Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 21)

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 7:49 AM
Yeah, but the stock is basically valueless (redemption price is minimal, no divdends are ever paid and it cannot appreciate in value) which means the team in effect 'belongs' to the community in general - no stock holders would lose any money if the team were sold.  So just change the beneficiary to the general fund and voila!  There goes a huge chunk of the $3b budget deficit.  After all, desperate times call for desperate measures right?  I know the article is basically tongue in cheek, but I think the point of shared sacrifice is a valid one.

coredump - 2011-02-23 9:50 AM

Some state reps walked out from the constitutional convention.

Abe Lincoln (Whig/Republican) once jumped out a window trying to keep Democrats from getting a quorum for a vote he disagreed with.

It's absolutely an extreme measure, but it's hardly without precedent.

JSA - 2011-02-23 8:51 AM

No.  I have dispelled this myth a few times now and will do it again.

The unions "agreed" to the 5.8% WRS contribution and the 12% health care contribution.  However, those concessions have sunset clauses for 2013, which means they are only in effect until then.

By retaining collective bargaining rights, in a mere 2 years, we would be right where we are now.  In the words of Gov Walker:  "Doesn't work."

In addition, there are a plethora of other economic issues involved in collective bargaining: retiree health insurance, sick leave, overtime, call-back hour guarantees, just to name a few.  Simply agreeing to pay the WRS and health insurance does not address all the issues.

Then there are "hidden costs" addressed in this action that no one is considering.  Let me give you an example.  Let's say in the private sector, you have some event or activity from 6-7 p.m. one night.  Your employer can say "instead of working from 9-5, come in today from 11-7, so we can cover this event."  Makes sense, right?

Cannot do that in the public sector.  In the public sector, the union contract will specify the work day and most likely says 7-3 or 8-4 or 9-5.  So, if the municipality has an even from 6-7 p.m., it cannot simply adjust the work day.  It must pay those employees regular pay for the "normal" work hours, and pay them overtime for the additional hours.  Also, most likely, there is a "minimum callback requirement" where an employee is "guranteed" a certain number of hours if called back after normal hours.  So, even though the municipality only needs these workers for 1 hour (6-7 p.m.) they may have to pay for 4 hours at time and one-half.

This is just one of many, many economic issues involved in collective bargaining that people who do not work with union contracts on a daily basis do not understand.

coredump - 2011-02-23 10:47 AM

Why should there be no bargaining in the public sector?

Public employees should simply be told what their salary is and to go shove it if that's not good enough?  Is that going to attract the employees you want?

coredump - 2011-02-23 9:47 AM

Why should there be no bargaining in the public sector?

Public employees should simply be told what their salary is and to go shove it if that's not good enough?  Is that going to attract the employees you want?

Wisconsin spends a lot on education it is true.  It also outperforms most other states in every measure I can find ( ACT/SAT scores, NAEP standardized testing, ... ).  How is that poor stewardship?

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ 

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 11:00 AM
Ok, I have a question.  You make it sound as if with collective bargaining, there is no actual bargaining - the union basically dictates the terms they want.  And I think there is some truth to this, at least for public sector unions.  So I guess what I'm wondering is: would there be a way to maybe give the state more leverage in the bargaining process, but still allow the unions to be able to negotiate, to retain its collective bargaining?  Seems like doing away with collective bargaining just shifts from the extreme of one side having all the power to the other side having all the power, when what really needs to happen is that the sides need to be more balanced so that neither side can roll the other.

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 11:00 AM
Ok, I have a question.  You make it sound as if with collective bargaining, there is no actual bargaining - the union basically dictates the terms they want.  And I think there is some truth to this, at least for public sector unions.  So I guess what I'm wondering is: would there be a way to maybe give the state more leverage in the bargaining process, but still allow the unions to be able to negotiate, to retain its collective bargaining?  Seems like doing away with collective bargaining just shifts from the extreme of one side having all the power to the other side having all the power, when what really needs to happen is that the sides need to be more balanced so that neither side can roll the other.

