Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 10)

They are, they just don't have a monopoly on it.

Come to IL.  We have our fair share too. 

why?

Eff'ed up post redone below!  Ugh!

crowny2 - 2011-02-18 12:21 PM

Oh good grief.  As if we don't have enough!! 

For the record, I do not approve of them "jumping ship" like this.  I would be just as incensed if the tables were reversed.

I have a question - 

From what I have read, it look's like this thing is going to pass, eventually.  What happens then?  From some of the responses(comments from citizens/teachers, not official responses) to some of the articles I have seen, basically says that the teacher are going strike for the rest of the year.  Is this what you guys on the ground are hearing/planning?

I am neither pro-union or anti-union, neither am I pro-managment or anti-management.  I believe that both parties have their short comings and both parties have there merits.

However, I find the idea that the elimination of unions will then somehow result in a more fair and equitable working structure almost laughable.  To believe this you must believe that managment and owners, out of the shear goodness of thier hearts and their own personal desire to ensure fair wages, will give to their employees.  History, and recent history, has demonstrated the contrary.

Almost every single modern employee benefit, that we take for granted now, unions forced from the hands of ownership and mangment.  Safe working conditions, child labor laws, minimum wages, health care, retirement.  These were not freely given to workers/employees, they were forced concessions due to union pressure, and then became standardized through subsequent regulations.

I totally understand a union members point of view, take the auto industry, they are told they must make cuts, cuts to salary, cuts to helath care benefits, cuts to retirement, because if they don't the compy will go under.  Then the same people they are negotiationg with recieve a $20 million dollar BONUS on top of their $16 million dollar salary.

On the other hand unions have cut their own throats by blindly protecting their own even in the face of union members engaging in illegal activity on the job, like the Claifornia teacher that was using cocaine.

My personal opinion, is that I don't have much confidence that if unions were illiminated, that the "savings" would be passed on to the "consumers" rather than simply lining the pockets of "managment"

That's what I figured, but reading from afar, you really don't know what the overall sense is. And some of the rhetoric seemed pretty sure that if it passes, they are striking. 

Good and successful companies do understand that they must treat their employees well if they want to maintain a happy and productive workforce.

How do you explain the vast majority of employees in the US who are NOT part of a union making a good and sometimes GREAT living?

I conceded they *had* their place.  However these things are now laws. 

Would it be more accurate/palatable if he had said what a hypocrit the DNC's leader, President Obama is? In his position he should if anyone should be more careful 1. about the words he uses and commenting on situations which he does not have all the facts, an erro he has made on more than one occasion.

This is the sweeping generalization I was talking about.

By Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel

Feb. 18, 2011 2:15 p.m. | Madison -- Republican senators have been receiving threats, said John Hogan, chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).

For that reason, Hogan said that he won't release the senators' locations once they leave the Capitol.

Sen. Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac), who has several prisons employing many state workers in or near his district, said he had received threats such as "I have a billy club and I will use it." He said he had not received any death threats.

Hopper said he "ought never be frightened in doing my job" and vowed he would not be intimidated 

http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/116491778.html