The Great Union-Busting Thread

[Admiral Yi]

Tim said Obamacare was basically the Republican plan from 94.  DS said that it was what Obama campaigned on.  I said both can be true.

Yes.  I don't remember any Republican plan from 94.  Can you refresh my memory?

[Sheilbh]

Tim said Obamacare was basically the Republican plan from 94.  DS said that it was what Obama campaigned on.  I said both can be true.

Yes.  I don't remember any Republican plan from 94.  Can you refresh my memory?

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-Comparison.aspx
I believe this was before the Republicans in 93 decided that it would be more advantageous to kill the bill.

[Admiral Yi]

Thanks Shelf.  You're a prince.

[Berkut]

Sarah Palin is Chaotic Stupid. It isn't the same thing.

[sbr]

More Republican shenanigans, what a bunch of twats.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110326/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

MADISON, Wis. – Wisconsin Republicans were accustomed to getting what they wanted after the election put Scott Walker in the governor's office and flipped legislative control to the GOP, even gaining some Democratic support for a series of economic measures in his first weeks in office. Then they took on unions.

Uproar was swift and furious when Walker unveiled his plan to take away nearly all public employee collective bargaining rights, drawing tens of thousands of protesters to the Capitol and sending Senate Democrats running away from it to stall further action.

Delayed but not deterred, GOP leaders found a legislative workaround and passed the measure without even needing the Democrats to be in the state. The move brought quick court action, and a temporary restraining order meant to stop the plan from becoming law while a judge decides whether steps taken to get it approved were legal.

But the GOP may have outsmarted the plan's opponents again.

On Friday, in a move Democrats and unions decried as an end-run around the court order barring implementation, Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald asked the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau to publish the law. Publication typically means a law takes effect.

If the law is in effect, the question before the courts would shift from attempting to block it to rescinding it. And the implementation date is significant because the law doesn't apply to unions that have existing contracts.

Those without contracts once the law takes effect cannot enter into new agreements.

Fitzgerald defended himself against accusations he has thumbed his nose at the judiciary in a move that appeared to run afoul of the temporary restraining order. He said going to the Reference Bureau was legal because the court order only specifically barred the secretary of state from taking action.

Even the Reference Bureau says its move does not put the law into effect. But Fitzgerald insists the bureau's posting on the Legislature's website Friday has the same effect as the secretary of state publishing it — meaning the law took effect Saturday.

Fitzgerald said he didn't consult with Walker about the move.

"It is not the usual path, I admit that," he said. "Clearly we're in this uncharted territory again where we'd like it to be behind us so we can move forward with the budget."

Others doubt the motivations.

"It seems to me they must be just offended that their power is questioned by anybody," said Madison attorney Lester Pines, who plans to file his own lawsuit challenging the law on Monday.

Democrats and unions, meanwhile, are flabbergasted.

"Their actions continue to show a disregard not only for people's rights and open government, but also the authority of the courts," said Democratic Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller.

Fitzgerald said he's only seeking finality and resolution so local governments have certainty in knowing what the law is as they proceed with making budget decisions.

The law takes away the ability of teacher and other public sector unions from collectively bargaining for anything other than wage increases no greater than inflation. It also forces them to pay more for health insurance and pensions, amounting to an 8 percent pay cut on average.

The concessions are expected to save local governments about $330 million by mid-2013 and without those taking effect it will be much more difficult to absorb more than $1 billion in other cuts Walker is proposing in his pending two-year budget plan.

Walker spokesmen did not return messages Saturday seeking comment.

Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said Saturday that he believed the law was now in place. He said he'd begin implementing it, just as the department was required to do after any bill was lawfully published.

"We are mindful that this act is continuing to be litigated, and we will continue to be responsive to the courts as the law begins to be applied," he said in a statement.

The head of the Reference Bureau and one of the Legislature's nonpartisan attorneys both said that despite Fitzgerald's insistence, the law is not in effect until Secretary of State Doug La Follette acts.

The bill passed on March 10 and Walker signed it the next day, after less than 10 weeks on the job.

Under normal circumstances, the law would take effect within the next 10 business days. But a judge issued a temporary restraining order on March 18 preventing La Follette from publishing it.

That order came in response to a complaint filed by the Democratic Dane County district attorney. He alleged the state open meetings law was violated when a special legislative committee met with less than two hours' notice March 9 to put the bill into the necessary form so it could pass the Senate without any of the 14 AWOL Democratic senators present.

The state appealed and an appeals court earlier this week asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case. It has yet to say whether it will.

La Follette remained adamant Saturday that the law is not in effect until he orders it published and he will not take any action because he remains under the restraining order.

"I did not violate the restraining order," La Follette said.

The latest action didn't spur any massive protests in the hours that followed it like other action had last month that motivated demonstrations of more than 85,000 people.

A couple hundred protesters did return to the Capitol on Saturday morning, including one man who stood outside Fitzgerald's office and repeatedly shouted, "I am the Senate majority leader and I am czar! You will do as I say! I am above the law!"

[Neil]

'Now let's see them enforce it'.

[garbon]

More Republican shenanigans, what a bunch of twats.

Yeah but blocking the law through the courts and them dems being derelict in their duties was not.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah but blocking the law through the courts and them dems being derelict in their duties was not.

Fleeing the state was, going to the court was not.  Wisconsin law says you have to post notice 72 hours before a vote; they didn't do that.

The part about this story that has me scratching my head is the fact that the teachers' union has already signed contracts with some jurisdications (school boards I assume).  If a given school board wants to pay each teacher a million dollars, why should the state government care?  The only explanation I can come up with is that the state is on the hook for a set percentage of each school board's payroll.

[garbon]

Fleeing the state was, going to the court was not.  Wisconsin law says you have to post notice 72 hours before a vote; they didn't do that.

I recognize that but I tend the view the shortening of notice was a result of the politician flight. Both foul, of course.

[Admiral Yi]

I recognize that but I tend the view the shortening of notice was a result of the politician flight. Both foul, of course.

The Democrats grabbed all the Dry-Erase markers before they left?

[stjaba]

Is Wisconsin not in the US anymore?

Federal judges have no jurisdiction on whether or not actions violate state laws.  They only have jurisdiction on issues involving federal laws, or questions arising under the US Constitution.

Technically not true. Federal courts have potential jurisdiction over state law claims if the plaintiff and defendants are from different states and the claim is for over $75,000. Also, if there is a claim based on federal law, parties can bring in additional, related claims that are based on state law.

[MadImmortalMan]

Aaaaaaand this:


http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/118654904.html

GOP seeks e-mails of UW-Madison professor

By Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel

The Republican Party of Wisconsin has made an open records request for the e-mails of a University of Wisconsin professor of history, geography and environmental studies in an apparent response to a blog post the professor wrote about a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Professor William J. Cronon, who is the president-elect of the American Historical Association, said in an interview Friday that the party asked for e-mails starting Jan. 1.

The request was made by Stephan Thompson of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. In his request, Thompson asked for e-mails of Cronon's state e-mail account that "reference any of the following terms: Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell."

Most of the names are Republican legislators. Marty Beil is the head of the Wisconsin State Employees Union and Mary Bell is the head of the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

Cronon said the university had not yet complied with the open records request. The e-mails would be subject to the state's open records law because they were written on an university e-mail account.

The university has an e-mail policy that states, "University employees may not use these resources to support the nomination of any person for political office or to influence a vote in any election or referendum."

Cronon said he did not violate the policy in any way. "I really object in principle to this inquiry," Cronon said of the party's open records request.

Thompson was not available for comment. But in an statement, Mark Jefferson, the party's executive director, said, "Like anyone else who makes an open records request in Wisconsin, the Republican Party of Wisconsin does not have to give a reason for doing so.

"I have never seen such a concerted effort to intimidate someone from lawfully seeking information about their government.

"Further, it is chilling to see that so many members of the media would take up the cause of a professor who seeks to quash a lawful open records request. Taxpayers have a right to accountable government and a right to know if public officials are conducting themselves in an ethical manner. The Left is far more aggressive in this state than the Right in its use of open records requests, yet these rights do extend beyond the liberal left and members of the media.

"Finally, I find it appalling that Professor Cronon seems to have plenty of time to round up reporters from around the nation to push the Republican Party of Wisconsin into explaining its motives behind a lawful open records request, but has apparently not found time to provide any of the requested information.

"We look forward to the University's prompt response to our request and hope those who seek to intimidate us from making such requests will reconsider their actions."

Cronon maintains his own blog, which you can read here.

Cronon said he had been doing research for an op-ed he planned to offer to the New York Times about the ongoing budget debate in Madison. In the course of his research, he discovered an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council.

On his own blog, which has no affiliation with the university, Cronon wrote what he described as a "study guide" about the council. Two days later, he said, he had 500,000 hits on the post.

On March 17, Thompson made his open records request, or about 36 hours after the blog was posted. Cronon said.

"I have no doubt there was a causal relationship between those two," Cronon said.

"It never occurred to me that my suggestion that more study needed to be done about the group might be interpreted as electioneering," Cronon added.  "The GOP drew a line that had not occurred to me. That my posting might damage people involved in the recall elections. That surprised me. But that's clearly what they were concluding."

A link to the NYT op-ed the professor wrote is on the page.

[Berkut]

LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.

Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.

Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?

[The Brain]

People are interested in what a professor wrote when it's not required reading? 

[DGuller]

LOL. The GOP is playing hardball.

Still, the request on its face seems to be perfectly legal.

Cronon should take the high road and simply turn over the requested records. What could he had to hide anyway?

Something that could be taken out of context, maybe?  Not that GOP would ever do anything like that, of course.