Collective bargaining "rights"??

[Cecilie1200]

Let's hear it for big government. Government should tell us if and when workers can negotiate.

you'd prefer they tell you when you can't?

Just trying to repeat the gist if the republicans argument. They want big government to tell them what to do.

Heres a thought, instead of saying unions get better benefits than the private sector and pretend that that is a bad thing, why mr ask the private sector to match the unions and everyone can move up the benefits ladder?

Oh, for God's sake. What a dumbass.

Who the hell else is SUPPOSED to tell the government whether or not they negotiate with THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES, if not the government itself? This isn't about "big government telling people what to do", you ancephalic freakshow. This is about an employer (who happens to be the state of Wisconsin) dealing with its own employees.

Holy crap on a cracker.

 

[Stephanie]

Off topic but, Holy crap on a cracker.

I never heard that before, but I like it and it made me chuckle.

thanks.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It doesn't have to grant those people a power. People have that power unless specifically prohibited by government. The constitution restricts rights of government, not people.

Scuze me - those people ARE the government.

No, they are not. They are a unionized labor force with the same rights of assembly as any other person. Working for the government does not require you to give up rights and privileges granted those who work for other sectors.

No... Government workers serve the public. There should never be a public employee who is a member of a labor organization.
In a perfect world without the filth of politics and money changing hands, influence peddled and massive amounts of nepotism, most taxpayers would be fine with a union that existed solely to protect government employees from the turns of political tides.
That ain't how it is.
Union bosses wield tremendous power in state governments. For decades, union bosses have roamed the halls of state capitols demanding elected officials "play ball". The guarantee is the near 100% support of rank and file members at the voting polls.
Money changes hand in the form of political contributions. Supportive politicians "get things done" in their districts.
Meanwhile, wages kept going up, surpassing those in the private sector. Benefit packages became lucrative. Double dipping became commonplace as workers "retired" from one job then took another government position only to be vested in pension plan number two after just 10 years service.
Meanwhile, taxes went through the roof. Balance went out the window. Public worker unions have created an elite class of coddled and entitled employees who think the taxpayers are "just whining" when they see their taxes go up by 10 or 20% each year.
NO MORE.....There's no more money. BTW these public workers AND their unions are becoming VERY unpopular. There is little support for someone who retired at age 50, collects $100,000 per year for life and gets free medical insurance. Also for life.
Don;t think this is true?..Wanna bet?......My friend's brother-in-law is a former police chief from a small town in NJ....His annual salary was almost $120,000 per year..BTW before you gasp, the higher paid patrol officers in this town all make close to or over $100,000 per year. Anyway the Chief "retired" with full pension and benefits with his salary.....He is 45 years old......If he wants , he will never have to work another day in his life....Meanwhile his next door neighbor pays close to $18k a year in property taxes. I know because I checked.....And works two jobs...So you want to blather on an on about how these poor abused public workers have it so rough that they need a union....The taxpayers need a union to protect THEM from the God Damned public worker unions.

 

[The T]

Bottom line is that because of the last election, the conservatives have the votes to do something the minority disagrees with. So the minority is trying to spin this as a democracy issue, with protests.

If the majority has it wrong, the minority should show up, vote against it, playing it up big. Wait for the next election cycle, they'll win in a landslide, right?

That only works with adults. Spoiled children, on the other hand, pick up all their toys and stomp away in a snit.

And then blame the others for their snit.

 

[The T]

Arguing facts with unsupported assertions and unsubstantiated opinions doesn't realy cut it. The top five states there are all closed shop states, TX and FL and a few others are bigger and they ain't there hoss.

States with the lowest unemployment rates

I'm not sure about VT but I belive the rest of them are right to work states.

States with the highest unemployment rates

appear to be five of each with 4 of the bottom 5 all being closed shop, not entirely sure about NV so it may be 3 of the bottom 5.

I guess now you'll be coming out with another unsupported opinion.

'
FLORIDA is a right to work State...

When did I say it wasn't? CA, MI, RI and I believe NV are not, that would be 4 out of 5 of the bottom 5 (or 3 if NV ain't). thats what I said.

Again for the second time my friend? I was acknowledging your FACTS.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Its about teachers and all Americans.

Its about the right to have some control over what happens to your life.

You know those old fashioned ideas of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They have all the control they need. They can choose to accept employment under the terms offered or they can choose to go elsewhere.

And the boss can choose to meet their demands or do without their work

Proletarian and Capitalist: both operate within the same labour market

Which is why the power of the union comes from the solidarity of the proletariat and the one big union must stand united

This is why the bosses, the unions, and the strike-breakers (can you say Pinkerton?) have all used violence in the past

Crossing the picket line is not a neutral act. The nature of work means that a worker cannot simply say they are not involved in the dispute and remain neutral. Since the point of withdrawing labour is to cease production and force the bosses to negotiate or capitulate, going back to work is to objectively favour those in charge. It gives them a way to carry on work (even at a reduced rate) without the strikers and so lessens the impact of the action. It is, in short, a betrayal of your fellow workers and of the spirit of solidarity that brought us to the (limited) rights and freedoms we enjoy today from conditions comparable to Chinese sweatshops.

The line you do not cross

There's a reason they call it class war

Unions are so unpopular they no longer have the ability to unify entire communities alike they once could in some places. Today, unions are looked upon with disdain.
Unions have worn out their welcome. So all of your pontificating about the proletariat is a bunch of hooey.
For every out of touch with the real world union supporter there are 15 people who just want a good job and the opportunity to show an employer they are ready to to create and achieve and above all help their employer's business become more successful.
Union people have no such desires. Union people view a job as an entitlement. The union mentality is "management wants to screw you. Do not trust them. In fact our union has a rule that our members cannot even eat at the same lunch table with a member of management"....Unions call this "solidarity with the union brotherhood"... The rest of us call this arrogance and stupidity.

 

[BenNatuf]

'
FLORIDA is a right to work State...

When did I say it wasn't? CA, MI, RI and I believe NV are not, that would be 4 out of 5 of the bottom 5 (or 3 if NV ain't). thats what I said.

Again for the second time my friend? I was acknowledging your FACTS.

Damn... I keep missing that

 

[BenNatuf]

Scuze me - those people ARE the government.

No, they are not. They are a unionized labor force with the same rights of assembly as any other person. Working for the government does not require you to give up rights and privileges granted those who work for other sectors.

No... Government workers serve the public. There should never be a public employee who is a member of a labor organization.

I have never understood the logic behind allowing a union to protect the workers from the entity who's job it is to protect the public.

 

[The T]

When did I say it wasn't? CA, MI, RI and I believe NV are not, that would be 4 out of 5 of the bottom 5 (or 3 if NV ain't). thats what I said.

Again for the second time my friend? I was acknowledging your FACTS.

Damn... I keep missing that

It's ALL GOOD.

 

[geauxtohell]

How about not showing up for work when they are being paid by the taxpayer. You know that money that all liberals voluntarily gives every year because they feel government knows how to spend money better than them. Oh wait thats not what tax dollars are.

Is that an illegal activity?

For school teachers in WI? yes, in fact it is unlawful as it breaches their CURRENT employment contract. Not entirely sure, but I believe WI also has legal prohibitions against civil servants striking.

No, for the senators.

 

[BenNatuf]

Is that an illegal activity?

For school teachers in WI? yes, in fact it is unlawful as it breaches their CURRENT employment contract. Not entirely sure, but I believe WI also has legal prohibitions against civil servants striking.

No, for the senators.

You are confusing the lack of a penalty with legality. failure to comply with what the government has the authority to force you to comply with by force if neccessary is by definition... illegal.

 

[BenNatuf]

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable

Crazy huh?

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service

"Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt"

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why should he? It's not his job to "bargain with the union"

Yes it is. They work for the state of Wisconsin.

Pay attention, stupid.[/QUOTE
**********************************************************************
No, it isn't. And are the unions currently negotiating their state contracts? You need to attempt to focus on the current issue. The LEGISLATURE is debating legislation that would change state law. Which union bosses have been elected to the state legislature in that they must be included in the process? If the unions want representation with the Governor, then perhaps they should call their run away Democrat senators to get their asses back to the Capitol and represent them.

No....There is no right for a union to be granted a bargaining session.
Oh, this action by the Democrat senators has backfired. The public is getting mighty pissed off at them and the teachers who selfishly shut down the schools.
Now we find out that a separate piece of legislation outside of spending bills is going to be presented for a vote possibly as soon as this Thursday. That legislation will of course ban collective bargaining for public employees. Because the new bill will not be a spending bill, the democrats need not be present for the vote to be legal. So let the *****-coward democrats stay in Illinois.
This is a done deal. Face facts.. The taxpayers of Wisconsin are done with the public worker unions. DONE.

 

[Tea Bag Partier]

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable

Crazy huh?

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service

"Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt"

No its not crazy, and I'm not sure you understood what FDR wrote. Post the whole thing if you want, not just a snippet.

FDR didn't say there can't be unions in the public sector. Unions existed in the public sector long before FDR, and he never proposed getting rid of them. FDR explicitly recognized the need for unions or organizations of public employees in his letter.

If you actually read and comprehend the letter, FDR was saying federal employees shouldn't strike. And the fact is most public employees are prevented by law, or policy from striking. FDR went out of his way to congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees for making it their formal and legal policy to not strike.

FDR also said that collective bargaining can't exist in the same way it does in the private sector. That's true enough. Unelected beauracrats and administrators can't give pay raises to public employees; public employees are bound by legislative funding and rules. I've seen neoconservatives run around this board, feigning outrage about how public employees are supposedly given raises by unelected beauracrats. These neocons evidently don't realize that public employee unions have to negotiate their pay with the Governor (through his staff), and any compensation that is negotiated has to be approved by the legislature. That's the way it works. The people's elected representatives negotiate and approve compensation for public employees. Evidently, many Neo cons are unaware of this

 

[syrenn]

If I were a voter in WI, I would want to know where the hell these 14 are, and if they're still holed up somewhere like a bunch of ******* cowards, I'd want to know who is paying their bill, and then I'd be demanding they either report for the job they are being paid to do or resign. Either would be fine.

******* cowardly little critters. It'll be a riot if any of these 14 ever decide to run for POTUS.... the right will have a wonderful time reminding them of this little fiasco. LMAO.

If I lived in WI, I'd be wanting to see a bill proposed wherein attendance at and participation in the legislature X number of days per session is required of all state legislators (barring real, catastrophic illness, family crises, etc.), and if the requirement is not met, either they don't get paid for that session at all, or they are summarily replaced by the governor.

As I said before, anyone else in the US would have their pay docked or lose their job for refusing to show up and work. Why should politicians be any different?

That should go for ANY elected official.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In the end, it really doesn't matter what the state does or does not legislate. As long as the union poeple stick together they'll win.

All they have to do is withhold services - and there's nothing that the govenment can do.

Not passing legislation to undermine the unions, and continuing to negotiate will prevent an awful lot of suffering for the people of Wisconson - that's the only difference.

When push comes to shove the unions will win. We've been down this road many a time before.

You have it backwards. The legislation is a done deal.
If the public employees engage in a job action, they will be replaced.
In this economy or in any economic condition, there are far too many people eager to ether have a job or to find one better suited to their skills.
The threat of withholding work no longer washes here.
The law is the law. And public workers will either learn to make the sacrifices their private sector counterparts have been making since the economy went in the shitter or they will find themselves unemployed.
The unions have pushed the taxpayers too far this time and this time the taxpayers are fighting back.
To sit there in your arrogance thinking the public worker unions and the rank and file will simply thumb their noses at duly enacted state law is lunacy on your part.
Wishing something will happen does not make it any more probable.

