Why Were Collective Bargaining Rights Stripped?

I must ask, since stripping collective bargaining rights from public employees doesn't save any money, why were these rights stripped?

Until Wednesday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the Republicans in the legislature insisted that collective bargaining rights needed to be stripped from public employees in order to save money and balance the budget. We've been saying all along that collective bargaining rights for public workers don't affect the budget, because legislators set the budget, not public workers.

The reason that the Wisconsin 14 were able to deny the vote by leaving the state is because bills which have a fiscal impact require three-fifths of the Wisconsin Senate to reach a quorum, the number of senators required to be present to conduct a vote. This number is one senator short of the total number of Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate. So, by leaving the state, the Wisconsin 14 used their last resort through constitutional means to prevent the vote on the budget repair bill. If the bill didn't have a fiscal impact, the Republicans could have voted on the bill themselves.

The Wisconsin 14 left the state, because they felt it was unnecessary and immoral to strip people's rights for nothing more than ideological and political reasons. The unions gave into the deep financial concessions in the bill within the first week of its introduction, adding further weight to the Democrats' argument. The only thing the Republicans needed to do to get the Democrats to come back and move forward was remove the unnecessary provisions that repeal collective bargaining rights for public workers from the bill. Then, the Wisconsin 14 had said they would vote on whatever resulted from the subsequent negotiations. So, it's obvious how the impasse could have been resolved, and in fact the Democrats proposed an alternative budget repair bill that saved more money than the Republicans' and retained everyone's rights. However, the Republicans refused to remove the repeal of their citizens' rights, citing the need to save money.

It was clear that the Republicans were dead-set on stripping rights from public workers. It was also clear that their argument for stripping these rights was based on the necessity to save money. If stripping public workers' rights to collectively bargain saves money, then it has a fiscal impact and requires a quorum of three-fifths of the Senate to vote on. The Republicans said it themselves. The Republicans were asked many times why they didn't separate out the truly non-fiscal collective bargaining provisions and vote on them without the Democrats, as they did Wednesday. Their response was always that they couldn't do it because it saves money and therefore has a fiscal impact.

Then, abruptly and after three weeks of stalemate, when it looked like the Republicans are about to acknowledge the majority of Wisconsinites, the Republicans held a meeting and declared that the collective bargaining provisions have no fiscal impact, removed the fiscal provisions from the budget repair bill, and then voted on the bill, all within a few minutes. This is the only way they could vote on the provisions without at least one of the Wisconsin 14 present. Well, they didn't need to do it so abruptly, but instead just by separating the non-fiscal collective bargaining policy provisions from the fiscal provisions. So the Republicans confirmed that stripping collective bargaining rights from public workers won't save money and admitted they were lying in just a few minutes. Now we know for certain, by legal means, that it's unnecessary to strip collective bargaining rights from public workers.

This question needs to be asked over and over until we get a straight answer. Unfortunately, I fear Wisconsin Republicans stripped away rights of most of its public workers for the benefit of the few very rich. Since collective bargaining rights for public employees don't affect the budget, why were their rights stripped?

Update: (April 21, 8:30am) Walker testified in front of the U.S. Congress on April 14th, and he was asked if stripping collective bargaining rights saved money. As reported by many including The CapTimes, Walker admitted, "It doesn't save any."

We already knew this, but it was nice for Walker to stop lying and admit it. However, we still don't know exactly why the Republicans voted for this bill. Since stripping collective bargaining rights from public employees "doesn't save any" money, why did the Republicans vote to strip those rights?

Update: (May 24, 2012) We now know that this was part of Walker's "Divide and Conquer" plan to eliminate all unions in Wisconsin, which he privately told to a Beloit billionaire heiress a month before releasing his so-called "budget repair bill."

Wisconsin Republicans Should Be In Contempt, Not Wisconsin 14

The Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate voted unanimously Thursday to approve a resolution finding the Wisconsin 14 in contempt of the Senate and ordering their arrest. However, this doesn't mean they're committing any criminal act, and the Wisconsin State Constitution explicitly prohibits their arrest except for in a few special cases that clearly haven't occurred. The Republicans can execute any lawful action to "compel" the WI 14 to return, but they cannot be arrested. By leaving the state, the Wisconsin 14 aren't doing anything illegal. If they were, they would've been extradited from Illinois. In fact, they're supporting democracy and doing exactly what the Founding Fathers encouraged.

