Unions?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

No it isn't EXACTLY like the one in WI, but it is another affront on unions that was perpetrated by a D legislature. If there was an R after their name all hell would have broken loose. They would have bussed people in from out of state much like WI.... and so on.
...

Not EXACTLY?

How about SIGNIFICANTLY different in both the terms and the intent.

The intent of the MA law is fiscal. I suspect that if the unions had offered concessions in the manner of the WI unions, this law probably would have been avoided.

By any measure, the intent of major provisions (certification) of the WI law was ideological and political, especially given the fact that the WI unions offered big concessions on health and pension benefits that the governor refused to accept.

Dismantlling or restructing 50+ years of basic rights of workers to organize and to make it more burdensome for union certification has no fiscal implications. The Republican Senator leader made it perfectly clear.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by classicman

Where is your outrage?

I buried it one night when I was REALLY wasted and now I can't find it. I made a map but its just a blank piece of paper with an X.

[Fair&Balanced]

To expand on the above.

The provision of the WI law that change the recertification process, and by the very nature of recertification, the voluntary check-off process for political contributions, was not fiscal, but purely political.

The Republican Senate leader said as much:

"If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin."

Yes, there is a difference between the MA and WI actions so No, I am not as outraged.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Big Labor has one besetting problem that leaves unionism as practiced in the United States suspect from a libertarian point of view -- its monopolistic features and powers, as arranged by the power of the State. Taft-Hartley (1947) and the National Labor Relations Act (1935) acted to limit some of these unions' powers and curb the resulting excesses -- but unions qua unions are not so very necessary to attaining good working conditions and recognizing and acting upon workers' rights vis-à-vis those of employers. Union true-believers won't tell you, for instance, that if the workforce is kept well enough and happy enough, they won't need a union, and I think this is a gathering trend. The other pan of the balance is that a company gets the union its management -- personnel or culture -- deserves.

The libertarian free-market paradigm would place unions in competition rather than in monopoly. You can see how that would shake out from the employer's point of view, absent backroom deals to fix the prices of labor. And you can see how that would shake out from the consumers' point of view also.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Where is your outrage?

Now that I know about it, my outrage is right here.

[classicman]

Thats more like the UN-fair&UN-balanced response I expected.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

Thats more like the UN-fair&UN-balanced response I expected.

You think it is unfair to point out the difference between the fiscal intent of the limited MA law and the political intent of the more sweeping WI law?

OK

[classicman]

nope - I think its your partisan attitude coming thru - I CLEARLY stated that they were not the same. Continued to discuss some of the other issues which were the point of my post.
You want to relive WI over and over, that is obvious.
You went off on your liberal slant. Instead of addressing the MA issue & other points I made, you simply keep going back to the WI issue. Whatever. Have fun.

Why don't you just change your sig line
"R = Bad & D= Good."
Then all you have to post is a "."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

nope - I think its your partisan attitude coming thru - I CLEARLY stated that they were not the same. Continued to discuss some of the other issues which were the point of my post.
You want to relive WI over and over, that is obvious.
You went off on your liberal slant. Instead of addressing the MA issue & other points I made, you simply keep going back to the WI issue. Whatever. Have fun.

Both of your posts that led up to this were comparing the MA and WI issues, so it's a bit peculiar to attack F&B for doing so.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

Blame the R's start a thread and whine, but when the D's do a SIMILAR thing ...

Originally Posted by classicman

No it isn't EXACTLY like the one in WI, I must have missed that post.

I pointed out how it is not a SIMILAR thing and more than just not EXACTLY like, unless you equate a fiscal solution to a political action.

You want to highlight the limited commonality of the two and I want to highlight the signficant differences.

So that makes me more partisan that you?

OK

[classicman]

very good - now we agree.

[Fair&Balanced]

Sure thing. Ignore the fact that your initial complaint about the liberals here not beign "outraged" was flawed and focus only on what supports your agenda.

Feel better now?

[classicman]

Reread post #49 ... I maintain my position.
You can keep moving the target all you like.
My point has been made. I really don't see what else there is to say on the subject.

[Happy Monkey]

Is there a way to read post 49 that is not a comparison between WI and MA? There are two paragraphs (not counting the aside at the bottom), and both compare WI and MA.

Your conclusion is based on reading the two situations as the same (not EXACTLY the same, but...), and you treat a description of the differences as irrelevant partisanship.

The diference in scale of reaction can at least partially be attributed to the difference in scale of the action.

[classicman]

Apparently so.
I really don't see what else there is to say on the subject.
Perception is reality. <shrug>