Dear Editor,
Michigan recently passed “Right to Work for Less” (RTWFL) legislation. This seems to be a trend that is increasing across the country. I think it’s time has come here in Wisconsin.
First, workers in Wisconsin make too much money. I’ve seen people with two TVs, two cars, even a boat or ATV. Obviously, Badger workers are mighty flush. Certainly we can afford to lose the $1,500 more per year (more for women and minorities) on average that workers lose when RTWFL legislation is passed. Remember the “shared sacrifice” we’ve all (except the wealthy) been asked to make? Sixty percent of Wisconsin corporations pay no taxes at all so it is difficult for them to increase profits from present record levels without some help. I’m sure we all would be happy to give up $1,500 so Corporate America can increase their profit margin.
Second, there are not enough workers at or below the poverty level in our state. We can fix that with the passage of RTWFL legislation. Every state that has RTWFL laws has a higher poverty rate. It is time for Wisconsin workers to hold up our end and make some more poor people. With the addition of more poor people, we get all the benefits this includes. Higher infant mortality rates, less access to health care, lower life expectancy, higher unemployment, higher crime rates and lower school performance. All this has happened in EVERY state that has passed RTWFL laws. How can we pass this up?
Third, Wisconsin workers can use the new health care system more, as do others in RTWFL states. Construction fatalities are higher in RTWFL states. While you won’t use the health care system if you die, there are more injuries on the job in RTWFL states so you will get to use it, if you survive. Without guidelines, oversight, and job protection for injured workers (provided by those pesky unions), workers can enjoy less safety, more accidents on the job and much less job security.
But this is not all we get with RTWFL laws. There are fewer new business start ups in RTWFL states (even though this is the primary reason used to promote RTWFL laws). There is higher unemployment and a better chance of having dues for the pay, benefits and job protections that the union has won for you. Even though federal law prevents this, a simple majority vote will end payment of dues at any work site. Women and minorities can look forward to an even greater portion of their pay being sacrificed for corporate profit.
There is not just a pretty good chance of these benefits being ours. This has happened in EVERY SINGLE STATE that passed RTWFL laws. So let’s give it a try. Look at all we have to look forward to.
Doug Curtis
Gleason
Dear Editor,
I too, along with Donna Kikkert’s letter, find flaws with the family court system.
Here are a few ideas that should already be enforced.
1. Hire an attorney that will fight for you. Check their records, and see results. Be 100% sure that they will represent your interests.
2. The court appointed guardian ad litum needs to be impartial. Check their records. You have the right to have your child represented by a fair, honest attorney. If red flags start popping up, speak up. This is your child’s future at stake. Don’t pay someone to fight against you.
3. Make sure criminal history and character are exposed at the hearing. They say a lot about a person. Also, look at the families involved. Then only can a fair decision be concluded.
4. The guardian ad litum’s opinion should be that, an opinion. It is not set in stone. Since when should one person’s opinion decide the fate of a child? That’s reserved for our creator.
My opinion is that, an opinion. I do not wish to offend anyone by it. I only want fairness and justice. Not too much to ask for.
Mary Rajek
Merrill
Dear Editor:
I’m writing in regards to the school board primary election which is to be held Feb. 19. My daughter Linda Yingling will be one of seven running for a seat on the school board.
Linda is a recent graduate of NTC with a degree as an administrative professional. Married with two children ages 4 and 8. The oldest is currently a student at Washington Elementary due to the closing of Pine River School last year. Linda as a parent of a prior Pine River student was very compassionate in trying to keep Pine River School opened. She did everything she could to voice her opinion not only at public board meetings but with articles written in the paper and also local TV interviews. The members seated on the board at that time already had their minds made up and nothing that was stated from concerned parents made a difference in their decision. They closed the school. Linda if voted in will not sit on the sidelines when it comes to issues regarding the schools in our community. She wants to make a difference in the quality of education to our children. One of the topics at the top of her agenda would be school bullying. She wants to put more awareness out not only within the schools but out to our parents. She wants every child that attends school to have a happy and safe environment in which to learn. She believes there should be ZERO tolerance of any type of bullying in our schools. She will emphasize on giving each and every student the best learning environment possible. Making sure our children move through each grade with equal opportunities of achieving success as they make their way to graduation day. I urge the voters in our Merrill community to vote for Linda Yingling. She will always have our student’s best interest in mind, as well as the tax payers concerns, at the head of all and any decisions made by the board members. She will have a positive attitude with new ideas to help improve our schools. She will not only speak up for us but will LISTEN to our concerns. So, if you want positive changes on the school board, please vote Linda Yingling at the primary on Feb. 19th. And at the general election on April 2nd. Thank You
Arlene Vert
Pine River
Act 168 Revisited:
Although Act 168, The Sporting Heritage Act, went into effect on Jan. 1, 2013, the original provisions of this Act have been modified and softened, due to the diligence of the DNR, which listened to and acted upon the 2,033 public comments received regarding implementation of this Act. 1,949 comments received opposed aspects of this plan, and only 84 were in agreement. Open hunting and trapping in Wisconsin State Parks and Trails have now been reduced to about two months per year, rather than eight months, as originally proposed in Amendment # 4 of Act 168.
The fact remains, that no thought was given to the repercussions of this Act, and most of our Wisconsin representatives voted in favor of it, although no time was given to public hearings and comments.
Tom Tiffany, who was our representative for District 35 in the Assembly at that time, was one of the sponsors of the Act, and subsequently voted in favor of its passage. (Tom Tiffany now holds the District 12 seat in the Wisconsin State Senate, and thus, still represents us.)
It would be fine indeed, could legislation be proposed, that would overturn the hunting and trapping provisions in Amendment 4 of Act 168, and thus return us to the status quo, prior to Jan. 1, 2013.
We now know, that it was Representative Jeffrey Mursau, (Republican from Crivitz), who added Amendment # 4 to Act 168, whereby our Wisconsin State Parks and Trails would be opened to hunting and trapping. If Act 168, even in its modified form, continues to anger you, please convey your thoughts to Jeffrey Mursau, who is responsible for this mess, and please remember, on future election days, how your representatives have voted.
Representative Jeffrey Mursau
36th Assembly District
Room 18 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
[email protected]
(608) 266-3780 or (888) 534-0036
Catherine G. LeMay-Brown
Merrill