• 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!

Judge voids controversial Wisconsin union law

Very Republican? You forget that it was a Republican judge, appointed by Tommy Thompson, who made that ruling.

nope. didn't forget
black and white case
 
When was it in your life that you really started to apply yourself? Was it when you were still living with your parents, or was it when you left, and ventured off on your own? Unions are vehicles of stagnation, think of entrophy. Unions bargain based on the lowest common denominator. They barter for mediocrity, and settle on function. The idea of the union is antithetical to individualism, an idea that we are the people, but we are individual people. There is strength in the unionized worker, that is for sure, but that strength comes at a price. That price is production! It's always about production, and performance. Unions avoid bargaining based on production and performance.



Tim-

I'm sorry that doesn't really answer my question. Perhaps you could be more specific and less theological.
 
There is no such thing as a "union right". There are legal actions permitted to them through law, and those actions can be prohibited the same way.

So individuals and groups don't have the right to form contracts?

Ya know...I still have so little respect for those that left the state. That isn't how you handle a problem, ya know? I don't care what your issue is, what side you're on, you don't leave an argument like that when people are expecting you to represent them. Hiding in another state is a cowardly way to handle the issue.

They were representing their constituents by stopping a vote in order to hold out for a compromise. Its basically the states version of a filibuster. If you hate the corum rules, you should hate the filibuster rules.

unless you are the employer, where the practice of this same right in the same basic way is labeled collusion and anti-competitive.

Giving more power to the ones who already have power is never good. Giving power to people who do not inherently have power tends to be beneficial for everyone. The problem with unions is they went from acting only in a locality, to working nationally.
Are libs really going to bust open the Crystal every time a lib lower court judge tries to stomp the rights of the people? This is headed to the SCOTUS and until then I'd keep it dry.

j-mac

There isn't a need for it to head the SCOTUS, there isn't a federal law or constitutional right being challenged here.
 
Last edited:
as a longtime california public school teacher i am a career-long member of cta and whatever local union i worked for at the time

the ta's and ea's have been incredibly good to me, my pay, benefits, work conditions, protections...

personally, i feel extremely coddled (especially compared to so many of my friends)

i work 181 days a year, only 3.5 hours per day in the classroom

i do rather resent the portion of my dues being devoted to political action that almost universally goes against my convictions

i've been told all my career that i can opt out of the political contribution part of my membership by writing a letter, but i and every conservative i've ever worked with (and there have been quite a few) have all felt it's not really a good career move

i've never needed union protection, but still...

opting out of political action would create a lot of animosity at the workplace

and that's never really smart

anyway, liking or disliking the union isn't the point, not at all

america has a very real and very large problem

for example:

States Warned of 2.5T Pensions Shortfall

we simply have to do something significant---now---to solve these utterly unsustainable public outlays and commitments

it's nothing personal, it's almost now a matter of economic survival

ask cuomo, ask rahm

it's a very difficult time

so many excellent young teachers, their families, so many in houses upside down...

if the high schoolers in my district gave up our 100 minutes of prep per day and returned to the 50 we managed to make do with before we went to block schedules, ms c***** would be back next year

i brought it up at a meeting late last year, i put it extremely diplomatically...

i was received in the spirit i offered it, for which i'm grateful
 
Can somebody please give me a point by point why Republicans typically are opposed to unions over democrats?
 
The problem with the Wisconsin deal was that the Unions agreed to all the economic conditions if they would keep their bargaining rights, it was refused.
 
It IS interesting. Here is a link on the Federal Court ruling in Illinois, which will have an effect on efforts to bust union activities in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and other states. If the Wisconsin ruling goes to Federal Court, or if Walker passes his law again, which will also end up in Federal court, this ruling will be cited. Of course, this has not been tested at the Supreme Court level yet, and I predict that the case will go that far.

The difference between your cited case and what is happening in Wisconsin is that the Teamsters Local 727 (from your link) is a private union. Not a public union.
 
This is the judge who failed to recues herself even though her son is an SEIOU, AFL-CIO political operative.

