My father was a union man and spent year in the late 40s and early 50s fighting Communist attempts to take over his and other unions in the New York/New Jersey port area. As a child I rarely saw him before I went to bed as all his spare time went into that fight. We also took a heavy financial hit because he was paid on a commission basis for sales, which were greatly diminished because he devoted so much time to fighting the communists. At times my mother would be crying at the front door when they came to turn off the phone or the electricity or the gas. Then I would give her savings from my piggy bank to pay the bill.
With regard to the current Wisconsin situation, the unions have agreed to give up money for pensions, etc. However, they are not willing to give up the right to negotiate on hours and working conditions. I have seen enough of managment abuses to consider I would not want to give up those rights either. I further heard that the governor had a balanced budget when he was elected, but cut taxes and other payments for the rich and now it is unbalanced. I don’t know if this is true or not. It is too late for me to research that tonight. My guy is grumbling at me.
“I further heard that the governor had a balanced budget when he was elected, but cut taxes and other payments for the rich and now it is unbalanced.”
Yup, you’re a long time freeper who claims military service, which I thank you for if true (and despise you for if not).
But that kind of demscum propaganda prefaced with “I further heard” as cover is (hopefully) zot worthy.
The problem with collective bargaining is two fold. First, it is monopolistic power (in affect) exerted over the people. I think you will agree that our government should not force monopolies on us...
Second, oftentimes the negotiations these public unions have are with democrat politicians who rely on the unions to re-elect them. This is a huge scam right in front of our noses.
But consider, why is it okay for a group of individuals to collectively share special privileges and rights that others are not allowed? Why do they fear the people so much that they insist on monopolistic power over them?
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Public unions are not private unions.
You have “further heard” a lie. The debt is real and was real when Doyle was governor. The tax cuts you are talking about were enacted in January and have NOT occurred yet.
That is typical liberal talking points and playing the class envy/warfare card.
In essence, reducing costs to business allows them to grow and create more jobs - pure Reagan conservatism that has been proven time and time again.
Re: the rich, I was never hired by a poor person but by thriving individuals who owned small business and by larger corporations. Taxes and regulations are waaaaay too high at this time...or any time.
It’s true! Walker did give tax cuts for the rich, it was reported by the state’s own Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Quote
“Our analysis indicates that for the three-year period, aggregate, general fund tax collections
will be $202.8 million lower than those reflected in the November/December reports. More than
half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2
(health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and
Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).”
117M is Walker’s tax cuts for the rich!! This breaks down to roughly 40M/year which is obviously the cause of the 3.6B deficit.
Signed,
Union educated 8th grader, Madison
Here is the problem. As this article noted, unions are among the top contributors to political campaigns. In the case of government unions, they are donating to someone who might well in the future be across the table from them - so, given the power that government unions now exercise in the political process, it means the union has representation on both sides of the table, which has led to the massive increases in pension and benefits costs to taxpayers. That is the greatest problem here - the unions in that situation have just as much ability to be abusive as employers were 100 years ago when they controlled government and law enforcement. As long as government employee unions are so deeply ingrained into the political process, it is not an unreasonable demand to remove their collective bargaining capacity.