Je vous laisse trancher le débat, mais cet article du Washington Post a le mérite de bien présenter les arguments de ceux qui s'opposent actuellement à "l'appétit vorace" des syndicats. Selon leur logique le débat se résume à un choix entre les conditions des syndiqués et le bien commun...
"See, one of things that the public-sector unions don't understand about my approach in New Jersey is that they think I'm attacking them. I'm attacking the leadership of the union. Because they're greedy and they're selfish and self-interested. The members of that union are being ill-served by the leadership of that union. And so what I say, what I'm doing, is to save your pension, to save your health care for the rest of your life, and yeah, you're going to have to take a little less. That's the way it goes, we're in difficult times and there were promises made that couldn't be kept. . . ."
La réponse des manifestants est un peu violente au Wisconsin où le débat fait rage actuellement. On "cible" le gouverneur Walker (pas plus justifiable que ce que faisait le Tea party il n'y a pas si longtemps...).
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/a_decisive_moment_public_emplo.html
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire