I wonder how they got there? In their own cars? In buses? I sure hope that they did not use public funding to cover the costs of their transportation. I think that governor should be looking into that.
Democrats have meltdown in Wisconsin
- Thread starter aristotle
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I think that many of you are off on a tangent that really is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter what they do, calling in sick or what ever, that is an earned benefit that does not really mean much other than to prove that the state can get along without them so just simple reduce the employment rolls for the state.
It doesn't matter what they do, calling in sick or what ever, that is an earned benefit that does not really mean much other than to prove that the state can get along without them so just simple reduce the employment rolls for the state.
I don't know if it is a tangent or not. A lot would depend on the wording of the contract. I don't know enough about WI law to make that guess. With as many as called off it can, and should, be considered a strike. Schools had to be shut down for no good reason. There were other more productive ways to protest. I bet that they made a LOT of friends for their cause by disrupting school like they did. I think that the union should reimburse the tax payers for services that SHOULD have been provided. They were NOT ill, they skipped school, they went on strike.
I would still like to know if public funds were used to provide transportation.
First of all, it's not all that clear that the state "got along without them". If it's a paid sick day, it's lost productivity en masse for which the state paid taxpayer dollars and got nothing in return. There are a lot of employers that allow for sick days, but ask that employees substantiate an illness that requires more than 1 or 2 days. As Layout said, it depends on the wording of their contract - but I'll bet they're in violation of it.
Regarding the funds for transportation to Madison - the Union probably picked up the tab for that.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Actually it is clear to many that there is no need for a lot of them.
Look at it this way, what is the actual need of any state worker outside of law enforcement, education and basic government services?
I don't see any.
Many of the states can shift the responsibility back to the cities and counties who already in many cases have the worker doing the job.
Look at it this way, what is the actual need of any state worker outside of law enforcement, education and basic government services?
I don't see any.
Many of the states can shift the responsibility back to the cities and counties who already in many cases have the worker doing the job.
I have NO problem with taking education out of the hands of the State and Federal Governments. I believe that ALL education should be local. NO teacher should ever be allowed to strike. They should have to produce. No more silliness like graduating people who cannot read or write.
Perhaps it is not illegal for teachers to take sick days the way they did. I wonder what the legality of doctors writing false statements is? Even if it's legal it's unethical. Is any part covered in the Hypocratic Oath? I'm more against the doctors than the teachers.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I would agree but only when we look at everything else that the state shouldn't be involved with and eliminate everything except the basic government services;
The state law enforcement agencies
The DMV
Well that's the only two I can think of.
All the other services can be handled by the counties and the cities. The DMV can be self-sufficient by licensing fees and the law enforcement can be covered by the state revenues which there would be a great surplus because there are no other agencies.
I don't know what other things the State should be funding. It would be an interesting argument if I were not headed for bed. I have to get up early to finish the refrigerator installation so we can go in service Tues. Maybe if I get that done I will have time to mull this one around.