• 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

Not even remotely related to worker safety. You, like PB before you... fail.

an example of a worker benefit that the union will negotiate which osha will not
yet another instance beneficial to the employee because of unionization
a type of benefit lost if the union is no longer to negotiate on the employees' behalf

winning!
 
I said...
Whovian said:
worker safety is governed by OSHA, not anything decided in collective bargaining. You fail.

you replied...
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

you go on to state...
an example of a worker benefit that the union will negotiate which osha will not
yet another instance beneficial to the employee because of unionization
a type of benefit lost if the union is no longer to negotiate on the employees' behalf

winning!

Of course OSHA will not.... because it has nothing to do with OSHA, since it has nothing to do with worker safety, which was the subtopic of this tangent, between PB, you and I.

Fail.
 
I said...


you replied...


you go on to state...


Of course OSHA will not.... because it has nothing to do with OSHA, since it has nothing to do with worker safety, which was the subtopic of this tangent, between PB, you and I.

Fail.

you indicated osha would take care of employee workplace concerns such that the union was not required to address them
i found an actual example to show your assertion to be wrong
 
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?

You beat me to it. This isn't just an attack on one union, it's an attack on all unions. The vulgar Marxists of the business class recognize unions as vehicles of workerplace democracy, therefore, they must be destroyed at all costs. It's as simple as that.
 
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?

The only thing that the bill stopped as far as collective bargaining goes was for anything that related to pay. IE paychecks, retirement funds etc etc. There are other things to negotiate other than pay raises, such as safety concerns, insurance etc etc.

As far as buisnesses doing the lobbying of politicians to gain favor, Believe me when I state that should be stopped if at all possible. Or very very strict guidlines on when, where and how they lobby.
 
Last edited:
I said...


you replied...


you go on to state...


Of course OSHA will not.... because it has nothing to do with OSHA, since it has nothing to do with worker safety, which was the subtopic of this tangent, between PB, you and I.

Fail.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that stepping away from a computer screen for 10 minutes every hour 'has nothing to do with safety'.

I'm sorry to inform you, but you FAIL. Or maybe your eyes have gone bad from staring at computer.

Better luck next time.
 
You beat me to it. This isn't just an attack on one union, it's an attack on all unions. The vulgar Marxists of the business class recognize unions as vehicles of workerplace democracy, therefore, they must be destroyed at all costs. It's as simple as that.

Puleeze.

This law is strictly about public unions. Not Private unions. They can still do what they want. So long as the company is willing to deal with unions. You all seem to forget that a company does NOT have to deal with unions. They could very well fire the lot of anyone that protested and tell the unions where to stick it once it is time to renew any contract they may have with any particular union. Despite what you may think Unions are not ALL POWERFUL entities.

Now, knowing this, why would/should a government job be any different? Why should a government job give into ANY demands of a union if they do not want to? Workers are a dime a dozen (especially at over 9% unemployment) and people can be trained if needed or hired right out of collage.

At one time in the past yeah, unions could hurt companies. Know why? There were a hell of a lot less people living in the US when Unions where first formed and not near the easy transportation that we have now. Now however we have more people than we do jobs.
 
Last edited:
you indicated osha would take care of employee workplace concerns such that the union was not required to address them
i found an actual example to show your assertion to be wrong

I said no such thing. I said workplace SAFETY concerns are the purview of OSHA. Show me where I said anything different, or be branded a liar.
 
If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that stepping away from a computer screen for 10 minutes every hour 'has nothing to do with safety'.

I'm sorry to inform you, but you FAIL. Or maybe your eyes have gone bad from staring at computer.

Better luck next time.

Correct. It does not. The fail, as usual, is yours.
 
Correct. It does not. The fail, as usual, is yours.

Actually the fail is yours. Looking at a computer screen for hours on end is just as bad was watching TV too close to the TV. IE bad for the eyesight. Which since it harms the eye's it is a safety concern as anything which can harm the body is considered a safety hazard.
 
The only thing that the bill stopped as far as collective bargaining goes was for anything that related to pay. IE paychecks, retirement funds etc etc. There are other things to negotiate other than pay raises, such as safety concerns, insurance etc etc.

As far as buisnesses doing the lobbying of politicians to gain favor, Believe me when I state that should be stopped if at all possible. Or very very strict guidlines on when, where and how they lobby.

Great. Why isn't Scott Walker doing that?

OH...he isn't. Instead, his bill allows him to basically give away public utilities to the businesses who lobbied him and donated to his campaign! That's why he's attacking unions and wanted to give government property away to big business.

That said, at least we agree on big business lobbying. But I won't allow a governor to force working people to forgo rights that are granted to everyone else.
 
If you believe workers have rights, then they have rights.

73% of the massachusetts state house evidently believe workers have no rights

evidently the dem mayor and the dem appointed emergency fiscal manager of detroit, bing and bobb, don't believe in rights, either

Detroit Moves Against Unions - WSJ.com

the movement has spread as well to springfield

State managers targeted in collective bargaining bill - Springfield, IL - The State Journal-Register

Teachers Tenure Challenged
 
Last edited:
Ya know...I still have so little respect for those that left the state. That isn't how you handle a problem, ya know? I don't care what your issue is, what side you're on, you don't leave an argument like that when people are expecting you to represent them. Hiding in another state is a cowardly way to handle the issue.

exactly,

welcome to union labor
 
This is just further stigma against the poor. One day it's the rich's fault for ruining the economy, the next it's the poor's. Honestly, Walker did this to score political points. It's not really going to change the situation. People relying on this safety net are going to fall through now and become more prone to crime, even if they are addicts.

The war on drugs is the problem here. But I suppose Walker will get kick backs now from all the additional people being sent to prison.

Make no mistake, slavery is alive and well in America today - it's called the prison system.
 
Last edited:

now show us where osha has provided for a 10 minute break hourly for the employee to get away from the monitor as our union has within the labor-management collective bargaining agreement
certainly osha recommends such periodic absence from the screen, but there is nothing binding on the employer to address monitor issues
but with our union, that ability to leave the screen periodically is enforceable

winning ... again!
 
Only time will tell, but it sure seems, based on the questions being asked, that the supreme court is not on board with Sumi's decision and believe she over stepped.
 
Great. Why isn't Scott Walker doing that?

OH...he isn't. Instead, his bill allows him to basically give away public utilities to the businesses who lobbied him and donated to his campaign! That's why he's attacking unions and wanted to give government property away to big business.

That said, at least we agree on big business lobbying. But I won't allow a governor to force working people to forgo rights that are granted to everyone else.

Where in the bill is the bolded part?
 
Whovian said:
Oh look... problem solved... by OSHA. How odd....

OSHA Ergonomic Solutions: Computer Workstations eTool - Components - Monitors

now show us where osha has provided for a 10 minute break hourly for the employee to get away from the monitor as our union has within the labor-management collective bargaining agreement
certainly osha recommends such periodic absence from the screen, but there is nothing binding on the employer to address monitor issues but with our union, that ability to leave the screen periodically is enforceable

winning ... again!

sure... when you show me that is the ONLY way to alleviate eye strain.

If an employee has an issue with a SAFETY concern, they are free to report it to OSHA, who will investigate, without naming the employee. It's kinda what they do.
How to File a Complaint with OSHA
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 gives employees and their representatives the right to file a complaint and request an OSHA inspection of their workplace if they believe there is a serious hazard or their employer is not following OSHA standards. Further, the Act gives complainants the right to request that their names not be revealed to their employers.

Complaints from employees and their representatives are taken seriously by OSHA. It is against the law for an employer to fire, demote, transfer, or discriminate in any way against a worker for filing a complaint or using other OSHA rights.

Not only are you not winning, you're FAIL is at near epic proportions.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
Great. Why isn't Scott Walker doing that?

OH...he isn't. Instead, his bill allows him to basically give away public utilities to the businesses who lobbied him and donated to his campaign! That's why he's attacking unions and wanted to give government property away to big business.

That said, at least we agree on big business lobbying. But I won't allow a governor to force working people to forgo rights that are granted to everyone else.
Where in the bill is the bolded part?

Right after the lines that state 'the next part of this law is completely fictitious, and bares no resemblance to reality.'
 
Right after the lines that state 'the next part of this law is completely fictitious, and bares no resemblance to reality.'

IE just spewing out the talking points of that side and have nothing factual to back up the claims. Gotcha.
 
Back
Top Bottom