Collective Bargaining

Collective Bargaining: The Controversy in Wisconsin Daniel Shull California State University East Bay

Author Note Daniel Shull, Communication Major, California State University East Bay, as part of the Communications 3204 course Reason in Controversy, taught by Dr. Terry West. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Daniel Shull, Communication Major, Meiklejohn Hall, California State University East Bay, Hayward, CA 94542. E-mail: dshull@horizon.csueastbay.edu

Collective Bargaining Collective Bargaining: The Controversy in Wisconsin

I find myself editing this paper at the last minute due to the end of one phase of the events in Wisconsin, which I will address shortly. Zarefsky (2008) asserts that political argumentation lacks time limits, in that even controversies which appear to be resolved (much as this one) they are still up for further examination and argumentation. This may well prove true in the future; however, at this time, the major issue appears to have been resolved (though the Assembly has yet to vote and the Governor to pass the legislation, as of this edit). Whatever the eventual outcome of this controversy, I must still introduce it for the purposes of this paper. In the most basic form, the controversy in Wisconsin arises over a bill introduced by Republican Governor Scott Walker that would deal with a budget deficit in part by making state employees pay more for health care and pensions, and removing their collective bargaining rights. Though initially limited to Wisconsin this story and mirroring controversies have spread to other states. At this time, the Wisconsin legislature has most likely resolved this controversy not through argumentation or persuasion, but through a procedural move that circumvented efforts to stop the passage of the bill. This took place late in the day on Wednesday, March 9th, 2011. The controversy remains; an estimated 200 protestors stayed in the capital overnight (Bauer, 2011) after about 7,000 showed up on Wednesday (MSNBC, 2011). It is very likely that more protestors will show up on Thursday, considering that this controversy has drawn so much attention in the past. The Issue of Collective Bargaining Governor Scott Walker introduced a budget bill on February 11, 2011 (a Friday), which included provisions for curbing the majority of collective bargaining rights for state employees

Collective Bargaining

and increasing their contributions for health care and pensions (with police, firefighters and state troopers exempt) (PressTV, 2011). The controversy hit almost immediately, with union leaders and Democrats arguing against those provisions. At some point over the next week I have not been able to locate a fully accurate date the 14 Democratic state senators left Wisconsin in order to prevent a vote on the budget from taking place, since any attempt to take up a measure that spends money requires a quorum of 20 senators (SFGate, 2011). Republican state senators overall sided with the Governor on the need to pass this budget bill. Also during the first week after the introduction of the bill, protestors began to show up around the capital, at some points reaching a peak of 70,000 protestors (PressTV, 2011). The primary argument being used in this situation on the pro side of the controversy comes from the governor and the Republican state senators. They have stated that the changes are necessary to resolve a projected budget shortfall of more than $3.7 billion over this year and the next (PressTV, 2011). A related argument was that local governments and school districts would be better able to balance their budgets, though no data was introduced to support this (Walker, 2011). I must also note that as of Thursday, March 11th, the Wisconsin Senate voted to pass Governor Scotts bill by first having removed all budgetary issues from the language of the bill. This would appear to contradict the argument that the bill was financial in nature as well as the argument about local governments and school districts. The arguments on the con side of the issue come from Democrats and union leaders. The primary argument is that the bill represented a means of union busting (Sargent, 2011). Another argument that has been presented is that state employees are willing to compromise on parts of the bill, specifically the increases to health care and pensions. This would seem to

Collective Bargaining

resolve some of the issues as presented by the Governor in his bill, although the Governor rejected the compromise (Walker, 2011). The effects have been highly visible. Protests against the bill have been occurring since very shortly after its introduction; filmmaker Michael Moore has been present at least at one rally (PressTV, 2011) and President Barack Obama has also spoken out against the Governors efforts (PressTV, 2011). This has also sparked protests in other places, such as Ohio, as well as increasing public debate about the role of unions in the government. A poll conducted in early March shows that the public is not as divided by this issue as the government, with respondents more concerned about unemployment than deficits in the government (Saleh, I., 2011). Even the news media has a broad range of coverage, though this seems to fall very much within party lines. The potential effects are broader in scope. Now that the Senate has passed the budgetless bill, it is very likely that the state employees will lose their collective bargaining power (barring legal action, which does not seem to have been mentioned as of yet). However, there is a recall effort going on against several of the state Republican senators (Sargent, 2011) which may well remove them from office and likely force expensive special elections that the state will have to fund. The Governor is immune to an immediate recall; Wisconsin law states that an official must be in office for one year before a recall can be initiated (Government Accountability Board, Recall Election Information, n.d.). This will also likely energize public employee unions around the country, though the effects there are less clear. Analysis of the Controversy The issue surrounding collective bargaining has moved toward resolution (as noted previously) in favor of eliminating those rights. And at this time, it would appear that the

Collective Bargaining

losers in this situation will likely be the state employees themselves, followed closely by the unions and Democrats inside Wisconsin as far as immediate effect. The winners in this instance are the Governor and the Republican state senators, in that they have managed to achieve a stated objective despite protests to the contrary. I will observe, however, that the losers and winners in the immediate situation may well reverse those positions in the future. At this time, several of the GOP senators are targeted for recall (Sargent, 2011), and while Governor Walker is immune, his approval ratings are likely to be low enough to cause a lingering effect. As far as why this is taking place, and how the controversy is being managed, the primary problem is that each side has a very narrow view of what is right and wrong regarding the issue. In a similar fashion to many political arguments in the past few years, neither side appears willing to listen to counter-proposals or efforts at compromise, or offers compromises that are extremely limited. As I noted above, Governor Walker refused an offer of compromise from unions in regards to budget specific items. Both sides of the issue have offered evidence the budget shortfall on the pro side, the anti-union character of the bill on the con side but in the sense of the Toulmin model, these are more claims than warrants or actual data. Much as in Smiths (2007) piece on the enthymeme, the arguments rest on probable premises and conclusions. So the Republicans of Wisconsin support the premise that eliminating collective bargaining for most state employees will reduce the budget, while the unions and Democrats support the premise that removal of collective bargaining is meant to severely reduce the power of the unions. These arguments are effective for and to the side they are made by, and likely less so on the opposing side. One Republican senator voted against the stripped down bill on Wednesday, but did not state whether

Collective Bargaining

he was swayed by arguments on the con side of the issue. In the same vein, reasoning does not appear effective toward resolving the issue save as a I win, you lose form of success. Perelman (1984) points out that for a democratic regime to function (Perelman, 1984, p. 131), common values must be more important than values that separate a community. In this instance I would argue that neither side appears willing to adhere to common values; indeed, the values are so divergent that both sides have reached a point where there is neither a majority nor a minority, rather two antagonistic groups which clash, where the strongest group dominates the weakest and where nothing counts except the power struggle (Perelman, 1984, p. 132). It seems clear from the problems involved that neither side is using what could be considered effective evidence or reasoning. Otherwise the conflict might have been resolved in a manner different from how it has actually played out. Suggestions for Resolution At this point in time, this section becomes primarily theoretical. Unless the Assembly manages to not pass the bill (unlikely despite the presence of protestors), it will likely become law and therefore resolve the controversy in favor of the Governor. To this point, both sides have taken a dialectical approach, despite the lack of what Fisher would refer to as the logic of good reasons (Fisher, 1980, p. 121). That is, both sides present arguments in favor of why they are right, but do not appear to fit within the boundaries of rational rhetoric. At the very least, the arguments presented are not nonmanipulative or deliberative, and also appear to lack attention to data aside from a surface mention. Neither side demonstrated a major effort to resolve the issue at hand. The 14 Democratic state senators who removed themselves from Wisconsin and went to Illinois (Bauer, 2011) had put the issue on hold through avoidance (though they may have felt this was a stronger

Collective Bargaining

negotiating position). Conflict avoidance is a tactic that can be used in certain situations; now that the resolution of this issue has been taken out of the hands of those senators, I do not believe that it was all that effective of a tactic (despite holding up the vote for at least three weeks). And even though Governor Walker stated that the issue was budget related, he refused to accept compromises based purely on budgetary issues, signaling that he would not have been an appropriate negotiator. On the opposing side, that appears to have been the only form of compromise seriously offered. My recommendation in this instance would have been to involve outside, neutral negotiators in order to build some form of consensus. The people involved in the issue were too close to the situation and had invested a great deal of effort and emotion into maintaining their side of the controversy; neutral negotiators might have been able to work from a more reasonable, rational standpoint and come to a more balanced conclusion than was actually achieved. As this is the traditional form that collective bargaining takes, my recommendation happens to be a rather ironic one. Conclusion This controversy has reached a point of resolution that is only satisfactory to one side the Governor has achieved his stated resolution without conceding any ground to his opponents. The effects of this particular controversy are likely to extend well into the future, giving both sides advantages in potentially upcoming conflicts / arguments; Republicans will be more likely to try to pass similar laws in other states, while Democrats and unions will brace themselves for those attempts.

Collective Bargaining

Ultimately for me, however, this controversy has an unsatisfactory conclusion. One side achieved its goals without use of reason or rhetoric, instead choosing a procedural method that altered the terms of the conflict and gave them an easy win.

Collective Bargaining References

Bauer, S., Richmond, T., Smathers, J. & Ray, R. (2011). Wisconsin awaits final vote on antiunion measure, standoff broken with parliamentary manoeuvr [sic]. Retrieved from The Canadian Press through Google News, http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gwdTt6Rc4qGeIW32 MNGwM_CwsPzQ?docId=6195041 Bauer, S. (2011). Wis. GOP set to strip collective bargaining rights. Retrieved from SFGate, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/03/07/national/a071327S58.DTL Fisher, W. R. (1980). Rationality and the Logic of Good Reasons. Philosophy & Rhetoric, Spring 1980, Vol. 13 Issue 2, 121-130. Government Accountability Board - Recall Election Information. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/recall MSNBC. (2011). GOP rams anti-union bill through Wis. Senate. Retrieved from MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41996994/ns/politics-more_politics/ Perelman, C. (1984). Rhetoric and Politics. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 17(3), 129-134. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. PressTV. (2011). Quick Facts: WI protests a timeline. Retrieved from PressTV, http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/168712.html Saleh, I. (compiled). (2011). Wisconsin protests: Gov. Scott Walker, Senate Democrats continue standoff in the shadow of new poll. Retrieved from The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030903489.html

Collective Bargaining

10

Sargent, G. (2011). Drive to recall Wisconsin GOP senators gaining steam, Dems say. Retrieved from The Washington Post, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plumline/2011/03/drive_to_recall_wisconsin_gop.html Smith, V. J. (2007). Aristotles Classical Enthymeme and the Visual Argumentation of the Twenty-First Century. Argumentation & Advocacy, Winter/Spring 2007, Vol. 43 Issue 3/4, 114-123. Walker, D. (2011). Walker rejects union offer on bargaining rights. Retrieved from JSOnline, http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116502958.html Zarefsky, D. (2008) Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation. Argumentation, Aug 2008, Vol. 23 Issue 3, 317-330.