Money is always the issue.
How cynical. The point I made was the issue, that being how can you be a man of the people while denying people their right to collectively bargain? How can you be a man of the people when you make law that what is left of your bargaining power is limited to a negotiation of 1 or 2% wage increase with any additional increase being bestowed upon them at the political elite's sole discretion? Not much of a people person if you ask me.
Yes, but which people? Public school teachers are people. Firemen are people.
Run Scottie, run! I have a bit more faith in candidates for POTUS who have been governors than I do the ones who came from the senate.
Exactly right, in fact, what he did allowed the state and local municipalities the flexibility to avoid massive layoffs of those very teachers. The status quo would have resulted in teacher layoffs. A perfect example of unions caring more about their power rather than their actual members.
How cynical. The point I made was the issue, that being how can you be a man of the people while denying people their right to collectively bargain? How can you be a man of the people when you make law that what is left of your bargaining power is limited to a negotiation of 1 or 2% wage increase with any additional increase being bestowed upon them at the political elite's sole discretion? Not much of a people person if you ask me.
Depends on whether you're a teacher or merely a taxpayer. When people are standing three deep for those jobs, it's hard to believe there's a problem with pay. Oh, unless you're a teacher, I guess.
Let's not conflate the issue, people are standing 3 deep for any job.
That pro-American worker thing is nonsense here. This wasn't about the middle class worker but the civil service employees that I'll remind you were protected by state laws before the union arrived, always have been. Even FDR disagreed with collective bargaining for civil service employees.
But do they want to work?
Scott Walker acknowledged in an interview Friday that he’s open to a presidential bid. Walker insisted he was visiting Iowa in May only because he was invited by Gov. Terry Branstad. But when pressed about his White House ambitions, the Wisconsin Republican said: “Would I ever be [interested]? Possibly. I guess the only thing I’d say is I’m not ruling it out.” Perhaps even more notably, Walker wouldn’t commit to serving throughout a second four-year term. He said his focus is on substance, not longevity.
“For me, it’s really a measure of what I’ve accomplished and what more I could accomplish if I was in a different position,” Walker told POLITICO at CPAC, where he’ll speak Saturday. The governor noted that he ran for Milwaukee County executive during his state legislative term and then sought the governorship in the midst of his tenure as county executive. But Walker, 45, used the question about diversity to note that the Republican challenge isn’t merely that it’s a party dominated by white males. “It goes to old white guys” he said, adding: “I’m not an old white guy.”
Read more: Scott Walker opens up about White House ambitions - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com
So the criteria to be a republican contender is anything goes as long as you are not an old white guy. They never seem to get a clue. How about being a man of the people - no matter what color or age they are?
I'm only talking about the ones that do.
From my experience, there are very few long term unemployed who want to work for the pay of their skill level. I've never had a problem finding qualified applicants in our business, but I do have a hard time finding help for the house, yet we pay $20-$25 per hour. They all usually start out well, but the longer they work for us, the more they seem to take it for granted, which shows in their performance. We're not picky, but we do demand consistency...
Complacency does take root, I don't dispute that. The question is what can be done to provide a consistant motivational force (outside of giving them the boot). There needs to be a change in behavior on all sides. On the one side you've got to lose this race to the bottom mentality, and on the other you've got to lose this sense of entitlement to more simply because you've "put in your time".
Drastically reducing entitlements would be a great start. When the need to succeed is removed from individuals, they generally won't succeed. Self-preservation and self-interest are the most basic human instincts, but the government has managed to dull those over time...
This is a little to "sloganistic" for me to really comment. It sounds like just a reworded way to say you support the Race To The Bottom.
If you could expand slightly on which entitlements specifically, I would be able to better understand where you're coming from.
All entitlements that last longer than six months...
I'm gonna have to pull teeth I see, :mrgreen:
Unemployment benefits then? I can agree with this up to a point.
The problem I see is that our safety net is about 5 feet lower than rock bottom. I'm not talking about those who try to game the system I'm talking about individuals who go to work, pay taxes, and through no fault of their own find themselves in a predicament.
The only change made to firefighters and LEO's was that they are no longer able to bargain over their healthcare benefits. In fact, two major firefighter unions endorsed him in his recall election. Reason is coming back into some of the unions -- it's about time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?