You are getting this as I experience it, so you'll have to bear with me if this post is passionate, angry, biased, and/or filled with typos. Tonight at around 6 p.m., the Republican Senators of Wisconsin implemented a tactic that (although I had realized it was a possibility) I didn't truly think that they would have the gall to implement. As such, the situation in Wisconsin has dramatically evolved, and this may be the first chance that I have to document my emotions and those of my friends, family, and neighbors.
After weeks of stating that the removal of essentially all collective bargaining rights for public employees in Wisconsin was a fiscal issue, that it needed to be passed as part of the Budget Repair Bill, and that it could not be altered and/or removed from the Bill. After releasing e-mails yesterday that showed that Walker's staff had been in contact with the Democratic Senators in IL discussing potential compromises and stating that they were looking for a resolution to the situation. After all of this, at 4 p.m. this afternoon the Republican Senators convened a special committee to essentially 'cut out' the collective bargaining portion of the Budget Repair Bill and make it a separate piece of legislation. They then claimed that (despite their rhetoric to the contrary for over 3 weeks) this issue was NOT in fact a fiscal issue and that they did not need a quorum to vote on the legislation. The committee then approved this new separate legislation and moments later the Senate voted 18/1 and passed this legislation to strip collective bargaining from Wisconsin public employees. And, as can be imagined, all hell now has the potential to break loose.
The feelings of anger and betrayal that many people in Wisconsin are feeling right now is palpable. After insisting that this was a fiscal issue, after Majority Speaker Fitzgerald stated that they would NOT cut out parts of the bill because all of the aspects of the bill were fiscal, to have them do a complete about-face in the course of a few hours is shocking, infuriating, and leaves me with a feeling of awe at Walker's sense of entitlement and superiority. No matter what your feelings on the bill, about unions, or Walker himself, I can find no way to support these actions. And coupled with the e-mails released just 24 hours ago to show Walker's (claimed) desire to discuss concerns, the statements that he made during the imfamous 'Koch' phone call, I can only conclude that this was actually planned some time ago.
There are going to be legal challenges to the actions that happened today, and I am not familiar enough with the law to know how those challenges will be resolved. But I understand strategy enough to see that the Republican's have potentially put the Democrats in a difficult position when it comes to challenging this 'new' bill. And for that, I have to give them accolades for the catch-22 they have potentially arranged. If the Democrats challenge the separation of this aspect of the bill from the other portions, they almost have to argue that the collective bargaining issue was fiscal, which the Democrats have been arguing against since the onset of this bill fight, and that because it is a fiscal issue a vote without a full quorum is not legal. Requiring that the Democrats change their argument after all of their arguments against the collective bargaining being fiscal is (admittedly) brilliant.
Of course, the Republican's have to explain their sudden 'change of heart' in regards to the fiscal issue as well, but I'm guessing they've already thought of their defense where that is concerned. Also, in order to fight this 'new' bill's passage, the Democrats almost certainly have to return to the Capitol, giving the Republican's the quorum they need to pass the other problematic parts of the original bill, including the emergency changes to Medicaid and sale of state property provisions.
Ironically, if you visit Gov. Walker's website ( he has been posting articles for weeks that outline why (he believes) collective bargaining is a fiscal issue. Yet today, after this new bill was passed, he applauded the separation of this section of the bill as a non-fiscal issue. I'll admit that I'm going to be intrigued to see how (or if) they try to explain this backpedaling in the coming days.
Aa I write this, several friends of mine are in the Capitol rotunda. Although the Capitol building is supposed to be cleared out after the close of business each day (per a court agreement that required protesters that had been sleeping there to leave while also requiring that the governor stop limiting access to the Capitol itself), I have a feeling that there will be no leaving tonight. Originally there were reports that people had essentially rushed the doors and were going in through broken windows, but it has now been confirmed in the press (and through my contacts inside the Capitol) that the police basically didn't close the doors at 6 p.m. and were letting people enter without trying to stop them or force then to leave. There are currently thousands of people in the Capitol.
The Department of Administration states that anyone in the building currently is in violation of the court order to vacate after business hours, but I'm hoping that they are not crazy enough to actually try to make people leave. These protests have been loud, but peaceful, up to this point, but I'm fearful that this last bit of disrespect (and apparent disdain for the intelligence of the people of Wisconsin) may tip things. Emotions are high, people feel betrayed and abused, and Walker's statements have been his typical inflammatory rhetoric. In his statement he said that the Democrats had 3 weeks to discuss the bill and that he supported "the Legislature's action today to stand up to the status quo and take a step in the right direction to balance the budget and reform government".
Tomorrow I intend to go down to the Capitol, and I will loudly but respectfully let my feelings on this political maneuvering be known. Just because something CAN be done, does not mean it SHOULD be done. Politics should not be devoid of honor, and actions by your legislators should not leave you feeling like you have somehow been violated, that you have been dismissed as not being worthy of consideration.
There may be several positive outcomes to this action tonight, and I'm trying to keep these in mind. First, there was a single Republican Senator, Dale Schultz, who voted no on this bill. Sen. Schultz was also the only Republican that had offered any potential compromises on the original bill. This gives me hope that not all Republican's are blind followers. Also, it could be that now that the collective bargaining portion has been 'cut out' of the bill, the other concerning sections will recieve more press coverage and may therefore be more likely to change. Of course, the Republicans could just be high on the power trip from this successful stunt today and even less likely to be open to changing the other portions of the bill. And finally, recall actions and the removal of Republican's from the majority in state governement will probably go easier after this. But I do have to feel sorry for true fiscal conservatives, because Walker's actions these past months have killed most of their hopes to make moderate changes over the next decade.
I will try to post regularly from the heart of the storm here in Madison. Let's hope that the peaceful disobediance that has been the hallmark of these protests continues.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Gov. Walker's Budget Speech
I am working on writing up my first portion of the evaluation of Gov. Walker's actual budget bill for Wisconsin. However, the bill itself is over 1000 pages long and covers almost every aspect of Wisconsin public service, government, fiscal law, and even some odds-and-ends, so I'm trying to determine the best way to break up the discussion. I've also been swamped with other projects this past week, so I apologize that this segment was not as 'timely' as I had hoped. I'm hoping to be back on a schedule of at least a segment every few days here in the near future to try my best to get through the 'meat' of the budget before (hopefully) some major overhauls are made to it.
Yes, the budget has me very worried and very upset, and since I still have not found a supporter of the current bill(s) to be my co-author on this site, I've determined to (while still trying to keep it fair) let my 'crazy liberal leftist' out a little more often. I think it's important to highlight some of the potential problems with the budget as it stands, especially when coupled with the 'repair bill'. Walker says (as you will see below) that he is an optimist. Unfortunately, I am not as much an optimist as I used to be, I tend to now look at things and see how it could go potentially wrong and/or where the potential abuses of power lie. And there are many in the upcoming legislation...
In the meantime, I thought I'd 'treat' you to the actual text of Gov. Walker's budget speech that was given Tuesday, March 1 in front of a hand-selected group of supporters (as most of the protesters and the general public of WI were locked out of the room and in many cases the Capitol building in preparation for the speech). I'll try to keep my critique to a minimum here, but if I feel the need to comment on something or add emphasis, please bear with me. This is the 'preview' of my upcoming segments, so forgive me if I throw in a little foreshadowing.
Here is the text of the speech:
"Speaker Fitzgerald, Speaker Pro Tem Kramer, President Ellis, Majority Leader Fitzgerald, Minority Leader Barca, Supreme Court Justices, Constitutional Officers, tribal leaders, members of the Cabinet, distinguished guests, members of the Legislature, and most importantly, fellow citizens of Wisconsin.
Each and every one of us gathered in the chamber today hold a diverse set of beliefs – beliefs that we are passionate about sharing - and that serve to guide our actions. Each of us has a vision for a better tomorrow in Wisconsin.
But we all share something in common -- an unrivaled passion for this state and the people who call it home. We all want Wisconsin to be the very best that it can be. Yet, -- because our experiences are unique and our beliefs diverse -- our paths may diverge as we tackle today’s challenges. But even at the height of our differences, we can and must keep our promise to people of Wisconsin that they will always come first.
Democracy does not just expect differences, it demands them. It’s the manner in which we discuss and resolve those differences that leads to bold solutions and innovative reforms. I ask that we continue to be mindful of our differences – as well our similarities – in the coming days, weeks and months. Above all, let us not lose sight of the fact that we were each elected to represent the people of this state by participating in our democratic process.
I applaud the State Assembly and those in the State Senate who are here today for not losing sight of that. (Nice backhanded reference to the WI 14, the Senators that left the state to slow the passage of the Budget Repair Bill.)
Over the past few weeks, a great deal of attention has been focused on Wisconsin. That’s ok because freedom thrives each time there is a passionate debate in our society. Passion and civility can go hand-in-hand and that’s what’s on display here in Wisconsin.
But outside observers need to know that there is more to this state as well. Wisconsin is filled with outstanding workers and multi-generational employers. We have tremendous resources and amazing attractions. Most importantly, we have decent people in this state. (This could easily be seen as a slap at the (to him) 'indecent' protestors outsiders are seeing on the TV.)
The good people of this state come from all walks of life – young and old, urban and rural, Democrat and Republican.
Recently, I learned of yet another story that affirms that sense of decency.
Some of our state employees at the Farm Center spent time with two brothers who jointly operate a dairy farm that was – literally - on the verge of financial collapse. One of the brothers was so stressed that he was considering some horrible options.
The Farm Center staff calmly walked the brothers through a variety options and got them through their immediate crisis. That day, our public employees not only helped someone’s life, they may have actually helped save someone’s life. (Keep this story in mind when I start going over what the budget 'provides' for farmers, like eliminating funds for the Conservation Reserve Program and the 'Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin' program.)
This story says a lot about the people of Wisconsin.
It certainly reinforces the financial strain that so many are experiencing across the state. Without a doubt, it shows the compassion of our people toward their fellow citizens. And it shows the professionalism of our public employees who really care about the people that they serve.
This is why we need to move this process forward and get this state working again.
I have been asked a lot over the past week about what happens next. Well, I’m an optimist. I believe that after our budget repair bill passes, tempers will cool, and we will find a way to continue to work together to help grow our economy. We will position Wisconsin to emerge from this economic downturn stronger than ever, with new opportunities for our workers and our families.
You see, for six weeks we worked together to pass bill after bill to show that Wisconsin is open for business. Most of our legislation received bipartisan support. It is my belief that we will soon get back to that type of cooperation in the Capitol.
We introduced a budget repair bill that is the first step toward addressing the long-term challenges facing our state - while laying the foundation for economic growth. The biennial budget I introduce today is built on the savings supplied by our budget repair bill – legislation, I might add, that we have already modified to address concerns expressed at the public hearing. (I haven't been able to find a details list of what 'modifications' they made based on the hearings, but I continue to look)
We need the savings in the budget repair bill because Wisconsin faces a $3.6 billion deficit. Too many politicians have failed to tell the truth about our financial crisis. They left Wisconsinites in the dark about the extent of our fiscal problems. The facts are clear: Wisconsin is broke and it’s time to start paying our bills today – so our kids are not stuck with even bigger bills tomorrow.
This deficit did not appear overnight. Wisconsin got here through a reliance on one-time fixes, accounting gimmicks and tax increases. Previous governors and legislatures from both parties took money from our tobacco settlement. They raided more than a billion dollars from the transportation fund and $200 million from the patients’ compensation fund. They increased taxes on the sick and set up shell games to draw down additional federal funds.
They relied on one-time federal stimulus dollars as if the money would be there forever – but it’s already gone.
Wisconsin owes Minnesota nearly $60 million and some $200 million to the patient’s compensation fund. In short, they governed for the short-term, with an eye only on the next election – not the next generation.
While families across this state were focused on making ends meet, the state government continued to grow well beyond our taxpayers’ ability to pay. But the time has come for us to make the tough choices necessary to put our state back on the path to prosperity.
We must work together to bring our spending in line with reality. We were elected --not to make the easy decisions to benefit ourselves -- but to make the difficult ones that will benefit our children and grandchildren (Interestin comment when you consider what he suppports in regards to education funding).
We need a commitment to the future so our children don’t face even more dire consequences than what we face today. Together, we will change the way government works in Wisconsin. We will make it work for the people once again.
I have often repeated references to our state’s constitutional lesson, that it is only through frugality and moderation in government that we will see freedom and prosperity for our people.
Our budget holds true to these principles by balancing the $3.6 billion deficit through permanent spending reductions and innovative government reforms.
Specifically, our budget reduces all funds spending by $4.2 billion, or 6.7 percent, and decreases the structural deficit by 90 percent from $2.5 billion to $250 million – the lowest structural deficit in recent history. That’s over $2 billion we are saving from future obligations and for future generations.
That’s worth repeating. Our budget reduces the structural deficit by 90 percent. In fact, it is lower than the last eight budgets presented by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Gone are the segregated fund raids, illegal transfers, and accounting gimmicks. Gone are the tax or fee increases. Our state cannot grow if our people are weighed down paying for a larger and larger government. A government that pays its workers unsustainable benefits that are out of line with the private sector (The truth or inaccuracy of this statement depends on how you evaluate workers benefits and wages compared to skill level/education, but I won't get into all those details here. Suffice to say that just as in the private sector, some public jobs pay more and some pay less, and overall most studies don't show a huge discrepency when education/skill is taken into account). We need a leaner and cleaner state government.
As we decrease spending, we also increase flexibility so local government and state government have the tools to deal with reduced revenue. It’s true we are reducing aid to local government by just over one and a quarter billion dollars, but we are providing almost $1.5 billion in savings through our budget repair bill (I haven't yet been able to find details as to how this estimate was calculated, but I will continue to look). If the 14 Senate Democrats do not come home, their local communities will be forced to manage these reductions in aid without the benefit of the tools provided in the repair bill. On the other hand, if the Senate Democrats do come home, local units of government overall will actually see a net increase in revenue plus savings of more than $150 million (Again, still looking for how this estimate was calculated.).
Let me repeat that despite the reductions in our budget, local governments would gain $150 million overall in the next biennium – but only if the Senate is allowed to act.
While aid to local government represents the state’s largest expenditure, the state’s Medicaid program represents the area of fastest growth. Medicaid costs continue to outstrip growth in general fund revenues. Long-term care expenditures, in particular, are growing much faster than other areas of the budget. Coupled with the use of $1.2 billion in one-time federal funding – the state is facing an unsustainable budget challenge. A challenge in need of a serious and long-term solution.
While maintaining services for our most vulnerable, we must also refocus those services and find efficiencies where possible. That will mean asking some individuals to pay modest co-pays and premiums as they transition from the safety net that these programs provide to gainful employment. This will allow those individuals to begin to transition to a time in the future when they will no longer need government support, while protecting those who need these services the most.
Just as we reform our entitlement programs (slightly inflammatory language, most conservatives do not approve of 'entitlement', so I'm afraid this is foreshadowing on his part as to how he views and will manage programs like Badgercare.) for the 21st century, we must also reform our education system. Clearly, we have to produce graduates who are able to compete - not only with their peers from Chicago or Des Moines - but also from Shanghai or Sydney. (I 'love' this sentence, considering what comes next...)
And we must do so while we balance a $3.6 billion deficit. That is why -- even as we reduce school aids (by almost $1 billion as well as cuts to local revenue and decreasing the per student funding cap) – overall we give schools across the state the tools to make up for those reductions with even greater savings through the budget repair bill.
Again, this is why it is so vitally important for the Senate Democrats to come back and do their jobs. If they do not, our schools face massive layoffs of teachers. However, if they do come back, overall savings for schools across the state will outweigh reductions, ultimately allowing schools to put more money in the classroom.
When I campaigned for Governor, I set as a goal that all Wisconsin third graders should be able to read at the 3rd grade level. Many have noted that from Kindergarten to 3rd grade -- our kids learn to read -- and then from 3rd grade on, they use reading to learn. We need to make sure every child can read as they move on from 3rd grade.
That’s why my budget creates a third grade reading initiative that will require all third graders to achieve basic literacy (while cutting funding for school reading specialists). I know we can do this and we owe it to our students to make sure we do.
In addition, we will expand choice and charter programs to insure that every kid gets a great education – no matter what zip code they live in. We lift the cap on the number of students eligible to participate in the Milwaukee parental choice program and phase out the income eligibility limits. And across the state, we allow any University of Wisconsin system four-year campus to create a charter school.
