It would be interesting to get a breakdown regarding whether respondents were recipients or contributors (i.e., part of the 50% non-taxpayers vs. the taxpayers.)

There occasionally are times when employment laws have a place, however, your hyperbole about returning to feudal eras is a nice use of argumentative jiu-jitsu to avoid talking about some of the real issues. Fact is, many of the regulations coming out of our government, whether targeted at employment or other areas often come with unintended consequences. Case in point ... the NLRB's attack on Boeing's attempt to add manufacturing in South Carolina. I'm sure they believe that their pushback will force Boeing to expand in Washington. What will their comment be when Boeing expands in another country? And so it goes with @anonymous above. He cites a problem ... rather than hassling with all the bs he has to put up to let go someone who...

Cliff, you hit the bulls-eye on something that has been bugging me for a long time. I worked my a** off during high school (started caddying at 12), college (three jobs), and during my professional career. While neighbors were upgrading to new cars every year, the second homes, and extravagant vacations, my wife and I were dutifully building our own personal wealth by saving instead of spending. Now we hear talk of Washington having their eyes on personal retirement accounts, means-testing SSI, and of course raising taxes on "the rich". Like you, I don't consider myself "rich". However, I get irritated with the suggestion that I am not paying my fair share. I have paid my fair share ... in both taxes and blood sweat and tears ......

It is interesting that the union who is part of the chorus about how we need more governmental regulation in other areas of our economy is all for self-regulation when it comes to their own arena. It would be comical if it weren't so sad. If they aren't policing their own profession now (i.e., by incorporating appropriate rules into contracts that are currently in place) then how can we trust them to do it when no one is watching? Like the automotive unions, the teachers unions are becoming the dinosaurs of today by continuing their adversarial role and obstructing systematic corrections.

oracle1's recent post prompted a question... weren't the "protectors of the people" the primary advocates requiring publicly traded corporations to allow shareholders a vote on top executive compensation (as opposed to electing board members to oversee this)? When do the shareholders, i.e., taxpayers, get to vote on public employee compensation (as opposed to allowing elected officials to oversee this)?

I am a non-tenured instructor who recently gained the "benefit" of becoming a unionized employee. I am angry that against my will, I am required to pay dues to support the union when they provide imperceptible value to me. If I am unhappy with my compensation and environment, I am free to look elsewhere for work. I am now subject to the structural lockstep compensation that is part of the contract instead of being able to control my own destiny and be rewarded for extra effort. The unions are all about "rights' and "choice", except when it comes to choice that doesn't meet their agenda.