Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
No... Government workers serve the public. There should never be a public employee who is a member of a labor organization.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.
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.
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.'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...
They have all the control they need. They can choose to accept employment under the terms offered or they can choose to go elsewhere.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.
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
Damn... I keep missing thatWhen 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.'
FLORIDA is a right to work State...
Again for the second time my friend? I was acknowledging your FACTS.
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.No... Government workers serve the public. There should never be a public employee who is a member of a labor organization.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.
Damn... I keep missing thatWhen 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.
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.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?
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.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.Is that an illegal activity?
No, for the senators.
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
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 pussy-coward democrats stay in Illinois.
This is a done deal. Face facts.. The taxpayers of Wisconsin are done with the public worker unions. DONE.
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"
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 fucking 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.
Fucking 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?
You have it backwards. The legislation is a done deal.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.
I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm? And what you "think" I understood is quite likely wrong. For instance....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.
when did I ever claim any such thing? Evidently you "think" you understand more than you actually "do" understand.FDR didn't say there can't be unions in the public sector.
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.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.
And? IOnce again there miss Cleo your crystal ball is a bit off.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.
ooooohhh... he said "neocon"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
I take it you're not familiar with sarcasm? And what you "think" I understood is quite likely wrong. For instance....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.
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.
And? IOnce again there miss Cleo your crystal ball is a bit off.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.
ooooohhh... he said "neocon"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
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.
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.
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.
States with the lowest unemployment rates
I'm not sure about VT but I belive the rest of them are right to work states.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
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 5.41 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
I guess now you'll be coming out with another unsupported opinion.
