Except society was willing to cut back on the services the state offered. It was not willing to increase taxes to pay for services it considered unnecessary. Society might have a cost, but surely the voters get to say what they're going to buy, yeah? The price tag was accurate, the buyers simply decided to put it back on the shelf.
Who are the unions to stand in the way of the decision of the populace on spending issues? This isn't a civil rights issue or the like, where the tyranny of the majority is a serious problem. It was a spending decision. The state decided not to spend, and thus did not raise taxes to compensate. The unions decided to stand in the way of this. As a result, the vast majority got hurt to shield a small minority from changing positions. Union employees who would've been laid off were not, forcing us to continue paying them. Union employees who would not have been laid off were forced to take pay cuts via furlough days to pay for their colleagues. Taxpayers got reduced services availability.
The only people who won were the small minority of union workers who still have jobs that wouldn't have otherwise. And it's not like NH is gripped with an unemployment crisis - even at its height, our unemployment was several points below the national average (I think we topped out at around 6%; we're now down to 5.5%).
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/2/11 22:26 (UTC)Who are the unions to stand in the way of the decision of the populace on spending issues? This isn't a civil rights issue or the like, where the tyranny of the majority is a serious problem. It was a spending decision. The state decided not to spend, and thus did not raise taxes to compensate. The unions decided to stand in the way of this. As a result, the vast majority got hurt to shield a small minority from changing positions. Union employees who would've been laid off were not, forcing us to continue paying them. Union employees who would not have been laid off were forced to take pay cuts via furlough days to pay for their colleagues. Taxpayers got reduced services availability.
The only people who won were the small minority of union workers who still have jobs that wouldn't have otherwise. And it's not like NH is gripped with an unemployment crisis - even at its height, our unemployment was several points below the national average (I think we topped out at around 6%; we're now down to 5.5%).