You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 07:56:26 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Scott Walker, Union Buster  (Read 26831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #275 on: March 10, 2011, 08:25:11 PM »
One other core principle of democracy is the rights of the minority are protected over the majorities wishes. The republican party was created under that principle. Shame we have forgotten it.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #276 on: March 10, 2011, 08:27:25 PM »
Uh, core principal of democracy; majority rules. Unions use this principal when they initiate secret ballots in businesses where unions don't exist. If those opposed are in the minority, one happens anyways. Acknowledgement doesn't require bending to accept terms not found acceptable. I'm pretty sure they know opposition exists.

True but there are still options when a Union vote goes through. You don't run roughshod over the opposition because they ARE the opposition.That builds a hostile environment. There are a BUNCH of things in the 'repair bill' that are foolish, stupid or possibly counter productive.

The bill STILL has to go through and get voted on. The two versions that are going through the house and senate will have to be resolved before it can be passed up the line. Do you HONESTLY think that a resentful minority with a margin as close as the one in Wisconsin state house/senate is best treated as they are being treated? Not to mention the negative attention you're drawing to your party as a whole. It's much easier to mediate and rely on your majority standing than to metaphorically piss in their coffee because you hold the weight AT THIS MOMENT.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #277 on: March 10, 2011, 08:34:47 PM »
One other core principle of democracy is the rights of the minority are protected over the majorities wishes. The republican party was created under that principle. Shame we have forgotten it.

We seem to have forgotten that civil (the rights of the minority) are still protected as well.

Offline Jude

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #278 on: March 10, 2011, 08:35:15 PM »
One other core principle of democracy is the rights of the minority are protected over the majorities wishes. The republican party was created under that principle. Shame we have forgotten it.
Not to nitpick, but that's a principle of a Republic, not necessarily a Democracy.  Which really just makes the name "Republican" that much more entertaining, doesn't it?

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #279 on: March 10, 2011, 08:48:44 PM »
lyell wheather you agree with the associations or not the rights of a minority have been taken away to supposidly benifit the majority, or in this case the Koch brothers. As i have stated before in the history of mankind it has never been a good idea to restrict the rights of one group to benefit another.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #280 on: March 10, 2011, 08:57:07 PM »
And collective bargaining is a right...since when? It's a privilege granted by state statutes, statutes that the state can take away.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #281 on: March 10, 2011, 09:20:23 PM »
And collective bargaining is a right...since when? It's a privilege granted by state statutes, statutes that the state can take away.

The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.

In answer to your question:  1948.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #282 on: March 10, 2011, 09:40:05 PM »
A United Nations document that isn't legally binding?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #283 on: March 10, 2011, 09:48:59 PM »
Also, section 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the US signed in 1977.

Online ValerianTopic starter

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #284 on: March 10, 2011, 09:49:32 PM »
It wasn't the anger that should be worrying the state republicans when they showed raw footage of them leaving the capitol building last night and the protesters booing. It was at the end when they started chanting strike, strike, strike. Most strikes our out of principle with public employees not over wages and benefits. If the state goes on strike what next? The national guard can't teach.
Right now, union leaders are reportedly asking workers to stay on the job.  However, students are staging walkouts -- several hundred kids walked out of junior high schools and high schools in Madison to join in the protests.

The M&I Bank near the capitol closed for a time today after hundreds of demonstrators went there to protest contributions to Walker's campaign by bank executives.  Many of them withdrew their money from the bank as well, about $192,000 all together.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/us/11wisconsin.html?src=me

Quote
“From a policy perspective, this is terrible,” said Mike Tate, the leader of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.

“But from a political perspective, he could not have handed us a bigger gift,” Mr. Tate said of the governor.

In the last 24 hours, he added, the state party had received $360,000 in contributions and volunteers have streamed into offices where signatures were being collected for recall bids.
I'll be interested to see what kind of numbers they have for signatures tomorrow.  With any luck, they won't need the full 60 days to get things underway.

Online Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #285 on: March 10, 2011, 09:58:05 PM »
A United Nations document that isn't legally binding?

It is supposed to be legally binding, but even if it wasn't, rights are not supposed to be subordinate to congressional law. The ninth amendment places our rights above congressional whim, and the right to peacably organize goes hand in hand with the first and second amendments in terms of importance.

Offline Noelle

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #286 on: March 10, 2011, 10:06:18 PM »
And collective bargaining is a right...since when? It's a privilege granted by state statutes, statutes that the state can take away.

And so is the issue of a legally-recognized marriage, apparently -- so if someday someone got it in their head to ban you from marrying someone of any sex period, you'd go quietly, right? Majority rules? Even though you're losing out on tax breaks and visitations rights, it's just a state-granted privilege, yeah?

This just seems to me as a poor attempt to grasp at straws -- we're talking about a UN document on human rights, the same stuff they use when they try to help put together civilized third-world countries, much less an industrialized world leader like the US. It seems pretty obvious to me that the importance of something is not necessitated strictly by who grants what and if there's a signed piece of paper about it, given that our society is constantly shifting and adapting to accommodate new things and things we take for granted as universal rights now haven't always been. Besides, it smacks of desperation to me when your argument starts to come down to "It's just the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you guys!"

Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #287 on: March 10, 2011, 10:51:14 PM »
Interesting quote from Ronald Reagan. Just saw it on The Daily Show at the end as a news clip.

"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #288 on: March 10, 2011, 11:04:19 PM »
Also, section 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the US signed in 1977.

Quote from: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Section 8, pg. 2
This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces or of the police or of the administration of the State.

If collective bargaining for the purpose of wage were protected, I'm certain Federal Employees wouldn't be restricted from them. If collective bargaining in general were a right, employment contracts that provide even breathing the word 'union' as grounds for termination would be illegal.

Moreover, the United Nation's Human Rights Council includes China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and included, until just recently, Libya. Not exactly the best line-up considering what they're tackling.

It is supposed to be legally binding, but even if it wasn't, rights are not supposed to be subordinate to congressional law. The ninth amendment places our rights above congressional whim, and the right to peacably organize goes hand in hand with the first and second amendments in terms of importance.

Okay, if it is binding and these rights are respected, I submit:

Article 20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Closed shops and mandatory memberships are also rights violations.

Online Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #289 on: March 10, 2011, 11:13:30 PM »
Article 20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Closed shops and mandatory memberships are also rights violations.

Those rules are, specifically, for governments. You aren't compelled to work at any particular place, therefore you are not compelled to belong to an association.

Caveat: Being compelled to belong to a given association for a given -field- is a problem. But not for a given place of employment, assuming there are a large pool of employers.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #290 on: March 10, 2011, 11:15:42 PM »
Also, closed shops have been illegal since 1947, under the Taft Hartley act.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #291 on: March 10, 2011, 11:19:22 PM »
Those rules are, specifically, for governments. You aren't compelled to work at any particular place, therefore you are not compelled to belong to an association.

Caveat: Being compelled to belong to a given association for a given -field- is a problem. But not for a given place of employment, assuming there are a large pool of employers.

Which is why this is specifically about government employees (public school teachers) and not private sector employees. The government has a monopoly on affordable education.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #292 on: March 10, 2011, 11:24:55 PM »
Which is why this is specifically about government employees (public school teachers) and not private sector employees. The government has a monopoly on affordable education.

I notice that while Walker was willing to GUT his education system, he was more than perfectly willing to do a 100+ million in tax cuts to the corps, estate taxes and higher income groups,  and granted an additonal $196 million over two years for the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., the partly private entity that is replacing the state Department of Commerce.


Offline itsbeenfun2000

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #293 on: March 10, 2011, 11:33:41 PM »
He also has raised what the state will spend on tourism though I imagine that many will now boycott the state. It is one of Wisconsin's biggest industries.

Online Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #294 on: March 10, 2011, 11:36:33 PM »
Which is why this is specifically about government employees (public school teachers) and not private sector employees. The government has a monopoly on affordable education.

And as I said earlier, when there is a monopoly on employment, that is the most important time to unionize, otherwise effective wages are driven to zero.

A more relevant example would be if, during a strike, teachers were prevented from engaging in private tutoring  on their own time, or if a qualified teacher not part of the association was prevented from such.

Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #295 on: March 11, 2011, 01:15:04 AM »
And as I said earlier, when there is a monopoly on employment, that is the most important time to unionize, otherwise effective wages are driven to zero.

A more relevant example would be if, during a strike, teachers were prevented from engaging in private tutoring  on their own time, or if a qualified teacher not part of the association was prevented from such.

How does this change that a government entity was mandating union membership, against the very document you just told me was above congress in terms of authority? Why, if the federal government doesn't allow wage negotiations for its own employees, is it such a crime when a state wants the same thing? How can the federal government even PUT such restrictions on its own members, who also serve organizations with monopolies on the services they provide?


Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #296 on: March 11, 2011, 01:22:35 AM »
How does this change that a government entity was mandating union membership, against the very document you just told me was above congress in terms of authority? Why, if the federal government doesn't allow wage negotiations for its own employees, is it such a crime when a state wants the same thing? How can the federal government even PUT such restrictions on its own members, who also serve organizations with monopolies on the services they provide?

Then shouldn't they do it to ALL the unions? Or is Mr. Walker not quite that stupid as to alienate his supporters?

I'm sorry, Walker is looking to help folks rob, pillage and roll back the clock. If he HONESTLY wanted to .. reform.. collective bargaining he would have been open and up front about it. He'd not have offered ultimatums or flatly refused to discuss any of the issues.

He's refused to discuss any issue he's put forth. Period. He's put all the blame on the other side, even AFTER they agreed to his financial requests to pay more into their retirement, health care, ect. He's cut funds to municipalities while restricting their ability to adjust property taxes to cover the short fall.

He's given wide spread tax breaks to folks and groups that can afford their burden while doing everything he can to prevent those groups he dislikes from practicing any sort of organized dissension with him.

Some of the measures in his repair bill are needed but a lot of them are not. Add in some of the measures that are sure to follow after the repair bill and I'm sure in a year or two folks will be wondering why thing have gotten WORSE.

And the republicans will be wondering how the lost control of the state government so damn fast.

Online Vekseid

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #297 on: March 11, 2011, 02:09:20 AM »
How does this change that a government entity was mandating union membership, against the very document you just told me was above congress in terms of authority? Why, if the federal government doesn't allow wage negotiations for its own employees, is it such a crime when a state wants the same thing? How can the federal government even PUT such restrictions on its own members, who also serve organizations with monopolies on the services they provide?

Hmm?

I was referring to the efficient market hypothesis in that post.

The original 'wrong' is having one monolithic employer. The unions are there to correct that - for the most part, a unionized system is not economically efficient. Unions are not the proper answer to the situation, they are simply easier on established power than dividing up the employer. The ideal situation is to have many employers competing for many employees in every field that does not have justification for said monopoly (like the military).

However, when universal education is seen as required, that means there needs to be some measure of public funding. If you want to create a system that gives teachers some protection from political whim without resorting to unions, feel free to present it - but it's not a trivial problem.


Offline Lyell

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #298 on: March 11, 2011, 02:10:19 AM »
I've heard he's giving the same power to limit collective bargaining to the cities, as far as law enforcement and fire departments go. I don't know if there is any truth to that. He can't target private sector unions (or atleast I think he can't) unless he completely eradicates all union laws.

It's not as if there's no wage negotiation a availible whatsoever and the cap in place is set to scale with the Consumer Price Index. Essentially, it allows for negotiation for higher pay when it can be sustained. 

Whether or not his provisions have the desired or adverse effects on the long-term economic strength of Wisconsin remains to be seen. Arguing about kick-backs though, makes about as much sense as arguing about which side lies more.

Offline Jude

Re: Scott Walker, Union Buster
« Reply #299 on: March 11, 2011, 02:36:35 AM »
The National Labor Relations Act passed in the 1930s protects most private sector employee's union rights.  It doesn't apply to government employees or supervisors (management).  Of course a lot of businesses get around this by having employees take a mix of small management and non-management duties, so that they're exempt from such labor laws.

But yeah, Lyell's right, Walker can't do anything to pre-existing private unions pretty much because he's superceded by a Federal law.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 02:39:15 AM by Jude »