Competing globally also means enhancing higher education. To do this we will give our flagship, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the tools it needs to remain a world leader in research and instruction - while continuing to be a driver of economic development for our state. This is a decision that we discussed at length with Chancellor Biddy Martin and the leadership at UW. For the past several years, she and other UW leaders have pushed for greater flexibility. Now they will have it and soon the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee will as well.
Throughout the budget process I am open to working with lawmakers from both political parties on expanding this concept to the other campuses throughout the University of Wisconsin system. (This is really the only time in this entire speach he says that he's open to discussing a topic with both parties. I find it interesting that he waits this long (and then it's on the splitting the UW portion of the speech) to say that's he willing to discuss. Does this indicate that he's NOT willing to negotiate on the other topics?) A few weeks ago, I met with all of the UW chancellors and expressed my willingness to work with them and the members of the Legislature to improve our higher education system.
We also remain committed to keeping our university system accessible to every Wisconsin student, regardless of financial resources. That’s why – even in these tough fiscal times - we maintain our commitment to the state’s financial aid program. Plus, we maintain the state’s tuition reimbursement for our veterans.
As we refocus government, public safety remains a priority. Our budget will restore truth in sentencing by repealing the early release program approved by the last administration.
We will provide additional resources and positions in our DNA lab to assist our criminal investigations. And we will make sure that our children -- those that are dearest to us -- are protected from those who would do them harm. We provide additional resources to investigate on-line predators targeting our children. The state currently has over twenty thousand IP addresses of people who prey on our children, but we didn’t have the resources to track those criminals down. Now we will.
We are proud of the leadership being provided in this area by our Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and I am thankful that even with a tough budget, we can find resources to protect our kids.
This is a reform budget. It is about getting Wisconsin working again – and to make that happen, we need a balanced budget that works -- and an environment where the private sector can create 250,000 jobs over the next four years.
During our special session on jobs, we created a public-private agency, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation that will focus solely on job creation. Our budget includes the resources and the organization to get the WEDC working to stimulate our economy (including taking state fees for recycling programs and funneling that to the WEDC, while removing state aid to community recycling programs themselves).
Working hand in hand with our new public-private efforts at the state level, are seven regional economic development efforts around the state. In this budget, these regional economic drivers continue to receive financial support as they collaborate to get their regions and our state growing again.
Our budget also recognizes the important role that transportation plays in economic development. In order to grow, we need to move goods and people in a cost-effective and timely manner. That is why our budget ends the raids on the transportation fund, and includes a total investment of $5.7 billion in our state’s transportation system (cutting $900 million from schools but finding almost $6 billion for roads.).
That’s money that will create jobs - now - and in the future. Included in our budget is funding for the accelerated reconstruction of the Zoo interchange (which actually saves us $600 million from the original plans) and additional funding to continue construction of the I-94 corridor. It also includes major investments in our transportation system all across the State of Wisconsin.
We will also encourage job growth as I fulfill a campaign promise to lower taxes on those who invest in Wisconsin-based businesses and do so for an extended period of time. We will do this by eliminating the capital gains tax for investors in Wisconsin companies that provide jobs for our people. And we include tax relief for employers who hire more people to work in our state (while eliminating the minimum salary requirement for qualifying for that tax credit. Create a minimum wage job, get a tax reward!).
In this budget, we provide real tax relief for homeowners across the state by implementing property tax reform that locks in property tax levies at the local level. Time and time again, I’ve heard from Wisconsinites who are doing more with less and making sacrifices to keep their families going. Good people like the retired couple on a fixed income or the new parents paying for daycare and the mortgage on their first house or the middle-class working family where mom and dad still have jobs, but keeping them meant taking a pay freeze. All of them, and others like them across Wisconsin, need true property tax relief and this budget delivers.
I campaigned on creating an environment where the private sector can create 250,000 jobs over the next four years. Our budget lays that foundation, by freeing taxpayers to create jobs in the private sector, by limiting the size and scope of government, and by focusing our government on meeting core priorities. Where we must make reductions, we do so wisely, by giving local governments the tools to save even more money than overall reductions in state aid.
As I have said before, our constitution says, “the blessings of a free government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue.”
This is the heart of our budget. We are returning to frugality and are making the long term decisions to balance our budget now -- and more importantly, into the future. We will do the heavy lifting to protect our children and grandchildren from having to make the hard decisions that were once avoided.
I know that things will get better.
Back in the 1980s – when I was growing up in the small town of Delavan – we faced similar circumstances in our state. A tough economy and a tight budget were the top issues 25 years ago.
Tommy Thompson brought into office bold new ideas and strong leadership. At the time, defenders of the status quo took offense. But by the end of his first term, those reforms helped balance the budget and those policies helped the private sector create 258,000 new jobs. I remember Governor Thompson's optimism and the excitement he created when we turned our state around back then. If we did it a generation ago, we can do it again today.
This budget is about our commitment to the future. Like every parent and grandparent in this state, I want my two sons to grow up in a Wisconsin (at least) as great as the Wisconsin I grew up in. Working together, I know we can do it.
Thank you. May God richly bless you and your family. And may God continue to bless the great State of Wisconsin."
Yes, the budget has me very worried and very upset, and since I still have not found a supporter of the current bill(s) to be my co-author on this site, I've determined to (while still trying to keep it fair) let my 'crazy liberal leftist' out a little more often. I think it's important to highlight some of the potential problems with the budget as it stands, especially when coupled with the 'repair bill'. Walker says (as you will see below) that he is an optimist. Unfortunately, I am not as much an optimist as I used to be, I tend to now look at things and see how it could go potentially wrong and/or where the potential abuses of power lie. And there are many in the upcoming legislation...
In the meantime, I thought I'd 'treat' you to the actual text of Gov. Walker's budget speech that was given Tuesday, March 1 in front of a hand-selected group of supporters (as most of the protesters and the general public of WI were locked out of the room and in many cases the Capitol building in preparation for the speech). I'll try to keep my critique to a minimum here, but if I feel the need to comment on something or add emphasis, please bear with me. This is the 'preview' of my upcoming segments, so forgive me if I throw in a little foreshadowing.
Here is the text of the speech:
"Speaker Fitzgerald, Speaker Pro Tem Kramer, President Ellis, Majority Leader Fitzgerald, Minority Leader Barca, Supreme Court Justices, Constitutional Officers, tribal leaders, members of the Cabinet, distinguished guests, members of the Legislature, and most importantly, fellow citizens of Wisconsin.
Each and every one of us gathered in the chamber today hold a diverse set of beliefs – beliefs that we are passionate about sharing - and that serve to guide our actions. Each of us has a vision for a better tomorrow in Wisconsin.
But we all share something in common -- an unrivaled passion for this state and the people who call it home. We all want Wisconsin to be the very best that it can be. Yet, -- because our experiences are unique and our beliefs diverse -- our paths may diverge as we tackle today’s challenges. But even at the height of our differences, we can and must keep our promise to people of Wisconsin that they will always come first.
Democracy does not just expect differences, it demands them. It’s the manner in which we discuss and resolve those differences that leads to bold solutions and innovative reforms. I ask that we continue to be mindful of our differences – as well our similarities – in the coming days, weeks and months. Above all, let us not lose sight of the fact that we were each elected to represent the people of this state by participating in our democratic process.
I applaud the State Assembly and those in the State Senate who are here today for not losing sight of that. (Nice backhanded reference to the WI 14, the Senators that left the state to slow the passage of the Budget Repair Bill.)
Over the past few weeks, a great deal of attention has been focused on Wisconsin. That’s ok because freedom thrives each time there is a passionate debate in our society. Passion and civility can go hand-in-hand and that’s what’s on display here in Wisconsin.
But outside observers need to know that there is more to this state as well. Wisconsin is filled with outstanding workers and multi-generational employers. We have tremendous resources and amazing attractions. Most importantly, we have decent people in this state. (This could easily be seen as a slap at the (to him) 'indecent' protestors outsiders are seeing on the TV.)
The good people of this state come from all walks of life – young and old, urban and rural, Democrat and Republican.
Recently, I learned of yet another story that affirms that sense of decency.
Some of our state employees at the Farm Center spent time with two brothers who jointly operate a dairy farm that was – literally - on the verge of financial collapse. One of the brothers was so stressed that he was considering some horrible options.
The Farm Center staff calmly walked the brothers through a variety options and got them through their immediate crisis. That day, our public employees not only helped someone’s life, they may have actually helped save someone’s life. (Keep this story in mind when I start going over what the budget 'provides' for farmers, like eliminating funds for the Conservation Reserve Program and the 'Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin' program.)
This story says a lot about the people of Wisconsin.
It certainly reinforces the financial strain that so many are experiencing across the state. Without a doubt, it shows the compassion of our people toward their fellow citizens. And it shows the professionalism of our public employees who really care about the people that they serve.
This is why we need to move this process forward and get this state working again.
I have been asked a lot over the past week about what happens next. Well, I’m an optimist. I believe that after our budget repair bill passes, tempers will cool, and we will find a way to continue to work together to help grow our economy. We will position Wisconsin to emerge from this economic downturn stronger than ever, with new opportunities for our workers and our families.
You see, for six weeks we worked together to pass bill after bill to show that Wisconsin is open for business. Most of our legislation received bipartisan support. It is my belief that we will soon get back to that type of cooperation in the Capitol.
We introduced a budget repair bill that is the first step toward addressing the long-term challenges facing our state - while laying the foundation for economic growth. The biennial budget I introduce today is built on the savings supplied by our budget repair bill – legislation, I might add, that we have already modified to address concerns expressed at the public hearing. (I haven't been able to find a details list of what 'modifications' they made based on the hearings, but I continue to look)
We need the savings in the budget repair bill because Wisconsin faces a $3.6 billion deficit. Too many politicians have failed to tell the truth about our financial crisis. They left Wisconsinites in the dark about the extent of our fiscal problems. The facts are clear: Wisconsin is broke and it’s time to start paying our bills today – so our kids are not stuck with even bigger bills tomorrow.
This deficit did not appear overnight. Wisconsin got here through a reliance on one-time fixes, accounting gimmicks and tax increases. Previous governors and legislatures from both parties took money from our tobacco settlement. They raided more than a billion dollars from the transportation fund and $200 million from the patients’ compensation fund. They increased taxes on the sick and set up shell games to draw down additional federal funds.
They relied on one-time federal stimulus dollars as if the money would be there forever – but it’s already gone.
Wisconsin owes Minnesota nearly $60 million and some $200 million to the patient’s compensation fund. In short, they governed for the short-term, with an eye only on the next election – not the next generation.
While families across this state were focused on making ends meet, the state government continued to grow well beyond our taxpayers’ ability to pay. But the time has come for us to make the tough choices necessary to put our state back on the path to prosperity.
We must work together to bring our spending in line with reality. We were elected --not to make the easy decisions to benefit ourselves -- but to make the difficult ones that will benefit our children and grandchildren (Interestin comment when you consider what he suppports in regards to education funding).
We need a commitment to the future so our children don’t face even more dire consequences than what we face today. Together, we will change the way government works in Wisconsin. We will make it work for the people once again.
I have often repeated references to our state’s constitutional lesson, that it is only through frugality and moderation in government that we will see freedom and prosperity for our people.
Our budget holds true to these principles by balancing the $3.6 billion deficit through permanent spending reductions and innovative government reforms.
Specifically, our budget reduces all funds spending by $4.2 billion, or 6.7 percent, and decreases the structural deficit by 90 percent from $2.5 billion to $250 million – the lowest structural deficit in recent history. That’s over $2 billion we are saving from future obligations and for future generations.
That’s worth repeating. Our budget reduces the structural deficit by 90 percent. In fact, it is lower than the last eight budgets presented by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Gone are the segregated fund raids, illegal transfers, and accounting gimmicks. Gone are the tax or fee increases. Our state cannot grow if our people are weighed down paying for a larger and larger government. A government that pays its workers unsustainable benefits that are out of line with the private sector (The truth or inaccuracy of this statement depends on how you evaluate workers benefits and wages compared to skill level/education, but I won't get into all those details here. Suffice to say that just as in the private sector, some public jobs pay more and some pay less, and overall most studies don't show a huge discrepency when education/skill is taken into account). We need a leaner and cleaner state government.
As we decrease spending, we also increase flexibility so local government and state government have the tools to deal with reduced revenue. It’s true we are reducing aid to local government by just over one and a quarter billion dollars, but we are providing almost $1.5 billion in savings through our budget repair bill (I haven't yet been able to find details as to how this estimate was calculated, but I will continue to look). If the 14 Senate Democrats do not come home, their local communities will be forced to manage these reductions in aid without the benefit of the tools provided in the repair bill. On the other hand, if the Senate Democrats do come home, local units of government overall will actually see a net increase in revenue plus savings of more than $150 million (Again, still looking for how this estimate was calculated.).
Let me repeat that despite the reductions in our budget, local governments would gain $150 million overall in the next biennium – but only if the Senate is allowed to act.
While aid to local government represents the state’s largest expenditure, the state’s Medicaid program represents the area of fastest growth. Medicaid costs continue to outstrip growth in general fund revenues. Long-term care expenditures, in particular, are growing much faster than other areas of the budget. Coupled with the use of $1.2 billion in one-time federal funding – the state is facing an unsustainable budget challenge. A challenge in need of a serious and long-term solution.
While maintaining services for our most vulnerable, we must also refocus those services and find efficiencies where possible. That will mean asking some individuals to pay modest co-pays and premiums as they transition from the safety net that these programs provide to gainful employment. This will allow those individuals to begin to transition to a time in the future when they will no longer need government support, while protecting those who need these services the most.
Just as we reform our entitlement programs (slightly inflammatory language, most conservatives do not approve of 'entitlement', so I'm afraid this is foreshadowing on his part as to how he views and will manage programs like Badgercare.) for the 21st century, we must also reform our education system. Clearly, we have to produce graduates who are able to compete - not only with their peers from Chicago or Des Moines - but also from Shanghai or Sydney. (I 'love' this sentence, considering what comes next...)
And we must do so while we balance a $3.6 billion deficit. That is why -- even as we reduce school aids (by almost $1 billion as well as cuts to local revenue and decreasing the per student funding cap) – overall we give schools across the state the tools to make up for those reductions with even greater savings through the budget repair bill.
Again, this is why it is so vitally important for the Senate Democrats to come back and do their jobs. If they do not, our schools face massive layoffs of teachers. However, if they do come back, overall savings for schools across the state will outweigh reductions, ultimately allowing schools to put more money in the classroom.
When I campaigned for Governor, I set as a goal that all Wisconsin third graders should be able to read at the 3rd grade level. Many have noted that from Kindergarten to 3rd grade -- our kids learn to read -- and then from 3rd grade on, they use reading to learn. We need to make sure every child can read as they move on from 3rd grade.
That’s why my budget creates a third grade reading initiative that will require all third graders to achieve basic literacy (while cutting funding for school reading specialists). I know we can do this and we owe it to our students to make sure we do.
In addition, we will expand choice and charter programs to insure that every kid gets a great education – no matter what zip code they live in. We lift the cap on the number of students eligible to participate in the Milwaukee parental choice program and phase out the income eligibility limits. And across the state, we allow any University of Wisconsin system four-year campus to create a charter school.
Competing globally also means enhancing higher education. To do this we will give our flagship, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the tools it needs to remain a world leader in research and instruction - while continuing to be a driver of economic development for our state. This is a decision that we discussed at length with Chancellor Biddy Martin and the leadership at UW. For the past several years, she and other UW leaders have pushed for greater flexibility. Now they will have it and soon the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee will as well.
Throughout the budget process I am open to working with lawmakers from both political parties on expanding this concept to the other campuses throughout the University of Wisconsin system. (This is really the only time in this entire speach he says that he's open to discussing a topic with both parties. I find it interesting that he waits this long (and then it's on the splitting the UW portion of the speech) to say that's he willing to discuss. Does this indicate that he's NOT willing to negotiate on the other topics?) A few weeks ago, I met with all of the UW chancellors and expressed my willingness to work with them and the members of the Legislature to improve our higher education system.
We also remain committed to keeping our university system accessible to every Wisconsin student, regardless of financial resources. That’s why – even in these tough fiscal times - we maintain our commitment to the state’s financial aid program. Plus, we maintain the state’s tuition reimbursement for our veterans.
As we refocus government, public safety remains a priority. Our budget will restore truth in sentencing by repealing the early release program approved by the last administration.
We will provide additional resources and positions in our DNA lab to assist our criminal investigations. And we will make sure that our children -- those that are dearest to us -- are protected from those who would do them harm. We provide additional resources to investigate on-line predators targeting our children. The state currently has over twenty thousand IP addresses of people who prey on our children, but we didn’t have the resources to track those criminals down. Now we will.
We are proud of the leadership being provided in this area by our Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and I am thankful that even with a tough budget, we can find resources to protect our kids.
This is a reform budget. It is about getting Wisconsin working again – and to make that happen, we need a balanced budget that works -- and an environment where the private sector can create 250,000 jobs over the next four years.
During our special session on jobs, we created a public-private agency, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation that will focus solely on job creation. Our budget includes the resources and the organization to get the WEDC working to stimulate our economy (including taking state fees for recycling programs and funneling that to the WEDC, while removing state aid to community recycling programs themselves).
Working hand in hand with our new public-private efforts at the state level, are seven regional economic development efforts around the state. In this budget, these regional economic drivers continue to receive financial support as they collaborate to get their regions and our state growing again.
Our budget also recognizes the important role that transportation plays in economic development. In order to grow, we need to move goods and people in a cost-effective and timely manner. That is why our budget ends the raids on the transportation fund, and includes a total investment of $5.7 billion in our state’s transportation system (cutting $900 million from schools but finding almost $6 billion for roads.).
That’s money that will create jobs - now - and in the future. Included in our budget is funding for the accelerated reconstruction of the Zoo interchange (which actually saves us $600 million from the original plans) and additional funding to continue construction of the I-94 corridor. It also includes major investments in our transportation system all across the State of Wisconsin.
We will also encourage job growth as I fulfill a campaign promise to lower taxes on those who invest in Wisconsin-based businesses and do so for an extended period of time. We will do this by eliminating the capital gains tax for investors in Wisconsin companies that provide jobs for our people. And we include tax relief for employers who hire more people to work in our state (while eliminating the minimum salary requirement for qualifying for that tax credit. Create a minimum wage job, get a tax reward!).
In this budget, we provide real tax relief for homeowners across the state by implementing property tax reform that locks in property tax levies at the local level. Time and time again, I’ve heard from Wisconsinites who are doing more with less and making sacrifices to keep their families going. Good people like the retired couple on a fixed income or the new parents paying for daycare and the mortgage on their first house or the middle-class working family where mom and dad still have jobs, but keeping them meant taking a pay freeze. All of them, and others like them across Wisconsin, need true property tax relief and this budget delivers.
I campaigned on creating an environment where the private sector can create 250,000 jobs over the next four years. Our budget lays that foundation, by freeing taxpayers to create jobs in the private sector, by limiting the size and scope of government, and by focusing our government on meeting core priorities. Where we must make reductions, we do so wisely, by giving local governments the tools to save even more money than overall reductions in state aid.
As I have said before, our constitution says, “the blessings of a free government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue.”
This is the heart of our budget. We are returning to frugality and are making the long term decisions to balance our budget now -- and more importantly, into the future. We will do the heavy lifting to protect our children and grandchildren from having to make the hard decisions that were once avoided.
I know that things will get better.
Back in the 1980s – when I was growing up in the small town of Delavan – we faced similar circumstances in our state. A tough economy and a tight budget were the top issues 25 years ago.
Tommy Thompson brought into office bold new ideas and strong leadership. At the time, defenders of the status quo took offense. But by the end of his first term, those reforms helped balance the budget and those policies helped the private sector create 258,000 new jobs. I remember Governor Thompson's optimism and the excitement he created when we turned our state around back then. If we did it a generation ago, we can do it again today.
This budget is about our commitment to the future. Like every parent and grandparent in this state, I want my two sons to grow up in a Wisconsin (at least) as great as the Wisconsin I grew up in. Working together, I know we can do it.
Thank you. May God richly bless you and your family. And may God continue to bless the great State of Wisconsin."
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Budget Bill Part 5 - Collective Bargaining
So now we start our evaluation of the 'collective bargaining' section of the bill. If you've been paying attention to the number of pages I 'skipped' for this section in previous posts, it seems like a large portion of the bill. However, many of the pages of this portion of the bill repeat the same general information, it is simply that there is a portion that covers general public employees, a section that covers public safety employees, and a section that cover school employees. For brevity, I will simply note any significant differences between the 3 'classes' as they occur.
It is necessary to have several terms defined at the beginning, as they will reoccur throughout this section, so bear with me as this post is longer than previous posts. As with all of my sections, if you have an alternative interpretation of a section, please feel free to let me know. But again, if your contribution to the conversation is simply statements like 'Union Power' or “Unions protect bad workers”, I will not guarantee that I will approve the comment. But, if you have some documentation or experience that you feel sheds light on a possible outcome I haven't considered, let me know.
I'll admit up front that this is going to be a difficult section for me to cover. I am a past (private) union member, my husband is currently in a (private) union, and my sister and other family members are also union members. This is also the portion of the bill that has gotten the most press coverage and that many people have a strong opinion either for or against. My goal here is to try to limit my bias as much as possible and simply outline what the bill states are requirements of collective bargaining, what is eligible to be bargained, and how the bill changes/impacts union membership, certification, and dues.
“Collective bargaining” is defined in Section 163 111.02(3) as “the negotiation by an employer and a majority of the employer’s employees in a collective bargaining unit, or their representatives, concerning representation or terms and conditions of employment of such employees, in a mutually genuine effort to reach an agreement with reference to the subject under negotiation”. In very general terms, it means that the employees and the employer gather together to discuss various terms of employment such as wages, benefits, working conditions, safety, etc. This bill, as I will show later, limits the topics allowed to be bargained to simple wages. This loss of voice is a significant concern for many of the people opposed to this bill. This is not the forum to discuss the creation of unions or the changes they helped bring to work environments (although I hope to cover that in a later post), but it can be convincingly argued that unions had a lot to do with the creation of many labor protections we now take for granted, such as the 40-hour work week, child labor and minimum wage laws, and many safety protocols.
A 'collective bargaining unit' is defined in Section 163 111.02(3) as “all of the employees of one employer, employed within the state”, although a group can vote collectively to become a separate bargaining unit. To maximize efficiency, the bill requires that a commission review may re-integrate separate bargaining units as long as the change is agreeable to “all parties affected in any way thereby”. I'll admit to being curious how they intend to define/determine who is impacted by the change, as an argument could be made for the entire community served by the bargaining unit could be impacted, thereby requiring a referendum to people who are neither the employees of the agency nor the employer to have a direct impact on the agency itself. This could be good or bad, the results would be unpredictable at best. The bill does stipulate that any all-union agreements (meaning that an employee hired for a position that is currently part of the collective bargaining unit is automatically a member of the union) remain in effect, but as will be pointed out later there is another stipulation that makes the fact that all-union agreements stay effective essentially pointless.
The definition of employer is fairly straight-forward in this bill. An employer is someone who “engages the services of an employee, and includes a person acting on behalf of an employer within the scope of his or her authority, express or implied.”
A strike is defined in section 183 as “any concerted stoppage of work by employees, and any concerted slowdown or other concerted interruption of operations or services by employees, or any concerted refusal of employees to work or perform their usual duties as employees, for the purpose of enforcing demands upon an employer.” Disregarding the unnecessary inflammatory 'enforcing demands' language, I am interested to see how this definition is interpreted to apply to activities the employee regularly does that are not explicitly outlined in the contract or work requirements of the employee.
For example, teachers often use personal time to write letters of recommendation for college applications for students, even though this is not an activity that they are paid for nor is it outlined in their current job requirements. However, stating that a strike includes 'usual duties' could be interpreted to mean that if teacher refuse to provide this additional service, it would be considered a strike activity. That is concerning to me, as employees should not have to fear retribution for withholding services they are not reimbursed for. Also, strikes are expressly prohibited under section 221 of the bill, leaving the potential for employees to be removed from their position if the engage in ANY activity that could meet the definition of a strike under this bill. Again, clarification of situations like my teacher example need to be addressed to assess the full potential of outcomes with this definition.