This all has to do with something called a quorum. A quorum is the fewest number of members that must be present in the Wisconsin Senate in order to do various things. That number is different depending upon what the Senate is doing. To vote on fiscal matters, the number needed to reach a quorum is 20, three-fifths of the Senate under Section 8 of Article VIII of the Wisconsin Constitution. Even though the Republicans have a majority with 19 members, they can't vote on the budget repair bill themselves because they can't reach a quorum.

Quorums are written into the Wisconsin Constitution and the United States Constitution to protect us. The problem is that we have a democracy in the United States and the State of Wisconsin, but we don't directly vote on bills. We have a representative democracy. So representatives can get elected, and then vote differently than they campaigned. We don't want to elect a small majority of representatives who said one thing to get elected, but when elected pass laws they never talked about and most of us don't want. So how can that be prevented?

This issue was debated openly in the Federalist Papers and other writings, as well as most likely in writing the Wisconsin Constitution. The U.S. Senate has a few ways to delay or prevent a bill from passing, including the filibuster. The filibuster is a power unique to the U.S. Senate. We have quorums for the other legislative bodies in the United States and the State of Wisconsin to protect us.

By requiring a minimum number of senators to vote, a quorum can protect us from senators who wish to impose laws that are opposed by the majority of the public. The Wisconsin Constitution specifically states that three-fifths of the Senate must be present for a quorum on fiscal matters. This was done in part to protect us from a small majority of senators who aren't following the will of the majority of the people. Unless three-fifths of the Senate believes a fiscal bill is worthy of a vote, it should not take place. So senators can deny a quorum to protect the public and prevent such a bill from passing.

Denying a quorum is a tactic that should only be used as a last resort to stop widely unpopular laws created by a representative majority, and clearly this is such a time. Still, there can be penalties for denying a quorum, because we don't want them happening often. Otherwise, we may never get anything done.

The ultimate penalty comes from the voices and actions of the public. Legislators who deny a quorum for an unpopular vote will suffer little, if any, backlash from the public. In fact, as we've seen in Wisconsin, they can receive significant support. Yet, legislators who deny a quorum for a more popular vote will be persuaded by the public to return, as we've seen in other cases.

The Republicans in Wisconsin never mentioned their desire to eliminate collective bargaining rights during their campaigns. They received a majority representation in both the Assembly and the Senate, as well as the governorship for various other reasons, but not to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees. Had they campaigned to eliminate those rights, they probably wouldn't have a majority or the governorship. The Wisconsin 14 are rightfully preventing this small number of people from passing a law that the majority of Wisconsinites strongly oppose.

The Republicans are trying to eliminate rights that were fought long and hard for like many other rights we revere and enjoy. This political fight is clearly not about the money. If anyone is in contempt of our Senate, it's the Republicans for trying to force an unpopular vote by personally threatening these people. However, I'm not sure that falls under the legal definition of contempt either.

On a lighter note, the Republicans may remember that Abraham Lincoln jumped out of a window to deny a quorum in 1841. That's probably why the windows of the Capitol were recently bolted shut.

Update: (3/6/2011) The CapTimes has an article that includes a quote from a law firm confirming my assertion that the Republicans have no basis to arrest the Wisconsin 14. From a legal analysis conducted by the law firm of Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach, "None of the 14 absent senators has been charged with a crime. Nor has any crime occurred. The Wisconsin Senate has absolutely no authority to order any of its members arrested or taken into custody in order to compel their attendance."

I'd like to add that I believe the Republicans knew they didn't have the authority when they wrote the resolution calling for the arrest of the Wisconsin 14. Instead of actually using the arrest authority, they just wanted all of the headlines in the news media to say "arrest" and "Democrats." The tactic could help them change the tone and content of the conversation, swaying people's opinions against the Democrats. Even if they have the authority, it ends at the Wisconsin border. So it really was a toothless attack from the beginning. The bottom line remains that the Democrats are doing exactly what democracy requires in this situation.

Note: I'm not a lawyer, and these are my reasoned opinions that I believe to be correct based on my research of news and legal opinions/writings and my beliefs in democracy. If you believe I'm incorrect, please say so.