Does union-busting affect women more than men?

Unions serve very little positive influence in society. The main purpose was to protect the safety of workers and due to labor laws, we no longer need unions. NOW unions are merely political powers bent on greed and their fingers in the pockets of the very ones they swear the protect. Get rid of unions and get rid of pensions (save your own money scabs) and society will improve.

What's happening in Wisconsin is much broader than simply a swipe at unionism.

Walker would award three extensive energy contracts to the Koch people on a no bid basis.

This is after they dumped millions of dollars into his campaign.

In addition, Wisconsin's near term tax short fall is something in the neighborhood $140 million dollars and the governor just gave corporations "tax relief" of about $120 million.

The expectation is that the lost revenue will now come out of the wages of working people by whipping up anti-union hysteria to drive the budget legislation through the legislature.

This isn't simply anti-women, it's class warfare.

My parents are Wisconsin teachers who grew up in Detroit. They understand what unions can do to an economy with too much power. This does not mean that EVERY union is a threat to the economy. The real issue with Walkers bill is that it will not help the economy in any way. Tax payers don't pay a cent for teachers health care or pensions. Teachers not only paid for (and are most likely still paying for) their educations, but also must take and pay for classes to keep their certification. How many jobs in the private sector make you pay for training? If you think this issue is about money or taxes you have been duped. Passing Walker's bill will make it okay for states all over the country to kill unions. The United States will lose the best candidates for teachers, nurses, trades, etc. The middle class was built on union struggles. The government is waging war on the middle class, don't confuse this with helping the economy.

Why are government employees unionized again? Unions are to keep private companies from abusing their employees. In the government that's what elected officials are supposed to do.

So is this story about breaking unions in private companies? No. It's about breaking unions of government employees. Where's the justification for government employee unions in the first place?

Dubs:

You definitely make valid points. And I wasn't implying that you are in fact a misogynist, but simply that some of your comments could be construed that way, or at the very least come off as a little bitter. I agree that the union busting won't affect women more than men, by the simple fact that there are many more men than women in unions, even if the percentage of women has increased. I would say that the proper tag line there is "women will be more affected by union busting than they would have been 10 years ago."

Your mention of being put down, sneered at, etc for being in a healthcare/female dominated field is one of the things I was talking about when it comes to a lack of real equality. You prove my point exactly, in that we will never really achieve equality until men and women can find equal representation and treatment in fields historically dominated by the opposite sex.

One thing I will take issue with is your statement that women who are working now were born into a relatively equal world. That is in fact false, since many working women these days would have been born in the 50's and 60's, hardly stellar moments in history for gender equality. And those who were born in the 70's were only just beginning to get a taste of parity. The women working today dealt with inequalities in the educational system that exist to a far lesser extent today.

The minister at the church my parents go to is not yet 60, yet she was denied entry into Harvard medical school in the early 70's, because (and this is paraphrasing what they told her) "she would be taking away a spot for a man, who would be his family's provider, and since she was only going to have babies, conferring a medical degree on her would not only be a waste, it would deprive another family of their breadwinner."

Additionally, the historic repression of women and minorities still matter because those who perpetrated said oppression as well as those who suffered it, haven't died yet. The people who hold sexist attitudes will still be kicking around in the top business spots for at least another 10 years, and they'll still be voting for another 20 or maybe even 30. It will be at least 10 years before we start to see a major shift in who is in the top slots, even with more women than men graduating from college.

The other thing is that even though more women are earning college degrees, you have to actually look at the fields that those degrees are in, in addition to whether those students go on to earn advanced degrees. For example, in the graduating class of 2011 at Washington University's school of business (a top 25 program), only 28% are female, and in the 2012 class, 25% are female. While these numbers are higher than they were 10 years ago, 25% is quite obviously nowhere near 50%. In health related fields like nursing, the numbers for men are even more abysmal: only 5% of nurses are men.

As to the fact that women are not "choosing" to go into male-dominated fields, this is not due to any real difference in men and women. Even as an elementary school student in the early-mid 90's, I was told that "girls aren't good at math," or in other cases, "girls SHOULDN'T be good at math." Given that little kids are extremely impressionable, how and what we teach them at that age is very very important, something that cognitive psychologists have known for years. Most young women do not choose many male-dominated fields because they have been put off of an educational track that would allow them to choose such a field in the first place. Yes, there are programs aimed at getting girls involved in math and science, but in my experience in school, they were often hush-hush and radically under-funded. Another problem with such programs is that they often only targeted girls who already were interested in math in high school, as opposed to targeting young kids before they really could begin to define their interests. In other words, they were basically ineffective.

Rounding this all out is the disdain in this country for education; people who are intelligent and/or educated are constantly branded as "elitist," and populist, uneducated opinion is deemed more credible than that of an expert who has spent years studying and researching a particular field. Anywhere in the world you look, you will see that education begets equality (not to mention helps alleviate poverty). I am concerned that as our institutions of higher education face many many problems, the anti-intellectual sentiments will further erode our ability as a nation to strive not just toward equality (on all sides), but also toward economic success.

correction- unions are ***NOT*** greedy monsters....

And Scott Walker is most definately against working families and the middle class

CORRECTION--- UNIONS ARE **** NOT **** GREEDY MONSTERS.

and scott walker most definately does not care about working families or the middle class.

has he taken a pay cut? he also is appoint 35 more positions at 100,000/yr each

as someone living and working in WI who is directly affected by Walker's attempts to bust unions... this is not about the budget. I live here. the rallies take place 10min from my house. My husband is a union working public employee, he doesn't make a ton of money, this budget would cost us 500.00/mo, and we;ve said "okay, we have to do this" But the reason WI employees' hthcare and pensions are so great is that they have passed up 100mil dollars in pay raises over the years to keep them. My husband hasn't gotten a raise in 2 yrs and has been taking unpaid furlough days, so to say they haven't sacrificed is very galling. Unions are greedy monsters, and people in WI DIED for the right to unionize. I have never been so proud in my life to see the protesters not just sitting down and taking it.

Walker is also going to make it so Milwaukee schools no longer have arts/music, phys education, or a library... he didn't value an education for himself, so he doesn't value it for anyone else. He will also being ending Medicaid for 100,000 people. This is very scary to thoseof us living and working here.

But he shouldn't have to worry about lay-offs... state workers are quitting and retiring faster than we can keep up with.

I would also like to say, I appreciate teachers and all the hard work they do. Unless someone is a teacher, or knows a teacher personally, they don't know what a tough job it is. Hopefully, public opinion will change for the better.

Sorry Gearhardt Smith, but have you, or has anyone you know personally ever worked for a major corporation that is anti-union with an "open door" policy? I'm mostly thinking about Walmart, and I can tell you, working for a non-union corporation is completely awful. I bet it's easier on a state level, since you can vote the people you want in office in to affect your job, but it's not like that in the business world.
I know that unions aren't good for businesses, but it's like our government - checks and balances. Yes, I realize that your employers pay you for your work, but that doesn't mean that they should have all the power. Especially when they treat their employees like dirt (Walmart). Unions make the workplace better, and the employees happier (because they have a bit of control too), which makes production/customer service better. I also just really don't understand people who think they're so great and wonderful because they turn down something that could make their jobs better. I'm not trying to insult you or your husband, but I just really don't understand it.

I spent 40 plus years in the work force. I worked in a non union pickle plant. I worked as a teacher in the public school system. I worked as a recreational specialist in a naval hospital during the Viet Nam war. I worked as a waitress.

I finished my career days as a Human Resource manager for a major telecommunications company.

Watching first hand as decisions were made about how the work force would be treated made me a firm believer in unions, the collective bargaining system and the protections they offer. In all those years, I never heard a manager say, "You know what, I'm not going to take those benefits our union members fought for."

And Joy, unless you are close to 70, please don't credit yourself with where women are today. You don't have a clue.

