Little-Acorn
03-08-2011, 11:59 AM
http://cagle.com/working/110228/englehart.jpg
The above cartoon points out a very important fact: The people who ultimately pay for ALL the unions' wages, benefits, retirement etc., are not present when those union contracts are negotiated: the Taxpayers. It's all too clear that their "representatives" in this case, are open to corruption by huge union contributions to their campaigns (unions corrupting politicians?? I'm shocked, shocked by the very idea :) )
May I suggest a compromise that could clear up the entire problem and end the impasses we are seeing in Wisconsin, Indiana etc.?
Change state laws so that:
The govt-employee unions and the state govt do their negotiating, and finally arrive at a suggested contract for the union workers that they both agree on.
But the contract does not become valid until approved by popular vote, in the next regular statewide election that is scheduled. No special elections, since special elections are very expensive.
If the contract is voted down in the regular election, then the union workers get a default contract that is 10% LESS than what private workers in that state get for similar jobs. Any union worker who doesn't like it, is free to quit and apply for one of those private jobs. The union and the state govt then start working on the next version of their contract, which will be voted on in the next regular election.
Before the election, unions are free, of course, to campaign for the contract, trying to persuade the public why they should vote in favor. They can spend their own money for that campaign, plus any money that anyone else wants to give them. Anyone opposed to the contract, is equally free to advertise how much of the union members' dues are being spent on the campaign, and whether the union members were allowed to approve of those funds being spent that way or not.
Sound like a plan? After all, as the above cartoon pointed out, it's the taxpayers' money that ultimately pays for it all. Shouldn't the taxpayers be able to vote on it?
The above cartoon points out a very important fact: The people who ultimately pay for ALL the unions' wages, benefits, retirement etc., are not present when those union contracts are negotiated: the Taxpayers. It's all too clear that their "representatives" in this case, are open to corruption by huge union contributions to their campaigns (unions corrupting politicians?? I'm shocked, shocked by the very idea :) )
May I suggest a compromise that could clear up the entire problem and end the impasses we are seeing in Wisconsin, Indiana etc.?
Change state laws so that:
The govt-employee unions and the state govt do their negotiating, and finally arrive at a suggested contract for the union workers that they both agree on.
But the contract does not become valid until approved by popular vote, in the next regular statewide election that is scheduled. No special elections, since special elections are very expensive.
If the contract is voted down in the regular election, then the union workers get a default contract that is 10% LESS than what private workers in that state get for similar jobs. Any union worker who doesn't like it, is free to quit and apply for one of those private jobs. The union and the state govt then start working on the next version of their contract, which will be voted on in the next regular election.
Before the election, unions are free, of course, to campaign for the contract, trying to persuade the public why they should vote in favor. They can spend their own money for that campaign, plus any money that anyone else wants to give them. Anyone opposed to the contract, is equally free to advertise how much of the union members' dues are being spent on the campaign, and whether the union members were allowed to approve of those funds being spent that way or not.
Sound like a plan? After all, as the above cartoon pointed out, it's the taxpayers' money that ultimately pays for it all. Shouldn't the taxpayers be able to vote on it?