Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, known for his anti-union stance, is stuck between Twitter and a hard place this morning after putting a #Returntherealrefs hashtag at the end of a tweet regarding Monday night’s loss by the Green Bay Packers.
“After catching a few hours of sleep, the #Packers game is still just as painful. #Returntherealrefs” he tweeted from his @GovWalker account.
The Packers suffered a controversial 14-12 loss to the Seattle Seahawks in which a last-play touchdown appeared to have two blown calls that would have overturned the touchdown. The calls were made by replacement officials, working in place of locked-out, unionized NFL officials.
Walker was the target of a recall election in June after the state passed Act 10, which eliminated most collective bargaining rights for public unions. His tweet Tuesday drew furious reaction from opponents who saw support for the officials union as hypocritical.
@ElephantGun replied to Walker: "So you PRO-union now? Here's what hiring low-wage scabs gets you, idiot. #Packers #ReturnTheRealRefs"
@PeaceNikki replied: "Really!?! You hypocritical FOOL. your attack on unions gives businesses the ability to hire unqualified employees. #ScabRefs
Wisconsin politicians’ outrage was bipartisan. Democratic State Senator Jon Erpenbach Tweeted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s office phone number to his followers following the game.
We've been through this a thousand times already - there is an inherent conflict of interest with public sector unionization in that the public sector union employees are also taxpayers, thus they are in effect bargaining against their own self interests. Their compensation also derives from public funds which are collected from citizens by force. Not to mention that the public sector employees get to vote for the public officials that their unions are negotiating against, thus they effectively end up with representation on both sides of the bargaining table. This is why men such as FDR, the former President of the AFL-CIO, and my namesake didn't believe in public sector unionization. Walker isn't the hypocrite - public sector unionization is! In the private sector, typically the union and the owners/management tend to remain separate, with no conflict of interest. If a unionized employee chooses to also take an ownership interest in the company, it is done so voluntarily. And the revenues that corporations generate derive from money that is spent voluntarily, not by force (except in the case of health insurance companies thanks to Obamacare). And unless the union members are voluntarily buying an ownership in the company, and thereby getting to vote for members of the board of directors that their union is negotiating against, they typically don't get to vote for management. Hoffa hopes that you are able to see the differences here!
Slavery, REALLY??? You have hit a new low. Slavery was a dark chapter in the American history, Right to Work is the exact opposite of slavery.
"Being pro-taxpayer doesn't make me anti-union. Besides, private sector unions are often our partners in economic development."
Here's an interesting analysis from HuffPost in May: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-bottari/wisconsin-recall-election-right-to-work-_b_1553348.html Slavery was indeed one of the darkest chapters in the American history. And interestingly, as I wrote, all of the former slavery states are R2W states. Slavery is the ultimate theft of human labor. Right to Work undermines unions and leads to lower wages, undervaluing human labor. Further, as unions are starved, workers lose the protection from wrongful firings, etc., that collective bargaining ensured. No, this isn't slavery, but it's reflective of a similar entitlement mentality that believes that hurting other people is ok if it's profitable enough. No thank you.
Does it just suck so bad watching Obama prove liberalism a failure that you can't see the real picture?
NOBAMA2012!
Of course if you are a farmer, you get subsidies, if you drive a car, your municipality provides streets to your driveway, and if you have kids under age, the law won't allow them to work with machinery or in dangerous situations, etc, etc, etc,
Regarding: Compare, for example, a shopping center. If a municipality negotiates with, say, Costco to open a new super store, the municipality often gives Costco concessions: revamped intersections, utility connections, etc. These concessions come directly out of the pockets of taxpayers, and not from a sales tax. But that doesn't give us the same relationship with Costco employees as we have with our county clerk, does it?" I actually was thinking about the theaters at Bayshore -- since they have a curfew, the teens in Shorewood and Bay, etc, have to go out to Northshore Theaters in the evening to see a movie ... Now Bayshore got a lot of taxpayer money to build out what they have --- I do personally think, that if they want our tax money, we should have a say in how they operate -- which of course we already do with zoning etc,, but in regards to curfew, it should be the same as the municipaltiy they are in --- or they should do it on their own. Check out Shorewood's use of TIF money -- they HAVE provided money for operating funds !!! If they did and do, I think many other municipalities do also.
I understand your point, but I don't completely agree with it. First of all, there are not enough individual union members to make a difference in the voting. So it is really their MONEY that they give to politicians that makes a difference. And we can go on forever about campaign finance laws, which in may opinion are a joke. What I do agree with is that public employees do have a special obligation for the health and safety, and therefore should not be entitled to strike --- but have to submit to arbitration --- and yes I know the former arbitration laws were a joke and changes are needed there, but it is the right system. And come to think of it --- sometimes the government has intervened in private union actions --- when coal miners striking threatened the country, the government intervened, and even the milk delivery drivers in Chicago (this should hit a special place in your heart or where it use to be) were threatened by the president as being a threat to the health and safety of kids and the economy --- And let's not forget the good old Nixon days, when there were wage freezes and price regulations to fight inflation.
David, Since you are so well educated (not by MPS), you probably know the definition of specious argument. You are a master of it.
Being union has nothing to do with it! These refs are the best of the best and would be whether or not they were in a union.
Then fact of the matter is "the best of the best" are union. The non-union scabs are incompetent.