February 20, 2015

"After saying in his re-election bid that he wouldn't push so-called right-to-work legislation, Gov. Scott Walker voiced support for it Friday and committed to signing it..."

"... acting after GOP leaders fast-tracked the proposal for a Senate vote next week....".
"I've never said that I didn't think it was a good idea. I've just questioned the timing in the past and whether it was right at that time," Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an interview at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington, D.C.

90 comments:

damikesc said...

Wisconsin --- you're welcome.

Note: He's not outlawing unions. He's just saying you don't have to join one.

He's pro-choice!

MadisonMan said...

And....is anyone surprised?

Seeing Red said...

He didn't push it.

traditionalguy said...

Scott "Speedy Gonzales" Walker doesn't let any grass grow under his Reganite feet. Will he target the Air Traffic Controller's Union next.

This will keep Walker at the center of Democrat media hack's attacks, which in turn is winning the GOP nomination for him right out from under the nose of the eminent $200,000,000 in donations collecting Bush, III.

Drago said...

If you like your lack of right-to-work legislation, you can keep your lack of right-to-work legislation.

No one is trying to force your state to have right-to-work legislation.

Period.

And we'll have to pass the bill to see what is in it.

Walker is "evolving" on this issue.

Everyone always knew Walker supported this legislation. Only morons didn't know that.

Some people argue that if you pass right-to-work legislation, millions will die and no one will ever work again. Ever. Walker rejects that false choice.

garage mahal said...

It looks like union organizing would be a criminal offense.

Thanks Walker voters, you fucking idiots!

Gusty Winds said...

Anybody that voted for Walker knew this was coming, and is glad it's here.

Will the Dems flee to Rockford again to deny quorum, or has Walker chopped off enough of the Black Knight's limbs limiting mobility?

Drago said...

Tradguy breaks the code: "This will keep Walker at the center of Democrat media hack's attacks, which in turn is winning the GOP nomination for him right out from under the nose of the eminent $200,000,000 in donations collecting Bush, III"

Walker does appear to have a clear understanding of how to wage effective legislative/policy/PR combined warfare.

I'm beginning to think he actually means to win this thing.

If he pops up at a debate and states emphatically that "I'm paying for this microphone", I'd say he is has the inside track.

Revenant said...

It looks like union organizing would be a criminal offense.

Not sure if you're lying or just stupid, GM. I'm going to put my money on "both".

Drago said...

garage mahal: "It looks like union organizing would be a criminal offense.

Thanks Walker voters, you fucking idiots"

LOL

The wind-up toy pops in again.

Let me guess, this latest accusation of yours is about as "accurate" as ALL the others you've lobbed Walkers way?

What if the republicans are actually crafting the legislation utilizing secret routers!??

How far away can John Doe XXXIV be?

Gusty Winds said...

Garage said It looks like union organizing would be a criminal offense.

No it won't. But in contrast, no BS John Doe witchunts will be launched against anyone who does. Free to organize. Free to form. Free to join. Free not to join.

And of course...You're Welcome.

garage mahal said...

Not sure if you're lying or just stupid, GM. I'm going to put my money on "both".

"Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
This bill creates a state right to work law. This bill generally prohibits a person
from requiring, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, an individual
to refrain or resign from membership in a labor organization, to become or remain
a member of a labor organization
, to pay dues or other charges to a labor
organization, or to pay any other person an amount that is in place of dues or charges
required of members of a labor organization. Any person who violates this
prohibition is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor" Link

Up to nine months in jail and $10K fine. Definitely weird language.

damikesc said...

It looks like union organizing would be a criminal offense.

Not remotely true. In fact, quite unconstitutional. Freedom of Assembly and all.

All it says is that you cannot be required to join or financially support a union.

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

damikesc said...

This bill generally prohibits a person
from requiring, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, an individual
to refrain or resign from membership in a labor organization, to become or remain
a member of a labor organization


So, you're illiterate.

It says you cannot be fired for joining a union NOR REQUIRED to join one to get a job.

This is weak...even by your standards.

So, how about those secret servers?

Kyzernick said...

I love it when Rev smacks GM down a notch.

By the way, being an infrequent lurker before I began posting here, I must have missed something. When I Google secret routers, nothing relevant seems to pop up. What's the deal with these "Secret Routers" that everyone's talking about?

garage mahal said...

I love it when Rev smacks GM down a notch.

He did? Where?

Revenant said...

Up to nine months in jail and $10K fine. Definitely weird language.

Well, I stand corrected. The answer was "just stupid", not "both".

Garage, the passage you quoted states, in plain language, you are wrong. The criminal penalty is for requiring union membership "as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment".

It isn't illegal to join a union or ask people to join a union. It is illegal to say "join a union or you can't work at all".

traditionalguy said...

One thing Walker can never be accused of is selling favors to corrupt Union bosses.

That alone favorably contrasts Walker with Christie where that would be called business as usual.

Revenant said...

He did? Where?

That was really more of a self-smackdown, since you were nice enough to dig up the text of the law that demonstrated you were full of crap. :)

Drago said...

damikesc: "This is weak...even by your standards"

Oh, give garage time. He's capable of much greater lunacy.

He's actually already posted language which disproves his own assertion.

And it's been pointed out.

And he still doesn't get it.

garage mahal said...

The criminal penalty is for requiring union membership "as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment".

And the "to become or remain
a member of a labor organization".

Tell me what that's about.

garage mahal said...

Hard to organize a union when you can't "become" one?

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Is Walker a partisan ideologue?

In the past Althouse was opposed to such folks. Now she's eager to defend a dude who acts as an ideologue.

Walker must not be who his actions indicate he is. Or Althouse was lying before.

garage mahal said...

Anyways I'm off to a wedding reception in a barn. Those are still allowed as far as I know

Seeing Red said...

Google Walker and secret routers.

Drago said...

garage: "Tell me what that's about."

Sweet. Jesus.

He's that dumb.

It can be explained to you, but unfortunately, no one can comprehend it for you.

So I guess you'll simply have to remain in darkness.

Seeing Red said...

Or just search Anne's archives.

Revenant said...

One thing Walker can never be accused of is selling favors to corrupt Union bosses.

Oh, I'm sure he'll be *accused* of it eventually. Once you've compared a guy's legacy to Hitler and the Dred Scott decision, you can't really dumb down the personal attacks any further.

Although writing articles about how he supposedly got a D+ in French a quarter-century ago certainly represent a good attempt at that.

Steven said...

Sigh.

Garage Mahal, the whole thing is governed by Federal labor law, specifically Taft-Hartley. Which you should already know the broad contours of if you ever actually aspired to know enough about labor issues to be able to form a competent opinion about them. In which case you'd know it's actually impossible to make union organizing a criminal offense in the US short of federal legislation amending existing labor law, and even then there'd be a constitutional issue. Which knowing, you wouldn't screw up the precedence of the clauses in your effort at interpretation.

In short, the problem here is not the proposed law, but the fact that you're an ignoramus unqualified to comment on any labor issue whatsoever, and should shut up.

Bob Boyd said...

So now they want him to punt?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Although writing articles about how he supposedly got a D+ in French a quarter-century ago certainly represent a good attempt at that."

Presumably Trump did this. He's really into folks grades.

Revenant said...

And the "to become or remain
a member of a labor organization". Tell me what that's about.


Christ on a pony, garage, don't tell me after all these years that you've forgotten how to read English.

Steven said...

But let's be clear anyway, for the people who have actual questions, instead of opining without thinking:

The simplifed version of the LRB report is

This bill generally prohibits a person from requiring, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, [any of the appended laundry list of items]. Any person who violates this prohibition [on requiring any of those listed things as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment] is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Revenant said...

It is worth nothing that it also makes it a crime to require that people NOT join a union, or leave one they belong to.

It is "anti-union" in the sense that most unions only continue to exist by forcing people who don't actually WANT to be in a union to choose between "being in a union" or "finding another career".

The law is anti-union, not anti-labor.

holdfast said...

It doesn't sound like he's "pushing" it, but he'll sign it if it hits his desk. If you look at how hard he had to fight for his various public employee reforms, the "push" takes on real meaning.

From a pure tactical standpoint, I hope this isn't an overreach by the GOP. I totally support RTW, but as a conservative I know that you can lose good people by moving too far too fast.

Anonymous said...

In other words, Scott Walker once again says one thing while running for office and then "drops the bomb" after being elected.

Anonymous said...

All it says is that you cannot be required to join or financially support a union

But the union is still required by law to represent and defend every worker in the bargaining unit, regardless if that worker pays or not. In other words, this law is a "Right to Steal From the Unions"

Wonder if the unions that traditionally donate to the Republican party will also get an exemption from this law, as what happened with Act 10.

Anonymous said...

as a conservative I know that you can lose good people by moving too far too fast.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald stated that he has to move fast on this because he is concerned about the unions airing commercials which might sway some of the votes in the senate.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Suck it, Leftards.

In my best Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons voice:

"Ha Ha!"

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"I totally support RTW, but as a conservative I know that you can lose good people by moving too far too fast."

I also like RTW. Long ago in my RTW state I avoided the union by resigning my high school and college job every seven months when the union was really pressuring my employer about my non-membership (then I was rehired the next day, and the union never figured out I was the same person).

I also currently hire union employees for certain jobs, and they are super expensive (e.g. an excavator operator will cost me $71 to $83 per hour when all (e.g. taxes and insurance) is said and done). I hate this.

But, I do wonder if killing unions has anything to do with killing income increases for the middle class. It doesn't seem impossible.

Since I love America more than my own dough, I can imagine that unions may benefit the middle class, at the expensive of me. Maybe it's not so bad that I can't pay my union folks less dough.

BTW, I pay 2% of their wage to the union as dues. This fee is based on a wage that doesn't include all the massive benefits I pay to the union trustee for health care, retirement and other smaller cost benefits.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

I should have written "my non-RTW state"

RecChief said...

This bill generally prohibits a person
from requiring, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, an individual
to refrain or resign from membership in a labor organization
, to become or remain
a member of a labor organization


The bolded part says it can't make you get out of a union as a condition of employment. nor can you be forced to join a union.

Disingenuous to the end. Kinda fun watching you melt down.

Phil 3:14 said...

"I've never said that I didn't think it was a good idea. I've just questioned the timing in the past and whether it was right at that time,"

Shorter version:

I won.

RecChief said...

the unions that traditionally donate to the Republican party

Which unions are those?

RecChief said...

funny thing is, I live in a RTW state, yet where I work, most folks are in a union. And I don't mind that, they've focused on Safety, better equipment, better procedures.

Roger Ireland said...

Please tell me after all these years of thinking that gararage was simply a hack... he really can't be this stupid???

Can he? Cause if so, I just feel bad for the dude.

Titus said...

Walker and the republican controlled leglislature can do whatever they want-they won.

tits.

chickelit said...

RecChief said...

Which unions are those?

I think madisonfella meant the law and order type unions -- you know, the ones that stand against dhemocrat values.

chickelit said...

Titus said...
Walker and the republican controlled leglislature can do whatever they want-they won.

Legislatures pass laws and governors sign them. If dhemocrats don't like the laws being voted on, they get to change things up every two years.

2016 could be a watershed year for Wisconsin dhemocrats what with Walker handing the reins to Kleefisch and the people reverting to bluer ways based on Walker's dismal (according to garage) performance.

BTW, would they have a special goober election in WI if Walker were elected or would the legislature appoint someone?

Roger Ireland said...

Would have been better to admit a mistake than to come up with a lame excuse to suddenly have to hit the road.

I guess that is why he just sticks to snark.

Can hide a lack of intelligence behind a lack of humor.

richard mcenroe said...

Just, it looked the Democrats had so much fun campaigning on flat out lies, you can't blame Walker for wanting to try it.

FullMoon said...

garage mahal said...

Anyways I'm off to a wedding reception in a barn. Those are still allowed as far as I know


Ummm, you boys got a permit for that?

madAsHell said...

Run! Walker! Run!

I'm thinking that won't be a very catchy slogan.

chickelit said...

madisonfella said...

But the union is still required by law to represent and defend every worker in the bargaining unit, regardless if that worker pays or not. In other words, this law is a 'Right to Steal From the Unions'

The free rider problem. Akin to what's happened to healthcare and the poor.

Michael K said...

"prohibits a person
from requiring, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment"

Reading comprehension would do wonders for this barrack. You won't get it.

Paraphrasing Stalag 17.

Michael K said...

"Tell me what that's about."

Dependent clause. Grammar would do wonders. You won't get it.

Meade said...

"Ummm, you boys got a permit for that?"

No wedding receptions in barns for Democrats. IT'S THE LAW!!!

MadisonMan said...

I hope the barn is heated. It's awful drafty outside today.

Weddings are awesome!

Anonymous said...

During the last election Scott Walker dodged a question regarding if he would sign a Right to Work law by claiming such a law would not reach his desk.

http://youtu.be/oicjFbyAqiA

Not only does he have a habit of dodging questions, but Walker also will say anything at all in order to get elected.

TravelingHerrings said...

I attended a Representative Listening Session tonight and the Libs there called it the Right to Work "for Less." Incorrect facts and panic mode all around.

dreams said...

Here in Ky which isn't yet a right to work state the county where I live passed a right to work law hoping to land the planned new Volvo auto plant. I think in a few years when Republicans control both houses of the state legislature they will pass a right to work law.

Titus said...

I agree with you Chick. The stupid dems in Wisconsin need to win; otherwise quit bitching.

The state had their say; now deal with it democrats.

BTW I fucking hate unions and would never work in a HR job that had unions. I want freedom to fire underperformers. Unions=nasty.

I am totally free enterprise and homo in terms of work.

And Walker's comments about fag marriage I like very much.

I wish the rest of you whores could be less rigid.

Fluidity and conservative in some matters and liberal in others is so much more interesting.

Big Mike said...

Once upon a time unions did things for their members. These days they don't. (More like do things to their members.) If they want to be relevant once again, it's completely in their own hands.

Beldar said...

Every single time a state that's not right-to-work considers switching, organized labor insists that it's the end of the world.

Texas has been a right-to-work state ... well, basically forever. We seem to be doing okay. And in fact, in some trades and industries, organized labor remains alive and reasonably (comparatively) well even in Texas even in 2015.

RecChief said...

chickelit said...
RecChief said...

Which unions are those?

I think madisonfella meant the law and order type unions -- you know, the ones that stand against dhemocrat values.


take a look here. the police unions don't make the top 100 ( i might have missed it, it was a quick look through)

Pianoman said...

Garage's problem appears to be one of "echoing what my Left-Leaning Sites told me to believe". In this case, the Left-Leaning Site didn't read the text carefully enough before exploding in rage and indignation. Then Garage read it, and became enraged and indignant. And then he flew over here and claimed that the text said something that it didn't.

I just have a hard time believing that he reached this conclusion on his own. It's more likely that he was TOLD to reach this conclusion.

Another "own-goal" for Garage. Which is probably why he fled. I would be surprised to see him comment on this thread again.

Of course, that won't stop his anti-Walker fury. In Garage's worldview, Walker can do nothing right.

Drago said...

Titus: "I wish the rest of you whores could be less rigid."

Really?

Your mouth says "less rigid", but your eyes say something else altogether.

Unknown said...

---In other words, Scott Walker once again says one thing while running for office and then "drops the bomb" after being elected.

Alinski fella just can’t communicate without lying. Walker is not leading the charge on RTW. He didn’t run on it. He has said it wasn’t his priority when the discussion first came up.

Walker being consistent and honest on this issue.

And I’m sure you are referring to act 10. But again Walker made clear statements that he was going to reform State employment and reduce union benefits. He might not have gone as far as the Unions and the Fleebaggers encouraged him to had they actually, you know, negotiated.

Bricap said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RecChief said...

I would be surprised to see him comment on this thread again.


hahaha. Because his other idiotic comments when shown to be false caused him to stay away? He'll be back.

Hell, that know-nothing, Inga, still posts here, although under a different name.

garage mahal may not post under the same moniker, but he won't stay away.

I suspect that for those two, plus a couple other reliable idiots, are paid by the likes of MMFA or some such, to foul the comments section of this "Conservative" blog. Which is a crock

rehajm said...

But, I do wonder if killing unions has anything to do with killing income increases for the middle class

Given the structure of our workforce and the types of jobs available, and the quality of the jobs available, and the skills required to obtain those jobs, it's worthwhile to question if the job we're calling 'middle class' should be a middle class job.

donald said...

Khere's the bottom line, Garage is a special kind of idiot and I so want to be able to vote for Scott Walker.

I have never so wanted to vote for anybody.

Rusty said...

madisonfella said...
During the last election Scott Walker dodged a question regarding if he would sign a Right to Work law by claiming such a law would not reach his desk.

http://youtu.be/oicjFbyAqiA

Not only does he have a habit of dodging questions, but Walker also will say anything at all in order to get elected.


The american people get repeatedly lied to by the president of the United States and the leader of the most powerful legislative body in the world and you're just fine with that. But the governor of the state of Wisconsin changes his mind on legislation and it's the end of your little world.



Well. suck it.




Oh yeah. Thanks Walker for giving us Rauner. He may not be able to get anything done but Michael Madigan and the Illinois house and senate are going to be working longer hours.

damikesc said...

Garage actually thinks that people will be arrested for unionizing...which the bill doesn't call for and would violate the Constitution wholesale?

Anonymous said...

The american people get repeatedly lied to by the president of the United States and the leader of the most powerful legislative body in the world and you're just fine with that

I've repeatedly stated that Obama should be impeached, so stop lying about me.

It is really interesting to see constantly this type of reaction. You and many of the other commentators, including Ann, are so in awe of Scott Walker that it is impossible for you to fathom how anybody could not be. In the mind of his followers, Scott Walker is so perfect and so pure that nobody could ever disagree with him unless they have ulterior motives. (Hence the comments about how all the people on this blog who don't support Walker must be paid operatives).

What is really hilarious is this group really believe this nonsense. At first I thought calling me "Inga" or "Penguin" or "Shortbus" or "Corky" was just a form of harassment in order to drive a dissenting voice away from the echo chamber, but it is becoming painfully obvious you people actually believe it. Deep in your heart, you truly and honestly believe that the only way anyone could disagree with Scott Walker is if that person is being paid to do so.

This isn't just politics for you - it is your religion.

chickelit said...

Madisonfella wrote: This isn't just politics for you - it is your religion.

I see the inherent danger in politics with pinning too much hope on one single candidate or potential candidate. Perhaps you see that in Scott Walker. That being said, what I see here is the vetting of a candidate -- something that was sorely lacking with Obama the candidate. The thing is that obvious errors -- for example the error made by noted Marquette graduate Gail Collins -- are brushed aside. Those sorts of factual errors are repeatedly swept aside and covered up. So it takes an Althouse -- or someone with a voice strong enough -- to pointedly point them out.

Rusty said...

madisonfella said...
The american people get repeatedly lied to by the president of the United States and the leader of the most powerful legislative body in the world and you're just fine with that

I've repeatedly stated that Obama should be impeached, so stop lying about me.


Point missed by a large margin. I don't have to lie about you. You dig all your holes all by your lonesome.

Rusty said...

Hmmm.


It is really interesting to see constantly this type of reaction. You and many of the other commentators, including Ann, are so in awe of Scott Walker that it is impossible for you to fathom how anybody could not be. In the mind of his followers, Scott Walker is so perfect and so pure that nobody could ever disagree with him unless they have ulterior motives. (Hence the comments about how all the people on this blog who don't support Walker must be paid operatives).

Not in awe. I just like the guy. He seems to have done Wisconsin a lot of good. Motives? Your a liberal. Walker represents everything you despise about conservative government.


What is really hilarious is this group really believe this nonsense. At first I thought calling me "Inga" or "Penguin" or "Shortbus" or "Corky" was just a form of harassment in order to drive a dissenting voice away from the echo chamber, but it is becoming painfully obvious you people actually believe it. Deep in your heart, you truly and honestly believe that the only way anyone could disagree with Scott Walker is if that person is being paid to do so.


I only know you as madisonfella. You don't type at all like Inga. You get made fun of a lot probably because your opinions and views are so catholically, liberally, one dimensional.


Unlike you politics isn't a religion for me. I'm simply facinated by people like you who have lived their lives and have no grasp at all of basic economics, human behavior, or science at all for that matter.


geokstr said...

Meade said...
No wedding receptions in barns for Democrats. IT'S THE LAW!!!


Oh, yeah? Suppose the Democrat self-identifies his gender as transbovine(TM) and is marrying Daisy, a beautiful Guernsey who lives in that very barn. You can no longer prevent anyone from being with his true love. IT'S THE LAW!!!

BIGOT!!!

eddie willers said...

I should have written "my non-RTW state"

I was about to go all Emily Litella on you, but that's very different.

Never mind.

Anonymous said...

I don't have to lie about you.

When you claim I am a liberal then you are lying about me.

When you say I am just fine with Obama's lies then you are lying about me.

When you state I despise everything about conservative government then you are lying about me.

And when the only comments you make in a thread are personal attacks against me then you are obsessed.

ken in tx said...

Unions know how to survive in Right to Work states. They do it through threats and intimidation. I have known people in Alabama and Mississippi who had to join a union to get or keep their jobs. The companies had experienced union sabotage in the past and were afraid of it in the future, and required their employees to join. Even though this is illegal, it happens. Unions don't care about legal.

RecChief said...

Scott Walker is so perfect and so pure that nobody could ever disagree with him unless they have ulterior motives. (Hence the comments about how all the people on this blog who don't support Walker must be paid operatives

Disagreement with Walker or his policies doesn't indicate being a paid operative. Or disagreement with conservative policies in general. I think it's healthy to disagree. But the derangement syndrome exhibited by Garage Mahal's comment, shows a level of ... partisan hackery that I can't believe is organic. It simply must be paid for.

At first I thought calling me "Inga" or "Penguin" or "Shortbus" or "Corky" was just a form of harassment in order to drive a dissenting voice away from the echo chamber, but it is becoming painfully obvious you people actually believe it.

The Gaslighting aside, I never said

Inga=madisonfella

kind of odd that you would assume my comments were about you. Why did you think they pertained to you at all?

Douglas said...

Walker said he wasn't going to spend his political capital pushing right to work legislation. And he didn't. The GOP legislators did this all on their own. Walker didn't promise not to sign right to work legislation, and he will.

RonF said...

So, Garage Mahal, it works like this:

1) You are dissatisfied with how things work at your employer's company.
2) You decide to organize a union.
3) You and your employer follow the various labor laws. For the sake of argument, let's presume that in due time enough people get interested enough that an election is held and a union is formed.
4) You sit down with your employer and work out a contract. Said contract now binds you, your union membership and your employer.

All that is still legal. What would no longer be legal anymore if this bill is signed into law is:

5) The contract contains a clause requiring that ALL employees belong to the union or they cannot work at the company.

That you can no longer do. You have a right to work without being a member of the union.

Douglas said...

If there were no federal labor laws, and employment matters were solely left up to bargaining between employees and employers, I would have no objection to contracts requiring an employer only to hire union workers. If that contract was reached as a result of free bargaining by both parties, there would be no reason for the law to interfere. But of course, that's not the world we live in, where federal labor laws have destroyed any notion of a free market in union contracts.

Danno said...

Garage, Better make sure that barn weddings are legal in the Madison area.




http://tcbmag.com/News/Recent-News/Minnesota-man-in-flap-with-neighbors-as-barn-weddi

Anonymous said...

You have a right to all the benefits and services of the union without having to pay anything at all

FIFY

Rusty said...

When I belonged to a union the trend was that the more experience you had the less you worked. It was far cheaper to hire an apprentice to do the actual work and have a journeyman come in from time to time to see if the work was being done properly.
So yes union pay is good. If you are working.

Much, much better to make a private deal with your employer.