User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 68

  1. #21
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Many states already prohibit collective bargaining by public unions, and the bill does not eliminate unions altogether. If weakened unions make states states less attractive to workers, how do you explain the steady migration of workers to the predominately right-to-work Sun Belt states?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_belt

    In the first paragraph, I can already find a multitude of reasons, none of which have anything at all to do with "right to work". How you can claim that these workers have "rights", when the ability to negotiate for fair pay and working conditions is removed is beyond my understanding.

  2. #22
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    The funny thing is that I'm not much of a union supporter but this move is unbelievably stupid. It's also threatening from a civil rights perspective.

    Consider how the police department refused to arrest the Dems who fled in their attempt to block the vote. Imagine the chaos if essential service union workers all walked out at the same time. And who could stop them? Would the state then bring in the National Guard and consider it under martial law? Pure insanity and totally unnecessary drama. They've infringed on civil rights.

  3. #23
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    How you can claim that these workers have "rights", when the ability to negotiate for fair pay and working conditions is removed is beyond my understanding.
    They have the right to negotiate on their own behalf and not be forced to join and give money to an organization they don't support.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    They have the right to negotiate on their own behalf and not be forced to join and give money to an organization they don't support.
    How does eliminating the capacity for workers to negotiate with the state become a right? You're arguing about mandatory membership, which is a separate issue, irrelevant to the complete elimination of collective bargaining with the state.

    Should workers be able to negotiate the conditions of their employment, or should they not? That is the question. Governor Walker has made his answer abundantly clear.

  5. #25
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Can you expand on this and how eliminating worker's rights to bargaining power is within their mandate and legal authority?
    1.) They can vote with all the other tax-payers to determine what the benefits associatted with being a public employee should be.

    2.) Can you show me where the right for public employees to collectively bargain is in the Wisconsin constitution?

  6. #26
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    1.) They can vote with all the other tax-payers to determine what the benefits associatted with being a public employee should be.

    2.) Can you show me where the right for public employees to collectively bargain is in the Wisconsin constitution?
    Sure, I'll start looking once you've answered my question.

  7. #27
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    How does eliminating the capacity for workers to negotiate with the state become a right? You're arguing about mandatory membership, which is a separate issue, irrelevant to the complete elimination of collective bargaining with the state.
    Its part of the same bill (and its bargaining for pensions and benefits thats eliminated, not 'complete collective bargaing'). As for the rest, suffice to say for now that public employees (who are in legally monopolistic professions and have privilaged access to such professions on the basis of union membership-a civil rights violation itself-are not in the same position as private employees, and do not have the same rights.

  8. #28
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Sure, I'll start looking once you've answered my question.
    Its up to you to demonstrate that they (and the states which have already done this) have exceeded their authority.

    Do you think its a civil rights violation to prevent strikes by policeman and fireman? Does it exceed the authority of governments to legally restrict such strikes?

  9. #29
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Its part of the same bill (and its bargaining for pensions and benefits thats eliminated, not 'complete collective bargaing'). As for the rest, suffice to say for now that public employees (who are in legally monopolistic professions and have privilaged access to such professions on the basis of union membership-a civil rights violation itself-are not in the same position as private employees, and do not have the same rights.
    It's more than that.

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/...te-budget-bill

    The bill authorizes state officials to fire any state employee who joins a strike, walk-out, sit-in, or coordinated effort to call in sick.
    Prohibiting workers from striking is very serious.

  10. #30
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Its up to you to demonstrate that they (and the states which have already done this) have exceeded their authority.

    Do you think its a civil rights violation to prevent strikes by policeman and fireman? Does it exceed the authority of governments to legally restrict such strikes?
    My question came first. So I await your explanation. Until then, we're at an impasse.

Similar Threads

  1. Avoiding people in public places
    By chatoyer in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-22-2016, 03:01 PM
  2. Which sector do you work in?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 04:12 PM
  3. Title of this sector.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 05:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO