The Real Life of Julia

Good evening everybody.  Recently President Obama’s campaign team has released a “The Life of Julia” slideshow. It shows the things that the Obama Administration has done to help young women throughout their lifetimes. However, it also sends another message. That women are dependant on government. From cradle to grave, or as I’ve heard it before “from sperm to worm.”

The latest little campaign graphics have presented a picture of a young woman named Julia. The story begins at age 3, and ends at age 67, with her having lived life dependant upon government programs and reliance on her parents. What this shows me, though, is that there is an underlying perception that independant women are unable to do what they wish, how they wish, and should be encourage to let Uncle Sam help her out.

Well, I decided to make my own version of Julia’s life… below is a recreation of President Obama’s “propaganda” with a little bit more common sense and a few less half truths tossed in there.

I hope to follow this up later with some extra details on each picture.

I present to you:

The Real Life of Julia

Hot Topic: Wisconsin

Good morning everyone (or I may just be talking to myself, but I want to get this out there anyway)…

By now everyone knows about the Hot Topic of the Wisconsin legislation to remove SOME collective bargaining from state employees. Personally, I am in agreement with some of the proposed (and passed) changes. At the moment state employees, who are in some cases required to join a Union, pay a smaller portion of their benefits then their employers (the state) pays. In a way, WI taxpayers are paying the heavy portion of the state employee’s “benefits.

I have no problem with state employees working with Unions over pay negotiations and over work conditions beyond the safety standards already set by OSHA regulations. But health insurance, and pensions are not a guaranteed right for an employee. They are what is called incentives. Benefits provided to help keep the job attractive to the worker.

Per the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights (Article 23):

(1)Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Nowhere does it say that benefits, such as insurance/pensions are the right of an individual, and therefore should not be covered by unions. I am a believer in responsibility, and in this case, the state is providing benefits, but the workers have a responsibility to pay their share towards those benefits, and not expect the state/taxpayers (including themselves) to make up the slack.

This is something that I think most of the protesters are ignoring. They are just blurting out “you’re stealing our rights,” yet, the rights stated in the document above, are still in place. In addition, nothing is stopping the workers from working together, not necessarily as an organization, but as a group of concerned employees, to make requests and propose changes to these other options.

Here’s another look, from the dictionary, as to the definition of “collective bargaining”:

It means a collection of individuals, allowing for a greater voice for those workers.

“collective bargaining
— n
negotiation between one or more trade unions and one or more employers or an employers’ organization on the incomes and working conditions of the employees
– World English Dictionary”

“collective bargaining 
–noun
the process by which wages, hours, rules, and working conditions are negotiated and agreed upon by a union with an employer for all the employees collectively whom it represents.
-Dictionary.com”

Again, nowhere in that definition does it state that workers can collectively bargain over insurance/pensions, it only covers wages, hours and working conditions.

This is my primary argument. It is felt that these are “rights being stripped from workers” yet, nowhere are these rights stated or determined, let alone backed up. I agree, that benefits can be provided, but in that case, the employee should pay equally what the employer pays, just like the rest of the world.

Now, last week, the WI reps pushed through a bill that was stripped of fiscal proposals, and pushed it through without a 24hour window. I don’t necessarily agree with the method, however, even if the WI senators decided to come back, they still would have lost to a majority vote.

With the current bill state employees will be getting the same limited Collective Bargaining rights of Federal employees, as well as the same rights as Private employees.  Is that not fair enough?

Welcome to the Edge

Good morning, and welcome to the edge of Red and Blue.

This blog is my personal notepad, my corner of the web to spread my ideas on politics, religion, and just about anything else.  I hope you enjoy and maybe even take a little something away from my personal thoughts on the world at large.

I’m sure that some topics that will be focused upon will be controvercial, but I’m not that worried.  If the left side can whine about their freedom of speech, so can the right.

Now, just to get things straight, I’m not a bible thumping wrist slapping Right Wing Conservative.  I did grow up in a house where, for the most part, the environment was mostly republican.  This has stuck with me, and in turn I have molded myself into who I am based on some of the values placed then.  This does not put me in the stereotype though.

I consider my views to ride the edge, a conservative view on the cost, with a personal/subjective view on the people.  Let’s see where that will get me.

Again, please follow along as I journey through current events, and as always, enjoy.