Collective bargaining is not a right.

[konradv]

Um. The U.S. is not governed by the UN or Canada.

But it is governed by our own laws. The state of WI gave its employees the RIGHT to bargain collectively and now they're trying to take it away. It may not be a Constitutional right, but until the law is repealed or superseded, they DO INDEED have the right to collective bargaining.

 

[Liberty]

Still waiting for someone to answer where the right for a PUBLIC SECTOR employee to siphon tax money is written in any philosphical/founding documents.

 

[Liberty]

Um. The U.S. is not governed by the UN or Canada.

But it is governed by our own laws. The state of WI gave its employees the RIGHT to bargain collectively and now they're trying to take it away. It may not be a Constitutional right, but until the law is repealed or superseded, they DO INDEED have the right to collective bargaining.

So what is your problem? Removing the "right" is a part of the democratic process and should be embraced right?

 

[boedicca]

Um. The U.S. is not governed by the UN or Canada.

But it is governed by our own laws. The state of WI gave its employees the RIGHT to bargain collectively and now they're trying to take it away. It may not be a Constitutional right, but until the law is repealed or superseded, they DO INDEED have the right to collective bargaining.

And such legislative "rights" may be revoked or modified via legislation - which reflects the will of the WI voters as per the Nov-10 election.

 

[boedicca]

Um. The U.S. is not governed by the UN or Canada.

But it is governed by our own laws. The state of WI gave its employees the RIGHT to bargain collectively and now they're trying to take it away. It may not be a Constitutional right, but until the law is repealed or superseded, they DO INDEED have the right to collective bargaining.

So what is your problem? Removing the "right" is a part of the democratic process and should be embraced right?

You're forgetting the Dem motto. Read my sig.

 

[Sallow]

Collective bargaining as a right IS NOT a fantasy. Do you have the right to drive a car? I don't see that in the Constitution!!! Your thesis promotes Constitutional Rights as if they were the only rights, but there are also Legislative Rights. When a legislature writes a law saying that workers may participate in collective bargaining, they are saying workers have the RIGHT to bargain collectively. Those rights are more easily abridged than Constitutional Rights, but they're rights just the same, until the legislature takes them away.

Driving a car is not a right, moron. If it was, by your logic, shouldn't the government provide everyone a car? Get your logic straight, you sound like the other useful idiots.

Oh yeah, try driving without a license and speeding by a cop. You're just playing with words. No, my logic in NO WAY implies that the government should buy everyone a car. The fact that you used that as an example, plainly shows who the moron is.

I'll go with "textualist" weasel who doesn't understand what he reads..and cherry picks like crazy without proper context..

 

[konradv]

Driving a car is not a right, moron. If it was, by your logic, shouldn't the government provide everyone a car? Get your logic straight, you sound like the other useful idiots.

Oh yeah, try driving without a license and speeding by a cop. You're just playing with words. No, my logic in NO WAY implies that the government should buy everyone a car. The fact that you used that as an example, plainly shows who the moron is.

"playing with words"? That is what you call using words in their proper definition? I use your own logic against you, and you still don't see the error in your line of thinking. That is your choice, but a right is something that CAN NOT be taken away, unless a law is violated and proven, which is called a consequence for criminal activity. No one has the right to drive, it is a privilege that you secure for your own convenience under your own effort, it is not inherent at birth, which is what a RIGHT is by definition. I feel like I am educating a 3rd grader in basic civics.

You ARE playing with words. You don't seem to accept that there can be two levels of rights. As for driving, you call it a privilege, I call it a right that you acquire. A right that can be taken away for cause. Just because you have the some rights at birth, doesn't mean some can't be acquired. If I pass the Medical Boards, for example, I'd have the right to practice Medicine. If I violate medical ethics, that right can be taken away. Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution, doesn't mean it can't be a right in certain circumstances. The fact that you prefer to call these rights 'privileges', just underscaores my contention that you're merely playing with words.

 

[Liberty]

Driving a car is not a right, moron. If it was, by your logic, shouldn't the government provide everyone a car? Get your logic straight, you sound like the other useful idiots.

Oh yeah, try driving without a license and speeding by a cop. You're just playing with words. No, my logic in NO WAY implies that the government should buy everyone a car. The fact that you used that as an example, plainly shows who the moron is.

