Collective Bargaining 1

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 2

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 3

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 Scott’s 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 4

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 Governor’s

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 budget-

less 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 5

“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 Smith’s (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 6

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 7

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 8

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 9

References

Bauer, S., Richmond, T., Smathers, J. & Ray, R. (2011). Wisconsin awaits final vote on anti-

union 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/wp-

dyn/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/plum-

line/2011/03/drive_to_recall_wisconsin_gop.html

Smith, V. J. (2007). Aristotle’s 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.