Would you vote YES or NO?

[RonPaulCult]

We're all admirers of Ron Paul here. Ron Paul famously votes against any bill that is unconstitutional, even if only one part of it is unconstitutional.

Imagine you have a vote on a bill in which:

1) State union employees will no longer have the right to collectively bargain - not for wages, hours, benefits or conditions of employment.

2) Forces the Union (which keep in mind is a PRIVATE, non tax-payer funded organization/association of people) to hold a vote EACH YEAR in which people decide if they still want to be a union or not, instead of at an interval chosen by the people of this private association of workers.

3) The Union (again - a private association of people) must provide the benefits of its services to all employees, even those who do not pay dues to it

4) These rules will only apply to certain state workers, not all of them, and in particular will not apply to jobs for which the employees statistically vote for a certain party that happens to be writing the bill.


Now, you may have no problem with several of the above items. But remember, they are all in the bill and you vote on the entire bill at once. Do you vote yes, or no?

And yes, this is exactly what is in the Wisconsin bill.

[specsaregood]

Are any of those provisions unconstitutional?

[FrankRep]

It's Not UnConstitutional to End Collective Bargaining for state Union workers.

I vote YES to End Collective Bargaining.

Plus, the state workers are employed by the Tax Payers.

[RonPaulCult]

Are any of those provisions unconstitutional?

In my opinion, yes. You shouldn't be able to tell a private organization what to do - like when to hold votes. You shouldn't be able to demand that a private, for-profit organization provide services without being paid.

[RonPaulCult]

It's Not UnConstitutional to End Collective Bargaining for state Union workers.

I vote YES to End Collective Bargaining.

Plus, the state workers are employed by the Tax Payers.

That's fine, but what about the other items, also in the bill?

[FrankRep]

In my opinion, yes. You shouldn't be able to tell a private organization what to do - like when to hold votes. You shouldn't be able to demand that a private, for-profit organization provide services without being paid.

Not UnConstitutional.

Those organizations could try "Collective Bargaining," but they will have no special "Right" to do so.

[nobody's_hero]

Maybe I would abstain, but I would most certainly introduce a bill to ban public-sector unions afterwards.

[specsaregood]

In my opinion, yes. You shouldn't be able to tell a private organization what to do - like when to hold votes. You shouldn't be able to demand that a private, for-profit organization provide services without being paid.

In your opinion and ideology/philosophy does not unconsitutional make. Where in the state constitution of WI is this forbidden?

[RonPaulCult]

What if instead of a union - the government were telling the NRA, or campaign for liberty how to handle internal affairs? When to hold elections with its members?

[RonPaulCult]

Not UnConstitutional.

Those organizations could try "Collective Bargaining," but they will have no special "Right" to do so.

Ok, ,I'm not even talking about the collective bargaining part. I'm talking about items 2, and 3 - telling a private organization when to hold votes - how to run itself.

[bwlibertyman]

I don't think that the government can tell a set of people if they can organize or not. The government has the employer has the authority to not negotiate with a union. They always run the risk of strikes. If the government doesn't want to deal with the unions I think it should just not enter negotiations after the contract ends and fire all the employees or tell them the wage that the state is going to pay. I don't think the government has the power to take bargaining away. I voted no.

[specsaregood]

Ok, ,I'm not even talking about the collective bargaining part. I'm talking about items 2, and 3 - telling a private organization when to hold votes - how to run itself.

The government tells all businesses what it can and can't do internally all the time. Why would unions be different?

[Maximus]

I think the government can tell organizations how they have to be run if they want to do business with the government. The union isn't forced to work for the government.

This is like Rand saying those getting Federal money shouldn't be allowed to lobby.

[FrankRep]

What if instead of a union - the government were telling the NRA, or campaign for liberty how to handle internal affairs? When to hold elections with its members?


The Wisconsin Bill: What Does It Do? (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028414.php)

Power Line
February 20, 2011


Here's what Governor Walker's Budget Repair Bill that they're so angry about actually does:



- Ask government workers to pay half the cost of their pensions - still less than private employees pay for their pensions

- Ask government workers to pay 12% of their own health insurance premiums - the national average for the private sector is over 20%

- End collective bargaining for government unions for pensions and benefits. Allow bargaining only for raises that are less than inflation.

- End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

- Union members get to vote yearly on whether to keep their union.


Are those significant reforms? Absolutely. Hence the desperation on the Left to frustrate them. But in talking about what is at stake, it is helpful to be concrete about what the legislation would actually do.

[RonPaulCult]

The government tells all businesses what it can and can't do internally all the time. Why would unions be different?

Indeed, but SHOULD the government do that? And would you vote on any bill that causes that to happen? Be it for a business, a private organization you like, or a union? Or would it depend on if you LIKE the organization/business or not?

[specsaregood]

End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

You know this is the one that scares the crap out of the unions.

[specsaregood]

Indeed, but SHOULD the government do that? And would you vote on any bill that causes that to happen? Be it for a business, a private organization you like, or a union? Or would it depend on if you LIKE the organization/business or not?

Nope, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional either. And as was stated above, doing business for the government as their employee/contractor I'd say makes it a valid contractual change.

[RonPaulCult]

The Wisconsin Bill: What Does It Do? (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028414.php)

Power Line
February 20, 2011


Here's what Governor Walker's Budget Repair Bill that they're so angry about actually does:



- Ask government workers to pay half the cost of their pensions - still less than private employees pay for their pensions

- Ask government workers to pay 12% of their own health insurance premiums - the national average for the private sector is over 20%

- End collective bargaining for government unions for pensions and benefits. Allow bargaining only for raises that are less than inflation.

- End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

- Union members get to vote yearly on whether to keep their union.


Are those significant reforms? Absolutely. Hence the desperation on the Left to frustrate them. But in talking about what is at stake, it is helpful to be concrete about what the legislation would actually do.


Exactly what I was talking about in items 2 and 3 of my OP. Union members would no longer have to pay dues, but BY LAW the union would be FORCED to serve those employees even though they aren't paying the private, for-profit organization. They might as well make an ice cream shop give out free ice cream too. Not cool in a FREE society by my standards. I dislike unions - but they have a right to make a profit like anybody else.

And who is the government to tell a private organization WHEN to hold votes for its PRIVATE members. Back off government - that's not your role!

[FrankRep]

RonPaulCult,

Don't the suckered. The Unions HATE this bill because it makes Union Dues Voluntary.

[RonPaulCult]

You know this is the one that scares the crap out of the unions.

Workers SHOULD have the right to be employed by a company/government, even if the other workers are union, to NOT join the union. I have no problem with that.

But what this WI bill says is that all employees MUST be in the union (as is currently the law) but they no longer have to PAY for the services of the Union, but the Union still has to PROVIDE its services.

I don't see how that is constitutional.

[specsaregood]

Exactly what I was talking about in items 2 and 3 of my OP. Union members would no longer have to pay dues, but BY LAW the union would be FORCED to serve those employees even though they aren't paying the private, for-profit organization. They might as well make an ice cream shop give out free ice cream too. Not cool in a FREE society by my standards. I dislike unions - but they have a right to make a profit like anybody else.

