Union Control

In the article “The Strike of Capital Metro”, Haowei seems to keep a neutral and information view in her article on the strike. I have a neutral stance but I worry of unions driving up costs and instability of the business. As we have heard recently in the struggling Big 3 automakers with the heavy expenditures of union workers. I believe people should always try to better themselves. There are consequences like automotive and computers companies just outsource to other countries to get around unions causing fewer jobs in America. I work for public education and forced to do personal bargaining. I don’t believe companies should just pay you more because you want; you have to be able to present a reason for further investing in you. One way is taking a form of training or education.
Not my position to judge whether the strike was valid or not. My point about unions is they are good in control, so don’t abuse the great idea of a union. You should bargain when conditions are unfair, not abuse your power because if the company goes down your members are worse off than before the union. I couldn’t believe I saw on the ballot asking if firefighters and police officers should be allowed to strike, there are certain services you cannot put on hold while contract terms are worked out.

Texas wants Clean Energy and Clean Oceans. What about Clean Money, Clean Elections?

Texas political candidates should jump on the clean election (public election) train. “Dirty” money, or interest and PAC funding, cause pressure for political leaders to pass legislature for bully groups. Previous practices of these tactics have occupied the attention of political leaders from the public. Instead, political leaders are focused on whatever interest group they are “indebted” to. Examples of these unrepresented citizens are listed. Some of the Texas Supreme Court Justices who are running for office have been campaigning with sagging pockets from large contributions stemming from lawyers and litigants. Groups or individual contributions to Supreme Court Justice’s campaigns seem to allow easier access to the Supreme Court. A study by the Texans for Public Justice states that over half of the donations for Justice’s campaigns are from these contributors. I say we pull the rug from under favoritism for large donors and support a public funded campaign system.

Public funded campaign systems have been tested by some states that have successfully switched to them; these states include Maine, Arizona, and recently Connecticut. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger passed the Fair Elections Act, which would allow public funding for the Secretary of State. There are various ways to achieve public funding. One way that is being practiced is each voting-citizen donating a maximum of say $5 towards their candidate and the candidates who do not pull a certain number of votes or are underfunded are dropped out of the race. If the candidate accepts no other source of donation, he could be rewarded with a grant from the government. This could be funded through say a raise on criminal fines. This makes candidates accountable to the public and not to special groups like they should be. It also could save taxpayer dollars in the long run from inappropriate spending on issues not affecting a majority of the population. It allows candidates to spend more time focusing on national priorities instead of on campaign funding. It gives every person, rich or poor, a shot at changing problems in their life and it also causes more political involvement. Not only has this idea been favored by the public citizen, but the candidates that used public funding seem to favor it too. If the federal campaigns have limits and other states are having a lot of success, why not give it a try?