We're all hearing about the protests in Wisconsin due to what President Obama calls "[the Republican] assault on unions", according to The New York Times. The Republican party is known for their general dislike of unions and the new Congressmen who have taken over the House are obviously aiming to limit the negotiating powers of union workers, such as teachers.
When I think unions, I think of my AP U.S. History learning and why labor unions were first established - to fight corrupt, large businesses. Of course, over time, the unions have been steadily gaining more clout; the benefits and such of being part of a union are something to take into consideration when first looking for a job, no? But all in all, what's wrong with having large groups of people band together to fight for (maybe) higher wages and more workers' rights! Well, I have no problem with it. My only concern is this: Where do you draw the line? How much power do you allow these unions to have?
Yes, there are companies that labor unions fight against for better wages and work hours, and whatnot, but honestly, we all know that conditions now are a little bit better than oh, say, the early 1900s when Teddy Roosevelt went around as the big "trust-buster". Our economy is slowly getting back up on its feet, so people are suffering - a majority, if not all.
No matter how much you disagree, I don't think it's right for the Congressmen to simply "walk out" and leave the state to avoid having to confront the issue. This extreme act only displays their immaturity and inability to deal with these kinds of problems head-on, to fight for what they believe in. Same goes for the all the Republican legislators who have done so in the past, too, (click HERE to read about past walk-outs). Grow up, folks. Grow up.