No surprise in the ruling here. This isn’t the end of the ride either. It is headed to the State Supreme Court. After the massive amounts of union money poured into the recent SC election, it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

I never will understand why the lawmakers didn’t just vote on this bill again and replace it with another one unless they think the democrats will do another “leave the state” type of action again to mess up the rules.

Can anyone with knowledge explain why they don’t just vote again?
 
The right to assemble? It's pretty clearly stated in the 1st Amendment.

What does the right to assemble have to do with forcing people to pay union dues if they don’t want to be in said union?
 
When was it in your life that you really started to apply yourself? Was it when you were still living with your parents, or was it when you left, and ventured off on your own? Unions are vehicles of stagnation, think of entrophy. Unions bargain based on the lowest common denominator. They barter for mediocrity, and settle on function. The idea of the union is antithetical to individualism, an idea that we are the people, but we are individual people. There is strength in the unionized worker, that is for sure, but that strength comes at a price. That price is production! It's always about production, and performance. Unions avoid bargaining based on production and performance.



Tim-

Then the Chamber of Commerce, OPEC, and all other business organizations are anti-individualism. Business shouldn't get together to lobby Congress and state legislatures. Shame on them for assembling to strengthen their voice.

Obviously, Industry organizations are antithetical to American values. Industry organizations avoid competition and support collusion dragging down the theory of market competition, thus they are a disservice to their customers, employees, and America as a whole.

Assembling to strengthen one's voice is anti-American...

Right?
 
No one is trying to get rid of that right.

I was replying to someone who said that to be in a union is "a privilege". I'd say the 1st Amendment pretty much covers the right to be in a union. Is it not the right to assemble?

For Republicans to eliminate workers rights to assemble is actually the use of government to sway the market. It sways the market and the negotiation of wages away from workers (with the constitutionally protected right to assemble and the right to not be discriminated against for union membership based on federal law) solely to the employer. Many companies try to make it a fire-able offense to find out what your coworkers make. This, too, is an illegal and false hand upon the market. One can judge one's worth without knowing the worth of others.

If you believe it's okay to bust unions, then I assume you believe it's okay to be fired for party affiliation, yes? After all, your political affiliation is a privilege as well, yes? I don't see a constitutional protection that says Republicans shouldn't be fired.

These laws are a government intrusion into the marketplace of wage negotiation.
 
I was replying to someone who said that to be in a union is "a privilege". I'd say the 1st Amendment pretty much covers the right to be in a union. Is it not the right to assemble?

For Republicans to eliminate workers rights to assemble is actually the use of government to sway the market. It sways the market and the negotiation of wages away from workers (with the constitutionally protected right to assemble and the right to not be discriminated against for union membership based on federal law) solely to the employer. Many companies try to make it a fire-able offense to find out what your coworkers make. This, too, is an illegal and false hand upon the market. One can judge one's worth without knowing the worth of others.

If you believe it's okay to bust unions, then I assume you believe it's okay to be fired for party affiliation, yes? After all, your political affiliation is a privilege as well, yes? I don't see a constitutional protection that says Republicans shouldn't be fired.

These laws are a government intrusion into the marketplace of wage negotiation.

The 1st amendment says nothing about the right of a union to force people to pay dues to said union.

You are a funny guy.
 
I was replying to someone who said that to be in a union is "a privilege". I'd say the 1st Amendment pretty much covers the right to be in a union. Is it not the right to assemble?

I think that person was refering to collective bargaining rights.

If you believe it's okay to bust unions, then I assume you believe it's okay to be fired for party affiliation, yes? After all, your political affiliation is a privilege as well, yes? I don't see a constitutional protection that says Republicans shouldn't be fired.

I am an independant. IE I don't belong to any particular party. As far as I am concerned political parties are the bane of this countries existance. Be that as it may people have a right to join/form a party. So no I don't support firing because of party affiliation. As such I have no problem with unions forming also. However I do have a problem with public unions negotiating thier pay and what not with the very politicians that they give money to in election campaigns.

These laws are a government intrusion into the marketplace of wage negotiation.

A public union "negotiating" thier wages with the very people they helped put into office is a far bigger problem.
 
And that's the crux right there. The idea of unions I can live with, the corrupt system by which they are still allowed to exist (And thrive) is what most people have a problem with.


Tim-
 
And that's the crux right there. The idea of unions I can live with, the corrupt system by which they are still allowed to exist (And thrive) is what most people have a problem with.


Tim-

and what is it you observe which is corrupting within the unions?
 
I was replying to someone who said that to be in a union is "a privilege". I'd say the 1st Amendment pretty much covers the right to be in a union. Is it not the right to assemble?

For Republicans to eliminate workers rights to assemble is actually the use of government to sway the market. It sways the market and the negotiation of wages away from workers (with the constitutionally protected right to assemble and the right to not be discriminated against for union membership based on federal law) solely to the employer. Many companies try to make it a fire-able offense to find out what your coworkers make. This, too, is an illegal and false hand upon the market. One can judge one's worth without knowing the worth of others.

If you believe it's okay to bust unions, then I assume you believe it's okay to be fired for party affiliation, yes? After all, your political affiliation is a privilege as well, yes? I don't see a constitutional protection that says Republicans shouldn't be fired.

These laws are a government intrusion into the marketplace of wage negotiation.

So, the only wasy workers can 'assemble', is to be in a union? I wasn't aware of that.
 
So, the only wasy workers can 'assemble', is to be in a union? I wasn't aware of that.

not the only way, but it does deprive the right fo assembly regarding their desire to assemble as a union
or are you of the opinion that the government gets to choose/limit your right of assembly
 
and what is it you observe which is corrupting within the unions?

The same thing that corrupts big business. Political quid pro quoism. IN addition whether private or public sector, unions have numerous legislative protections designed to strengthen their positions, and bargaining power, and weaken the corporate bargaining power. Legalized extortion comes to mind.


Tim-
 
Also interesting, those in the act of collective bargaining are exempt from public meeting laws

It is so nice for the judge ignore the law stating that government bodies are exempt from the open meetings law.
 
The same thing that corrupts big business. Political quid pro quoism. IN addition whether private or public sector, unions have numerous legislative protections designed to strengthen their positions, and bargaining power, and weaken the corporate bargaining power. Legalized extortion comes to mind.


Tim-
so, it would appear you find the unions no more corrupt than the employers with whom they are to bargain
can't see the problem with that

the federal statutes - in my (never humble) opinion - only serve to level the playing field so that labor and management can bargain fairly

just so you know, and from the union threads it is apparent few understand anything about union activities, the union is required by law to operate by democratic elections. each labor union/local must file periodic reports with the department of labor. there is a significant degree of transparency

in my own experience - i am a labor official - there is corruption in unions. that is often found when the members neglect to exercise their democratic obligation to oversee the organization which speaks for them. that is not unlike the result when an electorate refuses to exercise its responsibility to vote
 
The difference between your cited case and what is happening in Wisconsin is that the Teamsters Local 727 (from your link) is a private union. Not a public union.

Doesn't matter. Whether public or private, people still have the Contitutional right to assemble, and also to band together and seek a fair compensation for their resource, which is the sweat from their own brow. Adam Smith did not limit peoples' right to exploit resources to only those who own companies. EVERY person on this earth, industrialist and worker alike, has the right to exploit what they have for financial gain. The splitting of union hairs into public and private has no bearing on the Constitutionality of it, and is nothing more than a strawman, which is easily blown away in the wind of the Constitution of the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter. Whether public or private, people still have the Contitutional right to assemble, and also to band together and seek a fair compensation for their resource, which is the sweat from their own brow. Adam Smith did not limit peoples' right to exploit resources to only those who own companies. EVERY person on this earth, industrialist and worker alike, has the right to exploit what they have for financial gain. The splitting of union hairs into public and private has no bearing on the Constitutionality of it, and is nothing more than a strawman, which is easily blown away in the wind of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Again, no one is denying the peoples right to assemble. No one. Not Walker, not me. What is being challenged is collective bargaining for public unions. There is a big difference between public and private unions when payday comes around. One (private) is payed for by private corporations. The other (public) is payed for by people taxes...whether they are a part of the union or not. The next big difference between the two is simple also. A CEO must work with in thier budget or risk bankruptcy. A politician however can promise monies whether the state government is in debt or not. And by doing so they affect everyone in that state...union or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom