Really? Heres a 7:23 minute video from the Ed Show - including a live report from Madison

Ed Schultz has apparently adopted this cause. - Another extensive analysis and report tonight. nm

His entire show will be live from Madison this pm. - nm

Thanks for posting this--MSNBC not offered on my cable - nm

Ed Schultz really, LOL - GiveMeABreak

Collective Bargaining - Backwards Typist

Tell me, what is wrong with eliminating collective bargaining rights?  It's limited by state and federal laws. 

A collective bargaining agreement is the ultimate goal of the collective bargaining process. Typically, the agreement establishes wages, hours, promotions, benefits, and other employment terms as well as procedures for handling disputes arising under it. Because the collective bargaining agreement cannot address every workplace issue that might arise in the future, unwritten customs and past practices, external law, and informal agreements are as important to the collective bargaining agreement as the written instrument itself.

Collective bargaining allows workers and employers to reach voluntary agreement on a wide range of topics. Even so, it is limited to some extent by federal and state laws. A collective bargaining agreement cannot accomplish by contract what the law prohibits. For example, a union and an employer cannot use collective bargaining to deprive employees of rights they would otherwise enjoy under laws such as the Civil Rightsstatutes (Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S. Ct. 1011, 39 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1974]). Collective bargaining also cannot be used to waive rights or obligations that laws impose on either party. For example, an employer may not use collective bargaining to reduce the level of safety standards it must follow under the occupational safety and health act (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 651 et seq.). Furthermore, the collective bargaining agreement is not purely voluntary. One party's failure to reach agreement entitles the other to resort to certain legal tactics, such as strikes and lockouts, to apply economic pressure and force agreement. Moreover, unlike commercial contracts governed by state law, the collective bargaining agreement is governed almost exclusively by federal Labor Law, which determines the issues that require collective bargaining, the timing and method of bargaining, and the consequences of a failure to bargain properly or to adhere to a collective bargaining agreement.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Labor+Law

From MSNBC's report: 

“In addition to eliminating collective bargaining rights, the legislation would also make public workers pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage — increases that Walker calls "modest" compared with those in the private sector.

 Under Walker's plan, state employees' share of pension and health care costs would go up by an average of 8 percent. The changes would save the state $30 million by June 30 and $300 million over the next two years to address a $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

Unions could still represent workers, but could not seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum. Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.”

I doubt that the unions are really picketing about the elimination of collective bargaining. I think they told their members this would ruin the union and they would no longer be able to fight for higher wages, worker termination, workplace safety, and other rights. Yet, these items are all covered by law and with the NLRB. That's what the NLRB was set up to do. 

 What is wrong with wanting union members to pay half the cost of pensions, pay a share of health care costs and not seek pay increases above the CPI? Those not in unions pay those costs unless they work for a fantastic company. One person complained it would cost her $5000 a year and it wasn't acceptable. Why not and so what?  Some people pay out more than that and don't have the backing of a union. At a teacher's salary, that's a drop in the bucket for them. 

Most states are in dire straits, mostly because of pension plans and if they can save money somehow by reducing or elminating these items from their budget, it will give the state more to whittle away at the budget deficit, plus will save us taxpayers some money. Why should taxpayers pay for the union worker's pension?

 I see nothing wrong with what WI wants to do. Would someone else like to point out why they think it is wrong? 

Ohio is working on a bill that does about the same. - Zville MT

I disagree completely. Time for redistribution of wealth - from top to middle.

AMEN. "Trickle-down" is a myth. We've got to go poke - a hole in their waterbed of wealth - sm

The only problem with this is... - Zville MT

I totally agree with you. - sm

Before addressing your lead question - sm

I stand by what I put in my post. - Backwards Typist

as a wisconsin resident... - sm

$60,000? Only with a masters +30 credits and 38 years experience - sm

Wisconsin Teacher Salaries - see link

old stats - sm

Not according to these - calculations

Michelle Malkin? Really? - GMAB. nm

Facts are funny things, aren't they?Michelle rocks/nm - not a teacher

salary - not a teacher