PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't we on the side of the union protesters?




madfoot
03-04-2011, 06:14 PM
I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle, but punishing teachers and other public workers seems like the wrong move to make. I feel like we, and the teocons for that matter, should be on their side here. There are so many other places we can save money without screwing over teachers. I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action.

CableNewsJunkie
03-04-2011, 06:16 PM
I'm on my own side in that whole debate.

Both sides are saying some things that are right.

And both sides are saying some things that are wrong.

It would be great if we could become more vocal and insert some rationale into that whole debate.

Danke
03-04-2011, 06:16 PM
?? It is a government job. Not private sector. We are forced to pay for it. We are bleeding but (in the case of WI) they don't want a ~8% pay reduction (our tax money).

madfoot
03-04-2011, 06:20 PM
?? It is a government job. Not private sector. We are forced to pay for it. We are bleeding but (in the case of WI) they don't want a ~8% pay reduction (our tax money).

Who cares? Our money also went to bonuses on Wall Street. We should not be screwing over teachers when there are much bigger problems.

And they're all willing to take the pay cut. The debate is happening solely because Walker wants to kill the unions.

AuH20
03-04-2011, 06:22 PM
They're public servants. Essentially accessories and they vote themselves raises with collusive dealings with the so-called arbitrators they own. Basically, they're the same as the corporate scum at the top of the foodchain. People have to get it out of their heads that this is grandpa's union cause it's not. These are ruthless scumbags looking to bleed the treasury dry, without any regard for their employers, namely the taxpayer. I say we get the heads of the AFL-CIO and the SEIU and put them in a gladiatoral arena with the execs from JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. That would be quality entertainment. The battle of the parasites.

cswake
03-04-2011, 06:22 PM
"I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action."

The Wisconsin government is a private organization? :confused:

RonPaulCult
03-04-2011, 06:22 PM
I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle, but punishing teachers and other public workers seems like the wrong move to make. I feel like we, and the teocons for that matter, should be on their side here. There are so many other places we can save money without screwing over teachers. I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action.

You are correct. I am on the side of the protesters because the bill limits their freedom. If the Gov. of WI were a true conservative he would privatize the schools. But he doesn't want to do that - he just wants to destroy their freedom to associate, using the force of government. We as actual conservatives should not support government using it's power and force EVEN IF we dislike or disagree with the people they are going after.

muzzled dogg
03-04-2011, 06:23 PM
Public Sector Unions in Wisconsin

by Walter Block

Public sector unions in Wisconsin have been in the news of late. They are reacting against Republican Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who is trying to curtail their power and pelf. Virtually all Democrats support the labor organization, and there can be few Republicans who do not favor the Wisconsin governor.

What is the proper free enterprise or libertarian position? I attempted to answer that question in this blog. My answer in a nutshell was, Both. Let them have at each other, each of them weakening the other. A pox on both houses, was how I put it.

Yes, unions are disgusting and repulsive institutions, as the right side of the political spectrum properly emphasizes. They restrict entry into the labor market, and either beat up potential competitors who they characterize as "scabs" (where are the politically correct opponents of hate speech when we need them?), and/or get the government to do this evil deed for them, via legislation such as the Wagner Act which forbids employers from hiring replacement workers on a permanent basis.

However, we advocates of the freedom philosophy must never forget that the government is also an illicit, illegitimate and entirely vile organization. Its middle name is also initiatory violence. We must never blindly follow the Republicans in their support of the state.

According to that brilliant sociologist Franz Oppenheimer:

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. . . . I … call one's own labor and the … exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the ‘economic means’ for the satisfaction of need while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the ‘political means.’ . . . The State is an organization of the political means."

This seemed like a simple call to me. I thought most readers of the LewRockwell.com would react to this blog of mine with a ho hum, what else is new, of course, attitude. However, I reckoned falsely. I did not realize that there are quite a few brilliant people who read this blog, many of whom disagreed with me, some of them strongly. Inadvertently, I had created a firestorm of interest in this issue. Let me share some of these responses with you. The present essay is an attempt to deal with them, anonymously for the most part but not entirely, along with my replies to them.

There were a few reactions that were very positive. I know that I am on the correct analytic path when the great Bob Wenzel supports my position. One comment went so far as to say "Brilliant! This made me reconsider my own position in a way that only Rothbard and Hoppe have. That's about the highest compliment I can give..." My only response to that compliment was: "Thanks. That's a pretty fast crowd you put me in. I can’t think of a higher compliment. I'm honored."

Here are some other positive responses: "Your blog post on the Wisconsin showdown was interesting and informative! Having read the (very good) book Alongside Night, I can understand and even sympathize with it." Once again, Ayn Rand hits the nail on the head. Here is another supportive reaction: "… the longer the squabble goes on, the fewer days in school for the children. That has to be a plus." A plus indeed. Given that public education is on net balance a negative, the less of it the better. I can’t resist sharing one last one: "Sir Walter, Your logic is impeccable, as always. A devoted fan." My reaction to this is that it is letters like this that make it all worthwhile.

Now for the critical responses to my blog. There were several that were so impolite I just ignored them, and continue to do so now. But here are some thoughtful critiques.

Criticism 1. "… why must one choose sides in an issue when both sides are wrong? Is there some ‘law’ that says this must be done? Although Jane Fonda was correct in protesting our involvement in the Vietnam War, she was wrong about supporting the North Vietnamese. She should have condemned the entire war. I condemn anyone who uses force, be it a government bureaucRAT or a union thug."

Response 1. If we take this objection literally, we libertarians must all become pacifists. Surely, adherence to the non-aggression principle implies no such requirement. We must only oppose initiatory force, not any force at all. Of more relevance to the present situation, I think this critic misunderstands what I meant by saying "I favor the union thugs, not the government thugs." Of course both sides were wrong. Did I not say "… a pox on both of them"? When there are two bad guys duking it out, it is not anti-libertarian to hope that the fight lasts as long as possible, so that each side can inflict maximum philosophical damage on the other. And, if one is weaker than the other, the more strength that can be imparted to that side, the longer the conflagration will continue.

Criticism 2. "Government employee unions are the lesser of two evils? They need to be broken. They are parasites upon the back of the rest of us. As far as government being the real evil you are correct. We cannot get rid of it yet but we can bust their unions. Please rethink your position."

Response 2. Well, yes, certainly government unions are evil. And, so are private ones. They all engage in restrictive entry, whether by blue collar (explicit violence against "scabs") or white collar (labor legislation) methods. Of course, it is entirely possible for organized labor to act compatibly with libertarianism. All they have to do is limit themselves to mass quits, and eschew all attempts to prevent other workers from taking the jobs they spurn. However, purely as an empirical matter, I know of no union that limits itself in any such manner. So, yes, I agree with this critic that unions are parasites (well, I prefer "tapeworms," but I’m not going to argue this point). Indeed, my credentials as a hater of unions consist of a long paper trail. Almost 100 pages of this book of mine are devoted to an excoriation of this institution. However, to make this point, and only this point, is to fall into the Republican trap. Our justified venom for unions should not blind us to the fact that the state, too, is an enemy of freedom, and, indeed, when push comes to shove, a more powerful and daunting one.

Criticism 3. "I am a big fan of you and your work. I bought your book on the privatization of roads. I agree with you probably 95% of the time. But in this instance you are being illogical. These are not two separate entities. They are different factions of the same entity. They are all part of the government. Breaking government unions severely weakens the government. Much of their voting power is derived from getting as many tax collectors on the payroll as possible."

Response 3. Thanks for your kind remarks. You make a good point to the effect that the unions are like junior partners in the ruling class. Murray Rothbard would agree, as do I. However, right now, there is a falling out between thieves. It is as if a senior and a junior gang member are fighting. They can, logically, do this, even though in some (very important) sense they are part of the same entity. I don’t see why my analysis must be jettisoned because of your very valid point. Why cannot we both be correct?

Criticism 4. "Do you root for the coercive unions in Greece as well, since they are opposing the Greece State? I am confused why someone I consider one of the greatest living Voluntarist Libertarians is condoning coercive activity. Tactically, why would you ever root for one of two wholly coercive organizations, even if one is weaker? Not only are you now rooting for a wholly coercive organization, but in the end there will probably be some coercive 'compromise' that just increases coercion and negates Voluntarism.

"Unlike with the German invasion of Russia – where you can support defending against the unsolicited, coercive invasion, even if it is being defended against by coercive Bolsheviks; you are clearly supporting the defense and not the Bolsheviks – supporting the coercive unions has no clear underlying Voluntarist principle. The 'underdogs' are screaming for mass unsolicited coercion, and nothing else. Why not just say you are opposed to any violation of the Non-Coercion Principle, so you clearly support no one? Just like, for instance, the Civil War in Spain?"

Response 4. Thanks for your generous compliment. I "support" both sides in the Spanish Civil War: It would be great if they had killed each other off. Neither the Fascists nor the Communists are friends of freedom. Yes, the relationship between the Greek government and the Greek unions is roughly parallel to that between the Wisconsin state and its unions. The same analysis would therefore apply. I am only "rooting for a wholly coercive organization" so that it has the strength to weaken a stronger "wholly coercive organization." Why is that incompatible with the non-aggression principle? I do indeed come close to your suggestion that I "support no one" with my "pox on both houses" statement. But, literally, if I supported no one, and, somehow, magically, my wishes came into being, then there would be labor peace, and no weakening of either of these vicious institutions, the government or the unions. Can’t a libertarian welcome the weakening of both? I'm just (dramatically) making the point that both the union and the government violate the NAP. Surely, you agree with me on that?

Criticism 5. "You support people who are trying to loot the public? I don't understand. If you think that both groups are thugs, why don't you refuse to support either group? If the state government is a criminal enterprise because it taxes the people, then surely the union is just as bad, if not worse, because they not only support the taxation, they encourage even more taxation because they want more of the stolen loot for themselves. I guess you didn't exactly say you supported the unions, only that you were ‘rooting’ for them over the governor. But I would rather root for the governor, because the less loot that is being handed over to thugs, whether the thugs are unions or corporations, the less stealing from taxpayers the government will be able to justify."

Response 5. I actually oppose both the government and the unions. I only "support" them in the sense that I’m rooting for them to fight each other, so that both may be undermined. The government, I fear, violates rights on a far more massive scale than do the unions. It is not for nothing that the latter are merely the junior partners in this illicit conspiracy.

Criticism 6. "I think I would have to disagree with you in this case. Normally, union thugs get together (i.e. ‘negotiate’) with government thugs to give away Other People's Money to the union thugs to the betterment of both the union thugs and the government thugs. In this case, if the government wins, at least we're subjected to only a quotient of 1/2 thuggery. It's sort of like the set theory of a ‘lesser infinity’ of thuggery."

Response 6. You make an important point. But, in my view, given that the government is far more powerful than a bunch of unions, if they win, they will do far worse things than steal a few more bucks from the long-suffering taxpayers. Anyone ever hear of the drug war? Of massive government regulations? Of taxes for expenses other that public sector unions?

Criticism 7. "Your advocacy of the union position will mean ever increasing taxes for us in Wisconsin. That's fine for you. Not so great for us here in Wisconsin. Thanks for your support for the free market. Not. Do you run away from your job? Do you ignore a legal election and the consequences? Do you use fraud and lies to get out of work? Fake Dr notes. DO you even believe in representative government? You have a nice gig going in academia , wouldn't want to rock the boat with your fellow "educators", would you. I have either misunderstood your political humor on this matter, or no longer have the respect for you I once did. Nothing to keep you awake at night I'm sure. Plug this union hissy fit into the typical media template at your peril."

Response 7. You say this as if it were a foregone conclusion. But, I think it is most unlikely that this spat between the governor and the public sector unions will result in higher taxes. To begin with, right now a lot of "services" are shut down. Less work means reduced salaries. In the long run, whether taxes go up or down, given balanced budgets, depends upon the path of expenditures. If each of these contending parties weakens the other, the prospects look good for less spending. On the other hand, I readily admit, this is an empirical issue. I might be wrong. But as a matter of deontology (rights) it seems clear that taking down the government a peg or two is compatible with libertarianism, even if taxes increase as a result. Ragnar Danneskjold breaks into Fort Knox and liberates some gold (assuming there’s some of this precious metal in there; work with me on this). As a result, the government raises taxes. Does that definitively demonstrate that this hero of Atlas Shrugged was violating libertarian law? Not a bit of it. See on this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

As to your other complaints I am not at all a fan of legal elections nor representative government, nor democracy. Hitler, after all, came to power under precisely these conditions; surely, what he subsequently did is not compatible with libertarianism, what we all learned in 6th grade civics course to the contrary notwithstanding. I am more a fan of monarchy than I am of democracy. See Hoppe’s brilliant book on this matter. However, you’ve got me dead to rights on your "educators" charge. I wouldn’t dare write anything not approved by the politically correct academic establishment. As for those fake doctor’s notes, if they were struck off the medical lists that would be just fine with me. Oops, that’s not politically correct, is it?

Criticism 8A. This two-part back-and-forth series was initiated by Four Arrows, my friend, sparring partner and co-author of this book: "Of course Indigeous Peoples in traditional cultures never had nor needed unions and rejected external authority except for a willingness to listen to gifted shamans who had talked to spirits, but even this would be rejected if life experience and honest reflection on it challenged the shaman perspective. But greed was also not a cultural phenomenon. So here is a question I don’t know how you will answer. In the real world, not some idealized heaven, if you live in a town where greed has caused great inequities in the capitalistic system and you are a trained miner as has been all the generations of your family who live in a particular place that you do not wish to leave, and you go to work for the only business in town that bought up everything, so now you are a miner working in the mines but because of greed the mines are unsafe and someone dies every month needlessly while the guy drives a Rolls, etc. Several co-workers come to you and say, Walter, this is not right. We have to do something. We've asked the owner to set up a simple safety system that we know he can afford and he refuses. Shall we strike and see if we get his attention? What do you say?"

Response 8A. A strike equals refusal to work plus preventing others from taking the jobs you spurn. A strike is never justified. Ever. But, a mass refusal to work is compatible with libertarianism. Mass quits, or mass withdrawals of labor (allowing "scabs" to take our places if the owner chooses to ignore us; e.g., not beating up the scabs) will usually get the owner's attention. As for greed, we miners are greedy, too. We want higher wages: total wages = money wages plus working conditions. We want better working conditions (more safety) and are not willing to lower our money wages. So, we are greedily asking for an increase in total wages. Greed makes the world go round. The owner is greedily driving around in a Rolls, but we miners have got Hondas. Not too shabby.

Criticism 8B (also from Four Arrows): "I find your reply naïve and with extraneous added and misleading information. Why naïve? Because you compare as equally ‘greedy’ the miners trying to earn a living that can sustain them with the CEO's quest for unlimited wealth and power, a common trait of an ‘owner’ housing a football field of stored antique cars while his workers risk their lives for an average of $33,000 to 40,000 dollars a year (coal miner's wage's in Tennessee) and the owner refuses to spend a reasonable amount of money to prevent obvious and documented unsafe working conditions. Maybe you can buy a Honda on this income and raise a family and pay for health insurance, maybe not. But it is beside the point. And I could offer many examples besides the ‘high earning’ miner that definitely could not afford the Honda. Wait, as I think of these examples I have to say your remarks are not naïve, they are illogical. As for adding misleading information, a strike is a work stoppage undertaken in support of a bargaining position or in protest of some aspect of a proposed agreement between labor and management. In effect, it is just what you say, ‘a mass refusal to work.’ Modern strikers don't beat up scabs and it is common for the company to hire scabs. So then, you must agree that unions that support ‘a mass refusal to work’ are compatible with your position. Wow, that was easy! So why all the anti-union talk? How can the strike, which is defined as a mass refusal to work, be ‘never justified?’ Here is yet another logical contradiction and vague distinction in your libertarianism, it seems."

Response 8B: Yes, indeed, the owners and the workers are equally greedy. The former are merely more successful than the latter. When is the last time a worker turned down a higher wage in favor of a lower one? When is the last time a worker paid more for house or car or a pizza than he had to? Yes, equally greedy. As a first approximation, we are all equally greedy (with the exception of Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and maybe a very few others). Some are more successful at pursuing greed, but that is another matter.

