Is Collective Bargaining in the public sector a Right, or is it a Privilege?

ElijahGalt said:

But they still have the right to petition the government (their employer) just as everyone has a right to petition the government.

Click to expand...

My friends who devoutly defend the Second Amendment have taught me that when you restrict a right to the point where you cannot honestly exercise it as you need to exercise it in the normal time honored fashion, then indeed your right has been stripped from you.

justabubba said:

what obligation does the government have to respond to the proffered petition?

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something here. Do the supporters of union actually think they're entitled to their own jobs? That they somehow OWN their job? Let me remind all of you. You don't own your jobs unless your investment paid for its ownership. Labor, by and of itself, is not payment enough to give you clear ownership of your job. Your employer can fire you for whatever reason and by golly, has the right to. Creating insolvency in ANY work place will ultimately result in far less productivity and incredible stagnation.

And if you don't want to work 40 hours a week- you think that's so horrible- FINE! Then don't.Work less. Take more vacating time. Just don't force the rest of us into the same predicament that you're in. People in Peru work 12 hour work weeks so I get pretty sick and tired of those on the left whining about 40 hour work weeks. At least in this country, there is CHOICE. The absence of choice is slavery, plain and simple. In France, there was a major controversy in 08 (I believe) regarding work weeks. Employers were asking that everyone take a cut in hours (which ALWAYS will mean a cut in pay), down from 30 to 25 so that the next unemployed guy can get a job. Unemployment often runs high in a society where jobs are nearly insolvent.

haymarket said:

My friends who devoutly defend the Second Amendment have taught me that when you restrict a right to the point where you cannot honestly exercise it as you need to exercise it in the normal time honored fashion, then indeed your right has been stripped from you.

Click to expand...

It may be that their right to gun ownership is being violated, but not necessarily their right to petition the government. It takes a bureaucratic institution, especially a national one, an incredible amount of time to evaluate and make judgments on any single individual. A FOIA request can take up to 7-10 years for Christ's sake! I speak from experience. In this case, we're discussing the individual's right to speak freely about his pay and benefits to his employer while at the same time he/she retains the right to petition the government is such criminalizing acts occur. The individual can scream and yell and join groups of screaming and yelling people, but in the end, the right of the job lies exclusively with the property owner. This is largely speaking in the private sector. The public sector, on the other hand, is a completely different monster. The public sector sees a third party paying the bill for the employment of the public employees, and because of this, they're much more likely to cozy up with the said employees and create some form of cartel. And unions, by so many measures, are a cartel of their own making. You can't trust big unions to look out for the little guy any more than you can trust big business to look out for the small guy. But in this case, we're talking about government employees determining the pay and benefits of their fellow colleagues, all while accounting to an invincible taxpayer who has no real control over the spending. We have two political classes based on spending more and catering to special interests. And you really think public employee unions are not self-serving interest groups? If so, think again.

ElijahGalt said:

Maybe I'm missing something here. Do the supporters of union actually think they're entitled to their own jobs? That they somehow OWN their job? Let me remind all of you. You don't own your jobs unless your investment paid for its ownership. Labor, by and of itself, is not payment enough to give you clear ownership of your job. Your employer can fire you for whatever reason and by golly, has the right to. Creating insolvency in ANY work place will ultimately result in far less productivity and incredible stagnation.

And if you don't want to work 40 hours a week- you think that's so horrible- FINE! Then don't.Work less. Take more vacating time. Just don't force the rest of us into the same predicament that you're in. People in Peru work 12 hour work weeks so I get pretty sick and tired of those on the left whining about 40 hour work weeks. At least in this country, there is CHOICE. The absence of choice is slavery, plain and simple. In France, there was a major controversy in 08 (I believe) regarding work weeks. Employers were asking that everyone take a cut in hours (which ALWAYS will mean a cut in pay), down from 30 to 25 so that the next unemployed guy can get a job. Unemployment often runs high in a society where jobs are nearly insolvent.

Click to expand...

where in all that ignorant tripe is the answer to this question?

what obligation does the government have to respond to the proffered petition?

Click to expand...

from galt

It may be that their right to gun ownership is being violated, but not necessarily their right to petition the government.

Click to expand...

Aha! A double standard when it comes to the sacred rights contained in the Bill of Rights. I guess in libertarianville, some rights count more than others.

You can't trust big unions to look out for the little guy any more than you can trust big business to look out for the small guy.

Click to expand...

My union looked out for me for over three decades and did a damn fine job of it. And I am grateful and thankful.

justabubba said:

where in all that ignorant tripe is the answer to this question?

Click to expand...

Correction: I meant to say 12 hour work days in Peru, not weeks.

As for your question, they do have an obligation according to the First Amendment to respond to petitions of grievances made by individuals. Exactly how long it takes them to respond to such matters all depends on the size and scope of government. What's your point?

haymarket said:

from galt



Aha! A double standard when it comes to the sacred rights contained in the Bill of Rights. I guess in libertarianville, some rights count more than others.

Click to expand...

There is no double standard. They're both equally valid. But you need to demonstrate where and how their rights to petition the government and/or their rights to gun ownership were violated.

My union looked out for me for over three decades and did a damn fine job of it. And I am grateful and thankful.

Click to expand...

Unions can be great for those who are lucky enough to be apart of them, but in the end, unions are notorious for artificially raising wages and unemployment rates.

ElijahGalt said:

Correction: I meant to say 12 hour work days in Peru, not weeks.

As for your question, they do have an obligation according to the First Amendment to respond to petitions of grievances made by individuals. Exactly how long it takes them to respond to such matters all depends on the size and scope of government. What's your point?

Click to expand...

let's examine the first amdendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

that sets forth the right to petition. nowhere is indicated a process or procedure or timeline for the response to such grievance. but the state has entered into a contract with the union which contract defines the procedure and timeliness of responses to such petitions of grievances by the unionized state workers

and now the state's republican representatives are trying to unilaterally terminate the document entered into by both parties

that is the point i am making

from E. Galt

Unions can be great for those who are lucky enough to be apart of them

Click to expand...

That is correct. Which is why nearly we all non-management workers should have one.

justabubba said:

let's examine the first amdendment:

that sets forth the right to petition. nowhere is indicated a process or procedure or timeline for the response to such grievance. but the state has entered into a contract with the union which contract defines the procedure and timeliness of responses to such petitions of grievances by the unionized state workers

and now the state's republican representatives are trying to unilaterally terminate the document entered into by both parties

that is the point i am making

Click to expand...

You failed to demonstrate how the Governor's proposed changes would violate the First Amendment rights of public workers. And by the way, the union contract is up for renewal in less than thirty days. If you're implying a breach of contract, you're simply wrong.

haymarket said:

from E. Galt



That is correct. Which is why nearly we all non-management workers should have one.

Click to expand...

Given that less than a quarter of all workers are unionized, I hardly see them as the idealized champions for the betterment of workers. You took what I said out of context. They artificially raise the wages of union workers precisely because they have artifically limited the number of workers. The union workers are enjoying high wages by artifically restricting the supply of workers. It's all simple economics.

ElijahGalt said:

You failed to demonstrate how the Governor's proposed changes would violate the First Amendment rights of public workers.

Click to expand...

i established that the contract terms, agreed upon by both parties, sets forth how the petition for grievance provision of the first amendment would be responded to and enforced ... since such enforcement language is absent from the first amendment text

And by the way, the union contract is up for renewal in less than thirty days. If you're implying a breach of contract, you're simply wrong.

Click to expand...

again, you place your ignorance on public display
the contract VERY likely has a rollover provision - it is standard boilerplate - which keeps the present version binding and intact until any new contract terms are negotiated upon and signed by the parties

justabubba said:

i established that the contract terms, agreed upon by both parties, sets forth how the petition for grievance provision of the first amendment would be responded to and enforced ... since such enforcement language is absent from the first amendment text

Click to expand...

Fine. That still doesn't indicate that the First Amendment rights of public workers in WI are being violated or will be violated.

again, you place your ignorance on public display
the contract VERY likely has a rollover provision - it is standard boilerplate - which keeps the present version binding and intact until any new contract terms are negotiated upon and signed by the parties

Click to expand...

First you claim I'm displaying my ignorance regarding the contract matter and then you follow it immediately with an assertion based on faith, not fact. You don't even know for fact whether or not it is a standard boilerplate. And just so you know, even a standard boilerplate contract comes up for renewal. There is no "rollover provision" that lasts for eternity. I've read recently that the contract is coming up for renewal, which would make it legal for the governor to propose radical changes.

justabubba said:

Again, you place your ignorance on public display. The contract VERY likely has a rollover provision - it is standard boilerplate - which keeps the present version binding and intact until any new contract terms are negotiated upon and signed by the parties

Click to expand...

No. You. Every valid labor contract has a begin-end date. Contracts expire.

from Galt

It's all simple economics.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the joys and wisdom of a ECON high school textbook. Were it all as simple as that. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where supply can remain constant and demand does not increase one bit but prices of gas shoot up 10% in a week.

And then there is the wonderful world of competition where different merchants either lower their prices or give better services to consumers to attract more customers and increase their profits. Tell the four gas stations on the same intersection all about those simple economics while they all charge exactly the same for a gallon of gas.

What chapter of the free market book is that one in?

haymarket said:

And then there is the wonderful world of competition where different merchants either lower their prices or give better services to consumers to attract more customers and increase their profits.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a great argument for vouchers. ;-)

Neal Boortz has had a lot to say about this in the last 2 weeks. He said public employees' unions, especially teachers' unions, should not be allowed, period. I agree.

haymarket said:

from Galt



Ah yes, the joys and wisdom of a ECON high school textbook. Were it all as simple as that. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where supply can remain constant and demand does not increase one bit but prices of gas shoot up 10% in a week.

Click to expand...

You really are incredibly young and naive or matured and embarrassingly ignorant of the times. Supply for oil does not remain constant. In what world are you living on? Oil is one of the most (if not the most) precious commodity in existence as of today. Its supply is constantly changing based on various factors and one of them being demand.

The main reason why our oil prices are rising so fast today is because of the revolutionary turmoil in the Middle East.

And then there is the wonderful world of competition where different merchants either lower their prices or give better services to consumers to attract more customers and increase their profits. Tell the four gas stations on the same intersection all about those simple economics while they all charge exactly the same for a gallon of gas.

What chapter of the free market book is that one in?

Click to expand...

I can go to Shell and pay for some expensive, high quality gasoline that has been mixed with synthetic chemicals that will improve the life of my engine, or I can simply go down to the Thrifty and pay the bare bones price for gas. Gas stations do not charge the same exact price for their gas. They all offer different things to different people with different demands.

I also noticed, haymarket, that you tend to neglect everything I say and instead you choose to respond to a four word sentence out of my entire paragraph.

ronpaulvoter said:

Neal Boortz has had a lot to say about this in the last 2 weeks. He said public employees' unions, especially teachers' unions, should not be allowed, period. I agree.

Click to expand...

Please help your POV, some things are not obvious to me. Is it based on the Gov workers not being a members of "We the People" but rather that they are part of the 'tyrannical' government?

ronpaulvoter said:

Neal Boortz has had a lot to say about this in the last 2 weeks. He said public employees' unions, especially teachers' unions, should not be allowed, period. I agree.

Click to expand...

well that does it
how can the opposing side hope to overcome such a deep explanation against teacher unions

MaggieD said:

No. You. Every valid labor contract has a begin-end date. Contracts expire.

Click to expand...

you seem not to understand that labor-management contracts often take an extensive period of time to re-negotiate. that period, after the contract expiration, is described as the "rollover" period. it is that span of time when the existing contract prevails while the new version is under constriction. it is standard language found in the hundred plus contracts i have reviewed (plagiarized)
that you do not understand something so fundamental about the labor-management process causes me to believe you actually have a very weak understanding of labor law/procedures