http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/03/28/trump_keeps_doubting_obama_citizenship.html
=_=
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
On Unions
After weeks of turmoil, protests, and games of hide-and-seek, Republican governor Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin has just signed a bill which will take away the collective bargaining rights of government employee unions.
I can understand why many people have a less than positive opinion of unions. Unions make it harder to fire incompetent workers (the teacher's union is an excellent example). They also limit employers' abilities to adjust wages depending on their business' fiscal status. Unions also often insist on expansive healthcare packages. In the case of government employee unions, that money comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets.
Governor Walker (and many other governors across the United States, including New York's Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo) explains that he just wants unions to make some sacrifices just like everyone else. However, he is wrong in taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
Like the Economist says, "[i]f the public sector is to work more like the private sector, workers should have the same rights." Taking away union members' ability to collectively bargain weakens the power of the individual government employee to an absurd degree. In fact, the ability to bargain collectively, the strength in numbers, is one of the main reasons unions were created and have survived to this day. It is dangerous to expose government employees to such a degree.
However, this Republican act is not just a fiscal move, but an ideological move as well.
Right now, the only effective political body that represents the views of working class Americans is the union. I may not be particularly happy about all the economic effects of unions, but the truth is that they allow for millions of relatively powerless individuals to have a say in society. Unions are just as much about politics as they are about improving the workplace for Americans.
Unions have huge impacts on elections, especially in heavily populated cities. Once a politician gets a union to endorse him, he can expect virtually all the members of that union to vote for him. And because unions know that the more members they encourage to vote, the more politicians have to care about them, they will do their best to maximize their effects on elections. And because unions tend to vote for Democrats, they often have a huge influence in Democratic primaries and general elections.
I may not always be happy with the economic effects of unions, but unions undoubtedly give the weak a strong voice in government. They offer at least some political balance to a system filled with the rich who can influence government via corporation lobbyists or direct donations.
Republicans, who derive their support from this category of Americans, are also attacking the very idea of unions. It is wrong, and Democrats must mobilize in coming elections to show that such attacks will not go unanswered.
After weeks of turmoil, protests, and games of hide-and-seek, Republican governor Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin has just signed a bill which will take away the collective bargaining rights of government employee unions.
I can understand why many people have a less than positive opinion of unions. Unions make it harder to fire incompetent workers (the teacher's union is an excellent example). They also limit employers' abilities to adjust wages depending on their business' fiscal status. Unions also often insist on expansive healthcare packages. In the case of government employee unions, that money comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets.
Governor Walker (and many other governors across the United States, including New York's Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo) explains that he just wants unions to make some sacrifices just like everyone else. However, he is wrong in taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
Like the Economist says, "[i]f the public sector is to work more like the private sector, workers should have the same rights." Taking away union members' ability to collectively bargain weakens the power of the individual government employee to an absurd degree. In fact, the ability to bargain collectively, the strength in numbers, is one of the main reasons unions were created and have survived to this day. It is dangerous to expose government employees to such a degree.
However, this Republican act is not just a fiscal move, but an ideological move as well.
Right now, the only effective political body that represents the views of working class Americans is the union. I may not be particularly happy about all the economic effects of unions, but the truth is that they allow for millions of relatively powerless individuals to have a say in society. Unions are just as much about politics as they are about improving the workplace for Americans.
Unions have huge impacts on elections, especially in heavily populated cities. Once a politician gets a union to endorse him, he can expect virtually all the members of that union to vote for him. And because unions know that the more members they encourage to vote, the more politicians have to care about them, they will do their best to maximize their effects on elections. And because unions tend to vote for Democrats, they often have a huge influence in Democratic primaries and general elections.
I may not always be happy with the economic effects of unions, but unions undoubtedly give the weak a strong voice in government. They offer at least some political balance to a system filled with the rich who can influence government via corporation lobbyists or direct donations.
Republicans, who derive their support from this category of Americans, are also attacking the very idea of unions. It is wrong, and Democrats must mobilize in coming elections to show that such attacks will not go unanswered.
source used: http://www.economist.com/node/18229422?story_id=18229422&CFID=158777074&CFTOKEN=81420277
I can understand why many people have a less than positive opinion of unions. Unions make it harder to fire incompetent workers (the teacher's union is an excellent example). They also limit employers' abilities to adjust wages depending on their business' fiscal status. Unions also often insist on expansive healthcare packages. In the case of government employee unions, that money comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets.
Governor Walker (and many other governors across the United States, including New York's Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo) explains that he just wants unions to make some sacrifices just like everyone else. However, he is wrong in taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
Like the Economist says, "[i]f the public sector is to work more like the private sector, workers should have the same rights." Taking away union members' ability to collectively bargain weakens the power of the individual government employee to an absurd degree. In fact, the ability to bargain collectively, the strength in numbers, is one of the main reasons unions were created and have survived to this day. It is dangerous to expose government employees to such a degree.
However, this Republican act is not just a fiscal move, but an ideological move as well.
Right now, the only effective political body that represents the views of working class Americans is the union. I may not be particularly happy about all the economic effects of unions, but the truth is that they allow for millions of relatively powerless individuals to have a say in society. Unions are just as much about politics as they are about improving the workplace for Americans.
Unions have huge impacts on elections, especially in heavily populated cities. Once a politician gets a union to endorse him, he can expect virtually all the members of that union to vote for him. And because unions know that the more members they encourage to vote, the more politicians have to care about them, they will do their best to maximize their effects on elections. And because unions tend to vote for Democrats, they often have a huge influence in Democratic primaries and general elections.
I may not always be happy with the economic effects of unions, but unions undoubtedly give the weak a strong voice in government. They offer at least some political balance to a system filled with the rich who can influence government via corporation lobbyists or direct donations.
Republicans, who derive their support from this category of Americans, are also attacking the very idea of unions. It is wrong, and Democrats must mobilize in coming elections to show that such attacks will not go unanswered.
After weeks of turmoil, protests, and games of hide-and-seek, Republican governor Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin has just signed a bill which will take away the collective bargaining rights of government employee unions.
I can understand why many people have a less than positive opinion of unions. Unions make it harder to fire incompetent workers (the teacher's union is an excellent example). They also limit employers' abilities to adjust wages depending on their business' fiscal status. Unions also often insist on expansive healthcare packages. In the case of government employee unions, that money comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets.
Governor Walker (and many other governors across the United States, including New York's Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo) explains that he just wants unions to make some sacrifices just like everyone else. However, he is wrong in taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
Like the Economist says, "[i]f the public sector is to work more like the private sector, workers should have the same rights." Taking away union members' ability to collectively bargain weakens the power of the individual government employee to an absurd degree. In fact, the ability to bargain collectively, the strength in numbers, is one of the main reasons unions were created and have survived to this day. It is dangerous to expose government employees to such a degree.
However, this Republican act is not just a fiscal move, but an ideological move as well.
Right now, the only effective political body that represents the views of working class Americans is the union. I may not be particularly happy about all the economic effects of unions, but the truth is that they allow for millions of relatively powerless individuals to have a say in society. Unions are just as much about politics as they are about improving the workplace for Americans.
Unions have huge impacts on elections, especially in heavily populated cities. Once a politician gets a union to endorse him, he can expect virtually all the members of that union to vote for him. And because unions know that the more members they encourage to vote, the more politicians have to care about them, they will do their best to maximize their effects on elections. And because unions tend to vote for Democrats, they often have a huge influence in Democratic primaries and general elections.
I may not always be happy with the economic effects of unions, but unions undoubtedly give the weak a strong voice in government. They offer at least some political balance to a system filled with the rich who can influence government via corporation lobbyists or direct donations.
Republicans, who derive their support from this category of Americans, are also attacking the very idea of unions. It is wrong, and Democrats must mobilize in coming elections to show that such attacks will not go unanswered.
source used: http://www.economist.com/node/18229422?story_id=18229422&CFID=158777074&CFTOKEN=81420277
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)