Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity
 

As a Wisconsinite, let me just say that this man is a douche.

I have no problem with what he wants regarding health insurance. In truth, it won't effect me. I don't carry the insurance offered by our union contract. I use my wife's, and she isn't in a union.

Again, I don't have a problem with what he wants regarding my pension. My pension is simply extra money I'll have when I retire. The majority of my retirement income will come from my real estate.

What I do have a problem with, is what he wants with the CBA. Think of like a school yard bully. The only way the other kids can stand up to the school yard bully is by banding together. Walker is trying to make it so the kids can't band together.

Yes. I may not agree with what they want but it is fundamentally their right to do so and the obvious uneven way in which the unions are targeted by the Gov. makes me more sympathetic to teachers, et al.

Also, if the governor doesn't like it then he can lock out the teachers. It's his prerogative.

I'm of the belief all public service workers should be deemed essential (no strike). Otherwise they shouldn't be on the public payroll.

So you're mad because public sector and private sector workers have different benefits and drawbacks based on what some public sector workers have legally been able to do in regards to unionization and CBAs

I mean, if being in the public sector is so good, why aren't you doing it? or if being in the private sector is os bad, why are you still in it?

Government is a monopoly and when government workers strike the public has no alternative (competitor) to turn to. It provides undue leverage to the union that simply does not exist for unions in the private sector. Negotiations are never on a level playing field.

Seems like more an attempt to prevent a "crew" (in this case unions) from robbing the State blind ala California.

So we shouldn't have equal application of basic law to workers depending on their employer. And by alternatives what do you mean? You can homeschool, just as easily as a teacher can "find another job" if they don't like it. And for a lot of integral public goods like fire and police, they usually aren't allowed to strike. So really you want to go after teachers and public transport workers.

why did the state negotiate so poorly? Is someone at an investment bank at fault when they negotiate a compensation increase on threat of withholding their services and then maximizes their benefit during that negotiation and while working?

No, the vast majority of citizens that work for a living cannot home school their children. I would propose school vouchers to allow more choice and remove the monopoly. The unions don't like that one either. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif



I gather from the first line of your post you would disagree with this? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif



I would deem them essential (or change the system).

Garbage workers would be high on my list. They don't need to be public employees in the first place and should be privatized.

Keep in mind, this argument varies by jurisdiction depending on what your particular government does/employs.

Full Disclosure: I am the son of a unionized teacher and unionized autoworker. I myself have belonged to two separate unions in my life and currently perform a job whereby I could cross the aisle and become a public servant without too much effort in short order. I don't see a problem with changing the definitions of essential worker to provide for arbitration as a the de facto alternative to strikes.

And it's easy to see why unions don't like certain actions. They're seeking to maximize their benefit just as much as any other party in the economy. I think vouchers are a fine idea.

As for other unions in the public sector, the police unions and prison unions are by far the worst when it comes to protecting their members in the face of obvious wrong doing, and promoting expansion of their services solely for their benefit. It's hard to argue that mandates to educate children are there solely for the benefit of teachers and their union even if legislation to ensure that is funded by the union. It's not hard to argue that funding and lobbying for legislation that keeps pot illegal, mandatory minimums etc etc are mostly for the benefit of prisons and law enforcement.

The one thing that does bother me though is this idea that it is inherently cheaper to subcontract out public services to private contractors, despite that being ambiguous at best and obviously wrong at worst. Collusion between public sector administrators and private sector contractors needs to be looked at.

You don't blame the teachers for the budget. You blame their unions for the state of the school system.

Interestingly enough, the teachers union in WA is currently engaging in an illegal strike over this: http://www.channel3000.com/education...06/detail.html

Sorry, you're going to have to use your brain. That doesn't prove anything.

It's not fair unless they contributed to his campaign, apparently.

Groups of people lobby for self interest. That you have a problem with it is puzzling as you'd likely have no problem with campaign donations as a form for free speech.

This is in their charter?

This is hilarious:

A planned state Senate vote on slashing Wisconsin public worker pensions and curbing their unions stalled Thursday after Senate Democrats apparently fled the state.

The contentious vote was postponed because the 33-member Senate must have 20 present for a quorum and not a single Democrat attended. There are only 19 Republicans so at least one Democrat must be present for the Senate to open business.

Police have been sent out to look for the wayward lawmakers, the Associated Press reported. A source said it appeared that the Democrats had boarded a bus headed for Iowa. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Still waiting...

Then the governor should lock out the teachers who are going on strike.

It's illegal but it's happening.