So Scott Walker's been on the radio circuit this morning explaining his a-bomb drop of last week.
Two different hosts asked the same question: how come izzit you exempted cops and firemen?
Same answer:
Walker does NOT expect that State/municipal employees to "be unprofessional" and take job actions. However, just to make SURE that the cops/firemen do not 'take a job action,' he exempted them from his plan.
So.
Either we have "Some Unions are More Equal Than Other Unions" or Walker doesn't really trust the cops and firemen to "be professional."
Either way, it doesn't make a lot of sense. If the police/fire unions are filled with "non-professionals" then there's a big problem. If these unions expect exemption from the pains of the REST of this State (private-sector too), then there's another big problem.
I think it smells.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
We definitely do not see eye to eye on many points, but at least you are consistent in this regard. If ALL labor unions are going to have to bite the bullet (which I don't agree anyways with Walker's proposals, but that's another story) then there ought to be NO EXCEPTIONS.
Well, that's crap.
Cops and firemen are prohibited by federal law (ie, it's illegal and they can be arrested) from striking.
It makes perfect sense and was a very clever move by Walker.
1) it lowers the number of union members affected which lessens the backlash, and
2) it divides and conquers. This exceptional and well organized group won't put much effort into defeating the whole since it doesn't affect them.
The divide and conquer is going to play out in a very big way across municipalities especially.
Dang. Just dang. I've taken forever to hop on the Walker bandwagon, but I'm running behind it right now thinking I might ask to climb on soon.
No, it does NOT 'make perfect sense.'
It makes Machiavellian sense--which is not a standard by which this State should be governed.
Well let's say Walker does it your way and includes police and fire unions in this change. The state blows into an uproar because now "every person's personal safety is at risk" (that's how I imagine they would play it)and in the end, the governor has to back down.
Still like your way better than the one he chose?
Wow Cindy K! And to think that I was coming to view you as one of the more reasonable conservatives around. Now you laud disingenuousness in the name of a political win. I would have never thought I'd agree with Dad29 on anything, but this move by Walker is simply transparent.
With Jim at my side, we march to victory! (Ye gods and little fishes...)
Anyhoo, back in the real world:
The Unions are already telling us that children will be un-educated and that union members will be sleeping on the streets.
IF the unions pull out the "you'll burn while being raped and murdered" card, they are telling citizens that the police/fire folks will NOT serve them.
Think that's what the unions want to convey?
So, Walker doesn't want to risk a job action by police or firefighters in a crisis. To paraphrase: It's ok to bully those who can't hurt you, but don't try it with somebody who can hit harder than you can.
I wonder also how he plans to drive this past the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.
Post a Comment