It underscores how much the US has changed for the worse. Collective bargaining courses were standard curriculum in university business schools. I suppose those have disappeared. Not that I was ever a big supporter of unions, but their demise and small business contraction coincide with the fall of rome (USA).
What would Ronald Reagan have said about the goings on in Wisconsin?
- Thread starter Gabfly1
- Start date
It underscores how much the US has changed for the worse. Collective bargaining courses were standard curriculum in university business schools. I suppose those have disappeared. Not that I was ever a big supporter of unions, but their demise and small business contraction coincide with the fall of rome (USA).
The reason no one is bothering to respond is because it is a bad argument on your part, Regan may have supported private sector unions to a degree, but there is no way he would have been fine with what is going on today. The public sector does not need unions, because the government (democrats) already give them ridiculous pay/benefits in order to buy their votes. As it stands right now you could cut 90% of public sector jobs, drop the average salary by 33% and you would still have people lining up for miles in order to get these jobs.
You are the one who is always complaining about Regan and trickle down economics, so which is it, was Regan in favour of taxing and spending, or did he believe in trickle down economics?
from the referenced wiki article linked above:
Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike. Indeed, as president of my own union, I led the first strike ever called by that union. I guess I'm maybe the first one to ever hold this office who is a lifetime member of an AFL - CIO union. But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government's reason for being.
In other words SAG, yes, public sector unions, no.
Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike. Indeed, as president of my own union, I led the first strike ever called by that union. I guess I'm maybe the first one to ever hold this office who is a lifetime member of an AFL - CIO union. But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government's reason for being.
In other words SAG, yes, public sector unions, no.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a particular fan of Reagan. Just that the self-proclaimed particular fans of Reagan do not seem to be on the same page as he was. So, you see, the hypocrisy is not really my own.
P.S. Really? People lining up for miles to take teaching jobs?
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electr...Flynt, Samuel Teacher Shortage in America.pdf
That ties in with:
"...It was in recognition of this that the Congress passed a law forbidding strikes by government employees against the public safety..."
Are teaching jobs ones regarding "protective services" or public safety? And, MORE IMPORTANTLY, the above references are ones regarding the right to strike, rather than one regarding the right of collective bargaining. Try to make the distinction.
Again, apple meet orange.