Poll
6 votes (24%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
16 votes (64%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
3 votes (12%) |
25 members have voted
Is it a RIGHT in the same sense that voting is?
I voted, No, but it was a negotiated agreement.
Emphasis on negotiated. It can be renegotiated, or the agreement can expire, but it's not a right like voting is, and the people who report this are, at best, mistaken.
1) Do you think that you have the right to forgo Health Insurance?
2) Do you think that you have the right to demonstrate outside of an abortion clinic?
3) Do you think that you have the right to associate and meet with other law abiding citizens?
Quote: s2dbakerThree questions before I respond,
1) Do you think that you have the right to forgo Health Insurance?
2) Do you think that you have the right to demonstrate outside of an abortion clinic?
3) Do you think that you have the right to associate and meet with other law abiding citizens?
Start your own threads on these issues and I'll decide whether or not to post there.
I think the ability to make collective bargaining is a valuable right that should be protected, but not such that a person has to opt into such a bargaining scheme for the purposes of employment. The required membership of a Union (or by extension, required membership of a CBA) must be against other Human Rights, such as free ability to associate and work for whomever one wishes (in fact article 20 makes it clear that no membership should be forced, and article 23.1 protects a persons right to work and free choice of employment).
So if someone is using article 23.4 of the Human Rights charter to protect Collective bargaining, they MUST give up the enforcement of closed shop Unions (or Union Monopolies) under 23.1.
As I stated eleswhere, I'm certainly left of (British Centre) on some things, could be called a liberal or socialist if you insist, but would never support a mandatory Union again.
Overall any business with more than ten employees is better off with some form of collective bargaining, as dealing with each employee is otherwise too time consuming. But it should still be a choice.
BTW while unions may be necessary in order to obtain a good deal from an employer, they also tend to become corrupt and to focus on the prerogatives of the leadership. Therefore closed shops, heavy contributions to a politicla party, involvement in local and state politics, etc, etc.
Quote: s2dbakerYou're no fun at all. I was trying to box you in but you're obviously too intelligent for that ploy. If you answer yes to those questions then you also belief that Collective Bargaining is a right, just like voting. But you answered 'no' which then begs the question. Which of the three rights I posted do you believe is not in fact a right?
Thank you for telling me what I believe.
Quote: MoscaI voted yes. In a society that is fundamentally based on economic freedom, citizens should have the right to bargain collectively to enhance their economic situation.
I agree that citizens should have this right, but at the same time, forcing others to join the collective, or pay the equivalent of "union dues" in order to be employed at the same shop does not support "economic freedom".
I do think that 'rights' that are dependent on outside forces are generally fallacious. The 'right' to health care that some argue for, for example, is laughable because it assumes that other people will always choose to be doctors, or to make pills, etc. I cannot really see this affecting the 'right' to unionize, however.
I didn't know what to vote for.
Quote: MoscaI voted yes. In a society that is fundamentally based on economic freedom, citizens should have the right to bargain collectively to enhance their economic situation.
Hmmm ... this makes me think that I worded the question poorly. Of course, people have the right to bargain [whatever adverb]-ly (honeslty, dishonestly, smartly, stupidly, uply, lowly, collectively, etc.) and reach agreements, good or bad. And, agreements are enforceable (see also tort law).
I meant to word it in a way that conveyed, "is the right fundamental in the same way that voting is a right?". In other words, the WI senate could (hypothetically)vote to take away the vote, but that would be illegal ... as opposed to taking away collective bargaining, which is not illegal.
Clear as mud?
That's my problem with this issue. Collective bargaining can never be on the up and up with government jobs. I'm all for it with private companies and was a part of one for a few years with my first job after college. I just don't understand why all those young people in Madison can't comprehend that the current contracts are unsustainable and they are picketing for the right of the current population to retire with a pension when they are 5 but they will be forced to work until they are 70 until their pension kicks in at the current rate some of these union contracts are at.
Quote: s2dbakerThree questions before I respond,
1) Do you think that you have the right to forgo Health Insurance?
2) Do you think that you have the right to demonstrate outside of an abortion clinic?
3) Do you think that you have the right to associate and meet with other law abiding citizens?
1) Yes. And health care providers should have a right to refuse service if there is no ability to pay.
2) Yes. Peacefully.
3) Yes.
---
Collective bargaining? Sure.
