questions (Wisconsin)

[cellio]

I have two questions I'm hoping my readers can help me with.

First, what does the Wisconsin collective-bargaining bill say about timing? Does the legislation modify existing contracts in violation of the terms of those contracts, or is it saying that no further contracts will be allowed that stray outside of these new boundaries? The difference matters.

Second, what Google search would have allowed me to answer that on my own? Everything I tried led to lots of news stories and opinions, but even "full text of Wisconsin union bill" didn't get me that. (I'd rather not read the full text if I could find this answer more expediently and credibly, but I'd read it myself if I had to, if I could find it.)

Yes yes, I know that any good that this bill might have done has long since been superseded by the antics of the last three weeks. But I'd still like to know, and I haven't been able to find it on my own.

Comments

[nickjong.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I tried Googling "wisconsin bill existing contracts", and the second result was the following link, which claims that existing contracts remain unaffected: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/sen09/news/Press/2011/col2011-006.asp

[cellio]

Thank you!

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

The budget part of the bill, which was severed so they could pass the bill without a smaller number of legislators constituting a quorum, would modify the existing contracts by immediately modifying the pension and benefits contribution schedule. However, the unions had agreed to those modifications and only objected to the collective bargaining provisions, so that may be viewed as a matter of contract negotiation in the same way in which private sector unions have accepted "give backs." The analogy is not entirely accurate, however, because union members must vote to approve contracts whereas here, the legislature (when it votes on the budget piece) will simply impose these changes unilaterally regardless of whether the rank and file of the union membership would agree.

[sethg]

See also this bill in Michigan, which would allow the governor to unilaterally and without due process declare that a city or school district is in a state of “financial emergency” and then appoint a manager who could do everything from firing local elected officials to abrogating contracts to dissolving the town or district entirely.