A.W.O.L. in Politics

Jason P

What kind of precedent do you think is being set by Wisconsin and Indiana legislators going A.W.O.L as a tool of leverage? Regardless of how you feel about the current topic at hand (unions), will this become an epidemic political tool that will go hand-in-hand with the filibuster? As it appears to be effective (at least in Indiana) Republicans and Democrats will both start using this in states in which they are the minority.

I think it is bad. Like it or hate it, each state has voters and those voters elect a group of individuals representing two parties. If one party has more representatives then the other, then that party represents the majority of the voting citizens in the State. I think measures like going A.W.O.L. will only lead to increased partisanship.

jdpancoast

While I do agree that the precedent is not the greatest, I think the Indiana situation is different. Mitch Daniels spoke against passing right to work laws around election time, and there wasn't much talk of individual candidates supporting the Bill either. In theory, we elect these people to run the state the way we want. If your party leader says he is against passing a right to work Bill, then almost instantly sets the ground work for one, I think the extreme actions could be justified.

Jason P

jdpancoast wrote:

While I do agree that the precedent is not the greatest, I think the Indiana situation is different. Mitch Daniels spoke against passing right to work laws around election time, and there wasn't much talk of individual candidates supporting the Bill either. In theory, we elect these people to run the state the way we want. If your party leader says he is against passing a right to work Bill, then almost instantly sets the ground work for one, I think the extreme actions could be justified.

True, but Daniels didn't introduce the legislation and after convening with Republicans, the right-to-work bill was removed. But there are ten other measures that the Democrats insist being removed before the materialize and they vow not to compromise or return until they get their way.

This tactic could be used in any situation and by either party. A minority can prevent majority rule simply by not showing up to do their elected job. To me, it doesn't seem to be an acceptable tactic.

gimmesometruth27

the labor voters in wisconsin and indiana voted for those people to stand up and defend their interests. so either unions will be weakened on their watch, or they will go awol to keep that from happening. i think going awol will backfire on them in sme ways, just as i think the republicans unwillingness to negotiate is going to backfire on them in a much larger way. walker is going to be a single term governor, he has at least 60,000 votes against him standing outside of the capital building right now...

81

pusssies

Jason P

The Indiana Democrats who are still hiding in Illinois are not getting much sympathy from most everyone I've spoken with. The Republicans have taken the collective bargaining issue off the table and they still refuse to return until they get everything they want. The Democrats are refusing state pay but all their expenses are being taken care of by "donors". They threaten to shut down the government this summer if necessary.

This is getting beyond ridiculous. Collective bargain is off the table, but there are several measures that would allow to redirect funds from public to private (charter) schools. The unions of course do not want this as it would reduce their income.

Five years ago the governor, Mitch Daniels, ended collective bargaining for state workers. The state deficit at the time was $1.5B. Indiana now has a surplus of over $700M, although that surplus will soon turn into a deficit once again because the state is paying more then it is taking in due to the recession. I do not think the Democrats are making a wise decision to hold up the state budget just because of union ties.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

The Indiana Democrats who are still hiding in Illinois are not getting much sympathy from most everyone I've spoken with. The Republicans have taken the collective bargaining issue off the table and they still refuse to return until they get everything they want. The Democrats are refusing state pay but all their expenses are being taken care of by "donors". They threaten to shut down the government this summer if necessary.

This is getting beyond ridiculous. Collective bargain is off the table, but there are several measures that would allow to redirect funds from public to private (charter) schools. The unions of course do not want this as it would reduce their income.

Five years ago the governor, Mitch Daniels, ended collective bargaining for state workers. The state deficit at the time was $1.5B. Indiana now has a surplus of over $700M, although that surplus will soon turn into a deficit once again because the state is paying more then it is taking in due to the recession. I do not think the Democrats are making a wise decision to hold up the state budget just because of union ties.

i don't think it is a wise move for the democrats to roll over and abandon their base. they are finally taking a stand and fighting for something. they have rolled over and died for too many years. i like the fight they are showing.

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

What kind of precedent do you think is being set by Wisconsin and Indiana legislators going A.W.O.L as a tool of leverage? Regardless of how you feel about the current topic at hand (unions), will this become an epidemic political tool that will go hand-in-hand with the filibuster? As it appears to be effective (at least in Indiana) Republicans and Democrats will both start using this in states in which they are the minority.