How so? Why would they have to serve non-members?


And who is the government to tell a private organization WHEN to hold votes for its PRIVATE members. Back off government - that's not your role!
It's a valid contract request. They dont' have to do business with the government if they don't like the contract.

[RonPaulCult]

RonPaulCult,

Don't the suckered. The Unions HATE this bill because it makes Union Dues Voluntary.

I will stand up for the freedoms of even those I despise the most.

[specsaregood]

Workers SHOULD have the right to be employed by a company/government, even if the other workers are union, to NOT join the union. I have no problem with that.

But what this WI bill says is that all employees MUST be in the union (as is currently the law) but they no longer have to PAY for the services of the Union, but the Union still has to PROVIDE its services.

I don't see how that is constitutional.

Can you cite that? Also cite where it is not constitutional?

[RonPaulCult]

How so? Why would they have to serve non-members?


It's a valid contract request. They dont' have to do business with the government if they don't like the contract.

Why would they have to serve non-member? Because it is IN THE BILL that they will have to. Read the bill!

As for the union having to hold yearly votes, this is NOT being written in to a contract that the union and the government have worked out together. This is being FORCED on the union BY the government.

I agree that it will knock down the union - and we all dislike unions so that is fun to see - BUT - how is it the role of government to tell a private organization how to conduct its internal affairs (answer: it's not).

[FrankRep]

I will stand up for the freedoms of even those I despise the most.

Have you actually read the bill?

[RonPaulCult]

Have you actually read the bill?

Yes I have. Have you?

[specsaregood]

Why would they have to serve non-member? Because it is IN THE BILL that they will have to. Read the bill!

If you have read it and have seen that section then it should be easy enough for you to cite it. It is your claim.



As for the union having to hold yearly votes, this is NOT being written in to a contract that the union and the government have worked out together. This is being FORCED on the union BY the government.


Yes, and if the union did not contract with the government it wouldn't be being forced on them. Thus it would be part of the conditions of being employed by the govt. ie: part of the contract. my customers put conditions on me all the time, this is no different.

[nobody's_hero]

Exactly what I was talking about in items 2 and 3 of my OP. Union members would no longer have to pay dues, but BY LAW the union would be FORCED to serve those employees even though they aren't paying the private, for-profit organization. They might as well make an ice cream shop give out free ice cream too. Not cool in a FREE society by my standards. I dislike unions - but they have a right to make a profit like anybody else.

And who is the government to tell a private organization WHEN to hold votes for its PRIVATE members. Back off government - that's not your role!

But wait a sec, how private are these unions? The teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. are paid by government forced taxation. "That's not cool in a FREE society by my standards." But not content to rub that in, they go and form unions which basically wedge themselves between the taxpayers and the politicians to come up with unsustainable benefits that do not exist in the private sector (especially now that the economy is crap). The primary goal of any union is to suck the most out of the owners of a company and get more entitlements for the workers, for a cut, of course.

We can't do anything about private sector unions (nor should we). If private workers want to arm-wrestle a private company for more entitlements that will ruin their employers (basically, ensure they have no job), then so be it. But public-sector workforce unions will ultimately arm-wrestle politicians to rob more from the people. Besides, I can't just stop doing business with the government because the teachers' unions want something that is unsustainable.

[FrankRep]

Yes I have. Have you?

Show us the exact parts you disagree with.
Spare us the "It's UnConstitutional" crap because this is a state.

[RonPaulCult]

Yes, and if the union did not contract with the government it wouldn't be being forced on them. Thus it would be part of the conditions of being employed by the govt. ie: part of the contract. my customers put conditions on me all the time, this is no different.

The union does not work for the government. The union is a PRIVATE, for-profit organization that the employees have either formed or called upon for help with their labor relations. The government has no business telling the union when to hold votes with its members just like they have no business telling campaign for liberty what to do. That is my personal opinion - you are free to disagree if you wish.

As for the bill - I have read it several times, and have read many articles about the bill as well. All of the articles agree with what I have read in this bill. You can LIKE what's in the bill, or you can dislike it, but what I am saying is TRUE. I don't spread bullshit - I promise you that.

If you can prove me wrong, I ask you to prove me wrong. I will apologize and change my original post. But I ask you to read the bill, as I have, and tell me if I'm wrong about what is in the bill.

[RonPaulCult]

Show us the exact parts you disagree with.
Spare us the "It's UnConstitutional" crap because this is a state.

The rights guaranteed in the constitution can't be written away by any state government - you know that! Not to mention natural, universal rights that we should all stand up for no matter who says it IS constitutional.

[FrankRep]

The rights guaranteed in the constitution can't be written away by any state government - you know that! Not to mention natural, universal rights that we should all stand up for no matter who says it IS constitutional.

Again, spare us the crap.

Show us the exact parts of the bill you disagree with.

[nobody's_hero]

The union does not work for the government. The union is a PRIVATE, for-profit organization that the employees have either formed or called upon for help with their labor relations. The government has no business telling the union when to hold votes with its members just like they have no business telling campaign for liberty what to do. That is my personal opinion - you are free to disagree if you wish.

You know what this reminds me of?

The Federal Reserve.

You know, the "private organization" that makes its living off of manipulating the public funds.

Sorry, but if I am forced to pay your salary at gunpoint, you could hire Private McPrivatey Union company to suck more money out of me, and I'd still hate your guts for it.

These guys are private?

They're pirates.

[specsaregood]

The union does not work for the government. The union is a PRIVATE, for-profit organization that the employees have either formed or called upon for help with their labor relations. The government has no business telling the union when to hold votes with its members just like they have no business telling campaign for liberty what to do. That is my personal opinion - you are free to disagree if you wish.

And the govt has no business withholding funds from employee paychecks for an organization it has nothing to do with then either. :) Agreed?



As for the bill - I have read it several times, and have read many articles about the bill as well. All of the articles agree with what I have read in this bill. You can LIKE what's in the bill, or you can dislike it, but what I am saying is TRUE. I don't spread bullshit - I promise you that.

But you won't cite it or link it. Bold claims, no facts. I'm not saying you are wrong, just asking for proof.

[RonPaulCult]

Again, spare us the crap.

Show us the exact parts of the bill you disagree with.

Here is one, allow me time to find the other:


This bill requires an annual certification
election of the labor organization that represents each collective bargaining unit
containing general employees. If, at the election, less than 51 percent of the actual
employees in the collective bargaining unit vote for a representative, then, at the
expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement, the current
representative is decertified and the members of the collective bargaining unit are
nonrepresented and may not be represented for one year. This bill requires an initial
certification election for all represented state and municipal general employees in
April 2011.

They are using their force, as the government, to tell these people when to vote within their PRIVATE organization. They are even forcing them to have a vote in April of this year.

[RonPaulCult]

This is the other part I disagree with:


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

In other words, by LAW, you can be a PART of the union, without PAYING for it. They have to still represent you even though you haven't paid.

[Mini-Me]

If it were a federal bill, I would have to vote no, simply because the federal government simply has no Constitutional authority.

If it were a Wisconsin state bill - which the one you're referring to is - then it's perfectly Constitutional with respect to the United States Constitution, but I'm not sure about Wisconsin's Constitution. Either way, I'd probably abstain, because it appears to be written in a backwards and unnecessarily authoritarian way, using powers I don't believe any government should have. (However, if it passed anyway, so be it: The effect would still be practically equivalent to the "correct way" anyway, so I couldn't really complain given the million other things that would be better to complain about.) The right way would be to completely take away all state-granted privileges unions enjoy, and then make government jobs entirely non-Union (barring eliminating the government jobs entirely after one year notice for alternatives to fill the gap ;)).

[RonPaulCult]

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

What if the government told you that you could eat at Burger King any time you want, and either pay or not pay for it? Either way, by law they still have to give you burgers?

[nobody's_hero]

They are using their force, as the government, to tell these people when to vote within their PRIVATE organization. They are even forcing them to have a vote in April of this year.

And if the union had gotten its way, it would have used force, as the government, to tell the taxpayers to fork over more money to fund public workers.

[wormyguy]

I follow the harm principle, which holds that one person's rights end where mine begin. My right not to have my money stolen from me trumps their right to free association (for the purpose of stealing from me). I therefore vote YES.

[RonPaulCult]

And if the union had gotten its way, it would have used force, as the government, to tell the taxpayers to fork over more money to fund public workers.

So PRIVATIZE these jobs - don't take away the rights of private organizations. They are going about it the wrong way.

[specsaregood]

This is the other part I disagree with:

In other words, by LAW, you can be a PART of the union, without PAYING for it. They have to still represent you even though you haven't paid.

I must have missed the link to the bill where you are quoting this. Can you give it to us?
And you consider "member of collective bargaining unit" as the "service"? Is that the only service they will continue to get from the union if they choose not to voluntarily pay?

[RonPaulCult]

I follow the harm principle, which holds that one person's rights end where mine begin. My right not to have my money stolen from me trumps their right to free association (for the purpose of stealing from me). I therefore vote YES.

I say again to you: So PRIVATIZE these jobs - don't take away the rights of private organizations.

[RonPaulCult]

I must have missed the link to the bill where you are quoting this. Can you give it to us?
And you consider "member of collective bargaining unit" as the "service"? Is that the only service they will continue to get from the union if they choose not to voluntarily pay?

I'm sorry I forgot to link: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

As for your question, I'm sorry but I do not know the answer. I'd like to know the answer.

[FrankRep]

I say again to you: So PRIVATIZE these jobs - don't take away the rights of private organizations.


Note: PUBLIC UNIONS


Factbox: Details of Wisconsin proposal on Public Unions (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/20/us-wisconsin-proposal-factbox-idUSTRE71J1RI20110220)


Reuters
Feb 20, 2011


Wisconsin's capital Madison was besieged by protesters this week as tens of thousands of state workers demonstrated against a Republican spending bill. Here is what Republican Gov. Scott Walker has proposed:


* State workers must increase contributions to their pensions to 5.8 percent of salary, and double contributions to their health insurance premiums to 12.6 percent. This would result in a cut in take-home pay of about 8 percent.

* Walker wants to limit collective bargaining to the issue of wages, and cap wage increases to the rate of inflation, with a voter referendum needed for larger increases.

* Walker's proposal would also prohibit employer collection of union dues and members of collective bargaining units would not be required to pay dues. Contracts would be limited to one year, and collective bargaining units would have to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union.

* Walker said collective bargaining takes too long and the cuts need to be made immediately. He said the alternative is layoffs of more than 10,000 workers.

* Certain employees, including local law enforcement and fire employees, would be exempt from the collective bargaining changes.

[wormyguy]

I say again to you: So PRIVATIZE these jobs - don't take away the rights of private organizations.

If a bunch of criminals form a gang for the purpose of kidnapping people and extorting money from them, do they have the "right" not to have their "private organization" interfered with? Similarly, if a bunch of parasites form a gang for the purpose of stealing money from people (or their children) by force, they give up any "rights" they might have by causing harm to others.

[specsaregood]

As for your question, I'm sorry but I do not know the answer. I'd like to know the answer.

If that is the only "service" then I don't see the problem as it isn't really a service but rather more of a freerider. They aren't being serviced by the union, just receiving pay equality with the union members. In general unions take over more services from the company they are contracted with, HR,insurance,pensions etc. But I don't have any experience with public sector unions.

[RonPaulCult]

If a bunch of criminals form a gang for the purpose of kidnapping people and extorting money from them, do they have the "right" not to have their "private organization" interfered with? Similarly, if a bunch of parasites form a gang for the purpose of stealing money from people (or their children) by force, they give up any "rights" they might have by causing harm to others.

Um - calm down there cowboy. I'm against public teachers - and I'm against the system. But the system HAS BEEN MADE legal. So I don't follow your logic. Teachers may be sucking up our tax money, but they are doing so under a system that is both legal, and widely accepted by society. Teachers don't equal kidnappers in my book. They have a right to gather together to discuss their labor issues. Even if we can't stand them they deserve their rights.

[wormyguy]

Um - calm down there cowboy. I'm against public teachers - and I'm against the system. But the system HAS BEEN MADE legal. So I don't follow your logic. Teachers may be sucking up our tax money, but they are doing so under a system that is both legal, and widely accepted by society. Teachers don't equal kidnappers in my book. They have a right to gather together to discuss their labor issues. Even if we can't stand them they deserve their rights.

So if kidnapping was legal then kidnapping gangs would be fine? I chose that example because it's the nearest equivalent - people attempting to force you to pay up or get locked up.

[FrankRep]

RonPaulCult, the Wisconsin bill targets PUBLIC UNIONS (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/20/us-wisconsin-proposal-factbox-idUSTRE71J1RI20110220).

Reuters
Feb 20, 2011

[libertybrewcity]

We're all admirers of Ron Paul here. Ron Paul famously votes against any bill that is unconstitutional, even if only one part of it is unconstitutional.

Imagine you have a vote on a bill in which:

1) State union employees will no longer have the right to collectively bargain - not for wages, hours, benefits or conditions of employment.

2) Forces the Union (which keep in mind is a PRIVATE, non tax-payer funded organization/association of people) to hold a vote EACH YEAR in which people decide if they still want to be a union or not, instead of at an interval chosen by the people of this private association of workers.

3) The Union (again - a private association of people) must provide the benefits of its services to all employees, even those who do not pay dues to it

4) These rules will only apply to certain state workers, not all of them, and in particular will not apply to jobs for which the employees statistically vote for a certain party that happens to be writing the bill.


Now, you may have no problem with several of the above items. But remember, they are all in the bill and you vote on the entire bill at once. Do you vote yes, or no?

And yes, this is exactly what is in the Wisconsin bill.

actually, you are wrong.

1. The bill allows employees to collectively bargain for their wages.

2. Both my parents are part of Wisconsin public unions. They do not want to be, but it is required by the state. The unions automatically(like taxes) take out a portion of their income.

3. It is not a private association. It is a forced association. All members pay dues because they are required to.

What happens when hundreds of thousands of workers are forced to pay dues? Well, great candidates like Ed Thompson, former state senate candidate, are defeated because the Teachers Union was able to blast the district with nearly half a million in ads during the last week.

Sorry, nice try. I would recommend learning more about the Wisconsin public union system before making rash arguments.

Here's some food for thought:

From 2001 to 2010, Wisconsin taxpayers paid more than $8 billion for state employee health care coverage, while state employees contributed only $398 million, less than 5% of the total costs. From 2000 to 2009, taxpayers paid $12.6 billion for public employee pensions, while the employees only contributed $55.4 million, less than 0.5% of the total cost.

[Michael Landon]

So if kidnapping was legal then kidnapping gangs would be fine? I chose that example because it's the nearest equivalent - people attempting to force you to pay up or get locked up.

Yes. Although I'm sure the "gangs" would be referred to something a little less threatening, perhaps hey would be called an Association.

- ML

[RonPaulCult]

actually, you are wrong.

1. The bill allows employees to collectively bargain for their wages.

2. Both my parents are part of Wisconsin public unions. They do not want to be, but it is required by the state. The unions automatically(like taxes) take out a portion of their income.

3. It is not a private association. It is a forced association. All members pay dues because they are required to.

What happens when hundreds of thousands of workers are forced to pay dues? Well, great candidates like Ed Thompson, former state senate candidate, are defeated because the Teachers Union was able to blast the district with nearly half a million in ads during the last week.

Sorry, nice try.

1: No it doesn't

2: You are right about this. If you work in these jobs, you MUST join the union. And if you are part of the union - then you have to pay dues. This bill makes it so that you no longer have to pay dues - which is fine. But this bill ALSO says that the union still has to provide you with services, even if you don't pay. Think more about how it is written. It should ONLY say that you don't have to pay dues/join but THEN you don't get any of the benefits.

3. It shouldn't be a forced association. You are correct there. But the union is NOT part of the government, so it is therefore private. The workers vote on whether or not to have it - so it is created by the PEOPLE which makes it PRIVATE>

[Maximus]

What if the government told you that you could eat at Burger King any time you want, and either pay or not pay for it? Either way, by law they still have to give you burgers?

You're making the wrong connection.

It's the unions that work for the government. Working for the government is not a right. The government can choose to do business with whoever it wants. If it wants to do business with a union that has only certain features, it should have that right. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. The government of Wisconsin is just saying, if you want to stay employed, you will have to abide by these conditions, or else we will go elsewhere for our teaching needs.

[FrankRep]

3. It shouldn't be a forced association. You are correct there. But the union is NOT part of the government, so it is therefore private. The workers vote on whether or not to have it - so it is created by the PEOPLE which makes it PRIVATE>

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc70/tpjdmm/drudge_flashing_light_2.gif

RonPaulCult, the Wisconsin bill targets PUBLIC UNIONS (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/20/us-wisconsin-proposal-factbox-idUSTRE71J1RI20110220).

Reuters
Feb 20, 2011

[Michael Landon]

RonPaulCult, the Wisconsin bill targets PUBLIC UNIONS (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/20/us-wisconsin-proposal-factbox-idUSTRE71J1RI20110220).

Reuters
Feb 20, 2011

Would this be the first domino to fall?

I ask because I could see the dominoes falling in this order:

1) Public Unions
2) Private Unions
3) Private Associations
4) All remaining collective groups.

Question, what's the difference between a union like the Teamsters and an association like the NRA? Both have a large membership who pays them annual dues to be a member. Both have elections for President, Vice-President, etc. Both organizations lobby politicians on behalf of their membership for issues that are important to them.

I see union busting as the first step towards the elimination of freedom of assembly. Don't think for one minute that Democrats wouldn't love to pass laws busting the NRA, GOA, JPFO, Campaign for Liberty, John Birch Society, the Heritage Foundation, etc. And I'm sure the Republicans would love to pass laws busting all unions, ACLU, NAACP, and others they don't agree with.

- ML

[hazek]

I vote Nay because I disagree with regulations on what citizens may or may not do. I'd want that for the market to decide through contracts. Needless to say I also disagree with any special privileges granted to unions. I'd abolish those ASAP instead.

[FrankRep]

I see union busting as the first step towards the elimination of freedom of assembly. Don't think for one minute that Democrats wouldn't love to pass laws busting the NRA, GOA, JPFO, Campaign for Liberty, John Birch Society, the Heritage Foundation, etc. And I'm sure the Republicans would love to pass laws busting all unions, ACLU, NAACP, and others they don't agree with.

* End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.


Oh the tyranny!

[Michael Landon]

* End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

I didn't mention forced union dues. Nobody should be forced to pay for anything they don't agree with, whether it's union dues or social security.

- ML

[FrankRep]

I didn't mention forced union dues. Nobody should be forced to pay for anything they don't agree with, whether it's union dues or social security.

The Wisconsin Bill will eliminate forced union dues.

[RonPaulCult]

The Wisconsin Bill will eliminate forced union dues.

Not everything in the bill is bad. I'm suggesting not everything in the bill is pro-liberty. I'm suggesting that, in the style of Ron Paul, those of us who love liberty should vote no on this bill because these Republicans in WI are going about it in the wrong way.

[libertybrewcity]

1: No it doesn't

2: You are right about this. If you work in these jobs, you MUST join the union. And if you are part of the union - then you have to pay dues. This bill makes it so that you no longer have to pay dues - which is fine. But this bill ALSO says that the union still has to provide you with services, even if you don't pay. Think more about how it is written. It should ONLY say that you don't have to pay dues/join but THEN you don't get any of the benefits.

3. It shouldn't be a forced association. You are correct there. But the union is NOT part of the government, so it is therefore private. The workers vote on whether or not to have it - so it is created by the PEOPLE which makes it PRIVATE>

1. Yes it does. This is directly from the bill:

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.

2. Where in the bill does it say the union has to provide services even if you don't pay?
Here's the link to the bill: www.legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

3. The union is basically part of the government. It was set up by the government and regulated by the government. Read the Wisconsin Municipal Employee Relations Act and the State Employment Labor Relations Act. They say when and how elections for collective bargaining are held.

[Michael Landon]

The Wisconsin Bill will eliminate forced union dues.

I wasn't talking about the Wisconsin Bill, I was referring to your post regarding "Public Unions." That was the point of my post. I have yet to see anyone answer me in regards to the difference between unions and associations.

Once again, I'll ask the following:

Would this be the first domino to fall?

I ask because I could see the dominoes falling in this order:

1) Public Unions
2) Private Unions
3) Private Associations
4) All remaining collective groups.

Question, what's the difference between a union like the Teamsters and an association like the NRA? Both have a large membership who pays them annual dues to be a member. Both have elections for President, Vice-President, etc. Both organizations lobby politicians on behalf of their membership for issues that are important to them.

I see union busting as the first step towards the elimination of freedom of assembly. Don't think for one minute that Democrats wouldn't love to pass laws busting the NRA, GOA, JPFO, Campaign for Liberty, John Birch Society, the Heritage Foundation, etc. And I'm sure the Republicans would love to pass laws busting all unions, ACLU, NAACP, and others they don't agree with.