But that doesn't mean the employer has to agree or meet with you. Nor does it mean that you're entitled to walk a picket line when you chose, and expect to go back to work when the organizers decide not to picket anymore.
Nor does it prevent the boss from firing whoever the heck they want.
That is, unless prior collective bargaining produced a contract. Then ALL parties are required to abide by the rules of the contract. If the boss signed a contract that says he can't fire you if you walk a picket line, then, I guess you have that right, while assuming your job is safe.
---
I went to one union meeting in my life. I was the DJ at a new night club. They were open just a couple weeks. Before the meeting started, I asked the union rep one question: How do I get out of the union? He didn't bother to ask why, but simply looked at his list, and said, You're the DJ? You're considered management. You're not in it.
I'm anti-union. Can you tell?
Quote: DJTeddyBearI'm anti-union. Can you tell?
Did I ever tell you when union B wanted us to fire all our employees, who were affiliated with union A?
All in the name of getting the working poor a better deal, of course.
Bargaining is a right, no doubt. But ...
Is ending the particular type of bargaining called "Collective Bargaining" via renegotiation and/or expiration of an existing agreement and entering into a different type of bargaining and/or agreement ILLEGAL in the same way that taking away the right to vote is?
glad to helpQuote: ItsCalledSoccerThank you for telling me what I believe.
Quote: DJTeddyBear1) Yes. And health care providers should have a right to refuse service if there is no ability to pay.
I work in a trauma hospital. I cannot even inquire about a patient's ability to pay before I take care of him.
Government employee unions are, fundamentally, monopolies that negotiate with bought and paid for politicians for our tax dollars.
Can employees get together and negotiate with an employer? Absolutely!
Can these same employees demand that everyone that works there join them and pay dues to them? Unfortunately true in parts of our country.
As far as "collective bargaining" being a fundamental human right. NO. I believe that no "human right" can entail the taking of something from someone else and giving it to someone else just because you have decided that is the "fair" thing to do.
Collective bargaining for public employees wasn't allowed until 1959.
As a side note, I don't think the Wisconsin battle is about collective bargaining per se. Public employees would still be able to bargain for wages, while union employees in the federal government may not bargain collectively at all. The unions are deathly afraid of the provision that will end the mandatory payment of dues. They fear, correctly, that once workers have a choice in the matter, the amount of money flowing to the unions will plummet.
Now I've seen the question restated/clarified, I would vote No, it's not a fundamental right. It's something that can be negotiated in and out over time, but it's not part of the charter of Universal Human Rights (which is a pretty good starting point for me) and not something my own internal morals say is an inalienable right that it's "wrong" for an representative body to remove after a vote... if the workers feel it is a necessary condition to work, they should withdraw their labour.
Quote: AyecarumbaI agree that citizens should have this right, but at the same time, forcing others to join the collective, or pay the equivalent of "union dues" in order to be employed at the same shop does not support "economic freedom".
But that wasn't the question.
Quote: [q=progrockerI do think that 'rights' that are dependent on outside forces are generally fallacious. The 'right' to health care that some argue for, for example, is laughable because it assumes that other people will always choose to be doctors, or to make pills, etc. I cannot really see this affecting the 'right' to unionize, however.
A right to life is generally considered a right.
A fetus below a certain age is dependent for a right to life on another's body. You can't simply walk away and not kill it or even transfer it to another party successfully even if you're willing to accept the consequences of some criminal punishment.
Quote: timberjimI believe that no "human right" can entail the taking of something from someone else and giving it to someone else just because you have decided that is the "fair" thing to do.
Same as above.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerQuote: MoscaI voted yes. In a society that is fundamentally based on economic freedom, citizens should have the right to bargain collectively to enhance their economic situation.
Hmmm ... this makes me think that I worded the question poorly. Of course, people have the right to bargain [whatever adverb]-ly (honeslty, dishonestly, smartly, stupidly, uply, lowly, collectively, etc.) and reach agreements, good or bad. And, agreements are enforceable (see also tort law).
I meant to word it in a way that conveyed, "is the right fundamental in the same way that voting is a right?". In other words, the WI senate could (hypothetically)vote to take away the vote, but that would be illegal ... as opposed to taking away collective bargaining, which is not illegal.
Clear as mud?
I think I got it and answered it the way you asked it. I believe that is is a right in the same way that voting is a right.
