Collective bargaining "rights"??

[BenNatuf]

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.

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.

when did I say he was? Why don't you just admit you're an arrogant ass that inferred what was not implied or stated and the the fault in misunderstanding was yours?

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?

Did you see anywhere where I argued that unelected anybody did anything? You've gone from arrogant inferance to ignorant projection. As for whats wrong with elected representatives voting on the compensation of the people who contribute to their camaigns to retain power... well, whats wrong with it is fairly apparent don't ya think? That however is not an argument against elected representatives voting on their pay and benefits before you mistakenly infer that it is, its an argument against those unions being able to kick back campaign contributions as payment for services rendered.

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.

Who said anything about corporate money? Do the owners of a corporation negotiate through agents with the government for gaurenteed direct compensation or benefits? This is about union kickbacks graft and corruption. And as to public funding... NO, NEVER, ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT. I will contribute to whom I choose not to any incumbancy insurance fund.

 

[BenNatuf]

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

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.

You don't have to tell me about NC, it is the most liberal southern state and was ruled almost exclusively by Democratics until this past election when the GOP took the legislature for the first time in many, many years.

 

[BenNatuf]

What was it reagan said?

"the problem with liberals isn't that they don't know anything, its that everything they do know is wrong"

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've consistantly said the right to form Unions is enshrined in the first amendment, that however does not equate to anyone else having to negotiate with them, or if they do choose to negotiate with them to agree to negotiate on every point the union wants to.

That's an interesting opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion.

Wassamatta?....can't find an article or amendment banning collective bargaining in the Constitution? Have you even read the doc, or just going on what Ailes or Limbaugh tolja?

If collective bargaining is such an obviously unfounded right, why has it survived since the inception of unions? Don't you get it? - collective bargaining is the main reason to organize into a union to begin with, dullard.

wow

Yeah, that "wow" was kind of my reaction to this post, followed by curiosity as to whether or not your lobotomy scars itch.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I wouldn't be surprised. Most places do.

 

[Provocateur]

What was it reagan said?

"the problem with liberals isn't that they don't know anything, its that everything they do know is wrong"

Sam Donaldson: "Mr. President, in talking about the continuing recession tonight, you have blamed mistakes in the past and you have blamed the Congress. Does any of the blame belong to you?" Ronald Reagan: "Yes because for many years I was a Democrat."




For Many Years I Was A Democrat Sound Clip , Quote, MP3, and Ringtone

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does anyone have a problem with the democrats running out of the state so they won't have to vote? I sure have a problem with this.

It's a shame you can't fire politicians as quickly as you can other people, because they deserve to be shitcanned.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You keep trying this silly canard, and it keeps failing miserably. No-one has suggested that it does.

You didn't say earlier there is no 'right' to collectively bargain?

If not, my bad. Must've been another corporate water carrier.

Oh, Christ, will you get OFF the Constitution, already, and try actually THINKING about the goddamned topic? Say the word "rights", and all the kneejerk leftist jagoffs start screaming, "Constitution! Constitution!" as though that's all there is to the concept of "rights".

No one - NO ONE - has ever suggested that employees don't have the right to get together and talk, or even to walk into their boss's office in a group and issue demands. That is NOT what "collective bargaining rights" means, twerp.

"Collective bargaining rights", as has been said several times before while you apparently had your crayon in your ear, would involve being able to insist that the employer agree to bargain with employees as a group, rather than telling them to piss off. It is being posited that in Wisconsin, there is no right to force employers - even the state of Wisconsin itself - to bargain with employees as a group, and that the state of Wisconsin can, in fact, tell them to piss off.

But hey, they can meet together all they like before, during, AND after being told to piss off.

And by the way, people, just to clarify: the First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances. This is not that, because in this instance, the state of Wisconsin is not acting as these people's government, but their employer.

Just so we're clear on that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You didn't say earlier there is no 'right' to collectively bargain?

If not, my bad. Must've been another corporate water carrier.

No one has here. You just want to be wound tight and get pissed by what the libs are telling you to be mad about.

So you agree workers have the right to organize?

Then why do you hate democracy?

That's like saying that because YOU have the right to run your gums aimlessly, I must hate democracy if I choose to ignore you as the dribbling mouthbreather I believe you to be.

Just because you're allowed to talk doesn't mean I have to listen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Psssstttt... bargaining (collectively or otherwise) requires TWO parties willing to negotiate, not one parties desire to do so.

Great point. Why won't Walker bargain with the union?

Good call, stupid.

Because he doesn't want to, and because apparently, the voters of Wisconsin don't want him to, since he stated very clearly that he intended to do this when he campaigned, and they voted him in.

Why do you want unions to trump democracy?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, fucknut. The individual employees work for the state of Wisconsin. The unions don't.

And they ALL work for the voters, who obviously don't WANT to negotiate with unions anymore, since that's what they voted for in the last election.