- ML

[libertybrewcity]

Would this be the first domino to fall?

I ask because I could see the dominoes falling in this order:

1) Public Unions
2) Private Unions
3) Private Associations
4) All remaining collective groups.

Question, what's the difference between a union like the Teamsters and an association like the NRA? Both have a large membership who pays them annual dues to be a member. Both have elections for President, Vice-President, etc. Both organizations lobby politicians on behalf of their membership for issues that are important to them.

I see union busting as the first step towards the elimination of freedom of assembly. Don't think for one minute that Democrats wouldn't love to pass laws busting the NRA, GOA, JPFO, Campaign for Liberty, John Birch Society, the Heritage Foundation, etc. And I'm sure the Republicans would love to pass laws busting all unions, ACLU, NAACP, and others they don't agree with.

- ML

Yea, because Scott Walker, a Republican, is going to try and pass a bill limiting freedom of association. Give me break. You sound like the teachers calling him Hitler.

[LibForestPaul]

>>1) State union employees will no longer have the right to collectively bargain - not for wages, hours, benefits or conditions of employment.
No employer, including the state, should be forced to respect collective bargaining, as is now the case.

>>2) Forces the Union (which keep in mind is a PRIVATE, non tax-payer funded organization/association of people) to hold a vote EACH YEAR in which people decide if they still want to be a union or not, instead of at an interval chosen by the people of this private association of workers.
If the state gives certain privileges to this group, which it does and should not, then again no problem. Though, #1 does not fit with #2.

>>3) The Union (again - a private association of people) must provide the benefits of its services to all employees, even those who do not pay dues to it.
On the face, this will cause the no vote.

>>4) These rules will only apply to certain state workers, not all of them, and in particular will not apply to jobs for which the employees statistically vote for a certain party that happens to be writing the bill.
Could not care less.

[Michael Landon]

Yea, because Scott Walker, a Republican, is going to try and pass a bill limiting freedom of association. Give me break. You sound like the teachers calling him Hitler.

I didn't call him Hitler.

You're right, Republicans and Democrats are known for protecting the Constitution so what am I worried about. A bill limiting freedom of association could never happen in America.

- ML

[FrankRep]

I didn't call him Hitler.

You're right, Republicans and Democrats are known for protecting the Constitution so what am I worried about. A bill limiting freedom of association could never happen in America.

The Wisconsin Bill Doesn't limit freedom of association.

[RonPaulCult]

1. Yes it does. This is directly from the bill:


2. Where in the bill does it say the union has to provide services even if you don't pay?
Here's the link to the bill: www.legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

3. The union is basically part of the government. It was set up by the government and regulated by the government. Read the Wisconsin Municipal Employee Relations Act and the State Employment Labor Relations Act. They say when and how elections for collective bargaining are held.

Look, I don't WANT the unions to have any bargaining power with the government. I'm against the public unions. But come on - let's be honest - this sets it up so that they can't bargain. Even if it says they can bargain BUT they can't pass the rate of inflation - that's not what I call sorting out the rate of pay between two sides. Come on, don't be like the governor - it's a joke that they will still be able to bargain. But if you don't agree, let's agree to disagree.

As for point 2:


SECTION 197. 111.70 (2) of the statutes is amended to read:
111.70 (2) RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES. Municipal employees shall have the
right of self−organization, and the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, and such employees shall. Municipal employees have the right to
refrain from any and all such activities except that employees. A general municipal
employee has the right to refrain from paying dues while remaining a member of a
collective bargaining unit.

When it talks about "mutual aid or protection" I think that points to the many things a union does for its members. The bill then says you don't have to pay dues but you still get to be a part of the union. Seems wrong to me.

As for your point 3 - forgive my ignorance. I am not from WI, and I've only been there once for a car trip through the lovely state in which I ate 1.2 pounds of cheese - but I was only there for 6 hours.

I don't know how the union came to be - but my understanding is that it is not a part of government. If it were, it would be funded by tax dollars directly instead of out of the pockets of the employees that pay into it (and yes I know I know, those dollars originally come from the tax payer).

Since the employees PAY for the union, it should be them and them alone that decide when to hold elections. If the government has involved itself in their business in the past, that still doesn't make it right to involve itself again.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again - this bill is going after the right people - it's just going about it the wrong way.

[Michael Landon]

The Wisconsin Bill Doesn't limit freedom of association.

Fuck, Frank. Do you not understand what the fuck I'm talking about? I'm not talking about the Wisconsin Bill, I'm talking about unions and associations.

- ML

[LibForestPaul]

Devils advocate...
If the bill is actually written this way, I have doubts of the Gov. true motives.

#1 is denying certain people of state privileges based on their employer, equal protection under the law.
It should be re-written...that State will simply not recognize collective bargaining. Why is it written as such?
#3 Is just wrong and non-nonsensical on face. There must be long ranging motive, which I can not pinpoint.
#2 Is not needed with #1. Slippery slope I suppose.

[specsaregood]

When it talks about "mutual aid or protection" I think that points to the many things a union does for its members. The bill then says you don't have to pay dues but you still get to be a part of the union. Seems wrong to me.

That doesn't mean you get to still be part of the union and it doesn't mean you still get union services. It reads to me that it just ensures pay equality between union and non-union members.

[FrankRep]

Fuck, Frank. Do you not understand what the fuck I'm talking about? I'm not talking about the Wisconsin Bill, I'm talking about unions and associations.

This thread is about the Wisconsin Bill.

[libertybrewcity]

I didn't call him Hitler.

You're right, Republicans and Democrats are known for protecting the Constitution so what am I worried about. A bill limiting freedom of association could never happen in America.

- ML

Yea, I know you're being sarcastic. I am just saying, your 4 step death spiral from limiting the abusive power of the public sector unions to outlawing groups like the Campaign for Liberty doesn't make much sense.

[Michael Landon]

Yea, I know you're being sarcastic. I am just saying, your 4 step death spiral from limiting the abusive power of the public sector unions to outlawing groups like the Campaign for Liberty doesn't make much sense.

Maybe. Off-topic, I can see the Democrats and other anti-2nd amendment politicians doing a "4 step death spiral" on our right to bear arms.
1) Take away full-autos, (Done)
2) Take away semi-autos and handguns, (almost there)
3) Registration
4) Confiscation

It can happen. And it will happen sooner if we are prohibited from joining groups like the NRA, GOA, and JPFO.

- ML

[RedStripe]

This whole bill is clearly an attack on a middle-class, blue-collar interest group. Where's the bill requiring companies like WalMart which rely on TAX FUNDED ROADS to transport their goods (in large trucks which cause the vast majority of roadbed damage) to pay a higher share of taxes to make up for the budget problems?

All the ignorant people in this thread who are attacking the teacher's union, for example, are missing the big picture. The public school system is a GIGANTIC subsidy to all employers in the state of Wisconsin who would otherwise have to pay to train their employees (plus just think of how difficult it would be to control employees who haven't been conditioned from Kindergarten to submit to authority figures!). Labor costs are generally the highest for any employer, and the cost of training employees how to read, write, etc, is a gigantic cost they have been passing on to the taxpayers for over a century (business interests who have owned our government throughout history, understand it is in their collective interest to force this state-funded employment training regime on every child, in order to increase the available qualified labor force and thus suppress wages).

Oh, but it's the TEACHERS who are the parasites, and not the rich 5% who own the politicians, the courts, the media, the businesses and who have worked everything possible in their favor. :rolleyes:

Conservatives barking up the wrong tree yet again, alienating the populist masses who have been getting "fucked in the ass by a system that threw them overboard 30 years ago" to quote Carlin. Way to destroy any possibility of a bottom up revolution by dividing up the working classes. This is what the people on the top count on - they want to prevent working-class solidarity. Fact is, the same laws and structural biases which restrict a low level Walmart employee from starting his own business also limit the options of public service employees. In the end, they are all blue-collar workers just doing what they can to protect their jobs and provide for their families.

Oh, and the "contrasting" between government service workers and the "private sector" is a real gut-buster. WHAT PRIVATE SECTOR? All I see is a bunch of government-lobbying fat-cat industries which rely on government financed communication infrastructure/technology, transportation infrastructure, intellectual property, court system, police force, school system, "free trade" agreements, a world-wide empire creating "foreign markets" and funny money monetary system to remain profitable.

And yet these same RICH government PARASITES (Koch whores) have the gall to pump money into conservative front groups which blame the laboring class for society's ills. I expect people like FrankRep to fall for this (who is also afraid of other boogeymen like the Muslim Brotherhood - another threat to rich corporate American interests), but I'm really ashamed at some of the otherwise intelligent people who are falling on the completely wrong side of this issue.

[specsaregood]

This whole bill is clearly an attack on a middle-class, blue-collar interest group. Where's the bill requiring companies like WalMart which rely on TAX FUNDED ROADS to transport their goods (in large trucks which cause the vast majority of roadbed damage) to pay a higher share of taxes to make up for the budget problems?

Are not roads primarily paid for from taxes on gasoline? And do not their large trucks use up more fuel/mile which means they do end up paying a higher share of taxes?

[RedStripe]

Are not roads primarily paid for from taxes on gasoline? And do not their large trucks use up more fuel/mile which means they do end up paying a higher share of taxes?

They pay a higher share but still not a share in proportion to the damage they cause to roads (as small cars cause virtually no roadbed damage, the primary cost of road repair). More important, of course, is the cost of the initial outlays for highway construction which not only destroyed millions of acres of wildlife and stole land from family farms, but also effectively subsidized an entirely new business model at the expense of local production/ownership. Add in gasoline subsidies, government welfare for large auto manufacturers in the form of IP as well as R&D money, and the idea that these large multi-national corporations deserve the same treatment and rights as a private individual becomes pretty laughable. Let's put it this way - there's no way that the companies which now rely on the highway infrastructure to be profitable could have possibly made the investments necessary to create the infrastructure - that had to come from the ececutive committee of Corporate America, aka the federal government.

Oh, let's not forget the seaports and airports (an industry explicitly created and maintained by the government) which are essential to modern corporate America's bottom line. These are clearly subsidies for a particular business model (the one which involves outsourcing, consumerism, long-distance trade, heavy borrowing, etc - all of which the government is happy to help in every way it can).

[Mini-Me]

This whole bill is clearly an attack on a middle-class, blue-collar interest group. Where's the bill requiring companies like WalMart which rely on TAX FUNDED ROADS to transport their goods (in large trucks which cause the vast majority of roadbed damage) to pay a higher share of taxes to make up for the budget problems?

All the ignorant people in this thread who are attacking the teacher's union, for example, are missing the big picture. The public school system is a GIGANTIC subsidy to all employers in the state of Wisconsin who would otherwise have to pay to train their employees (plus just think of how difficult it would be to control employees who haven't been conditioned from Kindergarten to submit to authority figures!). Labor costs are generally the highest for any employer, and the cost of training employees how to read, write, etc, is a gigantic cost they have been passing on to the taxpayers for over a century (business interests who have owned our government throughout history, understand it is in their collective interest to force this state-funded employment training regime on every child, in order to increase the available qualified labor force and thus suppress wages).

Oh, but it's the TEACHERS who are the parasites, and not the rich 5% who own the politicians, the courts, the media, the businesses and who have worked everything possible in their favor. :rolleyes:

Conservatives barking up the wrong tree yet again, alienating the populist masses who have been getting "fucked in the ass by a system that threw them overboard 30 years ago" to quote Carlin. Way to destroy any possibility of a bottom up revolution by dividing up the working classes. This is what the people on the top count on - they want to prevent working-class solidarity. Fact is, the same laws and structural biases which restrict a low level Walmart employee from starting his own business also limit the options of public service employees. In the end, they are all blue-collar workers just doing what they can to protect their jobs and provide for their families.

Oh, and the "contrasting" between government service workers and the "private sector" is a real gut-buster. WHAT PRIVATE SECTOR? All I see is a bunch of government-lobbying fat-cat industries which rely on government financed communication infrastructure/technology, transportation infrastructure, intellectual property, court system, police force, school system, "free trade" agreements, a world-wide empire creating "foreign markets" and funny money monetary system to remain profitable.

And yet these same RICH government PARASITES (Koch whores) have the gall to pump money into conservative front groups which blame the laboring class for society's ills. I expect people like FrankRep to fall for this (who is also afraid of other boogeymen like the Muslim Brotherhood - another threat to rich corporate American interests), but I'm really ashamed at some of the otherwise intelligent people who are falling on the completely wrong side of this issue.

You're right about divisiveness, but I think it goes the other way: When the government splits the general public into the privileged and correspondingly non-privileged and pits us against each other, the way to stop the divisiveness is NOT by perpetuating the petty government privileges that divide us. It's by getting RID of them, no matter how much the union folk scream and pout about it. The only way to unite union and government employees with everyone else is to put them in the same boat as everyone else.

That's not to say I like the wording of this legislation, but I'm sure as hell not going to act like unionized government employees aren't privileged compared to the average American, nor that those privileges aren't funded directly from the backs of everyone else, the real populist masses. The anger with these people is real, and it comes from their complete disregard for anyone other than themselves; they don't care how much anyone else is suffering, they will not give up an ounce of their guaranteed salaries or benefits, that poorer people [on average] are being extorted to pay for. It's disgusting. Are the political elite worse? Well, no shit they're worse, and nobody ever said they weren't. Unionized government workers are obviously not the number one enemy, but they're sure as hell not helping (that's ESPECIALLY true as far as pensions are concerned). Beyond the immediate issues, the very fact that this sizable separate class even exists puts an unnecessary wedge between them and the rest of us. If we're going to get anywhere, they need to wake up and face the same reality as everyone else. Only then will they EVER be able to work together against the real enemy, which is institutionalized theft and violence that they're currently a part of, regardless of the fact that they're not the top of the totem pole.

[libertybrewcity]

Maybe. Off-topic, I can see the Democrats and other anti-2nd amendment politicians doing a "4 step death spiral" on our right to bear arms.
1) Take away full-autos, (Done)
2) Take away semi-autos and handguns, (almost there)
3) Registration
4) Confiscation

It can happen. And it will happen sooner if we are prohibited from joining groups like the NRA, GOA, and JPFO.

- ML

Guns are a different story, and I completely agree with you on that. But, public unions are artificial because the jobs themselves are artificial. In a completely free society, these jobs would not exist because instead the free market offers solutions to education, health care, etc. etc. The public sector unions are different from private sector unions in that they are able to use the government to squeeze out whatever they want from the government. Once they gain power, they can lobby the government to get to the point where they are today. In my mind they are equivalent to the federal reserve. A quasi-public partnership with the government. They have powers that normal associations do not have.

[Michael Landon]

Guns are a different story, and I completely agree with you on that. But, public unions are artificial because the jobs themselves are artificial. In a completely free society, these jobs would not exist because instead the free market offers solutions to education, health care, etc. etc. The public sector unions are different from private sector unions in that they are able to use the government to squeeze out whatever they want from the government. Once they gain power, they can lobby the government to get to the point where they are today. In my mind they are equivalent to the federal reserve. A quasi-public partnership with the government. They have powers that normal associations do not have.

I'm reminded of this:

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


First They came...a new take by Michael Landon

First they came for the public unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in a public union.

Then they came for the private unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in a private union.

Then they came for the private associations,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in a private association.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- ML

[RedStripe]

You're right about divisiveness, but I think it goes the other way: When the government splits the general public into the privileged and correspondingly non-privileged and pits us against each other, the way to stop the divisiveness is NOT by perpetuating the petty privileges that divide us. It's by getting RID of them, no matter how much the union folk scream and pout about it. The only way to unite union and government employees with everyone else is to put them in the same boat as everyone else.

I think you are confused as to the source of the divisiveness - the source is the pro-business parasite demagogues of the right-wing who claim that the interests separating two blue-collar groups is greater than their common enemy: a system biased for the rich. Just look at your claim about "privilege." In theory, everyone in our complex economic system is "privileged" in some way relative to others. Just look at the way the tax code "rewards" and "punishes" a million different types of behavior and their related demographics. So to make a big deal about simple privilege alone is a fruitless debate about trees in a discussion that ought to be about the forest.

The simple truth is that we have a system run by and for the wealthy business interests in aggregate. Slaves arguing over who has it easier on the plantation is the last way to generate a slave revolt which is what this country needs right now. The battle lines as drawn by the right-wing demagogues is "public employees vs. private employees" which is about as ignorant and counterproductive a labeling of this conflict as one can imagine, given the extremely mixed nature of our economic system as I noted above. The real battle lines are, and have always been, "the government and large employers vs. employees." It's no surprise that, like nominally "private" employers, the government wants to fuck over its employees by removing their right to bargain collectively (a truly libertarian and populist method of leveling the playing field) while doing asking nothing from the rich who benefit from government policies all the time.

[FrankRep]

I'm reminded of this:

[B][I]First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.



* End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

Oh the tyranny!

[Michael Landon]

* End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

I agree with ending forced union dues, I've stated that in the past. I'm against forcing anyone to pay for anything they don't want or agree with. You keep mentioning to end forced union dues in reply to my posts, why is that? I can't figure that out.

- ML

[FrankRep]

I agree with ending forced union dues, I've stated that in the past. I'm against forcing anyone to pay for anything they don't want or agree with. You keep mentioning to end forced union dues in reply to my posts, why is that? I can't figure that out.

Because this thread is about the Wisconsin Bill.

[Michael Landon]

Because this thread is about the Wisconsin Bill.

Actually the original poster mentioned a hypothetical bill based on the Wisconsin Bill.

- ML

[Mini-Me]

I think you are confused as to the source of the divisiveness - the source is the pro-business parasite demagogues of the right-wing who claim that the interests separating two blue-collar groups is greater than their common enemy: a system biased for the rich. Just look at your claim about "privilege." In theory, everyone in our complex economic system is "privileged" in some way relative to others. Just look at the way the tax code "rewards" and "punishes" a million different types of behavior and their related demographics. So to make a big deal about simple privilege alone is a fruitless debate about trees in a discussion that ought to be about the forest.
I don't think you're really acknowledging the seriousness of the gap between the public union employees and the average American, RedStripe. The gulf is wide - deliberately wide - not something that you can handwave away with the "well, everyone benefits in some way," argument. It's not wide like the gulf between average Joe and a CEO, but it's large enough that it inherently pits "them" against "us," especially because of just how directly we fund them. Importantly, this gulf has to be bridged first, or divided we fall. The root of the problem is not just "a few evil men at the top." The root of the problem is the institution of violence, coercion, and theft, and the ONLY way the unionized class will ever help fight that is once they're in the same boat as everyone else.

"The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." The government knows this, which is why they create entire classes full of Pauls, who instinctively know that they're Pauls enough to defend and enlarge the system. The system is designed specifically so that we will fight with each other, and it won't magically stop until we can all recognize it's in our interests to rein in the institution controlling us. It's not the CEO's we have to worry about, and it's not the billionaires, because there are only a few of them. In terms of strengths of numbers, they're pitiful on their own. The political elite control the system, but they do so by creating larger classes of privileged people to constantly fight in favor of their institutions. Before you can take down the political elite, you first need to break their support base by making the Pauls identify more with the Peters. It should come as no surprise that they'll go kicking and screaming all the way, because they've become accustomed to being special.


The simple truth is that we have a system run by and for the wealthy business interests in aggregate. Slaves arguing over who has it easier on the plantation is the last way to generate a slave revolt which is what this country needs right now. The battle lines as drawn by the right-wing demagogues is "public employees vs. private employees" which is about as ignorant and counterproductive a labeling of this conflict as one can imagine, given the extremely mixed nature of our economic system as I noted above. The real battle lines are, and have always been, "the government and large employers vs. employees." It's no surprise that, like nominally "private" employers, the government wants to fuck over its employees by removing their right to bargain collectively (a truly libertarian and populist method of leveling the playing field) while doing asking nothing from the rich who benefit from government policies all the time.

If you're in a concentration camp, the capos are not going to help you revolt until they're no longer capos. Instead, they're going to fight you every step of the way, because they have theirs, and it's the only thing they give a flying shit about.

[RonPaulCult]

Actually the original poster mentioned a hypothetical bill based on the Wisconsin Bill.

- ML

It isn't hypothetical - it is the Wisconsin Bill to the best of my research capabilities.

[AlexMerced]

if the bill were unconstitutional it would ONLY do the following

- Prohibit the compulsion of people to join a union (some laws force people to join a union to work in certain places)

- Prohibit the compulsion of employers to have to reach a consensus with he Union (many laws force this too)

ANy group of people shoul dbe able to voluntarily organize however they want, but people should be forced to involuntarily by the hand of government deal with them or be part of them.

[RonPaulCult]

if the bill were unconstitutional it would ONLY do the following

- Prohibit the compulsion of people to join a union (some laws force people to join a union to work in certain places)

- Prohibit the compulsion of employers to have to reach a consensus with he Union (many laws force this too)

ANy group of people shoul dbe able to voluntarily organize however they want, but people should be forced to involuntarily by the hand of government deal with them or be part of them.

Did you mean to say UNconstitutional?

[FrankRep]

This whole bill is clearly an attack on a middle-class, blue-collar interest group.


Flashback:

Don't want to derail, but basically I'm for socialist ends (pro: economic egalitarianism, worker's rights, wide distribution of capital, labor class-consciousness, sustainability and anti: bigotry, racism, homophobia etc) through libertarian (anti-state) means.

Many old school socialists were anarchists/libertarians who understood that the state, along with capitalism, must be defeated in order to have a truly just society.



Wisconsin Socialists Want Egypt-style Revolution (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/class-war-is-here-video-of-socialists-rallying-in-wis-supports-becks-theory/)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1LeqQbf4Rs



Communist Protester in Wisconsin: 'People Are Open' to a 'Revolutionary Movement' (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/communist-protester-in-wis-people-are-open-to-a-revolutionary-movement/)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-nxSRQNmjs

[libertybrewcity]

I'm reminded of this:

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


First They came...a new take by Michael Landon

First they came for the public unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in a public union.

Then they came for the private unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in a private union.

Then they came for the private associations,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't in a private association.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- ML

Yea, if they come for private sector unions or anyone else, I'll speak out for sure. But the Wisconsin public unions are not a voluntary creation, and thus should not protected by the 1st amendment. Hacking away at public unions will only limit their ability to trash the state and wreck havoc on what's left of the free market.

[erowe1]

It's not as good as positively prohibiting unions for state workers. But it's better than nothing.

And if positively prohibiting unions would be ok (which it surely would), then it's hard for me to see how these smaller steps in the same direction wouldn't.

[Michael Landon]

Yea, if they come for private sector unions or anyone else, I'll speak out for sure. But the Wisconsin public unions are not a voluntary creation, and thus should not protected by the 1st amendment. Hacking away at public unions will only limit their ability to trash the state and wreck havoc on what's left of the free market.

Most of the people here aren't distinguishing between private and public sector unions and are calling for the busting of both. The point I'm trying to make is where does the union and association busting end? And what are you going to do when the groups you associate with are next on the chopping block?

- ML

[FrankRep]

Most of the people here aren't distinguishing between private and public sector unions and are calling for the busting of both. The point I'm trying to make is where does the union and association busting end? And what are you going to do when the groups you associate with are next on the chopping block?

Just to clarify, the Wisconsin Bill will not bust up the Unions.

;)

[MelissaWV]

3) The Union (again - a private association of people) must provide the benefits of its services to all employees, even those who do not pay dues to it

I'm stumped as to why on earth anyone on these forums would think this is a good idea, and would vote in favor of placing Government force behind this provision in the original hypothetical.

[specsaregood]

I'm stumped as to why on earth anyone on these forums would think this is a good idea, and would vote in favor of placing Government force behind this provision in the original hypothetical.

Because that claim hasn't been proven. It reads to me only as a matter of pay equality, that union and nonunion employees should get the same pay and benefits from the govt. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

[MelissaWV]

Because that claim hasn't been proven. It reads to me only as a matter of pay equality, that union and nonunion employees should get the same pay and benefits from the govt. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

As stated in the original post (which is what we were asked to vote on via the poll), the phrase implies force. It does not talk about pay equality. It talks about the union providing the same benefits and services to all employees, even those who do not pay dues. Pay grade is decided by the employer, not the union; the union only has some leverage over negotiations as a group.

Incidentally, I even have a problem with how you've phrased it. Union and non-union employees should not be forced by legislation to get the same benefits and pay from their employer. That "must" in there is the key word. Why would anyone pay dues, at that point, when they know they will get the full benefit and protection that dues-paying members get? Why would the employer allow even one union employee to become employed, knowing they now hold every employee (and the employer's bottom line) hostage?

Unions have a great place in the world as voluntary associations of people who can bargain collectively, imo, but the OP's scenarios are much more about legislation forcing organizations into a cliche version of "fairness."

[RedStripe]

Because that claim hasn't been proven. It reads to me only as a matter of pay equality, that union and nonunion employees should get the same pay and benefits from the govt. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

Whoa! Pay equality? What are you a socialist?

[libertybrewcity]

Most of the people here aren't distinguishing between private and public sector unions and are calling for the busting of both. The point I'm trying to make is where does the union and association busting end? And what are you going to do when the groups you associate with are next on the chopping block?

- ML

I don't think they are going to chop anymore groups? Can give me some evidence who is next or what would be "on the chopping block"?

[libertybrewcity]

As stated in the original post (which is what we were asked to vote on via the poll), the phrase implies force. It does not talk about pay equality. It talks about the union providing the same benefits and services to all employees, even those who do not pay dues. Pay grade is decided by the employer, not the union; the union only has some leverage over negotiations as a group.

Incidentally, I even have a problem with how you've phrased it. Union and non-union employees should not be forced by legislation to get the same benefits and pay from their employer. That "must" in there is the key word. Why would anyone pay dues, at that point, when they know they will get the full benefit and protection that dues-paying members get? Why would the employer allow even one union employee to become employed, knowing they now hold every employee (and the employer's bottom line) hostage?

Unions have a great place in the world as voluntary associations of people who can bargain collectively, imo, but the OP's scenarios are much more about legislation forcing organizations into a cliche version of "fairness."

At the end, the post states that those provisions are in the Wisconsin Senate Bill 11 when they are not. I think the voting is more of show of support for the Wisconsin bill.

[MelissaWV]

At the end, the post states that those provisions are in the Wisconsin Senate Bill 11 when they are not. I think the voting is more of show of support for the Wisconsin bill.

That isn't what the poll says, though. If someone really took issue with the phrasing of it, I wonder why they'd say they'd vote "yes" rather than just abstain from the poll vote (since the poll is inaccurate) and correct it via a subsequent post.

Ah well.

[AlexMerced]

Did you mean to say UNconstitutional?

yea... my bad... LibertyPac.com

[RonPaulCult]

That isn't what the poll says, though. If someone really took issue with the phrasing of it, I wonder why they'd say they'd vote "yes" rather than just abstain from the poll vote (since the poll is inaccurate) and correct it via a subsequent post.

Ah well.

I stand by the way I have described the bill. I admit the bill doesn't use the clearest of language, but how often do bills these days use clear language?

People are tearing apart my description because they WANT to support this bill. They want to break down the unions so badly, they don't want the bill to have anything anti-liberty in it. That would mean they have to stop supporting the bill. A lot of people here don't want to do that. I get it...

[erowe1]

I'm stumped as to why on earth anyone on these forums would think this is a good idea, and would vote in favor of placing Government force behind this provision in the original hypothetical.

I don't support placing government force per se behind such a provision. I only support placing government's power as an employer behind such a provision with respect to its own employees, just as I would support any private employer's right to have such a policy. I would go even further and support the government positively refusing to employ any unionized workers.