Now, if you want to get technical and call voting a right explicitly granted in The Constitution, and collective bargaining a right due to its not being legislated against, then no, it is not a right in that way. But as far as its importance to equality and the prosperity of our nation, it is as important as voting.
Some have raised other issues related to unions and collective bargaining. I just don't see that as part of the basic question. ItsCalledSoccer wants to start at the most basic level: should workers be allowed to unionize and bargain collectively? If you answer "yes", as I did, then you need to be prepared to deal with the way it has evolved, and frankly I'm not knowledgeable enough to work it through, seeing as how it appears in theory is different from how it is actually practiced, which is then even farther from how it actually affects people in man-to-man situations...
Which is something I AM actually pretty familiar with, having been a union man at one time and having seen both sides of it, the good and the bad. We had bricks thrown at our house, and I was threatened by teachers (and benched and harassed by my basketball coach), when I was in high school and my father was on the school board, during a teachers strike. My brother and I walked picket lines in the '70s, while our father was barricaded inside the plant as part of management (Strike against Hercules Chemical Corp, 1977).
At the same time, it wasn't a hundred years ago that management had the federal government call out the National Guard to fire on striking steelworkers (June 1937). Corporations routinely hired mercenaries to murder striking workers (Ludlow massacre, 1914). So, people sometimes have short memories. It can't happen here? But it did, and not so long ago, either. Folks got to stand up for their rights, if they don't have the power of government behind them.
Quote: rxwineA right to life is generally considered a right.
A fetus below a certain age is dependent for a right to life on another's body. You can't simply walk away and not kill it or even transfer it to another party successfully even if you're willing to accept the consequences of some criminal punishment.
Ah yes, the issue of children is always a difficult one in a good discussion of inalienable vs legal rights. I have no good answer. An e-friend of mine would often continue from your position to argue that children should have the right to vote. I had no good answer for that, either. It seems that the legal position is that no one has rights until they are 18...or at least they do not have all the rights they will ever have until an arbitrary birthday. I guess there there are inconsistencies everywhere.
Quote: MoscaI think I got it and answered it the way you asked it. I believe that is is a right in the same way that voting is a right.
Now, if you want to get technical and call voting a right explicitly granted in The Constitution, and collective bargaining a right due to its not being legislated against, then no, it is not a right in that way. But as far as its importance to equality and the prosperity of our nation, it is as important as voting.
Some have raised other issues related to unions and collective bargaining. I just don't see that as part of the basic question. ItsCalledSoccer wants to start at the most basic level: should workers be allowed to unionize and bargain collectively? If you answer "yes", as I did, then you need to be prepared to deal with the way it has evolved, and frankly I'm not knowledgeable enough to work it through, seeing as how it appears in theory is different from how it is actually practiced, which is then even farther from how it actually affects people in man-to-man situations...
Which is something I AM actually pretty familiar with, having been a union man at one time and having seen both sides of it, the good and the bad. We had bricks thrown at our house, and I was threatened by teachers (and benched and harassed by my basketball coach), when I was in high school and my father was on the school board, during a teachers strike. My brother and I walked picket lines in the '70s, while our father was barricaded inside the plant as part of management (Strike against Hercules Chemical Corp, 1977).
At the same time, it wasn't a hundred years ago that management had the federal government call out the National Guard to fire on striking steelworkers (June 1937). Corporations routinely hired mercenaries to murder striking workers (Ludlow massacre, 1914). So, people sometimes have short memories. It can't happen here? But it did, and not so long ago, either. Folks got to stand up for their rights, if they don't have the power of government behind them.
Actually, that's not what I meant at all. I don't give myself an A+ for clarity on this one, but there also seems to be a wide interpretation of what is meant by "the right to collectively bargain."
FWIW, I'm not asking about "should unions be allowed to organize and collectively bargain." Clearly, they should. But on the flip side, the management (in this case, the State of WI) should also be allowed to not offer or engage in collective bargaining. WI is perfectly within its rights to not offer collective bargaining. By not offering it, they are breaking no higher law. And from what I can glean, WI is making no effort to outlaw the particular negotiation technique called "Collective Bargaining."
But the same thinking doesn't work for voting. People have the RIGHT to vote. On the flip side ... well, there is no flip side. WI *MUST* let their people vote. If they were to not allow them to vote, they would be breaking a higher law.
