DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Anti-Union Bill Set to Pass In Wisconsin; Massive Protests Move Into Day 3

**Greapyjeory** · 02-17-2011, 01:10 PM

Where we all lean individually is beside the point.

The law is that public employees do have the right to collectively bargain, and you can't just pass a law and expect to have it held up when you go about discriminating one group.

The Wisconsin gov't wishes to force one collective bargaining group to be bound by new legislation while other groups remain bound by already established laws.

The country is not in the mess that it's in because of teachers unions, it's in a mess because of power grabs like this by Republicans who are very clear about their intention to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top.

http://www.revenue.wi.gov/ra/CorpInc...ax20100714.pdf

Look at the bottom of page 21/top of page 22 of the most recent Department of Revenue statistic in Wisconsin regarding corporate tax revenue in the state. Over the last 30 years, as a share of "general purpose revenue", corporate tax revenue has gone down by half, from 10.4% of general revenue in 1980 to 5.2% last year.

Two-thirds of Wisconsin corporations effectively pay no taxes.

Improvements sure can be made in regards to education, but the Wisconsin bill is supposed to be addressing budget concerns, not the rights of public unions to exist or not exist or to be subject to the whims of a vengeful Republican Governor who is laying a smack down on the one public union that didn't endorse.

I'm not suggesting that this move will fix Wisconsin's fiscal issues. I agree that the governor might just be supporting this for a petty reason as well.

If Wisconsin law protects public unions and the legislature wants to pass a law that differentiates in treatment between public ones and private ones, that's not unconstitutional. Your source of employment is not a protected class.

Federal discrimination laws only apply to gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

I side with the idea of restricting public unions on principle, because the public market is different from a private one. When consumers don't have a choice as to whether they can pay for something or not, the rules have to be different from ones governing the open market.

02-17-2011, 01:10 PM	#23
Greapyjeory Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 405 Senior Member	Where we all lean individually is beside the point. The law is that public employees do have the right to collectively bargain, and you can't just pass a law and expect to have it held up when you go about discriminating one group. The Wisconsin gov't wishes to force one collective bargaining group to be bound by new legislation while other groups remain bound by already established laws. The country is not in the mess that it's in because of teachers unions, it's in a mess because of power grabs like this by Republicans who are very clear about their intention to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top. http://www.revenue.wi.gov/ra/CorpInc...ax20100714.pdf Look at the bottom of page 21/top of page 22 of the most recent Department of Revenue statistic in Wisconsin regarding corporate tax revenue in the state. Over the last 30 years, as a share of "general purpose revenue", corporate tax revenue has gone down by half, from 10.4% of general revenue in 1980 to 5.2% last year. Two-thirds of Wisconsin corporations effectively pay no taxes. Improvements sure can be made in regards to education, but the Wisconsin bill is supposed to be addressing budget concerns, not the rights of public unions to exist or not exist or to be subject to the whims of a vengeful Republican Governor who is laying a smack down on the one public union that didn't endorse. I'm not suggesting that this move will fix Wisconsin's fiscal issues. I agree that the governor might just be supporting this for a petty reason as well. If Wisconsin law protects public unions and the legislature wants to pass a law that differentiates in treatment between public ones and private ones, that's not unconstitutional. Your source of employment is not a protected class. Federal discrimination laws only apply to gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation. I side with the idea of restricting public unions on principle, because the public market is different from a private one. When consumers don't have a choice as to whether they can pay for something or not, the rules have to be different from ones governing the open market.
	Quote