On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote:

> Every single thing about the Walker campaign in Wisconsin, however, seems
> slimy, unethical and dishonest.
>

I'll leave this analysis to the crazy radio host people screaming into
their microphones.


> What is the intellectually
> honest argument that they aren't trying to effectively kill collective
> bargaining?


Well, I am not really interested in the "we vs they" thing, I am really
just trying to understand the change in law and wether I think it's good or
bad.


> If you want to make the argument against the right to
> unionize period, ok. That's a debate.


Well, that's not what  am debating, really, but I would be open to it.


> This shit though? I've yet to
> see anyone able to make a cogent argument for the items in the bill
> and have it amount to more than "We don't like unions and are trying to
> knee cap them".
>

Which is why I prefer to view the bill and law summary rather than observe
the participants in the process directly. I am curious if the changes to
law stand on their own as valid ideas - the distastefulness of everyone
involved is irrelevant to me in that context.


> If we want to discuss optional membership in a union as opposed to
> mandatory membership, that's something I can really ponder. I've
> considered arguments on both sides and I'm still unsure, can't quite
> form a definitive position one way or another. The Wisconsin bill,
> however, doesn't have anything to do with this point.
>

I very clearly favor freedom of individual choice in lots of things,
including this.


> I also think that there are a lot of options for avoiding unionization
> on the part of employers. For instance, my sister and her husband [...]


Also an option, choosing not to work somewhere that treats you like
dogshit. I know that's grossly overly simplified, but frankly so was your
example.

None the less, Walker and his cronies were out to knee cap unions and
> undermine the very basis of collective bargaining while pretending to
> just want to stream line union processes. It was dishonest and dirty
> to the core. And they got away with it. While you make like the idea
> of doing away with unions, I think that if you really look at what
> they did and how they did it, you'll be holding your nose too. Their
> shit stinks plenty.


I am supremely uninterested in identifying the character flaws of
politicians. I figured out that are mostly all slimy lying assholes a long
time ago.

-Cameron

...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351819
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to