- The new Tea Party-backed Governor had a surplus budget when he was inaugurated.
- The Governor spent that surplus on tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy.
- The Governor declared a short-term fiscal crisis, and insisted that unions (except the ones that supported him) give up their money and the right to collective bargaining.
- After protests, the unions impacted by this agree to the financial paybacks.
- The Governor rejects this unless the long-term collective bargaining rights are eliminated, effectively closing the unions.
What am I missing here? What other conclusion can one come to other than the Tea Party Governor wants to eliminate the unions that did not support him?
The impacted unions have given in on everything the Governor is insisting on except collective bargaining. The elimination of collective bargaining will not do anything to help the "short term financial crisis", which is the justification the Governor is using. It's clear that the Governor simply wants to eliminate the unions which did not support him in the election.
I have various feelings about unions and the goodness or badness therein. However, this cannot be interpreted as anything but denying hard-won rights to the lower and middle class.
No comments:
Post a Comment