Arbitrator Rules for Job Cuts
Ah yes…. much better to fire people than take a shorter work week.
An arbitrator’s ruling Monday morning threw out Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker’s shortened workweek for nearly 2,000 union workers.
The brief notification said only that Walker’s imposition of a 35-hour workweek as part of an emergency budget fix violated the county’s labor contract with District Council 48 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Arbitrator Amedeo Greco issued notice of his decision by e-mail to the union and Walker early Monday, the first day the unpaid furloughs were to have gone into effect.
I hope the workers who get laid off send a thank you note to the arbitrator and their union leadership.
Same thing almost happened up in Manitowoc Co., but w/o the arbitrator. There the county exec offered a plan to the entire labor community of the county, with reasonable cuts across the board, with everyone taking a hit. No winners, no losers - since they all were going to be suffering under the economic situation.
It all weighed on if all six unions agreed to it. First union rejected the deal.
No word of layoffs yet, but it’s now likely. Instead of a 5% across-the-board cut in pay and everyone still employed, some people working for the county will not be very soon.
Solidarity Brothers!
Posted by Kevin Binversie on June 29, 2009 at 2010 hrs
Considering that there are ongoing contract negotiations, perhaps Walker would be wisest to just sit down and do some honest bargaining.
He could still “stick it” to the unions, and save the county money by having the new contract in place, which will no doubt include higher employee contributions for health care at the very least.
He did the same crap the last time he ran for governor. It ended up costing taxpayers almost $4 million in lost savings since he kept stalling the negotiations.
By his threatening layoffs, etc, he is only aiding the unions by doing bad faith bargaining. That would weaken the county’s position in negotiations.
Posted by capper on June 29, 2009 at 2055 hrs
Yes… much better for the “brothers” to be fired than accept reasonable concessions during a recession that is crippling Milwaukee County.
Posted by Owen on June 29, 2009 at 2123 hrs
Owen,
The union has been at the table for nine months. Walker has been campaigning. We are willing to give concessions. Walker doesn’t want to deal, because he can’t fool the dumb asses that think he is doing a good job.
Posted by capper on June 29, 2009 at 2125 hrs
Ah yes… honest negotiations from people who start from the position that Walker’s is a dumb ass?
Newsflash… he’s been elected overwhelmingly by the people of Milwaukee County. Obviously, some folks think he’s doing a great job.
Posted by Owen on June 29, 2009 at 2137 hrs
Again, he lost 30,000 votes from 2004 to 2008. And his popularity has dropped since then.
And considering I am not on the negotiating team, I can have my own opinion.
But since it is still in negotiations, all I can legally say is wait and see what your hero is up to. Unfortunately, it won’t come out until the contract is ratified.
Posted by capper on June 29, 2009 at 2143 hrs
Unlike you, I don’t have a vested interest in this, but it is entertaining to watch you flail
Posted by Owen on June 29, 2009 at 2150 hrs
Just remember, old friend, “He who laughs last…”
Posted by capper on June 29, 2009 at 2152 hrs
“...got the joke five minutes after everyone else?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 2226 hrs
Pthththththth!
Posted by capper on June 29, 2009 at 2231 hrs
Yes… much better for the “brothers” to be fired than accept reasonable concessions during a recession that is crippling Milwaukee County.
What reasonable concessions? He hasn’t offered anything. He attempted to violate the contract he had with the union by mandating across the board furloughs of five hours a week, something he didn’t have the authority to do. That’s not how it works Owen, and I would hope Walker knows that, but I can’t be sure.
The contract allows him to layoff people. Walker doesn’t want to do that, because it will shut down services, and he doesn’t want to make it obvious he doesn’t know how to run a county. So he wants everyone to take a 12% pay cut without the inconvenience to his gubernatorial aspirations of having county services shut down and exposing himself as the incompetent that he is.
The only other legal thing he can do, if he doesn’t want to enact the provisions he’s legally allowed to enact under the contracts that exist, is to go to the table and offer something in exchange for furloughs.
All Walker is proving here is that he is either too inept to run a county, or too busy offering simple, sound bite ready solutions that fit his campaign slogans to govern responsibly.
It is hard running a county Scotty. Sometimes you have to make tough, grown up decisions that don’t fit your ad campaign. The county board can’t bail you out every time you propose a completely unworkable and idiotic policy. You’ve been in office as long as Doyle, it is time to, as Owen would say, own that massive county deficit and figure out how to fix it, legally.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0033 hrs
You have got to be kidding!
So… 100% loss of pay for some is better than a short term small loss for all? What if the “brother” with 100% pay loss is you? That change the answer?
At least you’d be able to participate in the new “funemployment” that’s all the rage I hear!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0640 hrs
MB,
Again, what is wrong with just sitting down and negotiating? Walker can still stick it to the union, and the taxpayers would actually save money. Do you have any idea what his stunt yesterday cost?
Posted by capper on June 30, 2009 at 0722 hrs
Bad job = tax cuts? I don’t think so.
The Unions and city workers are coming across like a bunch of spolied kids.
Now the unions are clammering on how much “Walkers stunt” is costing taxpayers?! Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black. Be happy you still have a job.
I know at least a dozen people who be thrilled to be working part time right now for $10.00 an hour.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0745 hrs
Since the union won’t work with Walker I think the head of the labor union should decide which employees lose their jobs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0857 hrs
I don’t know a lot about the County/AFSCME situation, but I know a little about collective bargaining. Why has nobody responded with any substance to capper’s assertion that Scott Walker only needs to sit down and negotiate with the union to get concessions? Aren’t most people in favor of honoring contracts? Why does the solution have to violate the terms of the contract? Play by the rules!
Posted by Mike on June 30, 2009 at 0946 hrs
Isn’t it the county exec’s job to provide for county services at a cost equal to the taxes collected? If taxes fail to cover the expected cost, either taxes have to rise or costs have to be cut.
It looks to me that Walker is doing exactly what he was hired to do. It also seems to me that the union wants to distort that fact saying that Walker needs to “negotiate” with us. Negotiate means a trade off… I don’t agree with that.
If conditions change, you can’t simply sit on your hands you have to act. That’s exactly what Walker’s done and I applaud him. Too many times in Wisconsin the response is to raise taxes or fees. I for one am sick and tired of paying more taxes and fees all the time.
Raising taxes is the lazy way to solve this issue. It also flies in the face of what everyone else does in their personal lives. If your expneses exceeds your pay the first thing any sane person does is to look for how to reduce expenses. Sure you might want more pay and may look for a different job but that’s not your first response especially in a short term situation. Why is it suppose to be different with government?
I say thank you Scott Walker for looking for ways to spend less and not simply to reach our collective pocket as the people in Madison and DC are now doing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1023 hrs
How is it that conservatives get their panties in a knot when the Obama administration wants to start rewriting employment contracts for financial workers, but you guys think it’s perfectly okay for Walker to do the same for collective bargaining agreements? Is it because it’s a Republican doing it now, or because the employees involved are represented by a union? Please share with us the source of your hypocrisy.
I know some of you who work at-will might not understand how collective bargaining agreements work, but the terms of the agreement are binding on both parties, not just the employees. It’s not like at Quizno’s, where your manager can cut your hours and you have no recourse.
With a CBA, the employer guarantees certain employment terms for the length of the contract. The contract can only be re-opened for modification if both sides agree to it. But it’s clear why Walker doesn’t want to go that route.
As someone who works in an industry where a number of labor agreements have been re-opened in the last year, it’s very customary for the attorneys representing the union to request detailed reports of the employer’s spending - from labor costs right on down to office supplies. That, of course, subjects the employer to a remarkable degree of financial scrutiny, from Walker’s generously-compensated staffers right on down the line. I’d imagine the union would be happy to publicly propose some alternative cuts that Walker may not like as much as the ones he has in mind.
Walker needs the union to do him a big favor right now, and he’s not doing a very good job of understanding that. I can appreciate that a guy who couldn’t even finish undergrad may not understand a whole lot about labor law, but you’d think he could afford an adviser or two that does.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 30, 2009 at 1237 hrs
RS,
Couple points… the arbiter has not given his reasoning for the ruling and a court has already ruled that cutting back the hours does not violate the union contract. Given that only one of the several unions sued and that a judge has already ruled in Walker’s favor, it’s a bit of an overreach to categorically state that Walker is violating the contract.
Furthermore, this kind of crap galls me…
Walker needs the union to do him a big favor right now, and he’s not doing a very good job of understanding that.
In your mind, this is all about Walker and the union. It’s not. It’s about the taxpayers of Milwaukee County. Walker doesn’t need the union to do him a favor. The union needs to respect the fact that the people paying the bills are being hammered in this recession and not act like a bunch of spoiled children. Most of the unions that work in the county got this, which is why they didn’t challenge Walker’s decision.
I can appreciate that a guy who couldn’t even finish undergrad may not understand a whole lot about labor law, but you’d think he could afford an adviser or two that does.
That’s just pure bullshit snobbery. I can name dozens of people who achieved great successes without even graduating from a primary school. I can also name hundreds of people with college degrees who aren’t worth a warm bucket of spit in the workplace. Dare I guess that you don’t have a law degree and therefore your opinion on the labor contracts is invalid? Of course not. Don’t be a prick.
Walker obviously did get good advice that he could cut hours because the County’s legal team, most of the unions, and the judge agreed with him.
Posted by Owen on June 30, 2009 at 1300 hrs
Now this is a typical liberal response… when cornered, try “cute” comments and personal attacks like…
conservatives get their panties in a knot…AND
It’s not like at Quizno’s…AND
Walker’s generously-compensated staffers ...AND
I can appreciate that a guy who couldn’t even finish undergrad may not…Etc, etc.
Instead of addressing the issue straight on, try “witty” comments like these. Maybe the issue will become confused and piss off the other person…. sure that’s the ticket.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1511 hrs
In your mind, this is all about Walker and the union. It’s not. It’s about the taxpayers of Milwaukee County. Walker doesn’t need the union to do him a favor. The union needs to respect the fact that the people paying the bills are being hammered in this recession and not act like a bunch of spoiled children. Most of the unions that work in the county got this, which is why they didn’t challenge Walker’s decision.
I know you don’t like unions, but what part of signed contract don’t you get? Scott Walker signed a contract, as the representative of the County and the taxpayers, based on his promise to pay X, Y and Z in exchange for services A, B and C. In that contract is language defining what the County is allowed to do if it is unable to meet its obligation. Walker can either execute those provisions, or negotiate for concessions.
No where else in the world would you defend an outright breach of contractual obligations of this manner. And stop with your BS line about the judge agreeing with Walker, that isn’t true. Choosing not to enact a TRO because you know that the entitiy in authority (in this case the arbiter) will render a decision before irreperable harm is caused is a hell of a lot different than siding with one side or another.
You are willfully compromising your own principles to stand up for a politician. A politician who has further jeopardized the fiscal standing of the county he is charged with running by delaying dealing with the issue at hand by playing this political gambit while a real crisis mounts.
I ask yet again, when is Walker going to take responsibility for the growing fiscal crisis in Milwaukee County? A crisis that is coupled with a failure to deliver services to such an extent that the county was poised to lose a federal lawsuit before the state swept in and cleaned up his mess.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1630 hrs
I ask yet again, when is Walker going to take responsibility for the growing fiscal crisis in Milwaukee County?
I don’t live in Milwaukee, but close enough to follow the news on it. To that end, I submit… Isn’t Walker the one proposing zero-increase budgets and the CITY REPS add the lard to it everytime?!
I know you don’t like unions, but what part of signed contract don’t you get?
I do believe there’s a difference in changing a contract for the benefit of a company, and “asking” to change a contract because it can no longer be afforded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1650 hrs
Lefty,
I know you don’t like unions, but what part of signed contract don’t you get?
No, I don’t, but in this case, most of the unions did the right thing. As I told RS, county lawyers, a judge, and a majority of the unions all seem to agree that the contract doesn’t prohibit reducing hours. One union and one arbiter disagree. At this point, the majority of folks seem to be of the opinion that Walker is within his contractual rights.
You are overreaching to unequivocally opine that he is violating the contract. The majority appears to disagree with your assessment. The rest of your rant is rather moot.
Posted by Owen on June 30, 2009 at 1652 hrs
No judge agreed with Walker. A judge simply refused to offer a TRO, no ruling on behalf of Walker’s position was rendered.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1712 hrs
Nice shield of semantics you have there… it’s a bit flimsy though…
Posted by Owen on June 30, 2009 at 1715 hrs
This is a matter between an employer and its employees. That the taxpayers fund the employer is positively irrelevant. It doesn’t give the employer any special rights or privileges.
I believe the judge’s ruling said that Walker can legally reduce work hours. However, deciding whether something is legal and whether something is allowable under the terms of a CBA are two entirely different questions. Parties surrender or voluntarily restrict their ability to fully exercise their rights all the time in contracts. If that weren’t the case, I would’ve loudly encouraged the Brewers to stop paying Eric Gagne sometime in the middle of last season in the hopes that he would leave on his own.
In the case of local government, the employer not only decides how much money to spend but, for all intents and purposes, how much money to collect. That’s a luxury that private sector employers don’t get. So if the county’s got financial problems, that’s the fault of the employer, not the fault of the employee. Perhaps taxpayers would be wise to remember that, whether we’re talking about Obama and the U.S. or Scott Walker and Milwaukee County.
And by the way, I’ll would put my money on a college graduate over a college dropout any day, for just about anything that requires a brain, and odds are that I would die a wealthy, wealthy man with that bet and that bet alone. That’s not elitism, just reality.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 30, 2009 at 1828 hrs
I’m not the one claiming the denial of a TRO serves as an ajudication in favor of the defendant Owen.
Fact, according to the only entity that has had the authority to rule on the issue to date Walker violated the stipulations of a contract he signed on behalf of the county and its taxpayers. If he didn’t mean it, well, that is too bad, but he doesn’t get a do over. Go back to the table and throw the union some stuff that doesn’t cost you anything, and I’m sure they will negotiate with you.
The Madison paper just had a big article on this for Dane County employees, who signed a deal giving up something like 5% of their wages to deal with the budget crisis here. If Walker wasn’t so incompetent he could have a deal done by now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 2033 hrs
:zpopcorn:
This is absolutely fascinating. Owen obviously doesn’t have a clue about what he is prattling about. But then again, I don’t blame him. The news media in SE WI is something less to be desired.
Here are some facts for you all to chew on.
The unions and the County are in contract negotiations. The contract ended 12/31/08. We are currently under the old contract, based on language that was in there, until a new one is agreed upon.
Walker did not originally order the furloughs, but asked. He also wanted the unions to agree to an indefinite furlough and to give up our rights to legal recourse. Only a fool would have agreed. Given that he was asking, and wanted our legal rights, it was obvious that he couldn’t do the furlough the way he wanted to. When he tried, that spawned the grievance.
The other unions did not get the same threats, and Walker did not offer AFSCME the same deals that he offered the other unions, which never works.
The ruling from Judge Flynn was only regarding a temporary restraining order until the arbitrator made his ruling. If the Honorable Flynn sided with the union, it would have saved taxpayers money, since the County had to dish up a free hour’s worth of pay, based on the arbitrator’s ruling.
I cannot go into specifics, because the contract negotiations are technically underway, even though there is no movement, and unlike Walker, I believe in following the law. But I think Owen and the other anti-union people will be a bit sore that Walker didn’t take the counter proposal from the union.
Posted by capper on June 30, 2009 at 2109 hrs
And by the way, I’ll would put my money on a college graduate over a college dropout any day, for just about anything that requires a brain, and odds are that I would die a wealthy, wealthy man with that bet and that bet alone. That’s not elitism, just reality.
Recess Supervisor obviously hasn’t worked with many MBAs, or perhaps is one himself.
Posted by Mike Gallo on June 30, 2009 at 2110 hrs
I make no claims as to the relative worth of particular graduate degrees, Mike. If you want to put your money on the GED holders and college dropouts of the world, go right ahead. I will take the college graduates, and I will win by a mile.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 30, 2009 at 2148 hrs
Since the union won’t work with Walker I think the head of the labor union should decide which employees lose their jobs.
I say they start with the ones that “Voted for Change”.
I’m VERY WELL aquatinted with how AFSCME-if I care bargains. All they and Abelson care about are making sure their interests are fulfilled. As for the “brotherhood” crap…if there really is a brotherhood…then the brothers and sisters should redistribute the wealth they continue to gain to the brothers and sisters who get laid off thanks to their “bargaining.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 0041 hrs
And by the way, I’ll would put my money on a college graduate over a college dropout any day, for just about anything that requires a brain, and odds are that I would die a wealthy, wealthy man with that bet and that bet alone. That’s not elitism, just reality. -RS
You must not get out much. That’s not being elite…that’s being ignorant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1420 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134021
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 12:07 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 12:33 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).