Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Public sector unions should be illegal. They are a form of self-dealing and corruption.

Posted by Working the farm, a resident of the Woodside: Family Farm/Hidden Valley neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2013 at 1:04 pm

J Davis "Public sector unions should be illegal."

vs

"They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." Ronnie Reagan '80

Ronnie, the man: In 1968, then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, establishing collective bargaining for California's municipal and county employees.

Why does Mr Davis hate working Americans so much more than Reagan?

Posted by Ghost of RR, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm

There is nothing per say wrong with a union, including a public sector union. It is common sensical, however, to look at unions in a different light than when they started in earnest in the 19th century. Public sector workers are objectively paid and treated much better than Pennsylvania coal miners were back then.

In the movie Wall Street 2, the main character asks the CEO of a Wall Street firm what is number is, what is enough. The CEO, played by Josh Brolin replies, after pondering for a moment, "more." It's a great scene that was acted well, and certainly served as an indictment of the "1%."

But the origins of this quote are actually with the first large American union leader, Samuel Gompers of the AFL, in the late 1800's.

Mr. Gompers wanting "more" might have been more appropriate back then than it is now. That fact alone might be a result of unions, but it is still a fact.

Posted by ghost II, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Much like the modern myth of RR, ghost of RR said a lot.

Yet said nothing.

The real RR said a lot, but it was decipherable.

Posted by Observer, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Is it merely a coincidence that this law firm was the same firm working so hard last November/December 2012 to delay the resolution approving salary benefits for all unrepresented employees so that the new Council composed of Weist (and the APOA backed Lewis) could change it? And now they will represent the police? Meanwhile the police ditch the Teamsters in an effort to try to improve public perception?

Could it be that the original resolution contained provisions the police did not want to see in their new contracts? Was the immense support of two candidates and the delaying tactic all part of an effort to retain all-too-favorable contract provisions out of whack with those of other cities and economic realities?

Perhaps "appearances" are obscuring honest and considered responses to these critical questions.

Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Jan 7, 2013 at 2:39 pm

It looks, smells and quacks--it is a duck. Observer nailed it, it is what the electorate wants in Atherton,however, so let it be done--I'll just be sure to avoid driving through the town limits. I just wish they wouldn't let their private security force/pet sitters/caretakers carry real weapons. Scarey.