• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge voids controversial Wisconsin union law

GPS_Flex said:
This is the judge who failed to recues herself even though her son is an SEIOU, AFL-CIO political operative.
Click to expand...

Then Thomas should recuse himself in determining the constitutionality of Obamacare should he not?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Again, no one is denying the peoples right to assemble. No one. Not Walker, not me. What is being challenged is collective bargaining for public unions. There is a big difference between public and private unions when payday comes around. One (private) is payed for by private corporations. The other (public) is payed for by people taxes...whether they are a part of the union or not. The next big difference between the two is simple also. A CEO must work with in thier budget or risk bankruptcy. A politician however can promise monies whether the state government is in debt or not. And by doing so they affect everyone in that state...union or not.
Click to expand...

How is the Chamber of Commerce different? Do businesses not elect the people who oversee government contracts? Why is their right to assemble and lobby government to be protected while not protecting the rights of workers to assemble?

Where do you stop the line at who gets to assemble?

Do you think corn producers who lobby government to get ethanol subsidies for their members (at taxpayer expense) should be disallowed from assembling? Should they be disallowed from donating to campaigns? After all, they're doing so for their own self-interest? Why are they better than teachers or others who actually work for government (as opposed to just taking money from government)?
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Where do you stop the line at who gets to assemble?
Click to expand...

How do you not comprehend that it's not about anyone's 'right to assemble', but about their 'ability to negotiate certain aspects of union contracts? They can assemble whenever, however, with whomever they like... the law simply removes their ability to negotiate certain aspects of their contract.

It quite simply is NOT rocket science.
 
Whovian said:
How do you not comprehend that it's not about anyone's 'right to assemble', but about their 'ability to negotiate certain aspects of union contracts? They can assemble whenever, however, with whomever they like... the law simply removes their ability to negotiate certain aspects of their contract.

It quite simply is NOT rocket science.
Click to expand...

Which essentially make assembling pointless. Why assemble if you can't negotiate anything? To bake cookies together?

It would be like opening a bar with no booze and wondering why people don't show up.
 
Whovian said:
How do you not comprehend that it's not about anyone's 'right to assemble', but about their 'ability to negotiate certain aspects of union contracts? They can assemble whenever, however, with whomever they like... the law simply removes their ability to negotiate certain aspects of their contract.

It quite simply is NOT rocket science.
Click to expand...

apparently it is rocket science to those who are unable to grasp that the right of assembly provides for the ability to form an assembledge. a collective of individuals. in this instance a union, complete with the opportunity to negotiate as a collective assembly
 
justabubba said:
... the union is required by law to operate by democratic elections....

in my own experience - i am a labor official - there is corruption in unions. that is often found when the members neglect to exercise their democratic obligation to oversee the organization which speaks for them....
Click to expand...


Ok, what happens if "Card Check" were to rear its ugly head? Say good bye to that democratic process.

Can you imagine if, using your own analogy to the Federal Election System here, your vote was not secret?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ok, what happens if "Card Check" were to rear its ugly head? Say good bye to that democratic process.

Can you imagine if, using your own analogy to the Federal Election System here, your vote was not secret?

j-mac
Click to expand...
card check is democratic election
if 50% plus one decide they want a union by so affirming their interest, then that 50% plus one determines that theirs will be a unionized workplace
what party of majority vote are you missing?
 
justabubba said:
card check is democratic election
if 50% plus one decide they want a union by so affirming their interest, then that 50% plus one determines that theirs will be a unionized workplace
what party of majority vote are you missing?
Click to expand...

It is not a secret vote anymore though is it now? Pressure, intimidation, and threats can tip that scale.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
It is not a secret vote anymore though is it now? Pressure, intimidation, and threats can tip that scale.

j-mac
Click to expand...

card check is the response to a history of pressure, intimidation and threats ... often firings ... when the employer identifed who had signed the form requesting a unionized workplace

the delay from the card signing until an election provided the employer with the opportunity to get rid of those who went out on a limb and signed up for the union election to be held

but again, please share with us what part of majority vote you do not understand
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Which essentially make assembling pointless. Why assemble if you can't negotiate anything? To bake cookies together?

It would be like opening a bar with no booze and wondering why people don't show up.
Click to expand...

Really? Assembling for any reason but negotiating certain aspects of a contract is pointless? I bet the founding fathers would love that one :rolleyes:

I say the Wisconsin law does NOT prevent anyone from assembling. You show me where it does.
 
j-mac said:
It is not a secret vote anymore though is it now? Pressure, intimidation, and threats can tip that scale.

j-mac
Click to expand...

justabubba said:
card check is the response to a history of pressure, intimidation and threats ... often firings ... when the employer identifed who had signed the form requesting a unionized workplace

the delay from the card signing until an election provided the employer with the opportunity to get rid of those who went out on a limb and signed up for the union election to be held

but again, please share with us what part of majority vote you do not understand
Click to expand...

so, it's better to open the intimidation and threats to everyone, eh? :rolleyes:
 
justabubba said:
card check is the response to a history of pressure, intimidation and threats ... often firings ... when the employer identifed who had signed the form requesting a unionized workplace

the delay from the card signing until an election provided the employer with the opportunity to get rid of those who went out on a limb and signed up for the union election to be held

but again, please share with us what part of majority vote you do not understand
Click to expand...

See, this is the type of tactic that is so dishonest as to not warrant a response, but I will give you one, and ask that you cut the crap.

So, you are saying that Employers are now using Threats, intimidation, and firings to thwart unionization, yet infer that it is acceptable in favor of the union....Nice hypocricy.

j-mac
 
Whovian said:
Really? Assembling for any reason but negotiating certain aspects of a contract is pointless? I bet the founding fathers would love that one :rolleyes:

I say the Wisconsin law does NOT prevent anyone from assembling. You show me where it does.
Click to expand...

The intent of the bill is to make the assemblage worthless - therefore attacking the right to assemble. Again: It's like saying, "O

You ignore my main question: Why is okay for businesses to assemble and lobby government and not workers? Why is it okay for business organizations to lobby legislators to get what they want, but not workers - especially when those businesses might apply for government contracts? What is the difference?

Businesses subsidies are my taxpayer dollars, too. Contracts with private business are my taxpayer dollars, too. Why should business have a right that workers do not?
 
Whovian said:
so, it's better to open the intimidation and threats to everyone, eh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

it is best to allow the employees to vote and have their cards tabulated without any interference
50% plus one prevails ... you don't seem to be able to grasp how that works
 
justabubba said:
it is best to allow the employees to vote and have their cards tabulated without any interference
50% plus one prevails ... you don't seem to be able to grasp how that works
Click to expand...

I grasp it much better than you do, apparently.

The bill would remove workers’ rights to a federally supervised private ballot election, replacing it with a situation where workers would be asked to sign cards in front of organizers and colleagues, potentially subjecting them to harassment or intimidation. Once a majority of employees have signed cards, the union is immediately recognized.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
The intent of the bill is to make the assemblage worthless - therefore attacking the right to assemble.
Click to expand...

The intent of the bill is to save the tax payers money by preventing certain types of things from being negotiated by unions. NOTHING in the bill prevents those same unions from assembling.
 
Whovian said:
I grasp it much better than you do, apparently.

The bill would remove workers’ rights to a federally supervised private ballot election, replacing it with a situation where workers would be asked to sign cards in front of organizers and colleagues, potentially subjecting them to harassment or intimidation. Once a majority of employees have signed cards, the union is immediately recognized.
Click to expand...

the you do finally grasp that 50% plus one would prevail
give this forumite extra credit for acknowledging the obvious
 
justabubba said:
the you do finally grasp that 50% plus one would prevail
give this forumite extra credit for acknowledging the obvious
Click to expand...

no ****,. but what you utterly fail to recognize is that the secrecy is completely removed. You might be ok with voting no in public, but Uncle Fred with a wife, 2 kids, and a bad heart might not want to deal with the unions intimidating him.

Look, it's simple...

With card check, the unions FORCE a public revelation of the employees true stance on the unionization efforts... no secrecy.

Without card check, the employees are safe in the knowledge that the unions cannot intimidate them into a particular vote, as their vote remains secret.

Either way, you still have your majority rule, but with card check, an extremely important employee safeguard is removed.

You're obviously fine with removing important employee safeguards, but I am not.
 
Whovian said:
The intent of the bill is to save the tax payers money by preventing certain types of things from being negotiated by unions. NOTHING in the bill prevents those same unions from assembling.
Click to expand...
You seem to forget that the public unions already conceded to the demands of Gov. Walker. Besides there are many other issues other than money - like working conditions, safety and in the case of teachers -class sizes.
 
pbrauer said:
You seem to forget that the public unions already conceded to the demands of Gov. Walker. Besides there are many other issues other than money - like working conditions, safety and in the case of teachers -class sizes.
Click to expand...

show me where in the law it prohibits discussions about worker safety. OSHA would love to see it.
 
Whovian said:
show me where in the law it prohibits discussions about worker safety. OSHA would love to see it.
Click to expand...
Unless the worker has colective barganing rights, they don't have a leg to stand on, other than a lawsuit.
 
Whovian said:
The intent of the bill is to save the tax payers money by preventing certain types of things from being negotiated by unions. NOTHING in the bill prevents those same unions from assembling.
Click to expand...

For what purpose?

If the union can't negotiate for its members, what is its purpose?

Please answer my damn question, will you? If assembling for the purposes of lobbying government is so evil, then why do businesses do it and why don't you point your finger of scorn and hiss at them at the same time? It's because you don't think people should have the same power as business, right? I have to assume because you won't answer.

In the free market: what does competition do for the consumer?
 
Whovian said:
worker safety is governed by OSHA, not anything decided in collective bargaining. You fail.
Click to expand...

not true
one example from personal experience was the negotiated right to step away from a computer screen - to do something else for at least 10 minutes - each hour
 
justabubba said:
not true
one example from personal experience was the negotiated right to step away from a computer screen - to do something else for at least 10 minutes - each hour
Click to expand...

Not even remotely related to worker safety. You, like PB before you... fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom