to make sacrifices when required and to adjust to new economic realities.”

The Rev. Steven A. Miller, Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee

“Over the last few days we have witnessed freedom and democracy at work around the world. I am pleased to report to you that our friends in our former companion diocese of Egypt are safe and that the missionaries of The Episcopal Church serving in Egypt are continuing their ministry in that place. I know you will join me in continuing to hold the people of Egypt and the rest of the Middle East in your prayers. This past week we have also seen democracy at work in Wisconsin as thousands gathered in Madison in response to the Governor’s Budget Bill. Regardless of our individual positions on the bill before the Legislature and what steps are necessary to build a stronger and better Wisconsin, I believe we can all agree that our baptismal vow to “respect the dignity of every human being” is not served by a majority simply pushing through legislation because they have the votes necessary to do so. As Christians, it is our duty and call to make sure that everyone has a place at the table and every voice has the opportunity to be heard. Respecting the dignity of every human being requires taking the time to have honest and faithful conversation that respects the rights and freedoms of all. We also are called to speak on behalf of the sick, the poor, the elderly, orphans, widows, and all those who live in the margins of our society. Matthew in his Gospel reminds us that in serving these we are serving the Lord Jesus himself. It would be a sin to balance our state budget on the backs of those who have the least. “As your bishop I ask you to do two things. First, contact your representatives and invite them to true leadership by taking the time to listen to the voices of all and provide a guarantee that the voices of all will be heard in the future. Secondly, pray for elected officials daily, by name. Leading is a difficult task that requires the prayer support of many. I know that I could not lead this diocese without the prayers of each of you. May God continue to bless us his people that we may be a witness to the world.”

Rev. Bruce Burnside, Bishop of the South-Central Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church

“The breathtaking debate taking place in our legislature and throughout the public forum concerning the Governor’s proposal to address budget issues in the State of Wisconsin not only presents major implications for collective bargaining and workers’ rights, it also significantly affects Medical Assistance programs for the most vulnerable individuals and families in the state of Wisconsin. The Church has a voice in this debate.”

The John Knox Presbytery

“As Christians, we are well aware that difficult economic times call for hard choices on the part of our elected representatives. The State of Wisconsin, like many states, is facing significant financial challenges and difficult decisions in balancing its budget. The decision to reduce or eliminate the state’s projected budget deficit, however, does not nullify the moral obligation of the elected leaders of Wisconsin to respect the legitimate rights of workers, including public employees, to organize and collectively bargain. Therefore, The Presbytery of John Knox, meeting on February 19, 2011 in Muscoda, Wisconsin, calls upon Governor Scott Walker and Wisconsin’s other elected representatives to enter into good-faith negotiations with Wisconsin’s public employee unions to deal with Wisconsin’s current budget issues and to respect the rights of all workers to collectively bargain for wages and benefits. We encourage peaceful dialog and discussion to reach consensus for the benefit of all the people of Wisconsin. Further, we call upon Presbyterians to continue to monitor the state budget process in Madison and to join with other Christians of good will in advocating and praying for a just resolution to Wisconsin’s current budget issues.”

Bishop Linda Lee of the Wisconsin Conference of the United Methodist Church

“United Methodists state in our 2008 Book of Discipline the following: “We support the right of all public and private employees and employers to organize for collective bargaining into unions and other groups of their own choosing. Further, we support the right of both parties to protection in so doing and their responsibility to bargain in good faith within the framework of the public interest. In order that the rights of all members of the society may be maintained and promoted, we support innovative bargaining procedures that include representatives of the public interest in negotiation and settlement of labor-management contracts, including some that may lead to forms of judicial resolution of issues. We reject the use of violence by either party during collective bargaining or any labor/management disagreement. We likewise reject the permanent replacement of a worker who engages in a lawful strike. I share this with you because I understand the importance of balancing our state budget while continuing to provide the best services possible to our citizens. But because of my belief that far more is accomplished for the best interests of all those we serve when employers and employees work together, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your initiative which I believe would end the possibility for those who are government employees here in Wisconsin to negotiate settlement of labor and management disagreements.

Conclusion

National labor leaders have been unequivocal in arguing that Wisconsin stands at the epicenter of the struggle over public worker rights such as collective bargaining. As AFSCME union president Gerald McEntee put it succinctly, the state is “ground zero in the fight for labor rights in the United States.”

Struggles for solidarity and resistance to counter the unprecedented right-wing assault of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his Republican allies on workers’ rights continue across the state. The battles began with Walker’s proposal to curtail most collective bargaining rights for nearly all public employee unions across the state, but has evolved to new levels with allegations of lying and improprieties and the unveiling of a draconian, Tea-Party inspired state budget that could result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Walker’s extreme partisan agenda has already placed public employee union rights at risk and, with the release of the state budget, now is targeting children, families and communities. With organizations such as the Wisconsin Wave Resistance and Defend Wisconsin forming to advance the causes of worker’s rights and the battle against corporatization, the Democratic party is advocating that the principal political reaction should focus on recalling at least three Republican senators, thereby restoring the Senate to Democratic control.

The “constitutional crisis” that Sen. Scott Fitzgerald has raised as an issue is clearly, in the minds of most Wisconsin residents, not that of 14 missing Democratic Senators, but rather the continuing, flagrant abuse of power and misinformation spread by Walker and the Fitzgeralds. Never have three political figures generated so much litigation or accusations of misleading the public.

Madison-area progressives are organizing around an effort doing research using wisdc.org on businesses that contributed to Walker and are setting up a process to select 3 or 4 companies to target “These organizations are not reading our blog posts to find out they are in trouble. We have to let them know,” the group notes. Your “direct and associated political donations are a redirection of the value of my friends, family and associates patronage into political agendas which are contrary to Wisconsin's best interests,” the petition says. “Tell Johnsonville Foods that union men and women are not to be treated like chopped liver in Wisconsin, and deserve the right to collective bargaining.

Bob K.| 3.7.11 @ 9:22AM

I'll bet no one read your post. control yourself!

MAINER64| 3.8.11 @ 5:37AM

Ditto, the more you talk the less one listens..............

PattyMor| 3.6.11 @ 6:10PM

The concept of public sector unions is corrupt. The unions take the union dues and use them to elect union-friendly politicans (usually Democrats). Then the Democrats pass laws to enrich union pay and benefits; and sometimes mandated employee levels which is tantamount to featherbedding.

Well I live in Illinoistan. We have nice pensions and post retirement health care for retirees, but the politicans never fund any of the benefits. So its a house of cards. They just passed an increased income tax, but do they use it to pay down the bills or fund the benefits? No, they are hiring more people, who will in turn, elect more Democrats.

And, another question, do the police and firemen work to the benefit of the communities or for the benefit of their unions? Just where do their loyalties lie?

David| 3.6.11 @ 6:52PM

To the libertarians here who complain about laws against cell phones and texting while driving, those laws are necessary. They are just as necessary as laws against drunk driving. I would rather be driving next to, beside, behind, or in front of an experienced drinker who has had a six-pack to drink than someone texting. Face it, they are causing accidents and causing injuries and deaths everywhere it is allowed. At the very least texters slow down traffic. I can't count the number of times sitting at a light with 3 or 4 lanes of traffic, and the light turns red, and everyone starts moving except one f_cking idiot who it texting.

I mentioned before a cartoon I once saw. It said, "Honk if you love Jesus. Try texting while driving if you would like to meet Him." That is it in a nutshell.

And talking on a cell phone is NOT the same as carrying on a conversation with someone sitting in the car with you or listening to the radio. It requires much more concentration to talk on the cell. Many, many times over the past decade I have seen cars drift in their lanes, and speed up and slow down inappropriately because subconciously they are doing what a car or cars around them are doing. And, on many occasions, I have seen people at a stop waiting to pull out in traffic while the driver in a car coming down the road is on his cell and can't be f_cking bothered to turn on his signal so the cars waiting can go while he is slowing down to turn. I can only think of one scenario when talking on a cell is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY: That is if you are driving and some passenger in the car suddenly has some life threatening emergency.

