• 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
Do you know what you bolded means? I don't think you do.
I know what some lawyers might interpret it to mean, yes. But when a tribe left an area they didn't necessarily expect to move back to it in the future.
 
Last edited:
I notice that you put the work ownership in quotes, and I wonder why.

Under our legal system, the business is the exclusive owner of its inventory. Are you suggesting some change to this long-standing legal principle? If so, how would you like to see the ownership of the inventory divided up?
That's not 100% correct as you mean it. If I've pledged my house as collateral on a loan, which is how 99.99% of mortgages work, then I do not have exclusive ownership of the property - the bank also has certain rights to it. There is no reason to believe that inventory works any differently. Contributing labor to production could just as easily attach rights to product/inventory.
 
from cp will - his convenient excuse to ignore honoring pensions that workers earned over thirty or forty years of service



There was no such thing ever done. Those contracts were negotiated by the parties involved - both of whom were the legal representatives with full power to do so - in complete good faith.

You are making a completely irresponsible and unsubstantiated charge that covers a half decade or more of multiple contracts, negotiated by multiple persons. Making such a serious charge demands the highest level of evidence possible.

You have presented none.

This can only be viewed as a right wing attempt to screw workers out of their rightful benefits that they earned over decades of work for the people.

It is sad that you would take such a position in the face of the conservative claim of the value of contracts.

This is blatant and utter hypocrisy of the worst sort.

For you and the right to push this defines you as the enemy of the people. I view you no differently that someone who provides a map to my home and urges people to break in and loot it because I have something that they want. And I know how most would deal with that sort of theft.

You choose to look at only one side of the equation, the gov't (union) worker side. Where does the money for these gov't salary/benefit programs come from? The general working public, i.e. taxpayers. Much of that money, at the local level, comes from property taxation, based on the value of property (much of that beaing private homes), which have gone DOWN in value by over 20% in recent years, taking property tax revenues down along with that lower "re-appraised" value.

So, even while the state has LESS money, you want the ALL of gov't workers' salary and benefits "protected", which leaves ONLY one "option", which is to raise taxation rates for the general public. You see this as "fair". yet it is clearly NOT. Why? Because the general public is being asked to pay MORE to simply get the SAME services from the same gov't employees, so that the general public bears ALL of the costs, and the gov't (union) workers bear NONE of of those costs.

In WI governor Walker and the GOP saw this injustice, explained it (rather poorly) to the voters and got elected to power. They chose, instead of raising taxes and harming 90% of the WI economy, to cut spending and "harm" mainly the gov't (union) workers. Why? Obviously they decided that, although the gov't (union) workers are quite vocal, it harms far fewer WI voters.

Was it fair? NO and YES, I will agree that it IS NOT FAIR to the current gov't (union) workers, as they are paying mainly for the past "sins" of gov't (union) workers (and politicians) that are guilty of promising FAR more than reality could sustain; It IS FAIR to the vast majority of the WI public (taxpayers) as they have done nothing, save for allowing the past politicians to promise too much, but that is a "sin" of omission, not commission, on their part and they do not deserve to be forced to pay more simply to keep what gov't services they now have.

The demorats and republicants in WI should be open and honest with each other, as well as the general public of WI, and simply admit that THEY, the WI politicians (of BOTH parties), made a mess and have taken steps, as best they could, to correct that situation. It is not, and should not be seen as, a trend to always reduce the salary/benefits of ONLY the WI gov't (union) workers, in response to any future WI budget deficit. This was a ONE TIME correction, and should WI tax revenues fall any further, that "deficit" will be shared by all of WI citizens, by using BOTH tax rate increases and cuts in total gov't (union) worker funding, on a much more "equal" basis.
 
Last edited:
It IS FAIR to the vast majority of the public taxpayers as they have done nothing, save for allowing the past politicians to promise too much, but that is a "sin" of omission, not commission on their part, and they do not deserve to be forced to pay more simply to keep what gov't services they now have.
Then I'll be sure to deduct my portion of the interest on the public debt from my taxes next year because it's not MY problem (other than this "sin" of omission you claim) the politicians spent in excess of revenues more than fifty years in a row*. I have no obligation to repay those debts in any way, shape, or form. It's only FAIR, right?!?


There we go! National Debt Problem is solved! You should be getting your Nobel notification anytime now.



*There was one exception over fifty years but only the one.
 
Last edited:
That's horse crap! In the "natural order", that wild state we lived in for the past 200,000 years of our evolution, there was no "property" at all. People worked together as a tribe for the good of the tribe.

That is incorrect - the lack of property rights is known as "anarchy", wherein the strong take from and occasionally enslave the weak.
 
from cp will - his convenient excuse to ignore honoring pensions that workers earned over thirty or forty years of service



There was no such thing ever done. Those contracts were negotiated by the parties involved - both of whom were the legal representatives with full power to do so - in complete good faith.

You are making a completely irresponsible and unsubstantiated charge that covers a half decade or more of multiple contracts, negotiated by multiple persons. Making such a serious charge demands the highest level of evidence possible.

You have presented none.

This can only be viewed as a right wing attempt to screw workers out of their rightful benefits that they earned over decades of work for the people.

It is sad that you would take such a position in the face of the conservative claim of the value of contracts.

This is blatant and utter hypocrisy of the worst sort.

For you and the right to push this defines you as the enemy of the people. I view you no differently that someone who provides a map to my home and urges people to break in and loot it because I have something that they want. And I know how most would deal with that sort of theft.

Nothing is "convenient" about our current fiscal mess. But I like how you pull one sentence out of an entire page, post it out of context, and then go off on a rant.

I like also how you expect others to answer direct questions, but apparently lack the courage or forthrightness to do the same.

Cute. So, pulling things out of context to launch ad hominems while lacking the moral or intellectual backbone to defend your own claims when asked to do so. I guess you really do work for a Democrat politician.
 
Last edited:
The "ownership" (as you call it) of product depends on the laws of society. There is nothing innate or natural about property rights.

That is incorrect - property rights are the foundation for all our other rights.
 
You quoted him previously saying this


You are just making a fool out of yourself.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The fool seems to be you in attempting to state that incomplete and cursory 'research' is superior to detailed research which accounts for many different variables. The Gould and Sheirholz 2011 study attempts to truly compares apples to apples and not apples to cinderblocks. But because you ideologically take issue with the findings, you prefer a shorthand and shipshod method. You remind me of that scene in FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH where Sean Penn is told by his teacher that he is offereing a half assed idea. He replies

Oh No Mr___________________, its a fully assed.

That is an interesting take on things.

The variables considered were the following that are ignored in other data

RaceWhite
Hispanic Asian
Other

Gender

Education level
some high school
some college
Associates degree
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree

Age categories

Maritial status

Hourly worker
Full-time worker
Living in metropolatin area

Industry
12 differeent categories ranging from agriclulture to transportation to manufacturing to administration.


It is inconceivable that you would want a half-assed approach to comparing wages rather than an honest apples to apples comparison. The 2011 Economic Policy Institute study does exactly this.
 
That is incorrect - property rights are the foundation for all our other rights.

Property rights are rights. They are important rights. All rights people have are important rights. Property rights are not elevated above all else or at the expense of all else.
 
Property rights are rights. They are important rights. All rights people have are important rights. Property rights are not elevated above all else or at the expense of all else.

Agreed. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" seem a higher priority.
 
That is incorrect - the lack of property rights is known as "anarchy", wherein the strong take from and occasionally enslave the weak.
You really have no clue, do you?

Try reading something of human history before the Agricultural Revolution - then we'll talk.
 
Nothing is "convenient" about our current fiscal mess. But I like how you pull one sentence out of an entire page, post it out of context, and then go off on a rant.

I like also how you expect others to answer direct questions, but apparently lack the courage or forthrightness to do the same.

Cute. So, pulling things out of context to launch ad hominems while lacking the moral or intellectual backbone to defend your own claims when asked to do so. I guess you really do work for a Democrat politician.

Actually, I went for a walk with the wife, and realized, I prefer the response you gave. When the Iron Triangle of Democrat Politicians, Public Sector Unions, and Taxpayer money can no longer defend itself, and has the intellectual vacuity to launch ridiculous and blistering ad hominems which turn people off, that means that they are losing.
 
You really have no clue, do you?

Try reading something of human history before the Agricultural Revolution - then we'll talk.

I think it's funny that you talk about clue's and then reference an era of history about which you apparently hold some kind of ridiculous Rousseau-like fantasy. The history of mankinds' interactions up until the recognition of property rights is largely the story of the big kid on the playground beating up and taking the little kids' lunch money.
 
Property rights are rights. They are important rights. All rights people have are important rights. Property rights are not elevated above all else or at the expense of all else.

That is incorrect - your ability to "own" things, and in particular your ownership of yourself is the foundation of every other right you possess.
 
Nothing is "convenient" about our current fiscal mess. But I like how you pull one sentence out of an entire page, post it out of context, and then go off on a rant.

I like also how you expect others to answer direct questions, but apparently lack the courage or forthrightness to do the same.

Cute. So, pulling things out of context to launch ad hominems while lacking the moral or intellectual backbone to defend your own claims when asked to do so. I guess you really do work for a Democrat politician.

I get your 'context'.

And I get your goals.

And I get which side you are on.

