PDA

View Full Version : Indiana gov suggests public unions should go



Janice
06-10-2012, 11:32 PM
http://i.imgur.com/LswvV.jpg

After Walker victory, Indiana governor suggests public unions should go

On the heels of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's history-making recall victory, the governor of nearby Indiana with his own record of curtailing union benefits suggested public-sector unions are past their prime and should be abolished.

"I think, really, government works better without them," Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told "Fox News Sunday," when asked whether public-worker unions should even exist.

Daniels had cracked down on collective bargaining for state workers as soon as he took office in 2005, six years before Walker and his GOP allies in the state legislature started down the same path -- triggering a backlash that forced him to stand for election this past Tuesday. Walker made history as the first governor to survive the recall test, beating Democrat Tom Barrett.

Daniels said that vote should send a message about the problems with public-sector unions.

"I think the message is that, first of all, voters are seeing the fundamental unfairness of government becoming its own special interest group, sitting on both sides of the table," he said.

Foxnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/10/after-walker-victory-indiana-governor-suggests-public-unions-should-go/)

-----------------------------------------------------

http://i.imgur.com/JMnRR.gif

Starbuck
06-11-2012, 10:05 AM
To review:
Wisconsin became the first state to have public sector unions, but it actually started in New York City.
President Kennedy, by Executive Order 10988, upgraded the status of, and thereby encouraged the growth of, public sector unions.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58926#axzz1xUdN6mlM

Kennedy's Executive Order may be rescinded by another President, or may be revoked by Congress.

Will "We, The People" gather enough conservatives to rescind and revoke the whole mess? I hope so.:smile-new:

Read about Executive Orders http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/a/executive_order.htm

wasp69
06-11-2012, 10:08 AM
http://i.imgur.com/LswvV.jpg
"I think the message is that, first of all, voters are seeing the fundamental unfairness of government becoming its own special interest group, sitting on both sides of the table," he said.


Good, I hope all of this starts an avalanche against the public unions that buries them in the dung heap of history.

How in the Hell anyone can justify a small group that collectively organizes against taxpayers is beyond me.

AmPat
06-11-2012, 12:00 PM
I'm not sure I want the unions, public or otherwise to entirely go away. I would like some renegotiating and guidelines so that if they overstep, they get canned. I liked how Reagan handled PATCO. They overstepped and got exactly what was promised. We need something between a terroristic Union and a tyrannical boss. I guess common sense will never trump human greed.:blue:

noonwitch
06-12-2012, 08:54 AM
I'm not sure I want the unions, public or otherwise to entirely go away. I would like some renegotiating and guidelines so that if they overstep, they get canned. I liked how Reagan handled PATCO. They overstepped and got exactly what was promised. We need something between a terroristic Union and a tyrannical boss. I guess common sense will never trump human greed.:blue:


If for no other reason, public employees need a union to represent them in disciplinary hearings. Otherwise, a dumbass who slept her way into management would be able to fire all those she stepped over to get there, to use at least one example that I've witnessed at the workplace. Or the jerk I had to work for who threatened to write me up for wearing sunglasses in the building when they had slid off the top of my head between the door and my desk when my hands were full, then threatened to write me up for talking about him behind his back (I begged him to do it, and when he asked why, I told him "you'll know when you get the subpeona-I will sue you for violating my first amendment rights, and doing so based on heresay, no less ").

Gina
06-12-2012, 09:29 AM
There are employment laws now that didn't exist when unions were good (thanks to unions) that negate the need for unions imo. A LONG time ago. They're outdated and a means for the bosses to get rich off the workers.

What are democrats so afraid of? Do they think/know that if people aren't compelled to donate to democrats, that they WON'T donate to democrats? I think so.

AmPat
06-12-2012, 11:56 AM
There are employment laws now that didn't exist when unions were good (thanks to unions) that negate the need for unions imo. A LONG time ago. They're outdated and a means for the bosses to get rich off the workers.

What are democrats so afraid of? Do they think/know that if people aren't compelled to donate to democrats, that they WON'T donate to democrats? I think so.

There are indeed laws now on the books that protect workers. They are there primarily courtesy of the unions. I do believe that unions have outgrown their usefulness though, and have over reached to the point of driving businesses into the ground or overseas. Making $15 an hour for menial labor and then striking for presidential benefits is ludicrous. No wonder we have Chinese and Vietnamese children making our useless Walmart crap for us.
Still, I believe unions could have a place in representing workers if only we could purge them of the refuse at the top.

DIMS are in favor of Unions because it is a legal money (taxpayer) laundering scheme for them, not because of ideological purity.

Gina
06-12-2012, 02:10 PM
There are indeed laws now on the books that protect workers. They are there primarily courtesy of the unions. I do believe that unions have outgrown their usefulness though, and have over reached to the point of driving businesses into the ground or overseas. Making $15 an hour for menial labor and then striking for presidential benefits is ludicrous. No wonder we have Chinese and Vietnamese children making our useless Walmart crap for us.
Still, I believe unions could have a place in representing workers if only we could purge them of the refuse at the top.

DIMS are in favor of Unions because it is a legal money (taxpayer) laundering scheme for them, not because of ideological purity.
I agree, and I wonder if, along with 'fat cats', the union bosses could be included in the 'ceos shouldn't make so much money off the employees' mantra. :smile-new: