Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional

[What if...?]

Does any non-union employee have a choice? Can they choose to NOT get the pay, benefits, etc...that a union employee gets?

If not, then that is extortion.



LOL!!

Sounds to me like you have the inability to present your position reasonably and logically. Probably because there is nothing reasonable or logical about your position.



And just like the street thug's target...the mom and pop shop owner...that non-union employee is being required to pay for something they didn't want and didn't ask for. Something the union did on their own.

As I said before, the union has an agreement with the employer...not with any future employees. If the employer is hiring non-union people...and if the union doesn't like that...the union should deal with that issue with the employer. Not make the employee pay for something he didn't ask for.



This issue has nothing to do with Republicans or killing unions. It has everything to do with preventing unions from extorting money from helpless victims. Too bad for the justice system in WI, though...they have a judge who doesn't care about the victims. They have a judge who only cares that the unions get all the money they can out of the public.

Don't "right to work" laws break closed shops? Isn't that their intent?

So that that part of the contract with the employer doesn't apply?

What about freedom to enter into contracts?

Why can't an employer who likes what the union at his business does for him not require new hires to belong to or join the union? Undergo their training regimen, so he knows the new guy knows what he's doing, for instance.

How does this fit in with the concept of a "free market"?

Why is this an instance where its OK for the government to interfere in contracts?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

It's not ludicrous to expect a school taking tax money away from public funds should follow the same public mandates.

You missed my point. You are attempting to have it both ways. What the private schools receive from the voucher system is a pittance compared to what the public schools receive from the taxpayers. Yet you are demanding equal enrollment standards?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Bull****.

Vouchers are a way for the wealthy to scam taxpayers into funding their snowflakes unnecessarily expensive educations.

Where they've been attempted, they failed to increase student performance on the low end.

You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. The private school system far outperforms the public education system. And once again, the money a private school gets from the parents using school voucher is a pittance compared to what the public schools get from the taxpayers. The voucher system does not fully fund any student's tuition. It only lessens the financial burden of the parents.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

It still costs money to administrate, but i don't think we really need to spend more money overall for education, i think we need to ensure that each student is provided a higher minimum educational quality.

When we cite around average dollar per student on instruction, i'm not interested in that. I don't care how much is spent on the rich kids. I want to know what the minimum dollar per student on instruction is, i want to secure a reasonable minimum.

The issue in the public school system is not funding. No matter how much funding they get, they still muck it up. Private schools perform better despite less expenditure per student.

 

[Absentglare]

You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. The private school system far outperforms the public education system. And once again, the money a private school gets from the parents using school voucher is a pittance compared to what the public schools get from the taxpayers. The voucher system does not fully fund any student's tuition. It only lessens the financial burden of the parents.

The research unequivocally proves you wrong.

Vouchers wouldn't give you that.

"This research found no strong evidence that vouchers improve student achievement."

http://keystoneresearch.org/sites/keystoneresearch.org/files/EITC-Appendix.pdf

 

[Absentglare]

The issue in the public school system is not funding. No matter how much funding they get, they still muck it up. Private schools perform better despite less expenditure per student.

Lol- based on what ??

Average $/student is wrought with error. We need to look at minimum $/student. That's what matters.

When a Texas high school cuts math and art classes to help pay for their football team, it should be no surprise when academic performance suffers as a result.

 

[minnie616]

You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. The private school system far outperforms the public education system. And once again, the money a private school gets from the parents using school voucher is a pittance compared to what the public schools get from the taxpayers. The voucher system does not fully fund any student's tuition. It only lessens the financial burden of the parents.

Actually Public schools are outperforming private schools.

From: Public schools beat private schools

A pair of education researchers have a new take on which schools work — and why

LUBIENSKI: A lot of public schools have embraced more state-of-the art approaches that have been really influenced and shaped by experts in the field; for example, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has recommended certain curricular approaches that reflect what we know about how students learn. It’s really apparent when you look at the teaching and the curriculum in the different types of classrooms. The other thing is that public schools have to work under some [legal] requirements, and one of those is they have to hire certified teachers. Teacher certification does make a difference. It’s a good predictor of student achievement.
...One of the main assumptions is that if you further deregulate, adopt a private-style method for schools, that it might be more effective and lead to higher academic outcomes....When you start to look at the data, the evidence doesn’t necessarily bear that out.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...ate-schools/hWLzdKv1x7wwupcjk5zonI/story.html

 

[minnie616]

You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. The private school system far outperforms the public education system. And once again, the money a private school gets from the parents using school voucher is a pittance compared to what the public schools get from the taxpayers. The voucher system does not fully fund any student's tuition. It only lessens the financial burden of the parents.

