• 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!

Is Collective Bargaining in the public sector a Right, or is it a Privilege?

Is Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector a Right or is it a Privilege?

  • Collective Bargaining, at least in the public sector is a fundamental human right

    Votes: 10 23.8%
  • Collective Bargaining in the public sector is a privilege.

    Votes: 21 50.0%
  • Other, the issue is more complex than that (Explain)

    Votes: 11 26.2%

  • Total voters
    42
No. I'm not. Do you know how replying works? If the person's quote is not in your post, you're not responding to their post. I replied to the question of unions without quoting anybody in specific. On the contrary , you like the newb that you are, interjected yourself into this thread and decided to quote my post in response to the question of unions.

Now, piss off troll.

Here is the quote from the OP lil guy ;)
'
On one hand, I believe that certain segments of the public sector are underpaid, while others are overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. However, it also can't be denied that collective bargaining in the public sector has placed a certain burden on the taxpayers in the state.

What were you saying now?

Moderator's Warning:
Both of you knock it off, now, or you will receive further consequences.
 
Other. It's a Ponzi scheme.
 
Without unions, corporations have the annoying habit of oppressing their lower level employees to the breaking point. Laws and regulations be damned. Anyone who complains is fired and the case is settled out of court without much real repercussion to the employer.

this discussion is about public sector unions
 
Even FDR, the hero of modern day private unions, was against public unions.
FDR: “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service... I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place (in the public sector).... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government.”

New York Supreme Court Judge: "To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous."

The problem is that the government cannot be held accountable to fight back against public unions. In the private sector there is a divide between management and unions. In the public sector there often is an agreement between politicians and unions. Unions give their support to the politician who then makes promises with taxpayer money.
 
Oh please....we are talking about Public Sector jobs...this is a red herring.

Maybe you are. I have been talking about unions (both private and public) for a while now.

And still wrong:

Union president makes new proposals for teacher evaluations, discipline - washingtonpost.com

The president of the nation's second-largest teachers union on Tuesday proposed a new way to incorporate student test scores into teacher evaluations and said she has asked a well-known mediator to develop methods of expediting disciplinary cases against teachers.

Randi Weingarten of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers gave a speech in downtown Washington that union officials described as a major effort to address flash points in labor-management relations.

The AFT, Weingarten said, wants "a fair, transparent and expedient process to identify and deal with ineffective teachers. But [we] know we won't have that if we don't have an evaluation system that is comprehensive and robust and really tells us who is or is not an effective teacher."

Weingarten, also a key player in the District's drawn-out teacher contract talks, outlined a four-step approach to teacher evaluations: States should adopt standards for what teachers should know and be able to do; teachers should be assessed through multiple measures, including student test scores that gauge individual academic progress; administrators should be held accountable for putting the standards into motion; and teachers should receive help through mentoring and professional development.

But Weingarten added a caveat on the use of test scores. She said that teachers should not be evaluated on results that compare their current classes with the previous year's classes, which is the system states typically use under the No Child Left Behind law. That would appear to disqualify much, perhaps most, of the currently available state testing data from use in evaluation.
 
this discussion is about public sector unions

That was in response to this:

I think unions in general have outlived their usefulness. Unions as an idea much like communism seems pretty good at face value. The problem is the human corruption and favoritism infiltrate every aspect. This is why organized crime was able to get involved and stay involved for so long. It is power and money, and thus corruptible.
 
Careful, he yelled at me when I pointed that out.

Still trolling? What part of this didn't you understand:

pssssst. read the beginning of the thread. People were talking about the usefulness of unions in general. My post is in respose to that Newb.
 
Because the only reason that the public unions exist is to lobby government to pay them more than the job is worth. If they didn't, then they would have no reason for existing. I'm all for paying teachers more if we needed more qualified teachers and it was an effective way of recruiting them...but the unions have also ensured that there will be no merit pay.

So every time the government overpays for public services, whether because of unions or lobbyists or old-fashioned corruption, that means that there is less taxpayer money that could be spent on something worthwhile. Government services exist to benefit the PUBLIC, not to benefit the government employees.

Not sure who says more than it is worth, or by what standard. but aren't they still employees, just like a private employee, negotiating a wage for the job, and benefits that make it more desirable to work there.

And merit pay. Think about this for a minute. All students are not equal as all parents aren't. If I can teach a place with excellent parents, and few obsticles for my students, and get merit pay because the job is easier, as oppsoed to more difficult jobs, with a problem population, in which merit pay will be harder, where would I work?

I know we tend to think about this problem in simplistic terms, assuming platitiudes convey truth, but merit pay can be seen as counter productive, especially if you have areas havng a problem gettiing good teachers.

However, the point is what makes this different than the private sector? I see nothing in what you say that shows me a difference.

But I do thank you for answering.
 
(smile) Uhhh, who has RESISTED merit based pay for decades ;)

The Unions.

Now, whatever you've been talking about...the OP is about Public Unions ;)

Maybe you are. I have been talking about unions (both private and public) for a while now.

And still wrong:
 
Neither do communists. His point was that the system proposed by Elija is very similar to those used in communism. Government employees are subject to the pay that the employer decrees without the ability to make demands.
I'm confused.
Our government employees do not have Collective Bargaining Powers or the ability to make demands.
Again, we are not Communists or anything like Communists here in the great state of Texas.:boxer
 
Actually you are responding to Barb who is telling you that Texas doesn't have the CB chip to play....sorry ;)

Now....you DO know the hub bub is about Public Sector workers...don't you?

