Wisconsin: National Guard vs. Unions?

[Dr.Traveler]

Wisconsin Governor Threatens to Mobilize National Guard Against Public Sector Unions

Link above is to Huffpost, as its the first link on Google. I saw this on Fox during lunch with my wife, and I'm looking for a link there.

Short story: Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin is threatening to mobilize the National Guard against public sector unions. Walker has proposed massive cuts to the state budget and strict new laws meant to break the back of public sector unions, in particular, teacher's unions. He has curiously stated publicly that he will exempt police and firefighters from these new regulations (see this link), which is interesting because those are specifically the public sector unions that supported him in his election bid. Very interesting.

 

[gekaap]

Makes sense. Gotta force those stupid strikers to remember that this is a democracy, dammit.

 

[Nosmo King]

How will eliminating the right to collective bargaining reduce the budget deficit? What logic arrives at the conclusion that reducing rights makes for a surplus? Sounds as if it's just another partisan Republican all too ready to resort to force to settle some political argument.

The typical road of the blind ideologue.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

GOP voters go crazy when you target teacher's unions. And if you can target other public sector employees too? Yippee!!!

What's hilarious here is that one of the public sector employee groups targeted is the snow plow drivers. If you're not familiar with Wisconsin, the punchline here is that if they go on strike, the whole stake goes on strike too. No one goes in to work.

 

[Old Rocks]

If the Republicans get their way, this could happen again.

Battle of Blair Mountain

Accordingly, It would seem appropriate to remember a forgotten incident of labor history in this issue. A recent publication by Robert Shogan, The Battle of Blair Mountain, deserves our attention. As Cecil Roberts, President of the United Mine Workers of America, says of it: “Now, the real story of America's largest labor uprising—and the largest armed insurrection on U.S. soil since the Civil War—comes alive.” But few know this story: arguably, every worker should.

In 1921, some 10,000 West Virginia coal workers, outraged over years of brutality and lawless exploitation, picked up their rifles and marched against their tormentors, the powerful mine owners who ruled their corrupt state. For ten days the miners fought a pitched battle against an opposing legion of deputies, state police, and makeshift militia.
Only the declaration of martial law and the intervention of a federal expeditionary force, spearheaded by a bomber squadron commanded by General Billy Mitchell, ended this undeclared civil war and forced the miners to throw down their arms.

The upheaval burst forth in the small town of Matewan in Mingo County, the center of West Virginia's richest coal field. This part of the conflict, aptly portrayed in the 1987 John Sayles dramatic film, Matewan, which won the Academy Award for best cinematography, can and should be rented at most video stores. The cast includes Chris Cooper, Mary McDonnell, James Earl Jones, and David Strathairn (all working for union scale) amongst others you'll surely recognize. The labor position on class warfare is powerfully delivered by newly arrived labor organizer Joe Kenehan (Chris Cooper) to the miners:

Ain't but two sides to this world. Them that work and them that don't. You work, they don't. That's all you got to know about the enemy.

 

[FA_Q2]

How will eliminating the right to collective bargaining reduce the budget deficit? What logic arrives at the conclusion that reducing rights makes for a surplus? Sounds as if it's just another partisan Republican all too ready to resort to force to settle some political argument.

The typical road of the blind ideologue.

You have no idea what a public sector union is then. What you have are government officials that are bargaining with the people that elected them with other people's money. Who do you think they represent in this case? That's right, the unions as they are the ones that put them there. Who are they supposed to represent: YOU. The average Joe taxpayer. The fact of the matter is that the government is supposed to be there for the people in the first place, there is no need for the union there. The government needs to balance the needs of the people with the direct needs of the workers and can perform that duty as he is not a corporation that is bent on minimizing compensation for profit. The government has no profit and no need of minimizing compensation for it.

 

[bucs90]

So armed government military forcing private workers back into their labor?

This right winger doesn't like what that reminds me of. (Hint: USSR)

 

[bodecea]

I'd like to see the Guard either a) take over the teachers' classrooms, or b) force the teachers back at bayonet point.

 

[Nosmo King]

How will eliminating the right to collective bargaining reduce the budget deficit? What logic arrives at the conclusion that reducing rights makes for a surplus? Sounds as if it's just another partisan Republican all too ready to resort to force to settle some political argument.

The typical road of the blind ideologue.

You have no idea what a public sector union is then. What you have are government officials that are bargaining with the people that elected them with other people's money. Who do you think they represent in this case? That's right, the unions as they are the ones that put them there. Who are they supposed to represent: YOU. The average Joe taxpayer. The fact of the matter is that the government is supposed to be there for the people in the first place, there is no need for the union there. The government needs to balance the needs of the people with the direct needs of the workers and can perform that duty as he is not a corporation that is bent on minimizing compensation for profit. The government has no profit and no need of minimizing compensation for it.

So, while you recognize corporations for minimizing compensation to enhance profit, you must then concede collective bargaining as a means to ensure just compensation. Why then should public sector workers lose that right? Is labor just a commodity to the private sector? Is the labor of public sector employees less valued and therefore unworthy of the same rights enjoyed by private sector workers? Should the workplace provided by the state be less just, safe and equitable?

 

[FA_Q2]

Oops, maybe I should clarify....

I am against public sector unions but NOT for their forced work through any means. I actually like what Regan did when the air traffic controllers struck. If you are a necessary force for the public and you do not want to go to work then you're fired. There are TONS of people that need a job right now. Might be a good opportunity.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'd like to see the Guard either a) take over the teachers' classrooms, or b) force the teachers back at bayonet point.

o'er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

Don't ever say you are for freedom after posting something as blatantly stupid as this.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'd like to see the Guard either a) take over the teachers' classrooms, or b) force the teachers back at bayonet point.

o'er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

Don't ever say you are for freedom after posting something as blatantly stupid as this.

I"m pretty sure that has to be sarcasm. Otherwise, it's just so stupid it's gone back around the edge and into the land of awesome ideas. I guarantee that if either happened, the governor would be forced to fold like a house of cards in a day.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, while you recognize corporations for minimizing compensation to enhance profit, you must then concede collective bargaining as a means to ensure just compensation. Why then should public sector workers lose that right? Is labor just a commodity to the private sector? Is the labor of public sector employees less valued and therefore unworthy of the same rights enjoyed by private sector workers? Should the workplace provided by the state be less just, safe and equitable?

You missed the main point:

Government is negotiating with the people that put them in office AND they are negotiating with other people's money.

In other words, they have no interest in not simply capitulating. SOMEONE must represent the other side and in the government's case there is no one. The public sector unions have enjoyed immense power because of this and show practically ZERO interest in the workers because they have no incentive to. They are already there and their members are captives. In most cases you MUST be a member or pay the dues. They have no reason to represent you because you have no choice but to be a part of them. What they do have motivation to do is to elect corrupt politicians that will ensure their continued existence and power. The whole system is corrupt. I see no reason for government employees to organize into unions. They have their representation already: it's called a vote.

 

[bodecea]

I'd like to see the Guard either a) take over the teachers' classrooms, or b) force the teachers back at bayonet point.

o'er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

Don't ever say you are for freedom after posting something as blatantly stupid as this.

Sarcasm.....I guess if I have to explain it, it wasn't clever enough.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'd like to see the Guard either a) take over the teachers' classrooms, or b) force the teachers back at bayonet point.

o'er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

Don't ever say you are for freedom after posting something as blatantly stupid as this.

Sarcasm.....I guess if I have to explain it, it wasn't clever enough.

swing and a miss! sorry. I should have been quicker on the uptake!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Oops, maybe I should clarify....

I am against public sector unions but NOT for their forced work through any means. I actually like what Regan did when the air traffic controllers struck. If you are a necessary force for the public and you do not want to go to work then you're fired. There are TONS of people that need a job right now. Might be a good opportunity.

Freedom of assembly pretty much guarantees folks the right to organize, and if necessary peacefully strike, if they see fit.

I think one point we do agree on is that I think the employeer has a right to replace striking workers if they can.

That's where the (rightful) power of teacher's unions come in. If they go on strike, it's tough to replace them thanks to the laws the State passes in order to ensure proper accreditation and background checks when it comes to teachers. That's because to pool of people willing to go in at 5am, stay till 4:30 pm, and take grading home with them to work on until midnight is pretty small to start with. Add in the fact you're forced to deal with out right hostile parents, carry malpractice insurance, and deal with a work environment that is getting increasingly dangerous and you'd be lucky to find folks to hire at a starting salary of a highly paid CEO. The fact you get paid beans for the first 5-10 years of the job and you have to pass all kinds of certification requirements means a teacher's strike is likely to result in a lot of unfillable positions.

That's why I think that this plan is likely to backfire. You can pass all kinds of laws about what a teacher's union can and can not demand. But once they go on strike, that's all a moot point unless you're willing and able to find folks to replace them. Once they're on strike, it isn't over until one side concedes.

 

[bodecea]

Oops, maybe I should clarify....

I am against public sector unions but NOT for their forced work through any means. I actually like what Regan did when the air traffic controllers struck. If you are a necessary force for the public and you do not want to go to work then you're fired. There are TONS of people that need a job right now. Might be a good opportunity.

Freedom of assembly pretty much guarantees folks the right to organize, and if necessary peacefully strike, if they see fit.

I think one point we do agree on is that I think the employeer has a right to replace striking workers if they can.

That's where the (rightful) power of teacher's unions come in. If they go on strike, it's tough to replace them thanks to the laws the State passes in order to ensure proper accreditation and background checks when it comes to teachers. That's because to pool of people willing to go in at 5am, stay till 4:30 pm, and take grading home with them to work on until midnight is pretty small to start with. Add in the fact you're forced to deal with out right hostile parents, carry malpractice insurance, and deal with a work environment that is getting increasingly dangerous and you'd be lucky to find folks to hire at a starting salary of a highly paid CEO. The fact you get paid beans for the first 5-10 years of the job and you have to pass all kinds of certification requirements means a teacher's strike is likely to result in a lot of unfillable positions.

That's why I think that this plan is likely to backfire. You can pass all kinds of laws about what a teacher's union can and can not demand. But once they go on strike, that's all a moot point unless you're willing and able to find folks to replace them. Once they're on strike, it isn't over until one side concedes.

Having quite a few family members in the teaching profession, this is what I see that usually happens....pressure is put on the teachers to "think of the children", you are "hurting the children"...since teachers are usually in teaching for the love of education, for the love of the children, this is a pretty effective guilt trip device. School districts will bring in "emergency credentialed" people to run study halls, holding pens, etc. They rarely make an attempt to truely replace teachers...they wait for the softest hearts to cave.