End Public Sector Unions Period.

[Leweman]

Unions are a good thing but only until it begins to lack common sense. Unions should be held accountable as much as any corporation is held accountable. They don't get to be the last say in everything just because they are the union and they were useful 50 years ago.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Unions are nothing more than a bunch of leeches. They suck the blood out of any company. Their demands get to be more and more and the union employees work out put gets to be less and less. In addition, it seems that every union employee that I know is just a walking sack of smug bullshit.

 

[grunt11b]

To end the right to bargain collectively for any American, you'd have to amend the constitution....remember Freedom Of Association?

You people disgust me. Did none of you study history?

Yes, there are useless unions and yes, there are corrupt unions. But what about coal miners? Construction workers? Food and retail workers?

When you knee-jerk yank your fellow man's rights, what's to stop him yanking yours? Don't you ever get tired of being a puppet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzRNBSk348

Maybe you should read up on the constitution, because apparently you have been studying history books that have been rewritten recently to reflect the progressives point of how history happened.
Nowhere in the constitution do you have the freedom of association. The constitution only protects assembly, not association.
You might wanna read the document before you pretend you know what it says. Just a tip.
Oh, and you disgust us also, just so you know. The constitution should be amended to make it mandatory that every American born citizen read the Constitution for what it says, not what some dumbass college professor wants you to think it says.

SCOTUS decisions on Freedom Of Association:

Whitney v. California 274 u.s. 357 (1927)

De Jonge v. Oregon 299 u.s. 353 (1937)

Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization 307 u.s. 496 (1939)

American Communications Assn. v. Douds 339 u.s. 382 (1950)

Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York 342 u.s. 485 (1952)

Kent v. Dulles 357 u.s. 116 (1958)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Patterson 357 u.s. 449 (1958)

Barenblatt v. United States 360 u.s. 109 (1959)

Shelton v. Tucker 364 u.s. 479 (1960)

Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. No. 12 367 u.s. 1 (1961)

Scales v. United States 367 u.s. 203 (1961)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button 371 u.s. 415 (1963)

Edwards v. South Carolina 372 u.s. 229 (1963)

Aptheker v. Secretary of State 378 u.s. 500 (1964)

Cox v. Louisiana 379 u.s. 536 (1965)

Evans v. Newton 382 u.s. 296 (1966)

Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 u.s. 589 (1967)

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis 407 u.s. 163 (1972)

Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb 414 u.s. 441 (1974)

Buckley v. Valeo 424 u.s. 1 (1976)

Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 u.s. 494 (1977)

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services 433 u.s. 425 (1977)

McDaniel v. Paty 435 u.s. 618 (1978)

In re Primus 436 u.s. 412 (1978)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co. 458 u.s. 886 (1982)

Hishon v. King & Spalding 467 u.s. 69 (1984)

Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 u.s. 609 (1984)

Bowers v. Hardwick 478 u.s. 186 (1986)

Board of Directors, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte 481 u.s. 537 (1987)

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens By and Through Mergens 496 u.s. 226 (1990)

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois 497 u.s. 62 (1990)

Dawson v. Delaware 503 u.s. 159 (1992)

California Democratic Party v. Jones 530 u.s. 567 (2000)

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 530 u.s. 640 (2000)

Read 'em and weep, genius.

You can post all the case law that you want, it doesn't take away from the fact that the constitution says what it says, Judges legislating from the bench doesn't make you right on the issue.

 

[Madeline]

I am trying to see both sides of this issue. But I am a pragmatist. Let's suppose for a second that all public employee unions were disbanded. What next? Who sets the compensation? Where is the starting point? How much are people willing to pay teachers, cops, and social workers? Many secretaries and teachers aides make LESS in salary than their health benefits. How much should they have to "sacrifice"?

I am very curious to hear some ideas.

The current contracts and pension plans should be voided, chanel. There has been far too much "may I pay you Wednesday for a hamburger today?' going on for years. The compensation of a teacher should reflect the cost of living in the community where she teaches, the years she has on the job (to a degree) and the results she can get -- however the hell that may be measured. And there should not be such extremely low pay for new teachers nor extremely high pay for old ones.

I would support a public employee union if all civil service laws were repealed...but not every employee joins the union. Many states render closed shops unconstitutional for state con law purposes. So I'd put in strong "cannot be terminated or disciplined without good cause" language in the civil service law and outlaw the union.

However, I would also do more to supervise administrators, reduce the obscene salaries many are paid and limit the number of them. A civilian review board for administrators might be helpful, or mebbe some sort of administrative law judge appeals system.

 

[editec]

Really this POV isn't all that surprising to find on a board rife with American fascists

A lot of the people here who call themselves conservatives, aren't quite conservative...no, they are plain old fashioned fascists.

And like fascists the world over the one thing they truly fear and hate is workers' unions.

On May 2nd, 1933, the day after Labor day, Nazi groups occupied union halls and labor leaders were arrested. Trade Unions were outlawed by Adolf Hitler, while collective bargaining and the right to strike was abolished. This was the beginning of a consolidation of power by the fascist regime which systematically wiped out all opposition groups, starting with unions, liberals, socialists, and communists using Himmler’s state police

Why?

Well let's recap...

What is fascism?

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. ​

Benito Mussolini Quotes - BrainyQuote​

[/quote]

And what organizations stand up to corporations?​

Unions.​

Now is there really ANY QUESTION about what most self-rpclaiming conservatives are really after?​

They're not conservatives, they're fascists.​

And what I find amusing is most of them are such clueless ignoramouses, they don't even know that their belief system already has a name for it and it is NOT conservatism.​

See?​

This is why I appreciate our openly delcared NAZIs like William.​

At least he understands what it is he wants and admits it.​

Most of the so-called conservatives here are freaking brownshirts and think that makes them AMERICAN patriots.​

 

[Leweman]

To end the right to bargain collectively for any American, you'd have to amend the constitution....remember Freedom Of Association?

You people disgust me. Did none of you study history?

Yes, there are useless unions and yes, there are corrupt unions. But what about coal miners? Construction workers? Food and retail workers?

When you knee-jerk yank your fellow man's rights, what's to stop him yanking yours? Don't you ever get tired of being a puppet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzRNBSk348

"At Avery Fisher Hall and Alice Tully Hall in Lincoln Center, the average stagehand salary and benefits package is $290,000 a year.

To repeat, that is the average compensation of all the workers who move musicians' chairs into place and hang lights, not the pay of the top five.

Across the plaza at the Metropolitan Opera, a spokesman said stagehands rarely broke into the top-five category. But a couple of years ago, one did. The props master, James Blumenfeld, got $334,000 at that time, including some vacation back pay."



Read more at the Washington Examiner: The power of unions: Average stagehand at Lincoln Center in NYC makes $290K a year | Mark Hemingway | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

OK. PC, what about the CEOs that crashed their companies, the got multimillion dollar golden parachutes? What about the financial people that damned near put us into the Second Great Republican Depression? And walked away with tens of millions of dollars, instead of prison terms.

The teachers and state workers in Wisconsin are not making six figure salaries. In fact, they make considerably less than I do. And the teachers have to have at least a four year college degree.

People like you piss and moan about the quality of the teachers, then do everything you can to make sure that the pay is such that the best people will not even think about applying for the job. Just as in private industry, you want quality, you pay for it.

waaaaaaa waaaaaaa... I know what your saying is a good point so Im going to whine about CEOs pay. waaaaaaa waaaaaaa.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ludlow!

Massacre: Photos & Stories

 

[California Girl]

Jobs which produce economic value and grow the economy. Great idea. How about a government policy supporting hybird and electric cars? Or, a government policy which rebuilds the electric grid, connects major metro regions by high speed rail, all of which reduce our dependence on oil?

How about a government polcy which hold private contractors to the signed contracts, eliminates the low-bid and no bid practice, and holds the selected bidder to all terms and conditions of the contract?

Oh, and how about explaining which jobs produce economic value and grow the economy? Think about the entire impact the jobs have before answering.

Private sector jobs grow the economy as long as the government keeps it's meddling, greedy hands out of it.

Public sector jobs don't. It's that simple. All your proposed government manipulations are in the latter category.

idiocy

Actually, it's not technically 'idiocy'... it's right... but not completely accurate.

The private sector grows the economy. That's fact. The public sector drains the economy. That's fact... However...... and it is a rather large however.... the public sector supports the private sector, and adds value to the economy in that support.

The public sector also secures the private sector in order for the private sector to grow the economy.

Ergo, a public sector plays a vital role in society..... but that does not excuse it from running roughshod over the public.... or the private sector.

 

[Madeline]

Maybe you should read up on the constitution, because apparently you have been studying history books that have been rewritten recently to reflect the progressives point of how history happened.
Nowhere in the constitution do you have the freedom of association. The constitution only protects assembly, not association.
You might wanna read the document before you pretend you know what it says. Just a tip.
Oh, and you disgust us also, just so you know. The constitution should be amended to make it mandatory that every American born citizen read the Constitution for what it says, not what some dumbass college professor wants you to think it says.

SCOTUS decisions on Freedom Of Association:

Whitney v. California 274 u.s. 357 (1927)

De Jonge v. Oregon 299 u.s. 353 (1937)

Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization 307 u.s. 496 (1939)

American Communications Assn. v. Douds 339 u.s. 382 (1950)

Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York 342 u.s. 485 (1952)

Kent v. Dulles 357 u.s. 116 (1958)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Patterson 357 u.s. 449 (1958)

Barenblatt v. United States 360 u.s. 109 (1959)

Shelton v. Tucker 364 u.s. 479 (1960)

Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. No. 12 367 u.s. 1 (1961)

Scales v. United States 367 u.s. 203 (1961)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button 371 u.s. 415 (1963)

Edwards v. South Carolina 372 u.s. 229 (1963)

Aptheker v. Secretary of State 378 u.s. 500 (1964)

Cox v. Louisiana 379 u.s. 536 (1965)

Evans v. Newton 382 u.s. 296 (1966)

Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 u.s. 589 (1967)

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis 407 u.s. 163 (1972)

Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb 414 u.s. 441 (1974)

Buckley v. Valeo 424 u.s. 1 (1976)

Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 u.s. 494 (1977)

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services 433 u.s. 425 (1977)

McDaniel v. Paty 435 u.s. 618 (1978)

In re Primus 436 u.s. 412 (1978)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co. 458 u.s. 886 (1982)

Hishon v. King & Spalding 467 u.s. 69 (1984)

Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 u.s. 609 (1984)

Bowers v. Hardwick 478 u.s. 186 (1986)

Board of Directors, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte 481 u.s. 537 (1987)

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens By and Through Mergens 496 u.s. 226 (1990)

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois 497 u.s. 62 (1990)

Dawson v. Delaware 503 u.s. 159 (1992)

California Democratic Party v. Jones 530 u.s. 567 (2000)

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 530 u.s. 640 (2000)

Read 'em and weep, genius.

You can post all the case law that you want, it doesn't take away from the fact that the constitution says what it says, Judges legislating from the bench doesn't make you right on the issue.

The reason SCOTUS decisions interpreting the constitution are binding on us all is because the constitution itself created the Judicial Branch and the system of checks and balances we have in this country.

WTF did you go to school, dimwit?

 

[midcan5]

Another corporate tool, what a tired argument, screw the people and not allow them the same rights the privileged possess.

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey

Any fans of Utah Phillips out there, his labor songs are interesting and a bit of history many forget today.




"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

 

[Madeline]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw[/ame]

 

[Skull Pilot]

When it comes to government, operating costs should be a top priority. Paying employees far above market wages for a job is wasteful.

If a state or the federal government for that matter can get a better bottom line, which means we all end up with a better bottom line, by not using union employees then so be it.

If private companies want to deal with unions they should have that choice but if workers go on strike in order to force collective bargaining the employer should be able to fire them. And individual workers should have the choice as to whether or not they join a union.

 

[grunt11b]

SCOTUS decisions on Freedom Of Association:

Whitney v. California 274 u.s. 357 (1927)

De Jonge v. Oregon 299 u.s. 353 (1937)

Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization 307 u.s. 496 (1939)

American Communications Assn. v. Douds 339 u.s. 382 (1950)

Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York 342 u.s. 485 (1952)

Kent v. Dulles 357 u.s. 116 (1958)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Patterson 357 u.s. 449 (1958)

Barenblatt v. United States 360 u.s. 109 (1959)

Shelton v. Tucker 364 u.s. 479 (1960)

Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. No. 12 367 u.s. 1 (1961)

Scales v. United States 367 u.s. 203 (1961)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button 371 u.s. 415 (1963)

Edwards v. South Carolina 372 u.s. 229 (1963)

Aptheker v. Secretary of State 378 u.s. 500 (1964)

Cox v. Louisiana 379 u.s. 536 (1965)

Evans v. Newton 382 u.s. 296 (1966)

Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 u.s. 589 (1967)

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis 407 u.s. 163 (1972)

Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb 414 u.s. 441 (1974)

Buckley v. Valeo 424 u.s. 1 (1976)

Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 u.s. 494 (1977)

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services 433 u.s. 425 (1977)

McDaniel v. Paty 435 u.s. 618 (1978)

In re Primus 436 u.s. 412 (1978)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co. 458 u.s. 886 (1982)

Hishon v. King & Spalding 467 u.s. 69 (1984)

Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 u.s. 609 (1984)

Bowers v. Hardwick 478 u.s. 186 (1986)

Board of Directors, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte 481 u.s. 537 (1987)

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens By and Through Mergens 496 u.s. 226 (1990)

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois 497 u.s. 62 (1990)

Dawson v. Delaware 503 u.s. 159 (1992)

California Democratic Party v. Jones 530 u.s. 567 (2000)

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 530 u.s. 640 (2000)

Read 'em and weep, genius.

You can post all the case law that you want, it doesn't take away from the fact that the constitution says what it says, Judges legislating from the bench doesn't make you right on the issue.

The reason SCOTUS decisions interpreting the constitution are binding on us all is because the constitution itself created the Judicial Branch and the system of checks and balances we have in this country.

WTF did you go to school, dimwit?

I don't need to go to college to be able to read the constitution for what it says. Only elitists like yourself would do such a thing and try to convince everyone else around you that because you went to college you obviously must know more.
I read the constitution for what it says, you read it for what you would like it to say. Which one of us is correct? I'll let everyone else be the judge of that.
Also, personal attacks only make you look like a liberal, let's try to keep it a civil debate, something most lefties cannot do when they are being proven wrong.

 

[Claudette]

Perhaps the citizens of WI and other States should be the ones to decide what they want to pay their teachers and Public workers. Leave the Union and local Govt out of the process altogether.

When talks come up to renew contracts have a special vote within the cities. Having the vote will probably cost money but the citizens will be the decider, not the Union or the Local Govt.

It is their tax dollar after all.

 

[chanel]

I am trying to see both sides of this issue. But I am a pragmatist. Let's suppose for a second that all public employee unions were disbanded. What next? Who sets the compensation? Where is the starting point? How much are people willing to pay teachers, cops, and social workers? Many secretaries and teachers aides make LESS in salary than their health benefits. How much should they have to "sacrifice"?

I am very curious to hear some ideas.

The current contracts and pension plans should be voided, chanel. There has been far too much "may I pay you Wednesday for a hamburger today?' going on for years. The compensation of a teacher should reflect the cost of living in the community where she teaches, the years she has on the job (to a degree) and the results she can get -- however the hell that may be measured. And there should not be such extremely low pay for new teachers nor extremely high pay for old ones.

I would support a public employee union if all civil service laws were repealed...but not every employee joins the union. Many states render closed shops unconstitutional for state con law purposes. So I'd put in strong "cannot be terminated or disciplined without good cause" language in the civil service law and outlaw the union.

However, I would also do more to supervise administrators, reduce the obscene salaries many are paid and limit the number of them. A civilian review board for administrators might be helpful, or mebbe some sort of administrative law judge appeals system.

So inner city teachers who work in communities where the avg. household salary is $20K should make around the same? Considering they generally have poor performing students, should that be reflected in their compensation?

Teachers who work in wealthy communities where the avg. household income is $100K + and 90% of the students go on to college should be paid more?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I also don't agree with "closed shops", but I'm still trying to figure out who would be doing the "bargaining" if unions are eliminated.

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps we should just state that all teachers will get minimum wage with no benefits. That would suit your Conservative agenda to a tee. Then the next generation would be just as ignorant as you are.

 

[Leweman]

Wow so them having to pay some of their benefits equates to them making minimum wage now huh? Wow your such a reasonable thinker. They only work 180 days a year for goodness sakes. Does anyone else factor that in?

 

[Madeline]

grunt11b wrote:

I don't need to go to college to be able to read the constitution for what it says. Only elitists like yourself would do such a thing and try to convince everyone else around you that because you went to college you obviously must know more.
I read the constitution for what it says, you read it for what you would like it to say. Which one of us is correct? I'll let everyone else be the judge of that.
Also, personal attacks only make you look like a liberal, let's try to keep it a civil debate, something most lefties cannot do when they are being proven wrong.

Article III of the US Constitution reads in part:

Article III

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

 

[bucs90]

Great, now we've got Hitler references, although union thugs are carrying Hitler signs and calling their elected governor that.

We've got a lib saying that without unions "Why would they pay anyone a decent wage"? Which begs the question of does he also support illegal immigration, because without abundant labor, why pay Americans more? I betcha he wants the open border.

And of course we've got libs asking "What about the CEOS!!!!!"


I and others have proven our point over the last week that unions are no longer needed, and are hurting our economy.

Time for fairness and moderation is over. Do away with the unions.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm inclined to support ending unions for the public sector. The private sector can't be trusted to treat people properly with some kind of 'encouragement'. However, I am inclined to clip the wings of unions so they can't keep crapping on business to the extent that they can destroy a business. We need business, we do not 'need' unions. They would do well to remember that.

Excellent point. I remember one union strike that put an airline out of business. Was it Eastern?