Patrick gets to the heart of it and provides a very provocative link, too!!
Unions and their allies complain that [Walker] secretly hates unions and that allowing only some collective bargaining will destroy unions. They have so far failed to provide any rational support for this.
Public-employee unions were created by the Legislature (and Governor) of Wisconsin. There is nothing which prevents the same bodies from UN-creating them.
There is, as Patrick (and FDR) allowed, a 'right' to organize. That is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. That 'right' is most compelling if (and only if) the workers are not treated with dignity and respect.
But the Church and FDR also stipulate that unions may NOT interfere with the common good; and in the case at hand, it is clear that the State's financial survival is contingent on serious changes in union-members' privileges.
But the question is a bit larger. Is "the common good" at stake when monopoly-services are involved?
Patrick also linked to an article whose author raises, arguably, the most important point:
...The very nature of many public services — such as policing the streets and putting out fires — gives government a monopoly or near monopoly; striking public employees could therefore hold the public hostage. As long-time New York Times labor reporter A. H. Raskin wrote in 1968: "The community cannot tolerate the notion that it is defenseless at the hands of organized workers to whom it has entrusted responsibility for essential services."
The "Big 3" were an oligopoly through most of the '50's and '60's--and even THEY could not sustain labor's demands into the 21st Century.
The only reason that Public Employee Unions have succeeded to this point is that they are able to collect their wages, benefits, and privileges at the point of a gun. That's what 'taxation' is, folks.
So we have a monopoly Government with a monopoly Union; the Government provides armed support for the demands of its union employees.
Sheriff of Nottingham, you have a call holding on Line One.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So when people say "cafeteria Catholic" they mean one who picks and chooses which parts they want to believe, which they enact in their own life, which parts they pick to support their reasoning?
dad = spoken like a true Montana Freemen.
But a balance sheet expert you're not.
And you haven't the foggiest idea of "what's the topic" on this post.
Of course we do. The topic, like all of your posts, is that the Church is right when it supports your political views, and it's wrong when it doesn't.
BINGO, John Foust!
Post a Comment