Who is watching Wisconsin?

[Anonymous]

You dumb ass.

The first line reads "some unions"

[Anonymous]

Maybe your reading comprehension skills are suffering rrom the result of a teachers union like the DeKalb County boys.

[Anonymous]

Now medical malpractice and fraud. If you lose, just throw a fit and committ crimes.

[Anonymous]

Scream and kick and whine all you want. The moneys gone.

[Anonymous]

I've read all -- or at least almost all -- of the postings here and I don't see one about the effects on the school-aged kids in Wisconsin. Nothing about the poor quality of the teaching there. And that's why I don't think that teachers should be unionized. Unions are about getting higher pay, better benefits, and job protections (oh, and fat salaries for the union leaders). Teachers unions are not about better education for the either teachers or students.

Unions were important in the past, but most of them are obsolete. They are responsible for the lack of respect for the teaching profession, which iI think is one of the most noble things an adult can do. I think good teachers should be paid a boatload of money. And the bad ones should be punished for the hopes they dash and the potentials the limit. This behavior in WI is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

They are giving lessons in fraud, deceit, medical malpractice, even conspiracy.........

[Anonymous]

I am curious about all the people who hate unions, think they "aren't needed" anymore: do you care about income inequality? Does it bother you that real wages have stagnated for everyone except the very rich? I agree to a certain extent that they aren't needed any more in many sectors for working conditions like overtime or child labor, but I scratch my head and wonder why those same people who hate unions don't connect the dots on all the entitlement spending (mainly SS and Medicaid and Medicare): The govt pays for all this stuff now because companies don't, won't and are very happy rewarding shareholders and themselves. If I was a fiscal conservative and wanted less govt spending, I'd support unions because more private sector spending would go to health and retirement.

[Anonymous]

I try to keep up with Wisconsin, so I went to Pawlenty's website when I heard he had put up a video about Walker. Here it is:

I suppose we on the left do some of this kind of thing, but this strikes me as a really blatant example of emotion manipulation. I thought Pawlenty was supposed to be one of the more responsible of the potential 2012 candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about all the people who hate unions, think they "aren't needed" anymore: do you care about income inequality? Does it bother you that real wages have stagnated for everyone except the very rich? I agree to a certain extent that they aren't needed any more in many sectors for working conditions like overtime or child labor, but I scratch my head and wonder why those same people who hate unions don't connect the dots on all the entitlement spending (mainly SS and Medicaid and Medicare): The govt pays for all this stuff now because companies don't, won't and are very happy rewarding shareholders and themselves. If I was a fiscal conservative and wanted less govt spending, I'd support unions because more private sector spending would go to health and retirement.

most companies large enough to have unions are smart enough to pay well and provide benefits to keep employees healthy and at work. and they would have more money to spread to both shareholders and employees if they didn't to fight every grievance over legitmate disciplinary action and decision. there is an incredible amount of waste in the union world, and there are some very very wealthy union supports and bosses.
also, many government employees are in unions, which are driving up costs for salaries, benefits, etc -- who is paying for that? oh right, the government. and who do you think is paying the price for the union's good deeds? us, in the higher prices we pay for lower quality goods. I am not, before you ask, advocated for low wages or poor working conditions or China/Vietnam like conditions. I just think there's a better way to get to good wages and benefits and reasonably priced, well made goods. i see unions the way i see walmart -- if the richest person/family in america is offering the lowest prices on goods, someone has to be getting the shaft.

[Anonymous]

Unions are a blessing. The large corporations are stingy and just think about themselves. They just want the cheapest option available, and refuse give benefits because they can do so. Even the governor is not a King, the days of the servant and master are over. Unions guarantee more equality. Every worker is worth its keep. The big companies are not short of money. Budget mess was not caused by the teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I just think there's a better way to get to good wages and benefits and reasonably priced, well made goods. i see unions the way i see walmart -- if the richest person/family in america is offering the lowest prices on goods, someone has to be getting the shaft.

Great. Tell us about your better way.
I know walmar has been sued by the workers because they wanted to be paid for overtime. At the same time Sam Walton is said to be a 'generous' man.

[Anonymous]

Yes, do tell us your better way to raise wages and benefits for workers--if you aren't advocating it, do you believe McDonalds will just magically start paying enough and offering could enough benefits like health care and retirement that their employees won't in the end need government support when they are old or sick? The support net can either come from the private sector (where some companies are non union but offer good benefits, but many, many dont) or the govt. Unions push the private sector to provide more, not less--companies that don't push their costs onto the taxpayer.

[Anonymous]

The dems should go after the corporations, strip them of their legal status and make all these "religious" group paid taxes.
The corporation have done more to harm this country then any union, wall street crisis, selling US secrets to the Chinese, power manipulation in California. They don't care what happens in the US.
All you cons out there, how fast would US corporations jump to help Iran if they could make another round of quarterly bonuses. Oh wait they are already doing!

[Anonymous]

At the same time Sam Walton is said to be a 'generous' man.

Do you mean this in the same sense that Col Sanders is generous? Or Ronald McDonald, for that matter?

[Anonymous]

I am generally anti-union, but I think people need to recognize that public unions are completely different from private unions. So I'm totally ok with private unions, provided each employee doesn't HAVE to join (or be coerced through public votes) and provided the dues are paid by the members and not by the management. Private unions make sense - they are fighting with management/shareholders for a higher percentage of the fruits of their labor. Makes complete sense. Now much of the need has gone away with fair labor laws (thank you unions), but to each their own.

public unions, on the other hand, are not fighting with management, but they are negotiating with elected officials who they lobbied to be put into office. It is not an arm's length relationship, and the person paying is not the shareholder (or the executives/management), but the taxpayer.