My problem with this method is that we could argue that it’s being reserved for extreme measures, but everyone will have a different definition of what qualifies as extreme, and it will be a sliding scale.

http://www.weac.org/TRUE/newsletters/2010%20November%20Final.pdf

Text:

BARRETT: Barrett opposes legislation that would take school employees’ voices out of the decision-making over health care by allowing school boards to unilaterally change employee health care coverage plan providers. “I believe in collective bargaining.” WEAC Interview, 5/15/10
WALKER: Walker supports a bill that would take away the right of unions to negotiate health care benefits. Ryan Murray, Campaign Policy Adviser for Walker, said “The way the proposal would work is we would take the choice out of the collective bargaining process.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, 8/29/10

That took me about two minutes to find, and it looks like it’s from a unionnewsletter characterizing Walker’s posiiton as taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions on health care. I’m sure the response will be that this means that he didn’t campaign on taking away other rights, but as I recall, the union isn’t offering to compromise on any of the collective bargaining rights. Perhaps with more research I can find other links, but I’m not sure it would be worth it, since I doubt it will change your mind.

But if you can, find me a link where the Dem Senators campaigned on running out of state to avoid voting.

To complain that those who left the state were merely sore losers deciding to take their ball and go home is to oversimplify matters. The fact that such action is NOT a time honored tradition of Wisconsin politics should shed some light on just how extreme this issue has gotten.

Painting it (or most any issue) entirely in black and white does a disservice to the challenge of finding the best solution.

Please direct us to a link where Walker campaigned on taking away almost all of the public union’s collective bargaining rights. One link. What’s that you say? Having some trouble? I wonder why that is…oh right, he didn’t campaign on that at all. Kinda tough to argue that Walker has a mandate for this when the first time it was mentioned was when the bill was introduced.

Dude…it’s time you stop living in the Bravos’ glory days and enter the 21st century.

If Walker is overreaching, punish him at the ballot box. The voters apparently didn’t like Obama’s health care plan, and I doubt the votes against Dems in Congress last fall were because the electorate thought the plan didn’t live to Obama’s promises. The voters reconsidered after listening to the GOP counterarguments against Obama’s legislation. The Dems should show up and present such counterarguments, and perhaps convince the GOP legislators. If not, then campaign on it and win back the majority. Until then, suck it up and stop acting like buffoons.

Always admired Craig Counsell, even more today.

i am also not wedded to the notion of unions as the sole proprietor of the general welfare, i’m a pragmatist and would accept whatever form increased equality comes in. the plain fact is though, that economics and politics are about the distribution of finite amount of resources a given society can have through production and trade. i am in favor of insuring everyone against the vagaries and circumstances of life by providing all with a minimum amount of those resources/goods that are generally viewed as the basic requirements of life. that means taking from those who have much and giving to those who have less than the minimum. frankly it makes me very sad that this country has millions of unsold homes and also millions of homeless including at least 1.5 million children who can in no way be considered to have done something to deserve that fate.

i would take away the money a wealthy person was going to use to buy their second vacation home and use it to provide housing for the homeless or food for the hungry and i acknowledge that that is just my opinion but i’m happy that it is and i’ll stack it up against the one that says let the wealthy person keep the money they “earned” any day. i mean who is getting more utility from that money? and i am all about increasing utility

I’m sure we all agree that there’s a line somewhere where such tactics go from being legitimate to offensive to our core institutions. If this isn’t offensive to you, it should at the very least concern you.

By the way, even if Walker wants to bust unions, I’m not sure why he can’t do so. I’m also not sure how busting a public sector union benefits large corporations or the Koch brothers (perhaps indirectly by weakening unions generally, but that is probably going to yield a pretty low return on investment). If the unions and the Democrats want to reverse what Walker is doing, then win the next election and stop doing silly crap like running across the state border. And if you don’t like analogies (not sure why these are so offensive, but whatever), then let me describe the Dems’ actions without them: they’re childish, counterproductive, anti-democratic, and pathetic.

And if we’re barring analogies, please ask the union protestors to stop comparing Walker to Hitler.

Second, non-partisan studies have determined that the governor is overstating the budget crisis in Wisconsin significantly, and that the state may actually have a budget surplus this year. Wisconsin is also in a much better state financially than it was even four years ago.

Third, it’s fair that teachers and workers be required to join a union if they are going to enjoy the benefits for which that union bargains. Just like you don’t get to take a book out of the library without joining the library first.

Since you’ve decided to go there, it’s important to remember that the state of Wisconsin is in a $3 billion budget shortfall. Wisconsin teachers are paid more per student than any other state in the country and yet their students rank near the bottom of the country in graduation rate. The country as a whole is hemorrhaging money and the unions are one of the biggest reason why. How is it fair that every teacher, regardless of whether or not they want to be a part of the union, has to pay $1,000 in union dues every year? Governor Walker’s bill DOESN’T BUST UNIONS, all it does is makes them pay a small portion of their health care and benefits package, around 5% for each. There’s also a misconception that this bill ends the union’s ability to collectively bargain; that’s a falsehood as all the bill does is take away their ability to collectively bargain for health care benefits and retirement packages. It also enables teachers to be able to make the choice of whether or not they would like to be a part of the union, as opposed to being forced into joining the union.

Second, while unions have provided historical benefits to employees that continue today, that’s not an argument for their continued existence (“the Delta House has a long tradition of to its members and the community at large”). More importantly, I don’t know if 80-90% of American workers actually derive benefits right now from the existence of unions. If unions were more beneficial to employee rights, we would probably see a very high percentage of employees joining unions. Instead, union membership in the private sector is under 12%. I’m not aware of some massive conspiracy to bust private sector unions, so my guess is that most workers in the private sector don’t see the benefit of being in one anymore (in fact, many of the most heavily unionized industries have gone overseas or out of business in the last half-century).

By contrast, in the public sector, it’s over 30% of workers who belong to unions. My guess is that more workers in the public sector belong to unions because they see increased benefits as a result. That’s all well and good, except those increased benefits (both salary and benefits) come out of the pockets of taxpayers. And I would bet that some of those increased benefits are in part the result of the conflict of interest issue I mentioned earlier. Public sector unions aren’t really helping the average worker battle or a paycheck in the private sector — to the extent they are, the benefit is a lot more indirect than the higher taxes, higher fees and higher interest rates that are imposed as costs on the average private sector worker by having public employee unions.