More details about wisconsin strikes please
March 10, 2011 1:16 PM Subscribe
Which unions in Wisconsin are affected by the new bill? I know it's state employees, but obviously not all of them.
It's been stated several times that the police and firefighters have been exempted. The teachers union will be affected, but which others? Who else was left out? I know there will be challenges, but who is lined up in the sights, so to speak? Which groups might participate in a general strike?
It's been stated several times that the police and firefighters have been exempted. The teachers union will be affected, but which others? Who else was left out? I know there will be challenges, but who is lined up in the sights, so to speak? Which groups might participate in a general strike?
AFSCME and relevant SIEU locals for one thing. I believe the Wisconsin branch of the NEA is the WEAC, and the AFT has presence there as well.
AFSCME was actually founded in Wisconsin, so there's some decent irony going on there.
posted by valkyryn at 1:52 PM on March 10, 2011
AFSCME was actually founded in Wisconsin, so there's some decent irony going on there.
posted by valkyryn at 1:52 PM on March 10, 2011
Most all public employees are in unions.
Thousands of academic staff and faculty members ("unclassified") at UW System schools are not unionized -- typically, professors, lecturers, etc. Before 2009, it was illegal to for these folks to unionize at all. UW-Eau Claire and UW-Superior have elected to have their unclassified staff/faculty unionize, and UW-Stout voted to unionize yesterday (but the bill would nullify that action).
These groups have organized in some ways, such as the Faculty Senate or Council for Nonrepresented Classified Staff, but that basically gives them the ability to have a spokesperson. (Yes, Faculty Senate does stuff, but not in the true union sense.)
The employees who are represented by various unions here on campus are typically referred to as "classified" (aka civil service) but there's a subset of classified employees, like my boss (who was told that her job was being taken away after 33 years but is still hanging on because other people quit), who are not represented.
Last year, we had 2,022 faculty, 458 limited staff (administrators who serve at will), 1,602 instructional academic staff, and 4,470 other academic staff (total: 8552) and 5141 classified staff (totals listed as full-time equivalency positions, or FTEs). So basically 60% of these employees are not unionized, yet they're the ones who usually take the blame for universities being "the way they are" (overpaid, elitist, blah blah blah).
posted by Madamina at 2:08 PM on March 10, 2011
Thousands of academic staff and faculty members ("unclassified") at UW System schools are not unionized -- typically, professors, lecturers, etc. Before 2009, it was illegal to for these folks to unionize at all. UW-Eau Claire and UW-Superior have elected to have their unclassified staff/faculty unionize, and UW-Stout voted to unionize yesterday (but the bill would nullify that action).
These groups have organized in some ways, such as the Faculty Senate or Council for Nonrepresented Classified Staff, but that basically gives them the ability to have a spokesperson. (Yes, Faculty Senate does stuff, but not in the true union sense.)
The employees who are represented by various unions here on campus are typically referred to as "classified" (aka civil service) but there's a subset of classified employees, like my boss (who was told that her job was being taken away after 33 years but is still hanging on because other people quit), who are not represented.
Last year, we had 2,022 faculty, 458 limited staff (administrators who serve at will), 1,602 instructional academic staff, and 4,470 other academic staff (total: 8552) and 5141 classified staff (totals listed as full-time equivalency positions, or FTEs). So basically 60% of these employees are not unionized, yet they're the ones who usually take the blame for universities being "the way they are" (overpaid, elitist, blah blah blah).
posted by Madamina at 2:08 PM on March 10, 2011
Pretty much all of the public unions except fire and police.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:25 PM on March 10, 2011
posted by Thorzdad at 2:25 PM on March 10, 2011
Although not all public employees are not unionized, every public employee will be affected by this bill, including public safety employees. Collective bargaining is only one aspect of the damage to public employees that this bill will do. There are changes to WRS, health insurance contributions, reduced local funding, etc that will affect everyone. In most cases in the past, non-represented public employees were given equal benefit packages to union contract packages. Union contracts had set the standard benefits enjoyed by non-union workers. This will no longer be the case.
posted by JJ86 at 7:51 AM on March 11, 2011
posted by JJ86 at 7:51 AM on March 11, 2011
To answer your question more directly, all city, county, and state employees will be affected. Federal union employees and private union employees will not be affected.
posted by JJ86 at 7:54 AM on March 11, 2011
posted by JJ86 at 7:54 AM on March 11, 2011
Response by poster: Thanks for the information. That is a huge number of people to be affected. How dumb can a politician be?
posted by annsunny at 11:10 AM on March 11, 2011
posted by annsunny at 11:10 AM on March 11, 2011
Really, really, really dumb.
posted by Madamina at 11:59 AM on March 11, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Madamina at 11:59 AM on March 11, 2011 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by fshgrl at 1:24 PM on March 10, 2011