Mass Protests Over WI Governor's Controversial Budget Repair Bill

 My arguments to certain provisions of this bill

 Employee Compensations

Employee Compensations:

Pension contributions: Currently, state, school district and municipal employees that are members of the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) generally pay little or nothing toward their pensions. The bill would require that employees of WRS employers, and the City and County of Milwaukee contribute 50 percent of the annual pension payment. The payment amount for WRS employees is estimated to be 5.8 percent of salary in 2011.

[spoiler=My response to "Employee Compensation"]

I’m going to call bullshi’t over the bolded part. The wording is simply misleading

On a serious, more civil note, that provision will screw over the amount of take-home pay that. Do note that in contrast to what you said about teachers, to be honest with you, the pay range for the teachers is not considered good, it’s only OK.

Example: California is probably one of the better known states in terms of having one of the worst budget crises in the nation. And the pay that public school teachers get here is already on the borderline. When I brought the Wisconsin protests up to some of my teachers, all of them said they will consider quitting and going into the private sector if their pay gets slashed even more. They already had furlough days this year (restored after some federal funding was available), and that was enough for many of the teachers.

 Health insurance contributions

Health insurance contributions: Currently, state employees on average pay approximately 6 percent of annual health insurance premiums. This bill will require that state employees pay at least 12.6 percent of the average cost of annual premiums. In addition, the bill would require changes to the plan design necessary to reduce current premiums by 5 percent. Local employers participating in the Public Employers Group Health insurance would be prohibited from paying more than 88 percent of the lowest cost plan. The bill would also authorize the Department of Employee Trust Funds to use $28 million of excess balances in reserve accounts for health insurance and pharmacy benefits to reduce health insurance premium costs.

Health insurance cost containment strategies: The bill directs the Department of Employee Trust Funds and the Group Insurance Board to implement health risk assessments and similar programs aimed at participant wellness, collect certain data related to assessing health care provider quality and effectiveness, and verify the status of dependents participating in the state health insurance program. In addition, it modifies the membership of the Group Insurance Board to require that the representative of the Attorney General be an attorney to ensure the board has access to legal advice among its membership.

[spoiler=My response to "Health insurance contributions"] My comments: Again, this is forcing public state workers to pay more into health insurance, which reduces their take-home pay. If their take-home pay gets squeezed – especially in the now-recovering, yet uncertain, economy, many people will get ticked off. Who would want to work in a profession where they won't make too much of a living?[/spoiler]

 Pension changes for elected officials and appointees

Pension changes for elected officials and appointees: The bill modifies the pension calculation for elected officials and appointees to be the same as general occupation employees and teachers. Current law requires these positions to pay more and receive a different multiplier for pension calculation than general classification employees. Under the state constitution, this change will be effective for elected officials at the beginning of their next term of office.

[spoiler=Response to "Pension changes for elected officials and appointees"]@ Bolded: I’ll believe it if I see that come to fruit. There’s a major discrepancy when it comes to lawmakers and lower-tier public state workers in terms of pensions.

I know that statement applies to the state that I live in. Just a side note.[/spoiler]

 State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations

State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations:

Collective bargaining – The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units are required to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers would be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. These changes take effect upon the expiration of existing contracts. Local law enforcement and fire employees, and state troopers and inspectors would be exempt from these changes.

Career executive transfers – The bill would allow state employees in the career executive positions to be reassigned between agencies upon agreement of agency heads.

Limited term employees (LTE) – The bill would prohibit LTE's from being eligible for health insurance or participation in the Wisconsin Retirement System.

State employee absences and other work actions – If the Governor has declared a state of emergency, the bill authorizes appointing authorities to terminate any employees that are absent for three days without approval of the employer or any employees that participate in an organized action to stop or slow work.

Quality Health Care Authority – The bill repeals the authority of home health care workers under the Medicaid program to collectively bargain.

Child care labor relations – The bill repeals the authority of family child care workers to collectively bargain with the State

[spoiler=My response to "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations"]tl;dr - direct attack on unions, utterly. Completely eliminates their rights to negotiate their pay with the state of Wisconsin, simply put. If anything, this completely violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'll bet that if this budget gets challenged in court, there's a strong possibility appeal courts might pick this apart simply on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause

And this provision, if anything, goes above what is outlined in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. That act was already a blow to the unions. Those provisions are simply ten times worse over what Taft-Hartley already does.[/spoiler]

 Provision for the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority

University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority – The bill repeals collective bargaining for UWHC employees. State positions currently employed by the UWHC Board are eliminated and the incumbents are transferred to the UWHC Authority.

 My Response to the provision on University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) Board and Authority

Same thing as I have mentioned before in my response to the "State and Local Government and School District Labor Relations" provision

 University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff

University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff - The bill repeals the authority of UW faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain.

[spoiler=Response to "University of Wisconsin faculty and academic staff"] Simply put, this is NOT fair to the intellectual-minded, hard-working faculty at UW-Madison. UW-Madison is one of the best – if not – well-regarded public universities in the nation, and if this provision takes effect, many of the faculty may consider quitting for the private sector; as a result, this could screw over the quality of education that UW-Madison offers to its students. Especially its top-notch, well-known academic programs they provide (such as their science and political science programs). This will not do the current UW-Madison students any good.

And a bit of off-topicness, but their top-notch academic programs is why I applied to that school in the first place. I do not want to see the quality of UW-Madison go to the dumps. [/spoiler]

 Medicaid

Medicaid

Address FY11 Medicaid deficit – Medicaid costs are expected to exceed current GPR appropriations by $153 million. The bill would increase the Medicaid GPR appropriation to address this shortfall.

Authorize DHS to restructure program notwithstanding current law – Medicaid costs have increased dramatically due to the recession and expanded program eligibility. In order to reduce the growth in costs, the bill authorizes the Department of Health Services to make program changes notwithstanding limits in state law related to specific program provisions. The department is expected to develop new approaches on program benefits, eligibility determination and provider cost-effectiveness. The proposed changes will require passive approval of the Joint Committee on Finance before implementation.

Technical correction – Act 28 included language that required unused GPR expenditure authority in the Medicaid GPR appropriation at the end of the biennium to be carried over to the subsequent biennium. The bill repeals this provision in order to ensure unspent funds in Medicaid lapse to the general fund balance.

[spoiler=My response to "Medicaid"] This could tick off the senior voting bloc if reductions are implemented to try to make "efficient use" of Medicaid money. Who doesn’t like their well-deserved entitlements being taken away from them? Especially if it involves their well-being?[/spoiler]

 Sale of State Heating Plants

Sale of State Heating Plants – The bill authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants. The proceeds from any sale, net of remaining debt service, would be deposited in the budget stabilization fund.

[spoiler=Response to "Sale of State Heating Plants"]Minor thing, but why would you go sell “unnecessary” state assets to raise state funds? Completely unnecessary. This similar situation happened in California when our previous governor tried to do that, but it created a lot of controversy; that “state-assets” selling program was reversed by current governor Jerry Brown[/spoiler]

 Summing up my argument

The crappy economy has already reduced what states take in in terms of tax revenue, and the obvious response to that is to find ways to trim "wasteful spending". What Governor Walker is doing is already considered extreme to many people. Cost-cutting in government services was already enough to many voters, and they've learned to accept it, albeit with disgruntlement. But where did unions come into this equation? If this bill passes, states will have more excuses to find ways to trim their operating costs. Targeting unions in order to save money is not the way to go.

Hell, even my own current state governor has not taken this type of a rash approach. He's taking a step-by-step approach, and is only targeting what's wasteful in the current state government. Not coming after unions.

[/spoiler]