Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Define "Assemble". You do have the right to meet and say what you want without permission of the government under any faith you want.The First Amendment.
Ever read it?
"Collective Bargaining Clause" Gracie?
I must've missed it...
What you missed was the right to assemble
The First Amendment.
Ever read it?
"Collective Bargaining Clause" Gracie?
I must've missed it...
What you missed was the right to assemble
"Collective Bargaining Clause" Gracie?
I must've missed it...
What you missed was the right to assemble
This should be relatively amusing... What does the right to assemble have to do with collective bargaining?
The First Amendment.
Ever read it?
"Collective Bargaining Clause" Gracie?
I must've missed it...
You either missed it or don't understand it.
Peacefully Assemble and Free Speech.
What you missed was the right to assemble
This should be relatively amusing... What does the right to assemble have to do with collective bargaining?
I addressed it. What a twisted view of the Constitution some have...
"Collective Bargaining Clause" Gracie?
I must've missed it...
You either missed it or don't understand it.
Peacefully Assemble and Free Speech.
neither of which have squat to do with collective bargaining.
Flat wages are sucking the Middle Class dry. And as historical facts show, as goes the unions, goes the Middle Class.
First, wages aren't flat. Second, with only 7% of private sector workers in unions it is illogical that they should represent the entire middle class.
Using Constant Real Dollars as the Labor Department uses to determine wage growth, your claim that wages aren't flat is dead wrong.
Year Weekly Real Earnings Comp/Wages Weekly Compensation
(1982-84 dollars) (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.83 1.14 $388.01
1975 $314.75 1.16 $366.63
1980 $290.86 1.20 $348.93
1985 $285.34 1.22 $347.10
1990 $271.12 1.21 $328.99
1995 $267.07 1.22 $326.23
2000 $284.79 1.20 $341.49
2005 $284.99 1.24 $352.87
2010 $297.67 1.24 $370.28
2011 $294.78 1.24 $365.77
=================================================
Also your claim that unions only make up only "7% of private sector workers in unions it is illogical that they should represent the entire middle class", doesn't take in the fact that in 1979 unions made up 24.1 percent of the nations workforce private (public sector & private sector) and as of the end of 2011 the rate was 11.8. When the unions were larger and stronger, historical numbers show that the middle class had a larger percentage of the of the National Income. But as the unions lost their strength, the Middle Classes share of the National Income shrank.
Don't let facts get in your way.
yes, really. There is a whole thread explaining this.
Being as I don't live on these boards, I missed that thread. So would someone explain to me why the BLS data is wrong? Thank you.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/223736-wisconsins-three-handed-economist-losing-jobs-gaining-employment.html#post5287104
The First Amendment.
Ever read it?
"Collective Bargaining Clause" Gracie?
I must've missed it...
What you missed was the right to assemble
Link to the ruling?You either missed it or don't understand it.
Peacefully Assemble and Free Speech.
neither of which have squat to do with collective bargaining.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
You either missed it or don't understand it.
Peacefully Assemble and Free Speech.
neither of which have squat to do with collective bargaining.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
You either missed it or don't understand it.
Peacefully Assemble and Free Speech.
neither of which have squat to do with collective bargaining.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
I doubt it too.neither of which have squat to do with collective bargaining.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Wisconsin Court...perhaps...
Walker explains divide, conquer strategy - Yahoo! News
MADISON, Wis. (AP) Newly-released documentary film footage shows embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker shortly after his election describing a "divide and conquer" strategy for taking on unions by first going after public employees' collective bargaining rights.
<more>
I doubt it too.The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Wisconsin Court...perhaps...
Madison - Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the reinstatement of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial plan to end most collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.
The court found that a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when it hastily approved the collective bargaining measure in March and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had halted the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.
The changes on collective bargaining will take effect once Secretary of State Doug La Follette arranges for official publication of the stalled bill, and the high court said there was now nothing to preclude him from doing that. La Follette did not return a call Tuesday to say when the law would be published.
neither of which have squat to do with collective bargaining.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Please cite the Supreme Court case where they decided that peaceful assembly and free speech means collective bargaining.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Please cite the Supreme Court case where they decided that peaceful assembly and free speech means collective bargaining.
National Labor Relations Act of 1935, visited and upheld by the USSC in Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.
Anything else I can help you with?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Please cite the Supreme Court case where they decided that peaceful assembly and free speech means collective bargaining.
National Labor Relations Act of 1935, visited and upheld by the USSC in Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.
Anything else I can help you with?
Please cite the Supreme Court case where they decided that peaceful assembly and free speech means collective bargaining.
National Labor Relations Act of 1935, visited and upheld by the USSC in Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.
Anything else I can help you with?
If you want a more recent case, I guess we could use Citizens United, which found that a Union is a person, and therefor has unlimited Free Speech per the First Amendment. This would naturally mean all First Amendment rights are protected for a Union, which would mean right to assembly.
First, wages aren't flat. Second, with only 7% of private sector workers in unions it is illogical that they should represent the entire middle class.
Using Constant Real Dollars as the Labor Department uses to determine wage growth, your claim that wages aren't flat is dead wrong.
Year Weekly Real Earnings Comp/Wages Weekly Compensation
(1982-84 dollars) (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.83 1.14 $388.01
1975 $314.75 1.16 $366.63
1980 $290.86 1.20 $348.93
1985 $285.34 1.22 $347.10
1990 $271.12 1.21 $328.99
1995 $267.07 1.22 $326.23
2000 $284.79 1.20 $341.49
2005 $284.99 1.24 $352.87
2010 $297.67 1.24 $370.28
2011 $294.78 1.24 $365.77
=================================================
Also your claim that unions only make up only "7% of private sector workers in unions it is illogical that they should represent the entire middle class", doesn't take in the fact that in 1979 unions made up 24.1 percent of the nations workforce private (public sector & private sector) and as of the end of 2011 the rate was 11.8. When the unions were larger and stronger, historical numbers show that the middle class had a larger percentage of the of the National Income. But as the unions lost their strength, the Middle Classes share of the National Income shrank.
Don't let facts get in your way.
Stats just aren't your bag, are they?
