This does not bode well for November

Exit polls indicate that 30% that indicated they were union members voted for Walker... with numbers like that, you will never win against a union busting governor.

The remaining non-fanatics (Repubs and Dems) voted for Walker because they didn't like the idea of him being recalled for non-criminal means... therefore, it was a vote based on perceived fairness.

Those two contingents helped shift the vote from its rather narrow 2010 margins into an election that was called 30 minutes after the polls closed.

I don't know much about union member's psychology, but I assume that those that voted for Walker are employees that feel they could survive without unions.

I completely get the second contingent's viewpoint, because people in the Midwest still care about fairness.

There is no doubt that this was a landslide, decisive victory. I don't know if it translates directly into Unions are bad, Walker is good, but probably a more subtle conclusion. The factions that are for / against Unions are pretty evenly divided in the state, so they are a wash.

Personally, I run a pretty large business, but I do support unions. Like any entity, there is good and bad. I think that the good delivered by Unions spreads out more to the entire community while evenly spreading the costs: All ships rise with minimal cost. Likewise, without Unions, the benefits of reduced taxes goes to a select few, while the rest really don't get much in return while having their benefit and wage pressures bring their earned income down.

With Unions gone, there is NO faction that can oppose business interests. Remember, Unions are just non-business interests. So, if you aren't a business owner, independently wealthy, or someone that lives off of capital gains (investment income vs earned income), well your life will continue to slide down. Unions always helped keep businesses more honest by providing competition in all phases of employment.

Does anyone think that businesses will just continue to give what isn't expected? Competition is gone, replaced by true monopolization by one entity. Wage competition doesn't exist, but for the most rarified of positions, where supply is truly scarce.

Now that isn't being Polyanna-ish about wage and benefit pressures from foreign sources, because they do exist in some markets.

So, Wotak, if you are reading, I do and always have supported Unions. I think their demise is going to have decades long effects on American workers, apart from a lucky few. Markets and monopolies will completely overwhelm the individual, so if you aren't special, you are basically meeped worse than you were yesterday.

Is that fair? Right? Wrong?

I'm not answering that question.

I will answer for you.

It isn't fair, and it isn't right.

If all management had your attitude, Then unions would not be needed, until then a strong union is the only way for workers to survive. I am lucky in that I live in a place with a long history of strong unions, and even though they are losing power in a lot of ways, their legacy lives on, especially in our federal government. The Australian Labor Party still draws a lot of its members and politicians from union ranks.

My two cents:
California's in the middle of the pack as far as business-friendly legislature.
It might very well be because of the rather impressive thickness of the "lawyers" section in the phone book.
But yeah, the gap between the haves and have-nots hasn't been this big since the 1920's.
Big business gets portrayed as evil by liberals and damned if they aren't playing the part with "money equals speech", super pacs, and "too big to fail" all being seen as fair.

Edit: California being SMALL business friendly...

The recall reflected all of the political schisms facing America. Most visibly, it pitted big money and a harsh anti-union agenda against grassroots people and groups standing up for workplace rights and benefits, especially for public employees and civil servants.

FUKAN-MAUDLIN-LOLFRITTERS!