Shouldn't unions have the right to collectively bargain? [Archive]

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 04:59 PM

I'm trying to follow the situation in Wisconsin.

Shouldn't workers have the right to join together and bargain with an employer collectively? Isn't it wrong for the government to tell people in what manner they are and are not allowed to negotiate their wages?

On the other hand, shouldn't the employer (government or otherwise) have the right to collectively fire all of their asses if the negotiations are one-sided (or for any other reason)?

And thirdly, shouldn't workers have the right to work a job, and not join the union? Or to join a different group that is also collectively bargaining?

When you support a government that is saying "YOU CAN'T DO THIS" to union workers, aren't you getting what YOU want via government force instead of defending freedom?

These are serious questions - I probably don't know all there is to know and I could be very wrong.

Kludge

02-17-2011, 05:05 PM

The WI events are about a bill which bans PUBLIC employees from forming Unions. No employer should be forced to tolerate unions and be allowed to sack every single employee who enters into one unless the employees are truly necessary and their labor is worth more (in which case, unions are an excellent way to push wages closer to the free market equilibrium point). In this case, the WI public employees are not viewed as being worth what they're paid which is why their gov't is looking to force the Unions to disband. Employees can protest and even quit if they like, but if their wages ARE too high, they'll lose and people will take their spots at lower wages while the protesters will be out of work.

On other points, gov't should have no role in regulating, permitting, or abolishing unions in the private sector.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 05:07 PM

silverhandorder

02-17-2011, 05:10 PM

As far as I am aware they can still have a union. The power is dramatically curtailed by first telling the union that the government will not negotiate certain terms such as wage and pension increases beyond the adjusted to inflation. They also will allow workers to be hired without being forced to join the union.

Yes this is a move to weaken or even destroy the public unions. It is a right move to make as far as I am concerned.

No one on this planet can stop you from organizing with others. What they can do is fire you.

low preference guy

02-17-2011, 05:10 PM

Well then we agree about it for the private sector. But why should employees have less rights in the public sector? Do you pass up on your rights the second you work for the government? Seems unfair.

Personally, I think education should be privatized anyway. But the government will always have some employees, who aren't slaves and deserve to negotiate wages just like anybody else.

It's not that public workers don't have the right to collectively bargain. It's that the taxpayers, as employers, choose to not negotiate collectively with their employees.

The public workers can collectively bargain with any party that is willing to negotiate with them on those terms.

Regarding employers, don't they have the right to negotiate or refuse to negotiate with whomever they want?

That you have a right to negotiate with X doesn't mean that X should be forced to negotiate with you.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 05:11 PM

which is why their gov't is looking to force the Unions to disband. Employees can protest and even quit if they like, but if their wages ARE too high, they'll lose and people will take their spots at lower wages while the protesters will be out of work.

Government force. Do what we say or else. I think I'm with the protesters on this one.

Kludge

02-17-2011, 05:13 PM

Government force. Do what we say or else. I think I'm with the protesters on this one.

"Force" in a very similar way it would be "force" if a public employer bars his employees from forming unions at threat of firing everyone who does not comply.

angelatc

02-17-2011, 05:14 PM

Government force. Do what we say or else. I think I'm with the protesters on this one.

I'll bet you don't have kids in public schools.

I have no problem with them having a union. I do have a problem with the union forcing all employees to join said union, and the extent to which they control the work environment.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 05:16 PM

It's not that public workers don't have the right to collectively bargain. It's that the taxpayers, as employers, choose to not negotiate collectively with their employees.

The public workers can collectively bargain with any party that is willing to negotiate with them on those terms.

Regarding employers, don't they have the right to negotiate or refuse to negotiate with whomever they want?

That you have a right to negotiate with X doesn't mean that X should be forced to negotiate with you.

Then have the gumption to fire all of the union workers at once - and lose all of them. Or choose to negotiate with all of them. You can't just use the force of government to say you are only going to negotiate on a one-by-one basis when people have decided to unionize/join together.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 05:17 PM

I'll bet you don't have kids in public schools.

I have no problem with them having a union. I do have a problem with the union forcing all employees to join said union, and the extent to which they control the work environment.

Don't personalize this. I don't like unions. But I'm willing to support the rights of everybody, even people or groups I don't like. I said in my original post that unions should have no right to force all employees to join their union.

Bryan

02-17-2011, 05:17 PM

Yes. Yes. No-- that is up the employer.

There should be no laws that support or suppress unions or "collective bargaining".

low preference guy

02-17-2011, 05:17 PM

Or choose to negotiate with all of them. You can't just use the force of government to say you are only going to negotiate on a one-by-one basis when people have decided to unionize/join together.

How is choosing to negotiate only on a one-by-one basis using force?

Ninja Homer

02-17-2011, 05:18 PM

Of course people can unionize and try to collectively bargain. The problem in Wisconsin is that there are laws on the books that protect the state worker unions and give them special privileges. Unions formed by people getting together and unions that are protected by law are two entirely different beasts.

silverhandorder

02-17-2011, 05:19 PM

You don't have a right to force some one else to talk to you, pay you or force all other workers to collectively bargain.

Epic

02-17-2011, 05:19 PM

The governor's proposal is a libertarian one. Less theft of taxpayer money. And it thwarts the coercive privilege previously granted to government employee unions.

puppetmaster

02-17-2011, 05:21 PM

just lay off the the scum.......cut the 6k jobs....cut 12k just to be sure

Kludge

02-17-2011, 05:22 PM

Wasn't aware the WI situation was over right-to-work laws, but if so, Mackinac Center has some very compelling arguments in favor them.

http://www.mackinac.org/13182

& many more articles on it @ http://www.mackinac.org/features/search/search.aspx?Category=105

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 05:51 PM

The governor's proposal is a libertarian one. Less theft of taxpayer money. And it thwarts the coercive privilege previously granted to government employee unions.

A lot of that sounds good, but most media reports say that the governor is cutting off the RIGHTS of the workers to collectively bargain. Are the media lying - or is a piece of this legislation anti-freedom? I would love to read the actual bill but I have been unable to find it.

low preference guy

02-17-2011, 05:52 PM

A lot of that sounds good, but most media reports say that the governor is cutting off the RIGHTS of the workers to collectively bargain. Are the media lying - or is a piece of this legislation anti-freedom? I would love to read the actual bill but I have been unable to find it.

John Edwards said that everyone has a right to an internet connection.

But I haven't read the bill either, so I don't know if the media is using "rights" correctly or not.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 05:54 PM

just lay off the the scum.......cut the 6k jobs....cut 12k just to be sure

I agree. But if the teachers are united together, including some very good teachers, are you willing to lose the good teachers? And even if you are, will there be a shortage of qualified teachers to hire to replace them?

Forget WHO the employer is for a moment (the government) and realize that there usually is incentive for employers to negotiate with a union. Often you have very good workers that you don't want to lose, and if those workers feel the need to FREELY join a union - then all the power to them. The power shouldn't always ONLY be in the hands of the employer. It takes two to tango, two to negotiate a wage, and workers have rights too. I know we all are pro-business here, but we can't tilt the playing field so that the employers have all the power. Just sayin'

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 05:57 PM

John Edwards said that everyone has a right to an internet connection.

But I haven't read the bill either, so I don't know if the media is using "rights" correctly or not.

Yes the left often think a lot of things are rights. But I think the right to negotiate your own wage in the manner you see fit is a good natural one. That's what the media are talking about. For example:

Gov. Scott Walker says the Wisconsin National Guard is prepared to respond wherever is necessary in the wake of his announcement that he wants to take away nearly all collective bargaining rights from state employees.

Nearly ALL collective bargaining RIGHTS.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-budgetwoes-nation,0,771747.story

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 05:58 PM

Well then we agree about it for the private sector. But why should employees have less rights in the public sector? Do you pass up on your rights the second you work for the government? Seems unfair.

Personally, I think education should be privatized anyway. But the government will always have some employees, who aren't slaves and deserve to negotiate wages just like anybody else.

The Government has no money. Everything the Government gets it has to steal, therefore, Unions whom 'collectively bargain' are bypassing the taxpayers which should at least get to vote on if they want to pay the people more because the taxpayers are footing the bill. Unions should not be allowed to exist for State-workers.

low preference guy

02-17-2011, 06:00 PM

But I think the right to negotiate your own wage in the manner you see fit is a good natural one. That's what the media are talking about.

There are two possibilities:

1. The governor is taking away their rights.
2. The governor will not force the employers of the unions to negotiate with them, which the left probably also sees as a violation of the rights of the workers.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 06:00 PM

I agree. But if the teachers are united together, including some very good teachers, are you willing to lose the good teachers? And even if you are, will there be a shortage of qualified teachers to hire to replace them?

Forget WHO the employer is for a moment (the government) and realize that there usually is incentive for employers to negotiate with a union. Often you have very good workers that you don't want to lose, and if those workers feel the need to FREELY join a union - then all the power to them. The power shouldn't always ONLY be in the hands of the employer. It takes two to tango, two to negotiate a wage, and workers have rights too. I know we all are pro-business here, but we can't tilt the playing field so that the employers have all the power. Just sayin'

I am not pro-business, I am pro-market. As for Unions they've done more harm to workers (in general) than good. Kevin Carson did a good analysis of the effects over the years on C4SS.

low preference guy

02-17-2011, 06:03 PM

The Government has no money. Everything the Government gets it has to steal, therefore, Unions whom 'collectively bargain' are bypassing the taxpayers which should at least get to vote on if they want to pay the people more because the taxpayers are footing the bill. Unions should not be allowed to exist for State-workers.

Also, contracts that people engage in with the government don't have any validity once the government runs out of money, because the government doesn't have resources to fulfill the contract.

It's like when the government gets in debt. I didn't choose to engage in that contract. I'm not willing to pay that debt. And if enough people think like that, the debt simply will not be paid back, so the debt contract won't be enforced.

The same is true with contracts that unions make with the government. Once the money runs out, it isn't justified to steal more from taxpayers to fulfill the contract.

raystone

02-17-2011, 06:06 PM

Libertarian party has battled this out over the years. They have arrived at the following plank, from their website.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

daviddee

02-17-2011, 06:09 PM

...

erowe1

02-17-2011, 06:10 PM

Don't personalize this. I don't like unions. But I'm willing to support the rights of everybody, even people or groups I don't like. I said in my original post that unions should have no right to force all employees to join their union.

You're apparently not willing to support the rights of public employers to be non-union workplaces, even though you recognize that private employers should have that right.

TNforPaul45

02-17-2011, 06:11 PM

All employees have the ultimate bargaining power by definition: They can quit and go work for your competitor.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 06:14 PM

All employees have the ultimate bargaining power by definition: They can quit and go work for your competitor.

There is no competition in regards to Government 'services'. That's the whole point.

Kregisen

02-17-2011, 06:18 PM

Let's throw a curveball here....who here thinks cartels (the opposite of a union) should be legal? Because they aren't.

Michael Landon

02-17-2011, 06:38 PM

If employees of a government need a labor union then it should be clear that the government is "unjust" "unfair" "uncaring" of its employees.

I'm not addressing the union issue right now but I wanted to say that I feel our government is unjust, unfair and uncaring to almost everyone in America, which is why I, in 2007, joined NARPS, the National Association of Ron Paul Supporters. :) This is to go along with me joining two other unions, the GOA and JPFO.

- ML

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 06:40 PM

Definition of LABOR UNION
: an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions

Labor Unions, in theory, were created for the protection of employees against "unfair labor practices" "unfair work rules" "unfair this" "unfair that"

If employees of a government need a labor union then it should be clear that the government is "unjust" "unfair" "uncaring" of its employees.

Government employees should not be able to form or be members of a union.

So as liberty minded individuals, we believe in the right to associate. But this right belongs to some but not all? Only if the government believes you have a NEED to associate, in the cases of government employees? I thought rights were natural? I thought rights were universal?

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 06:43 PM

You're apparently not willing to support the rights of public employers to be non-union workplaces, even though you recognize that private employers should have that right.

No that's not true. I'm saying there is a right way and a wrong way to go about that. The government, in this case, wants to use its POWER to limit the rights of government employees to be union members. They want to legislate away their problem, and use the force of government to have their way.

If they want to LEGALLY not have a unionized work place, and do so without violating the rights of people to be part of a union, then they need to FIRE everybody that is part of a union.

But they're not doing that are they? They are trying to keep the same employees AND not let them be part of a union. So they get the workers they want AND get to dictate the wages without giving the people the right to negotiate together as one, as they wish to.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 06:44 PM

So as liberty minded individuals, we believe in the right to associate. But this right belongs to some but not all? Only if the government believes you have a NEED to associate, in the cases of government employees? I thought rights were natural? I thought rights were universal?

Who has the right to steal? Why should they be able to form a union to steal MORE without those paying them having a say? The Government does not pay them, WE DO. Now, if you could choose to opt out of paying for this and not have to pay property tax then I would say it would be a different story, but we are forced to pay them without having a say, and then when we elect people to cut their pay they riot and you defend that? Come on.

This is illustrative of the sorts of people who are attracted to the Government. You do not see those in the private sector rioting when they have to take pay cuts, or get laid off.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 06:44 PM

Let's throw a curveball here....who here thinks cartels (the opposite of a union) should be legal? Because they aren't.

They should be legal (and I mean for all companies in addition to the banks/federal reserve)

unklejman

02-17-2011, 06:46 PM

Jason Lewis can articulate why government unions shouldn't exist.

Segment 1:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS021611_1st%20Hr%20Education%20and%20Budgets.m p3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=News_Talk_100.3_FM&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis

Segment 2:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS021611_2nd%20Hr%20Unions.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=News_Talk_100.3_FM&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis

Segment 3:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS021611_3rd%20Hr%20High%20Speed%20Rail.mp3?CPR OG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=News_Talk_100.3_FM&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis

erowe1

02-17-2011, 06:49 PM

No that's not true. I'm saying there is a right way and a wrong way to go about that. The government, in this case, wants to use its POWER to limit the rights of government employees to be union members.
You mean its power as an employer. Not its power as a monopoly of force in society. That power as an employer not to be a union employer is the same power you said that private employers should have. And it's the same power those employees have. They should be able to work there or not work there, and the employer should be able to employ them or not employ them.

Now in truth, of course, none of these public jobs should exist anyway. But the people who are victims of unjustifiable force in the arrangement are the taxpayers, not the employees. And that's not really the point in dispute here. But when we take it as a given that those jobs do exist, I don't see why the state should be obligated to let them unionize. And I see a lot of good reasons they shouldn't.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 06:51 PM

No that's not true. I'm saying there is a right way and a wrong way to go about that. The government, in this case, wants to use its POWER to limit the rights of government employees to be union members. They want to legislate away their problem, and use the force of government to have their way.

If they want to LEGALLY not have a unionized work place, and do so without violating the rights of people to be part of a union, then they need to FIRE everybody that is part of a union.

But they're not doing that are they? They are trying to keep the same employees AND not let them be part of a union. So they get the workers they want AND get to dictate the wages without giving the people the right to negotiate together as one, as they wish to.

They have the right to negotiate, its called voting in people who want to steal more from the people to pay you, the same thing they've been doing for a long time now.

awake

02-17-2011, 06:51 PM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JOQNsZAVLeg/TV2Jy2OuIeI/AAAAAAAAAc0/ukQgRPLvW1s/s1600/Wisconsin.jpg

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 06:54 PM

This is why if you aren't thinking about moving to New Hampshire, this is a good reason why us libertarians should congregate together. There is power in numbers and we certainly do not want to be in the minority when the country realizes that we are bankrupt and real sacrifices are to come. If you thought Egypt is bad just watch when all these socialists start to get fired because we ARE POOR.

silverhandorder

02-17-2011, 07:00 PM

RPC can you please respond to my posts about people being able to choose not to be in a public union and that there is no way anyone can stop two individuals from associating in this law.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 07:03 PM

You mean its power as an employer. Not its power as a monopoly of force in society. That power as an employer not to be a union employer is the same power you said that private employers should have. And it's the same power those employees have. They should be able to work there or not work there, and the employer should be able to employ them or not employ them.

You're missing a key point here. They could be a non-union employer by taking the steps I outlined earlier, the way PRIVATE companies are forced to do it. Fire ALL of those unionized - or negotiate with ALL that are unionized. They would have to make the same choice real-world employers are forced to make

They are trying to make it so that they can negotiate with all those who ARE (or WANT to be unionized) by using their governmental powers to not allow them to BE unionized, something the private sector can't do.

I agree that the jobs shouldn't be government jobs in the first place.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 07:05 PM

You're missing a key point here. They could be a non-union employer by taking the steps I outlined earlier, the way PRIVATE companies are forced to do it. Fire ALL of those unionized - or negotiate with ALL that are unionized. They would have to make the same choice real-world employers are forced to make

They are trying to make it so that they can negotiate with all those who ARE (or WANT to be unionized) by using their governmental powers to not allow them to BE unionized, something the private sector can't do.

I agree that the jobs shouldn't be government jobs in the first place.

The Government is not the employeer, the taxpayers are and we have as much say as they do when we vote (in theory).

TNforPaul45

02-17-2011, 07:06 PM

There is no competition in regards to Government 'services'. That's the whole point.

You mean I cant just jump into a conversation thread, purposefully neglect to read all the previous responses, and respond in kind? LOL

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 07:07 PM

You mean I cant just jump into a conversation thread, purposefully neglect to read all the previous responses, and respond in kind? LOL

hehe :p I have a feeling 99% of us are in the same boat, so no need to rock haha.

Fox McCloud

02-17-2011, 07:17 PM

Public employees probably shouldn't, since there wages are not generated, competitively, in the marketplace.

As for private companies? Yes, employees should have the right to form a union and collectively bargain....and the company has every right to fire every single one and never hire them back with no compensation paid for their time striking/picketing.

Agorism

02-17-2011, 07:21 PM

I think they should just not public ones.

Travlyr

02-17-2011, 08:18 PM

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 08:23 PM

The Government is not the employeer, the taxpayers are and we have as much say as they do when we vote (in theory).

The majority can't infringe on the rights of the minority. Wisconsin seems to be going about this all wrong. If the taxpayers want to save money, then fire all of the union teachers or privatize education. Nobody has to limit freedoms in order to lower taxes.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 08:28 PM

The majority can't infringe on the rights of the minority. Wisconsin seems to be going about this all wrong. If the taxpayers want to save money, then fire all of the union teachers or privatize education. Nobody has to limit freedoms in order to lower taxes.

...When did State-employees get born with the right to steal? I must have missed the memo. No one's rights are taken away because we are the employer. You are trying to equivocate Government workers with non-Government workers. It doesn't work like that. Wisconsin is not a Right to Work state, so you are forced to join the Union, forced to pay their 'dues' aka taxes, so if you fire them all the next batch you hire will be unionized. I do agree that State-education needs to be abolished and let the market handle education. Brick and Mortar schools are relics of the old world, they will go the way of the dodo if you get rid of State-education.

erowe1

02-17-2011, 08:38 PM

You're missing a key point here. They could be a non-union employer by taking the steps I outlined earlier, the way PRIVATE companies are forced to do it. Fire ALL of those unionized - or negotiate with ALL that are unionized. They would have to make the same choice real-world employers are forced to make

They are trying to make it so that they can negotiate with all those who ARE (or WANT to be unionized) by using their governmental powers to not allow them to BE unionized, something the private sector can't do.

I guess I'm not familiar with the laws of Wisconsin. But if you're right about private employers being forced by the government to treat unions that way, then they shouldn't be. The solution isn't to let public employees have the same privileges, it's to unshackle the private employers from that law.

silverhandorder

02-17-2011, 08:44 PM

Actually RPC government does not have to fire everyone in the union. They can just fire all those who government deems unnecessary to its goals. Ofcourse i don't know the whole situation with the law towards private employers but that is a seperate subject.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 09:31 PM

...When did State-employees get born with the right to steal? I must have missed the memo. No one's rights are taken away because we are the employer. You are trying to equivocate Government workers with non-Government workers. It doesn't work like that. Wisconsin is not a Right to Work state, so you are forced to join the Union, forced to pay their 'dues' aka taxes, so if you fire them all the next batch you hire will be unionized. I do agree that State-education needs to be abolished and let the market handle education. Brick and Mortar schools are relics of the old world, they will go the way of the dodo if you get rid of State-education.

So everybody that is taking a salary from the government is stealing? I think you are misdirecting blame. Governments steal - that they spend their stolen loot on things that require workers is beside the point. Teachers are paid for their work, for their labor, for providing the service of teaching our kids (however poorly they may be doing so). That's honest work - they aren't stealing for it. If government takes over the entire healthcare sector (not hard to imagine that happening) and all doctors become government employees - do all rights of the doctors go out the window? They didn't create the system, they may even be very much against it. Are they thieves if they continue to take a salary?

Workers should never be forced to join a Union. Wisconsin should be getting rid of THAT if they want to make some positive changes.

angelatc

02-17-2011, 09:36 PM

I agree. But if the teachers are united together, including some very good teachers, are you willing to lose the good teachers? And even if you are, will there be a shortage of qualified teachers to hire to replace them?

There are tons of unemployed teachers out there. I'd be perfectly willing to lose a couple of good teachers in the name of busting the unions. Kids are only in that class for a year.

I don't blame the teachers for taking the best deal they can get, but I do blame them for holding the state education system hostage at this juncture.

Brooklyn Red Leg

02-17-2011, 09:55 PM

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 10:09 PM

As others have stated more eloquently than I, I don't oppose Free Market Unions (Private Sector) simply because we as humans have the natural right to freely associate. However, Public Sector Unions are leeches, period. Sorry, but I refuse to feel pity for assholes that I have to compete with for jobs: Private Security means I have to compete with off-duty Cops, Sheriffs and Highway Patrol while Tutoring in History means I have to compete with Teachers, TA's and other State-servants.

To expect me to sympathize with people who now have to pay for their benefits is retarded. Any benefits I got in jobs came out of my paycheck. Sorry, but I will not bend over and take it in the keister anymore.

Really? So the natural, universal right to freely associate be damned? You don't like the group - so it's time to take their rights away?

Come on guys - you are BETTER than that aren't you? You respect and wish to protect the rights of ALL? Don't you?

The answer is to shrink the number of public sector jobs. The answer is to do away with government granting unfair ADVANTAGES given to unions. The answer is not giving unions unfair DISadvantages.

The answer is not taking away the RIGHTS of people we despise.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 10:09 PM

Government force is bad...................

well - unless it's used against Unions. Unions and Muslims. Yeah that's it.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-17-2011, 10:35 PM

Government force is bad...................

well - unless it's used against Unions. Unions and Muslims. Yeah that's it.

No one is talking about private sector unions. This is about the State of Wisconsin Teachers association. Since when can't they say they won't allow unions? Of course no one here supports the State telling anyone estranged from them that they either have to recognize or have to not recognize Unions. Besides, the way it works now is that any teacher who gets a job with the State to be a teacher HAS to join the Union and HAS to pay dues. I also think that State-Unions aren't a right whatsoever since there is no nature of voluntary interaction between them and their employer towards the public. The Union can arbitrarily raise taxes beyond the pale of what our elected officials decide. How is that a right? Remember, the State has no market mechanisms whatsoever, it is entirely a socialist institution.

Michael Landon

02-17-2011, 10:41 PM

I support unions, even government ones. The ones I don't support are the ones that require you to join to work, people shouldn't be forced into joining to get a job.

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm in many unions: NALC, the National Association of Letter Carriers, before you start bashing this union and my part in it I ask that you do a little research into it first; GOA, the Gun Owners of America, I find it necessary to associate myself with them as a way to help protect my right to keep and bear arms; JPFO, the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, again to protect my right to bear arms; NRA, the National Rifle Association, once again, the right to bear arms.

- ML

Sentient Void

02-17-2011, 10:44 PM

Private, voluntary unions are one thing - and are free-market entities (as long as such unions aren't protected, subsidized, or mandated by government in the private sector).

Public sector unions are a different beast different altogether. Public sector workers are supposed to be public servants.

Also, whereas a private business must compete, innovate, be efficient and persuade people to contribute a revenue stream - the public sector merely mandates higher revenue streams through taxation. The public sector is also a government protected and mandated monopoly, whereas truly private sector companies are not.

Because of this and other reasons, public sector unions will always eventually result in extraordinary rape of the taxpayer, along with outlandish pay and benefits above and beyond private-sector-worker counterparts.

Brooklyn Red Leg

02-17-2011, 10:54 PM

Really? So the natural, universal right to freely associate be damned? You don't like the group - so it's time to take their rights away?

Don't be absurd. This has nothing to do with taking away someone's universal right to freely associate. These people are paid for by sticking a gun to other people's head. That's no different than the Mafia. Want to join a Union? Work in the Private Sector. Take money from me at gunpoint, well, motherfucker you had best talk to me first.

RonPaulCult

02-17-2011, 11:14 PM

silverhandorder

02-17-2011, 11:27 PM

Ron Paul Cult here is the deal. The bill will cut union power by making government stop protecting them. The government will not make people mandatory join the union and it will set harsher bargaining terms. This is all it is. What rights are being violated by this?

Even if government says that it will not higher union workers which it does not say it is well within it's rights not to associate with the union workers.

I don't understand what rights you are talking about. Workers right to freely associate is not hindered. They can walk up to each other and talk and make plans and w.e This is their right to freely associate.

You are irate.

daviddee

02-17-2011, 11:28 PM

...

Sentient Void

02-17-2011, 11:58 PM

Some of the things in this thread are shocking. Government workers are public servants?

Yes. They are 'public servants' - meaning they work 'for the public' (or it is claimed that they are supposed to, seems these days they are more our masters/overlords living parasitically off the private sector if you ask me, but I digress), as in, hired for the benefit of the public. Private workers are hired for the benefit of a private entity for profit. Public sector workers obviously enter a job in the public sector for themselves, as they understandably should - but the fact is, they are supposed to be public servants due to the very nature of the entity they are working for. This also exposes part of the problem for public sector workers - whereas there is no conflict of interest in working for one's own self-interest while working for a for-profit company (you can only move up / make more money by enhancing skills and being more productive), there is certainly a conflict of interest since you cannot really work for your own self interest but also be a servant to the public at the same time.

Um no - they are WORKERS like anybody else. They aren't doing volunteer work. They are trying to make a living - feed their family. They are there to do work because somebody is paying them to. They have a RIGHT to negotiate a salary just like you, me or any other worker.

You're forgetting the difference between public vs private sector workers. Once again - public sector does not compete, innovate, and cannot (by it's economic nature) work towards real efficiency, and is a mandated monopoly, and mandates a revenue stream as opposed to persuading people for it voluntarily. On top of that - they are supposed to be servants to the public. However, for some reason, we've allowed them to become our overlords. They live parasitically off of productive workers in the private sector, and on both a State and Federal level, and make *significantly* more in wages/income/pension and benefits than their private sector counterparts.

But ultimately, sure - they have a right to bargain, just like we have a right to abolish government-protections of them and make it harder for them to get higher wages at our expense, from their wasteful, poor service record. They work for us - or are supposed to. We can rightly tell them to go fuck themselves.

Government employees are thieves? Bullshit. They didn't write the laws that created the jobs. They didn't write the laws that tax you.

Maybe not, but they're feeding at the revenue-mandated trough, and this creates disgusting distortions and conflicts of interest. This should be minimized.

Just as a side note to show conflicts of interest in working for the State - a friend of mine is (or was, rather) a conservative. Wanted the government out of peoples' lives in both fiscal and personal matters. He became a police officer, and is in a relationship with a public school teacher. When the vote for new Governor of MA between Progressive Democrat Deval Patrick vs Republican Charlie Baker (while better than Patrick by far, was still pretty shitty, BTW - but he did at least TALK about serious cuts) was up, we had a discussion over the phone. He wanted to vote for Baker in principle - but he was afraid of losing his job or his gf losing her job, or having pay cut, if Charlie Baker was elected. He was feeding at the public sector trough, and this created a serious conflict of interest.

He ended up voting for Progressive Democrat Deval Patrick.

It's sad that people are letting their personal feelings towards a group cloud their judgement about what is right and wrong.

It's mostly a consequential issue related to the fact that it's public vs private sector, and the nature of both.

Also, read this article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128077723

libertybrewcity

02-18-2011, 12:14 AM

Full text of the Union/Budget Bill. It's called Senate Bill 11: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 01:51 AM

I don't understand what rights you are talking about. Workers right to freely associate is not hindered. They can walk up to each other and talk and make plans and w.e This is their right to freely associate.

You are irate.

You should read the bill then. It clearly states that rights will no longer exist for certain state employees.

This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all
employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of
base wages

Under current law, University of Wisconsin (UW) System employees,
employees of the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority, and certain home care and
child care providers have the right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and
conditions of employment. This bill eliminates the rights of these employees to
collectively bargain

I am irate any time governments attempt to take away our rights. I would LOVE to limit the power of unions - and I think governments should do MUCH MORE to get rid of any advantages they may have. But THIS is not the way to go about it.

And by the way - I see nothing in the bill that allows people to opt out of being in a union. Please read the bill and tell me where I'm wrong. I believe you have been misinformed.

Jack Bauer

02-18-2011, 01:58 AM

You should read the bill then. It clearly states that rights will no longer exist for certain state employees.

I am irate any time governments attempt to take away our rights. I would LOVE to limit the power of unions - and I think governments should do MUCH MORE to get rid of any advantages they may have. But THIS is not the way to go about it.

And by the way - I see nothing in the bill that allows people to opt out of being in a union. Please read the bill and tell me where I'm wrong. I believe you have been misinformed.

AFAIK Wisconsin state government is a closed shop.

You HAVE to be a member of the union to work for the state government.

I think that is what the bill seeks to change for the aforementioned groups of employees.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 02:03 AM

AFAIK Wisconsin state government is a closed shop.

You HAVE to be a member of the union to work for the state government.

I think that is what the bill seeks to change for the aforementioned groups of employees.

Please please please - read the bill. That is NOT what this bill is about. This bill is about NOT allowing unions to collectively bargain. This bill is about limiting the rights of state employees. Read it:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

teacherone

02-18-2011, 02:04 AM

Shouldn't unions have the right to collectively bargain?

yes.

they should also have the right to be collectively fired.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 02:05 AM

yes.

they should also have the right to be collectively fired.

At least somebody gets it

Jack Bauer

02-18-2011, 02:19 AM

I would have to disagree RPC. The bill does NOT seek to eliminate collective bargaining rights.

This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of base wages.

Basically the bill limits collective bargaining rates to base wage rates and excludes benefits from being collectively bargained. It is very fair considering the bloated benefits received by government employees, at least as a temporary arrangement.

In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the consumer price index.

It also tries to limit base wage rates to inflationary levels, although CPI isn't an accurate indication of inflation.

Current law provides that state and municipal employees who are represented by a labor organization have the organization dues deducted from their salaries. Except for salary deductions for public safety employees, this bill prohibits the salary deductions for labor organization dues.

This bill also allows a general employee to refrain from paying dues and remain a member of a collective bargaining unit.

These two issues are the crux of why the unions are mobilizing. The bill changes how union dues are payed -

1) Originally union dues were deducted from the pay before they paychecks were deposited into the accounts of the employees. Under this bill, people need to CUT a check to the union from their bank accounts instead.

2) Also, they don't have to be part of the union and pay any union dues in order to have the same benefits (on base wage rates) that union workers enjoy.

This would essentially mean that most of the workers will no longer find it necessary to be part of the unions and will lead to a huge loss in revenue for the unions. That is what the union leaders are afraid off. If you think the union leaders actually care about their workers, you are naive.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 02:32 AM

I do not think union leaders actually care about their workers. I am not naive. And I do not generally support unions, and I have previously mentioned that a number of times.

I am fine with the part of the bill that says union dues won't be automatically deducted. I see no reason why an employer should be forced to transfer part of the employee's wages directly to the union. Pay the union yourself. No problem there.

I DO have a problem with the bill saying that an employee may be part of a collective bargaining unit without paying dues. This is government intrusion into a private group. Why not just say I can benefit from a law firm without paying the legal fees. Why not say I can go and get an ice cream cone from Ben and Jerry's anytime I want, without paying for it.

I also think you are conveniently ignoring this part of the bill:

Under current law, University of Wisconsin (UW) System employees,
employees of the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority, and certain home care and
child care providers have the right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and
conditions of employment. This bill eliminates the rights of these employees to
collectively bargain

You are admitting that the bill eliminates the right for unions to collectively bargain for wages. You say it's fair, and indeed probably would make their wages fairer - but it would infringe on THEIR rights along the way. I'm not down with that. And, if you read what I just quoted - you can see it goes much further than just wages. They won't even be able to collectively bargain regarding HOURS.

Jack Bauer

02-18-2011, 02:38 AM

I DO have a problem with the bill saying that an employee may be part of a collective bargaining unit without paying dues. This is government intrusion into a private group. Why not just say I can benefit from a law firm without paying the legal fees. Why not say I can go and get an ice cream cone from Ben and Jerry's anytime I want, without paying for it.

Of course its government "intrusion", FFS they are working for the government!

Here's the deal, if they were being employed by a private company, your argument regarding benefits for being part of a group is practical. After all, the private entity will seek to lower costs as much as possible.

However, in public entities, you cannot legally "discriminate" people and offer then different wages for the same job. That's why you get paid the same even if you aren't part of the union. Heck, that's why you get paid the same even if your productivity is lower/higher than the rest.

You are confusing this with government intervention into private marker entities - these employees do not work for a private entity for the rules of the free market to apply. Indeed as pointed out by many people, they work for the state monopoly which by definition involves government "intervention".

As long as you believe that people should have a right to work for the government without being a part of the union, they will be paid the same wage rates as the union workers.

You are admitting that the bill eliminates the right for unions to collectively bargain for wages. You say it's fair, and indeed probably would make their wages fairer - but it would infringe on THEIR rights along the way. I'm not down with that. And, if you read what I just quoted - you can see it goes much further than just wages. They won't even be able to collectively bargain regarding HOURS.

There seems to be some self contradictory language in the bill. Or our understanding of their definitions of "wages" are wrong. The bill does seem to eliminate collective bargaining rights as pertaining to gross wages and the only collective bargaining allowed is for base wages.

Yes - they should be allowed to collectively bargain regarding hours but don't you think that eliminating the closed shop system (which I completely agree with) effectively means that bargaining regarding hours is moot?

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 02:59 AM

Of course its government "intrusion", FFS they are working for the government!

Unions are for profit negotiators in the private sector. Like them or hate them, they are legit organizations and they have rights. It is wrong to force them to do their work without being paid for it. As for the workers themselves, they may be employees OF the government, but they aren't THE government. I know some here disagree - but let's just agree to disagree.

The bigger point that we should ALL be taking away from this is that these WI Republicans are of the wimpy variety. Instead of limiting the rights of unions - they could be limiting GOVERNMENT.

Just look at all of the government employees the state has. Child care? Home care? COME ON!

With a Republican Governor and a majority in congress, why don't they use the opportunity to privatize those things?

Because it's easier to seek vengeance on the unions, tilt the game permanently in favor of the government, and keep the jobs in the public sector.

TRUE conservatives would play it differently. That's just my view.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-18-2011, 03:01 AM

Here's the deal, if they were being employed by a private company, your argument regarding benefits for being part of a group is practical. After all, the private entity will seek to lower costs as much as possible.

This is not true. Businesses want to increase profits and they must compete for workers. Better workers means more productivity means more profit. I don't know many businesses who want slouches, workers who just show up, and who generally don't bring much to the table. They have to pay a worker enough to want to come work for them while they have at the same time the ability to move freely to work with someone else somewhere else. Businesses compete for labor and this is what drives up wages.

This is why free movement of capital, labor, and resources is critical. That's why protectionistas wreck economies and strong border zealots lower wages of workers. Imagine if every state closed their borders to each other. It would destroy peoples standards of living. That is why I am for open borders, free-trade, and liberalization of the world economy. They didn't call Mr. Free-Market Free-Trader himself Richard Cobden Mr. Internationalist for nothing, and it is why I have some sympathies with the EU because they did a lot of good by allowing goods, capital, and labor to freely move over borders and they eliminated tariffs within the EU zone. However, that's about the only benefit, because they then went on to have a ECB, the Euro, and erect tariffs outside their new central entity EU.

Jack Bauer

02-18-2011, 03:05 AM

This is not true. Businesses want to increase profits and they must compete for workers. Better workers means more productivity means more profit. I don't know many businesses who want slouches, workers who just show up, and who generally don't bring much to the table. They have to pay a worker enough to want to come work for them while they have at the same time the ability to move freely to work with someone else somewhere else. Businesses compete for labor and this is what drives up wages.

All that is true in case of private entities in a free market. But does that apply to private entities in closed shop states?

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-18-2011, 03:09 AM

All that is true in case of private entities in a free market. But does that apply to private entities in closed shop states?

Yes, because there is competition. However, the more that is hampered, the less of an effect you will see. The worst thing are goddamn monopolies and privileges. Unions are bad enough because they actually do not help workers, but there is nothing worse than say giving GE a monopoly to produce a certain good (Patents, Copyright, IP, etc.), or to exclude competition by continuously raising the entry barrier (I mean the USC and CFR are tens and tens of thousands of pages of cost raising positive actions one must take -- Corporations love this).

Jack Bauer

02-18-2011, 03:12 AM

Yes, because there is competition. However, the more that is hampered, the less of an effect you will see. The worst thing are goddamn monopolies and privileges. Unions are bad enough because they actually do not help workers, but there is nothing worse than say giving GE a monopoly to produce a certain good (Patents, Copyright, IP, etc.), or to exclude competition by continuously raising the entry barrier (I mean the USC and CFR are tens and tens of thousands of pages of cost raising positive actions one must take -- Corporations love this).

From my understanding, in a closed shop state (consider auto companies in Michigan), unions can essentially drive up wage rates (of even private company employees) artificially without increases in productivity. And this is true especially if the cost of entering the market and/or relocating to open shop areas is relatively high by virtue of the nature of the business.

It will not work in the long run, obviously as those artificially high wages will be unsustainable but hey, we managed it for a pretty long period of time in Detroit.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-18-2011, 03:23 AM

From my understanding, in a closed shop state (consider auto companies in Michigan), unions can essentially drive up wage rates (of even private company employees) artificially without increases in productivity. And this is true especially if the cost of entering the market and/or relocating to open shop areas is relatively high by virtue of the nature of the business.

It will not work in the long run, obviously as those artificially high wages will be unsustainable but hey, we managed it for a pretty long period of time in Detroit.

Well the Unions in States like Michigan use the force of Government to hold these companies hostage. I think it was the Wagner Act that really started the ball rolling on this. Of course that is a privilege which I pointed out which is one of the worst things. It isn't any wonder that these companies are bankrupt because of the Unions who use the threat of Government (and to be honest these car companies use the Government themselves to screw taxpayers) to raise their wages artificially high. The problem isn't freedom and liberty, it is the lack of liberty, freedom, and property rights.

My point was that a lack of unions / collective bargaining, won't drive people into pauperism.

Jack Bauer

02-18-2011, 03:25 AM

Well the Unions in States like Michigan use the force of Government to hold these companies hostage. I think it was the Wagner Act that really started the ball rolling on this. Of course that is a privilege which I pointed out which is one of the worst things. It isn't any wonder that these companies are bankrupt because of the Unions who use the threat of Government (and to be honest these car companies use the Government themselves to screw taxpayers) to raise their wages artificially high. The problem isn't freedom and liberty, it is the lack of liberty, freedom, and property rights.

That is the prime trait of a closed shop state. :|

Stary Hickory

02-18-2011, 05:26 AM

A collective body has no more rights than the single individual. If you don't believe this then why are you here? Unions have been provided special priveleges by force. This has always been the problem.

Stary Hickory

02-18-2011, 05:42 AM

Really? So the natural, universal right to freely associate be damned? You don't like the group - so it's time to take their rights away?

Come on guys - you are BETTER than that aren't you? You respect and wish to protect the rights of ALL? Don't you?

The answer is to shrink the number of public sector jobs. The answer is to do away with government granting unfair ADVANTAGES given to unions. The answer is not giving unions unfair DISadvantages.

The answer is not taking away the RIGHTS of people we despise.

Dude honestly I have had enough. An employer does not have to entertain unions or bargain with them. You may not force them to do so....there is no such right to use force in this manner. As an employer WI can fire every employee who is in a union. They may refuse to negotiate with them. The employees also have the freedom to choose not to associate with their employer and quit.

The unionized employees do not choose their free right to quit....they want to continue to use force to fleece taxpayers. You have zero basis for your arguments. The workers may or may not work for the taxpayers and the tax payer may choose not to employ unionized employees or allow them to work only under certain conditions. You want to argue for removing the employers right to determine his terms for employment....which is absolutely absurd.

AlexMerced

02-18-2011, 06:00 AM

In this video I explain how Unions and Consumer Advocates aren't the problem, but the use of force via government, if they didn't use force then there'd be no problem and couple of other things I talk about. A point I've used to turn many liberal into libertarians is that their idols (AL Gore, Moore, Warren) have done more to effect change through education and advocacy than any legislation, going to show voluntary outreach is how to effect change, not legislation, that really catches liberals off guard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4c2smBFADI

Travlyr

02-18-2011, 10:18 AM

Some of the things in this thread are shocking. Government workers are public servants? Um no - they are WORKERS like anybody else. They aren't doing volunteer work. They are trying to make a living - feed their family. They are there to do work because somebody is paying them to. They have a RIGHT to negotiate a salary just like you, me or any other worker.

Government employees are thieves? Bullshit. They didn't write the laws that created the jobs. They didn't write the laws that tax you.

It's sad that people are letting their personal feelings towards a group cloud their judgement about what is right and wrong.
Good thread. This issue is the very heart of the chaos in society. Governments should employ very few people. Judges, sheriffs and deputies, a Rock Star (for the people who demand a leader), prison guards to keep the truly crazy people from killing innocent people, and maybe one or two other people for good measure.

Public education is not education ... it is schooling.
Our military is not defense ... it is warmongering and empire building.
Government police do not protect ... they control.
Regulations do not regulate ... they protect the status quo.
Government banks do not distribute money based on effort ... it is gifted to close friends ... and some of it trickles down.

The result is war, poverty, fear, chaos, and hopelessness for most people with abundance for a few elite.

Government employees should not be able to unionize or even keep their jobs; they should find opportunity, or seek an employer who will let them be the best they can be and get paid accordingly.

mnewcomb

02-18-2011, 10:33 AM

Employees should be able to unionize.
Employers should be able to choose whether they want to negotiate on a per individual basis or with union representatives.

Employees that unionize that work for a non-union-negotiating employers can STILL negotiate, they simply print instructions/requirements that all unionized employees request in individual negotiations. That employee can then choose to quit if they don't meet the requests.

tangent4ronpaul

02-18-2011, 10:46 AM

Good thread. This issue is the very heart of the chaos in society. Governments should employ very few people. Judges, sheriffs and deputies, a Rock Star (for the people who demand a leader), prison guards to keep the truly crazy people from killing innocent people, and maybe one or two other people for good measure.

Public education is not education ... it is schooling.
Our military is not defense ... it is warmongering and empire building.
Government police do not protect ... they control.
Regulations do not regulate ... they protect the status quo.
Government banks do not distribute money based on effort ... it is gifted to close friends ... and some of it trickles down.

The result is war, poverty, fear, chaos, and hopelessness for most people with abundance for a few elite.

Government employees should not be able to unionize or even keep their jobs; they should find opportunity, or seek an employer who will let them be the best they can be and get paid accordingly.

You nailed it!

+rep

pondering making part of that my new .sig

-t

georgiaboy

02-18-2011, 11:51 AM

good discussion everyone - I learned a lot.

So everybody that is taking a salary from the government is stealing? I think you are misdirecting blame. Governments steal - that they spend their stolen loot on things that require workers is beside the point. Teachers are paid for their work, for their labor, for providing the service of teaching our kids (however poorly they may be doing so). That's honest work - they aren't stealing for it. If government takes over the entire healthcare sector (not hard to imagine that happening) and all doctors become government employees - do all rights of the doctors go out the window? They didn't create the system, they may even be very much against it. Are they thieves if they continue to take a salary?

Workers should never be forced to join a Union. Wisconsin should be getting rid of THAT if they want to make some positive changes.

Bit of a threadjack - sorry -
I think this is exactly one reason why most healthcare workers, including doctors, are against gov't takeover of healthcare. Their salary/benefits no longer get dictated by the market. Instead, the gov't dictates their salary to them. Even if they form a union, they're still hampered by what the gov't is able to squeeze out of the taxes to give to them, rather than their ability to perform competitively in the marketplace.

BTW, regarding public school teachers, do they really make more than private school teachers on average? Or just more than average private sector folks in general?

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 12:12 PM

Dude honestly I have had enough. An employer does not have to entertain unions or bargain with them. You may not force them to do so....there is no such right to use force in this manner. As an employer WI can fire every employee who is in a union. They may refuse to negotiate with them. The employees also have the freedom to choose not to associate with their employer and quit.

The unionized employees do not choose their free right to quit....they want to continue to use force to fleece taxpayers. You have zero basis for your arguments. The workers may or may not work for the taxpayers and the tax payer may choose not to employ unionized employees or allow them to work only under certain conditions.

If what you are saying were true, then you would be right. But perhaps you haven't read either the bill or this thread carefully. What you are talking about is not what the BILL talks about.

You want to argue for removing the employers right to determine his terms for employment....which is absolutely absurd.

That is not what I am arguing for AT ALL! Of course the employer (government or otherwise) has the right to determine his terms for employment. BUT SO TOO DOES A WORKER. And you are missing that point!

It would be ONE THING if the government of Wisconsin was to say they will no longer NEGOTIATE with unions. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING! What they ARE saying is that they will negotiate with union workers BUT NOT ALLOW THEM TO FUNCTION AS A UNION. They want it BOTH ways.

Try to wrap your head around the difference between the two things and then perhaps you'll understand that rights are being violated here. No disrespect meant.

VBRonPaulFan

02-18-2011, 01:34 PM

Jack Bauer

02-18-2011, 01:42 PM

Has anyone done a good analysis on the bill yet? I read it, and from what I can gather the bill says that they can still unionize, but the WERC can't arbitrarily assign people to a union just because they start employment in a sector they represent. I didn't see anything in the bill that alluded to what RonPaulCult was saying?

Go back a few pages to the part when I was discussing the same with RPC. There does seem to be some self contradictory language in the bill though.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 01:44 PM

Has anyone done a good analysis on the bill yet? I read it, and from what I can gather the bill says that they can still unionize, but the WERC can't arbitrarily assign people to a union just because they start employment in a sector they represent. I didn't see anything in the bill that alluded to what RonPaulCult was saying?

Here's one:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_is_actually_being_propose.html

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 01:48 PM

The bill says they can still unionize - but that the union can't do jack shit when it comes to negotiating. So - on other words - what is the point of the union?

Stary Hickory

02-18-2011, 01:59 PM

If what you are saying were true, then you would be right. But perhaps you haven't read either the bill or this thread carefully. What you are talking about is not what the BILL talks about.

That is not what I am arguing for AT ALL! Of course the employer (government or otherwise) has the right to determine his terms for employment. BUT SO TOO DOES A WORKER. And you are missing that point!

It would be ONE THING if the government of Wisconsin was to say they will no longer NEGOTIATE with unions. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING! What they ARE saying is that they will negotiate with union workers BUT NOT ALLOW THEM TO FUNCTION AS A UNION. They want it BOTH ways.

Try to wrap your head around the difference between the two things and then perhaps you'll understand that rights are being violated here. No disrespect meant.

Um what the hell are you talking about? If the workers don't like it they can quit. You seem to think WI as an employer should be forced to submit to union demands. You are completely wrong. If the terms are unacceptable then the Union members can find employment elsewhere. You still have no point.

Just because you say you are in a union it does NOT, i repeat NOT entitle you to special treatment. The ONLY thing a union has to bargain with is withdrawal of employment. These union members do not want to withdraw from employment they want to force terms on their employer. The world would be much better off if these people just quit....that is their only option...quit....if you don't like the terms of your employment QUIT.

My god why is this so difficult. You have no right to force someone to pay you for services rendered if they do NOT agree to the terms. There is no right to collectively bargain. There is no special privilege for saying that you are "collectively" bargaining. You can threaten to quit in masse and if that is not getting your point across then you are out of luck....you don't run and grab a gun and force a 2nd party to pay for your services.

It's no more just than someone forcing you to eat at a restaurant you don't like. Employees are offering a service, their labor....if the person they are selling their service to does not want to purchase the service....THAN TOUGH...man am I tired of this.

Stary Hickory

02-18-2011, 02:08 PM

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 02:16 PM

Um what the hell are you talking about? If the workers don't like it they can quit. You seem to think WI as an employer should be forced to submit to union demands. You are completely wrong. If the terms are unacceptable then the Union members can find employment elsewhere. You still have no point.

Just because you say you are in a union it does NOT, i repeat NOT entitle you to special treatment. The ONLY thing a union has to bargain with is withdrawal of employment. These union members do not want to withdraw from employment they want to force terms on their employer. The world would be much better off if these people just quit....that is their only option...quit....if you don't like the terms of your employment QUIT.

My god why is this so difficult. You have no right to force someone to pay you for services rendered if they do NOT agree to the terms. There is no right to collectively bargain. There is no special privilege for saying that you are "collectively" bargaining. You can threaten to quit in masse and if that is not getting your point across then you are out of luck....you don't run and grab a gun and force a 2nd party to pay for your services.

It's no more just than someone forcing you to eat at a restaurant you don't like. Employees are offering a service, their labor....if the person they are selling their service to does not want to purchase the service....THAN TOUGH...man am I tired of this.

Have you read any of the words I've written in this thread? Geez! I don't think WI should be FORCED to submit to union demands. I DO think the workers have the right to HAVE a union and to MAKE demands. Only THEN does WI need to decide if THEY will submit to those demands or FIRE them all. Those are the only two choices WI should have. But they are trying to make a third choice - a way that only benefits only them. Negotiations should never be one-sided by LAW.

This bill will not allow them to be a union any longer. Sure, they will still be a union in NAME, but name only. The union won't be allowed to ACT as a union, to make demands, to negotiate on behalf of the workers.

I'm not saying workers should join unions, I'm not saying that unions are good. In fact I believe the opposite. What I am saying is that workers have the RIGHT to form and USE unions.

This bill takes away that right.

Go back and read this entire thread, or at least the bill.

You obviously have such hate, and I even see rage in your words, that you don't want to listen to reason. I too am very angry with unions and especially government worker unions, but I want to go after them legally, in a liberty-minded way - one in which does not violate their rights.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 02:19 PM

Just to make this perfectly clear to ROnPaulcult.

The Employer provides services and goods in exchange for services from the employee. There are two sides of this equation and they must BOTH free of force, agree to the terms. This is the foundation of civilized society. Mutually beneficial trade. You are arguing that one side may bring a gun to the table to force a trade. This is morally wrong.

It's already bad enough that the state forces money from people and that these union thugs are actually receiving money against the will of people in the first place. There is no reason to add to the misery. Refusing to cater to union demands is one step closer to a freer more moral society. There is no moral argument for collective bargaining backed by force.

What are you talking about - bringing a gun to the table? What is the gun? People uniting together? Fire us or else? So JUST FIRE THEM THEN. Unions aren't putting a gun to the heads of the government forcing them to hire them. They should just FIRE THEM. The Republicans in WI don't have the balls to do that. They'd rather disband their union.

silverhandorder

02-18-2011, 02:24 PM

RonPaulCult you do realize the government can say we will not negotiate take it or leave it. This does violate anyones right.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 02:30 PM

RonPaulCult you do realize the government can say we will not negotiate take it or leave it. This does violate anyones right.

Yeah - I realize it completely. They SHOULD just say that. They are NOT saying that.

freshjiva

02-18-2011, 02:33 PM

So in other words, this bill is going to turn the Wisconsin state government into another Walmart -- banning its employees from joining unions.

Interesting.

silverhandorder

02-18-2011, 02:47 PM

Yeah - I realize it completely. They SHOULD just say that. They are NOT saying that.

I have a suspicion that it bassically ammounts to that.

Ninja Homer

02-18-2011, 03:04 PM

Invisible Hand

02-18-2011, 03:05 PM

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 03:10 PM

RonPaulCult, I read the bill and now I get your point a lot better. I'll try to summarize as simply as possible.

Wisconsin has previous law that grants state worker unions special privileges (even though they are calling them "rights").
This new bill actually limits union rights for state workers (not just the special privileges that were previously granted).
Laws that grant special privileges to state workers are wrong, but this bill goes too far in the opposite direction by limiting union rights for state workers. Both sides are wrong.
To add insult to injury, the new bill doesn't touch the special privileges or union rights of local law enforcement, fire department, state troopers, or inspectors.

Thank you for the reinforcement. I think a lot more people around here would agree/understand what I am saying if they too read the bill.

And yes, the Governor has exempted state employees that voted in large blocks for him, such as law enforcement. He's trying to buy votes with the legislation also by picking favorites. I would NEVER vote for this bill.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 03:15 PM

This bill does not prevent public employees from getting together, raising funds with dues, calling themselves a "union", and hiring negotiators to discuss employment terms with Wisconsin. They are still perfectly free to do that.

However, Wisconsin is under no obligation to recognize this union when it comes to its employment policy, and this bill simply modifies that policy so that the state will no longer negotiate with the entity that the workers call the "union". If "union" members don't want to be dealt with as individuals, they are free to quit, or to not seek employment with the state. If they choose not to do so, well then so much for "union solidarity". No one's "rights" are violated, because union members do not have the "right" to dictate to the state or any other entity the nature of its hiring practices.

First post? Welcome to the forum!

Your first sentence is almost completely correct, but not entirely correct. Yes they can still get together. They can raise funds. They can call themselves a union. However, as I have read, they will NOT be allowed to hire negotiators to discuss employment terms with Wisconsin. The terms will no longer be negotiable by unions.

And what if all of those employees want to make a stand - want to insist that the ONLY way they will negotiate is by union? Too bad - the law says they do not have the right to do that.

With freedom - they would have that right - and then the government would have the right to react by firing them all.

But, with this law. they won't have the right to do that, so the government won't HAVE to either go along with the union OR fire them.

VBRonPaulFan

02-18-2011, 03:16 PM

This bill does not prevent public employees from getting together, raising funds with dues, calling themselves a "union", and hiring negotiators to discuss employment terms with Wisconsin. They are still perfectly free to do that.

However, Wisconsin is under no obligation to recognize this union when it comes to its employment policy, and this bill simply modifies that policy so that the state will no longer negotiate with the entity that the workers call the "union". If "union" members don't want to be dealt with as individuals, they are free to quit, or to not seek employment with the state. If they choose not to do so, well then so much for "union solidarity". No one's "rights" are violated, because union members do not have the "right" to dictate to the state or any other entity the nature of its hiring practices.

yeah, that's pretty much what I got out of it when I read it. i'll read it again later to try to clarify my understanding of it. the article RonPaulCult posted basically reinforced what he was saying... but I was more looking for something where someone pointed at specific language in the bill to say what it meant. i gotta go do my homework myself lol.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 03:22 PM

yeah, that's pretty much what I got out of it when I read it. i'll read it again later to try to clarify my understanding of it. the article RonPaulCult posted basically reinforced what he was saying... but I was more looking for something where someone pointed at specific language in the bill to say what it meant. i gotta go do my homework myself lol.

Please share anything you find. It's a little complicated and I hope I'm wrong about what I've been saying (and boy would I look bad if I'm wrong!) But I'm pretty sure what I'm saying is true - I have tried to research it and the language in the bill points to what I"m saying.

raystone

02-18-2011, 03:25 PM

Individuals should not be forced to join a union when getting a job. They should not be forced to pay dues from their paycheck to support a particular political party This bill eliminates that, for state employees anyway.

What remains for state employees after the bill is passed...

• State and local employees who have civil service protections for grievance and discipline retain those rights.

• Public workers serving without these protections will now have those protections.

• Progressive Discipline still exists.

• Just Cause is still required for termination.

• Workplace safety must be addressed at all levels of government

• Workers retain the right to have a representative present at any grievance, termination, or discipline hearing.

• The union still exists.

Invisible Hand

02-18-2011, 03:28 PM

First post? Welcome to the forum!

Your first sentence is almost completely correct, but not entirely correct. Yes they can still get together. They can raise funds. They can call themselves a union. However, as I have read, they will NOT be allowed to hire negotiators to discuss employment terms with Wisconsin. The terms will no longer be negotiable by unions.

And what if all of those employees want to make a stand - want to insist that the ONLY way they will negotiate is by union? Too bad - the law says they do not have the right to do that.

With freedom - they would have that right - and then the government would have the right to react by firing them all.

But, with this law. they won't have the right to do that, so the government won't HAVE to either go along with the union OR fire them.

Thank you for the welcome.

I would say that they are free to hire negotiators, but that the state would (under the new law) adopt a policy of not considering employee demands made in this way. The state has made a business decision that it believes it can get a better deal by dealing with employees strictly on an individual level. I realize that the state in reality is closer to a criminal gang than an actual business, but the fact remains that the state reps have been vested with the power to act on behalf of the voting public, and that power includes the ability to attempt to optimize its employment policy.

Just because a group of people call themselves a union doesn't create an obligation for the state or any other employer to treat them as a collective entity. If union members don't like being treated as individuals, then they are free to quit or strike. The state likewise is free to hire or terminate whatever individuals it wants regardless of whether they choose to call themselves union members.

If the union wants the state to treat it as a collective entity, it can either attract the most qualified employees to its ranks so that the state is unable to find satisfactory replacement workers or it can demonstrate to the state that it (the state) will get a better deal negotiating with the union than it would negotiating with individuals. It has clearly failed to accomplish these, hence the change in employment policy that the state seems to be going forward with via this bill.

ChaosControl

02-18-2011, 03:31 PM

Shouldn't workers have the right to join together and bargain with an employer collectively? Isn't it wrong for the government to tell people in what manner they are and are not allowed to negotiate their wages?

On the other hand, shouldn't the employer (government or otherwise) have the right to collectively fire all of their asses if the negotiations are one-sided (or for any other reason)?

And thirdly, shouldn't workers have the right to work a job, and not join the union? Or to join a different group that is also collectively bargaining?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Matt Collins

02-18-2011, 05:46 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PodrQoXWQlg&feature=player_embedded

awake

02-18-2011, 06:17 PM

Democracy is ultimately the war of all against all. It degenerate in to hoards (special interests) looting other hoards, as we are about to witness firsthand.

tangent4ronpaul

02-18-2011, 06:22 PM

"right" - god given right - can you point out where ist says that in the bible or even the koran?

