- Wisc.'s Walker to absent Dems: 24 hours to return
- Republican says won't back down in union battle
- Largest crowds since Vietnam War march in Wisc.
- Indiana Dems remain out of state as assembly reconvenes
- SEC top attorney didn't recuse himself on Madoff
- Boehner says House likely to defend marriage act
- U.S. repositions military forces around Libya
- Clinton warns terrorists may get fissile materials
- Commentary: Privatizing Wisconsin
- Video: Politicians pump fists at Wisc. lawmakers
Largest crowds since Vietnam War march in Wisconsin
Related Video
Protestors continue to occupy the state Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, February 25, 2011.
Credit: Reuters/Darren Hauck
MADISON, Wisconsin |
MADISON, Wisconsin (Reuters) - A crowd estimated at more than 70,000 people on Saturday waved American flags, sang the national anthem and called for the defeat of a Wisconsin plan to curb public sector unions that has galvanized opposition from the American labor movement.
In one of the biggest rallies at the state Capitol since the Vietnam War, union members and their supporters braved frigid temperatures and a light snowfall to show their displeasure.
The mood was upbeat despite the setback their cause suffered earlier this week when the state Assembly approved the Republican-backed restrictions on union collective bargaining rights over fierce Democratic objections.
"I'm deeply honored to be here with you," said Peter Yarrow, a veteran of many social protests during his 50-year folk music career and a founding member of the group Peter, Paul and Mary. "If you persist, you will prevail."
What began two weeks ago as a Republican effort in one small U.S. state to balance the budget has turned into a confrontation with unions that could be the biggest since then President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers nearly 30 years ago.
Republicans still must push the measure through the state Senate, which has been unable to muster a quorum for a vote because of a Democratic boycott.
If the plan is approved in Wisconsin, a number of other states where Republicans swept to victory in the 2010 elections could follow. Already, other legislatures including Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Idaho, Tennessee, and Kansas are working on union curbs.
Unlike previous protests, the rally on Saturday brought out thousands of union workers not directly affected by the bill, including the state's firefighters, exempted along with police from the Republican proposal. Dozens of private sector unions were represented as well at the event.
No "Tea Party" supporters of the proposal championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker were spotted on Saturday. They staged a smaller rally of their own in Madison a week ago.
PARTY ATMOSPHERE
The rally felt more like a party than a protest.
"This is one of the largest sustained protests we have seen in Madison since the Vietnam War. And to my knowledge there were absolutely no problems," Madison Police spokesman Joe DeSpain said.
Scott Sumer, a teacher from Rockford, Illinois, just south of the Wisconsin state line, said he hoped the sustained and broad-based opposition to the Wisconsin bill would discourage lawmakers in other states from considering similar measures.
"Other governors are going to see this and think, 'I don't want to go there.'" Sumer said. "The tenacity of this movement and civility here are impressive."
Demonstrators chanted "Hey hey, ho ho, Scott Walker has got to go," as they stood directly under the office window of the state's new governor, who introduced the controversial measure as part of a budget deficit cutting bill that is moving in the Wisconsin legislature.
Get it straight: government workers are being forced to pay more out of their take-home wages to pay for their health plans and pensions. This is a pay cut. As tax reporter David Cay Johnston explains in his primer on the Wisconsin crisis, “The ‘contributions’ consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply ‘contribute more’ to Wisconsin’ s retirement system (or as the argument goes, “pay their fair share” of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin’ s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money TO FILL THE HOLE LEFT BY TAX CUTS AND REDUCED AUDITS OF CORPORATIONS IN WISCONSIN.” In other words, Walker and his fellow lackeys for the rich, i.e. the Koch Bros. et al, have got workers scrambling for crumbs on the floor as a result of the tax cuts they gave the rich! Now, which side of that equation are you on??
Unions had a place in our history, such as the mining atrocities of the past or the sweathouse labor practices of the industrial revolution, but for the past 75 years unions have destroyed human initiative, made it much harder for businesses to fire lazy workers and reward good ones, (they want nearly everyone to make the same wage or base it more on senority rather than skill, and stifled the ability of our companies to compete with other countries and made millionaires of the crooked, quick-talking, fatcat union bosses.
It’s simple—
The economy ran hot for 20 years.
Governments (local, state, federal) increased spending.
Economy came to a crunching halt in 2007.
Governments kept their spending spree and are now in debt.
(nobody likes a politician who cuts back)
Governments decide to stimulate the economy by giving corporate tax breaks.
Governments need a place to get that lost revenue so they find their easiest target—their employees. How do they get them on board for the cut?? They take away their ability to collectively bargain.
Is it right? Wrong? It just depends on how you feel about how our government handles a debt crisis like this. Do we want our government to dictate to it’s employees that they are going to take away their rights because they have mismanaged the states finances? Tricky issue because they, the employer, are in the position to make the laws about their employees. Is this a conflict of interest?? You decide.
Follow Reuters