Otherwise folks, face it, none of us except maybe the president is really sooooo f_cking important that he/she can't be out of touch for 5 or 10 minutes. WE JUST AIN'T THAT IMPORTANT.

And there is NEVER a reason to text while driving.

David| 3.6.11 @ 6:57PM

Excuse me, in 1st paragraph of my previous e-mail it should read "and the light turns GREEN" - not RED.

Richard Baker| 3.6.11 @ 7:37PM

Wisconsin Solidarity:
You union thugs bankrupt every industry and enterprise where you exist. This isn't the 1930's or haven't you noticed? Governor Walker has a Constitutional obligation to balance the State of Wisconsin's budget and you folks are a huge part of the problem. Besides, no one here reads past the first couple of your sentences of your screed anyway.

Capt G| 3.6.11 @ 10:38PM

I've relatives who are teachers and I know more than a few cops. I'm regarded as having an axe to grind against the teachers because I've long questioned not only our educational results but teacher compensation. I don't have an axe to grind against them other than my observation that their compensation has eclipsed anything approaching it's historical parity. I'm not as well informed on police compensation. Heck, my mother was a teacher; I'm hardly inclined to seeing them in poverty.
I understand the point of view that QuietPro presents and I find it neither out of line nor incomprehensible. When any of us has our economic security threatened we get nervous indeed. And whether we're pro-union or not, when a union represents our economic security we suddenly, for all it's faults, start to consider ourselves somewhat unionists. We may still not be worried about the union per se but, we're sure worried about our personal welfare. And it's difficult to not take attacks on the represented group as an attack on us and our co-workers.

I'm of the opinion that most state workers, teachers and cops, are doing the best job they can within the constraints of a system they had nothing to do with establishing. And whether private or public, people operate within the constraints of whatever system they find themselves within. If we can bump our pension by working a lot of overtime within our last three years of work, we work the overtime. We'd be economically foolish not to do so. Employment is not an appeal to altruism.

What I'd try to communicate to QuietPro and the other public union members is that the day of unions is largely over. With only 8% of private sector workers represented by a union it is apparent that not only do most people see no need for union representation, they feel that all the great union battles have been fought and won.

In this time of economic upheaval people are not only giving up houses they've found they really couldn't afford, they are also relocating to cities and states where employment is offered. Many people have great resistance to this, never thinking they'd have to tear up roots or, damn, move downwards economically. It's tough all over.

As a public servant one is not indentured but one does serve at the pleasure of the public. That's why it's called service. And as any public servant knows, cop or teacher, the public can be fickle. If you didn't know that going in, you should have. And change tends to be cataclysmic rather than incremental. Private sector employers find it beneficial to not work under union constraints and they're willing to concede certain employee benefits and compensation not to do so. Most employees find that they can negotiate under that system. Even in some union shops, employees are able to find compensation above union scale because the employer values their work. It's a short step from there to union irrelevance.

There is nothing to prevent public service employees from doing the same, and they should realize that unlike in the private sector, the public is not going to go out of business. And the public will be the arbiter of whether their union's demands are affordable or not. Fair has nothing to do with it, no more than it does in the private sector. Where are you at when, promised a raise, the company goes out of business? While I see no sign of "union-busting" as yet, it's clear that the public service unions are in a very poor negotiating position; the money just isn't there. In fact, they've unfortunately been paid already with money that the public does not have. Something that cannot continue, will not. And I'm sure that QuietPro knows that, if push comes to shove, most cops will stay with their employer and drop the union affiliation. I honestly believe that most Americans do not wish it come to that. While we conservatives philosophically reject any "right" to public servant collective bargaining, most Americans probably find the withdrawal of that "right" a step too far. Union intransigence, in the face of fiscal crisis, can change that belief, though. Democrat and Republican politicians alike know that the unions have fully exercised their out of proportion bargaining powers and that something must change. If the unions want to make this into a battle for survival it will become one. If not, they'll be lumped into the public perception currently reserved for the UAW.

