Register
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 103
  1. #41
    Jackstraw01 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wichita
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfairMeat View Post
    As you race to strip collective bargaining rights, be prepared for more of this:




    If you expect folks to swallow that like a lollipop, you have another thing coming.

    The Gov should do the right thing and drop the union-busting provision for collective bargaining and just work on the actual deficit shrinking provisions in the bill.
    Why should we care if the leeches of society skip a few more days of 'teaching' and protest. A large % of these teachers could be replaced pet rock or a ChiaPet and it wouldn't make a difference for the days they are 'calling in sick'.

    Oh I forgot ... It's All Abt the Kids

    And cry me a fricken river that many citizens in this country are forced to pay for the Hcare & Pension of these leeches b4 they pay for their own. And they are forced at the barrel of a gun

  2. #42
    Jackstraw01 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wichita
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfairMeat View Post

    The Gov should do the right thing and drop the union-busting provision for collective bargaining and just work on the actual deficit shrinking provisions in the bill.
    Public sector ‘organizing’ is an anti-competitive, monopolistic practice hence why everything they service is garbage and fraudulent.

    Who competes against public employees for government services?

    Per Public Unions & collective bargaining ‘rights’; who are they bargaining with?

    They ‘bargain’ w/ other public sector workers so there is basically no real representation for the taxpayer. How do you think they ended up w/ these obscene benefit packages and work rules that are completely out of whack compared to the private sector?

    On top of that taxpayer $$$ that pays their salary & dues end up going towards political contributions and rabble rousing.

    Then again; you probably believe government should be involved with our children's education right?
    Last edited by Jackstraw01; 02-19-2011 at 11:17 AM.

  3. #43
    geoffrobinson is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gren View Post
    Well, that's kind of how it is. But the workers are free to form a union. They are free to collectively bargain. They are free to sign contracts with the government that govern employment. As long as they're not in violation of a contract the government can change the pay.
    And the people have the right to say "no, you can't collectively bargaign with the government." There is no right to collectively bargaign with the government.

  4. #44
    geoffrobinson is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Collectively Bargaining with the Government | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

    That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany — the former President of the AFL-CIO — in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

    The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. FDR considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

    Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.

    George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good.

    Union contracts make it next to impossible to reward excellent teachers or fire failing ones. Union contracts give government employees gold-plated benefits – at the cost of higher taxes and less spending on other priorities. The alternative to Walkers’ budget was kicking 200,000 children off Medicaid.

    Gov. Walker’s plan reasserts voter control over government policy. Voters’ elected representatives should decide how the government spends their taxes. More states should heed the AFL-CIO Executive Council’s 1959 advice:

    in terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen.

  5. #45
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    15,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gren View Post
    Not quite. They asked their employers to stand by their contracts. They asked to have the basic right of collective bargaining.
    I don't think collective bargaining is a basic right. It is something created by contract and law.

  6. #46
    Eames is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    986

    Default Yes, Unions are Out of Control

    The public employee unions have gotten so far out of control, not so much on wages, but in terms of work rules and other "benefits" that force governments to engage in wasteful spending.

    How much money do cities have to spend on 'forced overtime' because there is some sort of contractual language that forces them to offer OT to highly paid veteran employees, rather than paying straight time to less senior employees. How about teachers whose contracts limit their days to some piddling amount of hours that no one in the private sector could get away with working. How about work rules that force the city to pay some dude $25/hr to stand there holding a STOP sign for construction crews. Who else but public employees have so many days off; I mean, really, do you get Columbus Day or President's Day off?

    All these union rules force the cost of government up. Why do you think the Wisc union has been so ready to agree to the State's salary demands? High wages are only a portion of their greed.

    Haven't these union members had friends and family members in the private sector who have lost jobs never to recover their prior earning power? Or have agreed to significant salary reductions just to keep their jobs? Wouldn't most people in the workforce be very happy to pay ONLY 7% into a pension plan, or even 15% toward their health care cost? How many workers even have pensions and employer-paid healthcare today.

    The unions are rabidly greedy. Where's the sense of "union brotherhood" that will allow hundreds of their fellow union members to be laid off, just so that the remaining pigs can get some higher than prevailing raise?

    They've missed the boat. If the unions had given concessions back when the economic crisis hit in 2008, they would have a lot more sympathy among non government employees who pay their salaries. You reap what you sow. The pendulum is coming their way.

  7. #47
    BarryG is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fishtown
    Posts
    6,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    I don't think collective bargaining is a basic right. It is something created by contract and law.
    Furthermore, it doesn't really make any sense in the context of a public employee. Traditional blue collar labor unions were barganing for a slice of the profit they helped create. It was in the workers' interest to increase that profit.

    Public workers have a monopoly, and are fighting for a piece of tax revenues that must come either out of taxpayer pockets, or at the expense of other government programs (Medicaid is a popular program to cut these days).

  8. #48
    geoffrobinson is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BarryG View Post
    Furthermore, it doesn't really make any sense in the context of a public employee. Traditional blue collar labor unions were barganing for a slice of the profit they helped create. It was in the workers' interest to increase that profit.
    Exactly. Even though many times private unions didn't really think about the long-term health of the company, they should have been. However, public unions have no incentive to create budget surpluses.

  9. #49
    Politburo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    I don't think collective bargaining is a basic right. It is something created by contract and law.
    Can't collective bargaining be seen as a exercise of the right of association? In that context, I don't see how any state could outlaw it. That doesn't mean that a state would be forced to work with any union, but it really doesn't strike me as an American idea that a government can say that you have no right to organize.

    FWIW, the universal declaration of human rights includes collective bargaining (it also includes the so-called "right to work").

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In the belly of a Whale
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    "Lazy teachers, blah blah blah, parasites, blah blah blah"

    Etc., etc., etc.

  11. #51
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    15,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Politburo View Post
    Can't collective bargaining be seen as a exercise of the right of association? In that context, I don't see how any state could outlaw it. That doesn't mean that a state would be forced to work with any union, but it really doesn't strike me as an American idea that a government can say that you have no right to organize.

    FWIW, the universal declaration of human rights includes collective bargaining (it also includes the so-called "right to work").
    You have a right to associate. You don't have a right to be bargained with. Obligating bargaining with your association, to the exclusion of all other entities and bodies, is a contractual creation.

    Think of it this way. The members of OPEC have a "right" to form their association, but I doubt you would agree they have a right to force all countries to only buy oil from them (they can negotiate it, but if we buy oil from Canada, we aren't oppressing their rights).
    Last edited by raider.adam; 02-21-2011 at 10:58 AM.

  12. #52
    Politburo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    You have a right to associate. You don't have a right to be bargained with. Obligating bargaining with your association, to the exclusion of all other entities and bodies, is a contractual creation.
    I didn't make bargaining obligatory with the association. NLRA does make it obligatory, but NLRA does not apply to government workers. I suppose what I'm missing is that the power of CB is really the power to force the employer to listen.

    It's not clear to me from news articles what the exact proposed change is in Wisconsin, though. If the change is just "school districts don't have to negotiate with the union", e.g. removing the obligation, then I guess I don't have a problem. It seems like a district already has a strong incentive to negotiate with the union.

  13. #53
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    15,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Politburo View Post
    I didn't make bargaining obligatory with the association. NLRA does make it obligatory, but NLRA does not apply to government workers. I suppose what I'm missing is that the power of CB is really the power to force the employer to listen.

    It's not clear to me from news articles what the exact proposed change is in Wisconsin, though. If the change is just "school districts don't have to negotiate with the union", e.g. removing the obligation, then I guess I don't have a problem. It seems like a district already has a strong incentive to negotiate with the union.
    From what I understand, the legislation they are proposing says the government doesn't have to agree to work rules and pensions (among other things) when they bargain with the unions. They would still have to bargain over wages. They aren't saying people are refused from being in a union.

  14. #54
    ArcticSplash's Avatar
    ArcticSplash is offline Dixie Normus
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    From what I understand, the legislation they are proposing says the government doesn't have to agree to work rules and pensions (among other things) when they bargain with the unions. They would still have to bargain over wages. They aren't saying people are refused from being in a union.
    But this is all moot. Wisconsin's legislature has the power to cap wages paid to teachers that usurps CB requirements in the Labor Act. They can also mandate contributions.

    Those provisions are in Wisconsin's budget bill. But then they tossed in this CB provision. If they had left it out the Dems probably would have let it pass and there would be no protests right now, or the protests would have been for a day and after it passed there wouldn't be anything the teachers union could do about it. Even if the state was still required to negotiate, the cap is still there and mandated by law, so it's not a bargaining chip that can be used.

  15. #55
    BarryG is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fishtown
    Posts
    6,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    From what I understand, the legislation they are proposing says the government doesn't have to agree to work rules and pensions (among other things) when they bargain with the unions. They would still have to bargain over wages. They aren't saying people are refused from being in a union.
    That's correct, but it also requires employees to vote for the union's existence every year. That is a big part of what they are afraid of.

  16. #56
    raider.adam is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    15,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BarryG View Post
    That's correct, but it also requires employees to vote for the union's existence every year. That is a big part of what they are afraid of.
    I am not disputing that. I was only disputing that guaranteed collective bargaining was a right.

  17. #57
    BarryG is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fishtown
    Posts
    6,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raider.adam View Post
    I am not disputing that. I was only disputing that guaranteed collective bargaining was a right.
    Not disputing that or any of your points--just expanding on your answer to Politburo on what all the fuss is about.

  18. #58
    JCO4O1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MayfairMeat View Post
    Not arguing that point, but collective bargaining is the very essence of a union. To rip it out of any particular union basically nullifies it--they have no leverage to do anything so they're totally moot.

    Besides, why did union killing have anything to do with this budget bill?
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the bill only takes away collective bargaining when it comes to benefits... they would still be able to collectively bargain when it comes to salary.

    Quote Originally Posted by gren View Post
    What matters is that workers have the right to form a union. Workers should have that right. And employers have the right to not sign contracts, etc.

    *I'd argue it depends.
    I would say that when it comes to public employees that because of the conflict of interest that they should not have the right to form a union.

    "There's an inherent conflict of interest when public employees (unions) bargain with public employees (management). Both work for taxpayers. The problem is exacerbated when the same elected officials or their representatives who bargained with unions solicit their support in the next election."
    Union benefits, demands unfit in market conditions - The BG News

  19. #59
    JCO4O1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sometimesilie View Post
    "Lazy teachers, blah blah blah, parasites, blah blah blah"

    Etc., etc., etc.
    I'm glad you are able to contribute something important to this thread.

  20. #60
    Jackstraw01 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wichita
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoffrobinson View Post
    Exactly. Even though many times private unions didn't really think about the long-term health of the company, they should have been. However, public unions have no incentive to create budget surpluses.
    For there leadership and a % of their members; their only incentive is to suck as much of the the fruits of others labor until there is nothing left in this country .. hence why the AFL-CIO, SEIU, etc are going global

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2