|
joether -> RE: Wis. Governor moves closer to a Win (2/25/2011 4:13:06 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Subrob1967
If they go on strike, fire their asses and hire unemployed people...Win/Win for Wisconsin.
The primary benefit of collective bargaining, was to keep unions from striking in the first place. It is a pretty simple concept completely lost on you. By entering in to collective bargaining, management and union could work on problems to an acceptable solution. Which is why we have not see any major strikes in the last twenty years. There have been a few minor ones, but that was because one side or both did not like the direction of collective bargaining. So by removing it, it opens the door to strikes. So why would you want to bring everything to a halt, when you could have things rolling along while matters are worked out? What possible economic benefit is there to that?
Second, you hate waste of every kind (I can understand that). So by firing them, implies hiring more people for the job. You can't just hire anyone off the street for many of the jobs. Teachers, police officers, EMT's, even sanitation requires specific lisences and certificates from the state and/or federal goverment. That simply removes much of the unemployed person in the state from the begining. Even the process of hiring will take 2-6 months (most being hired around the 4th month). Can Wisconsin operate at its current level with no human infrastructure in place to handle the job? Not to mention that inexperienced people will create many problems and mistakes for the first couple of months/years (depending on the nature of the mistake). That creates waste (something you have noted in the past that you hate). So why create more of something you personnally hate, subrob? Does that make sense?
quote:
ORIGINAL: servantforuse
It is Illegal for state employees to go on strike. If that is what they want to do then they should be fired. There are many that would be very happy to get those good jobs.
As noted above, it is considered illegal to strike, when collective bargaining is an option that has not been tried. Generally, a mediator will ask the union if it has done so before taking up the issue they (the union) hold with management. If they say they didn't, generally most mediators have sided with management. So it is within the union's interest to conduct collective bargaining, while keeping workers at work, handling the business until a solution is found. Take collective bargaining out of the equation, and we'll see a returning sight from the 70's & 80's: Strikes.
You want to arrest people who feel they are getting shafted for putting in hard work every day and getting less and less benefit of it everyday? When was the last time you taught 11th grade mathematics in the inner cities? Those folks put up with alot of crap, for little benefit already. Those you hire in to the position (after arresting the workers) will not come any cheaper. If anything, it'll cost you more in the long run. Judging from your past posts, I don't think you even understand the full costs. If you did, would you be for doing that action? Judging again from your posts on this forum: not in a million years.
|
|
|
|
