Check Out the Scumbag Dem's In WI

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

The employer has rights too. PATCO comes to mind.

Right, lets put the whole flying public at risk for some politician's whim.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Right, lets put the whole flying public at risk for some politician's whim.

If memory serves, the "flying public" made out just fine.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

If memory serves, the "flying public" made out just fine.

No thanks to Saint Ronnie.

[Stereoholic]

Madison Schools is ahead of us on this one. The judge sided with the teachers.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c03286.html

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The changes in pension and medical coverage contributions might be a reasonable measure to propose to the employees. However, that is not what the dispute is about. It is about the following proposal:



That is essentially saying you can form a committee once a year to come beg with the state for an increase in your wages. It is one step away from outlawing public employee unions. The proposed benefit concessions are not draconian - the changes in the bargaining law are.

Regards,

D-Ray

I don't understand the exemptions for fire, law, and inspection employees...if it's good for the goose is it not good for the gander as well?

Don't know about the yearly committee, but why should employers be required to withhold union dues in the 1st place? If you want to belong to a union take some personal responsibility.

Chas

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Charles

I don't understand the exemptions for fire, law, and inspection employees...if it's good for the goose is it not good for the gander as well?

Don't know about the yearly committee, but why should employers be required to withhold union dues in the 1st place? If you want to belong to a union take some personal responsibility.

Chas

Probably the same reasoning that makes employers deduct income tax and FICA?

[Stereoholic]

Originally Posted by Charles

I don't understand the exemptions for fire, law, and inspection employees...if it's good for the goose is it not good for the gander as well?

Chas

It's a "gift" to them because they supported Scotty during the election campaign.

Not working too well though. The police and firefighters are in solidarity with the rest of the unions in this protest. When Walker tried to send the troopers out to look for the senators, they couldn't be bothered with it.

[merrylander]

The man is an ideological asshole, the people would have negotiated with him had he taken a halfway intelligent approach but he chose to be an idiot. Sadly he is just a half educated opinionated yahoo, apparently quite likeable in person, but he has his head up his arse.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Probably the same reasoning that makes employers deduct income tax and FICA?

I'm sure it's the same reasoning.

And as detestable as I find having employers handle taxes for the government, I realize that it would be impossible for them to control the great unwashed. But union dues???

To tell the truth, I'd like for everyone to be paid 100% of their salary and then submit payment to the government with their own devices.

Not only would this be a real eye opener for the vast majority of Americans, but the vast majority of politicians as well.

I'll tell you one thing, this for sure would result in change you can believe in. If nothing else, it would raise the percentage of likely voters by a considerable amount.

Let everyone experience the boot on the neck, why should employers have all of the fun?

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

The employer has rights too. PATCO comes to mind.

Yes, they do, but..........

An employer should have as much say as he allows his employees in matters of unionization. Whether, or not to join a union is solely for the employees to decide. Any threats, or intimidation by management should be seen as a criminal act.

After all, many on your side seem to think threats and intimidation by the employees or the union is criminal, right? (And it is, IMO.) If an employee starts advocating unionization he or she should be fired, right? Okay, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hinder organizing efforts----lose your job or your business license. If an employee advocating unionization gets fired, then a manager stating an anti-union position should lose his livelihood as well.

Sound fair to you?

Or, do you prefer to take the position that ONLY strips the employee of his right to choose?

Dave