I'll go with "textualist" weasel who doesn't understand what he reads..and cherry picks like crazy without proper context..

like what?

 

[Liberty]

Oh yeah, try driving without a license and speeding by a cop. You're just playing with words. No, my logic in NO WAY implies that the government should buy everyone a car. The fact that you used that as an example, plainly shows who the moron is.

"playing with words"? That is what you call using words in their proper definition? I use your own logic against you, and you still don't see the error in your line of thinking. That is your choice, but a right is something that CAN NOT be taken away, unless a law is violated and proven, which is called a consequence for criminal activity. No one has the right to drive, it is a privilege that you secure for your own convenience under your own effort, it is not inherent at birth, which is what a RIGHT is by definition. I feel like I am educating a 3rd grader in basic civics.

You ARE playing with words. You don't seem to accept that there can be two levels of rights. As for driving, you call it a privilege, I call it a right that you acquire. A right that can be taken away for cause. Just because you have the some rights at birth, doesn't mean some can't be acquired. If I pass the Medical Boards, for example, I'd have the right to practice Medicine. If I violate medical ethics, that right can be taken away. Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution, doesn't mean it can't be a right in certain circumstances. The fact that you prefer to call these rights 'privileges', just underscaores my contention that you're merely playing with words.

Oh, so your definition is wrong, but when you spell it out like that I understand. Thanks for explaining that.

 

[konradv]

Um. The U.S. is not governed by the UN or Canada.

But it is governed by our own laws. The state of WI gave its employees the RIGHT to bargain collectively and now they're trying to take it away. It may not be a Constitutional right, but until the law is repealed or superseded, they DO INDEED have the right to collective bargaining.

And such legislative "rights" may be revoked or modified via legislation - which reflects the will of the WI voters as per the Nov-10 election.

Did it? I thought the voters wanted to save money, which the workers agreed to. What they didn't agree to and I'll wager wasn't mentioned during the campaign was that the right to collective bargaining was going to be taken away. Can you cite that that was indeed a stated campaign goal?

 

[Liberty]

But it is governed by our own laws. The state of WI gave its employees the RIGHT to bargain collectively and now they're trying to take it away. It may not be a Constitutional right, but until the law is repealed or superseded, they DO INDEED have the right to collective bargaining.

And such legislative "rights" may be revoked or modified via legislation - which reflects the will of the WI voters as per the Nov-10 election.

Did it? I thought the voters wanted to save money, which the workers agreed to. What they didn't agree to and I'll wager wasn't mentioned during the campaign was that the right to collective bargaining was going to be taken away. Can you cite that that was indeed a stated campaign goal?

Do I REALLY have to go through all the elected officials in American history that did the COMPLETE opposite of their campaign promises, many of which people just ignored? Come on...that's not a valid excuse to circumvent the process.

 

[kwc57]

You have a right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, but you don't have the right to collectively bargain. This is fantasy. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or collectively bargain? Which one ACTUALLY appears in the bill of rights? That's what I thought. Commies, go home.

National Labor Relations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act (after its sponsor, Senator Robert F. Wagner) (Pub.L. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 151–169), is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, federal, state or local government workers, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers..........

 

[Liberty]

You have a right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, but you don't have the right to collectively bargain. This is fantasy. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or collectively bargain? Which one ACTUALLY appears in the bill of rights? That's what I thought. Commies, go home.

National Labor Relations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act (after its sponsor, Senator Robert F. Wagner) (Pub.L. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 151–169), is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, federal, state or local government workers, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers..........

We are talking public sector, buddy, thanks anyway though.

 

[boedicca]

From Walker's campaign website:

Throughout six years of deficit spending and fiscal mismanagement, Governor Doyle left us with a state budget that could not weather even a small downturn in the economy. In a desperate attempt to remedy a $6 billion deficit (4th largest in the nation), the Governor recently signed a budget that raised taxes by over $2 billion and spending by over 6%.

Much of Wisconsin’s economic woes have resulted from years of delaying prudent financial decisions while making little effort to implement a pro-growth agenda for the state.

The decisions that our state and local leaders make now will determine the health of our economy for a generation. We cannot afford to perpetuate Wisconsin's fiscal woes by continually raising taxes and fees to avoid making the tough choices to prioritize spending.

Wisconsin deserves a government that puts the needs of citizens first. The following set of reforms will help put state government back on the side of the people:

Start the state budget at zero. Just because a government program has a vocal constituency and a high-priced lobbyist does not mean it should continue, let alone receive automatic funding increases. Every dollar spent should be scrutinized and justified, not simply given a blind percentage increase.

Require the use of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to balance every state budget, just as we require every local government and school district to do.

Strip policy and pork projects from the state budget. The budget process should be about funding essential government services based on the taxpayers’ ability to pay. It should not be about horse trading for special interest groups or establishing talking points for the next campaign.

End the practice of raiding segregated state funds to pay for other programs. If taxpayer revenue is collected for a specific purpose such as building and maintaining roads, it should be used for that purpose and that purpose only.

Restore Wisconsin’s reputation for clean and honest government through transparency in the state contracting process. Require lobbyists to report all attempts to influence state agency decisions regarding the awarding of state contracts and grants and provide real time disclosure of all contracts and grant awards. Government is spending your money and you have a right to know when, where, and how much.


Government Spending & Reform | Scott Walker for Wisconsin Governor


Walker is doing what he promised - standing up t the Public Employee Union Special Interests.

 

[manifold]

Care to directly quote any philosopher whose cornerstone is personal freedom (as that is what the USA is based on) who declares this right is unalienable? Perhaps a founding father to back up God/creator or Constitution. In my research I have not found any such mention, so please enlighten me.

Why are you trying to over complicate the matter? Is it because you are beginning to realize the flaw in your position? Let's hope so because it is quite flawed.

Very simple question: Do I not have the right to round up one or more willing colleagues and standing together with them, demand a 10% raise or we stop working? Yes or No?

What are you talking about? The rights I support are those of Locke, Bastiat, and somewhat Mill, Cicero of course, and the influence they had on Madison and those who worked on the Constitution. That lays out the rights of man and Americans, so...I am simply missing where it is the right of a government employee to extract tax money for their own gain.

To answer your question, You have that right, but don't be surprised when you are fired.

Then apparently our disagreement is nothing more than semantics, and if I may, a poorly titled thread.

The part I bolded IMO, is in no way an accurate definition of 'collective bargaining'. The example I gave is a simple illustration of collective bargaining, which in it's pure form is most certainly a right. But again, like we've now both said, you don't have any right not to be fired for exercising it.

 

[Liberty]

Why are you trying to over complicate the matter? Is it because you are beginning to realize the flaw in your position? Let's hope so because it is quite flawed.

Very simple question: Do I not have the right to round up one or more willing colleagues and standing together with them, demand a 10% raise or we stop working? Yes or No?

What are you talking about? The rights I support are those of Locke, Bastiat, and somewhat Mill, Cicero of course, and the influence they had on Madison and those who worked on the Constitution. That lays out the rights of man and Americans, so...I am simply missing where it is the right of a government employee to extract tax money for their own gain.

To answer your question, You have that right, but don't be surprised when you are fired.

Then apparently our disagreement is nothing more than semantics, and if I may, a poorly titled thread.

The part I bolded IMO, is in no way an accurate definition of 'collective bargaining'. The example I gave is a simple illustration of collective bargaining, which in it's pure form is most certainly a right. But again, like we've now both said, you don't have any right not to be fired for exercising it.

I am just saying, I think the Union is just a tool to extract tax money for their own gain, like crazy pensions/benefits, etc. that are unreal in the pirvate sector for obvious funding reasons. So, yea, fair enough.

 

[LilOlLady]

National Labor Relations Act

Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 et seq.) in 1935 to establish the right of workers to engage in collective bargaining and other group activities (§ 157). The NLRA also created the national labor relations board (NLRB), a federal agency authorized to enforce the right to bargain collectively (§ 153). The NLRA has been amended several times since 1935, most notably in 1947, 1959, and 1974.

The NLRA governs labor relations for businesses involved in interstate commerce only; thus, it does not protect the collective bargaining interests of all categories of workers. Several classes of employers fall outside the NLRA, including those working for the U.S. government and its wholly owned corporations, states and their political subdivisions, railroads, and airlines. The NLRA also does not protect certain types of workers, such as agricultural workers, independent contractors, and supervisory and managerial employees. But other federal and state laws often provide protection for workers not covered under the NLRA. For example, federal government workers enjoy the right to bargain collectively under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which is patterned largely after the NLRA and enforced by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Railroads and airlines are generally governed by the Railway Labor Act, the predecessor to the NLRA. Plus many states have adopted statutes similar to the NLRA that protect the rights of state and local government workers to bargain collectively.

Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) of the NLRA define the failure to engage in collective bargaining as an unfair labor practice (29 U.S.C.A. § 158[a][5], [3]). The aggrieved party may file an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the NLRB, which has the authority to prevent or halt the performance of unfair labor practices (§ 160).

Law of Collective Bargaining
The law of collective bargaining encompasses four basic points:

The employer may not refuse to bargain over certain subjects with the employees' representative, provided that the employees' representative has majority support in the bargaining unit.
Those certain subjects, called mandatory subjects of bargaining, include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
The employer and the union are not required to reach agreement but must bargain in Good Faith over mandatory subjects of bargaining until they reach an impasse.
While a valid collective bargaining agreement is in effect, and while the parties are bargaining but have not yet reached an impasse, the employer may not unilaterally change a term of employment that is a mandatory subject of bargaining. But once the parties have reached an impasse, the employer may unilaterally implement its proposed changes, provided that it had previously offered the changes to the union for consideration.


collective bargaining legal definition of collective bargaining. collective bargaining synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[konradv]

"playing with words"? That is what you call using words in their proper definition? I use your own logic against you, and you still don't see the error in your line of thinking. That is your choice, but a right is something that CAN NOT be taken away, unless a law is violated and proven, which is called a consequence for criminal activity. No one has the right to drive, it is a privilege that you secure for your own convenience under your own effort, it is not inherent at birth, which is what a RIGHT is by definition. I feel like I am educating a 3rd grader in basic civics.

You ARE playing with words. You don't seem to accept that there can be two levels of rights. As for driving, you call it a privilege, I call it a right that you acquire. A right that can be taken away for cause. Just because you have the some rights at birth, doesn't mean some can't be acquired. If I pass the Medical Boards, for example, I'd have the right to practice Medicine. If I violate medical ethics, that right can be taken away. Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution, doesn't mean it can't be a right in certain circumstances. The fact that you prefer to call these rights 'privileges', just underscaores my contention that you're merely playing with words.

Oh, so your definition is wrong, but when you spell it out like that I understand. Thanks for explaining that.

My definition isn't wrong. You just chose to look at the part of the defintion you agree with. How can you say you understand, but refuse to acknowledge that I was right? The examples I gave are REAL WORLD and used all the time. If you won't accept my defintion, then perhaps you need to GET REAL!!!

 

[Liberty]

You ARE playing with words. You don't seem to accept that there can be two levels of rights. As for driving, you call it a privilege, I call it a right that you acquire. A right that can be taken away for cause. Just because you have the some rights at birth, doesn't mean some can't be acquired. If I pass the Medical Boards, for example, I'd have the right to practice Medicine. If I violate medical ethics, that right can be taken away. Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution, doesn't mean it can't be a right in certain circumstances. The fact that you prefer to call these rights 'privileges', just underscaores my contention that you're merely playing with words.

Oh, so your definition is wrong, but when you spell it out like that I understand. Thanks for explaining that.

My definition isn't wrong. You just chose to look at the part of the defintion you agree with. How can you say you understand, but refuse to acknowledge that I was right? The examples I gave are REAL WORLD and used all the time. If you won't accept my defintion, then perhaps you need to GET REAL!!!

Just because I understand your point doesn't mean I think you are right or wrong, just that I understand your point and it is consistent which is saying a lot considering the tools like swallow and TM that run around and just throw out gibberish. That's a compliment, take it or leave it.

 

[Bern80]

I think Liberty you may want to clarify what you mean by collectively bargain. Because in the literal definition of the phrase I don't see how the concept of a right being associated with it pertains. It certainly isnt something the constitution prohibits. The constitution doesn't deny people the freedom to organize, in fact it protects it. What part of the constitution says a group of peope can't band together to negotiate the best employment conditions they can? Nothing as far as i can see.

What today's unions need to keep in mind however, is they don't have the right to prevent an employer from simply hiring other people who will work for less than what the union is demanding. It seems to me the unions simply want to tip the scales unfairly in their over favor. They want their demands met, but they don't want to have the leverage a true free labor market would require to make those demands a reality.