Judge blocks contentious Wisconsin union law

[pocketfullofshells]

I think it is likely that you or your sources have twisted words around so that no one can really know what it all means. I think it is possible that my sources have done the same. I can imagine no world in which the dems could be punished for violating a constitutional law and it not be illegal but I admit politicians manage to warp everything they touch so that up truly is down.

once again the constitution does not make it illegal for them to not vote...all it says is that the state may compel them to if they don't. Compel is very different then arrest. Your trying to take Senate rules and make them law...they are not..hence why they can only be punished by the senate with what powers the senate has..such as censure.

I have no idea if sending cops out was illegal..my guess is no due to what walker claimed was his reason to do to...he sent them to compel them ( not arrest them) to come vote....of course I would say it was clearly a waste if you go by his stated goal...we all knew they where not in the state...and not going to vote.

 

[bododie]

Union threatens boycott of any business that doesn't show support

Members of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, warning that they will face a boycott if they don't support collective bargaining for public employee unions.The letters ask businesses to express that support by displaying union signs in their windows.

"Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business," the letter says. "And sorry, neutral means 'no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.

 

[Rick]

Somewhere on this forum someone posted proof that the teachers contract states that the pensions come from their salaries.
.

This is simple to grasp - teachers' pensions are DEFINED BENEFIT. Unlike the rest of us who aren't overpaid, teachers benefits are INDEPENDENT of the stock market, the economy, or the state's budget. They get money regardless. The rest of us have 401ks, and if the market goes down, so does our 401ks - no problem - just keep working till we drop dead to make up the slack. The teachers' contributions are invested by their pension fund. If the market goes south, who makes up the difference? Hint: it starts with a "T". The rest of us mere mortals have no such insulation from economic decline. In fact, it's even harder on us, because we have to make up any losses for he princely set. This is truly bizarre - a group is selected out for special treatment when so many other people are hurting, and worse, when international achievement stats show they've basically failed in their mission.

 

[Dr.Who]

This is simple to grasp - teachers' pensions are DEFINED BENEFIT. Unlike the rest of us who aren't overpaid, teachers benefits are INDEPENDENT of the stock market, the economy, or the state's budget. They get money regardless. The rest of us have 401ks, and if the market goes down, so does our 401ks - no problem - just keep working till we drop dead to make up the slack. The teachers' contributions are invested by their pension fund. If the market goes south, who makes up the difference? Hint: it starts with a "T". The rest of us mere mortals have no such insulation from economic decline. In fact, it's even harder on us, because we have to make up any losses for he princely set. This is truly bizarre - a group is selected out for special treatment when so many other people are hurting, and worse, when international achievement stats show they've basically failed in their mission.

The pension is akin to an annuity which the rest of us can indeed buy.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Rick Still waiting for a simple yes or no, it should not be this hard....

 

[Dr.Who]

once again the constitution does not make it illegal for them to not vote...all it says is that the state may compel them to if they don't. Compel is very different then arrest. Your trying to take Senate rules and make them law...they are not..hence why they can only be punished by the senate with what powers the senate has..such as censure.

I have no idea if sending cops out was illegal..my guess is no due to what walker claimed was his reason to do to...he sent them to compel them ( not arrest them) to come vote....of course I would say it was clearly a waste if you go by his stated goal...we all knew they where not in the state...and not going to vote.

It may be that the law saying they can be compelled does not make it illegal. But they can be arrested which implies that it does in fact make it illegal.

If you are right then there were papers issued for police officers to arrest them with or without force and they face punishment despite being innocent.

 

[PLC1]

I agree. The funds do originate with taxpayer funds but it is compensation and it comes from the teachers salary just like the salary comes from the salary.

the salary comes from the salary(??)

In short, the teachers pensions are paid from their salaries. It makes little sense to complain about the pensions but not the total compensation.

Yes, it makes little sense, in fact, no sense at all.

And anyone who thinks teachers are paid too much has never tried teaching a class.

I think you were right when you said that this is about the state wanted to borrow money from the pensions. They have laid the blame there because they can connect the dots in ways that divert blame from themselves.

Still, the teachers are compensated very well and it is a place where cuts can be made.

If teachers are being overcompensated, or of the state can no longer afford the salaries they've agreed to, then they need to go back to the bargaining table, not play games, try to raid the pension funds, and use the budget crunch as an excuse to make a power grab. That is just reprehensible on every level.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It may be that the law saying they can be compelled does not make it illegal. But they can be arrested which implies that it does in fact make it illegal.

If you are right then there were papers issued for police officers to arrest them with or without force and they face punishment despite being innocent.

again show me where there is written that they can be arrested...even the Gov said they where not sent to arrest them. ( of course this is after people suggested misuse of funds)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

the salary comes from the salary(??)



Yes, it makes little sense, in fact, no sense at all.

And anyone who thinks teachers are paid too much has never tried teaching a class.



If teachers are being overcompensated, or of the state can no longer afford the salaries they've agreed to, then they need to go back to the bargaining table, not play games, try to raid the pension funds, and use the budget crunch as an excuse to make a power grab. That is just reprehensible on every level.

just always remember teachers are all overpaid...CEO's making millions at companies doing poorly...are not...and we need to honor those contracts.

 

[Dr.Who]

the salary comes from the salary(??)

A grammatically odd tautology but true.

Yes, it makes little sense, in fact, no sense at all.

And anyone who thinks teachers are paid too much has never tried teaching a class.

Well, they are paid too much when one considers the whole compensation package. Not only have I taught a classroom but my wife has taught them for 20 or so years.

If teachers are being overcompensated, or of the state can no longer afford the salaries they've agreed to, then they need to go back to the bargaining table, not play games, try to raid the pension funds, and use the budget crunch as an excuse to make a power grab. That is just reprehensible on every level.

Going to the bargaining table is exactly what this is about. But the state wants to go to the table with no special rights given to the unions. Reducing the union power is exactly what us needed. They would have done it without games if the dems had not left the state. They did do it with games and that is sad.

 

[Dr.Who]

just always remember teachers are all overpaid...CEO's making millions at companies doing poorly...are not...and we need to honor those contracts.

Comparing the ceo of a multi million dollar company to the teacher of a single classroom is ridiculous.

Both contracts need to be honored up until the date they are up for renegotiation. Which for the teachers is now.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Comparing the ceo of a multi million dollar company to the teacher of a single classroom is ridiculous.

Both contracts need to be honored up until the date they are up for renegotiation. Which for the teachers is now.

I agree the teacher is actually providing some value...

 

[Dr.Who]

again show me where there is written that they can be arrested...even the Gov said they where not sent to arrest them. ( of course this is after people suggested misuse of funds)

There have been numerous news accounts with headlines saying they would be arrested (you only need to google it)

Here is a quote:

"After two weeks on the run, the Wisconsin Senate passed a resolution Thursday ordering the arrest of the missing state senators."
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_n...4-wisconsin-orders-arrest-of-missing-senators

Upon further reading it appears that the news stories may have been lazy in the use of the word arrest. According to law they can be taken into custody but not arrested unless they commit a felony or other more serious crime. Contempt of senate is not a felony.

I must then revise my statement from:

I don't see how anyone could argue that going against the constitutional law, getting picked up and arrested by police, being charged with contempt of senate, and being given a punishment to be decided by the house could be anything other than breaking the law.

to

I don't see how anyone could argue that going against the constitutional law, being taken into custody by police, being charged with contempt of senate, and being given a punishment to be decided by the house could be anything other than breaking the law.

The case being defended by the dems is stating that being taken into custody is equivalent to being arrested and they are planning to charge Fitzgerald as a countermeasure.

So I guess the dem senators agree that custody would be an arrest. And the senate is not allowed to arrest them so it appears that the constitution of Wisc has a contradiction built into it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There have been numerous news accounts with headlines saying they would be arrested (you only need to google it)

Here is a quote:

"After two weeks on the run, the Wisconsin Senate passed a resolution Thursday ordering the arrest of the missing state senators."
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_n...4-wisconsin-orders-arrest-of-missing-senators

Upon further reading it appears that the news stories may have been lazy in the use of the word arrest. According to law they can be taken into custody but not arrested unless they commit a felony or other more serious crime. Contempt of senate is not a felony.

I must then revise my statement from:

I don't see how anyone could argue that going against the constitutional law, getting picked up and arrested by police, being charged with contempt of senate, and being given a punishment to be decided by the house could be anything other than breaking the law.

to

I don't see how anyone could argue that going against the constitutional law, being taken into custody by police, being charged with contempt of senate, and being given a punishment to be decided by the house could be anything other than breaking the law.

The case being defended by the dems is stating that being taken into custody is equivalent to being arrested and they are planning to charge Fitzgerald as a countermeasure.

So I guess the dem senators agree that custody would be an arrest. And the senate is not allowed to arrest them so it appears that the constitution of Wisc has a contradiction built into it.

When the Senate picks your punishment...thats not a law
When a Judge does...thats a law.

name one law that you go to the Senate to find out your punishment, and not the courts.

 

[Dr.Who]

When the Senate picks your punishment...thats not a law
When a Judge does...thats a law.

name one law that you go to the Senate to find out your punishment, and not the courts.

Contempt of senate. As in the CHARGE considered against the democrats was contempt of senate.

The House has a judge who takes care of deciding those penalties. In fact an (outside) judge already ruled that he could not force the senators to return because the senate is in charge of enforcement
http://thirdcoastdigest.com/2011/03/breaking-wisconsin-14-face-contempt-of-senate-charges/

One historical case that sheds light on this is the case of Frank Costello who was convicted on contempt of Senate charges in August 1952 for a hearings walkout, and went to jail for 18 months.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

Further background can be found by looking at contempt of congress:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Which is defined as:

Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees.

Clearly the dems obstructed the work of the wisconsin senate and to use a phrase popular with the left they defied the will of the electorate. The whole purpose of contempt charges is that the will of the voters must move forward and if people disrupt the process it won't.

So, is contempt breaking the law?

Yes - "In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Dunn,[1] which held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[2] The historical interpretation that bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States."

According to the supreme court contempt is a criminal offense.