I wasn't really saying two wrongs make a right...I was more pointing out how black and white your thinking is. You've boiled down shades of grey to:

Unions bad. Private sector good.

and somehow you've convinced yourself that only unions are the ones ripping off taxpayers while the truth lays somewhere in between. If the republicans really wanted to eliminate waste and balance the budget they would also look at waste in private contracts too. But they wont..why? because all this is all just union busting.

Forget it Gimpy, leave them with their illusions about restraints and competition.

For all of augusts "This, this, this ^" TorpX ignores well established patterns that are as old as the hills.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Not once have I ever said or implied that. This discussion is about the problems with public sector unions. If you want to talk about corporate influence then start your own thread for it.

Then I can tell you that by your reasoning we should do nothing about corporate abuse because the unions are ripping off the taxpayers as well.

Hey, I got a wacky idea.

Why don't we debate the issue and not have ad hom. attacks? I highly doubt that anyone here in the GT is personally responsible for anything with this Wisconsin issue. So there is no need for anything to get personal here, right?

I know it is a wacky "out of the GT box" idea, but think about it. It just might work. :yep:

well you haven't really acknowledged that you also think corporate waste needs to be checked too...if that even is your belief. Id be more more willing to cut unions if first I did not believe this is all being done for corporate interests, and secondly If there was fair emphasis at resolving other wastes in the budget (especially wasteful pet projects given to favorite companies). Its all very one sided, everywhere from on the boards to at the top. it doesn't feel like just an attempt to balance the budget...it feels more like an attack on unions.

This whole argument pertains to public sector unions (excluding fire/po-lice). What's the purpose for them to organize? None. They are just paracites feeding off the taxpayers.

They want to organize to make sure their interests are protected and their jobs aren't cut.

to me it's ironic that they are being painted as villains even though they just want the best living they can have, or just to keep their job.

Especially when our legislature is the second highest paid in the nation, behind California. (base salary starting at $79,650 plus 1,000 a month for office expenses).

But that doesn't stop you from vilifying corporations who after all are just doing the exact same thing the public sector union is doing, getting the best deal they can for their members.

But again, if a corporation charges too much they soon loose the contract to their competitor, political patronage or not.

Where is the unions competition?

Or, put another way: What is a union's motivation to maintain high levels of ethics and efficiency, when a member is going to pay dues no matter what, or be ostracized and outcast both from the union and from the workplace?

When I worked for a large, brown shipping company in the early 90's, I was not offered a choice to participate in the union - it was practically stated that union membership was mandatory as a condition of employment; yet I, to this day, do not know who the union rep was in the shop.

Once again a point that doesn't reflect reality.

also doesn't really reflect reality.

Corporations rarely share profits as freely as that statement suggests. unless you are talking about stocks..and thats only because they have to. People working for them get squat

Also, Corporations are not people. A union is an association of workers a company is not. The old "corporations are people too" just doesn't cut it.

Which corporations? How many have you worked for? The ones I've worked for don't reflect anything like you have posted in this statement.

And just for clarity's sake, corporations are a grouping of people, and unions are a grouping of people. There is no difference to that effect. It's merely the goals of each that differ.

I would disagree but it's irrelevant. This isn't about corporations. It's about the organized blackmail and thuggery that you call unions and no amount of obfuscation on your part is going to change that.

To recap:
Unions oppose voluntary participation.
Unions oppose periodic votes of confidence
Unions oppose competition.
Unions oppose allowing the voter to decide if they deserve a pay raise beyond the cost of living.
Unions are over paid and over compensated.

I wonder what Aramike is up to? I haven't heard from him since this concluded.:06:

Clarify please: You are still talking about the public unions or unions in general?

Another key, afaik, this whole fuss was regarding benefits, not pay. You should have heard the unions squeal here when they wanted to increase their health contribution by......$5:har:. There was no way they were going to pay that.:dead: Ofcoarse, the gov buckled, as he was a union sock puppet.:haha: