Much has been written lately about union-government collective bargaining.
What could be wrong with two parties sitting down to discuss their differences? Of course, some people question the fairness of one of the parties -- the unions -- doing all they can to elect people whom they think are most likely to sympathize with them and be the other party in the collective-bargaining process. Some informed people have said, "Public unions have numbers and money, and politicians need both."
What's all the fuss in Wisconsin? Well, the Wall Street Journal reports "the teachers union doesn't just bargain for more health dollars. It also bargains to require local school districts buy health insurance for their teachers through the union-affiliated health insurance plan. ... That requirement gives the union (not the state) ultimate say over health benefits. It costs the state at least $68 million more annually than it would if schools could buy the state-employee health plan."
Can't you see how the unions can keep inserting all kinds of "goodies" that will add to the cost, as just another benefit to be worked out in collective bargaining with that fine individual they spent so much money and such effort to get elected?
What if the union-sponsored plan decides to add abortion coverage to the benefits? Would taxpayers now be required to pay, by way of taxes, for abortions they may not want any part of?
Maybe we should think carefully about this.
Richard GeraghtyHilton Head Island