WI Capitol Blocks Pro-Union Web Site

ISoldat53 writes "State government workers are unable to connect to a pro-union web site, defendwisconsin.org, from the wifi at the state capitol." Someone probably should let Hillary Clinton know.

Comments

If you are at work

[ColdWetDog]

You're supposed to be working. Not doing political stuff. While it's a dick move, I rather doubt it's a first amendment violation or the end of the world (as is suggested by TFA).

Re:If you are at work

[Trepidity]

Governments have somewhat more constraints on treating political viewpoints equally than private employers would, though. So the network admins can probably block all political sites, but if they go out of their way to only block sites of the opposing political party, that might not be permitted. They also can't discipline employees in a viewpoint-discriminatory way, e.g. firing employees who surf to wisdems.org but not wisgop.org, or vice versa.

Re:If you are at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Selectively censoring a wifi connection paid for by the public and for the use of the public in the Capitol building for the purpose of preventing the public from being able to organize and petition the government isn't a first amendment violation? WTF?

Re:If you are at work

[mathmathrevolution]

He's censored the website because he finds it a political hazard; that's obviously a free speech issue. His behavior is evidently not about worker productivity since: 1) If the State Capitol wanted to increase worker productivity, they would block ESPN, not a pro-labor site. 2) It's perfectly acceptable to surf the web during one's OSHA mandated break. The only reason to block the site is a crude attempt to impede the pro-labor movement.

Re:If you are at work

[Arccot]

If it's your union, then it is part of your work.

did you mean that if it's your union its your collective bargaining group built to screw employers out of more money than the employees are worth and healthcare purchase group? Cuz then I'd agree with you, BUT I don't see how any of that has anything to do with the mechanics of performing your job.

As opposed to the employers, who want to screw employees and pay them less than they're worth?

Re:If you are at work

[cptdondo]

Before you spout, do your homework. While government jobs are good for people in relatively low-skilled jobs, most government workers are paid less than equivalent civil sector workers. The divergence grows as you get more experience and seniority. Show me one job in the civil sector where you run a department or bureau with 500 employees and make less than $150K.

I'm not especially pro-union, but without unions government workers would be subject to the whim of every politician out there.

Lastly, union activity is typically specifically allowed on government networks provided it is outside of work hours. So it's legal on lunch breaks, before and after work, etc. Union organizers are allowed to use government networks to disseminate information essential to the union members.

Governments also have strict limits on curtailing speech.

So it's a dick move, that violates employer-employee trust, and most likely the first amendment and union agreements.

Re:If you are at work

[john82]

All web sites are blocked by the WI state government firewall the first time they are encountered until they've been cleared as non-offensive (i.e. pr0n). The block was temporary. It was not political. It was not First Amendment relevant. It was a rule in a firewall.

This is slashdot, not Digg, let's try to rational for a change.

Re:If you are at work

[TheoMurpse]

doubt it's a first amendment violation

If it's the only site they're blocking (or one of a small handful of sites they're blocking), then it is most definitely a First Amendment ("FA") violation. The federal or a state government can only block sites in certain ways.

First off, a pro-union website would be classified as "core political speech," which receives the highest FA protection. In order for this blocking to be upheld, the blocking would have to overcome strict scrutiny analysis. Strict scrutiny analysis is an extremely stringent analysis, and in order to survive such analysis, the policymaker would have to show (1) a compelling government interest; (2) the law is narrowly tailored to that specific interest; and (3) the policy is the least restrictive means for accomplishing that interest.

Given the Wisconsin governor's comments in the past about unions (he's trying to permanently remove collective bargaining rights from the teachers union, e.g.), I suspect there is no compelling government interest aside from a desire to shut unions up. Beyond that, almost no law/policy overcomes strict scrutiny in real life, so it's almost a given that this would be struck down.

Now I suppose this could be a TMP (time, manner, place) restriction, which would only need to withstand intermediate scrutiny. Such scrutiny requires the policymaker to show the policy is (1) content neutral; (2) narrowly tailored; (3) serves a significant governmental interest; and (4) leaves open ample alternative communication channels. This policy would assuredly fail based on its content non-neutrality.

Re:If you are at work

[Posting=!Working]

Read the article - the site was up for a while before being blocked. If your firewall has a whitelist that allows anything to be there for days before blocking it and asking if it should be allowed, you need a new firewall.

Re:If you are at work

[Anonymous Coward]

The wifi connection is labeled "guest". It isn't for state workers. It is for the general public. This is a clear cut first amendment violation.

Re:If you are at work

[DRJlaw]

You're supposed to be working. Not doing political stuff. While it's a dick move, I rather doubt it's a first amendment violation or the end of the world (as is suggested by TFA).

"If you are in the Capitol attempting to access the internet from a free wifi connection labeled "guest," you cannot access the site defendwisconsin.org.Huffinton Post

What if you're not at work, but rather exercising your right to petition your government on your own time? Although the whitelisting issue has discussed in other comments, your assumption that this situation only involed people "at work" so that the blocking of "political stuff" was perfectly OK is deeply flawed. Guest internet access may not be a right, but censoring political content on a government sponsored guest network would still be a first amendment violation.

Re:If you are at work

[cptdondo]

"most government workers are paid less than equivalent civil sector workers"

Bull. Shit.

Do your own homework. Why let facts get in the way of your lie?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

Page 1. Look at the plots on page 1. Total comp from State & local is $10/hr more than private or Civilian.

If you actually read that report (ie went beyond the pictures):

Compensation cost levels in state and local government should not be directly compared with levels in
private industry. Differences between these sectors stem from factors such as variation in work
activities and occupational structures. Manufacturing and sales, for example, make up a large part of
private industry work activities but are rare in state and local government. Management, professional,
and administrative support occupations (including teachers) account for two-thirds of the state and local
government workforce, compared with two-fifths of private industry.

Second, according to a recent study at the University of Wisconsin/Milwaukee, education level is higher among government workers than peer private sector, so your comment of "government jobs are good for people in relatively low-skilled jobs" makes me think you're either making everything up or worse, people in government are reaching for jobs not to their ability yet wanting to be paid like they are working to their ability.

Actually it's the opposite. A lot of government workers have education and experience beyond the level required for the job, and while using it aren't getting compensated for it. We get people with masters degrees applying for technician jobs that require an associates or 2 years experience.

Anyway, government jobs are cushy in a recession, and crap in boom times. If government jobs are so well paid and so great, go ahead and apply for one. In a year or so, there will be plenty of openings that no one will want because private sector will pay more.

Re:If you are at work

[corbettw]

It's not the union's website, it's a site favoring a political stance by the union. That's not part of anyone's job.

Re:If you are at work

[commodore6502]

So let's see if I understand:

You think the government HAS to provide access to the entire web through its "guest" service, even playboy.com or goatsecx, just because of the first amendment? Really??? - Is government also required to hand-out copies of free newspapers or provide printing presses to everyone who visits? No.

If you read the actual law it says government (specifically the US Congress) shall not prohibit speech, or press, or religion. It says NOTHING about them giving you access to these things - you are responsible to get your Own speech, your own press/internet, and your own religion. By yourself.

Re:If you are at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you understand what you are arguing?

You are saying that the government has a right to censor a service paid for by taxes.

This same logic would allow Democrat controlled states to censor Republican websites on taxpayer funded wifi services. It would also allow the government to censor books in libraries and schools since "You can get access to the 'speech' and the government doesn't care, but they aren't going to provide it too you."

Re:If you are at work

[overlordofmu]

By employers, do you mean rich executives with multi-million dollar homes, vacation homes, more cars that I have digits and really big boats?

You are right! Those good old boys work damn hard for their exteme wealth. How dare we, the relatively weak, the relatively poor, organize to make sure the wealthy do not divide us and exploit us.

I mean it isn't like there is a history of employers abusing workers in the USA.

No one dies from workplace poisoning : http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Chips-Cause-Leukemia.htm
Consumers in the USA wouldn't buy a product from a company that assfucks the people that make their gadget: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/22/chinese-workers-apple-nhexane-poisoning
Big business in the USA is good to its employees: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/06/11/100060613/index.htm

Good god-damn, do not get me started about 19th and 20th century abuses world wide. The industrial revolution has been a violent battle ground for the poor trying to make a living in a world owned by a minority. The minorty holds the vast bulk of the wealth while the majority pays rent to them just to have a place to sleep without being arrested for loitering.

Remind me again why you are kissing the ass of the rich?

I remember. You think you will get a big pile of money by cheerleading capitalism. Here is a interesting idea; let me know what you think:
Insteading designing economic systems built on the idea of unending growth (despite the limited nature of Earth) where the money forms pools around corporations and big pools have leverage to control smaller pools, what if instead we designed economic systems that ecourage money to flow and spread to areas where it best supported society as a whole and not indivials. What if the natural tendency of money was to diffuse and not to coalesce? But you believe this is impossible don't you? You have been taught to attack this concept as naive, haven't you?


But, if I have you pegged right, you are the kind of guy that really wants a shiny car and a big house you can only use 1/4 of even when your whole family is home. Right and wrong don't matter because your are from the USA and everyone there knows unchecked capitalism is good for everyone. And you cannot get that sort of extreme wealth without someboy else doing shit work (assembling your iPhone) being paid next to nothing so your company (like Apple) can see the profit. See how that works? They work hard, and die for you. Fuck yes! That rocks for you. You pay them shit and all the profit is yours. You don't get rich paying workers a living wage, now do you? Fuck the little guy! You need a BIG car, and a BIG house. And as the poor guy in on the other side of the planet you don't even need to see the poverty that helps to fill your wallet because he is in China. WIN-WIN!

Now tell me: Do you own an iPhone?

Re:If you are at work

[Hutz]

It's a site set-up to support protesters. It is illegal to use government resources for organizing - so no it is not part of your work.

But on a realism note, unrated sites are blocked by content filters - then you program them to allow the traffic when someone asks or the site gets rated.

AND -- the first amendment does not include a right to Free wi-fi. They didn't censor the site - they just didn't give free access to it.

Re:If you are at work

[MozeeToby]

In this particular case the union has agreed to an effective pay cut of 9%, they've also (unofficially) agreed to suspend collective bargaining for 2 years to give local governments a chance to get their budgets straightened out. In return for those concessions, governor Walker has given back... nothing. Not one thing. He trumpets the same old lines over and over again regardless of how much the pro-union groups give in and has shown no willingness to compromise. Saturday there were 70,000 people at the capitol in Madison, that's 1.2% of the population of the entire state. People are pissed, and the republicans are committing political suicide if they don't start to move towards an agreement that actually makes sense, rather than an agreement which neuters the unions, which so far seems to be the only real goal to this piece of legislation.

Re:If you are at work

[tsm_sf]

The government is merely Filtering its OWN personal service

Not entirely clear on the concept of our government, are you?

Re:If you are at work

[Malc]

Interesting topical article over at The Economist that's basically saying the public sector workers earn less when they have a degree (e.g. District Attorney vs. corp. lawyer). Workers without degrees earn more (e.g. janitor at the District Attorney's office earns more than a janitor at a private law firm, unless the city has outsourced the work).

They've also been running articles for a while now explaining that people with public pensions are screwed. The States have been allowed to get away with bad accounting or rather far too lenient forecasting and so there's a huge pension liability So maybe public worker's lower wages won't be compensated for by better pensions.

Re:If you are at work

[228e2]

I dont care to cite websites, as people have told you to look at the very own you mentioned, but i'll add this.

As an employee of a TLA in the DC area, I can assure you that I make about 20k less than if I worked for a contractor. My roommate who works for SAIC, who is 2 years younger, with 3 years less experience and no masters confirms this with his paycheck. His benefits suck compared to mine, and I get a lot more leave and flexibility, but there is a reason I am renting a room in a 25 year old's condo. They make the money, govies dont.

Re:If you are at work

[SETIGuy]

Government employees are paid mostly through taxes.

This is why they traditionally are paid lower than the private sector.

Say WHAT!?!? Paid *lower*!?!?

You'd better check your facts. On average, government workers...particularly those in public sector unions...are paid far, far better and get far, far better benefits than those doing equivalent work in the private sector.

His facts are right. Your facts are not facts. For equivalent education and experience, and including benefits, public sector workers receive significantly less compensation (5 percent at the low end of the salary scale to 20 percent or more at the high end) than their private sector counterparts.

The way the Fox News folks get their "public sector workers make more" number is by ignoring education and experience, and by comparing the average government worker (a school teacher) with the average private sector worker (somewhere between a waiter/waitress/bartender and a janitor). The comparison goes even farther Fox's way when they throw in the unemployed as "private sector workers".

Re:If you are at work

[khallow]

but the union have agreed to give him absolutely everything he wants in terms of pay and benefit cuts.

The unions have yet to agree to reduce their power to negotiate. So they haven't given him "absolutely everything" he wants in terms of pay and benefit cuts. He's not just looking for budget cuts this fiscal year, but the long term fiscal health of Wisconsin as well. Public unions are incompatible with that.

The main problem is regulatory capture. The government officials who supposedly negotiate terms with the public union can instead become owned by them. In return, public unions can funnel considerable sums of money to the politicians they own. For example, the mayor of Madison, Wisconsin has abandoned any pretense of representing the people of Madison.

âoeWe are marching together in unity,â Cieslewicz said. âoeThis shows what can happen when the executive and the legislative branches of government work together with both union and non-union employees to protect their rights and benefits. This is the tradition of collective bargaining in Wisconsin.â

Where did the tradition of representative government go?

As long as public unions can maintain this cozy relationship with public officials, you'll have a dynamic to increase the flow of public funds to public unions and their members at the expense of the public. In the private world, this is balanced by the different interests of the business owners and the fact that the business goes bankrupt if the union demands too much.

I have yet to hear of an alternative aside from removing public unions from being able to negotiate terms of employment, that can permanently break this dynamic.

Re:If you are at work

[SETIGuy]

The story of the Wisconsin pension system....

Many years teachers ago contibuted 6% of salary to the pension system and the state contributed another 6%. The state said, we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 4% and we'll pay 8%. A couple years later the state said we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 2% and we'll pay 10%. A couple years later the state said we can't afford to give you a raise this year, but we'll reduce your pension contribution to 0% and we'll pay 12%. A couple years later the state lost a lot of pension money through bad and fraudulent investments, but nobody was fired and nobody was jailed. A couple years later the state said "Look at those greedy teachers, they don't contribute anything to their pension, but they think they're entitled to one." And then the state said "we need to bust the teachers union so we don't have to give them that pension they didn't contribute towards and we lost."

The moral of the story is "Never take pension contributions in lieu of pay raises, since the state can take those away from you."

Re:If you are at work

[BlueStrat]

The way the Fox News folks get their "public sector workers make more" number...

What has Fox News got to do with anything? I never mentioned Fox. I don't get my facts from Fox. Or MSNBC. Or from CNN. ABC, CBS, or NBC.

Here are a couple articles discussing the problem. The problem being, at it's root, that there is no compelling reason for government to restrain public sector union wages & compensation. Just the opposite, in fact. Politically, it builds an "unholy alliance" between politicians and public sector unions.

USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-04-09-compensation_N.htm

The pay gap between government workers and lower-compensated private employees is growing as public employees enjoy sizable benefit growth even in a distressed economy, federal figures show.

Public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, the latest available data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says. Private-sector workers got $7.98 an hour.

Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour â" $11.90 more than in private business. In 2007, the gap in wages and benefits was $11.31.

The gap has been expanding because of the increasing value of public employee benefits. Last year, government benefits rose three times more than those in the private sector: up 69 cents an hour for civil servants, 23 cents for private workers.

Labor costs account for about half of state and local spending, according to BLS and Census data. Benefits consume a growing share of that, now 34%.

LA Business Journal: http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2010/dec/20/unions-push-public-pay-out-scale/

There is little question that the compensation, benefits and pensions of public sector employees exceed those of many private sector workers. Whatever the standard, compensation that is commonplace for hundreds of thousands of public sector workers in California is almost unheard of in the private sector.

Consider, for example, the city of Los Angeles. Its memoranda of understanding with public employee bargaining units are posted on the cityâ(TM)s website. There are more than 80 types of clerical positions. The pay range for these is, on average, $43,600 to $53,200 per year. In general, after five years employment, a secretary will earn $53,200, well above what the private sector generally pays.

The salaries of clerical workers are commensurate with those of other city workers. Child care associates, golf starters and salaried recreation workers all typically receive more than $40,000 a year to start and all other full-time, salaried city recreation positions receive more than $50,000 a year to start.

You were saying?

Strat

Obligatory

[mcspoo]

In Communist Wisconsin, government censors YOU!

Slashdot. Delivery yesterday's lies last

[peragrin]

The Capitol building wifi network blocks all outside access requests unless it is on a whitelist.

Once theblock was notice it took them 30 minutes to adjust settings to allow it. I don't agree with thatmethod but it is better for important networks.

Re:800 lb. Gorilla in the room.

[headhot]

"Maybe they should start looking at all the wasted funds that are sent to the Federals each and every day"

States dont send money to the federal government, they receive an inordanant amount from the federal government. Budget bill passed in the house, if it goes through, which it will not, will devastate State budgets.

Re:Since when is H. Clinton the speaker for unions

[Black Parrot]

Clinton was complaining about shutting off the internet in Egypt, et al.

et al. isn't a smart-sounding synonym for etc.

Actually it works here, since it's just Latin for "and others". It mere convention that we tend to use it almost exclusively for group authorship in English.

The only substantial difference with etc. is that the latter denotes that you know who or what the others are.

Re:Yawn

[jeff4747]

That would make sense if it was never accessible. The complaints are that it was accessible until yesterday.

Re:STATE workers

[RKThoadan]

Never trust the /. summary. This was the capitol's public wi-fi, not just for workers.

Re:Who Cares If It Was Blocked?

[DavidTC]

They're not your damn ISP.

No, they're the fucking state government, which gives them less of a right to block sites.

Who even cares if one particular employer blocks one particular website?

If they were blocking it for employees, that would be one thing. They were blocking the site on the guest network for the capitol, which is intended for public use.

Re:The first amendment, but last priority

[spun]

So what? The question isn't "is it ever okay to limit freedom of expression." The question is "Is it okay in this instance that the government block access to a pro-union website from a public hotspot, during a large public protest, for the express purpose of stifling political debate and participation?"

Re:maybe, maybe not

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Unless you are a legislative aide or representative trying to do research before voting on a bill

Public sector unions not allowed in all states

[TheSync]

It should be noted that public sector union bargaining is not universal in the US.

For teachers, 35 states have mandatory collective bargaining rights, 11 states permit collective bargaining (neither mandating or prohibiting), and 5 states specifically prohibit collective bargaining of teachers.

Some states have no public sector union bargaining at all.

Virginia Code 40.1-57.2 "Prohibition against collective bargaining" says: "No state, county, municipal, or like governmental officer, agent or governing body is vested with or possesses any authority to recognize any labor union or other employee association as a bargaining agent of any public officers or employees, or to collectively bargain or enter into any collective bargaining contract with any such union or association or its agents with respect to any matter relating to them or their employment or service."

Texas has government code 617.002. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PROHIBITED. "(a) An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not enter into a collective bargaining contract with a labor organization regarding wages, hours, or conditions of employment of public employees. (b) A contract entered into in violation of Subsection (a) is void. (c) An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not recognize a labor organization as the bargaining agent for a group of public employees."

Re:Who Cares If It Was Blocked?

[DavidTC]

Americans have a right to publish and received published information over wifi based on our Constitutional rights to freedom of press. Public parks are always provided on a "No Warranty, No Guarantee, No Commitment, Use At Your Own Risk" basis.

Oh, wait. I think I misquoted you there.

No one has a fucking right to government provided public parks, you moron, just like no one has fucking right to government provided internet connection.

What they do have is a right that if such a thing is provided, it will be provided indiscriminately of their viewpoint.

The government does not have to provide a public park, but if it provides a public park, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.

The government does not have to provide a public wifi, but if it provides a public wifi, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.