Although other portions of the bill I have covered dealt indirectly with collective bargaining by outlining the (health and retirement) benefits that public employees would have access too, Section 151, starting at page 59 directly references collective bargaining. The definition of a local government unit, which is used throughout this section in outlining who is impacted by this bill, is defined in section 150, 66.0506(1) as “any city, village, town, county, metropolitan sewerage district, long−term care district, transit authority... , local cultural arts district ..., or any other political subdivision of the state, or instrumentality of one or more political subdivisions of the state.” This is the definition that lets the 'collective bargaining' section apply to almost all public employees, not just state employees. The logic behind this requirement is assumable because a large portion of local government funding is received from the state, so indirectly these municipal employees impact the state budget. However, I feel the need to point out that my understanding of Republican principals is that they mandate for smaller government and local control, so I find it interesting that this bill eliminates the option for local governments to choose to maintain collective bargaining rights for their employees, effectively removing local control.
After defining what public employees are covered under this section, the bill begins with a discussion of wages. Basically the bill states that if any municipality wants to grant their public service employees an annual wage increase of more than the Consumer Price Index, they must pass a voter referendum approving this raise. This is billed as a cost-saving measure as well as giving more control to the taxpayers that indirectly pay these wages. However, telling someone who wants to devote their life to public service that they will be lucky to get a cost-of-living wage increase each year could have an extremely dampening effect on recruiting quality employees.
Also, requiring raises to be passed by referendum could create an issue with unequal services between poorer districts and more affluent districts. I'd have to check the statistics, but I'm guessing that poorer areas are less likely to have a successful referendum. The bill also requires a specific wording to the referendum that explicitly states the wages in actual dollars of the public employee, which if it is higher than that of the voter, could cause a referendum to be defeated simply out of jealousy. The wording is to read “Shall the .... [general municipal employees] in the .... [local governmental unit] receive a total increase in wages from $....[current total base wages] to $....[proposed total base wages], which is a percentage wage increase that is .... [x] percent higher than the percent of the consumer price index increase, for a total percentage increase in wages of .... [x]?” The wage increase cannot take effect until the referendum is passed (Section 305), and is required to be completed by April for collective bargaining agreements that take effect on July 1. I'm assuming, since there is nothing stating otherwise, that if the referendum is not completed by April that there is no chance for a wage increase above CPI. This could encourage employers to 'drag out' contract negotiations until after April to avoid potential wage increases.
The explicit forbidding of collective bargaining (except on wages as discussed above) is clearly summed up in one sentence, probably explaining why this portion of the bill was so quickly understood. Section 151, 66.0508(1m) states “no local governmental unit may collectively bargain with its employee”. Any local ordinance, law, or resolution that allows for collective bargaining is voided by this bill. There is an exclusion in 111.70(1) of the bill that allows public safety employees to maintain their collective bargaining rights on things other than wages. Walker has not been able to clearly outline why he feels that the different provisions are necessary, other than to state that Wisconsin has a long history of collective bargaining with safety employees. This is true of non-public safety employees as well, so I'm still researching a clearer answer for the different collective bargaining allowances. Local governments are also forbidden from creating a defined benefit pension plan for their employees unless the employees are required to pay at least 50% of the actuarial costs, presumably to steer all municipalities into using the state retirement system discussed in an earlier post.
Employers are forbidden from directly refusing to collectively bargain with employee representatives, but the bill allows that an employer is not refusing to bargain if they file a petition “requesting a determination as to majority representation” and the employer may continue to 'delay' bargaining until an election certifying the representation of the collective bargaining unit has been completed. This, coupled with the annual recertification requirement I will discuss later, effectively could require a collective bargaining unit to vote on representation and certification several times a year, delaying what limited bargaining is allowed, creating more administrative costs and hassles for the union itself, and allowing employers to essentially force a lapse of contract. The bill later eliminates the ability for an existing contract to be extended after the termination date, so a forced lapse of contract is a powerful tool for the employers.
The Budget Repair Bill essentially forbids the withdrawal of union dues from an employees paycheck (Section 205), a standard method of collecting union dues in many collective bargaining units currently. It appears that an employee may be able to personally request (in writing) to have these dues withheld, but I am honestly unclear as to what would then take precedent. The explicit forbidding of withdrawing those dues or the employees written request that dues be withheld. I would need someone with more legal knowledge to evaluate that conundrum for me. In addition to eliminating the paycheck withdrawal of union dues, the bill also states that employees that are part of a collective bargaining unit may remain a part of that union without being required to pay dues to the unit. Public safety employees are excluded from this provision, in retaining all of their collective bargaining rights they also retain the requirement that all union members must pay dues.
The bill allows union members to 'opt out' of dues while (as I will show shortly) greatly increasing the potential administrative costs to the union itself. I'll admit I would (almost) prefer that people be allowed to opt out of the union if they do not want to pay the dues to stating that they can be required to join but you can't make them pay the dues. This is an especially important provision to keep in mind when we discuss how often this bill requires that a bargaining unit survey or put issues to a vote of it's membership. Allowing members to opt out of the dues will limit the funds that a union has available to meet the requirements of this bill in regards to votes, which could mean a slow death to the collective bargaining unit itself (as if the limited collective bargaining rights weren't bad enough).
Arbitration of any disagreements covered in the collective bargaining agreement still exists, but as (except for public safety employees) the only thing allowed to be covered by collective bargaining is wages, this seems like a minor activity at best. There could be disputes over pay rates that could require arbitration, but other things such as disciplinary actions and unsafe working conditions that typically could have been resolved under arbitration would be solely the power of the employer under this bill. While I would like to think that most employers would want a safe, well-maintained workforce, I'm ashamed to say I don't have that much general faith in humanity. Arbitration also allows that if an impasse is reached and the issue cannot be resolved between the parties, the mediating body has the ability to make a ruling on the situation that is binding. The designation of a 'fact-finder' to investigate the situation but who is forbidden from mediating the dispute, only making recommendations to the arbitrator, attempts to make this an unbiased process.
Section 214 discusses the process for initiating and proceeding with contract negotiations. The provision that requires the employer and bargaining unit to notify of the desire to start negotiations seems straight-forward enough. However, the provision requiring that all negotiations be open to the public is troubling to me. I have to check to see if that is currently the process, if so perhaps I am being concerned for nothing, but if this is a new process I see it as almost solely a political maneuver as opposed to a fiscal issue. Since the general public cannot directly request anything in the negotiations, but public opinion could easily influence the requests made at the table, I see no reason for these meetings to be open to the public. There is a much higher chance that the bargaining unit will fall out of public favor for even requesting a modest raise than there is for the agency to receive negative press for requesting a wage freeze. Since the public will already be required to vote by referendum on any raise above the CPI, I'm unclear what the goal of having these meetings open to the public is. And I typically am a huge proponent of open government and public forums. But since negotiations typically start with the 'dream' offer and then meet in the middle, and since the public will have limited ability to directly influence the negotiations, it seems that it would just provide an opportunity for political grandstanding.
Representatives of the collective bargaining unit are to be elected and certified annually (by December 1 for schools and May 1 for all other bargaining units). I have to research further what the current election terms are for most public unions to determine if this is in-line with the current process. Besides adding (yet another) annual administrative hoop for the unions, the section also states that if none of the candidates receive at least 51% of the vote the commission will decertify the current representative and the employees would be nonrepresented. This 51% requirement, instead of simply installing whichever candidate gets the most votes, could be extremely difficult to meet if the union has more than 2 candidates running for the position. The bill states that the ballot will contain “the names of all labor organizations having an interest in representing the general employees participating in the election.”
It does not specify whether the bargaining unit has the ability to limit the groups listed on the ballot of if any group with any interest is required to be listed. Obviously this is an important point, as the more names there are on the ballot the less likely it is that any one name will get 51% of the votes. This seems to set up a large bias toward the employees becoming unrepresented, which is a concerning situation. The employees can request a 'run off' election where the name that received the least number of votes is dropped from the next ballot, but depending on the number of names originally this could still not provide a likelihood of 51% of the votes to a single name. Plus, each additional vote is an additional administrative and logistic cost to the union. If the employees become unrepresented, they are unable to vote for representation again for a year, and that new vote would be subject to the same 51% vote requirement. The union must also pay a fee to the commission for each election, apparently regardless of whether the election is successful in obtaining representation or not.
