Is the Dem mayor barret still forcing people to live in Milwaukee? (Kenosha: apartment, schools)

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by Kchomps

Your reasoning seems to be founded in mentioning some vague and esoteric concept of connecting to the community only being accomplished by living within the corporate boundaries of a city, so your logic stands?

Yes, it does. It may not be the logic you want to hear, but it is a valid argument in its own right. The opposition also has valid arguments. Usually, a person picks the one that is more convincing to him/her, or tries to reconcile the disparate arguments. This is what judges do, and as we know, many different sides to a case can have logical integrity.

The concept of "community" may be vague and esoteric to you, but it is not to me. Similarly, your concept of being "forced" and "coerced" seems like quite a stretch to me, but it makes sense to you.

Clearly, it isn't. But when people are forced to live in a city, that says more than anything about that city. Then have the clown democrat mayor publicly state the fact that if they weren't forced to live here, they'd flee?

And people wonder why democrat ran milwaukee has turned out to be in such a sad state of affairs.

No one is forcing anyone to live in the city. No one is entitled to a job, either.

[TommyGavin]

Originally Posted by quijote

No one is forcing anyone to live in the city. No one is entitled to a job, either.

I think this part of your post is the most important or logical part of the debate.
When all of the emotion and rhetoric are removed from the topic this is about what it is reduced to.

It doesn't really matter what the city's reasoning is. It doesn't really matter what the employees logic is, either. It is not against the constitution, the FLSA or other labor laws for this rule to exist.
The city, in this instance is not acting as government but as an employer. The only people this rule applies to are those who choose to work for the city. Ultimately, if living in the city is such a hardship the employee has the final say, and that is in seeking work elsewhere.

If the city wants to keep income, taxes or anything else inside it's borders, it doesn't really need to say or justify. As the employer, the city is the entity that determines workplace rules and policies, given applicable labor laws are applied to.
The city wants to have this rule in place and, that is all that really matters in this matter.

There is not one single city or school district employee that can say the policy is a surprise.

I think there are bigger fish to fry in the world of politics, such as the decent paying jobs that were just forced out of this state the other day.

[Allan Trafton]

If you don't like the job requirement then don't apply for the job. Why is so hard to understand. If Milwaukee can't find employees to fill the positions, then change the rule. If you took the job knowing the requirement and now you don't like it, then quit. There are other jobs out there.

[crazyme4878]

I don't see what the issue is. If you want a particular job that happens to be a government job, then move to a city you want to live in. Anyone can apply for the city jobs, however, if you are hired, it is with the acknowledgment that you will be moving to within the city limits. No one is forcing you to work a city job, thereby forcing you to live within the city. My sister works wastewater and the rule has always been that she has to live within the city limits. Sometimes this is for a very simple reason. For her, it is because they have to take turns being on call--if something goes wrong at the plant, the person on call has to be able to get there extremely quickly.

[Milwaukee City]

Originally Posted by Allan Trafton

If you don't like the job requirement then don't apply for the job. Why is so hard to understand. If Milwaukee can't find employees to fill the positions, then change the rule. If you took the job knowing the requirement and now you don't like it, then quit. There are other jobs out there.

True and most people agree with that statement as I do but the question is should the city of MKE require it? not if they can or cannot.

[TommyGavin]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

True and most people agree with that statement as I do but the question is should the city of MKE require it? not if they can or cannot.

That really is not the question. The city of Milwaukee is the entity that should decide whether they want it, or not. No one else. Whether they can or not is a legal issue. Whether they should or not is the city's decision alone.

Here's another similar battle over the same topic occurring. Actually, it's over; your own research will provide answers as to the outcome.


Firefighter residency law battle brewing between Mayor Francis Slay, Governor Jay Nixon | ksdk.com

[Kchomps]

Originally Posted by quijote

It may not be the logic you want to hear, but it is a valid argument in its own right.

Logic is nothing more than an assumption in this case, pure supposition, a declaration on your part.

an example of logic:
Trees are tall.
I am tall.
therefore, I am a tree

The concept of "community" may be vague and esoteric to you, but it is not to me.

Silly yet again, speaking in vague generalities, bumpersticker words.
Packer fans can be seen as a community.
Kenosha and milwaukee can be seen as a community.
The midwest can be seen as a community.

Figure out what separates out the above communities?
The definition of, 'as compared to...".

Wishing, feeling, on your part that someone born and raised in the richest part of milwaukee will feel a sense of 'community' with the poorest, crime riddled area of milwaukee is patently absurd, and I've not even brought in the racial and/or cultural component.

No one is forcing anyone to live in the city. No one is entitled to a job, either.

So if an employer says you must be straight, or male, or christian, or ? in order to get a job in their company, you'd be OK with that?
Quoting you, you aren't "entitled to a job", right? If you're not a white christian male, then you have to look elsewhere for work.
And you're OK with that?
I hardly think the democrat party machine running milwaukee into the status of a third world country would be OK with that, but who knows?

After all, the WI democrat party doesn't support private sector unions...

[Jesse276]

Originally Posted by Kchomps

I am a tree

Got it, you're a tree & believe logic is useless.

Originally Posted by Kchomps

So if an employer says you must be straight, or male, or christian, or ? in order to get a job in their company, you'd be OK with that?
Quoting you, you aren't "entitled to a job", right? If you're not a white christian male, then you have to look elsewhere for work.
And you're OK with that?
I hardly think the democrat party machine running milwaukee into the status of a third world country would be OK with that, but who knows?

After all, the WI democrat party doesn't support private sector unions...

Not all of the discrimination you listed is illegal. It's also legal to deny an applicant a job because they're currently unemployed.

So, it sounds like you want to add more restrictions on companies hiring... is that right?

[crazyme4878]

But it isn't a part of the "democrat party machine"--it is more usual than unusual across the country, in Republican and Democratic cities.

I really don't understand the huge debate.

[Kchomps]

Originally Posted by crazyme4878

But it isn't a part of the "democrat party machine"--it is more usual than unusual across the country, in Republican and Democratic cities.

Got any large republican governed cities? All I've found are democrat ran and have been for a long time--which is probably why they need to force income earners to live there.

I really don't understand the huge debate.

The Residency Rebellion