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 8:51 AM

I undersand the exerecise, however I wonder if the stateof WI would see an increase of decrease in revenue if the Pack was in LA and how much it would be?

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 9:00 AM
Ok, I have a question.  You make it sound as if with collective bargaining, there is no actual bargaining - the union basically dictates the terms they want.  And I think there is some truth to this, at least for public sector unions.  So I guess what I'm wondering is: would there be a way to maybe give the state more leverage in the bargaining process, but still allow the unions to be able to negotiate, to retain its collective bargaining?  Seems like doing away with collective bargaining just shifts from the extreme of one side having all the power to the other side having all the power, when what really needs to happen is that the sides need to be more balanced so that neither side can roll the other.

mrbbrad - 2011-02-23 8:27 AM I have been wondering about this myself. If the business model is broken, fix it. There needs to be more balance in the negotiating, but how and why did we get to this place? Why do municipal employees even need a union? Why do they need the right to collectively bargain? Just because they've always done it?

I've never been in a union, and from my personal perspective unions have done nothing for me directly but cause problems in the way of garbage strikes, transportation strikes, municipal strikes, and actual increased costs to a non profit youth sports organization who had to pay extra for a union worker to be on site when school facilities were used, even when said worker DID NO WORK!!!
I get the historical importance and value of unions at particular times in history, but are they still necessary as they exist today?

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 9:29 AM
Well I'm sure some business, especially around the stadium would go out of business, but it's not the governments role to keep a team just to prop up private industry, right?  A sports franchise is a luxury.  Imagine if a private company such as Boeing owned the Seahawks, and Boeing was on the brink of bankruptcy.  The shareholders would be demanding that they sell off assets that aren't related to the core function of the business and the team would be the first thing to go.  Wisonsin is apparently in the same situation, the gov keeps saying 'we're broke' so it only makes sense to sell the Packers. 

Maybe they can buy them back when the budget is in better shape and they can afford to have a luxury like a sports team.  Until then...  LA Packers....  Jack Nicklas on the 50 yard line...  Organic, artisinal cheese heads... 

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 8:29 AM
Well I'm sure some business, especially around the stadium would go out of business, but it's not the governments role to keep a team just to prop up private industry, right?  A sports franchise is a luxury.  Imagine if a private company such as Boeing owned the Seahawks, and Boeing was on the brink of bankruptcy.  The shareholders would be demanding that they sell off assets that aren't related to the core function of the business and the team would be the first thing to go.  Wisonsin is apparently in the same situation, the gov keeps saying 'we're broke' so it only makes sense to sell the Packers. 

Maybe they can buy them back when the budget is in better shape and they can afford to have a luxury like a sports team.  Until then...  LA Packers....  Jack Nicklas on the 50 yard line...  Organic, artisinal cheese heads... 

trinnas - 2011-02-23 9:27 AM
Do not allow unions to contribute to or have any voice in (as a union not the individual members) any and all elections.  The supreme court struck this down already though.   What other union gets to spend vast amounts of money to hire the very people they are going to be negotiating with?

TriRSquared - 2011-02-23 9:29 AM



Would you be proud of the Republicans doing the same thing if it were for a bill with which you disagreed?

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:35 AM

Are they owned by the state or the city?

crusevegas - 2011-02-23 9:35 AM

I was just trying to figure out if the value of selling them is more of a benefit than keeping them.  I agree with the concept of selling them if the sale price is greater than the revenue (revenue generated to the state coffers) gnerated by having them in the state. Those business indivudially I agree should not be considered, however the dollars they contribute to teh state should be.

Are they owned by the state or the city?

JSA - 2011-02-23 9:51 AM




No.  I have dispelled this myth a few times now and will do it again.

The unions "agreed" to the 5.8% WRS contribution and the 12% health care contribution.  However, those concessions have sunset clauses for 2013, which means they are only in effect until then.

By retaining collective bargaining rights, in a mere 2 years, we would be right where we are now.  In the words of Gov Walker:  "Doesn't work."

In addition, there are a plethora of other economic issues involved in collective bargaining: retiree health insurance, sick leave, overtime, call-back hour guarantees, just to name a few.  Simply agreeing to pay the WRS and health insurance does not address all the issues.

Then there are "hidden costs" addressed in this action that no one is considering.  Let me give you an example.  Let's say in the private sector, you have some event or activity from 6-7 p.m. one night.  Your employer can say "instead of working from 9-5, come in today from 11-7, so we can cover this event."  Makes sense, right?

Cannot do that in the public sector.  In the public sector, the union contract will specify the work day and most likely says 7-3 or 8-4 or 9-5.  So, if the municipality has an even from 6-7 p.m., it cannot simply adjust the work day.  It must pay those employees regular pay for the "normal" work hours, and pay them overtime for the additional hours.  Also, most likely, there is a "minimum callback requirement" where an employee is "guranteed" a certain number of hours if called back after normal hours.  So, even though the municipality only needs these workers for 1 hour (6-7 p.m.) they may have to pay for 4 hours at time and one-half.

This is just one of many, many economic issues involved in collective bargaining that people who do not work with union contracts on a daily basis do not understand.

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 9:46 AM


No, I believe they're a non-profit.  Actually a pretty cool set-up, it would be great if more teams had were set-up like they are.  And this coming from a Yankees fan.

I'm guessing that most of the state's income from the Packers would be due to sales taxes.  In 2009 WI took in about $4.1b in sales tax.  I would bet you could get at least $1.5-$2b or more for the Packers and I'd doubt the state collected 1/2 of their sales tax revenues from Packers memoribilia/businesses so it would seem to be a good way to plug the budget deficit if things are really that desperate.

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 11:39 AM Nope. I'm a hypocrite But I accept that and acknowledge it.

jneugeba - 2011-02-23 9:52 AM I still don't understand why you equate public ownership (owned by members of the public who CHOSE to purchase basically worthless shares) to being socialized ownership? Why would those shareholders turn their asset over to the state in return for nothing when they lose everything?!

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 10:02 AM


Because they have nothing to lose, there aren't really any assets to turn over.  They don't get dividends, stock can never appreciate, and redemption value is minimal.  You hand over $200 and get a piece of paper and the right to vote for the board of directors, but that's about it.  It isn't like owning stock in Harly Davidson.  In essence it's run for the benefit of the community but not owned by anyone, just like a public park.  Like I said, I'm being tongue in cheek, but in desperate time you have to think outside the box...

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 10:00 AM
Ok, I have a question.  You make it sound as if with collective bargaining, there is no actual bargaining - the union basically dictates the terms they want.  And I think there is some truth to this, at least for public sector unions.  So I guess what I'm wondering is: would there be a way to maybe give the state more leverage in the bargaining process, but still allow the unions to be able to negotiate, to retain its collective bargaining?  Seems like doing away with collective bargaining just shifts from the extreme of one side having all the power to the other side having all the power, when what really needs to happen is that the sides need to be more balanced so that neither side can roll the other.

Pector55 - 2011-02-23 10:53 AM



But your brute honesty is why we can disagree and allow me to still think you rock.

drewb8 - 2011-02-23 8:46 AM
No, I believe they're a non-profit.  Actually a pretty cool set-up, it would be great if more teams had were set-up like they are.  And this coming from a Yankees fan.

I'm guessing that most of the state's income from the Packers would be due to sales taxes.  In 2009 WI took in about $4.1b in sales tax.  I would bet you could get at least $1.5-$2b or more for the Packers and I'd doubt the state collected 1/2 of their sales tax revenues from Packers memoribilia/businesses so it would seem to be a good way to plug the budget deficit if things are really that desperate.