[font="Arial"][color="#cccccc"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]
[/font][/font]
Big business? The problem is clearly state unions. There is an argument now that "well the unions are now saying they will take pay decreases, health insurance options, pension cuts etc. etc." - but this is obviously just empty rhetoric to stop this bill. Why is it obvious? Because these unions have been fighting these issues tooth and nail for years, with no regard for state budgets, and now magically they are willing to negotiate? Please.
State jobs have enough benefits as it is. Unions simply don't belong in the public sector. They belong in the private sector, and even then many take it too far.
PS - to all the teachers taking weeks off: Fudge you. You apparently serve a greater cause, educating children, yet at the drop of a hat are willing to push the kids off to the side for your own benefit. Go teach the children, protest after 3pm.
Of course unions fight pay cuts and benefit reductions. If they don't, then they aren't doing their job and might as well not exist. Besides, teachers took furloughs the last couple of years (which is a lot like a pay cut). Plus, they're not just "willing to negotiate". They are willing to give in on every fiscal item in Walker's budget. They just want to be able to negotiate in the future. Not to mention that leaders (of all politicla stripes) have been running states with no regard for state budgets for years. The unions didn't cause this crisis, regardless of what their role should be in helping to end it.
Why do you say big business? The bill only applies to public workers.
Honestly people are totally over-reacting in my home state. I'm not saying it's not bad, but schools were shut down for something like a week to protest across the most populated counties in the state. Even so, unless there is an abusive monopsony unions aren't really needed.
http://dailycaller.c...yre-letting-on/
Here's an interesting article on the other side of the coin.
That's a pretty imbalanced side of the coin. Six examples are not a statistically representative of the entire group. Not to mention that to teach you need a certain level of education, which is not true of an entire state work force. See here for more info. And the "bone" that Walker is throwing them? Maxing out their pay increases at the level of inflation (well, the CPI at least) means that at best real wages would never increase, and that isn't the default increase-- it's the most that the union could try to get, indicating that they could get even less than that (a pay cut every time "negotiations" don't max out in favor of the teachers). Sure, they could try and get a bigger raise if they can get the public to vote that way in a referendum, but that seems like an unlikely event.
Whether or not they're overreacting (which I don't agree they are, for the record), considering that the teachers are willing to concede everything except the chance to bargain in the future it's hard to say that they're causing or even exacerbating Wisconsin's deficit.