I think it is bad. Like it or hate it, each state has voters and those voters elect a group of individuals representing two parties. If one party has more representatives then the other, then that party represents the majority of the voting citizens in the State. I think measures like going A.W.O.L. will only lead to increased partisanship.

It really isn't any different than being the party of no that so many have accused the Republicans of...it is interesting though that instead of staying and filibustering and using other stalling techniques they just left...much easier on everyone really...although I think we will see some state house rule changes if this continues...but there will be just some other procedural rule to take advantage of so the minority can hold up the majority from going too far...I for one like it...although it is a waste of resources, I do love me some gridlock...
One persons minority fighter is another's annoying obstuctionist...all how you look at it really...it is important for all members who were elected to do a job do it to the best of their ability.

Electric_Delta

Jason P wrote:

What kind of precedent do you think is being set by Wisconsin and Indiana legislators going A.W.O.L as a tool of leverage? Regardless of how you feel about the current topic at hand (unions), will this become an epidemic political tool that will go hand-in-hand with the filibuster? As it appears to be effective (at least in Indiana) Republicans and Democrats will both start using this in states in which they are the minority.

I think it is bad. Like it or hate it, each state has voters and those voters elect a group of individuals representing two parties. If one party has more representatives then the other, then that party represents the majority of the voting citizens in the State. I think measures like going A.W.O.L. will only lead to increased partisanship.

Cowards. Absolute cowards. Their hiding is the antithesis of the democratic process. They are sore losers.

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

It really isn't any different than being the party of no that so many have accused the Republicans of...it is interesting though that instead of staying and filibustering and using other stalling techniques they just left...much easier on everyone really...although I think we will see some state house rule changes if this continues...but there will be just some other procedural rule to take advantage of so the minority can hold up the majority from going too far...I for one like it...although it is a waste of resources, I do love me some gridlock...
One persons minority fighter is another's annoying obstuctionist...all how you look at it really...it is important for all members who were elected to do a job do it to the best of their ability.

The problem I have with the "technique" is that the entire assembly basically shuts down. Nothing can be accomplished, debated, or discussed. They can't move on to the next issue until the missing members return. Gridlock would actually be an improvement on the current situation.

As you noted, all members are elected to do a job to the best of their ability. I don't know about you, but if I head off to Alaska for an undeclared amount of time and my worksite shuts down due to my unforeseen absence, I'm getting fired and replaced because I'm not doing my job.
(unless I'm in a union )

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

It really isn't any different than being the party of no that so many have accused the Republicans of...it is interesting though that instead of staying and filibustering and using other stalling techniques they just left...much easier on everyone really...although I think we will see some state house rule changes if this continues...but there will be just some other procedural rule to take advantage of so the minority can hold up the majority from going too far...I for one like it...although it is a waste of resources, I do love me some gridlock...
One persons minority fighter is another's annoying obstuctionist...all how you look at it really...it is important for all members who were elected to do a job do it to the best of their ability.

The problem I have with the "technique" is that the entire assembly basically shuts down. Nothing can be accomplished, debated, or discussed. They can't move on to the next issue until the missing members return. Gridlock would actually be an improvement on the current situation.

As you noted, all members are elected to do a job to the best of their ability. I don't know about you, but if I head off to Alaska for an undeclared amount of time and my worksite shuts down due to my unforeseen absence, I'm getting fired and replaced because I'm not doing my job.
(unless I'm in a union )

I think what you will find is procedural amendments around the country to make sure this "rule" is changed. It is rather ridiculous that a person can just not show up. Seems to me they should have an automatic absent vote cast, and that will probably be what things get changed too. But even then there will still be people who abuse the new rules...Like I said, they are doing what they think is right, it will be up to the voters in their districts to determine if they get fired or not.
Politics isn't about getting things accomplished... I am starting to realize it is more important for politicians to make sure that the other side doesn't get anything done.
But you are right in the private sector you would probably lose your job, unless your boss thought it was a great idea that you leave for a while and shut down the site...the bosses in their districts will get their say eventually.