• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    Votes: 40 62.5%

  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • It depends on November.

    Votes: 10 15.6%
  • Total voters
    64
Fletch said:
I have no problem with people forming unions, that is their right. I am simply pointing out that the employer has rights as well. One of my rights as an employer is to decide who will and who will not work for me. If you have a right to unionize, I have the right to can you for doing so.
Click to expand...
uh no, you don't....as i explained earlier in the thread, you have no right to fire anyone for joining a union...sorry, you don't.
 
haymarket said:
What you describe is the classic clash of rights. Thankfully, we have a system in place which decides what they happens when the rights of one individual - the employer - clash with the rights of hundreds or thousands of others - the employees.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have the state step in on behalf of the many and crush the rights of the one. Might makes right. Except that is a poor standard for morality and an even worse one for governance.
 
radcen said:
You could count me as one of those people in some fashion. I purposely left California almost 7 years ago. Not because of unions specifically. A large part of my list of reasons was how effed-up state government had become, though, and the state public unions certainly did play a part in that.
Click to expand...
Me too. I lived in Los Angeles County for about a year when I knew California was not the state for me. To the People Republic of California I was a cash cow to be milked for the benefit of the government. So I found a similar job in Alabama and have never regretted leaving California.
 
randel said:
uh no, you don't....as i explained earlier in the thread, you have no right to fire anyone for joining a union...sorry, you don't.
Click to expand...
You are discussing current law as if it, by itself, justifies itself. I am discussing principle.
 
teamosil said:
The notion that the richest country in the world can't afford to pay working class people normal wages, while we give hundreds of billions or even trillions in tax giveaways to the super rich, is just disgusting. Some people just plain don't have the basic moral values that we should be able to take for granted.
Click to expand...
I can see your problem. You are unfamiliar with the concept of property and the right to own. Given that huge problem you default to the statist belief that all property belongs to the state for the government's use.
 
lpast said:
49% Favor Public Employee Unions, 46% Oppose.....thats ater the recall vote in wisc, if public unions were in the great decline that Cpwill and turtledude say then they should be in the 30s....oops but they are still on top with all the MILLIONS the krotch bros and Rove have spent

49% Favor Public Employee Unions, 46% Oppose - Rasmussen Reports™
Click to expand...

Sometimes the truth get complicated, doesn't it?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 15% of Likely U.S. Voters think workers who do not belong to a union should be required by law to pay union dues if the company they work for is unionized. Seventy-four percent (74%) disagree and say non-union workers should not be forced to pay dues in a closed union shop. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

74% Favor Right-to-Work Law Eliminating Mandatory Union Dues - Rasmussen Reports™
 
randel said:
uh no, you don't....as i explained earlier in the thread, you have no right to fire anyone for joining a union...sorry, you don't.
Click to expand...

But, in the past, this was a practice...And if the conservatives fully take over this November, expect the past to return...
Quite the horrible thought....
 
earthworm said:
But, in the past, this was a practice...And if the conservatives fully take over this November, expect the past to return...
Quite the horrible thought....
Click to expand...
You do realize, dont you, that ~90% of American workers are NOT in a union, right?
 
Misterveritis said:
Sometimes the truth get complicated, doesn't it?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 15% of Likely U.S. Voters think workers who do not belong to a union should be required by law to pay union dues if the company they work for is unionized. Seventy-four percent (74%) disagree and say non-union workers should not be forced to pay dues in a closed union shop. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
This scenario is ludricrous...
Look, I agree that many unions have "gotten carried away" and this sickness also affects ownership and management.
I think that this is a way of cracking open a union, by the conservatives....IMO, it simply cannot be...partially open, partially shut... I do not see how this can work fairly and effectively..

74% Favor Right-to-Work Law Eliminating Mandatory Union Dues - Rasmussen Reports™
Click to expand...
During 50 years of work, its been both open and closed shops; union and non-union...
My take : unions are necessary for the working man....A PITA for the businessman, perticulary the the cave-man business man....
Yes the truth can be complicated, and more complicated for those who wish to spin and stretch.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Who the hell is forcing anyone into a union... find a different job..
Click to expand...

LOL. There is not a booming market for private police, teachers or firefighters. The whole idea behind gov't employee unions is that they have a captive bunch to exploit and only a single "boss" to negotiate with, that tends to need campaign cash to keep that position as "boss", and has no reason NOT to spend a bit more of "other people's money" if they think they can fool them into believing that it was "necessary" or "fair".
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
You do realize, dont you, that ~90% of American workers are NOT in a union, right?
Click to expand...

But 10% ( IF this figure is true) will be affected, or is this not enough to matter ?
Or, as I recall, 10% of the people in Germany during the 30s were "non-Christian".
 
Misterveritis said:
I can see your problem. You are unfamiliar with the concept of property and the right to own. Given that huge problem you default to the statist belief that all property belongs to the state for the government's use.
Click to expand...

That's silly. The notion that people should be expected to pitch in to keep the society that they draw their wealth from strong in no way contradicts the right to property. The right to property isn't a license to freeload.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Who the hell is forcing anyone into a union... find a different job..
Click to expand...

what right do you have to keep people from working at the job they want?
being a member of a union has exactly dick to do with a persons capacity/ability/qualifications to perform a job.

it seems freedom of association is a one way street to you guys.... you want the freedom to associate and you are willing to offer benefits for that association, but you are also willing to deny people jobs over their choice not to associate with an entity that is external to the employer.
 
Misterveritis said:
I can see your problem. You are unfamiliar with the concept of property and the right to own. Given that huge problem you default to the statist belief that all property belongs to the state for the government's use.
Click to expand...
So, what is more important ??
The concept of property or the concept of fairness ?
BTW, I do feel that the land should belong to the people, not individuals....who stole the land to begin with...
 
earthworm said:
During 50 years of work, its been both open and closed shops; union and non-union...
My take : unions are necessary for the working man....A PITA for the businessman, perticulary the the cave-man business man....
Yes the truth can be complicated, and more complicated for those who wish to spin and stretch.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your opinion.

My opinion is that the Democrat party is going to be starved of coerced funding as more states change their laws requiring that public sector union members have their dues withheld by the state and passed to the unions. This will break the back of the union-democrat party stranglehold on the taxpayers.

In the same way as tough laws on illegal immigration will flourish as courts hear the cases and agree that states can enforce them so too will laws breaking the bond between public sector unions and the Democrat party as recalls fail.

This was a blow to statism. It is just one battle in what must be a very long war to regain our liberty.
 
teamosil said:
That's silly. The notion that people should be expected to pitch in to keep the society that they draw their wealth from strong in no way contradicts the right to property. The right to property isn't a license to freeload.
Click to expand...

Lol. So the government has a license to take your property to support them or do you not realize you just said that.

Like usual you fail to realize the difference between taxes as an idea and the government taking your income in the form of such ideas as the income tax.

Tell me again why do you believe the government can take your income with force but other people/organizations can not? Don't worry if you fail to notice there is no difference because after all it is to be expected.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
But, in the past, this was a practice...And if the conservatives fully take over this November, expect the past to return...
Quite the horrible thought....
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone has floated a policy idea of firing anyone over their choice to join a union, if they did, I would vehemently oppose them.... the most you can say is that they want to end the practice of unions closing their shops ( denying jobs ) and paying mandatory unions dues.

your fearmongering is noted, though.
 
teamosil said:
That's silly. The notion that people should be expected to pitch in to keep the society that they draw their wealth from strong in no way contradicts the right to property. The right to property isn't a license to freeload.
Click to expand...
You do see that you just agreed with my position that you are unfamiliar with property. Awesome.

Statism is an ugly thing.
 
earthworm said:
So, what is more important ??
The concept of property or the concept of fairness ?
BTW, I do feel that the land should belong to the people, not individuals....who stole the land to begin with...
Click to expand...
The fact that you have to ask means there is very little hope for you.

Without the right to property there is no freedom, no liberty, no justice. No fairness.

You too are a statist. It is plain now for all to see.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
So, what is more important ??
The concept of property or the concept of fairness ?
Click to expand...

Property.

BTW, I do feel that the land should belong to the people, not individuals....who stole the land to begin with...
Click to expand...

People didn't steal the land since no one actually owned it.
 
cpgrad08 said:
I would like to see a national right to work law past.
Click to expand...

I'm not much for new federal laws, but your point is correct. I would rather see the repeal of the national labor monopoly laws currently in effect. I think that situations such as the unions being willing and able to dictate policies of state governments to the extent of breaking the states, and situations such as the recent refusal of the NLRB to allow Boeing to build planes where labor is cheaper has been heard and understood by the population,
 
Fletch said:
I have no problem with people forming unions, that is their right. I am simply pointing out that the employer has rights as well. One of my rights as an employer is to decide who will and who will not work for me. If you have a right to unionize, I have the right to can you for doing so.
Click to expand...

no, you do not have the right to fire someone over their association with a union..... you might have the power to do so, but you would be wielding your power illegitimately and unjustifiably and would be open to state sanction were you to do so.

think about it a second.. unions exist to act as a bulwark against employer power.. and your opinion that you hold the power and right to fire someone over their association justifies the very existence of that which you oppose.
the better approach would be to render the existence of a union unnecessary by affording your employees rights, benefits, and protections commensurate with their status as humans and employees
simply don't give them a reason to unionize.

I'm not a union guy whatsoever, but i have the distinct feeling that i would explore a unions were i to be faced with an employer who felt he had the right to fire me over my external associations... i'd go looking for help to protect myself in that case.
 
Fletch said:
You are discussing current law as if it, by itself, justifies itself. I am discussing principle.
Click to expand...
discuss it however you like, doesnt change fact, you don't have that right.
 
Fletch said:
Yes, you have the state step in on behalf of the many and crush the rights of the one. Might makes right. Except that is a poor standard for morality and an even worse one for governance.
Click to expand...

In any democratic republic, the skill that helps a great deal is to be able to count.

When you have a situation where you can extend to one person certain rights and quash the rights of thousands of others, OR you can honor the rights of thousands and deny the one his right, there is really no choice there. Reality dictates that both cannot be served at the same time.

The greatest good for the greatest number shall prevail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom