Collective bargaining "rights"??

[JBeukema]

The rights of the people are broad rights, not special interest rights.

Public Employee Unions are special interest groups, not The People.

So some people don't have the rights of the People?

Some animals are more equal than others, eh?

What Public Employees Unions are trying to assert is that they have more rights than the public who pays their salaries, bub.

By saying you and they have the same right to unionize and collectively bargain?

 

[boedicca]

I posted this in another thread. It's appropriate here as well:


FDR and THE FIRST AFL CIO PRESIDENT, George Meany, agreed that public employees should not be allowed to collectively bargain:


Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to 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." Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

The case against public sector unionism - ProfessorBainbridge.com

 

[Bosun]

The rights of the people are broad rights, not special interest rights.

Public Employee Unions are special interest groups, not The People.

So some people don't have the rights of the People?

Some animals are more equal than others, eh?

that is what obama would like you to believe..

..

 

[JBeukema]

So some people don't have the rights of the People?

Some animals are more equal than others, eh?

What Public Employees Unions are trying to assert is that they have more rights than the public who pays their salaries, bub.

By saying you and they have the same right to unionize and collectively bargain?

Stop evading and address the point

 

[JBeukema]

The rights of the people are broad rights, not special interest rights.

Public Employee Unions are special interest groups, not The People.

So some people don't have the rights of the People?

Some animals are more equal than others, eh?

that is what obama would like you to believe....

I never believed anything the guy said. I was a Paul supporter back in 08.

 

[Bosun]

I posted this in another thread. It's appropriate here as well:


FDR and THE FIRST AFL CIO PRESIDENT, George Meany, agreed that public employees should not be allowed to collectively bargain:


Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to 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." Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

The case against public sector unionism - ProfessorBainbridge.com

 

[AmericanFirst]

I think they have a right to do that. As in, they can as a group protest their work environment and demand another agreement.

But by that same logic, their employer has a right to then fire their spoiled asses and hire someone else who will actually be grateful for a job and show up for work.

In a right to work state thats true, but WI law curreently does not allow the employer to fire them. It also does not require the employer to bargain with them.

As i understand it, the workers have the right to unionize under freedom of assembly, and the right to appoint people to speak for them under freedom of speech. What they don't have is the right to compell anyone to bargain with them or even to acknowledge them.

What they do not have the right to do is use the students to protest either. If my child was in that school he or she would not be going back to that school until there are a whole bunch of new teachers.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Keep hating our democracy.

You will never be able to stop the people of this country from acting as a group

When did you start supporting democracy? Scott Walker Won. The socialists lost.

All my life.

Hell the right here claims we are not even a democracy.

I have had to often remind them of the definitions of the words.

The right is correct, we were founded as a republic. But it doesn't matter to the socialist left what this country was founded as as long as it ends up being RUSSIA!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

oh my....

The constitution and Bill of Rights are not a laundry list of things the benevolent folks in DC give us the right to do.

It's more accurately a very detailed list of the limited powers granted to the government. Preventing assembly or collective bargaining units is not on the list.

Where does it specify that people who work for the government should be able to rig the game by negotiating with politicians for money provided by third parties who have no voice at the negotiating table?

Again, you are fundamentally wrong about the purpose of the Constitution. It is not an express list of rights granted the individual (or the collective). It is a clear list of the limited rights and restrictions of government.

There is no line in the constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk until the government grants you the right - it means that it's legal unless and until the government restricts access to the sidewalk.

You are wrong. The constitution gives INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! Read it and learn.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Where does it specify that people who work for the government should be able to rig the game by negotiating with politicians for money provided by third parties who have no voice at the negotiating table?

Again, you are fundamentally wrong about the purpose of the Constitution. It is not an express list of rights granted the individual (or the collective). It is a clear list of the limited rights and restrictions of government.

There is no line in the constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk until the government grants you the right - it means that it's legal unless and until the government restricts access to the sidewalk.

Yep.

Nope. Idiot.

 

[JBeukema]

Where does it specify that people who work for the government should be able to rig the game by negotiating with politicians for money provided by third parties who have no voice at the negotiating table?

Again, you are fundamentally wrong about the purpose of the Constitution. It is not an express list of rights granted the individual (or the collective). It is a clear list of the limited rights and restrictions of government.

There is no line in the constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk until the government grants you the right - it means that it's legal unless and until the government restricts access to the sidewalk.

You are wrong. The constitution gives INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! Read it and learn.

You fail civics 101

 

[Rozman]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


freedom of assembly


You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

When they get together and talk they can deside to join forces and stick together to acheive a collective goal.


How anyone can think a group of any Americans can be told who they are allowed to group with is beyond me.

You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

You also can't spend money you don't have....oh wait someone should tell our little community Organizer Obama.....

The state doesn't have the money.They do this now or face layoffs later.

Poor babies have to kick in to their pension plan and health care.

 

[8537]

Again, you are fundamentally wrong about the purpose of the Constitution. It is not an express list of rights granted the individual (or the collective). It is a clear list of the limited rights and restrictions of government.

There is no line in the constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk until the government grants you the right - it means that it's legal unless and until the government restricts access to the sidewalk.

Yep.

Nope. Idiot.

I'm not sure what fascist state you desire to live in, but here in the US my statement was accurate.

 

[Bosun]

So some people don't have the rights of the People?

Some animals are more equal than others, eh?

that is what obama would like you to believe....

I never believed anything the guy said. I was a Paul supporter back in 08.

Glad you clarified that. I like eating animals and believe that small animals were given to bigger animals for food. Human animals are more equal that non human animals...

PS, Ron Paul is a good guy...

 

[JBeukema]

I like eating animals and believe that small animals were given to bigger animals for food. /quote]
So when you run into a hungry bear...?

 

[BenNatuf]

The rights of the people are broad rights, not special interest rights.

Public Employee Unions are special interest groups, not The People.

So some people don't have the rights of the People?

Some animals are more equal than others, eh?

libs are loony. Yes by virtue of the first ammendnents right to assembly and right to free speech workers have the right to unionize and SEEK collective bargaining, but they have no right to COMPEL collective bargaining, there is therefor no collective bargaining "right", there is only a right to seek it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Where does it specify that people who work for the government should be able to rig the game by negotiating with politicians for money provided by third parties who have no voice at the negotiating table?

Again, you are fundamentally wrong about the purpose of the Constitution. It is not an express list of rights granted the individual (or the collective). It is a clear list of the limited rights and restrictions of government.

There is no line in the constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk until the government grants you the right - it means that it's legal unless and until the government restricts access to the sidewalk.

You are wrong. The constitution gives INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! Read it and learn.

Actually 8537 is right. The constitution is a list of limitations on government power. It is ASSUMED that men have all the rights, and government has limitations on what it can do, expressly.

The bill of rights was feared by many signers, correctly it seems, that if you enumerated rights, people would assume that they were the EXTENT of rights. Defining and limiting themselves to them only, instead of just adding particular emphasis to them by inclusion in the document preventing future generations from nibbling away at them.

That being said, the federal government had strictly limited and enumerated powers in which it has long since violated. The states had broad and undefined powers granted to them that they could exercise in their borders as long as they did not violate federal powers and those citizen rights guaranteed therein. If you didn't like it, you could move out of state. that is how checks and balances works in a vertical structure.

BUT... where we often go astray is that these rights are to the individual, not a group or class. They are not given by government to be able to take or give at their choosing, but by God and can never be taken away. We abdicate a few of these powers for the sake of a smoothly running society and harmony with our neighbors. Mostly in the aspects of use of force and redressing grievances among ourselves and protecting fair and free trade. These are aspects government is needed for. Everyone plays fair with one another and protects the nation from foreign and domestic threats.

So, is collective bargaining a 'right'? yes and no. At best it is an 'assumed' right, not an enumerated right (like has been falsely claimed by some). We have the right to band together to protect our interests in regards to labor. It may not be enumerated in the constitution as a right, but can be... I concede... an assumed 'right', although I am loathe to call it one.

Be that as it may, you also have to take into account what being a government employee means. You are a member of the government. You have been appointed to do a task that has been deemed beyond the task of the private sector. Although a teacher is not elected, they are beholden to their electorate through dint of being a government employee, hired by bureaucrats who were hired/appointed to do the work of elected officials to meet the public need. This means that they are also bound by the same limitations, in some regard as ALL government is.

Unfortunately, government has far exceeded it's mandate in many regards. Since we are talking about state employees, the question is whether or not the state has chosen to take on the power of educating children (a power abdicated by the citizenry and enshrined in the state constitution). If that power is not in the state constitution, technically, they have violated their mandate of power and the whole system should be privatized forthwith. If it is there, then they have a right to be.

Now for a complication. As with all government executive agencies, they function at the pleasure and behest of the governor. That means that he can fire entire departments as he sees fit to operate the government (often with legislative and judicial complicity). The workers may have the right to organize, but he also has the right to refuse to listen to, or be beholden to them. Particularly when their actions pose a threat to the state at large through bankruptcy and now civil unrest. In this case, the duly elected governor can take severe action to protect the citizenry from financial disaster, even if it means shutting down departments or forcing budgetary cuts, with the assistance and approval of the legislature (which is sure to happen).

The governor also DOES have the right, thanks to the broad powers of the state, ban government employees from collective bargaining and unionizing unless the state constitution, legislature or judiciary prevents him from doing so. Since there is no explicit protection of that 'right' in the US constitution, there is nothing that can be done to protect it from above. This will of course create a constitutional crisis if a federal judge gets involved and starts legislating from the bench, or the federal executive branch or legislature interfere, unconstitutionally of course, in which to influence the outcome.

The bully pulpit has been used by both parties for over a century. Nothing's going to change that now and Scott Walker is doing the will of the people in trying to save his state the best way he knows how.

 

[boedicca]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


freedom of assembly


You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

When they get together and talk they can deside to join forces and stick together to acheive a collective goal.


How anyone can think a group of any Americans can be told who they are allowed to group with is beyond me.

You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

You also can't spend money you don't have....oh wait someone should tell our little community Organizer Obama.....

The state doesn't have the money.They do this now or face layoffs later.

Poor babies have to kick in to their pension plan and health care.

Obamanomics is the government equivalent of the broke person who says "what do you mean I don't have any money, I still have blank checks left!"

 

[boedicca]

Again, you are fundamentally wrong about the purpose of the Constitution. It is not an express list of rights granted the individual (or the collective). It is a clear list of the limited rights and restrictions of government.

There is no line in the constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on the sidewalk. That doesn't mean it's illegal to walk on the sidewalk until the government grants you the right - it means that it's legal unless and until the government restricts access to the sidewalk.

You are wrong. The constitution gives INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS! Read it and learn.

You fail civics 101

Indeed. The Government doesn't Give Rights. Rights are inalienable and the Government exists to protect them.

 

[Big Fitz]

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


freedom of assembly


You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

When they get together and talk they can deside to join forces and stick together to acheive a collective goal.


How anyone can think a group of any Americans can be told who they are allowed to group with is beyond me.

You can not tell Americans they can not get together and talk.

You also can't spend money you don't have....oh wait someone should tell our little community Organizer Obama.....

The state doesn't have the money.They do this now or face layoffs later.

Poor babies have to kick in to their pension plan and health care.

Obamanomics is the government equivalent of the broke person who says "what do you mean I don't have any money, I still have blank checks left!"

DING! You win a Prize!