JUST WHAT RIGHTS ARE BEING INFRINGED HERE?

I'm a bit confused about this situation in Wisconsin. I mean it's somewhat unclear what rights are being infringed. I mean to my knowledge no one is saying to the Wisconsin public employees that they can't unionize, nor that they can't gather, nor that they can't protest. All the citizens of Wisconsin are saying through their elected officials is, “Hey, sorry, but we can't afford this anymore.”

I mean from down here in Texas it looks an awful lot like an 8 year old whining that he can't have a cookie, and when Mom says, “Sorry we're out of cookies. You'll have to wait until we have more money in the budget for cookies, or buy them out of your allowance.” And instead of accepting the facts of life the little brat just screams louder. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for this booger eater? I think not. And having it be a giant group of supposed adults makes it even less attractive.

And let's look at it from a rights point of view. Sure the union members have a right to unionize, and they also have a right to redress their perceived grievances through that union. But what about the rights of the employers? I mean why should the citizens of Wisconsin not be able to buy their labor from ANY source they want to? I mean why should the citizens be restricted to one market source for the labor they need? Don't they have a choice too? I mean why doesn't it work both ways?

To me it comes down to the facts that right go both ways. Let's think about it this way. Let's say the Dave needs his lawn mowed, and Bob is in the lawn mowing business. Now, why shouldn't Dave just call Bob, and say, “Bob, how much to come mow my lawn?” And, have Bob simply quote a price.

Instead in a unionized state Bob BY LAW has to say, “Call Phil, Phil handles my lawn mowing bookings.” Now that runs up the costs for both Bob and Dave since Phil must get paid. In this scenario of course Phil is the union, and he's sucking money out of EVERYBODY'S pocket. It's not any more complicated than that. And to make it worse Phil takes the money that Bob is FORCED to pay him, and contributes that money to the local politicians to ensure that it remains illegal for Bob and Dave to get together legally and privately. It is just unclear why that is legal, much less considered a right to be protected.

Now don't get me wrong, If Bob WANTS Phil to handle his bookings fine. If Dave want's one of Phil's clients to mow his lawn – fine. But, if Dave and Bob want to get together privately it should be none of Phil's business, and certainly none of the politician's business.

In the meantime, just because you whine about no cookies, or not getting your union demands met that does not mean you're rights have been infringed. It simply means the other side is exercising it's right to say, “No!” So quit whining about your supposed rights, and go to work.