Wisconsin Sentences

Protesters in Madison on 26 Feb 2011

In this accentuated war of words and ideas on the collective bargaining rights in the state of Wisconsin, I thought you would appreciate two more bits of information.

Hendrik Hertzberg has written a thoughtful piece on what taking those rights away would mean for workers in Wisconsin, that state’s citizens and those of the nation. It is important to note that Hertzberg is left-leaning, worked for the Carter administration, was the son of a teacher and grandson of union garment workers. Nevertheless he raises some interesting points on the historical progression (or digression) of unions in the US. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/03/07/110307taco_talk_hertzberg

Along with the article, he hosted a chat that brought out even further interesting points. Here is the link and a copy-paste of what I fear is the most detrimental and irreversible portion of this legislation:

QUESTION FROM ELLENS: Most reports of the protests in Wisconsin report that the governor wants to end collective bargaining, but this seems not to be the whole story. As I understand it, collective bargaining would still be allowed for salaries but not for benefits. Am I wrong or is the media simply not finishing the sentence … and why?

HENDRIK HERTZBERG: I haven’t noticed the media not finishing the sentence. Sometimes, though, they don’t add the next sentence, which describes how any future raises could be no higher than the rate of inflation and would have to be approved by a public referendum. And the sentence after that, about how the unions have to win a recertification election every year. And the one after that, about how they’d have to get a majority of the whole work force, not just a major of the vote.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/ask/2011/02/hendrik-hertzberg-wisconsin.html#ixzz1Fk82DLZy

---