We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The government employee unions were a big source of funds for Democrats. If they had been representing members the old way, maybe they would have been left alone although government employee unions are essentially not real unions.
Given the antagonistic attitude and self-serving - if not outright corrupt - nature of most unions it would make sense for any government/company to stop hiring or promoting union members. Unfortunately it can be expected that much government hiring is done by fellow travelers. Nevertheless a step in the right direction.
In a for-profit company, the negotiation is about splitting the profits. If the "split" or inefficiency drives down profit or drives the company to non-compeitiveness or bankruptcy, the damage is self-limiting.
In the government vs union negotiation, efficiency is irellevnt, and the is a third party not present - the tax payers and future debt-burdened generations. In Illioois, they just raise the property tax, "fees", sales tax, automatic traffic fines, income taxes until non-union citizens and non-government employers are driven to leave the state.
Why stay in Illinois when non-union citizens make much less than "connected" state union employees for comparable work?
It is very difficult to decertify a union. Scott Walker in Wisconsin pushed to get annual recertification of government employee unions and most were decertified quickly. (Oh how I wish he was President!) With this protection they need provide no real benefits to members (and non-members). This turns and ineffective and unnecessary union into a high cash generating political operation.
Scott Walker is EXACTLY where he needs to be until the progressives are washed out of Wisconsin. I don't live there, but lots of friends and relatives do, so I spent endless hours trying to secure his position as governor. Thank the Lord he prevailed. Soros and crew spent huge dollars transporting agitators into the state to dislodge him.
It's a beautiful place with so much potential and a great work ethic. Gov. Walker is marching along a good path.
I wonder if this decision would have any effect on professional organizations. Librarians must attend and graduate from an (very left-leaning, liberal/progressive IMO) American Library Association approved graduate program then join the ALA to be employed. The library organization says it's not a union but it certainly functions as one.
Unions have always been the army of socialist/communists. Sometimes they strayed into mob control and on rare occasions unions have merely represented the workers. But for the most part their structure and application makes them a perfect hiding place and greenhouse for socialist activity. IMHO every union should be required to make their books and their activities public. If there ever was a organization that needed sunshine it is the unions
I suspect that Chris Matthews knows less about the Spanish Civil War than he thinks he knows. The left found out that its killing priests or legislators led to consequences the left didn't like at all. Consider my comment on the Spanish Civil War.
Had unions guaranteed the best labor; expert, efficient, hardworking, honest, employees, companies would be asking for union labor. Had unions guaranteed to solve employee problems, dealt with drugs and alcohol problems, harassment issues, companies would be asking for union contracts. Union leaders, instead of making union membership a thing to be desired, made it only about money and power for themselves.
Another nope: The real problem is not representation or standing, it's simple force. The ostensible right accepted the left's premise - in just about everything - that ends justify means, and so that right wasted decades arguing on relative outcomes, typically losing even at that level. After all who can argue against all the left's buzzwords: Equality, justice, democracy, fairness, and all the other co-opted pieces that comprise Newspeak.
The ostensible right is a loooser. The problem in all social governance is the virtual certainty that it will constitute an arbitrary force by A against B, which has more to do with philosophy than some variable political whim. The fact it either is or can be said to be a representative, democratic force is at the heart of that fallacy.
With the right's tacit agreement the left made your property, rights, and probably your life a matter for representative, democratic force, which is to say, the whim of the mob. And the right argues on these terms why exactly?