already addressed

I think they should pass the bill, so they can find out what's in the bill.:up:

well to be honest, it's a start...and thats scary.

That is because it is, that is how these things work.

Not at all, what the State should be able to do with employees of the people, and what they can do to private entities are entirely different, and should be.

I'm pretty conservative fiscally, and I think government employees should be disallowed unions entirely, but not private citizens. That said, I think there should be zero government involvement in unions at all. No regulations. If employees want to organize, so be it. If management wants to fire every single one of them for organizing... so be it.

Look at any anti union legislation, measures are taken to really honestly only target one issue with one sector.....then they get applied across the boards.

Yours is the very attitude which led to unions being created in the first place and it is the attitude which shows how important unions still are.
You are quite like several characters in Dickens novels with your views.

Not at all. The government making regulations to protect unions is in fact taking sides. The government should be "colorblind" in this case.

Employers should absolutely have the power to fire at will. Unions can still exist in that context, but they'd need to actually bring something positive to the table—I know most union supporters hate that idea. As it is, unions are against management. They actively work to make the business they work for less competitive—they are like early colonialism, they seek to extract wealth from the company they work for, and who cares if they kill it.

Instead, they should be the pool of skilled labor. better than training someone off the street. "Hire us because we're BETTER." "We cost more, but we're worth it!"

That is an entirely legitimate model, but it would have to be true. Given that for many unions the reality is instead "we're lazy, and less productive!" I can see your point.

Regarding this legislation, it ONLY applies to State workers. It is not easy to move such legislation to the private secotr, and in fact may be impossible given other laws on the books. Federal workers to not have the rights of WI state employees. Even FDR didn't think government workers should unionize.

Enough said:har:
I did hear the government was thinking of some consumer protection legislation, but a bright spark decided that would be taking sides:doh:

I tend to agree. It's a great conflict of interest, ought to be against campaign laws. The public that pays the taxes has no vote. Big corporations on the right, unions on the left, most of us in the middle.

its tricky though, because these employees have a right to have fair jobs and wages...but they are public employees. Maybe an independent oversight board instead of a union?

I understand, because most of the services they offer aren't based on competition or the market, they provide a service, not sell services or products like the private sector.

So they're jobs are based on who is willing to do them for the pay, obvious you pay less, you'll get less quality people. The problems with the unions is that you often get stuck with less quality and can't get rid of them.

I am in the camp that police and firefighters, people who put their lives at risk deserve good pay, but also aware a lot of people do these jobs for free. If all the volunteer firefighters quit, cost would go sky high. In some area their services save taxpayers over 50%. One of the reasons so many of these jobs pay less is the many people that are willing to do them for free.

Overall our elected officials set the guidelines and payrates, that system seems to work fairly well in non union government jobs.

My issue is with the GOP selling out to corps, what will balance that out...so far nothing. It's really the buildup of the mass corporate state that's created a dying middle class that can no longer pay public unions.
That and other mass spending that government shouldn't be doing.