That's the way I meant to ask, and that's the sense in which I mean, "Is collective bargaining a RIGHT?". In that sense, no, it is not, and anyone who says otherwise is misleading at best and deceiving at worst.
Perhaps this is why 90% of private workers and companies are not unionized?
Collective bargaining balanced against other measures such as relative indebtedness or soundness of the state budgets is the way to go I think. Rather than doing away with collective bargaining. (But that has nothing to do with the right to it, I admit)
.
Quote: AZDuffmanUnion membership is not a fundamental human right but a right given under the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley Law.
The UN Charter of Human Rights begs to differ with you on that one. No idea if the US signed up to the charter though. I certainly think that free association should be allowed, and there is a problem where someone's short sightedness (management, union, owners) can screw the balance. Banning Unions seems to me to be akin to banning managements ability to set wages.
I have no idea how you resolve the fundamental problem of change which means people lose their jobs (thus livelihoods even in the short term) over change that betters the situation in general.
Along the lines of thecesspit's argument, the Catholic Church holds that union busting is a mortal sin. From CATHOLIC SCHOLARS FOR WORKER JUSTICE,
Quote:Union busting refers to the action of any person who seeks to prevent employees from form-ing a labor union, or who attempts to undermine or destroy an existing union. This person is in grave material violation of Catholic Social Doctrine on labor unions. This violation of Catholic Doctrine constitutes material grounds for mortal sin, because it stands in grave violation of: 1) both the letter and spirit of Catholic Social Doctrine; 2) the roots of this Doctrine in the First Commandment (idolatry), the Fifth Commandment (scandal), and the Seventh Commandment (theft). We will discuss each point in turn.
Catholic Social Doctrine is forthright and unambiguous on labor unions: it states boldly that they are essential to the universal common good. A complete discussion of official Catholic Doctrine on workers‟ rights and labor unions can be found in the COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, (See Chapter 6: Of Human Work, pars. 323-376).1 The COMPENDIUM summarizes 2000 years of Catholic teaching on social justice and peace, and the roots of that teaching in the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Ten Commandments.
The COMPENDIUM states clearly that labor unions are a positive influence for social order and solidarity, and are therefore an indispensible element of social life. (Par. 305) The Catholic Church teaches that unions have the duty of acting as representatives working for the proper arrangement of economic life and must play an active role in the whole task of economic and social development and in the attainment of the universal common good. (Par. 307)
1 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH (Vatican City State: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004).
COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH is also available on line at the Vatican website
....
Not that Christianity has been anything other than totally schizophrenic in its teaching, but there's a cogent argument here to frame collective bargaining as a moral right.
Like I said, I've been on the inside and seen the good and the bad. Without the unions the workers are helpless. IMO the problem isn't that our workers are unionized; it's that 3rd world labor isn't unionized and is therefore exploited to the detriment of our workers. Am I right? I don't know, it's just what I believe.
Quote: MoscaOK, then the way you mean it, no; the right to collectively bargain is NOT a right in the same way the right to vote is. But what else is?
I'll take the blame for not being clearer in the first place, but yeah, that's what I meant to ask.
It took 30-some-odd posts before an understanding was reached here in a stupid internet forum ... is it any wonder that there's such a failure of mind-meeting when words like "right" mean such different things to different people in different contexts, etc., etc., etc.
What else is? Due process, free speech, bear arms, double jeopardy, search & seizure, cruel and unusual punishment ... pretty much the whole bill of rights is a good example. These are as "arbitrary" as any other political right, but the genius of the founding fathers was to pick and choose these particular (and other) enumerated rights that guarded against government tyranny and prioritized liberty. They did a pretty good job.
The word "right" in this sense, the sense which I mean it, only has its meaning and authority because of the Constitution, so I was a little confused when you said, "if you mean Constitutional ..." The only thing that doesn't make these rights capricious and fly-by-night *is* the Constitution. Without the Constitution, free speech could be gone one day, the next day, it may be a RIGHT (in this sense) to Collective-Bargain, meaning, all governments and employers HAVE to do it and it would be unconstitutional to not do it.
Agreements are renegotiated all the time when it is obvious they no longer represent current conditions, think auto industry or professional sports. The mechanism to do this should exist in the public sector.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI'll take the blame for not being clearer in the first place, but yeah, that's what I meant to ask.
It took 30-some-odd posts before an understanding was reached here in a stupid internet forum ... is it any wonder that there's such a failure of mind-meeting when words like "right" mean such different things to different people in different contexts, etc., etc., etc.
What else is? Due process, free speech, bear arms, double jeopardy, search & seizure, cruel and unusual punishment ... pretty much the whole bill of rights is a good example. These are as "arbitrary" as any other political right, but the genius of the founding fathers was to pick and choose these particular (and other) enumerated rights that guarded against government tyranny and prioritized liberty. They did a pretty good job.
The word "right" in this sense, the sense which I mean it, only has its meaning and authority because of the Constitution, so I was a little confused when you said, "if you mean Constitutional ..." The only thing that doesn't make these rights capricious and fly-by-night *is* the Constitution. Without the Constitution, free speech could be gone one day, the next day, it may be a RIGHT (in this sense) to Collective-Bargain, meaning, all governments and employers HAVE to do it and it would be unconstitutional to not do it.
I think that in this country, everything not explicitly legislated against is a right. I don't think that you can say that any one is more of a right than another. The reason certain rights have been picked out and granted specifically is that those rights either had been abridged before, or were in danger of being abridged, or that an unfairness was found and rectified. To this point, the right of collective bargaining hasn't reached that status, yet. However, it has been granted by law, in the Wagner Act (which as noted, DOES NOT cover government workers). To parse between such rights based on where they appear, either in The Constitution or as law, is splitting hairs. I would go so far as to say that trying to deny someone collective bargaining on the grounds that it ISN'T a right defined in The Constitution is, well, unconstitutional.
Quote: MoscaI think that in this country, everything not explicitly legislated against is a right. I don't think that you can say that any one is more of a right than another. The reason certain rights have been picked out and granted specifically is that those rights either had been abridged before, or were in danger of being abridged, or that an unfairness was found and rectified. To this point, the right of collective bargaining hasn't reached that status, yet. However, it has been granted by law, in the Wagner Act (which as noted, DOES NOT cover government workers). To parse between such rights based on where they appear, either in The Constitution or as law, is splitting hairs. I would go so far as to say that trying to deny someone collective bargaining on the grounds that it ISN'T a right defined in The Constitution is, well, unconstitutional.
I disagree. As a legal concept, the kind of concept that I tried to communicate in this question, I see a HUGE difference between what is lawful and what is rightful. I also see a HUGE difference between laws and rights. I also know and observe that the contemporary vernacular has effectively merged the meanings and definitions so that it's easy to see why people perceive that drawing the distinction seems like splitting hairs.
Whatever labels we put on them or however the meanings of words converge/entangle, the conceptual difference exists, and it's HUGE. Rights >>>> laws. Laws only survive if they're compatible with Rights. Laws come and go with congresses ... we're seeing that in WI. Laws can only be created if due process rights are carried out - voting, etc. Rights come and go as the Constitution is amended. There's been 27 amendments in 235 years. There's been far more laws passed in that time.
I think your last sentence is a straw man. I haven't heard anyone, anywhere try to deny collective bargaining on constitutional grounds. I also haven't heard anyone, anywhere say collective bargaining was even unlawful. What I have heard is, WI isn't willing to write any more contracts with its state workers under certain aspects (not all) of collective bargaining because ... umm ... it's not working for the public good. (It works for the union's good, and sometimes, union's good = public good, but sometimes not, and this is a NOT.) WI is not outlawing collective bargaining; it is simply saying, "We as a state government aren't going to do it that way any more with our employees."
It gets a little weird because the government, as it regards its employees, has to act as BOTH a business AND a government. I wish there were some quasi-governmental entity that dealt with the business aspect, but that's not the way things are set up ... oh well.
I understand the unions fighting to keep what they have. But I also understand that changing that LAW is *NOT* the same thing as denying a RIGHT. Disallowing collective bargaining is not unconstitutional; the federal government disallows it for its employees.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerQuote: MoscaI think that in this country, everything not explicitly legislated against is a right. I don't think that you can say that any one is more of a right than another. The reason certain rights have been picked out and granted specifically is that those rights either had been abridged before, or were in danger of being abridged, or that an unfairness was found and rectified. To this point, the right of collective bargaining hasn't reached that status, yet. However, it has been granted by law, in the Wagner Act (which as noted, DOES NOT cover government workers). To parse between such rights based on where they appear, either in The Constitution or as law, is splitting hairs. I would go so far as to say that trying to deny someone collective bargaining on the grounds that it ISN'T a right defined in The Constitution is, well, unconstitutional.
I disagree. As a legal concept, the kind of concept that I tried to communicate in this question, I see a HUGE difference between what is lawful and what is rightful. I also see a HUGE difference between laws and rights. I also know and observe that the contemporary vernacular has effectively merged the meanings and definitions so that it's easy to see why people perceive that drawing the distinction seems like splitting hairs.
Whatever labels we put on them or however the meanings of words converge/entangle, the conceptual difference exists, and it's HUGE. Rights >>>> laws. Laws only survive if they're compatible with Rights. Laws come and go with congresses ... we're seeing that in WI. Laws can only be created if due process rights are carried out - voting, etc. Rights come and go as the Constitution is amended. There's been 27 amendments in 235 years. There's been far more laws passed in that time.
I think your last sentence is a straw man. I haven't heard anyone, anywhere try to deny collective bargaining on constitutional grounds. I also haven't heard anyone, anywhere say collective bargaining was even unlawful. What I have heard is, WI isn't willing to write any more contracts with its state workers under certain aspects (not all) of collective bargaining because ... umm ... it's not working for the public good. (It works for the union's good, and sometimes, union's good = public good, but sometimes not, and this is a NOT.) WI is not outlawing collective bargaining; it is simply saying, "We as a state government aren't going to do it that way any more with our employees."
It gets a little weird because the government, as it regards its employees, has to act as BOTH a business AND a government. I wish there were some quasi-governmental entity that dealt with the business aspect, but that's not the way things are set up ... oh well.
I understand the unions fighting to keep what they have. But I also understand that changing that LAW is *NOT* the same thing as denying a RIGHT. Disallowing collective bargaining is not unconstitutional; the federal government disallows it for its employees.
We disagree. Nothing wrong with that.
Wisconsin isn't the actual topic at hand, because you didn't ask about public sector employees specifically. To go aside on that issue, I think that is one where both sides are wrong. However, I think the governor is more wrong for this reason: the union offered to take the exact deal he is offering, but not dissolve the union, and he refused... making it not about the money. He's up for the showdown. And that is something different than just balancing the state budget. And when you get to THAT level, you can't be forcing it on people.
Not sure where you are; here in the Eastern time zone it is after midnight, and I'm fading. I might or might not pick it up tomorrow, I don't generally write in the political sections, too much rancor. But this was fun, you make some good points. I still think the way I think, but there's room for us to find common ground, I believe. Too bad we're not in charge, huh?
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerDisallowing collective bargaining is not unconstitutional; the federal government disallows it for its employees.
Can't blame the federal budget on collective bargaining. Though if we had it there, it would be the problem, of course.
The classic example I can think of is Hamilton, Ontario, a steel town. Stelco (now US Steel) was unionized and Dofasco (now Arcelor) was not. Both sets of workers had a great deal of pride about their company. The cultures however were quite different due to the unionized vs non-unionized atmosphere. In the end, Stelco was on the brink several times, while Dofasco was bought up by a healthy company and is doing well. In the case of Stelco, the union was too greedy and couldn't compete will with its competitors. I think that story rings true of most of the manufacturing industry throughout Canada and the United States.
In the public industry which includes health care (here in Canada), transit workers, garbage workers (some is contracted out), government, teachers, and universities, most are unionized. They work with the government to secure their income and strike frequently. Combine that with the reluctance for local, state (provincial), and federal governments to raise taxes to cover these or the tough but right decision to cut off the hands that feed them (the unionized workers) and you can see the crisis looming at the local and state levels today.
Eventually, the contracts with government workers at all levels will need to be renegotiated.
Quote: thecesspitThe UN Charter of Human Rights begs to differ with you on that one. No idea if the US signed up to the charter though. I certainly think that free association should be allowed, and there is a problem where someone's short sightedness (management, union, owners) can screw the balance. Banning Unions seems to me to be akin to banning managements ability to set wages.
The UN is a group that put Lybia on its human rights council, so I am not so certain I can take much they say seriously. But on a serious side, you have a "fundamental/inalienable" right to take a job you like. You have a right to quit a job you do not like. You do not have an inalienable right to tell an employer "we want to bargan as a group, not individuals." You have a right to try, but the employer has the same fundamental right to say, "I don't negotiate that way, there's the door, been nice having you as an employee."
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! You MUST agree with me or you're obviously an idiot and stupid who doesn't read my posts! My way is the only way, and if you don't think so, you're clearly intellectually challenged or just being purposely obstinate and insolent. I HAVE to win the internet!
</channelling MKLogan>
Yeah, nothing wrong with disagreeing, although I must admit disagreeing on this feels a little like disagreeing on what chicken is ... it seems kind of too fundamental to have such starkly different perceptions and still have a similar perception of what the American Way is and how it's manifested. But oh well, I'm good with leaving the question open on good terms.
Quote: MoscaWe disagree. Nothing wrong with that.
Wisconsin isn't the actual topic at hand, because you didn't ask about public sector employees specifically. To go aside on that issue, I think that is one where both sides are wrong. However, I think the governor is more wrong for this reason: the union offered to take the exact deal he is offering, but not dissolve the union, and he refused... making it not about the money. He's up for the showdown. And that is something different than just balancing the state budget. And when you get to THAT level, you can't be forcing it on people.
Not sure where you are; here in the Eastern time zone it is after midnight, and I'm fading. I might or might not pick it up tomorrow, I don't generally write in the political sections, too much rancor. But this was fun, you make some good points. I still think the way I think, but there's room for us to find common ground, I believe. Too bad we're not in charge, huh?
I haven't heard where the governor has refused the exact deal only not dissolving the union. I also haven't heard anywhere where the governor was interested in dissolving the state workers union. I have heard that he wants to stop collectively bargaining with the state workers union. And, I've also seen the party that more closely represents the unions flee the state rather than be there for negotiations. In the absence of negotiation, I don't see how any deal can be reached. In this sense, the governor can't be blamed for not compromising ... nobody's there to compromise with.
I don't think it's not about the money ... money was clearly the catalyst, and I haven't heard anyone disagree that WI's budget deficit and public debt are at critical levels. But I agree that the governor is about the showdown ... now. I think this is due, in part, to the pissing contest the senate Dems have turned this into. But I also think he believes that the public sector unions are getting a sweeter deal than the public can support. Given the details I've heard about their package, I agree.
Again, it makes sense that the unions would fight to keep it. But the vibe I get from the unions is a Marie Antoinette-esque "Let them eat cake!" or an Emperor Nero-esque fiddling while Rome burns. While I think unions can be good and do a lot of good for the workers in them, I don't think this is one of those cases. I think this particular deal with this particular union is unsustainable, and the union is taking advantage of the public.
PS - thanks for the kind words, right back at ya. Disagreements and not-meeting-of-the-mind is perfectly okay. I always wondered why some folks take "I disagree" to mean "You're an idiot" or "I must therefore be stupid."
Thats the logic hes using to strip unions of collective bargaining anyway.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe UN is a group that put Lybia on its human rights council, so I am not so certain I can take much they say seriously. But on a serious side, you have a "fundamental/inalienable" right to take a job you like. You have a right to quit a job you do not like. You do not have an inalienable right to tell an employer "we want to bargan as a group, not individuals." You have a right to try, but the employer has the same fundamental right to say, "I don't negotiate that way, there's the door, been nice having you as an employee."
I don't think we are disagreeing at all then... the Charter of Human Rights (which though has the word UN in front of it is used as standard in many many places) only states that membership of a Union is right, not that the Union itself has rights to negotiate en masse. Which is as it should be, as the Human Rights charter shouldn't move rights from an individual to a body.
The company does not have the right to discriminate based on Union membership. The Union does not get the right to collective bargain via any Human Right, but only the laws and agreements made between it (on behalf of it's membership) and the company.... but any agreement which states that the company can only hire people who are members of the Union would also be discriminating based on Union membership and should be unlawful.
The last clause I think is what causes a whole world of problems between Unions and Governmental bodies. Closed shops are harmful to all in the long term.
With the bargaining (for non-wage issues) eliminated, those localities would have a realistic chance to balance their books by adjusting employees' benefit packages.
Quote: thecesspitI don't think we are disagreeing at all then... the Charter of Human Rights (which though has the word UN in front of it is used as standard in many many places) only states that membership of a Union is right, not that the Union itself has rights to negotiate en masse. Which is as it should be, as the Human Rights charter shouldn't move rights from an individual to a body.
The company does not have the right to discriminate based on Union membership. The Union does not get the right to collective bargain via any Human Right, but only the laws and agreements made between it (on behalf of it's membership) and the company.... but any agreement which states that the company can only hire people who are members of the Union would also be discriminating based on Union membership and should be unlawful.
The last clause I think is what causes a whole world of problems between Unions and Governmental bodies. Closed shops are harmful to all in the long term.
Not disagreeing is nice. BTW: The term "closed shop" is a bit old school. There are no "closed shops" in the USA since I believe the Tafe-Hartley Law. Might be the Wagner Act, I forget which. I will explain as my dad is always complaining when I correct him on this and we should all be correct I think.
"Closed Shop" means you must me a member of the union BEFORE you are hired. Think Longshoremen of old. You had to go to the union hall, get a card for a fee, pay dues, then hope to be hired on somewhere. You can guess all the problems this causes as no outsider will ever get hired anywhere as keeping them out of the union-and they didn't all take all comers-kept them from getting hired.
"Union Shop." You have to join the union within a set period of being hired, usually 30-90 days. You are under the contract from day one and could file a grievance theoretically, but you do not pay dues right away, though after joining you may have to "make up missed dues payments."
"Open Shop" The union has a contract with management and you may choose to or not to join the union. You get the same pay and right to grievance. The union may require you pay a portion of dues or give the same amount to a charity, depending on laws and local custom. You do NOT get to vote in accepting a contract or to strike IIRC.
"Hiring Hall" You join a trade union thru an apprenticeship program and as you progress you show your card at the hall, sometimes daily. Work comes in as someone who needs the skill calls the hall and asks for howevermany guys to be sent over to work. Or they may request a particular person sometimes. This system works because it is found in construction trades where a company needs skilled workers but for a short period and often fast. If you are cynical it also employs the local mafia.
"Nonunion/Union Free" Just what it says, and about 90% of us in private industry work this way.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot disagreeing is nice. BTW: The term "closed shop" is a bit old school. There are no "closed shops" in the USA since I believe the Tafe-Hartley Law. Might be the Wagner Act, I forget which. I will explain as my dad is always complaining when I correct him on this and we should all be correct I think.
"Closed Shop" means you must me a member of the union BEFORE you are hired. Think Longshoremen of old. You had to go to the union hall, get a card for a fee, pay dues, then hope to be hired on somewhere. You can guess all the problems this causes as no outsider will ever get hired anywhere as keeping them out of the union-and they didn't all take all comers-kept them from getting hired.
"Union Shop." You have to join the union within a set period of being hired, usually 30-90 days. You are under the contract from day one and could file a grievance theoretically, but you do not pay dues right away, though after joining you may have to "make up missed dues payments."
I must mean Union Shop then... that's what they have a fair amount of here. I don't think it's true in the UK any more, or if it is, not in the areas me or my family have worked. I find Union shops antithetical to my own Liberal/Socialist view. I think they are part of the problem and not part of the solution, and as I understand, the collective bargaining power in WI comes from these shops.
Quote:"Open Shop" The union has a contract with management and you may choose to or not to join the union. You get the same pay and right to grievance. The union may require you pay a portion of dues or give the same amount to a charity, depending on laws and local custom. You do NOT get to vote in accepting a contract or to strike IIRC.
There are "Open Shops" in BC which are Union shops (technically, I could have left the Union in my last job, but I would pay the same amount to the Union, with 0 say in the matter, rather than three fifths of sod all say). In the UK Open Shops are definitely where Union membership is a choice, acts like a professional body and can (and will) negotiate and also provide support for grievances. I'm a fan of the second sort of Union, especially the sort of Union that doesn't use it fees to support a politcal party.
Quote:"Hiring Hall" You join a trade union thru an apprenticeship program and as you progress you show your card at the hall, sometimes daily. Work comes in as someone who needs the skill calls the hall and asks for howevermany guys to be sent over to work. Or they may request a particular person sometimes. This system works because it is found in construction trades where a company needs skilled workers but for a short period and often fast. If you are cynical it also employs the local mafia.
"Nonunion/Union Free" Just what it says, and about 90% of us in private industry work this way.
I have no idea what the private industry number for Non-Union work places is in either BC or the UK. I imagine it's higher than 10%, if you include those shops where some members are part of a Union, where that Union may not be fully recognized by the company (e.g. gets to negotiate wages and conditions on behalf of the workers directly).