But, greed is a bit beside the point. I think your more relevant sally concerns my supposed illogic concerning strikes. Modern unionists don't beat up scabs? I disagree; here is some evidence to the contrary. But, in a sense you are right: modern unionists initiate explicit violence against scabs much less than previously. But, that is because they now have the government do this for them, in effect, via labor legislation such as the Wagner Act, which forces the firm to bargain "fairly" with the union, when it would prefer to fire all the unionists, and replace them with "scabs." Initiatory violence is initiatory violence is initiatory violence, and it doesn't much matter if the "blue collar" unionists do this themselves, or, go "white collar" and have the state do their dirty work for them.

March 1, 2011

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable and Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective. His latest book is The Privatization of Roads and Highways.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block173.html

fletcher
03-04-2011, 06:24 PM
Who cares? Our money also went to bonuses on Wall Street. We should not be screwing over teachers when there are much bigger problems.

And they're all willing to take the pay cut. The debate is happening solely because Walker wants to kill the unions.

The people aren't screwing over the teachers. The teachers unions are screwing over the people. And what does wall street have to do with it? The bailouts were wrong. That doesn't make overpaying government employees at the taxpayers expense right.

dannno
03-04-2011, 06:24 PM
I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle, but punishing teachers and other public workers seems like the wrong move to make. I feel like we, and the teocons for that matter, should be on their side here. There are so many other places we can save money without screwing over teachers. I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action.

First of all, this has nothing to do with eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization..The problem is public unions..

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?281103-The-Story-Behind-the-Story-on-Wisconsin-Union-Protest

http://mises.org/daily/5072/The-Political-Economy-of-Government-Employee-Unions


...and hefty administration and hefty pensions..

AuH20
03-04-2011, 06:25 PM
The people aren't screwing over the teachers. The teachers unions are screwing over the people. And what does wall street have to do with it? The bailouts were wrong. That doesn't make overpaying government employees at the taxpayers expense right.

"Wall Street raped the taxpayers, so why can't we have a taste?" It's scary to even to recognize this perverse line of thinking. Right? They only care about their perceived share and nothing else. America is in deep deep trouble.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 06:30 PM
"I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action."

The Wisconsin government is a private organization? :confused:

Unions are.

FrankRep
03-04-2011, 06:31 PM
Mr. Progressive himself:


Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) warned against collective bargaining for government unions.


Read his 1937 letter:



All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

And


Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445


http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/188655_10150093408051650_188467256649_6752990_2997 257_n.jpg

dannno
03-04-2011, 06:31 PM
Unions are.

...quasi at best..

unklejman
03-04-2011, 06:32 PM
Who cares? Our money also went to bonuses on Wall Street. We should not be screwing over teachers when there are much bigger problems.

And they're all willing to take the pay cut. The debate is happening solely because Walker wants to kill the unions.

As public sector unions should be.

In the private sector, if the union drives the cost to a company too high, then the company raises prices to compensate. If the prices are too high for the consumer, they choose a different company or refrain from buying at all. The company goes under.

In the public sector, if the union drives the cost to the government too high, then the government raises taxes. If the taxpayer doesn't pay taxes, they are put in a cage at gun point. The government is a legal monopoly.

Then there is this issue. The tax payer pays the union member. The union member pays the dues. The dues are used to then promote a candidate who is friendly to the unions. Where does the non-union constituent come in? Their money goes to the union against their will to support a candidate they may not want.

Conflict of interest.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 06:34 PM
"Wall Street raped the taxpayers, so why can't we have a taste?" It's scary to even to recognize this perverse line of thinking. Right? They only care about their perceived share and nothing else. America is in deep deep trouble.

The current line parroted on Faux News is that we can't place a cap on Wall Street paychecks because that would be unfair. But as long as Wall Street gets government money, we should be calling them out on their hypocrisy. If they want to distort what libertarianism means, let's not make their jobs easier.

BarryDonegan
03-04-2011, 06:35 PM
There's nothing wrong with workers organizing into unions. There is something wrong with a union boss using government force to force all workers in an industry to join only their union and not the alternatives(most localities have more than one teacher's union) and to force the taxpayer to pay whatever they ask even if a competing union or worker is offering a better quality of service at a lower price.

Collective bargaining is the use of government force to force every worker into only one union. This prevents that union from having any check-and-balance against corruption, as well.

AuH20
03-04-2011, 06:36 PM
The real problem is that the governor foolishly injected himself into this budget battle when he simply should have let the local districts make their huge cuts and layoffs. He's trying to play hero by limiting CBA rights in regard to pensions, when it's simply not (a) publicly popular (b) the unions unfortunately don't understand anything other than pain.

AuH20
03-04-2011, 06:38 PM
The current line parroted on Faux News is that we can't place a cap on Wall Street paychecks because that would be unfair. But as long as Wall Street gets government money, we should be calling them out on their hypocrisy. If they want to distort what libertarianism means, let's not make their jobs easier.

The main reason the Tea Party was formed was in direct opposition to TARP. "Privatizing the profits and socializing the losses" was a direct affront to every free market advocate.

angelatc
03-04-2011, 06:38 PM
You are correct. I am on the side of the protesters because the bill limits their freedom. If the Gov. of WI were a true conservative he would privatize the schools.

No, if he were a Libertarian he would privatize the schools. He isn't. He is a Republican.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 06:44 PM
The people aren't screwing over the teachers. The teachers unions are screwing over the people. And what does wall street have to do with it? The bailouts were wrong. That doesn't make overpaying government employees at the taxpayers expense right.

See, this is the part that's so bizarre to me. Teachers aren't fat cats, getting paid for doing nothing. They're teachers. They teach our children, and look at how much respect they're getting for that.

Basically what you guys are saying is, if you work for the government, you should not be allowed to petition your government with a list of grievances. This isn't libertarian. This is inherently statist. Gov. Walker is using our rhetoric for statist purposes, and we should be against that.

unklejman
03-04-2011, 06:46 PM
See, this is the part that's so bizarre to me. Teachers aren't fat cats, getting paid for doing nothing. They're teachers. They teach our children, and look at how much respect they're getting for that.

Basically what you guys are saying is, if you work for the government, you should not be allowed to petition your government with a list of grievances. This isn't libertarian. This is inherently statist. Gov. Walker is using our rhetoric for statist purposes, and we should be against that.


Please go back and read my post and then tell me what you think about it.

AuH20
03-04-2011, 06:47 PM
There's nothing wrong with workers organizing into unions. There is something wrong with a union boss using government force to force all workers in an industry to join only their union and not the alternatives(most localities have more than one teacher's union) and to force the taxpayer to pay whatever they ask even if a competing union or worker is offering a better quality of service at a lower price.

Collective bargaining is the use of government force to force every worker into only one union. This prevents that union from having any check-and-balance against corruption, as well.

Yes. No one here has a problem with free association or worker organization. But it is awfully hard to rationalize that public unions have the right to engorge themselves at the trough of taxpayer funds in such an outrageous cycle. And this applies to defense contractors as well. I think Rand Paul made a great point that parties that are involved in profitable business dealings with the federal government should not be legally allowed to lobby Congress. The taxpayer essentially gets the short end of the stick twice. Joe Taxpayer's extracted revenue is used to lobby Congress and /or fund politicians which aren't necessarily looking out for the general welfare of the public.

Cowlesy
03-04-2011, 06:47 PM
http://picardfacepalm.com/picard-facepalm-hotlink.jpg

FrankRep
03-04-2011, 06:48 PM
Basically what you guys are saying is, if you work for the government, you should not be allowed to petition your government with a list of grievances. This isn't libertarian. This is inherently statist. Gov. Walker is using our rhetoric for statist purposes, and we should be against that.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LdBMujUWqAI/TWaqckdDFmI/AAAAAAAAG0s/6Jagt2MREI8/s1600/110224beelertoon_c20110224125055%2BBig%2BUnion.jpg

Cowlesy
03-04-2011, 06:48 PM
The public unions should be busted into astrological dust.

You can't let people with a monopoly on certain services hold everyone else hostage because they can vote for who gets to appropriate the tax funds.

BUST THE UNIONS.

dannno
03-04-2011, 06:51 PM
See, this is the part that's so bizarre to me. Teachers aren't fat cats, getting paid for doing nothing. They're teachers. They teach our children, and look at how much respect they're getting for that.

Basically what you guys are saying is, if you work for the government, you should not be allowed to petition your government with a list of grievances. This isn't libertarian. This is inherently statist. Gov. Walker is using our rhetoric for statist purposes, and we should be against that.

