Thank you for the response.
What I'm essentially saying, I guess, is that I truly believe that public employees, especially teachers, shouldn't be allowed to unionize.
And now you explain why:
I agree with FDR's sentiments on this. Unlike business, where perhaps shareholders or a company's profit or image might be harmed by, say, a strike, it's quite different when teachers or firemen or policemen--or air traffic controllers, for example (1981 strike)--go on strike. Such actions directly cause not just disruption but can cause irreparable harm to people.
I agree that's possible, and Governor Walker's actions might have warranted such a strike (it could still probably happen), but that's not what was happening here.
He and the Wisconsin Republican Majority decided unilaterally to undo 60 years worth of carefully crafted legislation between the public employees of Wisconsin, and that State's Government.
The public service unions even offered concessions to see the taxpayers of Wisconsin through this budget crises, but by my measure that's not what Republican Governor Walker wants to do.
Now Ohio is doing the same thing:
Ohio senators curb power of public sector unions
Do you see a pattern here?
You continue:
To allow those who serve the public to do something that can harm the public is indefensible. When teachers strike, it is our future that is put in jeopardy by our children not receiving the education for which the public is paying. When policemen strike (or suffer the "blue flu" en masse), the safety of the public is put in jeopardy. Same thing for firefighters. Ditto for the former PATCO, whose striking members were summarily fired en masse by President Reagan, one of the greatest acts as president he ever did. (Never mind that federal law directly prohibited strikes by ATCs then.)
Honestly though?
I can't recall one instance in my lifetime or yours, beyond Baseball, where there have been any strikes in the "public sector."
And here's my point, there seems to be a genuine disdain from the American Public when one side is forced to "strike" against another.
Baseball in the early 90's.
What was that?
A bunch of millionaires striking against a handful of billionaires. And for what their share of ticket, hot dog, and beer prices?
You continue:
Because of the very different and unique nature of such employment, I do not believe unions should be permitted in such fields. This does not mean that I think all CBAs should be quickly discarded, though. If a state legislature, however, wishes to either discard altogether CBAs for such employees, or at least modify them, I'm fine with that.
Don't you take issue with the fact that those state legislators have broken the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the very same union members who are also taxpayers, and voters within the State of Wisconsin, and now Ohio?
This is what I hear you saying:
- Public Sector Unions should not be allowed to strike because of the harm that could come to the public because of it.
- Elected Representatives aren't and shouldn't be held accountable for CBA's in the first place.
On merit alone, I can appreciate your arguments.
For example, most city councils cannot arbitrarily bind future councils. At least that's the case here in Texas.
The Texas Legislature is expected to uphold previous laws and agreements between the taxpayers of this state, regardless of party affiliation.
And with the exception of
PATCO I can't think of a public service union that has actually gone on strike with any detriment of the public good took place.
These and other attempts at "union busting" sound like red hearings to me.
I'm sorry, but that's how I feel about this whole issue.
Oh, and for the record, I've never been a member of a Union, and I've never been asked or encouraged to join one.
But thanks for your response.
