Tag: Workers

Even though the new governor has not really done anything to directly harm the unions, what he has done has established some choke points which put union desires at risk.  Desires, which of course rely on fiscally imprudent decision making, in times that cannot afford such decisions.  His line in the sand has met the oncoming rush of contracts they would like to have in place, and the new limits are getting under their skin.  Add to this, the reality of future liabilities and a quest by Lansing to deal with it in the manner chosen has prompted them to action.

Recalls, Protests, general aggravation.

Its the only tools they have.  The leftist driven leadership of the unions only know how to "persuade" through coercive measures.  Coercive being a subjective term I admit, however.  All the actions being taken to object to the decision making in Lansing are of course legal right? Well perhaps not, but who might be the first to call out shenanigans and be seen as a partisan.

But I digress

I get it.  I get the reasons the union leadership is pushing their recall and protest agenda.

The letter talks about the townhall meetings organized by the SEIU Corrections to "educate lawmakers" about what a tough job corrections workers have.  The lead-in is an innocent enough representative greeting by a union that has as its interest a defensive posture of correction worker jobs and the benefits therein.

Then a little bit of intellectual waterboarding pops up. (click on the image to see the entire document)

Would you please admit comrade, whether you are a traitor to the cause?  Please indicate (and circle) your level of treachery:

• Horrific villain (high crimes against the cause)
  
• Troublemaker and irritant
  
• Confused worker bee with troubled leanings
  
• Random Worker with no core beliefs
  
• Confused worker bee with seeds of truth!
  
• Dependable proletariat guard with vision
  
• Loyalist defender of the movement!

Now don't get me wrong.  I am a firm believer in contracts. I ARE A RULE OF LAW GUY.

If a contract is created between parties, those parties ought to be bound to the terms of the contract.

Makes sense right?  As an example, if I voluntarily agree to terms that bind me to a particular end (like paying on a phone contract),  in exchange for something else (the use of the phone service at a particular rate), then I should be held to account for the terms of the contract agreed upon.  If a termination of the contract results in one of the parties violating their obligation, then they should be held to the punitive measures agreed upon when entering the contract.

Yes, I believe in contract.  Morality is best served through the honoring of established agreements.