Why do you hate democracy?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, dear, in most places, civil servants are legally prohibited from striking, ie. "withholding services", so they could be - and the way things are going, probably would be - fired for doing so. How hard do you honestly think most if not all of those people would be to replace in this economy?

What they REALLY have to do is recognize that their real employers, the voters of Wisconsin, are sick of their shit and not in the mood to put up with them any more.

And unions DON'T always win. Ask the air traffic controllers what happened when they tried to "withhold services" during the Reagan administration.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey, here's an idea:

What if State governments continued to negotiate with unions, as they've been doing for the past 60 years, and instead of screwing the working people of this country, they raised taxes on the wealthiest people in order to balance their budgets.

The only problem with that is that the wealthy own the Republican politicians so they'll keep twsiting their arms into doing anything but raise taxes.

But ultimately, they're going to fond out that it just isn't going to work.

They can force confrontations with the unions and lose, or they can let the goverments go into bankrutpcy - but then they'll be a total economic collapse and the wealthy will no longer be wealthy.

World Socialism rears it's ugly head!

I love it! Instead of cutting waste and needless expense in the state budget, why don't they just raise taxes some more?! Yeah, what a BRILLIANT idea!

Here's why not, Mensa Boy: because the voters of Wisconsin told the government pretty clearly that that's not what they want when they put Republicans in charge of the governor's office and the legislature.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Off topic but, Holy crap on a cracker.

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

thanks.

We just got the first three seasons of "Big Bang Theory" on DVD, and we've been having a mini-marathon. One of the characters uses that phrase.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

That should go for ANY elected official.

Absolutely. Get your lazy ass to work or get the hell out and let someone have the job who'll actually DO it.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Actually, dear, in most places, civil servants are legally prohibited from striking, ie. "withholding services", so they could be - and the way things are going, probably would be - fired for doing so. How hard do you honestly think most if not all of those people would be to replace in this economy?

What they REALLY have to do is recognize that their real employers, the voters of Wisconsin, are sick of their shit and not in the mood to put up with them any more.

And unions DON'T always win. Ask the air traffic controllers what happened when they tried to "withhold services" during the Reagan administration.

Liberals tend to overestimate their worth to society even more than they overestimate the value of their opinions...

 

[peach174]

Nope! sure would not want to give the individual union worker their rights back as to whether to pay the dues or not. It's unamerican to force a person to pay dues for a union boss that is not representing your political views. Why do you think so many are dropping out of the unions in that last 10 yrs or so?
Union bosses have gotten way to powerful and need to be taken down a notch or two.

 

[BenNatuf]

Nope! sure would not want to give the individual union worker their rights back as to whether to pay the dues or not. It's unamerican to force a person to pay dues for a union boss that is not representing your political views. Why do you think so many are dropping out of the unions in that last 10 yrs or so?
Union bosses have gotten way to powerful and need to be taken down a notch or two.

Unions became illigitimate when they stopped negotiating with the employers to reach mutually beneficial arrangements with them and started pushing a political agenda to force employers to do what they could not gain agreement on.

 

[editec]

Nope! sure would not want to give the individual union worker their rights back as to whether to pay the dues or not. It's unamerican to force a person to pay dues for a union boss that is not representing your political views. Why do you think so many are dropping out of the unions in that last 10 yrs or so?
Union bosses have gotten way to powerful and need to be taken down a notch or two.

Unions became illigitimate when they stopped negotiating with the employers to reach mutually beneficial arrangements with them and started pushing a political agenda to force employers to do what they could not gain agreement on.

As did our corporations, I note.

In both cases note who gets the shaft?

the workers.

 

[Big Fitz]

Hey, here's an idea:

What if State governments continued to negotiate with unions, as they've been doing for the past 60 years, and instead of screwing the working people of this country, they raised taxes on the wealthiest people in order to balance their budgets.

The only problem with that is that the wealthy own the Republican politicians so they'll keep twsiting their arms into doing anything but raise taxes.

But ultimately, they're going to fond out that it just isn't going to work.

They can force confrontations with the unions and lose, or they can let the goverments go into bankrutpcy - but then they'll be a total economic collapse and the wealthy will no longer be wealthy.

World Socialism rears it's ugly head!

I love it! Instead of cutting waste and needless expense in the state budget, why don't they just raise taxes some more?! Yeah, what a BRILLIANT idea!

Here's why not, Mensa Boy: because the voters of Wisconsin told the government pretty clearly that that's not what they want when they put Republicans in charge of the governor's office and the legislature.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing every time and hoping (Demanding) a different result when no other result is possible.

We've been 'raising taxes' and ignoring root causes of government waste, cost and growth since the 1930's across all administrations and party control. This is the philosophy that is killing us and what need to be ended forth with.

The root causes need to be addressed, and that means that government must shrink. To tax more only perpetuates the same situation. My stomach hurts, so I'll eat more, which makes it hurt more so I eat more. Sooner or later, you vomit or burst and die.

Wisconsin's on the way to the vomitorium. Let's just hope that they are not economically bulimic.