Contract duration under this bill is limited to one year and must coincide with the fiscal year. The contracts cannot be extended under this bill. I need to clarify what the current average length of a contract for public employees is to determine if this is a shorter time frame than contracts currently are active. The lack of an ability to extend the contracts is also concerning, especially if there is a delay in the state budget (which impacts individual employer budgets) in getting approved.
So under this bill, every year a collective bargaining unit must vote on representation (possibly multiple times if a run-off is required), resolve any questions of majority representation the employer brings, vote to stay certified, potentially write, defend, and pass a referendum before April, and initiate and complete contract negotiations. And all of these activities must be completed with (presumably) less fee collection because of the inability of the union to enforce collection of dues from members and/or have dues withdrawn from an employee's paycheck. I think it's obvious how this could be administratively and logistically difficult.
If the governor declares a state of emergency (and I'm hoping to research what requirements need to be met to declare a state of emergency), any employee can be fired under section 344 for failing to report to work for ANY 3 working days (these do not have to be consecutive) or participating in strike activities. The bill does require the employee be notified of the discharge in writing, but does not give a time-frame for this notice. The employee does have an 'opportunity to respond' but it doesn't state that the employee has a chance to defend themselves or fight the discharge, just that they can 'respond'.
I am most concerned about the “any 3 working days” part of this section. As there does not appear to be any limit to the length of time that a state of emergency can be active, nor is there any explicit stipulation that the “3 days” requirement only applies to agencies directly providing services related to the emergency, it is possible for an employee to be fired for an illness that takes place during an extended state of emergency or for employees that are not directly in the area impacted to be fired even though they are not 'treating' the emergency. Also, I want to find out more details as to what requirements must be met for a state of emergency to be declared to avoid potential abuse of this power by the governor.
So this completes my overview of Wisconsin's Budget Repair Bill. This bill has passed the state assembly but is currently not able to be voted on in the Senate. Governor Walker is also releasing his actual budget later today (March 1), so I will review that in my next post. After that, I hope to provide reviews of how the budget and the Budget Repair Bill directly impact areas of the state such as Medicaid, school funding, and transportation infrastructure.
It is necessary to have several terms defined at the beginning, as they will reoccur throughout this section, so bear with me as this post is longer than previous posts. As with all of my sections, if you have an alternative interpretation of a section, please feel free to let me know. But again, if your contribution to the conversation is simply statements like 'Union Power' or “Unions protect bad workers”, I will not guarantee that I will approve the comment. But, if you have some documentation or experience that you feel sheds light on a possible outcome I haven't considered, let me know.
I'll admit up front that this is going to be a difficult section for me to cover. I am a past (private) union member, my husband is currently in a (private) union, and my sister and other family members are also union members. This is also the portion of the bill that has gotten the most press coverage and that many people have a strong opinion either for or against. My goal here is to try to limit my bias as much as possible and simply outline what the bill states are requirements of collective bargaining, what is eligible to be bargained, and how the bill changes/impacts union membership, certification, and dues.
“Collective bargaining” is defined in Section 163 111.02(3) as “the negotiation by an employer and a majority of the employer’s employees in a collective bargaining unit, or their representatives, concerning representation or terms and conditions of employment of such employees, in a mutually genuine effort to reach an agreement with reference to the subject under negotiation”. In very general terms, it means that the employees and the employer gather together to discuss various terms of employment such as wages, benefits, working conditions, safety, etc. This bill, as I will show later, limits the topics allowed to be bargained to simple wages. This loss of voice is a significant concern for many of the people opposed to this bill. This is not the forum to discuss the creation of unions or the changes they helped bring to work environments (although I hope to cover that in a later post), but it can be convincingly argued that unions had a lot to do with the creation of many labor protections we now take for granted, such as the 40-hour work week, child labor and minimum wage laws, and many safety protocols.
A 'collective bargaining unit' is defined in Section 163 111.02(3) as “all of the employees of one employer, employed within the state”, although a group can vote collectively to become a separate bargaining unit. To maximize efficiency, the bill requires that a commission review may re-integrate separate bargaining units as long as the change is agreeable to “all parties affected in any way thereby”. I'll admit to being curious how they intend to define/determine who is impacted by the change, as an argument could be made for the entire community served by the bargaining unit could be impacted, thereby requiring a referendum to people who are neither the employees of the agency nor the employer to have a direct impact on the agency itself. This could be good or bad, the results would be unpredictable at best. The bill does stipulate that any all-union agreements (meaning that an employee hired for a position that is currently part of the collective bargaining unit is automatically a member of the union) remain in effect, but as will be pointed out later there is another stipulation that makes the fact that all-union agreements stay effective essentially pointless.
The definition of employer is fairly straight-forward in this bill. An employer is someone who “engages the services of an employee, and includes a person acting on behalf of an employer within the scope of his or her authority, express or implied.”
A strike is defined in section 183 as “any concerted stoppage of work by employees, and any concerted slowdown or other concerted interruption of operations or services by employees, or any concerted refusal of employees to work or perform their usual duties as employees, for the purpose of enforcing demands upon an employer.” Disregarding the unnecessary inflammatory 'enforcing demands' language, I am interested to see how this definition is interpreted to apply to activities the employee regularly does that are not explicitly outlined in the contract or work requirements of the employee.
For example, teachers often use personal time to write letters of recommendation for college applications for students, even though this is not an activity that they are paid for nor is it outlined in their current job requirements. However, stating that a strike includes 'usual duties' could be interpreted to mean that if teacher refuse to provide this additional service, it would be considered a strike activity. That is concerning to me, as employees should not have to fear retribution for withholding services they are not reimbursed for. Also, strikes are expressly prohibited under section 221 of the bill, leaving the potential for employees to be removed from their position if the engage in ANY activity that could meet the definition of a strike under this bill. Again, clarification of situations like my teacher example need to be addressed to assess the full potential of outcomes with this definition.
Although other portions of the bill I have covered dealt indirectly with collective bargaining by outlining the (health and retirement) benefits that public employees would have access too, Section 151, starting at page 59 directly references collective bargaining. The definition of a local government unit, which is used throughout this section in outlining who is impacted by this bill, is defined in section 150, 66.0506(1) as “any city, village, town, county, metropolitan sewerage district, long−term care district, transit authority... , local cultural arts district ..., or any other political subdivision of the state, or instrumentality of one or more political subdivisions of the state.” This is the definition that lets the 'collective bargaining' section apply to almost all public employees, not just state employees. The logic behind this requirement is assumable because a large portion of local government funding is received from the state, so indirectly these municipal employees impact the state budget. However, I feel the need to point out that my understanding of Republican principals is that they mandate for smaller government and local control, so I find it interesting that this bill eliminates the option for local governments to choose to maintain collective bargaining rights for their employees, effectively removing local control.
After defining what public employees are covered under this section, the bill begins with a discussion of wages. Basically the bill states that if any municipality wants to grant their public service employees an annual wage increase of more than the Consumer Price Index, they must pass a voter referendum approving this raise. This is billed as a cost-saving measure as well as giving more control to the taxpayers that indirectly pay these wages. However, telling someone who wants to devote their life to public service that they will be lucky to get a cost-of-living wage increase each year could have an extremely dampening effect on recruiting quality employees.
Also, requiring raises to be passed by referendum could create an issue with unequal services between poorer districts and more affluent districts. I'd have to check the statistics, but I'm guessing that poorer areas are less likely to have a successful referendum. The bill also requires a specific wording to the referendum that explicitly states the wages in actual dollars of the public employee, which if it is higher than that of the voter, could cause a referendum to be defeated simply out of jealousy. The wording is to read “Shall the .... [general municipal employees] in the .... [local governmental unit] receive a total increase in wages from $....[current total base wages] to $....[proposed total base wages], which is a percentage wage increase that is .... [x] percent higher than the percent of the consumer price index increase, for a total percentage increase in wages of .... [x]?” The wage increase cannot take effect until the referendum is passed (Section 305), and is required to be completed by April for collective bargaining agreements that take effect on July 1. I'm assuming, since there is nothing stating otherwise, that if the referendum is not completed by April that there is no chance for a wage increase above CPI. This could encourage employers to 'drag out' contract negotiations until after April to avoid potential wage increases.
