What you say is true. But collective bargaining is a fundamental to our middle class. Destroy unions and you destroy the middle class.
What you say is true. But collective bargaining is a fundamental to our middle class. Destroy unions and you destroy the middle class.
Workers have every right to collectively bargain and unionize. On the other side, employers have every right to refuse to talk to them and hire others.
I have a friend who is a high school principal. He has to let 15 teachers go for next year. Rather than get rid of the 15 teachers in his building who suck the most and don't deserve a job, he is going to have to get rid of some great young teachers.
With so many young people looking for work these days, I would like to see a school somewhere refuse to negotiate with the union. Lock them out if they don't like it -- there are plenty of great potential teachers out there.
It will never happen for one simple reason: teacher unions are the largest single contributor to political campaigns in most states.
This argument is irrelevant. No salary/benefit packages were forced on anyone. They were negotiated. The issue is whether public workers have the right to collectively negotiate. This is a clear attack on unions and really on the middle class. Its politically expedient for Walker to scapegoat public unions at this time. Did you notice the police and firemen were not affected (not politically expedient). Overtime payment and pensions to police are huge. But if you didn't like terms of a contract you you shouldn't approve it. But you can't take away their right to negotiate.There are some monied interests that would love to be able to negotiate with individuals rather than unions. Where did that get us in the early 1900's? Most people don't get this.
asdgfh wrote:
bmcpool strikes back wrote:I'll go ahead a revise my answer from a few posts up.
According to the Census bureau, a federal statistics-gathering agency, government workers (local, state, and federal) make an average of $52,889 per year, based on government payrolls from March 2009.
You can find the data yourself for federal workers (http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/09fedfun.pdf) and state and local workers (http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/09stlus.txt).
Assuming your number for salary of private sector workers is correct, government workers make less than private sector workers.
You didn't read mine closely enough, you're talking salary. I'm talking about total compensation. And the numbers aren't mine, but the Bureau of Economic Analysis.[/quote]
RISE UP AMERICAN BROTHERS ... THROW AWAY THE CHAINS OF REPRESSION ... YOUR DICTATORS HAVE PUSHED YOU TOO FAR ... RISE UP LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST ... THE TIME IS NOW TO REFORM YOUR CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.
TAKE BACK THE AMERICAN DREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Republican party tries to appeal to "small" groups of "stupid" people. They want to take America back and give people more freedom but they want to destroy unions.
They are opposed to gun control and want to keep government from interfering with our lives but they want government to interfere in abortion.
They are a contradiction of stupidity.
I'm against death- I oppose abortion period, but outlawing abortion won't stop it, it'll only make it dangerous.
I don't like guns, but law abiding people like them and use them legally. Banning them won't make them disappear.
Eastwood wrote:
And it is equally the employers 'right' to not recognize them.
.
Whose labor will the employer leech off of if he has no employees?
Wut? wrote:
"Our whole society believes that all sorts of luxuries are their "rights" these days. While I don't disagree that it would be nice for the state to fully fund everybody's pension, its just not fiscally responsible.
"
No, it is more fiscally responsible to give trillin$ to makers of WMDs and Wall Street banksters