Will it get Ugly in Wisconsin?

If they won't work, fire them...

 

Post #1 line #4
wisconsin governor national guard - Google Search

 

I think he got you on that on, Moen...

 

1. Not mine. 2. smoke less

 

Are you smoking the same stuff? Not my link. Try Clembo.

 

I am so used to you starting threads like this, I just assumed. Please accept my apology, you holiness.

 

Well, you know what a sarcastic apology is worth right? And of course our resident Okie falls silent. Typical!

 

Let me see, now. The only one of yours I could find was;

Real sincere there. Yep, sure is! Oh, and maybe just a bit hoity-toity. And, showing off your prejudice to boot.

 

Please accept my sarcastic apology, also.

- Resident Okie

 

And then only returns to demonstrate his high school bitchiness.

 

A totally non-sarcastic apology, and look what it got him. Real nice.

 

Indeed. But, what less can we expect from the forum's main elitist?

 

At least you two have another reason to form a circle and....

 

Now we are off with the insults. Sounds like a kindergartner.

 

Hey, I'm surprised you even know what a circle is. Usually a circle starts with a point... something you're unfamiliar with.

 

And it takes 3 points to define a circle. Now he is really handicapped.

 

OK kids I posted the links. I also posted a legit question that folks don't seem to want to address.

Do you think it might get ugly in Wisconsin? On second thought there has been one succinct reply. See what DeOrc had to say.

I, for one, think it can and probably will get very ugly in the state of Wisconsin. I'm thinking what Governor Scott Walker has proposed was not really that well thought out.
I'm not defending unions here folks as I'm not a huge fan of them myself. They have a place but have become too powerful IMHO.
However, one cannot just make huge changes by trying to "cram it down your throat" in a mere six days with the threat of the National Guard backing it up.

Is this the purpose of the National Guard in the first place? Seems not to at least one former National Guard member.

"Maybe the new governor doesn't understand yet - but the National Guard is not his own personal intimidation force to be mobilized to quash political dissent," said Robin Eckstein, a former Wisconsin National Guard member, Iraq War Veteran from Appleton, WI, and member of VoteVets.org. "The Guard is to be used in case of true emergencies and disasters, to help the people of Wisconsin, not to bully political opponents. Considering many veterans and Guard members are union members, it's even more inappropriate to use the Guard in this way. This is a very dangerous line the Governor is about to cross."

You see this is more in line with the question I asked but as usual it turned into a little hissy fit amongst members. Hell, why think and give an answer when you can take potshots at other members after all?

If they don't want to work fire them. Sure sounds easy but would it work? If, for example, all of the school teachers and DOT personnel went on strike you just fire them? OK, who instantly fills their shoes?
Would it be the National Guard? - or would they just be required to hold a gun to your head so you went about your duties.

If you just fire these people would they be eligible for unemployment? Would there be thousands of lawsuits tying up taxpayer money?
If they demonstrate do you get out the rubber bullets?

What happens if it does get ugly and there's an "incident"? Say a filmed beating, rioting etc.? In this age it DOES get recorded and human nature DOES kick in.

Human nature. Lots of fed up people - it's a reality that so many choose to ignore. Real or perceived many are tired of being shat upon. It's been going on for a long time and history repeats itself.

Wisconsin could be a litmus test.

I'll leave you with this from Fox.

 

If they're on strike, who fills their shoes? What if they're on strike for weeks? Or months? If you give in to their demands just to get them back to work, they will hold sway over you forever. All they would have to do is threaten to strike again. Strikers use "bully tactics" to get their way. You have to stand up to them or they'll keep bullying you.

Undoubtedly. But, an equal number would be taken off the unemployment rolls to replace them.

Possibly. People can sue for anything. It would be settled quickly in the government's favor. Most employees serve "at will" and those who don't would have to spend time, effort and money to sue. Since they were fired for not doing their job, do you think they would win?

Only if they turn violent. They should realize that violence is never the answer.

We can play the "what if" game all day. If an incident happens, it happens. This isn't a game of tiddly-winks they're playing; both sides need to approach this seriously.

 

First I'd like to thank you for a "real" response OKC. Now let's see.

The National Guard is "bully tactics" before anything has even happened now isn't it? Were these people threatening strikes? How fast can you train a teacher? I know a few. It took more than a few months. How cheap is it to "import" them and how many would just rush to Wisconsin?

So who would those replacements be? Would it be the lazy Liberals that want everything for free or the Conservatives that have no training for the jobs to be had? Let's make this simple.
I have actually managed a few businesses in my life. Training costs money. LOTS of money and if the person is not fit for the job it is a huge waste of money.
Would you want your child taught by an incompetent teacher?

The numbers equal out in no way, fashion or form.

Even if the government was wrong? This would not be quick and easy.
What government are you even talking about?

Tell that to the Governor of Wisconsin would you? Mention the National Guard.

For sure. Seems it's already getting ugly. 10,000 protestors in Madison today (peaceful by the way but keep the National Guard ready).

Some firefighters broke ranks today as well even though they and the police are EXEMPT from the proposed changes. Wonder why that is?
Shall I mention the 7 members of the Green Bay Packers? Two are on the current team.

 

If you want to see the results of a Goverment (Large or small) taking on a set of unions then have a look at any vids of the UK during the Miners strike While I actualy agreed with Mrs Thatcher that the Unions did need to be reigned in the methods used were abhorant and even today there is still hatred towards the police in a number of comunities were they were used in much the same way as this man is sugesting that the NG be used. Let me ask you this what do you think would happen to the state if all the union members in public employment resigned en mass? do tou honestly believe that the NG would be able to run the state? or that there are enough unemployed personel to take up the slack?
You also have the possibility of other unions coming out in support let us say the truckers how do you think the state would cope if they decided to support there fellow union members and refused to deliver to the state? and before you say I am playing the what if game, yes I am but these are things that any competent administration would have to look at and for examples of it in action try looking at France and how the Unions have worked together there over the years.
There has to be give and take in any situation and to start negotiations with threats of bringing in the NG is I think stupid, what would your reaction be if President Obama decided to enforce his political will by using the Army or the police?