Yep, I'm talking Public Sector (it's what the OT is about) and people are comparing the lack of CB to communism. :shock:

I always thought it was the unions who were all into that communist/socialist garbage. They were out in full force during the One nation rally right along with the SEIU, and all the other unions. :lamo
 
Yep, I'm talking Public Sector (it's what the OT is about) and people are comparing the lack of CB to communism. :shock:

I always thought it was the unions who were all into that communist/socialist garbage. They were out in full force during the One nation rally right along with the SEIU, and all the other unions. :lamo

No to the former, yes to the latter. Marx and hardline Communists detested unions.
 
I've never been particularly passionate about labor, and worker's rights (I know, weird for a liberal, right?), but what's currently going on in Wisconsin caused me to dig a little deeper into the issue. Given the current dearth of intelligent polls on meaningful issues, I thought I'd use this issue to make my own first original thread.

On one hand, I believe that certain segments of the public sector are underpaid, while others are overpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. However, it also can't be denied that collective bargaining in the public sector has placed a certain burden on the taxpayers in the state. Public sector workers differ from those in the private sector in that they serve at the pleasure of the people, not some tyrannical or dictatorial management. The taxpayers of the state are essentially paying the workers and should have a say in issues such as pay and benefits. In addition, government workers are already free to form workers' associations and lobby for their own causes.

I personally believe that collective bargaining in the public sector should be a privilege, rather than a fundamental human right.

A fundamental human right??? Are you ****ting me?
 
A fundamental human right??? Are you ****ting me?

you could vote in the poll and discuss your own position with a degree of civility rather than being an ass. For what it's worth collective bargaining in the private sector is regarded as a fundamental right by many.
 
I'm confused.
Our government employees do not have Collective Bargaining Powers or the ability to make demands.
Again, we are not Communists or anything like Communists here in the great state of Texas.:boxer

Read... the... thread... Elija said that he supported a system where employees didn't have CB or ability to make demands. Somebody suggested that systems where employees do not have ability to make collective bargains or makes demands is used in communist systems. In addition communist countries use this system far more often than free societies. Collective bargain is by no means a communist invention. It's not even a capitalist invention. It's existed even as far back as feudalism.
 
HEY!

I'm jealous. I thought you only used that term of endearment on me.:boohoo:

There's nothing special about you so why would I use any term of endearment towards you? You're just a generic conservative who supports corporate enslavement of the masses.
 
you could vote in the poll and discuss your own position with a degree of civility rather than being an ass. For what it's worth collective bargaining in the private sector is regarded as a fundamental right by many.

People consider too many things "rights" these days in my opinion. Oh well, doesn't make it so.
I may have already posted this

Teacher's Unions/Collective Bargaining: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law

Constitutional Considerations Regarding Unions

The First Amendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . the right of people peaceably to assemble." This right, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, has been interpreted to give teachers and other employees the right to free association, including the right to join a union, such as the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. However, the Constitution does not grant teachers the right to bargain collectively with employers. This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes, or state statutes. Similarly, teachers do not have a constitutional right to strike, though other federal law or state law may permit teachers to strike.
 
You are pretty touchy for someone so sure of himself.

(shrugs)

Read... the... thread... Elija said that he supported a system where employees didn't have CB or ability to make demands. Somebody suggested that systems where employees do not have ability to make collective bargains or makes demands is used in communist systems. In addition communist countries use this system far more often than free societies. Collective bargain is by no means a communist invention. It's not even a capitalist invention. It's existed even as far back as feudalism.
 
People consider too many things "rights" these days in my opinion. Oh well, doesn't make it so.
I may have already posted this

Teacher's Unions/Collective Bargaining: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law

Constitutional Considerations Regarding Unions

The First Amendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . the right of people peaceably to assemble." This right, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, has been interpreted to give teachers and other employees the right to free association, including the right to join a union, such as the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. However, the Constitution does not grant teachers the right to bargain collectively with employers. This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes, or state statutes. Similarly, teachers do not have a constitutional right to strike, though other federal law or state law may permit teachers to strike.

A fair point, I wasn't stating my own opinion so much as voicing that of most other people. I do however think the Constitution is flawed in this respect and it shouldn't be looked upon as the ultimate authority on what constitutes "fundamental rights." I mean for the longest time women and blacks couldn't vote, things could always change.
 
Last edited:
People consider too many things "rights" these days in my opinion. Oh well, doesn't make it so.

Actually, Barb, the 9th amendment makes it so. The 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which basically means that while the 1st-8th amendments are our rights, we still have rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, thus, arguably, people can claim virtually anything as a right and cite the 9th amendment.

Thank you American GovPol class.
 
I don't particularly agree with Barb on most things, but she is correct when she says the Constitution doesn't specifically enumerate the right to collective bargaining. Nevertheless:

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

- Wikipedia
 
There's nothing special about you so why would I use any term of endearment towards you? You're just a generic conservative who supports corporate enslavement of the masses.

:applaud You're the one who finally figured me out.
Now, could you tell me to Piss Off Troll one more time? It warms my heart so. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom