The WI Bill - Real Analysis

[PeshakJang]

Since we have a couple threads talking about it, and a whole state protesting it, I figured it would be beneficial to actually break it down to see what effect the legislation has.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

The Bill deals with a few topics: State Finances, Collective Bargaining for Public Employees, Compensation and Fringe Benefits for Public Employees, Medical Assistance Program, and a couple other administrative state issues.

The Bill has an introductory summary of what is being enacted, followed by the actual legal text.

Here's a summary, with some excerpts from the Collective Bargaining section of the summary, since that is in focus:

This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of
base wages. In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index.

So it limits collective bargaining to wages, and limits wage increases to the rate of inflation. Nothing about pay cuts.

The next section:

Under SELRA and MERA, a collective bargaining unit elects a labor
organization as its representative once a majority of the employees in that collective bargaining unit who are actually voting votes for that labor organization; that labor organization remains the representative unless a percentage of members of the collective bargaining unit supports a petition for a new election and subsequently
votes to decertify the representative. This bill requires an annual certification election of the labor organization that represents each collective bargaining unit containing general employees. If, at the election, less than 51 percent of the actual employees in the collective bargaining unit vote for a representative, then, at the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement, the current representative is decertified and the members of the collective bargaining unit are
nonrepresented and may not be represented for one year.

This section basically says, that each year the employees under a union must hold a vote to determine if they want to be represented by a union. If less than 51% of the employees want to be represented by a union, they will not be represented for that year. This is as opposed to the current system, where a percentage of the employees must start a petition to have an election.

Seems like a good idea to me. It gives each union group the ability to decide whether or not they want to be represented by a union, rather than being forced into it. Seems like it would make the unions more accountable to the employees.

Currently, except for an initial collective bargaining agreement, the terms of collective bargaining agreements are generally two years for state and municipal employees, and current law does not prohibit collective bargaining agreements from being extended. This bill limits the term for general employees to one year and prohibits the extension of collective bargaining agreements.

If I am reading this correctly, it looks like it means that any contracts reached are up for negotiation each year, instead of every 2 years, and must be renegotiated instead of simply being extended. Obviously gives the State the ability to readjust to the changing economy, and may also do the same for the employees.

Current law provides that state and municipal employees who are represented by a labor organization have the organization dues deducted from their salaries. Except for salary deductions for public safety employees, this bill prohibits the salary deductions for labor organization dues. This bill also allows a general employee to
refrain from paying dues and remain a member of a collective bargaining unit.

This is interesting... it prohibits paycheck deductions for union dues, but also allows employees to refrain from paying dues while remaining in the union. Seems like a great idea to me. Union dues are one of the biggest scams, IMO, so this seems like a good idea.

The next section deals with retirement:

This bill provides that the employee required contribution rate for general participating employees and for elected and executive participating employees must equal one−half of all actuarially required contributions, as determined by the Employee Trust Funds Board.

Looks like it requires that employees contribute at least 50% of their required contributions. As explained further, as it is now, the employer must pay their required contribution under law, and has the option of paying any portion of the employee's contribution. The new law prohibits the employer from pay any portion of the employee's contribution, in cities or counties having more than 500,000 people in them. Makes sense... the employee contribution should be paid by the employee, not the employer.

This bill decreases the multiplier for elected officials and executive participating employees from 2 percent to 1.6 percent for creditable service that is performed on or after the bill’s effective date.

This lowers the retirement payment multiplier for elected officials and executives to be the same as general employees. Can't see how anybody would object to this.

The bill also sets a lower limit for employment duration to meet retirement program eligibility.

The following section addresses public sector group insurance:

Currently, state employees, as well as employees of public authorities created by the state, receive health care coverage under plans offered by GIB, which plans are assigned to one of three tiers depending on the employee’s premium costs. The employer share of premium costs for employees who work more than 1,565 hours a year is an amount not less than 80 percent of the average premium costs under the
various health care coverage plans. The amount for represented employees is subject to collective bargaining and the amount for nonrepresented employees is established in various compensation plans.

