Public Union Rights

[Wiseacre]

I posted this in another thread, didn't get an answer. Let's see if anyone can offer a counter argument here.

" Will somebody please tell me why the blue blazes fuck public unions should have collective bargaining rights with the very same politicians who decide their contracts? At a time when their compensation and benefits far outstrip what the private sector gets? "

Collective bargaining rights for public unions have made governance next to impossible. Promotions, reassignments, and layoffs are so restricted by rigid rules that there's no room for managerial judgement. Consider that last year's best 1st year teacher inthe state of Wisconsin had to be lt go due to the LIFO providsions of the union contract. Anybody who claims that limiting union CB rights is an attack on education is a flatout liar or idiot who doesn't really know squat. Probably both.

It's ridiculous. There's just no possible way state and local gov'ts are going to be able to pay for the promises they've made. They just will not have the money, and raising taxes on the rich just isn't going to make up the shortfall, not even close.

 

[hortysir]

Doesn't seem to fit the definition of a "right"

 

[blastoff]

It's a very simple equation. The unions give scads of money to dimocrat politicians. Those clowns love that money flowing in. They've learned to depend on it like a bunch of welfare queens. Thus there's plenty of incentive for them to keep the union stooges well paid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

 

[naturegirl]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

Yea, you see what happens when the people vote against crap like this. What happened in Wisconsin?? The new objective of the left is when they lose, they just call the union guys in to pay to protest something costing taxpayers even more. Sounds like extortion to me.

 

[hortysir]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

Please explain how it is a "right" to have collective bargaining

 

[Sallow]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

Please explain how it is a "right" to have collective bargaining

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In black and white.

 

[Steelplate]

I know... blame the Public Sector because you sheep allowed the Private Sector to dismantle your wages, benefits and pensions.

You see, when Kennedy said "A rising tide raises all boats", he wasn't referring to the already wealthy. he was referring to the workforce of America. You pay them good wages, you give them attractive benefits packages and a pension for their years of loyalty, and they will in turn keep our consumer driven economy rolling to the point where everyone makes out well.

But that message has been lost on Conservatives. They bought into the lie of Trickle Down economics.... where if you minimize labor and give huge breaks to the wealthy ownership, then they will trickle down their windfall to the rest of society.... How's that working out? It's been 30 years and we see a Middle Class that barely has it's head above water and a massive income boost to our already wealthy citizens.

The Public Sector is the only place that Reaganomics HASN'T trickled down to..... yet. And your Koch Sucking Politicians won't be happy until the Conglomerate controls that too... because hey.... that's more money in their benefactors' pockets. Same with Social Security and medicare.... They'd love it privatized... More money for them to profit off of... who gives a shit if they blow it... because losses.... they're subsidized... gains... they get to keep. It's a win/win for them... it's a life of elderly poverty for us.

 

[Sallow]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

Yea, you see what happens when the people vote against crap like this. What happened in Wisconsin?? The new objective of the left is when they lose, they just call the union guys in to pay to protest something costing taxpayers even more. Sounds like extortion to me.

Sounds like democracy. This wasn't an easy thing to do.

 

[martybegan]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

Please explain how it is a "right" to have collective bargaining

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In black and white.

Where do you get the right to collectively bargain your employment from this?

 

[Wiseacre]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

I have no problem with unions contributing to any political party or campaign they want to. And I do support campaign finance reform, but I see no reason why a business or corporation should be treated differently from a union or any other organization in this regard.

My problem is that public unions can in effect control their own increases in pay and benefits, and severely restrict or outright prevent managerial actions against one of their own members, no matter how well it is deserved. Unions were once part of the solution, now they are part of the problem.

And here's the kicker: the pension funds for state, county, and city public unions are woefully underfunded, to the tune of perhaps trillions of dollars. At some point in the not to distant future the music will stop and there will be no chairs to sit on. Default - or bailout from the federal gov't - are the only posible options.

 

[StevenC]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

Please explain how it is a "right" to have collective bargaining

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In black and white.

Then why is the left against Citizens United v. FEC?
From your reasoning the Supreme Court ruled correctly.

 

[Vaard]

Unions do contribute to pro-labor candidates and incumbents. If someone objects they should move to support campaign finance reform and condemn the USSC members who voted for Citizens United v. FEC. The should demand a Constitutional Amendment preventing political donations of any kind.

Yea, you see what happens when the people vote against crap like this. What happened in Wisconsin?? The new objective of the left is when they lose, they just call the union guys in to pay to protest something costing taxpayers even more. Sounds like extortion to me.

Sounds like democracy. This wasn't an easy thing to do.

i disagree.......

i have alot of problems with unions for government employees......

in the private sector, the company dealing with the union always has the option of closing its doors or moving to another location if it does not like the union demands..... or if it does accept them, there is always the possibility that the company could not sustain the demands and go out of business......
i have no problem with that......


now, the same cannot be applied to the govenrment, it does not have the option of closing shop or moving to another location or even going out of business......... therefore it is forced to comply with union demands....
i have alot of problem with that........

 

[Sallow]

Please explain how it is a "right" to have collective bargaining

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In black and white.

Where do you get the right to collectively bargain your employment from this?

Where don't you?

Hey if you want complete laissez faire..have at it. No protection for either side.

See how that works out.

Because it was sorta tried.

 

[Sallow]

Please explain how it is a "right" to have collective bargaining

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In black and white.

Then why is the left against Citizens United v. FEC?
From your reasoning the Supreme Court ruled correctly.

Money isn't speech. Corporations aren't people.

 

[martybegan]

I know... blame the Public Sector because you sheep allowed the Private Sector to dismantle your wages, benefits and pensions.

You see, when Kennedy said "A rising tide raises all boats", he wasn't referring to the already wealthy. he was referring to the workforce of America. You pay them good wages, you give them attractive benefits packages and a pension for their years of loyalty, and they will in turn keep our consumer driven economy rolling to the point where everyone makes out well.

But that message has been lost on Conservatives. They bought into the lie of Trickle Down economics.... where if you minimize labor and give huge breaks to the wealthy ownership, then they will trickle down their windfall to the rest of society.... How's that working out? It's been 30 years and we see a Middle Class that barely has it's head above water and a massive income boost to our already wealthy citizens.

The Public Sector is the only place that Reaganomics HASN'T trickled down to..... yet. And your Koch Sucking Politicians won't be happy until the Conglomerate controls that too... because hey.... that's more money in their benefactors' pockets. Same with Social Security and medicare.... They'd love it privatized... More money for them to profit off of... who gives a shit if they blow it... because losses.... they're subsidized... gains... they get to keep. It's a win/win for them... it's a life of elderly poverty for us.

Let me try to explain this again, Ive done it before in another thread.

In the private sector, let use manufacturing widgets as an example, the object is to make widgets to sell. You need to make them at a price that people can afford, as someone else probably is making the same widget, and furthermore, if the widget gets too expensive, people will find alternatives.

So in a union-ownership negotiation, there is always the base situation where if the union forces ownership to concede too much in labor costs, the cost of a widget will reach such a point that people will stop buying them, and everyone will be out of work.

When it comes to government employee's relation to the government level they work for, you eliminate the need for a profit, so in a sense that helps the balance sheet. What creates the issue is that the need for self preservation by the government, i.e. selling widgets is eliminated. The government has no competition it has to worry about. If you want to stay in your locality they can basically force you to keep buying the government's widgets, (paying taxes) no matter what price they pay. Second, the ownership (elected officals) can be dependent upon the union for thier positions, which creates a conflict of interest. The union and the public at large could be considered stockholders, but the union would be stockholders in a mass bloc, able to exhert influcence far beyond thier actual numbers, and they are stockholders that can force more of the profits to thier stock exclusively.

What it boils down to is due to the political influcence of the unions, it has been easier for politicans to placate them with rediculous work rules and padded retirements, placing the cost on someone 40 years from now, than trying to run the government in the most efficent way possible. Add the fact that governments underfunded thier pension funds by assumiung completely innaccurate rates of return, and you get where you are today.

 

[StevenC]

In black and white.

Then why is the left against Citizens United v. FEC?
From your reasoning the Supreme Court ruled correctly.

Money isn't speech. Corporations aren't people.

My corporation was. You may want to look up what corporations actually are.
And money is speech according to the courts. Even the liberal courts have said so.

 

[Wiseacre]

In black and white.

Where do you get the right to collectively bargain your employment from this?

Where don't you?

Hey if you want complete laissez faire..have at it. No protection for either side.

See how that works out.

Because it was sorta tried.

Nobody said anything about complete laissez faire, and no protections, why do you always jump to the extreme opposite?

Are you not one of the people who despise crony capitalism? Why then do you favor it for the unions? Is it because they're on your side, syphoning big money to the dems?

 

[hortysir]

Please explain how it is a "right" to have collective bargaining

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In black and white.

Where do you get the right to collectively bargain your employment from this?

I'm guessing that.....

Seems like a stretch, but my question was answered

 

[Sallow]

Yea, you see what happens when the people vote against crap like this. What happened in Wisconsin?? The new objective of the left is when they lose, they just call the union guys in to pay to protest something costing taxpayers even more. Sounds like extortion to me.

Sounds like democracy. This wasn't an easy thing to do.

i disagree.......

i have alot of problems with unions for government employees......

in the private sector, the company dealing with the union always has the option of closing its doors or moving to another location if it does not like the union demands..... or if it does accept them, there is always the possibility that the company could not sustain the demands and go out of business......
i have no problem with that......


now, the same cannot be applied to the govenrment, it does not have the option of closing shop or moving to another location or even going out of business......... therefore it is forced to comply with union demands....
i have alot of problem with that........

Ah so when you take employment with the government you lose the right to form Unions.