Post
by turk » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:19 am
Emotions run "high" in this debate. Of course I have the right to bargain for my wages, benefits, and conditions, as an individual. I have the "right" to unionize if I feel that will help my case. The point I'm making is this: what have the unions (especially the public sector unions, specifically teachers, but all of them), done for "workers'" rights in the last 40 years? Russell says it has kept them from "eroding". Really? How did they keep them from eroding? I agree most of the "workers'" rights encoded in labor laws today are thanks to unions in the past. But I think most people , unions and otherwise just see the common sense and mutual benefits of the vast majority of the laws. So, even corporations have a vested interest in compensating their workforce fairly to get the best efficiency - in the majority of cases. Once again, I point out: most federal workers don't have collective bargaining rights for wages, benefits, and pensions. They have unions and bargaining units for other grievances though. Once again, I pose the simple question: is the public out to exploit the public sector workforce, or vise-versa? They can have unions. Hey, so can we then. Is it that adversarial?
A man said to the universe, "Sir I exist! "However," replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."
"Let me be perfectly clear" "[...] And so that was just a example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country." Barry Sotero