Then you don’t get the point of the story.
I’m curious as to what the story has to do with the topic? A Republican governor wants to remove the right of civil servants to collectively bargain for working conditions, benefits and wages in order to reach a budget savings goal even though the union has offered to sit down and bargain for concessions to help the state reachs its savings goal.
You support this. Because, if I read your arguments correctly, unions are evil and there’s no money.
I do not. I believe in the Rule of Law and the law says that you are bound to a contract and cannot unilaterally back out of it. I believe that the United States Constitutions has a clause that discusses this? yes, I think there is.
United States Constitution
Article 1, Section 10. Clause 1.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or
Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
This proposed law impairs the obligation of the state to comply with contracts it signs.
Or is that okay because it involves those eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil unions?
As to there not being any money? There is actually a lot of money that is being hoarded away from the economy. I’m just pointing it out, not recommending a solution. Although I do believe that the solution involves placing a lot of that money back into the economy. I’d like to find a way for the rich to be incentivized into releasing that money so everyone can prosper again. Giving them more money in tax breaks doesn’t seem to be working.