And from the following 2013 Atlantic article:

Religion aside, why are parents spending so much money to send their kids to private schools?

CAL: That’s a great question, and some economists that have looked at these types of conclusions are really confused by that. Why would somebody pay money for a service that is apparently inferior to one they could get for free? It flies in the face of economic logic.
But there are other reasons for choosing schools, and we know this from other research about how parents make those decisions. And it’s things like reputations, convenience, safety, the value systems that are represented by schools. Those are all legitimate reasons, but also parents are making choices based on the peer group they are selecting for their students, which does have an impact on a student’s performance. If you send a child to a school with more affluent peers, they are going to do better regardless of whether or not it is private or public...

This is also happening in a context where there is this constant chorus of public schools are failing. Parents are told this by the media and by a lot of reform organizations and so I think that message gets internalized. People just assume that private is better. It appears that might not be true, but nonetheless that’s the assumption that people advance with.

Are Private Schools Worth It? - The Atlantic


And from this article:

A new report suggests Indiana's school voucher program is not helping students academically.

The study was conducted by the bipartisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, which is based in Chicago. It looked at voucher programs in Indiana and other states in an effort to help lawmakers in Illinois who are considering an expansion of that state's program. However, Indiana lawmakers who are not in favor of sending more money to private schools in the form of vouchers wanted the results made public here, too, since they believe the study shows the money would be better spent on traditional public schools. "The big question is why is Indiana spending public taxpayer money on this initiative when, in fact, it is counterproductive from an educational standpoint," said Ralph Martire, the Center's executive director.

While some private schools serving students with vouchers provide a well-rounded education and have good test scores, Martire says on average, their study showed that public schools perform better overall. "Once you adjust for demographics, once you adjust for geography, once you adjust for income class and type of school, the whole private school benefit in performance goes away," Martire said.

One reason for the result, Martire says, is because private schools often have to meet some, but not all of the standards the state sets for traditional public schools when it comes to curriculum - state law prohibits the state from regulating curriculum content at private schools. "Public K-12 schools actually do a better job educating children, particularly children who are at risk of academic failure because they come from one of three backgrounds; they have low income, they are English language learners or they have special needs." Those numbers, Martire said, came from a study commissioned by the administration of former President George W. Bush, generally a supporter of voucher programs.

The report also looked at three of the oldest school voucher programs in the country - Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington DC, and Martire says vouchers students in those systems also performed worse academically overall than their public school counterparts.

Read more:

STUDY: Traditional Public Schools Outperform Private Schools w/Voucher Students | 93.1 WIBC

 

[lpast]

We have a variety of "levels" for those without membership. Pre-apprentice, extra, overview, and spare. Lots of guys we work with aren't interested in membership. They have seasonal jobs that pay well for instance and work with us when its slow for them. Real part timers too. And those working towards a card.

Nobody squawks too much about dues. We are served well by the local.

Of course you are and so is most all other union members. Union workers are the only workers left in america that make a decent wage and have decent benefits and thats why rich and corporate america hate them.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You missed my point. You are attempting to have it both ways. What the private schools receive from the voucher system is a pittance compared to what the public schools receive from the taxpayers. Yet you are demanding equal enrollment standards?

BS, the voucher schools would receive the same amount per students the public schools get---there is absolutely no reason they can't follow the same rules/mandates public schools follow. Public money=public accountability and I won't stop staying it.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

yep, make it harder for companies to fire idiotic entitled 'workers', sounds like a great way to send a few more jobs to China.

 

[What if...?]

Of course you are and so is most all other union members. Union workers are the only workers left in america that make a decent wage and have decent benefits and thats why rich and corporate america hate them.

Its gonna be real hard to get everybody to accept a second world lifestyle here as long as unions, with all their problems, exist.

We really are the only blue collar jobs that pay like American jobs used to.

So yeah. They hate us.

 

[What if...?]

yep, make it harder for companies to fire idiotic entitled 'workers', sounds like a great way to send a few more jobs to China.

My union is the second oldest.

We are NOT that way.

And they can't ship OUR jobs overseas.

 

[lpast]

Its gonna be real hard to get everybody to accept a second world lifestyle here as long as unions, with all their problems, exist.

We really are the only blue collar jobs that pay like American jobs used to.

So yeah. They hate us.

Thats why there is a concerted effort by the Koch Bros and other rich and corporations to obliterate unions.
Scott Walker bought and paid for by Koch Bros pac donations went after unions in wisc as soon as he was elected, that was his mandate from the Koch Bros. Same with Chris Christy his rich donors want unions gone.

