Wisconsin Union Busting Bill/Protests

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why? Exaggeration has always been part of making a point, and although Hitler used far more extreme measures to bust the unions, his and Walker's philosophy on this point appear to be in sync.

No, it is not remotely correct. And if it was, you'd be condemning FDR as well, because his position is closer to Hitler's --as ridiculous as that comparison is -- than is Walkers.

The problem in this thread is that too many people don't understand what collective bargaining means legally in the U.S.. Hitler made unions illegal. The S.A. would bust open heads of people who tried to collectively organize. If workers wanted to strike by not working, the remedy wasn't firing them. It was beating them, and preventing them from freely assembling and from withholding their labor.

Nobody is advocating that unions be made illegal, or that public employees can't form what most people here think of when they think of unions. What is not being grasped is that collective bargaining in the U.S. does NOT just mean that employees can organize on their own to maximize bargaining power. Labor laws in the U.S. go way beyond that. First, if you have recognized as a union, it is ILLEGAL for an employer to talk to any employees individually about terms and conditions of employment. It is ILLEGAL for the employer to talk to any employee groups that don't support the union. It is ILLEGAL for an employer to change rates of pay, hours of work, job classifications, or any other terms and conditions of employment without first bargaining with the union "in good faith". That is a standard subject to review by various courts and administrative bodies. As that law has developed, it forces employers to begin bargaining from positions they never intend to stick to, because too little compromising is taken as a sign of bad faith. So both sides start out with ridiculous positions, then go through this ornate dance of negotiations that can last a year or more. Sometimes, for weird political or legal reasons, one side or the other plots not to reach an agreement, but to create the appearance that the other side is not bargaining in good faith. It is an agonizingly slow, artificial process. If the parties cannot come to an agreement, then the employer has the right to implement it's "last best offer", but that's only if the bargaining up to that point is subsequently characterized as "good faith."

To explain all the shit that surrounds this would take days. But suffice it to say that the unionization Hitler suppressed looked nothing like what FDR opposed in toto, and what Walker is trying to limit.

That is not remotely what was at issue with Hitler.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW, you are too smart to be this stupid.

I wish I could say the same, but....

That's just an ad hominem attack, so I'll stick to the comment. I'd respond substantively to the rest of your post, but you're not one interested in an intelligent discussion anyway so I'll just disregard.

[TerraPrime]

That's just an ad hominem attack. I stick to the comment. I'd respond substantively to the rest of your post, but you're not one interested in an intelligent discussion anyway.

I rather thought the critique was evident in Sprunk's post. People are not expecting to retain a job despite not showing up for work because they just don't feel like it. They just don't expect to be fired for striking. Where strikes are legal, that's indeed the correct expectation, provided that the union follows the rules on initiating a strike.

Your comment to which Sprunk responded made it sound like union workers want to not get fired for not doing any work, when in fact not doing any work is part of their rights during bargaining.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Dammit, I had a sensible post and it got eaten by the internet. In short, the reason its legislated is so its not simply an open game of who goes broke first and eventual recourse to violence by one or both sides.

Why does not getting your way mean that you have to resort to violence? I mean, do you understand that one side or the other still doesn't get its way, even under the current system?

The collective bargining rules put fobligations and give rights to both sides, rather that it coming down to a simple balance of power.

Such as?

Ad I don't understand your point. It still generally comes down to who grows broke or is forced to cave first because some factor gives the other side the upper hand. How, specifically, do you think the NLRA changed that?

Its also legislation that says a union can't damage property. Or that an employer can't shoot picketers. Or, you know, the whole world you live in. You want jungle rules, you have to accept everyone gets to play. The point is to be at least a bit above that.

Again, I don't get that at all. I agree companies can't shoot strikers, and strikers can't destroy property. That's not in dispute, and exists even without the NLRA.