I fully believe QuietPro when he says that most cops are conservative. Most of the ones that I know are and they do a more than fine job as I am sure QuietPro does. If the police union decides to be unreasonable I, and the residents of my town, will be pleased to negotiate with our police officers individually in the same manner we always have; fairly and justly within the constraints of our resources. We are a community which pays its civil servants first, but we can only do so within the resources of the community and our civil servants should know that as they are a part of that community.

MERLIN| 3.7.11 @ 3:13AM

There are many fine teachers, but when someone is given lifetime tenure after two or three years on the job, the incentive to slack off, of repeating worn out lectures, of giving assignments that never require any grading at home, and so on, is overwhelming. Yes some teachers do a great job, many are getting by, and other are disasters. As Hanuschek, the labor economist at Stanford, has shown, getting rid of the bottom 10-15% of US teachers would raise American school performance to European levels. Right now US spending per student is greater than any country but Switzerland, while US student performance is down around Zimbwabwe levels.

MERLIN| 3.7.11 @ 6:31PM

All the more reason that they shouldn't be unionized.

Capt G| 3.6.11 @ 10:58PM

Wisconsin Solidarity,
Thanks, if for nothing else, for making me feel better about being long-winded. And come to think of it, there is nothing else.

The Wisconsin unions had ample chance to negotiate with the previous administration and failed to do so. In the meantime, there was a referendum on that administration the second Tuesday of November last.
The rest of your tedious post was a waste of time since it is largely an expression of dissatisfaction with what the voters of Wisconsin have already decided.
You can accept it, and deal with it, or move. And while the path you're on may have some small success in rallying the troops, it is far more likely to result in an even more lopsided defeat at the polls in 2012. Put that in your recycling bin.

Ken Royall| 3.7.11 @ 9:33PM

My interactions with law enforcement on both sides as in someone getting a traffic citation or reporting a crime has been neutral or negative. When reporting a crime the police act as if they are doing you a favor for showing up and then basically tell you there is nothing they can do for you. Most people I know don't even bother calling them unless it is something very serious. When you get pulled over some cops are overly nasty for no reason.

There is obviously a need to provide a deterrent to criminals but cops aren't psychic. Most of the time they arrive at a crime scene after the fact. The best policy is to carry a weapon yourself. Let's face it, the police spend an inordinate amount of their time hassling generally law abiding citizens, at least in suburban areas. They write their tickets and you pay the big fine no matter how minor the offense and then anxiously await your auto insurance increase. The police should not be exempt from the market forces the rest of us have to deal with, nobody is untouchable. It is very dangerous to put people with authority on a pedestal, it is asking for abuse.

gary siebel| 3.8.11 @ 12:07AM

So I gather all those against Unions are also against the NFL players?

The next two nyears should make for some very interesting politics. I suspect many Tea Party types will be one-termers.

Jonah Kaplan| 3.8.11 @ 9:57PM

The union thugs had a chance to negotiiate with the last administration on this? How ill-informed are some of you people? They did negotiate. They had contracts. They were about to be approved. And what happened? Walker bought off one of the Democrats with a job offer and killed the deal. Check it out. Those are the facts. Wisconsin Solidarity has noted that every single religious denomination in the state has criticized Walker for his approach. Every single one. Wisconsin Solidarity is trying to point out that the problem is the approach here, not necessarily the issue of collective bargaining. The unions were willing to serve on a gubernatorial study committee, which has been the approach to questions such as this for decades in this state. But Walker insisted that it be passed in a week with virtually no public debate. And now he has earned the title of most divisive governor in the nation and the first, in U.S. history to lead to a statewide recall effort for each and every legislator in one of the two legislative bodies in a state. If you people want to post comments about what is going on in Wisconsin, then I suggest that you learn a little about what has gone on here.

x360key reviews | 10.11.11 @ 1:04AM

A good post. x360key reviews

العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 5:57PM

thank you

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|36 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|23 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|23 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|39 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|6 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|14 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|14 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?