How about the bill of rights?

I didn't think so.... :rolleyes:

This is just a tool of commies to bring in totalitarianism.

RonPaulCult

02-18-2011, 06:45 PM

Michael Landon

02-18-2011, 08:41 PM

To add insult to injury, the new bill doesn't touch the special privileges or union rights of local law enforcement, fire department, state troopers, or inspectors.

Please note that law enforcement openly supported Scott Walker for Governor. Perhaps this is the reason why they are exempt.

- ML

Sentient Void

02-18-2011, 09:13 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

They all of course have the freedom of association.

I, of course, have the right to fire their parasitic asses.

Michael Landon

02-18-2011, 10:04 PM

They all of course have the freedom of association.

I, of course, have the right to fire their parasitic asses.

Of course you have the right to fire them, but in doing so that creates another problem, unemployment. If Walker fires them and brings on teachers for half the price then Wisconsin saves money on salaries and wages but what does it cost Wisconsin when they have to start paying unemployment checks, food stamps, fuel assistance, etc. to the former employees? I know that eventually, the former employees would run out of benefits and have to find jobs but it would be a year or two before that happens.

- ML

Sentient Void

02-18-2011, 10:09 PM

Of course you have the right to fire them, but in doing so that creates another problem, unemployment. If Walker fires them and brings on teachers for half the price then Wisconsin saves money on salaries and wages but what does it cost Wisconsin when they have to start paying unemployment checks, food stamps, fuel assistance, etc. to the former employees? I know that eventually, the former employees would run out of benefits and have to find jobs but it would be a year or two before that happens.

- ML

How does firing them create unemployment? Who says you need to bring on workers for half the price? If they are being paid a certain amount, and they are protesting or striking or refusing to work unless they are paid higher wages - then you just bring on new employees (at their current rate, or perhaps a bit less) and then fire the troublemakers. Especially in this economy, many a people are looking for work, across all industries - especially teaching.

If your ex-employer denies your claims based on your termination for violating company policy (such as, um, not showing up to work or refusing to work, like strikers do) then you may be denied unemployment benefits.

Ding! Problem solved.

Fuck the parasites feeding at the trough.

Michael Landon

02-18-2011, 10:20 PM

How does firing them create unemployment? Who says you need to bring on workers for half the price? If they are being paid a certain amount, and they are protesting or striking or refusing to work unless they are paid higher wages - then you just bring on new employees (at their current rate, or perhaps a bit less) and then fire the troublemakers. Especially in this economy, many a people are looking for work, across all industries - especially teaching.

If your ex-employer denies your claims based on your termination for violating company policy (such as, um, not showing up to work or refusing to work, like strikers do) then you may be denied unemployment benefits.

Ding! Problem solved.

Fuck the parasites feeding at the trough.

It creates unemployment for the former employees. The state of Wisconsin's unemployment percentage wouldn't fluctuate because they would be replacing their former employees with new hires, I understand this and I'm assuming that's what you are referring to.

And we aren't talking about people "protesting or striking or refusing to work unless they are paid higher wages," we are talking about people standing up to a politician who is trying to cut reduce their wages.

- ML

Bman

02-18-2011, 10:25 PM

Well then we agree about it for the private sector. But why should employees have less rights in the public sector? Do you pass up on your rights the second you work for the government? Seems unfair.

Unfair? Unfair that someone else gets to steal.. I mean spend my money for me? You want socialism? You'll get what you are given. It's time people learn the hard truth and I for one am glad to see the unfairness of it all, because what happens to the taxpayer is entirely unfair.

Personally, I think education should be privatized anyway. But the government will always have some employees, who aren't slaves and deserve to negotiate wages just like anybody else.

They aren't slaves but they should be in no position to demand that they should be able to steal more money from anyone.

One last time, these people want socialism then they get socialism.

Sentient Void

02-18-2011, 10:58 PM

It creates unemployment for the former employees. The state of Wisconsin's unemployment percentage wouldn't fluctuate because they would be replacing their former employees with new hires, I understand this and I'm assuming that's what you are referring to.

And we aren't talking about people "protesting or striking or refusing to work unless they are paid higher wages," we are talking about people standing up to a politician who is trying to cut reduce their wages.

- ML

Well, if he feels they are getting above and beyond market wages - meaning, there are people out there who can do their job just as well or almost as well at a much lower price, then yes - he should be cutting their wages - and they'll need to accept it or be replaced by more productive workers. Maybe these folks will get a job in the private sector and be more productive as well.

Consumers, taxpayers, and the market wins. Parasites lose. As they should.

But the other point I was making was that you said that the State would have to pay them out unemployment benefits. I don't think that's necessarily true - if the State employer disputes their claim on the basis that they were breaking policy, such as - not coming to work or refusing to work - then they don't get jack shit in terms of unemployment benefits.

Mini-Me

02-18-2011, 10:59 PM

Democracy is ultimately the war of all against all. It degenerate in to hoards (special interests) looting other hoards, as we are about to witness firsthand.

In layman's terms, awake is saying that real life is turning into a game of World of Warcraft. ;)

AuH20

02-19-2011, 12:05 AM

To my understanding, the CBA process takes 15 months in Wisconsin, so Walker is essentially trying to save the jobs of these ingrates, because under the current agreement many of the communities and municipalities will have to implement severe cuts and terminations. So I say let the unions have their way. Let them bleed their jobs away in a righteous fit of anger.

juvanya

02-19-2011, 03:19 AM

I'm trying to follow the situation in Wisconsin.

Shouldn't workers have the right to join together and bargain with an employer collectively?
Yes.

Isn't it wrong for the government to tell people in what manner they are and are not allowed to negotiate their wages?
Yes.

On the other hand, shouldn't the employer (government or otherwise) have the right to collectively fire all of their asses if the negotiations are one-sided (or for any other reason)?
Yes.

And thirdly, shouldn't workers have the right to work a job, and not join the union?
Yes.

Or to join a different group that is also collectively bargaining?
Yes.

When you support a government that is saying "YOU CAN'T DO THIS" to union workers, aren't you getting what YOU want via government force instead of defending freedom?
Yes.

Aside from the fact that they are stealing the produce of cheese makers in Wisconsin to pay the workers, both sides are being ridiculous. This may be the beginning of the revolution that I predict will happen in the next 5-15 years when people realize they cant pay for basics anymore.

SilentBull

02-19-2011, 04:16 AM

SilentBull

02-19-2011, 05:14 AM

I think I understand now what the issue is, and what RonPaulCult's point is. The employer should be free to negotiate or not negotiate with unions, but RonPaulCult's point is that the employer shouldn't prevent them from having those unions.

However, I believe an employer can set any rule that he wants, as long as it doesn't violate anyone's right to life, liberty or property. If you come to a party at my house, I should be able to tell you that you are not allowed to hang out with a certain group of people. It's my house. If you don't like it, leave. As long as I'm not hurting you physically, or keeping you there against your will, I can set any rule that I want. There's no such thing as a right to form unions. Those rules can be set by the employer.

Of course, since this is a public employer, it gets more complicated, but you get my point.

Austrian Econ Disciple

02-19-2011, 05:29 AM

I might not know enough about how these unions work but having employees bargaining collectively is kind of price fixing isn't it? Do we want companies getting together and talking about the price they want to sell their products at?

There should be no laws against the formation of a cartel. Cartels naturally break themselves either internally, or externally through new competitors. The point being made is that since us the taxpayers are their employers we have the right through voting as they do to vote in people who support either allowing them to collectively bargain, or to not. In any event, I also agree with RPC that the Government should have the legal responsibility and duty to fire any employee who chooses not to accept the conditions. However, I think this whole mess misses the whole point. There shouldn't be Government-Schools in the first place! Eliminate and abolish them all. Hopefully since we are living through this whole debacle that is Government that the experience will lend itself to rational forward looking reforms first starting with severing all connections to as Mike Church would say Mordor on the Potomac. If Wisconsin wants parasitical socialists running the State and its intending culture so be it. The people of New Hampshire should not be and have no right to be stolen from to pay for the Unions and Teachers in the State of WI. (And make no bones folks, many States are robbing other States) Then as other communities and localities can get together and decide for themselves in what sort of society they wish to live in because the USA can not sustain itself any longer. It simply cannot function and the only proper function for which it was ever mandated they don't even follow those! That should be the issue and we should focus our intention to the underlying problems.