• 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!

Indiana Democrats flee state legislature to avoid anti-union vote

Explain how a government-paid employees who produce no revenue and are paid solely through tax dollars should be allowed to unionize against taxpayers.

Outstanding Question, I anxiously await an answer but doubt one will be forthcoming.
 
Explain how government-paid employees who produce no revenue and are paid solely through tax dollars should be allowed to unionize against taxpayers.

in a free society, people can freely associate in any way they want.

unionize all they want, but no more government favors for unions.
 
in a free society, people can freely associate in any way they want.

unionize all they want, but no more government favors for unions.

Unionizing in a private industry is one thing. Unionizing against unwilling taxpayers who have no say-so is quite something else.
 
Unionizing in a private industry is one thing. Unionizing against unwilling taxpayers who have no say-so is quite something else.

but at it's core, a union is simply a group of people working together for a collective goal.

you can't legislate that away, it is a protected right.
 
but at it's core, a union is simply a group of people working together for a collective goal.

you can't legislate that away, it is a protected right.

Should it be a protected right for an employee to elect NOT to be in the union?
 
Should it be a protected right for an employee to elect NOT to be in the union?

of course. the isuse is not public unions, it is the government coddling of these public unions.

the government should not assist in collecting dues, it should not force people to pay dues.

I want a single progressive to step forward and say it would be ok to make it a requirement to contribute to the GOP as a precursor to getting a job - public or private job even! none of them would allow for such thing, but they will fight tooth and nail to preserve this advantage for themselves.
 
of course. the isuse is not public unions, it is the government coddling of these public unions.

the government should not assist in collecting dues, it should not force people to pay dues.

I want a single progressive to step forward and say it would be ok to make it a requirement to contribute to the GOP as a precursor to getting a job - public or private job even! none of them would allow for such thing, but they will fight tooth and nail to preserve this advantage for themselves.

Well, Wisconsin and Indiana teachers don't have the choice to pay those dues. And where does that due money come from? Taxpayers.

A union should NEVER be funded by taxpayers. If a group of people want to form a union, fine. But it should be based on earnings from a profit-based employer, not the forced payment of unwilling taxpayers.

Government employees should not be able to collectively bargain against citizens when those employees do not produce revenue to share in justifying their compensation increases. The free market will take care of them because citizens will want to ATTRACT good teachers.
 
Last edited:
Well, Wisconsin and Indiana teachers don't have the choice to pay those dues. And where does that due money come from? Taxpayers.

A union should NEVER be funded by taxpayers. If a group of people want to form a union, fine. But it should be based on earnings from a profit-based employer, not the forced payment of unwilling taxpayers.

Government employees should not be able to collectively bargain against citizens when those employees do not produce revenue to share in justifying their compensation increases. The free market will take care of them because citizens will want to ATTRACT good teachers.

it doesn't matter if a salary comes from free market competition, or from tax payers. you work for the money, it is yours do do with as you please. you can't stop people from donating their money to unions. that would be an absurd rights violation.

but we can stop forcing people from giving these union dues as a stipulation to getting the job.
 
nope. don't take the job.

So you are for preventing people from getting a job simply because they don't care to join a union ???

I thought libs were pro-choice. I guess that only applies to approved liberal idealogies, right ??
 
it doesn't matter if a salary comes from free market competition, or from tax payers. you work for the money, it is yours do do with as you please. you can't stop people from donating their money to unions. that would be an absurd rights violation.

but we can stop forcing people from giving these union dues as a stipulation to getting the job.

Walker is not attempting to stop people from donating to unions. He is trying to make it so that it is not mandatory. And if given the option, many will choose to spend their $1,000 elsewhere, effectively neutering the union. Funny how unions only seem to work when they're forced on people.

And a taxpayer-paid, non-profit government union should not be able to collectively bargain their compensation against taxpayers, particularly when it is a forced membership as it is in Wisconsin.
 
Walker is not attempting to stop people from donating to unions. He is trying to make it so that it is not mandatory. And if given the option, many will choose to spend their $1,000 elsewhere, effectively neutering the union. Funny how unions only seem to work when they're forced on people.

And a taxpayer-paid, non-profit government union should not be able to collectively bargain their compensation against taxpayers, particularly when it is a forced membership as it is in Wisconsin.


Walker is doing a great job. It's purely semantic, but your wording of not allowing unions in the public sector is confusing. and it gets more confusing when you explain how these workers can't donate to unions because they are paid by taxpayers.

I think we agree in principle, I just don't agree with how you explain your position.
 
Walker is doing a great job. It's purely semantic, but your wording of not allowing unions in the public sector is confusing. and it gets more confusing when you explain how these workers can't donate to unions because they are paid by taxpayers.

I think we agree in principle, I just don't agree with how you explain your position.

What we disagree with is the definition of a union. When it's mandated, I don't agree it's just a collection of people getting together for a common cause. A union is a Political Action Committee designed to take away a private businesses ability to demand certain production in relation to compensation. There are few things more difficult than firing a union employee regardless of their work record.

When you take a government job, you are accepting money drawn from the forced collection of taxes. As such, I don't believe you should be allowed to unionize against people that didn't directly hire you in the first place. Sure, work conditions and whatnot are still to meet legal standards (established when unions were truly useful), but compensation packages should be based on enticing good workers, not negotiatied by hired national racketeers, especially when it isn't a private business be held to accountable for meeting financial goals and budgets.
 
What we disagree with is the definition of a union. When it's mandated, I don't agree it's just a collection of people getting together for a common cause. A union is a Political Action Committee designed to take away a private businesses ability to demand certain production in relation to compensation. There are few things more difficult than firing a union employee regardless of their work record.

yes, at their core, unions are basically lobbyists.

but that fault is wholly in what our government has become.

we can't throw the baby out with the bath water

our right to petition the government is the baby

the way our government hands out favors to groups, like trade unions, is the bathwater.
 
yes, at their core, unions are basically lobbyists.

but that fault is wholly in what our government has become.

we can't throw the baby out with the bath water

our right to petition the government is the baby

the way our government hands out favors to groups, like trade unions, is the bathwater.

Petitioning the government as a citizen is one thing.

Petitioning the government as an employee is quite another.

And petitioning the government as a mandated union member is altogether something entirely different.
 
Petitioning the government as a citizen is one thing.

Petitioning the government as an employee is quite another.

And petitioning the government as a mandated union member is altogether something entirely different.

and Walker is going to stop the mandated union dues, but not collective bargaining of salaries.
 
of course. the isuse is not public unions, it is the government coddling of these public unions.

the government should not assist in collecting dues, it should not force people to pay dues.

I want a single progressive to step forward and say it would be ok to make it a requirement to contribute to the GOP as a precursor to getting a job - public or private job even! none of them would allow for such thing, but they will fight tooth and nail to preserve this advantage for themselves.
for the millionth and one time....union dues are not spent on political activity...political contributions are separate and voluntary from union dues.
 
for the millionth and one time....union dues are not spent on political activity...political contributions are separate and voluntary from union dues.

And I gotta bridge to sell you. Union bosses don't make $500,000 salaries for nothing.
 
And I gotta bridge to sell you. Union bosses don't make $500,000 salaries for nothing.
put down the kool aid, and do your homework. quit believing all the crap you have been told, and turn off hannity/limbaugh/beck for a day.
 
put down the kool aid, and do your homework. quit believing all the crap you have been told, and turn off hannity/limbaugh/beck for a day.

Ah yes, the tried and true default response.

Anyone who believes unions are worthy organizations does not have to work with them. I have had TONS of experience trying to work with these embittered wannabes, and I wouldn't give you a box of rocks for a single one of them.
 
for the millionth and one time....union dues are not spent on political activity...political contributions are separate and voluntary from union dues.

really. where did the unions get those tens of billions of dollars then? :)
 
they have a choice when they apply for the job...they are made aware upfront that the job is unionized...if they don't like unions, they can walk away and decline the job.

Yet another reason why the government shouldn't have unions. Tax payers and citizens shouldn't have to go through a union to get a government job. Unfair advantage # whatever. Another unfair advantage is the money the union has to play with to get their salaries and benefits. In a private sector union workers are sitting across the table from owners and asking them to give them more of the profits from the business in wages and benefits. In the case of the government worker and their company there is no profit. The union is asking the government to go further into debt to increase their salaries and benefits. As for the politician, they do have to answer to the tax payer at election time but the lag between the time they gave the unions what they wanted and the next election creates kind of a cushion. How many private company employees get to vote for their next boss or vote the boss they don't like out of office? The idea of government unions making campaign contributions or even actively campaigning for a given candidate is unseemly. Who is going to bail the tax payer out when these government pensions become unsustainable?
 
put down the kool aid, and do your homework. quit believing all the crap you have been told, and turn off hannity/limbaugh/beck for a day.

You should talk... You are the one drinking the kool aid.

It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations.
National Right to Work: Are You Funding Your Union's Federal PAC (Political Action Committee) Unknowingly or Against Your Will? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
 
:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

Gill would be a better worker because he wouldn't have to follow Union rules. If something broke and he knew how to fix it he'd go ahead and do it. He wouldn't sit on his ass waiting for someone in that pay grade to come do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom