• 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!

Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?kkkkkkk

If you support workers ability to collectively bargain, what do you support?


  • Total voters
    58
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Its more complicated than that beacuse you have closed shops, company unions, paid off leaders etc.

Suffice to say that all are part of a union and must pay dues. All benifit, so all pay.

but, for one item, ALL leaders need to be elicted by members, with instant recall elections.

Another reform is to ban multi tier wages and pensions. Core union rule that has been corrupted is "equal work- equal pay"

Unions have been corrupted one rule at a time for 60 years. Time to repeal taft-Hartly slave act.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

jamesrage said:
Actually those two things are different.

Uniforms distinguish employees from the customers and in some cases indicate their position or job title in the company.The employer has the right to dictate those things.

The union does not own the company.If a company or public sector job is closed shop it is due to the fact the union extorted the company or tax payers into making the company or public sector job 0a closed shop.The only purpose of this is to refill the ranks of the union and to help replenish the union's money.

The RIGHT? This is the market, no one has a RIGHT to anything, the Union has a right to demand conditions for labor, and if that condition is that only union members are hired then that is their right.

Also generally most comapnies are not owned by the employer, most of the time they are executives selected by boardmembers who are appointed by executives who are rubber stamped by the dispersed, liquid, and generally disinterested "owners."

Also whatever the purpose the Union has, is up to the Union, which is a democratically controlled organization, unlike the Capitalist company, who's ONLY purpose, by definition is profit.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

The RIGHT? This is the market, no one has a RIGHT to anything, the Union has a right to demand conditions for labor, and if that condition is that only union members are hired then that is their right.

Also generally most comapnies are not owned by the employer, most of the time they are executives selected by boardmembers who are appointed by executives who are rubber stamped by the dispersed, liquid, and generally disinterested "owners."

Also whatever the purpose the Union has, is up to the Union, which is a democratically controlled organization, unlike the Capitalist company, who's ONLY purpose, by definition is profit.
To those who believe in the free-market fantasy where all participants have the power they deserve, a closed shop does look unfair. However, in real life, it is Man Against Millionaire, the Christians Against the Lions. The union is a team, if not an army, and no team would let anyone play who thought he could show up or not for the games, whatever he felt like doing. The union needs everybody on board manning the ship or it will be sunk by the corporate speedboat.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

To those who believe in the free-market fantasy where all participants have the power they deserve, a closed shop does look unfair.

Wait why???? If the union got the closed shop without the state, then they deserved it.

(thats what baffles me about libertarians).
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

A little muscle is very effective.
Do you have a problem with that? If you want to hire wimps, go to the Third World and you'll get all the slavish coolies you want. Oh wait, you've already done that. Aren't you proud of making money off people who love to grovel in the dirt before their Masters?

Actually, I do. I object to assault, rape, murder, and arson being considered negotiating. I object to liberal politicians exhorting their brown shirts to go into the streets and get bloody. I object to thugs trying to dominate decent people.

You attitude is pitiful but is typical of internet wimps and union thugs. I'm sure in a mob you are quite brave.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Work places where employees have to be part of the unions is no different than the employer demanding that employees wear a uniform ... I am for anything that makes the workplace more democratic.

I'd place no limitations at all on private sector unions. Do what'cha' gotta' do. The market will dictate whether or not you get it.

Public sector unions should be against the law. In lieu of that, all public sector union negotiations should go on in the public eye. And negotiators on the taxpayer side should be elected by the people.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I'd place no limitations at all on private sector unions. Do what'cha' gotta' do. The market will dictate whether or not you get it.

Public sector unions should be against the law. In lieu of that, all public sector union negotiations should go on in the public eye. And negotiators on the taxpayer side should be elected by the people.

And your reasons for this would be __________________?????
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

And your reasons for this would be __________________?????

I assume I've shocked you?

Reason for outlawing:

Private Sector unions are controlled by the marketplace. If a company doesn't have the money? The union doesn't get what it wants. Private Sector unions operate from the environment that if the government doesn't have the money? They can just raise taxes to get the money.

As to negotiating in the public eye. If the taxpayer is going to be footing the bill, which they always are, then the taxpayer should know what the union is negotiating for before the deal is struck.

As to the negotiators on the taxpayer side being elected? That's easy, too. Accountability to the people they are supposedly representing.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

It is ironic that when some of us on the left call for more citizen involvement in the decisions and actions of government we are chastised and berated with the heavy reminder that WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.... WE ARE A REPUBLIC.

If we are going to elect negotiators for contracts with pubic worker unions, do we also have public referendums on the other activities of government which spend tax payer dollars like the granting of contracts?

I would very much like to have a vote on defense contracts.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

It is ironic that when some of us on the left call for more citizen involvement in the decisions and actions of government we are chastised and berated with the heavy reminder that WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.... WE ARE A REPUBLIC.

If we are going to elect negotiators for contracts with pubic worker unions, do we also have public referendums on the other activities of government which spend tax payer dollars like the granting of contracts?

I would very much like to have a vote on defense contracts.

Defense contracts work within budgets. Public Sector union negotiators say, "Budgets be damned. We want what we want when we want it."
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Defense contracts work within budgets. Public Sector union negotiators say, "Budgets be damned."

Really now!?!?!?!?! Does the term "cost overrun" mean anything to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_overrun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs...r-Defense-Department-Cost-Overruns.aspx#page1

A new report from the Government Accountability Office released Tuesday could provide ammunition for critics in both camps, although its message may have a hard time being heard now that the U.S. is embroiled in a third military engagement in the Middle East. The GAO’s annual assessment of defense acquisition programs found the Pentagon was experiencing rapid cost-overruns in a host of major weapons systems, adding $135 billion to its long-term acquisition budget of $1.68 trillion, the report said.
More than half the increase could not be blamed on an increase in the quantities procured, according to the report. Rather, 80 percent of the programs had experienced overruns in unit costs from initial estimates. For instance, the Joint Strike Fighter, a $284 billion program to replace nearly every jet in the Air Force, Navy and Marines over the next quarter century, had grown by $34 billion in projected future costs.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs...rtment-Cost-Overruns.aspx#VyPsj08w7Rk88wRR.99

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-233SP

And your answer in no way shape or form gives me a reason why people should not also be able to vote on budgetary items which come from their tax payer dollars. The government after all is one big budget with many many many sub categories. If we use your thinking and take it to its logical conclusion, since it is public money from tax payer dollars, then we should indeed be able to tell them with out vote to re-prioritize the sub categories in the budget to reflect what we want and where we want our money to go.

And having been on the negotiating side for the union I can tell you with 100% accuracy and truthfulness that we were very very very much aware of the budget and what we had to work with. In fact, there were years when half of the arguing is about what the budget is and how to allocate it to various departments and sub categories.
 
Last edited:
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Really now!?!?!?!?! Does the term "cost overrun" mean anything to you?

Cost overrun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your answer in no way shape or form gives me a reason why people should not also be able to vote on budgetary items which come from their tax payer dollars. The government after all is one big budget with many many many sub categories. If we use your thinking and take it to its logical conclusion, since it is public money from tax payer dollars, then we should indeed be able to tell them with out vote to re-prioritize the sub categories in the budget to reflect what we want and where we want our money to go.

And having been on the negotiating side for the union I can tell you with 100% accuracy and truthfulness that we were very very very much aware of the budget and what we had to work with. In fact, there were years when half of the arguing is about what the budget is and how to allocate it to various departments and sub categories.

But I wasn't talking about cost-overruns and other operations of government. I was talking about public sector unions. And their contractual demands. You're asking me to argue something I'm not arguing.

Why shouldn't those who negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers be elected by the taxpayers?
Why shouldn't union demands and managements' offers/counteroffers be made public?
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

But I wasn't talking about cost-overruns and other operations of government. I was talking about public sector unions. And their contractual demands. You're asking me to argue something I'm not arguing.

Why shouldn't those who negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers be elected by the taxpayers?
Why shouldn't union demands and managements' offers/counteroffers be made public?

You have a point. But I think I do also in that all I am doing is asking you to be consistent. There is nothing different or sacred about spending that goes into the pockets of public workers as opposed to the pockets of government contractors. It is still coming from the taxpayer. If you want to be vigilant and give the citizen a voice on workers contracts, why not ALL their money that the government spends?

You ask WHY should those things not be done? I guess the high and mighty answer is because we are not a direct democracy but a Constitutional democratic republic. The more practical answer is that because if it were, most likely nothing would ever get negotiated in a fish bowl like that.

Although I must tell you that in contract after contract I was on the losing side of teacher unionists who advocated to leadership that we publicly announce our demands and keep the public informed about the progress of lack of it at the bargaining table.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

You have a point. But I think I do also in that all I am doing is asking you to be consistent. There is nothing different or sacred about spending that goes into the pockets of public workers as opposed to the pockets of government contractors. It is still coming from the taxpayer. If you want to be vigilant and give the citizen a voice on workers contracts, why not ALL their money that the government spends?

I'm not going to argue that, Haymarket. It's just silly to think that we should be able to elect the people who buy toilet seats.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I'm not going to argue that, Haymarket. It's just silly to think that we should be able to elect the people who buy toilet seats.

If we are talking about a $30 toilet seat from Home Depot - yup, no need for citizen oversight. If we are talking about one costing tens of thousands of dollars in some government project where other items are similarly priced - perhaps we could use some citizen voting on such things.

All I am trying to do is point out to you how your same argument can also apply to any taxpayer dollar expenditures of sizable substance.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

If we are talking about a $30 toilet seat from Home Depot - yup, no need for citizen oversight. If we are talking about one costing tens of thousands of dollars in some government project where other items are similarly priced - perhaps we could use some citizen voting on such things.

All I am trying to do is point out to you how your same argument can also apply to any taxpayer dollar expenditures of sizable substance.

Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree. And, of course, you won't argue against my points and tell me why union negotiators on the government side shouldn't have to answer to taxpayers in the form of being elected; and why union demands / gvmt counters shouldn't be made public.

But that's okay. ;)
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

I assume I've shocked you?

Reason for outlawing:

Private Sector unions are controlled by the marketplace. If a company doesn't have the money? The union doesn't get what it wants. Private Sector unions operate from the environment that if the government doesn't have the money? They can just raise taxes to get the money.
What's this with the fantasy that the government is some unrestricted entity while the corporations are limited by the market? Somebody on the other side in this imaginary world could say also that the corporations could just raise prices to get the money. In the real world, governments are under taxpayer pressure and re-election pressure. Neither sector is uninhibited. Why does government waste so much then? For the same reason corporations waste so much. Incompetence.

As for the corporations being restricted because it's their money to lose, the government CEOs not only can lose their jobs but even until then, they can lose the money they need for projects that might get them re-elected if they spend too freely on other divisions such as education. If hiring more police will get them re-elected, they are not going to waste the money to do so on paying teachers more. If, on the other hand, parents angry at schools being closed blamed the mayor for hard-line negotiating instead of the teachers, he's got to give the teachers what they feel they deserve. So the public already has direct control on the outcome of negotiations.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

It is ironic that when some of us on the left call for more citizen involvement in the decisions and actions of government we are chastised and berated with the heavy reminder that WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.... WE ARE A REPUBLIC.

If we are going to elect negotiators for contracts with pubic worker unions, do we also have public referendums on the other activities of government which spend tax payer dollars like the granting of contracts?

I would very much like to have a vote on defense contracts.
The mantra that we are a republic is only a self-empowering claim by constitution-nazis.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree. And, of course, you won't argue against my points and tell me why union negotiators on the government side shouldn't have to answer to taxpayers in the form of being elected; and why union demands / gvmt counters shouldn't be made public.

But that's okay. ;)

But I think they do have to answer to the citizenry through regular school board elections. That is has it always has been.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

The mantra that we are a republic is only a self-empowering claim by constitution-nazis.

That is why I clarified that we are actually a democratic republic with a Constitution.
 
Re: Those who support workers ability to collectively bargain what do you support?

MaggieD said:
Public sector unions should be against the law. In lieu of that, all public sector union negotiations should go on in the public eye. And negotiators on the taxpayer side should be elected by the people.

There are all sorts of problems putting public sector unions against the law, it gives the public sector an unfair competative advantage, and it basically makes public sector workers wage slaves.

I agree that public sector union negotiations should be public and that things should be more democratic.

MaggieD said:
I would very much like to have a vote on defense contracts.

I second and third that ....

Defense contracts work within budgets. Public Sector union negotiators say, "Budgets be damned. We want what we want when we want it."

Thats bull**** and you know it, defence contractors can ask whatever they'll get it, lots of people in the defense department go and work for defence contractors after and get big big pay checks, meaning they have an incentive to give them whatever they want (city officials don't go on to work for the high school and make a huge paycheck), also politically its easier to spend more on the military.

Military spending is almost NEVER budgeted, look at the Iraq war ... Anyway, I agreed with your first point, but if your not gonna sound rediculously hypocritical you have to apply it to military spending FIRST AND FORMOST.
 
Back
Top Bottom