Not without incurring penalties. However, that's a good point. We in the military need to unionize more than civilian government employees!
:roll:
However, you didn't argue that there were differences between military and civilian service; you argued that we were not public employees.
Still playing silly. It's been a good tactic for you. You can't address things properly, so you play silly. I can quit as a teacher, firefighter, or police officer. And with no real difficulty are all. This is a difference. A real one. The military called me property. None of the other proffessions do this.
Actually it's not. It is true of anyone who signs a contract to provide labor over a specified period of time to the Defense Department.
Not the same thing. A contract has an obligation to provide a service, not the individual workers to become US property. You are once again confusing things. It happens when you skip the issue to try to and skew your response.
That doesn't really answer the point at all. Unions attached to private industry have definite limits placed on their capriciousness by the need for their host to maintain profitability, putting out a quality product at a decent price. Unions attached to public services have no such limits except at the very extremes of State and Local bankruptcy. And even then their power to continue to drive the state into the ditch is impressive (see: California).
Frst, unions don't attach anything in either. Keep that in mind. State has as much interest to work within a budget as does the private sector. And unions don't drive. It takes two sides to agree to a contract. The auto industry made poor decisions on union contracts they signed. It was the union made them, it was that they exercised poor judgment. The same can be said about state negotiations. And yes, elected officals answer to voters as private does board members.
No. As in public servants. Public employees are supposed to work for the populace, not the other way around.
WHo suggeste dotherwise? Other than you, who suggested they are workers working for a wage. When the firefighter runs into a burning building and saves alife and puts out the fire, he's working for the populace. When a police officer enters into a dangerous situtation, he's working for the populace. And when a teacher walks into an overcrowded classroom, facing all kinds of disrespect from children, parents, and conservatives. they are woking for the populace.
You just want them to do it on the cheap and with second class status. Call it like it is.
One of which owes everything to the other, can be pulled from their position by the other, and knows it. Which one has the advantage?
No, like so many you overstate in order to forgive responsibility to one. Everyone has lobbying groups. Business, wealthy, the I hater teachers movement often called republicans, all of the have groups that lobby. Union has no more, and perhaps less, influence than all of them. They are just the latest scapegoat.
Except that business management is negotiating in the interest of the business, whereas public negotiators are often negotiating in the interest of the public union that they are beholden to, and who is sitting across the table from them.
What worthless conservative hit peice are you getting this crap from? In other words, I don't buy it.
I'd like to see where this comes from. Make sure it isn't just another misrepresentation.