There is one fundamental flaw in Mr. Diggs' argument (column, June 30), and that is you fail to realize that the "anti-union atmosphere" in Wisconsin is involving public unions, not private unions (ie. USW, UAW, etc.).
The question is: Do state-funded departments and agencies truly have collective bargaining rights? That is to say, if a state is broke, does a teacher have the right to demand more money from his or her neighbor?
Another flawed argument: "Unions will be obsolete when the welfare of workers and owners are one and the same." I don't mean to rush to the defense of millionaires and billionaires, but owners will never be one and the same with workers (at least, not in a capitalistic society). Who writes the checks for workers? The rich "fat cats" do! Granted, owners have a legal and moral obligation to ensure the safety of their employees, but let's not sit around and completely demonize the rich. You don't become rich by accident or luck (unless you're John Kerry, or the Kennedys).
Let me be clear: I think the lawmakers in Wisconsin completely mishandled what they ultimately set out to do. But in a time where unemployment is still high, where those with jobs have pay freezes, 401(K) company match elimination, etc., why should public unions think they deserve wage and benefits increases in a recession?
Nathan A. Odenbach
Naperville, Ill., formerly Britton