The Iceman of the North Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 TP,You're from Wis. so you'd know better than I would. However, I'm under the impression he promised to balance the budget without raising taxes. Isn't this part of that process?I'm sorry, but whatever have the collective bargaining power got to do with balancing the budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Soldiers aren't really citizens, though, are they? I tried to organize a strike while on kitchen duty in the army once. :dunno: (Cons: we were brutally crushed - after a stand of glorious defiance. Really, there was a sunset and showdown with an NCO. (and I enjoyed the first of what would eventually be many encounters with a. a military trial, b. a military psychiatrist. Cleared on both counts!) . Pros: Was not put on kitchen duty again for all the rest of boot camp.)Theres just an ideological hypocricy in using state mechanisms to crush organized labour. I don't get the logic of the private/public distinction either - the people (via the state) can choose what conditions to employ teachers in, but it would seem discriminatory to employ them in worse conditions than the law guarentees private employees, including rights of unionization. That the public sector has stronger unions that manage to get them better conditions than in the private sector does not justify undermining their right ot have unions anymore than they can decide to legislate that public employees should be paid less than minimum wage becuase the voters decide thats what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Where did I say that? Jesus fucking Christ.I thought that's what you were saying here -- that striking workers should not be able to be fired:Well, that's the idea, but it seems she is saying that some are saying that some people are so important (teachers are close to that important) that they shouldn't be allowed to:- Form a union- and strike with itMaybe I misread what your point was. Because I can't for the life of me figure out what "the right to strike" means unless you're talking about the right not to be fired for striking. But hey, if you're saying that workers should have the right to strike but that their employers should be able to fire them if they do, then I guess we're in agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I'm sorry, but whatever have the collective bargaining power got to do with balancing the budget?Especially since the unions have all but conceded the financial necessity of the cuts being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raids Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Thank you Miss Ninth Amendment Dictator.The Ninth is much more important than the Second. If Americans really appreciated the genius of their Constitution, they would realize this.Oh sure. I tend to be on this side of things for a lot things. Like privacy. Let me restate. Let's say it is a constitutional right to form a union and strike with it. Awesome. The state cannot arrest you for it. That's the only place is gets you. The company can still fire you, they can still hire strikebreakers, they can still forcibly escort you off their private property. The whole thing - unions and bargaining - is a fragile, evolving structure of complicated interlocking rights and obligations.So what you look at as the "right to strike" is really not as simple as you might think it is. And it's complicated because we wanted it to be less violent. Maybe that was a mistake? And what does the second amendment have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 That the public sector has stronger unions that manage to get them better conditions than in the private sector does not justify undermining their right ot have unions anymore than they can decide to legislate that public employees should be paid less than minimum wage becuase the voters decide thats what they want.The right to form a union -- as you guys are using that phrase here -- requires an employer to bargain with a union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees, and forbids an employer from discharging you for joining a union. That itself a creation of statute, and something that did not exist until the legislature enacted it. Absent that law employers would not be legally compelled to bargain with a union and could establish terms and conditions of employment on their own. They also could fire employees who challenged them. The minimum wage, as well, is a requirement that only exist by statute. It is a legislatively-created rule in the same way that collective bargaining laws are legislatively created.So your comment just seems odd to me. The voters are just as entitled to repeal, directly or indirectly, minimum wage laws as they are collective bargaining laws. If you're in favor of free assembly, free decision-making, and free bargaining, than shouldn't both sides have the same rights? Workers are free to organize, and employers are free to listen to them. Or not.And just to be clear, the idea of throwing someone in jail for forming a union or striking isn't at issue here. The term "right" as it applies to forming a union or striking is the "right" not to get fired.I also think there is a bit of misunderstanding over the legal rights and responsibilities under collective bargaining law. Some folks think it just means that you have the right to ask for something, but it means a lot more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 You never read a dictionary definition of the word 'rape', have you?Really? That's all you have to say about it?I mean, not that I'm surprised, but....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 And what does the second amendment have to do with anything?In this context, nothing. Just one a lot of people think is more important than it is. One I'd explicitly think far less reaching than the Ninth.And I'd pretty much agree with you on your limits of the right to strike. But the right existed unenumerated prior to FLOW's statutory acknowledgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sariel Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The idea that you should have the right to fire employees because they go on a strike seems to me completely absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I assume you're joking?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. But I already said I'd prefer not to use the Hitler comparison, because in the scale of what Hitler did obviously union busting is very very low on the scale. And so it brings the wrong imagery.But I believe (if my remembered history is correct) that the comparison is technically correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The idea that you should have the right to fire employees because they go on a strike seems to me completely absurd.Well, to me, the idea that you can refuse to work and cannot get fired for that refusal is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sariel Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I know. I'm not really criticizing just observing how different our outlooks are. I don't think even our far right party has ever suggested such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I've got to admit, I don't understand this whole emphasis on public versus private employee. Surely whether the employer is management at a company versus the government, from the employee's perspective doesn't matter. And from their perspective it shouldn't matter - they should be doing the best deal to get value for money for their shareholders/constituents. The employers both have similar incentives - companies not to reduce the dividend (i.e. put more money in shareholder's pockets), government not to raise taxes (putting more money in voter's pockets) while getting a good service. The employees in both situations will want to maximise their position (both short and long term).How do these fundamentally differ so that the rules should be different for both?Now, I could understand an argument that the government is not particularly good at the whole dealing issue, but how the hell is that the employee's fault?FLOW, just repeating this bit from above because I'd really be interested in your thoughts (well, actually I'd have been interested in your views on several of the bits, but especially this). I just don't understand why the two are different in your mind for the employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Well, to me, the idea that you can refuse to work and cannot get fired for that refusal is absurd.I'm with you on this one.If the employee can find replacement labour at lower cost, then that should be allowed. If not, they negotiate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raids Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Well, I don't think you can fire employees for engaging in a legal strike. Again, here, public opinion somewhat turned against strikers when 50% of all flights were cancelled when the air traffic controllers union went on strike in the 1980s. Has anything like that ever happened in Sweden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 What were your demands? Did you have to wash dishes without gloves or something? Unshielded ovens? Deep friers without spatter screens? Asparagus for lunch?Come to think of it, it was suprisingly non trivial - we were one 60% female company out of 6 all male ones, and we were doing 50% plus of the total work becuase we had a work ethic (Marxists. Sheesh.) and it let them indulge their natural assumption we belonged in the kitchen. The straw was that local guys could get out of the kitchen to go on forced marches, and we weren't allowed - and expected to pick up their slack as well. The right to form a union -- as you guys are using that phrase here -- requires an employer to bargain with a union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees, and forbids an employer from discharging you for joining a union. That itself a creation of statute, and something that did not exist until the legislature enacted it. Absent that law employers would not be legally compelled to bargain with a union and could establish terms and conditions of employment on their own. They also could fire employees who challenged them. The minimum wage, as well, is a requirement that only exist by statute. It is a legislatively-created rule in the same way that collective bargaining laws are legislatively created.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. The collective bargining rules put fobligations and give rights to both sides, rather that it coming down to a simple balance of power. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sprunk Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 If you don't come to work for three days, what's wrong with getting fired?FLoW, you are too smart to be this stupid.To the OP, this fight is already over. Walker tied to frame the conflict as a budget issue. The union outflanked him by conceding on the economic demands. Then Walker tried to spin the facts, but it's abundantly clear that his goal is, and always has been, union-busting. He's still trying to win the battle, but he's already lost the war. His best recourse is to drop the bill and reach an agreement with the union. Sticking to his guns will cost him his political career. But he's trying to gain some tea-bagger cred, so intelligence probably isn't his strong suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sariel Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Well, I don't think you can fire employees for engaging in a legal strike. Again, here, public opinion somewhat turned against strikers when 50% of all flights were cancelled when the air traffic controllers union went on strike in the 1980s. Has anything like that ever happened in Sweden?I got stuck at Stansted (London) for three days as a result of just such a strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raids Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Ah okay. Different priorities then. Americans care about, you know, whether or not Jennifer Aniston is ever going to get married. We get pissed off at the aggrieved party if we can't get on a plane when we want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 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. But I already said I'd prefer not to use the Hitler comparison, because in the scale of what Hitler did obviously union busting is very very low on the scale. And so it brings the wrong imagery.But I believe (if my remembered history is correct) that the comparison is technically correct.Ha.Uh.... Ok? i guess?What a bizarre thing to be blindly partisan about.Whether it's 'technically correct' is hardly the point, as you obviously know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.