Hardly, labor leaders say.
Although Walker and a compliant Legislature and state Supreme Court stripped public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights, those in organized labor say that they are determined to continue fighting for Wisconsin's workers, no matter how they're organized.
“There is enthusiasm to fight for middle-class families and what's going on in this economy,” said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the AFL-CIO of Wisconsin. “It's got to be about rights and restoring the shared sacrifice and shared prosperity. And most importantly, in investing in us, Wisconsinites, as workers with education and training and infrastructure.”
Both sides of the political spectrum are spinning this summer's $40 million recall elections in their favor. Republicans claim that they won since they still hold the majority, while Democrats—allied with unions—claim that their pickup of two Senate seats and a successful defense of three Democrats represent a victory, even if they're still in the minority in both houses.
Neuenfeldt, one of the leaders of the labor-led We Are Wisconsin coalition, said that the recalls were “definitely worth it” since Democrats made gains in Republican districts that supported Walker in 2010 and shrunk the Republican majority in the state Senate to one. That Republican majority includes one senator—Dale Schultz of Richland Center—who had opposed Walker's union-busting bill this spring.
In a broader sense, Neuenfeldt said the recalls helped to spark a pro-labor movement in all corners of the state, including Republican turf.
“The recalls showed that middle-class families are rejecting Walker's radical agenda,” Neuenfeldt said. “It was an opportunity for people who had formed coalitions around the rallies in Madison to come together and work together through the creation of We Are Wisconsin. And this isn't the last time that we will work together. This is a movement-building scenario.”
So is a Walker recall next?
That hasn't been decided, Neuenfeldt said.
“There is obviously enthusiasm for it,” Neuenfeldt said. “All you have to do is walk down the street and you'll see 'Recall Walker' bumper stickers and signs.”
Robber Barons and Job Creators
Neuenfeldt said the historic protests in Madison this spring and the nine recall elections grabbed the nation's attention because they were so unlikely in a moderate swing state. After all, Wisconsin's history includes a strong labor movement and many notable firsts, including the birth of the first organization of state workers and the first workers' compensation law to survive a constitutional challenge.
But Andrew Kersten, a history professor at UW-Green Bay and the author of the e-book The Battle for Wisconsin: Scott Walker and the Attack on the Progressive Tradition, said that both organized labor as well as a heavy-handed reaction to workers' rights exist in Wisconsin's history.
While Wisconsin definitely has an influential labor tradition supported by governors such as Robert and Philip La Follette, Kersten said some of the state's 19th-century governors supported wealthy capitalists, known then as “robber barons” and today as “job creators.” This “communism of the millionaires” sometimes had deadly results.
For example, Gov. Jeremiah Rusk called in the National Guard during the 1886 strike at the Milwaukee Iron Co. rolling mill in Bay View. Seven protesters died while several more were injured. In 1898, Gov. Edward Scofield activated more than 400 militia from Milwaukee to put down a strike of woodworkers in Oshkosh.
These attacks on workers helped to give rise to the state's Progressive movement, a left-of-center philosophy that stressed good government, expanded democracy and fair working conditions.
Kersten said he'd put Walker into the pre-Progressive-era camp of Wisconsin governors. This differs from other modern Republican governors, such as Tommy Thompson, who had honored Wisconsin's Progressive tradition by governing from the center.
“Today's Wisconsin conservatives are no longer interested in making accommodations,” Kersten said. “They look to places like Texas and say, 'We want that. We want a business environment with as little regulation as possible, with no corporate taxes and no personal income taxes, where the education system tilts toward the private and with conservative notions.' I think people in the middle of Wisconsin and center-left are horrified and they don't understand what's happening. It's very scary because it's so different.”
Obstacles in the Details
Although union members claim they have political momentum, unions' survival in their current form isn't guaranteed. Walker's bill is loaded with obstacles for public sector labor unions—except for public safety employee unions, which supported Walker in the 2010 gubernatorial election and are exempt from the new rules.
Walker's Act 10, as the collective bargaining bill is officially known, strips public employee unions from bargaining on anything other than base pay, and even that is limited to the rate of inflation. Public employees are already making increased contributions to their health care and pension costs. Union dues are no longer being deducted from workers' paychecks, so leaders will have to convince members to voluntarily pay dues, a significant PR task for union staff during tough economic times.
This fall, unions with expired contracts will have to take part in annual recertification votes—at their own expense—if they want to be recognized by the state.
The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC), the small state agency that will conduct the elections, has developed the administrative rules governing the elections. Those rules must be sent to Walker for approval, as all agency-written rules must now be approved by Walker before being sent to the Legislature for review.
Peter Davis, general counsel for WERC, said the elections would likely be conducted by phone using a private company.
“I think it's likely that we will, in large part if not exclusively, use a telephone voting procedure which will allow us to accommodate many, many elections at the same time with hundreds if not thousands of voters,” Davis said.
But here, too, Walker has set up an almost insurmountable challenge for the unions. Instead of allowing a majority of voting members to determine the fate of their union, as all other elections are conducted, Walker is requiring unions to earn a majority vote of all employees in a bargaining unit, including those who do not vote in the certification election. In addition, that recertification is only valid for a year, at which point the union would have to call another election and make its case to its members yet again.
That means that a union would need to earn a supermajority of employees' support year after year if it wants to retain its status as the collective bargaining representative for that unit.
“Republicans did that very consciously,” said Bob Peterson, president of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association (MTEA), which represents teachers, substitutes, bookkeepers and educational assistants. “As we know in electoral politics, a sizable group of people don't participate. That will mean a 'no' vote. If we had applied the same standard to Gov. Walker's election, he wouldn't be governor. He didn't get 51% of all eligible voters in Wisconsin.”
Building Alliances
Some unions have decided not to go through with a recertification vote, determining that winning the right to collectively bargain only on wages—which will be limited to the rate of inflation—isn't worth it. Also to be considered is the fact that non-represented employees would be able to work with their employers on work conditions and other matters, something that represented employees would be forbidden to do.
No matter what, unions will have to reinvent themselves in light of their new restrictions and persuade their members to remain active.
“Unions are not just about collective bargaining,” Neuenfeldt said. “Unions are about collective action. The reason for being in a union is not going away because of this law. You have to think about how to advance your principles and your agenda by using other ways.”
MTEA's Peterson said that teacher unions will have to form strong alliances with community and faith-based groups that share their goals, as well as become active in campaigns that do not directly involve classroom and work issues.
“Certainly, at this time in our nation's history, public sector unions and all unions have to have a broader vision of what's good for the entire working class, working families,” Peterson said. “And not have a narrow point of view.”
Peterson said that the union—whether or not it's certified to collectively bargain for its members—would have to engage in other tactics to make its case. For example, Peterson said, members could be called on to conduct letter-writing campaigns, testify at meetings, attend protests and demonstrations, get out the vote or boycott.
“Those are the tactics and strategies that have been used historically in the labor movement,” Peterson said. “We're going to have to revisit those and use them effectively.”
*/?>
Thats exactly why we should not have teachers unions. You let the inmates run the asylam. Taxpayer rights come before teachers rights. The people taxpayers put in charge of the teachers is the one who should have complete domain over class sizes, pay, rights, working conditions and such. Its their way or the highway and no other way.
It would be nice to have each student have their own desk and books. But only if given the ok by school administration. They are the ones best qualified to make those decisions. After all, thats who the taxpayers put in charge.
Just the opposite I do care. Its the teachers union that doesn't care. They are out protesting about petty changes instead of going into the classrooms and trying harder than they were before. They need to stop complaining and accept the changes with gusto and enthusiasm. Teacher's need to take the high road and work harder than before to show taxpayers that they are worth what they are asking. But when they cry like spoil immature chidren over such petty pay and benefit changes, it shows a complete lack of class.
People that care about the children want to see more of our tax money go into the classroom, where it belongs, instead of lining the pockets of some union fat cat and their bogus insurance company.
1) point AGAINST public worker unions... For private, the company has the option of closing down in the region where union power is strong, re-open in a region where union strength is weak or even outlawed, jobs moving from Wisconsin to another state for example. Factory moves, but they can still sell their products here. But for public unions, the government itself cannot move its operations to another governments region, they are captive to their own region's workforce.
2) point FOR public unions... For private, there can be other employers in the same region, the worker has a right to quit one employer and take up with the other employer with better terms. Not so with the public employer, the workers who like the region they are in are not free to work in another region's public jobs. The workers are captive to their own region's job offerings.
What the article said about collective bargaining, or at least collective action... That's what we deal with when we VOTE at the polling place. Unfortunately, the common voter is the enemy of the CEO, meaning they have goals that are opposite each other. The masses want "one person one vote" so that rich or poor vote equally, whereas the stockholders believe in "one share one vote" so the one who owns more shares has more votes (and no shares has no votes).
When our country was founded, we were taught in school that only "rich white men" could vote. That was the simplistic end result. More literally, the votes went to the property owners, basically, their wives, children, and servants, be they black slaves or white indentured servants (or even just the 'hired hand"), could not vote. Basically, they did not want those occupying the land to vote against the land owner. -- Additional point, what if a landowner died, had no sons to inherit the land. If his widow now "owned" the land, did she have the right to vote?
Consider also the various US Supreme Court decisions that equated money to speech, and if you cannot limit speech, then you also cannot limit money. Seems to me that NOBODY every checked that box on their tax return to "apply a dollar to public campaign financing", even though they were told it would not raise their taxes nor reduce their refund. Even the non-rich would not check that box! The people with money to donate would get their "pro-wealthy" candidate on TV for all to hear about, but how were the working class to get their "pro-worker" candidate on TV? UNION DUES were the only way to get the dollars needed for that!
Forget the unions, that's dead. Now, how do you find a way to get the balance of the common man to get their preferred candidate on the ballot, get their message out to the potential voter? It takes money to get the message out, takes money to pull together an organization, to hire the people knowledgeable enough to run that organization (since the common worker is also not to be educated!) How can the common person take "collective action" to provide a unified support?
To your second point- (FOR public unions): Every single job in the public sector is duplicated in the private sector in the SAME region in which the public sector (ex) union member is employed. Janitorial to accounting to lawyering, even teaching...every single job is available in the same region in the private sector. Public sector employees are free to move to the private sector at any time. The difference is that public sector employees are paid better and have better benefits than the taxpayers who pay them.
You conveniently omit the main problem with public sector unions- taxpayers fund the process by which dues are taken from public sector employees- dues which are also paid directly from tax revenues. These dues are then used to buy representation in local, state, and federal government- representation that is owned by the unions, but supposedly in place to negotiate with those SAME unions. Any pretense of real negotiation is negated by those campaign contributions- which are paid by tax revenues. That is nearly criminal, and certainly immoral.