posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:56 PM
Having read the article and the posts there are a few things that can be stated:
As with any disagreement, there are 2 sides to the issue here. One the side of the unions, no one should dispute about what all unions in the past
have done for the workers in different countries, and the United States being one of them. From having a more unified pay scale, to workdays and
actual rights for the people in the different aspects of businesses. The laws govern the way the common worker is treated and fairness in the work
place. Unions helped to keep some companies from going under, often working with the management to succeed.
On the other side of the argument is the governor who has a duty to everyone in the state. He was elected to a mess that was left to him, not created
while he was in office, but rather was present, as many who are in office are having to deal with. The problem ultimately, and it spans on every
level of society in the country to day, a poor economy and a deficit that is growing. Many states have holes in their budget and limited resources to
be able to keep the state going, and with more need than the prior year. Part of the problem are contracts and promises that were made before, such
as pensions and high wages, that are affecting those budgets. The cuts have to be made, and can hurt. Ultimately emergency services have to go and
the public safety have to be always on the forefront of any who would be put in a position of authority. In this case, he took a look at the budget
and has decided to make cuts. But in doing such, he risks the chance that some of the unions and their members will strike or walk off the job. He
is removing an aspect to where they are not able or allowed to due such. Does this exist, yes, it does and has been enforced before, as it would be
legal in all aspects of federal law. Some of the federal jobs, even though they are part of a union, it is against the law to strike or walk off, to
include halting and suspending collective bargaining.
So put yourself in the governors shoes, you have to make cuts, and say the police union is not happy and threatens to strike, what all do you do? You
can not give in to their demands, and you have to keep the population safe, what alternatives are you left with? It would have to turn to the
national guard, and utilize them to keep the peace and empower them, temporarily, with the ability and powers of the law. Would you be happy if the
local prison guards, just went on strike and all of the criminals in prison could just walk out before they are done with their sentence? As we are
not sure what all the cuts are and what parts of the state employees would be affected, it is far to early to see what ultimately is going to happen.
If it is peaceful, then if the State guard moves on the orders of the governor, then the fault lies with the governor. But if it affects public
safety, where it turns ugly or dangerous, then the fault lies with the unions.