Efficient for the citizens who formed unions. It's a lot more efficient to form an organization that will advocate your interests then to do it individually.
Yeah, if by efficiency you mean a cost/benefit ratio, then it would be efficient for the Democratic party and the unions, but terribly inefficient for the state and the taxpayers.
Damned right they are. And workers who have to pay for benefits for those who work for the state have every right to be pissed off.
Then they shouldn't get a job that requires them to join a union.
The unions agreed to the budget cuts proposed in Wisconsin. Moreover, the subjectivity of "sensible" doesn't make your argument compelling. Both sides think that what they're want is 'sensible'.
Taxpayers' rights and workers' rights can coexist. The foolish attempt by some to make this a question of either/or is stupid.
They already are demanding better conditions through the democratic process. Maybe people who have a problem with that should form their own organization instead of faulting those with enough initiative to form one for their interests.
It's funny how you only tell those whom you disagree with not to 'pretend their opinion is fact' and yet you don't demand the same of those with whom you agree with. Your opinion has now been discredited by your blatant biases.
So, you're saying they agreed. Got it. Like I said, it's not about the money.
Nobody leveled the playing field. Walker just weakened the influence of ordinary citizens on politics while leaving corporate interest groups in tact. Leveling the playing field would have been forming a citizen organization to coexist with union and corporate organizations. Now it's just tilted in favor of the people Walker really supports - corporate interests like the Koch brothers.
Can you address the blatant bias you've displayed by demanding something of those your disagree with that you don't demand from those you agree with and how this affects the validity of your opinion? Can you also address the hypocrisy of saying, "don't treat your opinion as fact" and then saying 1 post later, "your opinion is wrong".
Oh see, but I didn't say that there weren't other financial reasons. I said that the reasons were 'arbitrary' so now on top of hypocrisy, you've decided to put words in my mouth. Whether or not the reasons were arbitrary is a matter of opinion.
Taking away rights isn't an improvement.
My response to this is in the part of my post that you cut out because you couldn't address it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/politics/15wisconsin.html
Point to the post where I said that rights were "unlawfully" taken away and I'll do that. I'll be waiting. (It must be nice to argue against points that were never made. A lot easier than addressing what people actually say.)
Yup, there is a definite difference between rights assigned in the Constitution and the negotiated rights in contracts. Making a concession in a contract by no means mean the concession is for perpetuity, rather it is valid until the contract expires. There is a certain inability on the part of leftist to accept what should probably be obvious.