Dr. Hall:
You said:
‘If the union would agree that all future raises, including benefits, would be subject to a statewide referendum, and “right to work”, then Gov. Walker would probably be willing to move forward. ‘
In other words, if the union caved in completely. Not.
I believe the most contentious point was the union having to recertify every year, which Gov. Walker would probably (I can’t speak for him) be willing to compromise on.
Which point do you have an issue with? Right to work, or the referendum on raises, etc?
Right to work (IMHO) should be the law in all states. Someone should not be forced to pay union dues just to be able to work, especially if said union will be donating to political causes (on either side). If the union is creating value for them, they will pay. It is not a government entity that has taxation rights.
A referendum on raises (only on amounts higher than inflation) just transfers the power out of the hands of the potentially biased negotiators into the hands of the people, via direct democracy. Unless you believe the people are not smart enough to make a decision (which in that case perhaps only landowners should be able to vote), why should anyone who is not biased have a problem with that?