Respectfully disagree - whether with insurance providers (gov unions) or management or with credit unions, all unions engage in collective bargaining.
Without collective bargaining, unions provide nothing.
Not true. My Mom's a teacher in Texas... I said earlier, but was wrong, that you had to be in the Union to be a teacher in Texas. (I thought I heard that somewhere, I was wrong). I went home and asked her, and she said, in the State of Texas, the public unions, at least her teachers union, doesn't have collective bargaining rights.
Like I said, the public is ok with letting a CEO make millions of dollars in a buyout even though a company is not profitable, yet teachers trying to get what they already bargained for, and we all go crazy
There is one big key difference your missing. The CEO isn't payed for with our tax dollars. Yes, there are a few companies the gov bailed out, then gave out big bonuses. I don't agree with that, the companies shouldn't have been bailed out.
But in general private company CEOs are paid with private money. Teachers are paid with tax dollars. I think its well within the right of tax payers to have some say in how their money is spent. I actually think your looking at it backwards. Your worried about how a private company spends private money, but don't care about public sector employees milking the government of YOUR money.
I don't mind stripping these teachers of their collective bargaining rights, but lets also put a ceiling on how much money the highest paid person at a company can make in relation to other employees
Again, where do you get the idea you should have a say, or have any stake in what a private company does with its money. If you want to start a business and flush $100 bills down the toilet, what business is that of mine? But if I start flushing your money down the toilet, I'd bet you have something to say.
Like I said, it's funny that we want to enact rules for certain classes to adhere to, but don't want to apply the same rules to those in a position of power.
Its got nothing to do with classes, and everything to do with do you have a legitimate interest in what they do with their money. You have an interest in how tax payer money is spent, because its partly your money. But a private company, that you haven't invested in, and have no relationship with, what interest do you have in how they spend it?
On the contrary actually. I am saying that if we want to put limitations on unions and any types of organized employees, then by the same measure we need to put limitations on CEOs and other officers at the other end of the spectrum.
You keep repeating that, but have no basis for why its the right thing to do. When I give money to my Wife, I put regulations on how it should be spent... "Go buy some groceries, but no salon this week." Because its my money. But I don't, in the name of "fairness" also tell your wife what to do with the money she has in her pocket.
Like I said, it's funny that people are so ready to regulate a sector that doesn't affect them financially or otherwise
State and local governments being bankrupt DOES effect everyone living there and paying taxes... thats EXACTLY why they have a dog in the fight... it most certainly does effect them financially. When states and local governments go bankrupt (or close to it) taxes get raised and services get cut.
But when GE wants to fire 1,000 people, consolidate a few divisions, and give the CEO a zillion dollar bonus, that only effects the 1,000 people that got laid off.
Which has a greater public effect? Which situation do citizens have more of a stake in?
Indirectly, you do pay for the salary of the CEO. The company's not pulling that salary out of thin air. I know some companies are into the whole, "creative accounting" thing, but you can only be so creative with funding someone's million dollar salary.
IF you don't like the wages paid to a CEO of a particular company, don't buy their stuff. If you think big wall street bankers are corrupt, go with local family owned banks. Invest your money in things you think worthy of it. You "indirectly" fund a CEO's salary by choice. You have no choice in paying taxes, so the least a just government could do is give you some say in how those taxes are spent. I think putting public employee union raises to a vote is a great idea. The 'investors,' taxpayers, get a say in how their money is spent. If they love their teachers for doing a great job, they vote a raise. If, their state spends more money per capital than everyone else, with lower results (like Wisconsin), they may not be so quick to approve a raise.
There are good examples out there, but they're too few and far between. My point is that we're willing to justify why all CEOs deserve their obscene salaries and severance packages/golden parachutes, but when a teacher making $25K a year wants to be ensured that he/she has a pension once they're done devoting their life to educating our youth, we're all up in arms and ready to strip away their right to bargain.
Because I don't care what you do with your money, its a free country. But I want some say over how my money is spent. If I invest in a company, that gives me a small say (based on how much I invest) in what that company does. If I've invested nothing, I don't care if they burn piles of cash. But if I've invested... or forced by law to invest, by paying taxes, we should have some say.
