Right to Work legislation, avidly desired by Diane Hendricks et al, undermines private unions. Don't forget the "Divide and Conquer" video where Ms. Hendricks gives Scott Walker her wish list: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7v8f8jBrW8

So it's not off-base. Right to Work states have wages on average $1,500-$5,000 less per annum than non-R2W states. Interestingly, all of the former slavery states are R2W.

Bren, Please list all of Governor Walker's Right to Work legislation.

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.

How do the costs of living compare in R2W states to 'Union states'? Your statement about average salaries being lower doesn't tell the whole story...

Great point Tom. Thank you for being an intelligent and rational person. The NFL Refs are not ripping off the taxpayers like the state unions do. The fans who CHOOSE to be a stakeholder in the game of football and a fan of the Packers got ripped off. A big difference.

Greg, at this point all we have to go on is Walker's own words. When you re-watch the video, in response to Hendrick's questions, Walker describes his "first step" as enacting a "divide and conquer" strategy. As an ALEC puppet, it is not unexpected that he would sign off on R2W if it is brought forward.

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.

Bren shoots and misses....twice.

Mr. Schroeder is reporting about reaction, providing examples is an excellent way to do that. Be logical.

He's reporting about a reaction to a tweet, not a reaction to the NFL referee situation.

Be less clueless.

I think that's obvious, Bob. Be less obtuse! ; )

It's obvious, and yet it got by you first time around. Be less phony.

How many employees do you have, Steve? I'm just curious. Thanks,

And one shows up to say hi

By embarrassing himself on Twitter? Well, perhaps you are right. It may turn off some younger Republican voters.

No, by supporting Wisconsin teams. Not everything is about you Blue Fisters, get a grip.

Walker killed the state just like the NFL killed their own game. Walker sucks and so does the NFL. Both anti Union.

Yes, killed it. Sucks to have a balanced budget with a surplus and unexpected amounts of tax revenue and jobs and public sector employees working and not laid off and business staying or moving to WI and stuff.

Does it just suck so bad watching Obama prove liberalism a failure that you can't see the real picture?

Because Walker got kicked out of school.

So I should have a say in how GM runs its plants, even though I don't own a single share of GM stock?
If you point is combined with Obama's "you didn't build that", I should be able to stick my nose into every business in the country, and I would guess every private life too.

Bogus

►-- since to a degree, we pay for both.◄

As a customer I have a choice to support the NFL.

I do not have control to support a public union, it is automatically taken out of all daily transactions.

"WE pay a sales tax for the Packers to have new amenities "

Only if you live in Brown County.

Greg ... Don't you stick your nose up every ones a-s right now ? I know it's always up Walkers butt !

@Greg Nice example using GM --- I guess you don't realize we didn't just give GM money --- we took stock as collateral --- so all of us, through our government are GM stockholders --- thanks for making my point, if we give them money, we should have a say --- and you (via all levels of government, local, state and federal) already stick your nose into every business --- for instance, if you live in a residential neighborhood, the zoning would probably not allow a gas station to open up next door to your house in the middle of the block -- and if you work at a plant that has haz mat materials, you can't just throw them down the sewer, the DNR (and EPA started under Nixon) would take a dim view of that --- and of course if you are working in a hazardous environment with heavy machinery, OSHA (started under Nixon) protects your safety with rules.

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,

Can I sell my shares of stock? Nope....Well I can if the government sells it for me....

David, Since you are so well educated (not by MPS), you probably know the definition of specious argument. You are a master of it.

Please take a moment and explain the hypocrisy. Is it truly hypocritical to support private sector unions and not support public sector unions?

David, your argument seems to be that public and private sector unions are the same because we pay for both. Thus we have a stake in each.

You greatly oversimplify the relationship in ways that simply don't translate. With respect to public sector unions, we are the bosses. Their contracts are with us, the public. We are the business owners, even if we are also the consumers. In order to make our position the same as with respect to the private sector, we would need to pay for every service according to its full value. In other words, public sector existence would come entirely from user fees (pay-as-you-use) and not at all from taxation. The system, as it exists now, involves payment by taxation and supplement by some fees. So, if you as a taxpayer, do not use a school, you still pay for it. And if you try not to pay for it, you go to jail. So you have no choice but to pay for it.

With respect to private sector unions, we are the consumers. We are not the bosses. We as consumers are not on the hook for the player salaries if we do not use the product. Although it may seem like every American watches football, we might find a few who don't. Those people do not pay a dime towards a player or ref's salary. And if they refuse to do so, they won't go to jail.

Calling the two the same is frankly lazy and thoughtless, let alone inaccurate.

As and for the sales tax... that tax is not for operating funds of a company (you mistake such things with government bailouts - another distinction that we could get into if you really want). The sales tax is for improvements to infrastructure and buildings. Is that fudgy on crossing from public to private sector? Sure, I'll give you fudgy. But not uncommon, and not as compelled (you have the choice to go outside of Brown County, even if that choice isn't the most reasonable).

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?

Hate makes you say that. There's absolutely no correlation between what Walker did and what's going on with the NFL, so there's absolutely nothing hypocritical about his tweet.

Personally, I fault him for for tweeting in the first place. Everybody comes off like they're about 16 on Twitter. Useful for slackers who can't formulate a coherent thought that would take up an entire 140 characters and teenage cat-fights - but that's about it.

@David -

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!

I'll 2nd that !

Bob B. ... Useful for slackers who can't formulate a coherent thought. Perfect discripition of your idot govornor.

@Rik

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.

@Hoffa

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.

My father, a Republican, is a retired private sector union employee. He'd tell you that unions have an important rule to play in workplace safety and fair pay for fair work. His dues also went toward a pension fund, which is helping him, along with his veteran's benefits, to live in independent, dignified retirement in his 80s. Thanks,

Fine. Great. I have worked with unions my entire life. I have seen more bad than good from unions and I have taken it upon myself to provide for my retirement.

88% of the workforce is safely working today without a union. They also have a retirement fund they pay into and are in control of.

And Nick Poulos is a "lifelong Republican" too.

Well, the First Amendment of the Constitute discusses "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," and I believe worker guilds/unions fulfill that role. Membership in Dad's union is also considered a badge of quality.

So who is stopping dear old dad from being in a union? I never needed an organization to represent my quality.

Jimbo ... State the lie , repeat the lie , believe the lie.

"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.