The average teacher's salary is $50,000? Are you high? Here in Hawaii the average teacher makes $46,406. The city bus driver makes more than that, and we have one of the highest costs of living anywhere in the country. I have friends in southern states who make less than $25,000 a year as teachers (and have been in those jobs for years--not newbies). Please quit picking on teachers. They are not the enemies. Many of them are trying their best with oversized classes (you try teaching 30-60 students at once) and no support. Where is the outrage against principals? I personally know an elementary school principal here that makes $237,000 per year. What about CEO's who got govt. bailout money and million dollar bonuses?

Why is there so much animosity toward teachers? Is it because people are jealous that many teachers have masters degrees and deserve to make $50,000/year????

I am both a teacher and a registered nurse I have worked in unionized positions in both capacities, happily for a variety of reasons. As an emergency room nurse who became unionized, I was able to help negioate a reduction in holdovers (thats having to work back to back shifts because the hospital is short staffed). You would not believe how tired we would be after 16 hours of trauma patients it was a hazard to the patients. Thanks goodness for the union it improved patient and worker safety.
As a teacher, I cannot imagine being without a union since although it has been a wonderful job it is equally a thankless job. The public is generally ignorant of what it takes to teach 28 students of varying skill levels and behaviors and to maintain your humor through 5 periods a day mothering many inner city children whose parent(mostly) pay very little attention or the wrong type of attention to them. No one feeds them healthy snacks , puts them to bed on time, turns out the tv, takes the cell phone away, makes them do homework, teaches them manners, makes them dress properly, the list goes on. So many students come to school a mess.
I am Nationally Board Certified, well qualified for what I do yet belittled for efforts.The public has chosen teachers to be the "cause of all ill" in our society for lack of any other villian they can easily attack. That is the genisis of the union teacher lazy ,summer off envy.
Try taking on the big boys folks its not our fault, we got screwed on our homes, our investments, and are paying big taxes too. Yes we choose years ago to be teachers and nurses but trust me its been no picnic when you look behind the scenes. Once you get your way and you break the unions watch out the safety nets go with them. PS go make you kids do their homework ,take their tv out of their bedroom and take away their cell phone if their grades are lousy. To the victors go the spoils

I believe in WOMEN.
I believe in our ability to get our own jobs.
I believe we do not need unions or the government to gift us jobs because we are weak.

I am sick of the argument that women are in need of government protection to make sure that we get the fair treatment that we deserve but are not getting. I'm sick of the argument that we were abused in the past therefore we need special treatment now and only the government can take that back.

The government did not win rights for women. WE DID! We fought our own husbands. We fought the system. The government was part of that system. We waged war against oppression and we won. Taking the unions down a notch does NOT hurt women. Saying it does is a bare faced lie to manipulate us into ignoring the facts of the bill.

Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit!
We can get that for less than minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked, not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with
45 min. off for lunch and planning-- that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries). What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is!
The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000.
$50,000/180 days = $277.77 / per day /30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours =
$1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter
(And they even EDUCATE your kids!)
WHAT A DEAL!!!!
*********************************************************************************************
Make a teacher smile; repost this to show appreciation for all educators.

Erin there are points I agree and disagree with you.

Erin posted
"Occasionally, you come off not as defending men, but as anti-women. I am curious, where does this comes from? "

Of course I will be perceived as anti-woman every time I voice a male opinion. It's about having a backbone and if standing up for myself and men if that automatically makes me a misogynist then I guess it's unavoidable for those that "choose" to use this language in order to brand me what I am actually not. I am not one to categorize myself or label myself because all it does is serve for others to use those labels to skew the conversation into ad hominem. If I am anything it is anti-hypocrit and anti-duplicity and anti-chauvanist.

As for where all this comes from it some has to do with experiencing sexism and a lot of duplicity that is somehow warranted for women, for example. While earning my PC maintenance & Networking degree there were hardly any women that "chose" to participate in that curriculum at the community college that I went to. There were some like 1 or 2 here or there but those that were there were treated as equally as any other student no gender applied. Considering that the dean of the engineering college at the time used to be a former teacher of mine and a woman at that, honestly I thought her an inspiring example, a role model for women. But the thing was, women weren't "choosing" to go into the field. The curriculum in the engineering college is still heavily male dominated.

When I finished my degree I found that the economy had tanked and there were really no jobs. So I decided to switch over to find a synthesis between technology and health care. So now while entering a more female dominated health care curriculum all the "no gender applied" mentality goes right out the window. It's a wonder women don't like other women more so than any man but whenever there is a disproportionate amount of women compared to men, the sexism and drama is rife and extremely overt. Since entering the field attempts to verbally castrate me with pejoratives as well as other men in their immediate vicinity with no consequences whatsoever. And yet men are just supposed to man up because "historically women have been undermined etc etc by men". Well these women weren't born in those times, they have most if not all the opportunities the men do considering now that women make up the majority of college applicants.

Where does that come from?

My point being, the clause of using the typical Women's Studies mantra "Women have been browbeaten for centuries" does not apply now. Men who were born in the past 30yrs aren't responsible for the "historical sexism" that women endured. The only thing that remains are ideologies, Feminism , Masculinism and of course Chauvanism that intertwines between the two.

Since we are on the topic of these ideologies the issue is that Chauvinism resides in both. It was predominately within Masculinism and is still mostly associated with it but the Chauvinism within Feminism is starting to gain steam now more than ever. Using victim-hood status is an integral pat of manipulating the masses. The thing is the idea of associating Feminism with Chauvinism is taboo. Feminism is supposed to be about equality for both men and women....well pointing out some of the duplicity within feminism seems to rile people up because it seems that feminism can do no wrong apparently. It's not perfect, nor will it ever be...neither is masculinism.

All in all when there is a disproportionate statistic where we say for example from the article:

"45 percent of all union members were female, up from 35 percent in 1983. Women in unions were more likely to have health insurance and pensions than those who were not unionized, he points out. And, according to data from the Shriver Report, "nearly 4 in 10 mothers (39.3 percent) are primary breadwinners, bringing home the majority of the family's earnings, and nearly two-thirds (62.8 percent) are breadwinners or co-breadwinners, bringing home at least a quarter of the family's earnings." There's a lot at stake if a woman's earning power is diminished."

45% is not "more". 4 in 10 mothers is not a majority even though the drastic change in this policy does profoundly affect women but not MOREso than men....you know why?

Men are totalized by their earning power by being providers, not nurturers.

And hence you see articles here on Shine

Date a jobless Man 50% of women say No,
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/date-a-jobless-man-50-percent-of-women-say-no-461067/

"Seventy-eight percent of those polled said they would date someone who is currently not working. The breakdown between men and women was staggering, however. While most men, 92 percent, said they would date an unemployed woman, only 52 percent of women would get involved with a jobless man."

But still, many people(mostly feminists) assume men use their earning power to manipulate women to stay with them, lording it over them...and the victim-wheel keeps on turning.

Scott Walker is just an out-of-touch fool who insists that his party can unilaterally jam legislation through that takes away workers' rights. This isn't a fight about the money, this is a fight for workers' rights. Anyone who says different is just as ignorant as Scott Walker. The unions conceded to paying more for benefits and pensions but asked to keep their rights. Scott Walker would not agree to this. So this is about far more than a budget deficit.

Scott Walker is also trying to pass a voter ID bill in WI. Which also disadvantages most of the groups that were mentioned in this article...

I personally believe men and women should have a champion, as there is sexism from both sides of the coin. Women are actually starting to hold more power than before, though not in all areas. The plain fact is that men and women are not equal socially. Women are put up on pedestals in some ways, as men are in others. This is an interesting exchange going on between you two. I would love to see you two debate.

Hahaha, oops, some typos:

*exists should be exist
*comes should be come
*there should be an "every" in between "for" and "dollar"