 

[BenNatuf]

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable

Crazy huh?

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service

"Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt"

No its not crazy, and I'm not sure you understood what FDR wrote. Post the whole thing if you want, not just a snippet.

I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm? And what you "think" I understood is quite likely wrong. For instance....

FDR didn't say there can't be unions in the public sector.

when did I ever claim any such thing? Evidently you "think" you understand more than you actually "do" understand.

Unions existed in the public sector long before FDR, and he never proposed getting rid of them. FDR explicitly recognized the need for unions or organizations of public employees in his letter.

When did I say otherwise? Once again you seem to infer much more than was either stated or implied. I would say thats a fault in YOUR understanding.

If you actually read and comprehend the letter, FDR was saying federal employees shouldn't strike. And the fact is most public employees are prevented by law, or policy from striking. FDR went out of his way to congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees for making it their formal and legal policy to not strike.

And? IOnce again there miss Cleo your crystal ball is a bit off.

FDR also said that collective bargaining can't exist in the same way it does in the private sector. That's true enough. Unelected beauracrats and administrators can't give pay raises to public employees; public employees are bound by legislative funding and rules. I've seen neoconservatives run around this board, feigning outrage about how public employees are supposedly given raises by unelected beauracrats. These neocons evidently don't realize that public employee unions have to negotiate their pay with the Governor (through his staff), and any compensation that is negotiated has to be approved by the legislature. That's the way it works. The people's elected representatives negotiate and approve compensation for public employees. Evidently, many Neo cons are unaware of this

ooooohhh... he said "neocon"

I believe what conservatives object to is that unions negotiate through agents with the very parties that are the recipients of their elective largesse. It is the very deffinition of graft and corruption and if it doesn't constitute a breach of ethics and conflict of interest for a governor or legislator to "vote" on the compensation of the very people who contribute to the cause of keeping them in power... what does? Public sector unions or unions affiliated with public sector unions should be BANNED from any and all political activity. Some might say this would infringe on their first amendment rights, but it would protect the public from graft and corruption and public safety (protecting the public) is a VALID reason for an infringement.

Your psychic ability is as underwhelming as your arrogance is in assuming you have any.

 

[Tea Bag Partier]

Crazy huh?

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service

"Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt"

No its not crazy, and I'm not sure you understood what FDR wrote. Post the whole thing if you want, not just a snippet.

I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm? And what you "think" I understood is quite likely wrong. For instance....

when did I ever claim any such thing? Evidently you "think" you understand more than you actually "do" understand.When did I say otherwise? Once again you seem to infer much more than was either stated or implied. I would say thats a fault in YOUR understanding.

If you actually read and comprehend the letter, FDR was saying federal employees shouldn't strike. And the fact is most public employees are prevented by law, or policy from striking. FDR went out of his way to congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees for making it their formal and legal policy to not strike.

And? IOnce again there miss Cleo your crystal ball is a bit off.

FDR also said that collective bargaining can't exist in the same way it does in the private sector. That's true enough. Unelected beauracrats and administrators can't give pay raises to public employees; public employees are bound by legislative funding and rules. I've seen neoconservatives run around this board, feigning outrage about how public employees are supposedly given raises by unelected beauracrats. These neocons evidently don't realize that public employee unions have to negotiate their pay with the Governor (through his staff), and any compensation that is negotiated has to be approved by the legislature. That's the way it works. The people's elected representatives negotiate and approve compensation for public employees. Evidently, many Neo cons are unaware of this

ooooohhh... he said "neocon"

I believe what conservatives object to is that unions negotiate through agents with the very parties that are the recipients of their elective largesse. It is the very deffinition of graft and corruption and if it doesn't constitute a breach of ethics and conflict of interest for a governor or legislator to "vote" on the compensation of the very people who contribute to the cause of keeping them in power... what does? Public sector unions or unions affiliated with public sector unions should be BANNED from any and all political activity. Some might say this would infringe on their first amendment rights, but it would protect the public from graft and corruption and public safety (protecting the public) is a VALID reason for an infringement.

Your psychic ability is as underwhelming as your arrogance in assumiong any is endearing.

Dude, just admit you didn't really understand, nor possibly even read FDR's entire letter. FDR wasn't slamming public unions.

Public employees negotiated their compensation and have it approved by the people's duly elected representatives. What's wrong with that? That seems like the way it should be. A lot of conservatives here have been braying like donkeys that some unelected administrator gives public employees raises. LOL! Where did you guys read that, on Drudge?

If you have a problem with unions contributing to governor's campaigns, then join liberals in implementing publicly funded elections, and lets get corporate and union money out of elections. Problem solved.

 

[thereisnospoon]

speaking of "high"

A Majority Of States Are Now Insolvent: Quantifying The Disastrous Unemployment Situation | zero hedge

So what? Bigger economies have bigger debts. Florida is right up there in debt and foreclosures - and it's a right to work state, as is South Carolina.

You can't compare the economies of California and Wyoming. More people and more industry means more unemployment during economic down turns.

The fact is the economies of the right to work states, for the most part, suck during the best of times.

Arguing facts with unsupported assertions and unsubstantiated opinions doesn't realy cut it. The top five states there are all closed shop states, TX and FL and a few others are bigger and they ain't there hoss.

States with the lowest unemployment rates

1 NORTH DAKOTA 3.8
2 NEBRASKA 4.4
3 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.6
4 NEW HAMPSHIRE 5.5
5 VERMONT 5.8
6 IOWA 6.3
7 HAWAII 6.4
7 WYOMING 6.4
9 VIRGINIA 6.7
10 KANSAS 6.8
10 OKLAHOMA 6.8

I'm not sure about VT but I belive the rest of them are right to work states.

States with the highest unemployment rates

41 NORTH CAROLINA 9.8
42 MISSISSIPPI 10.1
43 GEORGIA 10.2
44 KENTUCKY 10.3
45 OREGON 10.6
46 SOUTH CAROLINA 10.7
47 RHODE ISLAND 11.5
48 MICHIGAN 11.7
49 FLORIDA 12.0
50 CALIFORNIA 12.5
51 NEVADA 14.5

appear to be five of each with 4 of the bottom 5 all being closed shop, not entirely sure about NV so it may be 3 of the bottom 5.

I guess now you'll be coming out with another unsupported opinion.

Nevada is right to work but is seeing high unemployment in the gaming industry which continues to suffer with fewer people traveling to Las Vegas plus the real estate market in which many people lost jobs is still in a tail spin...
BTW I believe most of the large casinos are union shops...
Vermont in a closed shop state but the percentage of unionized workers is among the lowest of closed shop states.
NC a right to work state is seeing high unemployment in banking which is the largest employer in the State.
NC also has one of the highest state income taxes in the US with a top marginal rate of over 8% and the FIFTH highest gas tax (32.4 cpg) in the US.
As we see, states with high taxes and/or closed shop have the highest numbers of unemployed people.

 

[mdn2000]

Michigan, no greater Union's in the World then in Michigan, at one time Detroit had the sixth largest economy in the World. Today Detroit is destroyed, there is still some life, there are a few places that are okay, but Detroit itself is a disaster.

There are many factors, Unions being one. The other is high tax, this arguement is as much about taxes as its about Unions.

The Unions are argueing for higher tax and spending, thats all.

The Unions do not matter, all that matters is tax and the collecting of money. Does anyone beleive the Unions and Democrats are concerned about people. That is naive, they are worried about money.

Privatize and take away the power for government to raise money in any way.