I am so proud of these people standing up to this union-busting. And that 700 students from a near-by high school showed up to support their teachers was great. (I looked it up; they closed schools in Madison because of the protests and the kids STILL showed up at the Capitol.)

Tunisia, Egypt ...

and now Bahrain, Iran, and America!

Holy shit! If the people can bring democracy to America then it could happen anywhere. Who knows, if WI falls now maybe Saudi Arabia will be next.

All those protestors in the middle east were government workers and their supporters rallying to protect the entrenched benefits that their private sector counterparts don't enjoy? CNN must have skipped over that part.

I was embarrassed by my home state after last year's elections, but now I'm really, really proud.

@4 When the state starts paying me even close to what I'd make in the private sector, we'll talk.

The capital of Wisconsin is about a mile from a campus with 50,000 students. I went to school at Madison and I can honestly say the annual Harvest Fest cannabis rally is this big.

@6: The private sector pays the minimum it has to attract the talent it needs. Are you saying that if state worker compensation in WI drops, the state will not be able to find enough workers?

@4 -- the whole argument against giving government workers pensions is tired and bogus and represents next to nothing in the grand scheme of United States budgets (state and Federal collectively).

But you also don't point out that on average those government workers (e.g. like scientists at the government labs that have produced things like, you know, the Internet) can get far more in salary in the private sector. So if they put it in a certain amount of years, why not have a retirement?

Bravo to the demonstrators!

Rice bowl democracy.

Good for them! These protestors kick ass and the WI governor is just a big fat ass who seems to hate on the working people.

@4 & @8... your swallowing and puking up the same old thoughtless sound bites on state workers. At the lower tier, some state workers do get paid more than the same position in the private sector, but that is only because the private sector has been driving down wages to less than the is fair for the work and less than the increase in cost of living. All while shifting that money to the top. Meanwhile, any public sector job of higher responsibility and/or requires higher degrees get paid much much less than the same work in the private sector. These are called facts and reality.

Here’s some more reality: Driving down the wages of state workers, firing state workers, and preventing state workers from unionizing doesn't fix the budget or increase employment rolls or improve government services. It is only one thing = an attack on workers and organized labor. Organized labor which gave us the 8 hour work day, the weekend, the 40 hour work week, and an end to child labor. Say thank you the next time you enjoy your sunday and then STFU.

Shorter Teabagger Response: "Bu - but, there's so MANY! Surely it is unconstitutional to allow that large a group - in the gazillions, since it's so much larger than the million or so we had show up in D.C. - to assemble in one place, no?"

Oh, and why hasn't Charles been all over this? I get that it fits the usual stomping ground of the political reporters, but this is absolutely a class issue and a working class struggle. Usually he jumps all over class and capitalism in order to bash middle class people who get scammed by greedy fraudsters when all they wanted was to be able to retire. Where is he when we have a real assault on the workers by the elite? Posting about chimp sperm. nice.

@9: First off, this is not just about pensions. The items called out by Goldy in his original post on this were health insurance premiums, retirement contributions, the right to fire, and issues around union dues and certification.

But since you bring up pensions: the argument that the high pension / lower salary model is just an unobjectionalbe alternative to the no pension / high salary model is also tired and flawed. If that were the case, many private sector companies would offer the high pension / lower salary model and some states would offer the no pension / high salary model. But they do not. The reason is simple: governments use a cash accounting, so a promise today to pay a big pension tomorrow doesn't show up as a cost today at all. Politicians have used this loophole to reward their union clients with very expensive pensions without having to look they are spending lots of money. Accounting rules for the private sector requires than when you make a costly promise, you book its cost now, and shareholders would never stand for such unnecessarily large compensation costs.

Well fuck it David, while we're at it why should we pay any workers - public or private - anything at all? I mean, they should feel lucky just to have a job - and now they want wages, too? Ungrateful socialist scum.

After all, Lords and serfs got along just fine for hundreds of years until this whole ugly "compensation in exchange for work" notion got shoved into their heads by these pesky unions, right?

@DW

There are countries that either actively or passively suppress unions & collective bargaining. They're called dictatorships. You should move there, you'd be happier there, I'm sure.

In my day, democracy looked even bigger - but it's a good start.

This is very encouraging. We need larger and stronger unions in the public and private sector.

"...Democracy is coming, to the U*S*A...
Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on. "

Oooh, emma's bee, that's a lovely passage. The closer always kills me:

I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right, I'm just staying home tonight, getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags that time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Oh David... Just because you apparently have a crappy job with lousy benefits doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

btw, before I started working for the city, I had a private sector job that paid more than what I make now, and had much better benefits: WSA health insurance that was totally paid for by the company for Mr. Vel-DuRay and I, three weeks vacation per year, with a month's paid sabatical every three years. Free massage every Friday, a keg in the break room, and great stock options. And I spent most of my day looking at eBay and porn.

The company did absolutely nothing worthwhile. It got acquired by a much bigger company (which also does nothing worthwhile), and I got a golden parachute: a great severance package, a going away bonus, and a vintage jukebox as a parting gift.

Now that I actually have to work, I sometimes miss that job. But the day goes much faster when you actually have stuff to do, and what you are doing is important.

You're my man, gus @21.

@22: and you're my mannequin, Catalina. As a fellow public servant, I always enjoy your civil yet pithily crushing retorts to the likes of Mr. Wright.

(Still waiting for you to lighten the winter attire, though. *sigh*)

Emma @24: "you must have a crappy job with lousy benefits" = "civil yet pithily crushing retort"? I guess any retort looks good if its wielded against your ideological opponent.

So I actually have an interesting job with a 6-figure salary and gold-plated benefits. I suppose now instead of proving that I am driven by envy and self-pity, my job situation now proves that I am driven by mean-spirited greed. Whatever, I'm sure it proves I am wrong and a bad person.

NYT has more nuanced background, basically predicts that the public employee unions will loose this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17w….

@25: I don't know you, but based on your comments over the years I've read you on Slog, you appear to be a got-mine libertarian with little empathy for those who don't have all the advantages you have.

Your "interesting" job--does it do anything to improve the well-being of humanity or the world? I can tell you unequivocally that mine does. The market would have well recompensed me years ago to pimp for corporate America. The fact that I did not, while it has cost me tens of thousands of dollars in salary since getting my PhD, allows me to sleep with a clear conscience. The amazing thing to me is that I work with dozens of brilliant and ethical scientist-colleagues who have made the same choice.

So, no, I don't give much credence to your teabaggish diatribes against government employees. And I applaud those, like Catalina, Goldy and many others on Slog, who dispatch you with such aplomb.

Now David, there's no need to get defensive. I'm sure you have a very nice job, and are very popular in your workplace,

Yet you seem to think that people in government work have better benefits than those in the private sector. I know that's not always the case, having been on both sides of the fence, so I assumed that ypu didn't know any better.

But now you tell us that you have "gold-plated benefits". That certainly sounds impressive! What branch of government do you work for?

David, I don't think you're a bad person. I don't know you unless, of course, I do. I do think you're misguided and unfortunately it's just a terrible model of hating public servants qua hating public servants. Many public service workers are highly educated and many of that subset serve what could be considered a public good, although some functions are questionable. There's nothing wrong with those benefits you mention. I do agree we need to be able to fire government workers easier but I think the solution is not to copy the private sector as a model (which is basically at will termination)--because it has proven NOT successful at being a sustainable model.

"Accounting rules for the private sector requires than when you make a costly promise, you book its cost now, and shareholders would never stand for such unnecessarily large compensation costs."

There's a couple reasons why I find this assertion laughable:
a) For example, how does this type of idealization of the private sector jibe with the relaxation of mark-to-market accounting in 2009 and previous years, which allowed companies/banks to fudge their earnings and defer reporting losses?
b) Concomitantly, how does one justify extreme bonus compensation when the banking system losses became public domain in 2008-2010? Where are those employees creating value commensurate with their exorbitant bonuses?

@25:

You do know that, when calculating your salary, the digits to the right of the decimal point don't count?

Conservatives hate unions, we get that. If it weren't for those damned infernal unions constantly slapping away the Invisible Hand of The Free Market, commerce could flow unimpeded, executives, the aristocracy of Capitalism, could do whatever they damned well pleased, and shareholder value could be maximized to its fullest extent. Unions are evil precisely because they put a check on this unbridled ambition, go against the Universal American Virtue of "Individualism Uber Alles", and force employers to deal with workers as if they were real human beings, rather than disposable cogs that can be used and discarded when their usefulness is deemed no longer of any benefit to the bottom-line.

So David, I can certainly understand your antipathy. In another life, I'm sure you would have made an excellent liege-lord. Too bad you had the misfortune to be born in the wrong millennium, eh?

Catalina @ 28: Nice to have a discussion with you that rises above name-calling!

I have (sort of) worked in the public sector (as an academic). I do not believe that pay and benefits are better in the public than the private sector, across the board.

What I do believe is this: If the public employees were treated more like private employees, most of their jobs would be less secure and most would have worse pension benefits. Less skilled public employees would probably earn lower wages and have fewer benefits than they do now, but highly skilled public employees would probably earn higher wages and have similiar benefits. More public employees would have been laid off in the last couple years. All up, government would be paying its labor force less than it would under the present regieme.

I actually suspect you don't disagree with any of the assertions in that paragraph. (If you do, or have quibbles with them, let me know!) Certainly the public employees in WI agree with those assertions, which is precisely why they are protesting! You just think that the public sector should not handle workers in that way, and indeed that the private sector should become more like the public sector in that regard. (Again, please correct me if I am wrong about that.)

Now that we are (hopefully) agreed on what we agree and disagree about, I want to make only two points:

1. There is a tension between the progressive ideal that government is an efficient provider of services and the progressive ideal that government should set an example of wonderful conditions for workers. Either government works to squeeze the most services out of the lowest possible wage bill, or it treats employees better than it has to. You can try to squeeze out of this contradiction by believing that the private sector would become more efficient if it treated workers like the public sector does, but that's a really hard belief to maintain in the face of evidence. (You'd have to believe that no employer has noticed this, or that some have, but they place more value on sadism than on profits.)

2. Politically, the different regiemes for public and private workers are unsustainable. Even if public employees have "paid their dues" though lower wages (which is really only true for the more highly skilled public employees), voters will not tolerate them hardly ever being laid off when voters are getting laid off left and right, paying for their pensions when most voters have none, or being difficult to fire when most voters can be fired at will. The public worker regieme WILL get more similiar to the private worker regieme.

@29:

I'm a fan of mark-to-market and I certainly agree that corporations abuse book value accounting. But I don't see how this contradicts my point about government abouse of cash flow accounting. Corporate managers have one accounting loophole open to them and use it to hide asset value changes from their shareholders. Politicians have another accounting loophole open to them and use it to hide giveaways to political clients from voters. Both are bad things; one doesn't justify the other.

Whether the CEO market is competitive is a tricky question. Certainly some CEOs really do contribute billions to the bottom line (e.g. AAPL before and after Jobs). But most probably don't, and there is some good evidence of collusion (e.g. compensation comittee practices).
But again, as two wrongs don't make a right, executive over-compensation doesn't justify public employee over-compensation. I disinvest when a company in which I own shares over-compensates an executive, and I squak when a governemnt I pay for spends inefficiently on employees.

So David, you beliieve that government should have layoffs just for the sake of layoffs (or because everyone else is doing it) even though demand for government services tends to go up during hard times?

And you think that government should embrace the downward slide, and join everyone else in cutting wages and benefits?

And you believe that just because everyone else was suckered into 401k's by "financial service professionals" (who did such a marvelous job getting us into this mess in the first place) that government workers should give up their pensions and be as miserable and insecure as everyone else?

Forget about the government employees. Don't you see what that is setting the country up for? A nation of low-wage, high-unemployment workers, who will be a burden on society in old age. Especially if the stock market remains unregulated and bubble-prone. Sure, there'll be a handul of rich people, and the military-welfare program to protect them and their interests (at the expense of those low-income workers) but a pretty bleak place for most of us. Not Somalia, as the overwrought brand of liberal likes to say, but certainly not the country I grew up in.

But greed-based societies like that always collapse (Cuba, Russia, France etc, etc, etc) and those wealthy people often find their heads separated from their bodies, along with a lot of innocent bystanders. Is that what you want? Because that's where were heading. Hopefully not in my lifetime, and maybe not in yours, but eventually.

@33 interesting that it's "two wrongs" when I point out specific failings of the supposed free market, which you imply optimizes because of its inherent rationality. You were the one pointing out that shareholders would never stand for large compensation outlays--orders of magnitude larger than any government worker pension--while those welfare queens were subsidized by society. I can point to many other times where shareholders of these companies would be wiped out. BTW, outside of defense, where are the gaping, billion dollar inefficiencies? We should see them.