wyld_dandelyon (
wyld_dandelyon) wrote2011-03-01 12:57 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Graceless
I recently had a net-encounter that reminded me of dinner at a friend's house, back when I was in High School.
Now, see, my friend and I used to debate just about everything, often taking opposing positions just for the fun of debating them. She was fearless, at least at my house, willing to debate anybody. And mostly we hung out at my house just because the chaos factor at her house was...impressive...due to the sheer number of siblings.
But this one time I had dinner at her house, and her Dad tried to start a conversation. And I didn't pick up the clues my friend and her siblings were trying to give me. So I ended up in a solo debate with this grown man--a professional, in a profession that requires brains.
As a debate, it was disappointing long before he got up, insulting me, and insulting me again, exited the room.
What a pitiful way to end a conversation. All I could do was apologise for submitting his family to his rudeness--though, on further reflection, I decided that I must have been winning the debate for him to resort to such behavior.
And then I look at the spectacle happening in my state, with a few brave Democrats doing the only thing they could do to allow public debate, and a governor who insults them, trying to convince the world to blame them for the things he is threatening to do if they won't "behave".
Sadly, unlike internet trolls, the governor has the power to do more than sling insults.
It almost makes a person appreciate trolls.
Now, see, my friend and I used to debate just about everything, often taking opposing positions just for the fun of debating them. She was fearless, at least at my house, willing to debate anybody. And mostly we hung out at my house just because the chaos factor at her house was...impressive...due to the sheer number of siblings.
But this one time I had dinner at her house, and her Dad tried to start a conversation. And I didn't pick up the clues my friend and her siblings were trying to give me. So I ended up in a solo debate with this grown man--a professional, in a profession that requires brains.
As a debate, it was disappointing long before he got up, insulting me, and insulting me again, exited the room.
What a pitiful way to end a conversation. All I could do was apologise for submitting his family to his rudeness--though, on further reflection, I decided that I must have been winning the debate for him to resort to such behavior.
And then I look at the spectacle happening in my state, with a few brave Democrats doing the only thing they could do to allow public debate, and a governor who insults them, trying to convince the world to blame them for the things he is threatening to do if they won't "behave".
Sadly, unlike internet trolls, the governor has the power to do more than sling insults.
It almost makes a person appreciate trolls.
no subject
no subject
Also, if compulsory dues are the problem, why does the legislation target collective bargaining and leave the dues structure alone?
no subject
It seems no news outlet is reporting the compulsory dues, nor how they are collected in Wisconsin. I had to dig to find this resource:
http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_media_detail.asp?prid=5622&locid=177
"The state’s civil service system, among the strongest in the country, would remain in place. State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures. Local police, fire and state patrol would be exempted from the changes. Other reforms will include state and local governments not collecting union dues, annual certification will be required in a secret ballot, and any employee can opt out of paying union dues. "
Right now, if you are a teacher in Wisconsin, you are automatically part of the union. Your dues are taken out by the state (just like your income taxes) and passed on, whatever your opinion of the matter, and there is no mechanism to vote to get rid of the union if the workers are not satisfied by their representation.
40% of the teachers may have called in sick, but what about the 60% who stayed to work? Are they all happy with the union? Don't they deserve a say?
no subject
I think it's totally unreasonable to assume that all or even most of the 60% of teachers who stayed at work like the bill. What they usually assume about letters (snail mail, anyway) written to governmental officials is that there are at least 10 people who agree with each letter who were too lazy to actually write. I would think that would be even more true of going out to stand in the cold in a Wisconsin winter day--much less days, or days and nights.
And there. have been protests in other Wisconsin cities too, that mostly haven't been covered by even the local press. I drove through a huge one in downtown Milwaukee that wasn't even mentioned in the local press.
If the union bosses had been abusing their power, which I admit is possible, I didn't see union or non-union people marching in the street about that here, not even in good weather. Nor do I remember my union or non-union friends complaining about the teachers' union, or the other unions of public employees.
In contrast, I do remember many of them complaining about the power and actions of the government.
Sure, both sides deserve a say. But even when a counter-demonstration at the Capitol was announced on all the TV news channels two days in advance, the pro-Walker turnout was low.