I've never been particularly passionate about labor, and worker's rights (I know, weird for a liberal, right?), but what's currently going on in Wisconsin caused me to dig a little deeper into the issue. Given the current dearth of intelligent polls on meaningful issues, I thought I'd use this issue to make my own first original thread.
On one hand, I believe that certain segments of the public sector are underpaid, while others are overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. However, it also can't be denied that collective bargaining in the public sector has placed a certain burden on the taxpayers in the state. Public sector workers differ from those in the private sector in that they serve at the pleasure of the people, not some tyrannical or dictatorial management. The taxpayers of the state are essentially paying the workers and should have a say in issues such as pay and benefits. In addition, government workers are already free to form workers' associations and lobby for their own causes.
I personally believe that collective bargaining in the public sector should be a privilege, rather than a fundamental human right.
Those who say that Wisconsin is trying to cure its budget deficit on the backs of unions are misguided. That's nothing more than a talking point. Everything needs scrutiny. Everyone is going to have to sacrifice. No more golden compensation programs for the public sector is a much-needed beginning.
I'm kinda sick of people claiming everything is a right.
The unions already offered financial concessions. At this point, its about destroying the union itself.
Like to their capitulation, please. I've asked four times now and gotten a link from 2009. Post please? Please?
Like to their capitulation, please. I've asked four times now and gotten a link from 2009. Post please? Please?
Public employees have said they would agree to concessions Walker wants that would amount to an 8% pay cut on average, but they want to retain their collective bargaining rights. One Republican senator also has floated an alternative that would make the elimination of those rights temporary.
I think it can be seen as a right. A man has the right to reap the benefits of the sweat of his brow, does he not? These collective bargaining agreements is just a man trading his labor for money and arguing about details for it. The workers get together to collectivize their voice so that they can best reap the most benefit from their labor. Like it or not, there is right to contract. A man can strike a contract with another and details need to be determined. Workers should have the ability to have a say in that contract over the conditions and pay for their labor. Collectivizing it gives a bit of that power to the workers along with streamlining the system so that you do not individually have to work out contracts with each worker.
I agree, but nevertheless it's easier to cash in your money and sell the stock than it is to vote for competent politicians or vote with your feet. In the long run, unions will always be more powerful than the people for the simple reason that unions are organized and usually of one mind, while voters, at large, are not. In the public sector, unions will always win because the have more bargaining power than the other side in the long run. Even if their wages and benefits have risen to a level that's more than fair, there isn't much stopping them from going further unless it's something pretty catastrophic like a budget crisis.
I agree with this sentiment to a certain extent, but I will cite one of my previous posts (Post #44 of this thread): I believe in the public sector the unions' bargaining power has exceeded that of their employers (the public):
Workers certainly have a right to form voluntary associations at their place of employment and they without question have a right to speak about their grievances with their employers, including through representatives chosen by voluntary associations, as well as entering into written agreements with their employers. The fact people are working for the government does not somehow give government any ability to deprive them of these rights.
Even in the absence of collectve bargaining, public sector workers already have the right to form voluntary associations and lobbies on their own behalf. I know that the situation isn't entirely analogous, but the fact that military personnel work for a particular organization necessarily means that they have to cede some of their first amendment rights regarding free speech. I'm wondering if a similar standard should or shouldn't be applied here. Again, the floor is open for debate and I'm still kinda sitting on the fence on this issue.
No one cedes any of their rights no matter the organization they join. Collective bargaining only refers to negotiating on an agreement between employee and employer. Of course, one could argue that private employers have every right to tell their employees to go to hell, but the government is not a private employer and it does not change that banning collective bargaining itself is nothing short of an infringement on the natural right to liberty.
It doesn't change the fact that managers negotiate with other people's money.
I've never been particularly passionate about labor, and worker's rights (I know, weird for a liberal, right?), but what's currently going on in Wisconsin caused me to dig a little deeper into the issue. Given the current dearth of intelligent polls on meaningful issues, I thought I'd use this issue to make my own first original thread.
On one hand, I believe that certain segments of the public sector are underpaid, while others are overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. However, it also can't be denied that collective bargaining in the public sector has placed a certain burden on the taxpayers in the state. Public sector workers differ from those in the private sector in that they serve at the pleasure of the people, not some tyrannical or dictatorial management. The taxpayers of the state are essentially paying the workers and should have a say in issues such as pay and benefits. In addition, government workers are already free to form workers' associations and lobby for their own causes.
I personally believe that collective bargaining in the public sector should be a privilege, rather than a fundamental human right.
I think unions in general have outlived their usefulness. Unions as an idea much like communism seems pretty good at face value. The problem is the human corruption and favoritism infiltrate every aspect. This is why organized crime was able to get involved and stay involved for so long. It is power and money, and thus corruptible.
So federal employees, and many state employees have had their rights infringed?
It shouldn't be either a right OR a privilege. It should be illegal.