The explicit forbidding of collective bargaining (except on wages as discussed above) is clearly summed up in one sentence, probably explaining why this portion of the bill was so quickly understood. Section 151, 66.0508(1m) states “no local governmental unit may collectively bargain with its employee”. Any local ordinance, law, or resolution that allows for collective bargaining is voided by this bill. There is an exclusion in 111.70(1) of the bill that allows public safety employees to maintain their collective bargaining rights on things other than wages. Walker has not been able to clearly outline why he feels that the different provisions are necessary, other than to state that Wisconsin has a long history of collective bargaining with safety employees. This is true of non-public safety employees as well, so I'm still researching a clearer answer for the different collective bargaining allowances. Local governments are also forbidden from creating a defined benefit pension plan for their employees unless the employees are required to pay at least 50% of the actuarial costs, presumably to steer all municipalities into using the state retirement system discussed in an earlier post.
Employers are forbidden from directly refusing to collectively bargain with employee representatives, but the bill allows that an employer is not refusing to bargain if they file a petition “requesting a determination as to majority representation” and the employer may continue to 'delay' bargaining until an election certifying the representation of the collective bargaining unit has been completed. This, coupled with the annual recertification requirement I will discuss later, effectively could require a collective bargaining unit to vote on representation and certification several times a year, delaying what limited bargaining is allowed, creating more administrative costs and hassles for the union itself, and allowing employers to essentially force a lapse of contract. The bill later eliminates the ability for an existing contract to be extended after the termination date, so a forced lapse of contract is a powerful tool for the employers.
The Budget Repair Bill essentially forbids the withdrawal of union dues from an employees paycheck (Section 205), a standard method of collecting union dues in many collective bargaining units currently. It appears that an employee may be able to personally request (in writing) to have these dues withheld, but I am honestly unclear as to what would then take precedent. The explicit forbidding of withdrawing those dues or the employees written request that dues be withheld. I would need someone with more legal knowledge to evaluate that conundrum for me. In addition to eliminating the paycheck withdrawal of union dues, the bill also states that employees that are part of a collective bargaining unit may remain a part of that union without being required to pay dues to the unit. Public safety employees are excluded from this provision, in retaining all of their collective bargaining rights they also retain the requirement that all union members must pay dues.
The bill allows union members to 'opt out' of dues while (as I will show shortly) greatly increasing the potential administrative costs to the union itself. I'll admit I would (almost) prefer that people be allowed to opt out of the union if they do not want to pay the dues to stating that they can be required to join but you can't make them pay the dues. This is an especially important provision to keep in mind when we discuss how often this bill requires that a bargaining unit survey or put issues to a vote of it's membership. Allowing members to opt out of the dues will limit the funds that a union has available to meet the requirements of this bill in regards to votes, which could mean a slow death to the collective bargaining unit itself (as if the limited collective bargaining rights weren't bad enough).
Arbitration of any disagreements covered in the collective bargaining agreement still exists, but as (except for public safety employees) the only thing allowed to be covered by collective bargaining is wages, this seems like a minor activity at best. There could be disputes over pay rates that could require arbitration, but other things such as disciplinary actions and unsafe working conditions that typically could have been resolved under arbitration would be solely the power of the employer under this bill. While I would like to think that most employers would want a safe, well-maintained workforce, I'm ashamed to say I don't have that much general faith in humanity. Arbitration also allows that if an impasse is reached and the issue cannot be resolved between the parties, the mediating body has the ability to make a ruling on the situation that is binding. The designation of a 'fact-finder' to investigate the situation but who is forbidden from mediating the dispute, only making recommendations to the arbitrator, attempts to make this an unbiased process.
Section 214 discusses the process for initiating and proceeding with contract negotiations. The provision that requires the employer and bargaining unit to notify of the desire to start negotiations seems straight-forward enough. However, the provision requiring that all negotiations be open to the public is troubling to me. I have to check to see if that is currently the process, if so perhaps I am being concerned for nothing, but if this is a new process I see it as almost solely a political maneuver as opposed to a fiscal issue. Since the general public cannot directly request anything in the negotiations, but public opinion could easily influence the requests made at the table, I see no reason for these meetings to be open to the public. There is a much higher chance that the bargaining unit will fall out of public favor for even requesting a modest raise than there is for the agency to receive negative press for requesting a wage freeze. Since the public will already be required to vote by referendum on any raise above the CPI, I'm unclear what the goal of having these meetings open to the public is. And I typically am a huge proponent of open government and public forums. But since negotiations typically start with the 'dream' offer and then meet in the middle, and since the public will have limited ability to directly influence the negotiations, it seems that it would just provide an opportunity for political grandstanding.
Representatives of the collective bargaining unit are to be elected and certified annually (by December 1 for schools and May 1 for all other bargaining units). I have to research further what the current election terms are for most public unions to determine if this is in-line with the current process. Besides adding (yet another) annual administrative hoop for the unions, the section also states that if none of the candidates receive at least 51% of the vote the commission will decertify the current representative and the employees would be nonrepresented. This 51% requirement, instead of simply installing whichever candidate gets the most votes, could be extremely difficult to meet if the union has more than 2 candidates running for the position. The bill states that the ballot will contain “the names of all labor organizations having an interest in representing the general employees participating in the election.”
It does not specify whether the bargaining unit has the ability to limit the groups listed on the ballot of if any group with any interest is required to be listed. Obviously this is an important point, as the more names there are on the ballot the less likely it is that any one name will get 51% of the votes. This seems to set up a large bias toward the employees becoming unrepresented, which is a concerning situation. The employees can request a 'run off' election where the name that received the least number of votes is dropped from the next ballot, but depending on the number of names originally this could still not provide a likelihood of 51% of the votes to a single name. Plus, each additional vote is an additional administrative and logistic cost to the union. If the employees become unrepresented, they are unable to vote for representation again for a year, and that new vote would be subject to the same 51% vote requirement. The union must also pay a fee to the commission for each election, apparently regardless of whether the election is successful in obtaining representation or not.
Contract duration under this bill is limited to one year and must coincide with the fiscal year. The contracts cannot be extended under this bill. I need to clarify what the current average length of a contract for public employees is to determine if this is a shorter time frame than contracts currently are active. The lack of an ability to extend the contracts is also concerning, especially if there is a delay in the state budget (which impacts individual employer budgets) in getting approved.
So under this bill, every year a collective bargaining unit must vote on representation (possibly multiple times if a run-off is required), resolve any questions of majority representation the employer brings, vote to stay certified, potentially write, defend, and pass a referendum before April, and initiate and complete contract negotiations. And all of these activities must be completed with (presumably) less fee collection because of the inability of the union to enforce collection of dues from members and/or have dues withdrawn from an employee's paycheck. I think it's obvious how this could be administratively and logistically difficult.
If the governor declares a state of emergency (and I'm hoping to research what requirements need to be met to declare a state of emergency), any employee can be fired under section 344 for failing to report to work for ANY 3 working days (these do not have to be consecutive) or participating in strike activities. The bill does require the employee be notified of the discharge in writing, but does not give a time-frame for this notice. The employee does have an 'opportunity to respond' but it doesn't state that the employee has a chance to defend themselves or fight the discharge, just that they can 'respond'.
I am most concerned about the “any 3 working days” part of this section. As there does not appear to be any limit to the length of time that a state of emergency can be active, nor is there any explicit stipulation that the “3 days” requirement only applies to agencies directly providing services related to the emergency, it is possible for an employee to be fired for an illness that takes place during an extended state of emergency or for employees that are not directly in the area impacted to be fired even though they are not 'treating' the emergency. Also, I want to find out more details as to what requirements must be met for a state of emergency to be declared to avoid potential abuse of this power by the governor.
So this completes my overview of Wisconsin's Budget Repair Bill. This bill has passed the state assembly but is currently not able to be voted on in the Senate. Governor Walker is also releasing his actual budget later today (March 1), so I will review that in my next post. After that, I hope to provide reviews of how the budget and the Budget Repair Bill directly impact areas of the state such as Medicaid, school funding, and transportation infrastructure.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)