I think the compromise is reasonable. The unions have already agreed to the financial cuts. They aren't going to negotiate to increase them next year, so 2013 is a reasonable timeframe. The only thing I would want to ensure is that the governor couldn't unilaterally cut more from them in the interim. There would have to be an agreement that these cuts are the only ones between now and 2013.
Why is it reasonable? If the unions have agreed to the financial cuts, what possible purpose does taking away their collective bargaining rights serve? None.
If there's nothing to bargain over in 2012, what purpose does having collective bargaining rights serve? None. At that point, it's just a fight for the sake of having a fight.
In your own post you already pretty much answered the question that is that the Gov. and Wisc. legislature unilaterally decide to redo worker's contracts in 2012. Their is a compromise already on the table. Public sector workers agree to wage and benefit cuts but retain their right to collective bargain. If this is truly about addressing the budget crisis then that is a deal that Walker should take.
Except that the Dems don't have a winning hand in this fight. They don't have a way out of this mess if the GOP chooses to wait them out. So if they can get a compromise where they lose nothing of practical importance, they'd be wise to take it - because there's a good chance the alternative is ending up with nothing. If the goal is simply to win a political fight, then sure, keep fighting. If the goal is to get the best result for Wisconsin public sector employees, then this is potentially a very smart "compromise" for them. As of now, it's not really relevant because the governor has rejected it. But if more moderate GOP Senators do show an openness to it, this might be the only viable solution for Dems. Governing is a series of gray areas. If you see it as simply black & white, you're probably going to be on the losing side of most fights. That's what the GOP did with Health Care and FinReg - they refused to participate, and as a result, they lost the ability to influence the bill on the margins to their liking.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/21/cairo-lends-support-to-the-protestors-in-wisconsin-via-pizza/ The pizza industry orchestrated the protests. Big Pizza has no shame.
Well the folks in Tunisia and Egypt didn't look like they had a winning hand. BTW neither did the Colonists in 1776 or the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's etc. Perhaps you've seen a movie or read a book in which folks kept fighting and won when it looked difficult? Perhaps seen a sports team do it?
That is certainly always a risk but the problem is that this compromise isn't one where they lose nothing of importance. With a year long break from collective bargaining it is still possible for the state government to redo contracts with the unions unable to negotiate back during that year. Even if they could negotiate the following year it puts them in a much weaker position as they are trying to undo what has been done over 2012. Its not a smart compromise for the reasons raised above. One possible compromise is if the freeze in collective bargaining also locks in the state government to no changes to the agreement while the unions can't collectively bargain but I don't think Walker would accept that as that would defeat the point of freezing collective bargaining. True governing is a series of gray areas but Walker has drawn a bright line here in regard to collective bargaining. He has made this the primary issue as once the unions were willing to accept cuts in pay and benefits the only issue left is collective bargaining.
I already stated that the agreement would have to include the condition that no more benefits are dropped beyond what has already been agreed to. The moderate GOPers in Wisconsin seem to be very much against pushing this issue, as has been indicated by their unwillingness to just go around the system and make it a non-budget issue and pass it now. Walker hasn't indicated he will accept anything at all besides the complete dissolution of the unions. The point is to get the moderate GOPers in the Senate to agree to it. If that's the case, Walker has no choice.
The destruction of government schools is coming. <script type='text/javascript' src='http://reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=1701'></script>
That's no compromise and that's not reasonable, that's capitulation... and there's no way the Governor would agree to your stipulation. If he was willing to do that, what would be the point of this fight and why the need for a "compromise?" Geez Major, I knew you were a Wall Street apologist, but I didn't realize you were totally oblivious to Labor issues... and remember, this has nothing to do with the budget... it is a purely political move to weaken unions in and therefore potentially weaken Dem candidates. There's no compromise here. There's no way any union should essentially negotiate away their right to be a union. Too much blood and too much work have gone into it... and while the workforce and workplace have changed since the industrial revolution and the 1930's, unions still have a place and will probably be much more needed in the near future if indeed this is anything close to what the future looks like.
Why would weakening unions weaken Dem candidates? I know why it will, but I would like to know your reasoning.
The compromise is nothing. And by the way, Lincoln dove out a window of the Illinois state house to prevent the opposing majority from having a quorum. Things didn't turn out too badly for Abe or the party he built.
Did you read any of my posts? The governor wouldn't have to agree - that's the entire freaking point. Tell me: if the two sides agreed to kill collective bargaining for 2012 in exchange for locking in the current financial agreement for that period and restoring it in 2013, what SPECIFICALLY do the Dems lose? What do you propose as a solution? What is your endgame - what do you propose the Dems do, and how do you think this works in their favor? The ones that are actually discussing reality instead of Egypt or sports teams or movies. The ones that are actually proposing solutions instead of just whining about the problem. The ones that are actually talking about how to come to a resolution. The Dems didn't leave the state in the hopes that the governor would randomly say "OK, nevermind." They left to buy time. The question is what you get out of the time you bought - you, glynch, and others have yet to specify how and why you think this will end in favor of Dems.
It's the other side of the reason for why the GOP is pushing this so hard even though it has no relation to the budget.
Yes, he did. He also failed completely to stop the legislation in question. Running away is not a political strategy - its a measure to buy time. The problem is you seem to think it's an end unto itself - that running away and just waiting will somehow solve the problem. It didn't for Lincoln, and it didn't for the Texas Dems. It won't here either.
