Wisconsin Protests

[ruckman101]

What the unions have done is help keep those rights from being eroded. Its checks and balances Why should a public sector employee not have the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. Quite frankly that you and others may think otherwise convinces me of the very necessity. I have no issue with negotiating in earnest with labor, that's how it should be, but why tip the scale in favor of one of the parties at the table. Again we are misdirecting where the responsibility lies; place it on the elected officials that agreed to the contracts.

Exactamente. Where's the big budget savings? Or even little budget savings. It has nothing to do with the budget.


neal

[turk]

They have more "rights" than us who don't collectively bargain. But yes, the officials who promised the pensions (why? because they probably were paid off by the unions) are responsible, as the taxpayers are, to fund those benefits, supposedly. The conflict of interest is the public only has elections to "bargain" which candidates get office. That's the quandary with public sector unions' collective bargaining "rights": while the union has the additional "bargaining" tool with those candidates, the rest of the public doesn't, even though theoretically, they work for all of us.

[ruckman101]

They have more "rights" than us who don't collectively bargain. But yes, the officials who promised the pensions (why? because they probably were paid off by the unions) are responsible, as the taxpayers are, to fund those benefits, supposedly. The conflict of interest is the public only has elections to "bargain" which candidates get office. That's the quandary with public sector unions' collective bargaining "rights": while the union has the additional "bargaining" tool with those candidates, the rest of the public doesn't, even though theoretically, they work for all of us.

Your concerns are a symptom of the disease. Campaign finance reform. Let's start with striking down that Supreme Court Citizen's United decision. Two of the justices should have reclused themselves, after ALEC hosted them at one of their meetings.


neal

[turk]

Which would mean unions can't donate either if I understand your suggestion. Another idea would be term limits and/or cutting some of their benefits. I understand elected officials get some of the most generous pensions and health care, paid for by taxes.

[ruckman101]

If corporations are no longer able to donate to politics, I have no problem with unions being in the same boat. $Billions to doughnuts, anyway. Publicly financed, donation cap per individual person, corporations are not people.


neal

[turk]

And unions are people. That's one of the biggest fallacies in this debate. Unions are some kind of messiah for the people. It's not really true. And they sure do donate a lot to their candidate, regardless of what the individual members' preferences are. I think they are one of the top campaign contributors, if not the top. Unions are not people.

[ruckman101]

Union campaign contributions are a paltry drop in the bucket compared to corporate contributions. Unions represent people. No fallacy there.


neal

[Amskeptic]

Unions represent people. No fallacy there.
neal

Springing off of Neal's post, turk, what on Earth do you think unions do that does not represent the best interests of their members or society at-large? They are not dumping PCBs in the Hudson River and out-sourcing jobs, now are they? What do they do that really honestly is not good for the country?
Colin

[RussellK]

They have more "rights" than us who don't collectively bargain. .

No. They don't have more rights. You have exactly the same rights they do. The right to organize and have a union negotiate their labor agreement. Just because you personally choose not to exercise that right shouldn't preclude them should it?

[chitwnvw]

I disagree, not all of us can unionize, and unions do you give you more of a 'say' or rights. I see it everyday, if you are at a union where I work, you can file a 'grievance'. They can't just fire you, they can't just shit down your throat and demand you call it a milkshake. Especially with the job market today, the employee is not in a position of strength.

[ruckman101]

And that's they way corporations and Scott Walker want it. Coming up next? Abolishment of the minimum wage.

Maybe you should organize.



neal

[chitwnvw]

And that's they way corporations and Scott Walker want it. Coming up next? Abolishment of the minimum wage.

Maybe you should organize.



neal

Tried it. Everyone moans about not giving the f*cking unions a cut of their check.

[RussellK]

Sorry to hear that Chi. My town used to be a strong union town. Not any more. When it was. nearly every truck driver had a union card. Then Overnite, a non union operator moved in. Their drivers would go around bad mouthing the union. What they couldn't comprehend was that it was union scale that bench-marked their pay scale. Their brethren in the so called right to work non union regions were paid less.

[turk]

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?

[ruckman101]

Too bad corporations didn't recognize their "vested interests in compensating their workforce fairly to get the best efficiency" until unions forced them too. Those same corporations, however, aren't squeamish about pursuing their "vested interests" by taking those fairly compensated jobs overseas for cheap unfairly compensated labor. Remember, a corps legal obligation is to pursue profit. First. Primarily. Even if it comes down to bankrupting governments through public money welfare flowing to them from the politicians they have elected, then blaming that fiscal crisis on public sector workers and unions.


neal