This bill provides that the employer may not pay more than 88 percent of the average premium cost of plans offered in the tier with the lowest employee premium cost.

As it is now, the employer pays a minimum of 80% of insurance premiums, with the remaining 20% subject to collective bargaining. The new law limits the upper limit to 88%.

The bill goes on to lay out premium rates for the 3 different tiers of insurance offered.

In addition:

This bill requires GIB to design health care coverage plans for the 2012
calendar year that, after adjusting for any inflationary increase in health benefit costs, reduces the average premium cost of plans offered in the tier with the lowestemployee premium cost by at least 5 percent from the cost of such plans offered during the 2011 calendar year. GIB must include copayments in the health care coverage plans for the 2012 calendar year and may require health risk assessments for state employees and participation in wellness or disease management programs.

This bill requires the secretary of employee trust funds to allocate $28,000,000, from reserve accounts established in the public employee trust fund for group health and pharmacy benefits for state employees, to reduce employer costs for providing group health insurance for state employees for the period beginning on July 1, 2011, and ending on December 31, 2011.

So they set up a bunch of studies to try and lower costs in the future, reduce premiums, and establish funds to alleviate budget problems. Seems like this is all win-win, for the most part.


The remainder of the bill addresses state finance issues, and a couple other issues. I can go on further with those, but this is the part that is contentious.

Reading through the actual legal text, I don't see anything regarding pay cuts, benefit cuts, etc., anything that is being protested.

Seems to me that the union (which organized these protests), is spreading FUD about the actual bill, since it will limit the *union's* power, and using teachers and clueless children to protest for their own benefit.

 

[FDF12389]

Good analysis

 

[QuantumPion]

Damned evil republicans with their monocles and top hats, keeping the working man down! Rawr!

 

[Jadow]

Good read, one interesting thing, they say the union needs to get 51% on the annual vote in order to stay.

So if they get a majority, say 50.9999 percent to 49.0001 percent, then the union still fails.


Hehe, I'd love to see that happen.

 

[Sentrosi2121]

Thank you for breaking this down. I have a lot of friends living in the Badger State. And even though I have a New York address, I still consider Wisconsin home. It's where I grew up.

What disturbs me more is that anything deviating from the status quo results in fear mongering and finger pointing.

 

[Thump553]

So to summarize, the bill makes unions superfluous (they will no longer have the power to bargain for wage increases of any sort over the rate of inflation) and undercuts their financial base (no more union dues withholding and members will no longer have to pay dues to obtain the benefits of union membership). Sure sounds like the central purpose of this bill is union busting, pure and simple.

I just came back from a drive while listening to a radio show about this situation. The speakers on that show made the following statements (which I have not attempted to verify):
1) One reporter, who said he has been following Walker's career for twenty years, said Walker made absolutely no mention of such a bill during this campaign-and that in fact he was generally viewed as a moderate GOP and
2) That there is no fiscal crisis in WI, and as a matter of fact until a corporate tax cut that Walker rammed through last month there was no projected deficit at all. In other words this is an invented crisis, invented for the purpose of union busting.

I'm not majorly pro or anti-union (never personally been in one) but this whole situation is really beginning to smell like a scam to me-a scam designed trod down the little guys further.

 

[manimal]

This is all about removeing the grass roots vote efforts of unions and their effects on elections..


see the culinary union in vegas helping Sharon Angle to lose..

 

[PeshakJang]

I just came back from a drive while listening to a radio show about this situation. The speakers on that show made the following statements (which I have not attempted to verify):
1) One reporter, who said he has been following Walker's career for twenty years, said Walker made absolutely no mention of such a bill during this campaign-and that in fact he was generally viewed as a moderate GOP and
2) That there is no fiscal crisis in WI, and as a matter of fact until a corporate tax cut that Walker rammed through last month there was no projected deficit at all. In other words this is an invented crisis, invented for the purpose of union busting.

Sep 2010

Next Wisconsin governor faces big deficit - Candidates promise tax cuts amid $2.7 billion shortfall

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/102748564.html

Dec 2009

According to its just-released financial statements, state government closed its 2008-09 books with a $2.71 billion deficit in its general fund.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_cd4c3181-c46b-5184-8a1c-f581141b69c7.html

Nov 2008

State deficit forecast rises to $5.4 billion by mid-2011

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/34820159.html

 

[PeshakJang]

This is all about removeing the grass roots vote efforts of unions and their effects on elections..

So would it be better for people to vote as they personally feel, or vote how their union feels?

How would this change anything relating to union organized voting?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

This is all about removeing the grass roots vote efforts of unions and their effects on elections..


see the culinary union in vegas helping Sharon Angle to lose..

Huh? It's about cutting the deficit.

 

[Jiggz]

So to summarize, the bill makes unions superfluous (they will no longer have the power to bargain for wage increases of any sort over the rate of inflation) and undercuts their financial base (no more union dues withholding and members will no longer have to pay dues to obtain the benefits of union membership). Sure sounds like the central purpose of this bill is union busting, pure and simple.

If you assume Union membership is mandatory and pay deduction conducted by the employer, Yes, this can be interpreted as Union busting. But is it mandatory? Especially for public sector? Is it mandatory that every single public employee (general or safety) to be a Union member? Does the employer has to support the Union by doing the pay check deduction instead of the Union collecting the dues from each of its members? If not, then then the bill is not a Union buster! The employer just wants to severe any connections with the Union since it did not create or hire the said Union instead just wants to focus on its employees.

 

[Cstefan]

BUT THEY DEMAND THEIR RESPECT and THIS IS JUST LIKE EGYPT. Among other intelligent arguments I have seen on camera at cnn.

 

[PeshakJang]

BUT THEY DEMAND THEIR RESPECT and THIS IS JUST LIKE EGYPT. Among other intelligent arguments I have seen on camera at cnn.

The ones calling for Egypt-style protests represent the most ignorant denominator of all those protesting. They have literally zero grasp on the actual ramifications of their actions.

 

[manimal]

So would it be better for people to vote as they personally feel, or vote how their union feels?

How would this change anything relating to union organized voting?

So your saying the influence of the Chamber of Commerce and the Kock brothers is bad then?



see this for what it is...a directed effort to marginalize Unions ability to get the vote out at a grass roots level effectively.


this is no different than the BS outrage that led to the destruction of Acorn...

 

[manimal]

Huh? It's about cutting the deficit.

right.......

 

[Genx87]

BUT THEY DEMAND THEIR RESPECT and THIS IS JUST LIKE EGYPT. Among other intelligent arguments I have seen on camera at cnn.

I saw that and couldnt believe it. Why yes, having to pick up more of your healthcare and pension costs is definately like fighting for democracy under the rule of a police state like Egypt.

Effing Moran!

 

[PeshakJang]

see this for what it is...a directed effort to marginalize Unions ability to get the vote out at a grass roots level effectively.

Please explain how you reach that conclusion from what is actually in the bill.

 

[trenchfoot]

Huh? It's about cutting the deficit.

Yes, a deficit created by, for and of the repubs who now control that state govenment. Funny how things work out that way huh?

 

[PeshakJang]

Yes, a deficit created by, for and of the repubs who now control that state govenment. Funny how things work out that way huh?

You do realize that Democrats have controlled WI's government for the last several years?

 

[jackschmittusa]

I don't care how you want to break it down or what semantics you use to describe it, it fits the common and historical definition of "union busting". And few people are too stupid not to know it.

The state did have a budget surplus until the governor gave it away to corporations; then claimed a budget crisis; then declared that the average people in unions were responsible and must be rendered as powerless as possible.

The Governor first tried to divide the unions by exempting 3 of them. Didn't work! I'm sure his thinking is that non-union people are so jealous of what the unions got for their workers that they would go along. Wrong again!

My prediction is that the Republicans have collectively stepped on their dicks here. Millions of Americans will now find Republicans untrustworthy and will refuse to vote for any of them. Union busting is considered radical even by most independents and most will be made to remember that the Governor appeared to masquerade as a moderate until elected. The "wolf in sheep's clothing" strategy is not a good one from the same people who constantly tell people not to trust the government.

I think the Republicans are in for a rude awakening in the next election cycle.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I don't care how you want to break it down or what semantics you use to describe it, it fits the common and historical definition of "union busting". And few people are too stupid not to know it.

The state did have a budget surplus until the governor gave it away to corporations; then claimed a budget crisis; then declared that the average people in unions were responsible and must be rendered as powerless as possible.

The Governor first tried to divide the unions by exempting 3 of them. Didn't work! I'm sure his thinking is that non-union people are so jealous of what the unions got for their workers that they would go along. Wrong again!

My prediction is that the Republicans have collectively stepped on their dicks here. Millions of Americans will now find Republicans untrustworthy and will refuse to vote for any of them. Union busting is considered radical even by most independents and most will be made to remember that the Governor appeared to masquerade as a moderate until elected. The "wolf in sheep's clothing" strategy is not a good one from the same people who constantly tell people not to trust the government.

I think the Republicans are in for a rude awakening in the next election cycle.

Umm. You do realize Scott Walker has been Gov of Wisconsin for about 45 days right? For the previous 8 years it was run by a Democrat. Are you suggesting that Scott Walker has managed to give away billions to business in 45 days?

 

[PeshakJang]

I don't care how you want to break it down or what semantics you use to describe it, it fits the common and historical definition of "union busting". And few people are too stupid not to know it.

The state did have a budget surplus until the governor gave it away to corporations; then claimed a budget crisis; then declared that the average people in unions were responsible and must be rendered as powerless as possible.

The Governor first tried to divide the unions by exempting 3 of them. Didn't work! I'm sure his thinking is that non-union people are so jealous of what the unions got for their workers that they would go along. Wrong again!

My prediction is that the Republicans have collectively stepped on their dicks here. Millions of Americans will now find Republicans untrustworthy and will refuse to vote for any of them. Union busting is considered radical even by most independents and most will be made to remember that the Governor appeared to masquerade as a moderate until elected. The "wolf in sheep's clothing" strategy is not a good one from the same people who constantly tell people not to trust the government.

I think the Republicans are in for a rude awakening in the next election cycle.

In case you missed my links, the state has been facing a budget problem for at least the last few years, and it has never been seriously addressed by the Democrat controlled government.

With regard to your other comments, anybody who is not too stupid to read the actual bill, which I am convinced does not apply to the vast majority of those protesting, can see it for what it is... reasonable reforms that control costs, and do next to nothing to really limit the power of union organization. It limits their rights to negotiate pay and fringe benefits, and actually benefits public employees with regard to a couple areas, such as health care costs in the future.

But again, only those who actually care about the facts, and not the twisting of them going on by the unions organizing these protests and driving the national dialog, can really see that.

 

[sandorski]

Annual Votes and Prohibiting Union dues are the most provocative parts of this Bill. Clearly an attempt at Union Busting.

Clearly most in this thread have no problem with that, but at least be honest about it and not white wash it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I haven't checked other sources yet, but this page say the state would have run a surplus without the spending the governor pushed through after he took office:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...udget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php

"In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state's budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January."

" * $25 million for an economic development fund for job creation, which still holds $73 million because of anemic job growth.
* $48 million for private health savings accounts -- a perennial Republican favorite.
* $67 million for a tax incentive plan that benefits employers, but at levels too low to spur hiring."

 

[PeshakJang]

Annual Votes and Prohibiting Union dues are the most provocative parts of this Bill. Clearly an attempt at Union Busting.

Unless you are opposed to personal freedom to choose, I can't see how you would oppose this.

If the union is doing such a great job, then there should be no problem getting a majority vote.

And what exactly do union dues go toward? If I don't approve of how a union is operating, why should I be forced to be a member? Forced to pay for it?

Clearly most in this thread have no problem with that, but at least be honest about it and not white wash it.

Most in the State have no problem with it either. This whole thread is about being honest with what is actually in the bill, which in reality doesn't jive at all with the rhetoric being put out by those organizing these protests.