• 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?


  • Total voters
    64
not according to he philosophies adopted and codified in the US Constitution....

Voting is a privilege. Owning a gun is a privilege. A right is something someone can not take away from you. People do not get to own guns. People do not get to vote. Thus, privileges.
 
The argument for making the tax code reflect income inequality has nothing to do with "if I can't have it, neither can they."

Correct, having most of the country's wealth concentrated at the top, out of reach of the majority of consumers, does not create enough consumer demand for a consumer based economy to prosper. That's why 200 millionaires have signed the letter to petition Congress to raise the tax rates for the wealthy.
 
If you really believe that government isn't offering you anything in exchange and that a government that lacks the power to collect taxes woud be more civilized, then perhaps you would find life in Somalia to be the height of civility. I kinda doubt it though.

Nope. I'm not interested in Somalia. I want an effective legal system that protects private property and institutions of governance that comply with the nonaggression principle. Somalia is definitely not that.
 
Again that is a lie.If I want to be police office,public school teacher, fire fighter or some other public sector job with a closed shop I have no choice but to join a union and not just any union but the approved union. I just say fine I'll go this fire station,police station,public school or some other public sector job across town that doesn't have a union or a union I support.




Again unions were created for the benefit of the workers in general.So what ever an employer chooses to pay me is none of the union's business. If an employer wants to pay me the same,less or more than what a Union worker at the same company makes then that is mine and the employer's business, not the union's.
sorry james, but you couldnt possibly be more wrong...you always have a choice, always, you are not forced to work in a union shop, that is your choice if you do. if you don't want to, i'm sure there are many places of employment in your area that are non union, and more to your liking.
 
Nope. I'm not interested in Somalia. I want an effective legal system that protects private property and institutions of governance that comply with the nonaggression principle. Somalia is definitely not that.

Ok, so you want a government. That costs money, so I assume you want the government to tax. Right?
 
Funny how those rabid union supporters claim that a workers union and employers have a right to form contracts to dictate closed shop.But not one public sector workers union has ever negotiated with its employers for benefits,tenure, "trial de nova" for employees being fired, pensions and many other things.Because why would tax payers approve of those things when many tax payers do not get those things themselves.

Uhm, I'm afraid that your post is like trying to watch a damged DVD . . . Number one; "tenure" applies to teachers only, and tenure; as a practice, dates to 17th century England and applied to "academic honesty" with respect to religious ferver vs science. In other unions, it's seniority that applies to one degree or another, depending on the union's contract. Academic tenure means that the bearer cannot be fired for any reason for the duration of the educator's career at the given institution: union or not. You may hate that idea, but there is so much history and tradition that overrules a simple prejudice that you may as well put it out of your mind beasue that ain't changing. It is one of the chief draws to a career in education to begin with. It's kind of like retiring at a very high rank from the military.

Now, as for closed shops, that is largely dictated by state law. I suppose that it could be negotiated into a contract in an open shop state (right to work), but I've neer heard of that: and besides, in an open shop state, the company is not likey to go for such a thing.

Union representation does not equal trial de nova. Union representation offers a "good cause" hearing, wherein the company must show good cause for the termination. That kind of thing, plus the benefits and pension is what the dues pay for: auto insurance is the same thing. It can be very difficult to fire a union public employee, because many times the rules are so draconian that those rules just represent charicatures of those managers tryng to make names for themselves: remember; it's politics . . . People need protection fomr politics.

Now, taxpayers vote for the representatives who sign those public employee contracts: so, blame them, not the employees who know how everybody's gettin' scammed by the boondoggle that is government at any level.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so you want a government. That costs money, so I assume you want the government to tax. Right?

No, that would violate the nonaggression principle. However, anyone would be free to supply the governance services currently provided by coercive monopoly governments, such as arbitration, private security, or defense. Or people could form voluntary mutual associations to carry out these governance functions.

The point is that no person has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate aggression against another person or his property.
 
No, that would violate the nonaggression principle. However, anyone would be free to supply the governance services currently provided by coercive monopoly governments, such as arbitration, private security, or defense. Or people could form voluntary mutual associations to carry out these governance functions.

The point is that no person has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate aggression against another person or his property.

Well "voluntary government" is the same thing as no government obviously. If all I have to do to be able to murder somebody is to let my subscription to some association, then it is meaningless. You're certainly free to form whatever voluntary association you like in Somalia.
 
Last edited:
Well "voluntary government" is the same thing as no government obviously. If all I have to do to be able to murder somebody is to let my subscription to some association, then it is meaningless. You're certainly free to form whatever voluntary association you like in Somalia.

Whether you belong to an association is irrelevant. If you murder someone, that person's protection agency will come to you looking for compensation. You do not "get off" just because you don't belong to some association.
 
Ok, so you want a government. That costs money, so I assume you want the government to tax. Right?

not speaking for him, but yes.. i want a government, and i do consent to some taxation in order to pay for those services the government provides.
I do, however, demand discretion and careful, rational, thought in confiscating peoples money... money should not be confiscated in order to pay for services that are not explicitly codified in the US Constitution. they should not be confiscated in order to manipulate behaviors, and they should not be confiscated to assuage irrational and subjective concerns of "fairness"

I am opposed , however, to extraconsitutional power being wielded, I am opposed to the the contemporary liberal agenda of the nanny state, I am opposed to current oppressive levels of taxation, and i'm opposed to the notion that there is an unlimited supply of other peoples money that we are magically justified in confiscating at whim. I am opposed the the contemporary liberal notion of an unlimited government.
 
Whether you belong to an association is irrelevant. If you murder someone, that person's protection agency will come to you looking for compensation. You do not "get off" just because you don't belong to some association.

Ok. So you want the country to be ruled by private gangs that report to those who fund them and impose the rules their sponsors prefer on others against their will. Is that an accurate description? Again, that describes the status quo in Somalia, doesn't it?
 
not speaking for him, but yes.. i want a government, and i do consent to some taxation in order to pay for those services the government provides.
I do, however, demand discretion and careful, rational, thought in confiscating peoples money... money should not be confiscated in order to pay for services that are not explicitly codified in the US Constitution. they should not be confiscated in order to manipulate behaviors, and they should not be confiscated to assuage irrational and subjective concerns of "fairness"

The constitution does explicitly codify what taxes can be collected for- to provide for the general welfare and the common defense.

I am opposed , however, to extraconsitutional power being wielded, I am opposed to the the contemporary liberal agenda of the nanny state, I am opposed to current oppressive levels of taxation, and i'm opposed to the notion that there is an unlimited supply of other peoples money that we are magically justified in confiscating at whim. I am opposed the the contemporary liberal notion of an unlimited government.

Well that's fine. You get a vote just like everybody else.
 
no vote
I really do NOT KNOW what is going on.
If employers treat their employees with dignity and respect, then the unions are out of business, both public and private.
Conservatives and Liberals , you know what the key words are, but do you know how to employ them ?

The problem is not every employer knows how to treat their employees with dignity and respect, and the larger the corporation is the less likely that is to be.

Small business owners may treat their employees better, but that's because those owners get to know their employees and so care for them.

The reason why Walmart is able to do what it does is because all it cares about is profit and doesn't give a **** if a worker is a single parent or not.
 
So those workers who wish to have power will join a union, and those who don't won't. Or they'll join a better union. Choice is good, no?

If the workers aren't united, they collectively have no power. So a few workers choosing not to join a union essentially castrates all of the other workers who do. A few workers are then actually making the choice for all of them.
 
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't an employer hire some workers from one union, some more workers from another union, and even more workers directly as individuals?

That's why what I would like is a guild system.

A guild can do collective bargaining in order to demand contract minimums for workers in their field. However, workers can still negotiate for the rest of their contract with their employer.

So, for instance, a guild would demand that every contract has, say, a minimum wage set at a certain level, minimum amount of sick days, minimum vacation days, and so on. But someone who's been in his occupation for 20 years can demand a higher wage, more sick days, and use of vacation days more often than a young guy. Also a young guy can know how much he's expected to command doing his job at entry level.

A guild could also be used for other things, such as legal services or access to health insurance and a retirement plan if they don't want to go with those services provided with their employer. This way people who stick to their occupation will be allowed mobility to move from one employer to another, or possibly even work for themselves.
 
Of course the government has a license to tax. It's the very first power granted to the Congress in the constitution and it is reaffirmed in the 16th amendment. You already know that of course.

More and more failure. Tell me again what kind of taxes existed during that time period and tell me again WHY they decided on such. Or maybe you could realize for once the difference between taxes and involuntary servitude that is income taxes


I have no idea what you mean here. Are you saying that you prefer non-income taxes? If so, you're certainly free to hold that preference, but it isn't a widely shared one. Hence the 16th amendment.

So you really wish to go back to why that 16th amendment was needed to get a income tax? More failure on your part and tell me again how many people enjoy working four or more months for free. Please do share.


Well, a country has to either have a government or not. The overwhelming majority of Americans prefer having a government, so that's what we have. If you really don't want to live under a government, you could certainly move to Somalia where they effectively have no government. I don't think you'd actually find that you like it in practice though.

Your strawman I need a chainsaw to take down. I enjoy how liberals miss the point so badly on purpose and think it doesn't just make them look stupid.
 
Last edited:
Ok. So you want the country to be ruled by private gangs that report to those who fund them and impose the rules their sponsors prefer on others against their will. Is that an accurate description? Again, that describes the status quo in Somalia, doesn't it?

That's the inherent contradiction in hard core Libertarianism. They don't want anarchy, but when you press on the specifics of an effective government, they don't want any of the things necessary to make the government effective.
 
The constitution does explicitly codify what taxes can be collected for- to provide for the general welfare and the common defense.

Except that it doesn't but then Madison is a lier. Isn't that just hilariously right? :lamo
 
The constitution does explicitly codify what taxes can be collected for- to provide for the general welfare and the common defense.
aye, that is does... and I do support common defense and general welfare.... which is exactly why I oppose the contemporary liberal agenda.
ya see, i actually pay attention to the intend of the framers.. I do not perceive the general welfare as being "whatever the **** we want"as "liberals" do.. I also provide for alternative methods of common defense, not just a resource sucking behemoth standing army


Well that's fine. You get a vote just like everybody else.
this is true, you and me get one vote... and exactly why our democratic institutions are not equipped to deal properly with unprincipled and unlimited government such as that desired by the left
 
More and more failure. Tell me again what kind of taxes existed during that time period and tell me again WHY they decided on such. Or maybe you could realize for once the difference between taxes and involuntary servitude that is income taxes

So you really wish to go back to why that 16th amendment was needed to get a income tax? More failure on your part and tell me again how many people enjoy working four or more months for free. Please do share.

Well it doesn't seem like you have a position really... It's like you're only laying out 5% of your position and assuming I know what you meant to say. I don't. If you want to repeal the 16th amendment, you're certainly free to try, but you would fail... I dunno. Why don't you just spell out what your position is.
 
That's the inherent contradiction in hard core Libertarianism. They don't want anarchy, but when you press on the specifics of an effective government, they don't want any of the things necessary to make the government effective.

Funny that I made it a point to say I'm not against taxes and that I continually listed "income taxes"

Another liberal and another fail.
 
Except that it doesn't but then Madison is a lier. Isn't that just hilariously right? :lamo

Of course it does- "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". You don't need to look up what any individual founder wanted it to say, they wrote it down. We have a written constitution.
 
The problem is not every employer knows how to treat their employees with dignity and respect, and the larger the corporation is the less likely that is to be.

Small business owners may treat their employees better, but that's because those owners get to know their employees and so care for them.

The reason why Walmart is able to do what it does is because all it cares about is profit and doesn't give a **** if a worker is a single parent or not.

Just what should an employer do for (or to) a worker that is a single parent, as opposed to what they would for (or to) any other worker? It sounds to me that you are accusing Walmart of being fair. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom