JohnGalt wrote:
The sad thing is the Dems were not primarily worried about the loss of collective bargaining over benefits. The real killer in this bill was the fact that it ended the closed shop status of the state school system. That's the dirty little secrete behind the bill. When you give the teaches the option to have 1000 to 2000 less deducted from their yearly pay there will be FAR fewer union members in a year or two. That's the killer.
Fun fact, voting amongst union members in the state of Wisconsin was split about 48/52 GOP/Dem last election, but political contributions by the teachers union (and other unions) are about 96% biased in favor of democratic candidates. So that my friends is the true reason behind all this outrage. One party will lose a HUGE source of funding in the coming years and possibly a large voting block as well.
Money is the lifeblood of politics and unions are a major source of Dem funds, you start opening shops everywhere and you deal a huge blow to democratic coffers everywhere. Notice how most right to work states are almost always GOP controlled states.
As private union membership has declined in the last 20 years due to natural economic realities and market forces, public unions (state and some federal workers) have increased and currently there are more public than private union members. Public unions are far more dangerous than their private counterparts because elected officials are in direct control of the pay/benefits of members. So in a since you are electing your own boss which economically is a very bad idea. Employees will ALWAYS vote in their own best interests as its the only rational thing to do and will always vote for the candidate that will raise pay and benefits. Their is quite a bit of quid pro quo than goes on between public unions and elected officials. The official knows that as pay increases for public union members the union takes in more and can then donate more to the party organization. So the official gets guarantied funds and votes next election if they capitulate to the unions demands. This is also a roundabout way to funnel tax payer dollars into party coffers as your taxes pay the public workers and the union deducts its dues from the pay checks of its members and then sends them to a party of candidate. Union members have almost zero control over where union dollars go and even though the partisanship of a union might be evenly split the money never is.
They are responsible for most of the debt in states like California and are bad for both sides of the isle. Not really trying to dump on either party here but it just happens that Dems have received the majority of public union support in the last 20-30 years. Trying desperately NOT to flounder this thread... 
This was probably the best post in this entire thread. Very constructive and interesting (even if a bit controversial). Thank you, JohnGalt.
Unfortunately, the prediction of flounder was greatly understated.
Do you guys REALLY think arguing about who makes more stuff that is in our homes has anything productive to offer, other than getting your own blood pumping while you are pounding your chests?