Why? because as long as unions exist and make fair wages and benefits they show other workers that are being raped by the greed of the corporations that do the exact same job, what they should be paid. Only a MORON wants to work for less than the next guy doing the exact same work.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

The union forces no one to pay dues, you choose to work at a represented workplace .

Really I know of no one at union shops who complains about dues except for extreme right wing republicans.or their useful idiots

Soooo, no one complains about dues except the people who complain about them?

 

[What if...?]

Soooo, no one complains about dues except the people who complain about them?

Some people are stupid.

Or want a free ride.

I make several times my dues more than non-union workers doing the same job, plus healthcare and a pension.

Those benefits didn't magically appear, somebody had to work to secure them.

Wanting them for free is a jerk move.

And using the excuse that they back the opposite party is REALLY stupid. Because the OTHER party is working hard to do away with unions completely.

Why would you vote yourself a pay cut?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Some people are stupid.

Or want a free ride.

I make several times my dues more than non-union workers doing the same job, plus healthcare and a pension.

Those benefits didn't magically appear, somebody had to work to secure them.

Wanting them for free is a jerk move.

And using the excuse that they back the opposite party is REALLY stupid. Because the OTHER party is working hard to do away with unions completely.

Why would you vote yourself a pay cut?

OK, using that (bolded above) data one would assume that the union product or service may therefore be more expensive than the same (similar?) non-union product or service. That may result in consumers choosing to patronize the non-union competition (e.g choosing Uber over a union cab service). There is a reason that fewer union jobs exist now than a few decades ago - folks often consider cost (price) and quality (value) when shopping. Too may assume that all savings from reduced labor costs go into the pockets of owners/management rather than into R&D, better product parts, production methods, quality and/or features.

 

[What if...?]

OK, using that (bolded above) data one would assume that the union product or service may therefore be more expensive than the same (similar?) non-union product or service. That may result in consumers choosing to patronize the non-union competition (e.g choosing Uber over a union cab service). There is a reason that fewer union jobs exist now than a few decades ago - folks often consider cost (price) and quality (value) when shopping. Too may assume that all savings from reduced labor costs go into the pockets of owners/management rather than into R&D, better product parts, production methods, quality and/or features.

Could he in some industries, but the two main companies we work with are the freaking Borg. Assimilating smaller companies at a prodigious rate. So we're not hurting them too bad.

I'm a stagehand. We work all over town. I had 14 w2s last year.

We are quite a bit different than many unions. And that is my overall point. Most if not all of the negatives about unions bandied about don't apply to us.

Its like lumping all liberals or conservatives together.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Some people are stupid.

Or want a free ride.

Or don't want to be associated with you. It just cracks me up that union members think they "own" the jobs they work, and others have to join their club to have a job. Unions have a tawdry enough history, let alone current political leanings, that being forced to contribute to what can only be described as a hostile organization is just plain wrong.

 

[What if...?]

Or don't want to be associated with you. It just cracks me up that union members think they "own" the jobs they work, and others have to join their club to have a job. Unions have a tawdry enough history, let alone current political leanings, that being forced to contribute to what can only be described as a hostile organization is just plain wrong.

So why isn't it "get a different job" like it is every other time people have an issue with their employment?

Don't like it? Work somewhere without a union. Seems pretty simple.

 

[justabubba]

So why isn't it "get a different job" like it is every other time people have an issue with their employment?

Don't like it? Work somewhere without a union. Seems pretty simple.

the union is FORCED on them; didn't you know

 

[What if...?]

the union is FORCED on them; didn't you know

And we hear from anti-union types that if there isn't acceptable work where you live you should move where the acceptable work is.

Except when it applies to unions.

And we hear about all the issues with unions but don't you dare criticize the "job creators".

Internal consistency isn't a strong suit on these issues.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

The research unequivocally proves you wrong.

Biased liberal research does not count. It's not factual.

 

[minnie616]

Biased liberal research does not count. It's not factual.

Then there was the study commissioned by the administration of former President GW Bush that concluded Public schools outperform private schools.

"Public K-12 schools actually do a better job educating children, particularly children who are at risk of academic failure because they come from one of three backgrounds; they have low income, they are English language learners or they have special needs." Those numbers, Martire said, came from a study commissioned by the administration of former President George W. Bush, generally a supporter of voucher programs.

STUDY: Traditional Public Schools Outperform Private Schools w/Voucher Students | 93.1 WIBC

 

[Citizen.Seven]

So why isn't it "get a different job" like it is every other time people have an issue with their employment?

Don't like it? Work somewhere without a union. Seems pretty simple.

Because the employer and non-union employee worked out a deal, nothing to do with the workers in their little club.