You come across loud and clear.

I look at the views you push as no different than a rabble rouser standing outside myself giving directions to people to loot my house of everything I worked for simply because they do nto ant me to have it and they feel they need it more. I know how I would deal with such a person and I suspect you would deal with them exactly the same way.

I told you in a post this morning that I would indeed answer your question in detai later today. And I intend to do that.
 
That is incorrect - your ability to "own" things, and in particular your ownership of yourself is the foundation of every other right you possess.

Perhaps you would be good enough to show us in the American legal system where property rights are elevated above and more important that any other rights?
 
cpwill asks me this question

Given that when offered the option, it seems that half to a majority of public union members prefer to opt out, and given that the movement to limit Public Unions is coming from both parties, how do you justify your vote that Public Unions will end up stronger? What social, political, or economic force do you see driving that result?

We have discussed this recently in the thread on the topic of union members not siging up for dues payments. I stated there and I will state here again that if you or anyone else interprets that as a sign that they do not want a union or they do not want union protections or they do not want the union to negotitate a contract - that is a wrong interpretation of what is going on here.

It comes down to one thing as most things do in life and that one thing is MONEY. When the right wing Repubicans passed laws to penalize and weaken unions by refusing to allow employers to collect the dues to the union, we know that some workers will see only the opportunity for a short term gain in keeping those dues for themselves and will decide to stop paying them. Many do so because of selfishness. Others do it because they fail to see the long term effects. Still others expect to have their cake and eat it too hoping that while they will keep their dues, other workers will pay and thus their own ass will be well protected by the majority.

So I do not interpret this as a sign that 2 out of 3 are opting out of the union. I see this for what it is.

As far as your claim that the limitations on unions is coming from both parties, I differ with that claim also. Yes, some democrats have joined in. But this is largely a GOP effort spurred on by their right wing. In my State of Michigan, no Democrat in the legislature has signed on these sort of extreme bills promoting things like right to work. Yes, a tiny number of Democrats have voted for laws here which unions lobbied and worked against - but they are a minority in the party and do not represent the dominant thinking of the majority. The vast majority of the Democrtic Party is supportive of labor and labor rights. Wisconsin demonstrat4es this reality also.

So I beleive your question to me is based on two equally false premises.

Having said that, I have no actual idea as to pubic employee unions getting stronger or weaker in the short run. We know there is a war on and I have no idea how it is going to turn out. Perhaps unions need to be kicked a bit to motivate and arouse apathetic members who have no memory or knowledge of why it is so important to have a union in the first place? Perhaps the union needs to do more education of its own members?

I also think that the right wing efforts against unions may bear soem fruit in the short run but in the long run will only spur unions to work harder, organize and recruit more, and dig their collective heels in deeper. And that would be a good thing.

As to economic forces, lots of Americans are not on board with globalization and the attendant sacrifices it means for them. Lots of people are simply not willing to allow unskilled workers in Asia to dictate what they will get paid here. They are not going to take this indefinetely and there will be push back as the pendulum swings too far to the right. It always does swing back. That will result in political action and perhaps we will do something extremely radical and far out like actually insist that we follow the Constitution and exercise the powers the Founders gave us to protect American markets and jobs. We will see.

In short, I think the right is riding high right now at this point in time. And I think the pendulum has swung nearly as far as its going to swing to the right. For you or anyone else to misinterpret this only does America a great disservice.
 
I think it's funny that you talk about clue's and then reference an era of history about which you apparently hold some kind of ridiculous Rousseau-like fantasy. The history of mankinds' interactions up until the recognition of property rights is largely the story of the big kid on the playground beating up and taking the little kids' lunch money.
LOL! Start here - but there's plenty more.
Inaugural Article: The evolution of lethal intergroup violence

The evolution of lethal intergroup violence thus encompasses three major periods: (i) the era of coalitionary killing, (ii) the era of intrinsic defensive advantage, and (iii) the era of war. An advance in weapons technology (the javelin-like throwing spear) engenders the first transition, whereas an advance in military organization and tactics produces the second.
 
I know what some lawyers might interpret it to mean, yes. But when a tribe left an area they didn't necessarily expect to move back to it in the future.

When they left an area? What does that mean? You seem to not be aware that you either take claim to property or you don't.
 
Perhaps you would be good enough to show us in the American legal system where property rights are elevated above and more important that any other rights?

The ability of self-ownership is what the right to life is based on.
 
cpwill asks me this question



We have discussed this recently in the thread on the topic of union members not siging up for dues payments. I stated there and I will state here again that if you or anyone else interprets that as a sign that they do not want a union or they do not want union protections or they do not want the union to negotitate a contract - that is a wrong interpretation of what is going on here.

It comes down to one thing as most things do in life and that one thing is MONEY. When the right wing Repubicans passed laws to penalize and weaken unions by refusing to allow employers to collect the dues to the union, we know that some workers will see only the opportunity for a short term gain in keeping those dues for themselves and will decide to stop paying them. Many do so because of selfishness. Others do it because they fail to see the long term effects. Still others expect to have their cake and eat it too hoping that while they will keep their dues, other workers will pay and thus their own ass will be well protected by the majority.

So I do not interpret this as a sign that 2 out of 3 are opting out of the union. I see this for what it is.

As far as your claim that the limitations on unions is coming from both parties, I differ with that claim also. Yes, some democrats have joined in. But this is largely a GOP effort spurred on by their right wing. In my State of Michigan, no Democrat in the legislature has signed on these sort of extreme bills promoting things like right to work. Yes, a tiny number of Democrats have voted for laws here which unions lobbied and worked against - but they are a minority in the party and do not represent the dominant thinking of the majority. The vast majority of the Democrtic Party is supportive of labor and labor rights. Wisconsin demonstrat4es this reality also.

So I beleive your question to me is based on two equally false premises.

Having said that, I have no actual idea as to pubic employee unions getting stronger or weaker in the short run. We know there is a war on and I have no idea how it is going to turn out. Perhaps unions need to be kicked a bit to motivate and arouse apathetic members who have no memory or knowledge of why it is so important to have a union in the first place? Perhaps the union needs to do more education of its own members?

I also think that the right wing efforts against unions may bear soem fruit in the short run but in the long run will only spur unions to work harder, organize and recruit more, and dig their collective heels in deeper. And that would be a good thing.

As to economic forces, lots of Americans are not on board with globalization and the attendant sacrifices it means for them. Lots of people are simply not willing to allow unskilled workers in Asia to dictate what they will get paid here. They are not going to take this indefinetely and there will be push back as the pendulum swings too far to the right. It always does swing back. That will result in political action and perhaps we will do something extremely radical and far out like actually insist that we follow the Constitution and exercise the powers the Founders gave us to protect American markets and jobs. We will see.

In short, I think the right is riding high right now at this point in time. And I think the pendulum has swung nearly as far as its going to swing to the right. For you or anyone else to misinterpret this only does America a great disservice.

It's all about money. The big money of the Republican party hates Unions because it means less money for them.

The paradox is that many of these companies also support Democratic candidates, who are more pro-Union. You've gotta wonder if they're just playing us with fake issues so nobody notices what's going on.
 
It's important because that is what you are sure to get in the open market. Those most likley to suffer will be the most needy among us. This will widen the gap even more.

Says??

Actually, considering what they have to contend with in parents and conservative, they do a better job by far than the low end will get in the market.


Parents? Ok. Conservative? Ah..what? As for the rest that is an assumption.

Competition will improve some areas, but too often the competition is for profit and not quality. This is important.

It sure it is. It will drive educational levels.

Only those who can afford first class will see any improvement, though very little as most of them already have first class. The rest will get cheapened scaled down versious, and will be very hit and miss, largely miss.

That is you saying that.

BTW, not sure where you got hiding. I merely figure you don't see the point.

Lets be clear this new line of discussion is so that you can avoid the question I put out from the start. "How does have a degree in whatever field mean a certain wage is deserved and anything else is unacceptable?" This discussion of a private school system in which I believe in has nothing to do with that question.

Sure it does. Have you seen what doctors go through?

ANd it ahppens all the time in nearly all professions. Sure, some have to get some practical experience behind them, but take a nurse, a four year nurse 5 years down the road will be twice the nurse of the 2 year grade. the 2 year grade knows the practical, start the IV, whatever skill, the four year knows why and what to look for much better. Those years taught her things that gave her a better foundation.

How exactly does that show a mastery of the field?

And I don't know a doctor who relys on the internet. And I know some doctors. Not sure where your getting some of this silliness.

Many younger doctors will use the Internet regularly when they see a patient. Ask people that go to the doctor all the time and they will testify to this.
 
The ability of self-ownership is what the right to life is based on.



what does that even mean.... "self ownership" ??????? Is that in the Constitution?
 
what does that even mean.... "self ownership" ??????? Is that in the Constitution?

Do you have the right to with you body as you see fit or not? Answer the question hay.
 
That's not 100% correct as you mean it. If I've pledged my house as collateral on a loan, which is how 99.99% of mortgages work, then I do not have exclusive ownership of the property - the bank also has certain rights to it. There is no reason to believe that inventory works any differently. Contributing labor to production could just as easily attach rights to product/inventory.

How in the hell is that comparable? The first is the same transaction and the later is creating a new transaction.
 
Back
Top Bottom