No they didn't. They only paid lip service to accepting them. However, when push came to shove, they still refused to contribute to pensions and health care.
what do you mean when push came to shove? walker shoved through a bill in a shameful way, that's why he's being recalled.
what do you mean when push came to shove? walker shoved through a bill in a shameful way, that's why he's being recalled.
You dont think there is more than a little bit of pressure from the union leadership for the members to do what the union leadership says? Wasnt there a pretty big push recently for all union members to show who they were and how they voted? No pressure there. I was reading one of the old Zombie threads the other day about the Schultz Washington gathering and the union boss being asked if their membership went because they wanted to or because they were forced to do...I believe his response was...both.really? where did you read that? don't the union employees VOTE on contracts?
Was that more or less shameful than WI senators refusing to do thier jobs and vote? In what way was Walker's actions not legally legislative? You say you're not a Union fanboy at all costs, but you sure as hell act like one when you refuse to acknowledge basic well-documented facts surrounding the events..
Tim-
Walker didnt bust the unions. They still exist. But there is no compelling reason to have public sector unions other than to funnel dues to politicians.
The recall election is now inevitable, and it will happen as soon as May 29. This election could go either way, and I am predicting that Walker will survive - barely. However, he will be powerless to foist any more of his extremist agenda onto the people of Wisconsin, as at least one of 4 Senate seats up for grabs will be lost, thus flipping the Senate. And Walker will have more problems ahead, as his advisers and cronies go on trial for theft, election fraud, and even exposing genitals in front of a child.
No matter how Walker's recall election turns out, his extremist dynasty is toast on a stick.
Article is here.
Hmm, so you're saying that two wrongs DO make a right? You admit that Walker's action was shameful, but claim the Dems' attempt to stop it was more shameful? Or what?
The problem with Walker's action is that he clearly had union busting as one of his primary goals, but he made absolutely no mention of it during the campaign. The reason is pretty obvious; Wisconsin is generally a pro-union state and attacking the unions during the campaign would have hurt his chances of winning. In essence he was thinking, "I know the people of Wicsonsin won't like this, but once I get elected they won't be able to do anything about it."
And thus he is getting what he had coming to him.
I certainly agree that Walker is finished and a strong message is now being sent to the extremist right-wing faction in this country of which Scott Walker is a firm member. It didn't take as long as I thought it would for the country's reasonable people to go on the offensive, and I predict that Walker will lose and that we are seeing the tip of the iceberg in this recall.
It will be nice to see the day when reasonable conservatives can come out and offer better ideas that people can listen to.
Not at all.. I am not saying Walker's legislative actions were shameful, they were appropriate, legal, and democratic. I was cntrasting his actions which were proper with the actions of the slimey union bought and paid for politicians on the democrat side. By the way, perhaps you have a poor memory. Walker made it pretty clear that Unions were a big part of the problem for why the state was in so much trouble, PRIOR to being elected.
Tim-
He talked about trying to get concessions from the unions, but he NEVER suggested that he wanted to take away their bargaining rights.
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he campaigned on his budget repair plan, including curtailing collective bargaining
I'll match your linky with my linky: ksfr: : Weekly Standard: Why So Surprised About Walker? (2011-02-23)
Now, although the catch phrase "collecive bargaining" was not mentioned (For political reasons perhaps since most of the voting public don't even know what the hell it even is and I'm sure that's by-design) anyone paying attention to the Govenors races is a fool if they didn't thnk for a minute that whatr Walker was essentially saying in "laymans" terms was that the BIG union scam was over in his state.. Now, unions can "act" all surprised and you can choose to believe their ignorance if you like, but if there's one thing I have come to know about unions is that the one thing they really, really KNOW; it is how they get paid.. Only a fool would suggest otherwise, and frankly wouldn't be worth any more of my time in a debate.
Suggesting Walker somehow "tricked" everyone would be tantamount to suggesting that Obama tricked everyone into believing he would not govern as a liberal ideologue. Sure, the people that vote not by their own careful consdieration but by drive by opinions they gather from friends, family and the LSM would certainly not have known just how radical Obama would be, but conservatives that pay attention and care about just who gets to be President weren't fooled, and neither were the unions.. They KNEW what was going to happen, and they're pissed because they couldn't stop it before it happened, and this recall will cost a lot of union dues and still fail..
Just my opinion but that is exactly how I saw it leading up the 2010 elections.
Tim-
Sorry, not buying it. One, you've got to be kidding. Everyone knows what collective bargaining is. How stupid do you think people are?
And two, a singular hint during the entire campaign -- by an aid and not the candidate himself -- hardly qualifies as full disclosure.
He effectively busted them by taking away their bargaining rights. Collective bargaining is the main purpose of unions.
If that is the case, the union should refund all the dues they have been taking.
Since people are no longer required to pay and the state is no longer collecting the dues autmatically, the unions are taking in a hella lot less money - which is the reason they are so upset. They don't seem to like it when people get to make a choice where to spend their money.
Why do state employees need unions when the private sector overwhelmingly does without them?And why would anyone pay union dues when the state has effectively neutered the union?
If that is the case, the union should refund all the dues they have been taking.
Drat, foiled again. And I would have gotten away with it too if it werent for you...wait....what is my evil plan again?Which would of course figure right into you less than Machiavellian plan. Your goals have all the subtlety of a chain saw going into a shinbone.
Why do state employees need unions when the private sector overwhelmingly does without them?
So, why do they need to unionize.State jobs and services are about the only thing these republican leaning corporate ********ers can't ship overseas.
State jobs and services are about the only thing these republican leaning corporate ********ers can't ship overseas.
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?