You seem to have skipped over all my posts. Please visit the links that I provided on the first page.

Do you have any idea how corrupt unions are, and how much they cost taxpayers? Have you ever thought that maybe unions don't help teachers, they just leach off their salary? They do it in countless ways from forcing certain insurance down their throat who the union is connected with, charging dues, keeping vast amounts of administration employed..

We need to privatize education because it is a monster that is getting bigger, and the bigger it gets, the more money we give it, the more corrupt and less effective it becomes.

angelatc
03-04-2011, 06:52 PM
The public unions should be busted into astrological dust.

You can't let people with a monopoly on certain services hold everyone else hostage because they can vote for who gets to appropriate the tax funds.

BUST THE UNIONS.

Did you see that Ohio's bill passed both houses?

dannno
03-04-2011, 06:52 PM
This is also a post the OP should focus on, a point Cowlesy just made expanded:


As public sector unions should be.

In the private sector, if the union drives the cost to a company too high, then the company raises prices to compensate. If the prices are too high for the consumer, they choose a different company or refrain from buying at all. The company goes under.

In the public sector, if the union drives the cost to the government too high, then the government raises taxes. If the taxpayer doesn't pay taxes, they are put in a cage at gun point. The government is a legal monopoly.

Then there is this issue. The tax payer pays the union member. The union member pays the dues. The dues are used to then promote a candidate who is friendly to the unions. Where does the non-union constituent come in? Their money goes to the union against their will to support a candidate they may not want.

Conflict of interest.

FrankRep
03-04-2011, 06:53 PM
Did you see that Ohio's bill passed both houses?

I did! :D

madfoot
03-04-2011, 06:56 PM
Do you have any idea how corrupt unions are, and how much they cost taxpayers? Have you ever thought that maybe unions don't help teachers, they just leach off their salary? They do it in countless ways from forcing certain insurance down their throat who the union is connected with, charging dues, keeping vast amounts of administration employed..

Yeah, there's a lot of things about Big Union I'm not crazy about... but that doesn't mean the solution is to kill them. *_*


We need to privatize education because it is a monster that is getting bigger, and the bigger it gets, the more money we give it, the more corrupt and less effective it becomes.

No.

kah13176
03-04-2011, 06:56 PM
Unionized teachers in Wisconsin make 30-40% more than my father, who is a chemistry professor at a university. I'm sure these teachers can handle a nice cut in pay.

specsaregood
03-04-2011, 06:57 PM
No, if he were a Libertarian he would privatize the schools. He isn't. He is a Republican.

In which case, most here wouldnt' have a problem with the employees wanting to unionize.
I wonder if they had tried that approach if the crowds protesting would be larger....

madfoot
03-04-2011, 06:57 PM
Unionized teachers in Wisconsin make 30-40% more than my father, who is a chemistry professor at a university. I'm sure these teachers can handle a nice cut in pay.

They're willing to take pay cuts.

AuH20
03-04-2011, 06:58 PM
Yeah, there's a lot of things about Big Union I'm not crazy about... but that doesn't mean the solution is to kill them. *_*



No.

The pendulum must swing back though, in order to return to a level of balance. I'm not advocating the killing of unions. They provide a necessary service, despite the monstrosity they've morphed into.

FrankRep
03-04-2011, 06:59 PM
Yeah, there's a lot of things about Big Union I'm not crazy about... but that doesn't mean the solution is to kill them. *_*

Wisconsin isn't "killing" the public sector Unions. They are just removing their "collective bargaining" power.

dannno
03-04-2011, 06:59 PM
Yeah, there's a lot of things about Big Union I'm not crazy about... but that doesn't mean the solution is to kill them. *_*

Why not? If public schools aren't paying teachers enough, they can go work at a private school.

If communities want public education to better compete in the marketplace for teachers, then they can raise local taxes, not that I'm for it or think it is right, but they should be allowed to do it.



No.

Ok, you keep hiring goons to come steal my property to pay for something I have no interest in supporting. That's very moral of you.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:01 PM
In which case, most here wouldnt' have a problem with the employees wanting to unionize.
I wonder if they had tried that approach if the crowds protesting would be larger....

I don't see what tangible difference privatization would make. It's a symbolic change of ownership. Great. The fundamental problems haven't changed. It's an entirely ideological solution that doesn't really change much.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:02 PM
I'm not advocating the killing of unions.

Maybe you're not, but Walker is.

unklejman
03-04-2011, 07:02 PM
I don't see what tangible difference privatization would make. It's a symbolic change of ownership. Great. The fundamental problems haven't changed. It's an entirely ideological solution that doesn't really change much.

Madfoot for the love of Mike, and Pete, respond to my point that I posted and that was reposted by another member. It addresses this post you made.

FrankRep
03-04-2011, 07:04 PM
I'm not advocating the killing of unions.

Maybe you're not, but Walker is.

That's a lie. Gov. Walker and Wisconsin aren't "killing" the public sector Unions. They are just removing their "collective bargaining" power.

Sentient Void
03-04-2011, 07:05 PM
I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action.

Eliminating collective bargaining 'rights' (???) for public unions is about as 'big government' as the constitution is 'big government' in (attempting) to restrict the growth of government and chaining it down (though it has clearly failed in that endeavor).

Logic fail.

AuH20
03-04-2011, 07:05 PM
Maybe you're not, but Walker is.

Walker is trying to avert job layoffs, which is why he attempted to circumvent the CBA protocol. He should have simply carried on with business as usual and let nature take it's course. Districts in turn would have then terminated teachers.

Ninja Homer
03-04-2011, 07:05 PM
Wisconsin teachers are the employees of Wisconsin tax payers. Wisconsin tax payers made an executive decision to bust the teachers unions by electing politicians to do it. Why are you against Wisconsin tax payers?

Public school teachers get paid 50% more than private school teachers, on average, and that's not including the hefty compensation that public teachers get. Private schools provide a better education for less money. "Poor underpaid school teachers" is a myth... public school teachers are overpaid.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:06 PM
Ok, you keep hiring goons to come steal my property to pay for something I have no interest in supporting. That's very moral of you.

Oh, hey, you're not begging the question or anything.

Ninja Homer
03-04-2011, 07:07 PM
Read this: http://www.educationnews.org/ed_reports/education_organizations/108345.html

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:07 PM
Madfoot for the love of Mike, and Pete, respond to my point that I posted and that was reposted by another member. It addresses this post you made.

I don't think the government has the right to infringe the free association of workers. That's my response. :/

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:09 PM
That's a lie. Gov. Walker and Wisconsin aren't "killing" the public sector Unions. They are just removing their "collective bargaining" power.

Obama isn't "killing" the free market, he's just removing our "free choice" power.

unklejman
03-04-2011, 07:09 PM
I don't think the government has the right to infringe the free association of workers. That's my response. :/

This doesn't address the fact that they are paid by taxpayers.

libertybrewcity
03-04-2011, 07:11 PM
the teachers and other public workers ARE the government. Anything that can be done to restrain them/it should be done immediately. In this case, limiting the power of their method of taking more taxpayer dollars. The union is like a "tax" in a way on the people.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:11 PM
Walker is trying to avert job layoffs, which is why he attempted to circumvent the CBA protocol. He should have simply carried on with business as usual and let nature take it's course. Districts in turn would have then terminated teachers.

I think that's why people are assuming an ulterior motive behind Walker's actions. I would have no problem with individual districts laying off teachers or cutting programs to make ends meet.

FrankRep
03-04-2011, 07:11 PM
Obama isn't "killing" the free market, he's just removing our "free choice" power.

Troll.

unklejman
03-04-2011, 07:15 PM
I think that's why people are assuming an ulterior motive behind Walker's actions. I would have no problem with individual districts laying off teachers or cutting programs to make ends meet.

Ulterior motive or not, public unions are a conflict of interest. You can't deny that with logic.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:16 PM
the teachers and other public workers ARE the government. Anything that can be done to restrain them/it should be done immediately. In this case, limiting the power of their method of taking more taxpayer dollars. The union is like a "tax" in a way on the people.

Yeah, damn big government teachers, janitors, and garbage men, pushing everybody around. Good thing the governor and state police are there to look out for the common man.

AuH20
03-04-2011, 07:16 PM
I think that's why people are assuming an ulterior motive behind Walker's actions. I would have no problem with individual districts laying off teachers or cutting programs to make ends meet.

I don't think Walker is acting out his innermost philosophical compulsions whatever that may be. I think he's simply looking to get re-elected in a tumultuous political climate. And when the underwater districts and municipalities are finally forced to make draconian cuts in order to meet the bottom line, Walker is ultimately going to be held responsible. Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown. An executive of a state bears an incredible burden for both the good and the bad.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:17 PM
Troll.

Hint: that was sarcasm.

Flash
03-04-2011, 07:19 PM
See, this is the part that's so bizarre to me. Teachers aren't fat cats, getting paid for doing nothing. They're teachers. They teach our children, and look at how much respect they're getting for that.

That's not true. Teachers are just doing a job, like anyone else. I did originally have mixed feelings about the Wisconsin protests, but now I'm pretty much against it. This is not to say I condemn libertarians protesting alongside of teachers and offering a free market-friendly solution. If I lived in Wisconsin, this would be a strategic opportunity to promote libertarianism. But I doubt you'll convince teachers that their jobs should be left unto the market. Being on the payroll of local or federal government always jeopardizes one's principles. Which applies to elected officials as well.

Libertarian Socialists are saying we should support these people just for the sake of supporting the workers. Where do we draw the line? If a state legislature attempted to make it legal for a private mail delivery company to compete with the Post Office by delivering first-class mail, should we side with postal workers who are afraid of a market alternative? After all they're apart of the middle class. Would it be immoral to oppose cutting the funding for your local fire department? You'll be hurting the firemen but could allow for a free market alternative. I'm not really convinced of this pro-worker position, even though I believe a free market would benefit workers more than anything.

Personally, I had a miserable time in both Public & Private (I use that term loosely) schools. I would assume in a totally free market absent from rent & taxation, where large amounts of one's wealthy isn't stolen from them, there would be so much wealth that people could afford to home school. The parasitic class (corporations, government) doesn't WANT children homeschooled for a reason. Conspiracy theories aren't normally something I subscribe to but there's such an unbelievable amount of disdain for the homeschool movement. Either make your kid go to public school or send them to a private school owned by some capitalist , any other alternative is kooky. WTF!?!

Right now I'm looking into a type of homeschooling called 'unschooling.' Currently it's the most non-violent type of homeschooling but I'm not totally convinced it's practical. But we need SOMETHING different than what we have. And if we're not principled in our stance then we'll NEVER achieve what we want.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:20 PM
I don't think Walker is acting out his innermost philosophical compulsions whatever that may be. I think he's simply looking to get re-elected in a tumultuous political climate. And when the underwater districts and municipalities are finally forced to make draconian cuts in order to meet the bottom line, Walker is ultimately going to be held responsible. Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown. An executive of a state bears an incredible burden for both good and bad.

To be honest, I have trouble believing this isn't political in nature myself. Did you hear about the "prank call" between Walker and someone pretending to be David Koch?

Brian4Liberty
03-04-2011, 07:22 PM
The current line parroted on Faux News is that we can't place a cap on Wall Street paychecks because that would be unfair. But as long as Wall Street gets government money, we should be calling them out on their hypocrisy. If they want to distort what libertarianism means, let's not make their jobs easier.

Somebody watched the Daily Show last night...at the end he really pwned Tracy Byrne(sp?) from Fox Business ...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/crisis-in-the-dairyland---for-richer-and-poorer---teachers-and-wall-street

AuH20
03-04-2011, 07:27 PM
Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector explained:


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

The 1:21 mark sums up the huge problem we face.

specsaregood
03-04-2011, 07:29 PM
I don't see what tangible difference privatization would make. It's a symbolic change of ownership. Great. The fundamental problems haven't changed. It's an entirely ideological solution that doesn't really change much.

If you can't recognize the difference how the marketplace affects a private business vs govt monopoly then there is no hope for you.

low preference guy
03-04-2011, 07:33 PM
If you can't recognize the difference how the marketplace affects a private business vs govt monopoly then there is no hope for you.

just went and listened to that part. the guy was speechless.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 07:33 PM
<snip>

First of all, good post.

Interesting point about schooling. I went to a very good public school, education-wise, but I'm also aware most schools are subpar. I don't think si ply privatizing the system is a good solution, because all the same problems would still persist. I've been told Finland has the best schools in the world - so the public system can definitely be salvaged - but innovation is definitely needed.

I don't agree with the Post Office analogy, though. We have private alternatives. Nobody's talking about closing private schools. It's a completely faulty analogy.

Stary Hickory
03-04-2011, 08:04 PM
The current line parroted on Faux News is that we can't place a cap on Wall Street paychecks because that would be unfair. But as long as Wall Street gets government money, we should be calling them out on their hypocrisy. If they want to distort what libertarianism means, let's not make their jobs easier.

Good god man do just a LITTLE reading on libertarian ideology please. There is a huge difference between the private sector which is VOLUNTARY and the public sector which is forced on us. There is NO parallel between the public and the private sectors.

The problem is bailouts and government intervention...you want more government intervention, not only that you want more intervention with unions. Unions are not special snowflakes they do not get special rights. They can work for the pay and benefits they are offered or they can go home...screw unions. We all have to deal with this, we can't all just go to the government and demand they threaten to attack others so we can get a sweet deal.

Are you really here just to shill for unions? They are the most anti free market thing we have in the labor force. They have not represented the little guy ever since they started using the government to fleece the little guys. Which is what these so called teachers in WI are doing. The pay these idiots receive is a decision of the WI state government, and by extension the voters of WI. I wish he would fire every last one of the scumbag teachers in WI.

Hey since we have unapologetic progressives on the board can we get some pro war neocons floating about? That would be freaking sweet.

madfoot
03-04-2011, 08:10 PM
How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

Danke
03-04-2011, 08:15 PM
How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

Two different animals. Public workers vs. private workers. Nothing "free market" about government monopolies.

FrankRep
03-04-2011, 08:17 PM
How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

madfoot, are you being serious right now? I think you're on the wrong website.

AuH20
03-04-2011, 08:18 PM
How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

There is no threat of the their employer (the government) going out of business, due to poor performance. Their mere existence, given the how the relationship is currently constituted, is in itself a moral hazard.

cswake
03-04-2011, 08:23 PM
How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/23/the-difference-between-private


If private sector unions negotiate deals that make their respective industries more expensive to operate, and thus their products more expensive, consumers have the right to buy less, or to go elsewhere to get what they want. Businesses can send fewer employees to Las Vegas conferences. Families can pinch their food budgets if labor costs at grocery stores make prices more expensive, or replace their cars less often if union benefits add too much to the price of an automobile. If too many people opt out, or buy too little, the company in question goes out of business. And unless the government offers a bailout, that’s the end of the story. When dealing with the private sector, unions generally have some incentive not to overreach to the point where their employer goes out of business.

The story’s not the same in the public sector. When government employees negotiate added salary and benefits, those who are not directly employed by the government—which is to say, the vast majority of taxpayers—can’t really opt out. So one of three things has to happen: 1) Taxes are raised to pay for the added compensation costs. 2) Services are cut in order to pay for the additional compensation. 3) The additional compensation isn’t ever paid—a situation that usually comes with, at minimum, some sort of minor political drama, if not a serious showdown. This is why the power of public sector unions is such a big deal: When they negotiate better benefits, the majority of taxpayers usually end up forced to bear the cost, somehow, whether they want to or not. With private sector unions, that’s not necessarily the case.

GunnyFreedom
03-04-2011, 08:31 PM
Wisconsin isn't "killing" the public sector Unions. They are just removing their "collective bargaining" power.

He's not even doing THAT, he's only proposed to remove a PORTION of their collective bargaining privileges. Specifically, the collective bargaining ability for retirement pensions.

GunnyFreedom
03-04-2011, 08:35 PM
Maybe you're not, but Walker is.

LOL, no, he's not. Try facts figures and truth. Speak to me in rhetoric and you will drive me to your opponent's side. Walker has ONLY proposed to limit collective bargaining with respect to non-salary benefits. Particularly pensions.


Madfoot for the love of Mike, and Pete, respond to my point that I posted and that was reposted by another member. It addresses this post you made.

Given his adamant support for rhetoric over reason I would hazard to guess that he's not interested in actually reading or understanding any position which opposes his predisposed understanding.

GunnyFreedom
03-04-2011, 08:39 PM
Wisconsin teachers are the employees of Wisconsin tax payers. Wisconsin tax payers made an executive decision to bust the teachers unions by electing politicians to do it. Why are you against Wisconsin tax payers?

Public school teachers get paid 50% more than private school teachers, on average, and that's not including the hefty compensation that public teachers get. Private schools provide a better education for less money. "Poor underpaid school teachers" is a myth... public school teachers are overpaid.

Depends on where you are. In some places (like Wisconsin) it is indeed a myth. In other places (like South Carolina, Louisiana) it is not a myth, it is truth. That doesn't mean public sector collective bargaining is the answer, but it would be a good idea to bear in mind that public school teachers are not exorbitantly paid in ALL of the 50 states in the union.

dbill27
03-04-2011, 08:41 PM
Why aren't we on the side of the union protesters? Have you seen the union protestors? Most of them that are left are college aged kids sitting in drum circles in the statehouse talking about how great communism is. Unions are completely anti free-market, and a public union that collectively bargains with government is fraud. The only problem I have with scott walker is that he didn't go far enough. He should have taken away the collective bargaining rights of firefighters and policemen as well.

Ninja Homer
03-04-2011, 09:07 PM
What's stupid is they keep saying that "collective bargaining rights are being taken away." The very nature of collective bargaining rights is that they can never be taken away. Even slaves that don't have many rights at all can unite together, and decide to stop working until certain provisions are given.

What's being taken away are special privileges for state worker unions that tax paying citizens don't have. If there's a single concept that the entire history of the US is based on, it's that all people are equal. So why should state workers get extra privileges?

jackers
03-04-2011, 09:08 PM
How are workers unions NOT free market? They're not corporatist, maybe not even capitalist, but they're an essential part of a free market checks and balances system. The fact that the above poster (Stary Hickory) is arguing for government intervention suggests to me a statist influence. Not accusing anyone here of being statist, but we as a group are being used.

Don't pretend that you are like anyone on here. We have seen your other posts and it is quite obvious (even from this thread) that you don't understand libertarian principals. You came here to provoke us and to play "gotcha" when you think that you find inconsistencies. But whatever. I just find it insulting when you try to label posters as statists.

Hey Pot, meet Kettle.

erowe1
03-04-2011, 09:12 PM
I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle, but punishing teachers and other public workers seems like the wrong move to make.
How is anyone being punished or screwed over?


I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action.
How would it be a big government action to allow a private employer to fire employees for unionizing? It seems to me the big government action would be that which prevents them from doing that.

DisillusionedPatriot
03-04-2011, 09:13 PM
There is an inherent difference between public and private unions. Without recognizing that distinction, we risk equivocation.

Private unions are based upon the premise that in a truly free market a private employer is sometimes interested only in the bottom line and his own profits. He may be so greedy as to be willing to seriously mistreat his employees in this pursuit. Unions were originally started over such outrageous issues as 14 hour shifts, very young children in factories, etc. It is perfectly legitimate for people to say, en masse, "We refuse to work under such conditions."

Whereas private unions are designed to protect against the selfishness of an individual, public unions are supposed to prevent abuse by whom? The public? The very notion is absurd. Teachers, as well as all other public employees, are the "public servants." They have no right to their positions, and no right to do anything other than what the citizenry wants.

I went to a private high school where the teachers made substantially less than local public school teachers, and their benefits were not even comparable. Yet, from what I have gathered and heard, my teachers seemed to care more and work harder than their public counterparts. The Unions' arguments are lost upon thousands of teachers who would do the same job for less.

A teacher is a very unique role, specifically dedicated to training and informing impressionable young minds. What message are these teachers sending to their pupils? That when you don't get what you want you should throw a tantrum? That everyone deserves to be paid a wage higher than the free market proscribes? Perhaps the message children will receive is that public school teacher unions are inherently and directly opposed to their own best interest. After all, the money to pay these bloated salaries is gathered from the taxpayer, these children's parents. Without exorbitant taxes, a child's parents might be able to spend less hours on the clock, and more at home, involved in the education process.

Carson
03-04-2011, 09:28 PM
The thing for me is that with all of our budget problems we have this issue playing on and on and on.

Notice how we are attacking the money people get all the while the government entities and front organizations spend and spend on their merry way. We seem to be chopping on the wrong end of the snake.

( The thing where the unions support the candidates and the candidates negotiate the contracts is very interesting though. )


When it all comes down to it the government will spend and spend and spend until not only will the teachers wages be sold out from under them so will any retirement or savings.

Cowlesy
03-05-2011, 10:47 AM
Unionized teachers in Wisconsin make 30-40% more than my father, who is a chemistry professor at a university. I'm sure these teachers can handle a nice cut in pay.

Has your father ever watched the TV show Breaking Bad?

I'm not sayin' I'm just sayin' ;)

(yes I am kidding)

AlexMerced
03-05-2011, 11:15 AM
yeah I'm on neither side, for where both sides are for voluntarism, I agree, where both sides are for compulsion, I'm agains

Tal
03-05-2011, 11:52 AM
Can the public unions in Wisconsin force non-union members who get employed by the government in Wisconsin to join their union? do they have any legal power to do so or can a new government employee tell them to buzz off without any serious consequences?

matt0611
03-05-2011, 12:02 PM
Can the public unions in Wisconsin force non-union members who get employed by the government in Wisconsin to join their union? do they have any legal power to do so or can a new government employee tell them to buzz off without any serious consequences?

As far as I know, they HAVE to join the union and pay dues to the union as a condition of employment.

LinusVanPelt
03-05-2011, 12:14 PM
See, this is the part that's so bizarre to me. Teachers aren't fat cats, getting paid for doing nothing. They're teachers. They teach our children, and look at how much respect they're getting for that.

Basically what you guys are saying is, if you work for the government, you should not be allowed to petition your government with a list of grievances. This isn't libertarian. This is inherently statist. Gov. Walker is using our rhetoric for statist purposes, and we should be against that

I don't want to turn this into an ad hominem but I'm curious to know if you have children in public school.

Nobody is accusing teachers of being "fat cats" anymore than one would accuse doctors or soldiers or public defenders etc of being "fat cats."

The point is that these people sign up--voluntarily--for a profession ("not just a job") that involves sacrifice in order to (ostensibly) serve The People, and provide a public service that, when done correctly, is virtually priceless.

Is that job being done correctly in public schools? Have you seen the test scores? Talked to the students? I have, at length.

Now if doctors or (war politics aside) soldiers or other "public servants" began striking and rioting and making demands on the general public over things like contributing an extra 4% towards their own retirement pension, how would that strike you? Would you feel confident in a doctor who had no interest in providing, who vehemently refused to provide, any medical care if he or she was asked to contribute towards his own retirement or sacrifice a fraction of his perquisites?

These teachers have stopped teaching to go "strike," a luxury that would get 85% of tax-paying private-sector employees fired. And not only that, they have persuaded students to spend time when they should be learning, oh, I don't know, reading, math and science to join in some political tantrum and carry around signs comparing the governor of Wisconsin to Adolph Hitler. It's sick and absurd.

Teachers have a tough job. But you know what? Time are tough. Things are tough all over right now. They are lucky to have jobs, let alone full-time jobs with salaries and benefits, unlike many of the parents who have no educational choices (thanks to Democratic politicians) except sending their kids to public schools.

Not a single person on this board or who supports Ron Paul suported the Wall Street bailouts. That is a separate issue.

And you know what else? I guarantee you that 90% of those striking public "workers" voted for Barack Obama, who did vote to bail out Wall Street in 2008. And they will vote to re-elect him in '12. They are acting ignorant, selfish, and spoiled, and seem determined to pass on their mentality of crass, petty self-interest to the youth whose education has been entrusted to them.

osan
03-05-2011, 12:33 PM
I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle, but punishing teachers and other public workers seems like the wrong move to make.

How is preventing teachers, via their unions, from exercising special powers that are inherently anti-competitive, not to mention in most cases wholly loco, punishing them? It is like saying stopping a child molester from being able to bugger you 4 year old son is punishing them - that it is somehow immoral. Yeah... HELLO.


I feel like we, and the teocons for that matter, should be on their side here.

Feel any way you like. That you are dead wrong... well, that is another issue, but it takes nothing from me, so have at it. Get back to us when you return to your senses.


There are so many other places we can save money without screwing over teachers.

They are not getting screwed by a very long shot. They are being introduced to this thing called "reality". Sometimes the introduction feels like punishment, but is in fact nothing or the sort.


I mean, eliminating collective bargaining rights from a private organization is inherently a big government action.

Since when is government a private organization? Because the context in which the unions operate in this case is governmental, referring to them as "private" reflects either a fundamental ignorance of the situation or something of the disingenuous.

Unions are shit. They are shit because the ALWAYS degenerate into the same rotten things - just as does unaccountable government. And yes, unions are indeed unaccountable to the memberships. I have watched them in action for far too many decades to see anything otherwise.

Teachers should be free to form unions. Schools should be free to fire teachers without cause. THAT is part and parcel of freedom, but that isn't what most people want. They want their pretty slavery - all the desired advantages without having to pay the piper for the dancing. Typical looter mentality - getting something for nothing. It is pure bullshit.

That "law" (arbitrary, horse shit, mal-principled law) protects them from being fired is the real problem. Crap teachers need to go. If a righteous teacher is canned, well that's tough shit just as is the case for any other job. If you as a teacher get the heave-ho and feel it was unjust, take the school to court and see what a jury says. You may win... or not. Life is risk. Don't want risk? Don't play. It is as simple as that. That people have come to believe that they are entitled to anything at the expense of others is prima facie proof of just how psychologically unsound they are.

When I became a NYC teacher, I was told I had no choice but to pay union dues. I could decline membership if I chose, but that $30/month was coming out of my check regardless whether I agreed. I was robbed by UFT Local 2 with the aid of the city government. As far as I am concerned, they owe me that money with interest.

Your POV seems in serious need of revision, unless you simply failed to express your opinion adequately.

osan
03-05-2011, 12:40 PM
The current line parroted on Faux News is that we can't place a cap on Wall Street paychecks because that would be unfair. But as long as Wall Street gets government money, we should be calling them out on their hypocrisy. If they want to distort what libertarianism means, let's not make their jobs easier.

Ah, now here you finally get something right.

osan
03-05-2011, 12:44 PM
See, this is the part that's so bizarre to me. Teachers aren't fat cats, getting paid for doing nothing. They're teachers. They teach our children, and look at how much respect they're getting for that.

They teach our children shit. Some of the training is quite good, but the social engineering aspect of their jobs is blatant evil. that part is not always their fault - they must inculcate the lies or find themselves in hot water. But many teachers do so with stern hard-ons. Not all teachers are good, not all bad, but every last world of educational law and the requirements they mandate are the purest evil imaginable.

Basically what you guys are saying is, if you work for the government, you should not be allowed to petition your government with a list of grievances. This isn't libertarian. This is inherently statist. Gov. Walker is using our rhetoric for statist purposes, and we should be against that.[/QUOTE]

osan
03-05-2011, 12:48 PM
The pendulum must swing back though, in order to return to a level of balance. I'm not advocating the killing of unions. They provide a necessary service...

And that would be?

osan
03-05-2011, 12:51 PM
Walker is trying to avert job layoffs, which is why he attempted to circumvent the CBA protocol. He should have simply carried on with business as usual and let nature take it's course. Districts in turn would have then terminated teachers.

No, the municipalities would have jacked the property taxes to cover the shortfall. This is historic boilerplate since at least the 1970s.

LinusVanPelt
03-05-2011, 12:52 PM
I understand we're supposed to be against public schools in principle

Yeah, actually nobody here is "supposed to be" for or against anything. We're not a public union here, we won't drag you from class and force you to march on our behalf ;)

Most of us "libertarian/conservatives" or whatever have come to the conclusion that the system is broken. Or, if you prefer, that the system functions too well for what it has been re-designed to do: Serve and enrich a small minority at the labor and expense of the majority.

Most of us have decided, after researching and thinking critically about the separate issues, that the systemic problems are directly traceable to inculcated public reliance on unelected bureaucratic agents who wield the full force and power of government violence to enforce their collective will: the IRS, the DEA, the SEC, the CIA, and yes, even more "benign" agencies like the DOE or the (truly absurd) NEA.

As for the particular issue at hand: I don't want to "punish" teachers. I myself worked for the New York public school system in Harlem, supervising an after-school program and working directly with kids age 8-11. I know how difficult it is. It was one of the toughest, and most rewarding, jobs I've ever had.

I want the system to serve the kids, not the adults who have control of the system. I want poor kids to have the educational opportunities that Democratic and Republican politicians have for their children, i.e. private schools, like where Obama's kids go.

Have you seent he documentary Waiting for Superman?

osan
03-05-2011, 12:53 PM
I don't think the government has the right to infringe the free association of workers. That's my response. :/

FTW, this sizing up as another uber-troll.

Stop feeding.

angelatc
03-05-2011, 12:57 PM
I don't think the government has the right to infringe the free association of workers. That's my response. :/

Nobody is saying they can't associate with each other. This bill doesn't take away their right to be a union. The governor is saying that they can't keep purchasing Democrats to vote themselves pay raises that exceed COLA. If they want to associate and take their request for bigger financial gain to the same public that has to pay it, they're perfectly able to do that.

jtstellar
03-05-2011, 12:58 PM
from recent constant outcries from liberals, i have gathered enough insight to figure out how liberal's mind works and see that the notion of their respect for social liberties is simply a myth.

they see the society as a construct for interactions between groups. there are no individuals.. to have rights you must belong to a group. thus one racial group may be entitled to better education relative to their actual academic achievement.

the economy is always a finite pie to be divided.. groups decide among themselves how to divide the pie via "democracy". it's why liberals praise the word democracy so highly and deem it essential. it's the platform with which they dominate small guys and divide loots and share power. interestingly enough, they seldom question how or how fast human's progression in terms of technology comes about, how wealth is created, and how their activities may hamper it all.

the notion that liberals respect social liberties is entirely a myth.. they usually do not legislate into personal behaviors simply because many behaviors are not significant enough to affect collectives. it's basically "you do what you want when it doesn't matter". you do your share in the labor camp, and the rest is your free time.

when your economic activities grow too powerful or when your health affects the health care budget.. when your private activities affect groups, rights will be taken away. it's not that social liberties are somehow respected in any regard in the minds of liberals.. whatever part is still left in their "social liberty", they just haven't gotten around to butcher it yet. when groups grow extensively enough, there won't be any left. there are no "social liberals".. libertarians need to stop crediting unworthy people of unintended deeds.

kinda a messy post.. only slept couple hrs last night

LibForestPaul
03-05-2011, 01:44 PM
When I became a NYC teacher, I was told I had no choice but to pay union dues. I could decline membership if I chose, but that $30/month was coming out of my check regardless whether I agreed. I was robbed by UFT Local 2 with the aid of the city government. As far as I am concerned, they owe me that money with interest.


Sums pretty much everything up.

Doug8796
03-05-2011, 02:07 PM
It is up to the states, thats why

Sentient Void
03-05-2011, 03:32 PM
from recent constant outcries from liberals, i have gathered enough insight to figure out how liberal's mind works and see that the notion of their respect for social liberties is simply a myth.

they see the society as a construct for interactions between groups. there are no individuals.. to have rights you must belong to a group. thus one racial group may be entitled to better education relative to their actual academic achievement.

the economy is always a finite pie to be divided.. groups decide among themselves how to divide the pie via "democracy". it's why liberals praise the word democracy so highly and deem it essential. it's the platform with which they dominate small guys and divide loots and share power. interestingly enough, they seldom question how or how fast human's progression in terms of technology comes about, how wealth is created, and how their activities may hamper it all.

the notion that liberals respect social liberties is entirely a myth.. they usually do not legislate into personal behaviors simply because many behaviors are not significant enough to affect collectives. it's basically "you do what you want when it doesn't matter". you do your share in the labor camp, and the rest is your free time.

when your economic activities grow too powerful or when your health affects the health care budget.. when your private activities affect groups, rights will be taken away. it's not that social liberties are somehow respected in any regard in the minds of liberals.. whatever part is still left in their "social liberty", they just haven't gotten around to butcher it yet. when groups grow extensively enough, there won't be any left. there are no "social liberals".. libertarians need to stop crediting unworthy people of unintended deeds.

kinda a messy post.. only slept couple hrs last night

^^^^^ *this*.

Spot on, bro. Great analysis of the liberal mind. I wholeheartedly agree.

raiha
03-05-2011, 04:13 PM
This is an interesting discussion. I haven't been following the Wisconsin thing much cos I have been in 'Earthquakes-ville"
I thought it was similar to what went on in France, the people pissed off about wall st being bailed out and the little person being forced to make concessions (yet abloodygain). I don't need anyone to point out France is largely socialist...their ire is understandable. I find it fascinating that your unions force you to join or you do not get the benefits. That is not unionism in my book.
I was brought up in a staunch union family (can't help that) and they were fantastic in the good ole days because the workers WERE being screwed working for peanunts in crap conditions. If unions become corrupt and work alongside government, that is another problem. Our current unions work against government bureaucracy and inefficiency and take them to task.
I do so wish people would not get uppity if someone thinks differently. Change is gradual and sometimes painful as suddently you realize your thinking has changed and suddenly you find you have arguments with your former liberal friends. The cogs have moved irretreivably around. Lambasting and accusing people of trolldom because their thinking does not match yours is not friendly or welcoming and people with good minds need to be cut some slack. This colouring of anyone who leans left (like me) as a commie and a troll is tedious. Gently, Gently catchee monkee.

jtstellar
03-05-2011, 08:38 PM
^^^^^ *this*.

Spot on, bro. Great analysis of the liberal mind. I wholeheartedly agree.

thanks.. it just dawned on me all of a sudden that libertarians are giving liberals too much credit for civil liberties.

Matt Collins
03-08-2011, 01:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJe4QskcHSo&feature=uploademail

ChaosControl
03-08-2011, 02:09 PM
I am on their side.
There is no "supposed to", there is only what you are. You can be on their side if you want, you don't need approval of this or any other place.
For all the obsession people here make about "collectivist" nonsense, they sure like to act like a herd.

I am not against public schools in principle, I am only against how they are currently setup. But even with them being set up poorly, I still support workers being able to collectively bargain for better terms.

guitarlifter
03-08-2011, 02:42 PM
My own mother is a teacher, and when she walked up to me to ask me to support collective bargaining and to raise taxes for the building of a new local school, I told her that taxation is wrong, and that her job needs to be privatized and paid for by willing participants, not forcibly through theft. That's how strongly I feel about the situation. Never compromise. Taxation is wrong, no matter how much benefit it brings. Proverbs 16:8 says, "Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice." I will never perform a wrong in order to bring about a right, for to do so brings about no righteousness at all.

Golding
03-08-2011, 02:55 PM
Nobody is saying they can't associate with each other. This bill doesn't take away their right to be a union. The governor is saying that they can't keep purchasing Democrats to vote themselves pay raises that exceed COLA. If they want to associate and take their request for bigger financial gain to the same public that has to pay it, they're perfectly able to do that. In fairness, the bill does take away the right for University of Wisconsin workers, child care workers, and home nursing workers to unionize. Considering where their income actually comes from, and considering the benefits that some of them receive (ie: tenure) at the expense of taxpayers, I don't really sympathize with them. But nonetheless, there is some truth that specific jobs are having their collective bargaining abilities revoked.

Carson
03-08-2011, 07:15 PM
How many more weeks of the Unions malarkey?

They are looting us and spending for their projects, front organizations, and other hoopla while our attention is diverted. Are they not?

Stary Hickory
03-08-2011, 07:31 PM
In fairness, the bill does take away the right for University of Wisconsin workers, child care workers, and home nursing workers to unionize. Considering where their income actually comes from, and considering the benefits that some of them receive (ie: tenure) at the expense of taxpayers, I don't really sympathize with them. But nonetheless, there is some truth that specific jobs are having their collective bargaining abilities revoked.

Absolutely false as an employer they are stipulating that they will on hire and employ people who refrain from attempting to use unions for certain purposes. These people are still free to unionize and make whatever demands...and WI can fire them or refuse them.

madfoot
03-08-2011, 08:12 PM
My own mother is a teacher, and when she walked up to me to ask me to support collective bargaining and to raise taxes for the building of a new local school, I told her that taxation is wrong, and that her job needs to be privatized and paid for by willing participants, not forcibly through theft. That's how strongly I feel about the situation. Never compromise. Taxation is wrong, no matter how much benefit it brings. Proverbs 16:8 says, "Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice." I will never perform a wrong in order to bring about a right, for to do so brings about no righteousness at all.

So you're okay with disproportionately hurting the working class, as long as the end justifies the means by lowering taxes for somebody.

dbill27
03-08-2011, 10:16 PM
yeah I'm on neither side, for where both sides are for voluntarism, I agree, where both sides are for compulsion, I'm agains

Where are the protestors on the side of voluntarism?

Philhelm
03-08-2011, 10:38 PM
So you're okay with disproportionately hurting the working class, as long as the end justifies the means by lowering taxes for somebody.

Really? That's a disinegenuous question, and falsely assumes that the working class is morally superior simply by the virtue of having less wealth than the employer class. Are all employers evil robber barons, pilfering the public? guitarlifter made it clear that he believes that taxation is morally wrong, yet you twist that into a class warfare issue, mixed with accusations of greed and selfishness on the part of those that involuntarily labor in order to provide the government with money.

If the teachers were in the private sector, I would have no problem with their union. The problem is with public sector unions. Who's the oppressor here? The Wisconsin taxpayer? As far as I'm concerned, government workers are the government, or at least part of it. The bottom line is that it's the public unions that are selfish and greedy; they are the aggressor, and it's the taxpayer that is the defender.

Edit: Also, what about those who are forced to join a public union in order to retain certain jobs? What of their rights?

Sentient Void
03-08-2011, 10:57 PM
The myth of collective bargaining... exploded.


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

dbill27
03-08-2011, 11:06 PM
The myth of collective bargaining... exploded.


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

Thank you for posting this, can't wait to put it on facebook tommorow during prime-time.

madfoot
03-09-2011, 02:01 AM
If the teachers were in the private sector, I would have no problem with their union. The problem is with public sector unions. Who's the oppressor here? The Wisconsin taxpayer? As far as I'm concerned, government workers are the government, or at least part of it. The bottom line is that it's the public unions that are selfish and greedy; they are the aggressor, and it's the taxpayer that is the defender.

So basically, because teachers work for the state, they're not entitled to the right of free association that the private sector enjoys? I don't really see the fairness in that. It just seems to me like a lot of you against the unions are being blinded by ideology here.

I mean, "The Wisconsin taxpayer" - you're acting like these people don't pay taxes. They *are* the Wisconsin taxpayers.

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 02:13 AM
So basically, because teachers work for the state, they're not entitled to the right of free association that the private sector enjoys? I don't really see the fairness in that. It just seems to me like a lot of you against the unions are being blinded by ideology here.

I mean, "The Wisconsin taxpayer" - you're acting like these people don't pay taxes. They *are* the Wisconsin taxpayers.

No. You are conflating the 'right to associate' with some alleged 'right to bargain', There is *no* 'right to bargain'. That is a *privilege*. You can ask to bargain all you want, and the person you want to bargain with can agree to talk with you, or he can tell you to go fuck yourself. He has the right to not associate with you, much like you have the right to associate with anyone you choose.

There are net taxpayers, and net taxtakers. Public union workers, public workers in general, whether they pay 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 70% or 99% of their income in taxes - are net tax-takers. All of their income is funded by taxation. So now, they are not taxpayers. They are taxtakers. The taxpayers are their bosses, and they have the right to tell them *no*. They have the right to dictate what they are paid, and the right to decide whether they want to bargain with them or not, and if they don't like it - they can go work somewhere else. Maybe actually be productive for once in their parasitic lives when they work in the private sector.

Fox McCloud
03-09-2011, 04:09 AM
As Walter Block pointed out, paying taxes, for government employees, is just a formality--they don't actually pay taxes, at all; their income, once adjusted for taxes taken out, is what they're really getting payed.

Danke
03-09-2011, 05:02 AM
As Walter Block pointed out, paying taxes, for government employees, is just a formality--they don't actually pay taxes, at all; their income, once adjusted for taxes taken out, is what they're really getting payed.

Exactly. That is why it is called a "Return." The Income Tax is an excise tax (i.e. a privilege tax) on a government related activity.